Forums: Archive: 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections:
Canopy Rating

 


Deisel  (D 31661)

Dec 31, 2011, 6:33 PM
Post #1 of 14 (2255 views)
Shortcut
Canopy Rating Can't Post

BOD - any of you care to lay your cards on the table here in cyberspace?
Which of you would support a canopy instructor rating? If not - why not?

This is not a poke in the eye at anyone - I just can't go to the meetings and ask questions in person. Thanks Smile


stratostar  (Student)

Dec 31, 2011, 9:12 PM
Post #2 of 14 (2222 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't need another rating, nor do I care to pay to get one or maintain one, to teach people how to safely fly a parachute, been doing it a couple decades now. What we need is people to apply the teachings. What we need is for the industry and jumpers to stop pushing this high wing loading small canopy bullshit. Not everyone needs to swoop or even fly a sub 100 canopy.

All the damn canopy ratings in the world are not going to stop the death rates!

If these smaller canopies and high wing loading are such a great idea, then maybe we need to start first jump students out on 135's and quickly downside them to a 97, that way they'll all be ready to join the cool kidz mad skillz club, after all shouldn't be a problem with all the new canopy instructors rating holders out there to get the job done.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Dec 31, 2011, 9:13 PM)


bodypilot90  (D 24249)

Dec 31, 2011, 9:16 PM
Post #3 of 14 (2218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

+1


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 1, 2012, 7:10 AM
Post #4 of 14 (2185 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

More importantly how many members would support the rating?

I for one would not. There is no need to make the process more complex, but rather to simply hold to the established standard.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jan 1, 2012, 9:24 AM
Post #5 of 14 (2167 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

There is not a sport in this world that people do not push the limits of the sport. Look at something as basic as the olympics and how far each sport has evolved. The evolution is based on those that push their abilities and technology to the limit. Is that a bad thing? I guess that is a individual preference.

So why would skydiving be any different? If someone didnt say hey skydiving is cool but I want to try to freefall longer like a bird, would wing suits be as mainstream as they are today. Or if Bill Booth and Ted Strong didnt say hey maybe someone can take a passenger and let them experience the thrill of skydiving attached to an Instructor, would tandem be the number 1 way to enter the sport today. Each specific area of skydiving is being pushed and it is through new blood, new inventive ideas, and new technology that the sport will continue to evolve. While I think we would be doing our sport a great injustice to stop the progression, I feel it can at least be done in a mature way. What will skydiving look like in 20 years who knows. But I think it is unfair to categorize those wanting to push the limits as the ones ruining the sport.

Okay with that thought of of my shoulders, we have a canopy education in place. We just implemented a continueing education portion to what was already there. (B license proficiency card). Who knows what is next but the sport, membership, the BOD will weigh all of the evidence and come up with what they feel is in the best interest of the sport and members. Some will like it, some wont.

As far as a canopy instructor or canopy coach is concerned, they are already out there and doing the best they can. There is no reason to recreate the wheel. I think we need to spend some time getting all of the best canopy instructors out there together and make the SIM syllabus the best it possibly can be. Section 6-10 and 6-11. Then I think, once we have a standardized canopy training in place then we further educate the ones teaching the material. I have suggested webinars, news letters, in person canopy standardized training meetings. Whatever we have to do to get everyone on the same page.

Okay step Two:
Once we bring everyone up to date with a updated and consistent syllabus we need to start training out instructors on canopy. Yes freefall and ground school are important, but we need to add a full section on canopy. First to evaluate the instructors canopy skills, and to make sure he is capable of teaching them. I am refering to an AFFI, STI, IADI mainly. Look what will fall into place once we start teaching instructors about the importance of canopy education. We will be producing Canopy Instructors. Cool how that could work someday. Until we add a comprehensive portion on canopy to the current instructor couses, we will continue to certify substandard canopy instructors.

I know as a fact that AFFI's are coming out with very little canopy evaluation, canopy knowledge, or even understanding what or how to teach those sections. That is just one reason we left it up to the S&TA to select the best candidate to teach the proficiency card and didnt just say any instructor. (agree or not)

I think there should be a specific canopy written test, canopy in air evaluation, and canopy ground school evaluation put into all instructor courses.

So now that I came full circle the answer is yes, I agree with a canopy coach or instructor. But IMO we already have them and just need to neaten up the process to start producing kick ass canopy instructors. All the while getting those out there that missed out on this new training the opportunity to catch up.

We have some excellent canopy coaches out there now using the material we already have. We just need to standardize it a bit and get everyone on the same page. This is no easy task as I have learned nothing gets done quickly in this sport. The addage that if it is a good idea this meeting it will be a good idea next meeting works so not to make knee jerk reactions to events but on the other hand it slows the system way down.


Keep in mind this is really just my own personal thoughts and I am not speaking for the BOD or any other BOD member. They can chime in if they so desire. A little disclaimer, sorry.

Rich Winstock
National Director USPA


(This post was edited by Para5-0 on Jan 1, 2012, 9:26 AM)


SStewart  (D 10405)

Jan 1, 2012, 2:16 PM
Post #6 of 14 (2140 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

No more USPA ratings.
If we have a canopy instructor rating what is next? Wingsuit instructor rating? CRW instructor rating? Freefly instructor rating? Accuracy instructor rating? Mr. Bill instructor rating?

