Wills Wing
Flytec

Oz Report

topic: Rob Sporrer (16 articles)

USHPA Governance, part 2 »

February 16, 2010, 7:09:51 pm PST

USHPA Governance, part 2

One on one

Dave Broyles|David Glover|Dennis Pagen|Leo Bynum|Lisa Tate|Mike Haley|Paul Voight|Rich Hass|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|Tracy Tillman|USHPA|USHPA Governance

I raised the question in the last article on this subject, how can the USHPA BOD expect us to communicate intelligently with our regional directors if we are kept in the dark about what the BOD is considering? I pointed to the fact that the BOD (in the form of all BOD members who are also members of the competition committee) are currently voting on proposals regarding USHPA Competition Sanctioning, but the affected parties, competition pilots, meet organizers, and just regular USHPA members, have no awareness that this is even happening (unless they read about it here in the Oz Report).

I remember something about a well educated population being necessary for the proper functioning of a democracy. I assume that the issues being discussed and voted on have previously been of great interest to the affected parties as they have petitioned the USHPA regarding competition issues and made perfectly clear that they have concerns in this area. So why do they continue to be kept in the dark?

So how about if each Oz Report reader who would like the USHPA BOD to make their emails to each other open to the USHPA members ask their regional directors to share/forward the emails that they receive available to the requesting members of their region? Each regional director would keep a forward email address list and when they received an email addressed to the BOD list, they would forward it to the list? Quick and easy.

If you think that this is a good idea, how about if you email your regional director and ask them to do this and to make this the policy of the BOD? Here are their addresses:

REGION 1 - AK, OR, WA
Rich Hass R 2010 (425) 453-7177 <lowenslo>
Mark Forbes R 2011 (541) 760-3231 bio <mgforbes>
Mike Haley L 2010 (541) 702-2111 <mike_haley>
REGION 2 - North CA, NV
Bill Cuddy R 2011 (775) 378-1707 <billcuddy>
Urs Kellenberger R 2011 (650) 802-9908 <urs>
Dave Wills R 2010 (650) 324-9155 <dave>
REGION 3 - South CA, HI
Rob Sporrer R 2011 (805) 968-0980 <rob>
Bob Kuczewski R 2010 (858) 204-7499 bio <bobkuczewski>
Brad Hall R 2011 (760) 438-7804 bio <brad.reg3>
REGION 4 - AZ, CO, NM, UT
Mark Gaskill R 2010 (801) 949-2803 bio <airutah>
Ken Grubbs R 2011 (970) 879-7770 bio <kengrubbs>
Leo Bynum L 2010 (505) 255-1097 <leo>
REGION 5 - ID, MT, WY
Lisa Tate R 2011 (208) 376-7914 <lisa.tate>
REGION 6 - AR, KS, MO, NE, OK
David Glover R 2011 (405) 830-6420 <davidhglover>
REGION 7 - IL, IN, MI, MN ND, SD, WI, IA
Tracy Tillman R 2010 (517) 223-8683 <cloud9sa>
REGION 8 - NH, CT, ME, MA, RI, VT
Jeff Nicolay R 2010 (603) 542-4416 <morningside>
REGION 9 - DC, DL, KY, MD, OH, PA, VA, WV
Felipe Amunategui R 2010 (216) 751-0347 <felipe.amunategui>
L.E. Herrick R 2011 (304) 704-2331 <le_herrick>
Dennis Pagen L 2010 (814) 422-0589 <pagenbks>
Art Greenfield - NAA X (800) 644-9777 <awgreenfield>
REGION 10 - AL, FL, GA, MS NC, SC, TN, VI, PR
Steve Kroop R 2010 (321) 773-2307 <info>
Matt Taber R 2011 (706) 398-3433 <fly>
Bruce Weaver R 2011 (252) 441-3589 <bruce>
REGION 11 - LA, TX
David Glover R 2011 (405) 830-6420 <davidhglover>
Riss Estes L 2010 (512) 329-0790 bio <parariss>
Dave Broyles L 2010 (972) 727-3588 <broydg>
REGION 12 - NJ, NY
Paul Voight R 2010 (845) 744-3317 bio <flyhigh>
REGION 13 - International
Tracy Tillman 2010 (517) 223-8683 <cloud9sa>

The USHPA BOD might even think of a simpler way to do this, carry out its "secret" business out in the open on a forum in the Members Only section of the USHPA web site.

Am I crazy to ask that the BOD seriously consider such options?

Discuss "USHPA Governance, part 2" at the Oz Report forum   link»

USHPA Regional Director election results

December 18, 2009, 1:52:23 pm PST

USHPA Regional Director election results

Two new members (Dave Glover and Bruce Weaver)

David Glover|Lisa Tate|Rob Sporrer|Tim Meehan|USHPA

A reader send this in:

Here are the results of the election for the 2010-2011 term.

Region-Name-Total vote count-(write in votes in region) *Win

1-Mark G. Forbes-55-(1)*

2-Bill Cuddy-45-(18)*
2-Urs Kellenberger-75-(18)*

3-Brad Hall-111-(4)*
3-Jerry Katz-72-(4)
3-Rob Sporrer-151-(4)*

4-Ken Grubbs-86-(0)*
4-Tim Meehan-16-(0)

5-Lisa Tate-14-(1)*

6/11-David Glover-24-(2)*

7 no election 8 no election

9-LE Herrick-41-(1)*

10-Dick Heckman-23-(0)
 10-Matt Taber-65-(0)*
10-Bruce Weaver-43-(0)*

12 no election

Discuss "USHPA Regional Director election results" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Response to the email from Lisa Tate, USHPA President

October 12, 2009, 8:11:59 PDT

Response to the email from Lisa Tate, USHPA President

Lisa has sent out an email to all USHPA members

CIVL|Dave Broyles|Dennis Pagen|Foundation for Free Flight|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Leo Bynum|Lisa Tate|Mike Haley|Ollie Gregory|Paul Voight|PG|Rich Hass|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|Tracy Tillman|USHPA|World Pilot Ranking Scheme

You may have recently received an email from Lisa Tate, USHPA President, regarding proposed changes to the USHPA Competition Program. Lisa states that the Competition Workgroup has recently made some changes to their original proposal. We applaud this change: the separation of the Race-To-Goal type meets from other types of events/competitions. We want to preserve and enhance the existing competition program, not damage it with ill considered changes.

We ask the USHPA BOD to reject the proposed sanctioning and accreditation process found in the Competition Workgroup proposal and instead implement the proposals found here. We ask you to ask your Regional Director (either by email or phoning) to vote with us in rejecting the CWG proposal if it in any way impinges on the Race-To-Goal competition program. Their phone numbers and email addresses can be found below.

Lisa has asked pilots to respond to their Regional Directors regarding a number of concerns that the CWG and the BOD are mulling over. We have provided our answers to those questions below. We ask you to consider our answers, make up your own mind and send in your answers to your Regional Director, along with our request above. Here are their questions along with our answers:

Section 1 – National Championships and Mentoring (Pros/Cons delivered to board week of 9/14):

(1) Should National Champions be crowned based on performance in a single event, as in years past, or by means of a series, as was tested in 2009?

Steve Kroop has proposed a Cross Country National Champion chosen from the results of "open distance" type competitions. As well as a Race to Goal National Champion chosen from pilots competing in race to goal type competitions. Two separate tracks (although pilots would be free to fly in either or both kinds of competitions).

