It would be silly to think because USPA passed on much involvement at this point would mean they would not be interested in looking at that again. I would fully expect they do. Give it time. There are some very involved, well documented instructional programs out there now. Some were involved in presenting to the USPA. Hopefully those that simply desired to muddy the waters the board was wading into aren't involved this time around.
I think what the neigh sayers are REALLY saying is that they don't want anyone other than manufacturer-certified people giving instruction - or at the very least, they don't want anyone finding out that there are non-manufacturer-sponsored instructors out there. (Which is tricky at best, since there is no Tonysuit instruction program...)
There are great coaches out there that aren't tied to any manufacturer. There are people that have sought continuing, outside education to be better instructors/coaches. Brand name isn't important, and for what it's worth, PF isn't mentioned even once in our coaching course. There are many that simply want the title of "coach/instructor" after their name. It's about ego vs passion for the student's success and for the sport. The problem is that those without the passion can (and have) created scenarios that affect all wingsuiters across the board. As wingsuiting grows, this issue too, will grow. Putting brakes on from time to time isn't a bad thing if it causes us to stop and examine what we do.
Maybe that's just how it is, and Chuck Blue is right. Stop bickering, accept that the standard is a race to the bottom, and suck it up.
Put me on your list, Simon.
DSE-D29060 3,400 jumps USPA C/E, AFFI, PRO, Coach, Phoenix-fly Examiner/Coach ~Skydive Elsinore Wingsuit School ~Over 50 suits in various brands/sizes, PF-Supported School. ~3 Full-time Wingsuit Coaches, 2 part time ~We are here 7 days a week, DZ closed on Tuesdays in the winter (unless military is training, then we're open)
So what would your response be if I proposed to do the exact same thing as Simon is proposing?
The same thing...the same questions...
Its two things we're talking about. This important point, and the silly 'independant' wordgame which is completely seperate. That point is just his method of marketing. But the safety aspect is besides that point. Id have just as little respect for your personal involvement with students well being for such a random list of 'recommendation' as Im showing Simon here for his initial proposal...
If you're doing something..do it right, or dont do it at all...at least not if you're trying to instruct, teach or even just market yourself...why cut corners on safety...
I think we just have different philosophies on this, but let me point out a problem with your reasoning. I DON'T believe that you are saying that "only manufacturer-sponsored programs are qualified to instruct" (of course, that would mean ONLY PF coaches are qualified).
You're not saying that, right?
If you're NOT saying that, then you are left with a fairly major problem - who decides who is "qualified"? You? PF? If it is not USPA, then who do you propose makes the decision? We all know that there are good non-PF instructors out there. And there are crappy ones. But we don't solve the problem of crappy instructors by pretending they don't exist. If you really want to solve that, you either need to implement a rigorous USPA (and foreign equivalent) WSI program, or at LEAST try to have periodic meetings of like minded, safety conscious instructors who want to do a better job for students.
The solution to poor training isn't going to be preventing people from putting their name on a list of people who call themselves instructors. The same people will operate under the radar either way, list or no. I propose we stop worrying about the boogeyman of a list and start thinking about ways that ALL instruction can be done better and safer. It shouldn't be that I have to travel cross country if I want to get a top notch First Flight Course, in the same way that I don't have to travel cross country to do AFF. The path to growing wingsuiting is going to be coming up with training that everyone can use and benefit from. Not trying to control who does what...
Im only saying (again) if you list someone as qualified to teach. Make sure they teach by a safety standard YOU stand for. If an ass with 20 wingsuit jumps lists himself as an instructor, and you allow him that listing, you are the one forwarding him students. Potentialy receiving shit coaching, of which we've seen sad to lethal results. If you dont care, OR choose to stand by that list...regardles of skills in flying or teaching...thats your choice.
I vallue fellow skydivers higher, and wil only forward them to people I KNOW are capable of teaching. Regardles what official or unofficial teaching methods used. Its the quality/safety one should stand for, not list just anyone because 'uspa rules say they can' Use common sense, ethics and some personal interest in other peoples safety...please!
