Matt Taber finds fault with my judgment about the USHPA plans for
competition

Matt Taber has taken me to task for my article on the USHPA
Competition Committee proposals for the future structure of the USHPA
Competition and Event System found
here. He has
challenged me to review my article and look at where the positives about the
proposed program might lie. He is concerned that there have been countless
volunteer hours put into these proposals (and others) and that because I have
pointed out what I see as negatives, volunteers will be discouraged. That the
USHPA relies on volunteer efforts and if I'm always pointing out the problems,
the USHPA may not be able to count of them in the future.

He is concerned that a small percentage of USHPA members are involved in the
current USHPA competition program, and that this needs to be extended to
encourage more participation. That all of us see that extending the reach of
competition could encourage membership retention (and therefore aid growth in
membership). That cross country flying is the most prevalent form of advanced
pilot flight and that having a national cross country champion based on a points
system would be a very good thing. That aerobatic competition and speed gliding
create interest and make our sports visible.

Matt wants me to list the benefits of the proposals, before I listing what I
find wasteful about them. He sees this as a more balanced and fair approach, in
the original meaning of those terms (until they were turned into their opposite
by Faux News). Matt would like it if I were more positive, if I broadcast the
good news, and was not "unbalanced, biased, and contentious."

He states that the USHPA has gone from 10,000 hang gliding members in 1999 to
5,000 ten years later and that clearly the leadership of the USHPA is trying its
best to correct that slide. He wants my help in taking on that task, instead of
engaging in "the constant undeserved criticism and toxic reporting."

Well, first of all my thanks to Matt for taking the time and making the effort
to write to me about these deeply felt issues. I consider Matt to be one of the
good guys, a BOD member who has made the effort to understand the issues about
the current USHPA competition program and to protect the existing system from
unwarranted intrusions. I certainly take his criticism seriously even if I in
part disagree with it.

Let me go back and, out of the heat of the battle and on the line reporting,
look at first where this all came from, the 2005 USHGA Strategic Plan:

Flying Events

Fly-Ins and competitions provide USHGA many opportunities for all aspects of the
strategic plan. For internal marketing, flying events are a significant factor
in promoting an overall sense of community and should not be understated.

More competitions at the local and regional level need to be fostered and
encouraged. This will require examination of USHGA's current competition
structure with evaluation and modification to focus on growth of the sports.
Fly-ins also need to be fostered and encouraged at the local level.

Action: Competition Committee to work with Membership and Development Committee
to develop programs to increase the number of fly-ins and unsanctioned "fun"
competitions.

Action: Competition Committee to develop program to increase the number of
sanctioned competitions, focusing on Regional and National Level. This includes
a comprehensive review of the USHGA Competition System and how it can be revised
to support the long term goals of the Association.

Timeline: Status Report to EC by August 2006 Conference Call. Competition
Committee to have action plan developed for presentation at Spring 2007 BOD
Meeting. Finalized version of plan to be presented at Fall BOD Meeting with
implementation starting January 1, 2008.

The current proposal from the Competition Committee for dividing
up our competition program is the latest response to the second action item
above. Here again is the graphic that displays the overall structure:

This chart was originally produced in September by the Competition Workgroup,
according to my sources. It was produced in recognition that there was just too
much resistance to the proposed changes to the NTSS and that it was best to
separate out other types of competition from Race to Goal types of competition.

You can find the complete Competition Workgroup proposal to the BOD here: a
power point display, http://bit.ly/3aZ4bQ.

I support this proposal. I think (and wrote earlier) that it is an excellent
idea to keep separate types of competition separate. That is doesn't make much
sense to try to shoe horn in "open distance" competitions with race to goal type
competitions. That both are valid competition types, and that both provide great
tests of our pilots' hang gliding skills.

Unlike some pilots, I also wrote (long before this proposal came to light) that
it was quite legitimate to have a national champion based on an "open distance"
competition and that "open distance" competitions were a completely legitimate
form of competition.

So let me state again (and repeat myself) that I support the proposal and
appreciate the effort that went into creating it and salute the Competition
Workgroup for coming up with it.

Let me state that I support open distance flying. I, like Matt, think that it is
advanced flight and I certainly support it as can be seen from my efforts since
2000 with the World record Encampment, with my position as meet organizer for
the Chelan Cross Country Classic in the late nineties, and from my long history
of encouragement of cross country flying.

I support the idea of a national cross country champion, a national aerobatic
champion, and even though it isn't mentioned, a national speed gliding champion,
and even a national on-line contest champion. I think that it would be great to
be able to do this. I think that it could be done.