I have proposed that the CWG proposal be edited to create this very cross country type competition system. You can find that proposal here: http://ozreport.com/docs/...rkingDraftfirstcopy.pdf. Redline version here: http://ozreport.com/docs/...aftfirstcopyredline.pdf.

I also proposed that the Race to Goal National Champion be the pilot with the highest total NTSS score from two meets out of the five race to goal meets sanctioned by the USHA in a given year (that number can vary). So you don't have to go to all five meets to be the National Champion, two will do, just do well in them. The math to do this is already in our NTSS ranking system.

I also propose that you can do the same thing or something similar with the Cross Country National Championship. Just make sure that your co-ordinate the scoring systems across competitions.

(2) Should National Championship competition events be given 100% “pre-meet” validity?

No, see above. The National Race-To-Goal Champion should be chosen as above from all the Race-To-Goal sanctioned meets.

(3) Is the Meet Director apprentice program contemplated by the 2009 draft
competition and events manual appropriate?

No. This program is poorly thought out and not funded (for the mentor). If the USHPA is willing to fund this (not just expenses of the mentee) paying the meet organizer/meet director(s) to do the mentoring, then this would be a step in the right direction (otherwise competition pilots will be asked to pay for this).

(4) What is the best way to foster mentoring and at which meets should mentoring be required, if any?

Follow the Ollie Gregory proposal for replicating Team Challenge type events. Provide financial support to Meet Organizers for Sport Class and for mentors for the Sport Class Pilots.

Section 2 – Foreign Competitions and Competitors (Pros/Cons to board week of 9/27):

(1) How should the attendance of foreign pilots affect the pre-meet validity of US meets?

Yes. Here is my proposal (originated by the paraglider pilots):

1. Foreign pilots are welcome and allowed in USHPA Sanctioned competitions.

Pilots ranked 1st - 100th: 45 points
Pilots ranked 101st - 200th: 30 points
Pilots ranked 201st - 300th: 20 points
Pilots ranked 301st - 400th: 15 points
Pilots ranked 401st - 500th: 10 points
Pilots ranked 501st - 600th: 5 points

(2) The draft presented to the board last Fall contemplated reducing the number of foreign events a US pilot can count in calculating their NTSS score from 2 down to 1. Should the US system be changed in some way so this doesn’t happen, and how?

The Race-To-Goal foreign competition provisions should be left untouched.

(3) Should all foreign events have FAI certification for them to be considered for use in NTSS?

Don't care, either way. Almost all hang gliding competitions outside the US are CIVL sanctioned.

(4) The draft competition manual contemplates levying a surcharge on competition participants at high level events, which moneys would go into a USHPA fund to pay for the travel expenses of world teams. Is this appropriate?

No, it is not.

If our goal is to have more competitions and more attendance, why are we discouraging attendance by taxing it? Isn't the complaint that the meets already costs too much, and that pilots want to go to competitions like the King meet which are less costly?

The National teams are free to raise money for their expenses. The USHPA contributes ZERO dollars to the US National team. Why should the USHPA collect a tax for a team that it doesn't even support?

Won't putting on a tax hurt the fund raising efforts of the National team? Right now pilots have the possibility of helping fund the team voluntarily through contributions to the Foundation for Free Flight (which goes to pay their entry fees at the Worlds, only). And they can participate in voluntary fund raising efforts by the team. Why undercut those efforts by instituting a tax?

Future Section Topics:

Pilot and Organizer Burden

() Many comp pilots feel strained to attend 3 competitions per year, considering a finite number of vacation days. Does the plan place too heavy of a burden on pilots aspiring to the world team?

No, it does not. Only four meets over a two year period are required. Where did the number three come from?

() Should the number of sanctioned events for each class be managed or restricted in some way to accommodate best estimates of supply and demand or should a hands-off, free market approach be used?

The more meets the better to serve our members. The USHPA must recognize that meet organizers are a limited resource and they must be encouraged to provide this wonderful service to the membership. We do not have a problem with too many meets, but too few.

() Comp pilots have reported they don’t want to be required to attend any low-level events. Does this requirement represent an excess burden on pilots, and is this requirement appropriate?

Yes. How about attracting pilots as opposed to forcing them? How about more carrots and less sticks? Isn't this supposed to be fun?

() What should the sanctioning fees be for accreditation and sanctioning? What changes, if any, should be considered at such time as sponsorship dollars are available?

We already have well over $20,000 spent on us each year at Big Spring. The dollars seem available now to meet organizers willing to do the work.

The sanction fees and bonds should be reduced by a factor of ten at least.

Validity and Scoring

() What is the best pre-meet validity system for the sport (i.e. headcount vs. ranking)

Race-To-Goal - GAP scoring.

The current NTSS system is an appropriate and well balanced validity system. I (through the paraglider pilots) have proposed a slight modification:

1. Each competing pilot in the meet (a competing pilot is one who has duly registered and flown at least one competition day) who is NTSS ranked 80th or higher brings points to the meet in accordance with the following schedule:

Pilots ranked 1st - 15th: 45 points
Pilots ranked 16th - 30th: 30 points
Pilots ranked 31st - 45th: 20 points
Pilots ranked 46th - 60th: 15 points
Pilots ranked 61st - 75th: 10 points
Pilots ranked 76th- 80th: 5 points

Previously it was:

Pilots ranked 1st - 10th: 45 points
Pilots ranked 11th - 20th: 30 points
Pilots ranked 21st - 30th: 20 points
Pilots ranked 31st - 40th: 14 points
Pilots ranked 41st - 50th: 9 points
Pilots ranked 51st - 60th: 6 points
Pilots ranked 61st - 70th: 4 points
Pilots ranked 71st - 80th: 2 points

In addition this change:

1. Foreign pilots are welcome and allowed in USHPA Sanctioned competitions.

Pilots ranked 1st - 100th: 45 points
Pilots ranked 101st - 200th: 30 points
Pilots ranked 201st - 300th: 20 points
Pilots ranked 301st - 400th: 15 points
Pilots ranked 401st - 500th: 10 points
Pilots ranked 501st - 600th: 5 points

Previously it was:

The NTSS ranking is made up only of U.S. pilots. However, the NTSS recognizes, for the purpose of points calculation, an equivalent foreign pilot's ranking according to the most current WPRS ranking with the top 20 places equal to the top 10 U.S. pilots and the WPRS ranking 21 through 40 equal to the NTSS 11 to 20 and so on up to WPRS 140 through 160 equal to NTSS 70 through 80.

() Should the number of total points required to achieve a fully valid meet be reduced (how much)? PG only?

No.

() Should competition tasks be scored using barometric or GPS altitude?

Barometric as it was at the Worlds. But, of course, altitude is not used in scoring unless air space is an issue.

