Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Aircraft insurers do NOT demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 3, 2012, 6:38 PM
Post #26 of 149 (4051 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Now it would be very easy to fabricate something along those lines and distribute it to the unknowing BOD, whom very few have extensive WS knowledge, and other impressionable young minds as some kind of false fact. Lets say I'm not surprised.

In reply to:

It would be even easier to make false accusations regarding someone doing that...directly or by inference.

Do you have proof of said fabrication, or can you cite solid reference to instances of past such falsification of materials presented to the BOD by this individual?

Or are you merely slinging shit because of personality conflicts arising through difference of opinion?

Inquiring minds want to know.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 3, 2012, 7:57 PM
Post #27 of 149 (4033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Any chance some people are trying to pop up above the aircraft after exit?
That is an AMAZING feeling to do from a tailgate....I'm just curious, no basis.
OK, maybe some beer.
Tongue


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Oct 3, 2012, 8:21 PM
Post #28 of 149 (4020 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 
It would be even easier to make false accusations regarding someone doing that...directly or by inference.

Do you have proof of said fabrication, or can you cite solid reference to instances of past such falsification of materials presented to the BOD by this individual?

Or are you merely slinging shit because of personality conflicts arising through difference of opinion?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Directly quoted from Kevin T's ( you know him as Gobble) reply to my post= "Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). " So I can gather that this document was shown to 1 impressionable young Kevin and 2 the BOD at said meeting.

Kevin/ Gobble is one of Spot's supporters so , I would believe, never as you say sling shit due to personal conflicts.

I have no idea what materials or verbage was presented to any BOD meeting. it could have been the peanut butter jelly time song and dance for all I know.

Of course if any of you produce a bonafide wingsuit manual that proves the claim of such an exit, as in open wing or delta, I will give you all an apology for overreaction due to my difference of opinoin.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 3, 2012, 8:23 PM
Post #29 of 149 (4019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes the title of the thread was written not for fact but for attention, he got ours.

Yet, I still see "Standardized" being discussed, as it should. But because of personal bias and maybe grudges, the Wing Suit Community may do itself more harm than good.

You all have fun, I am glad I made my WS jumps many moons ago, and honestly I was not inclined to keep going with it. But I am willing to help keep it going for the rest of you.

Matt


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Oct 3, 2012, 8:29 PM
Post #30 of 149 (4015 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Any chance some people are trying to pop up above the aircraft after exit?
That is an AMAZING feeling to do from a tailgate....I'm just curious, no basis.
OK, maybe some beer.
Tongue

Dunno, any chance you an Tardo can actually read pryor posts you are responding to and stay on topic?


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Oct 3, 2012, 8:33 PM
Post #31 of 149 (4013 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It would be even easier to make false accusations regarding someone doing that...directly or by inference.

Do you have proof of said fabrication, or can you cite solid reference to instances of past such falsification of materials presented to the BOD by this individual?

Or are you merely slinging shit because of personality conflicts arising through difference of opinion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Directly quoted from Kevin T's ( you know him as Gobble) reply to my post= "Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). " So I can gather that this document was shown to 1 impressionable young Kevin and 2 the BOD at said meeting.

Kevin/ Gobble is one of Spot's supporters so , I would believe, never as you say sling shit due to personal conflicts.

I have no idea what materials or verbage was presented to any BOD meeting. it could have been the peanut butter jelly time song and dance for all I know.

Of course if any of you produce a bonafide wingsuit manual that proves the claim of such an exit, as in open wing or delta, I will give you all an apology for overreaction due to my difference of opinoin.
The fact that I support the proposal doesn't mean I'm willing to lie. So either I'm being played or just plain stupid? I don't know why you keep using my name or why you even feel it is important. I've not misrepresented my experience level, or anything else. I've expressed personal opinions same as you. On the fabrication note I don't believe he'd be that stupid.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Oct 3, 2012, 8:55 PM
Post #32 of 149 (4005 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

The fact that I support the proposal doesn't mean I'm willing to lie. So either I'm being played or just plain stupid? I don't know why you keep using my name or why you even feel it is important. I've not misrepresented my experience level, or anything else. I've expressed personal opinions same as you. On the fabrication note I don't believe he'd be that stupid.
kevin I actually hold your integrity quite high ( so far) . I don't think you would lie about this document, I believe you when you say you read it. I use your name so people don't accuse me of making a false account to have this banter, your account profile is not filled out but you are a real person.

