peek

Dicky, I'm answering your post, Kelly, I hope you are reading. The "traditional" I/E has (already) been "retired". It seems the rating is no longer considered worthwhile, and since there are only about 50-60 current I/E's, USPA's attitude is that they will "die out" eventually. Those who hold the rating will still be able to renew it in the current manner. I would hope that people would call those holding it something like "Honorary" I/E, but my guess is that people will disrespect those who worked hard to earn that rating by using something like "old IE". They are re-using the title I/E to replace the next level of rating being created, which is Course Director "trainer", (for lack of a better name.) Ask the USPA S&T committee for more info. There are many things left to determine, that is why there is little information available.

Chuck, thanks for your comments. You know, I don't have a Group Membership. I'm not a DZO nor do I have a skydiving business that can have a Group Membership.

That's a good question. I don't know if any of the Parachutist staff frequents dropzone.com. But all the cool skydivers do so I guess they had better, huh?

What is that?

"Jan is very intelligent and Glennduh can't stand it that a woman is smarter than him." Man, you're getting right to the point there, huh? Hey wait, is that Judy there behind you twisting your arm? Ha, ha, ha! Now, that just might be a good thing that you have done, because the average USPA member who thinks Mr. Bangs is a normal standup guy would wonder why he would not like another BOD member. That is a realistic explanation that a normal person might understand.

Section 1 of the Group Member manual: http://www.uspa.org/publications/manuals.pdf/gmmanual.sec1.pdf I think every USPA member needs to familiarize themselves with this information and consider whether the GM program benefits them. Edited: Oh, I almost forgot. One of the "advantages" not listed is that your drop zone can hold USPA instructional course without having to pay the $600 per course "fine" (as I call it) for not being a GM drop zone. That's right. If you are not a USPA GM drop zone, your USPA (individual) members cannot attend a course at your DZ without paying a "fine". But don't worry, your DZO will still schedule the course, they will just pass this fee on to the course candidates.

Well, those are not the things that I'm saying, but I'm not even going to re-quote them. And I'm going to stop now because this is distracting from the original post. So, Shawn, do you support Jan Meyer's efforts or not?

Do you know why that is? There have been several cases where it was well known that the incumbent (in at least one case a DZO) planned to run again, (and was likely the only one running) but the incumbent did not send in their election materials on time as required by the election process. The result: No one on the ballot! But a person who might be thinking of running would not know that the DZO/incumbent/etc. was going to make that mistake, so they would not run. Another wrinkle to this is, that if an incumbent knew that someone else was going to run against them, that they would probably pay more attention to those deadlines and not make that mistake, resulting in the same situation.

There usually is a conflict of interest. A number of BOD members are quite good about not letting this affect their decision making, but the conflict of interest still exists. There would probably be many more candidates, because members would know that they do not need to compete with another candidate that is an incumbent, already well known (from a skydiving related business perhaps), has a turbine aircraft to fly around to various drop zones, or whose face is seen in USPA publications. It would be no problem finding people to fill the seats if DZO's were excluded. Unless the average member has a lot of time and money to run for the position to prove a point or to raise awareness of an issue, they normally will not run if they don't think they have a chance.

I'm sorry, I missed this earlier, and when someone quoted it later I picked up on it. Are you saying you think USPA BOD members are paid? ...that it is a paid position?

That would be a very good resource, thank you.

There are no "rules" about this. USPA's Governance manual has a Director "responsibilities" section but does not address this. Robert's Rules of Order does not address this as far as I know. Being a USPA BOD member does not remove one's right to speak as an individual, (although we can see that some people think otherwise). "In general", if a member of an organization includes their position or title in correspondence, then they are speaking for the organization. For example, last February when I posted the paper I wrote called "The Decline in Skydiving in the 21st Century" a number of people claimed it was not a proper scientific research paper because they mistakenly assumed I was representing the Parks College Parachute Research Group.

In this post- And in another post- Dave, please re-read USPA's official statements about the resolution of this matter.

As an individual.

I know, it seems like a small thing, but the devil is in the details. A lot of skydiving knowledge is being passed along without important explanations, until it finally becomes incorrect. I just think I owe explanations to less knowledgeable skydivers that are as complete as possible. (I am having the temptation to provide another example, like "line dump" but I'll stop here and let Derek carry on if he cares to.)

