Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

 


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 7, 2012, 7:47 PM
Post #1 of 195 (7138 views)
Shortcut
Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" Can't Post

This threads' title was obviously taken 'almost' directly from Robin Heid's thread regarding an aircraft insurer and his concern with tail-strikes.

I've received some calls & emails today that point to confusion that may be going on, and I'd like to address that away from the noise.




To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

It's a program that has been in the works for a considerable amount of time with assistance, input and feedback from many sources within the general membership as well as the BOD.

It's not one persons 'pet project' and reference to it in that manner is a disservice to others who have devoted considerable time & energy toward assembling what many believe to be a needed & useful tool.

A complete package that takes the logical step of standardizing the overall training of tested & approved practical practices & procedures particular to that discipline.

So although it DOES indeed address the exiting of aircraft safely with an eye toward totally eliminating tail-strikes, that is only one small part of it.

And again to be clear...satisfying an insurance company's vague recommendation wasn't the catalyst for any part of the program.





The program's ONLY intent is to monitor who will be teaching what to whom and when.

Some against this proposed system of training, tend to throw out the term 'regulate' portraying an obviously negative connotation since we've all pretty much been conditioned to perceive 'any' regulation as harmful to our sport.

I along with others contend that a uniformly structured system of instruction, which again, addresses 'all' specific skills beginning bird-men need to initially have will serve to grow that area of the sport and allow it to prosper quickly and safely

Critical skills not covered to any degree outside of that discipline.

And without USPA involvement there's no practical way of guaranteeing a minimal set of standards are met.



The good faith recommendations not withstanding, the current and projected rapid growth of this secular branch of the sport can benefit tremendously from focused guidance a standardized approach offers.

There's also a bit of a secondary benefit for the rest of the general membership not involved with wing-suits in that tail-strikes & airspace infringements have put us on the radar with both the insurance underwriter and the Feds.

Will standardized instruction effectively serve to eliminate those red-flags?

If it's done right it can, and through positive support I believe it will. . . IMO it can not be objectively argued that what's being done now, is nearly enough.


To quickly recap~

Doesn't matter what an insurance company not at all familiar with the total instructional program might 'demand' OR 'not demand' with regard to implementation of ~ "Standardized wing-suit training via the USPA".









**And how 'bout in the interest peaceful weekend coexistence with my honey~ address questions, comments & complaints on here...I'm gettin' the dreaded 'buffalo look' for being on the phone so much today! AngelicWinkCool


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 7, 2012, 8:18 PM)


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 8, 2012, 4:47 AM
Post #2 of 195 (7033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with alot of what you said and I see the benefit of having a standardized ffc that we all use. I just don't think requiring a special instructional rating to teach it is necessary.

Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed and understand the material?

I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.


DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

Oct 8, 2012, 5:42 AM
Post #3 of 195 (6999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

No.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 8, 2012, 8:30 AM
Post #4 of 195 (6942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones
>make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed
>and understand the material?

Can you honestly say you've read and understood the waiver at every DZ you've visited?


5.samadhi

Oct 8, 2012, 8:32 AM
Post #5 of 195 (6941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I agree with alot of what you said and I see the benefit of having a standardized ffc that we all use. I just don't think requiring a special instructional rating to teach it is necessary.

Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed and understand the material?

I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.
Thats exactly what I thought from the beginning. The USPA should group/organize the data and then distribute it to members and experienced wingsuiters so everybody can be working from the same 'textbook'.

Information not rules


5.samadhi

Oct 8, 2012, 8:51 AM
Post #6 of 195 (6923 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones
>make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed
>and understand the material?

Can you honestly say you've read and understood the waiver at every DZ you've visited?
Thats some legal mumbo jumbo, I can honestly say I've listened closely to every DZ briefing I've been given at new DZs by experienced jumpers. Thats a closer analogy even though the mediums are different (paper to talking).

Most waivers are presented in my experience like "this is something we have to do for legal reasons here ya go..."

They are not presented to skydivers as educational material like a USPA wingsuit textbook would be.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 8, 2012, 9:01 AM
Post #7 of 195 (6901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 8, 2012, 9:08 AM
Post #8 of 195 (6899 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones
>make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed
>and understand the material?

Can you honestly say you've read and understood the waiver at every DZ you've visited?

I can honestly say I read and understood the manual that came with my Bird man Classic before I jumped it. Everything you need to know for a safe first flight is in there.

Maybe uspa can come up with a quick written quiz to verify that you know the basics?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 8, 2012, 9:18 AM
Post #9 of 195 (6890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>I can honestly say I read and understood the manual that came with my Bird man
>Classic before I jumped it.

That's great!

I notice you didn't answer the question though. Which is understandable since 1) you're probably used to signing multi-page waivers without reading them and 2) you already read your suit's manual.

>Maybe uspa can come up with a quick written quiz to verify that you know the basics?

That could work, provided 1) people don't cheat (which means someone to administer it and a way to randomly generate questions) 2) there's a practical part of the test (i.e. "show me how to X") and 3) there's someone available to answer questions/mediate the disputes that arise when people fail the test. That's getting pretty close to a quick course though.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 8, 2012, 9:18 AM
Post #10 of 195 (6890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I disagree - the WSI proposal came before the insurance letter, correct?


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 8, 2012, 9:30 AM
Post #11 of 195 (6879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I disagree - the WSI proposal came before the insurance letter, correct?

Read AGAIN what I wrote. Carefully:

"The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda..."

And it has. Right here on DZ.COM.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 8, 2012, 9:31 AM
Post #12 of 195 (6877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed and understand the material?


In reply to:

As in - someone who's never jumped a wingsuit can 'read a booklet, sign a paper and jump'?Wink

Might not be the best idea for anyone concerned.

I had some interesting discussions yesterday, several people I talked with seemed to be under the false impression that the program was set up to address the insurance tail-strike thing, and was aimed a experienced birdmen who've become complacent or weren't trained properly.

It's really not that.

It's a FIRST jump course type of thing for wingsuits, it teaches hands on, taking the 'student' through all of the steps in a logical manner.

The program allows for the supervised dissemination of pertinent information & the demonstration of critical basic skills.

Necessary beginner performance criteria & practical safety standards are in general what this thing addresses ~ basic survival skills taught & evaluated by a knowledgeable & experienced 'instructor'.


A few people I conversed with Sunday didn't understand much of anything 'factually' speaking and were quoting things to some extent that were post on this site by OTHER people who probably don't actually understand the scope & focus.

I encourage anyone interested in the facts to take a look at the link below, it does a lot as far as explaining the what & why of the program... and base your opinion regarding the program's implementation on your personal - knowledgeable - thought out opinion and not the emotional hype from either corner.

https://docs.google.com/...K_HNRWtD0/edit?pli=1

If you are going to vote, know what you're really voting on.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 8, 2012, 3:00 PM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 8, 2012, 9:41 AM
Post #13 of 195 (6869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

No I really don't...MY statement is verifiable fact, yours is hype.

If you're saying DSE 'published' the letter, check your facts.

If your saying the program was designed AFTER the letter was published...you're very wrong.

~disingenuous indeed.


The insurers letter which was an email, was not intended for public distribution...'certain individuals' knew that & were just as surprised to see it on the web as it's author.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 8, 2012, 9:42 AM
Post #14 of 195 (6869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Ah, the personal vendetta bullshit.
Still.

Grow up people.


grimmie  (D 18890)

Oct 8, 2012, 10:15 AM
Post #15 of 195 (6850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Should WE demand a Standardized DZO training via USPA for safety?


floormonkey  (D License)

Oct 8, 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #16 of 195 (6843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [5.samadhi] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you mean like this?

http://www.uspa.org/...169/Default.aspx#984

Section 6-9 of the USPA SIM, available for free from the USPA website.

Let the DZ's decide how they want to treat wingsuits, just like they decide how to treat every other discipline.

Adding a{n} (unnecessary) rating will add to the cost of our annual group membership.

Adding regulations/required instructions for only one discipline will expose USPA and drop zones to added liability for injuries from other discipline's that don't have the same requirement.

Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a special class for that. Must be more dangerous).

This is a sport of personal responsibility. Let the DZ's take responsibility for what they allow on their DZ. Let the jumpers take responsibility for their actions.

Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline.

Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for the ONE, SINGLE thing all parachutists do-namely Canopy Flight-there is no place for a rating for one individual discipline.

Unless the USPA is going to make and advanced coaching requirement for the discipline/activity that causes the most fatalities in the sport-Canopy Flight-there is no place for a rating for one individual discipline.

If the USPA makes a rating for wingsuit coaching, then by the same logic, there should be a rating for each discipline listed in Section 6 of the USPA SIM.


(This post was edited by floormonkey on Oct 8, 2012, 10:25 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 8, 2012, 10:32 AM
Post #17 of 195 (6823 views)
Shortcut
Re: [floormonkey] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Section 6-9 of the USPA SIM, available for free from the USPA website.

It is and it's a great section. But even experienced instructors don't know it's there; newbies have almost no chance of finding it.

>Let the DZ's decide how they want to treat wingsuits, just like they decide how to treat
>every other discipline.

We've tried that; didn't work.

>Adding regulations/required instructions for only one discipline will expose USPA and
>drop zones to added liability for injuries from other discipline's that don't have the
>same requirement.

>Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the
>users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a
>special class for that. Must be more dangerous).

This has been argued for dozens of items in the past. "If you restrict swooping in the pattern you'll open DZ's up for liability! DZ's that don't do that will be sued! DZ's that DO do that and have fatalities will be sued because USPA didn't approve it. Skydiving will cease to exist as we know it!" It has never happened.

However, we do know of one liability issue that WILL cause a problem because it already has - wingsuiters damaging aircraft.

>Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every
>conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline.

"We can't fix anything unless we fix every conceivable thing" means we would never do anything. Why teach a first jump course unless we have graduate courses in CRW? Why teach canopy safety to people under big canopies unless we can teach how to safely swoop 39 square foot canopies? Why teach specific skills (night jumps, water jumps, spotting) unless you teach every conceivable skill?

Fortunately most people do not take such an extreme view, and are willing to work on the problems.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 8, 2012, 10:40 AM
Post #18 of 195 (6814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

No I really don't...MY statement is verifiable fact, yours is hype.

If you're saying DSE 'published' the letter, check your facts.

If your saying the program was designed AFTER the letter was published...you're very wrong.

~disingenuous indeed.


The insurers letter which was an email, was not intended for public distribution...'certain individuals' knew that & were just as surprised to see it on the web as it's author.

I meant exactly what I wrote.

It has nothing to do with which came first or who leaked it.

It HAS been leveraged, right here on DZ.COM among other places, to provide support for the proposal, despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies led to the problems described.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 8, 2012, 10:42 AM
Post #19 of 195 (6809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As in - someone who's never jumped a wingsuit can 'read a booklet, sign a paper and jump'?Wink

Might not be the best idea for anyone concerned.

Why not?

That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.

I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me.

It really just isn't that hard.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 8, 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #20 of 195 (6773 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.

And people once learned to jump squares by making at least 100 jumps on rounds. (Was even on the warning label of many square canopies.) It worked, but might not be the best way to do it.

>I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me. It
>really just isn't that hard.

It actually is somewhat hard, and not getting it right can kill you.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 8, 2012, 12:12 PM
Post #21 of 195 (6755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.

And people once learned to jump squares by making at least 100 jumps on rounds. (Was even on the warning label of many square canopies.) It worked, but might not be the best way to do it.

>I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me. It
>really just isn't that hard.

It actually is somewhat hard, and not getting it right can kill you.

What part of wingsuiting do you feel is so difficult that you couldn't read about it and understand what is meant? I can't think of one single thing about flying a wingsuit that is confusing enough to need someone to explain it instead of just reading it from a flight manual.

Yes, not getting it right can kill you but that could happen with or without an instructor watching you. If your out there "not getting it right", it's not like your WSI is going to swoop in and stop your spin or pull for you like an AFFI.




SethInMI  (A 47765)

Oct 8, 2012, 12:43 PM
Post #23 of 195 (6727 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

It actually is somewhat hard, and not getting it right can kill you.

The training itself is pretty simple, especially when it comes to exiting the aircraft. The problem as I and a lot of others see it is not training, it is execution.

Like a swooper who has been instructed not to do a >90 deg rotation without seperation, but does it anyway because he believes that he is good enough to do it safely, wingsuiters who hit tails think they can exit safely by not executing a 2-3 sec wings closed delay. 99 times out of 100 they can.

A program for tailstrike reduction I think follows a swoop regulation model. Lots of warning posters, stickers, etc, and vigilance by other wingsuiters. We can't have an S&TA busting people like a beer-line violation without a exit shot camera taking pics of people, but we need something to point out to people that are pushing it, and build a culture that does not tolerate getting open early.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 8, 2012, 12:51 PM
Post #24 of 195 (6718 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

No I really don't...MY statement is verifiable fact, yours is hype.

If you're saying DSE 'published' the letter, check your facts.

If your saying the program was designed AFTER the letter was published...you're very wrong.

~disingenuous indeed.


The insurers letter which was an email, was not intended for public distribution...'certain individuals' knew that & were just as surprised to see it on the web as it's author.

I meant exactly what I wrote.

It has nothing to do with which came first or who leaked it.

It HAS been leveraged, right here on DZ.COM among other places, to provide support for the proposal, despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies led to the problems described.



I did not say it was leveraged and I did not say it wasn't leveraged, what I said was~

The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

You came back saying that statement is disingenuous and with more of your usual 'certain people' bullshit.

The statement is true, it was aimed at some whom I've spoken with, that because of vague and misleading accusative conjecture incorrectly believed that the program was set up as a quick fix answering the underwriters original tail-strike email 'to his customers'.

The discussion tone and manner of the follow-up to Robin thread helped lead to the confusion as the 'not demand' was misinterpreted as 'not needed' therefore no longer an issue.

Well...the WSI program IS still an issue.

What's disingenuous is inferring that since the insurance broker doesn't 'demand' USPA involvement...we ALL should ignore any benefit a program encompassing much more than tail-strike avoidance procedures offers.


What's disingenuous is regurgitating your "despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies..." as some form of (what) misdirection as a response to my attempt to clear up a misunderstanding that's not relevant to 'leverage' in anyone's mind but yours. Crazy

What's disingenuous is vague and incomplete references accusing 'certain people' of doing 'some things'...


This isn't sewing circle fill in the blanks rumor mill...if Joe Shit the rag-man put the high hard one to your prize goat, then SAY ~ Joe Shit fucked BigBilly behind the barn again.


I stand by MY statement~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

It's NOT disingenuous, vague, or misleading...it's not meant as between the lines accusation OR justification for what 'certian people' 'may' or 'may not' have done, at 'one time or another' regarding 'that thing' we're all so intimately familiar with...what was it again?


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 8, 2012, 3:07 PM)


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 8, 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #25 of 195 (6715 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

THAT instructor has never had any USPA instructor ratings.
If he had, they would have been yanked following the incident.
The USPA rated instructor told the kid he wasn't ready for wingies yet, as he should have.


floormonkey  (D License)

Oct 8, 2012, 1:12 PM
Post #26 of 195 (2871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't feel the view is extreme.

Instead of creating a rating, how about the USPA try to educate?

There is a publication that goes out to all active members...publish the SIM section there.

The USPA has an email list of their members-publish the info there.

USPA sends out emails to all persons with ratings-publish the info there.

USPA has a facebook page-publish the info there.

USPA has a blog-though it is almost dead and rarely updated-publish the info there.

USPA has the ability to communicate with all group member dz's. Contact them all and send them the info.

USPA has a website-make it the front page issue.


To say experienced instructors don't know it's there means the USPA is failing in basic communication. Try the communication route BEFORE regulation.



A question: Of dz's that provide some sort of briefing or instruction, how many tail strikes have there been at those dz's?

Also, my statement "Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the
>users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a
>special class for that. Must be more dangerous). " is not the same statement as the example you give.

I'm talking about adding a rating, and the de facto approval of a discipline and the actions resulting from that instruction; you are talking about individuals doing something of their own volition where they have not received discipline specific instruction from a USPA rated canopy coach. The two are not the same and the liability would be different. Whether the increased liability stands up in court is a different matter, I'm simply stating that it will increase liability for that subset.

For example, if an up jumper goes in or is injured because of his/her own error, how much liability does the dz hold? Very little, except for providing the airplane and some sort of gross negligence related to their operation.

Now change that to a student under supervision of an instructor...now the dz, instructor, rigger, and all those associated are in a situation where they could be liable.

This does not necessarily mean I am for a canopy coach rating, but I definitely believe a canopy coach rating would take precedence and improve our sport more then a wingsuit coach rating would.

"Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every
>conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline."

Point taken on commentary for this statement. My statement should have been

Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline unless every skydiver participates in said discipline.

Every skydiver has to learn to skydive-hence AFF/IAD/SL/Student training. Every skydiver has to learn to land a parachute-hence AFF/IAD/SL/Student training.

What percentage of skydivers will actually fly a wingsuit? What is the total number of active skydivers who fly wingsuits now?


If it is truly a liability issue with wingsuiters hitting airplanes...it won't take long before the owners of said airplanes take action. Let them deal with it.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 8, 2012, 1:43 PM
Post #27 of 195 (2858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>What part of wingsuiting do you feel is so difficult that you couldn't read about it
>and understand what is meant?

Threading the suit. Coming up with a flight plan. Dealing with malfunctions with the suit on and with it unzipped. Learning the deployment. Learning the basic body position.

>I can't think of one single thing about flying a wingsuit that is confusing enough to need
>someone to explain it instead of just reading it from a flight manual.

For 90% of the skydivers out there, it's not. Heck, for 80% of the whuffos out there, we could just have them read the SIM, put a rig on them and kick them out the door at 13,000 feet with no training - and they'd be fine.

But as wingsuiting becomes more popular, that 10% of people are going to mean a lot of skydivers who are missing some crucial information. For a long time that's been OK because few wingsuiters have been dumb enough to try to wingsuit without talking to someone first. But as wingsuits become more popular, and people start treating them with as little regard as they do a new canopy they try, that will become more and more of a problem. (As we've seen.)


