davelepka

And fuck your 'very large duck' too.

You crazy fucker, I got you this time. Everytime you bring up a scenario that you're supposedly in, either in an e-mail or over the phone, I always think that you're sitting alone, just making shit up. This proves it jackass. It hasn't snowed in days, bitch. Are we to believe that a week ago you noticed tracks in your yard, and you just put in your journal until now? I'll see you later you lying sack of shit.

I'm not 'comfortable' with it either, but the USPA is in damage control mode, and this is what needs to happen. We all know that there was no malice toward the USPA on Jan's part. We also know that her actions were really for the greater good of all skydivers, and future skydivers. Much like Skyride has used very slim legal standings to defend it's business practices, they used the same standings to push the USPA into this postition. I wouldn't be surprised if one the terms of the settlement was her impaechment at the next BOD meeting. I have a feeling that Skyride wasn't looking to destroy the USPA, which is why they agreed to a settlement. They could have easily pushed through the trial, and drained the USPA resources enough that the final judgement would have sealed the USPAs coffin. I don't think they wanted that because the Skyride crew are still skydivers looking to make money off of skydiving, and by and large the USPA is good for people trying to make money off of skydiving. If Jan were to remian on the board, and another situation was to occur, even if it didn't involve Jan, the fact that she was allowed to remain after opening up the organization to great legal liability points toward the USPA being mis-managed, and weakens it's legs in any future suit. If that suit was brought by an entity that had no concern for the future of, or even the overall existance or the USPA, it's not hard to imagine that suit marking an expensive, embarrasing, and damaging end to the USPA.

I understand your feelings on this, but some of your assumptions are not correct. If this was indeed not a legitimate anti-trust suit, than the USPA would not have settled. In fact, it never would have made it to trial if the case no merit. The fact that it made it to trial, and that settling was found to be the best option all points to this being a legitimate anti-trust suit. Again I understand your feelings, but you're not a lawyer (as fas as I know) and not an expert in the field of anti-trust lawsuits. Neither am I, but my statements are based on the sitaution at hand. Your statements are based on yor impression of what youthink should or should not be considered anit-trust. As far as your finger pointing at the USPA lawyers as being incompetent, this is the first I have heard of any of this. Not knowing these people, or having knowledge of their actions with regards to this case, I have no place to speak on this issue, and most likely, neither do you. This is 100% true. However, everything Jan did was after the GM program was in place, and she had full knowledge of the GM program and it's intent and scope. Her actions can only be considered in light of the actual situation at the time of her actions. You are correct in your claim that if the GM program did not exist, the lawsuit may have not existed, but the reality is that it did, and it did. I think what you're missing here is that this not an emotional decision. Your feelings about how things should be are not relevant. How things actually are is what is relevant. 1.The USPA was sued for anti-trust actions. 2.The suit named Jan, and her website as the cause. 3.The suit went to trial, and was argued in front of a judge in a court of law. 4.Portions of the suit had enough merit that the USPA settled the suit to put a limit on the losses it would be taking. 5.In the wake of this, it is neccesary for the USPA to sever it's ties to Jan in order to protect itself from future liability.

Thinking in terms of the greater good of the organization, can you see how Jan needs to be removed from the board? Not from a peronsal standpoint, or even based on what you know to be the 'right' thing to do, but based on the legal situation as it currently exists.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the USPA, and I don't defend most of their actions. In this case, however, I can see how this is the appropriate action. The reason Skyride could bring an anti-trust lawsuit is that in some way the USPA attempted to limit the marketplace. It doesn't take a genius to see that creating an anti-Skyride website is an attempt to limit the marketplace, or at least exclude Skyride from it. On its own, this is harmless, and a simple case of libel/slander agaisnt the person (s) responsible for the website. The fact that the person responsible was a sitting member of the BOD for the national organization that the handles the industry is where this becomes an anti-trust suit. We all need to realize that once you accept a position on the BOD, everything you do with regards to skydiving has a direct connection to the USPA. You become a representative, in the legal sense, for better or worse. Is it fair that she has to go? No. Was she doing anything that was outwardly bad for skydiving? No, quite the opposite. Did she have any malice toward the USPA in her actions? No. Did she open the USPA up to considerable legal and financial liability? Yes. Can she be allowed to remain on the board, representing the USPA, in light of this? No.

I hear you man, but that's why we have elections. There's no practical way to run an organization of 32,000 people if you intend to hold general elections on every issue. So we elect a representative to handle that business. By giving someone your vote during the elections, you're giving them your vote during every BOD meeting, and on every issue that comes across their desk.

