Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Wing Suit Flying:
Parachutist Editorial

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 11:15 AM
Post #76 of 234 (1502 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 wingsuit flying is definitely in need some some stricter policy as to who teaches what.
Viva la revolution..Wink
How do you conclude that?

For example if someone has more than 500 jumps it is excepted by governing body guidelines, and the manufacturers that they can just read the manual and proceed from there. Unless they want the benefit of some 1 on 1 with an experienced coach, instructor it is not a mandatory recommendation.

500 jumps use to mean someone had a few seasons of experiences, knew to take thing slower and not push the envelope,think about safety more, maybe even have had a cut away and saved themselves.

Does this need to change? AND WHY, examples please? What exactly are some current wingsuit instructors doing wrong or not doing that is drasticly different and harmful than someone ( with experience) just reading the manual on there own?

I gotta say this is the only skydiving discipline in my experience that has its own built in "wuffo fear/ TSA faction" within its ranks........ I expected much smarter than this.


peek  (D 8884)

Jul 1, 2009, 12:06 PM
Post #77 of 234 (1472 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpsteve] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

I ask that anyone suggesting that USPA "do something" about this issue take a step back and consider the following before getting into a lot of detail about the implementation of any program or rating.

1. Should USPA create or require "instructor" ratings for things being taught to licensed skydivers? This very basic question that needs to be answered first. If this is done it will create a precedent. Where will it stop? In other words, for every new "advanced" activity will USPA be expected to implement something? Does it have the resources to do that? Does it have the expertise to do that?

2. Understand the difference between BSR's and Recommendations, and decide which if either might be changed or added to.

3. At this point I think wingsuit recommendations are most similar to other "advanced" activities that licensed skydivers might do, like night jumps, water jumps, high altitude jumps. "Recommendations" seem to be working OK. (Few injuries/deaths.)


An additional topic to think about:

It seems like wingsuit flying is something that novice skydivers are in a very big hurry to try, to the extent of not following even the most basic recommendations. (You can include camera flying too.)

So I ask the skydiving community, "Are we failing these novice skydivers by not making available to them some type of activities in which they can have fun for a few hundred jumps and gain experience that will increase their margin of safety once they start participating in the more "advanced" activities?"


(This post was edited by peek on Jul 1, 2009, 12:08 PM)


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 12:13 PM
Post #78 of 234 (1465 views)
Shortcut
Re: [notsane] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 


But have "we" considered the price of this new rating system? I'm just a fun jumper. I don't make any money from jumping this is not my job. No one has ever given me a suit or gear for free. I've taught people for the love of the sport.

If the process of being a wingsuit instructor becomes too much of a hassle, I'll simply stop doing it.
Yes as much as we like to complain about the gimmie ratings doled out over beers to friends we also need to consider that some of those easy bake ratings have given us some quality and available instructors along with some of the problem instructors. Those problem guys were ( are) not that big of a bad deal really, they are just silly.

People complain now that there are no instructors, of any quality or origin, or demo suits in their area. Wipe the slate clean and start over with a smaller fraction of governing body approved wingsuit instructors in fewer places and we will see a monumental increase in the plan C method of wingsuit first flights.

1 Buy a used suit ( all of those old style S3, V2, SM1 are so last year now that the new suits are out with a larger number following letter and a much better bargain than those classics.

2 Read the PDF manuals online. Read all of them its free

3 Watch a lot of You Tube video stuff for posing. Skip this step if you want.its only a recommendation.

4 Go to a boogie were the S&TA doesn't know you from Adam. After playing it cool and well behaved. Wait till manefest is real busy and get on a load solo.

For all of those viva la revolussheeiion movement guys that promiss to get out and be more places more often, who's traveling expenses will get grafted on to the costs of a first flight. You should get paid you are offically rated now not like all those other clowns from previous years..... My logic flow chart sez this will lead us to an increase in plan C first flights. Not all plan Cs are created equal, some have even lower quality.


