Hi Everyone:  The USPA special election for National Director runs the entire month of June.  I am running, and have been trying to get the word out.  I am troubled by the fact that only about 6% of the membership voted in the regular election last time.  I am also troubled by the fact that this special election isn't even mentioned (as far as I can see) in the June Parachutist magazine that just arrived yesterday.  I'm attaching a picture that briefly shows my qualifications and what I hope to accomplish.  For more info on either of these topics, you can check out my website Mathewsadventureservices.com or email me at [email protected].  Thanks for your time.  I would really appreciate your vote.    David M. Mathews, Ph.D.

For those that want to more, here's a link to his site where he goes into more depth

https://www.mathewsadventureservices.com/post/vote-for-david-mathews

“4. Remove the FAA flight physical requirement for TI’s. There is a national shortage of TI’s. The FAA flight physical system was never intended for skydivers. In addition to not serving the skydiving industry, this system chews up and spits out good people in a tremendously unjust manner. I would work to replace the FAA flight physical with something more reasonable.” 
 

What are some of the options for replacing the class 3 medical?

Perhaps there’s just always been a shortage but if thats not the case, when did the national shortage of TIs start? Is there an international shortage?

Thank you for asking.  I just posted the following answer to this question on my website, so let me start by giving you that:

It's a good sentiment but I can also see why piggy backing off of a nationally recognized program for health verification is convenient and severing those ties carries legal and reputational risk.

For sure TIs have died mid jump due to health reasons. While infrequent how many are actually on the sidelines waiting for medical? As a pilot my sense is most class 3 medical problems are due to chemotherapy or mental illness.

The FAA is a pain in the ass for sure. But looking around the world I don't see a better system for high tail risk environment.

Curious to know how you intend to get skydivers to care about USPA and it's mission.

There are several types of "High Risk Activity Medical Clearance Forms." My thoughts are the only thing really needed is a physical, EKG, and Urinalysis. Then your Doctor sends a letter of yes or no without having to disclose anything. Having not been a TI for awhile now; wonder if the tandem manufacturers would need to be on a medical clearance form committee of some type to sign off. 

Couple of HRAMC forms for review:  

Senior Fitness Consent Forms.pdf SERE Medical Criteria for High-Risk Training.pdf

Curious to know how you intend to get skydivers to care about USPA and it's mission.

For starters, I would engage the Board more with members.  I think it was absolutely CRAZY that the Board met in Reno Nevada in the winter.  Why not Perris, or Z-Hills,  or Spaceland where skydivers would be welcome to interact.  And this wasn't isolated.  Spokane is the meeting site in July.  Although there is a DZ an hour or so away, I will be surprised if the Board goes there.  And then there is the issue of elections.  Unless I'm missing it, I couldn't find a single word about this month's election in Parachutist.  But I did see where USPA reported that MOST skydivers read the print version of Parachutist, and many fewer read it online.  So why put the candidate's bios and platforms only online?  Moreover, you can't even read about candidates unless you log in to vote.  So in answer to your question, I would be very deliberate about engaging with the membership.  Skydivers have a great sense of community.  This should extend to the Board.

As a Strong TIE operating in Canada, the factory gives me a bit more leeway on medicals for aspiring TIs.

I usually send them to a Transport Canada certified aero-medical examiner doctor for a TC Class 2 aircrew medical exam. I only ask for a doctor's note stating that they are fit to skydive. I tell aspiring TIs not to bother with TC paperwork as it is expensive and slow.

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

There are several types of "High Risk Activity Medical Clearance Forms." My thoughts are the only thing really needed is a physical, EKG, and Urinalysis. Then your Doctor sends a letter of yes or no without having to disclose anything. Having not been a TI for awhile now; wonder if the tandem manufacturers would need to be on a medical clearance form committee of some type to sign off. 

Couple of HRAMC forms for review:  

Senior Fitness Consent Forms.pdf 207.02 kB · 3 downloads SERE Medical Criteria for High-Risk Training.pdf 60.64 kB · 4 downloads

I like those, both seem better than the FAA Class 3 - which I always laughed at. I also never understood why they needed an inventory of tattoos. But, what's wrong with the current urinalysis? 

One more thing........

I am obviously passionate about improving member engagement, improving the published documents, re-invigorating collegiates, and replacing the FAA medical with something that makes more sense for TI's.  I have focused my campaign on these issues.    I should also say, however, what is working well.  I think USPA has developed a great culture of safety, and that USPA has lots of dedicated staff and Board members already.  The ones I have met are exceptional people.  I have the utmost respect for them.  But I think that our organization is not perfect, and we can make it better together.  I think that this is our job, as people who love skydiving.  I said all of this in my Casual Chat interview with Brian Germain.  (I'll post a link to it soon).  I know it's asking a lot, but if you have time I hope you will watch it. 

51 minutes ago, normiss said:

But, what's wrong with the current urinalysis? 

