http://ozreport.com/docs/SOP-06-01_attachment_5.doc

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22269

Rich Hass <<richhass>>
writes to David Beerman who first brought this issue to the attention of Dave
Wills and the chapter officers:

As this discussion is forwarded to the Chapter Support Committee
for further consideration, I wanted to get back to you and let you know I read
all your
comments and suggestions for further amendment of SOP 06-01. I don't agree
with all of them but I do agree with many. Here are some of my personal thoughts
on the SOP (and not necessarily the opinion of the EC or BoD):

06-01.04 (C)—USHPA shouldn't require an open door policy in terms of requiring
chapters to include both wing types. There are reasons why we have HG and
PG-only clubs just like there are reasons why we have combined HG/PG clubs. That
said, there are chapters with 'closed' memberships where the chapters seem to
exist for the sole purpose of getting the insurance benefit from USHPA for their
private club. Aside from the wing type issue, some pilots with identical or
higher ratings aren't welcomed. I don't think this is right, but how do we draw
the line? Should USHPA allow chapters to discriminate against groups of pilots
or individuals?

06-01.04 (F)—For me, this is easy. I'd just strike it and move on. If chapter or
their officers have a beef with USHPA, so be it. They still need to have a high
percentage of USHPA members to keep their chapter status so I guess I don’t see
the issue here. If chapters behave poorly, they will lose members—exactly the
same principle applies to USHPA.

06-01.04 (G)—One of USHPA's primary goals is to open sites and keep them open.
Allowing chapters to operate as private clubs and discriminate against pilots
who would otherwise be entitled to fly at their site seems counter to what USHPA
is all about. For example, what if a site has been available to both HG and PG
pilots for years but all of a sudden, the PG club signs a lease with the
landowner and the site is now closed to HG pilots? I would think most HG members
would want USHPA to step up and represent their interests. For a similar reason,
USHPA does not provide insurance for sites controlled by a school or operator
where there is no open-door policy to allow all USHPA members—including
instructors—to use the site. If a group of pilots want to form their own private
club and control a site, they can. At issue is whether or not USHPA should be an
enabler.

06-01.05 (B)(1)—I am opposed to any effort where USHPA would require the use of
helmet stickers and my opposition is well-know amongst the proponents of this
provision. The helmet sticker program, as it is presently envisioned, will
enable members to forgo the need to show their card by having their sticker
visible. If chapters want to require use of the stickers, that will be up to
them. For the ones who already use stickers, I suspect they will appreciate
USHPA providing them. Other pilots (like me) see this as a slippery slope where
USHPA is somehow encouraging chapters to require their use. The stickers aren't
a big cost item and I've been assured pilots may opt-in or out as they see fit.
The one advantage I see to using stickers is that it enables everyone to take
ownership of the site monitoring responsibility and not burden club officers
with the task of doing card checks.

David, I will encourage the Chapter Support Committee (and all committees) to
reach out with new proposals to see how they fit with our diverse flying
community well before our BoD meetings. When USHPA comes up short (as I think it
did recently) it is often because we thought we knew what our members want (or
need). There's a much simpler way—just ask. There are other circumstances where
some third party like the FAA requires something. In these cases, USHPA can
improve by laying out the context for the required change. When members know
what is going on, they feel better about changes. I hope I can help USHPA
improve on this score.

On a final note, I want to mention that, to my knowledge, not one single RD has
complained about your bringing this matter to everyone's attention. On the
contrary, several mentioned they appreciated it. I'm in that camp.

If Dean Funk and or Dave Wills had contacted the chapter officers
in advance (as David Beerman did after the fact) then they would have seen that
there was a problem before the USHPA passed this SOP change (which has been
suspended). It is not at all clear that Dean Funk was involved in any of this.