“Mr. Furnari:

Here is a little fuel for your blog:  There has not been a quorum at a General Membership meeting in the last six years.  Thus, there has been NO general membership business conducted in that period.

Do you think that this is a problem?  If so, how do you think that it should be addressed?

Blue Skies!

Jim McGraw B-30893″
And my reply:

I do think it is a problem, but I’m not quite sure how to handle it.

There has not been a been a quorum because 10% of the membership has not shown up. That 10% totals somewhere around 3100 people. I think I could count 35 to 45 at the last GMM. Its a shame.

So how does this get fixed? There has been talk about attendance by proxy, however last time that was tried, it became a political squabble, and overall participation was appathetic. Reducing the number for quorum might work, but that entails changing a constitutional bylaw of the organization and we’ve got to have a quorum (10%) through attendance or proxy to change the bylaws.

I don’t know if we’ll ever reach quorum again, I would not mind trying the quorum by proxy again, but there is a lot of resistance to that on the current BOD. I would suggest that if the operations of the USPA were more accessible to more of it’s members, then the interest to do something about the GMM might develop. I am in favor of having Board Meetings at places/times much more convenient to member attendance.

Perhaps it’s time to break the GMM out and hold it durring a major skydiving event? Or look at the possibility of online attendance?

Hopefully you are all enjoying this skydiving season, there is still plenty of jumping to do this year, and for those of you up north, get it while you can, the winter is coming!

The USPA Board of Directors election will be coming up this winter, and I want to encourage all USPA members to participate. Even though the technology is available, we haven’t been able to get secure online voting available for members. I believe it will come, but not for at least 2 years.

Instead this election will use the tried and true paper ballots mailed in to USPA HQ. The ballots and bios for all candidates will appear in the November issue of Parachutist magazine and must be received at USPA HQ no later than the last business day of the year by the close of business, in this case Dec 31, 2008.

Please take a few minutes to vote this year, and take part in the direction your organization is headed. Make sure you read the instructions carefully as it’s pretty easy to make a mistake that would cause your ballot to be declared invalid. Ballots must be mailed in to HQ, and can contain votes for up to (but not to exceed) 8 National Director candidates, and one vote for a Regional Director in the region that your address on file with the USPA is contained within (Foreign members can vote of any ONE Regional director candidate of their choice).

Make sure your name and membership number or license number is clearly legible and you sign your ballot as well. These are some of the things that HQ has pointed out as reasons for rejected ballots in the past.

As some of you may already know, I am running for National Director this year. After attending the last year’s worth of board meetings I’d like to help bring this membership organization back into the members interest. I’ve started a blog detailing some of my reasons for running as well as things I’d like to see change about the USPA. I’ve also set up a dedicated e-mail address to further communications, and I am looking for input, ideas, criticisms, and issues that members would like to see addressed. Even if I’m not elected, I will be attending future meetings, so I can pass along issues from members.

In addition to encouraging you all to vote in this year’s election, I am asking for your support if you think I can represent you on the BOD. I’m also asking that you all encourage other members to participate in the election. It only takes a few minutes of time, and it’s worth your membership dues to have your voice heard.

Thank you, and wish you all safe and fun jumps!

Blue Skies,
-jp-
Jonathan P. Furnari
Candidate for National Director USPA

jpforuspa@gmail.com
http://diablopilot.wordpress.com/

Yep, neither did I, well at least till I went to meetings.

In this age of technology, media, and communication resources, the answers to any of the above questions should be easily answered with just a few clicks and a moment or two of reading. How easily can meetings be captured on video and hosted for the availability of the members? It is a very simple thing to record the way specific members cast their votes on issues/motions and it provides the opportunity for members to then ask why they voted the way they did. For all the interim action that occurs weblog style write ups a convenient way to keep membership up to date.

As a member this is the sort of information I want, and to get it, I’ve gone to meetings, however I think it should be easier to obtain. It has been said by some BOD members that it’s too much of a hassle to expose oneself publicly, facing criticism, and ridicule. I think that’s one of the duties of a public office. Shouldn’t a Director encourage input from the members of the organization, improving member interest and involvement?

Wouldn’t a responsible Director, attempting to represent the interests of the membership seek to improve communications through available means in an effort to improve that representation?

I would.

A large amount of money was just spent by the USPA on purchasing a program to replace the current program to develop Course Directors, now to be called Instructor Examiners (much to the chagrin of the remaining old I.E. holders). What will this give us? Supposedly we’ll now have definable standards and criteria for individuals to meet to become CD/IEs. Well, we can hope this works, but is this really the problem we’re facing in the area of skydiving education?

In my opinion, no.

We’ve lost the ability as an industry (maybe because we’re an industry now) to develop those skydivers who show an interest, and an aptitude, into quality instructors. The USPA has handed over the business of rating evaluation to individuals who are then are loosely regulated to run instructional rating candidates through a series of checklists, and should they get all the check boxes ticked off then they are knighted as instructors, never to have to prove their abilities again.

