0
Croc

Should D license requirements be changed?

Recommended Posts

Although I don't know the specifics behind the thought processes at the time but I guess this is the reason Australian licences go to F.
The requirements for F include 1000 jumps, very tight accuracy and a night jump. I know at least one E licence jumper with multiple thousand of jumps but hasn't done a night jump, many others sit on E because of the difficulty in doing the accuracy requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D= really cool demos (Bellmount98) Espn, 80,000 people, got paid to jump $250, got to hang out at the million $ club before take off, have about 100 planes in the air between kennedy and LGR(need to stay under 5000), Have 40 of your friends from high school there to watch.
The rest of that D who cares.
Track high, Pull LOW!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US 'D' licence requirements = 500 jumps?

United Arab Emirates = 200 jumps?

UK = 1,000 jumps

Manbe it would be nice if there was global consistency in jump numbers and other requirements

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

With the different areas that skydivers can go into these days, perhaps the definition of an "expert" skydiver should be changed. For example, a jumper who wants to swoop may have difficulty meeting the accuracy requirements for a D license, but if he or she can consistently land a parachute at 50 mph, isn't that a demonstration of expert skill?



There are no accuracy requirements for a D license. In fact the only additional requirements for a D license are 500 jumps and 2 night jumps. This of course assumes one has a C license already.

The reality is the C license is the hard one to get nowadays, particularly the accuracy requirements. A C license is very much a generalist license and over specializing (say swooping or birdman) before 200 jumps not particularly wise.

As for night jumps good vision is not the point. Although a lot of people would agree with you.

You do have a point that possible additional certifications in various disciplines might be a good idea. But they should be a hell of a lot tougher than any of the current license requirements as they now stand, which are pretty damn easy. Say an RW might include a successful 3 point 36 way, 6 rounds of 4-way at an average of 10 points, in time, demonstrated from all 4 slots. 6 rounds of 8-way at an average of 6 points, in time, demonstrated from all 8 slots.



That's a silly idea. You can't make a license requirement SO dependent on the skills and teamwork of so many others. I've done 4 multi point 100+ ways, a bunch of multi point 50+ ways, and a few 8-ways on which we failed to complete one point, on account of the abilities of the people I was jumping with.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

perhaps the definition of an "expert" skydiver should be changed



The D license is no longer referred to as a "expert" rating by USPA. It is simply a "D" license. Apparently, there was a lot of controversy about what an "expert" was, and apparently, there still is. So that term has been eliminated.
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Say an RW might include a successful 3 point 36 way, [....]



That's a shitload of Cessnas!

Eule



Hi Eule

Dave Ruckett used to organize a 50 way out of 15 cessna's in Wa stste.

The V formation of 15 cessna's sounded like a hornets nest from the goundB|

Don't remember how many different days they tried it but with 15 planes there's lots of room for mis communication, mechanical problems, weather in Wa state etc. so i think they only got very close to their goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The D license is no longer referred to as a "expert" rating by USPA. It is simply a "D" license. Apparently, there was a lot of controversy about what an "expert" was, and apparently, there still is. So that term has been eliminated.



Can anyone tell me what year the USPA stopped using "Basic, ... Expert" designations?

(Not a trivia question, I'm looking for the answer.)
Peace,
-Dawson.
http://www.SansSuit.com
The Society for the Advancement of Naked Skydiving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The V formation of 15 cessna's sounded like a hornets nest from the goundB|



I think I've said this here before, but I think this would be an *excellent* demo for Cessna to do with some of the new 182s at an airshow or something. I don't know if it could be financially justified - it's not like it would help sell brand new 182s to DZs - but it would just be cool as hell. They could save a little money by using ones that are about 90% of the way down the production line - you don't _need_ an interior or the full glass cockpit to jump with...

Quote

Don't remember how many different days they tried it but with 15 planes there's lots of room for mis communication, mechanical problems, weather in Wa state etc. so i think they only got very close to their goal.



Assuming 182s, that would be 60 jumpers, right? I can see four or five camera flyers in addition to those in the formation, but it still sounds like they might have had one or two "spare" planes. Having driven old cars before, I well understand the idea that if you're going to drive an old car, you've got to have two of them, so as to increase the chances that one of them will run at any given moment. The advanced version of this theory is to have two of the _same_ car, so you can swap stuff back and forth. So, if you invite 20 Cessnas and a couple of A&Ps to the boogie, you ought to be able to come up with at least 15 good ones at any given moment. (Yes, I realize you'd have to get all 20 owners, the mechanics, and the FAA on board with this, which would be, uh, "non-trivial"). You could even call the whole thing a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Planes, but that leads to an unfortunate acronym.

Trying to get vaguely back on topic, my point was that requiring more than about a four-way for a license means that a lot of jumpers will need to go to another DZ or wait for a boogie to fill in some of their license requirements. I don't know how appropriate it is to consider "can you do that out of a Cessna" when deciding if something should be a license requirement or not, but I think it should count for something.

Eule
PLF does not stand for Please Land on Face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can do an 8 point 4-way, you shouldn't have problems doing a 4 point 8 way. provided you can find 7 other competent people to jump with... correct?

I think something appropriate would be a "bigway" licence. Something that only a handfull of the organizers who put together 50+ ways should be able to sign off on. Something that shows you have the training and skills to be on something that big.

Also maybe a "Vertical bigway licence" to be on stuff bigger than 15-20 way verts.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think something appropriate would be a "bigway" licence. Something that only a handfull of the organizers who put together 50+ ways should be able to sign off on. Something that shows you have the training and skills to be on something that big.

