Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Para5-0  (D 19054)

Oct 2, 2012, 11:04 AM
Post #26 of 54 (958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Lets face it. the only real way to get approval on any method of asking for opinions on this topic is to not ask the questions and agree with you that the whole idea should be scrapped. That is the only way that will be accepted in some skydivers mind who dont want this to go any further. I am sorry it just appears that you are attcking every single aspect of every single thing that was done, leading me to believe there would be no satisfying you. I would enjoy reading a post from you starting out, "If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have handled it as follows:.........

Can you not even admit that rather than just push this whole thing down your throat we tried to educate ourselves. Would it hurt that bad to say, "at least USPA tried to reach out the best they knew how" Could it have been done better? I am sure. The way I did it caused literally hundreds of hours of work for the sub committee. If you hired a company that specializes in this I am sure they would have done a better job and it would have cost you a bit more than my salary at USPA. (zero).

For the record, I am not against you personally at all. I am just trying to clarify some points as we move forward. Ultimately, the outcome of the opinion poll will not matter to you at all because it is already flawed, so what now. We look at the results and regardless of how they come back you will not be satisfied. Looking back on it, we should have voted on the program in S&T, brought it to full BOD and let the cards fall where they fall. We would have dealt with the Robin's of the community just the same. This was a lose lose scenario. and before you blast me remember I am one of 22 directors that tried to do what we thought given the information we had at the time, was best for the skydiving community.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 2, 2012, 12:02 PM
Post #27 of 54 (930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

 

I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 2, 2012, 12:09 PM
Post #28 of 54 (928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

So how do you show a difference in what you teach at school?
Your students have been through school most of their lives at the time you meet them.
They aren't new students from your perspective...
Sounds to me like the kindergarten graduation certificate should suffice.
It's only school.


I cannot imagine another way of documenting a common base of knowledge, a progression card or documented progression in skills and accomplishments, and a sign-off on one's ability to fly safely.

Are you planning on using your Top Secret Whacko Detector Device to analyze who is qualified that will prove to the FAA, the DZO, the insurance company, the pilot, and the wingsuit rental company, the load organizer, and the USPA all at the same time that a particular person is qualified to jump the suit they're in?

Simply saying "Yeh, I've got mad skillz" isn't going to work.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 2, 2012, 12:26 PM
Post #29 of 54 (922 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Lets face it. the only real way to get approval on any method of asking for opinions on this topic is to not ask the questions and agree with you that the whole idea should be scrapped.


Cmon, Rich, enough with the non sequiturs. If you're going to do a poll, just do it legitimately or not at all. You didn't even do the most basic research on how to go about doing such a poll legitimately or you would not have done it the way you are doing it. End of discussion.



In reply to:
That is the only way that will be accepted in some skydivers mind who dont want this to go any further. I am sorry it just appears that you are attcking every single aspect of every single thing that was done, leading me to believe there would be no satisfying you. I would enjoy reading a post from you starting out, "If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have handled it as follows:.........

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.


In reply to:
Can you not even admit that rather than just push this whole thing down your throat we tried to educate ourselves. Would it hurt that bad to say, "at least USPA tried to reach out the best they knew how?"

I've already thanked you privately for the work and effort you put into this, and maybe publicly too, and I'll say it again now to be sure: I do appreciate the work and effort you put into this. Good on ya for that, mate.

But you got played by someone much smarter and more experienced at this game than you are or you woulda killed this thing in committee or at the very least not volunteered to get in front of the firing squad like this.

And now you've invested so much in it you won't cut away even though you can see that the whole thing has turned into a clusterfink.

In reply to:
Could it have been done better? I am sure. The way I did it caused literally hundreds of hours of work for the sub committee. If you hired a company that specializes in this I am sure they would have done a better job and it would have cost you a bit more than my salary at USPA. (zero).

Precisely my point. The way you did it has already caused literally hundreds of hours of work for the sub committee -- hours that could have been spent on something much more productive, you know, like figuring out how to further reduce the continuing open-canopy carnage?

And you're just getting started. If this silly proposal passes, and the BOD doesn't cut away from it, then those hundreds of hours are going to become thousands of hours -- all dedicated to something USPA should not be doing in the first place. SkyRide, WingRide, the membership is once again being taken for a ride.

In reply to:
For the record, I am not against you personally at all. I am just trying to clarify some points as we move forward. Ultimately, the outcome of the opinion poll will not matter to you at all because it is already flawed, so what now.