Some of these CD/IEs are doing their jobs well, and some are not. Those that are doing the job well are hindered by the fact that judgment of aptitude, attitude, and character has almost totally been eliminated as criteria when selecting instructors. Those that are not doing the job well are turning out inferior rating holders who cheapen the value of the rating for those that have put in effort and earned their title.

Once Instructors and Coaches have had the ink dry on their ratings, the have the paltriest of renewal and currency requirements, and have not had to show progress, development, or even a maintained level of proficiency of their skills. In other industry where human life is a serious concern (i.e. Nursing, Paramedic, Doctor,) and even those where it is not but education is a focus (i.e. Teachers, Flight Instructors) there is a requirement for continuing education. In skydiving we have next to none, a line on a renewal form that needs to be filled out with some vague information about attending a meeting usually quickly filled out and never thought of again.

Simply making another requirement to attend a course isn’t going to improve things either. People will protest the difficulty, the expense, and the perceived necessity, but judging by some of the skydivers and instructors we have seen come up in the last few years (who were all the students of yesterday) there is a need. A friend of mine got his AFF rating in 1984, and I think him to be a competent and gifted AFF instructor. He knows that it is his job to do more than brief a freefall sequence of move, make sure they are completed and radio a student to landing, but rather mold and create a skydiver who is ready to be allowed to make unsupervised judgment calls, be cognizant their safety and those around them, and understands that they must still seek out advice and continue to learn. This instructor and I agreed that between 1984 and today there has been NO requirement to improve or develop as an instructor, and almost no requirement to prove skill.

What do we do about it?

We figure out how to spread knowledge, perhaps through a weekly newsletter to all instructional rating holders, containing information about trends, equipment, and techniques. We discuss incidents, and invite feedback from those in the field. Jim Crouch has been doing an amazing job over the years, but why must we let one man take the burden? There needs to be an avenue for instructors to discuss issues, ask questions, and get answers. In recent history this sport has lost the tradition of the new learning from the experienced, and we need to get it back. There needs to be a stronger method of reviewing skill and performance among existing rating holders, and I do expect that this will raise hackles. But as instructors shouldn’t we care enough about our students, and have enough pride in our rating and skill to have our performance evaluated every couple years? I asked this question at a BOD meeting, and Jay Stokes said, “Would you be willing to risk your rating on the chance you didn’t perform?” My answer was yes, as was his.

Due to a perceived shortage of instructors a few years back, the Coach rating was created to foster interest in the instructional process. It’s been a success in some ways, we seem to have a lot of coaches about, but how effective are they, and what are they being taught. Having worked with many I can tell you the standards and abilities are very different from coach to coach. Some see it as just another step towards their tandem rating, and others as the responsibility it is. Something that seems to be impressed pretty rarely is the knowledge that the Coach rating should be thought of as an apprenticeship towards becoming an instructor. Coaches are teachers, and observers, but they should also be seeking training, and oversight by instructors, so as to improve their craft.

I wonder how many rating holders we have in the USPA currently, I’ll have to ask, but at a loose guess of 2000 to 3000, times $20 a year renewal I’d like to see some of those funds headed towards projects to help skydiving students make the most of their training. How much would it cost to create a DVD and/or online video series to show students what they need to do to meet the requirements of their next training level? An added bonus of such a product would be a more standard utilization of the ISP between DZ’s. What about a training video for the tandem students, that can follow any waiver video, and serve not only to assist in getting the concept of a good body position across, but maybe even that what they are engaging in is not just a carnival rid, but in fact the first step in becoming involves in an exciting sport. Could $5,000 or $10,000 make a start in a project like this?

I sat through the IRM and SIM revisions at the last BOD meeting, and what a mind numbing experience it was, I can see why they were happy to change the frequency of the changes to once every 2 years, however no real new information, or improvements were incorporated. I assume the reason the IRM is not available for free on the internet is because instructors are a captive audience, and it can be required that candidates have the appropriate materials, but wouldn’t it be nice if that new USPA Tandem Instructor who’s getting recurrent after the winter layoff and is wondering if they have got the harnesses on the brand new DZ tandem gear right, could just log on to the USPA instructor ratting holder section of the website and get detailed information including video/pictures?

There is no quick and easy way to improve the overall standard of instructors and instruction in the field, but with lots of effort, shrinking of the disconnect between the field and HQ, and the creation and utilization of tools to assist students and instructors, change can be made.

I’d like to bring change to the BOD. Fresh ideas, and perspective, openness to communications, and enthusiasm back to the membership.

I don’t like it. It’s a conflict of interest, drain on resources, and doesn’t do a thing for the general membership. If DZO’s want a network or trade organization, then they should create one. The plan proposed by the PIA 7 or 8 years ago was good step, it just never received support. I do think that GM program is not going to go away anytime soon, so it’s up to the members to set it’s direction. This can be done by electing BOD members who’s focus is the general membership and then having them participate in the GM committee meetings.

