davelepka

Nope. It's what we have now. The USPA has a suggestion, and several manufacturers have 'requirements' in place (essentailly suggestions as well due to a lack of corrective action). The industry has proven it's wllingness to play the game when it comes to low time camera flyers. DZOs and TMs pay little attention to the current suggestions in place, and there's no reason to believe that they would pay attention to any new suggestions. It would have to be a rock-solid BSR to make the difference. DZOs will pay attention to a possible loss of GM status (for now), but more so the legal liability of disregarding the BSR, which would become the 'standard industry pratice'. Proving that a DZ didn't adhere to 'standard industry practice' is how the lawyers prove gross negligence, and how they can trump the waiver.

Really? You mean to tell me that BOTH jumps went well? In that case I owe you an apology from that other thread where I suggested you might need more experience to be safe. Just to double check, BOTH jumps were OK? Up to, and possibly including 90 seconds of freefall, two openings and two landings? All worked out OK?

OK, then what is an acceptable % of loss that a DZ can stand? At what point are the Skyride dollars insignificant enough to not make a difference to the bottom line. So Lee finds himself in a bad spot with crooks holding hostage a given % of his business. While he is contributing income to the Skyride crew, he is also maintaining a profitable business, protecting his interests, and employing many a good skydiver. Is the best move business wise to simply sever all ties? What if this threatened the existance of the DZ, and employment of all those people? Being a board member, he was privy to the actions USPA was attempting to take against them. If they were successful in putting Skyride out of business, Lee's customer base (or his unrestricted access to it) would be restored, and the DZ would continue on. When the lawsuit arose, I'm sure the BOD was confident that they would prevail, and so again, Lee's best choice for the health of his business and employees was to ride it out, and see if things swung his way. Again, if things had gone the way of the USPA, Lee would all set. Of course, now that things have gone the way they have, we'll have to see his response. But if you look at the situiaiton from a business perspective, you can see how he might have found himself in the position he was with no ill will intended toward anyone. Seeing that neither one of us is privy to the details that would clearly indicate the truth of the matter, all we can do is speculate. Given what we do know, I think I've presented a plausable scenario, that timing and innocent business concerns have shaped his actions. You've presented another plausable scenario, that he's crooked and in like company when he deals with Skyride. All you have to do recognize that either situation is plausable, and be open to either one coming out as the truth.

I agree, but I did leave the thread open to all greivances with the USPA, and these are responses I've gotten so far. I do think they are fair points, so I'm responding to them, but I'm hopeful that some new issues will come to light in time. The thread is only a few hours old, so let's keep our fingers crossed.

I'm not sure I see your point, or if it's any different than mine. I agree that they bring no new business, they have been intercepting business in the Dallas area, and directing it to Skydive Dallas. Breaking away from Skyride will not cause Skyride to intercept any less business, just to funnel that business to another DZ. The end result being the loss of busniess at Skydive Dallas. Again, the time line is key here. When he got invovled, and when certian facts came to light make the difference. Is this a fact, or your impression? Do you know the EC is trying to place 100% of the balme on Jan? Have they published a statement to that end? We do know that she was VERY outspoken on this issue. We also know that she was told to quiet down with regards to the issue. Her new avatar where she posed for a photo wearing a gag speaks to that. Is it even possible that she was told, as a representative of the USPA, that her methods were inappropiate, and to cease and desist them? It's true that the blame falls on everyone, but if the others acted in unison, as a board, like they are supposed to, and Jan went outsdie of that, can you see how that would constitute a loss of her seat? If the EC or BOD was in agreement for how to proceed, and it turned out they were wrong, do you suggest they disband the entire board? Can you see how a board member, acting outside of, and against the expressed wishes of the board, should nto be allowed to remain?

I think we all agree that DZOs run DZs for the money. It's not a goldmine, but it is a business, and they are entitled to make a profit. How you make that profit does make a difference, which is where my next point comes in... In your area, maybe you knew better, but let's consider a few facts that are not in dispute - Skyride is a bunch of crooks, who have managed to skirt the law enough that they remain in business despite their clearly unethical business practices. Skyride manged to twist the law in their favor with the USPA lawsuit. They managed to prevail despite the fact that they should not be in the USPA, and everything said about them was essentailly true. In looking at these two points, you have to agree that these are smart, sharp people we're dealing with. You don't get away with what they get away with by accident. These are people who understand the game, and have their bases covered. These are also the type of people who could sell ice cream to eskimos. It's not hard to imagine that they had a slick presentation, and made one hell of a sales call when they we're spreading the Skyride virus. So I return to my key question, did Lee go into business with them before their business practices were common knowledge? If so, it's hard to hold him responsible for doing so. Look how many other DZOs bought into their horse shit.m they must have been doing something right when they grew Skyride. If you are suggesting that there are DZ that survive without ever doing business with Skyride, I agree. I work at such a DZ. If you are suggesting that DZ who were once in business with Skyride, have dropped their affiliation with Skyride, and been financially sound in the aftermath, then I would not be so sure. Losing 30% of your income would be a tough hit for many DZ to take.

