Member or Not.....

[PhreeZone 20]

I've actually considered running for a Regional Director slot in the future, but I would lose on just my age and time in the sport alone. I'm only 21 and only have 2 years in the sport. The average age of the current board is something like 38 or 42. And like half the National board are DZO's at large DZ's too (think that had anything to due with them being elected? )
I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique

[Jimbo 0]

It's nice to see that this thread got bumped back up onto the radar. That said....

Quote

The program costs each member twice. The first time is through assessing the fee to the DZ (which gets passed back to the jumper) and the second time isusing some of the dues money to pay for the program.

Before we run around screaming and yelling I think it's important to know exactly what the GM program provides for the dropzones and how this affects the jumpers.

Quote

The income from the Group members was about $65000, while the actual budget for the program was over $105000 last year.

By itself this means nothing.

Quote

The USPA is currently evaluating the third party insurance option and may drop it if the cost raises too much because of recent events.

The insurance companies need to recover from the losses on Sept 11, we (skydivers) aren't the only group affected by this.

Quote

The USPA can only pass so much of the cost off on the members and DZ's before the dues are too high to keep it.

Actually, they'll have to pass off all of the cost to individual members and GMs, the USPA AFAIK doesn't have any other source of income. Am I wrong?

Quote

There are other options they are looking at too such as lower coverage and higher ductibles.

What is the deductable now? It's not matter really, I'll probably support raising the deductable, lower coverage in my mind, is not an option. It might also be nice to know what the insurance costs today and what the proposed increase by the insurance company is.

Quote

If the coverage is gone, some DZ's probally will not allow skysurfing or any other activity that involves throwing anything out of a plane due to the fact that they are no longer covered if the object damages something on the ground.

Do you honestly believe that coverage will go away completely? That's one thing I think that the USPA knows they MUST provide, both to jumpers and to DZs. I think that the membership will not allow the third party coverage to be taken away from them.

Quote

The DZ does not have to be a USPA DZ to allow USPA members to file insurance claims. There was an incident of car damage due to a botched landing a few years ago at Quincy and the USPA's third party insurance covered the cost of the repairs. I was laed to believe your individual coverage is still good even if you are not at a Group Member DZ.

This is a good thing. The USPA _could_ just as easily claim that all privilages of USPA membership are waived when not jumping at GM dropzones. As a matter of fact, they could concievably save themselves some money with a rule like this.

Quote

USPA cannot serve both the best interests of the Individual Members and the GMs as these to entities best interests are often diametrically opposed. The best illustration of this is the BODs vote to charge non GM DZs a fee to hold AFF/TM/Coach certification courses. The fee is equal to the cost of becoming a Group Member DZ for one year. This fee serves only to limit the number of certification courses available to Individual Members. So even if a DZ does'nt want to become a USPA member, they must either have their staff go else where to get certified or not have any of their graduates become USPA licence holders since you must have an AFF instructor or coach sign the A card. If the DZ was allowed to hold their own course, the instructors and anyone else could attend the course, but the way it stands now is that even with enough interest, a DZ must either pay the fees to become a member or not hold a class.

I hope that that's not the best illustration of the diametric opposition you're claiming exists.
Why should non-member DZs be allowed to profit from a program developed with funds contributed by member DZs? This doesn't really surprise me.
As for instructors at non member DZs having to drive an hour or two out of their way, that's no big deal either. It seems to me that there are a limited number of courses regardless of group member DZs anyhow.

Quote

Recently I was told about a phone conversation with a regional director about a GM DZ who had it's membership revoked for having non-rated aff jumpmasters jumping with aff students. The Director said that this was proof the GM program worked.

What's the problem? When the DZ agreed to become a group member they agreed to certain rules. They broke the rules and their membership has been revoked, they knew the punishment for breaking the rules and they got caught. It is proof that at least a part of the GM program works - the DZ knew the rules and broke the rules, the USPA did what they said they would and terminated that DZs membership.

