Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll

 

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

Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Sep 26, 2012, 11:29 AM
Post #1 of 66 (6703 views)
Shortcut
Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll Can't Post

On November 1, 2012 USPA Membership will have the opportunity to provide an opinion on the subject of standardized wingsuit training via USPA. Your opportunity to provide input will be included in the USPA Board of Directors Election ballot.


https://docs.google.com/...M-HuyzK_HNRWtD0/edit
Please read the document so you are able to make an informed decision on November 1.


(This post was edited by DSE on Sep 26, 2012, 2:28 PM)


normiss  (D 28356)

Sep 26, 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #2 of 66 (6669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Vote [In reply to] Can't Post

https://docs.google.com/...M-HuyzK_HNRWtD0/edit

hi res cricky fix


BrianM  (D 661)

Sep 26, 2012, 2:32 PM
Post #3 of 66 (6581 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

The graph on the last page needs to be fixed. The date is on the Y axis (would make more sense on the X axis), and the X axis is unlabelled.


floormonkey  (D License)

Sep 27, 2012, 2:19 PM
Post #4 of 66 (6452 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

So, if we start standardized wingsuit training via USPA, does that mean the USPA should also create standardized training for other disciplines?

RW standardized coaching
Freeflying standardized coaching
Classic Accuracy standardized coaching
Style standardized coaching
Sport accuracy standardized coaching
Performance canopy standardized coaching
Camera flying standardized coaching
Freestyle standardized coaching
Skysurfing standardized coaching
Demo jumping standardized coaching
High Altitude standardized coaching
etc.

When I read the mission of the USPA, it does not mention advanced training as a function of the USPA.

The United States Parachute Association (USPA) is a voluntary membership organization of individuals who enjoy and support the sport of skydiving. The association is incorporated in New York and follows the constitution and by-laws contained in the USPA Governance Manual. The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydivings rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs.


The USPA has already established minimum safety recommendations for wingsuiting, just as they do for every other discipline. The recommendations and wingsuit FJC outline are in section 6-9 of the SIM. What makes wingsuiting so different that users can't read the SIM and the instruction manual that comes with the suit, as well as the warning labels?

I believe USPA resources would be better used by focusing on the only part of skydiving we all do: Fly and land a parachute safely. We have enough ratings and requirements already.

Adding another rating will only raise the price of general membership and tax an already overburdened system. I know your document says it won't, but it will increase work load, so prices will increase.

If USPA does not believe that a canopy coach/instructor rating should exist (something 100% of the membership uses, and something that causes most of our fatalities), and left that for each individual dz to mandate, what would make wingsuiting a better candidate for a new rating?

As a serious question..What percentage of active skydivers jump wingsuits? (and where do those numbers come from?)

and another...Are the number of wingsuit incidents/problems so pervasive that it is more important to create a wingsuit instructor over a canopy instructor?

I know you aren't arguing validity or qualifications of one rating over the other, I'm just wondering.


(This post was edited by floormonkey on Sep 27, 2012, 2:29 PM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Sep 27, 2012, 2:54 PM
Post #5 of 66 (6436 views)
Shortcut
Re: [floormonkey] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Well there are two options right now for DZO's, insure your plane or not and risk all you have when a tail strike happens. The one major company willing to ensure jump planes is saying no more wingsuiting from side exit A/C.

Having a system in place (and enforcing it, USPA'a down fall) might keep wingsuiting available to all. Soon it iwll be for tailgates and "rebels" only.

Matt


FreeFallFiend

Sep 28, 2012, 1:56 PM
Post #6 of 66 (6358 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

If the membership votes yes, then do we also have a say in the content of the standardization? What if a WSer agrees to the idea of standardization but does not like the current proposal? Are these separate issues...or is the current proposal simply going to be adopted if the membership agrees to "standardize"?


johnjds  (D 5703)

Sep 30, 2012, 8:23 PM
Post #7 of 66 (6289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [floormonkey] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

I( agree with you 100%


champu  (D 28302)

Sep 30, 2012, 10:03 PM
Post #8 of 66 (6263 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
https://docs.google.com/...M-HuyzK_HNRWtD0/edit
Please read the document so you are able to make an informed decision on November 1.

Douglas,

I think your document is very heavy on tail strike material, and has a very unfortunate political feel to it like you're trying to appeal to "single-issue voters." I say unfortunate because preventing wingsuit tail strikes is a noble cause. If the extent of standardization you wished to have enforced was limited to how to exit an aircraft and, perhaps, flight plans/airspace usage, then I doubt many people would take issue with the concept. I also think that those are the extent to which wingsuiting is "special" (i.e. potentially warranting additional ratings) from other advanced deciplines and to which the FAA and insurance companies take special interest in winguiting.