What now? Cut away from this while there's still time. This is not USPA's business.

In reply to:
We look at the results and regardless of how they come back you will not be satisfied. Looking back on it, we should have voted on the program in S&T, brought it to full BOD and let the cards fall where they fall.

Close. You should have killed it in committee. It was outside of USPA's scope then, and it remains outside USPA's scope now. This is not USPA's business.

In reply to:
We would have dealt with the Robin's Robins of the community just the same. This was a lose lose scenario.

Except that you wouldn't have wasted hundreds of hours of the committee's time.

In reply to:
Before you blast me

Sorry, try again on this one, Rich. I apologized for blasting you for something that you did not do, i.e., misrepresenting the insurance issue along with the primary proposal pusher. Absent that now-withdrawn and apologized-for blast, I have not blasted you IIRC. In fact, I have thanked you more than once for your efforts. Now I'm saying that while your effort is great, your results suck and you need to cut away from this turkey before you bounce.

In reply to:
Remember I am one of 22 directors that tried to do what we thought given the information we had at the time, was best for the skydiving community.

I don't forget that, and if you look it up, you'll see more support from me for the BOD and its individual members than probably anyone on this forum. It's a lot of work for no money and probably even less glory, and even though I once ran for the Board myself many winters ago, I still can't quite get my head around why anyone would do it.

But you're conflating my opposition to this silly proposal and its primary pusher with disapproval for you and the Board generally, or even on this issue, and that is simply not the case.

Look it up. Nowhere in any of these wingsuit regulation threads have I said anything about the board's decision on this.

You all got played on this, and you all need to cut away from this mess while you still can. I mean, dude, we all pack our parachutes every time the best we can, and with the best intentions, but sometimes it just doesn't work out and we gotta cut away to save ourselves.

Peace out.

44
Cool


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 2, 2012, 12:34 PM
Post #30 of 54 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

You wouldn't get re-elected.
Wink


Bluhdow  (B 37052)

Oct 2, 2012, 12:42 PM
Post #31 of 54 (914 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

As a newer jumper and someone with no wingsuit experience, all I can do is provide the perspective of someone who these new rules will most directly impact...the future wingsuit students.

If the issue is tail strikes, why isn't this a poll on how to best prevent tailstrikes? Creating a new set of rules and regulations is a bureaucratic knee-jerk reaction to any and every problem that arises. Certainly there's a more efficient way to address a single issue than to put into place a whole new rating system that will add cost and complexity to an already expensive and heavily regulated sport.

My thoughts after reading this thread and the proposal:

At best, this rating and coaching requirement is an indirect attempt at reducing the tail strike problem.

At worst, it's an overkill approach that creates new cost, barriers to entry, and will (like all new regulations) present us with unintended consequences down the road (e.g. preventing prospective wingsuiters from entering the discipline because their DZ staff lacks a wingsuit czar). Even more problematic in my mind is the precendent it creates with respect to problem solving in this sport. It's basically telling us that in order to correct an issue, we simply need to create a class of discipline-specific czars to fix everything for us.

So once again I ask, as a rookie in the sport and a prospective wingsuiter...If tailstrikes are the issue, why aren't we discussing how to best prevent tailstrikes? It seems to me that the best solution probably lies somewhere between taking no action and implementing this new rating requirement. So how about, instead of arguing over this proposal, we try to find an acceptable gray area between the two?


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 2, 2012, 12:57 PM
Post #32 of 54 (901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bluhdow] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm unaware of where tailstrikes became THE issue.
IMO, it's not.
I believe ALL of the concerns HAVE been repeatedly documented.
They naysayers repeatedly try to point this to one issue.
profit, ratings, off landings, collisions, canopy collisions, a few no-pulls, whatever.
To me, this is an issue of proper wingsuit instruction and NOT one single issue.
YMMV.
How does requiring training that is already required create costs and barriers?


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 2, 2012, 1:11 PM
Post #33 of 54 (889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm unaware of where tailstrikes became THE issue.
IMO, it's not.
I believe ALL of the concerns HAVE been repeatedly documented.
They naysayers repeatedly try to point this to one issue.
profit, ratings, off landings, collisions, canopy collisions, a few no-pulls, whatever.
To me, this is an issue of proper wingsuit instruction and NOT one single issue.
YMMV.
How does requiring training that is already required create costs and barriers?