Our instructors should already be teaching basic canopy flight, advanced "high performance" technique should be left to the private sector and canopy manufacturers. (they make the damn things let them advise on how to fly them) USPA should stay out of this unless you want to open the organization up to new lawsuits.

As has been seen in the past sometimes USPA does things that later come back to bite them.

Please do not do this.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jan 1, 2012, 2:21 PM
Post #7 of 14 (2138 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

Scott,

Maybe you mis understood my post. I was answering the OP. I said that it is not needed, we just need to emphasize the training to our instructors. We already have the process in place and if used properly, it will work.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Jan 1, 2012, 9:24 PM
Post #8 of 14 (2096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

I was also responding to the OP but from some of your recent posts it seems like you are leaning towards some sort of new USPA high performance canopy rating.

If that is not the case then I am sorry for mis-understanding.

I believe USPA should stick to safe canopy flight practices and leave the high risk, high consequence flight to the individual.


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jan 2, 2012, 7:13 AM
Post #9 of 14 (2061 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the detailed reply, Rich. Its always great to get insight into what you guys are thinking. I agree with about 99% of your comments. Knee jerk reactions almost always cause more problems than they create (anyone remember how the TSA was created?). But the issue for me is how people progress from canopy novice to pro swooper. There is no established way to do this that I know of. Whereas in the other disciplines there is a big difference that exists. CRW, wingsuiting, camera, etc all require someone else to help you do it. A wannabe swooper can go it completely alone.

As SStewart pointed out this may not be an appropriate area for USPA to step in and regulate. But so far, neither the canopy manufacturers nor the pros have taken any significant actions to try and reduce the carnage. Yes, USPA is making positive steps and yes, it does take time to affect change. But is USPA even discussing something like a HP canopy license with the manufacturers?

Louis


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Jan 2, 2012, 7:16 AM
Post #10 of 14 (2060 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

B
In reply to:
ut is USPA even discussing something like a HP canopy license with the manufacturers?

To the best of my knowledge NO. I have not heard anything to lead me to believe that anyone from USPA has approached the manufacturers or visa versa. Of course I could be out of the loop on it.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jan 3, 2012, 1:14 PM
Post #11 of 14 (1964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

First off, what are we trying to accomplish with adding that rating? Better knowledge for the up and coming jumper, more requirements on the Instructors, or something else?

I do not support adding another rating to our current system. I think, in general, the Instructors are there to work with the students/very low-timers and not more experienced jumpers. It is a different paradigm for teaching experienced jumpers and requires a different set of skills. We ask quite a bit of Instructors now, and that would only be added to with a new rating.

Most importantly, do we need it and do we want to support it? Can we get there another way?

Craig Stapleton,
Pacific Regional Director


DiverMike  (C 40024)

Jan 12, 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #12 of 14 (1662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm just a fun jumper - so my opinion doesn't carry much weight but the current requirements and mindset of USPA instructors reminds me greatly of Scuba Diving Instructors in the 1970's. Nobody thought a national organization would improve the sport, but it eventually did. Standardized syllabus and training rules greatly improved the product Scuba Instructors provided.

If you make Brian Germains downsizing chart a BSR and standardized the syllabus and training for canopy courses, then eveyone would be talking about and reinforcing the same requirements and knowledge. Everybody knows "Pull, pull at the right altitude, pull stable", but you get different opinions about when it is appropriate for someone to be flying a wingloading of 1.5


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jan 13, 2012, 8:31 AM
Post #13 of 14 (1615 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DiverMike] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If you make Brian Germains downsizing chart a BSR and standardized the syllabus and training for canopy courses, then eveyone would be talking about and reinforcing the same requirements and knowledge. Everybody knows "Pull, pull at the right altitude, pull stable", but you get different opinions about when it is appropriate for someone to be flying a wingloading of 1.5

Bingo.

If a canopy rating system isn't possible, then perhaps USPA could institute mandatory continuing education for AFF instructors? There is already a requirement than an instructor attend a "Rating Renewal Seminar" to renew their rating. A standardized syllabus could be provided to I/E's and S&TA's for these "Rating Renewal Seminars" each year, spotlighting any issues that have arisen in the past year. Local I/E's or S&TA's could also bring in any local issues at these seminars.

Of course it would never work because it would require that instructors take time off from jumping and it might cost them money... plus someone would have to put all that time into putting the seminar syllabus together... Oh well. It was an idea.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Jan 13, 2012, 8:59 AM
Post #14 of 14 (1612 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Canopy Rating [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
If you make Brian Germains downsizing chart a BSR and standardized the syllabus and training for canopy courses, then eveyone would be talking about and reinforcing the same requirements and knowledge. Everybody knows "Pull, pull at the right altitude, pull stable", but you get different opinions about when it is appropriate for someone to be flying a wingloading of 1.5

Bingo.

If a canopy rating system isn't possible, then perhaps USPA could institute mandatory continuing education for AFF instructors? There is already a requirement than an instructor attend a "Rating Renewal Seminar" to renew their rating. A standardized syllabus could be provided to I/E's and S&TA's for these "Rating Renewal Seminars" each year, spotlighting any issues that have arisen in the past year. Local I/E's or S&TA's could also bring in any local issues at these seminars.

Of course it would never work because it would require that instructors take time off from jumping and it might cost them money... plus someone would have to put all that time into putting the seminar syllabus together... Oh well. It was an idea.

There are DZ's that do just that. There are I/E's and S&TA's that teach at those DZ's, so maybe it can work.

Matt



Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)