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 8, 2012, 1:50 PM
Post #28 of 195 (2855 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
As in - someone who's never jumped a wingsuit can 'read a booklet, sign a paper and jump'?Wink

Might not be the best idea for anyone concerned.

Why not?

That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.
Based on the number of tail strikes, I'd say that process is broken.

I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me.
based on the number of tail strikes, it couldn't have hurt.

It really just isn't that hard.
Based on the number of tail strikes, .... well, this is getting easy?

Here's the thing, standardized instruction will not hurt your discipline. It can only make it better. What are you afraid of? .... that's not sarcasm, I really don't see what you are afraid of.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 8, 2012, 1:53 PM
Post #29 of 195 (2853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [floormonkey] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Instead of creating a rating, how about the USPA try to educate?

I'm all for that!

>There is a publication that goes out to all active members...publish the SIM
>section there.

There have been at least three or four articles about beginning wingsuiting in PARACHUTIST. You could also publish the SIM section; I'd be all for that as well. But again, that doesn't help someone who is learning to skydive now, because they're going to miss that issue. (And adding fourteen pages of wingsuiting stuff to _every_ issue is probably counterproductive, and would likely add a bit to dues.)

Currently the SIM is available for free online, and USPA touts its availability regularly. So while publishing it on paper could help it's not a huge improvement over what we have now.

>To say experienced instructors don't know it's there means the USPA is failing in basic
>communication. Try the communication route BEFORE regulation.

Again, I am all for that. It has been tried - but if you want to try even more, I'd support you in that effort.

>For example, if an up jumper goes in or is injured because of his/her own error, how
>much liability does the dz hold? Very little . . . .

I assume you are kidding here. DZ's can be sued and have been sued for just about everything you can imagine. That's why the waiver is so long. Liability is a huge concern for most DZ's.

>Now change that to a student under supervision of an instructor...now the dz,
>instructor, rigger, and all those associated are in a situation where they could be liable.

Yes. As they are now. The waiver covers all of the above. Most waivers are pretty good but as I mentioned that's not guaranteed protection.

>Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for
>every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual
>discipline unless every skydiver participates in said discipline.

?? I don't get that either. USPA should not have a SL-I rating unless every skydiver learns via static line? USPA should not have a PRO rating unless everyone does demos? There are small subsets of instruction that are regulated by USPA even now, despite their narrow applicability.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 8, 2012, 2:36 PM
Post #30 of 195 (2835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

?? I don't get that either. USPA should not have a SL-I rating unless every skydiver learns via static line? USPA should not have a PRO rating unless everyone does demos? There are small subsets of instruction that are regulated by USPA even now, despite their narrow applicability.

Apples and oranges. We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

We don't have PRO-I, PRO I/E and Pro Course Directors to teach licensed skydivers how to get a PRO rating.






NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 8, 2012, 3:59 PM
Post #33 of 195 (2810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Why not?

That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.
Based on the number of tail strikes, I'd say that process is broken.

I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me.
based on the number of tail strikes, it couldn't have hurt.

It really just isn't that hard.
Based on the number of tail strikes, .... well, this is getting easy?

Here's the thing, standardized instruction will not hurt your discipline. It can only make it better. What are you afraid of? .... that's not sarcasm, I really don't see what you are afraid of.

Your argument would make some sense if they were new guys that didn't know they were supposed to exit with their wings closed hitting the tail. There's no reason to believe that if they would have gotten their initial training from a WSI instead of an experienced friend or a book they wouldn't have had tailstrikes.

I think it's more likely that they all had the information but just fucked up. So, unless your WSI is going to be there on every jump, this isn't going to solve anything.

What I'm afraid of is you guys making it more difficult and more expensive for new wingsuit pilots to get in on the fun. I'm afraid that you people might actually say that there are now only 7 people in the world that can give me the special blessing I'll need before I can teach any more of my friends to fly wingsuits. This is exactly what they're proposing!

Actually, I'm not that afraid. I have faith that the skydiving community in general has enough sense to vote this down. I can't imagine 50% of us voluntarily requesting more regulations and another big bureaucracy even if billvon is right about 10% of us being completely retarded.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 8, 2012, 4:27 PM
Post #34 of 195 (2804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm with you on this one.

This particular incident has always bothered me.
The " I will be the first WSI on the planet" attitude, to the lack of understand what a skydiving instructor does, and the responsibility they are required to have....it all went out the door with Dan.
I sincerely hope he is never allowed to teach skydiving. Any flavor. When you do not complete one of the most basic mantras of skydiving instructing, I will never trust you a student's life. I think it's clear, that no proper instruction was given. I think it was criminal. I think this is a shining example FOR standardized training.
This shit IS serious.




Premier skybytch  (D License)

Oct 9, 2012, 5:56 AM
Post #36 of 195 (2749 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

Passing on group membership means you can ignore the FAR's and BSR's? Sweet!!!!!


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 9, 2012, 6:16 AM
Post #37 of 195 (2736 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

Passing on group membership means you can ignore the FAR's and BSR's? Sweet!!!!!

Don't conflate FARs with BSRs. It doesn't help your case.


(This post was edited by kallend on Oct 9, 2012, 8:17 AM)


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 9, 2012, 6:20 AM
Post #38 of 195 (2735 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

Passing on group membership means you can ignore the FAR's and BSR's? Sweet!!!!!

Where'd that come from? Everyone has to follow FAR's.Crazy Luckily this conversation has nothing to do with FAR's.

Are you saying that a non uspa dz could somehow possibly be required to enforce uspa bsr's?

At least I won't be sending them group member dues to fund this nonsense.

Not that it's going to matter. I don't think there's any possibility of this passing anyways. I'm pretty sure we'll end up being a USPA dz.


(This post was edited by NSEMN8R on Oct 9, 2012, 7:17 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 9, 2012, 9:19 AM
Post #39 of 195 (2708 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

> We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

Uh, yes, we do. It's called an I/E, and they are the only ones who can teach the ICC needed to become an SL-I.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 9, 2012, 9:30 AM
Post #40 of 195 (2703 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

Uh, yes, we do. It's called an I/E, and they are the only ones who can teach the ICC needed to become an SL-I.

And, they've been trained to do so via a standardized curriculum!Cool


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 9, 2012, 9:34 AM
Post #41 of 195 (2701 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

Uh, yes, we do. It's called an I/E, and they are the only ones who can teach the ICC needed to become an SL-I.

Are there any regulations against 2 licensed skydivers static-lining each other out of the plane without a rating or with out even any instruction?




airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 9, 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #43 of 195 (2681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
> We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

Uh, yes, we do. It's called an I/E, and they are the only ones who can teach the ICC needed to become an SL-I.

Are there any regulations against 2 licensed skydivers static-lining each other out of the plane without a rating or with out even any instruction?

Probably not relevent currently, but back when I had an I and it was S/L or nothing ~ the insurance on our bird stated in effect no Skydivers would do anything in or after jumping out, that they weren't licensed, rated or certified for without a written waiver from the Insurance co.

Tried once to explain to them that there are many instances in which that just doesn't make sense...kinda hard to get qualified for something if ya gotta be qualified before you leave the plane. Sly


peek  (D 8884)

Oct 9, 2012, 11:22 AM
Post #44 of 195 (2676 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

Uh, yes, we do. It's called an I/E, and they are the only ones who can teach the ICC needed to become an SL-I.

Bill, I think you misunderstood what John meant, which is that you do not need a static line instructor rating to instruct or "jumpmaster" a licensed skydiver doing a static line jump.

This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 9, 2012, 12:25 PM
Post #45 of 195 (2662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.


In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation. Wink

IF ONLY i'd remembered to bring my skydiving license when I went for the tail-dragger 'nod'! Angelic


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 9, 2012, 1:02 PM
Post #46 of 195 (2658 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Dude brah, it's just another airplane with wheels!
Stoopid FAA.
Tongue


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 9, 2012, 1:45 PM
Post #47 of 195 (2647 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.


In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation. Wink

So you'd like a PRO-I, PRO I/E and PRO-course director rating from USPA to train people to get PRO ratings - no one is born knowing how to get a PRO rating.

Ditto for freeflying - no-one is born knowing how to freefly.

Ditto for CRW - no one is born knowing how to do CRW.

Ditto for skysurfing - no-one is born knowing how to jump a board.

Ditto for pond surfing - no-one is born knowing how to do that.

What a lot of new USPA ratings you want.


(This post was edited by kallend on Oct 9, 2012, 1:45 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 9, 2012, 1:46 PM
Post #48 of 195 (2645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
> We don't have a SL-I rating to teach licensed skydivers how to jump a static line.

Uh, yes, we do. It's called an I/E, and they are the only ones who can teach the ICC needed to become an SL-I.

Bill, I think you misunderstood what John meant, which is that you do not need a static line instructor rating to instruct or "jumpmaster" a licensed skydiver doing a static line jump.

This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.

Thanks, Gary, that is exactly my point.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 9, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #49 of 195 (2625 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.


In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation. Wink

IF ONLY i'd remembered to bring my skydiving license when I went for the tail-dragger 'nod'! Angelic

So the CFI that gave you the tailwheel endorsement-- Did he have to get special taildragger CFI rating and prove to an faa examiner that he can teach someone how to safely operate a tailwheel airplane? Or can just any CFI get a tailwheel endorsement from another CFI and start giving tailwheel instruction?


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 9, 2012, 2:59 PM
Post #50 of 195 (2614 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Wingies don't drag their tails....at least not intentionally.

Yet there IS a clear difference between a Piper Cub and an F-4.
I'm pretty sure they have different type ratings.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 9, 2012, 3:24 PM
Post #51 of 195 (2955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.


In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation. Wink

So you'd like a PRO-I, PRO I/E and PRO-course director rating from USPA to train people to get PRO ratings - no one is born knowing how to get a PRO rating.

Ditto for freeflying - no-one is born knowing how to freefly.

Ditto for CRW - no one is born knowing how to do CRW.

Ditto for skysurfing - no-one is born knowing how to jump a board.

Ditto for pond surfing - no-one is born knowing how to do that.

What a lot of new USPA ratings you want.

Nope they sure aren't born with the skills...so what they do is boldly go into the unknown and hope they learn through osmosis before they get hurt or killed, or they pay someone with both the experience and the ability to teach it effectively, which is a safer and smarter way to go IMHO.

Of course some of them get hurt or killed anyway...hummm, bygosh maybe your right!

If there was only a way we could make sure the paid teachers are qualified to be teaching, and that they are all covering the same material the same basic way...what a wonderful world it WOULD be!

Cool




and like I said before...as soon as any or all of those various disciplines creates a situation across the board due to incidents...which if not addressed satisfactorily could in effect entirely change the way a drop-zone can do business, if at all

~ then yeah, I'm pretty sure some evaluation of skills and secondary training parameters might be put in place.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 9, 2012, 4:18 PM
Post #52 of 195 (2946 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Wingies don't drag their tails....at least not intentionally.

Yet there IS a clear difference between a Piper Cub and an F-4.
I'm pretty sure they have different type ratings.

My point is that it takes significantly more training for a pilot to earn a tail wheel or high performance or complex endorsement than it takes for an experienced skydiver to learn to fly a wingsuit safely. Yet the instructors that handout these endorsements need only have the endorsement themselves in order to be able to teach these skills to other pilots and give them the endorsement. They don't need an additional instructor rating. They don't have to take another check ride with an examiner. Why should the USPA require more from skydiving instructors to teach something simple than the faa requires for CFI's to teach things that are much more complex?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 9, 2012, 4:28 PM
Post #53 of 195 (2943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why should the USPA require more from skydiving instructors to teach something
>simple than the faa requires for CFI's to teach things that are much more complex?

That's a good point. If we had something like a simple endorsement (from say an I/E) to an instructor who is also a wingsuiter that might work and would not require some evil dreaded bureaucracy.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 9, 2012, 5:33 PM
Post #54 of 195 (2933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

The faa doesn't require a cfi's endorsements come from an examiner in order to give other pilots and CFIs the endorsement. They can get it from anyone who has both a CFI rating and the endorsements.

I for one would be a lot less resistant to a system like this than the idea of handing control of all wingsuiting instruction to just 7 people.

Would a similar system be enough to satisfy the regulationists?


LloydDobbler  (D 30655)

Oct 12, 2012, 7:41 PM
Post #55 of 195 (2869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Section 6-9 of the USPA SIM, available for free from the USPA website.

It is and it's a great section. But even experienced instructors don't know it's there; newbies have almost no chance of finding it.

>Let the DZ's decide how they want to treat wingsuits, just like they decide how to treat
>every other discipline.

We've tried that; didn't work.

>Adding regulations/required instructions for only one discipline will expose USPA and
>drop zones to added liability for injuries from other discipline's that don't have the
>same requirement.

>Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the
>users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a
>special class for that. Must be more dangerous).

This has been argued for dozens of items in the past. "If you restrict swooping in the pattern you'll open DZ's up for liability! DZ's that don't do that will be sued! DZ's that DO do that and have fatalities will be sued because USPA didn't approve it. Skydiving will cease to exist as we know it!" It has never happened.

However, we do know of one liability issue that WILL cause a problem because it already has - wingsuiters damaging aircraft.

>Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every
>conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline.

"We can't fix anything unless we fix every conceivable thing" means we would never do anything. Why teach a first jump course unless we have graduate courses in CRW? Why teach canopy safety to people under big canopies unless we can teach how to safely swoop 39 square foot canopies? Why teach specific skills (night jumps, water jumps, spotting) unless you teach every conceivable skill?

Fortunately most people do not take such an extreme view, and are willing to work on the problems.

I know I'm a little late to the party here, Bill (just reading through the thread)...but it seems interesting to me that, in a post where Twardo is saying "This instructional rating isn't solely about stopping wingsuit tailstrikes," you appear to be arguing once again that it's all about stopping wingsuit tailstrikes.

...and people are wondering why some of us keep on pointing out that it's not the lack of proper training for new wingsuiters (of which there is a great deal), but rather complacency amongst experienced wingsuiters that led to the vast majority of tailstrikes (which now seem to have dried up, thanks to increased awareness).


LloydDobbler  (D 30655)

Oct 12, 2012, 8:03 PM
Post #56 of 195 (2866 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Again, I point out -

Twardo (the OP) -

Quote:
I stand by MY statement~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

You -

In reply to:
That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.
Based on the number of tail strikes, I'd say that process is broken.

I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me.
based on the number of tail strikes, it couldn't have hurt.

It really just isn't that hard.
Based on the number of tail strikes, .... well, this is getting easy?

If this has little to do with tailstrikes (and as has been pointed out SO many times, a huge number of the reported tailstrikes were from those who are no longer considered 'novice wingsuiters'), then why keep banging the drum about it?

Evidence seems to dictate there are better ways of preventing tailstrikes than requiring someone to have gone through a single first flight course 500 to 1000 wingsuit jumps ago.

If this proposal isn't here to prevent tailstrikes, let's do what Twardo suggested and talk about it on its merits.


LloydDobbler  (D 30655)

Oct 12, 2012, 8:15 PM
Post #57 of 195 (2862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The faa doesn't require a cfi's endorsements come from an examiner in order to give other pilots and CFIs the endorsement. They can get it from anyone who has both a CFI rating and the endorsements.

I for one would be a lot less resistant to a system like this than the idea of handing control of all wingsuiting instruction to just 7 people.

Would a similar system be enough to satisfy the regulationists?

This is a very interesting thought - I'm interested to hear more discussion on the matter.

@billvon, @skyjumpenfool, @normiss, @twardo, others - thoughts?


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 16, 2012, 11:18 AM
Post #58 of 195 (2792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LloydDobbler] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

This is a very interesting thought - I'm interested to hear more discussion on the matter.

@billvon, @skyjumpenfool, @normiss, @twardo, others - thoughts?

Lloyd, I think the problem with this idea is that it doesn't make anyone special. If it doesn't put any one person or little group of people at the top of the heap, no one has any real reason to push the idea.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #59 of 195 (2783 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LloydDobbler] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The faa doesn't require a cfi's endorsements come from an examiner in order to give other pilots and CFIs the endorsement. They can get it from anyone who has both a CFI rating and the endorsements.

I for one would be a lot less resistant to a system like this than the idea of handing control of all wingsuiting instruction to just 7 people.

Would a similar system be enough to satisfy the regulationists?

This is a very interesting thought - I'm interested to hear more discussion on the matter.

@billvon, @skyjumpenfool, @normiss, @twardo, others - thoughts?


It poses the question whether a WS rating would be an endorsement or a type rating so to speak.

I tend to think it would be more of an endorsement, however the certifying of a WSI would fall more to an examiner's role wouldn't it?

Would that mean a limited number of qualified individuals?

I'd imagine it would at the start, but such was the case with AFFI's & TM's at the outset of those programs.

I know when I got my TM rating there was two places giving them out, that's obviously not the case now nor was it in the months following my class.



Interesting question.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 16, 2012, 11:57 AM
Post #60 of 195 (2776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

I tend to think it would be more of an endorsement, however the certifying of a WSI would fall more to an examiner's role wouldn't it?

There wouldn't even be a WSI. Just like there's no "High Performance Airplane Instructor" or "Complex Airplane Instructor" ratings.

Any CFI that has a HP or complex endorsement can give that endorsement to another pilot. In a parallel system, any USPA I with a "wingsuit endorsement" would be able to give that endorsement to other experienced skydivers.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 12:25 PM
Post #61 of 195 (2765 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

I tend to think it would be more of an endorsement, however the certifying of a WSI would fall more to an examiner's role wouldn't it?

There wouldn't even be a WSI. Just like there's no "High Performance Airplane Instructor" or "Complex Airplane Instructor" ratings.

Any CFI that has a HP or complex endorsement can give that endorsement to another pilot. In a parallel system, any USPA I with a "wingsuit endorsement" would be able to give that endorsement to other experienced skydivers.

I see what you're saying and I don't disagree.

My question is, what's the difference between an endorsement & a rating in our case?

