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, 7:40 PM
Post #101 of 234 (1714 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post


Whoa!

What exactly caused Price to go in? Do you know? Are you sure?

There were a few people who chimed in to posts after Dan went in with statements like " this couldn't happen under our instructional program its the most stringent"----- borderline marketing.

Huge contempt for this!!!!!!!

These lads payed the ultimate price, no payment higher. Don't use them to prove your point you couldn't prove otherwise with real facts.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 7:51 PM
Post #102 of 234 (1710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 


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." "
Wrong again after a 14 year lay off I came back into the sport just to Freefly. Pat Works came back in after a pretty good RW career again just to freefly. I know another old guy with a lay off that came back.

We wingsuiters are not growing as fast as you claim. The wingsuiters do not have sequential formations the size that the FFers can pull off. We will not be surpassing them any time soon.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 1, 2009, 9:10 PM
Post #103 of 234 (1689 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Whoa!

What exactly caused Price to go in? Do you know? Are you sure?

There were a few people who chimed in to posts after Dan went in with statements like " this couldn't happen under our instructional program its the most stringent"----- borderline marketing.
They both died wearing wingsuits, Glen, and for the purpose of any FACTUAL discussion, that's all that matters. I know the "altitude awareness" argument is bullshit; Race jumped at that altitude all the time.

I agree, the Birdman newsletter posts written by BMI/E's claiming "this never could have happened under our program" in fact, already had. Race was trained by a BMI. It was cheap marketing at best.

Either way, the only *facts* in evidence of any authority, is they both died wearing wingsuits and were taught to wingsuit far earlier than recommended numbers. Every other aspect of any other argument is subjective and you damn well know it.

As far as proving the growth of wingsuiting vs other discipines, it's already been proven. You should have been at PIA where the evidence was shown. It's on the web as well, but frankly, I don't feel like doing your research for you. Spend a bit of time researching, maybe even a phone call to the USPA might help you find your answer. Even a simple Googlefight would give you a pretty good clue.

No one is claiming a USPA-sponsored program would eliminate fatalities and it's strawman for you to imply that anyone is saying so. What it does do is provide a cogent, consistent program that carries accountability and responsibility on the part of instructors, something that doesn't exist today.

Like I said earlier, no one wants to take responsibility for their fuckups, they'd just rather sweep em' under the rug and move on. I was raised to try to make a difference. I knew Race, I knew Dan. Maybe my passion is a misguided attempt to make a difference in the world, but at least I'm doing something rather than making excuses or ignoring it. Even pussies can put their balls on the line for something they believe in.
Meow.


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 1, 2009, 10:46 PM
Post #104 of 234 (1664 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 I know the "altitude awareness" argument is bullshit; Race jumped at that altitude all the time.
Douglas, altitude lack of awareness phenom has nothing to do with actual altitude. Usually its being engrossed in an activity with disregard to altitude to the detriment of the jumper. But in this very case it refers to a lack of the typical visual cues we are use to seeing. Ever flown over water with no land in sight? How about an un-typical barren moon like scape different from the farm scape at our DZ back home?

I know I had some trouble with the terrain at Moab for a few seconds on a jump or two and I have way more jumps than Price did. I've experienced the exact same over water with no land in sight both piloting aircraft and under canopy. Its not bull shit. Its documented but outside of any experience you've had with it. Not that I'm advocating you start swooping large ponds to experience it.

Remember I personally don't instruct anymore. I don't have a horse in the race, don't even have a horse suitable for a first flight course in the stable. Anything that happens won't happen to me or effect me personally one way or another. After reading the proposal in whole I don't think it will pass on its own merit unless there is some secret unknown legal action presently breathing down necks to get it in writing. Something akin to the skyride counter suit and wouldn't that be embarrassing for the governing body, twice.

So lets be clear my head is not in the sand, I have no fear one way or another, I'm not stupid enough to walk down any rail tracks so that is not a concern of being run over.