Quote

18 months of students jumping with non-rated jumpmasters. No the program didn't *work* . The program and its' blind endorsement of the DZ by USPA may very well have put new jumpers into serious risk.

Or, it may have taken several jumpers out of serious risk. I understand why the USPA did what they did. A USPA jumpmaster isn't necessarily better or worse than an unrated jumpmaster, a USPA rated jumpmaster has proven a core set of skills though and his rating is proof of those skills. It's quite likely that the unrated jumpmasters didn't possess the skills necessary to safely jumpmaster students. The thing is that you and I don't know what the exact situation was because we weren't there - Your statement "USPA may very well have put new jumpers into serious risk." is just as valid as mine that says the USPA may have also removed a significant amount of risk for new students at that DZ.

Quote

Is this really in the best interest of the members? Endorsing a DZ through one enrollment peroid a practice that could easly cause a lawsuit and kill our sport? I think this shows why the GM program fails, it protrays that the USPA has a "Saftey Blanket" over a DZ while the USPA really has no idea what is happening at a DZ.

How was the USPA to know what was going on at that DZ? Most likely the DZ signed a contract agreeing to accept certain rules in exchange for the benefits provided by the GM program. When the USPA found out that the DZ might be in violation of that contract they began an investigation and after gathering evidence decided to terminate the membership of this particular DZ. I don't see where they gave them a blanket endorsement through one period. In an organization the size of the USPA is it really reasonable for them to micromanage the goings on at all of it's members? I don't think so - it's more reasonable, strictly from a management standpoint, for the USPA to assume that when a DZ signs a contract that it is being truthful and then to investigate when claims to the contrary come to light.
What I've said here isn't an endorsement of the USPA or the GM program, rather it's simply comment on what you've said. I don't believe though that you made a strong case against the USPA.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

So this program that only helps GM DZ's is paid for by all the members. Is that a good use of money and resources?

As Jimbo said, the only real source of income USPA has is our individual dues and those of the group member dz's. Parachutist magazine does not support itself; the paid advertising doesn't come close to covering the costs of producing and mailing the magazine every month - should the magazine be eliminated or scaled back because it is costing the members money?
I do not agree that the group member program only helps dz's/dzo's - remember, without dropzones we have no place to jump. Again, I feel that overall what is in the best interests of a DZ/DZO is in yours and my best interests as skydivers - keeping dz's open and operating means that we have places to go jump. To me that's an excellent use of "my" money.

Quote

USPA cannot serve both the best interests of the Individual Members and the GMs as these to entities best interests are often diametrically opposed.

You've stated this several times... What issues are there where what a dzo wants and what I want are all that different? I want a place to jump. The dzo wants to provide a place for skydivers to skydive and maybe make a bit of a profit while doing so.

Quote

So even if a DZ does'nt want to become a USPA member, they must either have their staff go else where to get certified or not have any of their graduates become USPA licence holders since you must have an AFF instructor or coach sign the A card. If the DZ was allowed to hold their own course, the instructors and anyone else could attend the course, but the way it stands now is that even with enough interest, a DZ must either pay the fees to become a member or not hold a class.

If someone wants a USPA rating, they have to be a USPA member and hold a particular USPA license. If that's not wrong, then why shouldn't USPA require that dz's wanting to hold USPA certification courses using USPA produced materials for USPA ratings be USPA group members? It only seems fair, to me anyway, that a dz wanting to use USPA resources be willing to support USPA by being a group member. And really... at $100 - $300 a jump, how many student jumps does it take for a dz to pay for group membership?

Quote

The person who told me the story pointed out that for over 18 months USPA supported,and endorsed
this dropzone . 18 months of students jumping with non-rated jumpmasters. No the program didn't *work* .

imho it did. Exactly when was USPA notified that the dz in question was using non-rated jumpmasters? How fast would you like USPA to react to such information? Perhaps they didn't know for six or eight months, then it took more time to investigate the accusation - because without solid proof that the dz is using non-rated jm's, any information they received was just an accusation. You wouldn't want USPA revoking that dz's group membership without proof, right?

