Monday's with the BOD, Week 63 Answers
Livendive
following questions to our BOD members and to the general membership.
Thanks go to Gary Peek, Mike Perry, John Goswitz, and Mike Mullins for
answering for the BOD. That's a poor turnout, but it's lot better
percentage than we got from the general membership, from which only 5 people
answered (including myself), and two of those are National Director
candidates!
?????
If you could make one change in USPA's recommendations regarding student
training, what would it be and why?
If you could make one change in how USPA handles Group Members, what would
it be and why?
If you could make one change in how USPA licenses experienced jumpers, what
would it be and why?
?????
Here's how the BOD answered:
****Gary Peek****
> If you could make one change in USPA's recommendations regarding
> student training, what would it be and why?
If we are talking about "recommendations" as opposed to "BSR's" then
I can't think of a specific change at the moment. It seems reasonable
for USPA to make "recommendations" on training for those that ask.
(However, I have begun to realize that some people are reading
"recommendations" as requirements, so we need to take care in what
we recommend.)
> If you could make one change in how USPA handles Group Members,
what would it be and why?
I would like USPA to not "handle" them at all but to help encourage
them to form their own organization. (Question for individual members-
Would you be willing to see USPA use some of its resources to help
DZ's form their own trade organization if it meant the USPA GM program
would go away once the tradr organization was in place?)
> If you could make one change in how USPA licenses experienced
> jumpers, what would it be and why?
I suppose it would be to adopt FAI license standards, which would
make many license/competition issues go away, but that would be
a big change in licenses. We need more input from members on this
of course. I am not expecting this change in the near future.
****Mike Perry****
?????
If you could make one change in USPA's recommendations regarding student
training, what would it be and why?
???
I think there have been enough changes to the student training program for
now. Small tweeks as we gain experience with the ISP will be necessary but
I do not envision additional changes.
An advanced instructor course is in the works. The purpose of this would be
to certify course directors for each training dicipline. I would like to
see this effort accelerated.
???
If you could make one change in how USPA handles Group Members, what would
it be and why?
???
Can't say I have a recommendation for this.
???
If you could make one change in how USPA licenses experienced jumpers, what
would it be and why?
???
I would eliminate the requirement for night jumps for the D licenses. A D
licence is required for international competition. I see no need to perform
night jumps as a prerequsite for competition. Another solution would be to
add another license and move the night jump requirement to it. We could
also adopt internationl liciense requirements with do not require a night
jump to compete.
****John Goswitz****
>If you could make one change in USPA's recommendations regarding student
training, what would it be and why?
To have all students trained by the new ISP program and place more emphasis
on canopy control.
>If you could make one change in how USPA handles Group Members, what would
it be and why?
Make sure they follow the BSR's and revoke their membership for failure to
comply.
>If you could make one change in how USPA licenses experienced jumpers, what
would it be and why?
Finish the upgrade to the license standards to have them more in line with
the IPC standards.
****Mike Mullins****
> ?????
> If you could make one change in USPA's recommendations regarding student
training, what would it be and why?
The USPA recommendations regarding student training are just that--
recommendations. Many evidently do not realize that you are free to follow
or initiate any program you wish as long at the requirements in the BSR are
met regarding the very basic information to be presented and who teaches
what to who.
As long as the items on the A license proficiency card are taught and
completed by the appropriate person, you can teach it any way you wish.
The student training program recommended by USPA is a good program.
However, it may or may not be the one you wish to teach. Modify it or
disregard it. It is your choice as long as you follow the BSRs.
As regards even recommending a training program, the Safety & Training
Committee has been historically dealing with two opposing factions-- those
that wish a specific, unalterable, program and those that wish no program to
be recommended at all. Those that wish a very specific program argue that
they wish protection from lawsuits in the
event of an accident by pointing to an industry standard program that they
are following exactly. Others argue by USPA even recommending a program it
is setting them up for a lawsuit if they do not follow the program exactly.
The S&T Committee has tried to compromise by recommending a program but
making it clear that these are only
recommendations. The prelude to the ISP states: "The USPA Integrated
Student Program provides one effective and detailed progression for training
students for their A license. It is not a required program or the only good
training outline."
> If you could make one change in how USPA handles Group Members, what would
it be and why?
The change that I would make is that USPA not handle the Group Member
program at all. Both the group members and the individual members would be
better served by the group members having their own dedicated trade
organization. My second choice would be that USPA stop forcing Group
Members to only allow USPA members to jump at GM DZs. By
trying to restrict the use of public facilities ( most DZs operate at public
airports ) USPA is doing exactly what airport management does when they try
to prohibit skydivers from using these public facilities, that is,
preventing a legal user from using a public facility.
> If you could make one change in how USPA licenses experienced jumpers,
what would it be and why?
> ?????
The present system is so ingrained I do not know of any change that would be
acceptable to all users. Any changes that are proposed will surely bring
huge distress cries from some portion of our membership. I am not sure that
it is broken, so lets not try to fix it.
***********************
Answers from the general membership were as follows:
********
> If you could make one change in USPA's recommendations regarding student
training, what would it be and why?
