USPA's "Championship" Demo Team?

I spread the word of skydiving worldwide. Hmmm...i wonder if I can get 10K for the promotion of skydiving for my next boogie???
I even have national champs load organizing.

This is wrong on many levels.

Quote

, but they were circumventing that intent of the law by 'loaning' the monies 'with interest' to be paid back into the competition fund by the profitable proceeds from the demonstration team.

Any way we can monitor if and when that money gets paid back, and at what interest rate?

10K isn't a whole lot of $$. Couldn't these pro skydivers get some $$ from their own banks, maybe a $1000 each. Heck, you could carry that on a credit card, no sweat.

Quote

There are both public and private skydiving demo teams. I'm not at all sure what a USPA team could do besides be a nice gig for the team members

Yep, it kind of reminds me of Congressmen using money from our social security retirement fund to go play golf in Barbados.

I've never had a problem with the competition trust fund, even though only a tiny fraction of the membership actually has a chance to use those funds for a world competition. That's not a problem for me because the donations are voluntary. If you don't like contributing to something you have no chance of ever getting access to yourself, you don't have to. If you like supporting the national team, even though you won't ever be on it yourself, you can. No problem.

But this proposal is taking money from everyone, without our own personal choice, to benefit a small elite group, for whom very few of us have a chance of joining ourselves. And they're doing it to travel around and have fun at our expense. That doesn't sound proper to me.

If they want to do this, start another voluntary donation fund, and let people decide for themselves if they want to contribute. But don't just take my dues without my permission and use them to benefit a small group of jumpers to have their own fun road show.

Hi Jim,

Email sent; thanks for the link.

And to John Mitchell: Yup, do some tandems at an airshow & hand out flyers telling people how to contact a local dz.

JerryBaumchen

Quote

[email protected]


The above email address goes to all the USPA Board of Directors.

My note to the Board (clearly based on Twardo's post):

Dear Board Member:

I am a 26 year skydiver and active 20 year USPA member.

I am thoroughly and completely opposed to the Demonstration Team project as a concept, idea or practice and am equally opposed to any and all actions, expenses and/or incentives taken toward realizing this ridiculous construct.

I urge you to not spend membership dollars or any USPA handled funds toward this project, which would represent a clear misuse of resources to form a for-profit venture that is in direct competition with privately funded teams and businesses, that are USPA members. That would be an unethical misuse of membership and/or USPA handled funds that constitutes a conflict of interest and violates the Association's charter.

I urge you to vote against any measure that seeks to establish such a team or entity.

Yours,

Timothy B. Forster

USPA # 83192 A15683 B16201 C24300 D17887
Senior Parachute Rigger
POPS # 10553 NCB#135

Hey Twardo, stop bucking the system.... go with the flow..... When life gives you lemons....
Call USPA and see what thier paying the "Champ" team supervisor and apply for the position. You won't have to do anymore of the leg work or planning. No more endless hours of dealing with the FAA. You'll just board the plane and make like a hero? And, for your lack of effort, you can pocket some of our hard earned, thoughfully donated money.

Wow---

I can understand all the posts objecting to this USPA Demo team if you are going by the Ed Scott editorial in Oct's issue of Parachutist.

If the program will work like that then I am against it.

However, at the July BOD mtg, I grilled Jimmy Hayhurst about all of these issues you are bringing up.

His answers were completely different from the way the program is described by Scott.

I said it sounded like you were going to lend $10,000 to 15-20 guys that were/are National Champs to allow them to form a demo team and finance their demo team.

Hayhurst said oh no that's not how it will work. We will recruit all the local demo jumpers from each area. We will use demo jumpers that have not been on the US Parachute team.

Then I said it sounds like the profits that the existing teams get today will be reduced because they'll have to pay back a loan to USPA.
No again from Hayhurst, it's supposed to allow the existing teams to make as much money as they do now and provide additional revenue.