You can ask your regional director to support these changes here:

REGION 1 - AK, OR, WA
Rich Hass R 2010 (425) 453-7177 <lowenslo>
Mark Forbes R 2009 (541) 760-3231 bio <mgforbes>
Mike Haley L 2009 (541) 899-1775 <mike_haley>
 
REGION 2 - North CA, NV
Paul Gazis R 2009 (650) 604-5704 <pgazis>
Urs Kellenberger R 2009 (650) 802-9908 <urs>
Dave Wills R 2010 (650) 324-9155 <dave>
 
REGION 3 - South CA, HI
Rob Sporrer R 2009 (805) 968-0980 <rob>
Bob Kuczewski R 2010 (858) 204-7499 bio <bobk>
Brad Hall R 2009 (760) 438-7804 bio <brad.reg3>
 
REGION 4 - AZ, CO, NM, UT
Mark Gaskill R 2010 (801) 949-2803 bio <airutah>
Ken Grubbs R 2009 (970) 879-7770 bio <kengrubbs>
Leo Bynum L 2009 (505) 255-1097 <leo>
 
REGION 5 - ID, MT, WY
Lisa Tate R 2009 (208) 376-7914 <lisa.tate>
 
REGION 6 - AR, KS, MO, NE, OK
Gregg Ludwig R 2009 (281) 788-6754 <greggludwig>
 
REGION 7 - IL, IN, MI, MN ND, SD, WI, IA
Tracy Tillman R 2010 (517) 223-8683 <cloud9sa>
 
REGION 8 - NH, CT, ME, MA, RI, VT
Jeff Nicolay R 2010 (603) 542-4416 <morningside>
 
REGION 9 - DC, DL, KY, MD, OH, VA, WV
Felipe Amunategui R 2010 (216) 751-0347 <felipe.amunategui>
L.E. Herrick R 2009 (304) 704-2331 <le_herrick>
Dennis Pagen L 2009 (814) 422-0589 <pagenbks>
Art Greenfield - NAA X (800) 644-9777 <awgreenfield>
 
REGION 10 - AL, FL, GA, MS NC, SC, TN, VI, PR
Steve Kroop R 2010 (321) 773-2307 <info>
Matt Taber R 2009 (706) 398-3433 <fly>
Dick Heckman R 2009 (205) 534-1461 <hekdic>
 
REGION 11 - LA, TX
Gregg Ludwig R 2009 (281) 788-6754 <greggludwig>
Riss Estes L 2009 (512) 329-0790 bio <parariss>
Dave Broyles L 2009 (972) 727-3588 <broydg>
 
REGION 12 - NJ, NY
Paul Voight R 2010 (845) 744-3317 bio <flyhigh>
 
REGION 13 - International
Dick Heckman 2009 (205) 534-1461 <hekdic>

What am I proposing to change?

October 5, 2009, 9:12:02 PDT

What am I proposing to change?

Very simply what are the changes I am proposing to the USHPA Competition system?

Dave Broyles|Dennis Pagen|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Leo Bynum|Lisa Tate|Mike Haley|Paul Voight|Rich Hass|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|Tracy Tillman|USHPA

Here simply is what I want changed:

  1. Let ranked competition pilots bring more points to sanctioned meets, for example, instead of the top ten pilots bringing 45 NTSS points each to the meet, make it the top fifteen and so on. Similarly for the top foreign pilots. This increases the value of competitions.
  2. Divide the USHPA Competition Rulebook into three documents in order to make it more useable by the three different audiences to which the original document was addressed, especially for competition pilots at meets.
  3. Remove outdated restrictions on meet organizers in order to encourage them to organize more and better competitions. Reduce sanction and bond fees by a factor of ten.
  4. Have the competition pilots in both disciplines choose the Competition Committee co-chairman and have these co-chairman choose the competition committee members from among the competition pilots. Have the competition committee meet virtually.
  5. Change the Competition Workgroup proposal to eliminate any conflict with the NTSS competitions and put the revamped proposal in the Membership and Development committee. Let them develop a separate open distance and event based competition system.
  6. Choose a meet validity for the King Mountain co-Nationals that is consistent with the Competition Rulebook in force at the time of the meet.

These proposed changes can be found in detail here.

The full background on these proposals can be found here:
CWGarticles.htm
Kingnats.htm

You can ask your regional director to support these changes here:

REGION 1 - AK, OR, WA
Rich Hass R 2010 (425) 453-7177 <lowenslo>
Mark Forbes R 2009 (541) 760-3231 <mgforbes> bio
Mike Haley L 2009 (541) 899-1775 <mike_haley>
REGION 2 - North CA, NV
Paul Gazis R 2009 (650) 604-5704 <pgazis>
Urs Kellenberger R 2009 (650) 802-9908 <urs>
Dave Wills R 2010 (650) 324-9155 <dave>
REGION 3 - South CA, HI
Rob Sporrer R 2009 (805) 968-0980 <rob>
Bob Kuczewski R 2010 (858) 204-7499 <bobk> bio
Brad Hall R 2009 (760) 438-7804 <brad.reg3> bio
REGION 4 - AZ, CO, NM, UT
Mark Gaskill R 2010 (801) 949-2803 <airutah> bio
Ken Grubbs R 2009 (970) 879-7770 <kengrubbs> bio
Leo Bynum L 2009 (505) 255-1097 <leo>
REGION 5 - ID, MT, WY
Lisa Tate R 2009 (208) 376-7914 <lisa.tate>
REGION 6 - AR, KS, MO, NE, OK
Gregg Ludwig R 2009 (281) 788-6754 <greggludwig>
REGION 7 - IL, IN, MI, MN ND, SD, WI, IA
Tracy Tillman R 2010 (517) 223-8683 <cloud9sa>
REGION 8 - NH, CT, ME, MA, RI, VT
Jeff Nicolay R 2010 (603) 542-4416 <morningside>
REGION 9 - DC, DL, KY, MD, OH, VA, WV
Felipe Amunategui R 2010 (216) 751-0347 <felipe.amunategui>
L.E. Herrick R 2009 (304) 704-2331 <le_herrick>
Dennis Pagen L 2009 (814) 422-0589 <pagenbks>
Art Greenfield - NAA X (800) 644-9777 <awgreenfield>
REGION 10 - AL, FL, GA, MS NC, SC, TN, VI, PR
Steve Kroop R 2010 (321) 773-2307 <info>
Matt Taber R 2009 (706) 398-3433 <fly>
Dick Heckman R 2009 (205) 534-1461 <hekdic>
REGION 11 - LA, TX
Gregg Ludwig R 2009 (281) 788-6754 <greggludwig>
Riss Estes L 2009 (512) 329-0790 <parariss> bio
Dave Broyles L 2009 (972) 727-3588 <broydg>
REGION 12 - NJ, NY
Paul Voight R 2010 (845) 744-3317 <flyhigh> bio
REGION 13 - International
Dick Heckman 2009 (205) 534-1461 <hekdic>

Meet organizers in conflict?

October 2, 2009, 8:18:55 MST

Meet organizers in conflict?

Is the fight about the NTSS competition rules, just a fight between meet organizers?

David Glover|Jamie Shelden|Lisa Tate|Mike Haley|PG|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|USHPA

One component of the proposed changes in the NTSS competition system brought forth by the Competition Workgroup under the direction of the USHPA Competition Committee Chairman is the "warm body" provision that supposedly would give more validity to meets based on the number of participants, and less weight to the "quality" of participants, as measured by their previous (from the year before) NTSS ranking. While there are many objectionable provisions in the Competition Workgroup's proposals and a general disdain for the secrecy and non inclusive nature of the process, it is this proposal that has raised the most difficulty and divisions among meet organizers.