If this is beyond the well meaning intentions of a small group of friendly wingsuiters and more a concession to a pressing legal matter that has a gag order then its beyond a wingsuit forum discussion. It will explode in the bonfire, general,instructor, incidents forums in the end.

Time to join basejumper dot com or start the non -USPA dropzone forum @dropzone.com I guess.


Butters  (C 37840)

Jul 2, 2009, 5:45 AM
Post #105 of 234 (1617 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Other than "fear of regulation," ...

It isn't fear of, it's contempt for ...


bdrake529  (D 29503)

Jul 2, 2009, 11:26 AM
Post #106 of 234 (1553 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
No one is claiming a USPA-sponsored program would eliminate fatalities and it's strawman for you to imply that anyone is saying so.

No? When you stated "Self regulation hasn't worked. At all." and I asked for support for this statement, you replied with 2 fatalities and the vague statement "There are more...".

So if 2 fatalities is proof that "self-regulation hasn't worked. At all.", isn't it fair to infer from the construction of your statements that you're claiming a USPA-sponsored program (i.e., not self-regulation) would lead to fewer fatalities? And if there are only 2 being presented as the negative consequence of the current situation, then less would be 1 or 0. Since "no one is claiming...eliminate fatalities", we can then conclude that you're claiming the proposed program would result in 1 fatality? Please clarify.

And please also explain how those 2 fatalities were attributable to "self-regulation". Did not both Race and Dan know ahead of time the 200 jump min. requirement? Weren't both jumpers turned away from other DZs/FFC instructors and told to come back when they had the required experience? Spot, I've read in other posts of yours that you agree each young man was 100% responsible for his tragic end. How does 100% leave room to claim responsibility is also shared by "self-regulation"?

The reserve repack cycle is indeed "regulation", from the FAA no-less. Yet I know several people that haven't had their reserves repacked in years. They simply pencil-pack when they need to. Should, God forbid, any of these people ever suffer tragic consequence due to a defective reserve, regulations will have been impotent to save them from their own decisions.

There is no way to ensure regulations are 100% followed, and those who choose to ignore recommendations, requirements, and regulations, can always find a way to slip through. At that point, isn't the responsibility theirs alone?


fasted3  (D 30104)

Jul 2, 2009, 11:58 AM
Post #107 of 234 (1532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Butters] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

I'd call it a wide sweeping solution looking for a problem.
Are we overrun with 'bad' WS instruction?
If there is a problem, isn't it with just with low number jumpers? Do we need a whole new USPA program for Wingsuit Instructor Ratings to solve that problem?
Here is my idea: Lobby for the 200 jump minimum REQUIREMENT. RECOMMEND that instructors use the fine manual that has been developed, and let the INDIVIDUAL decide who is a good instructor and who isn't. When the USPA has ratings for FF, Crew, and Swooping Instructors will be a fine time to do it for WS. Not before.
How is a 50-100 jump wonder to know who is a good WS Instructor? He wouldn't need to know until 200 jumps, if you get that simple change alone.
At 200 jumps an individual should be able to make their own decision about who to train with, and I see no reason to add new requirements for those with 500 jumps. There is zero evidence that this group requires an instructor at all.
Of course, I'd recommend they use one.
Most of the time people complain about unsafe training, it's really about low timers that shouldn't have been there in the first place. 200 jumps is a reasonable number for anybody, I think, then find your own way to the sky. Nobody is going to be pulling for you if you get it wrong. When WS Instructors start flying in and saving people is when they should have ratings.


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 2, 2009, 12:06 PM
Post #108 of 234 (1522 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bdrake529] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Brian, the quoted fatalities might not have been illiminated by new regulations (or actually, current regulations just being enforced more strickt). And I dont think thats what DSE is saying.

But those fatalities maybe did help in putting us as a dicipline 'on the map' more, with regards to 'outside' people looking into how stuff is organised.

