2 2
baronn

BOD Meeting July 2018

Recommended Posts

First, I forgot about the written test, which is also an A-licence requirement over here.

mbohu

Quote

FS-I jumps are defined as "learning to jump with other people" instead of simply being held on to.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I am pretty sure that the AFF jumps that would count as FS are not the ones where one or more instructors are holding on to the student, but the last few jumps, where the student flies on her own relative to the instructor and practices turns and forward/backward movements. That's really not that different from doing a 2-way with an experienced jumper.



Personally, I'd tell anyone who'd want to count any of their AFF-jumps as a formation jump for any licence to go jump some more and come back when they want to be taken seriously.

I'm not an AFF-instructor, but as I understand the jumps where the instructor does not hold on to the student anymore are spent learning skills the student needs in early their solo jumps.

Nor does the "delta track" as taught during AFF count as the "tracking"requirement.
"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaelmullins

Here is the bottom line:

The only really substantial change is that for a C License you now must make 10, 4 way jumps in order to bring USPA License requirements in line with IPC/FAI.

I do not think that this requirement is onerous. Some of you do, I think most do not.

This is my last comment on the subject.

Mike Mullins



Doesn't say anything about successful...:)
Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DBCOOPER

***Here is the bottom line:

The only really substantial change is that for a C License you now must make 10, 4 way jumps in order to bring USPA License requirements in line with IPC/FAI.

I do not think that this requirement is onerous. Some of you do, I think most do not.

This is my last comment on the subject.

Mike Mullins



Doesn't say anything about successful...:)

It actually does say successful, the full text was in an earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep did miss that one word. So, whats the definition of a successful freefly jump? Is docking required?
Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I'm going to sound rock stupid but here goes anyway. Could we get a list of what the different abbreviations mean? Things like FS for instance. Every time I think I've got it worked out someone posts something that shows me that I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

I know I'm going to sound rock stupid but here goes anyway. Could we get a list of what the different abbreviations mean? Things like FS for instance. Every time I think I've got it worked out someone posts something that shows me that I don't.



Formation Skydiving which is apparently the new-age term for RW. FS = belly jumps, FF = freefly jumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Westerly

***I know I'm going to sound rock stupid but here goes anyway. Could we get a list of what the different abbreviations mean? Things like FS for instance. Every time I think I've got it worked out someone posts something that shows me that I don't.



Formation Skydiving which is apparently the new-age term for RW. FS = belly jumps, FF = freefly jumps.

Thank you. I had to assume that FS was Freestyle, but then what was described sounded like good old arrrrdubya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm genuinely interested in contributing to some mutually agreeable understanding here, so please bare with me for a few questions:

To those who either don't want to, or believe they cannot complete the belly formation requirements for a C license:

* Why do you want a C license?
* Why is not having a C license a problem for you?

To those who defend the license requirements at each level:

* Are licenses explicitly intended to demonstrate competence as a well-rounded skydiver, or competence in some specific discipline?

* Does the USPA/FAI consider progression in the sport to be linear, or acknowledge that there are multiple paths that may be traversed?

* Are the license levels considered to be a convenient shorthand for quickly assessing an individual's experience, or intended to be keys to unlock particular privileges?

* Is there an established mapping of privileges to the specific experience requirements to unlock them, without the generalisation of license levels as an approximation?

* Is there the potential for a more flexible licensing program to replace the existing rather coarse scheme, such that progression in particular disciplines may be recognised and may unlock relevant privileges without the necessity of demonstrating competency in seemingly unrelated disciplines, or is the A-B-C-D scheme sacred?

* Is there a licensing scheme in some other sport from which inspiration is taken, or is the existing scheme entirely home-cooked within the skydiving community?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Saw that too. Guess the USPA BOD has decided that small DZ's are only gonna be good for doing tandems. And if yer not near a tunnel, well, yer screwed even more.



Why would one be screwed if one is not near a tunnel? The announcement says:

Quote

The board clarified the Basic Safety Requirements to recognize wind tunnel training as a way for AFF students to demonstrate freefall skills, allowing them to jump with only one AFF instructor on their first jumps.



There is no requirement for tunnel training, but simply clarification that it is acceptable to the USPA to consider freefall stability demonstrated in a wind tunnel as sufficient to make the second instructor unnecessary (effectively skipping AFF levels 1-3).

Are you concerned that this is a threat to students' learning opportunities or instructors' earning potential?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob_Church

I know I'm going to sound rock stupid but here goes anyway. Could we get a list of what the different abbreviations mean? Things like FS for instance. Every time I think I've got it worked out someone posts something that shows me that I don't.



All of the definitions are in the Skydivers Competition Manual which you can download from uspa.org.

Here is the link: https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/SCM_ch09.pdf

Mike Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaelmullins

***I know I'm going to sound rock stupid but here goes anyway. Could we get a list of what the different abbreviations mean? Things like FS for instance. Every time I think I've got it worked out someone posts something that shows me that I don't.



All of the definitions are in the Skydivers Competition Manual which you can download from uspa.org.

Here is the link: https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/SCM_ch09.pdf

Mike Mullins

I got what I needed for now but that looks handy.
Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
benlangfeld


* Is there the potential for a more flexible licensing program to replace the existing rather coarse scheme, such that progression in particular disciplines may be recognised and may unlock relevant privileges without the necessity of demonstrating competency in seemingly unrelated disciplines, or is the A-B-C-D scheme sacred?

* Is there a licensing scheme in some other sport from which inspiration is taken, or is the existing scheme entirely home-cooked within the skydiving community?



Not that I'm saying the BPA is better/worse but at least they have addressed basic skill levels and coaching in most of the disciplines.

Other countries have more than the A-D license.

To compete in international competitions or record attempts a separate sporting license is often required. As far as I can tell its just an additional money-making exercise for the organizations in both UK/USA.

I have no problem with certain skills being required for licensing but consider all disciplines. The USPA has made the instructor/coach licensing so simple that virtually anyone can become a coach - leading to a lowering of standards. 100 jump coaches are often barely able to fly themselves ket alone giving good advice.

The FF/FS requirements are OK - except when you turn around an say AFF jumps can count towards that. Little definition off what is "success" - 4 people can hold each other for exit and that counts as success irrespective of if it funnels or not. As that was all they briefed and attempted. So if its a measure of skill - actually define a standard - such as more than 5 points on a 4 way or larger formation. At least set a standard. And this is not specifically directed at USPA but more to the FAI/IPC.

If the change is simply about licensing for competitions - then make this endorsement available to competitors who meet a standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skytribe

***
* Is there the potential for a more flexible licensing program to replace the existing rather coarse scheme, such that progression in particular disciplines may be recognised and may unlock relevant privileges without the necessity of demonstrating competency in seemingly unrelated disciplines, or is the A-B-C-D scheme sacred?

* Is there a licensing scheme in some other sport from which inspiration is taken, or is the existing scheme entirely home-cooked within the skydiving community?



Not that I'm saying the BPA is better/worse but at least they have addressed basic skill levels and coaching in most of the disciplines.

Other countries have more than the A-D license.

To compete in international competitions or record attempts a separate sporting license is often required. As far as I can tell its just an additional money-making exercise for the organizations in both UK/USA.

I have no problem with certain skills being required for licensing but consider all disciplines. The USPA has made the instructor/coach licensing so simple that virtually anyone can become a coach - leading to a lowering of standards. 100 jump coaches are often barely able to fly themselves ket alone giving good advice.

The FF/FS requirements are OK - except when you turn around an say AFF jumps can count towards that. Little definition off what is "success" - 4 people can hold each other for exit and that counts as success irrespective of if it funnels or not. As that was all they briefed and attempted. So if its a measure of skill - actually define a standard - such as more than 5 points on a 4 way or larger formation. At least set a standard. And this is not specifically directed at USPA but more to the FAI/IPC.

If the change is simply about licensing for competitions - then make this endorsement available to competitors who meet a standard.

I cannot speak for the UK/BPA but in the USA the NAA (National Aeronautic Association) issues the sporting license for the FAI. NAA charges $55, none of which goes to USPA.

The USPA Coach Rating came about due to a lack of mentoring of students on solo self supervision, and, due to this lack of attention, the students would drop out of the sport prior to becoming licensed. Historically, the more experienced skydivers, or skygods, would mentor these students but this has become rare in recent years. Please don't shoot the messenger, I know there are DZs that still do this and I applaud you for your attention to these students. D License holders are also permitted to jump with students on self supervision and those D License holders who give of their time to do this are appreciated.

The Coaches are only as good as the courses given by the Coach Examiner. The course should take about 2 1/2 days. However, some courses are being done in 1 day, and even 1 afternoon. Sometimes the Coach Examiner is not even at the DZ. USPA is aware of these problems and are now requiring Coach Examiners to attend a Coach Standardization Course every 2 years to keep their Coach Examiner status.

Garbage in, Garbage out, our Coaches are only going to be as good as the course they receive. Some are great, all should be at least as good as the requirements. If they pass a real Coach Course that upholds the standards, they should be able to do a good job.

Mike Mullins
National Director
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking to the Coach courses currently being given, I disagree with "Skytribe". The Coaches are only as good as the Coach Examiners giving the courses. As a Coach Examiner, I have "failed" many candidates during courses. Most of the time, they gained additional training and were able to repeat and "pass".

There are clearly defined measurable standards in place in the IRM. If the Examiners hold to the standard set, there should be no issue with the performance of a new Coach.

Paul Gholson Coach Examiner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisD2.0

Decreasing safety under the guise of increased learning and promoting wind tunnels with out any evidence other than select BOD members opinions was a real shitty thing to do.



I have participated and run several tunnel to AFF programs. The military has been doing something like this for decades.

I'd much rather do an L4 with someone with 10 mins tunnel than an AFF 1 any day.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am amazed people are upset at the RW requirements. I don't have a real opinion other than being amazed. Seems like a little thing.

As for why the USPA cares about international competition. Well, the USPA charter says it will support international competition. In fact, and it has been a few years since I read it, it does not mention "Govt representation" at all which is what most people think it does.... And is kinda what they try to sell you. But it does specifically spell out international competitions.

I am MUCH more upset by the USPA giving 125K dollars to some museum. They claim to be broke all the damn time, a few years ago they tried to create a demo team to compete against their own members for demos so they could raise funds.... And now they have money to just throw around to a project that I flat out guarantee 90% of USPA members will never set foot in and most non-jumpers don't give a damn about.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Couldn't agree more. Seems thee "Elected" officials just come up with whatever the Fuck they want to do and ignore pressing issues. I guess the insanity syndrome is not limited to Government entities. What happened? My advice is to attend the meeting in Dallas and let's voice our discontent withsi BS. I'm gonna be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron,
My discontent at the RW requirements has less to do with the effort required to complete them and more to do about WHY they came about in the first place. Sometimes intent is just as important as the act itself.

The USPA should be focused on creating standards that enhance safety - particularly in the realm of canopy flight - and less worried about international competition and record setting...which require a sporting license anyway. Adopting an IO's (FAI) rules to appease competitors has resulted in mandating that those new to our ranks must "jump" through yet another hoop and at their own expense. Yeah, 10 RW jumps might not require that much effort to complete if you have a medium-large aircraft, but I and a few other newbies feel this most recent move indicates a bias toward the elites and a near complete disregard for your average/new fun jumper who comprise the majority of USPA's membership. Yielding to an IO's recommendations amounts to selling us short and it is not what we're paying the USPA to do.

-JD-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My discontent at the RW requirements has less to do with the effort required to complete them and more to do about WHY they came about in the first place. Sometimes intent is just as important as the act itself.



Again, I am just shocked people really care. I am going to bet that with the exception of canopy pilots and Crew dogs (I have done both) anyone that meets the other requirements will have the new ones.

And I admit that the fact AFF counts is just stupid.

Quote

The USPA should be focused on creating standards that enhance safety - particularly in the realm of canopy flight - and less worried about international competition



You need to read the CHARTER of the USPA. You can read the Constitution here: https://uspa.org/Portals/0/files/Man_GovMan.pdf

It specifically mentions competitions. So like it or not, competitions are part of the USPA.

Quote

but I and a few other newbies feel this most recent move indicates a bias toward the elites and a near complete disregard for your average/new fun jumper who comprise the majority of USPA's membership.



I am going to break it to you. The USPA does not care about you. Not one damn bit. It is not a feeling you are getting, it is a fact that they have shown over and over again.

Rig manufacturers make "freefly" friendly rigs that now don't open in time according to the STC... USPA does nothing about it. AAD makers complain that the pull altitude is too low to allow them to set the AAD's to fire higher, USPA jumps and raises the min pull altitudes so the AAD makers can cover up for the rig makers no longer meeting TSO standards.

In every case where it is skydiving company vs individual members... You are GOING to be ignored.

Look at the USPA website, they claim this is a volunteer organization... But then they require group members to only let members jump. What do YOU as a member get by a DZ being a group member? Jack shit.

The USPA gave a "safety" award to a guy that was fined over and over for not doing the maintenance on his planes.

What does happen is the USPA gets to play both sides. See they make the DZ join as a group member for basically, advertising. The group member DZ gets to say they are members of the USPA and the USPA will direct people interested in skydiving to the DZ.

Look on the first page of the USPA website: "Learn about the methods to make a first jump and find USPA Group Member Dropzones near you."

Ah, then the USPA makes the Group member DZ's sign a pledge. Part of that pledge is that they will only let USPA members jump there!

They have created their own monopoly. Sure, you can not join the USPA, but then you now can't jump at most DZ's

The Group member program is the BIGGEST line of crap ever. The individual member gets exactly NOTHING from the program and it makes you join if you want to jump at most DZ's... But the USPA KNOWS that if they drop the requirement that most individuals will drop their USPA membership.

Long story short, unless you are a student, instructor, or a competitor, the USPA is worthless for you, and the USPA KNOWS it. So they make you join to be able to jump.

So yeah, it is true, the USPA does not care about you, the individual member. They just gave 125K dollars to a museum no one really wants, while crying they don't have any money.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying all coaches are garbage.

Really 100 jumps is not that much experience, and IMHO not enough to be coaching. The reasons given for Coaches also seem to be about lowering the entry level. Is lowering the entry level such a good idea ?

I don't believe that is enough experience - different DZ's, different weather/winds, different aircraft. I believe that experience as well as ability, technique are parts of the equation and that when you lower the experience level you are actually removing a big part of the equation.

Despite being well trained I watched people gain coach rating who had very little experience. Barely any canopy training, often doing zoo freefly jumps and yes they could meet the bare minimum but did I believe they were providing good advice based upon experience or actually were providing quality coaching - No. They were just someone that a low time jumper could jump with and be under the illusion they were being coached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaelmullins



I cannot speak for the UK/BPA but in the USA the NAA (National Aeronautic Association) issues the sporting license for the FAI. NAA charges $55, none of which goes to USPA.



Well perhaps if the change is about international competitors which represent a small proportion of USPA members then you should consider something that they pay for to meet any international requirement rather than simply changing the requirements for everyone else.

Instructors pay additional amounts every year as do pro rating holders then why not competitors,

michaelmullins


The USPA Coach Rating came about due to a lack of mentoring of students on solo self supervision, and, due to this lack of attention, the students would drop out of the sport prior to becoming licensed. Historically, the more experienced skydivers, or skygods, would mentor these students but this has become rare in recent years. Please don't shoot the messenger, I know there are DZs that still do this and I applaud you for your attention to these students. D License holders are also permitted to jump with students on self-supervision and those D License holders who give of their time to do this are appreciated.

The Coaches are only as good as the courses given by the Coach Examiner. The course should take about 2 1/2 days. However, some courses are being done in 1 day, and even 1 afternoon. Sometimes the Coach Examiner is not even at the DZ. USPA is aware of these problems and are now requiring Coach Examiners to attend a Coach Standardization Course every 2 years to keep their Coach Examiner status.

Garbage in, Garbage out, our Coaches are only going to be as good as the course they receive. Some are great, all should be at least as good as the requirements. If they pass a real Coach Course that upholds the standards, they should be able to do a good job.



And you think that the standard is good? Or merely acceptable.

Shouldn't all coaches courses be real?

Shouldn't the coaches be monitored and mentored themselves to ensure they are actually doing a good job. Shouldn't the idea of coaches be specific to the disciplines? (Example - Someone with 100 jumps most of which are freefly shouldn't be coaching in another discipline they know nothing about such as CRW for example).

The UK has discipline-specific coaches and endorsements. So someone that does FS isn't a general coach for other disciplines they know nothing about and want to bullshit they know. Also up until A license they are taught and supervised by Instructors in the training method being used not using low experience jumpers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skytribe

***

I cannot speak for the UK/BPA but in the USA the NAA (National Aeronautic Association) issues the sporting license for the FAI. NAA charges $55, none of which goes to USPA.



Well perhaps if the change is about international competitors which represent a small proportion of USPA members then you should consider something that they pay for to meet any international requirement rather than simply changing the requirements for everyone else.

Instructors pay additional amounts every year as do pro rating holders then why not competitors,

michaelmullins


The USPA Coach Rating came about due to a lack of mentoring of students on solo self supervision, and, due to this lack of attention, the students would drop out of the sport prior to becoming licensed. Historically, the more experienced skydivers, or skygods, would mentor these students but this has become rare in recent years. Please don't shoot the messenger, I know there are DZs that still do this and I applaud you for your attention to these students. D License holders are also permitted to jump with students on self-supervision and those D License holders who give of their time to do this are appreciated.

The Coaches are only as good as the courses given by the Coach Examiner. The course should take about 2 1/2 days. However, some courses are being done in 1 day, and even 1 afternoon. Sometimes the Coach Examiner is not even at the DZ. USPA is aware of these problems and are now requiring Coach Examiners to attend a Coach Standardization Course every 2 years to keep their Coach Examiner status.

Garbage in, Garbage out, our Coaches are only going to be as good as the course they receive. Some are great, all should be at least as good as the requirements. If they pass a real Coach Course that upholds the standards, they should be able to do a good job.



And you think that the standard is good? Or merely acceptable.

Shouldn't all coaches courses be real?

Shouldn't the coaches be monitored and mentored themselves to ensure they are actually doing a good job. Shouldn't the idea of coaches be specific to the disciplines? (Example - Someone with 100 jumps most of which are freefly shouldn't be coaching in another discipline they know nothing about such as CRW for example).

The UK has discipline-specific coaches and endorsements. So someone that does FS isn't a general coach for other disciplines they know nothing about and want to bullshit they know. Also up until A license they are taught and supervised by Instructors in the training method being used not using low experience jumpers.

I will say again: I do not think that the requirement to make 10, 4 way jumps for a C license is onerous.

The standard to become a Coach is not the problem.

The Coach rating is designed for Coaches to Coach those students on solo self supervision. The students usually have between 7 and 25 jumps. They are not doing anything but belly flying at this stage, the Coaches need not have any other discipline skills. When the students become licensed, then any other licensed skydiver can jump with them and they can do any discipline they please. The Coach rating was never designed to give coaching in any other discipline than belly flying, and to serve the purpose designed does not need any other discipline.

Of course I think that all Coach Courses should be real. Did you think I would say that they should not be real after complaining about how some courses are conducted? USPA is aware of the problem and takes corrective action whenever possible.

Mike Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyfox2007

Adopting an IO's (FAI) rules to appease competitors has resulted in mandating that those new to our ranks must "jump" through yet another hoop and at their own expense. Yeah, 10 RW jumps might not require that much effort to complete if you have a medium-large aircraft, but I and a few other newbies feel this most recent move indicates a bias toward the elites and a near complete disregard for your average/new fun jumper who comprise the majority of USPA's membership.



As per my question above: if one doesn't intend to compete or become an instructor, why is a C license important? What's wrong with "average fun jumpers" just getting a B license and hanging out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really 100 jumps is not that much experience, and IMHO not enough to be coaching. . . . .I don't believe that is enough experience - different DZ's, different weather/winds, different aircraft. I believe that experience as well as ability, technique are parts of the equation and that when you lower the experience level you are actually removing a big part of the equation.


To me, the two important skills a coach can have are:

1) observation
2) teaching

Nothing about skydiving skills in there. If they can stay close enough to keep the other jumper in sight, stay on level and break off safely, they have sufficient skydiving skills to be a coach. Then on the ground the important stuff happens.

"Hey, you're flying with your knees on your butt; try to keep pressure on the tops of your feet."

"You're not looking in the direction you're going."

"You are flying in the W of distress; some weight might help you there."

"You're doing really well; maybe you should talk to Dan about starting FS coaching."

At 100 jumps many (not all) jumpers have the skydiving skills to be able to do this safely. They may or may not have the observational skills; more time in the sport may well improve this. They may or may not have the teaching skills - and this isn't something more jumps will help with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaelmullins


I will say again: I do not think that the requirement to make 10, 4 way jumps for a C license is onerous.



Then why make it FF/FS specific or even have it at all. I don't particularly think its onerous - just the fact that it excludes other disciplines and the fact that AFF counts make it a joke. Make it mean something, set a standard rather than simply to jump out with 3 other people in freefall and define that as success.

How about making the coaching standard a C license - that potentially doubles the experience requirement, if you want to make the 10 4 way jumps mean something how about actually defining success - ie. 10 4 way or larger jumps of 5 points or more and make that in FS/FF/CF disciplines where points are scored.

And how about not including student training jumps in those license jump - so AFF jumps wouldn't count. That truly is a joke if you want to say that counts.

Coaches can do a lot more than jump with people between 7 and 25 jumps who are cleared for self-supervision and not yet licensed and there are no requirements for only doing belly flying. What its original intent was and what is written seem to be quite a bit apart and I stand by my opinion that 100 jumps is too low with limited experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2