Also maybe a "Vertical bigway licence" to be on stuff bigger than 15-20 way verts.



Now those are two things that I agree on. Both would be a benefit to overall safety.

But I can hear the whining and gnashing of teeth now. “I am a mature adult and I will decide what my risk level will be. You can’t tell me what to do.” It will really piss off the “entitlement” kids.:(
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I've done 4 multi point 100+ ways, a bunch of multi point 50+ ways, and a few 8-ways on which we failed to complete one point,



Conclusion:

It takes up to 50 other jumps for a dive to be successful if John is on the load.:):)


You were on some of them too!:P
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think something appropriate would be a "bigway" licence. Something that only a handfull of the organizers who put together 50+ ways should be able to sign off on. Something that shows you have the training and skills to be on something that big.

Also maybe a "Vertical bigway licence" to be on stuff bigger than 15-20 way verts.



Now those are two things that I agree on. Both would be a benefit to overall safety.

But I can hear the whining and gnashing of teeth now. “I am a mature adult and I will decide what my risk level will be. You can’t tell me what to do.” It will really piss off the “entitlement” kids.:(



That already exists for all practical purposes. Big way organizers are selective about who they allow to their events. The biggest "walk-up and participate" I have been on was about a 40 way, and even there the organizer was being selective. Everything bigger was by prior invitation, generally requiring a recommendation from a recognized organizer.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


This has been discussed as long as I've been skydiving.

Bottom line - who needs a "D" license anyway? What additional privileges does it get you?




Pro Rating...and to get to jump air shows!;)


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I get back to the internet and read this two days after making my third demo. (Ho humm... Routine landing right on target.)

Damn, I gotta get me a PRO someday, I guess...

Cheers,
Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe that D licence requirements should be bloody hard to get. That way when someone has a D, you know its worth something.



The exact reason I'm not in a rush to buy more USPA licenses. I don't think it's worth anything and having an A license has never held me back.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think the only D license requirement that should be omitted is the needless 'night jumps' requirement.

Jen



In the last 21 years, I've heard stuff like that many times.

Licence requirements that I had to complete and that have since been removed include water jumps, CRW dock 3 times on a single dive, CRW be docked 3 times on a single dive, steer a 4 stack, land top and bottom of a 4 stack.

Some that remain are night jumps, dock 5th or higher on an 8 way, be in a 16 way (Not in the base) and a couple of others like number of jumps etc.

Although these are not USPA requirements, they are PASA requirements.

The number of times I've been in a Tandem rotation, hit an ATC hold and got out... a bit after sunset.. is lots.




But you can get on a sunset load with only an "A" license, so that argument is totally illogical.

Quote



Why can't people just do what's asked. The white lines on the road are for all the drivers. Why can't skydiving requirements be the same?

I believe that D licence requirements should be bloody hard to get. That way when someone has a D, you know its worth something.

t




Seems to me that you confuse a license, which is permission to do something, with an award, which is recognition that you are worthy in some way. A license requirement should test knowledge and skills relevant to the permissions it grants. Night jumps do not do this.

And yes, I have done mine and have a "D".
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Man, I've only been in the sport five years, but I feel like an old timer on this issue. And also please note that this isn't aimed at any one poster but the group that objects as a whole.

When I did my first two night jumps, I was very much night blind. Before both jumps, I called my family to let them know how much I loved them, because I honestly felt there was a decent chance I wouldn't come back.

And of course, many will cite that as an example of why it shouldn't be required. But the thing is, it isn't required. You don't want to do a night jump, that's fine, take the restricted D lisence and be done with it. Just please quit trying to denigrate the effort of those of us who have went the extra mile to earn our unrestricted lisences.
"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't want to do a night jump, that's fine, take the restricted D lisence and be done with it. Just please quit trying to denigrate the effort of those of us who have went the extra mile to earn our unrestricted lisences.



***

You SHOULD feel like an old timer...GOOD ATTITUDE!B|










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You don't want to do a night jump, that's fine, take the restricted D lisence and be done with it. Just please quit trying to denigrate the effort of those of us who have went the extra mile to earn our unrestricted lisences.



***

You SHOULD feel like an old timer...GOOD ATTITUDE!B|



What's unrestricted about any "D"? There are still a LOT of restrictions: you can't jump with a student or teach a FJC, for example, without additional ratings. Or do demos into sports arenas. Plus many many more things a "D" licencee isn't supposed to do.

And what exactly is a "restricted D" restricted from doing?

You too have the "I did it so you have to do it" attitude.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You too have the "I did it so you have to do it" attitude.


***

Of course I do!:)
I was complimenting him on having the same type of attitude....:)


I don't 'have' any restrictions on my licences so I'm not 'up to date' on exactly what a 'restricted D' is, but from what I understand it simply means you for what ever reason didn't want to or 'couldn't' fulfill the stated requirements as they were written when you applied for it....(notice I didn't say 'earned' it):ph34r:


Certainly the sport does change, and the requirements adjust to try and meet some of those changes.

I for one, (and it does at times seem like I'm in an ever shrinking minority)...believe that the night jump requirement should remain.

'Tradition' may be a small reason, but more so I think it's important to continue your training, education and challenge yourself a bit by doing something that will in all likelihood be a fun and enriching experience. And as I mentioned before, you just may find that the training comes in handy some time.

I just don't understand the mental block some people have about performing a night jump.:S

It's starting to seem like only the BASE guys aren't 'afraid' of the dark!!!B|










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I just don't understand the mental block some people have about performing a night jump.



Especially when many of those same people will go up on a "sunset" load that has them landing just post dusk. That landing is harder in many ways than a true night jump.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

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
0