Be real.


hjumper33  (Student)

Jul 1, 2009, 1:26 PM
Post #79 of 234 (1428 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Will I have to pay for a new license, (im fine with my A), pay for a coaches rating, pay to get wingsuit rated, and then pay to renew them evey year, all to do things the exact same way i do already?


bdrake529  (D 29503)

Jul 1, 2009, 1:29 PM
Post #80 of 234 (1424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
1. Should USPA create or require "instructor" ratings for things being taught to licensed skydivers? This very basic question that needs to be answered first. If this is done it will create a precedent. Where will it stop? In other words, for every new "advanced" activity will USPA be expected to implement something? Does it have the resources to do that? Does it have the expertise to do that?

This is an excellent point, and I'd like to hear a thorough answer from anyone on the pro-WSI rating side.

I'm a bit puzzled by the impetus for the call for USPA to regulate wingsuiting on the level of AFF and tandems. From the brief scanning of this thread I've done, it seems that "safety" is the driving motivation. But how many deaths/injuries can be attributed to manufacturer-rated instructors "not following the rules"? Perhaps 2 that I'm aware of (and even that's debatable). Are there more?

Each year's USPA fatality report shows multiple swooping deaths, most from people operating far below the USPA/manufacturer recommended experience for the maneuver, canopy choice, and/or wing loading. Is there a real probability that a USPA CPI rating system will be mandated any time soon? If USPA hasn't "regulated" canopy piloting instruction (which has a much worse safety record) yet, what makes us think they'll really bring the hammer down on wingsuiting first?

With that in mind, is the posted proposal really "in front of the train, running at the same speed than to be hit by it", or is it actually fueling a train that would run out of steam on its own before long?


notsane  (D 9465)

Jul 1, 2009, 2:03 PM
Post #81 of 234 (1403 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

That a really nice gesture, Spot. Thanks for that.

I'd like to ask folks here a slightly different question ... what if this proposed USPA approved WSI ratings system was instead a coordinated set of general guidelines, a single BSR for wingsuiting and wingsuiting instruction?

From the Long Island Skydiving website:
"Basic Safety Requirements. BSRs are USPA guidelines. They do not have force of law but are generally regarded as excellent minimum safety standards"

Could we all get behind something like that? Depending on the details, I think I could. It would have much of the clout with very little of the cost.


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 1, 2009, 3:10 PM
Post #82 of 234 (1375 views)
Shortcut
Re: [notsane] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
As much as I like Jarno and the FlyLikeBrick folks, a proposal for USPA to regulate wingsuit instruction doesn't affect anyone but us USA folks. So, while their input is appreciated, it's us here who will reap whatever rewards or suffer whatever consequenses.

Just to clarify, outside of having some info on what USA/USPA wingsuit flying members are working on, we have ZERO involvement in all of this.
Outside of applauding the effort, and (if and when this comes through) advocating its use for our (and if possible neighbouring) countries.

Really breaking it down....It looks to me like the only critique people have on this is 'ooh shit...I may need to do 2 jumps to prove my skills' and follow one or two days of class to get everyone on one line in terms of instruction.....

I dont see the problem. Structure, safety and consistency in wingsuit FFCs regardless of which brand you fly. Thats the only goal as far as Im concerned.

Im just a bystander...but one who (so far) likes what he's seen...
And yes, even though Im not a USPA member, even Ill gladly sort out becoming one and taking the class required if it comes to that point sooner or later...


mnskydiver688  (D 30125)

Jul 1, 2009, 3:27 PM
Post #83 of 234 (1370 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bdrake529] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

A couple different things that I have been thinking about.

First of all, since this particular discussion began as a response to a jumper not using their legstraps consider if the student had received instruction at the proper time. Who is to say that he would not have forgotten his legstraps at a later time? Is the instructor, properly rated or not, expected to hold the hand of every wingsuiter when they gear up?
Consider this person goes the next 20 WS jumps without an issue, but when he wants to hop on a load and has 5 minutes to gear up, he no longer has someone there holding his hand. His accident was not a matter of proper instruction. Now if the instructor was in charge of rigging up the student's suit and mis-rigged one of the arm cutaway cables around the reserve handle then by all means the instructor was at fault. But, then again the jumper should have checked his handles.