What about encroachment on venues already performed by existing teams?
oh we won't touch those.

Then there is the part that Scott says this is a fund raiser for the US Team Trust Fund.
That part I don't get either.
This program was supposed to raise money for the USPA DEMO team, nothing was said about funds going into the US Team Trust Fund.

In Scott's editorial he uses the same name, US Parachute Team, to mean the real US Parachute Team and the USPA Demo Team.
At the BOD mtg these were two distinct operations/teams.

In fact, the demo team cannot be part of the US Parachute Team.


I will corner both Ed Scott and Jimmy Hayhurst, in person, at Nationals to get clarification on this new USPA Demo Program Team.

Ed Scott's editorial is NOT what was presented at the July BOD mtg.

I want to find out which way it is.

Thanks for all the emails and phone calls on this.
If this program really is as Scott says, I am loading my torpedoes.

.

Greetings members of the Board, I am taking a few moments to voice my opinion regarding the USPA sponsorship of a Professional Parachute Demonstration Team as presented in an article in the October 2011 issue of Parachutist magazine.

To introduce myself:
My name is Jim Twardowski and have been a member of the USPA for over 30 years, I am a PRO Rated jumper that has been involved in the demonstration end of the sport for all of that time, having completed in excess of 1000 paid performances.

Over the past three decades I have performed with numerous professional teams both privately owned and corporately sponsored. I have been an instrumental part of developing many of the demo related performance and safety procedures as well as hardware used by many in the demonstration circle.

I was a past speaker during PIA's convention on the topic of Skydiving demonstration safety and performance standards. I personally have more performances at EAA's Airventure Oshkosh (the largest airshow in the world) than any other airshow performer in the business.

I have a degree in Marketing, with a minor in Advertising and have used that background in the promotion / public relations of several Pro teams that I have been involved with.
I've done more broadcast and print interviews than I can remember, coached and advised countless demo jumping members of our organization toward safe and successful participation in the world of Skydiving performances.

I believe I have some pertinent and valuable experience on the subject of the implementation of a USPA sponsored demonstration team and am hoping my input will be considered by the board.


I believe the concept on it's face to be ill advised and counter productive.

What the USPA seems to be trying to do inject itself into well established demo business currently occupied by dues paying members of the organization that have been trying to archive in part the very goals the USPA claims to be persuing and doing so at no cost to the organization membership. In fact the USPA team program will serve as competition to current and future teams in the market. To me that is a clear conflict of interest, goes against the charter of the organization and are areas that should not be approached without far more research and open discussion.

What in essence you are doing is taking a portion of my membership dues and using that money to directly compete against me.

The stated goal of the USPA demo team is to positively advance public awareness and recognition of our sport.

We are doing that now as established performers and it is certainly arguable that the USPA could and should become more supportive to the efforts of those already in the business. It would be much more successful and cost effective to that stated goals end than creating a start-up entry level team to enter an already overly competitive market.

I would ask the board what practical research has actually gone into the USPA demo team implementation, is there an available mission statement and/or business plan outlining projected costs and return on investment?

Has the board studied the cost associated with running a successful demonstration team against the average contract's monetary compensation? The article says the team goal will be to perform at half a dozen of so large venues...has anyone realistically looked into the possibility of achieving that goal? If the number and compensation of the shows actually signed and performed doesn't met a certain minimum level to cover the intrinsic costs will the USPA loan the team more membership dues to keep the team active?

Does the board know what that minimum number of shows is... what are those numbers, I would be curious to see what they are, and how they were arrived at.

What is the break down of the projected cost per exposure, what are the criteria for and who will be measuring and analizing the results to see if there is a true cost -benefit goal being reached justifying the expenditure.

I believe there is a lot more to this issue than the BOD is aware of, or has considered and if the members of the board and the general membership had real numbers in hand they would most certainly reconsider the 'investment'.