Quote

while the USPA really has no idea what is happening at a DZ.

And that's where we come in. It's up to each USPA member to report violations of the BSR's to USPA. If we aren't willing to do that, for whatever reasons, then it's OUR fault that USPA has no idea what's going on at member dz's. Or would you rather have USPA appointed "police" overseeing operations at dz's? That's been tried in the past with Area Safety Officers - that was before most of our times though.
pull and flare,
lisa
--
What would Scooby Doo?

[PhreeZone 20]

I am not against the USPA by any means, I'm just against the GM program.
I'll address your points one by one here the best I can with the knowledge on the GM program that I have....
The budget: It means that the program can not support itself and it needs the money from the "Members" to keep it alive. If the GM program was'nt in existance, thats $50,000 more to be spent on things that the members wants, not the DZO's or the BoD. As for whats Its good for, by all accounts, not much.... basiclly just the endorsement and a discount on the Plane's airframe insurance. Most the benifits are fro ma third party so its easy to change it from DZ to USPA member in the contract and coverage.
Insurance costs are going to rise across the board, that is almost gaurenteed. The PRO rating was developed to lower the amount payed out each year on the insurance by jumpers doing botched demo jumps. The leading cause of these incidents was found to be unqualified jumpers on the demos getting in over their heads and hurting something. The PRO rating allows the USPA to show a level of competence before issuing insurance for a jump.
As for the cost's becoming too high, I was refering to they can pass the cost off in the form of higher dues, but there reaches a point where members will no longer pay the dues because of the cost. Would anyone pay $150 or more per year dues if thats what it would take to keep the current level of insurance? Then the USPA is faced with another issue, if members start not renewing, they must raise the dues more to make up the deficit caused by the non renewals. A quick fix to this is raising the ductible or lowering coverage. I have no idea the current level of coverage but I'll look around for more info on it.
As for waiving the coverage at a non-GM DZ, then that would mean the insurance would also be invalid if you land off, on demo jumps, at non-GM boogies, etc.
As for the program and classes, this is where the DZO's and the jumpers are in total disagreement. Who's money do you really think pays for the development of the training? Not the money given in GM dues, thats not even enough to pay for its own program. The members at large are the ones that are paying for the development of the new training programs. For instance this summer at my DZ (Non GM) we had a Course director stop by for a few days, we had 14 people wanting to take the BIC, but he was not able to give the class since the DZ was not a GM. All 14 people were USPA members, but were not able to take the class. Is this really an example of the USPA trying to help its "members" or is it helping its "Group Members"? Sure its nice if another DZ is just an hour or 2 away but how about those DZ in the western states like Montana where DZ's might be 4 or 5 hours away, Utah, I'm thinking its like 3 hours between most DZ's? If you have to send 8-10 staff members away for a weekend it gets expensive, but i know several Course Directors will come to your DZ for a certian fee. In those cases it is probally cheaper to bring in 1 Director then ship out your entire staff to get a new rating or something. But since your DZ is not a GM, you now must travel 4 hours to the closest DZ for their course. Is this practice serving the DZ's or the jumpers?
As for the case about the DZ losing its Membership, if you are going to endorse something the lest you should expect is some type of auditing or follow up. ISO 9001 companies have to undergo renewal audits every year. Should'nt the same have to be done if you want to get basicly the USPA's seal of endorsement? Baically all this DZ did was write the check to the USPA every year for the blessing to be a "safe" DZ and thats all that was heard from about that issue. It took 18 months of putting students lives in danger before the GM was revoked. Sure the DZ knew that using unrated JM's was against the BSR's that they agreed to follow, but they ignored it. It was'nt just one unrated JM, it was lots of them. I fully agree that they should have been kicked out too. But it should'nt have taken 18 months in something as small as our sport to catch this type of a slip up. The USPA does'nt come out and say it, but it lets it happen all the time, GM's advertise they are safer DZ's because they are GM's then non-GM's. The poll and some of the posts from here even convey that same thinking.... "If its a GM it must be safe and if its not a GM then they must be an accident waiting to happen....."
Basically all that has to happen to renew a GM contract is just send in your check for the fees and resign the paper agreeing to follow the BSR's. In 18 months at least one renewal contract was signed at the DZ I as refering to. Why did the USPA just restamp the DZ as OK without at least conducting an inspection or something? Because the GM program is just another way for the USPA to get money with out offering any real benifits to the people it was created for, the jumpers.
My new point is you can be a current member, do everything right and still be discriminated against for benifits (training) from the USPA just because the DZ that you jump at is not a GM. How is that serving the members needs? Its saying that just because you jump at a DZ that will not pay a yearly fee, the USPA is basicly turning its back on your (the jumpers) needs and putting certian DZ ahead.
It takes having grown up at a Non-member DZ than traveling to many member DZ's to make me realize just what a load of bull the GM program is. Arriving at a new DZ the comments are usually not far behind, "Is that DZ still open?" "How many BSR's do you break down there?" "I can't believe that place is safe". The thing is, most of the people talking have never been to the DZ, they just think that since it's not a GM its dangerous. In fact I've seen way more dangerous stuff at GM's then I have ever seen at the 2 non-GM's I've been to.For instance, one time at a DZ (with 2 National BoD's on the premises)at least 8 loads with up with 0 ground visability. The clouds were at least 5000 solid. (I was on the load were it blew in) The clouds started at 5 and went to 10000 with little breakage in layers. Is that a violation of BSR's? Hell its breaking FAR's but the BoD members did'nt care and they watched it happen. Nothing every happened to the DZ. What does that say?
Food for thought.... do you have to be a USGA member to play golf on most courses? Do you have to be a AOPA member to fly most planes? Do you have to be a USPA member to jump at most DZ's?
I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique

[skybytch 273]

Quote

If you have to send 8-10 staff members away for a weekend it gets expensive, but i know several Course Directors will come to your DZ for a certian fee.

Why is the dzo's responsibility to either send people to a course or put one on? Who's getting the ratings here, the dz or the individual jumpers? If someone wants a rating they'll do what it takes to get one; I did. If a dzo wants to sponsor them in doing so so that he/she will have staff, that's the dzo's decision. In that case, wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay the money, become a GM and be done with it? Hey, if they did that they just might be able to gain some other benefits too...
It's not that much money, really. Many individual jumpers pay far more than the cost of group membership for a single rating - ask any AFF instructor how much it cost them to earn that rating.
If a dz is being run as a business and making a profit (as businesses should), $500-$800 per year is a drop in the bucket. Figure out how much profit a dz makes on a single tandem - say they charge the student $150, pay the instructor $30, the packer $10, two slots on the aircraft at cost maybe $25, $40 or so as the amortized cost of the use of the rig and another $5 for general overhead. That leaves a profit of around $40 per tandem jump. Even at $800 per year for group membership, the dz only has to do 20 tandems to pay it. Even a single Cessna dz can usually pump out 20 tandems in a weekend. One weekend out of 52 to pay for group membership. I don't see that as being overly expensive.

Quote

if you are going to endorse something the lest you should expect is some type of auditing or follow up.

And who's going to pay for that???
pull and flare,
lisa
--
What would Scooby Doo?

[PalmettoTiger 1]

Quote

And who's going to pay for that???

Exactly - the members will end up paying for it, because the GM program already can't cover its own costs. BUT, phreezone has been pretty convincing that the GM program doesn't do much for jumpers. Making us bear the extra costs to ensure that a program (that already doesn't cover its costs) is running properly, when that program doesn't provide much benefit to us, is NOT the way things should be done.
I'm not arguing against using dues to cover periodic DZ safety inspections - in principle at least, that sounds like a good idea. I'm just against that money going to support the GM program when it already uses members' dues money without doing much for us.
PTiger
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way

[skybytch 273]

Quote

when it already uses members' dues money without doing much for us.

Having a place to jump isn't important to you? It is to me.
pull and flare,
lisa
--
What would Scooby Doo?