I really don't know as far as the pilot end of it...if you have an ATP & a CFI, & have a 727 type rating can you sign off another pilot who's 737 rated to fly 727's?

Similarly, if you're a USPA S/L I with a WS rating/endorsement, would you be able to sign off someone who has received no actual training 'on type' with the WS rating or 'endorsement'?

I really don't know exactly how either case scenario is addressed, I would hope there is some required training/demonstration of skill to get the rating or 'endorsement' in either case.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 16, 2012, 12:53 PM
Post #62 of 195 (2753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LloydDobbler] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>I know I'm a little late to the party here, Bill (just reading through the thread)...but it
>seems interesting to me that, in a post where Twardo is saying "This instructional
>rating isn't solely about stopping wingsuit tailstrikes," you appear to be arguing once
>again that it's all about stopping wingsuit tailstrikes.

It's NOT solely about stopping wingsuit tailstrikes - but that is one problem that it must address, and it is a problem that is known to be serious.

Nor is this unique to wingsuits. Any canopy instruction has to deal with people killing themselves under perfectly good canopies. It should not be solely dedicated to stopping that behavior - but any program must address that as a priority, because we know how big a problem that is.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 16, 2012, 12:57 PM
Post #63 of 195 (2750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>The faa doesn't require a cfi's endorsements come from an examiner in order to give
>other pilots and CFIs the endorsement. They can get it from anyone who has both a
>CFI rating and the endorsements.

IIRC, it requires a CFI with that endorsement to sign off on complex, for example. All CFI's have to have that endorsement so it's a non-issue in aviation.

To make it congruent with skydiving you'd have to have an AFF-I who has that endorsement sign off someone else. If that can be managed somehow then I could see that working.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 16, 2012, 1:02 PM
Post #64 of 195 (2746 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess I could live with this "endorsement" idea, but seriously there is no freeflying endorsement, CRW endorsement, etc. The WS-I is BS. I believe a few are trying to cash in and they see a potential monopoly. The tail strikes have shown to be from complacency. Simple fuck ups. Just as very experienced canopy pilots have died. I am not talking about the DGIT types. I am talking about guys like JT, Sean Carey, Brady Kane, Peter G, hell the list goes on. Those are just some of the ones I can pull of the top of my head from my limited time in the sport. Fuck ups happen, even by the best. Nothing we do will ever change that. Skydivers without wings have hit the damn tail too. I am all for safety and if I honestly thought that a WS-I program would greatly increase safety I would be all for it, but the bottom line is it won't. How about updating the BSR to read in addition to 200 jumps and USPA license, a jumper must have training from an experienced wingsuiter. Define that a expereinced winsuiter has X amount of WS jumps. Sign it off in the logbook. To make it a seperate INSTRUCTOR rating is absurd. I will be voting NO. Education good. Needless ratings bad. I am a tandem instructor. I INSTRUCT my students. I let them pull, fly the canopy, teach them about winds, etc. I need to be an INSTRUCTOR for this. If I fly a wingsuit I am not INSTRUCTING anyone. I am flying a wingsuit and don't need a rating, just like I don't need one to go freefly or fly a camera.


wolfriverjoe  (A 50013)

Oct 16, 2012, 1:25 PM
Post #65 of 195 (2734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

I see what you're saying and I don't disagree.

My question is, what's the difference between an endorsement & a rating in our case?

I really don't know as far as the pilot end of it...if you have an ATP & a CFI, & have a 727 type rating can you sign off another pilot who's 737 rated to fly 727's?

Similarly, if you're a USPA S/L I with a WS rating/endorsement, would you be able to sign off someone who has received no actual training 'on type' with the WS rating or 'endorsement'?

I really don't know exactly how either case scenario is addressed, I would hope there is some required training/demonstration of skill to get the rating or 'endorsement' in either case.

IIRC, a type rating requires a checkride with an examiner. Any rating that ends up on your hard card does. Multi, sea, type, whatever. I could be wrong on that, and if I am, someone please correct me.

Endorsements are for High-performance, Complex, Tail-dragger, and a couple other things. Those are just logbook sign offs by an instructor.

Including the Biennial Flight Review. I mention that one specifically, because it's been mentioned that a lot of these incidents are coming from experienced WS jumpers.
Having a WSI setup would be one step, along with a standardized FFC.

But would that be it? Or would there be a requirement for recurrency training? A BFR is pretty basic. An hour of ground and an hour in the air. Mostly doing stuff that is important, but isn't done in the course of normal flying.

I don't WS, so I really don't have much of an opinion, but it's something to think about.


(This post was edited by wolfriverjoe on Oct 16, 2012, 1:26 PM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 2:29 PM
Post #66 of 195 (2720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wolfriverjoe] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

I see what you're saying and I don't disagree.

My question is, what's the difference between an endorsement & a rating in our case?

I really don't know as far as the pilot end of it...if you have an ATP & a CFI, & have a 727 type rating can you sign off another pilot who's 737 rated to fly 727's?

Similarly, if you're a USPA S/L I with a WS rating/endorsement, would you be able to sign off someone who has received no actual training 'on type' with the WS rating or 'endorsement'?

I really don't know exactly how either case scenario is addressed, I would hope there is some required training/demonstration of skill to get the rating or 'endorsement' in either case.

IIRC, a type rating requires a checkride with an examiner. Any rating that ends up on your hard card does. Multi, sea, type, whatever. I could be wrong on that, and if I am, someone please correct me.

Endorsements are for High-performance, Complex, Tail-dragger, and a couple other things. Those are just logbook sign offs by an instructor.

Including the Biennial Flight Review. I mention that one specifically, because it's been mentioned that a lot of these incidents are coming from experienced WS jumpers.
Having a WSI setup would be one step, along with a standardized FFC.

But would that be it? Or would there be a requirement for recurrency training? A BFR is pretty basic. An hour of ground and an hour in the air. Mostly doing stuff that is important, but isn't done in the course of normal flying.

I don't WS, so I really don't have much of an opinion, but it's something to think about.


That's how I understand it as well...I guess the point I was trying to make is what exactly would it be called, a rating or an endorsement.

If one is to use the CFI as a template we need to be clear what we're talking about.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 3:01 PM
Post #67 of 195 (2714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I guess I could live with this "endorsement" idea, but seriously there is no freeflying endorsement, CRW endorsement, etc.

>>>Those disciplines don't require the use of a complex piece of possibly unfamiliar gear. putting it on, spotting, EP's and deployment are some of the things specific to utilizing that piece of equipment, wouldn't having some standard method training and evaluation through demonstrated competence decrease the likelihood of possible incidents?

I don't believe the proposed program requires current flyers to go back through instruction, I think it's more on the order of showing knowledge & having skills, I dunno...a ten question test and showing a vid of your performance might be all that's needed for an 'endorsement' is that too much to ask?
If one wishes to 'teach' wing-suit flying wouldn't an actual program be the best avenue to insure everyone 'new' is on the same page, starting out with an actual set of skills needed?<<<



The WS-I is BS. I believe a few are trying to cash in and they see a potential monopoly.

>>>I keep hearing that, how so 'exactly' do you see that happening?
WHO would stand to profit and specifically HOW?

Those questions have been answered to 'my' satisfaction anyway, continuing with generalizations like this smack of scare tactics without merit...tell me, who's gonna get 'rich' with this and how, 'cause I don't see it.<<<


The tail strikes have shown to be from complacency. Simple fuck ups. Just as very experienced canopy pilots have died. I am not talking about the DGIT types.

>>>so what you're saying is what we're doing now isn't working. I agree.<<<


I am talking about guys like JT, Sean Carey, Brady Kane, Peter G, hell the list goes on. Those are just some of the ones I can pull of the top of my head from my limited time in the sport.

Fuck ups happen, even by the best. Nothing we do will ever change that.

>>>I disagree, maybe not eliminate but decreasing in number is certainly achievable.<<<



Skydivers without wings have hit the damn tail too. I am all for safety and if I honestly thought that a WS-I program would greatly increase safety I would be all for it, but the bottom line is it won't.

>>>It won't because you say it won't, or that's your opinion?
Again, I've SEEN where standardized training was beneficial, it was fought at the outset then too but it worked, you were likely trained under a standardized curriculum that was thought a 'useless failure' by some way back when.<<<



How about updating the BSR to read in addition to 200 jumps and USPA license, a jumper must have training from an experienced wingsuiter. Define that a expereinced winsuiter has X amount of WS jumps. Sign it off in the logbook. To make it a seperate INSTRUCTOR rating is absurd. I will be voting NO. Education good. Needless ratings bad. I am a tandem instructor. I INSTRUCT my students. I let them pull, fly the canopy, teach them about winds, etc. I need to be an INSTRUCTOR for this. If I fly a wingsuit I am not INSTRUCTING anyone.

>>>then you having a WSI wouldn't be an issue would it.<<<


I am flying a wingsuit and don't need a rating, just like I don't need one to go freefly or fly a camera.

>>>again, lets think about joe n00b who's never seen a wing-suit up-close...is it OK for him to 'fly a wing-suit' because he's good a free-flying? Personally I'm not concerned with what you're doing with yours, it's the long line of never haves behind you I'm concerned with...failure to address that will IMO be a problem down the road that could limit your 'freedom to fly'...it's a real concern and it's happening at some places already.<<<


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 16, 2012, 3:27 PM)


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 16, 2012, 3:34 PM
Post #68 of 195 (2699 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Those disciplines don't require the use of a complex piece of possibly unfamiliar gear.

When I first flew a camera helmet I would say it was a complex piece of unfamiliar gear. I got coached up from experienced camera guys.

Quote:
I keep hearing that, how so 'exactly' do you see that happening?
WHO would stand to profit and specifically HOW?

DSE and the handful of people that will be qualified to be the I/E's in his proposal

Quote:
>>>I disagree, maybe not eliminate but decreasing in number is certainly achievable.<<<

How are you going to decrease the number of highly experience people dying in incidents by instituting a WS-I program? Wingsuit students, okay I will bite, but those aren't the ones hitting the tails.

Quote:
>>>It won't because you say it won't, or that's your opinion?
Again, I've SEEN where standardized training was beneficial, it was fought at the outset then too but it worked, you were likely trained under a standardized curriculum that was thought a 'useless failure' by some way back when.<<<

STUDENTS are not the ones hitting the tails. Read that again Airtwardo. Show me where wingsuit students are dying, and fucking up planes. They aren't. It is the same as my profession (police) Guess who gets killed on the traffic stops? The veteran guys (me) with 5+ years on the force. It's called COMPLACENCY. Look at those swoopers I named. You would be hard pressed to find a person on this planet that would say any of them were in over their heads. Each had multiple thousands of jumps. Peter G had 10,000+.

Quote:
>>>then you having a WSI wouldn't be an issue would it.<<<

To be clear I don't fly wings yet. I want to one day and will seek out a proper FFC like Flock-U or hell even DSE when I do, but I don't need to pay for another rating when there is NO STUDENTS INVOLVED except for me being an experienced jumper learning a new discipline. If I had the benefit of having an experienced WS'er at my DZ I would just mentor under him and not pay for a FFC. That is the way it should be.

I might be able to get on board with a standardized FFC being adopted by the USPA, but I reject the idea that I have to go to DSE or a small handful of others to learn it. It really isn't all that hard if you talk to wingsuiters man. This is overkill and ridiculous.

Vote yes if you want, but I am voting HELL NO.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 16, 2012, 3:40 PM
Post #69 of 195 (2696 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

That's how I understand it as well...I guess the point I was trying to make is what exactly would it be called, a rating or an endorsement.

If one is to use the CFI as a template we need to be clear what we're talking about.

I'm talking about calling it an endorsement instead of a rating. For a rating you would need to see an examiner. An endorsement could come from anyone who has both the endorsement and the Instructor rating. This is the only way it would make any sense to me with following the logic:

-- The USPA I rating already comes from an examiner just like the CFI does.

-- It takes significantly more training for a pilot to earn a tail wheel or high performance or complex endorsement than it takes for an experienced skydiver to learn to fly a wingsuit safely.

-- A CFI can teach pilots to fly a High Performance/Tailwheel/Complex aircraft without having to obtain an additional High Performance Instructor rating from an examiner.

-- Under the current proposal, a USPA I would have to obtain a Wingsuit Instructor rating from an Examiner before teaching an experienced jumper to fly a wingsuit.

With these 4 FACTS in mind, I ask "Why should the USPA require more from skydiving Instructors to teach something simple than the faa requires for CFIs to teach things that are much more complex?"

There just isn't enough info there to justify the whole separate Examiner and Instructor rating systems. Doing it as an endorsement would insure that the information gets passed on by a trusted source without making it more difficult than it needs to be for someone who already knows how to teach and fly wingsuits to become qualified to give ffc's.

-


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 16, 2012, 3:56 PM
Post #70 of 195 (2691 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>When I first flew a camera helmet I would say it was a complex piece of
>unfamiliar gear. I got coached up from experienced camera guys.

That's actually a great example. You did it the right way. Nowadays we see posts on here all the time where the guy with 50 jumps mentions in passing that he was doing video. But it was just a Gopro so it's not a big deal. And he just turned it on and forgot about it. And everyone else does it. And as a result we have that long list of camera related incidents.

Canopy training went the same way. When our DZO got a Monarch 190 20 years ago, he wouldn't lend it to anyone (because it was so dangerous) and got advice on how to fly it from a guy from another DZ before he ever took it up. Nowadays that's considered a beginner HP canopy, something someone off student status would use. And partly as a result of that relaxation of caution, fatalities under canopy are now the #1 cause of death in the sport.

Wingsuit training is changing too. When I started I got a two hour course in how to fly a Classic. Nowadays that's barely considered a wingsuit; I've heard people tell newer jumpers "well, just borrow a Classic and put a bunch of jumps on it. You can track, right? Same thing, it's not rocket science." And as a result we are seeing more incidents.

>How are you going to decrease the number of highly experience people dying in
>incidents by instituting a WS-I program?

By getting them better training before they _become_ highly experienced people.

>STUDENTS are not the ones hitting the tails.

I guarantee you that every single person who hit a tail was once a student. And I guarantee you that they missed, or forgot, or were just never taught the basics of exiting safely.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 16, 2012, 6:06 PM
Post #71 of 195 (2668 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I guarantee you that every single person who hit a tail was once a student. And I guarantee you that they missed, or forgot, or were just never taught the basics of exiting safely.

Bill this is the only part of your reply that I disagree with. In contrary I believe they were taught and did not forget. I think they were complacent. Fighting complacency is a verh hard thing. I do not think a WS-I with standardized FFC taught will stop jumpers with hundreds of wingsuit jumps from complacency. BTW I waited to 200 jumps to jump a camera and even then it was a Contour. I was comfortable for a full blown helmet at closer to 300, but I guess I was a slow learner Wink

Quote:
as I stated in the 1st post in this thread, tailstrijes are NOT the only reason for the program. It a small part, important yes...but expand your focus.

So Airtwardo where is the evidence for the other reasons? Do we have students killing them selves in FFCs? Do we have incidents of low time WSers dying? The recent incidents I remember all entail very very experienced wingsuiters.

I am not saying WS-I would be a BAD thing necessarily for the sport. What I am saying is that I believe it is completely unnecessary. What are the facts? Has it been considered that all the extra cost involved may not even be justified? The added regulation and BS won't change anything? How did this issue surface? Was it brought up by DSE who would stand to gain quite a bit personally? Do some critical thinking on the issue please. If you have, and you have made your decision then okay. I respect you two guys a lot. Bill your checklist on downsizing was a great contribution to upcoming jumpers such as me. Airtwardo I dig your long time commitment to the sport, and I agree with your post 99.9% of the time, but on this I just don't. That's ok too.

It has been drilled into me for the past 15 years to not allow myself to get complacent. It started with my service in the military, and continues today through my service in law enforcement. I have seen a guy that had been around guns for over 40 years shoot himself in the pelvis and nearly die. I have a life saving award on my wall and that I wear on my uniform for applying pressure until the life flight arrived. That guy knew gun safety, trust me. Unfortunately he got complacent for a second and forgot to clear the chamber before installing a trigger lock on his AR-15 and had the barrel pointed at his groin. He was adequately trained for sure, but that complacency bit him right in the ass, err groin area, it actually exited through his ass lol. In the same way that veteran cop has allows the attitude of "oh this is just another traffic stop I have done thousands of times" and ends up with a gun in his face, jumpers let their slack down as this is just a nother swoop or wingsuit exit. My point is when you guys come up with a solution for that type of incident, other than constant self vigilance, then please let me know and I will be on board 100%. Maybe the answer is in continuing education. Maybe Safety Day is wholey inadequate, I don't know. I just know that is the REAL issue in our sport, and IF we can FIX that then the "zero fatality year" becomes a glimmer of possibilty, until then it remains a fantasy, and until then I will just try to make sure "that guy" doesn't become me.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 7:02 PM
Post #72 of 195 (2656 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

So Airtwardo where is the evidence for the other reasons? Do we have students killing them selves in FFCs? Do we have incidents of low time WSers dying? The recent incidents I remember all entail very very experienced wingsuiters.

In reply to:

Evidence of what?

Are you saying we HAVE to notch a death toll before we address a training situation??

Sorry man, that dog don't hunt here...check the open canopy deaths, either we missed the boat there or nobody cares.

What we're talking about is an introduction to safely using a specialized piece of equipment.

The fact that you yourself admit, experienced wing-suiters seem to have some problems with.


Its almost funny because I've seen several similar examples of what's basically going on here, over the years.

The fight against standardized method of training & progression because 'experienced' skydivers don't need it.

You use to need 200 jumps to even jump a square, gave ya seasoning, exposure and experience...now we have people with 50 jumps on canopies they have no idea how to fly safely...but it's ok, they're 'experienced'.

Johnny Carson did an AFF jump long before there WAS any AFF ~ Oh my god, the end is near, people will be trying that obviously unsafe shit and ricocheting wuffos off the planet's surface like hail!

When more people started doing it the USPA came up with a 'training program' and Instructor ratings for it...the end is near, only a select few will ever get that rating, it's not fair!