20 some years ago the USPA staffed a booth at the ICAS convention, they had available for distribution at that time a limited amount of informational material none of which was specifically created for that 'audience' to raise awareness of the organization. I spoke then as I do now that the USPA membership would be much better served by a well thought out and progressively implemented public relations program that would make available working performers, standard packages of materials to be used in conjunction with a particular teams current advertising and marketing programs.

I've ask several times over the years if any such material was available and have never recived any positive or supportive feedback.

I contend that if the USPA truly wants to increase positive public exposure they would be much better off focusing on using the current and established teams already in the business to reach that end by supporting THEIR efforts and not working in competition against them.


Thank you for your time.

~Jim Twardowski
USPA #8899

Quote

Wow---

I can understand all the posts objecting to this USPA Demo team if you are going by the Ed Scott editorial in Oct's issue of Parachutist.

If the program will work like that then I am against it.

However, at the July BOD mtg, I grilled Jimmy Hayhurst about all of these issues you are bringing up.

His answers were completely different from the way the program is described by Scott.

I said it sounded like you were going to lend $10,000 to 15-20 guys that were/are National Champs to allow them to form a demo team and finance their demo team.

Hayhurst said oh no that's not how it will work. We will recruit all the local demo jumpers from each area. We will use demo jumpers that have not been on the US Parachute team.

Then I said it sounds like the profits that the existing teams get today will be reduced because they'll have to pay back a loan to USPA.
No again from Hayhurst, it's supposed to allow the existing teams to make as much money as they do now and provide additional revenue.

What about encroachment on venues already performed by existing teams?
oh we won't touch those.

Then there is the part that Scott says this is a fund raiser for the US Team Trust Fund.
That part I don't get either.
This program was supposed to raise money for the USPA DEMO team, nothing was said about funds going into the US Team Trust Fund.

In Scott's editorial he uses the same name, US Parachute Team, to mean the real US Parachute Team and the USPA Demo Team.
At the BOD mtg these were two distinct operations/teams.

In fact, the demo team cannot be part of the US Parachute Team.


I will corner both Ed Scott and Jimmy Hayhurst, in person, at Nationals to get clarification on this new USPA Demo Program Team.

Ed Scott's editorial is NOT what was presented at the July BOD mtg.

I want to find out which way it is.

Thanks for all the emails and phone calls on this.
If this program really is as Scott says, I am loading my torpedoes.

.

Assuming your recollection of the conversation at the board meeting is accurate, this thing is stinking worse as the details come out. Here's the "official" version of the meeting as recorded in the minutes...

10) James Hayhurst made a presentation on a proposed sponsorship development plan that
centers on using members of the U.S. Parachute Team to perform demonstration jumps at
airshows and other events. His proposal resulted in the following motion:
Motion 19: Passed, 20/0/0 (Mr. Smith)

“Move to establish a pilot program to form a demonstration team comprised of current and
former U.S. Team members and other highly qualified skydivers to raise money for the United
States Parachute Team Inc. The team will prepare for and attend the ICAS (International
Council of Air Shows) Convention to market the Team’s shows. The U.S. Parachute Team Inc.
will reimburse USPA for seed money and expenses supporting the team from the profits earned.”

The above minutes seem to match up with what Ed Scott said in his October column, which directly contradicts your version of what was actually said in the meeting.

If your version of the events is accurate, it sounds like a case of Hayhurst telling you what you wanted to hear and then doing things the way the head shed wants to after the meeting is over and members aren't in their faces.

And just be sure we're all clear on the details, no where in Scott's column or the meeting minutes does it say profits will be put in the US Team Trust Fund. Scott said in the column that profits would be used toward expenses at international competitions. Also there is no mention of a "Demo Team" in either document. All references are to the "US Team" performing demos.

Are board meetings recorded with either video or audio? If so it would be pretty easy to find out if there are some shenanigans going on. If the meetings aren't recorded, maybe it's time they are.

