When I look back at all the USHPA (the Competition Workgroup) has
tried to do over the last few years to change competition very little of it
makes sense if the goal was to increase participation in competition as a way of
retaining members in the association. Membership retention is one part of the
goal of increasing USHPA membership (hold on to what you've got and bring in new
ones). Many of the changes that were proposed increased barriers to competition,
making it more difficult for meet organizers, making it more costly for
competition pilots, etc.

Whenever I looked at the proposed changes in light of the stated goals of the
USHPA, there was this huge disconnect. Was the USHPA deliberately trying to make
competition fail? Was the USHPA acting like what we think of as a government
agency setting up barriers instead of trying to promote an activity?

Well it appeared then and it appears now that there was an even stronger goal
than the USHPA stated number 1 goal, growth, and it was this goal that was
driving the Competition Workgroup, and continues to drive the Competition
Committee. That unstated goal was to reduce the USHPA's liability exposure.
Their lawyer sees competitions as exposing the USHPA to possible future
lawsuits, so he wants the USHPA to write up rules and procedures that limit this
exposure.

Limiting the USHPA's liability exposure is not a part of the USHPA strategic
plan. It is not a stated goal of the Association. It is in this case, and I
assume in many others, in conflict with the actual stated goals of the
Association. The strategic plan does mention where some instructor and local
liability issues do interfere with the strategic plan's goals.

This unstated goal needs to be brought out, examined, and its priority made
clear. Is it more important to protect the USHPA from liability or is it more
important to do all that we can to help competition succeed?