So, if your suggested standardization is limited in scope I would recommend drawing more attention to that in your campaign. If you have other things you'd like to include, I would recommend being more clear about that as well. The document, as it stands, does not adequately inform anyone's decision.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Sep 30, 2012, 10:44 PM
Post #9 of 66 (6258 views)
Shortcut
Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
RW standardized coaching
Freeflying standardized coaching
Classic Accuracy standardized coaching
Style standardized coaching
Sport accuracy standardized coaching
Performance canopy standardized coaching
Camera flying standardized coaching
Freestyle standardized coaching
Skysurfing standardized coaching
Demo jumping standardized coaching
High Altitude standardized coaching...
...The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs;

While USPA's mission does not specifically say "advanced training," it does not specifically disclude it, either. Nor does it specifically mention "first-time skydivers." The mission statement doesn't say anything about Hertz car rental discounts, yet USPA provides for it.
Training is training. Whether it's advanced or not. And "training" is part of the mission, isn't it?

USPA is the *only* major skydiving body that does not have requisite wingsuit training standards.

Is there any other discipline that has generated an insurance company threat letter?
What other discipline that can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?.
Additionally, all forms of skydiving use essentially the same equipment excepting Tandems and Wingsuits.

What other discipline has demonstrated an increasing number of tailstrikes, that in the worst case may drop an aircraft onto a home or business?
Faced with rising insurance cost, no assurance of skill, training, and knowledge, could possibly inspire a DZO to continue to allow wingsuiting? Several DZ's have now banned or severely regulated wingsuiting. This isn't a beneficial trend in the sport, IMO.

Most every person on the board has realized error in the response to canopy issues, and most feel that error began 15 years ago. This is our chance to prevent wingsuiting from becoming another canopy issue. We can be ahead of the curve and not play "catch-up" like we are with canopy incidents.

How many pre-BSR deaths were there of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? At least 5 we can prove, nearly double that in related incidents.
How many post BSR deaths of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits?
Zero.

The excellent and oft-asked question from an earlier post is responded to in an FAQ about the standardized training proposal.

FAQ- https://docs.google.com/...M-HuyzK_HNRWtD0/edit

PowerPoint presented to board- https://docs.google.com/...60FKHr6yivLQNN8/edit

Proposed Proficiency Card- https://docs.google.com/...u4_IleEc2ZkhpNjR5eHM

Proposed Evaluation Sheet-https://docs.google.com/...u4_IlZFA4MEJTaXh1REk

The original proposal in 2008/2009 in person and over email. https://docs.google.com/...u7MiyQ4nX8QKEIs/edit

For some reason, dropzone.com doesn't always cooperate with the Gdoc links, apologies if you'll need to copy/paste.

In 2010, USPA generated a poll, sent out to the general membership. This online poll produced a result of 65% of all respondents in favor of a required, standardized training.
In 2012, USPA sent out a request for responses to this topic, sent over Twitter, Facebook (several pages) personal emails, and here on Dropzone.com. Greater than 80% of respondents have asked for standardized instruction, administered by USPA.

There is no cost to USPA for these materials, the proposal, and there are no additional costs to develop the system as it's been tested for 5 years in development, 3 years in actual implementation. The safety record of 600 test cases is demonstrable both by numerous DZO's and other documentation.

The system we use, although it is not tied in any direct way to the USPA proposal, demonstrates the quality of training materials used for the proposal.
https://docs.google.com/...u4_IlYVhTc2lFdzNPM0k

In short, the proposal merely asks that USPA adopt a required FFC using the same syllabus provided when I submitted a proposal to change SIM Sec 6.2 into a new section now seen as Sec 6.9, with all aspects of a proper FFC included. It's deplorable that this has become a tailstrike conversation. At the same time, the industry now has a different perspective and contributor to the conversation than it had 30 days ago.

It would be a sad day in skydiving if the only exit points for wingsuiters was a cliff. Even in BASE, there are regulations being proposed and insurance required at certain exit points.
It's not just a skydiving issue.


FreeFallFiend

Oct 1, 2012, 6:48 AM
Post #10 of 66 (6238 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FreeFallFiend] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If the membership votes yes, then do we also have a say in the content of the standardization? What if a WSer agrees to the idea of standardization but does not like the current proposal? Are these separate issues...or is the current proposal simply going to be adopted if the membership agrees to "standardize"?