Another question I have for the board. They say the $10,000 is a loan to the newly formed team. What happens if the team can't turn a profit and repay the loan? That's membership money that the board has a fiduciary obligation to protect. If the team is a financial bust, that will be yet another financial fiasco at the hands of the board.

Quote

The stated goal of the USPA demo team is to positively advance public awareness and recognition of our sport.

Actually it is worse than that. There's no reference in Scott's column even similar to your statement above. He makes a single reference to getting "positive skydiving coverage" when talking about a campaign 2 years ago to notify local media when a hometown jumper earned national or international titles.

Every other reference to anything positive is all about giving champions "long-overdue visibility and public recognition".

On top of every other controversial aspect of this program, I find it downright goofy that the general promotion of the sport doesn't seem to be in play as a motive for the decision.

Hi Jan,

I just got an email from my RD with Ed's reply to a some-time poster from here:

'The assertions and conclusions on dz.com about this program (on which you base your opposition) are flat-out wrong. This is NOT a USPA or even a U.S. demo team, and this is NOT about sport or even USPA promotion. It is an effort to help the U.S. Team publicize itself, and to leverage that publicity toward sponsorship of the U.S. Team. Only by eventual team sponsorship can we plan to finally give the kind of financial support to our U.S. Team that they deserve. Obviously, we must do better at explaining it, and we will. By the way, several well-known demo jumpers have pledged their support, because they understand the goal.

Ed'

Somethings wrong in River City,

JerryBaumchen

Quote

Hi Jan,

I just got an email from my RD with Ed's reply to a some-time poster from here:

'The assertions and conclusions on dz.com about this program (on which you base your opposition) are flat-out wrong. This is NOT a USPA or even a U.S. demo team, and this is NOT about sport or even USPA promotion. It is an effort to help the U.S. Team publicize itself, and to leverage that publicity toward sponsorship of the U.S. Team. Only by eventual team sponsorship can we plan to finally give the kind of financial support to our U.S. Team that they deserve. Obviously, we must do better at explaining it, and we will. By the way, several well-known demo jumpers have pledged their support, because they understand the goal.

Ed'

Somethings wrong in River City,

JerryBaumchen

Let's see - the idea for the US Team to do demos was conjured up by a USPA Director, endorsed by the USPA BOD, will be funded by a loan from USPA, and the team will be comprised of members of past and present US Teams who are selected by - say it with me, folks - USPA. Team management will no doubt be chosen by USPA as well.

So the new team may not actually belong to USPA, but it is certainly an all-USPA effort. An effort by the way that will have the USPA selected US Team compete head to head with USPA dues paying members for paying demos.

I still see a conflict.

Quote

Somethings wrong in River City,

JerryBaumchen

It's a quite common tactic to issue multiple, and differing, stories with the purpose of confusing and delaying opposition. On the street we call it shuck and jive.

Politicians are really good at it. We keep electing them.

Uh.....wait....

Quote

I still see a conflict.

It looks like a duck to me. And it sounds like one, too.

you quack me up.

Obviously, we must do better at explaining it, and we will.
-Ed

Quote

I'm looking forward to it...

I've gotten several explanations regarding this, from several different people within the organization today, and none of 'em match each other... so I'm not alone in my confusion.

The minutes and the article convey something different I guess than the now stated intent of the 'program'. I'll stay tuned and do apologize for being confused and reacting to what was conveyed in the published article...what I get for believing what I read.

I too am all in favor of doing what's possible and practical to assist the Comp teams in representing us.

I do however think there are quite possibly other areas of priority effecting the members of sport as a whole that I would address first...but that's a discussion for another time.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Quote

Like many of you, I want to see our US Team get whatever funding they need,

In a perfect world, if we had a bottomless pit of money, I agree.

Back to reality, do you really think 'many' is the right word? Let's face it, if 'many' of us were really concerned with the budget of the US Team we would be donating money, and they wouldn't need to hunt down ways to raise (lose) money.