1 - I'd can that requirement that those not holding an A license but who
have
completed the training program, must be supervised in group jumps by a
coach.
Why? Because when I was a *just off student status newbie* I had the
best time jumping with those of similar experience. We learned a lot on
those jumps , never feeling any pressure other than to be safe. It is my
belief
that due to this rule many newer jumpers are missing out on
that period of inexpressibly good times and comraderie. Instead they are
forced to pay a coaching fee and have the pressure of being evaluated!
It would be great if quality coaches were available for those who
wish to employ them, but I see no reason why two similarly experienced SL or
AFF/
AFP graduates can't go up and out by themselves and be safe and just have
fun.
2 - For one, I wouldn't be handing out ratings to folks with only 100 jumps.
In the years I've been jumping, I've yet to meet a person of that experience
level who was qualified to teach students much of anything, including
myself. For two, although it's not a recommendation in the SIM, I'd try and
steer USPA away from the AFF-centric path we've been going down for years
now. Sure, we've got the ISP, and on the surface it appears USPA believes
that all methods of instruction are equal, but we all know that's not true.
Static line, IAD, and AFF are all good methods of instruction, with each
enjoying their own benefits and having their own problems. Additionally,
I'd try to explore a way of ensuring Instructors are actually ensuring
students meet the license requirements before signing them off. There are a
*lot* of new jumpers out there who make it to their B or C license before
they can shoot A-license accuracy, and I've been to boogies where a license
was required yet I had to stop another jumper and teach them how to pack.
Finally, I'd get rid of the requirement for a Coach rating to jump with
novices. There are plenty of 2000 jump non-rating holders who can teach the
newbies quite a bit more than that hundred jump wonder with a shiny new
rating saying he knows something.
********
> If you could make one change in how USPA handles Group Members, what would
it be and why?
1 - I think the GM program is, by definition, at odds with the best
interests of the membership. in its' inception it created a division
between the service provider and the customer, and its continuation has
begun to alienate the jumpers from the USPA; furthermore, the USPA is
becomming a trade group for Drop Zones.
USPA's charter is, to paraphrase, 'by jumpers, for jumpers'. I think
that DZ's should be represented by their own, independant trade group,
and have one position of representation on the USPA board. conversely,
the USPA shoudl have one representative on the DZO board.
To summarize, my change would be to eliminate the Group Member program
as it exists today.|
2 - I'd can the entire Group Member Program.
Why? Because the Group Member Program is often in conflict with the best
interests of the General Membership. One illustrative example of this is
the requirement that a non GM DZ pay a fee($450.00) to hold a
AFF Certification Course for Individual Members. It should be obvious that
this fee is detrimental to Individual Members who wish to become AFF
Instructors. This fee may force an Individual Member to travel some
greater distance than necessary in order to attend a AFFCC which minus that
fee, may have been held at their local DZ.
There are many other examples of conflicts between the GMs interests and
the Individual Members interests. If anyone would like my list ,feel free to
e-mail me at lord...@ellijay.com. I'm also more than happy to discuss any
other issue with any member at lord...@ellijay.com or on the Rec.
3 - I'd ditch the entire program. If USPA thought it was tough to round up
jumpers who would send in proxy statements, they'd be thoroughly
underwhelmed by the number of skydivers who think the Group Membership
program adds value. In fact, I doubt that USPA could find 100 non-rated,
non-DZO jumpers with at least 500 jumps or five years experience, who think
the program is worthwhile at all. If the Group Membership and corresponding
pledge to require USPA membership from all jumpers was revoked, I wouldn't
let my membership lapse. I'd just be a lot happier writing that check for
over $60 each year if I felt I was doing it because I wanted to, not because
I *had* to.
********
> If you could make one change in how USPA licenses experienced jumpers,
what would it be and why?
1 - Replace the 2 night jumps requirement with either 2 CRW jumps where a
dock took place, or 5 jumps of high performance canopy training by a
rated instructor*, for the "D" license. Rationale: just compare the
fatalities due to inadvertant night jumps with those due to inadvertant
poor canopy handling.
* a method of qualifying canopy instructors would have to be developed.
2 - I have no problem with the current licensing.
Some speak that the highest license should require more skill
levels. That's all just ego. Some want another badge to flaunt. Maybe they
should just get the pro rating which has their own picture and look at it as
a masturbation aid!
My opinion is that we don't need higher licenses or stinkin' badges. The
privileges
which are presently attached to the D are those I believe should be
granted to one who has made two hundred jumps and fulfilled the other
requirements of the D.
3 - I've come up with my own list of what should be required for an E
license, and it's considerably more extensive than USPA's. However the only
additional benefits I could think of giving a member for honestly earning
the title of "Master" skydiver would be the privileges of a PRO-rating
without the fee, half-price membership dues for life, and other somewhat
trivial things. As such, I don't think it's all that important. I would
like to see the C and D requirements increased, e.g. 200 jumps for a C, 500
jumps and 3 years in sport for a D, but again, I don't think it's all that
important.
*******
Blue skies,
Dave Todak