And the sad truth there is...there isnt a whole lot of organised stuff looking across the board...especially with some key-figures who are teaching the current standard/recommendations not even following their own rules and recomendations...

A reboot would be a good thing...


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 2, 2009, 12:27 PM
Post #109 of 234 (1507 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bdrake529] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

  Well as I understand it this proposal was initially, partially drafted before the recent fatalities. Not driven by an event in particular but more from the dissatisfaction of a few with what we currently have for wingsuit instruction. Exactly what is lacking in the current system and precisely how it is failing is a bit of a mystery.

The statement that a factory instructor would be willing to bend the current recommendations just to "make a sale" is pure speculation. I'm sure rules have been disregarded for all kinds of bad reasons more like personal judgement and factors that can't be placed back on factory sale quotas. Maybe the factories love this movement because they can stop wasting resources on instructor qualification and all the responsibility can be shifted to a governing body. The makers can get back to just designing and selling suits. After all nobody is taking the roster guys seriously, not even the guys on the roster. It would be a load off them for sure.

Despite the claim this draft is not being driven by incidents or events. There is this constant abstract correlation between the recent fatalities but yet no direct link of a specific failure mode of the current system to these events. Sadly this is a lot like rolling out the gimp in a wheelchair to support the Brady bill ( y'all let me know if I need to delete this sentence if it violates forum rules). Yet everything proposed does nothing to guarantee these events won't happen again.

This reminds me of some canopy skills related proposal by jumpers themselves ( we) that was going around back in 03 were jumpers would have to demonstrate skills before being allowed on higher performance canopys or a higher loading of their current wing, a grass roots movement with USPA regulation. The responsibility would have fallen largely on the DZ's and the S&TAs or really the extra S&TAs needed to enforce this. The increase in staffing cost would in no doubt be passed on to jump tickets.

Whatever happened to that one?


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jul 2, 2009, 12:43 PM)


bdrake529  (D 29503)

Jul 2, 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #110 of 234 (1499 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
especially with some key-figures who are teaching the current standard/recommendations not even following their own rules and recomendations

Under a new system, such a person would be in danger of losing their WPI rating, correct? But how would USPA know? Someone would have to report them, wouldn't they?

If someone is motivated enough to end someone else's wingsuit teaching career by reporting them to the USPA, why can't they simply out them publicly in the current arrangement? No one is preventing a "BAD Wingsuit Instructor - Avoid these people" thread from popping up here on DZ.com, or a "Wanted" style poster being put up at the DZ.

Wingsuit instruction is usually sought out by the student and if the student is heads-up enough to check if the prospective instructor has an official WPI badge, isn't it reasonable to expect them to spend a few minutes online checking the "wall of bad instructors" thread to prevent being taught by an unskilled or irresponsible teacher?


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 2, 2009, 12:59 PM
Post #111 of 234 (1478 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bdrake529] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 

If someone is motivated enough to end someone else's wingsuit teaching career by reporting them to the USPA, why can't they simply out them publicly in the current arrangement? No one is preventing a "BAD Wingsuit Instructor - Avoid these people" thread from popping up here on DZ.com, or a "Wanted" style poster being put up at the DZ.
Yes you could have a sticky on this page featuring the culprits. There could be a section in each of the quarterly factory online newsletters. A little blurb in wingsuit world news. Scratch the names off the instructor roster. Nothing harsh mind you. Just something very diplomatic and professional. Then there is always a gentle reminder to those that apply to become a factory instructor. How its a serious responsibility, the publics perception of our beloved sport is at risk along with lives. How its a great honor and a priveledge, a priveledge that can be revoked if needed.

How about just as carefull screening of the instructor candidates as first flight candidates. " Why" do you wan't to become an instructor? To get rich, get chicks, get free suits, respect?

Nobody wants to be the bad guy, or the lead bad guy, when it comes to self policing. We want big brother to handle the dirty work and keep our hands clean.