It's the basic idea of the market setting the price of a product or service. What's something worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it. How much does the US Team deserve? Whatever the US skydivign community is willing to donate. I keep seeing reference to what the US Team 'needs', and that's really a problem for the US Team, not the rest of us. As far as I'm concerned, the US Team gets what it deserves from the community. If it's not what the team wants, I'm sorry for that, but that's not the responsibility of the USPA to step in and tell us (the membership) what it should be worth to us.

You are 110% correct that this US Team business is chicken shit compared to our much bigger, more pressing problem. Aside from the obvious negative of dead skydivivers, we also have the bad press and unwanted attention of the FAA to boot.

Even if skydiving wasn't in trouble, the 'plan' doesn't make sense. Tyring to attract sponsorship for the US Team? What the Team really needs is a venue where they will have media exposure and be able to provide a return on the sponsorship investment they're looking for. Until skydiving competitions become mass media events, people participating in them can kiss the idea of big money sponsorship goodbye.

Beyond that, now they're claiming that the US Team Demo Team isn't going to bid on any events that existing teams are already bidding on? Does anyone believe that bullshit? How many high-profile airshows and events are there to go around? How many of them do you think the existing teams are just leaving on the table and not one of them is placing a bid?

If we are to believe the USPA, this 'for profit' team who we are going to loan $10k to is only going to bid on shows that are either too small or pay too little for any of the established demo teams to even bid on. So either the team is going to be a money sewer, or the USPA is slinging the BS, and they'll bid lean and mean on every job they can find.

At some point in school I was taught that a just government was the few making choices that would benefit the many. This course of action appears to be the exact opposite. The only people who will benefit from this are the US Team members. The ones who will be on the losing end out number those few, and include every member who gets paid doing demo jumps, and every member who's dues and time are being wasted with these 'pet projects' that have no real benefit to the community at-large.

Here's a fun idea USPA, now that we can vote online, how about you take a vote to see if this idea lives or dies? The USPA can state their case, Airtwardo can state his case, each side gets one shot at a rebuttal, and let the chips fall where they may. The US is a democracy, and this is the USPA, so let's settle this thing the democratic way.

Commenting on the response, with "ED" at the end. I assume it is Ed Scott's official satement.

Let's go over what he says it is not:
. not a USPA team
. not a US Demo team
. not about sport
. not about USPA promotion

What he says it is:
"It is an effort to the help US Team publicize itself and to leverage that publicity toward spopnsorship of the US Team"

So, the US TEAM is a separate entity? Not a part of USPA? A separate entity that is seeking an endorsement from Coca Cola or Budweiser or another corporate entity? Sample Title: The US Team sponsored by Coca Cola. Well that's the Coca Cola team, and that's how it will be known. It won't known as the US Team. If it was otherwise, why would Coca Cola fund it.
So that is the ultimate goal here? This sponsorship thing? That's it? And the end justifies the means? That is what Ed Scott's editorial and his response says. 'Trample on the existing teams to get where we want to go." Steal thier sponsors, and don't think another thing about it, because our goal of getting a sponsor is so worthy, it justifies stabbing existing teams in the back.'

The means to get that sponsorship is clearly stated in the editorial: 'Go to ICAS and outbid the existing teams, (as surely they will, as they don't have to factor in the same expenses a civilian team does.) and go after that sponsorship goal, despite the damage done to the existing teams'

That is a clear conflict of interest, as it all done with membership dues money. The civilian teams are paying those dues too. That's a bitter pill to swallow, and a bald-faced betrayal.

