Group membership program
MikeTJumps
group membership program and want to do away with it. I'm reading the
documentation on the program and right now, I don't understand what the
opposition is to it. Yes, I do see a few things that should be improved, but I
would not necessarily do away with the whole program.
So, for the benefit of those who bother to read things on this newsgroup, I
have taken the time to type out the two most important sections of this
document for you to review and comment on.
Section 1-1 is simply the introduction to the document.
1-2 Purpose
It is to the advantage of both skydiving schools, centers and clubs and the
USPA membership to encourage unity within the sport.
More importantly, the chances of the success and survival of the sport are much
greater if all facets of skydiving present an image of solidarity when dealing
with the general public and especially with all levels of government.
By accepting skydiving schools, centers and clubs as members, both USPA and
those businesses will benefit through improved communications with the
skydiving public and within the skydiving industry. Such membership will aid
in the prompt channeling of information about local problems, regional
attitudes, and trends to USPA. This will assist USPA in promoting and
defending the sport. USPA will be able to more effectively represent
skydiving, provide improved member services and assist the members to speak
with a stronger and more unified voice.
The purpose of Group Membership, therefore, is to establish a business and
professional relationship that strengthens the bonds of unity within the
skydiving community and enhances the growth of the sport.
1-3 BENEFITS OF MEMBERSHIP
Each Group Member is eligible for the following benefits either as part of the
membership or on a user fee basis:
A. Credentials:
1. Authorization to use the phrase "Member of the United States Parachute
Association."
2. An appropriate and attractive "Certificate of Membership."
B. Free Advertising:
1. A no-cost fax and phone listing in each issue of Parachutist Magazine.
2. A no-cost listing in the USPA DZ directory.
C. USPA-sponsored insurance.
D. USPA courtesy inspection and recognition participation.
E. A copy of the USPA Skydiving Aircraft Operations Manual.
F. Access to USPA research and case files.
G. Support from the Airport, Access and Defense Fund in accordance with SOP
26.
H. Legal referrals and expert testimony on a case-by-case basis.
I. Government relations support at the state and federal levels on issues
affecting state and nationwide skydiving.
J. Timely notification of issues relating to DZ operations.
K. USPA sport promotional programs.
1-4 GROUP MEMBER PLEDGE
The Group Member Pledge represents a commitment on the part of the Group Member
to provide service and conduct business within accepted ethical guidelines.
This commitment will foster a healthy business environment without causing an
under burden on any party. Each Group member agrees and promises to:
A. Comply with the Basic Safety Requirements (BSRs) in connection with all
skydiving activities.
B. Support USPA promotional programs at the dropzone.
C. Require individual USPA membership for all non-student (A-license
qualified) skydivers who are jumping at its facilities. Encourage USPA
membership among student skydivers.
D. Ensure that all employees and staff of Group Members are appropriately
qualified and trained in accordance with USPA Recommendations and (where
applicable) hold USPA ratings and/or FAA licenses & certification commensurate
with their duties.
E. Include USPA in DZ hold harmless release, consistent with state laws.
Section 1-5 is the process for applying for group membership, which by the way
for those who are concerned, addresses the specific protocol by which the WFFC
got denied its application for group membership due to its past history of
failing to comply with the existing BSRs.
To those of you who are very vocal in your condemnation of the program, let's
see you "step up to the plate" and offer some constructive comments on what
you'd like to change and why you would change them.
Blue, Clear, and Calm Skies along with safe dives from
Mike Turoff, Instructor Examiner
W Faulkner
MikeTJumps <miket...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>C. Require individual USPA membership for all non-student (A-license
>qualified) skydivers who are jumping at its facilities. Encourage USPA
>membership among student skydivers.
The biggest issues I have with the GM program are the above - for the majority
of people in this country, in order to jump they have to join USPA. There
just aren't that many non-USPA dzs around.
The second big issue is that its not-self-supporting. And so the organization
that I'm forced to join supports drop zones that I'm not even allowed to jump
at. I.e. I've been banned from Michael Hawkes drop zone for absolutely no
reason (as have been 99% of USPA members), yet because I'm forced to
partially subsidize him because I pretty much have to be a USPA member to
jump.
I don't care if he wants to ban me from his drop zone as long as I have the
right to not support him. But as long as my money is going towards
subsidizing benefits for his drop zone, I don't want to be part of a blanket
ban on experienced skydivers. He can choose to ban me from his dz, but I want
to be able to have the right to express my opinion of his dz with my $$$.
USPA doesn't give me that choice right now.
W
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wendy Faulkner Don't knock on Death's door.
faul...@eco.utexas.edu Ring the bell and run away.
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/~faulkner He hates that.
Alan Binnebose
news:20020812133327...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> OK. Time and time again, I see a small number of vocal folks that protest
the
> group membership program and want to do away with it. I'm reading the
> documentation on the program and right now, I don't understand what the
> opposition is to it. Yes, I do see a few things that should be improved,
but I
> would not necessarily do away with the whole program.
snip
> 1-4 GROUP MEMBER PLEDGE
>
> The Group Member Pledge represents a commitment on the part of the Group
Member
> to provide service and conduct business within accepted ethical
guidelines.
> This commitment will foster a healthy business environment without causing
an
> under burden on any party. Each Group member agrees and promises to:
snip
> C. Require individual USPA membership for all non-student (A-license
> qualified) skydivers who are jumping at its facilities. Encourage USPA
> membership among student skydivers.
> To those of you who are very vocal in your condemnation of the program,
let's
> see you "step up to the plate" and offer some constructive comments on
what
> you'd like to change and why you would change them.
OK Mike, but you know damn well what the problem is and you know damn well
that there are several BOD members who agree with those of us that you
define as a small number of vocal folks, including Jess Rodriguez (chair of
the GM Committee) and Mike Mullins. I was especially impressed by Mr.
Rodriguez at the last BOD meeting. He took it upon himself to follow up on
a suggestion I made at the Feb. meeting to simply change one word in the GM
pledge from "require" to "encourage". He put it on the agenda for the July
meeting and pushed for it. It failed to get out of committee so he and Mr.
Mullins brought it to the plenary session where it got at least six votes
for approval. Several other BOD members I spoke with later indicated to me
that they might be willing to support such a move after more research.
Wendy Faulkner said it well. Here it is for you to read again, perhaps it
will sink in this time.
"The biggest issues I have with the GM program are the above - for the
majority of people in this country, in order to jump they have to join USPA.
There just aren't that many non-USPA dzs around.
The second big issue is that its not-self-supporting. And so the
organization that I'm forced to join supports drop zones that I'm not even
allowed to jump at. I.e. I've been banned from Michael Hawkes drop zone
for absolutely no reason (as have been 99% of USPA members), yet because I'm
forced to partially subsidize him because I pretty much have to be a USPA
member to jump.
I don't care if he wants to ban me from his drop zone as long as I have the
right to not support him. But as long as my money is going towards
subsidizing benefits for his drop zone, I don't want to be part of a blanket
ban on experienced skydivers. He can choose to ban me from his dz, but I
want to be able to have the right to express my opinion of his dz with my
$$$. USPA doesn't give me that choice right now."
BTW, I used to be very vocal about not renewing my membership because I saw
it as the only way to get their attention......losing enough members and
their $$$. Well, after attending the last 2 BOD meetings and seeing the
response and support from members like Mr. Rodriguez, I have for the time
being changed my position. I will remain a member because I have seen
response from several members of the board. I don't always expect to win.
I am satisfied that they gave me their attention and took action.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
posted and mailed
Larryskydives
How are you(we) subsidizng any drop zone that is a group member?
Larry
MikeTJumps
of input I'm looking for.
Mike Turoff
MikeTJumps
Mike
Tom Buchanan
>Rodriguez at the last BOD meeting. He took it upon himself to follow up on
>a suggestion I made at the Feb. meeting to simply change one word in the GM
>pledge from "require" to "encourage". He put it on the agenda for the July
>meeting and pushed for it. It failed to get out of committee so he and Mr.
>Mullins brought it to the plenary session where it got at least six votes
>for approval. Several other BOD members I spoke with later indicated to me
>that they might be willing to support such a move after more research.
There seems to be a continuing interest in making USPA membership voluntary.
Many of the people advocating that change suggest that most skydivers will
continue to belong to the organization, even if it is voluntary. I disagree
with that assessment.
In addition to USPA, I am a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), a voluntary organization of pilots. AOPA is perhaps one of
the most respected and most successful membership interest groups in the
country. The organization does great things for general aviation and for
pilots, both operationally and politically. There is no opposition to AOPA, and
even the non-member pilots appreciate the efforts of AOPA. The cost of AOPA
membership is only 39.00 per year, and the magazine is far bigger and better
than Parachutist...AOPA can afford bigger and better programs because they have
10 times the membership of USPA, and much greater advertising revenue.
Pilots that don't belong to AOPA or drop their memberships do so because they
are lazy, don't see a direct personal benefit, have other things to do with the
39.00 annual membership, or feel like they can read the magazine for free at an
FBO. For whatever reason, they just don't bother joining.
So, here's my contribution to the discussion:
AOPA has an estimated 375,000 members (from the AOPA web site), yet there are
an estimated 596,189 ACTIVE pilots in the United States (from FAA data on the
General Aviation manufacturers Association web site). That means that the most
respected membership organization within the pilot community is only able to
get 65 percent of active pilots to actually join the organization. My hunch is
that at least some of the AOPA members are not active pilots, so the actual
percentage is probably much lower.
If USPA membership truly becomes voluntary I'm confident that over time the
percentage of active jumpers belonging to the organization will drop to well
below the AOPA level...can we afford to run the organization at those revenue
levels? Will we have any real lobbying support if our membership levels are
that low? Will services and support be as solid as they are now if we have
vastly fewer members?
Look, right now you can jump at quite a few DZ that do not require USPA
membership, or heck, you can even start your own DZ and not require membership.
Eliminating the group member program or making membership "voluntary but
encouraged" will have a long term negative effect on the skydiving community.
Tom Buchanan
D-8514
W Faulkner
Larryskydives <larrys...@aol.com> wrote:
>Wendy,
>
>How are you(we) subsidizng any drop zone that is a group member?
The group membership program isn't self-supporting - i.e. the dzs get more
monetary benefits (i.e. insurance and such) than they are paying for in their
yearly dues. This means that individual members dues payments are going to
pay for some of the things that are a benefit to the dzs instead of the individual
members. And I object to using my money to support someone's dz who's banned
me and practically everyone else from his drop zone without ever having met
me. If he wants to do that - I don't have a problem with it. But he
shouldn't be a USPA group member if USPA member skydivers are banned from his
place. Cuz our dues support benefits for his operation.
RIPOLLAK
>If USPA membership truly becomes voluntary I'm confident that over time the
>percentage of active jumpers belonging to the organization will drop to well
>below the AOPA level...can we afford to run the organization at those revenue
>levels?
Do the FBO's belong to the AOPA in any kind of a group member capacity and help
support the AOPA with their membership dues?
USPA does have a Group membership program for the DZO's. I'm not suggesting
that the Cessna DZ's pay the same amount of due's as the tandem mills that are
bragging about turning out 200 tandems in one weekend.
But if USPA membership for fun jumpers becomes voluntary USPA can easily make
up any revenue shortfalls by increaseing the rate they charge the GMDZ's for
using the uspa Logo and stamp of approval in their Websight anvertising.
I forgot what is the percentage of the USPA membership dues income that comes
from the GMDZ program was it 10% or was it 5% or even less than that?
R.I.P.
USPA ex member after 22 years
MikeTJumps
representative is at the next BOD meeting will bring it up.
I will if I am that person.
MikeTJumps
absolute power to the person listed on the ballot to take whatever action they
felt appropriate on any issue on behalf of the member signing the proxy. That
didn't fly with the USPA membership!
Can DZs get by without USPA membership insurance? Well, I think they'll need
proof of insurance on the behalf of the skydiver one way or the other.
The issue is probably going to be the subject of a very lively debate in Feb.
2003!
Mike Turoff
Larryskydives
What insurance? We the individual members are the only ones getting insurance.
There is no insurance for the drop zone.
Larry
W Faulkner
Larryskydives <larrys...@aol.com> wrote:
>What insurance? We the individual members are the only ones getting insurance.
> There is no insurance for the drop zone.
This is what I was thinking of. Found it on a google search. Gary
Peek posted this a while back:
From: Gary Peek (pe...@industrologic.com)
Subject: I was wrong about the GM program paying for itself
Newsgroups: rec.skydivingView: Complete Thread (23 articles) | Original
FormatDate: 2001-08-31 10:15:28 PST
USPA members,
In response to my posting in defense of the Group Member program
expenses I got some good questions from Don Jardine.
I asked Chris Needels some of these questions, and got the following
responses.
It appears that I was wrong in thinking that the GM program
totally pays for itself. Sorry.
---
Gary:
"Chris, I made a post to rec.skydiving and got the following questions,
some of which I do not know the answer to. Do you?"
Chris:
"We can certainly give you some of the figures your requested [although
we will have to put it in the queue with other competing projects];
however, we are still going to have the challenge of determining the
beneficiary of the work done by the staff. The DZ Directory is case in
point. It was originally started as an initiative of the then Sport
Development Committee chair Rhynearson as a service to individual skydivers
looking for places to jump in Florida [he wanted a fall edition].
But since the Group Membership Department has the data on the DZs, we
consider it a Group Member service.
As for manpower, employee compensation expenses (salaries, payroll taxes and
temporary help) were budgeted at $105,000 for 2001. While it is difficult
to state exactly how much goes to Group Membership and how much to
Government Relations, I can say with confidence that we spend more in
employee compensation for Group Member programs than the total Group Member
dues received."
These are Don Jardine's questions, followed by Chris' answers.
> Even if Ed Scotts' time is only partially attributable to the GM
> program, isn't there a position at USPA filled by Betsy McStay known
> as Assistant Director of Group Membership? If that is a fact , we
> have at least two employees salaries using that $65,000 dollar GM income.
Chris: "You are correct. See my comments above."
> How much time do our other employees spend on GM matters?
Chris:"We can't really answer this without separating GM from GR, which we
can not do. However, I feel comfortable in saying that almost all of
Betsy's time is spent on GM, and the majority of Ed's"
> How much does the GM Incoming publication cost?
> What was the cost of producing this "professional quality"
> television commercial available to GMs? Have enough purchased
> it to offset the cost?
Chris: "Without digging too deeply into the files, I recall that costing of
the video around $5,000, which we have already recovered since we use the
footage for other promotional purposes. Incidentally, this was a Membership
and Marketing Committee initiative under then chair Becky Livingstone."
> What is the cost associated with compiling, printing, and
> distributing the DZ Directory?
Chris: "Ed will get you the figures for the latest edition. Keep in mind
that manpower costs in compiling this document are significant."
> And If my information is correct, the TMMI (student medical
> insurance) program, is a Big money *loser*.
Chris: "This program [Student Medical Insurance] is paid for only by those
who use it. It is clearly a GM program since we would drop it if it were
not for the DZs who use it as part of their risk management programs. It
is, however, like all insurance programs, a Membership Services Department
function. Some manpower costs are associated with running the program,
however, it is a money maker."
> Also, I would like to know exactly what amount USPA does spend on
> the GM program.
Chris: "This, of course, we can not answer, since it requires a subject
assumption about which services are principally for the individual and which
for the DZ. We can, however, give you reasonable highs and lows, with the
answer being somewhere in between."
(Gary's note: This is where our organization needs input from members.
If you think there are services that do not benefit many individual
members, then complain.)
------
Chris wishes to remind members that they are welcome to email at
mailto:us...@uspa.org to ask questions like Don asked for themselves,
subject to of course the amount of time available to answer them.
Larryskydives
The student medical insurance program is no longer in effect, and that was a
program paid for by the student. But due to several different situations the
insurance comapny closed that program.
I think the real question should be is what does a group member get for the
dues they pay? Tangible or intangible? Other than the listings in Parachutist?
I think the program does need work, and I think we need people on the board who
will keep an open mind and od what is best for the members and the association
as a business.
Larry
W Faulkner
Larryskydives <larrys...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I think the real question should be is what does a group member get for the
>dues they pay? Tangible or intangible? Other than the listings in Parachutist?
>
>I think the program does need work, and I think we need people on the board who
>will keep an open mind and od what is best for the members and the association
>as a business.
I didn't know the insurance program was gone, but the article I quoted
was from Gary Peek and Chris Needles - figured they knew more than I
did about the costs associated with the program.
I'm just not sure that the Group Member program is compatible with
promoting skydiving. When a group member is allowed to ban most
skydivers and still be a member - that says a lot to me. It says to me
that the people running the program care more about skydiving as a
business than the fun jumpers.
Alan Binnebose
news:20020812173832...@mb-bd.aol.com...