Nothing. Just your doctor does it as part of the HRAM. Kinda one stop shopping for the TI. 

16 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Nothing. Just your doctor does it as part of the HRAM. Kinda one stop shopping for the TI. 

This makes entirely too much sense.  

https://www.facebook.com/reel/193177446618472

David,

Thanks for running. We need more jumpers and fewer DZOs on the BOD. I watched the video and agree with most of your stated goals, but in my opinion, some of your positions sound a bit uninformed. You are asking for USPA to do things it's either already doing or has been unable to do, but many attempts have been made. i.e. getting rid of the FAA medical. There's a long history on this and other issues (IRM/SIM rewrite, BOD meeting location selection, etc.) that you don't appear to be acknowledging exists. Are you at least aware of what happened with the previous attempts? If so, how will you succeed where others have failed?

Again, thanks for running and making the effort to engage the membership. 

Louis 

10 hours ago, Deisel said:

but many attempts have been made. i.e. getting rid of the FAA medical. There's a long history on this and other issues (IRM/SIM rewrite, BOD meeting location selection, etc.)

I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of the "attempts." David is going for the "accomplishment."  

Louis:  One of my favorite quotes in life is: 

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”

― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

I am quite aware of the previous attempts you have mentioned.   I have 18 years experience working FOR an elected board.   I know how to get things done.  Regarding the meeting locations, the Board cannot leave this up to the administration.  The Board needs to do a formal resolution, and perhaps a change to the Governance manual, that dictates that at least one day of multi-day board meetings will take place at an operating drop zone.  Period.  Nothing short of this is going to work.  There will always be "oh, it's too late now" or " but we meet with PIA" or some other reason put forth.  I believe that this is so important that it must be formalized by Board action.

Next, somewhere in one of these threads I acknowledged that the recent rewrite to Section 4 of the SIM is a TREMENDOUS improvement over previous editions.  It still falls short of the standard that I have come to expect from instructional material because it has stayed committed to the one bite-size idea to a letter-number-letter-indexing system.  I have published textbooks, and scholarly papers, and many other documents.  I have done research on how people learn mathematical concepts.  In short, connections are as important as facts.  This bite-size information piece ignores the important logical connectors.  Besides that, some of the documents are just incomprehensible because of too many rewrites, or possibly (and I hope its not the case) that someone wants to obscure the truth.  Take for example the IRM statement on converting a foreign rating to a USPA AFF rating.  I have a Ph.D. and I cannot determine what it is saying.  I will try to fix this, and I will try to engage others in this change.  I am being supported by three other members of the Board of Directors.  I think I can build a coalition of the willing.  But I might fail.  Especially because this election is only for a partial term.  To be successful, I will have to build consensus, and get reelected.  And I will have to build this consensus while pointing out problems.   You are correct in identifying that this is a difficult task.

I have talked to many, many members as part of my campaign.  I can honestly say that I believe at least HALF of the 42 thousand USPA members would not pay the dues to belong if they didn't have to in order to jump.  This is a real problem.  We have to honestly address member engagement (much beyond the cursory overview that exists in this month's Parachutist) if we are going to improve.  Although it's hard, I'm going to try.  I hope you will be with me.

Thanks   David

4 hours ago, dmathews1960 said:

We have to honestly address member engagement

I think member engagement will be the biggest challenge. I started skydiving in 1981 and since then the attitude has been the same. Quite frankly, this activity is recreational for most people and their goals are to jump, have fun and socialize with like-minded skydivers. Not many want to get involved in bureaucratic, political or administrative issues of a recreational organization when they just want to focus on the next boogie. 

Many learned of French & Raven's Five Forms of Power in college; however, many never get exposed to each form's level of commitment, compliance or resistance. In the case of the USPA, the legitimate form of power will not illicit much more than compliance.       

David,

Thanks for responding. I won't address each topic individually as they should all be discussed in their entirety. But I will say that I'm in favor of continuing to colocate with the PIA symposium. It's a great event and more skydivers should attend. 

I happen to be one of the minorities (literally and figuratively) that attends BOD meetings and pays attention to what they do. I think for the most part our BOD does an outstanding job. However, as has been noted by many, we have room for improvement. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've stated I certainly appreciate your willingness to get into the fight. I will be sharing the link you provided and inviting other members to consider your candidacy. We can definitely use more folks like you in the room when decisions are being made. 

Louis 

Louis:   Thank you for your comments, and your willingness to share my info.  I hope to meet you in the future.

Half way down…Half way back

We are about half-way through the June Special Election for the USPA National Director vacancy.  Based on recent history, more than 90% of USPA members HAVE NOT yet voted, and WILL NOT vote in this election, leaving the decision up to a very small group of voters.

I understand why most people don’t vote in these elections.  Most fun jumpers just want to jump, hang out with their friends, and not be bothered by political BS.  Besides, in the absence of information, it’s easy to believe that it really won’t make a difference who is elected.  Most fun jumpers have just resigned themselves to the need to pay for a membership in order to jump, but don’t expect much more than that.