Secondly, someone with 100 jumps is not going to be grasping for a 96 Velo. Even low time jumpers realize it is quite a process to get to that sort of canopy proficiency. Therefore, they find other parts of the sport to keep them interested while they continue to get there numbers up and canopy skills down. Now, lets consider a wingsuit. Low time jumpers don't see wingsuiters doing what they do. They can't see them like they can see guys swooping the pond. Sometimes making it across and sometimes not. Low timers can't see a flat spin getting out of hand. They can't see a close call when someone buzzes the formation almost taking someone out. All they see is a bunch of guys getting down from a jump with the same smiles as everyone else. Also, when they read about a new Intro suit that is so easy to fly, doesn't get in the way of your hackey, and you can get right to your toggles, no wonder it is hard getting people to wait.
While it can be quite convenient to have a suit that zips from head to toe, is it so bad to have a suit that you must sit down to put it on?

Instead of looking at the problem from the end of instruction, how about looking at how our discipline is perceived? So easy a caveman could do it, may not be the approach. Say yes the wing can cover your hackey. Yes you could flat spin to the point of not getting to your handles. Yes you can fly yourself into other canopies. Yes the suit covers a portion of your rig and you can forget to use said portion. At my dropzone there are pictures of various CReW wraps, that look just plain ugly. Seeing that probably makes people think twice before going up to try some CReW with a buddy.

Keep it scary, keep it safe.

Just some stuff to consider before we go and get ourselves regulated, by non-wingsuiters.


Skwrl  (C 36419)

Jul 1, 2009, 4:04 PM
Post #84 of 234 (1352 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnskydiver688] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So easy a caveman could do it, may not be the approach.

As a caveman, I take great offense.

Quote:
Just some stuff to consider before we go and get ourselves regulated, by non-wingsuiters.

The threat of regulation by non-wingsuiters was precisely the reason I was willing to get involved. (Again, I'm not an instructor, coach, "experienced wingsuit jumper" as the SIM says, or even "helpful buddy". And I never will be.)

For what it's worth, the message I was hearing through the grapevine was that regulation was coming, and that proposals to regulate were being made.

It's worth noting, for example, that the proposal that Justin posted is not the only one that was submitted to the USPA. (I've not had access to the other one, however, so I can't comment on it.) I've worked with regulatory issues in a bunch of different industries (subject to a variety of different regulatory schemes), and one of the things that I've learned is that it's better to control the pen than be stabbed by it.

Quote:
BSRs are USPA guidelines. They do not have force of law but are generally regarded as excellent minimum safety standards. Could we all get behind something like that? Depending on the details, I think I could. It would have much of the clout with very little of the cost.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong (using that phrase on dz.com has got to be one of the most pointless things ever, since people will correct me regardless of whether I'm right or wrong), but the BSRs are the USPA's "basic safety requirements" (see SIM 2-1) for USPA member dropzones. There is no BSR relating to wingsuiting, unless I'm mistaken. However, there's a recommendation set forth in SIM 6-9.

So is what you're proposing, Scott, that the recommendations set forth in SIM 6-9 be made into requirements? If so, which ones? I'm assuming you mean just the 500 jump or 200 within 18 months and instruction recommendation, right?


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 1, 2009, 4:16 PM
Post #85 of 234 (1350 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnskydiver688] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Is the instructor, properly rated or not, expected to hold the hand of every wingsuiter when they gear up?

On jumps where you are hired as a coach/instructor. yes. Especialy when it comes to low experienced jumpers.
Though the missing gearcheck was one important aspect in the case you mention, the biggest one was someone teaching wingsuit flying before the generaly accepted experience level was reached for the student to even be allowed to actually make the first jump...

Wingsuit flying might not fully be the same as teaching an AFF course, but its also not on the same level as sitfly or CREW coaching.

Its introducing many new aspects in a jump in terms of gear, navigation, body restriction and added procedures in case of emergency. And thats all next to added difficulty in movement (flying).

During a FF, CREW or whatever coach jump, one can just say F*CK it, and quit the diveplan, and go back to normal freefall or canopyflight.
On a wingsuit, one can not. So I indeed rate it higher than 'just coaching' when it comes to FFCs.