Tom, you may very well be correct in your assessment and that is why I
respect those BOD members who indicated more research would be needed before
they could support changing the GM pledge from requiring membership to
encouraging it. I don't agree, but I want to be fair and open minded. I
don't think comparing USPA to AOPA is a fair or accurate analogy. The DZOs
all say they want and need the benefit of the 3rd party liability insurance
that USPA membership affords them for the recreational jumpers. I trust
that most DZOs, who have been and are loyal supporters of USPA, will
continue to "require" USPA membership as that is in their best interest. I
know it may seem like a subtle difference, the DZO requiring membership as
opposed to USPA doing it, but I think that it will be more palatable to the
vast majority of skydivers, even those who don't have much interest in the
issue. I respect the DZOs right to require membership. USPA does not have
the right to force it upon us. At any rate, I am very pleased that quite a
few members of the BOD are taking a serious look at the issue.
Fleefrier
and the individuals think they get too much, we are in agreement that it
should be dissolved.
Mark Klingelhoefer
"Larryskydives" <larrys...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020812220841...@mb-de.aol.com...
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego
the important question is how much will be saved if the GM program is
abolished? I'll bet it will be less than the income recieved from Group
members. Think about it-you still need Ed Scott, probobally the hardest
working guy at USPA. He will still lobby. And the DZO incoming surely will
continue in some form. It's in USPA's best interest to continue to
communicate with DZ's. So that leaves one position in the GM program. I'll
bet she gets transfered to another department.
So what will be saved by eliminating the GM program? Perhaps a sitting BoD
member can direct this to Chris.
Buzz Fink
"Larryskydives" <larrys...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020812220841...@mb-de.aol.com...
LORD OF THE SKY
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego <BZ...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:C1069.22717$eb.18...@news2.west.cox.net...
> Also,
> the important question is how much will be saved if the GM program is
> abolished?
What will be saved Mr. Fink?
Only the very purpose and the mandate of Our Association.
You see Mr FINK,
What will be saved is the integrity of Our Association,
Once again Our Association will be a group of Fun Jumpers looking to keep
Fun Jumpers in the air.
And GM DZOs and CYPRES Nazi DZOs, such as yourself, will have to form
your own trade organization and you will no longer recieve a dollar from
each and every USPA Fun Jumping Member.
Yes , That's what it's all about Fink!
Keeping the Fun Jumpers in the air with a minimum of restrictive
rules or regulations.
But you are the guy who believes that all jumpers should be "Required
" to have an activated CYPRES on every jump , so I doubt you could ever
understand the very basic American concepts such as "Freedom" or "Liberty".
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
LORD OF THE SKY
Tom Buchanan <tom...@aol.comJunkfree> wrote in message
news:20020812173832...@mb-bd.aol.com...
Yo' Tom...,
You've stated in other threads that lack of external inspection of
rigs is the main reason you were against the 180 day repack cycle.
I posted and e-mailed to you a request that you provide us a set of
guidelines as to external rig inspection, guidelines and knowledge which
could be incorporated into the A-license test.
You haven't even thought about it ,have you, Mr. Buchanan?
The "Truth" is that you , Mr. Buchanan , yes You.. 're just another
loud mouthed , opinionated Jerk -off artist who refuses to step up!
Suck My Hairy Ass!!! Punk!!
Larryskydives
Chris.
We will still have the two persons on the payroll who will be at work for 40
hours a week.
We will have a loss of revenue of $60,000.00+.
Possible loss of membership (no one really knows what would happen)
What do we do to make up for that loss of revenue?
I don't want my dues to raised any higher.
Larry
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego
want her money supporting GM's. So I asked what will cost her more-haveing
a GM program or eliminating the GM program.
I know the argument that you made and I agree it is valid. (suprised?) I
am simply addressing another facet of the issue-the financial one.
Buzz Fink
"LORD OF THE SKY" <lord...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
news:aja43...@enews1.newsguy.com...
john
Just because there are financial issues involved does not mean that
ethical issues take a back seat. I would join USPA anyway, but it sure
looks like a cartel to me.
W Faulkner
>>I know, I know. I was talking about the financial aspect. Wendy does not
>>want her money supporting GM's. So I asked what will cost her more-haveing
And as far as that goes, my biggest objection is to supporting drop zones
which don't even allow me to jump there. I don't mind voting with my wallet
and not jumping at dzs which I think are unsafe or I don't like or whatever,
but I'm being forced to support indirectly a drop zone which won't even let
99% of us jump there. The costs of the GM program are greater than its
income. Therefore my money is being spent on people like Michael Hawkes. And
that leaves a great distaste in my mouth. Because I don't want him to get a
dime of my money.
W
W Faulkner
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego <BZ...@cox.net> wrote:
>I know, I know. I was talking about the financial aspect. Wendy does not
>want her money supporting GM's. So I asked what will cost her more-haveing
>a GM program or eliminating the GM program.
I was purely going on the info provided by Gary Peek and Chris Needles that
the program doesn't bring in as much money as it spends. If we have 2
full-time people working just for that program, plus all of the costs of
managing it, etc, and it only brings in $60k a year? I'd be willing to bet
that the 2 full-time salaries of the people living in the DC area cost more
than that.
W
RIPOLLAK
>I was purely going on the info provided by Gary Peek and Chris Needles that
>the program doesn't bring in as much money as it spends. If we have 2
>full-time people working just for that program, plus all of the costs of
>managing it, etc, and it only brings in $60k a year? I'd be willing to bet
that the 2 full-time salaries of the people living in the DC area cost more
than that. >>
Basic math Group member program brings in $60k/ year. USPA membership is 30K
(low ball). USPA can delete the whole group membership program by simply
increasing USPA membership dues by $2.
What"s wrong with this picture?
I didn't renew my USPA membership this year because I couldn't afford the $50
renewal fee. I would be more than happy to renew my membership for $52 if the
control of USPA was returned to the fun jumpers.
R.I.P.
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego
"W Faulkner" <faul...@eco.utexas.edu> wrote
> I was purely going on the info provided by Gary Peek and Chris Needles
that
> the program doesn't bring in as much money as it spends.
Unfortunately, Chris has one view of what a program costs, others have other
views. It's tough for anyone to decide how to divide salaries and expenses
between departments.
The problem is that Ed Scott lobbies for all skydivers but 100% of his
salary is attributed to Group Membership. Ed's assistant I'm sure works in
a lot of other areas too. But 100% of her salary is attributed to GM. When
Chris attributes a cost to putting a listing in the magazine for each DZ,
that gets attributed to Group Membership. Wether there is a GM program or
not, a listing of DZ's will still be provided to members.
My only point is that don't expect to see a big reduction in expenses by
doing away with the GM program.
If you feel we should be more of a membership org, then cut it for that. If
Wendy does'nt want to support GM's who do not let exp jumpers jump at their
GM DZ, then do away with the GM program for that reason. Or for whatever
reason strikes your fancy you can do away with the GM program. But it is
inaccurate to say by doing away with the GM program, USPA will save money.
I for one, do not believe it is so. (but what do I know) :-0
Buzz
Livendive
I spend on a cup of coffee each morning.
Blues,
Dave
"RIPOLLAK" <ripo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020813142442...@mb-ma.aol.com...
Livendive
doesn't. We make it very clear to all students before they sign waivers or
anything that we don't have insurance and we don't own anything, so even if
they disregard the waiver and somehow get it thrown out in court, and if
they somehow manage to pull off a highly unlikely award of damages, they
still won't actually get anything because we just don't have it.
Additionally, any attorney they went to would likely a) read the waiver his
potential client signed b) find out we don't have insurance or any assets to
speak of c) refuse to work on contingency.
Blues,
Dave
"Richard M. Smith" <rms...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:fpnilu49h1u98jtd5...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Aug 2002 17:33:27 GMT, miket...@aol.com (MikeTJumps) wrote:
>
> >To those of you who are very vocal in your condemnation of the program,
let's
> >see you "step up to the plate" and offer some constructive comments on
what
> >you'd like to change and why you would change them.
>
> The following is a quote from an underwriter regarding insurance for a
> typical Cessna-206 drop zone business:
>
> --Liability - $500,000 combined single limit bodily injury and property
> damage, excluding passengers
>
> --Aircraft physical damage coverage - $150,000 all risk ground and flight
> coverage with deductibles of $2,500 for all losses
>
> --Pilots - no less than C license, 750 TT, 25 MM, 25 jump flights
> Estimated Annual Premium - $9,800
>
> --USPA Group Membership and 3 years management experience in the sport
> parachuting business are required.
>
> *** end of quote ***
>
> It would appear that the GM program is a de-facto standard within the
> liability insurance circles. If you want a cheaper policy here in the land
> of the free then you must also be a GM too!
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Richard M. Smith
> (509) 754-0259
> rms...@pobox.com
tbos...@onyx.boisestate.edu
> As I said last year, even in the worst case scenario it would cost less than
> I spend on a cup of coffee each morning.
Agreed, no more group membership crap.
--
Shane
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego
Buzz
"Richard M. Smith" <rms...@pobox.com> wrote in
> Many of the counties in Washington state want a 2-million dollar indemnity
> policy if your are going to be operating at their public airport.
Rev Jim
"BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego" wrote
Wether there is a GM program or
> not, a listing of DZ's will still be provided to members.
>
Nice point. Does that mean that if we cut the GM program, we may FINALLY get
a _complete_ DZ list?
Rev
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego
Buzz
"Richard M. Smith" <rms...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:vh9jlucq2836h1nge...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:33:44 GMT, "BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego"
<BZ...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I wish!!!! I am required to provide 5 million!!!
>
> That's outrageous! However, you are supporting a larger per capita share
of
> lawyers there in California. I'm also aware that aircraft policies have
> doubled since 9/11, but it has not been passed on the skydivers...yet.
me
[snip]
> Look, right now you can jump at quite a few DZ that do not require USPA
> membership, or heck, you can even start your own DZ and not require membership.
> Eliminating the group member program or making membership "voluntary but
> encouraged" will have a long term negative effect on the skydiving community.
Your conclusion presumes that the entire world will remain static
after such a change. The basic assertion here is that it was a mistake
for USPA to become a trade organization. PIA was willing and interested
in fulfilling the role which USPA pursued, against the better judgement
of many of us. If USPA dumps the GM program, and the DZ owners REALLY
found anything useful about it, PIA stands ready and able to give
the DZO's a platform from which to work. USPA will become what it
was before, an association of skydivers, predominately interested in
competition. The real question left will be how involved USPA
should be in tandem and AFF, two other predominately commercial
pursuits.
You mentioned AOPA. AOPA is only one of several organizations
to which pilots belong. There is also APA, and EAA. They most
often work together. You can present a "united front" even as
separate organizations. In many ways it is MORE credible when
multiple organizations take similar stances. The USGA, PGA and
PGA TOUR all represent the sport of golf in one way or another.
There is no reason that skydiving can't have multiple organizations
representing the various facets of skydiving and coordinating
efforts when necessary. At this point, sport parachutists are
becoming less and less involved in training and it is becoming
the arena of professionals. Fine, let them take over that licensing
program. USPA continually quotes the cost of making membership
information available on weekends to the DZ for folks who forgot
their cards and are visiting a DZ. Fine, if it isn't required,
the service isn't required, we save money. USPA is exposed to
liability issues because of underage tandem. Fine, let someone
else handle tandem so USPA doesn't have to put "age of majority"
in it's BSR's. If USPA streamlines itself into an organization
which focuses on SPORT parachuting and competition, they
might not be needing that new building they wanna build. In fact,
they might not need the $50 membership from every single US jumper
but merely from those who actually want and need their services.
Kevin O'Connell
Mr. MOM
>To those of you who are very vocal in your condemnation of the program, let's
>see you "step up to the plate" and offer some constructive comments on what
>you'd like to change and why you would change them.
I am going to reply in a few seperate posts.
First, I'll start with whats "wrong" with USPA and the GM program.
I've been "stepping up to the plate" now, for over a year, and obviously my
arguments against the group membership program, and constructive recomendations
have mainly fallen upon deaf BOD and their lacky's ears.
Through the group membership program, USPA is forcing membership onto active
participants of skydiving. Because the majority of Drop Zones in the U.S.
belong to the group membership program, for all intents and purposes, most
people can not actively participate without joining USPA.
Ask any DZO why they are a group member, or require USPA membership of their
customers, and the most common answer you will hear is, "Because of the
liability insurance coverage that comes with USPA membership".
Let's look at what this implies. It implies that USPA offers nothing enticing
or reasonable for most active participants to want to *voluntarily* join, so
USPA entices the businesses by giving them an incentive to force their
customers into membership. That incentive is liability protection, and not
having to concern themselves that every single customer is covered. DZO's
whether GM or not, just make things easy for themselves, and force every
customer to have USPA membership for the guaranteed liability coverage.
It is common knowledge that liability coverage can be obtained through most
every persons renters or homeowners insurance for a nominal extra fee. Coverage
that is far greater and wider ranging than that offered by USPA. Because USPA
is forcing membership, participants are not being given the freedom to choose
what insurance company they purchase coverage from. The insurance company USPA
is contracted with, may not be the company many people choose to do business
with. Especially due to the lower amount of coverage and payout. If I have
liability coverage through my homeowners policy, why should I be *forced* to
purchase additional coverage that I don not *need* nor *want*? This….is
nothing less than providing a monopoly by force for that insurance company USPA
is contracted with. The last I heard…..forced monopolies are illegal in this
country.
Group member DZO's engage in discrimination against their fellow membership.
Some do it overtly, while many others do it covertly. Examples of overt
discrimination is Michael Hawkes, and the Cypres-Nazi Buzz Fink. These DZO's
openly set limitations on who is and who isn't allowed to participate at their
place of business.
****If USPA as an organization does not have a mandate on who can, and who
can't participate, then a USPA member should not be allowed to make that
mandate. If USPA does not have a mandate on licensed jumpers required use of
Cypes', then a USPA member should not be allowed to mandate cypres use.*****
Other GM DZO's are more covert about it, and quietly discourage experienced
participants from frequenting their establishment. At other GM DZ's, people
will be banned from the operation for nothing more than the owners personal
dislike of a person. Furthermore, there are an abundant amount of GM DZ's that
engage in false and/or deceptive advertising. Even others have student training
programs that I would not allow my mother to go near.
Yet all of these GM DZ's get a blanket endorsement from USPA, just because they
paid for *special membership*. These businesses are getting blanket endorsement
whether the customers want them to have it or not. Customers that are being
forced into the same *association* with the business. Yes.......there is that
old argument of "owners can run their businesses the way they want". Yes they
can.......but.....if they choose to run it in a way that customers might not
like, then those customers should not be forced into association with them, and
be a member of the same organization that gives the business a blind and
blanketed endorsement. The "It's their business..." argument, doesn't fly. They
are either a business only, or they are a USPA member. If the business chooses
to be a USPA member, then they have forfieted some of their *rights* to do
business the way they want. Especially when it comes to having a negative
eefect on fellow members. If DZO's want to do "business the way they want",
then get the hell out of being a USPA member, or do not force your customers
into association with your business.
Additionally, whuffo's don't know the difference between a good DZ training
program and a bad one. They often rely on the false pretense that if it's a
USPA DZ, it must be a good one. Far too many DZ's with sub-standard training
and shifty ethics prey on and rely on, this whuffo ignorance to recruit their
patronage. One GM DZO recently admitted to such right here on this NG. Here is
the quote from the Cypres-Nazi Buzz Fink.
"Right now, the only reason, yes the only reason I am a group member, is so my
competition won't tell prospective students not to go to our dz since we are
not USPA group member, and therefore you don't know how safe they are".
This implies that Cypres-Nazi Buzz Fink is a GM member so his prospective
whuffo customers will not question the safety of his operation or student
program. Yet........it could be the crappiest place for a person to learn, and
it still gets a seal of approval because he bought the right to fly the USPA
banner. (Note.......I am not saying Cypres-Nazi Buzz Finks operation *is* a
crappy place to learn. I am merely using him and his statement as part of an
example, to make my point.)
The GM program does not pay for itself. That means my mebership money that I'm
forced to pay if I want to remain an active participant.......helps pay for a
*special membership* for businesses that I do not want to help or support. I'm
being forced into helping pay for supporting DZ's I don't not want to support.
EVEN IF.........the GM program paid for itself, I'm still forced into
association with them. If USPA is going to give blanket endorsement to
businesses I do not want to be attached to, then I do not want to belong to
USPA. I do not want to be affiliated or associated in any way what-so-ever,
with a business and organization who's conduct, ethics, and/or practices I
disagree with or dislike.
Skydiving........is the *only* recreational activity in the United States,
where active participants...for all intents and purposes....are *forced* to
join a national organization.
There are no others.....nada......zilch...........zero.........none.
Why is this?? Why is it that any other activity a person chooses to engage in,
they can do so without being required to join a national organization? Why is
it that every other *voluntary* national organization in the U.S., can
accomplish it's purpose and stay solvent without forcing membership upon the
participants, but USPA can not?
That tells me that USPA primarily exists for the sake of it's own survival.