You and I know that, but not everyone does. Say a student learning to pack has several types of "flat" pack jobs described to them, e.g., stack pack, roll pack, etc. They see an experienced jumper flaking their canopy standing up, roll the nose, roll the tail around the canopy and throw it down. They ask their rigger what kind of pack job that is, and the answer is "pro-pack". They ask a rigger, "What kind of pack job did you use on my reserve." My answer would not be simply "pro-pack". I'm just recommending that others not throw this name around without explanation. I bet I can hijack a thread too.:) Rhetorical question- Why aren't main canopy pack jobs given the same care? It's only our lives.

I most definitely agree with that interpretation. (I don't know which of my above posts you were responding too, but that's OK. Perhaps it was one where I was asking a rhetorical question.) Simplified explanations are bothersome to me because the simplification can often cause the explanation to become incomplete, and incomplete can progress to incorrect. Then it can become "common knowledge" after being spoken so many times, and soon everyone is spouting the same (incomplete) explanation. Another example: How many riggers say that they "Pro-pack" a reserve. They most certainly do not, not unless they are packing it like a main, which would be scary, wouldn't it? Instead they should be saying that they flake the canopy standing up (like the beginning of a Pro-pack), then place it on the ground and continue with the remaining really important stuff. The simplification of saying "Pro-pack" is not good.

Well I don't either, but that's the worry from the skydiving industry at this time because of the decline. The industry has not figured out how to downsize gracefully." Yeh, and that's a simple marketing technique that many drop zones don't even do. Many just send their Tandem carnival ride customers away, without even a logbook.

Definitely, we created this for students who ask. Although it is a bit elementary, it satisfies the requirement for not much math. http://www.pcprg.com/student.htm

No, no, no, no...... That was 30 emails related to a specific issue. Probably spread over 2-3 days. And yes, an elected official is responsible for communication with their constituency. Email makes it easy.

The "official" reason was that this email address listed on USPA's web site caused SPAM to be sent to the BOD, (which of course it did because all email addresses listed on web sites cause a certain amount of SPAM). However, there was an issue (I don't recall which) that was discussed on rec.skydiving at the time that generated a large interest in comments to the BOD, so about 30 members used this email address to contact the BOD. Those BOD members who appreciate feedback from members simply read them and made mental note of their content. (Not too much to ask, eh?) At the next BOD meeting when this was being discussed I vividly remember Glenn Bangs referring to the emails he received that were forwarded through this email address as a "SPAM Dump". I vividly remember it of course because of his coining of that phrase to refer to [messages from USPA members that he did not want to get]. (He was not the only BOD member who did not want to receive emails from members. It was more or less the internet-naive BOD members that were used to a contact-free existence because other methods of contact from members were not as efficient as email.) So be careful you USPA member "spammers"!

JP, this is for everyone, but your idea of USPA members taking back our organization from those with special interests is of course the best advice. USPA Members: It is time for you to step up to the plate and help your National Director that has worked so incredibly hard for you. There is only one thing that will work, and that is to contact your Regional Director with your opinion. Anything less and you are simply all talk and no action. (However, contacting the full BOD will insure that the members of the BOD that support Jan are aware of all of the emails sent to those who do not. A CC: might be in order.) Use uspabod@skydivehard.com to contact the entire BOD. USPA headquarters turned off the email address fullboard@uspa.org because one or more BOD members asked them to, because they do not want to hear from USPA members. I have already created a special folder in my email program to store these messages. Please think carefully and compose a good message. Also, I extend the offer once again for anyone who wants to talk about this issue or other USPA issues may call me at my office, 9-5 central, (800) 435-1975.

Mark, I'm not trying to be ignorant or split hairs that do not need splitting, but "... the contain manufacturer's instructions take precedence when there is a conflict between the two" has a much different meaning than "Gawain's" statement "Reserves are packed in accordance with the container manufacturer's instructions..." We need to be so incredibly careful when we speak of things like this, because people less knowledgeable than us will not understand it properly.

I think, as "marks" pointed out above, you might have meant to quote the advisory circular stating "... the contain manufacturer's instructions take precedence when there is a conflict between the two". I understand what you meant, but others may take that and misunderstand it. There is a world of difference in the two statements.

Do you have a reference for that?