(This post was edited by VectorBoy on Jul 2, 2009, 1:01 PM)


BASEjumper375  (D License)

Jul 2, 2009, 2:28 PM
Post #112 of 234 (1434 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

As I have read and followed this lengthy thread, several questions come to mind. As someone who has some expertise in crafting propositions that engender trust and acceptance --- much of this dialog suffers from classical change management issues inhibiting buy-in. Full disclosure and willingness to accept the feedback, participation, and will of the community of stakeholders can only strengthen and improve the final product.

Without taking any sides or position, without intending to make any accusations - Please answer the following (which may help to raise the trust factor relative to the altruistic intentions here).

Who were ALL the contributors to the proposal?

Do they currently run or are they affiliated with a wingsuit school? If so, which ones?

Of the contributors, which contributors have USPA ratings and which ratings?

When did these contributors get their ratings?
Recently?

Do any of these contributors make a significant part of their income from skydiving?

Was there any non-advocate review done by parties not affiliated with the team, thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest?

Was there an intent to use such ratings as a discriminator for marketing or promotional purposes relative to other instructors or schools?

Was there a reason for a few individuals taking the proposal to the USPA without comment from the wider community of stakeholders?

Would the authors be open to pulling the current proposal pending before the USPA for wider comment and refinement based upon greater input?

Who would likely be tapped as Instructor/Examiners for the WSI? Who will certify the WSI I/Es?

If we believe our cause is just and without suspect, then we should not fear the light of day.

One option could be to make incremental steps rather than universal changes. Would the team be open to enjoining in consideration of such an approach? For example, moving current recommendations to requirements within the BSRs? Encouraging greater caution and information within the SIM?


(This post was edited by BASEjumper375 on Jul 2, 2009, 5:30 PM)


SuperGirl  (D 30091)

Jul 2, 2009, 2:38 PM
Post #113 of 234 (1424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASEjumper375] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Who were ALL the contributors to the proposal?

Do they currently run or are they affiliated with a wingsuit school? If so, which ones?

Was there a reason for a few individuals taking the proposal to the USPA without comment from the winder community of stakeholders?

dude did you read the fuckin thing?
go back this thread to the links to all the documents justin posted and READ... names and other answers to your questions are all in there.

In reply to:
Would the authors be open to pulling the current proposal pending before the USPA for wider comment and refinement based upon greater input?

again, read through the thing and see that they actually ask uspa for a period of time in which the wingsuit community can digest this, comment on it, provide feedback/input...


BASEjumper375  (D License)

Jul 2, 2009, 2:42 PM
Post #114 of 234 (1422 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SuperGirl] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Who were ALL the contributors to the proposal?

Do they currently run or are they affiliated with a wingsuit school? If so, which ones?

Was there a reason for a few individuals taking the proposal to the USPA without comment from the winder community of stakeholders?

dude did you read the fuckin thing?
go back this thread to the links to all the documents justin posted and READ... names and other answers to your questions are all in there.

In reply to:
Would the authors be open to pulling the current proposal pending before the USPA for wider comment and refinement based upon greater input?

again, read through the thing and see that they actually ask uspa for a period of time in which the wingsuit community can digest this, comment on it, provide feedback/input...

Thank you SuperGirl ---

I did read the entire thing.

I stand by my questions --- no offense meant.

I am actually attempting to help here -- full disclosure helps to foster trust and buy-in.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jul 2, 2009, 5:03 PM
Post #115 of 234 (1379 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mccordia] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:

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.....

That is not an accurate summary at all.

I am against the proposal and since I have no interest in being a WS instructor/coach, your statement doesn't apply.

The issue is that this is a solution in search of a problem. There has not been an epidemic of accidents due to the poor quality of WS instruction under the status quo.


mccordia  (D 94775)

Jul 2, 2009, 5:32 PM
Post #116 of 234 (1358 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There has not been an epidemic of accidents due to the poor quality of WS instruction under the status quo.