This conclusion has been re-enforced by comments current BOD members have made
to me. I have asked a few of them "why do we need to force membership on
skydivers", and when pressed hard enough for an answer, they have conceded
"USPA needs the money to survive". That tells me USPA is not doing a very good
job in anything but collecting revenue. If they *fear* losing too much revenue
by becoming truly voluntary, that tells me they have nothing to offer those
they need to be members. Why would I want to belong to an organization that
needs to force membership on participants, just so it can survive? What good is
an organization that is primarily motivated by fear of it's own demise, when
making policy?
I'll stop here......before I really get on a roll........More to follow.
USPA SUCKS...because most members don't give a damn.
mailto:full...@uspa.org
YOU own it...so go ahead and use it once in awhile
Mr. MOM
Mr. MOM
(MikeTJumps) writes:
>To those of you who are very vocal in your condemnation of the program, let's
>see you "step up to the plate" and offer some constructive comments on what
>you'd like to change and why you would change them.
Hey Mike.....thats a pretty ballsy challenge coming from you. Are you trying to
change your *image* into that of a tuff guy by challenging the rest of us to
"step up to the plate"?
Funny Mike.....not long ago....in e-mail......I volunteered to send you a copy
of the paper I presented to the full board at last Feb.'s GMM meeting. You
declined, and said you wouldn't read anything from me......because I had hurt
your feelings after you attempted to impose an "authority father figure"
attitude on me.
Is this what the membership should expect from someone wanting to be a BOD
member? Mike Turoff will be your representative and listen to what the
membership wants........but.........only if you don't hurt his feelings.
Well guess what Mike. In the paper I presented to the BOD last Feb., I included
some constructive recomendations. But you wouldn't know that because I hurt
your feelings and you refused to read them.
So Mike.........I'm throwing the gauntlet back at you. I challenge you Mike
Turoff to stop being a thinned skinned pussy, and read my paper. I'll make it
real easy for you by posting it to the NG following this post.
Mr. MOM
you do read it and take what is said into consideration.
Especially you Mike Turoff. You challenged us to "step up to the plate", now
follow through and actually do your part.
**************************************************************************
****************
A realistic look at USPA and the Group Member program
More than one USPA board of director member has stated, that the concerns of
the USPA general member are the most important within the association. Yet, in
my 12 years experience as a member, I have found very little evidence of this
being true. Rather, my experiences have shown that the association itself is of
most importance, followed by the demands of the group members, and the least
being the wants and needs of the general member. One only needs to take a look
at the decisions and actions the BOD has made in the last 10 years to see that
this is true.
Besides the fact that the BOD believes the USPA itself to be of most
importance, I believe the group membership program to be one of the greatest
detriments to USPA, and ultimately to the general members. Whether it be direct
or indirect, the group membership program holds far too much power, and greater
dictates USPA's direction. USPA can "not" be an association for skydivers
(customers), and a trade organization for Drop Zones (businesses), and not have
the inherent conflicts eventually tear it apart. In any forum, the demands of
customers and businesses are more often in conflict, than they are mutual.
SIM's 2001
Section Summary
"USPA is an organization of Skydivers, run by skydivers, and it is your voice
in skydiving. USPA keeps skydivers skydiving."
"USPA keeps skydivers skydiving." Does it? Or do the "drop zone operators"
decide who skydives, and who doesn't?
This reference is from the 1998 SIM's, since no definition or purpose of the
group membership program, is in the latest 2001 SIM's or Governance manual.
1-2 Group membership program
1-2.02
"The purpose of Group membership, therefore, is to establish a business and
professional relationship that strengthens the bonds of unity within the
skydiving community and enhances the growth of the sport."
"…That strengthens the bonds of unity within the skydiving community…" Does
it? Or has the group membership program done just the opposite?
Drop zones are first and foremost a business, and skydivers are first and
foremost, customers of those drop zones. The owners of these drop zones first
priority are to make money, and they often cater to the larger immediate
income, rather than to regular customers paying less. Many have set an income
priority of, tandem passengers first, skydiving students second, and licensed
USPA members last. In other words, non-member customers are the most important
on a drop zone because they pay the largest amount of money per skydive, while
others who upon deciding to pursue the sport are required to join USPA,
gradually become the least important. They started as a "first class" person,
paid their "dues" by going thru the process, but came out the other end as a
"third class" customer in the eyes of the same members that required membership
in the first place.
By having a group member program that requires membership among its customers,
USPA has given drop zones an artificial and unbridled power that is often
abused. Through the group membership pledge, drop zone operators have the
responsibility of requiring USPA membership, and complying with and enforcing
BSR's and FAR's upon skydivers. Supposedly this is where our "self policing"
begins, yet in the name of profit, dz operators willfully violate BSR's and
FAR's they are entrusted to enforce. They do so knowing there will be little to
no chance of USPA or the FAA learning about it, or disciplinary action taken
towards them. Any member wanting to bring forth violations has no recourse,
often times is banned from the drop zone, and is branded an "undesirable". Drop
zone operators blatantly do this knowing that as the main entity responsible
for "self policing", drop zones are given the benefit of the doubt by USPA. The
combination of being treated as a third class customer required to belong to
the same association as the business, and the owners "do as I say, not as I do"
arrogance, has instilled an "us" and "them" attitude among skydivers, and a
cynicism that nothing can be done about it. Granted, this may be a situation of
a "few bad apples spoiling the barrel", but after my experiences, along with
talking and listening to many people from across the country, I believe it to
be fairly widespread. Even if we do give most drop zones the benefit of the
doubt, we cannot ignore the fact that the "us against them" mentality is very
real.
USPA's "self-policing" begins with leadership that has been artificially
bestowed upon dz operators through the group membership program. From the drop
zone operator, that leadership is trickled down to the staff. Seeing how they
are primarily concerned with financial success, dz operators naturally hire
staff that is willing to do what it takes to gain that profit, and unarguably
do it how the dz operator wants it done. This money first attitude, in
combination with how most dz staff are paid, have created instructor/jumpmaster
ranks being negatively influenced in how they perform their jobs. It's now
prevalent throughout the sport, that jumpmasters & instructors have a mindset
of quantity over quality. They concentrate more on how many students or
passengers they can put in the air on any given day, rather than spend the time
to thoroughly teach the lesson, and properly mold a future skydiver. It has
become a matter of keeping the drop zone operator happy and putting the most
money possible in their pockets, or getting cut out of the loop.
From this money first mindset, dz operators and staff now structure their
student programs to, "the minimum they can get away with". Jumpmasters &
instructors that disagree with this, have to deal with a "my way or the
highway" mandate from owners, and either quietly go along with it to keep their
job, or are pushed out of the teaching ranks altogether. The quality of
instruction now suffers, and too many students are being graduated with less
than basic skills and knowledge. Many of whom, remain ignorant far too long
into their skydiving career. I witnessed a senior Instructor (a well known
skydiver) brag to the rest of the staff, how he could teach a student what to
do on the dive to pass his particular jump in about 3 to 5 minutes. This was an
instructor in charge of the student program, and was emphasizing to the rest of
us, that we should also be able to train just as fast, because the dz owner
needed us to make more working jumps. "Time is money", is this instructor's
favorite mantra. I once overheard an AFF Instructor (who is also an AFF
evaluator) tell a student, "Congratulations on graduating AFF. But, you need a
lot of coaching. By the way, I'm also a Skydive University coach". He
prematurely graduated this student, so he could continue making money by having
the "graduate" do coached jumps. Recently I overheard an instructor (the drop
zone safety & training advisor) complaining to another, that he didn't like
being required to help students put gear away after making a skydive. His
argument was that it took too much time better spent making more working dives.
To him, the post dive routine was not a part of the student "learning". Many on
the BOD seem to be well aware of these attitudes, and I've received comments to
such. Don Yahrling once expressed his anger to me, about a student's lack of
basic knowledge, for the level the student was at in his training. The drop
zone owner had proudly asked Mr. Yahrling to take this student, on a
higher-level AFF dive.
S&TA's are no longer leaders that general members can approach to express
safety or other concerns. Usually they are the drop zone operator himself, or
an instructor working for the drop zone. S&TA's on the payroll of a dz, in most
cases have made it nothing more than a figurehead title. Rarely are dzo's going
to listen to someone expressing a safety concern about how they choose to run
their own business, and a staff member wishing to keep his job, is certainly
going to think twice about confronting his own boss. About a year and a half
ago, an owner banned me from his group member dz, and informed me that he would
consider letting me back on in 30 days, as long as he didn't get any feedback
of me "badmouthing" his drop zone. The impression I got from him for banning me
was that I was refusing to participate in his tandem mill / student program, at
times when he was desperate for instructors. It didn't matter to him that my
refusal was due to safety & training concerns. He also didn't like that I was
voicing my concern about the poor quality of the schools graduates, and spoke
up about who was at fault for it, when other instructors were blaming the very
graduates they had trained. This group member dz operator wasn't interested in
hearing my concerns, and because I was vocal and refused to participate, he
considered me a threat to his business's image. A few months after this
incident, I had a conversation with the S&TA / instructor at this dz. This S&TA
agreed with my safety & training concerns, but was torn between the money he
was making, and possibly losing his job by speaking up. After seeing what
happened to me, he chose to stay quiet, and keep his job.
The owner informed me that he would consider letting me back on in 30 days, as
long as he didn't get any feedback of me "badmouthing" his drop zone". This is
just one of many examples where a dzo is more concerned with the drop zone's
"image" rather than producing quality students, and catering to USPA
membership. Besides USPA providing liability coverage, and airport access aid,
image seems to be the primary motivator for a dz wanting to be a group member.
Being a group member gives them the image of, and blanket endorsement from USPA
that their drop zone is of higher quality and safety. Yet, these drop zones
never have to prove this to be true. Buzz Fink, owner of Air Adventures
Skydiving, recently stated on the rec.dot skydiving newsgroup, "Right now, the
only reason, yes the only reason I am a group member, is so my competition
won't tell prospective students not to go to our dz since we are not USPA group
member, and therefore you don't know how safe they are". Furthermore, in an
effort to protect their "image". Some drop zone operators have a "Big Brother"
mentality about their staff and customers. Most of us are aware there is a
"code of silence" among skydivers concerning activities the whuffo public might
find questionable. But we now have dz operators quietly demanding upon staff
and customers, this same "code of silence" when it comes to questionable DZ
activities that directly affect other skydivers and students. It is often
implied that we keep quiet concerning inadequate student training, BSR/FAR
violations, and unethical business practices. Those that attempt to express
their concerns, whether to the owner, or S&TA, are often branded as
malcontents, banned, and blacklisted. Approaching USPA's leadership is just as
futile, because the drop zone owner/operator always get the benefit of the
doubt. Rather than doing what's right for their customers, dzo's are too
concerned that people speaking out, may damage the business's reputation and
image. Granted, some of these "bad mouths" are angry persons being vindictive,
but many more have legitimate complaints and concerns that have been stifled or
ignored.
In Chris Needles Capitol Commentary-July 01, he talked about the high drop out
rate of newer skydivers because they felt left out. He made a plea to the
veterans to work with these new skydivers, by including them on skydives and
helping them feel welcome. Mr. Needles has a point, but I believe he targeted
his plea at the wrong people. The attitudes and tone of staff and customers, is
often a reflection of the dzo's. If the drop zone operator has a safety, and
camaraderie first attitude, that mindset will be prevalent throughout. But, if
a dzo and staff has money first, and "stay out of my way" attitude, not
everyone will bother with the hassle, nor will some be allowed to do what Mr.
Needles has suggested. It's not a problem of "uncaring skydivers", but rather
the tone and attitude a drop zone operator and staff has set. The business of
owning and running a drop zone has become more sophisticated in the last 10
years, and many now offer far more services than ever before in the form of
"sub-businesses. Since drop zone operators usually charge a concession fee,
they encourage customers to use these sub-businesses, and they protect this
"extra income", by prohibiting others from competing or interfering. On many
drop zones we now have a dying breed of instructors and mentors that are not
being allowed to "give back to the sport". The people that have routinely cared
more about mentoring and quality, rather than money and quantity, are not being
allowed to take new skydivers under their wing and welcome them into the
population. Due to the drop zone operator and contractor's desires, they are
prohibiting mentors from associating with new skydivers, while milking them of
as much money as possible. After the milking, subsequent negative attitudes
often result in mentors not wanting to bother. After all, they are skydivers
first, doing it for the fun.
Conflicts between General Members and Group Members
Concerning the conflicts listed here, the common attitude of the BOD tends to
be, "what can we do about it? It's their business and they have the right to
run it the way they want". Putting the association aside, these drop zones do
have that right. But, because the customer is forced into an association with
these businesses, should this "nothing we can do about it" attitude be USPA's
answer to the memberships concerns? Add to this that the business portion of
the membership does not pay for itself, which means those being forced into
membership; help to pay for the services offered exclusively to the business's.
Keeping in mind that some of the BOD "are" these businesses, what message does
this send to the general membership?
Group member pledge, or no group member pledge, drop zones are going to run
their business the way they see fit, and they should have every right to do so.
Some adhere to BSR's and FAR's, have excellent student programs, good safety
records, and cater primarily to the general members, while many others to
various degrees, do not. Yet, because they are USPA general members, they all
receive the same blanket endorsement, without having to prove any acceptable
level of standards. Is this how USPA promotes safety, and informs whuffo's
seeking a dz to go to? Is it acceptable for USPA to tell a future student, or
traveling skydiver that "yes, it is a good DZ", based only on the fact that
it's a group member?
According to the BOD, general members are the most important to the
association. Yet a blind eye is turned, concerning the discrimination, and
third class treatment from group members. Tandem passengers not required to
belong to USPA, along with deep-pocketed students, tend to be more important to
group member drop zones than those they require to be USPA members.
Additionally, it is common for group members to ban general members from their
drop zones, for no more of a reason than personal dislike. In other words, we
have membership that discriminates against membership. Is this the meaning of,
the purpose of group membership, "is to establish a business and professional
relationship that strengthens the bonds of unity within the skydiving community
and enhances the growth of the sport"? Is this discrimination how USPA keeps
skydivers skydiving?
Although USPA has developed effective instructional programs, and ratings
courses, they are not being utilized as intended. For the want of money, drop
zone operators are more concerned with putting students in the air, than with
teaching students to become skydivers. The drop zone operators favored staff
has become the "numbers game" instructors, rather than the teaching
instructors. Drop zone operators want students in the air to avoid refunds and
speed up the revenue process, while instructors want to get students in the air
to make a bigger paycheck. The combination of contracted payment methods, and
demands from dz operators, has influenced instructors to abandon the methods of
instruction they learned, while earning their rating. It is now common, that
instructors gloss over pre and post-jump details, just to get more students in
the air quicker. The more the better, and time spent on the ground with a
student, is not profitable. Instructors, who refuse to participate in the
"numbers game", and want to actually teach skydiving, tend to fall out of favor
with drop zone operators. Is this the attitude and practice, USPA wants to
promote and encourage to our ratings holders? Is this the practice our students
and future skydivers deserve for what they pay?
Due to the fact that the group membership program does not pay for itself, the
support and endorsements they receive is partially paid, with my membership
dues. They benefit from my membership money, even though they can deny me
access to the activity, and often treat me as least important. Additionally,
some group member drop zones have restrictive rules that are contradictory to
USPA policies, my personal choices, and my safety concerns. Other group member
drop zones have undermined USPA in its attempt to lobby against restrictive
government legislation. At least one group member drop zone openly bans all
licensed USPA members, and many others covertly discourage our participation.
It is common knowledge that another group member drop zone engages in unethical
business practices to steal customers from other drop zones in their area. Yet,
my dues help support these businesses, because they are group members that
require my membership. Although I can personally choose to not support a
particular drop zone by not patronizing it, that same drop zone through USPA,
is supported by my membership money, whether I want it to be or not. This is
nothing less than customers being required to give blanketed support to
businesses, we might not otherwise want to support.
The group membership has exclusive access to information on general members,
thru USPA's "Group Member Only" web site page. It has been explained that this
is a service that benefits general members, by allowing drop zone operators to
check a person's current membership status. Yet, Larry Stapleton when asked
about this website, replied, "I personally do not want all of my information
available to everybody. We do have a right to privacy." Besides the web page
further increasing general members cynical perception of "us" and "them", this
kind of statement from a BOD member raises some questions. Just what kind of
information is on this web page that is ok for group member to obtain, but a
BOD member doesn't want "available to everybody"? Why hasn't anyone checked
into the possibility that information about me is something I don't want just
any drop zone business to have, due to "my right to privacy"?
Group members demand that ratings courses only be held at group member drop
zones, and any non group member dz wishing to host a course, is required to pay
USPA a fee equivalent to the group membership. Seeing as how non-USPA drop
zones have chosen not to pay membership fees in the first place, it is doubtful
many will, just to have the privilege of hosting a ratings course. The
resulting outcome is availability of ratings courses being restrictive and
possibly prohibitive, for the general membership. Ratings courses are supposed
to be for the benefit of general members wanting to join the instructional
ranks, yet because of these coercive demands, only the group membership is to
blame for the restrictive availability of these courses. Furthermore, there are
a fair number of members that jump at non-group member drop zones for reasons
that vary from convenience, to lack of choice, or personal preferences. These
members may not have the means to travel to another drop zone to take a course,
and quite possibly there are some that refuse to patronize a drop zone hosting
a course. Why is it group member dz's have a greater say in where courses will
be held, at the expense of the general membership being denied USPA services?