1. It was one of the proponents of the WS-I and WS-I/E ratings that brought up tailstrikes as the big issue

2. CRW, vRW, swooping, bigways... all have their special issues. Are you proposing a whole new paradigm for instructing in "advanced" disciplines? Sure sounds like it.


Bluhdow  (B 37052)

Oct 2, 2012, 1:13 PM
Post #34 of 54 (887 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I'm unaware of where tailstrikes became THE issue.

Once again, I'm new here...but it seems to me that this whole thing got kicked off (or at least pushed to the top of the list) by insurance company concerns regarding tail strikes. Not off-landings, not longer flight times, not instability at pull time, just tail strikes.

Quote:
How does requiring training that is already required create costs and barriers?

Correct me if I'm wrong...but this training is not already required. If it was, why would we be voting on it's implementation?


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Oct 2, 2012, 2:03 PM
Post #35 of 54 (866 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.


Okay that was good. Now throw in there that 75 plus percent of the people who voted you in are in favor of this. Now what? You are taking you personal opinion and acting without any research, outreach, or facts.

If you take that stance on every issue that comes before you, I contend you are representing yourself not the members.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 2, 2012, 2:47 PM
Post #36 of 54 (857 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.


Okay that was good. Now throw in there that 75 plus percent of the people who voted you in are in favor of this. Now what? You are taking you personal opinion and acting without any research, outreach, or facts.

If you take that stance on every issue that comes before you, I contend you are representing yourself not the members.

Political Organization 101:

The US Parachute Association functions as a representative democracy. The USPA Board of Directors serves as elected representatives of the membership in lieu of a full democracy, wherein each and every decision affecting the association would be voted on by the entire membership.

Each board member is elected by his or her constituency (national or regional) to make decisions on their behalf using their knowledge, experience and best judgment.

If a board member makes one or more decisions or votes that is disliked by a sufficiently large percentage of his or her constituency, s/he will not be reelected.

More specifically to your point, given my knowledge, experience and judgment, the 75 percent are misinformed and I will act in the manner that best serves them whether they realize it or not -- and then explain to them why I did it.

If they like my explanation, and they like enough of my other votes and actions, they will reelect me.

If they do not like my action and/or explanation on the wingsuit issue, but they like enough of my other actions and votes, then they will reelect me.

If they like neither my wingsuit action nor a "tipping-point" number of my other actions and votes, then they will not reelect me.

It's not rocket science, Rich, and I say again:

This entire process is fundamentally illegitimate on multiple levels, from a single poll question to the poll's presence on the BOD ballot, to the deliberate misrepresentation of the insurance issue to repeated misinformation about how "different" and "special" wingsuiting is from other disciplines, and little else but a barnyard full of demolished straw men to support it.

It's a bad pack job made with the best of intentions, but now it's a ball of puppy poop and the one remaining question is:

Are you gonna cut that puppy away or ride it into the dirt because you put so much effort into the pack job?

44
Cool


Ron

Oct 4, 2012, 9:05 AM
Post #37 of 54 (787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.

This is spot on.

A standard set of rules - Yes
A new instructional rating system - No


Premier Remster  (C License)

Oct 4, 2012, 3:59 PM
Post #38 of 54 (741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.

This is spot on.

A standard set of rules - Yes
A new instructional rating system - No

Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.


Ron

Oct 5, 2012, 6:39 AM
Post #39 of 54 (694 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.

That is a great idea.... There is zero need to ask the USPA to do something it has never done before.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 5, 2012, 9:08 AM
Post #40 of 54 (660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.

That is a great idea.... There is zero need to ask the USPA to do something it has never done before.

Exactly, on both counts.

It's interesting that the principal proposal pusher asserts that there are multiple "exit instruction" techniques being taught, some of which he further asserts "encourage" rather than discourage tail strikes.

Okay, then, it seems patently obvious to me that before you try to get a bureaucracy to adopt a specific method that you first get all the grand exalted wingsuit senseis out there together and sort out this one simple element of their respective training syllabi.

You know, like starting with 3-seconds-before-opening-your-wings -- which is pretty much what Birdman said when this all started, and which somehow has been lost in translation as the grand exalted wingsuit senseis proliferated and decided that they knew better.

Really, as someone quoted from the BMI manual on another thread, the original exit technique was: elbows tight to body, legs together and then ... "after you see that you have cleared the plane," only then do you open your wings.

You know, like what we all learned when we were five years old before crossing the street -- watch where you're going before you do anything stupid, like walk in front of a car, or fly into the tail of an airplane.