The "warm body" provision was originally going to be adopted for the 2009 competition season at the Spring USHPA BOD meeting, but there was substantial opposition from members, competition pilots, Steve Kroop and Rob Sporrer. It was defeated at that meeting. It is back again for the fall USHPA BOD meeting in mid November.

On one side of the provision stand Lisa Tate, organizer of the King Mountain meet (and USHPA President), Mike Haley, organizer of the Rat Race and other national-level USHPA sanctioned paragliding competitions (and USHPA Competition Committee Chairman), and Riss Estes (member of the USHPA Executive Committee), heard to be interested in organizing paragliding competitions if the Competition Workgroup proposals pass. On the other side, Steve Kroop (a Region 10 director), organizer (with Jamie Shelden) of the Flytec meets, David Glover, organizer of the 2007 Worlds, and the Big Spring meets, Jamie Shelden organizer of the Flytec meets and the Santa Cruz Flats Race. All these meet organizers will be at the fall USHPA BOD meeting.

On one side three powerful members of the USHPA governing clique. On the other, one regional director and others unassociated with the USHPA other than as members.

I have written about the "warm body" provisions in the Competition Workgroup proposals previously here and here. You can see the original proposals here.

Lisa, Mike and Riss argue for their "warm body" provisions as follows:

(a) The overall validity of USHPA competitions increases, addressing the problem of quality competitive events receiving less than full validity.

(b) Meet organizers contributing to the pilot community by organizing well-attended events are rewarded with higher validity, which in turn induces higher ranked pilots to attend, which in turn augments the success of the organizers’ efforts.

(c) Top pilots in search of a spot on the US team have incentive to attend events once considered secondary, creating an environment where aspiring pilots can learn from those more skilled.

(d) The validity system is more inclusive, factoring in the skills and value of attending pilots who happen not to have a national ranking.

(e) Pilot skill remains the dominant variable in determining meet validity.

(f) The best US pilots will continue to represent the US in world events.

I demonstrated earlier that applying their warm body formula to a previous meet in Big Spring made small changes to the validity of the meet and did not support the favorable opinions that this crew has of the value and significance of their provisions. Because their proposal didn't make any significant differences, as far as I could tell with one small test, I remain agnostic about it.

I, and all the meet organizers and competitions pilots agree with the goal, bringing more pilots to competition meets. We question whether these provisions will go any where toward meeting that goal.

Apparently the Competition Workgroup has an actual comparison of the two systems (or three systems) done over two years' worth of competition data, but so far they have been unwilling to share the results of that analysis. Without sharing it BOD members would be buying a pig in a poke if they vote to implement the proposals.

Steve Kroop and David Glover have argued against any changes to the NTSS validity formula. The principal that they stand behind is that the quality of the competition should determine the value of the competition. You have to beat the valued quality pilots to get NTSS points, not the warm bodies.

Now there is a chicken and egg aspect to this. You don't get points that you bring to the competition (until a year later) unless you go first to a NTSS USHPA sanctioned competition. If a meet (say the King Mountain meet) attracts a lot of pilots, who are (let us say for the sake of argument) good pilots, but pilots who have not attended USHPA sanctioned competitions (because they are on the east coast or in Texas, or because they require towing endorsements, or because they are races and not open distance formats, or because it is too costly in time and money to go to them), then the King Mountain meet isn't worth much no matter how good the pilots are (which pisses off Lisa and the pilots who attend the King Mountain meet thinking that the "élites" are dissing them).

Of course, when I was the USHPA Competition Committee Chairman we recognized this problem and gave USHPA sanctioned competitions our own "warm body" points, 300 points minimum for any USHPA sanctioned competition. In fact, you didn't have to have any bodies at all to get the 300 points, but it was put in there to assist and support meet organizers in trying to attract pilots to their competitions. It has succeeded in that. Since that time I have recommended increasing that value all the way up to 600 points.

Apparently the current "warm body" provisions aren't enough for the meet organizers on one side of this debate. They think (I think mistakenly) that if things were changed in a way that they find congenial, it will improve attendance at their meets. I have heard third hand that this is a very big issue of Mike (and Gale) as they want their paragliding meets to be financially successful (and believe that some of the top pilots are not coming to their meets reducing their validity and attractiveness). I have also heard third hand that Riss Estes is very interested in getting the Competition Workgroup proposals passed so that he can feel that it is a better deal for him if he wants to put on a meet. Lisa has been fighting this battle since 1984, and I don't need to go into all this now about why she favors these changes.

Now let me state clearly that I completely support supporting meet organizers. In fact, I have made many proposals about how we can do just that. And yes I believe that "warm body" provisions are a portion of that support (and as I said above, we have already included them in the existing system). I have also made proposals (adopting proposals from the paraglider pilots) for increasing the value of points that a broader range of pilots bring to the competitions. I have also stated that I really don't have a problem with the Competition Workgroup's proposals in this area. In that sense I am in the middle on this issue.

Steve and Jamie have not had a problem getting full attendance and full validity for their meets. Perhaps they feel, unlike Mike, that they are getting as many pilots as they can handle. Perhaps because they are limited by their towing resources, and safety concerns, that they don't need any more help getting pilots to attend their competitions, so that they can be free to push for the quality provisions and against the "warm body" count.

I, as a competition pilot, would like to see more attendance at these meets, and at the East Coast Championship, the Big Spring Nationals, and the Santa Cruz Flats Race. I favor provisions that will actually help meet organizers attract more pilots. I have stated these provisions and I will state in the future additional actions that I would like to see the USHPA and meet organizers take.

My goal is to see 100 hang glider pilots at each USHPA sanctioned competition. I want to know how from a list of things that we could do to support competition and support meet organizers how each of those things is going to help us reach that goal.

I believe that fiddling with the NTSS system is a weak sister when it comes to moving toward my goal. I don't have anything against the proposed changes to the valuation, but I have not much in favor of them either.

One thing that my calculations do not take into account is the fact that the Lisa, Mike, Riss proposal does not count the quality of foreign pilots coming to fly in the US meets or their quality in foreign competitions. The Florida meets attract a number of high quality foreign pilots which is why they are high value meets. This would go away under the LMR proposal. That, and the fact that only one foreign meet over two years could be counted toward your ranking.

Petitioning the USHPA

September 18, 2009, 8:13:32 MDT

Petitioning the USHPA

Just what kinda petition have you got there, boy?

Dave Broyles|Dennis Pagen|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Lisa Tate|Mike Haley|Paul Voight|Richard Heckman|Rich Hass|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|Tracy Tillman|USHPA

As Oz Report readers know 105 mostly competition pilots have petitioned their regional directors at the USHPA BOD to:

I, the undersigned USHPA member, have lost confidence in the ability of the current USHPA leadership to competently and fairly manage the National Team Selection System (NTSS). I respectfully request that the competition committee chairman resign and the USHPA Board, Executive Committee and president stop moving forward on changes to the competition rulebook and NTSS system without first getting direct and considered input from the pilots, organizers and meet directors who are the most familiar NTSS competition.

I believe the validity of the rankings may have been compromised by recent competition committee actions and the 2009 Hang Gliding King Mountain NTSS point totals should be examined by a group of knowledgeable competition pilots, meet directors and scorekeepers to objectively determine proper validity.

I strongly encourage the USHPA Board to adjust their focus to support and create events outside the NTSS system to achieve and satisfy the important mission and goals of the USHPA.