PRO Rating~ 100 jump wonders were hurting themselves and spectators as often as not.
Simple concept - PROVE your skills and get a rating the FAA understands...OMG the end is near, only 6 or 7 people in the world can meet those requirements! LaughLaugh

This 'rating' will either come or it won't...if it does, IMO in the long run that area of the sport will flourish beyond anyone's expectations.

If it doesn't it will continue to grow but with the quite possible results of increased injury or worse...which will in the long run have to 'then' be addressed..if it's not too late.

And again I ask...

Who its it exactly that stands to benefit financially from this and how?


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 16, 2012, 7:29 PM
Post #73 of 195 (2647 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

....... Do we have incidents of low time WSers dying? The recent incidents I remember all entail very very experienced wingsuiters.

very very experienced wingsuiters.... who may not have been trained properly? Herein lyes the problem. And this is a problem that we can fix.

Again, I'm not a wingsuiter, but I am following this discussion closely. Here's what I can bring to this discussion; being extremely good at something does not qualify anyone to teach it. Teaching is a separate skill set. This, by the way, is why instructor courses spend so much time on "teaching best practices".

I'm on the fence about a WSI rating. I would, however, really like to see a standardized curriculum delivered by qualified people. Good discussions here so far!!! Thanks.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 16, 2012, 7:45 PM
Post #74 of 195 (2643 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Are you saying we HAVE to notch a death toll before we address a training situation??
\

No sir. I believe in progressive thinking and training. I am a firearms instructor for my department and I am constantly trying to better my training in this same manner. I am just asking you to thing about the facts, statistics, and reality of the situation before jumping to what I feel maybe needless regulation, red tape, and cost not only to jumpers that are "experienced" but our organization as a whole.

Quote:
check the open canopy deaths, either we missed the boat there or nobody cares.

So should we institute a Canopy-I and I-E program? Open canopy deaths make up the majority of deaths in this sport, not WS deaths, by FAR. I know a jumper with a .7 WL on a 200+ sq. ft. canopy that has a broken back. She was following all the "norms" she just made a couple bad decisions and it led to an incident.

Quote:
PRO Rating~ 100 jump wonders were hurting themselves and spectators as often as not.
Simple concept - PROVE your skills and get a rating the FAA understands...OMG the end is near, only 6 or 7 people in the world can meet those requirements!

And the PRO rating is really more like an "endorsement" isn't it? It really doesn't have "Pro-I and Pro-I/E" does it?

Quote:
Who its it exactly that stands to benefit financially from this and how?

Either you haven't read my posts thoroughly or are experiencing selective reading when I say DSE the guy that MADE the proposal.

Air we are really only slightly off base here. New jumpers should have to prove their skills jumping a wingsuit, I agree. There are plenty of FFC that do this, and do it well. I am just not on board with creating a whole new I & I/E rating for a specific discipline in the sport. What is your beef with a FFC standard and making it an "endorsement" by say any USPA Instructor with say 200 wingsuit jumps? That is just an arbitrary number I threw out there and would actually need input from experienced WSers, but you get the point.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 8:07 PM
Post #75 of 195 (2636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Well maybe it's just me then...

I've been around guns for 50 years and never shot myself, never 'got complacent' ~ Strong training & vigilance pays off.

I've been jumping 37 years and never been injured, I consciously fight complacency, had VERY strong training and continue to build skills appropriately.

My 'old school' ways stress self reliance and thoughtful approach.

Unfortunately that's not always the norm in Skydiving today.

There are a lot of factors in play on this subject, I don't have all the answers...IS it too costly and hard to manage?

Maybe, but I'm a glass 1/2 empty guy...what will the cost be NOT to have it. If it saves a life is it worth it?


Like I said it'll happen or it won't, I strongly urge those on the wire to ask questions of the right people...get facts don't go on rumor or unreasonable assertions.

EFS ~ If you seriously believe DSE stands to gain $$ from this I urge you to ask him directly. I think you'll be surprised by the real answer.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 16, 2012, 8:30 PM
Post #76 of 195 (2592 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I've been around guns for 50 years and never shot myself, never 'got complacent' ~ Strong training & vigilance pays off.

Good, now never let yourself unconciously allow yourself to be "that guy" It CAN happen.

Quote:
If it saves a life is it worth it?

YES (IF)

Quote:
I strongly urge those on the wire to ask questions of the right people...get facts don't go on rumor or unreasonable assertions.

I ask the same.

Quote:
EFS ~ If you seriously believe DSE stands to gain $$ from this I urge you to ask him directly. I think you'll be surprised by the real answer.

I may just do that.

BTW my previous response was prior to my PM response.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 16, 2012, 8:48 PM
Post #77 of 195 (2587 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

....... Do we have incidents of low time WSers dying? The recent incidents I remember all entail very very experienced wingsuiters.

very very experienced wingsuiters.... who may not have been trained properly? Herein lyes the problem.

Following that logic, every very very experienced skydiver who hooks in under a perfectly good canopy may not have been trained properly, yet they were trained by USPA rated instructors.

In reply to:


And this is a problem that we can fix.

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 9:05 PM
Post #78 of 195 (2580 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

In reply to:

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.
Wink


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 16, 2012, 9:28 PM
Post #79 of 195 (2577 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

In reply to:

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.
Wink

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 9:33 PM
Post #80 of 195 (2575 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

In reply to:

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.
Wink

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.


And it's nice you agree it can only be 'FIXED if'...So you admit that there IS a problem that needs fixing, step one complete.
Cool

I offer a fix....you show me indisputable proof it won't work and then we'll discuss the benefit of doing nothing.

I think we have a pretty good handle on what the doin' nothing thing accomplishes fixing problems.

Wink


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 16, 2012, 9:39 PM)


SStewart  (D 10405)

Oct 16, 2012, 11:06 PM
Post #81 of 195 (2569 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

No

We should demand that USPA concentrate on real issues that affect all skydivers like airport access.

How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 16, 2012, 11:20 PM
Post #82 of 195 (2568 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No

We should demand that USPA concentrate on real issues that affect all skydivers like airport access.

How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.



Are my expectations too high...can't we address more than one issue at a time?


Halfpastniner  (D 30747)

Oct 17, 2012, 4:21 AM
Post #83 of 195 (2561 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

In reply to:

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.
Wink

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.

It seems to me that USPA realized they missed the boat on the canopy thing. They have started now to go back and put some things into place (like a required canopy course for a B license ect.). I think they just really want to get out ahead of this before it gets equally out of control as the carnage under canopy.

To me, that is a good thing. Like Twardo said, I think the USPA can handle a few different issues/programs at once. Nobody at HQ is saying "drop everything, we need to focus on wingsuits". Im sure canopy and IE issues are on the menu as well.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 17, 2012, 5:56 AM
Post #84 of 195 (2554 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Halfpastniner] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

In reply to:

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.
Wink

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.

It seems to me that USPA realized they missed the boat on the canopy thing. They have started now to go back and put some things into place (like a required canopy course for a B license ect.). I think they just really want to get out ahead of this before it gets equally out of control as the carnage under canopy.

To me, that is a good thing. Like Twardo said, I think the USPA can handle a few different issues/programs at once. Nobody at HQ is saying "drop everything, we need to focus on wingsuits". Im sure canopy and IE issues are on the menu as well.

Go read the fatality reports and report back to us on which issue is the more urgently in need of a fix - canopy flight or wingsuits.


Next show us some evidence that adding USPA ratings will solve either problem.

Then show us this "menu" of which you speak.


jimjumper  (D 11137)

Oct 17, 2012, 5:59 AM
Post #85 of 195 (2553 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

   It appears that the model that’s intended to be used for the WS rating program is the AFF program. The original AFF proposal resulted in an instructional program ruled by 4 individuals that held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take. The current plan for Wingsuits calls for only 7 IE’s so it’s going to take a long time to make WSI’s a common DZ staff member available to the rank and file.

For this system to work it's going to require a lot of traveling by either the evaluators or the evaluated. Of course, if you’re the one at the top, it’s understood that the person wanting the instruction pays. I see a lot of money in course costs, travel, and per diem, not to mention aircraft slots and classrooms. Somehow I don’t think that these new IE’s and I’s are going to hand out ratings for free. Also if I were looking for a job right now I’d be checking at USPA to see if all the Admin support jobs in the Safety and Training Department have been filled. I see a massive bureaucracy being paid for by both the jumper wanting to wingsuit and the general membership.

I also see Wingsuiting as a discipline being severely restricted by this system in it’s creativity in the name of “standardization” much like progressive thinking was (and is) discouraged in AFF teaching techniques. I keep reading on here about current WSI’s that believe they won’t have to make any changes to what they are already doing but if WS becomes a rating, if they are teaching at a USPA GM dropzone, they will have to be rated by USPA and essentially teach the syllabus provided. If you’re a current WSI make sure you read the proposal and be prepared to attend a rating course and to teach the proposed syllabus.

All this being said, I don’t think I can support the current proposal of a full rating system. The USPA survey question is supposed to be in the November issue which I haven’t seen yet but I’ll be interested in seeing how the question is phrased. I support more basic WS instruction but a rating system is excessive. Hopefully this won’t be handled the way the canopy instruction problem was handled and just passed off to some S+TA to designate someone they think knows what they are teaching. I am seeing that with more resistance to the rating idea being posted on-line that some people have ideas that would work and I would hope that everyone keeps an open mind when it comes to solving this problem with the least amount of intrusion and cost toi the average jumper.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 17, 2012, 6:02 AM
Post #86 of 195 (2552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
No

We should demand that USPA concentrate on real issues that affect all skydivers like airport access.

How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.

Sure. We can determine what the real issues are rather than guessing. THEN we devise real fixes for the actual problems rather than arrogantly assuming without any proof that we know what to do.

If the issue is complacency among experienced skydivers (which is the way the evidence points), then adding new USPA ratings won't fix it.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 17, 2012, 6:27 AM
Post #87 of 195 (2549 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If the issue is complacency among experienced skydivers (which is the way the evidence points), then adding new USPA ratings won't fix it.

+1 Thank you, exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 17, 2012, 6:30 AM
Post #88 of 195 (2546 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.

Connect the dots. Seriously it isn't hard to figure out who started the issue and the few that stand to benefit. It has been mentioned several times.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 17, 2012, 6:47 AM
Post #89 of 195 (2540 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
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.

This is DSE's quote from his Online opinion Poll sticky. Now correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this prove the BSR worked? and if so where the hell is there the need for WS-I & I/E? I fully supported the 200 jump BSR, and I could support adding to it as far as seeking instruciton from an experienced WSer but this proposed regime is unfounded.

Supporters need to open their eyes and mind instead of blindly supporting bullshit.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 17, 2012, 8:11 AM
Post #90 of 195 (2525 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Fighting complacency is a verh hard thing.

Agreed!

> I do not think a WS-I with standardized FFC taught will stop jumpers with hundreds of
> wingsuit jumps from complacency.

I think it will help. Very few people forget to pull because it has been drilled into them hard since jump 1 - and they practice it with two eyes on them for their first few jumps several times, then with one pair of eyes on them for their next many jumps. If they screw it up they get talked to - or fail the jump. If they screw it up enough they are told to leave and not come back.

Does that mean that no one will ever forget to pull? Of course not; there is no 100% prevention against complacency. But having that kind of training with that kind of emphasis on the importance of the action helps a lot IMO.

Likewise, there is a very big difference (IMO) between reading "launch with your wings collapsed" and doing it several times while someone is watching you, ready to tell you what you did wrong if you don't do it. Even after hundreds of jumps that muscle memory from WS jump #1 is going to make a difference, I think.

And again, tail strikes are only one of the many aspects that any WS course/checkout program will cover. There's far more to wingsuiting than the first few seconds out the door.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 17, 2012, 9:07 AM
Post #91 of 195 (2516 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
there is a very big difference (IMO) between reading "launch with your wings collapsed" and doing it several times while someone is watching you, ready to tell you what you did wrong if you don't do it.

I agree and I would support adding a standardized course backing it by mandation through a BSR. I just can not support DSE and a handful of others being the only ones that can teach it. There are PLENTY of wingsuiters out there capable of teaching me the basics of wingsuiting safely. If a buddy that has hundreds of wingsuit jumps is willing to teach me for free then he should be allowed to. We are not talking about an ISP program here. We are talking about jumpers with at the minimum 200 jumps.

Can you see a problem with a standardized course being mandated for new coming wingsuiters, but it being allowed by any experienced wingsuiter with at least a coach rating and say 200 WS jumps? This standard would include at least a couple coach jumps. I mean we let coaches with 50 jumps teach the non-method specific portion of the FJC to people that have NEVER skydived before!!!

I am all for education and safety Bill. I have been teaching the FJC's at my DZ for two years. I am an instructror in other professions as well which helps. My DZO recently said I did a better job at teaching it then him, which felt like an awesome compliment. Although I can't speak for him Gary Peek would probably approve of my instruction too. I just think this regime of 7 is wholey unnecessary. There will be a significant cost to the USPA, and individual members, all benifiting a few monetarily.

Schools like Flock-U and DSE's etc would still be doing their thing, and if qualified I would be able to seek my instruction from a mentor that is qualified. I had the benift of learning a little from a freeflier by the name of Sean Hutto. He has never charged me a dime. Same with Kiwi Hamilton at couch freaks, all I had to do was pay for the 5 jump tickets for him. That is the way it should be.

I think there is a middle ground here that would accomplish the same thing, and I wish some of these supporters would just think about that. Many are just going to see the ballot and check yes because the figure "safety" when they haven't done their homework or considered the consequences of instituting this.

Would current winguiters be grandfathered to this "rating" or will they have to go pay DSE? This is just wrong, not even needed, and not the only way to accomplish the goals.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 17, 2012, 9:43 AM
Post #92 of 195 (2508 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Can you see a problem with a standardized course being mandated for new coming
>wingsuiters, but it being allowed by any experienced wingsuiter with at least a coach
>rating and say 200 WS jumps?

That could work. Or maybe an instructor rating and 200 WS jumps. I think you'd want, at minimum, some indication that the guy knew how to do a first flight course. Maybe a quick checkout by someone who already has the rating; a "show me a first flight course" and you get signed off to teach them.


nigel99  (D 1)

Oct 17, 2012, 5:15 PM
Post #93 of 195 (2469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually Bill, I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases complacency. It makes it much easier to relax knowing that you were taught 'everything important'.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 17, 2012, 5:29 PM
Post #94 of 195 (2465 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases complacency.

Can you explain what you mean by a "one off" course?

Edited to add: Do you even know the courses that Flock-U and DSE teach currently?


(This post was edited by EFS4LIFE on Oct 17, 2012, 5:42 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 17, 2012, 8:54 PM
Post #95 of 195 (2433 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Actually Bill, I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases
>complacency.

?? I took a one-off AFF JCC. It definitely did not "increase complacency." If anything it taught me how little I knew about teaching skydiving. Same for my seaplane rating, divemaster rating (PADI not USPA) wreck certification etc.

>It makes it much easier to relax knowing that you were taught 'everything important'.

??????? No course in skydiving teaches "everything important." How the heck did you get that idea?


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 17, 2012, 9:03 PM
Post #96 of 195 (2429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
>Actually Bill, I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases
>complacency.

?? I took a one-off AFF JCC. It definitely did not "increase complacency." If anything it taught me how little I knew about teaching skydiving. Same for my seaplane rating, divemaster rating (PADI not USPA) wreck certification etc.

>It makes it much easier to relax knowing that you were taught 'everything important'.

??????? No course in skydiving teaches "everything important." How the heck did you get that idea?

+1,000,000


nigel99  (D 1)

Oct 18, 2012, 12:17 AM
Post #97 of 195 (2415 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Actually Bill, I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases
>complacency.

?? I took a one-off AFF JCC. It definitely did not "increase complacency." If anything it taught me how little I knew about teaching skydiving. Same for my seaplane rating, divemaster rating (PADI not USPA) wreck certification etc.

>It makes it much easier to relax knowing that you were taught 'everything important'.

??????? No course in skydiving teaches "everything important." How the heck did you get that idea?

What I'm getting at is continuing education and assessment are more effective than a course for people beyond the 'baby steps'. People tend to forget what they are taught over time, and develop bad habits. Human nature is to assume that because I was taught xyz 10 years ago I know what I'm doing.

In your case you've committed to continuing education. Compare that to someone with x number of jumps, whose never had tuition beyond the bare minimum for their A license. There are enough of them around, and they 'know everything'.


Ron

Oct 18, 2012, 4:54 AM
Post #98 of 195 (2405 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.


In reply to:

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation. Wink

So you'd like a PRO-I, PRO I/E and PRO-course director rating from USPA to train people to get PRO ratings - no one is born knowing how to get a PRO rating.

Ditto for freeflying - no-one is born knowing how to freefly.

Ditto for CRW - no one is born knowing how to do CRW.

Ditto for skysurfing - no-one is born knowing how to jump a board.

Ditto for pond surfing - no-one is born knowing how to do that.

What a lot of new USPA ratings you want.

Nope they sure aren't born with the skills...so what they do is boldly go into the unknown and hope they learn through osmosis before they get hurt or killed, or they pay someone with both the experience and the ability to teach it effectively, which is a safer and smarter way to go IMHO.

Of course some of them get hurt or killed anyway...hummm, bygosh maybe your right!

If there was only a way we could make sure the paid teachers are qualified to be teaching, and that they are all covering the same material the same basic way...what a wonderful world it WOULD be!

Cool




and like I said before...as soon as any or all of those various disciplines creates a situation across the board due to incidents...which if not addressed satisfactorily could in effect entirely change the way a drop-zone can do business, if at all

~ then yeah, I'm pretty sure some evaluation of skills and secondary training parameters might be put in place.

Uh the Pro rating was created because a bunch of yahoos were hurting themselves and others at demos.

So why not create a wingsuit rating exactly like the demo? You did notice that we didn't create an instructor rating to teach demos... Right?


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 18, 2012, 8:16 AM
Post #99 of 195 (2391 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Nigel99 I know your reply was focused to Bill, however that is what I was saying earlier up thread. No FJC or FFC is going to fight complacency. However, I don't see a lot of up jumpers being onboard with some kind of continuing education and evalutation of theirs skills. Hey lets go tell guys like Nick, Ian, BG, and such that we think they could get complacent so they have to now go do X. Um yeah that won't work, rightfully so. The ONLY way to battle complacency is through CONSTANT SELF-VIGILANCE. Don't take my experience or word for it, just look at all the study and research that has been conducted by the military, the secret service, law enforcement, etc.

Your "one off" course comment is what is being implemented. No one is really arguing about what should be taught in a FFC. People pretty much agree on that. But do we need a whole new I & I/E program to teach what has already been being taught? There is NO evidence to suggest that we do.

I agree with Ron. We don't have I & I/E for Pro, a point I brought up early in the thread. Hell I would change the verbage there too. I would call it a Pro endorsement. We could have a Wingsuit endorsement system as well. An experienced wingsuit should be allowed to give you a FFC and a couple coach jumps and sign you off.

DSE's own quote I posted early up thread confirms the BSR change worked. We do not need to make this more complicated and expensive than it needs to be. There is zero need for a new regime of I/E's just for wingsuits.

USPA should set a standardized FFC sure, I can buy that, but to think a Wingsuiter with a couple hundred winguit jumps who is already an instructor in other disciplines can't teach me is ridiculous.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 18, 2012, 8:24 AM
Post #100 of 195 (2387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>What I'm getting at is continuing education and assessment are more effective than
>a course for people beyond the 'baby steps'.

I agree that continuing education is very important. But so is getting the first big chunk of absolutely-need-to-know information. You can't start out in any new endeavor without knowing the basics.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 18, 2012, 9:16 AM
Post #101 of 195 (2818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

So why not create a wingsuit rating exactly like the demo? You did notice that we didn't create an instructor rating to teach demos... Right?

In reply to:

Don't give me any ideas Ron...I keep hearin' about all the $$ one can make setting up a program! Wink

Of course big-picture, there probably are more WS jumps on any nice weekend than there are demo jumps in a year...could have something to do with it.


Ron

Oct 19, 2012, 11:12 AM
Post #102 of 195 (2770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Don't give me any ideas Ron...I keep hearin' about all the $$ one can make setting up a program!

And unless you are giving it away for free, you can. Make your training 'mandatory' and then you have just put a lock on the market.

Quote:
Of course big-picture, there probably are more WS jumps on any nice weekend than there are demo jumps in a year...could have something to do with it.

Yep, more money to be made so some see it as more worth the effort.


Ron

Oct 19, 2012, 11:19 AM
Post #103 of 195 (2769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Are my expectations too high...can't we address more than one issue at a time?

The USPA has shown it can't. The USPA has shown it can't really do what it was created to do very well.

1. The USPA didn't create AFF.
2. The USPA didn't create Tandem training.
3. The USPA didn't promote the use of throw outs.
4. The USPA didn't create coaching.
5. The USPA didn't teach canopy control.
6. The USPA didn't teach free flying.
7. The USPA banned wingsuits.

So, no.... Not only do I not see a need for this level of a solution - But the USPA has proven to be pretty bad at doing much of anything.

Simply put, if I didnt have to be a member to jump at most DZ's.. I'd tell them to pound sand.

If I was going to support any education from the USPA, it would be canopy control, something that effects EVERY member, not just a very small sample.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 19, 2012, 2:34 PM
Post #104 of 195 (2753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

If I was going to support any education from the USPA, it would be canopy control, something that effects EVERY member, not just a very small sample.


In reply to:

Ron I couldn't agree with you more!

Just need somebody to write it up A ~ Z, get all parties to concur on content, language & format.

Hand it to the BOD with 25,000 sigs demanding action and we're set...!

Wonder if I could get a $10,000 'loan' from the general fund to get the ball rolling!! WinkSly


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 19, 2012, 3:19 PM
Post #105 of 195 (2746 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Was it brought up by DSE who would stand to gain quite a bit personally? Do some critical thinking on the issue please. If you have, and you have made your decision then okay. I respect you two guys a lot. Bill your checklist on downsizing was a great contribution to upcoming jumpers such as me. Airtwardo I dig your long time commitment to the sport, and I agree with your post 99.9% of the time,.


DSE doesn't stand to gain sh** personally, but it's a convenient untruth told by many.
You're welcome (even invited) to call my DZO's and ask them exactly how much I profit from wingsuiting instruction.

The answer is, the same exact amount you and anyone else has ever paid for my written guides, video instruction, reference manuals for DZO's and S&TA's, or anything else I've ever published here on DZ.com, Vimeo, Facebook, or anywhere else that isn't on a DVD.
Zip.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 19, 2012, 3:56 PM
Post #106 of 195 (2739 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
DSE doesn't stand to gain sh** personally, but it's a convenient untruth told by many.

So I have been told Spot. Let me ask you something though. Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

Why do you think it is necessary to start a whole new I & I/E system?

It is not an attack on you personally that people are skeptical of the reasoning for what many feel is unneeded. If people feel it is unneeded then it is natural to question why it is being brought up and what motives there may be.

If it is truly because you feel you can make the dicipline you hold dear safer and better, then I applaud your efforts, even if I disagree with the method you propose.

I honestly feel that it is complacency amoung experienced wingsuiters that is causing the often brought up tailstikes. Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 19, 2012, 5:01 PM
Post #107 of 195 (2726 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught
>by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

I'd support it provided he knew and understood the curriculum. (i.e. it wouldn't help things much if people were teaching to inflate their wings right at exit.)


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 19, 2012, 8:42 PM
Post #108 of 195 (2707 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I'd support it provided he knew and understood the curriculum. (i.e. it wouldn't help things much if people were teaching to inflate their wings right at exit.)



Come on Bill what wingsuiter that is another instructor and has at least 200 WS jumps would be teaching open wings on exit? Especially if the curriculum was standardized and spelled out? Really?


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 19, 2012, 8:49 PM
Post #109 of 195 (2706 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught
>by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

I'd support it provided he knew and understood the curriculum. (i.e. it wouldn't help things much if people were teaching to inflate their wings right at exit.)

I'm sure that AFF-I's teach not to turn low to the ground, but it doesn't stop experienced skydivers from killing themselves with low turns.

The issue is complacency and poor judgment, not poor instruction.

It's exactly the same as pilots flying VFR into IMC, or low level buzzing. Every pilot is taught not to do it, but it's still a big killer of GA pilots.

You won't solve a misdiagnosed problem with a remedy to a different problem.

This proposal is like prescribing chemotherapy for bird flu.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 19, 2012, 8:55 PM
Post #110 of 195 (2703 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

and the Professor speaks wisdom. +1


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 19, 2012, 11:28 PM
Post #111 of 195 (2688 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

no.

44
Cool


craigbey  (C 31991)

Oct 20, 2012, 8:07 AM
Post #112 of 195 (2663 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If I was going to support any education from the USPA, it would be canopy control, something that effects EVERY member, not just a very small sample.

The 'P' in the name stands for something. The USPA should be all over the development, implementation and oversight of canopy control well beyond what they have done up to now. They need to take more of a leadership role in that process instead of hoping that other groups will pick up where they have stopped.

Recent changes are steps in the right direction, but CC is something that affects everyone and deserves more attention.

Sorry for the tangent.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 20, 2012, 9:19 AM
Post #113 of 195 (2651 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
DSE doesn't stand to gain sh** personally, but it's a convenient untruth told by many.

So I have been told Spot. Let me ask you something though. Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

Why do you think it is necessary to start a whole new I & I/E system?

It is not an attack on you personally that people are skeptical of the reasoning for what many feel is unneeded. If people feel it is unneeded then it is natural to question why it is being brought up and what motives there may be.

If it is truly because you feel you can make the dicipline you hold dear safer and better, then I applaud your efforts, even if I disagree with the method you propose.

I honestly feel that it is complacency amoung experienced wingsuiters that is causing the often brought up tailstikes. Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?

I'll say it againTongue
There are exit techniques being taught that ENCOURAGE tailstrikes (plenty of video as recent as last week to demonstrate this)
There are exit techniques that discourage tailstrikes.
Taught to new wingsuiters, these techniques and methods become habitual in one direction or another.

Every week, we have someone come through the school for advanced coaching that has not been taught proper ISR techniques (if any at all). This is very troubling.

Cutaways happen with some degree of frequency to new wingsuiters; this is not acceptable. This is in great part due to poor training.

Tandem Instructors, Static Line Instructors, IAD Instructors, AFF Instructors all share a common language. Yet we have wingsuit "Instructors" that have no training background at all, no concept of the most basic pedagogy used by instructors.
DZO's know that every Tandem Instructor, Static Line Instructor, IAD Instructor, AFF Instructor, or Coach has been trained to, and met (at minimum) a standard line of achievement before being allowed to coach/teach on the dropzone. They have demonstrated safety ability, and understand the underpinnings of USPA philosophy and process. Wingsuit "instructors" do not. I believe this is why almost every DZO and S&TA polled voted in favor of standardized instruction administered by USPA.

Just because a guy has 4-5 wingsuit jumps and survived does not make him an "instructor."
Perhaps ask yourself how a school solely dedicated to wingsuit instruction can demonstrate hundreds of First Flight Courses, thousands of instructional jumps over a 4 year test period, and show zero incidents, off landings, and only 2 cutaways (not FFC-related). Is that luck? Or perhaps a program steeped in the best traditions and practices of USPA and instructional excellence?

It's not just complacency; it's bad training by people who have no idea how to train. They may have many wingsuits in their closet, they might even be a bad-ass wingsuiter. But that doesn't give them the knowledge needed to teach.

FWIW, USPA administration of a standard training program is not "regulation." Actual "Regulation" comes in the form of insurance companies threatening or acting against wingsuiters, and actual regulation comes from the FAA getting into the wingsuit conversation.

##

To specifically answer your question, I would (and do) support a standardized instructional training system. That is the entire goal of the proposal. However...USPA only has one "box" for instruction. It's called a "rating." I didn't design the system, I'm merely trying to work within the boundaries created within the system.

I've made all my materials free to the public because I believed at one time, that people would use the materials if they were available.
Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed.
It shouldn't be about "I can't support this because that guy is a dick" or "I can't support that because it's not USPA's charter to train advanced skydivers."

It's all about safety and growing the discipline. That's all it's about, and all it should be about.


bigbearfng  (D 29442)

Oct 20, 2012, 12:35 PM
Post #114 of 195 (2636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?
__________________________________________________
Could you please address this?

__________________________________________________
Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed.
__________________________________________________
I really would like to know exactly what this referred to "method of exit" is?

Versus what is addressed in the SIM?


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 20, 2012, 6:58 PM
Post #115 of 195 (2604 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bigbearfng] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?
__________________________________________________
Could you please address this?

__________________________________________________
Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed.
__________________________________________________
I really would like to know exactly what this referred to "method of exit" is?

Versus what is addressed in the SIM?

The proposal is aimed at reducing tailstrikes, off landings, incidents involving instability, general aviation concerns, equipment differences, navigational issues, traffic issues. Insurance companies, FAA, and DZO's really don't care about how we deal with these issues; they merely want them dealt with. Internally is easier and more effective than external forces.

The SIM can't address various aircraft configs, and there was quite a bit of disagreement from one of the vocal people that teach WS, that insisted on not having an exit pro forma in the SIM. So, it was left out.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 20, 2012, 8:22 PM
Post #116 of 195 (2594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?


Sorry Spot but you never answered this question.

Maybe you either didn't read up thread, or I was unclear earlier, however by "experienced wingsuiter" I was referring to a current USPA instructor with at least 200 winsuit jumps. The lowest common denominator of which would be a coach with at least 200 WS jumps. That would equal 200 (the current BSR for WS, plus 200 WS jumps for a total of 400 jumps, 200 which would have to be WS experience.

I seem to have the opinion this would be more than adequate to teach a FFC. I mean we are talking about experienced jumpers with 200 jumps here. Not a FJC course where they have never jumped before, yet USPA currently allows coaches to those wuffos the FJC.

How was the process conducted to pick these 7 I/E's and 40 WS-I's?

Spot I wish you would stop being so defensive for a minute and realize a few things. One I have never made a wingsuit jump. I know that you have been in the WS game for a very long time. No one is doubting your credentials as far as that goes brother. Some people are just of differing minds when it comes to how this should be implemented. I am relatively sure that your curriculum as far as the FFC should be the standard, just not that we need a new examiner and instructor program for what are already experienced jumpers. Every other examiner and instructor program in the USPA is for the instruction of non licensed skydivers, not people with 200+ jumps already.

So I ask you for the last time one simple plain sentence that really only requires a yes or a no.

Would you Douglas Spotted Eagle support your FFC curriclum being taught by already current USPA instructors that have at least 200 WS jumps?

If not, please tell us why?


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 20, 2012, 8:55 PM
Post #117 of 195 (2588 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Would you Douglas Spotted Eagle support your FFC curriclum being taught by already current USPA instructors that have at least 200 WS jumps?

If not, please tell us why?

No.
I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 20, 2012, 9:49 PM
Post #118 of 195 (2578 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'll say it again
There are exit techniques being taught that ENCOURAGE tailstrikes (plenty of video as recent as last week to demonstrate this)

Please share with the rest of us. And tell us where and who the "instructors" are who teach these methods that you believe are unsafe.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 21, 2012, 3:25 AM
Post #119 of 195 (2563 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

Thats funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven effiecency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.


bigbearfng  (D 29442)

Oct 21, 2012, 7:49 AM
Post #120 of 195 (2537 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

Thats funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven effiecency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.

+10!
There may well be no further financial gain to be had for you, however with your above statement calling it a "power grab" is sure how it comes off.

And with all due respect, I still would really like to know what these exit techniques are that encourage tailstrikes that are being taught out there?


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Oct 21, 2012, 8:15 AM
Post #121 of 195 (2531 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jimjumper] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It appears that the model that’s intended to be used for the WS rating program is the AFF program. The original AFF proposal resulted in an instructional program ruled by 4 individuals that held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take. The current plan for Wingsuits calls for only 7 IE’s so it’s going to take a long time to make WSI’s a common DZ staff member available to the rank and file.

For this system to work it's going to require a lot of traveling by either the evaluators or the evaluated. Of course, if you’re the one at the top, it’s understood that the person wanting the instruction pays. I see a lot of money in course costs, travel, and per diem, not to mention aircraft slots and classrooms. Somehow I don’t think that these new IE’s and I’s are going to hand out ratings for free. Also if I were looking for a job right now I’d be checking at USPA to see if all the Admin support jobs in the Safety and Training Department have been filled. I see a massive bureaucracy being paid for by both the jumper wanting to wingsuit and the general membership.

I also see Wingsuiting as a discipline being severely restricted by this system in it’s creativity in the name of “standardization” much like progressive thinking was (and is) discouraged in AFF teaching techniques. I keep reading on here about current WSI’s that believe they won’t have to make any changes to what they are already doing but if WS becomes a rating, if they are teaching at a USPA GM dropzone, they will have to be rated by USPA and essentially teach the syllabus provided. If you’re a current WSI make sure you read the proposal and be prepared to attend a rating course and to teach the proposed syllabus.

All this being said, I don’t think I can support the current proposal of a full rating system. The USPA survey question is supposed to be in the November issue which I haven’t seen yet but I’ll be interested in seeing how the question is phrased. I support more basic WS instruction but a rating system is excessive. Hopefully this won’t be handled the way the canopy instruction problem was handled and just passed off to some S+TA to designate someone they think knows what they are teaching. I am seeing that with more resistance to the rating idea being posted on-line that some people have ideas that would work and I would hope that everyone keeps an open mind when it comes to solving this problem with the least amount of intrusion and cost toi the average jumper.

If there were a LIKE button this would get my vote. If not rolled out correctly with multiple examiners and instructors in place well before it becomes mandatory we will kill wingsuiting. That is more of a risk than these FAA ghouls.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 21, 2012, 9:11 AM
Post #122 of 195 (2522 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

That's funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven efficiency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.


Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach?

The one I went through spent quite a bit of time discussing HOW to relay the information to someone in a way they would not only understand it, but would also be on the same page (hopefully) with every OTHER coach teaching the course anywhere else.

Quick story~ A good friend of mine went through an AFF course on the left coast a few years ago. He's a very intelligent athletic guy not some dweeb.

He voiced some concerns to me after 10-12 jumps, about realizing he wasn't comfortable with some EP's and wondered if anyone had ever thought of making a 'hanging harness' type training aid. Crazy

We rigged one up in his garage and went through the drill a couple dozen times one night...during the course of the evening I came to realize that his initial instructor was not only unthorough - skipping an integral part of the training, but also rather unclear regarding important terminology.

I didn't understand something my friend was trying to relate to me so I unpacked my rig and said point to the risers...he grabbed the slider.

It seems during the class the AFFI had picked up the slider on an unpacked rig and pointing down, began discussing the risers.

~no doubt the AFFI knew what he meant, you & I know what he meant...but the guy needing the information didn't get it because that AFFI either forgot or never knew HOW to relay it.

Maybe I just got lucky with the Coach rating examiner and he's really good...I was a SL I for 20 years, taught AFF before there was a rating, got my TI rating when drogues were just coming out. I figured I know how to teach, I'm an active skydiver, the coach thing is a 'gimme' needed to jump with n00bs...going through that class made it clear there was a lot more to it than I'd thought.

So no, I don't agree with you that after a couple hundred wingsuit jumps 'just anybody' can 'teach'.

Just because ya KNOW doesn't mean ya can SHOW it.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 21, 2012, 10:35 AM
Post #123 of 195 (2509 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bigbearfng] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

That's funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven efficiency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.

+10!
There may well be no further financial gain to be had for you, however with your above statement calling it a "power grab" is sure how it comes off.

And with all due respect, I still would really like to know what these exit techniques are that encourage tail-strikes that are being taught out there?


Just to be clear~

It was EFS4LIFE that made the 'power grab' comment not DSE.