Mr. MOM
***********************************************************
Questions of legality
I am not a lawyer, and have minimal knowledge about laws that may apply to our
association. However, I am aware that in the State of NY, laws and court
rulings that have set precedent's concerning clubs and associations do exist.
The questions of legality that follow, may seem rhetorical or shallow, but
common sense leads me to believe they have enough merit worth looking into.
Before someone else does, it may serve all members best, if USPA were to find
the answers and rectify any current legal wrongs.
USPA is a "voluntary membership" association that has group members sign a
pledge to "require" membership. What are the legalities of a "voluntary"
association thru a business, "requiring" individuals to join in order to
participate in the activity? Could this be considered extortion in the eyes of
the courts?
Money from forced membership is used to aid, support, and promote businesses,
even though individual members may not wish to support those same businesses.
Could this be considered an act of coercion?
Group members often prohibit general members from participating in the activity
for reasons other than safety. In other words, it is members denying member's
access to the memberships activity. More so, members that have forced
membership on those, they have prohibited from participation. Is this not
considered a form of unjust discrimination?
Many drop zones are located on federally funded airports. If a federally funded
airport denies anyone access to aviation activities, they are subject to losing
those funds. What are the potential repercussions when a dz on a federally
funded airport, denies an individual access to our aviation activity? Do they
not have a responsibility to provide the same rights to others that they
themselves have legal rights to?
Businesses have access thru USPA, to information about customers. They have
this access even if the customer does not want them to have it. Isn't this a
violation of privacy rights?
Drop zones forcing USPA membership to guarantee liability coverage. Many people
already have liability coverage through homeowners/renters insurance policies,
and don't need the coverage provided by USPA. Requiring people to buy coverage
they don't need could be viewed as a shake down.
Recommendation
Terminate the general membership program, and the sooner the better. USPA needs
to move back towards the roots, it seems to have forgotten. In 1971, USPA
posthumously awarded Joe Crane the first "USPA Achievement Award", for founding
and presiding over the NPJR and PCA. In1932, Joe Crane founded the National
Parachute Jumpers Association with the primary purpose of organizing
professional air show jumpers, and protecting them from being exploited by
these "air show operators". After World War II, it was changed to the National
Parachute Jumpers-Riggers, Inc., and added lobbying against restrictive
legislation, to its original intentions of protecting jumpers from
"exploitative operators". In 1957, it became the Parachute Club of America, and
added the growing number of "fun jumpers" and "skydiving clubs" into its ranks.
Throughout this organizations history, it has always been an association for
the jumper as an activist body against "exploitative commercial operators", and
"restrictive legislation". Yet, here we are in the year 2002, and the USPA
leadership seeks commercial operators to become "special" members. Commercial
Operators often engaged in that, which Joe Crane strived to protect jumpers
from.
Terminating the group membership program is not to say that drop zone operators
cannot personally be members nor hold office. However, because it will be a
membership only for skydivers, their businesses will not hold a greater level
of importance within the association. This increases the probability that any
drop zone operator wishing to hold a seat on the BOD will be an individual
inclined to make decisions for the betterment of skydivers, rather than their
own business. Furthermore, as originally intended, "legitimate clubs" would
retain a membership with USPA. Legitimate clubs are those that were formed by a
group of individuals who pooled their resources together, for the
not-for-profit purpose of providing themselves and others the opportunity to
engage in skydiving activities. These types of "not-for-profit" clubs
inherently have the same wants and needs as individual members, and are less
likely to discriminate against their own.
I recommend that USPA set a "termination date" for a reasonable time in the
near future. More than one BOD member has claimed, that terminating the group
member program will probably never happen, because not enough dz operators are
interested in starting their own trade organization, or nobody is taking the
initiative to start one. These excuses further increase the cynical attitude
many people have towards their "required" membership in USPA, and it is
arguable that it should not be USPA's concern whether dz operators start a
trade organization or not. Inherent conflicts between customer and commercial
operations still exist as much now, as they did back when. Nothing will
motivate drop zone operators who want a trade organization to band together and
actually start one, faster then a termination date. As a number of BOD members
have admitted, waiting for dzo's to do it on their own, will never make it
happen.
Proposals that would benefit and promote USPA membership
In its current state, USPA is an ineffective shell of an organization, offers
little to nothing to its membership that can't be obtained elsewhere, and is
considered a dirty little necessity by most skydivers in the U.S. As an
organization, USPA is going to stagnate in this current state until changes
that benefit the membership are made. Rather than being content with forced
membership, USPA should be concentrating on building an organization that
people want to belong to. USPA should be working towards giving skydivers a
reason to join, and a reason to get involved. The current excuse of, "we need
to protect the drop zones or the sport will die" is a fallacy. Drop zones come
and go all the time, and people passionate enough about the sport will always
find a way to make skydives. The current excuse of "we need to require
membership due to the cost of running the organization," is also a fallacy.
What good does an organization do, when the majority of the participants would
not join if they had the choice? What good is an organization who's primary
purposes is generating enough revenue through extortion, to sustain itself? In
the hopes of redirecting the energies of our current and future USPA
leadership, I submit the following proposals. I believe offering the membership
these and other services, will begin to give them reasons to want to join,
participate, and be involved.
USPA should recognize the existence of all drop zones within the U.S., and any
foreign drop zones attempting to draw USPA members. Whether a drop zone
supports the efforts of USPA or not, they are still engaged in the skydiving
business, and it is only right that the membership be informed of all options
concerning where we can go to engage in the activity. Furthermore, nothing
raises standards and customer satisfaction more than open competition between
businesses. Currently, there are a good number of non-USPA operations giving
far greater customer satisfaction and student training than many group member
drop zones. Rather than pretend these drop zones don't exist, USPA should be
welcoming them as shining examples of quality and service available to it's
members and students. Doing so raises the standards bar, and unacceptable
operations currently hiding behind the USPA banner will be forced to sink or
swim based on their own merits.
In addition to recognizing all Drop Zones, USPA needs to give the benefit of
the doubt to the general member/customer. Similar to AOPA's Airport Directory,
USPA should have a Drop Zone directory of all drop zones, with reviews of said
drop zones based mainly on membership feedback. A drop zone's reputation needs
to be based on all members' submitted input, rather than just a dz's marketing
savvy, and selective member endorsements. USPA members wishing to raise
questionable safety practices, unethical business practices, inferior student
training, poor services, favoritism, etc., need to be able to express their
concerns without fear of repercussions. Some will argue that a business could
get a false reputation due to vindictive people with personal agenda's. I'll
argue that by stating, if a dz has had to deal with that many vindictive
people, then that business is doing something to anger them in the first place,
and the rest of the membership has a right to know about it. Just as people can
read product reviews on almost any product available, before choosing what
brand to purchase, USPA members and potential students, should have well
rounded drop zone information/reviews available to them, before choosing where
to spend their money. This information can only be accurate if patrons and
industry professionals are allowed to freely express their views without fear,
and be given the benefit of the doubt. The responsibility of maintaining a good
reputation should lie solely on how a business treats it's customers and
employees, and not on a national associations blanket endorsement because that
business has paid a yearly due. USPA needs to provide information about
businesses for the purpose of benefiting the membership, rather than for the
benefit of the business.
Drop zones wishing to display the USPA banner, should be required to earn that
privilege, rather than just pay a yearly fee. Acceptable business practices and
operational standards should be set by USPA as a gauge for a drop zone to earn
USPA's endorsement. If a drop zone wants the endorsement from USPA, then they
should have to go thru an inspection process and continued monitoring from
independent parties. This inspection process should not be one that is
scheduled, allowing a business to be on their best behavior while under the
microscope, but rather an inspection that is unscheduled, anonymous, and
continuous. Unedited customer feedback should play a role in this, as well as
feedback from employees and other industry professionals. Drop zone operators
are going to conduct business the way they want, and USPA should hold them
accountable for their practices to better serve the membership. Setting high
standards that drop zone operators can choose to pursue or not, will give the
membership and potential student base a more honest assessment of desirable and
undesirable operations.
Just as Joe Crane's original intentions of this organization was to help
protect professional jumpers from air show operators taking advantage of them,
USPA once again needs to concentrate on helping instructors receive appropriate
payment for the quality of their work. The current standard of independent
contractors being paid for quantity, is in complete contradiction with USPA's
efforts to set high teaching standards when training future Instructors. Most
of the training, Instructor Candidates receive during JCC/ICC's, is not what is
practiced in the real world. As I've said to numerous confused candidates, "you
have to play in Yarhlings world to pass, before you can go play in the real
world." Once a person has the rating in hand, most of the quality and high
standards "Yahrlings world" attempts to instill into instructors, is tossed
aside for the want of a substantial paycheck. This mindset and practice is
perpetuated by drop zone operators playing the "profit by numbers game", paying
instructors accordingly, and dictating a "my way or the highway" ultimatum on
these independent contractors.
USPA needs to work at putting more legitimacy behind Instructional ratings, and
provide greater support to those instructors attempting to fulfill their jobs
at or better than the standards set by USPA. An instructor that produces a
small amount of highly educated and capable students, should be the one
receiving just payment rather than the instructor who pumps out the most
students of inferior quality through the system. Drop zone operators and
instructors need to be recognized for the quality of their student programs
rather than quantity. It is very apparent that bigger, faster, higher, more
does not translate into better. Yet, that is exactly what most potential
students are led to believe, and where most of today's instructors desire to
work. Skydiving has lost, and continues to lose many top quality instructors
because they will not compromise the level at which they teach, and often are
not given the opportunity to teach due to this. Other people with the potential
to be excellent instructors opt not to, for these same reasons. Rather than
have an "oh well, sad to see them go" attitude towards these people, USPA needs
to recognize them, promote them as our standard bearers, and support them in
their efforts to bring student training up to that higher level. Appropriate
payment for quality produced over quantity is a big motivator for people
wanting to teach in this sport, to actually continue teaching. Actively
supporting, promoting, and helping instructors that maintain high standards,
should be a service offered, and is a responsibility of USPA. USPA should be
helping the teachers that actually want to teach skydiving, and openly
recognize the drop zones that are allowing and paying them for their
excellence.
In addition to working towards Instructors receiving just pay for quality, USPA
needs to provide legal assistance or funds for it's instructors, and members.
Sometime in the last 10 years, USPA's leadership decided to "mainstream"
skydiving, and we've gotten just that. Someone should have taken heed to the
old adage of "beware of what you wish for". Skydiving now has a generation of
litigious minded jumpers, along with a larger litigious minded whuffo public
willing to give it a try. I would wager that every dz in the country has at
least one lawsuit they are presently dealing with, or recently settled. We all
know that it's not just the operations that get sued in these cases. In some
instances, instructors are also named as defendants in lawsuits, and very
rarely do they have the resources needed to effectively defend themselves. In
the past, instructors and/or employees have had the assurance that drop zone
operators would take care of their legal representation. However, in this day
of increased litigation within our sport, the mercenary business practices of
drop zone operators, along with the fact that most instructors are hired as
independent contractors with little more than a verbal agreement, brings light
that it's just a matter of time before one of them is hung out to dry in a
lawsuit. In this day and age, instructors are factoring potential lawsuits into
the decisions they make, and many are concluding that the risk of being a
teacher is not worth having their life potentially ruined by a lawsuit. Because
we've "mainstreamed" skydiving, teaching it is now riskier than jumping.
Furthermore, we are now seeing more instances of skydivers (or their families)
suing fellow skydivers. In the past, our common mindset was that this is a
dangerous sport and we chose to take our chances. The new "mainstreamed"
mindset is people wanting to lay blame on others for when something happens to
them. Sometimes this finger pointing is accurate, and you should ask yourselves
why this sport has an increased amount of people, endangering the lives of
others. On the other hand, we have innocent people being caught up in this
litigious mindset and often times can't afford the high cost of proving they
are not liable. USPA opened this Pandora's box, and now USPA should have legal
aid in place, for those members that may very well need it in the near future.
Liability Insurance. It is often said, the reason dz's require USPA membership
is for the blanket liability coverage all members receive. Yet, most of us that
have homeowners or renters insurance can obtain far better coverage than USPA
offers, at a very competitive price. If liability insurance is the only reason
ever, to justify membership in USPA, then USPA needs to find and offer coverage
that equals or exceeds the coverage people can obtain on their own.
At present, the only amenity a USPA member is offered is discounted rates from
a national car rental company. If USPA can contract an agreement with a car
rental company, we can surely expand on providing other amenities to the
membership in the form of hotel/motel discounts, airline discounts, RV rental
discounts, campground discounts, travel packages, restaurant chains, etc.
Along these same lines, we should cross promote our sport with other activities
skydivers have interests in. A primary example is other aviation activities.
Skydiving is an aviation activity yet often times the "anti skydiving" movement
is found amongst our fellow aviators. USPA should be striving to warm the
relations and understanding with our fellow aviators, and provide opportunities
for all to get involved with one another. At present, although we are an
aviation sport, many skydivers have little to no knowledge about airplanes or
flying them. Others look at flying with an interest but shy away from pursuing
it, due to cost restrictions. Even others look at pilots with the same disdain
they often show towards us. USPA needs to establish strong working
relationships with other aviation organizations such as the AOPA, and the EAA.
Doing so will help strengthen our lobbying influence with the government, will
help educate the rest of the aviation world about us, and us about the rest of
the aviation world. We could work towards offering our membership an affordable
means of getting involved and participating in other aviation, and non-aviation
related activities. If USPA can contract with a car rental company for
discounts, surely we can contract with aviation schools, snow skiing, snow
boarding, rock and mountain climbing, scuba diving, and an unending number of
activities skydivers might engage in or find intriguing. All are areas of
opportunity to make USPA an organization people want to join. Further expansion
along these lines could include "cross promoting" with these other activities
would help bring new enthusiasts into our sport, as well as offering affordable
opportunities for skydivers to expand their own.
USPA needs to more effectively communicate with the membership, and expand its
means of providing information. Use Parachutist more as an information source,
rather than a constant source of "feel good fluff". The USPA web site can be
set up similar to other organizations with a "membership only" section that
includes "all" membership. This section can provide contact information for
those wishing to provide it, a bulletin board for the latest news, a discussion
area similar to rec.skydiving, an area for the BOD to be accessible and
publicly converse with the members, etc.
Work at putting some substance back into the licenses. In their present form,
they are outdated and for the most part, meaningless. I believe a combination
of getting instructors to actually teach all that is supposed to be taught to
students, and increasing requirements for the license qualifications is needed
to put meaning back into them.
Many of today's members are apathetic about getting involved or drawing
attention to safety & training concerns. Much of this apathy is due to the fact
that many of them don't trust that anything will be done about it, and they
will be marked as a troublemaker. Looking at S&TA's, one has to wonder who they
really represent. Do they represent USPA, or are they loyal the drop zone owner
or operator? When the S&TA is the drop zone operator or a staff member, it
becomes clear where the real loyalty lies. Make the S&TA title mean something.
Drop zone operators and dz employees have made the S&TA title worthless in the
eyes of the general members. S&TA's should be people independent of the
operation that membership can approach with their concerns confident they will
be heard. In this day, it is not so much the individual skydivers we need to
keep an eye on, as it is the operators and their staff. In too many instances,
when an individual violates BSR's or acts in an unsafe manner, it can be traced
directly back to the training they received, or more to the point, lack of
training they should have received. Getting members to once again trust that
USPA is working in the best interest of skydivers has to start at the grass
roots level. The grass roots level starts with the S&TA. Most often, they are
the people in direct contact with the membership. If the membership does not
trust that their S&TA will do the right thing, then they will never trust USPA
to do the right thing.
Promotion of the sport with a skydiving museum is a great idea, but we do not
need our own museum. There are hundreds if not thousands of aviation museums
throughout the country, and one of the best and largest is in Washington DC.
Skydiving is a fringe aviation activity and always will be. Unlike aviation
museums, the general public is never going to consider a skydiving museum as a
main attraction or an interesting destination worth a day's trip. Rather than
wasting membership money on grand plans of building our very own museum, USPA
could gain far greater exposure for the money spent, if we were to sponsor a
skydiving display in any number of current successful aviation museums
throughout the country. Surely there is at least one museum that would gladly
add skydiving to its list of displays.
There is much USPA could be doing for it's membership and strengthening the
sport, that isn't being done. These are just a few simple ideas that could help
USPA become an organization that people want to belong to, and better
legitimize us in the public eye. Surely if one person can come up with these
few simple ideas, there must be more and better ways for USPA to maintain
itself. The current excuses our leadership gives in response to memberships
questions, and current practices are tired and unproductive.