Sorry to be a bother...but I want to make sure this question is answered, since the answer to this question should determine exactly HOW the question is delivered to general membership.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 1, 2012, 8:06 AM
Post #11 of 66 (6217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FreeFallFiend] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Like all things adopted by USPA, it can be adjusted as need be. I think the bigger picture needs to be looked at, not the personal bias points we are seeing. Wingsuiting will die in the US if the Insurance Co's don't insure the A/C that allow it. The FAA is watching too, we have heard rumor of GA Pilots complaining that the WS'rs are flying out side the DZ's NOTAM'd radios.

So fist things first, lets get some thing in place to keep WSing. Then continue to adjust it as things advance.

But as we, the 30,000 USPA members, have shown, we can't even get our act together for simple things like an "A" license card.

Matt


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 1, 2012, 2:31 PM
Post #12 of 66 (6164 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
RW standardized coaching
Freeflying standardized coaching
Classic Accuracy standardized coaching
Style standardized coaching
Sport accuracy standardized coaching
Performance canopy standardized coaching
Camera flying standardized coaching
Freestyle standardized coaching
Skysurfing standardized coaching
Demo jumping standardized coaching
High Altitude standardized coaching...
...The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs;

While USPA's mission does not specifically say "advanced training," it does not specifically disclude exclude it, either. Nor does it specifically mention "first-time skydivers." The mission statement doesn't say anything about Hertz car rental discounts, yet USPA provides for it.
Training is training. Whether it's advanced or not. And "training" is part of the mission, isn't it?

USPA is the *only* major skydiving body that does not have requisite wingsuit training standards.

Is there any other discipline that has generated an insurance company threat letter?
What other discipline that can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?.
Additionally, all forms of skydiving use essentially the same equipment excepting Tandems and Wingsuits.

What other discipline has demonstrated an increasing number of tailstrikes, that in the worst case may drop an aircraft onto a home or business?
Faced with rising insurance cost, no assurance of skill, training, and knowledge, could possibly inspire a DZO to continue to allow wingsuiting? Several DZ's have now banned or severely regulated wingsuiting. This isn't a beneficial trend in the sport, IMO.

Most every person on the board has realized error in the response to canopy issues, and most feel that error began 15 years ago. This is our chance to prevent wingsuiting from becoming another canopy issue. We can be ahead of the curve and not play "catch-up" like we are with canopy incidents.

How many pre-BSR deaths were there of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? At least 5 we can prove, nearly double that in related incidents.
How many post BSR deaths of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits?
Zero.

The excellent and oft-asked question from an earlier post is responded to in an FAQ about the standardized training proposal.

FAQ- https://docs.google.com/...M-HuyzK_HNRWtD0/edit

PowerPoint presented to board- https://docs.google.com/...60FKHr6yivLQNN8/edit

Proposed Proficiency Card- https://docs.google.com/...u4_IleEc2ZkhpNjR5eHM

Proposed Evaluation Sheet-https://docs.google.com/...u4_IlZFA4MEJTaXh1REk

The original proposal in 2008/2009 in person and over email. https://docs.google.com/...u7MiyQ4nX8QKEIs/edit

For some reason, dropzone.com doesn't always cooperate with the Gdoc links, apologies if you'll need to copy/paste.

In 2010, USPA generated a poll, sent out to the general membership. This online poll produced a result of 65% of all respondents in favor of a required, standardized training.
In 2012, USPA sent out a request for responses to this topic, sent over Twitter, Facebook (several pages) personal emails, and here on Dropzone.com. Greater than 80% of respondents have asked for standardized instruction, administered by USPA.

There is no cost to USPA for these materials, the proposal, and there are no additional costs to develop the system as it's been tested for 5 years in development, 3 years in actual implementation. The safety record of 600 test cases is demonstrable both by numerous DZO's and other documentation.

The system we use, although it is not tied in any direct way to the USPA proposal, demonstrates the quality of training materials used for the proposal.
https://docs.google.com/...u4_IlYVhTc2lFdzNPM0k

In short, the proposal merely asks that USPA adopt a required FFC using the same syllabus provided when I submitted a proposal to change SIM Sec 6.2 into a new section now seen as Sec 6.9, with all aspects of a proper FFC included. It's deplorable that this has become a tailstrike conversation. At the same time, the industry now has a different perspective and contributor to the conversation than it had 30 days ago.

It would be a sad day in skydiving if the only exit points for wingsuiters was a cliff. Even in BASE, there are regulations being proposed and insurance required at certain exit points.
It's not just a skydiving issue.

Proposal Promoter - 20

Straw men - 0

The list of unsupportable, unprovable and irrelevant arguments with which you promote your proposal would be amusing if it didn't represent such a potential danger to the sport in general.