~this part is addressed to EFS4LIFE: power grab

I'm not trying to be condescending in anyway here, I have nothing but respect for you and your accomplishments both in & out of the sport...but I want to point something out to you, that ya may wanna reflect on for a second.

This is the 2nd argument you've voiced that IMO has no validity in fact.

The 1st was in regard to the monetary gains DSE would 'surely realize' if this thing goes through.

Via PM's I asked you if you had any factual information to cite or if it was an opinion you were basically parroting - unfounded concerns you'd heard.

As I did then on that - I'll ask you now on this.

~ how exactly do you perceive this 'power grab' that you brought up will take place?

Sketch it out for me because I don't understand HOW the pathway to power (and riches) presents itself to an instructor at a southern California drop-zone who is IMO simply trying to promote a safe progression into an area of the sport with which he's intimately familiar??

IF that were the case, trust me the USPA is the last place DSE would be lobbying to get a standardized curriculum instituted.

So again~ how EXACTLY does this power grab take place?

You're an LEO, you understand the importance of being objective and not relying on unfounded conjecture.

When I hear the Power Grab argument I think - prema facie case, for the record, are ya stating opinion, theory or what.

I object - Hearsay ~ you're stating facts not in evidence.

How EXACTLY did you arrive at that conclusion...Angelic


Edited to add:
The reason I bring this up this way is because it's an easy trap to fall into.

I did it myself, this past summer I was presented with some 1st hand information regarding Wicked Wingsuits that allowed me to draw some conclusions that were NOT necessarily accurate.

Instead of contacting WW with my concern I went off 'ready-fire-aim'.

Later WW cleared some things up with me showing that just because 'A' is true, my conjecture that 'B' & 'C' must also be true was not only unfounded but but also unfair.

I realize that though I had some valid concerns and still might on a couple of things, I had/have no evidence to support my fear...oops. Wink


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 21, 2012, 11:12 AM)


bigbearfng  (D 29442)

Oct 21, 2012, 10:48 AM
Post #124 of 195 (2504 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Seems you replyed to my post but addressed the Q to EFS4LIFE?
If I may answer from my perspective of the "power grab" comment?
Quote from an above post follows.

"It appears that the model that’s intended to be used for the WS rating program is the AFF program. The original AFF proposal resulted in an instructional program ruled by 4 individuals that held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take. The current plan for Wingsuits calls for only 7 IE’s so it’s going to take a long time to make WSI’s a common DZ staff member available to the rank and file. "
_________________________________________________


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 21, 2012, 11:31 AM
Post #125 of 195 (2493 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bigbearfng] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take.


In reply to:

I see by your profile your time in the sport wouldn't allow you to necessarily understand the what's & why's with that.

When AFF came out it was figured (rightly so) that it was a somewhat technically difficult & intense manner of instruction. In order to make it work, to show a positive result of it's utilization, only the best of the best COULD pass the requirements.

The sport grew...the best instructors couldn't handle the volume, the requirements were downgraded, then the pool of qualified AFFI's stated to experience 'burn out' ...the sport NEEDED instructors, the quals were again lowered.

Where we are now...

Couple of years ago I stopped by an out of state DZ to make a few jumps, there was an AFF certification course going on.

By chance I was in the aircraft when some of the final eval jumps were being made.

One forgot his altimeter, one couldn't get the 'student' in position at the door for over 3 minutes, one started crying because she's forgotten to check if her PC was cocked...these were the cream of the crop on their final eval jumps!

Over a beer I was discussing what I'd seen with a long time friend who was the visiting AFF-IE.

To paraphrase ~ That IS currently the best of the best in the available pool.

Yeah things have changed...but take from someone that's seen the whole thing happen. Not ALL changes are necessarily for the better, some are out of necessity.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 21, 2012, 2:02 PM
Post #126 of 195 (2539 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach?

I think we may be miscommunicating here Jim. You are either unwittingly agreeing with me, or I did too poor of a job expressing my thoughts. That WAS exactly my point! I will be more specific in this post hopefully.

My point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach.

Now, I contend that an "experienced WSer" - (I just pulled 200 WS jumps from my ass, I would like feedback from the WS community on that final number, but for arguements sake lets say 200 WS jumps defines this "expereinced wingsuiter")- that is ALREADY a USPA instructor should be able to teach a USPA standardized FFC. They have already properly demonstrated the ability to teach, because they are already instructors, i.e. AFF-I, TI, etc. and they are experienced enough in the subject matter, that being wingsuiting, that they should be able to pick up the standard curriculm and teach it. They already teach people that have NEVER skydived before I am sure that they would be fine teaching jumpers that have 200 plus jumps. Remember that with the WS BSR it is a 200 jump min. so this "expereinced WSer" would have at the very least 400 jumps. 200 prior to WSing, and at least 200 WS jumps. Add to that he must be an instructor (AFF-I, TI, etc.) and you are looking at most likely more jumps than that.

Do you understand what I am saying?

I believe this could work and there is no need for an entire WS-I/E and WS-I program.

1. Develop a standard USPA FFC. Just like the FJC only for WS.

2. Add to the existing WS BSR that a WS wannabe must complete this FFC.

3. Define that the FFC course can be taught by an "experienced wingsuiter" (200+ WS jumps?) that is a current USPA instructor. (AFF-I, TI, IAD-I, etc.)

In reply to:
Just to be clear~

It was EFS4LIFE that made the 'power grab' comment not DSE.

Just to be clear. I think bigbearfng was clear and was agreeing with my comment. If not I believe he will correct me.

In reply to:
IF that were the case, trust me the USPA is the last place DSE would be lobbying to get a standardized curriculum instituted.

Jim are you mad? That is exactly where he MUST go to get it instituted! Where else could he get this mandated for all skydivers lol.

In reply to:
You're an LEO, you understand the importance of being objective and not relying on unfounded conjecture.

When I hear the Power Grab argument I think - prema facie case, for the record, are ya stating opinion, theory or what.

I object - Hearsay ~ you're stating facts not in evidence

Me being a LEO has no bearing on my opinion on this matter, however since you want to bring it into the equation, okay I will bite.

Do you know what Prima Facie is? (not prema, what the hell is that?)

Prima Facie comes from latin, it basically means at first glance. Litterally translated I believe it means at first face. In common law (which we practice) it means evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular propsition or fact. Most all cases require prima facie to exist, then proceedings take place to test it. The speed limit on exit ramps where it is yellow is an example of prima facie law. The regular ones are absolute limits. I can site a person for breaking a prima facie speed limit and the onus is then on the driver to show that the speed he was operating at was safe under the conditions. Too fast for conditions. Per se law is something like the B.A.C. of .08%. The state says you are drunk per se at that level, even though some career alcoholics I know wouldn't even feel buzzed at that level.

Further more you need some education on hearsay. Hearsay is where I attempt to submit evidence that I heard from somebody that heard something from somebody else. That is not what is going on here. This is all public knowledge and being discussed on an open forum, that DSE himself is participating in.

So yes, Prima Facie, it looks like a power grab to me, and apparently I am not alone in that view. To have your handpicked 7 I/E's controling the entire discipline of wingsuiting in the US is a grab of power, PER SE.

In reply to:
So again~ how EXACTLY does this power grab take place?

By the USPA membership voting yes, creating a little cabinet of WS Czar's that we must all flock to if we want to don wingies.

Quote:
I see by your profile your time in the sport wouldn't allow you to necessarily understand the what's & why's with that.

Jim you could study war history and know a lot about what happened in the American Revolution, but you weren't there right? I don't think your THAT old. Please do not use statements like these. They seem a little condescending towards jumpers that haven't been around as long as you, and from experience it leaves a bad taste in those jumpers mouth. By all means please edjucate us younger jumpers as to your recollection of the history involved, but you can leave out that crap and I bet you would be heard better.

I have heard from some guys that have been around since the start of the AFF program the same sentiment that bigbearnfg is referring to. It may have played out that way for some of the reasoning you gave, but it was still an issue. It is a valid concern in this issue as well. In DSE's own post he admitts it will hurt the potenital newcomers to the WS discipline at smaller DZ's. Small DZ's are the majority of places where people jump across this country. Not all of us are lucky enough to be near big DZ's.

I believe this idea above could work. DSE of course does not. Apparently, he thinks that our current instructors can't teach, and he must evalute and pass anyone that is going to teach a FFC. That is nonsense. There really is not THAT much in a FFC. Go to one of the schools currently teaching. Hell I bet DSE's is similiar. Half the day on the ground instructing, second half making some coach jumps, bang your done. You are WS qualified.

I see no need to institute a whole WS-I/E and WS-I system. It is overkill and will be costly.

editied for clarification of prima facie speed vs. absolute


(This post was edited by EFS4LIFE on Oct 21, 2012, 2:28 PM)


jimjumper  (D 11137)

Oct 21, 2012, 2:30 PM
Post #127 of 195 (2531 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Actually the post BigBearFNG and Wicked Suits are quoting is mine. And I have been around long enough to see the full evolution of the AFF program. I stand by what I posted and think that there are easier and more cost effective ways to do this.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 21, 2012, 4:45 PM
Post #128 of 195 (2511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

That's funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven efficiency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.


Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach?

No, it does NOT. It shows that you sat through a few hours of a course on pedagogy taught by someone who doesn't even have to have the most basic professional teaching credential.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 21, 2012, 4:56 PM
Post #129 of 195 (2506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

My point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach.

My step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 21, 2012, 5:20 PM
Post #130 of 195 (2498 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach.

Kallend we are not talking about teaching in an actual school, or the credentials required. We are talking about teaching a WS course. I highly value your opinion. You are an experienced WS, and you have shown the ability to think critically. Do you have any suggestions on how the USPA should handle this issue?


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 21, 2012, 5:48 PM
Post #131 of 195 (2486 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I believe this idea above could work. DSE of course does not. Apparently, he thinks that our current instructors can't teach, and he must evalute and pass anyone that is going to teach a FFC. That is nonsense. There really is not THAT much in a FFC. Go to one of the schools currently teaching. Hell I bet DSE's is similiar. Half the day on the ground instructing, second half making some coach jumps, bang your done. You are WS qualified.

I sure wish you were right. If there was a way to cram a 1.5 day course (not including eval jumps) into half a day...I'd have more time to watch "Storage Wars"Cool


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Oct 21, 2012, 5:49 PM
Post #132 of 195 (2484 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach?

In reply to:
My point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach.

This is not true at all. You are talking about book learning. What Coaches learn is some minor pointers on how people learn, minor pointers on how to present information and a whole heapin' bunch of how to regurgitate just two specific ISP jumps. What AFFIs learn is even less than that.

Once the regurgitation is successfully completed and the ratings handed out, all the rest of the "schooling" is forgotten and ignored.

They are not required to know jack about skydiving in general.

So, IMO, if wingsuit I/E course work is going to be anything like Coach and AFFI I/E is done, forget it and come up with something that is going to produce good I/Es all operating off the same page.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Oct 21, 2012, 5:53 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 21, 2012, 5:50 PM
Post #133 of 195 (2483 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
My step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach.

Kallend we are not talking about teaching in an actual school, or the credentials required. We are talking about teaching a WS course.

But that is NOT what the coach course is all about. I fail to see its relevance. If you're concerned with pedagogy, then exempt professional educators from the coach requirement since they've had the real training and actual classroom experience.


In reply to:
I highly value your opinion. You are an experienced WS, and you have shown the ability to think critically. Do you have any suggestions on how the USPA should handle this issue?

Yes, I do.

1. Standardized curriculum

2. DZO's enforce it. DZO or S&TA nominates I candidates acceptable to them, send nomination packet to USPA RD, who endorses (or not).

3. NO I/E needed. No centralized bureaucracy needed. This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different.

4. No precedent is set for requiring ratings for "advanced" discipline instruction.

5. Post Simon's "Keep Your Wings CLosed" placard by the door to remind experienced folks not to be complacent. Complacency, not inadequate training, is clearly the cause of the problems.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Oct 21, 2012, 6:05 PM
Post #134 of 195 (2478 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
4. No precedent is set for requiring ratings for "advanced" discipline instruction.

The proverbial "can-o-worms" that nobody wants.
Who is next? CrW? Camera? Inflatables?

Some guys are seemingly trying to legislate the sport right into the ground.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 21, 2012, 6:37 PM
Post #135 of 195 (2473 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

My point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach.

My step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach.

I'm required 120 clock hours of related professional development to renew my teaching license every 5 years. In return, I move up in pay scale to reflect this advanced understanding of teaching practices. If we're going to start these analogies, tread carefully..... Cool


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 21, 2012, 7:47 PM
Post #136 of 195 (2461 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jimjumper] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Actually the post BigBearFNG and Wicked Suits are quoting is mine. And I have been around long enough to see the full evolution of the AFF program. I stand by what I posted and think that there are easier and more cost effective ways to do this.

I was speaking strictly from my experience will the AFF program back then...and seeing (as I said) what it has become in 'some' instances.

I got into the crowd that thought AFF was a grand idea. A great way to teach and get 'student' up to speed faster than the basic S/L course that was commonplace back then.

It was fun, and it was a rodeo at times...lucky nobody got dead.

USPA got on board and came up with 'rules' and a curriculum and OMG...a RATING! ShockedCrazy

I'd been a S/L instructor for years, why do I need ANOTHER rating to teach skydiving?! (sound familiar)

One of the designated So. Cal. AFF-IE's (1st generation) explained it to me and said IF you're as good as you say, the rating should be a breeze...

I had to wonder because I saw guys I KNEW were better flyers than me fail...I didn't even try at the time because it was obvious they were pulling only the top talent, dedicated pros that would focus on THAT exclusively (at least for a while)...I wasn't one of those guys.

I knew what the quals were, how the program was set up, who was passing, who wasn't & why...that AFF-IE was my room-mate for 10 years.

I may have a slightly different view on the evolution of that program than some, having seen it from both sides...but I stand by what I posted as well.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 21, 2012, 7:58 PM
Post #137 of 195 (2455 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Prima Facie comes from latin, it basically means at first glance. Litterally translated I believe it means at first face. In common law (which we practice) it means evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

In reply to:

I understand that..it's exactly what I'm saying.

You said Power grab...I re-butt that. Becasue as you point out if someone didn't it would be 'fact'.

Power grab...It's not so ~ just because you say it's so. I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.

& No I'm not madd, yes I understand that the USPA is the only place to have this program instituted, I also understand that going the 'only' available route pretty much excludes some Power Grab being discussed...that's the point I was trying to make.

Unless there is something I'm not seeing...how will this power grab thing work - specifically?


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 21, 2012, 8:15 PM
Post #138 of 195 (2452 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

So the I/E program is a failure now too?

Matt


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 21, 2012, 9:45 PM
Post #139 of 195 (2444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So the I/E program is a failure now too?

Matt

If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 21, 2012, 9:55 PM
Post #140 of 195 (2442 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Power grab...It's not so ~ just because you say it's so. I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.
In reply to:

It is so, not because I say so. It is so because it is res ipsa loquitur. The fact that 7 I/E's will control anyone who wants to teach a FFC is by itself a shift of power. DSE is proposing it therefore it is a "power grab" from him. You can argue his MOTIVES for the move for him, but that does not change what it is.

Quote:
IF that were the case, trust me the USPA is the last place DSE would be lobbying to get a standardized curriculum instituted.

I responded the USPA is the only place he could lobby.

Quote:
I also understand that going the 'only' available route pretty much excludes some Power Grab being discussed...that's the point I was trying to make.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about good sir. You have me thoroughly confused. First you say it is the last place he would go if he was attempting to power grab, and then you say that going the only available route excludes a power grab. I am just a lowly cop man. I can't get your reasoning here.

Quote:
I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.

Evidence of what? The butler in the library with the candlestick? There is no physical evidence judging someone's motives over the interent, but there are interesting points to be made. One he is keeping details of tailstrike incidents on the "down-low" I believe was his words. In other words he is using an anonymous incident as evidence to support his proposal. I wish that evidence was submissible in court, but it isn't. In court anonymous doesn't exist. Two, he is claiming there are instructors out there at well know WS schools teaching to exit with some unnamed anonymous poor exit technique, but despite repeated requests to name the source he has so far refused.

It is clear that a lot of people are split on this issue. I don't think you are going to change your mind, and I am not going to change mine. So we can just let it be what it is. Sadly I believe the vote will pass just because people will do it for "safety" without thinking of the big picture here.

Mark my words though. It will not stop tailstrikes. It will cost our association a lot of money, and it is not necessary. It is unprecedented to create a I/E program for advanced disciplines. It is not the road that I believe the USPA should travel down.

YMMV.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 21, 2012, 10:00 PM
Post #141 of 195 (2444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>Come on Bill what wingsuiter that is another instructor and has at least 200 WS jumps
>would be teaching open wings on exit?

Wasn't there a discussion here about how it's the experienced wingsuiters who are screwing up, not the newer ones? The AFF JCC teaches you nothing about wingsuiting. And if the only addition to that is wingsuit experience, and the experienced wingsuiters are the ones with the problem, it doesn't really help the situation.

I don't think it's asking too much to ask that a potential instructor knows the curriculum he's supposed to teach. (And keep in mind that wings-folded-on-exit is one tiny part of it.)


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 21, 2012, 10:03 PM
Post #142 of 195 (2444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.

And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion.

Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none.


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 22, 2012, 5:58 AM
Post #143 of 195 (2424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Wasn't there a discussion here about how it's the experienced wingsuiters who are screwing up, not the newer ones? The AFF JCC teaches you nothing about wingsuiting. And if the only addition to that is wingsuit experience, and the experienced wingsuiters are the ones with the problem, it doesn't really help the situation.

Bravo Bill. Excellent point. I am being serious here, not smart ass or sarcastic. Believe it or not I am open to actually thinking about this issue.

I just don't think the diagnosis is correct. As Kallend has stated serveral times. I believe tailstrikes are from complacency. I do not believe a WS I/E program will fix this issue.