I also support local competitions and encourage more of them. Local competitions
and Sport Class are excellent ways to bring new pilots into competitions (of all
kinds).

Now let's look back at my article about this chart and the Competition Workgroup
presentation and evaluate it. It sure looks really negative, and it sure doesn't
seem to reflect the statements I'm making above. What's going on here?

In that article I am focusing on one thing, to the detriment, no doubt of the
big picture: the money. The money and the process that the Competition Workgroup
has proposed to go about implementing this proposal. In my narrow focus about
the implementation plan, I ignore (no doubt to my peril) the proposal itself.
What is the implementation plan:

Motion to direct the Competition Committee to organize a Symposium for
Competitions and Events as soon as practicable and not later than 4/30/10 as
said symposium is described in the Competition Work Group Presentation to
USHPA’s Board of Directors in its presentation of 11/12/09. And, to authorize up
to $500 per participant and $7,000 total for the reimbursement of reasonable
expenses of its participants associated with attending this symposium.

How here is where I found the problem. But first let me say, as
Matt asks, what I liked about this proposal. Well, I liked the fact that the
USHPA was putting money into competition and thereby supporting competition.
Okay?

Now, what is problematic?

1) Why a symposium? Why not a virtual get together with no travel expenses and
no outlay of $500/participant? Couldn't that work as well or better?

2) Why not use a small portion of the money to hire someone to set up a USHPA
supported HOLC (hang gliding on-line contest) for the US, each region, each
flying site that wanted one?

3) Why not find the influencers in each competition type and ask them if they
think that a national program would be helpful? Would it encourage participation
in the Chelan Cross Country Classic, for example, or the King Mountain meet?

4) Why not use a small portion of the money to implement Team Challenge type
events at suitable sites around the country?

5) Why not hire someone part time to network a bit, see who is doing local
competitions, get the lay of the land so to speak, determine what competitions
are out there locally (Steve Kroop says that there are about 30 each year) and
see what they want in the way of support from the USHPA?

6) How about shelling out a little prize money to the King Mountain meet and the
CXCC to encourage participation?

7) Why not appoint chairmen of each of the subcommittees of the Competition
Committee devoted to each of the competition types and let them organize their
sub-committees of pilots interested in those sports to come up with programs?

8) Why not encourage a bottom up approach contacting pilots out in the community
and let them design a program?

I have pointed out previously that the USHPA doesn't put any money into their
competition program, and that the competition pilots put all the money into it.
I have also pointed out at the USHPA doesn't put any money into the National
team.

Brad Hall has pointed out to me that in fact the USHPA does have a
matching fund program for national team fees at the Worlds. When you turn in
your membership renewal you can donate to the fund over at the Foundation for
Free Flight and that donation is matched by the USHPA. I don't have any idea how
much money the USHPA puts into this matching fund each year. So the USHPA does
indeed support the national team at the Worlds, just not the USHPA Competition
Program.

So when I see $7,000 going to fix up the competition program, it galls me a bit.
The existing competition program didn't have to pay the expenses of the
volunteers that created it to create it. They created it based on an obvious
need coming from the competition pilots who were clamoring for a fix to the
situation. It was a bottom up process.

This is a top down (and bureaucratic) process. There may be a demand from the
pilots, but I don't see it. I see Dennis trying to deal with three or four
aerobatic pilots who may have wanted to go to the 2009 World Air Games. I see
pilots flying in "open distance" competitions enjoying themselves and not
worrying about a national program. Maybe they are, but I don't see it. They
didn't send in a petition to the board asking for a national program, for
example.

I believe that things should be real. If there is a manifest need, then let's
fill it. If we are making empty silos, what's the point?

I don't want our volunteers to waste their time. I want them to do constructive
tasks. I want to help keep them from wasting their time. By pointing out
constructive alternatives (which I have done time and time again) I hope to make
better use of everyone's time. What could be more positive than that?

I agree with Matt that my article was unfair and unbalanced. That it dwelt just
on the negative aspects of the proposal. That it only provided two alternatives
and they were not fully thought out.

I hope that this follow up article (and the
dozens of
other articles that I have written on this subject) has addressed his
concerns. While I believe that he has fairly characterized that particular
article, he has been neither fair nor balanced when looking at the big picture.
I'll assume that he just wanted to make me see how it feels to be the brunt of
unstinting criticism.

I have been assiduous when it comes to making critiques of the proposals before
the USHPA that I not just criticize but provide plausible alternative motions. I
understand that these are the efforts of volunteers, so I am careful to
volunteer my thinking and proposals and not just be negative. I'm sorry that
Matt, who has read many of my emails on this issue, has neglected to remember
that.