One bottom line: As per floormonkey's query, as soon as an exception is made for wingsuiting, then GUESS WHAT, FOLKS? Any discipline without an equivalent "instructor rating" becomes lawyer food.

Get a clue, people. There is a small minority of people who stand to benefit from this "instructor rating" that is at complete variance with everything USPA has done with regard to sport parachuting instruction during its entire existence.

It rejects the private market solution which has proven to work across all of these other disciplines in favor of "crony capitalism" that forces people to purchase the services of "rated instructors" who are "anointed" (as the good perfesser Kallend so elegantly stated) by the association.

Those who intone that we "must" do this because the insurance companies won't insure our airplanes otherwise are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the parachuting public.

Another bottom line: The insurance companies do NOT care about a USPA-sanctioned rating system; they only want people to quit hitting the tails of the airplanes they insure. Period. Full stop.

And they want it done now, not on the the months-long and/or even years-long event horizon of a "standardized wingsuit instructor rating" program.

And nothing about a wingsuit "instructor rating" speaks directly to the insurance company's concern except as a selling-point subset of a larger "solution" to a manufactured problem. It's all a smokescreen for a select few who hope to be the "anointed ones" at the expense of the rest of the sport.

Seriously, all of you who are involved in disciplines other than wingsuiting -- guess what's going to happen to the liability environment when there is a USPA-sanctioned, discipline-specific "instructor rating" for one discipline but not the others?

This is Politics and Liability 101, people, and all of you non-wingsuiters who support this USPA-forced "wingsuit instructor rating" are just cutting your own throats.

This whole thing is based upon an utterly bogus premise -- that somehow wingsuiting is "different" and "more dangerous" than other sport parachuting subdisciplines.

It is not, and everyone who says it is does not know the history of parachuting, never mind basic physics.

When people first started doing RW (aka "formation skydiving") it was frequently condemned as dangerous and foolhardy and a threat to jump aircraft.

Ditto for CRW, about which people wailed and gnashed their teeth because "what other discipline can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes 9 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes 12 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?"

And when freeflying started THAT was a threat because of the higher speeds were incompatible and therefore dangerous to other freefallers.

Etc etc ad nauseam.

But guess what? We figured it out, didn't we? And all without imposing USPA-mandated sub-discipline "instructor ratings" that make the USPA bureaucracy proliferate and create endless liability permutations of which lawyers can take advantage.

And then we come to the Great Canopy Debate (biiig straw man that), wherein the bureaucratic inertia of the training system we already have prevented USPA and even the industry itself from responding correctly and in a timely manner to that issue -- when canopy technology and performance outstripped a training regimen predicated on teaching freefall fun skills at the expense of parachuting survival skills.

The AFF system is in fact the primary reason the canopy thing got out of hand for so long because the entrenched AFF bureaucracy resisted the major system overhaul necessary to reduce open-canopy injuries and fatalities -- i.e., discarding freefall-fun-skills-first-based teaching in favor of first teaching understand-your-gear-learn-how-to-fly-your-parachute.

This is FACT, not rhetorical supposition based upon unsupported and unprovable straw man arguments.

Moreover and in many ways more importantly, the bureaucracy proliferation that will start but not end with "standardized wingsuit training" will literally strangle the sport because, you know, like, dudes and dudettes, why the F did we start skydiving in the first place?

For the freedom of it, the thrill of it, the adventure of it all -- not to be told at each and every incremental step of the way what to do, how to do it, when and where to do it, and only by those "anointed ones" who ride herd on us.

The "revamped" training system is bad enough. Add this ridiculous proposition to it and watch the sport slowly die because you will drive away the very people who are most attracted to its essential nature.

So please, instead of mindlessly accepting the feel-good premise of "standardized instruction," THINK IT THROUGH and consider all of the ramifications.

As soon as you do, things will start looking much more clear.

44
Cool

P.S. For the record, I have no problem with any of the private-sector wingsuit training operations in effect right now, to include the one the Proposal Promoter developed at Elsinore. In fact, I wholeheartedly support it and its predecessors and progeny, just as I do all the private-sector, non-USPA-dictated RW, VRW, CRW, FF, demo and other sub-discipline schools out there.

For the record also, I recognize and appreciate both the volume and quality of work the Proposal Promoter has done in developing and advancing wingsuiting training. I just wish he'd leave off with trying to force-feed it to everyone in alliance with the USPA and let the marketplace respond to the issue the way it does to all of the other subdisciplines.


(This post was edited by robinheid on Oct 1, 2012, 2:32 PM)


Ron

Oct 2, 2012, 9:53 AM
Post #13 of 66 (6097 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Wingsuiting will die in the US if the Insurance Co's don't insure the A/C that allow it.