I love skydiving, I love the skydiving community, and I like the USPA.  The USPA is a great resource for safety information and promoting safe skydiving and is a very good organization for producing and certifying instructors.  We have a great collection of outstanding skydivers on the current Board of Directors, and on the USPA staff.

But, in my opinion, there are some serious issues that need to be addressed to make the organization serve the members as well as it could.  Based on the feedback that I have received since announcing my candidacy in mid-April, LOTS of people agree with most of these proposed changes.   However, not everyone does…. I have also received some serious pushback.   It is my belief that if I am not elected, the changes that I have proposed will not take place. 

If you have not yet voted, or if you are aware that your friends have not voted, I ask you to look at the issues that I have raised and see if you agree with me.  You may even want to watch the Casual Chat interview that Brian Germain did with me (link provided in this thread) where I flesh out these issues, or check out the document that I put on my website:  Mathewsadventureservices.com.  If you support these changes, I am asking that you PLEASE VOTE.

Thanks for your time. 

Wendy:  I'm glad you two voted.  Over and over again, national research shows even non-voters say that voting is easy.  Difficulty in the process is not the major reason people don't vote https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/947182471/why-people-dont-vote.  (I am not saying that there are not barriers to voting in national elections)  Over and over again, researchers find that people don't vote because they don't feel their vote will make a difference and that they don't feel that things will change regardless of who is elected.

I believe that these same factors come into play and can explain why so many USPA members don't vote in elections.  The process is easy, but still in the last general election there was about a 6% voter turnout.

As I've written on other forums (and maybe here....I've lost track), I think the membership would be better served if the USPA would print candidate bio's and candidate platforms in Parachutist the month before the election.  Something as simple as the existing bio format and two questions: What do you think USPA is doing well?, and What do you think USPA should change or do differently? would go a long way in helping people to see that different candidates have different visions, and the outcome of the election might actually matter.   

I cannot promise that I will actually be able to accomplish anything if elected.  What I can promise is that, if elected,  I will work tirelessly to make this happen, and to make the other changes I've outlined in this thread.

David Mathews

Hi David, I see improve member services/engagement is at the top of your list: what programs do you believe should be implemented to accomplish those goals? What metrics will you put in place to measure success?

@BMAC615 Thanks for asking. Let me start first with my opinion (so you can decide if you think what I'm saying has any merit.)  It is my opinion that the majority of fun jumpers would NOT belong to USPA if given a choice.  They join, and pay, because they have to in order to be able to jump.  I don't think that I always had this opinion, but now after 2 months of campaigning and talking to LOTS of folks, this is what I believe.  I think that the 6% voter turnout in the last USPA general election bears this out.  Either folks think that their vote doesn't count, or they think that it wont matter who is elected because they feel that nothing will change.   So, one metric for membership engagement is voter turnout.  In order to increase this, I would change the 250 word "bio/candidate statement" to a three part question that would be asked of all candidates, and printed one month in advance in Parchutist magazaine.  It would be a) Bio; b) What in your opinion is USPA doing well?; c) What in your opinion should USPA change and do differently.   

It is my opinion that if the membership was given that information in advance of the election, and if the USPA would also have an online candidate forum, that there would be lots of productive, not-always-comfortable, conversations and we could re-engage some members.

An additional strategy for engaging the membership would be to resolve to hold at least one day of every USPA Board meeting at an active DZ.   In other words, have the Board meet where members are.  In my opinion, it would be best to do this for one dat at SDC Summerfest or some other big event with hundreds or thousands of skydivers in attendance.  The Board members are high-quality folks, and it would do the Association good if we structured events such as this to encourage en-masse Board/skydiver interactions.

Finally, the Governance Manual calls for an annual membership meeting.  As far as I can tell, there has never been a membership meeting that met the substantial requirements for a quorum.  Hence, the membership isn't engaging as the Governance Manual envisioned.  I would work to solve this.  Maybe a virtual meeting?  Maybe lower the quorum required?  Maybe a big bi-annual boogie/meeting?  I don't know what the answer is.  I am only saying that in my opinion the Association would be stronger if more members were engaged, and I think that if we can agree on that, we can put our heads together and make this happen.

And by the way, I would encourage DZ's to "adopt" a college team.  My goal would be to at least double the number of registered collegiate teams, and at least double the number of participants at Collegiate Nationals.  This would engage a substantial number of fun-jumpers in making this happen, and would be very positive for the sport.  

These are just a few ideas.......I have more.

Thanks for the response. I agree that most would not pay a membership fee to USPA if it weren’t compulsory. I also agree that most members see little to no value in USPA, it’s staff and governing body.

What value do you feel USPA currently provides to the 40k+ paying members? Secondly, how would implementing your proposed programs increase value for those members that, if it weren’t a requirement, would make them want to be a paying member?