[PhreeZone 20]

As for sending the members away, I was thinking about the fact that the DZ might have to turn students away if its entire staff is off getting certified. The USPA is taking over Tandem Certifications. That means that odds are most TM's will have to leave a DZ for a weekend to travel to some DZ to get certified. This could mean shutting down a DZ that's unable to hold its own course for a weekend. If the choices were more plentiful and allowed all DZ's then the staff could go in staggered intervals.

Quote

And who's going to pay for that???

Instead for paying for it, why not wrap it into an existing positons responcibilities? You can't tell me that someone out of the USPA's staff could'nt look at a graph of number of first jumps compaied to number of rated instructors to get a feel for what goes on at a DZ? These numbers could be reported at the same time a renewal application is summited.
Or how about regional directors actually visiting DZ's and reporting what they see?
Part of the reason I know one former GM chose not to renew a few years ago was beacuse there was a major inident at thier DZ and when they needed the USPA to fight for them, no one could help them, The USPA pretty much turned their backs on the DZ and left the DZ to fight out the issue with no support.

Quote

If a dz is being run as a business

How about those DZ's that are being ran as a Club? Couch Freaks DZ comes to mind here....They make just enough money off the boogie to keep ticket prices at like $12 to 13000 all year.
The GM moeny is'nt being used to fight for places for us to jump, the Airport Access fund, and other parts of the budget do that. The GM program serves as a lobbying front for DZO's. This way they can have access to the USPA's reasoures to lobby in Congress (like that helps, AOPA is much better). GM money is being spent on stuff like getting lower insurance for Airplanes (that helps the DZO directly and the jumpers indirectly. Although some DZO's have already jacked up thier prices because they "foresee" the rate increase. If there is no real increase, whats the odds the rate will not return to its earlier level?) It also gets the DZ advertisement space in the back of parachutist and in the anual Dropzone Directory.
I'm working on getting a copy of the annual budget so I can put actual numbers behind my statements.
I want to touch the sky, I want to fly so high ~ Sonique

[PalmettoTiger 1]

Quote

Having a place to jump isn't important to you? It is to me.

It's important to me too. But DZs existed before the GM program. DZs currently exist without the GM program. And I bet that DZs will continue to exist if the GM program were to dissolve.
PTiger
I'm stepping through the door
And I'm floating in a most peculiar way

[wildblue 7]

Pardon me while I go all over the map on this subject...

Quote

Having a place to jump isn't important to you? It is to me.

You're reaching really bad with the logic here - My money keeps a dz in business and the planes flying, not the USPA.
Isn't Skydive Indiana in Frankfort a GM? Ask them what they think of the airport access fund.

Quote

Why is the dzo's responsibility to either send people to a course or put one on?

Because if they don't, they can't train students. If they can't train students, chances are they're not going to stay in business.

Quote

Quote

if you are going to endorse something the lest you should expect is some type of auditing or follow up.

And who's going to pay for that???

I actually wouldn't mind paying for that. Something the USPA could actually do that would benefit me - making sure the places I jump are actually following the rules they agreed to.
I would like to know what exactly the GM Program does.

Quote

What's the problem? When the DZ agreed to become a group member they agreed to certain rules. They broke the rules and their membership has been revoked, they knew the punishment for breaking the rules and they got caught. It is proof that at least a part of the GM program works - the DZ knew the rules and broke the rules, the USPA did what they said they would and terminated that DZs membership.

I think the problem is the "rules" and "punishments" are applied whenever convienient. Bah, politics.

Quote

Parachutist magazine does not support itself; the paid advertising doesn't come close to covering the costs of producing and mailing the magazine every month - should the magazine be eliminated or scaled back because it is costing the members money?

Why can't it support itself? The thing is full of advertisements!
I don't understand why it shouldn't be self-sufficient.
Ok.. that's all I have this time around... maybe next post I"ll actually be able to keep a single train of thought
Never argue with stupid people.They just drag you down 2 their level & beat you with experience