Thinking that the USPA creating a program will make the insurance companies happy is flawed. The insurance companies only care about one thing and one thing only.... Protecting their bottom line. It will take a track record of proven performance to make the issue dead to the insurance agencies. This can happen with or without a USPA created program.

Quote:
The FAA is watching too, we have heard rumor of GA Pilots complaining that the WS'rs are flying out side the DZ's NOTAM'd radios.

And this issue is not even brought up in this new rating program.

Quote:
So fist things first, lets get some thing in place to keep WSing. Then continue to adjust it as things advance.

This can be done without creating an entire new program at the USPA.

Quote:
But as we, the 30,000 USPA members, have shown, we can't even get our act together for simple things like an "A" license card.

And that is the primary reason why the USPA should NOT get involved with WS instruction. The USPA does not even correctly handle its current responsibilities.

1. The USPA has a terrible track record of creating any program.
2. WS is such a small aspect of the sport that other much larger issues still exist... Canopy flight collisions for example (they have killed FAR more than any WS issue).

If someone like WickedWS, or DSE wanted to create a private program like SDU to certify WS instructors, it would have the same actual benefit as the USPA doing it and it would actually be run by experts in the subject matter.

The USPA has a terrible track record of creating programs.
* AFF was banned till Ken Colman did it anyway. After it was shown to work the USPA adopted it.

* Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it. The USPA later adopted it.

* Tandem progression was ignored by the USPA till several DZ's were readying doing it. Then the USPA adopted it.

* SDU created a coaching program. Then the USPA pretty much adopted it.

* Windtunnel training is still pretty much ignored by the USPA.

And the simple fact is that WS is such a small percentage of members of the USPA that the USPA could save more lives by focusing on canopy related deaths.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 2, 2012, 12:32 PM
Post #14 of 66 (6070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Wingsuiting will die in the US if the Insurance Co's don't insure the A/C that allow it.

Thinking that the USPA creating a program will make the insurance companies happy is flawed. The insurance companies only care about one thing and one thing only.... Protecting their bottom line. It will take a track record of proven performance to make the issue dead to the insurance agencies. This can happen with or without a USPA created program.

Quote:
The FAA is watching too, we have heard rumor of GA Pilots complaining that the WS'rs are flying out side the DZ's NOTAM'd radios.

And this issue is not even brought up in this new rating program.

Actually, it is.

Quote:
So fist things first, lets get some thing in place to keep WSing. Then continue to adjust it as things advance.

This can be done without creating an entire new program at the USPA.

Quote:
But as we, the 30,000 USPA members, have shown, we can't even get our act together for simple things like an "A" license card.

And that is the primary reason why the USPA should NOT get involved with WS instruction. The USPA does not even correctly handle its current responsibilities.

1. The USPA has a terrible track record of creating any program.
2. WS is such a small aspect of the sport that other much larger issues still exist... Canopy flight collisions for example (they have killed FAR more than any WS issue).

If someone like WickedWS, or DSE wanted to create a private program like SDU to certify WS instructors, it would have the same actual benefit as the USPA doing it and it would actually be run by experts in the subject matter.

There are 5 of these private programs, one manufacturer program. Of those programs, only three individual holds at minimum an AFFI rating, let alone a USPA Examiner rating. The three that hold an AFFI rating are all part of a manufacturer-sponsored program.
There are methods that encourage tailstrikes, methods that discourage tailstrikes. Most instructors seem to lean towards encouraging tailstrikes. But tailstrikes aren't the only issues. They just happen to get a lot of focus because of the recent insurance company letter/threat.



The USPA has a terrible track record of creating programs.
* AFF was banned till Ken Colman did it anyway. After it was shown to work the USPA adopted it.

* Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it. The USPA later adopted it. Yep, and it's worked well

* Tandem progression was ignored by the USPA till several DZ's were readying doing it. Then the USPA adopted it. and it's worked well

* SDU created a coaching program. Then the USPA pretty much adopted it. And it works, quite well

* Windtunnel training is still pretty much ignored by the USPA. to their peril. Learn more about what's happening at IBA tunnels

What I'm hearing you say is that USPA is very slow in responding to advances in the sport. The standardized program is not new, it's been in play for 3 years in current inception and five years in development. USPA is "creating" nothing. We're merely tasked with enforcing standardized training as presented in the SIM, SEC 6.9.

And the simple fact is that WS is such a small percentage of members of the USPA that the USPA could save more lives by focusing on canopy related deaths.

People are dying because they text while driving, so we should no longer focus on DUI's, is that it?


Ron

Oct 2, 2012, 1:03 PM
Post #15 of 66 (6061 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
And this issue is not even brought up in this new rating program.