But I know this if I would have been shown this document, as you say, a factory wingsuit instruction manual that states exiting in an open arms configuration I would be very suspicious of its origins. Like I said before I've owned every major brand of suit, none of the minors like mortis and Alien, read a lot of manuals. Well all of them. And like any hungry WS pilot most of the materials available on factory web pages yet I've never come across exit open methodology.

I know you are not lying about what was shown to you and later the BOD. Furthermore I am not telling anyone what to believe in terms of what was fabricated or who is stupid or daring enough to prey on the stupid.

I simply stated I'm not surprised.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 3, 2012, 9:13 PM
Post #33 of 149 (3995 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
IIRC the original Birdman sylabus clearly instructed wingsuiters to exit the a/c fully open and delta'd out. How many of the highly experienced wingsuiters were originally taught through that program? I don't know. But it's worth mentioning.


Completely wrong Kevin. I'm holding the birdman classic manual from before the skyflyers came out and I took the course with jari and and Kim. The exit is exactly the same as what SPOT taught you. Although in his diagrams and pictures Douglas drops down 25 - 30 feet before opening.

He has created nothing different just added to what was in place and removed the silly flat spin recovery foolishness and replaced it with instability procedures.

If you have any manual from any suit maker that states exit open I would really love to see it.

It might not have been Birdman. Spot showed me the document before the session started at the San Diego BOD meeting (and referenced it in that meeting). I'm sure of what I read, but I might have the document wrong. I'll ask him about it tomorrow when I get up there.

My first suit was a BM, and I learned on a borrowed BM Classic suit. None of the BM literature I have (from years ago) says to do anything other than to exit with wings CLOSED. And that is what my "BM Instructor" taught.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 4, 2012, 6:37 AM
Post #34 of 149 (3946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Same here!


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 4, 2012, 7:07 AM
Post #35 of 149 (3934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Seems at one point there WAS standardization, but in many different locations.

So when did it stop being the norm, as exposed in youtube videos showing first flight students, and experienced flyers exiting and going to an open wing immediately?

Matt


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 4, 2012, 7:26 AM
Post #36 of 149 (3921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Depends on one's interpretation of "standard".
I did see a manufacturer's WSI given to someone once simply because that person was purportedly good at anal sex.
Personally, I hope that's not how the program is rolled out.
Tongue


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 4, 2012, 7:29 AM
Post #37 of 149 (3918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes the title of the thread was written not for fact but for attention, he got ours.....

Hmmm?? I have no dog in this fight. I've been following this issue very closely because my son is flying wing suits. I just really want to see this issue discussed honestly without the usual bullying and BS. I know its easy to spin the facts, hell, just look at the current Presidential election. I just think most of us (and I believe the OP sees this) are smart enough to know better.

If you (or anyone) want my support, argue your case honestly!!! Present the facts as you know them and be prepared to back up your statements. Were skydivers, not politicians. Spin thats something your wash machine does to dry clothes.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 4, 2012, 9:02 AM
Post #38 of 149 (3891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Seems at one point there WAS standardization, but in many different locations. So
>when did it stop being the norm . . .

When wingsuiting got big enough that new "local experts" started making their voices heard.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 4, 2012, 9:16 AM
Post #39 of 149 (3884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

So it seems maybe a compromise would be to adopt a set of standardized rules for WS Instructors to use, maybe even say a I rating in any other field, excluding Tandem, should be held, at least we then have a minimum standard of Instructor Quality.

Personally, if WSing goes away it harms me not. I am just trying to help keep friends alive and enjoying the aspect of the sport they like.

But we Skydivers tend to be our own worst enemy. Tails Strikes happen, the Insurance folks don't like it, flying beyond the two nautical mile radius happens (with more than WS's yes) and GA Pilots complain, the FAA doesn't like that.

Maybe once we have the calm rational adult conversations, we compromise on a Set of Standards, no Rating, and unify ourselves in front of the Insurance Co's and the FAA. Hopefully in the end, saving not only WSing, but Skydiving as well.

Matt


(This post was edited by matthewcline on Oct 4, 2012, 9:22 AM)


Ron

Oct 4, 2012, 9:16 AM
Post #40 of 149 (3884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

There is not a WS instructor system in place.

We do have BSR's already in place, why not use them instead of creating a bunch of new crap?