You'll notice that this petition is not asking for the USHPA to take up a new subject and have a vote on that issue. It is asking Mike to resign and for USHPA BOD members to listen to the pilots on issues that they will already be voting on.

Lisa Tate, USHPA President, has responded to an inquiry from Steve Kroop, Region 10 director, with a statement that there is a procedure for accepting petitions at the USHPA and that it can be found in the USHPA Policy Manual, SOP 2.5. That SOP states:

5. 01 Petition Proposal

A. Any current member may present a petition to the USHPA President for the purpose of initiating a vote upon any issue. The petition must clearly set forth the proposed issue to be voted upon must be presented to the USHPA President not less than 60 days before the submission of the required sponsor signatures discussed below.

Now, first of all these pilots are not presenting a USHPA formal petition to the USHPA. They have signed a petition that has gone to each of their Regional Directors.

Second, the petition does not have the "...purpose of initiating a vote...," but rather is asking the pilots' regional directors to vote in a certain way on already scheduled votes at the CC and BOD meetings. It also asks, once again, for Mike Haley to resign his position as Competition Committee Chairman (this doesn't need a vote).

Forcing the USHPA BOD to vote on a issue by a formal petition is an extremely difficult undertaking, and I would never suggest that anyone try it. (It has been tried in the past.) It is much easier to convince one's regional director to bring up your item in a committee meeting. But, having said that, that regional director has to get the committee chairman to put that item on the agenda (not so easy, as we have seen).

But, having said that, nothing gets discussed, voted on, or passed, unless there are some strong champions on the BOD who actually attend the meetings, voice their opinions, and gather allies to prevail in the votes. 105 competition pilots have petitioned their regional directors to vote a certain way in the upcoming CC and BOD meetings on these issues, and they are perfectly within their rights to do so. I hope that the regional directors take the concerns of their constituent pilots into consideration.

At the last BOD meeting, a petition was sent into the BOD requesting that the BOD not adopt the proposed new NTSS calculations for the 2009 season. That petition when combined with the difficult work provided by Steve Kroop, Rob Sporrer, and others made it so the motion to adopt those procedures was stopped.

There is no need for competition pilots to place themselves in the straight jacket of SOP 2.5. They have a voice that can be heard at the BOD meeting, by contacting their regional director and asking them to vote against the proposal that is messing with the NTSS system. They will find their regional directors here:

Region 1: AK, OR, WA

Mark G. Forbes <<mgforbes>>;
Rich Hass <<lowenslo>>;
Mike Haley <<mphmikehaley>>;

Region 2: North CA, NV

Paul R Gazis <<pgazis>>;
Urs W. Kellenberger <<urs>>
Dave Wills <<dave>>;

Region 3 - South CA, HI

Bob K. <<bobk>>;
Rob Sporrer <<rob>>;
Brad Hall <<brad.reg3>>;

Region 4 - AZ, CO, NM, UT

Mark Gaskill <<airutah>>;
Ken Grubbs <<kengrubbs>>;
Leo Bynnum <<leo>>;

Region 5 - ID, MT, WY

Lisa Tate <<lisa.tate>>;

Region 6 - AR, KS, MO, NE, OK

Gregg Ludwig <<GreggLudwig>>

Region 7 - IL, IN, MI, MN, ND, SD, WI, IA

Tracy Tillman <<Cloud9SA>>;

Region 8 - NH, CT, ME, MA, RI, VT

Jeff Nicolay <<morningside>>;

Region 9 - DC, DL, KY, MD, OH, VA, WV

Luis Felipe Amunategui <<felipe.amunategui>>;
LE Herrick <<le_herrick>>;
Dennis Pagen <<pagenbks>>;

Region 10 - AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VI, PR

Steve Kroop <<info>>;
Matt Taber <<fly>>;
Richard Heckman <<hekdic>>;

Region 11 - LA, TX

Gregg Ludwig <<GreggLudwig>>
Dave Broyles <<broydg>>;
Riss Estes <<parariss>>;

Region 12 - NJ, NY

Paul Voight <<flyhigh>>;

Region 13 - International

Richard Heckman <<hekdic>>;

Petition to the USHPA

February 28, 2009, 7:02:08 pm PST

Petition to the USHPA

A few of us have created the following petition. Please sign it.

Dave Broyles|Dennis Pagen|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Leo Bynum|Lisa Tate|Mike Haley|Paul Voight|PG|Rich Hass|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|Tracy Tillman|USHPA

In the spring of last year, the USHPA competition committee formed a workgroup to determine if there were changes that could be made to our competition system that might help the association achieve its growth goals and increase participation in competition. While the notion of changing the competition system to grow the sports of hang gliding and paragliding seems far fetched, the possibility of increasing USHPA member participation in competition seem reasonable and a worthwhile endeavor. There is, however, a problem with the way the competition workgroup is proceeding with this project as outlined below:

  • The competition community (comp pilots, meet directors, meet organizers) was not included in the process of determining what problems may exist and how to address them. Proceeding in this way is a violation of section 1.4 of the USHPA competition rulebook.
  • The workgroup developed a proposed new system which essentially discards our exiting system and rulebook. This was done in a way that makes it extremely difficult to compare their proposal with our existing system. Requests for a redline document or an editable version of their draft proposal have been declined.
  • There was a comment period on the proposed new system but the comments have not been made public. Requests to see the comments have been rejected by the workgroup. Inquiries as to the process for incorporating the comments into the new system have gone unanswered.
  • The workgroup is working under the assumption that the USHPA BOD vote to authorize the workgroup to continue their efforts functions as an approval to change the competition validity system for 2009. This is in spite of the fact that the new validity system they proposed is universally disliked by the hang gliding and paragliding comp pilots and is believed to be detrimental to our ranking system and National Team selection.
  • There is an apparent conflict of interest in the workgroup. Since two of the workgroup's members are comp organizers and since the comp pilots were excluded it can be argued that workgroup's efforts are biased towards event organizers and against the competitors.
  • The workgroup appears to have erroneous preconceived notions about our competition system and competition pilots and their proposed system appears tainted by their prejudices.

If you agree that this conduct is not beneficial to the USHPA and to our competition system you must take steps to help stop it. Please click here and enter your name and USHPA number to be added to a list requesting the following actions (you do not need to be a comp pilot to participate).

  • Keep the existing validity system for 2009 and until an improved system, that is approved by the competition community, is developed
  • Task the workgroup to engage in an open discussion with the competition community to improve the validity system (there is a very good draft proposal by Greg Babush)
  • Instruct the workgroup to suspend its current course, follow our existing rules and work directly with the competition community to determine if there are any real deficiencies in our existing competition system and come up with real solutions.

Important: In addition to adding your name to the list above PLEASE contact your regional director(s) listed below and ask them to support the three actions above. This is a very important step since there is a USHPA BOD meeting coming up in March. Lastly, please ask your fellow pilots, whether they compete or not, to participate as well.