Noop..luckely most FFCs with poor and/or way premature wingsuit instruction ended okayWinkTongue


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 2, 2009, 5:53 PM
Post #117 of 234 (1345 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

 Does anybody else who has been around wingsuiting since the very early part of the decade, before any WS factory instructor program, think its Ironic that we sit here looking at a proposal of sweeping changes of a regulatory nature motivated on the high profile ill actions of a derelict select few within the factory instructor ranks?

The BMI program, the first, was concocted to ensure the quality of the FFC. It was there to protect us from rebel mentors of unknown quality and integrity. Remember the rebel WS instructors that were portrayed to be the doom of us all? Those rebel I s were projected to plunge wingsuiting into bannishment at one DZ after another. Those rebels could never be as good as the factory guys that were personally screened and flight test by the man Jari himself, with Chuck and Scott standing by. Remember those days? Chuck himself conceded that once they left he had no control over what happened. All that was between them and their dropzones. Then Pf came out with their roster.

The rebel instructor guys never went away, some flourished. It was perfectly acceptable just to be a mentor under the recommendation system. So we had the factory guys doing their course. Every once in a while some of them would do something silly we would all take notice but most of the real work was getting done. Then you had the independent instructors making their contribution of new wingsuiters without their Jari stamp. Just a low profile contribution of first timers.

We also had the people that had more than enough jumps 500+ and did it on their own. This jived with the recommendations.

So now we want to turn the whole thing upside down and close off avenues to first flights from the privateers and those with enough experience? Really not the disciplines target problem area I would say. All of this because of a few problem spots from the factory institution that was created to protect us from problems?

How bout the chief factory guys clean house first, or at least attempt some rehabilitation of the ranks of those who were trusted to protect us from bannishment before we give it up to higher order management?


notsane  (D 9465)

Jul 2, 2009, 7:29 PM
Post #118 of 234 (1324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASEjumper375] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Great summary and insight, Frank.


notsane  (D 9465)

Jul 2, 2009, 7:34 PM
Post #119 of 234 (1318 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VectorBoy] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

All this discussion is great, as long as we keep it civil, and respect that the other guy, who disagrees with you, has good reasons for having their own point of view.

But none of this counts as a vote in the final tally.

If you want a vote, for or against, email your USPA regional director with your *reasoned* opinion. Include your USPA number and main dropzone.

http://www.uspa.org/...bid/140/Default.aspx

Scott


IslandGuy  (C License)

Jul 2, 2009, 8:08 PM
Post #120 of 234 (1309 views)
Shortcut
Re: [notsane] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

THE NOTION
IMO, the proposed regulations are a complex solution for a non-existent problem. Furthermore, with the exception of AFF and Tandem, regulation of this nature is unprecedented in our sport, and for good reason, it is not needed. This isn't salvation - it's the train.

THE PRECEDENT
If you take the stance that it is warranted for wingsuits (which after doing some basic arithmetic actually shows a fine safety record), then it is warranted for other disciplines as well. Take this same document and substitute CRW, or Camera Flying, or Swooping, or Canopy Control, or Sky Boarding, etc. in place of Wingsuit, then the USPA governing body will have all the bases covered. Other disciplines should take note of what is happening here.

THE PROBLEM
DZOs not allowing wingsuits?
WSIs certified over a beer?
Bad instructors everywhere?
I must be living in an Easter Egg, I’m not seeing it, not to say it isn‘t happening, just a phantom problem as far as I‘m concerned.

Self regulation IS working - aside from the two very questionable incidents, wingsuiters are not dying. You can shout as loud as you want that it’s all going to hell in a hand basket, but that doesn’t make it true. The numbers don’t lie. I don’t buy it. You shouldn’t buy it.

THE COSTS
It's not the $20, it's the:
1. Coach Rating ($$$?) (I’ll bet not many current WSIs have a Coach rating.)
2. 2-Day WSI course - guessing here: ($200-$400-$???)
3. 4 jumps x 2 people x $25 = $200
4. 8 pack jobs x $6 = $48
5. Travel to/from the DZ. accommodations = $$$?
6. and everything else, meals, beer, gift for the GF or wife for taking a 3-day weekend.
7. Time off work/vacation.
8. plus, whatever else you’d be doing with that time - called life.