The added mental and physical load requires someone to have an extra pair of eyes and an extra brain taking care of him/her.
Just like the current advice in the available programs. But what are the concequences if someone doesnt follow the advice he or she is teaching?
Nothing....he or she just does it again..and again...and again...

Its not making the sport safer..

Quote:
Just some stuff to consider before we go and get ourselves regulated, by non-wingsuiters.

And thats where you're missing the point IM(not so humble:)O

This thing going on now is 100% organized, written and set up by wingsuit flyers. Thinking about our best interests. Making sure we advance. Instead of making sure we get held back later..

With the current situation, and growing attention for our sport. keeping things the way they are (hiding our heads in the sand) is THE way to make sure we wake up one day and find a big set of rules and regulations made up by people who have no clue what it is we do...

Everyone thinks its 'them' making rules, while in fact it's 'us'....maybe not everyone here personaly. But people who know what they are talking about.


Skwrl  (C 36419)

Jul 1, 2009, 4:17 PM
Post #86 of 234 (1346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Everyone thinks its 'them' making rules, while in fact it's 'us'....maybe not everyone here personaly. But people who know what they are talking about.

Well, I did the proof reading, so 'people who know what they are talking about' and Donohue. Tongue


(This post was edited by Skwrl on Jul 1, 2009, 4:34 PM)


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 4:30 PM
Post #87 of 234 (1339 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Really breaking it down....It looks to me like the only critique people have on this is 'ooh shit...I may need to do 2 jumps to prove my skills' and follow one or two days of class to get everyone on one line in terms of instruction.....
You are way over simplifying the probable end result. Many quality guys just won't take the steps to become the new and improved wingsuit instructor regardless of costs or time required. Some of us have a life. Two days to me are a pretty valuable resource not to be squandered.

All of this has come about because we , some of us not all, are tired from personal experience of a few assholes we believe to be tarnishing a part of our sport. So instead of encouraging the assholes to stop being assholes some of you want a more powerful sanctioned authoratative asshole...... NOT ME!

When it comes to assholes less is more! You can quote me on that.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 5:11 PM
Post #88 of 234 (1326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post


Wingsuit flying might not fully be the same as teaching an AFF course, but its also not on the same level as sitfly or CREW coaching.

Its introducing many new aspects in a jump in terms of gear, navigation, body restriction and added procedures in case of emergency. And thats all next to added difficulty in movement (flying).
Do you even do CRW? Pulling a two stack at the end of a skydive with a sport canopy or larger more complex formations? CRW requires way more awareness in all of those things you mention above than wingsuits ever will. Emergency procedures that can change based on the situation. The possibility of being encouraged NOT to cut away until somebody else in the formation accomplishes some form of recovery first? Much more complex than a tandem.

You are right there is no comparison between CRW and WS, WS is a walk in the park by comparison. CRW relies on mentors and coaches that are not on any factory roster and will probably never see a USPA CRW instructor rating. Pretty good job of self policing and CRW is not new. Its been around for decades. Once more with the right gear and the right coach you are encouraged to play CRW with 50 jumps if you have the balls.
In reply to:








Quote:
Just some stuff to consider before we go and get ourselves regulated, by non-wingsuiters.


This thing going on now is 100% organized, written and set up by wingsuit flyers. Thinking about our best interests. Making sure we advance. Instead of making sure we get held back later..

With the current situation, and growing attention for our sport. keeping things the way they are (hiding our heads in the sand) is THE way to make sure we wake up one day and find a big set of rules and regulations made up by people who have no clue what it is we do...

Everyone thinks its 'them' making rules, while in fact it's 'us'....maybe not everyone here personaly. But people who know what they are talking about.


Regulated schmegmalated what secret pipeline of information leads you to believe that the regulators are coming? I don't know what I don't know but I do know that every time somebody is running around screaming we are going to get pinched by the regulator, complaining we all have our heads in the sand its typically one of our own with a pathological conspiracy theory disorder with their head up their ass trying to prove something they made up out of thin air "poof".