It might be in the syllabus of the training materials, but that has nothing to do with creating a WSE. That information can be given without creating an entire program for a very small percentage of the USPA membership.

Quote:
There are 5 of these private programs, one manufacturer program. Of those programs, only three individual holds at minimum an AFFI rating, let alone a USPA Examiner rating. The three that hold an AFFI rating are all part of a manufacturer-sponsored program.
There are methods that encourage tailstrikes, methods that discourage tailstrikes. Most instructors seem to lean towards encouraging tailstrikes. But tailstrikes aren't the only issues. They just happen to get a lot of focus because of the recent insurance company letter/threat.

You have just listed the failures of those programs... You have not given a reason why the USPA has to provide yet another program.

Free market, build a better program and the world will beat a path to your door. No need to force the USPA to do it since only a very small percentage of members care about a WS.

Quote:
The USPA has a terrible track record of creating programs.
* AFF was banned till Ken Colman did it anyway. After it was shown to work the USPA adopted it.

* Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it. The USPA later adopted it. Yep, and it's worked well

* Tandem progression was ignored by the USPA till several DZ's were readying doing it. Then the USPA adopted it. and it's worked well

* SDU created a coaching program. Then the USPA pretty much adopted it. And it works, quite well

* Windtunnel training is still pretty much ignored by the USPA. to their peril. Learn more about what's happening at IBA tunnel

You have just proven my point. The solution is for you to create a program, prove it works, and then the USPA could adopt it if they felt it was needed.

You have shown that YOU and others should go on your own and create a program... You have not given one valid reason why the USPA should do it. And no, the insurance issue is not proof. If you had a letter from the insurance company saying, "If the USPA creates a program we will not do anything". You don't have that, you have the incorrect assumption that they care.

You could start the 'DSE wingsuit program' and if good, then the insurance program might even require it for side door aircraft.

Quote:
What I'm hearing you say is that USPA is very slow in responding to advances in the sport. The standardized program is not new, it's been in play for 3 years in current inception and five years in development. USPA is "creating" nothing. We're merely tasked with enforcing standardized training as presented in the SIM, SEC 6.9.

What I am saying is the USPA can't lead itself out of a wet paper bag if you gave it a samurai sword. They have not taken the lead on any issue, only followed the advancements of others, and even then they screw it up.

What I am saying is that as a percentage of population WS are an infinitesimal part of skydiving. The USPA has never gotten into specific methods of instruction in such areas as CRW, swooping, or camera flying.... Simply put you are trying to change the very dynamic of the organization into something it was never intended to be.

What I am saying is that you are trying to get an ineffectual organization to create a mandatory program to solve a problem that will not be solved by the program.

Quote:
People are dying because they text while driving, so we should no longer focus on DUI's, is that it?

Nope, not even close.

Let me hazard a guess.... You will be one of the 'anointed' WSE's????


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 2, 2012, 6:33 PM
Post #16 of 66 (6025 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Right now you have nothing in the way of standardization. That is a flaw, we only have one organization, another flaw. We have Wing Suit FFC "Guru's" teaching "how to strike a tail" exits, and then arguing they are doing it right.

WS'rs are gonna end their fun, or have to go take chances at DZ's who don't carry insurance, or do maintenance, or reside in the US.

Matt


champu  (D 28302)

Oct 2, 2012, 8:55 PM
Post #17 of 66 (6004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

<devil's advocate>

So propose a BSR to state in a couple sentences (and maybe with a diagram) how one shall exit a side door aircraft with a wingsuit.

</devil's advocate>

Again, I think the instruction being proposed is largely good stuff, but this keeps coming back to the "tail strikes have got to stop" argument, and if that's what supporters want to do, then focus your solution a little better. The detail and the logistics of the standardization goes way beyond the scope of the presented problem, and that is always going to raise eyebrows.

Full disclosure btw: I only have around 50 wingsuit jumps, and all are back around '05 / '06 (at Elsinore.) Douglas has done a lot to promote wingsuiting at my home dropzone in recent years, and overall that's a good thing. Between he and Hammo, however, they've done things like outright ban XRW and ban the use of PC pouches on wingsuits (that people would use to gain familiarity if they wanted to use it for wingsuit BASE) which are decisions that I disagree with. So I recognize him as someone who does truly cares about wingsuiting, but maybe not with the same motivations I share.


Ron

Oct 3, 2012, 7:03 AM
Post #18 of 66 (5954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Right now you have nothing in the way of standardization.

OK, but it does not take the USPA to create that standardization.

1. It is not the role of the USPA to regulate advanced instruction.... Would you suggest the USPA also create CRW, 4way, VFS, big way, and style and accuracy instructor ratings?