Again, you and I know the real deal. We know what they're doing, but they seem to have found ways to skirt the law, have not been found guilty in a court fo law. Yeah, it sucks but that's the reality. The continuation of that reality is that they have the right to protect their 'good name', even if it's only 'good' in the strictest legal sense. That gives them the right to bring suit against the USPA, from the looks of it they would have won, or bankrupted the organization in the process. What I don't get is that if this collusion exists, why would the BOD attempt to remove the Skyride crew from the USPA in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense for the conspirators to leave them in the USPA, and just claim, 'There's nothing we can do about it'? Look, I'm not a big fan of the USPA, but I do see how removing Jan from the board is the prudent thing to do. It might not be fair, but to leave a liability like that in place is just asking for trouble in the future. Check out the ad that Ted Strong runs every month in Parachutist. Do you really think Ted wants to devote 1/3 of his ad space to the harness mod that keeps fat people in a tandem harness? Furthermore, do you think Ted wants to run an ad which shows a mod to his product, which he has sold and considered safe for many years? Of course not, but one bad incident has now set the precedent. It's plausable for Ted to deny any knowledge of how a fat person could fall out of his tandem harness BEFORE the incident. If it should ever happen again, and Ted took no action, Strong Enterprises and everything else he owns would be lost in the ensuing lawsuit. If Jan were allowed to stay, and got a bug up her ass about something else in a year or two, and took similar actions, this would open the USPA up to another lawsuit. I'm fairly certain that the lawyers in that suit would research the Skyride suit, and once they saw that the actor in that suit was still a BOD member, and had been the actor in their suit, the case would be a slam dunk. There would be no settlement, and in the end, there would be no USPA. I know that's what many people are shooting for anyway, but we all know that's not the best way to go about it. Starting a new organization, and killing the USPA by slowly stealing all its membership is the way to go.

The terms of the settlement are set by Skyride, not the USPA. Clearly they had the upper hand in the lawsuit, so the USPA needed to settle. Being dirty back-handed weasels, it's not hard to imagine that Skyride stipulated that the terms of the settlement not be released to the membership. This way they spin the story anyway they want when they explain themsleves to jumpers. Lets face it, they still own DZs, and still need staff, and want fun jumpers around, so the details of how they ass-raped the USPA might put a damper on that. If I was them, I would have made sure the details never got out.

Now this thread is getting somewhere. Let's see how many people will ignore your post, and continue on with the conspiracy theories. The number of people who seem to think that the USPA sued Skyride just indicates how little they understand about the situation. I'm far from an expert on this, but at least I know who sued who, and why. As for everyone crowing about details, and Glen Bangs keeping a lid on everything, get a grip. Bangs may be a 'good old boy', but that's not relevant in this situation. It's almost standard practice in a settlement that the defendants are required to keep the details of the settlement confidential. These datials may have included the removal of Jan from the BOD. Anyway you look at, Skyride had the USPA bent over a barrel. At the time of the settlement one of two things happened - either the USPA ran out of money to defend the remaining charges, or they realized that they were guilty of the remaining charges, and were able to settle for less than the expected cost of the continued defense and resulting judgement that would be brought against them. USPA has every right to out people or DZs from the organization. The do not have the right to publically ruin the 'good name' of those people or businesses. In this case, Jan's out spoken nature worked against the USPA as she is an elected representative, and in turn, her actions represent the USPA, good or bad. This is similar to the situation with Kip, the RD in the mideastern region. He did an underage tandem without filing for a waiver. Thankfully everything turned out ok on that jump, but seeing as he is a sitting BOD memeber, and the infraction of the rules was a matter of public record, he needs to be removed from the board. If he is involved in any further incidents, either due to his poor judegement, or just a legitimate accident, and it comes out that he had a history of this behavior and that the USPA knew about it, and took no action, it opens the USPA up to a great liability. Now why the USPA is choosing to oust one liability from the BOD, and not the other is anyone's guess. The fact remains that its flat negligence to allow a person who has opened the USPA up to great liability (or actual cost in the form of defending a lawsuit) to remain on the board. Allowing such a person to remain on the board sets a precedent of bad judgement on the part of the board as a whole, and in turn the entire organization. Maybe Jan is a great person, and maybe everything else she did was great for the skydiving and the USPA, but in this instance, the BODs hands are tied, and they have to protect the organization (and they may actually HAVE to in order to satisfy the settlement).

From the USPA website - Thoughts? Comments? Anyone? Anyone?