In conclusion, USPA needs to become an organization people want to belong to.
In it's current state, it is not, and the primary reasons are the inherent
conflicts of having a participant organization under the same banner as a trade
organization. This is further perpetuated by USPA being an organization with
little to nothing to offer its members, yet attempts to insure it's own
survival through forced membership. It is becoming apparent that USPA's current
practices are beginning to come back and haunt us. USPA has to choose between
being a trade organization, or an organization for people wanting to
participate in the sport. This current situation of attempting to carry both
under the same banner is turning ugly, and will only get uglier unless one
group or the other is cut loose. Continuing to believe that both entities can
best be served by the same organization could very well doom the existence of
USPA. If that happens, we will have failed the good people like Joe Crane who
spent their lives promoting the sport and helping those wanting to participate
in it.
Michael S. O'Mara
USPA # 75387
Feb. 26, 2002
Geronimo
>
> OK. Time and time again, I see a small number of vocal folks that protest the
> group membership program and want to do away with it. I'm reading the
> documentation on the program and right now,
Where did you get this documentation?
HQ?
I asked for it about a year or so ago & was told that I couldn't have
it.
How did you get it?
--
Geronimo
mailto:Gero...@ParachuteHistory.com
http://www.ParachuteHistory.com
LORD OF THE SKY
Mr. MOM <mom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020814213133...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> member? Mike Turoff will be your representative and listen to what the
> membership wants........but.........only if you don't hurt his feelings.
>
> Well guess what Mike. In the paper I presented to the BOD last Feb., I
included
> some constructive recomendations. But you wouldn't know that because I
hurt
> your feelings and you refused to read them.
>
Mr .Mc'MOM ,
Your personal attacks against a BOD candidate are offensive to me!
Your vicious attack against Mike "the shoeshine boy" Turoff says nothing
about his qualifications but reveals volumes about your own character Sir!
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.-- Thomas Paine
O Cuinn Mac an Ghabbann
The GM program was developed to protect DZ airport rights and build the sport
up thru the DZ's and the jumper membership lost benefits while substidizing the
GM program IMHO some shrude buisnessmen took great advantage of it to build
their empires and are now in control. The BOD
lacked foresight and apparently kint think in two directions at once.
Ummmfh....Gonna huv to cut the GM power & benifits and thus start representing
the great unwashed mass of jumpers again. This will not come about without a
blood letting and a buncha howling I thinking. ;)P
~All living holds suffering
Misery stops when greed stops~
Mr. MOM
>> member? Mike Turoff will be your representative and listen to what the
>> membership wants........but.........only if you don't hurt his feelings.
>>
>> Well guess what Mike. In the paper I presented to the BOD last Feb., I
>included
>> some constructive recomendations. But you wouldn't know that because I
>hurt
>> your feelings and you refused to read them.
> Mr .Mc'MOM ,
> Your personal attacks against a BOD candidate are offensive to me!
> Your vicious attack against Mike "the shoeshine boy" Turoff says nothing
>about his qualifications but reveals volumes about your own character Sir!
>
> He who dares not offend cannot be honest.-- Thomas Paine
>
> "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
Yes...I openly admit to my offensiveness, and I thank you Treetop, for that
compliment. My wife accuses me of being "brutally honest", and I find myself
getting all warm and fuzzy every time she does. (that might explain why there's
another little O'Mara on the way)
So the question becomes....In the world of the Lord....would my title be "Sir
McMike the Offender", or "Sir Mike the Brutal"?
MikeTJumps
offensive behavior towards myself and others, I will accept your challenge and
read your stuff and respond to the material either publicly or privately, your
choice.
Now let's see you rise above your hostile attitude and open your mind.
I am removing the mail block for your ID at this time.
Blue, Clear, and Calm Skies along with safe dives from
Mike Turoff, Instructor Examiner
Winsor Naugler III
news:20020815091449...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> While I normally will not respond to you because of your excruciatingly
> offensive behavior towards myself and others, I will accept your challenge
and
> read your stuff and respond to the material either publicly or privately,
your
> choice.
>
> Now let's see you rise above your hostile attitude and open your mind.
>
> I am removing the mail block for your ID at this time.
>
>
I assume it's someone in my kill file as well. If so, they're staying
there - witless abuse I can get anywhere (if it's who I think it is).
Blue skies,
Winsor
Jldorman5486
preserve them." Proverbs 14.3
Mr. MOM
only. Mike T's post came to me in e-mail first, and I was unaware he also
posted to the NG. Since I respect the privacy of e-mail protocol, I was going
to keep this exchange private. Now.....that I see Mike T has opened the door to
the public forum, I'm happy to share my reply with all. Unlike others.........I
have nothing to hide.
****************************************************************
> While I normally will not respond to you because of your excruciatingly
> offensive behavior towards myself and others, I will accept your challenge
> and
> read your stuff and respond to the material either publicly or privately,
> your
> choice.
As far as responding to my paper....do what you wish. I really don't give a
shit what you do.
As far as my excruciatingly offensive behavior towards you and
others.........it is nothing more than a reflection of your own. If you do not
like how you and others get treated, then you should take a good look at how
you are treating others.
It's a tit for tat thing with me. The reason I am offensive towards you, is
because I find your actions, words, and attitudes to be equally offensive.
Example.......your pathetic e-mail to me that started this whole thing was way
out of line and grossly offensive. You are NOT a person who has the privilage
to attempt imposing an authoritative fatherly figure upon myself, and you are
way out of line to think you do. Your continued attempts on the NG to try and
impose some kind of moderating authority over exchanges between others, is also
equally offensive. Additionally, your continuous and self centered "it's all
about me" attitude, prevalent in the majority of your posts, is nothing less
than nauseating.
The bottom line Mike....is when you treat others with the respect they
deserve.......then I will treat you with the same respect. But.........when you
come off with arrogance, egotism, and condescension......I will gladly
recriprocate with offensiveness and insults. Granted......I may use language
that makes my offensiveness easier to recognize, but in my world, I do not
differentiate polite insults and offensiveness, from blatant insults and
offensiveness. In other words......you offend and insult your way, and I do it
my way. They are both equally insulting and offensive in my eyes.
> Now let's see you rise above your hostile attitude and open your mind.
And again Mike......I throw the gauntlet squarely back in your face. Stop being
a thin skinned pussy and take your just licks like a man. YOU have chosen to
run for an elected seat on the BOD. It's a political position.....plain and
simple. Politics....in any arena.....has a tendancy to become nasty, ugly
warfare, and that is what it is becoming within USPA, and the activity of
skydiving. Whether you like it or not, or believe it shouldn't be this
way.....makes no difference, because it has become what it has become. The
reason it has started down this path, and continues to build momentum, is
because there are those of us that are increasingly pissed off at what we see
going on within USPA, the sport, and country, and the leadership continually
turns a deaf ear upon those of us putting our foot down. It is only going to
get worse, unless the powers that be wake up and start paying attention.
Therefore.......you Mike.....since YOU want to get elected to a position of
power, are NOT immune nor undeserving of anyones scrutiny.........no matter how
severe that scrutiny may be. It's politics Mike, and if you take it personal
and allow your pathetic little feelings to get hurt.........then in my eyes,
you do not possess the intestinal fortitude to be seated at a position of
power. Due to our residing in different regions, I may not have the power to
vote against you.....but that does not mean I don't have the ability to try and
influence others to not vote for you, and I WILL use every arena of influence I
can muster. It's politics Mike.......and if you don't like how the game is
being played......then get the hell out of the sandbox.
Now..........rise above your pathetic egotistical little self, and start seeing
things for what they really are.
> I am removing the mail block for your ID at this time.
And there it is again Mike........another offensive insult from you. Am I
supposed to feel grateful that you are removing me from your bad people file?
Here's my reciprocal offensive insult.................FUCK OFF !!
RIPOLLAK
>shall
>preserve them." Proverbs 14.3
Sounds like our last president talking about? I forget what he called it but it
wasn't sex!
"Most Excellent Entertainment"
R.I.P.
tbos...@onyx.boisestate.edu
MikeTJumps <miket...@aol.com> wrote:
> While I normally will not respond to you because of your excruciatingly
> offensive behavior towards myself and others, I will accept your challenge and
> read your stuff and respond to the material either publicly or privately, your
> choice.
> Now let's see you rise above your hostile attitude and open your mind.
> I am removing the mail block for your ID at this time.
Probably not worth your time, but I'd still be interrested
in hearing your response to his articles.
--
Shane
MikeTJumps
away from answering e-mail from proven aggressors who constantly misquote and
mistate things which are personal opinions as "fact" through their own eyes.
I've read Mike's two postings and see some minor valid issues in them, but
there is so much hogwash and garbage that I will support a move to remove him
from the USPA roster if he is not already a non-member for actions detrimental
to the USPA and the sport as a whole.
I put the mail block back on and as such, have determined that Mike O'Mera in
his infantile ways is unworthy of my attention because his e-mail is so full of
animosity to anyone "in the know who knows facts, not fiction" who doesn't lick
his ass, that it is almost (but not entirely) worthless as is.
Robert Lawton
Would abolishing the Group Member program provide students with better
service or switch manifest priorities from the student to the team or
fun jumper? I doubt it.
There will always be a natural tension between a skydiver's desire for
cheap jumps (or cheap training), and good service. Sure, I would have
loved to have a JM spend an hour with me prior to my next student jump
on a busy, sunny day. But I was already staggering under the expenses
my unexpected addiction threw my way. Heck, I made static line jumps
rather than tandem jumps because they were cheaper and I got more
jumps for my money. I also learned to approach the JMs during down
time instead, and got my training in full measure.
DZOs are simply trying to work out the balance – how much to charge
tandems, students, fun jumpers, and teams – how much service to
provide – what loading priority to use. If we the jumpers were left
to make these decisions on the condition that the DZO does not go
broke, could we do any better? Would we charge an AFF student $200
per jump so they can get video and "full service" before, during and
after a jump? How much student business would we get at those rates?
Would we still be able to pay the bills? What if a four way team of
well respected, appreciated, long-time jumpers wanted to bump two
students (and JMs) from a load – should we?
We should be honest about what we want: full service and lots of
safety for free. We should also be honest about how soon we expect
this to happen (insert name of someone else's baseball team, the World
Series, and hell freezing over here).
DZOs got bills to pay. I don't know of any DZOs who got rich solely
from running a dropzone. Maybe they exist, but methinks the "greed"
argument is a red herring. I really think DZOs simply try to keep
above the red ink and maybe sock enough away to pay the bills in the
event of a month's worth of unexpectedly bad weather. I also think
some DZOs are willing to make some safety compromises along the way.
Cost cutting safety compromises can become habit forming when the DZO
gets away without accident or prosecution.
OK, so what about the Group Member program? Well, it's "natural" in
business and government for those regulated to attempt to "capture"
the regulators. If you control the regulators, then you get to
control the regulations and how you do business. In this, the DZO's,
through the Group Member program, have succeeded. How did they manage
this? Simple, we (the skydivers) elected a BOD (at the time) that
largely consisted of former skydivers who had long since lost interest
in actually jumping. We honored these heroes by electing them to
power rather than simply minting a few "life-time" medals and toasting
them at banquets. It's a common mistake.
At the time the USPA adopted the Group Member program, many BOD
members were years or even decades out of date and out of touch with
our day to day fun jumping concerns. These veterans were looking for
new horizons – and those horizons included helping us manage ourselves
(because, in the old-timer's view, we weren't competent to do it for
ourselves). OK, yeah, that sounds vindictive but I really don't mean
it that way. But that's really how it looks. How else could you
explain, for example, a BOD that chooses meeting locations next to
premium golf courses rather than premium dropzones? Or why the BOD
would vote to spend any of our money on a skydiving museum!
Personally, I want my membership money to go into the sport – not into
aggrandizing someone else's past glory. Sure, it would be nice to see
the USPA endorse a fundraising drive, etc, but leave museums to POPS
or SOS or some organization that caters to retired skydivers.
Yes, a little bit of that changed after the last election. We've got
a few more current skydivers on the board – but not nearly enough to
make a big difference – a lot of the old-timers responsible for the
Group Member program are still on the BOD.
OK, so if there's this natural tension, what harm is the Group Member
program? Answer: significant!
Yes, there's a natural tension between cost and service. But there
should be no debate when it comes to safety. We need an organization
with some teeth – an organization that can go head to head with a DZO
and insist they follow the FARs and the BSRs or else face public
exposure. An organization already captured by the DZOs will not do
this. Skydivers need to be able to speak with one voice regarding
safety issues. We don't need to hear from within our ranks the chorus
of voices that sing "but that's bad for our business." OUR business
is skydiving – and staying healthy. And the organization to voice our
concerns must be the USPA. If the USPA abdicates this responsibility,
the FAA will pick it up eventually – over too many of our dead bodies
and at too great a financial cost as well.
Mr. Mom raises some other interesting points such as mentors and
banning. However, I'd rather stick to the safety and oversight issues
above as the most significant. If a DZO wants to dictate who operates
a retail concession on his/her property, that's fine. If a DZO
forbids me to fun jump with a low-timer, I'll find somewhere else to
jump. Frankly, I've never heard of such a thing.
If a DZO wants the right to throw someone off the DZO – I'll accept
that for this reason: it could be safety related. Yeah, a lot of
times it's personal. But I'll accept that loss (just as the DZO
accepts the risk to his/her business if I decide to move along with
the banned jumper in solidarity), so long as the DZO can retain the
right to ban jumpers he/she feels are a threat to the rest of us. Out
of control hook turners who bash into cars, picnic tables, or
spectators come to mind. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make. Let
the DZO ban who he or she wants. With luck, he or she will get rid of
the crazies before they get me.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mom does not propose a solution. Maybe he will in
Part 2. Here's my stab at it:
1) Abolish Group Membership.
2) Allow each USPA Member to directly manage over the web what
personal information he/she wishes to share with the general public
and (separately) with other USPA Members. For example, the general
public does not need to know I'm a USPA member. However, I may want
USPA Members to know my name, e-mail address, and drivers license
number (so I don't have to carry my USPA card). Other members may opt
to include additional contact information or even hype themselves to
the general public.
3) Establish a "USPA Choice Grade A" program. DZOs can pay to have a
USPA inspector come out and inspect. The DZ either passes or fails.
If it passes, it can display the "USPA Choice Grade A" logo on its
advertising which MUST be accompanied by the inspection date. This
inspection remains valid for at most four years.
The USPA can terminate the designation after an open hearing following
documented (preferably on video) FAR/BSR violations submitted by the
membership. The committee will also have the authority to permanently
ban certain DZOs from ever obtaining a Grade A designation based on a
history of consistent FAR/BSR violations. This program must be 100%
self-funding. That is, the inspection fee must not only cover the
cost of inspection but of administration as well. Maybe no DZO will
want such a designation. Big deal (see #7 below).
The USPA will list all "USPA Choice Grade A" dropzones for public
access on its website. The USPA will only list other dropzones on its
website when it directly pertains to an official USPA event or
training course.
4) Allow USPA certification courses, competitions, etc. to be held
wherever the membership darn well wants them to be held. Each event
must meet only two requirements. It must be self-funded, and it must
be deemed safe by the instructor/chief judge. To achieve this, an
individual must "guarantee" or "sponsor" each event. That is, the
USPA must be protected from losing money on the deal for any reason
other than non-performance. The instructor/chief judge must also have
the right to suspend or terminate a course or event for safety
concerns. Having a USPA Choice Grade A designation does not provide
the DZ any special benefits regarding priority or the
instructor's/chief judge's safety concerns.
5) Regional and national director/board candidates must have a
minimum of one hundred fun jumps per year for each of the two prior
jumping years. Waive one year of this requirement for any candidate
grounded due to extenuating circumstances (injury, illness, etc.).
Tandem jumps, instructor jumps, coach jumps, "free" or paid organizer
jumps – or any jumps for compensation do not qualify as "fun" jumps.
Ya wanna manage the USPA, you gotta be one of us, and most of us pay
for our jumps. Note: 70 fun jumps in year 1 and 50 fun jumps in year
2 along with a one year waiver request would NOT meet this
requirement.
6) The USPA is to stay the heck out of the DZO's business. If the
DZO wants a tandem mill, fine. If the DZO wants to exclude USPA
Members, fine. If the DZO wants to institute his or her own training
program, fine. The USPA only gets involved with DZO's if they wish to
be inspected and carry the USPA Choice Grade A and inspection date
designation.
It sounds like this gives the DZO a lot of power, but actually it's
even more restrictive than current policy as I understand it.
7) Maintain a list of USPA member-reported (and documented) FAR/BSR
safety complaints per DZ for the prior twelve months for all DZs.
Documented reports must come from a USPA Member. USPA Members may
report ANY DZ anywhere in the world. Note that non-US DZs are not
subject to the FARs. Members should report them in context only with
local regulations and the USPA's BSRs.