State your position. We need all view points accoutned for if we hope to get a reasonable handle on the situation, and in turn, a solution to whatever problems we can uncover, so by all means, share your thoughts with the rest of the class.

You got me there. I tend to not think of hijm as a DZO, and memeber of the community, but more of a parasite. If you exclude his ilk, and focus on your average hard working DZo, then I stand by my statement. The coach rating has brought many jumpers into the instructional fold. It is great intermediate step for jumpers wanting an AFF rating. As far as 'extracting' money from studetns, how do you know that the extra income is not needed? I'll remind you that as fun jumpers, we barely pay our way on the DZ, yet we enjoy the benefits of twin turbine aircraft, air conditioned packing areas, swoop ponds, and the like. Who pays for those things? Maybe the studetns should be paying more. We all agree that the cost of skydiving is only going up. The cost of fuel for sure, but what about the aging fleet of jump planes? The cost of owning and operating them will only go up with time, and given the status of the AC market in the early 80's, there isn't going to be a wide selection of 30 or 40 year old AC for us to choose from in the next 10 to 15 years. If the price of participation will surely be higher, why not the price of entry? Let's say I wanted to get a rotorcraft rating, and there was a school that would teach me for $50 per hour, all inclusive. I could afford that, but once I had my ticket, I couldn't afford to own or even rent a helo in any capacity. The bottom line is, as a fun jumper who enjoys the ammenities provide dby student dollars, should you really be critisizing them at the same time? If your home DZ would forego the coach program alltogether, would you write a check for your sahre of the lost income? Or if they kept the coach program, would you pay for the studetns to go through it? I agree 100% What's important to establish here, first off, is when did Lee go into business with Skyride? My guess is that it was early on, before they rpoved to be the crooks they are. Second, did Lee in fact step aside when Skyride issues were on the table? If he did, then it's hard to show a conflict of interest. It shows a recognitionof a conflict, but it also shows a resolution to the conflict. This leads us to the business end, which is, does Lee have a contractual obligation to Skyride? This would go a long way toward explaining why he remains in business with them. I have no information to prove or disprove this, but I gather that neither do you. The final point, which I have made before, is that Skyride may represent up to 30% of their business. I know of Skyride participating DZ who admit to that number, so I'll assume it's a fair average. Lee would stand to lose 30% of his business by breaking away from Skyride. This business would be funneled to another area DZ, and the financial health of Skydive Dallas would be at risk. Have you spoken to Lee about this? I haven't, but I would be VERY surpirsed to find that he is anything but disgusted with the corner he's been backed into. What seemed like a good marketing plan in the beginning, has turned into 30% of his business being held hostage by crooks who are making up to 20% of the proceeds those cutomers bring in. Do you think he's happy to find himself in this position? You do realize that he's a nationally recognized expert in the field of Oncology? That's he has spent his life in the medical field curing cancer? You really think that now he's decieded to turn his attentions toward fleecing the USPA, and skydivers in general? How do you explain the years of trouble free operation at Skydive Dallas before the Skyride or USPA situations occured?

The Jan Mayer thread has brought some interesting viewpoints on the USPA, BOD and the EC. Many seem to feel as if the system has failed, and lost it's usefulness. There have been allegations of mis-conduct and conlifcts of interest, mainly surrounding the concept of DZOs running the USPA. The claim, in broad sweeping terms, is that the USPA is being run for the benefit of the DZOs, not the jumpers, and that the USPA has lost it's way via the GM program. By creating the GM program, the USPA has become a trade organization, when it should be more focused on the membership, the jumpers themselves. My position is that there is no difference between the two. It has been established many times that fun jumpers are not a huge profit center for DZs. The price we pay for a jump ticket covers the operating costs of the DZ, but not much more. Tandems and students bring in the majority of the dollars, and the fun jumpers are there to fill out the loads. Given the situation, I cannot see how what is good for the DZO is not good for the jumpers. As we have seen with many great DZs in the recent past, simply staying in business has proven to be too much of a challenge. Anything a DZO can do to improve their bottom line, and protect their interests in the long term is going to be good for the jumper. I do not see a conflict between us (the fun jumper) and them (the DZOs). We have the free will to take our business anywhere we please, and they have the right to run their business anyway they please. Despire the fact that we are not a 'cash cow' for the DZOs, most of them recognize that we do bring income to the DZ, as well as create a new instructor base for them to hire from, and help to draw in new jumpers by creating a fun atmosphere. The other line of thinking has been that there is corruption running rampant through the BOD and EC. I don't have any facts to comment on, but my feeling is that this is not true. I can't see any sort of return available that would push a BOD or EC member to this behavior. There's not enough money in the organization that it could be siphoned off and not noticed. I cannot see an outside source seeing enough benefit to 'pay off' one of the officials in an amount that would cause them to act in an inappropriate manner. Those are my thoughts, but the real point of this to to hear everyones thoughts. If you have a differing viewpoint, let's hear it. If you have factcs to support your assertions, let's hear those to. If you have information, but don't want to be the one take it public, PM me, and I'll post it for you. Indicate to me where you want the 'cut' to begin and end, and I'll post it verbatim. I will indicate that it is a quote from a PM, but will not add anything else, or alter the post in any way. I will create my own post if I have comments on your position. More importantly, this will put everything out on the table. It will open the ideas up to the community, giving more people the chance to comment on, disprove, or support them. Maybe in this way we can expose some wrong doing, and maybe come up with a viable course of actoin to remedy them. Maybe we can put some rumors to rest, and reveal that things are not as bad as some would have us think.