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 4, 2012, 9:21 AM
Post #41 of 149 (3887 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Because what is currently in place isn't always working.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Oct 4, 2012, 9:56 AM
Post #42 of 149 (3871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Because what is currently in place isn't always working

I see that you're responding to Ron's comment about BSRs, but your comment applies to the current WS-I and instructional programs. None of it is working to the level that we need (one that will satisfy the insurance company), and the proof is the problem with tail strikes.

So there are manufacturer programs and instructional ratings in place that have been around for years? Great, but we still had a tail strike every 29 days last year, so those programs aren't working.

Again, everyone can argue back and forth about what 'might' work, and what the problem 'might' be, but in the meantime, inaction can and will lead to no action for anyone with a wingsuit.

Before the insurance company launched a warning shot across our bow, there was one camp saying we needed more structure, more training, and the USPA in order to move forward, and another camp that felt the status quo was fine, and at that time, that was OK. There was no impending problems or restrictions on the horizon, there were simply possible problems and those were all being cited by the pro-USPA crowd (big surprise).

Things have changed significantly. Now the term 'do or die' has come to play, and I don't mean die as in the end of a life, I mean die as in the end of wingsuiting in the US. The tactic now should be to use anything and everything we can think of in order to end the problem and keep the insurance company happy. Like it or not, wingsuiting is not 'too big to fail', so you can either bicker back and forth about what 'should' work, and what 'should' be done, just do it all and hope that it's enough.

Short of that, kudos for making the 100 way happen, as that might be the last wingsuit record set in this country. In a throwback to the DZ.com days of yore, that record got in 'before the lock'.


Ron

Oct 4, 2012, 11:16 AM
Post #43 of 149 (3847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Because what is currently in place isn't always working.

We already have a single USPA approved method for a wingsuit leaving a side door? Can you show me where it is?

So again, if we have not even tried the easy things yet.... Why create a potential boondoggle that not even wingsuiters can agree as a good thing?


(This post was edited by Ron on Oct 4, 2012, 11:21 AM)


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 4, 2012, 11:31 AM
Post #44 of 149 (3834 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

One of those things is not like the other.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 4, 2012, 11:38 AM
Post #45 of 149 (3830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>We already have a single USPA approved method for a wingsuit leaving a side door?
>Can you show me where it is?

Avoiding Tail Strikes

(1) Students should be informed of the danger of collision with the tail of the aircraft if they open their wings immediately upon exit.

(2) Students should demonstrate a two-second delay between exit and opening of their wings.

(3) Instruct the student to open wings after clearing the tail of the aircraft.

. . . .

Climb Out and Exit

a. Climb out or set up in door, breathe and prepare to exit as per Coach instruction.

b. The Coach should observe the exit to evaluate:

(1) the students stability; and

(2) that the student delayed opening their wings as instructed to avoid the horizontal stabilizer.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 4, 2012, 11:45 AM
Post #46 of 149 (3825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

There is not a WS instructor system in place.

We do have BSR's already in place, why not use them instead of creating a bunch of new crap?

No I understand that Ron, what I'm saying is there is a template in place...as far as all the other standardized forms of instruction.

Any yes I also understand the argument WS is an 'advanced' discipline and no other advanced areas have it...I still maintain that's no reason 'not' to have the system in place.


Ron

Oct 4, 2012, 1:49 PM
Post #47 of 149 (3793 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
One of those things is not like the other.

Yes, your argument does not match the facts.


Ron

Oct 4, 2012, 1:50 PM
Post #48 of 149 (3790 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, then how is creating an instructor system going to change anything?


Ron

Oct 4, 2012, 1:52 PM
Post #49 of 149 (3786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
What better way to implement & oversee a standardized curriculum than to have the sport's governing organization, with the tools already in place, do it?

There is not a WS instructor system in place.

We do have BSR's already in place, why not use them instead of creating a bunch of new crap?

No I understand that Ron, what I'm saying is there is a template in place...as far as all the other standardized forms of instruction.

Any yes I also understand the argument WS is an 'advanced' discipline and no other advanced areas have it...I still maintain that's no reason 'not' to have the system in place.

And it is not a reason to do it either.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 4, 2012, 2:30 PM
Post #50 of 149 (3770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Well, then how is creating an instructor system going to change anything?

By teaching what is currently in the SIM. Most people don't know it's there. Heck, you're an instructor and you didn't know it was there.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)