I can just see when these proposals are brought before the governing body the one word that pop into their minds regarding the presenters of this proposal,

"Pussies"


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jul 1, 2009, 5:26 PM)


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 1, 2009, 5:20 PM
Post #89 of 234 (1312 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Glen..you are always the loudest voice when it comes to people flaunting a manufacturers rating...now that there might finaly be a program that makes sure it actually means something in terms of a rating, you say 'I dont want things to change'?

Though this could become a lengthy discussion, I think the simplified version is..

Rules and Regs. ARE gonna happen. Like it or not. And it doesnt matter what accident did or didnt start that process. But its happening. And some people want to try and make it the best one it can be.

Which is better than sticking your head in the sand while singing a happy song to make it go away....Tongue


bdrake529  (D 29503)

Jul 1, 2009, 5:38 PM
Post #90 of 234 (1302 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Rules and Regs. ARE gonna happen.

Could you please explain this inevitability? Because Jay Stokes wrote an editorial where he floated the idea? Or is there something more substantive that leads you to this conclusion?


Premier DSE  (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 1, 2009, 5:57 PM
Post #91 of 234 (1296 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it's even more simple than you're making it sound, Jarno.
Can you imagine the audacity of the USPA requiring someone demonstrate they can actually fly AND intelligently teach the subject which they claim to be able to teach and fly? My god! The nerve?!
Holy shit, to demand a higher level of competency from those that teach than merely 100 wingsuit skydives and a beer? How dare they?
Some may not recognize it, but the face of the USPA is changing. The president's editorial is merely one small piece of evidence that this is so. Glenn Bangs never would have had the balls to ask the question, let alone suggest an opinion.

For those thinking this all came about due to the Sebastian incident, you're wrong. The project began exactly one year ago, on July 10, 2008. When I presented it to the team that eventually came together in February 2009, a _lot_ of this was already put together, as any one of them will support. In fact, Monkey can attest to the fact that I showed small pieces of it to him during the Lodi event last year. The program I put together changed a lot, due to the thousands of jump experiences that other members of the team brought to the table, and it improved dramatically over what I'd written initially.

If wanting to get some of the shitty instructors out of the wingsuit instructing game makes me a pussy, Glen then all I can say to that is "meow."

I have a huge respect for instructors that can actually do what they claim to do, and know what they claim to know, and know how to teach in blocks and methods that stick with the student. Look at guys like Chuck Blue, Ed Pawlowski, etc, and there is great respect because not only can they fly well, but they've developed a solid teaching methodology based on their other instructional rating experiences. Look at most of the BMI/E guys, and you'll find mostly jokes being told (in the USA).

Self regulation hasn't worked. At all. As the discipline grows, DZO's find themselves less comfortable with what they see happening with wingsuiting. Some DZ's don't allow it. With a USPA-endorsed instructional rating (not regulation), it offers a greater level of credibility.
For those that don't hang a shingle as a wingsuit instructor, nothing at all will change. To suggest it's anything else is just FUD.
For those that do hang a shingle, what do you have to fear if you can actually demonstrate the skills you purport you possess? Is the 20.00 rating fee really that extreme?Crazy


bigbearfng  (D 29442)

Jul 1, 2009, 6:03 PM
Post #92 of 234 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bdrake529] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
1. Should USPA create or require "instructor" ratings for things being taught to licensed skydivers? This very basic question that needs to be answered first. If this is done it will create a precedent. Where will it stop? In other words, for every new "advanced" activity will USPA be expected to implement something? Does it have the resources to do that? Does it have the expertise to do that?

This is an excellent point, and I'd like to hear a thorough answer from anyone on the pro-WSI rating side.

I'm a bit puzzled by the impetus for the call for USPA to regulate wingsuiting on the level of AFF and tandems. From the brief scanning of this thread I've done, it seems that "safety" is the driving motivation. But how many deaths/injuries can be attributed to manufacturer-rated instructors "not following the rules"? Perhaps 2 that I'm aware of (and even that's debatable). Are there more?