REGION 1 - AK, OR, WA
Rich Hass R 2010 (425) 453-7177 «email»
Mark Forbes R 2009 (541) 760-3231 (info) «email»
Mike Haley L 2009 (541) 899-1775 «email»
REGION 2 - North CA, NV
Paul Gazis R 2009 (650) 604-5704 «email»
Urs Kellenberger R 2009 (650) 802-9908 «email»
Dave Wills R 2010 (650) 324-9155 «email»
REGION 3 - South CA, HI
Rob Sporrer R 2009 (805) 968-0980 «email»
Bob Kuczewski R 2010 (858) 204-7499 (info) «email»
Brad Hall R 2009 (760) 438-7804 (info) «email»
REGION 4 - AZ, CO, NM, UT
Mark Gaskill R 2010 (801) 949-2803 (info) «email»
Ken Grubbs R 2009 (970) 879-7770 (info) «email»
Leo Bynum L 2009 (505) 255-1097 «email»
REGION 5 - ID, MT, WY
Lisa Tate R 2009 (208) 376-7914 «email»
REGION 6 - AR, KS, MO, NE, OK
Gregg Ludwig R 2009 (281) 788-6754 «email»
REGION 7 - IL, IN, MI, MN ND, SD, WI, IA
Tracy Tillman R 2010 (517) 223-8683 «email»
REGION 8 - NH, CT, ME, MA, RI, VT
Jeff Nicolay R 2010 (603) 542-4416 «email»
REGION 9 - DC, DL, KY, MD, OH, VA, WV
Felipe Amunategui R 2010 (216) 751-0347 «email»
L.E. Herrick R 2009 (304) 704-2331 «email»
Dennis Pagen L 2009 (814) 422-0589 «email»
Art Greenfield - NAA X (800) 644-9777 «email»
REGION 10 - AL, FL, GA, MS NC, SC, TN, VI, PR
Steve Kroop R 2010 (321) 773-2307 «email»
Matt Taber R 2009 (706) 398-3433 «email»
Dick Heckman R 2009 (205) 534-1461 «email»
REGION 11 - LA, TX
Gregg Ludwig R 2009 (281) 788-6754 «email»
Riss Estes L 2009 (512) 329-0790 (info) «email»
Dave Broyles L 2009 (972) 727-3588 «email»
REGION 12 - NJ, NY
Paul Voight R 2010 (845) 744-3317 (info) «email»
REGION 13 - International
Dick Heckman 2009 (205) 534-1461 «email»

2009 Paragliding Worlds are on at Valle de Bravo

Wed, Jan 28 2009, 8:50:19 am AEDT

Paragliding Worlds are on at Valle de Bravo

Quite a detailed report of each day

Jeff Huey|Josh Cohn|PG|PG Worlds 2009|Rob Sporrer

http://www.eagleparagliding.com/?q=node/213

Rob Sporer reports on the tasks.

The team: http://www.eagleparagliding.com/?q=node/212

http://www.pwmex2009.com/

Eric Reed from the USA was in first after two days. It's great to see Jeff Huey.

The US team is in first place after two rounds. Jeff Huey is co-team leader, along with Rob Sporrer, reprising his job from the 2005 Worlds in Valadares, Brazil. Josh Cohn reports.

Discuss "2009 Paragliding Worlds are on at Valle de Bravo" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Critique of the Revitalizing Competition presentation

December 1, 2008, 12:27:54 pm PST

Critique of the Revitalizing Competition presentation

What's in this presentation to the USHPA BOD?

Dennis Pagen|Lisa Tate|Mike Haley|PG|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|USHPA

Previous articles in this series

The following is a critique of the presentation made to the USHPA BOD at the Fall 2008 BOD meeting by the Competition Workgroup. The presentation is found here:

http://www.ushpa.aero/documents/pres_comp_restructure_bod_fa08.pdf

Text from the presentation is in blue below. In black is the critique. Mike Haley (committee chair) Riss Estes, Connie Work, Paul Montville, Dennis Pagen, Rob Sporrer, and Lisa Tate are listed as the authors of the presentation.

You'll want to read along with the presentation document as you read the critique below.

Sanctioning Process Unstructured

Inconsistent quality leads to pilot disinterest. USPHA brand tarnished

While this is a power point presentation is is very unclear what the Workgroup is referring to here. I have gone to all the hang gliding competitions for years. Maybe there is some problem over in the paragliding world, but I have not seen inconsistently in quality in USHPA hang gliding competitions. In fact, I have seen very high quality.

I can't see how the USHPA brand (if it exists at all) has been tarnished by the USHPA sanctioned hang gliding competitions. Perhaps they could give some examples.

How is the sanctioning process unstructured? I'm sure that Liz Sharp would be surprised to hear this. What exactly is wrong with it and what are you proposing to fix that?

Applications due as much as eleven months before event. Undue burden on meet organizers.

Sure we could shorten the time frame, but some organizers can think eight months ahead of time, and you might want that for the Nationals. And we could do a lot to help meet organizers as I have pointed out. Why charge them a $500 fee for "late" applications?

No Support for Meet Organizers. Potential meet organizers daunted. No training readily available. Aspiring meet organizers underÅ achieve. Meet organizer liability.

Yah, but then there is absolutely nothing in the plan from the Competition Workgroup to support meet organizers in the future. In fact, there is just a list of additional burdens for meet organizers. The plan doesn't address this issue at all. No training, no nothing.

Problematic Ranking/Validity System

• Meets are considered valid based on only the top 10 pilots attending.

Well this is just flat wrong (in the hang gliding world).

If the top pilots don’t come… –…the meet is devalued

• Devalued meets = low attendance = poor economics –…less knowledge transfer –…lesser pilots don’t get to fly with the “big guns”

As I have already pointed out, make each USHPA sanctioned hang gliding meet worth 600 points (with minimum attendance figure of twenty pilots for hang gliding).

Current system… –…open to manipulation –…alienates many members

The current system is not manipulated by hang glider pilots, although I have heard rumors that it is by paraglider pilots. Let's see the evidence among hang glider pilots that the current system alienates them. This again seems to be a paraglider pilot complaint.

Publish minimum standards for quality and safety

You mean like this one:

When required, the pilot and meet director shall have radios capable of transmitting on a common USHPA frequency unless alternative frequencies are unanimously agreed by the meet director and all participants.

We haven't used the USHPA frequencies in years. I could go into a long discourse on why this is a bad idea.

Later I will again go through the three pages of minimum safety and quality standards and critique them. I have no problem with having three pages that are reasonable, but I don't see that publishing these pages accomplishes much.

50-50 weighting of quality of pilot attending and quantity of pilots attending.

I have already shown that it is 70 - 30, quantity and quality in their proposal.

Enact new validity system for 2009.

Other than apparently the USHPA Competition Rulebook can only be changed at the Fall BOD meeting and apply for the next year, 2010, well, what the hell, let's just forget about the rules here and just go willy nilly ahead and make whatever changes we think are necessary. It is unclear what they mean by the validity system and how this is going to work.

This presentation looks to me to be a bamboozlement of the BOD. Very little of what is in the actual plan is presented here. There was no fair hearing of the plan by the BOD. Steve Kroop has already pointed out here in the Oz Report that he would not have voted for this plan to go ahead for review if he had seen it in advance.

The USHPA BOD works through committees. The plan was not presented to, discussed, nor voted on by the Competition Committee before it went before the whole BOD. This is not in line with the BOD procedures. It was rushed through without proper consideration.

I'll have much more to say about the plan and I will, of course, present an alternative plan in the coming issues of the Oz Report.

