This Site Is For Sale
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f922i30l.jpg)
indyz 1
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuote
Don,
I assure you, I can think for myself, as can a vast majority of the other posters on these forums. The problem is that you haven't given us much of anything to think about. I know for a fact that you haven't stated your platform on this site because I have read all of your posts, and if you mentioned it on rec.skydiving, I must have missed it.
________________________________________________
Mr Indys,
of all the candidates running for National Director ,how many have posted here or on rec?
Have you recieved a copy of the November issue of Parachutist?
If so you have acces to my candidates statement even if it was edited at least 27 times against the rules of Our Governance Manual, but that's a whole 'nuther topic.
Look,
read my statement.You'll find that unlike other candidates I present my views as opposed to stating that I am all this and have done all that.
Listen,
I'm not here begging for anyones vote and I really could care less if I'm elected or not.
I don't "want" to be on the Board.
I'm volunteering to represent the Fun Jumpers .Simple as that.
If I'm elected the BOD will lose a Member but the Fun Jumpers will gain a Representative.
"Treetop"
indyz 1
I just found your statement on USPA's website. I would be interested in seeing the unedited version if you have it around.
I also have a couple of questions:
-What specific changes would you make to the GM program?
-How do you plan on convincing the FAA to lengthen the repack cycle?
I also have a couple of questions:
-What specific changes would you make to the GM program?
-How do you plan on convincing the FAA to lengthen the repack cycle?
QuoteI'm not here begging for anyones vote and I really could care less if I'm elected or not.
I don't "want" to be on the Board
If you were actually motivated to represent the fun jumpers, then I would have hoped that you would care if you were elected or not. Hopefully you, as a voice of the fun jumper, would make it a priority to push for your platform and care very much if you were elected or not. I understand the point you were trying to make, the 'farmer turned president turned farmer' attitude that was previlant in the Federalist party in the late 1700's; however, that attitude is lost here, I would like to believe that the persons running for BOD would work as hard as possible to push for their election. If anything, just to show that they fully believe in their platform and to demonstrate their work ethic and how it would most likely apply to their job on the BOD.
You sir, do not have my vote.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
sangiro 7
QuoteI'm not here begging for anyones vote and I really could care less if I'm elected or not.
I don't "want" to be on the Board.
Your wish is my command.
Safe swoops
Sangiro
Sangiro
tombuch 0
QuoteAlthough USPA has spent considerable amount of dollars developing a DZ Inspection criteria and an evaluation process for hiring DZ Inspectors, The current DZO BOD haven't made this inspection mandatory for DZ Group member status .
It has been left as a voluntary "service"!
So far only one Group Member DZ has been inspected by the USPAs inspector.
Why Mr. Buchanan, has the DropZone which employs you not requested an inspection?
How do we know by the GM designation alone that your DZ is abiding by the BSRs?
Hey Mr. Buchanan,
here is a question I cant resist;
Do you recieve any income from the Ranch?
"Treetop" ,
The FunJumpersCandidate
Treetop---Nice improvement in tone, now, please bring it down even one notch further. I'll answer your last question first because it was a bit antagonistic: No, I do not receive any income from The Ranch. I was on staff as an instructor for many years but no longer am. Now, I pay for my jumps, just like everybody else. I serve as S&TA in an unpaid position because I think somebody should do that, and after 20 years in the sport it is my way to give back. I'm not an evil doer in the pocket of the DZO. Really. Honestly.
Onward...You are correct that there is a DZ inspection program in place and only one DZ has been inspected. The program is expensive to participate in, and it doesn't offer much marketing power to a DZO because it is pretty much unknown to jumpers and student customers. It is a much better standard than group membership alone, but without adequate promotion it won't fly. Should it be mandatory? Probably not. I like the idea of two standards, one mandatory for group members, the other voluntary, like a gold seal program. I would like to see more DZ's participate, and I would like more promotion for the program. So, if you make it to the BOD, how about pushing the voluntary inspection program so our group members have a higher standard to shoot for? Would you be willing to offer FREE inspections to the first few participants to get the program rolling?
As for my DZ? Well, I don't think it is the safest, nor does it target a consumer looking for a safe program. My DZ generates income in the tandem marketplace where customers shop around for the best price. My DZ competes on price, not safety. We also compete on reputation, but that's a really illusive and subjective element that a student or beginner can't easily evaluate. I would love it if one of our competitors participated in the voluntary inspection program and then added that to their marketing in a prominent place. (Sky's The Limit, Skydive Long Island, CPI, listen up) It would be great if a customer called our school after talking to an "inspected" dropzone and asked if we met the same standard. That would cost us business, but I would love it because it would pressure the dropzone to improve from the consumer level. I would like dropzones to compete based on safety, not price, especially in the student area. If you are elected to the BOD, why not encourage participation in the program by giving favorable listings to DZ's that have been inspected, or cutting their membership fees by the cost of the inspection?