As fas as the AFF example you gave, let me draw another comparison. If a coach candidate showed up to a coach course without already knowing how to increase/decrease fall rate or forward/backward movement then there is no way he is going to pass his eval jumps. Those are skills he learned in his ISP and has spent time perfecting with experience. Although someone with just 100 jumps is by no means perfect at them yet. The same can be applied to WS experience exp. IMO.

I was just throwing this prior instructor thing out there honestly as a way to help validate the potential FFC teacher to a group of people that think this WS I/E regime is necessary. The people that argue that some instructors may not teach it well enough is lame, because they are instructors that passed an examiner's course. If DSE's proposal is implemented then 20 years from now we are going to have some that are unfit to hold ratings for WS-I, just like we have TI's that allow granny to almost fall out of her harness today. To think this will be any different is rediculous.

I will be the first to admit that I am a youngster (as far as time in this sport) and that I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I can't think critically about an important issue that will effect our sport and association.

I believe Kallend's proposal would work. We allow a S&TA to observe the profeciency landings required for a Pro Rating already, I believe the same could be adopted for WS.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 22, 2012, 7:19 AM
Post #144 of 195 (2415 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
So the I/E program is a failure now too?

Matt

If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing.

No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic.

You are a well educated man, holder of many teaching credentials and have held them for numerous years. But, that level of credentialing is not needed if one is teaching a single subject, sure it can be a benefit, but it is not necessarily needed.

To the original question of this thread, Yes-I think WS'rs and USPA Members who wish to be WS'rs, should, and would, want Standardized WS Training.

Very similar to AFF and Tandem etc. Since those are Basic forms of Instruction I think they make a good example, for some we should be using advance skills as the example.

OK.

Belly or Traditional RW, there are standardized skills sets now, exits, verticals, grip presentation, techniques for blocks, and more, are almost down to a very few alternates, most all of the RW Coaches are using the same standards yo advance their students. We see similar actions in High Performance Landings Coaches (good ones that is).

Maybe a new Instructional rating is not needed, maybe just a a BSR enforced.

Bottom line is there is a safety concern in this aspect of the sport, you know better than I, since I have a grand total of 1 WS jump, that WS jumps are not just a normal skydive and small mistakes can lead to fatal mistakes or very dangerous situations for one or numerous others.

Matt


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 22, 2012, 8:11 AM
Post #145 of 195 (2406 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.

And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion.

Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none.

As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists...

We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 22, 2012, 8:57 AM
Post #146 of 195 (2395 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Mark my words though. It will not stop tailstrikes. It will cost our association a lot of money, and it is not necessary. It is unprecedented to create a I/E program for advanced disciplines. It is not the road that I believe the USPA should travel down.
Okay, we'll just agree to disagree then. WinkCool

Personally I think objections like the 'unprecedented' & 'no proof it'll work' are a bit short sighted.

Other rating programs that somewhat fit those descriptions have worked...experienced wingsuiters agree there is a problem, to continue with status que seems Crazy.

...and again, tail-strikes is not the only issue this addresses. Eliminating them 100% is a lofty goal indeed however reducing them isn't.

If the WSI proposal did that and that alone it would be worth in IMO, but in reviewing it at length ~ it in fact does a whole lot more.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 22, 2012, 12:26 PM
Post #147 of 195 (2368 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.

And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion.

Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none.

As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists...

We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix.

Even if it's a "possible" fix, I'm with Twardo. Cool


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 22, 2012, 12:40 PM
Post #148 of 195 (2365 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.

And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion.

Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none.

As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists...

We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix.

The burden of PROOF is on those who wish to introduce a new, costly program.

There is no evidence whatsoever that what you see as a "fix" is, indeed, a fix at all rather than a boondoggle.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 22, 2012, 12:44 PM
Post #149 of 195 (2363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
So the I/E program is a failure now too?

Matt

If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing.

No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic.

You are not correct.

I EXPLICITLY stated in post #133, this thread: "This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different". You chose to cut out my words from your reply.

Hence you can't draw any conclusion about my opinion on I/E in the AFF program.

Thus your statement was, indeed, a strawman.


(This post was edited by kallend on Oct 22, 2012, 12:49 PM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 22, 2012, 1:13 PM
Post #150 of 195 (2349 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
So the I/E program is a failure now too?

Matt

If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing.

No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic.

You are not correct.

I EXPLICITLY stated in post #133, this thread: "This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different". You chose to cut out my words from your reply.

Hence you can't draw any conclusion about my opinion on I/E in the AFF program.

Thus your statement was, indeed, a strawman.

"But that is NOT what the coach course is all about. I fail to see its relevance. If you're concerned with pedagogy, then exempt professional educators from the coach requirement since they've had the real training and actual classroom experience."- this is what I addressed from the same post.

You always use this argument and it ignores many others who are well qualified, tested, certified and practiced in teaching as well.

Matt


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 22, 2012, 1:18 PM
Post #151 of 195 (2814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Matt,

You can't reach any conclusions about my opinion of the I/E program in AFF from what I wrote about wingsuiting. They are quite different, AS I ALREADY WROTE.

Stop making up strawman arguments.


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 22, 2012, 5:03 PM
Post #152 of 195 (2796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Quote:
Sadly I believe the vote will pass just because people will do it for "safety" without thinking of the big picture here.

This is the only statement you've posted that I would disagree with.
I don't think there's any way the skydiving community will vote for a system where some random dude out west and 6 of his unnamed buddies get to decide who can and can't teach wingsuiting across the entire country.
Personally, I can't believe it's even a fucking option.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 22, 2012, 6:40 PM
Post #153 of 195 (2775 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't believe that's what some people think this is.
Oh the millions of dollars and worldwide fame that handful of special magical wingsuit instructors.
Those lucky soles will inherit the skies.
Or millions.
Or minions.
Or something I'm just not understanding....
Unimpressed


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 22, 2012, 6:51 PM
Post #154 of 195 (2771 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I can't believe that's what some people think this is.
Oh the millions of dollars and worldwide fame that handful of special magical wingsuit instructors.
Those lucky soles will inherit the skies.
Or millions.
Or minions.
Or something I'm just not understanding....
Unimpressed

I think it is because some people aren't looking at this Objectively.

Matt


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 22, 2012, 6:53 PM
Post #155 of 195 (2769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

NSEMN8R

I hope I am wrong, and you are right on this one.


nigel99  (D 1)

Oct 22, 2012, 6:53 PM
Post #156 of 195 (2768 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Sadly I believe the vote will pass just because people will do it for "safety" without thinking of the big picture here.

This is the only statement you've posted that I would disagree with.
I don't think there's any way the skydiving community will vote for a system where some random dude out west and 6 of his unnamed buddies get to decide who can and can't teach wingsuiting across the entire country.
Personally, I can't believe it's even a fucking option.

From personal experience in other areas of life. The majority sit and bitch about 'the problem', a few people get off their butts and do 'something'. The doers get criticised for their actions, but the arm chair quarterbacks do nothing.

I sense this is the case with DSE and his proposal. It's pointless questioning motives, you'll never know what they are. If you don't like the option, then put time and effort into a counter proposal.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 22, 2012, 9:19 PM
Post #157 of 195 (2741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Sadly I believe the vote will pass just because people will do it for "safety" without thinking of the big picture here.

This is the only statement you've posted that I would disagree with.
I don't think there's any way the skydiving community will vote for a system where some random dude out west and 6 of his unnamed buddies get to decide who can and can't teach wingsuiting across the entire country.
Personally, I can't believe it's even a fucking option.

From personal experience in other areas of life. The majority sit and bitch about 'the problem', a few people get off their butts and do 'something'. The doers get criticised for their actions, but the arm chair quarterbacks do nothing.

.

Actually Simon (Wicked Wingsuits) has put his own money toward a solution that is actually targeted at the real problem.


Shredex

Oct 22, 2012, 9:32 PM
Post #158 of 195 (2739 views)
Shortcut
Re:Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

If there is, it shouldn't be for those with 200+ jumps.

If they do anything, they should have a standardized wingsuit training ONLY if you want to start early (Around 100 jumps)

...maybe.

Boobies are nice, too.


Skwrl  (C 36419)

Oct 23, 2012, 4:37 AM
Post #159 of 195 (2725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Shredex] Re:Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Boobies are nice...

Finally, a statement in this thread that we can all agree on...


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 23, 2012, 8:33 AM
Post #160 of 195 (2714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Actually Simon (Wicked Wingsuits) has put his own money toward a solution that is actually targeted at the real problem.


Truthfully, someone else put their time and money towards the same solution 2 years ago. You criticized it.
It all comes down to politics, not what the right thing to do may be.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 23, 2012, 12:23 PM
Post #161 of 195 (2694 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Actually Simon (Wicked Wingsuits) has put his own money toward a solution that is actually targeted at the real problem.


Truthfully, someone else put their time and money towards the same solution 2 years ago. You criticized it.
.

I find it hard to believe that I criticized someone giving away free professionally designed safety placards. Do you have a link?


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 23, 2012, 12:56 PM
Post #162 of 195 (2685 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Makes me wonder what they use in Portugal.
Unimpressed


EFS4LIFE  (D 31885)

Oct 23, 2012, 6:07 PM
Post #163 of 195 (2646 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I find it hard to believe that I criticized someone giving away free professionally designed safety placards. Do you have a link?


I personally doubt he does


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 23, 2012, 6:50 PM
Post #164 of 195 (2634 views)
Shortcut
Re: [EFS4LIFE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I find it hard to believe that I criticized someone giving away free professionally designed safety placards. Do you have a link?


I personally doubt he does

I dunno, about two years ago he contacted me to proof read some stuff, and then he was attacked, here, inn the WS Community, and in the BOD meeting.

Matt


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 24, 2012, 5:19 AM
Post #165 of 195 (2593 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
...system where some random dude out west and 6 of his unnamed buddies get to decide who can and can't teach wingsuiting across the entire country.


In reply to:
I can't believe that's what some people think this is.
...

How is that not EXACTLY what this is?

I understand you think it's for our own good and we need these guys to save us from ourselves and save wingsuiting from the feds and the evil insurance companies and all that, but that doesn't change what the proposal says.


scottd818  (C 41314)

Oct 24, 2012, 9:23 AM
Post #166 of 195 (2564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents


nylonbag

Oct 24, 2012, 9:51 AM
Post #167 of 195 (2556 views)
Shortcut
Re: [scottd818] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

Would you say the same for jumping a camera? What about a first cmera jump course taught by a USPA camera instructor. Youd have to take the class or no camera for you.. Cameras have had lots of incidents, even GoPros and Contours. Cameras are new equipment that changes EPs.

Food for thought.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 24, 2012, 11:02 AM
Post #168 of 195 (2542 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nylonbag] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Would you say the same for jumping a camera? What about a first cmera jump course taught by a USPA camera instructor............ .

.........Food for thought.

With well thought out Standardized Curriculum, absolutely yes! In fact, I'd pay to sit thru your class, especially if it's taught by someone "trained" and qualified to teach the course. Why’s everyone so dead set against learning. And please don't respond with the old, scare tactics, bureaucrats are bad, conspiracy theory argument. If I want to hear that BS, I’ll just turn on my TV anytime between now and the Election.

Cool


Shredex

Oct 24, 2012, 11:17 AM
Post #169 of 195 (2533 views)
Shortcut
Re:Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

So, uhhh...No one said anything about my previous comment. That means that no one disagrees! Can I have my wingsuit now?? SlySlySly


NSEMN8R  (D 26397)

Oct 24, 2012, 12:30 PM
Post #170 of 195 (2505 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Would you say the same for jumping a camera? What about a first cmera jump course taught by a USPA camera instructor............ .

.........Food for thought.

With well thought out Standardized Curriculum, absolutely yes! In fact, I'd pay to sit thru your class, especially if it's taught by someone "trained" and qualified to teach the course. Why’s everyone so dead set against learning. And please don't respond with the old, scare tactics, bureaucrats are bad, conspiracy theory argument. If I want to hear that BS, I’ll just turn on my TV anytime between now and the Election.

Cool

I don't think anyone here is against learning. I've taken lots of canopy courses and paid for freefly coaching countless times. I've also sat through and assisted with several ffc's just to see what other people are teaching. I took a base fjc when I started base jumping and I went to a crew camp when I thought I wanted to get into crw. If someone whose reputation and experience level I respect is putting on a course, I have no problem paying for it.

I think the idea of having a structured course is a great idea. I think trying to create a monopoly by having the USPA make one particular course mandatory and excluding all the other existing courses is a dick move.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 24, 2012, 8:04 PM
Post #171 of 195 (2456 views)
Shortcut
Re: [scottd818] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.


nigel99  (D 1)

Oct 24, 2012, 10:32 PM
Post #172 of 195 (2444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me. I think there is a shocking lack of knowledge in modern skydiving and see this as being correlated to safety at some level. Would you mind expanding on why you don't see formal education helping improve the standard of jumpers?

Australia has a Crest system in place, Wingsuit crest is coming soon I believe, but there is an RW crest, FF crest, CRW crest etc. Without the crest, you are restricted in what you can do. There is no formal 'instructor' for the crest, however the requirements for obtaining the crest are clearly laid out.

For example you can't do more than a 10 way RW jump, without your RW Crest. This involves 3 successful 8 ways, where you dock 5th or later, and are signed off by the CI.

At face value it is a workable system, without instructor overhead.


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 25, 2012, 4:56 AM
Post #173 of 195 (2421 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me.

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Oct 25, 2012, 6:19 AM
Post #174 of 195 (2408 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.

Sounds like you should be on the "committee" to develop this course. As I stated way up thread (but not necessarily aimed at you)....
"Stop bitching and get involved"! Smile

Edited to add;
Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires Research based continuous improvement. FIFY


(This post was edited by skyjumpenfool on Oct 25, 2012, 6:26 AM)


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Oct 25, 2012, 9:10 AM
Post #175 of 195 (2393 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.


There was no standardized flight training for pilots in the USA, and no evidence standardized flight training would create safer pilots/fewer incidents either. But the Army Air Service felt the need to standardize flight training due to budgets and damaged/destroyed aircraft and oddly enough...there were fewer incidents once standard training began at Ft. Sill.

Spend some time on ERIC and read the hundreds of papers on standardized training systems in the civilian and military world, and the value of standards are overwhelmingly evident.
In our sport, we cannot have standards without a body maintaining those standards. USPA is that body. With (now 5) separate groups providing wingsuit "ratings" and only one of them having any USPA background, it's no wonder we're in a messy spot. Choose the person that will give you your "rating" because he's easier/cheaper/more of a cool dude" and you have the letters. It's like getting your PhD over the internet. Anyone can do it. Of all people, it would seem an educated person would comprehend the value.

You demand evidence in a vacuum because it's an easy argument. It's a weak argument to look backwards and say "doing this wouldn't have prevented that." However, empirical data from several sports proves the value of standardized training and behavior, administered by a communal body (Snowboarding is perhaps the best recent example). Snowboarders were banned from mountains for years until a governing body was created, best practices standardized, promised, and adhered to. Now, it's grown to be one of the biggest winter sports. Historically, standards have caused activities to significantly grow.

No other discipline can exit the aircraft at least a minute after tandems and open up 3-4 miles away from the exit point, up to 4 minutes after the exit. No other discipline can zoom past a tandem at 100 mph. No other discipline uses different deployment techniques, has instability potential, nor tail strike potential like wingsuiting does.

No other discipline is being eyeballed by FAA or insurance companies, either.
Please provide historical evidence that any insurance company has ever written a letter regarding any skydiving discipline and potential pushback on insuring aircraft.


scottygofast  (D 28686)

Oct 25, 2012, 12:56 PM
Post #176 of 195 (2575 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me.

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.




Heres my 2 cents Kallend. Just for you.

you have roughly 15 times the amount of posts as you do jumps. you seem to talk about this a lot more than most, so its surprising you still dont get it. Im going to say this once for you.

Take your evidence and shove it directly where the sun doesn't shine.

Your evidence, you so desperately require, are contacts of friends that are in my phone that are dead that I cannot delete. They are also in the hundreds of students I have trained out there throughout the years. My opinion, which was in part formed by the numerous FAA ratings that I held even before skydiving at the age of 18, and the amount of standardized instruction Id received, and given since then, and for 5 years before that teaching scuba, from a standardized format. So pretty much from the time I was a teenager, I've been teaching a standardized course of some kind for something that could kill you. My evidence is in my experience, knowledge, and opinion based on those things. It's not guesswork. Id like to continue flying my wingsuit for years to come, and I've done my part by teaching people well. Why be so against something that is to help those coming up? from which we learned through experience? thats just plain stupid, and thats surprising because your a smart guy...

Evolution is unstoppable, and through what many of us have learned, we have found a way to put out safer students than maybe how we were once taught. Not all have the same experience.

Stop being the problem, get your head out of your ass, and help solve it.

Still love ya tho John


Scotty Burns


scottygofast  (D 28686)

Oct 25, 2012, 12:59 PM
Post #177 of 195 (2573 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.


There was no standardized flight training for pilots in the USA, and no evidence standardized flight training would create safer pilots/fewer incidents either. But the Army Air Service felt the need to standardize flight training due to budgets and damaged/destroyed aircraft and oddly enough...there were fewer incidents once standard training began at Ft. Sill.

Spend some time on ERIC and read the hundreds of papers on standardized training systems in the civilian and military world, and the value of standards are overwhelmingly evident.
In our sport, we cannot have standards without a body maintaining those standards. USPA is that body. With (now 5) separate groups providing wingsuit "ratings" and only one of them having any USPA background, it's no wonder we're in a messy spot. Choose the person that will give you your "rating" because he's easier/cheaper/more of a cool dude" and you have the letters. It's like getting your PhD over the internet. Anyone can do it. Of all people, it would seem an educated person would comprehend the value.

You demand evidence in a vacuum because it's an easy argument. It's a weak argument to look backwards and say "doing this wouldn't have prevented that." However, empirical data from several sports proves the value of standardized training and behavior, administered by a communal body (Snowboarding is perhaps the best recent example). Snowboarders were banned from mountains for years until a governing body was created, best practices standardized, promised, and adhered to. Now, it's grown to be one of the biggest winter sports. Historically, standards have caused activities to significantly grow.