2. The USPA has a terrible track record of running anything... And they have ZERO track record at actually enforcing anything.

So you have an ineffectual organization trying to create something outside of its scope that it will not enforce anyway.

Quote:
we only have one organization, another flaw

So let the WSers create their own organization. This organization can be focused only on WS flight.

Quote:
We have Wing Suit FFC "Guru's" teaching "how to strike a tail" exits, and then arguing they are doing it right.

And that is not going to change, you have admitted that the USPA does not enforce its own rules.

The solution is that the DZO's have to enforce exits that they think will protect the aircraft. All the power is in the hands of the DZO's, they have the final say at what happens on the DZ.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 3, 2012, 7:07 AM
Post #19 of 66 (5951 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Then you run the risk of either having to take a per DZ FFC, or a check dive at the very least.

How does a DZO know you're qualified to jump a wingie without taking out his million dollar aircraft killing yourself and all aboard?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 3, 2012, 8:48 AM
Post #20 of 66 (5918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

>Thinking that the USPA creating a program will make the insurance
>companies happy is flawed.

Agreed; that's missing a step. The thinking that DOES work is:

1) USPA creates a program, and as a result
2) tailstrikes go down, and as a result
3) insurance companies are happy.

>If someone like WickedWS, or DSE wanted to create a private program like
>SDU to certify WS instructors, it would have the same actual benefit as the
>USPA doing it . . .

Looking at all the shit DSE has gotten over the mere proposal (i.e. he's power hungry, he wants to rule wingsuiting etc etc) it would be even less effective than a USPA program - because people who dislike following standards will be even less inclined to do so if it's optional.

>Throwouts for students were banned till Nelson (among others) did it.
>The USPA later adopted it.

Yes. And no standardized wingsuiting instruction existed until Birdman created the WS-I rating. The USPA is now adopting it.


Ron

Oct 3, 2012, 8:51 AM
Post #21 of 66 (5921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Then you run the risk of either having to take a per DZ FFC, or a check dive at the very least.

How does a DZO know you're qualified to jump a wingie without taking out his million dollar aircraft killing yourself and all aboard?

No, if DSE creates his own organization he can give out whatever proof of accomplishment he wants.

There is zero need for the USPA to have to be the actor here.

Right now, how does the DZO know that you are not going to hook yourself in on your tiny canopy?

Right now how does the DZO know you are not going to track through the bigway you are diving at?


Ron

Oct 3, 2012, 9:08 AM
Post #22 of 66 (5909 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Agreed; that's missing a step. The thinking that DOES work is:

1) USPA creates a program, and as a result
2) tailstrikes go down, and as a result
3) insurance companies are happy

The simple fact is that the USPA does not have to be the actor here. All that is needed is a best practice to be made and the DZO's can require it if they want.

Quote:
Looking at all the shit DSE has gotten over the mere proposal (i.e. he's power hungry, he wants to rule wingsuiting etc etc) it would be even less effective than a USPA program - because people who dislike following standards will be even less inclined to do so if it's optional.

It is actually pretty simple, if you want to jump a WS at the DZO's place you will have to show up with a DSE-WS rating. This allows the DZO to make the call on how he wants to run his DZ.

Even easier is that DSE could put out instructions on how to exit an aircraft and the DZO can make that mandatory.

Quote:
Yes. And no standardized wingsuiting instruction existed until Birdman created the WS-I rating. The USPA is now adopting it.

So you going to support Kate Cooper creating a big way instructor rating system? Support Dan BC's 4 way instructor rating system?

Simple fact is that a program is not needed to prevent aircraft insurance issues... Just a best practice. The DZO's can implement it or not, and they have to deal with the insurance issues.

Simply put, it is not needed and will just be another boondoggle like the group membership program.

I would support a best practice being available. And there is no doubt DSE is experienced enough to write it. That does not mean the USPA has to create a new process.


Scrumpot  (D License)

Oct 3, 2012, 9:15 AM
Post #23 of 66 (5904 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The USPA has a terrible track record of running anything...

That statement, IMHO is not an entirely fair - nor fully accurate Ron, in the real-world, statement at all. Although it certainly does at least look glamorous, and sensationalist of one for you to make.

Do I think that USPA does absolutely all things simply magnificently either, flawlessly - or heck, even well? No. That would be an equally ludicrous "broad brush" position or statement for anyone to make as well.

But are all things really such "doom & gloom" &/or that bad, or badly run & handled (and our current resultant situations, and abilities for the most part to freely actively skydive here in the United States) really all that bad?