My present to the world today will be to remove the word "Independent" from the list.
I am a bit anxious about what to rename it because I already used the letters IWCDB in the database....that commits me to using an "I" otherwise it would break the SOE I built. I am thinking Ingenious....or maybe Immature....or even Inbred....all are more fitting than the misuse of the word Independent on a list of coaches that might be biased towards those that hold the TS Wingsuit Training Rating.
In the interest of full disclosure I am also biased toward large dogs as opposed to small dogs, sake over wine, campers over time shares and certainly flying first class over economy. I will try and keep these biases out of the list by having some advisors keep me sane.
Joking aside....at least I thought I was funny you can forget the word Independent as it relates to the list. It will be independent, but I will keep that little secret to myself.
apparently, some of the "skygods" are "above the law" (pun intended) and dont give a shit about minuscule stuff like "liability", or morals, or ethics for that matter; the almighty dollar is what they only bend for..
wouldnt be the worst i think. the swiss system knows the same for belly- and freeflying and canopy-piloting. it's not promoted much and nobody really cares about it, but if you do the courses you can get some sort of card that will list your "qualification".
I really don't care at this point to be honest. I'm not going to recommend anyone to a person I am not personally familiar with on some unverified and backed up list on the interwebs. I can't imagine any Instructor ever doing that. There seems to me to be a very large disconnect in understanding an Instructor's real responsibility with students.
OK, now let's start the whole "but they're already trained skydivers" bullshit.
I'm willing to bet the USPA jumps on this wagon as well.
Considering that I was part of the working group that proposed the WSI rating to the USPA - in fact, I wrote the first draft of the course outline that is now found the SIM - I wouldn't mind this. But until that happens, we have the world as it is now. And honestly, I'd bet you $50 that USPA won't change anything in the next three years. As much as it maybe should, it's not likely.
The world outside the US.
I've heard of this place of which you speak. Not enough ice cubes for my taste.
But more seriously, Simon's business - from what I can tell from his web site - is in the US, and I'm assuming his list is US-centric. That's why I mentioned USPA.
As well as potential liability.
This is where being a lawyer is useful. The folks who publish the Yellow Pages can't get sued for a doctor who is in their listing that commits malpractice. It doesn't work that way.
I vallue fellow skydivers higher
I'm going to just roll my eyes at that comment, Jarno. You can disagree with the idea of a list philosophically all you want, but to claim that I don't value the lives of fellow skydivers as much as you do because I recognize that Simon's list is functionally no different than a deep Google search? That, my friend, is fucking bullshit.
That comment wasnt aimed at you, but to 'anyone' who willfully makes a list without checking to 'help' people. Personaly, I dont care ablut the legal side of things. I guess its just different ethics/thinking.
Id prefer anything I recommend on my/our website to be safe when it comes to instruction and new flyers.
If you would like your details changed then email or PM me.
Many, many thanks to our IT department (Omnia) for making the vision a reality!
It still says "Exclusively Tonysuit" beneath the page (not truly independent, I guess) Information gathered (from DZ.com, i'm guessing) is not accurate; I gave the info I was willing to provide but someone filled in blanks for me without my knowledge. There is no "about me" in there, and if you're going to fill in the blanks and have a manufacturer listed, then it's only fair you allow for a paragraph of coach commentary. I'm hoping to see these errors and omissions alleviated pretty quickly.
I did have a private chat with Omnia about the inaccuracies and concerns.
If it's truly "independent," then advertising would be equal to all parties or none parties.
Having "exclusively Tonysuits" beneath my "endorsement" isn't appropriate, and it is indicative of the marketing vehicle you're creating. The footer can easily be disabled for that page, and should be, IMO.
No one "had" to fill in any blanks. I shared with you what I was open to sharing, and you chose to generate more information than I offered.
The way this appears is exactly as feared by myself and others, but I went along with it due to your assurances, and will go along with it if you make the corrections. Otherwise, please remove me from your "not-independent" list used predominantly for marketing your services.
IMO, this conversation needs to be public so that folks understand what you're doing in the background.