Hey Swoop, I'm not sure how you got that quote connected with my name, by those are Peek's words, not mine. I agree with you, and my quote on the subject is as follows -

I think even if the seats were just offered, no election required, I'm not sure how many people would have the time and money to donate towards doing the job properly. Especially with the internet, running for a seat is easier than ever. You can get easily get your platform known to a large number of people. Critisizm of the BOD is nothing new to the internet. Rec. and DZ.com have always had their share of anti-BOD chatter going on. Despite this, the make up of the candidates has changed very little. These are still elections, and still won by the majority. We all know the turn out is always dismal, and a well run internet campaign could easily reach enough people to make the difference. For christ sake, this thread in itself is a great indicator of the power the web can have in terms of getting a message out, and this is just a general posting. Imagine the damage a cadidiate could do with a well organized and focused effort. Wth all this, we still see the same type of candidate, year in and year out.

What's the main concern with DZOs being on the BOD? They clearly have an interest in seeing skydiving survive, more of an interest than another person who does not feed their family via skydiving. What would they be doing to threaten their livelyhood? In terms of the Skyride situation, it may be true that some of the DZOs on the BOD accpet Skyride certs at their DZ. Let's keep in mind that in the beginning, Skyride seemed like a great idea. Signing up in the early days cannot be held against anyone. Staying with Skyride? That might be a shitty thing to do, but due to the way that Skyride operates, a DZO stands to lose a good piece of business by cutting their ties with them. Maybe even enough to risk the financial health of their DZ all together. I know of some DZ that accpet Skyride, and it's a solid third of their business. If any one of these DZ were to lose a third of their business, they would have to close up shop. Lets keep in mind that Skyride doesn't bring new business into skydiving, they just intercept the existing business that is seeking a DZ in their area. Skyride is, in effect, taking control of a portion of the customer base, the same customer base these DZ pulled from before Skyride came along. If they were to drop Skyride, they would lose this portion of their customer base. It's my understading that DZOs who do business with Skyride excused themselves during that portion of the BOD meetings. What more can you expect? Let's keep in mind that the BOD positions are not paying gigs. You're already getting their time and money (for travel) for free, do you really expect them to risk their livelyhood by dropping 1/3 of their tandem business? To that end, do you really think that they are happy with Skyride? With the crooks they turned out to be after these people 'got into bed' with them? Do you think these DZOs are happy about paying a 20% commision to Skyride, when they expected Skyride would be bringing new business in, only to find that Skyride was simply intercepting the customers already looking for a local DZ? Lets get real people. None of these people on the BOD are independently wealthy, none of them are looking to, or even able to, make great personal gains via the USPA. Does anyone really think that any of these people sat down five years ago, and mapped out thier rise to power? These are people who cared about skydivign enough to make it their livelyhood for one, and then went the next step to offer their time and money to help run the USPA. Finally, in terms of the things they do that appear to be geared toward making DZOs more money, good for them. We need the DZOs to make as much money as possible. I, for one, love jumping out of a million dollar aircraft, but I'm not crazy about the idea of acutally paying 1/20 the cost every time I go up. It's all the other money the DZ makes, that allows me to buy a slot for $20-something all day long.

The assertion is that it creates a conflict of interest. Of course, for that to occur, there would have to be some sort of 'struggle' between DZOs and jumpers. I'm not sure how there could be a 'struggle', as DZs are private enterprises, and nobody is forced to have anything to do with any of them. If you don't like a DZ or DZO, you just don't go there, it's just like dry cleaners, pizza shops or grocery stores. The truth is that DZOs make for great RDs or BOD members because there are not that many people who can afford the time and expense that those positions require. Being on the BOD means donating your time to USPA business, and spending your own money to travel to the meetings. The real problem is finding people to fill the seats. It's common for the elections to have only one or even no cadidates in some regions. Lets exclude DZOs from the next election, and see what were left with.