THE ASSUMPTIONS
1. That there will be a whole new group of better trained and available instructors.
More likely - the regulations will take qualified and experienced instructors and force them out of being WSIs. The regulation’s intent of weeding out the “bad” instructors will be foreshadowed by the reality that flocks of experienced and qualified instructors will abandon their instructing activities.
2. That regulation is going to make the wingsuiting safer.
More likely - that it will make it more dangerous by restricting access to good WSIs, tempting folks to self teach, do it on their own.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS
1. Anyone that wants to get around the regs is going to amend (falsify) their logbook to show a WS flight before the “enforcement date”.
2. All these logbook entries - do they have to be signed?
3. If they are wingsuit solo jumps, who signs off on those ?
4. How about the folks whose logbook is their Neptune?
5. If you have more than 2 people in the 2-day WSI class, then the instructor can't possibly make the jumps and critique everyone on the 3rd day.
6. Are there enough first flight students to support the number of FFCs required by WSIs and WSI/Es to maintain currency? Especially in some parts or the country, I doubt it.
7. And, BTW, what do you do for two days in a classroom (one-on-one, two-on-one, you can complete all 7 levels of AFF in a weekend)?

IMO
First off, I have no vested interest in any of what is being proposed, other than the good health of the sport. I'm a fun jumper... don't make a penny off any thing wingsuit related.

Despite what has been suggested, wingsuiters do not exist in a state of chaos. Facts prove quite the opposite. You don’t go from 9-ways to 71-ways in 3 years without viable self organization. To subscribe to the notion that everything is going to deteriorate and people will start dying if we do nothing is an unfounded and unsubstantiated fear.

All the information and instruction one needs to safely learn to wingsuit is out there, internet, books, many qualified instructors. What exists - works.

What’s surprising is that no wingsuit manufacturer has put together the instructional material in a DVD that they ship with the suit that covers the course or attempted to standardize the instructional material amongst the industry at large. A missed opportunity.

I concur, the proposed regulation is well crafted and highly polished, but it’s still a turd. I believe that what is proposed will do more harm than good.
-------------------------------------
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Karl Marx


DesertDevil  (D 6323)

Jul 2, 2009, 10:23 PM
Post #121 of 234 (1283 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree, the Birdman newsletter posts written by BMI/E's claiming "this never could have happened under our program" in fact, already had. Race was trained by a BMI. It was cheap marketing at best.
Quote:

I'd like to clear something up right here. There were three wingsuit instructors in Utah at the time of Race's death. Neil, who is a Phoenix Fly instructor; Baxter, who is a Phoenix Fly instructor and examiner and a BMI; and me (I am a Phoenix Fly instructor and BMI) . Not one of us took Race on his first flight course. Race was not trained by a certifed wingsuit instructor. Race learned to fly a wingsuit from his friends, who were not wingsuit instructors. The accident happened in Moab--not one of us was at that Boogie.

Shame on you to use his death like this.

For the rest of you, have a great 4th of July.

Faris


VectorBoy  (F 321)

Jul 3, 2009, 6:34 AM
Post #122 of 234 (1201 views)
Shortcut
Re: [notsane] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
All this discussion is great, as long as we keep it civil, and respect that the other guy, who disagrees with you, has good reasons for having their own point of view.

But none of this counts as a vote in the final tally.

What? I'm the most diplomatic anti establishment wingsuit guy I know.AngelicLaughLaughLaugh
Alright, I'll try to keep my vulgarity in check. Its hard when I don't have the artist formerly known as Voodoo to work with in these matters.

And I do have compasion for the group that but this together. They are not strangers to me, I understand their delema.