You ask how we know by group membership alone that a DZ "is abiding by the BSRs?" We don't, but the pledge to follow the BSR's is better than no pledge at all. Enforcement is up to us, the jumpers who are on the DZ, and the USPA Directors. If we make compliance matter, and drop non-compliant DZ's from the program, it will make it stronger. I agree that we need more than a "promise" to follow the BSR's and FAR's. I think our members need to identify non-compliant dropzones to the regional directors, and the regional directors need to drop those DZ's from the program. If you are elected to the board, I hope you will focus on identifying weak dropzones that do not follow the BSR's and remove them from the group member program, rather than remove the program itself.
As consumers we (and more importantly, students) need a meaningful standard to help us evaluate and select a safe drop zone. The Group member Program is all we have. Let's not eliminate it, let's make it stronger.
-Tom Buchanan
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy
Jimbo 0
Tom, we're talking ultimately about making skydiving as safe as is reasonably possible for everyone right?
If that's the case, then why support two certification programs, again, you're suggesting that a GM certified DZ is safer than a non-GM DZ and this just isn't necessarily the case. You seem to be still stuck on the idea that a GM DZ is a better DZ. Why?
Why not remove the GM program and create a voluntary certification program, the Gold Seal you mentioned earlier?
It's all who has? DZOs or Fun Jumpers?
-
Jim
QuoteI like the idea of two standards, one mandatory for group members, the other voluntary, like a gold seal program. I would like to see more DZ's participate, and I would like more promotion for the program. So, if you make it to the BOD, how about pushing the voluntary inspection program so our group members have a higher standard to shoot for?
If that's the case, then why support two certification programs, again, you're suggesting that a GM certified DZ is safer than a non-GM DZ and this just isn't necessarily the case. You seem to be still stuck on the idea that a GM DZ is a better DZ. Why?
QuoteIf you are elected to the board, I hope you will focus on identifying weak dropzones that do not follow the BSR's and remove them from the group member program, rather than remove the program itself.
Why not remove the GM program and create a voluntary certification program, the Gold Seal you mentioned earlier?
QuoteThe Group member Program is all we have.
It's all who has? DZOs or Fun Jumpers?
-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.
tombuch 0
Quote
If that's the case, then why support two certification programs, again, you're suggesting that a GM certified DZ is safer than a non-GM DZ and this just isn't necessarily the case. You seem to be still stuck on the idea that a GM DZ is a better DZ. Why?QuoteIf you are elected to the board, I hope you will focus on identifying weak dropzones that do not follow the BSR's and remove them from the group member program, rather than remove the program itself.
Why not remove the GM program and create a voluntary certification program, the Gold Seal you mentioned earlier?QuoteThe Group member Program is all we have.
It's all who has? DZOs or Fun Jumpers?
Neither. The group member program is all the general public has. The FAA and state agencies are charged with protecting the general public, in our case that is students. They (students, with the government as surrogate) need a basic standard of safety. That's the group program. It tells the general public and the government that we have an established standard and that we effectively self regulate. That self regulation is what keeps the DZO's and fun jumpers free of government interference.
At some level, some part of the BOD needs to advocate on behalf of the public, that's the students, the 275,000 people that make their first skydive in this country each year. We shouldn't forget their interests while looking at the needs of the 34,000 individual members, and the 275 group members.
One of the key interests of the students and government is a simple way of evaluating a DZ and assuring that some nationally recognized standard is being followed. The issue is complicated because there are a few non-member DZ's that are actually really solid, and perhaps better than a few member DZ's. I wish our standard was higher, but it's not, and right now DZO's aren't willing to support anything more.
Is the group member program perfect? Nope. But there are some really bad DZ's that have lost that basic certification, and I think the (admittedly weak) threat of loosing the USPA label at least keeps others somewhat honest.
I don't think we can effectively move from a weak program (current) to a higher standard such as the voluntary inspection program quickly. It will take some time. Right now there is only one inspected DZ. I will consider the program successful when 20 percent of DZ's have been inspected, and I would consider eliminating the group member program if more than half of the DZ's follow a higher standard. That won't happen for a long time. Two standards isn't the perfect solution, but it is a solid way to transition to a single better standard, and the "inspected" program may drive improvements from the consumer side.
I'm concerned by a position I keep hearing articulated that says the current standard stinks, so let's eliminate it. I'd rather acknowledge that the current standard isn't very good, but is necessary, and it should be improved.
Let's fix the program because it's important, not eliminate it because it's broken.Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy
Don,
I assure you, I can think for myself, as can a vast majority of the other posters on these forums. The problem is that you haven't given us much of anything to think about. I know for a fact that you haven't stated your platform on this site because I have read all of your posts, and if you mentioned it on rec.skydiving, I must have missed it.
99% of the people who are eligble to vote for you have only what you have said on rec.skydiving and these forums to base their decision on. Surely you can see how making it difficult for people to determine your true stance on the issues negatively affects your campaign.
If you want me and the many other USPA members on this site to seriously consider you as a candidate, you need to tell us why we should vote for you.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites