0
Para5-0

Wingsuit Instructor/Coach Rating Input Needed.

Recommended Posts

From my prior posts it's obvious where I stand on this issue.
I was reading your withdrawal letter with respect for the other side of the argument until I got to
"I'm disgusted with those that feel "more people need to die before we consider this kind of training"."
Sorry, but you lost a lot of my respect for your letter there.......
No matter anyones motivation, if both sides of this could cut out the "sensationalism" it could help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


"I'm disgusted with those that feel "more people need to die before we consider this kind of training"."



Typical cheap red top type remark to try and distract people from the actual issue at hand.

Seems like there are at least a few people who are trying to further their own ambitions rather then do the right thing for the sport. I don't wingsuit and I would love to but this childish bickering and selfishness is only widening the gap between the two sides of the debate and does not inspire confidence in people who are supposed to be leaders of this offshoot of our community.

there are plenty of people who are putting a lot of their free time into this debate and I take my hat off to them but there are one or two involved who are only using it as a chance to further their own ends and that is what is sickening tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider this my summation:

I just took the time to actually read this whole thread from the initial post where I was reaching out to what I thought was a bunch of fellow skydivers who had a common discipline. I considered myself part of the skydiving community but had limited knowledge of the WS community.

What I will say is I thought I was attempting to include the very community that this rating would effect. What I got in return for trying to do the right thing was harassing emails, online assaults, I was lied to directly, I was the victim of complete and utter deception, personal attacks,and I was portrayed as someone who was trying to sever and desmantle the wingsuit community. I am disgusted with what ALL of you have allowed your community to become. To include attacks on this forum which I will point out has 6000+ views more than any other thread under wingsuits. So I guess some people read this, but not enough to consider it represntative of your community.

What I include here is factual and first hand knowledge, I will and can prove any statement I make.


Statement read to the Safety and Training Committee and the truth about who we actually reached out to.

Rich Winstock 8/3/2012
USPA BOD Sub-Committee on Wingsuit Instructor rating
Prior to the last BOD meeting a member in good standing approached the Safety and Training committee and requested some time to give a presentation on the need for a Wingsuit Instructor rating and why USPA should consider the adoption of a standardized First Flight Course. After being approved by the S&T committee Chair Todd Spillers, time was set aside accordingly. At the Feb. 17-19th, 2012, during a 45 minute presentation, this member gave an overview of where Wingsuitting started and where it had progressed to currently. The presentation cited statistics that showed an increase not only in the discipline but a significant increase in tail strikes and off field landings. The member was extremely vigilant in preparing not only the presentation but a complete standardized Wingsuit First Flight Course, a complete Standardized Wingsuit Instructor rating, a complete Wingsuit Instructor Examiner Rating, and a complete roll out procedure to include methods for current Wingsuit manufacture instructors to comply and cross over to a USPA overseen program. The entire proposed program was put into USPA language and prepared prior to the meeting. Although the presentation was extremely thorough there were alternate views as to whether USPA should consider getting involved in this endeavor. Discussions revealed that this issue needed much further and detailed analysis. Chair Spillers formed a Wingsuit Instructor Sub Committee and asked myself to select members from Safety and Training and chair the sub-committee. It was determined the goal of the sub-committee would be to examine if indeed a safety concern existed, if we were in need of standardized training, if we were in need of a wingsuit instructor rating, and if USPA should be the one to oversee the entire program. The committee was charged with returning to the next BOD meeting with a recommendation.
The sub-committee was formed and consisted of Sherry Butcher, Randy Allison, Merriah Eakins, Tony Thacker, and myself.
Many obstacles presented themselves early in this process. The first was, did the sub-committee have the wingsuit experience and knowledge of a specialized discipline to make such a decision. Certainly there was enough instructor experience and years of teaching knowledge on the committee but something was missing. It was agreed that we needed to reach out to several key groups to get as much detailed input as possible. There was no need to re-create the wheel but definitely a need to acquire more knowledge and insight to how the current system was operating. A list of approximately 25 advanced Wingsuit Instructors was slowly compiled through recommendations and research. These were referred to as the top 10 % of the Wingsuit community. This group was to act as an advisory board if you will to assist in educating each member of the sub-committee through their experience, knowledge, and wide spread reach within their community.
The committee further decided that they would come up with a fairly simple but detailed questionnaire and disseminate it to this top 10% group first (See Attached). The questions were constructed via conference calls during the first month and cursory input from Jim Crouch and Todd Spillers. The goal of this questionnaire was two- fold; First, to get as much information and as many points of view from the experienced Wingsuitters; second to only allow each person one voice. To expand, each person was allotted one questionnaire. The rationale was to negate the loudest, most popular, or most influential person from having any more input than any one other person. It was made crystal clear to all advisors that this was how the committee chose to move forward. Anything outside of this request would be considered static or noise that the committee did not have the time or patience for. We asked that all advisors submit their thoughts as soon as possible. This was done by a mass email to all advisors. In the email it was not only requested that they be honest, forth coming, and objective but they forward this questionnaire onto anyone who they felt met the criteria of being an ambassador of the WS community.
Specifically:

“If you are receiving this email someone has suggested that you have the knowledge, experience, and professionalism required to assist us, as an advisor to the committee. The committee has come up with a short questionnaire that asks specifically designed questions to get detailed information on the topic. We know that we are not experts on the topic, that is why we are seeking out the top 10% of the wingsuit community to help us out. We are well aware that each person will have their own personal feelings on this issue and we welcome those thoughts, but please answer the questions as objectively and honestly as possible.”

After constructing the questionnaire and disseminating, it was jointly determined that we needed to reach out to several other groups to get a full picture of the issue and at the same time get as many points of view as possible. The committee decided that we would continue to forward the same questionnaire to general members and the WS community as a whole. This was done by emails, Facebook, and postings on Dropzone.com under the Wingsuit threads. There was an overwhelming response. All questionnaires received were forwarded to all members of the committee as soon as they were received. In the interest of time, this strategy was predetermined to allow BOD members the opportunity to keep up on the material as the interim moved forward.
Further, the committee decided that we needed to get a questionnaire out to DZO’s, STA’s, and all I/E’s. This different but similar questionnaire was formed via several conference calls and multiple calls and emails amongst the committee. (See Attached) Once complete, Jim Crouch forwarded a letter from myself, out via mass email to all DZO’s, STA’s, and I/E’s. Again, the response was overwhelming to include a sleuth of emails giving specific opinions either for or against and in most cases backing their thoughts up with clear concise examples. It is important to note that we received responses from USPA dropzones, USPA rated instructors, and USPA S&TA’s around the world.


The data that was presented was calculated completely with approximately 300 complete responses to include letters, emails, and questionnaires. Upwards of 80 % of those contacted were in favor of a Standardized Wingsuit Instructor rating. At that point the numbers were attacked, the questions were attacked, the method of distribution was attacked, the results although all opinion based were the victim of an all out assault by the small minority of your community. Presented with a petition the day of this meeting was probably the apex of the attacks. I personally checked only 50 signatures on this scientific petition. Of 50 names (18 were expiried USPA member, 12 were not members of USPA) So 30 out of 50 names that I selected and checked personally are not people I represent. If I extrapolate that out to the 250 or so signatures that is well over 50% of the signatures are non USPA members. Is that who you want me to represent?

So if you are still reading a step was taken back and we decided to opinion poll the entire USPA membership. Vector Boy even suggested this. Guess what? The minority fought hard against the wording of the question, "Should USPA adopt a Wingsuit Instructor Rating Program?" That is so misleading isnt it? Then the minority fought us attaching the program to the question. So members could actually see what it looks like. Keep in mind not many of you have even seen or read it. Again, that was fought. What is it that you people really want?

My self personally and the members of the sub committee worked hard for the membership of USPA. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours went into this only to watch a completely sub divided, unorganized, culture destroy themselves. Instead of trying to find common ground. If anyone says they tried to I will confront them in a public forum at anytime.

What I implore you to do is confirm every statement you hear come out of anyones mouth invloced in this. The outright lies that I have read, heard, and witnessed are disgraceful to say the least; I am holding back my true words.

So start now thinking of how you can all argue about the results of the opinion poll question. It is going out to every single USPA member. What complaints will you have about this? I am sure you can come up with some because the ones argueing against this are the loudest does not mean they are representative of the entire USPA membership.

Rather than attack me or the reason I took the stance I did, feel free to email me personally, call me, or pm me at anytime. I have responded to every inquiry I have received and those reading this can attest to that.

Rich Winstock
USPA
National Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What I got in return for trying to do the right thing was harassing emails, online assaults, I was lied to directly, I was the victim of complete and utter deception, personal attacks,and I was portrayed as someone who was trying to sever and desmantle the wingsuit community. I am disgusted with what ALL of you have allowed your community to become.



It sounds like you're in the middle of a shit storm, and that sucks. But please don't judge an entire community (ALL of us) on the actions of a few individuals. Most of us do not send harassing emails, lie, deceive, attack, etc.

Quote

My self personally and the members of the sub committee worked hard for the membership of USPA. Hundreds upon hundreds of hours went into this only to watch a completely sub divided, unorganized, culture destroy themselves. Instead of trying to find common ground. If anyone says they tried to I will confront them in a public forum at anytime.



I will say right here that I tried. In this thread, and in person. When I meet people in the wingsuit community that have created a polar division based on some issue like this one, unless there is a very obvious safety issue (which I don't think is the case here), my approach is usually to try to get each side to see the other's stance. I've done that multiple times in this thread. Here it is again:

To those in support of USPA regulation: people are NOT dying left and right, and standardization is possible without regulation
To those against USPA regulation: sure, we are surviving without it, but regulation does undoubtedly improve on standardization

Both sides have a point. Try as I might though, I can't create love and harmony between all my friends, nor can I stop random people from sending you angry emails. I won't make any enemies over this issue because I see it as the two sides being much closer than they realize. I'm honestly ok with either outcome here. As mentioned above, the only time I will take a strong stand on one side of the fence, to the point of losing friends, is when I see blatant safety issues.

We're not as subdivided as you think. Some of us just want to fly. Case in point: just a few days ago I met a total stranger who is going to mail me his personal suit to demo (a very new expensive suit) since I couldn't find one anywhere else in my size.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you.

I will make a statement that will undoughtably get torn apart but I do see it as a safety concern. This is NOT fear mongering. Let me say that again, We are not trying to scare people into a rating. The numbers are the numbers. There is no manipulating them.

2011 had 12 confirmed tail strikes. I personally know of three not reported during that time. I checked on each one of these by the way to make sure it wasnt manufactrured. In the last two weeks we had a wingsuiter land in the ocean causing two dropzones to reconsider allowing WSers. A few days ago a wingsuitter struck a horizontal stabilizer causing 35k in damage and I believe a broken foot. Moving forward we have documented one tail strike every 27 days. Keep in mind that is just the ones that were reported. Many are not and more importantly many many close calls are not reported. I believe that may be the reason that upwards of 80 % of DZOs, STA's, and I/E's did support this initiative.

End result the FAA, I have spoken to four seperate inspectors, is currently looking at this. The question will arise in the near future what are we doing about it? The material that was presented to the BOD has been made or is being made available to all to use for education. This is exactly what the opposition to this rating wanted. The question that lingers is who will teach it and what qualifications should we expect.

Thanks for the response.

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

2011 had 12 confirmed tail strikes. I personally know of three not reported during that time. I checked on each one of these by the way to make sure it wasnt manufactrured.



That does sound like a safety concern. How big of a concern remains a debate, and is probably the main source of contention among the various camps. Since you did verify each of those incidents (kudos to you for that), here are some questions regarding those incidents that may help people reach a common ground (more numbers seeking). If this info was already covered then I apologize for missing it before.

How many WS jumps did each of those tail strikers have? (if the majority of them have high WS numbers, that may support the anti-regulation camp... if low jumpers, then that definitely supports regulation)
How many non-wingsuiters hit a tail per year? (for those that would argue that 10 WS per year is not an issue, I'd say we need to have at least 100 non-WS per year, or whatever 10 times the ratio of non-WS to WS is).

Quote

In the last two weeks we had a wingsuiter land in the ocean causing two dropzones to reconsider allowing WSers.



Again, a similar question, how many other jumpers land in the ocean in Hawaii on average? I do know I've been on multiple DZ's where wingsuiters have a bad rap for landing off, and many of these WSer's have high WS jump numbers, so they should know better (that could be an argument for or against regulation depending on how you interpret it).

I do like the approach of using numbers rather than emotion to get to the bottom of things...
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich,

What level of qualification do you think is necessary to teach a licensed skydiver who is a novice wingsuiter how to exit without hitting the tail?

What level of qualification do you think is necessary to teach a licensed skydiver who is a novice wingsuiter how to put on their legstraps?

Are these so difficult to teach as to require a USPA rating in order to do it?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Fellas,

I will answer based on my opinion. I know that is dangerous. IMO it doesnt matter wht the jump numbers were. My rationale is that if a standardized course was implemented from jump one the jumper would have a sound basis to continue to grow throughout their WSing career.

SDU and USPA emphasize kinestetic and isometric drills to reinforce muscle memory. Similar to teaching a brand new jumper emergency procedures. If they are taught properly at beginner stage these procedures will become ingrained through muscle memory. I practiced my eps my whole career until I needed them at jump 4800. The reason I responded accordingly ws based on learning them properly day 1 and re-enforcing them through handles touches for years. Imagine if a new wingsuitter learns all of the proper technigues through a standardized process and continues to re-enforce them through their career. I can link a bad exit of an experienced wingsuitter to training. In my mind anyway.

Keep in mind nothing would have changed at all by passing this except holding some accountability to those teaching the basics.

I also think it would legitimize the discipline to include all wingsuitters, instructors and especially instructor examiners. I believe in the IERC and so does USPA. So I just cant see the harm in asking those that teach this discipline to meet some standards. Those standards are already in place. Do the current I/E's (self appointed) meet this criteria? and if not why is it too much to ask?

Take a moment and read the program, objectively. Both sides agreed on the material, that has already been determined. So we are just advocating for those that teach it meet a min. standard. To include understanding not only what to teach but how to teach it.

I understand the WSer that landed in the ocean didnt meet the 200 jump BSR. so some say it doesnt matter and that a rating wouldnt matter. I disagree. If we had a bsr requirring a FFC that is taught by an instructor that meets the USPA standard then he should not have been let on the plane.

Rich

rant over. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey Fellas,

I will answer based on my opinion. I know that is dangerous. IMO it doesnt matter wht the jump numbers were. My rationale is that if a standardized course was implemented from jump one the jumper would have a sound basis to continue to grow throughout their WSing career.

SDU and USPA emphasize kinestetic and isometric drills to reinforce muscle memory. Similar to teaching a brand new jumper emergency procedures. If they are taught properly at beginner stage these procedures will become ingrained through muscle memory. I practiced my eps my whole career until I needed them at jump 4800. The reason I responded accordingly ws based on learning them properly day 1 and re-enforcing them through handles touches for years. Imagine if a new wingsuitter learns all of the proper technigues through a standardized process and continues to re-enforce them through their career. I can link a bad exit of an experienced wingsuitter to training. In my mind anyway.

Keep in mind nothing would have changed at all by passing this except holding some accountability to those teaching the basics.

I also think it would legitimize the discipline to include all wingsuitters, instructors and especially instructor examiners. I believe in the IERC and so does USPA. So I just cant see the harm in asking those that teach this discipline to meet some standards. Those standards are already in place. Do the current I/E's (self appointed) meet this criteria? and if not why is it too much to ask?

Take a moment and read the program, objectively. Both sides agreed on the material, that has already been determined. So we are just advocating for those that teach it meet a min. standard. To include understanding not only what to teach but how to teach it.

I understand the WSer that landed in the ocean didnt meet the 200 jump BSR. so some say it doesnt matter and that a rating wouldnt matter. I disagree. If we had a bsr requirring a FFC that is taught by an instructor that meets the USPA standard then he should not have been let on the plane.

Rich

rant over. lol



Hey Rich,

Can you post an URL where the collateral is posted? I don't see it attached to your previous posts in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich; On behalf of the wingsuit community, thank you for your efforts, those of the sub-committee, and to the entire Board for continuing to support the wingsuit discipline.

It's unfortunate there are divisions within our community but so it is frequently with difficult or controversial issues.

Meanwhile, wingsuiters are not quite as divided as it might appear. Hundreds of wingsuiters, if not thousands, fly the skies each and every weekend, all mostly without arguing about ratings, grids or tail strikes, and without angry email, personal attacks or accusations of lining our pockets.

The111 is correct; both sides of this disagreement have legitimate points to consider and likely have much the same goals in mind for the community. Why consensus building and teamwork appears so difficult is beyond my understanding…but there are many of us that want to work towards that. There are others that have stayed out of the debate because of the sometimes angry tone. And most will likely accept whatever decision the USPA makes and continue to move forward.

I was unaware of the tail strike numbers you mention and they are alarming. I would like to know more.

If there were 12 tail strikes in the U.S. during 2011 (and I do not doubt your words…), or 15 adding the 3 unreported, or one reported every 27 days, then some action/education is clearly in order. Getting the details out to the wingsuit community would seem an important first step in addressing the issue.

As you know I have mixed feelings about the proposal the USPA was considering. At the same time I applaud DSE for disseminating his instructional program freely to the wingsuit community. I believe that is a great service!

And if the best solution to tail strikes (or other problems) is a rating program and mandatory FFC, then so be it. Meanwhile, I would encourage USPA to continue looking at the broader implications of moving in this direction.

Again, thank you for your outstanding effort on behalf of the wingsuit community!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hey Fellas,

I will answer based on my opinion. I know that is dangerous. IMO it doesnt matter wht the jump numbers were. My rationale is that if a standardized course was implemented from jump one the jumper would have a sound basis to continue to grow throughout their WSing career.



I would just like to point out that some wingsuiters do not have the experience to be jumping the larger suits they are jumping and that might be the case in some of those tailstrikes! Rating or no rating not all DZ are going to have a wingsuit instructor


What can a novice skydiver say to someone with a few thousand jumps but only 20 wingsuit jumps to make him realize he shouldn't be jump one of the largest suits in production? Not all DZ are going to have a WS instructor to enforce the safety standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Hey Fellas,

I will answer based on my opinion. I know that is dangerous. IMO it doesnt matter wht the jump numbers were. My rationale is that if a standardized course was implemented from jump one the jumper would have a sound basis to continue to grow throughout their WSing career.



I would just like to point out that some wingsuiters do not have the experience to be jumping the larger suits they are jumping and that might be the case in some of those tailstrikes! Rating or no rating not all DZ are going to have a wingsuit instructor


What can a novice skydiver say to someone with a few thousand jumps but only 20 wingsuit jumps to make him realize he shouldn't be jump one of the largest suits in production? Not all DZ are going to have a WS instructor to enforce the safety standard.



Will a WS instructor have authority to regulate suit upsizing, any more than an AFF instructor regulates canopy downsizing?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich~

I personally want to take a moment to thank you for all the time, energy, and concern you have put into this endeavor. I want to also, personally apologize on behalf of all wingsuiters, for the negativity that you have had to deal with not only since you have been looking into wingsuiting, but mainly for the last week or two and what you have had to endure. I can assure you, that a vast majority of us, are not like some of those whom you have had to deal with recently.

One thing we all can take from this is if we dont take care of this issue, If people are not responsible and accountable for the students they put out, than many more friends will become subject to injury or worse. If the FAA has to get involved, I assure everyone looking at this post, that we will all be very, very sorry. The most likely response by the FAA to an aircraft accident or incident involving a wingsuit, is to ban them for a time until a study can be performed, then they are likely to be classified as a non-powered glider. if that happens, 200 jumps to take a First Flight Course, will seem like a cakewalk to what will be required, if skydivers are even allowed to fly them again.

Rich, I hope your future experiences with the wingsuit community are far more positive, and I am going to do everything I can to help ensure that is the case.

For everyone that didnt get to see it, heres a copy of the "Petition list, or at least the part where my name was put on it a few days ago. I can assure you all, I DID NOT SIGN HER PETITION. in the last few hours, the petition has been removed from the web. just FYI. You all must start connecting the dots and seeing reality in our community. Things may not always be as they seem. Hope to fly with you all someplace, sometime soon!

Scotty Burns
Z Flock #11; Muff #1909; PFI #15, USPA Lifer
Commercial Multi-Inst. Airplane/Rotory
www.flyteskool.ws Aerial Photography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Will a WS instructor have authority to regulate suit upsizing, any more than an AFF instructor regulates canopy downsizing?



Will structured and diciplined training of an AFF student create a better skydiver down the line, as opposed to a person given a parachute and a few youtube videos.

Its the seeds planted now that determine what we will grow into over the next few years.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great great point and one I personally have thought about. I have said this before I am not a wingsuitter. I have not made one jump. I do not know the dynamics of each suit or what is considered higher performance and thus more dangerous. Aside from the larger is faster or larger is more dangerous. I had the presurization explained to me but outside of this very limited bit of knowledge I am crippled to make a decision about wingsuit size. I am an STA though. So, if we had the WSI rating out there I could at least use he or she as a reference giude when a new wser shows up or wants to upsize. That sounds strange, I have been slowing downsizing down for years now it is reverse.

This is important to understand:

Why did I say the above? Because if an instructor gives me the advice then I have a chain of liability. In other words the WSI knows through the coach course and WSI course about Liability (personal, dropzone, USPA). The decisions they make will be with the notion they can and will be responsible for any decision they make specifically allowing someone to jump a larger suit; they will be responsible for conducting a safe jump from ground school through debrief. The way it is now a self appointed instructor can say whatever they want with no concern whatsoever about the end result. USPA cant hold them responsible, a court of law would be hard pressed to hang it on them...I say just like an AFF instructor saying yes I think you will be okay downsizing that canopy, a WS Instructor (assuming they meet a standard) can say the same thing as long as they understand the ramification of a early decision. Now we have a community starting to look after themselves.
As opposed to the self appointed instructor having a student injury, or worse and then stepping back and claiming they were experienced skydivers it was up to them to make the decision. Horseshit, i say. If every person was smart enough to watch out for the safety of themself and others we wouldnt have canopy problems. If the canopy problem is so rampant with kids jumping canopies they arent qualified for the wingsuit community is potentially heading down the same path. You guys are telling me it is an expanding discipline. Every single first jump course has a brand new skydiver wanting to fly a squirrel suit. It is getting big and fast, whether it is liked or not.
I want to see wingsuiting expand to the point it is as common as RW, or Freeflying. Well with that expansion comes responsibility to ensure the safety of all new jumpers as well as those that havent started yet. Some people need to be protected from themselves. Unfortunately, if that sounds like over regulation then I am guilty as charged.

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In reference to the Wing Suit Instructor rating IRM material. I am starting to get asked by many to see it. I like that and it is a step in the right direction. Ilike people asking to see what they object to before objecting to it.

I will release it as soon as I can. It will be released as a draft at first keeping in mind it is a work in progress. Just like the canopy card as we see fit we can make ammendments based on you guys out in the field. But it is a starting point never the less. Stand by and I will work on getting it together for release.

The fact people want to read it is a step forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Will a WS instructor have authority to regulate suit upsizing, any more than an AFF instructor regulates canopy downsizing?



Good questions, and there is a corollary.

With any other education that comes from a USPA certified instructor (A license, Pro rating, AFF-I rating), when you finish (and pass) your educational phase, you get a license or rating. These ratings prove that you took the course and that you are allowed to do what it taught at any USPA DZ.

So if we have mandatory instruction for wingsuiters, how do they prove they took it? The only logical response is that we need a wingsuit (flyer) rating to go along with the wingsuit (instructor) rating. And whether or not that is a good idea, it seems that those who oppose it have a very valid point when they say that swooping should be much higher on the "regulation priority list," and we should be making jumpers who want to do 270's take mandatory instruction and likewise present a certification card proving they're educated. At this point I am still not arguing for or against the main topic (WS regulation), but I am arguing for consistency. If we regulate one advanced skydiving discipline, we should consider regulating them all, and we should BEGIN with the most dangerous ones, which wingsuiting is not.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree Matt. Heres why, plain and simple. A swooper is trying to land on the dz, over a pond, or normal landing point. They cannot land 8 miles away, nor, would they. Nor, are they likely to take out grandma and grandpa in their piper cub on the way to sun n' fun while swooping a cloud. The FAA isnt looking at swooping Matt. They are however, Looking at wingsuiting. End of discussion. :) Great seeing ya in Chi-Town brother!

Scotty
Z Flock #11; Muff #1909; PFI #15, USPA Lifer
Commercial Multi-Inst. Airplane/Rotory
www.flyteskool.ws Aerial Photography

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I disagree Matt. Heres why, plain and simple. A swooper is trying to land on the dz, over a pond, or normal landing point. They cannot land 8 miles away, nor, would they.
Scotty



Clearly you never jumped when Roger Nelson was spotting.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if we have mandatory instruction for wingsuiters, how do
Quote

they prove they took it? The only logical response is that we need a wingsuit (flyer) rating to go along with the wingsuit (instructor) rating. And whether or not that is a good idea, it seems that those who oppose it have a very valid point when they say that swooping should be much higher on the "regulation priority list," and we should be making jumpers who want to do 270's take mandatory instruction and likewise present a certification card proving they're educated. At this point I am still not arguing for or against the main topic (WS regulation), but I am arguing for consistency. If we regulate one advanced skydiving discipline, we should consider regulating them all, and we should BEGIN with the most dangerous ones, which wingsuiting is not.



These are the questions that we were hoping to get from the masses. The first flight course has a proficiency card that is very basic. Instability training, landing patterns, completed the course...etc. I will try to attach it. Once complete it just get faxed into USPA and the license will be endorsed with a wingsuit endorsement. Now when you show up with your license we can verify you had a standardized training program. If people just took the time to read the work that went into this I am sure they would feel more confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I disagree Matt. Heres why, plain and simple. A swooper is trying to land on the dz, over a pond, or normal landing point. They cannot land 8 miles away, nor, would they. Nor, are they likely to take out grandma and grandpa in their piper cub on the way to sun n' fun while swooping a cloud. The FAA isnt looking at swooping Matt. They are however, Looking at wingsuiting. End of discussion. :) Great seeing ya in Chi-Town brother!



True. If our only concern is the FAA, your points are correct.

However, if we are also worried about safety, then my points stand. I personally think both are valid concerns, but the former has broader impact (the entire community) whereas the latter usually only affects the canopy pilot himself (and an argument can easily be made that licensed skydivers should be allowed to make their own choices when those choices do not affect the entire community).
www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So if we have mandatory instruction for wingsuiters, how do

Quote

they prove they took it? The only logical response is that we need a wingsuit (flyer) rating to go along with the wingsuit (instructor) rating. And whether or not that is a good idea, it seems that those who oppose it have a very valid point when they say that swooping should be much higher on the "regulation priority list," and we should be making jumpers who want to do 270's take mandatory instruction and likewise present a certification card proving they're educated. At this point I am still not arguing for or against the main topic (WS regulation), but I am arguing for consistency. If we regulate one advanced skydiving discipline, we should consider regulating them all, and we should BEGIN with the most dangerous ones, which wingsuiting is not.



These are the questions that we were hoping to get from the masses. The first flight course has a proficiency card that is very basic. Instability training, landing patterns, completed the course...etc. I will try to attach it. Once complete it just get faxed into USPA and the license will be endorsed with a wingsuit endorsement. Now when you show up with your license we can verify you had a standardized training program. If people just took the time to read the work that went into this I am sure they would feel more confident.



I believe this line has a typo:


Made at least 200 Wingsuit skydives (Logbook verification)
_______________________________
Wingsuit Instructor signature Date


So if implemented, how is it to be bootstrapped?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0