But despite what everybody is saying this is just a more thought out polished response to previous years "consumer panic". There is no regulation coming, no train to run us over. The governing body does not have the resources. There is no infrastructure to support it. There is absolutely no need for it and that is easily proven. Its a cycle that keeps repeating itself here every few years, largely rumor driven, nothing more.


BASEjumper375  (D License)

Jul 3, 2009, 5:06 PM
Post #123 of 234 (1125 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASEjumper375] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As I have read and followed this lengthy thread, several questions come to mind. As someone who has some expertise in crafting propositions that engender trust and acceptance --- much of this dialog suffers from classical change management issues inhibiting buy-in. Full disclosure and willingness to accept the feedback, participation, and will of the community of stakeholders can only strengthen and improve the final product.

Without taking any sides or position, without intending to make any accusations - Please answer the following (which may help to raise the trust factor relative to the altruistic intentions here).

Who were ALL the contributors to the proposal?

Do they currently run or are they affiliated with a wingsuit school? If so, which ones?

Of the contributors, which contributors have USPA ratings and which ratings?

When did these contributors get their ratings?
Recently?

Do any of these contributors make a significant part of their income from skydiving?

Was there any non-advocate review done by parties not affiliated with the team, thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest?

Was there an intent to use such ratings as a discriminator for marketing or promotional purposes relative to other instructors or schools?

Was there a reason for a few individuals taking the proposal to the USPA without comment from the wider community of stakeholders?

Would the authors be open to pulling the current proposal pending before the USPA for wider comment and refinement based upon greater input?

Who would likely be tapped as Instructor/Examiners for the WSI? Who will certify the WSI I/Es?

If we believe our cause is just and without suspect, then we should not fear the light of day.
--------------------------------------------------------

About the authors – pulled from Google searches.

Douglas Spotted Eagle – Flock University, VASST & USPA-AFFI Rating

Scotty Burns – Flock University & USPA-Coach Rating

Scott Callantine – Flock University / World Record - Big Way Plane Captain & USPA Tandem, AFFI and Static Line Ratings

Jeff Donohue – Flock University

Sean Horton – Flock University & USPA-Coach Rating

Jeff Nebelkopf – World Record - Big Way Founder / Organizer & USPA-Coach Rating

Phil Peggs – Flock U Wingsuit School/Team, World Record - Big Way Organizer

Justin Shorb – Flock University / World Record - Big Way Plane Captain & USPA-Coach Rating

Chris Warnock - VASST

Taya Weiss - World Record - Big Way Lead Organizer & USPA-Coach Rating


sdctlc  (D 16437)

Jul 3, 2009, 7:24 PM
Post #124 of 234 (1080 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASEjumper375] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

About the authors – pulled from Google searches.

Scott Callantine – Flock University / World Record - Big Way Plane Captain & USPA Tandem, and Static Line Ratings

CLARIFICATION ON ME--> Please note that in the search results mentioned I am noting that I am not currently rated as an AFFI nor am I claiming to be. I have just under 4000 jumps and have been jumping for ~18 years. Not that this adds any additional merit but I also hold a SEL Pilots license with about 700+ hours of total PIC time..

WOW!! This is really getting a lot of discussion. I wanted to chime in here to at least give my point of view.. I was asked to review and give opinion on the proposal with the next step being asked to give comment and add to the existing (at the time) rough draft sections. I was asked as a very active member of the wingsuit community in terms of active jumping, Organizing at various Boogies, involvement in the record jumps and future attempts and of course FFC training of which I do not rely on in any terms of my overall $ viability in real life.... When approached, it was my understanding that there was at least 1 other group working towards a similar proposal for USAP and the beginnings of this came from members of the USPA Board looking into an increased involvement from the USPA with WS community. That said, the opportunity to be involved in the future direction of WS training was worth helping out with, a little of being in front of the train compared to getting run over with it attitude. Through conference calls and a fair bit of back and forth discussion amongst the named group, we generated the proposal that Justin made public. Is it perfect, well obviously a lot don't think so but at the same time this group felt the need to and had a stated goal of working within the existing USPA SIM/IRM format. This was paramount in the formulation of the proposal but so was the need to eventually get open feed back on the proposal as was stated in the documents which is where we are now.