"USPA is the begin-all and end-all evil pariah and bane to all our existences"

A pretty poor, IMO premise really, upon which to base an argument, and I would submit also - quite simply is not fully accurate, or really appropriate under the circumstances, of a statement to make.

If you were successful in getting people to agree with your position (based upon statement) that:
Quote:
The USPA has a terrible track record of running anything...

What then would you suggest? We completely deconstruct the entire infrastructure currently in place is too - that IS USPA?

Personally over all - although absolutely agreed, as would be ANY organization - is not perfect - - - I do not agree with you that USPA (with their effectiveness at staving off GOVERNMENT regulation, their administration and promulgation of most of the student program, and FAA relations, etc.) is, as this statement seems to want to position it, and have everybody believe - is necessarily all bad.

I don't know what "the" answer is to this particular matter at hand is, nor do I pretend to know.

Just my .02


fasted3  (D 30104)

Oct 3, 2012, 9:27 AM
Post #24 of 66 (5900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Then you run the risk of either having to take a per DZ FFC, or a check dive at the very least.

How does a DZO know you're qualified to jump a wingie without taking out his million dollar aircraft killing yourself and all aboard?

How does anybody know that anybody won't hit the tail when jumping out of an airplane?

It's happened with people not in wingsuits.

How does anybody know that a well trained wingsuiter won't hit the tail?

That's happened too.

Spot has developed a great program and I'd advise anybody that wants to learn about wingsuit flying, coaching or instructinng to go there. I have had coaching myself from Spot and it was first rate.

I applaud his contribution to wingsuiting, and I wholly believe that he is not doing this for monitary gain.

Where I differ is in making this manditory, and it is a stretch to apply it to tail strikes. That is indeed a concern and I'd like to see it never happen again, but for the USPA to take on this level of burocracy to deal with this issue is not necessary. There is no need for me to repeat all the arguments against it, but I will say that I agree with them.

I hope this initiative is not passed.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 3, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #25 of 66 (5891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The USPA has a terrible track record of running anything...

That statement, IMHO is not an entirely fair - nor fully accurate Ron, in the real-world, statement at all. Although it certainly does at least look glamorous, and sensationalist of one for you to make.

Do I think that USPA does absolutely all things simply magnificently either, flawlessly - or heck, even well? No. That would be an equally ludicrous "broad brush" position or statement for anyone to make as well.

But are all things really such "doom & gloom" &/or that bad, or badly run & handled (and our current resultant situations, and abilities for the most part to freely actively skydive here in the United States) really all that bad?

"USPA is the begin-all and end-all evil pariah and bane to all our existences"

A pretty poor, IMO premise really, upon which to base an argument, and I would submit also - quite simply is not fully accurate, or really appropriate under the circumstances, of a statement to make.

If you were successful in getting people to agree with your position (based upon statement) that:
Quote:
The USPA has a terrible track record of running anything...

What then would you suggest? We completely deconstruct the entire infrastructure currently in place is too - that IS USPA?

Personally over all - although absolutely agreed, as would be ANY organization - is not perfect - - - I do not agree with you that USPA (with their effectiveness at staving off GOVERNMENT regulation, their administration and promulgation of most of the student program, and FAA relations, etc.) is, as this statement seems to want to position it, and have everybody believe - is necessarily all bad.

I don't know what "the" answer is to this particular matter at hand is, nor do I pretend to know.

Just my .02

+ .02

To be fair to Ron, while he did paint USPA with too broad a brush, he's spot-on with his comments about "standardized wingsuit training via USPA."

I would edit his broad-brush statement to say:

"USPA has a terrible track record of running anything that's outside its scope and none of its business."

Like any bureaucracy, USPA does many things within its mandate pretty well, and you listed most of them. The problem for bureaucracies is what I call the saddle blanket-burr problem:

The horse doesn't notice how well the saddle blanket protects him from the saddle but he sure as heck notices when a burr gets under it.

So we tend not to notice the things that USPA does well; only those that it screws up.

And a lot of its screwups tend to come from taking on things that are outside its scope and/or none of its business.

Ron and I and others contend that having USPA regulate advanced training of any kind is outside of its scope and none of its business.

As BOD member Rich Winstock pointed out in the "Flock the Vote" thread, the USPA Safety and Training committee has already spent "hundreds of hours" on this issue -- and it will spend hundreds and perhaps thousands of hours more on it, all for a tiny subset of the sport parachuting population it oversees.

That makes zero sense organizationally, and even less sense from a cost/benefit standpoint.

USPA does many things well, chief among them keeping us in the air with minimal government restrictions and intrusions. It should stick to those things that it does well and that are within its scope and stay out of things that are none of its business.

44
Cool


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

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)