The USPA will maintain this up to date list on its website for
member-only access. The USPA will only consider action against DZs
that maintain current USPA Choice Grade A status. That action will be
limited to revoking the designation and possibly banning the DZO from
future consideration. While no DZ has to follow the BSRs (with the
possible exception of those in Nevada), but knowledge is power, and
USPA Members deserve reliable information. Therefore, the USPA must
make every effort to confirm each report (preferably with video
evidence or multiple witnesses) and ensure that the incident is a
clear FAR/BSR violation. This list must not be a platform for whiney
sheep. Other venues exist for that sort of exchange.
8) You don't have to be a USPA member to jump at a USPA Group Member
dropzone – because there aren't any USPA Group Member dropzones. DZOs
may require USPA membership, licenses, ratings, etc. (see #6 above),
but that's their business.
In conclusion one might ask, "if Group Members don't force skydivers
to join the USPA, why would anyone join?" Here's a list:
"Parachutist" is a pretty cool magazine. Some DZOs might require USPA
licenses or membership just to meet their own personal standards.
USPA courses and events would, or course, require membership. USPA
Members would also have access to the members-only section of the USPA
website. This section would include member information (as allowed by
each member) as well as current information regarding reported FAR/BSR
violations for various dropzones. And, of course, the USPA would be
OUR platform for developing and promoting various safety and training
programs. Lastly, I think such a change would force the USPA to focus
on providing value to the vast majority of skydiving enthusiasts
without disproportionately representing the DZOs.
JAKAL
Dave Miller
Mr. MOM wrote:
> (that might explain why there's another little O'Mara on the way)
>
> So the question becomes....In the world of the Lord....would my title be
"Sir
> McMike the Offender", or "Sir Mike the Brutal"?
How about Sir Mike the Horny?.... Congratulations Mike.
Dave Miller
jsk
Robert Lawton wrote:
>
> Hmm.
>
snip
You a candidate, JAKAL?
Jldorman5486
his lips, and is a fool. Proverbs 19.1
Tom Birdwell
MikeTJumps wrote in message <20020815131209...@mb-mt.aol.com>...
>I've read Mike's two postings and see some minor valid issues in them, but
>there is so much hogwash and garbage that I will support a move to remove
him
>from the USPA roster if he is not already a non-member for actions
detrimental
>to the USPA and the sport as a whole.
You know MikeT, that last statement says a lot. Lets get this straight. We
have a system that in effect makes it damn difficult to skydive in many
places unless you are a USPA member. In effect he is forced to join. Now you
want to throw him out of the organization. Effectively that says you want
him out of skydiving. First you force him to join, then you want to throw
him out because he complains of being forced to join?
Hell, that makes so damn much sense I don't know what else to say.
>I put the mail block back on and as such, have determined that Mike O'Mera
in
>his infantile ways is unworthy of my attention because his e-mail is so
full of
>animosity to anyone "in the know who knows facts, not fiction" who doesn't
lick
>his ass, that it is almost (but not entirely) worthless as is.
He is unworthy of your attention, yet you will support heaving him out of an
organization that forces him to join.
Tom B
Tom Buchanan
>supposed to feel grateful that you are removing me from your bad people file?
>Here's my reciprocal offensive insult.................FUCK OFF !!
Mike:
I don't know why you bother with this guy. And sometimes, I don't know why
anybody even considers an elected position at USPA when you will need to deal
with idiots like this.
Thanks for being a part of the solution and dealing with politics, in spite of
the major jerks.
Your efforts are appreciated.
-Tom Buchanan
Jldorman5486
"This (MOM's posting) is a perfect example of why the BOD members and others
shy
away from answering e-mail from proven aggressors who constantly misquote and
mistate things which are personal opinions as "fact" through their own eyes.
I've read Mike's two postings and see some minor valid issues in them, but
there is so much hogwash and garbage that I will support a move to remove him
from the USPA roster if he is not already a non-member for actions detrimental
to the USPA and the sport as a whole.
I put the mail block back on and as such, have determined that Mike O'Mera in
his infantile ways is unworthy of my attention because his e-mail is so full of
animosity to anyone "in the know who knows facts, not fiction" who doesn't lick
his ass, that it is almost (but not entirely) worthless as is." stated by Mike
Turoff
Rev Jim
"Jldorman5486" <jldorm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020815143422...@mb-mw.aol.com...
> Better is the poor that walketh in his integrity, than he that is perverse
in
> his lips, and is a fool. Proverbs 19.1
Say hi to Ron.
God, killfiles are nice on occasion.
Rev
RIPOLLAK
>I concur whole heartedly with both Mike Turoff and Tom Buchanan!
>
Three birds of a feather that stick togrether
I hope you guy's and gals pool your resources and run a hell of a USPA BOD
election campaign together. Who knows maybe you can all sit together at the
meetings if you get elected. Can we have a group photo?
R.I.P. 101
"Most Excellent Entertainment" and the price is right. Thank you Lord
LORD OF THE SKY
Tom Buchanan <tom...@aol.comJunkfree> wrote in message
news:20020815180806...@mb-fa.aol.com...
Isn't that sweet!
Maybe you guys should get a room or at least take it to Dropzone .com, the
home of the shiny , happy people.
Oh! speaking of.. Did anyone hear about what went on at the DZ.com tent
during WFFC?
Make that the *shiny, woman slapping* people!
Bill Flynn
less work load means you need less ppl at HQ. That means we could stay at
the current HQ. Then with all the savings we could drop membership fees.
Bill Flynn
"Larryskydives" <larrys...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020813060138...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> So we disolve the GM Program. We are already short handed at HQ according
to
> Chris.
>
> We will still have the two persons on the payroll who will be at work for
40
> hours a week.
>
> We will have a loss of revenue of $60,000.00+.
>
> Possible loss of membership (no one really knows what would happen)
>
> What do we do to make up for that loss of revenue?
>
> I don't want my dues to raised any higher.
>
> Larry
Mr. MOM
<lord...@ellijay.com> writes:
> Isn't that sweet!
> Maybe you guys should get a room or at least take it to Dropzone .com, the
>home of the shiny , happy people.
> Oh! speaking of.. Did anyone hear about what went on at the DZ.com tent
>during WFFC?
>
> Make that the *shiny, woman slapping* people!
OH PLEASE......do tell. Or..........is this something else that everyone should
shut up about, until the FAA and NTSB has come out with their final report?
Mr. MOM
(Jldorman5486) writes:
>"In the mouth of the foolish is a rod of pride: but the lips of the wise
>shall
>preserve them."
Um.....if I remember correctly......didn't Monica let a little dribble onto her
dress?
Mr. MOM
(RIPOLLAK) writes:
>> jldorm...@aol.com >
R.I.P. ............not only can they all sit together, but they can all hold
hands, and have groups hugs to pass around happy vibes.
Bill Flynn
Bill Flynn
"W Faulkner" <faul...@eco.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:ajbavi$srd$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> In article <ajbamp$sli$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> >>I know, I know. I was talking about the financial aspect. Wendy does
not
> >>want her money supporting GM's. So I asked what will cost her
more-haveing
>
> And as far as that goes, my biggest objection is to supporting drop zones
> which don't even allow me to jump there. I don't mind voting with my
wallet
> and not jumping at dzs which I think are unsafe or I don't like or
whatever,
> but I'm being forced to support indirectly a drop zone which won't even
let
> 99% of us jump there. The costs of the GM program are greater than its
> income. Therefore my money is being spent on people like Michael Hawkes.
And
> that leaves a great distaste in my mouth. Because I don't want him to get
a
> dime of my money.
>
> W
>
>
> --
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Wendy Faulkner Don't knock on Death's door.
> faul...@eco.utexas.edu Ring the bell and run away.
> http://www.eco.utexas.edu/~faulkner He hates that.
LORD OF THE SKY
Mr. MOM <mom...@aol.com> wrote in message
Uhmm, Mr Mc' Mike a.ka. LORD OF THE BRUTAL TRUTH,
"Most Excellent Entertainment " is a trademark and always capitalized.
LORD OF THE SKY
> In article <ajhbg...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "LORD OF THE SKY"
> <lord...@ellijay.com> writes:
>
> > Isn't that sweet!
> > Maybe you guys should get a room or at least take it to Dropzone .com,
the
> >home of the shiny , happy people.
> > Oh! speaking of.. Did anyone hear about what went on at the DZ.com
tent
> >during WFFC?
> >
> > Make that the *shiny, woman slapping* people!
>
> OH PLEASE......do tell. Or..........is this something else that everyone
should
> shut up about, until the FAA and NTSB has come out with their final
report?
>
Mr.Mc'Mike, before I report this story I'm going to have to check and make
sure that by reporting my USPA membership won't be jeopardized.
Remember Mr. Mc'Mike that Mike " shoe shine boy" Turoff is monitoring
this News Group and taking notes as to who should be ousted from the UPS
Membership roles for nonconformity and outspokenness!
I'm scared... You?
LOFL!
The opposite of courage is not cowardice but conformity. -author
unknown
Jldorman5486
kindle strifes."
Proverbs 26:21
Jldorman5486
Daniel 11:32
Dave Miller
Jldorman5486 said:
> "As coals are to burning coal, and wood to fire: so is a contentious man
to
> kindle strifes."
Are you smoking crack?
Dave Miller
Mr. MOM
>
> "Most Excellent Entertainment " is a trademark and always capitalized.
My humble apologies for inadvertently displaying offensive disrespect towards
you and your property.
USPA SUCKS
Mr. MOM
a.ka. Mr Mc' Mike a.ka. LORD OF THE BRUTAL TRUTH
Enjoying the "Most Excellent Entertainment"
Mr. MOM
>tent
>> >during WFFC?
>> >
>> > Make that the *shiny, woman slapping* people!
>>
>> OH PLEASE......do tell. Or..........is this something else that everyone
>should
>> shut up about, until the FAA and NTSB has come out with their final
>report?
> Mr.Mc'Mike, before I report this story I'm going to have to check and make
>sure that by reporting my USPA membership won't be jeopardized.
> Remember Mr. Mc'Mike that Mike " shoe shine boy" Turoff is monitoring
>this News Group and taking notes as to who should be ousted from the UPS
>Membership roles for nonconformity and outspokenness!
> I'm scared... You?
TERRIFIED !!
> LOFL!
More like a big, hearty, ceasless guffaw.
Jldorman5486
without finding fault."
James 1:5
Jldorman5486
find it."
Matthew 7:14
Dusty
presented a well thought out list of "solutions" other than just "Ban the GM
program and everything will be alright" This post hopefully will serve as a
starting point of a positive debate focused on solving problems rather than
proposing panaceas.
--
Dusty
Delta Airlines Sucks !!!!
"Robert Lawton" <rkla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b6060c1.02081...@posting.google.com...
> Hmm.
>
> Would abolishing the Group Member program provide students with better
> service or switch manifest priorities from the student to the team or
> fun jumper? I doubt it.
>
> There will always be a natural tension between a skydiver's desire for
> cheap jumps (or cheap training), and good service. Sure, I would have
> loved to have a JM spend an hour with me prior to my next student jump
> on a busy, sunny day. But I was already staggering under the expenses
> my unexpected addiction threw my way. Heck, I made static line jumps
> rather than tandem jumps because they were cheaper and I got more
> jumps for my money. I also learned to approach the JMs during down
> time instead, and got my training in full measure.
>
> DZOs are simply trying to work out the balance - how much to charge
> tandems, students, fun jumpers, and teams - how much service to
> provide - what loading priority to use. If we the jumpers were left
> to make these decisions on the condition that the DZO does not go
> broke, could we do any better? Would we charge an AFF student $200
> per jump so they can get video and "full service" before, during and
> after a jump? How much student business would we get at those rates?
> Would we still be able to pay the bills? What if a four way team of
> well respected, appreciated, long-time jumpers wanted to bump two
> students (and JMs) from a load - should we?
> new horizons - and those horizons included helping us manage ourselves
> (because, in the old-timer's view, we weren't competent to do it for
> ourselves). OK, yeah, that sounds vindictive but I really don't mean
> it that way. But that's really how it looks. How else could you
> explain, for example, a BOD that chooses meeting locations next to
> premium golf courses rather than premium dropzones? Or why the BOD
> would vote to spend any of our money on a skydiving museum!
> Personally, I want my membership money to go into the sport - not into
> aggrandizing someone else's past glory. Sure, it would be nice to see
> the USPA endorse a fundraising drive, etc, but leave museums to POPS
> or SOS or some organization that caters to retired skydivers.
>
> Yes, a little bit of that changed after the last election. We've got
> a few more current skydivers on the board - but not nearly enough to
> make a big difference - a lot of the old-timers responsible for the
> Group Member program are still on the BOD.
>
> OK, so if there's this natural tension, what harm is the Group Member
> program? Answer: significant!
>
> Yes, there's a natural tension between cost and service. But there
> should be no debate when it comes to safety. We need an organization
> with some teeth - an organization that can go head to head with a DZO
> and insist they follow the FARs and the BSRs or else face public
> exposure. An organization already captured by the DZOs will not do
> this. Skydivers need to be able to speak with one voice regarding
> safety issues. We don't need to hear from within our ranks the chorus
> of voices that sing "but that's bad for our business." OUR business
> is skydiving - and staying healthy. And the organization to voice our
> concerns must be the USPA. If the USPA abdicates this responsibility,
> the FAA will pick it up eventually - over too many of our dead bodies
> and at too great a financial cost as well.
>
> Mr. Mom raises some other interesting points such as mentors and
> banning. However, I'd rather stick to the safety and oversight issues
> above as the most significant. If a DZO wants to dictate who operates
> a retail concession on his/her property, that's fine. If a DZO
> forbids me to fun jump with a low-timer, I'll find somewhere else to
> jump. Frankly, I've never heard of such a thing.
>
> If a DZO wants the right to throw someone off the DZO - I'll accept
> jumps - or any jumps for compensation do not qualify as "fun" jumps.
> dropzone - because there aren't any USPA Group Member dropzones. DZOs
> may require USPA membership, licenses, ratings, etc. (see #6 above),
> but that's their business.
>
> In conclusion one might ask, "if Group Members don't force skydivers
> to join the USPA, why would anyone join?" Here's a list:
> "Parachutist" is a pretty cool magazine. Some DZOs might require USPA
> licenses or membership just to meet their own personal standards.
> USPA courses and events would, or course, require membership. USPA
> Members would also have access to the members-only section of the USPA
> website. This section would include member information (as allowed by
> each member) as well as current information regarding reported FAR/BSR
> violations for various dropzones. And, of course, the USPA would be
> OUR platform for developing and promoting various safety and training
> programs. Lastly, I think such a change would force the USPA to focus
> on providing value to the vast majority of skydiving enthusiasts
> without disproportionately representing the DZOs.
>
> JAKAL
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
RIPOLLAK
>"....But the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."
> Daniel 11:32
I'm getting a little bit concerned. Can this person be using a program to pick
this crap off a computer and generate this crap on a random basis.
R.I.P.
Robert Lawton
standards. I've been busy at home helping out with the new kid. I'll
get back up in the air again in the Spring.
JAKAL
jsk <kal...@iit.edu> wrote in message news:<3D5BEE4A...@iit.edu>...
Mr. MOM
the paper I submitted to the BOD.....may not be aware it's been posted.
So..........for those of you using web based news readers.........I am
re-posting it under it's proper title
**********************************************
>Like I said boys and girls.........it's a long one.
>
>***********************************************************
>
>Questions of legality
>
>I am not a lawyer, and have minimal knowledge about laws that may apply to
>our
>association. However, I am aware that in the State of NY, laws and court
>rulings that have set precedent's concerning clubs and associations do exist.
>The questions of legality that follow, may seem rhetorical or shallow, but
>common sense leads me to believe they have enough merit worth looking into.
>Before someone else does, it may serve all members best, if USPA were to find
>the answers and rectify any current legal wrongs.
>
>USPA is a "voluntary membership" association that has group members sign a
>pledge to "require" membership. What are the legalities of a "voluntary"
>association thru a business, "requiring" individuals to join in order to
>participate in the activity? Could this be considered extortion in the eyes
>of
>the courts?
>
>Money from forced membership is used to aid, support, and promote businesses,
>even though individual members may not wish to support those same businesses.
>Could this be considered an act of coercion?
>
>Group members often prohibit general members from participating in the
>activity
>for reasons other than safety. In other words, it is members denying member's
>access to the memberships activity. More so, members that have forced
>membership on those, they have prohibited from participation. Is this not
>considered a form of unjust discrimination?
>
>Many drop zones are located on federally funded airports. If a federally
>funded
>airport denies anyone access to aviation activities, they are subject to
>losing
>those funds. What are the potential repercussions when a dz on a federally
>funded airport, denies an individual access to our aviation activity? Do they
>not have a responsibility to provide the same rights to others that they
>themselves have legal rights to?
>
>Businesses have access thru USPA, to information about customers. They have
>this access even if the customer does not want them to have it. Isn't this a
>violation of privacy rights?
>
>Drop zones forcing USPA membership to guarantee liability coverage. Many
>people
>already have liability coverage through homeowners/renters insurance
>policies,
>and don't need the coverage provided by USPA. Requiring people to buy
>coverage
>they don't need could be viewed as a shake down.