My participation was also encouraged by the possibility that some involved members of USPA Board were looking at more wingsuit regulation (editorial that sparked by this thread given as an example) . My personal opinion is that WS training and self regulation has previously been good but with the extremely fast growth and a wide range of Instructor abilities leaves a system that is not with out faults. Looking through the posts and the statements in this thread either for or against the belief that our self regulation is working, it is obvious that there is a big difference of opinion. My personal feeling is that some additional testing to consolidate to an accepted standard both for First Flight Participants and for the people giving the FFC's, e.g. the WSI's, would not be a bad thing... I think we can all agree that there is an accepted standard that should be adhered to with the 200 in 18 months or 500 total. Is the term "WingSuit Instructor" the big bugaboo for people?? Would an Advanced Coaching rating be a better fit??? Leve it as it sits now and hope something does not come our way later we did not work at creating??? I don't know for sure and the point of an open discussion is to better gain that understanding.

Given the parameters of my involvement in the process to date, We put forth a program that met our goals when we became involved as a group:

--> One that fits into existing USPA instructional structure
--> One that does not deviate from the accepted "Standard" for beginning WS flyers
--> One that would add a level of consistency in to training FFC's
and
--> One that would help standardize the minimum requirements for the people teaching Wing Suit flying based on teaching and flying abilities.

I think the proposal does met those goals and has moved on to the "Open Discussion" mode. No idea if it will get accepted or not by USPA now, later or never but I do hope it has raised a level of awareness that we all have a responsibility to not only skydiving but also our wingsuit sub-group in the sport. Countless hours has been spent on this not to hurt the system but to help it. Taken in that context I believe that the proposal can help move us to an agreement or common ground and improve the sport. This proposal has not yet passed and if it does as is or in some variation or not at all, increased awareness is NOT a bad thing though sticking your head in the sand to save the same old same old will put us squarely in a bad position.

Scott Callantine
D-16437
USPA TM-I, S/L-I


(This post was edited by sdctlc on Jul 3, 2009, 7:25 PM)


pms07  (D 7571)

Jul 3, 2009, 8:37 PM
Post #125 of 234 (1054 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sdctlc] Parachutist Editorial [In reply to] Can't Post

Scott,

It's well thought out and written proposal. Here's a question I'm curious about though (okay, maybe more than one question...). Why does the the future of the FFC have to fit within this concept: "One that fits into existing USPA instructional structure"?

Seems like there are other options including something like developing a comprehensive educational guide/lesson plan for beginner wingsuit flyers and experienced wingsuit flyers/coaches. The SIM is obviously inadequate...

And isn't that instructional structure designed to deal with unlicensed/not yet "A" qualified students? I'm not sure this new direction is good precedence for USPA. Thoughts?

I also want to understand how very experienced skydivers (zero wingsuit jumps...) fit into this model. Does it work the same for a guy with 4000 jumps, vice the guy with the minimum 200, for a FFC?

Any thoughts on what this will potentially do for those of us at smaller drop zones out in the midwest? What kind of access to a FFC do you think this will give us? I can tell you that where I normally jump and at the nearest 3 or 4 drop zones, there is no market currently to keep such a rating current. That might result in the only option for a FFC is to go to Florida or wherever (same for someone very experienced that wants to seek a WSI rating...).

Is this the proposal the one the S&T committee has in hand? I've seen another that is similar, though not as lengthy and complete. If so, why the late public viewing just about a week prior to the BoD meeting? Or was this proposal meant to be considered at a later time or BoD meeting?

I appreciate the hard work and thought you and others have put into this proposal. I want to better understand it and all the ramifications so appreciate any insight you have. Thanks!

Pat


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)