Lat's also digest the next statement of Ed Scott's response,
"Several well known demo jumpers have pledged their support...yadda yadda" Read between the lines and what you have here, is a proposal to field a professional team, financed by USPA dues. Few, if any so-called US TEAM members will be on this team. Maybe a couple of token members. In fact, I'd like to see a list of US TEAM members who even have PRO ratings or have done a significant number of high pressure demos. Last time I checked, the US team consists of 4 and 8 way jumpers, accuracy jumpers, swoopers, etc.. Not demo jumpers. It is obvious to me that this will NOT be a demo team comprised of present US Team members. I predict it will be a demo team hired by the US TEAM, attracting existing demo jumpers. This would be like abandoning the necessity of a college football team to be comprised of students at the college. It would just be a team paid for by the college, without the necessity of having college students on the actual team. They would be recruited and paid for, like any professional team. The so-called US DemoTeam, (Oh excuse me, the US Team) without any actual US Team members on it, (or very few anyway), would be handsomely paid, and dedicated to bidding on gigs at ICAS, and stealing thse gigs from the present civilian teams as a means of accomplishing its goal of sponsorship.

Besides the betryal of the dues paying members, the cute little "loan" to the US Team to have a camp and pay for ICAS, exceeding the powers of the organization, etc., I see a bunch of decsion makers operating on the assumption that championship team members will automatically be competent demo jumpers. That demo jumping is so easy that all you need is experience in 4 way or 8 way or accuracy or style or some other discipline. That demo jumping isn't a unique discipline at all; it is just a jump you do in front of a crowd, and that anybody can do it , and do it well. If that is true, why the camp? Will there be persons on this US Team that will be performing their first demo in 2012? Well, if the intent is to have present US TEAM members do the demos, that is exactly what will happen. No go back and re-read the previous paragraph, and you will see the actual scheme as it will be played out. Only token US Team members, and mostly just hired professionals. It would be dishonest to sell demos to a sponsor by calling it the US Team, but what the heck, we'll just let that slide, because that is just another means to the end.

It would be a laughable statement to say a really good demo jumper would automatically excel at going onto a 4 way team. Just send the demo jumper to a little camp, and he'd be great at 4 way. A ridiculous assumption indeed! But the same persons who would scoff at this assumption, do not hesitate to believe that a good 4 way jumper will automatically a good demo jumper after a little camp. I find that assumption to equally ridiculous. But that is apparantly the underpinning for this whole idea of Mr. Hayhurst. He is wrong.

Dear Mr Bilvon. You are wrong

Quote

I just wish the energy and funding that went into this US Team funding debate, vote and subsequent project green light, went into bringing us closer to a solution for the canopy control epidemic. I think if we read in Parachutist that a loan of $10,000 was made to develop a canopy control solution, many of us would have cheered.

Canopy control courses aren't sexy, they don't get you on TV, they don't make much in the way of money and they don't bring in fresh tandem meat. Therefore they are not important enough to spend USPA money on.

Quote

And lastly, I think everyone, the membership, the BOD and USPA as a whole can learn from this, this whole issue could have been largely avoided through better communication by everyone involved.

Indeed... unfortunately transparency from the USPA BOD has never seemed to be a common practice.

Quote

Quote

I just wish the energy and funding that went into this US Team funding debate, vote and subsequent project green light, went into bringing us closer to a solution for the canopy control epidemic. I think if we read in Parachutist that a loan of $10,000 was made to develop a canopy control solution, many of us would have cheered.

Canopy control courses aren't sexy, they don't get you on TV, they don't make much in the way of money and they don't bring in fresh tandem meat. Therefore they are not important enough to spend USPA money on.

Quote

And lastly, I think everyone, the membership, the BOD and USPA as a whole can learn from this, this whole issue could have been largely avoided through better communication by everyone involved.

Indeed... unfortunately transparency from the USPA BOD has never seemed to be a common practice.

I think term limits are in order!!!!

Quote

Ed Scott's editorial is NOT what was presented at the July BOD mtg.

I want to find out which way it is.

If that is in fact true than Ed Scott needs to be reined in by the BOD. They need to explain to him that he was hired to run the office, not make policy.

The proposal as presented in Parachutist is totally unacceptable. USPA needs to get back to being responsive to the “regular” members.

Sparky