Each year's USPA fatality report shows multiple swooping deaths, most from people operating far below the USPA/manufacturer recommended experience for the maneuver, canopy choice, and/or wing loading. Is there a real probability that a USPA CPI rating system will be mandated any time soon? If USPA hasn't "regulated" canopy piloting instruction (which has a much worse safety record) yet, what makes us think they'll really bring the hammer down on wingsuiting first?

With that in mind, is the posted proposal really "in front of the train, running at the same speed than to be hit by it", or is it actually fueling a train that would run out of steam on its own before long?

+10! The WL charts arn't even enforced.
Don't wanna be rude but why does all the self important calls for "atmo needs instruction" joke keep echoing in my head....


bdrake529  (D 29503)

Jul 1, 2009, 6:06 PM
Post #93 of 234 (1287 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Self regulation hasn't worked. At all.

Could you please elaborate? (I.e., provide evidence for this assertion)


tr027  (D License)

Jul 1, 2009, 6:08 PM
Post #94 of 234 (1282 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 Good posts Glen, I couldn't agree more and you explained it better than I would have; thanks for the posts. A vote on this would be great.


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 1, 2009, 6:11 PM
Post #95 of 234 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bigbearfng] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Don't wanna be rude but why does all the self important calls for "atmo needs instruction" joke keep echoing in my head....

Playing with yourself too much while not having enough people around for inteligent conversations?
Dunno...I give up?

DO tell!


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 6:29 PM
Post #96 of 234 (1255 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Glen..you are always the loudest voice when it comes to people flaunting a manufacturers rating...now that there might finaly be a program that makes sure it actually means something in terms of a rating, you say 'I dont want things to change'?

Though this could become a lengthy discussion, I think the simplified version is..

Rules and Regs. ARE gonna happen. Like it or not. And it doesnt matter what accident did or didnt start that process. But its happening. And some people want to try and make it the best one it can be.

Which is better than sticking your head in the sand while singing a happy song to make it go away....Tongue

Jarno you get me but not quite. I am the loudest voice when someone is abusing a manufacturers rating or miss representing the authority it brings, which is none. The frauds have given us all that have been around a while a lot of ammo.

But you know what? There are instructors on the lists and off that do good work when it comes to first flights. Some always did from the start. The fact that I personally haven't had to give one in four years and that I meet more and more nice young people that have wingsuit skills and just also happen to have a rating. I haven't been aware of any abuses like in the old days. Good news does not merrit gossip but bad news travels fast. The good work is being done.

Trust me in my "perfect world" there wouldn't be any wingsuit instructors per se. Instead just like in the CRW and canopy piloting disciplines you would have sought after very experienced people that can guide some one new through the first flight and on through various levels and challenges. More like a mentor organizer. In a perfect world every DZ would have a little of each but currently we have to travel a little , its worth a little road tripping I think.

Next I'd like to point out you not one but two-epic fails
First you have no ( as in none, zilch, zero, nada) correlation between any fatalities and the current system of available WS instructors and how they conduct operations. If you think its hard to change my perspective on the matter without an once of conclusive data your dreaming if this approach will work with a board who has done this for a very long time who will easily screwtinize every nuance of a presentation with no hard facts. It will get torn to shreds. The presenters will get screwed, thanked on the way out, but you know.SlyLaughLaughLaughLaugh laughed at.

Your second epic fail is the failure to realize your plight ( its not mine) is nothing next to perfectly healthy jumpers flying perfectly flying canopies at high loadings into the perfectly hard ground.... The USPA would love to solve that one if it was as easy as throwing out some regs. They would be the heros. The canopy manufacturers would love it all around too. Shit, S&TAs are having a hard time keeping jumpers from doing 270s into each other on approach at DZs where anything over a 90 on approach is already BANNED! This is your second epic fail and its a biggy.

You claim we have a train headed our way, brother you don't even have a steam whistle. I'm not a customer nor provider of wingsuit instruction so when your train comes buy I simply step to the side off the track, which currently looks pretty rusted.

You will never ever sell me on a bigger improved shinyer turd than our current wingsuit instructor program. A governing body level wingsuit instructor turd will still smell like shit.

