Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"
In reply to:
I guess I could live with this "endorsement" idea, but seriously there is no freeflying endorsement, CRW endorsement, etc.
>>>Those disciplines don't require the use of a complex piece of possibly unfamiliar gear. putting it on, spotting, EP's and deployment are some of the things specific to utilizing that piece of equipment, wouldn't having some standard method training and evaluation through demonstrated competence decrease the likelihood of possible incidents?
I don't believe the proposed program requires current flyers to go back through instruction, I think it's more on the order of showing knowledge & having skills, I dunno...a ten question test and showing a vid of your performance might be all that's needed for an 'endorsement' is that too much to ask? If one wishes to 'teach' wing-suit flying wouldn't an actual program be the best avenue to insure everyone 'new' is on the same page, starting out with an actual set of skills needed?<<<
The WS-I is BS. I believe a few are trying to cash in and they see a potential monopoly.
>>>I keep hearing that, how so 'exactly' do you see that happening? WHO would stand to profit and specifically HOW?
Those questions have been answered to 'my' satisfaction anyway, continuing with generalizations like this smack of scare tactics without merit...tell me, who's gonna get 'rich' with this and how, 'cause I don't see it.<<<
The tail strikes have shown to be from complacency. Simple fuck ups. Just as very experienced canopy pilots have died. I am not talking about the DGIT types.
>>>so what you're saying is what we're doing now isn't working. I agree.<<<
I am talking about guys like JT, Sean Carey, Brady Kane, Peter G, hell the list goes on. Those are just some of the ones I can pull of the top of my head from my limited time in the sport.
Fuck ups happen, even by the best. Nothing we do will ever change that.
>>>I disagree, maybe not eliminate but decreasing in number is certainly achievable.<<<
Skydivers without wings have hit the damn tail too. I am all for safety and if I honestly thought that a WS-I program would greatly increase safety I would be all for it, but the bottom line is it won't.
>>>It won't because you say it won't, or that's your opinion? Again, I've SEEN where standardized training was beneficial, it was fought at the outset then too but it worked, you were likely trained under a standardized curriculum that was thought a 'useless failure' by some way back when.<<<
How about updating the BSR to read in addition to 200 jumps and USPA license, a jumper must have training from an experienced wingsuiter. Define that a expereinced winsuiter has X amount of WS jumps. Sign it off in the logbook. To make it a seperate INSTRUCTOR rating is absurd. I will be voting NO. Education good. Needless ratings bad. I am a tandem instructor. I INSTRUCT my students. I let them pull, fly the canopy, teach them about winds, etc. I need to be an INSTRUCTOR for this. If I fly a wingsuit I am not INSTRUCTING anyone.
>>>then you having a WSI wouldn't be an issue would it.<<<
I am flying a wingsuit and don't need a rating, just like I don't need one to go freefly or fly a camera.
>>>again, lets think about joe n00b who's never seen a wing-suit up-close...is it OK for him to 'fly a wing-suit' because he's good a free-flying? Personally I'm not concerned with what you're doing with yours, it's the long line of never haves behind you I'm concerned with...failure to address that will IMO be a problem down the road that could limit your 'freedom to fly'...it's a real concern and it's happening at some places already.<<<
(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 16, 2012, 3:27 PM)
Post edited by airtwardo
() on Oct 16, 2012, 3:17 PM
Post edited by airtwardo
() on Oct 16, 2012, 3:27 PM