No other discipline can exit the aircraft at least a minute after tandems and open up 3-4 miles away from the exit point, up to 4 minutes after the exit. No other discipline can zoom past a tandem at 100 mph. No other discipline uses different deployment techniques, has instability potential, nor tail strike potential like wingsuiting does.

No other discipline is being eyeballed by FAA or insurance companies, either.
Please provide historical evidence that any insurance company has ever written a letter regarding any skydiving discipline and potential pushback on insuring aircraft.



Oh, forgot to add, +10 Dse

:)


now to everyone with more than 5 times the amount of posts as they have jumps~ SHUT the hell up and go jump.

That is all. Good day~ :)


floormonkey  (D License)

Oct 25, 2012, 3:21 PM
Post #178 of 195 (2541 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Reprinted with permission from a letter sent to his DZ's mailing list:

A personal message from Lee Schlichtemeier USPA Southwest Regional Director

[First two paragraphs omitted, not relevant to this discussion]
....
Third, there will be a 'beauty contest' vote also on the ballot. This will be a membership non-binding vote on whether or not to create a special instructional rating for Wingsuit instructors. The proposal is on the USPA website (even though it is a little hard to find). I hope you will vote 'No' on this issue. This vote will not institute the rating but will give a semblance of guidance to the next USPA Board of Directors with regard to developing this rating. My reasons for asking for a 'No' vote for this issue is as follows:

The issue of whether or not to create a Wingsuit instructor rating was not the idea of USPA Headquarters or the USPA Board of Directors. It was a request by a faction of the Wingsuit community to the board.

The issue has not been staffed [note: I'm pretty sure he meant to say studied] by USPA Headquarters. Therefore, no cost/benefit analysis or resource requirements have been examined by the USPA Headquarters department (Safety & Training) that would be called upon to institute this rating. And, again, it was not requested by USPA Headquarters (Safety & Training), the staff who would be called upon to institute this rating.

There is no measurable evidence that this rating would have usefulness with regard to the safety of Wingsuit flight.

Most importantly, this represents an entirely new direction for the USPA instructional system to embark upon. Specifically, there currently are no 'advanced ratings' for the average skydiver. If this proposal is instituted, it represents the first additional requirement for formal instructional training beyond licensure. It is the proverbial 'camel's nose under the tent.' It opens the door for additional training requirements for licensed skydivers to participate in other skydiving disciplines such as freeflight, formation skydiving, canopy formations, canopy piloting, etc. While we would all argue that additional experience and preferably training is desirable for these activities, you need to picture a world where you would be required to receive that training from a USPA-rated instructor (in that specific discipline) before being allowed to participate. This expansion of bureaucracy and rules (beyond BSRs) represents an unnecessary and complicated intrusion into the choices that are currently available to skydivers.

This issue and even placing this non-binding poll on the ballot was very contentious at the Safety & Training Committee level and at the full Board of Directors level. The issue was extensively debated and original motion modified several times and the final motion that allowed this non-binding membership vote passed the full board by a plurality, not a majority. Several board members abstained on the final vote and if they had voted, there may have not been sufficient votes to carry even this motion.


Again, I ask you to vote 'No' on this issue if you want the freedom of choice of skydiving disciplines that you currently enjoy to continue, if you feel this proposed instructional rating is unwarranted and unnecessary or if you feel that this issue should be more adequately evaluated by the proper and time-tested methods of developing USPA instructional programs.

Thank you.

Lee Schlichtemeier
USPA Southwest Regional Director
D-16256
uspaswdir@aol.com

I did not include his phone numbers, but I believe they can be found in the front of your Parachutist. If you aren't a member and can't view one online, pm and I'll send it to you. I changed formatting for the post, but it is otherwise unchanged except for noted changes in [brackets].


(This post was edited by floormonkey on Oct 25, 2012, 3:24 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 25, 2012, 3:39 PM
Post #179 of 195 (2533 views)
Shortcut
Re: [scottygofast] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me.

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.






Take your evidence and shove it directly where the sun doesn't shine.

That would be easy, since no-one has produced any evidence that poor initial training in a FFC caused any of the problems.


scottygofast  (D 28686)

Oct 25, 2012, 5:08 PM
Post #180 of 195 (2510 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

John, Here it is one more time, since it didn't sink in the first time around.. Heres your precious evidence.. As I said in my previous post :

Your evidence, you so desperately require, are contacts of friends that are in my phone that are dead that I cannot delete. They are also in the hundreds of students I have trained out there throughout the years. My opinion, which was in part formed by the numerous FAA ratings that I held even before skydiving at the age of 18, and the amount of standardized instruction Id received, and given since then, and for 5 years before that teaching scuba, from a standardized format. So pretty much from the time I was a teenager, I've been teaching a standardized course of some kind for something that could kill you. My evidence is in my experience, knowledge, and opinion based on those things. It's not guesswork. Id like to continue flying my wingsuit for years to come, and I've done my part by teaching people well. Why be so against something that is to help those coming up? from which we learned through experience? thats just plain stupid, and thats surprising because your a smart guy...

Would you now like a slice of my brain or to sinc with my smartphone to give you what your looking for?


And to Floormonkey and Lee Schlichtemeier,

How many wingsuit FFC's have you taught? How many people have started skydiving to come learn to fly a wingsuit with you? have you ever had to deal with phone calls from people who are ready to start flying a wingsuit but have never even heard of a dropzone? ever had to wonder how you could keep bad things from happening to your friends? Id like to think I stand for something, ask any of my students what they thought of the instruction they received. Id say I've got a clue what Im talking about.

I dont have time, nor the willingness to cut out my own brain, just to satisfy your need to know something that you should already know, but so many of us, that do this so much more than those Im replying to, have known, and been doing something about for quite some time. Id like to think my experience, knowledge, and opinion would be admissible in court as an expert witness, wouldn't you agree? So Id like to think that it might be something worth listening to. you may hover over your computer awaiting the next response on dz.com, But im not. As you can see, I havent posted on here much, just when its actually about something important.


oh, and are you really tellin me that poop covered toilet paper in the toilet isn't actually evidence of poop, if theres no physical turd in the bowl? Im pretty sure you could smell it walking into the room, but you have to see it too?

Wake up and smell the birds#it. the FFC i got in 05 was about 4 mins long, and consisted of "pull with both hands". Im pretty sure we've come a long way since then, and it sure sounds like your all listening to the wrong damn people.


Just so we're clear~ you cant have a piece of my brain as evidence, but you can come sit on my phone to sinc with it.


Scotty Burns


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Oct 25, 2012, 8:25 PM
Post #181 of 195 (2487 views)
Shortcut
Re: [floormonkey] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Reprinted with permission from a letter sent to his DZ's mailing list:
Quote:
The issue of whether or not to create a Wingsuit instructor rating was not the idea of USPA Headquarters or the USPA Board of Directors. It was a request by a faction of the Wingsuit community to the board.
Fair enough.
Quote:
The issue has not been staffed [note: I'm pretty sure he meant to say studied] by USPA Headquarters. Therefore, no cost/benefit analysis or resource requirements have been examined by the USPA Headquarters department (Safety & Training) that would be called upon to institute this rating. And, again, it was not requested by USPA Headquarters (Safety & Training), the staff who would be called upon to institute this rating.
Tone and composition suggest to me retired officer. Likely O-6 but maybe O-5. Given that I’m quite sure he meant staffed and not studied as you’ve suggested. I take special exception to the position that this initiative is inferior or groundless because it wasn’t dreamt up by USPA HQ or requested by USPA HQ. All USPA members should take this point that is raised seriously. He’s very seriously saying that the membership has no business telling our elected representatives what is important to us.
Quote:
There is no measurable evidence that this rating would have usefulness with regard to the safety of Wingsuit flight.
Can we get a Kallend emoticon?
Quote:
Most importantly, this represents an entirely new direction for the USPA instructional system to embark upon. Specifically, there currently are no 'advanced ratings' for the average skydiver. If this proposal is instituted, it represents the first additional requirement for formal instructional training beyond licensure. It is the proverbial 'camel's nose under the tent.' It opens the door for additional training requirements for licensed skydivers to participate in other skydiving disciplines such as freeflight, formation skydiving, canopy formations, canopy piloting, etc. While we would all argue that additional experience and preferably training is desirable for these activities, you need to picture a world where you would be required to receive that training from a USPA-rated instructor (in that specific discipline) before being allowed to participate. This expansion of bureaucracy and rules (beyond BSRs) represents an unnecessary and complicated intrusion into the choices that are currently available to skydivers.
Sure, legitimate point. The consternation that this proposal is generating in the community over a very small slice of the overall the skydiving population makes it hard for me to believe that we are in danger of these boogiemen.
Quote:
This issue and even placing this non-binding poll on the ballot was very contentious at the Safety & Training Committee level and at the full Board of Directors level. The issue was extensively debated and original motion modified several times and the final motion that allowed this non-binding membership vote passed the full board by a plurality, not a majority. Several board members abstained on the final vote and if they had voted, there may have not been sufficient votes to carry even this motion.
Great so some board members didn’t feel like letting their personal position be known and abstained. What was the exact tally (for/against/abstained)? Who cares what might have been. I might have been an astronaut.
Quote:
Again, I ask you to vote 'No' on this issue if you want the freedom of choice of skydiving disciplines that you currently enjoy to continue, if you feel this proposed instructional rating is unwarranted and unnecessary or if you feel that this issue should be more adequately evaluated by the proper and time-tested methods of developing USPA instructional programs.
Can you feel the boogieman placing his hands on your shoulders young child? A sampling of the membership wouldn’t lead to an instantaneous rollout. There has been an attempt at proper evaluation using “time-tested methods of developing USPA instructional programs”. And it has been stonewalled by opposition that has been overwhelmingly histrionic.

Lastly can someone tell me what this program will cost USPA to roll out? I doubt it. This was an extremely weak point raised by the opposition at the original presentation. Perhaps someone on S&T has put a few scribbles together but I’m not optimistic.


nigel99  (D 1)

Oct 25, 2012, 10:33 PM
Post #182 of 195 (2471 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me.

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.

That's not really what I mean't. What I was asking you, is do you see NO value in educating jumpers?

I get the fact that you would like to see research and evidence gathered first. As we have no formal structure at present, it is difficult to have continuous improvement as there is nothing to measure against.

I think that Scott summed it up quite well - surely there is evidence from OTHER area's of life that show education improves safety? BTW I'm not picking on wingsuits, I'm happy with all advanced aspects requiring some form of training.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Oct 26, 2012, 10:04 AM
Post #183 of 195 (2426 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NSEMN8R] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

>I don't think there's any way the skydiving community will vote for a system
>where some random dude out west and 6 of his unnamed buddies get to decide who
>can and can't teach wingsuiting across the entire country.

We have a system now where a few random dudes can decide on a whim who can and who can't teach AFF across the entire country. Seems to work OK.


Freeflaw  (C License)

Oct 26, 2012, 5:30 PM
Post #184 of 195 (2384 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think anyone disputes that education improves safety and that creating and mandating a standard assures a certain level of preparation for newbs and thus encourages safety.

What is being questioned is whether the danger associated with wing suit flying is so much greater than other skydiving disciplines so as to require an advanced rating, and, whether the non existence of such a standard is the only way (or the most effective way) to cure the problem of tail strikes (and thus the only way to keep the discipline alive) and promote safety.

That awareness has seemingly stopped the occurrence of tail strikes undermines the idea that a rating is necessary or the most efficient way to stop tail strikes: the most pressing issue at the time (the impetus as well as political tool to get this rating of the ground)

No one argues that bad exit techniques can and have been the result of bad training, but so far the only recorded fatality has occurred due to complacency and not due to initial bad training (demonstrable by the fact that the dead guy taught others the importance of proper exit technqiue). But even if the evidence suggests that tailstrikes have occured because of bad initial training the fact remains that communal awarness and self monitoring have done a sufficent job to curb the problem (as current evidence suggests). Thus implementing an advanced rating (and opening pandoras costly box) is not the only nor most efficient way to curb the primary problem associated with wing suiting.

The burden of proof remains with the pro rating side. It needs to be shown that a rating is necessary, that the problems of wingsuiting cannot be addressed otherwise and that the benefit of such a rating outweigh the costs (which are to a degree unknown).


(This post was edited by Freeflaw on Oct 26, 2012, 5:47 PM)


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Oct 27, 2012, 8:19 AM
Post #185 of 195 (2340 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
However, empirical data from several sports proves the value of standardized training and behavior, administered by a communal body (Snowboarding is perhaps the best recent example). Snowboarders were banned from mountains for years until a governing body was created, best practices standardized, promised, and adhered to. Now, it's grown to be one of the biggest winter sports. Historically, standards have caused activities to significantly grow.

There are no standards regarding training methods in snow sports at all. There is a group AASA that is a sister organization to PSIA that examines instructors to give certification but it doesn't dictate how they teach. There is also no requirement to be certified to teach beginners, the reason most of us get certified is to be able to teach the upper levels which is where the fun is at.

The way we teach can be quite different depending on which ski resort you work for. Heck, in Breckenridge alone we have different styles between the pods.

Mountains started allowing snowboarders because teenage kids get to determine where their parents go on vacation.


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Oct 27, 2012, 8:21 AM
Post #186 of 195 (2338 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
With (now 5) separate groups providing wingsuit "ratings" and only one of them having any USPA background,

What does USPA background mean?


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 27, 2012, 8:24 AM
Post #187 of 195 (2338 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Yet in SCUBA if after receiving your basic instruction you want to go cave diving, wreck diving...use gas mix - you go through a standardized class and get the rating.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Oct 27, 2012, 9:04 AM
Post #188 of 195 (2331 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 There is no standard in scuba training. Domestically we have available five different training organizations ( that I know of) with different methodology. The basics are all the same. There is even an online scuba certification.

I have gone cave and wreck diving without any ratings beyond open water and regularly shore solo dive with a bailout bottle....I have a lot of bottom time. Nobody is going to pull my card.

There is no such thing as a governing body fighting for snowboards. The resort owners wanted to cash in on what the cool kids were doing in the few limited "board parks" and this greed opened up the whole mountain eventially. But yes I remember when boards and skurfers were universally banned here and Europe, where I lived at the time. Today my kids rent boards and go all over the mountain with zero training because of business retention not due to a best practices policy of a governing body.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Oct 27, 2012, 9:10 AM
Post #189 of 195 (2330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 Stop comparing wingsuits and wingsuit training to other things that just don't apply. Snowboards, scuba and getting a PhD... really getting a PhD? Or aviation... unless you are going to enter the pattern and land your wingsuit.


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Oct 27, 2012, 9:25 AM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 27, 2012, 10:00 AM
Post #190 of 195 (2317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

I have gone cave and wreck diving without any ratings beyond open water and regularly shore solo dive with a bailout bottle....I have a lot of bottom time.

In reply to:

LaughLaugh Good for you.


I'm sure disregarding basic safety practices totally enhances the experience for you, not to mention the swinging brass cool factor! Cool

Hope ya don't get dead, and no offence but I don't dive with guys like you...SCUBA or SKY Wink


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 27, 2012, 10:05 AM)


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Oct 27, 2012, 2:40 PM
Post #191 of 195 (2289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Hope ya don't get dead, and no offence but I don't dive with guys like you...SCUBA or SKY Wink
Hope I don't get dead before its the right time and no offence taken. The pleasure is all mine.

But we should strive to keep discussions relevant to wingsuit training. Not climbing, driving, dancing, diving, drinking, sking, boarding, flying.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 27, 2012, 3:00 PM
Post #192 of 195 (2286 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Hope ya don't get dead, and no offence but I don't dive with guys like you...SCUBA or SKY Wink

Hope I don't get dead before its the right time and no offence taken. The pleasure is all mine.

But we should strive to keep discussions relevant to wingsuit training. Not climbing, driving, dancing, diving, drinking, sking, boarding, flying.
I agree...your luck with disregarding safety has no relevance here.

What does however is the fact you speak from that mind-set, and your opinion should be noted as such and considered accordingly.

...only point I was making. Cool


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 27, 2012, 3:06 PM)


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Oct 27, 2012, 9:08 PM
Post #193 of 195 (2262 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post


I agree...your luck with disregarding safety has no relevance here.

What does however is the fact you speak from that mind-set, and your opinion should be noted as such and considered accordingly.

...only point I was making. Cool
Completely agree ! My mind set and opinion are only from one individual and I only get one vote, hardly a movement. My posts have been regarded " as such" way before you got here Princess.

This issue is way beyond a wingsuit " community" thang already. It has morphed into ratings for advanced disciplines. Lots more votes than just that tiny segment of jumpers.

So mind your facts on scuba and snowboarding. Some of the non-wingsuiting fallers may call you on some made up stuff sweetness.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 28, 2012, 8:43 AM
Post #194 of 195 (2223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

 My posts have been regarded " as such" way before you got here Princess.

In reply to:

I already knew that, just making sure everyone else did too...honey. Laugh


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 28, 2012, 9:07 AM
Post #195 of 195 (2214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That's not really what I mean't. What I was asking you, is do you see NO value in educating jumpers?

Don't make up strawmen. I haven't claimed that.

In reply to:

I get the fact that you would like to see research and evidence gathered first. As we have no formal structure at present, it is difficult to have continuous improvement as there is nothing to measure against.

I think that Scott summed it up quite well - surely there is evidence from OTHER area's of life that show education improves safety? BTW I'm not picking on wingsuits,.

No-one disputes that training is needed. The issue is that NO EVIDENCE has been produced that the current system has resulted in any of the incidents being used to justify the creation of a whole new USPA bureaucracy with its associated costs. No evidence has been produced that the proposed USPA rating system will change anything.

A number of incidents have been described, but cannot be attributed to a poorly taught FFC any more than someone with 1500 jumps hooking it in can be attributed to poorly taught AFF.

In reply to:

I'm happy with all advanced aspects requiring some form of training

Confirming what many have pointed out, this proposal is just the camel's nose under the tent.



Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)