Discuss Critique of the Revitalizing Competition presentation at the Oz Report forum   link»

The USHPA and the King Mountain Nationals

October 27, 2008, 9:14:53 PDT

The USHPA and the King Mountain Nationals

Have they spoken with even one "competition" pilot?

David Glover|Dennis Pagen|Gary Osoba|Leo Bynum|Lisa Tate|Lucas Ridley|Mike Haley|Ollie Gregory|Rich Hass|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|USHPA

David Glover|Dennis Pagen|Gary Osoba|Jon James|Leo Bynum|Lisa Tate|Lucas Ridley|Mike Haley|Ollie Gregory|Rich Hass|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|USHPA

Has the USHPA Competition Committee and the USHPA BOD asked one single "competition" pilot what they want? Have they done a survey of "competition" pilots to find out where they want the nationals in 2009? They can find the list of "competition" pilot here on their very own web site: http://www.ushpa.aero/competition/ntss1/index.php.

I'm just going to bet that they haven't asked them for their advice on where to hold the nationals or how to "improve" the competition scene, unlike Gary Osoba did, and I reported on earlier.

Here's the list of people who were at the USHPA Competition Committee meeting over the weekend:

Mike Haley (Chair), Connie Work, James Anderson, Steve Kroop, Dick Heckman, Rob Sporrer, Ollie Gregory, Lucas Ridley, David Glover, Jon James, Riss Estes, Lisa Tate, Urs Kellenberger, Rich Hass, LE Herrick, Dennis Pagen, Paul Montville, Martin (office), Bill Finn, Stan Abraham, Rigo Villalobos, Leo Bynum.

Here is the list of voting members at that same meeting: Mike Haley (Chair), Dick Heckman, Steve Kroop, Rob Spore, L.E. Herrick, Jon James, Riss Estes, Lisa Tate, Urs Kellenburger, Rich Hass, Leo Bynum, Dennis Pagen.

I want you, my readers, to find one name on the voting member list for the USHPA Competition Committee that you'll find on the list of competition hang glider pilots found above. Have you found him yet?

So who exactly is making decisions for the competition pilots?

Oh, is the USHPA's list of "competition" pilots not complete enough for you? Well, how about our USHPA president's list of King Mountain Competition pilots? You'll find them here: http://www.flykingmountain.com/contestresults.html. You'll find one familiar name.

Now, is anyone on that list (other than Mr. James, recreational class pilot and currently ranked 80th) voting at the USHPA Competition Committee on the future of USHPA sanctioned hang gliding competitions?

There were two competition pilots in the meeting who were not voting. Neither of them were allowed to vote. Both of them spoke in favor of Big Spring as the site for the Nationals.

When do competition pilots get to determine their future, instead of USHPA bureaucrats?

What does Gary Osoba have to say about this choice:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13683&start=14

As one of the original pioneers in the development of hang gliding, I can remember times of very high attrition (fatalities). They generally fell into two categories. One had to do with unsafe designs. It took time to understand the parameters, and to require certification to standards which produced safer flying designs.

The second one was more pervasive, but only for a relatively short period of time. This is because people learned, and changed. It had to do with a certain element, attracted to the sport in its seminal stage for all the wrong reasons, people who lacked meaning or substance, who thought that the more radical the conditions, the more dramatic (unsafely so) event they could survive would somehow impart desperately desired value to their life. Macho mentality. Neanderthal impulses. Existentialism at its worst. Sartre never envisioned this segment of the early stages of hang gliding. Le etre et le neant.

The most functional definition of raw intelligence revolves around the ability to adapt. To learn from prior experience.

Let me get this straight. Go to a site which has a reputation for producing extreme mechanical turbulence, and to do so frequently. Mistake it, and then pose it as "big conditions". Then maximize the amount of time you spend in these conditions by the design of the task. The survivors become the victors.

Welcome back to the worst part of the early 1970's, and ignore what was learned by the pioneers of the sport. I have a small, disconnected voice. Too bad the departed can no longer speak, in tones and at volumes more difficult to ignore.

Puzzled, but with no ill intent.

Discuss The USHPA and the King Mountain Nationals at the Oz Report forum   link»

Paragliding Maneuvers Clinic

November 15, 2007, 7:29:41 GMT+1100

Clinic

Fun with parachutes

PG|Rob Sporrer|Ted Stratton|video|weather

Ted Stratton «ted» writes:

My son, Brian, attended a most excellent maneuvers clinic a few weeks ago here in Arizona at Lake Roosevelt, about two hours away from Phoenix. The clinic was run by Rob Sporrer of Eagle Paragliding out of Santa Barbara. The weather was mostly perfect for the entire three days and the awesome scenery was matched by the incredible instruction that Rob, Brad and Kevin provided.

I produce films and videos for a living and couldn't resist the temptation to take a day off and go out there to shoot the event. Here's one of the segments that I put together the next day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny4rtJOHWvg

I also posted my pix of the event on my website at:

http://www.edited.com/PG/SIV_Lake_Roosevelt_10-07/index.html

Discuss Clinic at the Oz Report forum     Digg This  Reddit  DelIcioUsdel.icio.us

2005 USHGA Regional Director Election Results

December 20, 2005, 10:29:09 PST

RD Election Results

I'm hoping that Dick takes my seat.

Aaron Swepston|Bruce Rhymes|Dave Broyles|Davis Straub|Greg Berger|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Jayne DePanfilis|John Greynald|Lisa Tate|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|Tad Hurst|USHGA

Jayne DePanfilis «jayne» writes:

In region 1, Mark Forbes was re-elected with 67 votes. Aaron Swepston received 35 votes as a write-in candidate, and Murdoch Hughes and Doug Beer received one write-in vote each.

In region 2, Paul Gazis and Urs Kellenburger were re-elected with 74 and 73 votes respectively. Write-ins Bill Cuddy, Ron Smith and Bruce Rhymes received 2, 1 and 1 votes.

In region 3, John Greynald was re-elected with 122 votes, as was Tad Hurst with 86 votes. Write-in Brad Hall received 58 votes, while Rob Soderquist, Larry Newby, Rob Sporrer and Stan Koszelak received one vote each.

In region 4, Jim Zeiset retains his seat on the board with 44 votes, while write-ins Greg Berger, Jennifer Beach and Steve Meyer received one vote each.

In region 5, Lisa Tate was re-elected with 25 votes.

Region 6 has been merged with region 11, and did not have an election. Regions 7 and 8 did not have an open seat this year, and will be decided in the fall 2006 election cycle.

In region 9, Tom McCormick won the seat vacated by retiring director Randy Leggett, with 25 votes. Brian Vant Hull and Jim Rowan received one write-in vote each.

In region 10, Matt Taber was re-elected with 150 votes. A newly-created position in region 10 was narrowly won by Davis Straub, with 91 votes. Dick Heckman received 90 votes. Write-in candidates Carl Burick and Steve Kroop received one vote each.

In region 11, Gregg Ludwig won the position from incumbent Dave Broyles, by a margin of 36 to 19. Mick Howard received one write-in vote.

A total of 680 valid ballots were received, representing about 9% of the eligible USHGA voting membership. The ballots were counted by Rick Butler, USHGA's director of information services. The regional directors take office as of January 1, 2006, and will serve for two year terms.

The USHGA Board of Director's and Staff extend a special thanks to past USHGA presidents and outgoing regional directors, Randy Leggett and Dave Broyles, for their exemplary service.