I think it’s a blurry line as to what is considered “deceptive”. I do not support DZ’s that use illegal tactics, and don’t favor ones that try to slander other DZ’s. Exaggerating things like safety records, or making untrue statements about their operations are not big on my list either. I don’t believe in sugar coating the sport. I do believe that the USPA cannot be responsible for regulating the business methods of Drop Zones. I strongly believe that jumpers who don’t believe in the practices of any DZ should vote with their feet and wallets, and those that work in the industry should believe in working for DZ’s that meet their personal standards. It’s what I’ve done.

I like the idea, the challenge is ironing out the specifics. I think that as much effort that is put into a Wingloading BSR, we should be putting 5 times that amount into education. We should train and demand that the instructors in this sport are capable of teaching canopy flight. Canopy courses are a good thing, but shouldn’t the information to create a safe skydiver be available from ALL those we call instructors?

I think it’s probably helped at DZ’s that didn’t already have some sort of system in place already. There is no reporting system to tell if it’s been implemented at all USPA GM DZ’s. I do feel the USPA can do more through education.

Yes. I think that we’ve had a change in the sport from the “100 jump Jumpmaster” days, and today the sport is not placing the importance of the position in the minds of many of those seeking the rating. We cannot rely on DZ’s to not employ those that don’t make the cut, it’s too easy for their motives to be at conflicting interests. I believe there is nothing to be harmed, or lost by increasing the requirements, possibly adding a time in sport requirement, or even an endorsement requirement, in an effort to show a level of commitment to become part of the instructional process.

I also believe the USPA can do more than just “test” candidates for the various instructional ratings. We have an ISP for the students, why not an in depth training regiment, tips, methodology, etc. for the instructors as well? What about furthering education? One of the biggest disservices we’ve done to the whole sport is create instructors and then not update them to the modern methods.

On line voting.

What is your opinion on a GM inspection program?

I’m not in favor of the GM program to begin with. I think the logistics, and costs of such a program are a bit overwhelming, and what would the penalty be? Removal from a program that increasingly more and more members are dissatisfied with? I think that if *someone* were concerned about this issue, then *someone* with no USPA affiliation might start a “watchdog website”, but I wouldn’t know anything about that.

Feel free to contact me using jpforuspa@gmail.com

In the November issue of Parachutist Magazine both the biographies of the candidates and copies of the ballot will be enclosed.

Ballots must be marked correctly, and returned to USPA HQ by the last business day of the year. It appears that that will be Dec 31st for the 2008 election.

I believe that the following is the most current version of section 3-1.7 in the Governance Manual:

3-1.7 VALIDATION OF BALLOTS

A. Valid ballots are those received in the approved
format on or before December 31 by close of
business.

B. Ballots containing more than eight national director
votes or more than one regional director vote will
not be considered valid for that portion incorrectly
marked.

C. Photocopies of ballots are encouraged but acceptable
only if the voter individually marks them in original
handwriting.

D. Ballots that are faxed, electronically transmitted, or
pre-marked will be declared invalid.

E. Foreign members can vote for any one regional
director, and up to eight national director candidates,

including write-ins.

Situation awareness is important to begin developing and practicing from the earliest of jumps. Usually you know how many people are going to be in the air with you at the same time, you shared the plane ride up with all of them. Start practicing the habit of accounting for all the other canopies while flying yours. Those you can’t account for, be extra vigilant in your search. It’s not as hard as it sounds.

Share the landing area, pilots do, and they haven’t got near the options we do as skydivers. They are usually limited to one or two choices for heading, and can rarely land more than one at a time, we have 360+ choices in heading, and countless number more runways than pilots. High performance canopy pilots share the same landing points through prior planning, and while fun jumpers might not need such planning, in place of it they need to select a different landing point than someone landing at the same time as them.

Predictable patterns, go a long way in the aviation world to preventing collisions. A standard pattern of downwind, base, and final goes a long way to helping predict and find traffic. If you cannot join the standard landing pattern, consider landing out, or at the very least be extra vigilant about keeping out of the way of other landing traffic, and not crating a hazard.

Flying the appropriate canopy for the skill of the pilot is often stated, and makes sense. One must be able to fly and make decisions for where the canopy is going to be, not for where it is now, and must be able to react at the speeds that the canopy covers distance. What is often overlooked IMO, is that the canopy choice must also be selected for the situation. Or better stated yet, the canopy you fly must match your skill level in the situation you are flying it. A person may have good canopy technique when in the comfort zone of their home DZ, large landing area, with the usual max of 14 other people in the air with them at any one time, but taking their pocket rocket canopy to a boogie, or bigway puts them outside their skill set on that canopy. At that point a change must be made, either choose a different canopy, or land further away from the crowd, as simply “flying conservatively” does not seen to be working.

And finally, missing by an inch is just a good as missing by a mile, if your alive to learn the lesson of your mistake afterward. Practice, practice, practice with your parachute, so that when the time comes for an emergency avoidance action is required, you can perform it.

Please, train yourselves to be better canopy pilots people, as I’m gonna be pretty pissed if someone else kills me.

More to come, but most importantly…… Welcome!

keywords: skydive, skydiving, skydiver, parachute, USPA, United States Parachute Association,