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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 9, 2012, 3:24 PM
Post #51 of 195 (4143 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 (4134 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 (4131 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 (4121 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 (4057 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 (4054 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 (4050 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 (3980 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 (3971 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 (3964 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 (3953 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 (3941 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 (3938 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 (3934 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 (3922 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 (3908 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 (3902 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 (3887 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 (3884 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 (3879 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 (3856 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 (3844 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 (3835 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 (3831 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 (3824 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.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)