Randy Leggett was elected as a USHGA honorary director at the BOD meeting in Rochester in October and will be serving a two-year term. He was also recently elected as treasurer of the United States Hang Gliding Foundation (The Foundation) replacing Mark Forbes who resigned as Foundation treasurer. Randy is a member of the USHGA Site committee.

Dave Broyles serves as chair for USHGA's Safety and Training committee

Oz Report Radio »

Mon, Mar 21 2005, 3:00:03 pm EST

Paragliding instructor to the stars.

PG|Rob Sporrer

To see a list of and then listen to archived interviews on Oz Report Radio click here.

Rob Sporrer - former paragliding instructor of the year.

this is an audio post - click to play

Please send suggestions for interview subjects «here».

How to catch our Ozcasts.

Discuss Oz Report Radio at the Oz Report forum

USHGA - Election Results »

Fri, Dec 17 2004, 3:00:00 pm EST

Jim Macklow wins after a strong campaign.

Aaron Swepston|Bill Bolosky|David Jebb|Ed Pitman|Gene Matthews|Jayne DePanfilis|Jim "Jimbo" Macklow|Joe Greblo|Laurie Croft|Paul Voight|Ray Leonard|Rob McKenzie|Rob Sporrer|Steve Kroop|Steve Mayer|Tracy Tillman|USHGA

Jayne DePanfilis «jayne» writes:

Region 1

Bill Bolosky 46
Aaron Swepston 1
Gene Matthews 1

Region 2

Jim Macklow 91
Ray Leonard 64
Ed Pitman 24
Ron Smith 1

Region 3

David Jebb 54
Rob Sporrer 3
Joe Greblo 2
Peter Michelmore 1
Rob Mckenzie 1
John Hurst 1

Region 4

Steve Mayer 63
Jennifer Beach 2
Jim Zeiset 2
Ed Bennett 1

Region 7

Tracy Tillman 39
Neil Roland 1

Region 8

Gary Trudeau 48
Matt Carr 2
Jeff Nicolay 1
John Szarck 1

Region 9

Felipe Amunategui 40
Randy Leggett 2
Jim Rowan 1

Region 10

Steve Kroop 58
Laurie Croft 1
Christian Thoreson 1

Region 12

Paul Voight 58

There were a total of twelve invalid votes. We received only one vote so far after the December 15th deadline and this vote is invalid.

Congratulations to the newly elected regional directors and to those incumbents who were re-elected as well! The effective date for the newly elected regional directors is January 1st.

(editor's note: Now the questions are, what is his agenda, program, ideas for change? Maybe he'll write and tell me.)

Dixon White »

Fri, Jun 11 2004, 12:00:06 am GMT

Dixon White Memorial Flight Park Fund.

Rob Sporrer|USHGA|Dixon White

Rob Sporrer <mailto:Rob@eagleparagliding.com> writes:

have been receiving lots of calls and emails from people asking if they can send funds to Dixon’s family. At the request of Dixon's family a fund has been setup to support the continued operation of the Merriam Flight Park near Flagstaff, AZ. The Park has tax and insurance expenses which will need to be met each year in order to remain open for free flight. Please donate what you can to keep the Flight Park open to free flying.

This flight park established by Dixon on land held in a trust is unique in the free-flight community. Unlike other flight parks which require either membership in a local association or usage fees, this park has always been free for anyone to use, the only requirements are USHGA membership, a P2/h2 rating and adherence to some very basic rules or etiquette.

Dixon put tremendous effort into acquiring the land, maintaining the access roads, keeping the entire area free of trash and working with the residents in the area to insure that the park could be used by local pilots, Phoenix instructors and pilots and visitors from around the world for years to come. It is his wife, Debra's wish that this unique facility continue to be used as Dixon desired. Dixon relied on the income from his school to cover the expenses of the flight park, including land taxes and maintenance costs.

To remove this burden from Dixon's family we have established a fund to bear these expenses. The fund is being managed by Steve Konves, a long time friend and business partner of Dixon. Donations can be made to:

Dixon White Memorial Flight Park Fund
℅ Steve Konves
1500 E Cedar Ave #10
Flagstaff, AZ 86004

Discuss Dixon White at the Oz Report forum

USHGA election results

Fri, Jan 16 2004, 5:00:05 pm GMT

the USHGA

Aaron Swepston|Bob Lane|Dan Bereczki|Dave Broyles|David Jebb|George Stebbins|James Linscome|John Greynald|Lisa Tate|PG|Ray Leonard|Rob Sporrer|USHGA

Mark G. Forbes <mgforbes@mindspring.com> writes:

The election is over and the ballots are counted. Here are the winners of the election for Regional Directors to serve two year terms beginning in January 2004. Elections are staggered, so some regions did not have a position open this year, since their Directors are in mid-term.

In region 1, the Pacific Northwest, Mark Forbes returns for another term, with 103 votes. Aaron Swepston had one write-in vote.

Region 2 covers northern California and Nevada, and this year it was a contested race, with four candidates for the two open seats. The winners were Paul Gazis (111) and Urs Kellenberger (100). Incumbent John Wilde was third with 52 votes, followed by David Beerman with 48. Ron Smith, Joel McMinn and Wally Anderson got one write-in vote each, while the other Regional Director, Ray Leonard got three votes. His term isn't up until next year, so he wasn't a candidate in this election.

Region 3, covering southern California and Hawaii, had two candidates running for two open positions. John Greynald returns for another term with 86 votes, while John "Tad" Hurst was elected with 69 votes. Others gaining a write-in vote were Larry Chamblee, Bo Criss, David Jebb, George Stebbins, Rob Sporrer and Josh Meyers.

Another contested race was in the mountains of the Southwest, where Region 4 incumbent Jim Zeiset won with 68 votes. Trailing were Jennifer Beach with 42 votes and Ed Bennett with 30 votes.

Region 5, encompassing Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, saw two new faces vying for the position after incumbent Frank Gillette declined to run again. Lisa Tate won the job with 56 votes, over Alan Paylor with 14. Andy Macrae got one write-in vote.

Region 6, covering much of the Midwest, re-elected Len Smith to his second term on the board with 27 votes. James Linscome received one write-in vote.

In Region 9, Randy Leggett returns for another term representing Middle Atlantic pilots with 53 votes. Lindscott Hall and Jim Rowan got one write-in vote each.

In the Southeast, Region 10 pilots re-elected Matt Taber to another term with 64 votes. Bruce Weaver and Bob Lane got one write-in vote each.

And finally, pilots in Texas and Louisiana returned Dave Broyles to the board as Region 11 director, with 50 votes. Dan Bereczki and Kelly Russell received one write-in vote each.

A total of 871 ballot forms were received, from 550 hang glider pilots, 226 paraglider pilots, and 95 bi-wingual pilots. Some of these were from pilots in regions without an election, so only the survey portion of the form was filled out. Some forms had no vote indicated, and in some cases the votes were cast for candidates that were not in the member's region. A total of 799 valid votes were cast in the election. This represents about 10% of the membership in regions that had an election this year. The highest percentage turnout was in Region 5, with 23.4% voting.

Special thanks to Bob Archibald at the USHGA office, who tallied the votes and compiled the raw data

Discuss "USHGA election results" at the Oz Report forum   link»