>
>
>Recommendation
>
>Terminate the general membership program, and the sooner the better. USPA
>needs
>to move back towards the roots, it seems to have forgotten. In 1971, USPA
>posthumously awarded Joe Crane the first "USPA Achievement Award", for
>founding
>and presiding over the NPJR and PCA. In1932, Joe Crane founded the National
>Parachute Jumpers Association with the primary purpose of organizing
>professional air show jumpers, and protecting them from being exploited by
>these "air show operators". After World War II, it was changed to the
>National
>Parachute Jumpers-Riggers, Inc., and added lobbying against restrictive
>legislation, to its original intentions of protecting jumpers from
>"exploitative operators". In 1957, it became the Parachute Club of America,
>and
>added the growing number of "fun jumpers" and "skydiving clubs" into its
>ranks.
>Throughout this organizations history, it has always been an association for
>the jumper as an activist body against "exploitative commercial operators",
>and
>"restrictive legislation". Yet, here we are in the year 2002, and the USPA
>leadership seeks commercial operators to become "special" members. Commercial
>Operators often engaged in that, which Joe Crane strived to protect jumpers
>from.
>
>Terminating the group membership program is not to say that drop zone
>operators
>cannot personally be members nor hold office. However, because it will be a
>membership only for skydivers, their businesses will not hold a greater level
>of importance within the association. This increases the probability that any
>drop zone operator wishing to hold a seat on the BOD will be an individual
>inclined to make decisions for the betterment of skydivers, rather than their
>own business. Furthermore, as originally intended, "legitimate clubs" would
>retain a membership with USPA. Legitimate clubs are those that were formed by
>a
>group of individuals who pooled their resources together, for the
>not-for-profit purpose of providing themselves and others the opportunity to
>engage in skydiving activities. These types of "not-for-profit" clubs
>inherently have the same wants and needs as individual members, and are less
>likely to discriminate against their own.
>
>I recommend that USPA set a "termination date" for a reasonable time in the
>near future. More than one BOD member has claimed, that terminating the group
>member program will probably never happen, because not enough dz operators
>are
>interested in starting their own trade organization, or nobody is taking the
>initiative to start one. These excuses further increase the cynical attitude
>many people have towards their "required" membership in USPA, and it is
>arguable that it should not be USPA's concern whether dz operators start a
>trade organization or not. Inherent conflicts between customer and commercial
>operations still exist as much now, as they did back when. Nothing will
>motivate drop zone operators who want a trade organization to band together
>and
>actually start one, faster then a termination date. As a number of BOD
>members
>have admitted, waiting for dzo's to do it on their own, will never make it
>happen.
>
>
>Proposals that would benefit and promote USPA membership
>
>In its current state, USPA is an ineffective shell of an organization, offers
>little to nothing to its membership that can't be obtained elsewhere, and is
>considered a dirty little necessity by most skydivers in the U.S. As an
>organization, USPA is going to stagnate in this current state until changes
>that benefit the membership are made. Rather than being content with forced
>membership, USPA should be concentrating on building an organization that
>people want to belong to. USPA should be working towards giving skydivers a
>reason to join, and a reason to get involved. The current excuse of, "we need
>to protect the drop zones or the sport will die" is a fallacy. Drop zones
>come
>and go all the time, and people passionate enough about the sport will always
>find a way to make skydives. The current excuse of "we need to require
>membership due to the cost of running the organization," is also a fallacy.
>What good does an organization do, when the majority of the participants
>would
>not join if they had the choice? What good is an organization who's primary
>purposes is generating enough revenue through extortion, to sustain itself?
>In
>the hopes of redirecting the energies of our current and future USPA
>leadership, I submit the following proposals. I believe offering the
>membership
>these and other services, will begin to give them reasons to want to join,
>participate, and be involved.
>
>USPA should recognize the existence of all drop zones within the U.S., and
>any
>foreign drop zones attempting to draw USPA members. Whether a drop zone
>supports the efforts of USPA or not, they are still engaged in the skydiving
>business, and it is only right that the membership be informed of all options
>concerning where we can go to engage in the activity. Furthermore, nothing
>raises standards and customer satisfaction more than open competition between
>businesses. Currently, there are a good number of non-USPA operations giving
>far greater customer satisfaction and student training than many group member
>drop zones. Rather than pretend these drop zones don't exist, USPA should be
>welcoming them as shining examples of quality and service available to it's
>members and students. Doing so raises the standards bar, and unacceptable
>operations currently hiding behind the USPA banner will be forced to sink or
>swim based on their own merits.
>
>In addition to recognizing all Drop Zones, USPA needs to give the benefit of
>the doubt to the general member/customer. Similar to AOPA's Airport
>Directory,
>USPA should have a Drop Zone directory of all drop zones, with reviews of
>said
>drop zones based mainly on membership feedback. A drop zone's reputation
>needs
>to be based on all members' submitted input, rather than just a dz's
>marketing
>savvy, and selective member endorsements. USPA members wishing to raise
>questionable safety practices, unethical business practices, inferior student
>training, poor services, favoritism, etc., need to be able to express their
>concerns without fear of repercussions. Some will argue that a business could
>get a false reputation due to vindictive people with personal agenda's. I'll
>argue that by stating, if a dz has had to deal with that many vindictive
>people, then that business is doing something to anger them in the first
>place,
>and the rest of the membership has a right to know about it. Just as people
>can
>read product reviews on almost any product available, before choosing what
>brand to purchase, USPA members and potential students, should have well
>rounded drop zone information/reviews available to them, before choosing
>where
>to spend their money. This information can only be accurate if patrons and
>industry professionals are allowed to freely express their views without
>fear,
>and be given the benefit of the doubt. The responsibility of maintaining a
>good
>reputation should lie solely on how a business treats it's customers and
>employees, and not on a national associations blanket endorsement because
>that
>business has paid a yearly due. USPA needs to provide information about
>businesses for the purpose of benefiting the membership, rather than for the
>benefit of the business.
>
>Drop zones wishing to display the USPA banner, should be required to earn
>that
>privilege, rather than just pay a yearly fee. Acceptable business practices
>and
>operational standards should be set by USPA as a gauge for a drop zone to
>earn
>USPA's endorsement. If a drop zone wants the endorsement from USPA, then
>they
>should have to go thru an inspection process and continued monitoring from
>independent parties. This inspection process should not be one that is
>scheduled, allowing a business to be on their best behavior while under the
>microscope, but rather an inspection that is unscheduled, anonymous, and
>continuous. Unedited customer feedback should play a role in this, as well as
>feedback from employees and other industry professionals. Drop zone operators
>are going to conduct business the way they want, and USPA should hold them
>accountable for their practices to better serve the membership. Setting high
>standards that drop zone operators can choose to pursue or not, will give the
>membership and potential student base a more honest assessment of desirable
>and
>undesirable operations.
>
>Just as Joe Crane's original intentions of this organization was to help
>protect professional jumpers from air show operators taking advantage of
>them,
>USPA once again needs to concentrate on helping instructors receive
>appropriate
>payment for the quality of their work. The current standard of independent
>contractors being paid for quantity, is in complete contradiction with USPA's
>efforts to set high teaching standards when training future Instructors. Most
>of the training, Instructor Candidates receive during JCC/ICC's, is not what
>is
>practiced in the real world. As I've said to numerous confused candidates,
>"you
>have to play in Yarhlings world to pass, before you can go play in the real
>world." Once a person has the rating in hand, most of the quality and high
>standards "Yahrlings world" attempts to instill into instructors, is tossed
>aside for the want of a substantial paycheck. This mindset and practice is
>perpetuated by drop zone operators playing the "profit by numbers game",
>paying
>instructors accordingly, and dictating a "my way or the highway" ultimatum on
>these independent contractors.
>
>USPA needs to work at putting more legitimacy behind Instructional ratings,
>and
>provide greater support to those instructors attempting to fulfill their jobs
>at or better than the standards set by USPA. An instructor that produces a
>small amount of highly educated and capable students, should be the one
>receiving just payment rather than the instructor who pumps out the most
>students of inferior quality through the system. Drop zone operators and
>instructors need to be recognized for the quality of their student programs
>rather than quantity. It is very apparent that bigger, faster, higher, more
>does not translate into better. Yet, that is exactly what most potential
>students are led to believe, and where most of today's instructors desire to
>work. Skydiving has lost, and continues to lose many top quality instructors
>because they will not compromise the level at which they teach, and often are
>not given the opportunity to teach due to this. Other people with the
>potential
>to be excellent instructors opt not to, for these same reasons. Rather than
>have an "oh well, sad to see them go" attitude towards these people, USPA
>needs
>to recognize them, promote them as our standard bearers, and support them in
>their efforts to bring student training up to that higher level. Appropriate
>payment for quality produced over quantity is a big motivator for people
>wanting to teach in this sport, to actually continue teaching. Actively
>supporting, promoting, and helping instructors that maintain high standards,
>should be a service offered, and is a responsibility of USPA. USPA should be
>helping the teachers that actually want to teach skydiving, and openly
>recognize the drop zones that are allowing and paying them for their
>excellence.
>
>In addition to working towards Instructors receiving just pay for quality,
>USPA
>needs to provide legal assistance or funds for it's instructors, and members.
>Sometime in the last 10 years, USPA's leadership decided to "mainstream"
>skydiving, and we've gotten just that. Someone should have taken heed to the
>old adage of "beware of what you wish for". Skydiving now has a generation of
>litigious minded jumpers, along with a larger litigious minded whuffo public
>willing to give it a try. I would wager that every dz in the country has at
>least one lawsuit they are presently dealing with, or recently settled. We
>all
>know that it's not just the operations that get sued in these cases. In some
>instances, instructors are also named as defendants in lawsuits, and very
>rarely do they have the resources needed to effectively defend themselves. In
>the past, instructors and/or employees have had the assurance that drop zone
>operators would take care of their legal representation. However, in this day
>of increased litigation within our sport, the mercenary business practices of
>drop zone operators, along with the fact that most instructors are hired as
>independent contractors with little more than a verbal agreement, brings
>light
>that it's just a matter of time before one of them is hung out to dry in a
>lawsuit. In this day and age, instructors are factoring potential lawsuits
>into
>the decisions they make, and many are concluding that the risk of being a
>teacher is not worth having their life potentially ruined by a lawsuit.
>Because
>we've "mainstreamed" skydiving, teaching it is now riskier than jumping.
>Furthermore, we are now seeing more instances of skydivers (or their
>families)
>suing fellow skydivers. In the past, our common mindset was that this is a
>dangerous sport and we chose to take our chances. The new "mainstreamed"
>mindset is people wanting to lay blame on others for when something happens
>to
>them. Sometimes this finger pointing is accurate, and you should ask
>yourselves
>why this sport has an increased amount of people, endangering the lives of
>others. On the other hand, we have innocent people being caught up in this
>litigious mindset and often times can't afford the high cost of proving they
>are not liable. USPA opened this Pandora's box, and now USPA should have
>legal
>aid in place, for those members that may very well need it in the near
>future.
>
>Liability Insurance. It is often said, the reason dz's require USPA
>membership
>is for the blanket liability coverage all members receive. Yet, most of us
>that
>have homeowners or renters insurance can obtain far better coverage than USPA
>offers, at a very competitive price. If liability insurance is the only
>reason
>ever, to justify membership in USPA, then USPA needs to find and offer
>coverage
>that equals or exceeds the coverage people can obtain on their own.
>
>At present, the only amenity a USPA member is offered is discounted rates
>from
>a national car rental company. If USPA can contract an agreement with a car
>rental company, we can surely expand on providing other amenities to the
>membership in the form of hotel/motel discounts, airline discounts, RV rental
>discounts, campground discounts, travel packages, restaurant chains, etc.
>
>Along these same lines, we should cross promote our sport with other
>activities
>skydivers have interests in. A primary example is other aviation activities.
>Skydiving is an aviation activity yet often times the "anti skydiving"
>movement
>is found amongst our fellow aviators. USPA should be striving to warm the
>relations and understanding with our fellow aviators, and provide
>opportunities
>for all to get involved with one another. At present, although we are an
>aviation sport, many skydivers have little to no knowledge about airplanes or
>flying them. Others look at flying with an interest but shy away from
>pursuing
>it, due to cost restrictions. Even others look at pilots with the same
>disdain
>they often show towards us. USPA needs to establish strong working
>relationships with other aviation organizations such as the AOPA, and the
>EAA.
>Doing so will help strengthen our lobbying influence with the government,
>will
>help educate the rest of the aviation world about us, and us about the rest
>of
>the aviation world. We could work towards offering our membership an
>affordable
>means of getting involved and participating in other aviation, and
>non-aviation
>related activities. If USPA can contract with a car rental company for
>discounts, surely we can contract with aviation schools, snow skiing, snow
>boarding, rock and mountain climbing, scuba diving, and an unending number of
>activities skydivers might engage in or find intriguing. All are areas of
>opportunity to make USPA an organization people want to join. Further
>expansion
>along these lines could include "cross promoting" with these other activities
>would help bring new enthusiasts into our sport, as well as offering
>affordable
>opportunities for skydivers to expand their own.
>
>USPA needs to more effectively communicate with the membership, and expand
>its
>means of providing information. Use Parachutist more as an information
>source,
>rather than a constant source of "feel good fluff". The USPA web site can be
>set up similar to other organizations with a "membership only" section that
>includes "all" membership. This section can provide contact information for
>those wishing to provide it, a bulletin board for the latest news, a
>discussion
>area similar to rec.skydiving, an area for the BOD to be accessible and
>publicly converse with the members, etc.
>
>Work at putting some substance back into the licenses. In their present form,
>they are outdated and for the most part, meaningless. I believe a combination
>of getting instructors to actually teach all that is supposed to be taught to
>students, and increasing requirements for the license qualifications is
>needed
>to put meaning back into them.
>
>Many of today's members are apathetic about getting involved or drawing
>attention to safety & training concerns. Much of this apathy is due to the
>fact
>that many of them don't trust that anything will be done about it, and they
>will be marked as a troublemaker. Looking at S&TA's, one has to wonder who
>they
>really represent. Do they represent USPA, or are they loyal the drop zone
>owner
>or operator? When the S&TA is the drop zone operator or a staff member, it
>becomes clear where the real loyalty lies. Make the S&TA title mean
>something.
>Drop zone operators and dz employees have made the S&TA title worthless in
>the
>eyes of the general members. S&TA's should be people independent of the
>operation that membership can approach with their concerns confident they
>will
>be heard. In this day, it is not so much the individual skydivers we need to
>keep an eye on, as it is the operators and their staff. In too many
>instances,
>when an individual violates BSR's or acts in an unsafe manner, it can be
>traced
>directly back to the training they received, or more to the point, lack of
>training they should have received. Getting members to once again trust that
>USPA is working in the best interest of skydivers has to start at the grass
>roots level. The grass roots level starts with the S&TA. Most often, they are
>the people in direct contact with the membership. If the membership does not
>trust that their S&TA will do the right thing, then they will never trust
>USPA
>to do the right thing.
>
>Promotion of the sport with a skydiving museum is a great idea, but we do not
>need our own museum. There are hundreds if not thousands of aviation museums
>throughout the country, and one of the best and largest is in Washington DC.
>Skydiving is a fringe aviation activity and always will be. Unlike aviation
>museums, the general public is never going to consider a skydiving museum as
>a
>main attraction or an interesting destination worth a day's trip. Rather than
>wasting membership money on grand plans of building our very own museum, USPA
>could gain far greater exposure for the money spent, if we were to sponsor a
>skydiving display in any number of current successful aviation museums
>throughout the country. Surely there is at least one museum that would gladly
>add skydiving to its list of displays.
>
>There is much USPA could be doing for it's membership and strengthening the
>sport, that isn't being done. These are just a few simple ideas that could
>help
>USPA become an organization that people want to belong to, and better
>legitimize us in the public eye. Surely if one person can come up with these
>few simple ideas, there must be more and better ways for USPA to maintain
>itself. The current excuses our leadership gives in response to memberships
>questions, and current practices are tired and unproductive.
>
>In conclusion, USPA needs to become an organization people want to belong to.
>In it's current state, it is not, and the primary reasons are the inherent
>conflicts of having a participant organization under the same banner as a
>trade
>organization. This is further perpetuated by USPA being an organization with
>little to nothing to offer its members, yet attempts to insure it's own
>survival through forced membership. It is becoming apparent that USPA's
>current
>practices are beginning to come back and haunt us. USPA has to choose between
>being a trade organization, or an organization for people wanting to
>participate in the sport. This current situation of attempting to carry both
>under the same banner is turning ugly, and will only get uglier unless one
>group or the other is cut loose. Continuing to believe that both entities can
>best be served by the same organization could very well doom the existence of
>USPA. If that happens, we will have failed the good people like Joe Crane who
>spent their lives promoting the sport and helping those wanting to
>participate
>in it.