Depending on how much money you're talking about, you can use a currency exchange service which can lock in an exchange rate when you file the payment with them. They will handle the actual exchange with your supplier, and absorb any changes to the rate during that time (up or down). An easier idea is to arrange with your suppliers to process your payments immediately when you give an authorization. If you explain the situation, I'm sure they'd be happy to work with you.

Wow dude. So you haul your toggle down to your knee at 1200ft - stupid mistake. You cutaway from linetwists at 1000ft - most likely another stupid mistake. I have trouble believing that a SA2 at .95 could have been that out of hand that you couldn't have kicked out of them. Maybe no, so that's why it's only 'most likely' another stupid mistake. Then you forget to pull your reserve handle - the level of stupidity here defies logic. After all this, you get mad at a guy who points this out? If you ask me, you're the one being the asshole.

Don't be upset with me. I didn't make the choices for you, I simply pointed out the choices you made yourself. Should I have kept my comments to myself? Maybe, but seeing as they were is reference to things you didn't know, how am I to know what else you don't know? I couldn't possibly tell you everything you need to know, so suggesting that you take on further study was the best I could do. There used to be common situation where everyone hung out at the DZ after hours, and stories would be swapped and questions would be answered. Many longer term jumpers on this board have lamented the passing of this trend, noting that information isn't making it as far as it used to. You shouldn't have to wait for a layer of fog to roll in a facilitate your learning. Beyond that, it looks like you've been jumping for two years. Well, the very resource you're using in hindsight to gather information, DZ.com, has been around for much longer than that. All the posts, and all the posters were here freely exchanging info all along. Be upset with yourself, and take my suggestion to re-suffle your priorities to educate yourself first, and endanger yourself second.

Whoever it was did you a favor. Now you have no excuse not to go out and nail as many college chicks as possible (yeah I said it). It won't last forever, get it while the gettins good. You can play X-box later, when you're trapped at home every night with your live-in girlfriend like BK.

But you didn't forget to haul down on your front risers on final approach. Maybe shuffle your priorities around a little when it comes to jumping and currency. Also, maybe you shoud do a little research into canopy mechanics before inducing speed on your landings. Proper adjustment of your brake lines is key to canopy performance. How do you expect to learn if your canopy isn't even set up properly?

You're right, it's retarded. The fact that we can get into any AC thats $750,000 and up for $20-ish per person is a miracle. Many people work a lifetime and don't make $750,000. Right now, that only gets a run out Otter with the -20's on it. Anything with -27's and up is over $1 million. Like I said, it's a miracle, and I'm not going to complain.

Wander around the packing area and eyeball the different choices there. When you see one that looks good to you, just ask who made them. Everyone has a different opinion as to whats the best riser set-up. See what makes sense to you, and go with that.

How do you know that?

I'm happy to see the lower number of dead people, but does the USPA really think this due to their efforts? They quote the number of members, and the number of new members as both being up, but the relevant number in this case would be the overall number of skydives. They say 2.5 million, but they don't say how this relates to other years. My impresion is that business is down overall, and I would naturally expect the fatality rate to fall in accordance. Without doing any research in the 18 fatalities, I'm willing to bet that when the fataly report comes out, we'll find that statistically the types of fatalities, and the percentages they represent will be very similar to other years. This would support my assertion the a reduced number of overall jumps is partially (if not entirely) responsible for the downturn in fatalities. Again, I'm glad to see fewer dead people, but I hope the USPA, and everyone else, realizes that this may just be a fucntion of fewer overall jumps, and that satying safe and improving safety overall still needs to be a priority for everyone.

Skydivers are people. Many people are stupid. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

There are quite a few videos of Cypres fires floating around out there. How do you get a Cypres fire on video? It's easy, a jumper and camera flyer both loose altitude awareness, and are still rolling tape as they smoke through 750 ft. It's amazing the power of a camera to suck in both the operator and the subject.

OK, just to be clear, Halfpastniner has been a packer at my home DZ for several years now. He should probably think about buying a rig before he books a ticket to Nationals. He would make a fine team packer even today, but I don't let anyone pack for me, and I think the other guys will be DIY as well. Now really, who wants go to Nationals and get their ass handed to them by Rook and his buddies?

***i narrowed my cost options down to a .45 lens for now, and saw this one on ebay. and no im not jumping it this season... Quote Then what's the rush. Save up your money while your busy not jumping your set-up, and have a better selection when you do start jumping it. For that matter, why the hell are you building a camera helmet you're not going to jump? You're clearly on a budget, why not put the money towards making more jumps?

Work hard, apply yourself, focus on your goals, and you could probably be our back-up packer for 2009.