Can we start calling you 'The Oracle' now?

Both factors played a role in the lawsuit. If one or the other was not present, the outcome would have been different.

Granted, this is what 'you think'. The fact is that the federal court system holds a different opinion than you do, at least with regards to the methods employed to distribute that information. What would the alternative have been? Jan's actions had already been taken, there was no way to reverse that. Skyride was clearly not good for skydiving, clearly not who the USPA wanted in their membership. Were they to simply take one on the chin, and take no action against Skyride because of Jans actions? Would that have been good for skydiving? The existance of the lawsuit, and of course it's outcome were unknown at the time the BOD voted Skyride out of the USPA. The BOD made the right move in outing them. Jan's independent actions beforehand came back to bite the USPA on the ass for sure. But again, I ask, given that Jan's actions had taken place, what course of action against Skyride should the BOD have taken? What other options did they have?

OK, lets say 'The dismissal of half of the charges, and out of court settlement of the remaining charges due to the cost of defending them, and possible loss despite that cost'

This taking the conspiracy theory to the next level. To allow them to remain in the USPA despite their business practices, that would have been a simple conspiracy. Easy to understand, and easy to execute. To plan their removal, with the intent of them bringing a lawsuit for the express purpose of draining a large sum of cash from the USPA, is far more complex. The number of things that could go wrong in trying to execute that type of plan is pretty high. You bring a large number of people into the fold, including the federal court system. If they got caught, it would mean serious federal charges againt most everyone involved. I can't see the reward being worh that risk. I'll stick with my theory that there is no such collusion.

That's a good point. Any connection to the terms of the settlement is pure speculation as the terms are sealed (most likely a clause of the settlement itself).

I don't have any first hand information to confirm or deny a link between the BOD and Skyride. However, if there was such a link, then why would they have voted to cancel the memberships of the Skyride owners, and the GM status of their DZs? Let's remember that these actions were taken before the lawsuit, and had the lawsuit not reared it's ugly head, all of the Skyride DZ and owners would still be out of the USPA. If a collusion did exist between the BOD and Skyride, why would they have given them the boot? My only conclusion is that there is no such link.

Jan created an anti-skyride website, and being a sitting memeber of the BOD, this action was taken as representing the position of the USPA. If this was the actions of a private citizen, it would have been tried as a libel/slander suit. Being that it was connected to the largest trade organization in skydiving, it becomes an anti-trust suit. In terms of her impeachment being a part of the settlement, that was a supposition on my part, and I have always represented it as such. There are other valid reasons for hew impeachment, which I have repeated several times in this thread.

No. Please re-read my post. I provided a quote from the post I was replying to for context. The comment I replied to was trying to make a connection between Glen Bangs, and the impeachment of Jan Myer. My assertion is that the make-up of the BOD or the EC has no influence on this situation. The loss of the lawsuit, and being to defend ourselves in a future lawsuit are the driving factors for her impeachment. Even if there is a grand conspiracy to out Jan, the people behind it lucked out because now there are legitamate reasons for her to go.

I'm not sure what one thing has to do with another. Jan took actions of her own accord, and the USPA got sued (and lost) because of it. Regardless of the Skyride situation, she needs to be removed from the BOD to protect the USPA in the case of future litigation. She has proven herself to be a person who can be a legal liability to the organization. By leaving her in a position of authority, the USPA would be, in effect, approving of her actions. That would constitute negligence on the part of the USPA, and would make future lawsuits nothning but an easy payday for the plantiff. The situation of impeaching Jan is related only to the events follwing the lawsuit. If we had won the lawsuit, she would not have to go. The fact is that we did lose the lawsuit, and now we have to do 'damage control'. The first step was to settle the lawsuit, so the USPA didn't end up bankrupt. The second step is for the USPA to take reasonable and prudent actions to prevent similar situations in the future. In this case, Jan was the actor, and in turn, has to go. This isn't rocket science people. It's simple business management. None of this it to say that Glen Bangs isn't the spawn of satan, and that he's not trying to get rich off of skydivers backs, and using the USPA as his own personal tool to do so (which is crazy and probably not true). Either way, the damage control remains the same. It would remain the same if the Easter bunny was running the USPA.

No. Re-read and you'll see that it says he will be flying at the same speed as a person falling at terminal. His forward speed will be similar to the speed of terminal velocity. He has already docked with a wingsuit flyer while flying the 'big' VX 39, so it's not hard to imagine him going even faster with the 37.

Give me call and let me know what time you're free tonight.