There's a reason that book, Everything I Need to Know in Life I Learned in Kindergarten became such a huge seller.

44
Cool


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 5, 2012, 10:03 AM
Post #41 of 54 (654 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

>Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash
>out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.

SIM section 6.9 is wingsuit recommendations. It's 14 pages long.


LloydDobbler  (D 30655)

Oct 5, 2012, 1:55 PM
Post #42 of 54 (629 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I hope the BOD will consider that there are alternate ways of having adequate instruction for new wingsuit jumpers (a standard curriculum even) that do not involve the creation of a new bureacracy of USPA Is, I/Es, evaluators, etc.

None of the "special" skills involved in flying a wingsuit are exactly rocket science, and there doesn't seem to be any actual evidence that the hotbutton issue of reported tailstrikes were due to inadequate instruction of new wingsuiters.

This is spot on.

A standard set of rules - Yes
A new instructional rating system - No

^^ Agreed.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Oct 5, 2012, 4:37 PM
Post #43 of 54 (601 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Howabout the ST commitee wrangle the wingsuit braintrust for a weekend, and hash
>out a section to add to the SIM on rules and best practices.

SIM section 6.9 is wingsuit recommendations. It's 14 pages long.

Sigh... Busted. I never looked it up since I don't have a lot of personal interest in WS. Maybe it's time to look at that section again, and add more details on the exit section since, reading it, it seems a bit light.

But point taken, Bill. If a guy who's been around a while, and could have easily looked it up (me) hadn't, it may not be the best medium for the information.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 5, 2012, 5:00 PM
Post #44 of 54 (597 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence.

If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership.

Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities.


Okay that was good. Now throw in there that 75 plus percent of the people who voted you in are in favor of this. Now what? You are taking you personal opinion and acting without any research, outreach, or facts.

OK, what are the facts about tail strikes? I have previously asked to see the list but it has never been forthcoming. Where, when, what was the experience of the jumper? Who trained them, and where? What % can be attributed to poor training?

These are pretty basic facts that the community should have in order to make an informed decision in your poll.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Oct 5, 2012, 6:50 PM
Post #45 of 54 (585 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If a guy who's been around a while, and could have easily looked it up (me) hadn't, it may not be the best medium for the information.
No offense but I take exception to that approach.

We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

If they are not going to look in the one place it IS, I would think it unlikely that they would bother to look anywhere else.


Chaw714  (B 37230)

Oct 5, 2012, 8:09 PM
Post #46 of 54 (574 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

I will be voting for sure


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 5, 2012, 10:05 PM
Post #47 of 54 (564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

>We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost
>art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

Agreed. But you can't read the SIM and skip the first jump course (or even just the level 7 briefing) - you also need instruction. We've been relying on manufacturers for this for quite a while, and for the most part it has worked out. We're starting to see more and more cases where it hasn't.


voilsb  (D 30581)

Oct 6, 2012, 9:10 AM
Post #48 of 54 (523 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost
>art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

Agreed. But you can't read the SIM and skip the first jump course (or even just the level 7 briefing) - you also need instruction. We've been relying on manufacturers for this for quite a while, and for the most part it has worked out. We're starting to see more and more cases where it hasn't.
The BSR requires instruction if you have less than 500 jumps. maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?


JSE  (D 28998)

Oct 6, 2012, 10:35 AM
Post #49 of 54 (508 views)
Shortcut
Re: [voilsb] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The BSR requires instruction if you have less than 500 jumps. maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?

Just say everyone who wants to do a wingsuit jump should get a full briefing on those topics from someone with those qualifications and be done with it.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 6, 2012, 10:58 AM
Post #50 of 54 (501 views)
Shortcut
Re: [voilsb] Flock the Vote! - Wingsuit Instructor Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
>We, as a sport, are trying to get people to be responsible for themselves (it's a lost
>art these days). The SIM is THE place to go first.

Agreed. But you can't read the SIM and skip the first jump course (or even just the level 7 briefing) - you also need instruction. We've been relying on manufacturers for this for quite a while, and for the most part it has worked out. We're starting to see more and more cases where it hasn't.
The BSR requires instruction if you have less than 500 jumps. maybe they just need to require that the briefing cover the materials in 6-9 and define an "experienced wingsuiter" as someone with 100+ wingsuit jumps who has previously passed the didactic portion of a USPA coach course?

Maybe we should first establish that an inadequate briefing has been the cause of a tailstrike incident.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)