I guarantee you will have fewer participants in the program from our current rank of wingsuit instructors. You might even be able to travel all together to boogies in a jetta.Sly


skyjumpsteve  (D 14734)

Jul 1, 2009, 6:42 PM
Post #97 of 234 (1245 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Good news does not merit gossip but bad news travels fast. The good work is being done.

I could not agree more. We have all been hearing stories about the "beer" rating for years. Give me a break. Move on. Let's talk about and give credit to the excellent instruction across the country (and world) that has allowed WS'ing to progress immeasurably over the past few years. I have seen FFC's at 10+ DZ's over the past 3 years and all were of excellent quality. Documented guidelines and recommendations would be great I just don't know if we need to go down the path of mandatory instructor ratings. This absolutely 100% would limit the growth of the discipline and IMHO would not make it any safer.


Butters  (C 37840)

Jul 1, 2009, 7:00 PM
Post #98 of 234 (1239 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

So many good points ... and yet we still have a few adults wanting to regulate all the other adults "for their own good".

Quote:
"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." Benjamin Franklin


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 7:06 PM
Post #99 of 234 (1234 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 

If wanting to get some of the shitty instructors out of the wingsuit instructing game makes me a pussy, Glen then all I can say to that is "meow."

Crazy
Well Douglas I can see you are taking this personal. After all everybody behind this "thing" only wants to do good things, I will concede that all intentions are good from the movement. But do realize that taking WSI from a recommendation level to a governed, regulated level will not clean up its act. Not like some hope.

You , Jarno, me we've all been burned by frauds and hacks in the name of the badge. Its painful but as real men we have to get over it and take it like a man, dammit! This is just not a solution, not like you want. Not Like I want. We can't let our personal disdain for the bad factory guys manifest itself into something like this. This is the creation of a bigger abomination.

I love you like an inspiring older brother, with all you have accomplished in such a short time in the sport. I'll still love you but I can't on this one instance forgive.

Its not me calling you a pussies Douglas, brother. The governing body has been around this sport a long time, seen a lot of bad ideas, deadly practices as an SOP. Maybe even had their hands on a corpse. You will have to arguably prove the need. They will be harsh. Hopefully not openly.

To everyone else in the " movement" shut yer fuckin pussie mouth!


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jul 1, 2009, 7:26 PM)


Premier DSE  (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 1, 2009, 7:25 PM
Post #100 of 234 (1224 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bdrake529] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Self regulation hasn't worked. At all.

Could you please elaborate? (I.e., provide evidence for this assertion)

Race Price-Dead at 118 jumps.
Dan Kulpa-Dead at 110 jumps.


They "didn't know what they didn't know" apparently.

There are more, but there's the most recent.
Couple these with the unexpected, exponential growth in the WS discipline, how many fatalities are acceptable before such a program is put into place?

Other than "fear of regulation," I haven't seen an intelligent comment that demonstrates why a single, cohesive and consistent methodology of teaching based on decades of proven methods is an undesirable progression in wingsuiting. The AFF program has been wonderful for skydiving, and this program isn't terribly different.
It seems the main argument is "the big bad USPA wants to regulate us" when in truth (assuming one of the multiple proposals from different sources goes through) the only thing that happens is that instructors have to prove their claimed skills. Whether you're a Peewee baseball coach, a forklift operator, or a Xerox machine repairman, you have to prove your mettle and demonstrate you know your stuff. And you're accountable for your fuckups. No one wants accountability for their fuckups, so I understand the reluctance to accept such a program.

3 years ago, a 9 way diamond was considered a major feat in the WS world. 3 years later, a 71 way accomplished and a 100 way in the planning.

No other skydiving discipline has moved at the pace of wingsuiting. People weren't showing up on DZ's 10 years ago saying "I wanna learn to skydive so I can freefly." Now, there isn't a weekend goes by without having someone come to our DZ wanting to do a tandem "because he/she wants to fly a wingsuit."

Anyway, I've said enough on the subject, you can read the proposal the team I was on has submitted, it would be interesting to hear commentary on the proposal itself rather than bitching that a proposal has been made.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Wing Suit Flying

 


Search for (options)