>
>Michael S. O'Mara
>USPA # 75387
>
>Feb. 26, 2002
>
>USPA SUCKS...because most members don't give a damn.
USPA SUCKS
Robert Lawton
Can we do that? Can we remove a USPA member simply for being a jerk?
I thought it had to be some sort of serious BSR violation sort of
thing. No jerks, huh?
My goodness, where would we begin?
Is there a USPA committee for removing members for being a jerk? If
so, how does one nominate candidates for committee review? I can
think of some folks to nominate. Is there an active list under
consideration? I'd really like to see this list just to see who's all
on it.
If we removed all the jerks from USPA membership, then only really
cool people would be members. Wouldn't that be awesome?
Does one have to participate in rec.skydiving to be considered for
nomination, or would any form of correspondence do? What about people
who don't access the internet but are jerks in person? What sort of
documentation would The Committee require?
Hmm. Thinking right along, maybe the USPA could save a bit of
Committee time and effort if the USPA could also pre-screen
prospective members for jerkiness. After all, we wouldn't need to
throw the jerks out if we didn't let them in in the first place.
Makes sense, right? If I remember correctly, other really cool
organizations require a couple of really cool members to sponsor or
recommend prospective new members. Those new members then have to do
stuff to demonstrate how cool they really are.
In keeping with skydiving tradition, our prospective members could buy
members beer and spend the evening telling the most senior members how
cool they really are. That way we would already know where the
prospective members stand and we can be pretty sure our senior and
most cool people won't get flamed later on.
We'd still need The Committee, because no screening system is perfect.
Of course, some of the jerks we throw out would form their own
organizations. Jerks would do that sort of thing. Naturally, their
organization would never be as cool as ours, being formed out of jerks
and assorted un-cool rejects. They'd tell lies about us, but one
would expect that sort of thing from jerks.
These non-cool organizations would probably want to compete against
us. We really should just ignore any such challenges, but uneducated
whuffos might not know the difference, and so we'd really want to put
up a good show. For the whuffos, of course. To educate them as to
how cool we really are. Really, like how else would they know? Most
of them would never be sponsored by one of us for membership, anyway.
JAKAL
USPA Life Member (from back when the writing on the wall was pretty
clear and life membership fees were a lot lower than they are now)
miket...@aol.com (MikeTJumps) wrote in message news:<20020815131209...@mb-mt.aol.com>...
O Cuinn Mac an Ghabbann
>Wow!
>
>Can we do that? Can we remove a USPA member simply for being a jerk?
oops there goes all the Texas twin/T DZ's
lawdy lawdy lay around fok around! ;o)
~All living holds suffering
Misery stops when greed stops~
Jerry K.
wrote:
>>(Robert Lawton)
>
>>Wow!
>>
>>Can we do that? Can we remove a USPA member simply for being a jerk?
>
>oops there goes all the Texas twin/T DZ's
>lawdy lawdy lay around fok around! ;o)
>
Thre go all the grass strip, Cessna dz's too!
...bsrp
...jlk
JimBo
>From: rkla...@hotmail.com (Robert Lawton)
>Wow!
>
>Can we do that? Can we remove a USPA member simply for being a jerk?
OH OH......I'm fucked.
jim
D-10154
Snuffy and Tommykdinks friend
Man small... why fall ? Skies call... thats all.
MikeTJumps
following reason right out of the governance manual:
Section 1-6.4 B. Any USPA member shall be guilty of an offense justifying the
imposition of the penalties set forth in the USPA Governance Manual Section
1-6.4C (belo) who:
Skipping ot line item 4...
Engages in any conduct as a skydiver which a person of reasonable prudence
would anticipate as being likely to bring public contempt upon himself or
heself, or upon skydivers of upon USPA.
5.Engages in any conduct which resonably jeopardizes the well-being of the
USPA.
Now it looks to me like we've got some real pride and joys out there who can't
pass the muster of these two sections.
Oh..Penalties can be anywere from censure to license, rating, and membership
suspension or revocation.
Tom Birdwell
The GM program more or less forces people to join USPA and thus makes it
difficult to jump without membership. The day you or USPA starts ejecting
members for voicing their feelings about being forced to join, will be the
day that I start trying to raise money to sue USPA. I suspect it would not
be hard to get enough money to do so if they act so foolishly. Get a grip on
reality. When you force people to do things against their will, they get
mad, hostile, angry, and sometimes rabidly so. But the cause is at USPA.
Tom Birdwell
MikeTJumps wrote in message <20020816212357...@mb-cq.aol.com>...
MikeTJumps
defamatory accusations against other members. Public slander is still a very
lawsuit rich area and it is not covered by waivers! People can complain about
a situation all they want to no avail. Complaints without a potential
resolution to the problem will fall on deaf ears.
As to the Group Member program, I believe I'm in favor of making membership in
the USPA voluntary provided that alternative insurance (proof) is provided to
the DZ. I'm checking on this with my insurance agent to see what State Farm
believes are its coverage responsibilities.
Mike Turoff
MikeTJumps
following reason right out of the governance manual:
Section 1-6.4 B. Any USPA member shall be guilty of an offense justifying the
imposition of the penalties set forth in the USPA Governance Manual Section
1-6.4C (belo) who:
Skipping ot line item 4...
Engages in any conduct as a skydiver which a person of reasonable prudence
would anticipate as being likely to bring public contempt upon himself or
heself, or upon skydivers of upon USPA.
5.Engages in any conduct which resonably jeopardizes the well-being of the
USPA.
Now it looks to me like we've got some real pride and joys out there who can't
pass the muster of these two sections.
Oh..Penalties can be anywere from censure to license, rating, and membership
suspension or revocation.
Blue, Clear, and Calm Skies along with safe dives from
Mike Turoff, Instructor Examiner
MikeTJumps
following reason right out of the governance manual:
Section 1-6.4 B. Any USPA member shall be guilty of an offense justifying the
imposition of the penalties set forth in the USPA Governance Manual Section
1-6.4C (belo) who:
Skipping ot line item 4...
Engages in any conduct as a skydiver which a person of reasonable prudence
would anticipate as being likely to bring public contempt upon himself or
herself, or upon skydivers of upon USPA.
5.Engages in any conduct which resonably jeopardizes the well-being of the
USPA.
Now it looks to me like we've got some real pride and joys out there who can't
pass the muster of these two sections.
Oh..Penalties can be anywere from censure to license, rating, and membership
suspension or revocation.
Blue, Clear, and Calm Skies along with safe dives from
Mike Turoff, Instructor Examiner
Joseph Walther
"MikeTJumps" <miket...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020816212357...@mb-cq.aol.com...
[Some stuff snipped]
> Skipping ot line item 4...
> Engages in any conduct as a skydiver which a person of reasonable prudence
> would anticipate as being likely to bring public contempt upon himself or
> heself, or upon skydivers of upon USPA.
>
> 5.Engages in any conduct which resonably jeopardizes the well-being of the
> USPA.
>
> Now it looks to me like we've got some real pride and joys out there who
can't
> pass the muster of these two sections.
Walther responds...
Mike, I am not a fan of MOM. However, I wouldn't get too hasty in trying to
levy disciplinary action just yet. First, there is no law against being a
jerk. If there was, we all, at one time or another, would have spent time
behind bars. Second, this is an unmoderated news group. All one has to do is
go back with a search engine and it would become quite evident that there
are no holds barred. Generally speaking, people who can't stand the heat
should get out of the kitchen or simply use the NG equivalents of kill files
or simply not reading the posts. Third, given that this is the Internet and
sooooo reliable ;-), one would be hard-pressed to prove who actually said
what to whom.
>
> Oh..Penalties can be anywere from censure to license, rating, and
membership
> suspension or revocation.
Walther responds...
Again, this isn't going to happen on the basis of anything said in this
forum.
Regards and blues
Walther
BuzzFink,SkydiveSanDiego
"MikeTJumps" <miket...@aol.com> wrote
> As to the Group Member program, I believe I'm in favor of making
membership in
> the USPA voluntary provided that alternative insurance (proof) is provided
to
> the DZ.
Mike,
What in the heck does that have to do with anything? Either USPA requires
Group members to require USPA membership of licensed jumpers or they don't.
If they don't AND the DZ chooses not to require USPA membership, then it's
up to the DZ what they may or may not require, proof or no proof.
So your comment "provided that alternative insurance (proof) is provided to
the DZ" has nothing to do with USPA.
Forgive me if I misread your statement.
Buzz
LORD OF THE SKY
Mike T, It is your duty to bring these unscrupulous Members up on charges!
How can the Membership or USPA be protected against those guilty if no
member has the nuts to begin the action?
C'mon Mike, for once step up to the plate!!! Show some Balls!!!!
Bring these members up on charges before the entire Membership.
It's your duty Mike T!
For once do something positive for the association other than
providing the BOD with a great *shoe shine*.
Otherwise you will always be viewed as the charachter "Mordaky"(spel?)
in "High Plains Drifter".
Step Up Mike!!
If you dare to have a pair!
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
Posted and Mailed
sitflyr
"Jldorman5486" <jldorm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020815185102...@mb-fy.aol.com...
> I concur whole heartedly with both Mike Turoff and Tom Buchanan!
>
Now **there's** an endorsement of which to be proud!
Julie
sitflyr
> This (MOM's posting) is a perfect example of why the BOD members and
others shy
> away from answering e-mail from proven aggressors who constantly misquote
and
> mistate things which are personal opinions as "fact" through their own
eyes.
>
> I've read Mike's two postings and see some minor valid issues in them, but
> there is so much hogwash and garbage that I will support a move to remove
him
> from the USPA roster if he is not already a non-member for actions
detrimental
> to the USPA and the sport as a whole.
I'm not aware of any "move to remove him" that is in existence for you to
support. Don't you mean to say that you will spearhead an effort to remove
him from the USPA roster just because he has repeatedly insulted you? And
you want to serve on the BOD???
Mr. Turoff, I cannot express how much I resent your threat to use OUR
association to carry out your personal grudge.
Until now, I thought that you were a well-intentioned person. However, your
assertion that his insults to you constitute "actions detrimental to the
USPA and the sport as a whole" is steeped in raw arrogance and
self-centeredness.
You would be a very dangerous person to have in a position of power. I hope
that your region can find a more suitable representative.
Julie
sitflyr
is nothing short of pathetic.
You might as well go ahead and remove me for the things that I'm thinking
about you right now.
What a crybaby you are!
Julie
Tom Birdwell
MikeTJumps wrote in message <20020816214422...@mb-cq.aol.com>...
>As to the Group Member program, I believe I'm in favor of making membership
in
>the USPA voluntary provided that alternative insurance (proof) is provided
to
>the DZ. I'm checking on this with my insurance agent to see what State
Farm
>believes are its coverage responsibilities.
>
>Mike Turoff
If it were not for the group member program itself, there would not be a
chain of liability leading to the USPA, at least with respect to DZ
operations. Get rid of the root cause and stop putting Band Aid on top of
Band Aid.
Tom B
Tom Birdwell
sitflyr wrote in message ...
>>
>That you would even consider such a thing because you got your feelings
hurt
>is nothing short of pathetic.
>You might as well go ahead and remove me for the things that I'm thinking
>about you right now.
>What a crybaby you are!
>
>Julie
Wow!! Mike must feel really bad now. Being picked on by a gurl and all...
Maybe he can hire Stan Chesley to represent him in the civil suit.
sitflyr
"Tom Birdwell" <d16...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:SAv79.22958$N9.30...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Too harsh, ya think? ;-)
Julie
Bill Flynn
program, Right Jimbo?
Bill Flynn
for the fun jumper
Noelle Nagle
> "MikeTJumps" <miket...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020816212357...@mb-cq.aol.com...
> > No, you can't remove a USPA member for being a jerk, but you can for the
> > following reason right out of the governance manual:
> > Skipping ot line item 4...
> > Engages in any conduct as a skydiver which a person of reasonable prudence
> > would anticipate as being likely to bring public contempt upon himself or
> > heself, or upon skydivers of upon USPA.
Well... I am a member of the public and i now hold you in contempt for
having made such a statement. Correct me if i am wrong but you asked
for ideas and feedback didnt you? So you don't like the manner in
which this feedback came... awww poor baby! So you are suggesting
removing MOM because you dont like the way he says things? Yeah
Contempt would be the exact word i feel for you right now.
And you are running for a political position? Hey guys,vote him in.
After about 6 months he will have kicked out so many skydivers that
the DZO's wont want to pay their dues for Group Membership and the
program will disappear...
> > 5.Engages in any conduct which resonably jeopardizes the well-being of the
> > USPA.
Hmm - kicking out skydivers for voicing their opinions in their own
idiom... wouldnt that be a breach of your first amendment rights?
Surely engaging in illegal activity of that nature would jeopardise
the well being of the USPA ? Another reason to kick Mike out...
> > Now it looks to me like we've got some real pride and joys out there who
> can't
> > pass the muster of these two sections.
Hey Kettle!!!! Its pot here and you're black!
> > Oh..Penalties can be anywere from censure to license, rating, and
> membership
> > suspension or revocation.
if only..
> >
> That you would even consider such a thing because you got your feelings hurt
> is nothing short of pathetic.
> You might as well go ahead and remove me for the things that I'm thinking
> about you right now.
> What a crybaby you are!
>
> Julie
Well done Julie! you Go Girl!
Noelle
Not a USPA member, but enjoying the "Most Excellent Entertainment"
Jldorman5486
Find something more constructive to do with your time! If you need to find
SOMETHING to do with your time, read:
<A
HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/iraq_yang020815.html">A
BCNEWS.com : Msg. to Bush: Don't Attack Iraq</A>
<A
HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/buildup020814.html">ABC
NEWS.com : U.S. Readies Facilities in Persia…</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/older/artind.html">
Israel's Nuclear Dilemma</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:New:0743211
359:14.00">Powell's Books - Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrif…</A>
<A HREF="http://pnwcgs.pnl.gov/Seminars/goldberg.htm">CGS Seminars: Dr. Ellis
Goldberg</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.polisci.washington.edu/direct/FACULTY/goldberg.html">Political
Science Directory</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:New:0743211
359:14.00">Powell's Books - Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrif…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2000/27/quandt.html">Inside UVA</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.virginia.edu/jewishstudies/images/Faculty/WilliamQuandt.h
tm">Jewish Studies Faculty: William Quandt</A>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/articles/2002.htm">The
Washington Institute 2002 Media Archives</A>
<A
HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/iraq_yang020815.html">A
BCNEWS.com : Msg. to Bush: Don't Attack Iraq</A>
<A
HREF="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/buildup020814.html">ABC
NEWS.com : U.S. Readies Facilities in Persia…</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/older/artind.html">
Israel's Nuclear Dilemma</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:New:0743211
359:14.00">Powell's Books - Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrif…</A>
<A HREF="http://pnwcgs.pnl.gov/Seminars/goldberg.htm">CGS Seminars: Dr. Ellis
Goldberg</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.polisci.washington.edu/direct/FACULTY/goldberg.html">Political
Science Directory</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?show=Trade%20Paper:New:0743211
359:14.00">Powell's Books - Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrif…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2000/27/quandt.html">Inside UVA</A>
<A
HREF="http://www.virginia.edu/jewishstudies/images/Faculty/WilliamQuandt.h
tm">Jewish Studies Faculty: William Quandt</A>
<A HREF="http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/articles/2002.htm">The
Washington Institute 2002 Media Archives</A>
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_01-02/focjf00.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: T…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_03/focusmarch.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: E…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_09/pressept00.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: P…</A>
These weapons can be delivered, not just by ballistic missiles, but by
everything from airplanes to cruise missiles, from shipping containers to
suitcases. There is also the prospect of information warfare, in which hacker
terrorists may try to disrupt finance, communication, transportation, and
public health.
Our first line of defense is a simple message: Every group or nation must know,
if they sponsor such attacks, our response will be devastating. But we must do
more. At the earliest possible date, my administration will deploy
anti-ballistic missile systems, both theater and national, to guard against
attack and blackmail.
And our nation must diminish the evil attraction of these weapons for rogue
states by rendering them useless with missile defense.
ACT: How should the United States deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
and missile programs?
Bush: It is important for the United States and our allies to keep the pressure
on Saddam Hussein. We must insist that Iraq comply with the cease-fire
arrangement agreed to at the end of the Persian Gulf War. I am very concerned
that Saddam Hussein has not been held to the terms of the arrangement. If
elected president, I would not ease the current sanctions on Iraq and would
continue to insist that inspectors be allowed into the country. I would be
helping Iraqi opposition groups. And if I found that Saddam Hussein was in any
way, shape, or form building weapons of mass destruction, I would take them
out.
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: T…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_03/remr00.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: S…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_05/pierre.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: E…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_04/iraqapril02.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: U…</A>
<A HREF="http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/iraqjune02.asp">Arms Control
Association: Arms Control Today: U…</A>
Tom B
>Find something more constructive to do with your time! I
You mean like flood the NG with bible quotes, wasting all of our time? Like
that kind of constructive effort?
Tom B