mjosparky 3 #1 January 8, 2014 Training The pilot should have “prober” training. It is the author’s opinion that a seminar in advanced canopy control, incorporating the information provided in this document, should be formalized by the USPA and offered to intermediate jumpers through local drop zones and part of D license qualifications. However, in the vacuum that currently exists prospective pilots should seek advice and coaching from proven knowledgeable authorities who also exhibit the proper responsible attitude .One without the other is useless. The last point above “training”, points out that there are really two levels of qualifications at issue here. The first, obviously, are those of the prospective High Performance (HP) canopy pilot. However, in that no document alone (certainly not this one) is adequate to teach all the necessary skills, there must be some individual who functions as the Instructor. So what are the prerequisites of a good instructor? In that there are no existing standards, how can one recognize a suitable source of information and advice? The author recommends the following standards for someone to a qualified mentor to pilots transitioning to HP canopies. 1. They should have a minimum of 5 years in the sport 2. They should have a minimum of 1000 jumps. 3. They should have made at least 100 jumps in the preceding 12 months. 4. They should hold a USPA Instructor rating or an FAA Flight Instructor rating. 5. They should have at least 100 jumps in each of the canopy class (es) for which they are rated. 6. They should have experience on the specific canopy the prospective pilot will be using. This was published May 13, 1994 by Jerry Sobieski. Any thoughts? SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #2 January 8, 2014 I wouldn't take on the liability. I think the only thing that has kept lawsuits out of many skydiving accidents is many of the instructors are broke. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lyosha 46 #3 January 8, 2014 CSpenceFLYI wouldn't take on the liability. I think the only thing that has kept lawsuits out of many skydiving accidents is many of the instructors are broke. ... and the wording of the waivers? I haven't heard of a lawsuit by someone against a dropzone that stuck... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #4 January 8, 2014 lyosha***I wouldn't take on the liability. I think the only thing that has kept lawsuits out of many skydiving accidents is many of the instructors are broke. ... and the wording of the waivers? I haven't heard of a lawsuit by someone against a dropzone that stuck... You are new. The waiver does not always hold up. Some cases are settled because the cost of winning is too high."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kurbe105 1 #5 January 8, 2014 I have no ratings anymore. Let them all go. Didn't like being responsible for others and I make my money elsewhere. I've got really low jump numbers for my years in the sport and skill level but I get a lot of people coming up to me asking canopy related questions though because they see how I fly my wing, not how many jumps I have or what ratings are in my log book. If you want to learn to fly a HP wing, find someone who knows what's up and ask them for help. If no one at your DZ is into competitive canopy piloting, it's well worth the investment to plan a trip for a professional coaching course. I'm partial and recommend getting in touch with Nicholas Batsch to find out what his coaching schedule is if you're looking for the best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #6 January 8, 2014 It has been almost 10 years and there has been little if any advancement on this issue. That was the main reason I posted it. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #7 January 8, 2014 You're getting old, Sparky -- it's been 20 years. And I don't think Jerry's jumped much since then . Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #8 January 9, 2014 wmw999 You're getting old, Sparky -- it's been 20 years. And I don't think Jerry's jumped much since then . Wendy P. I knew that, yea I knew that. Hell I've been old for 20 years. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doug_Davis 0 #9 January 9, 2014 mjosparkyIt has been almost 10 years and there has been little if any advancement on this issue. That was the main reason I posted it. Sparky I cant speak to advancement or not within the USPA formally but I do know Flight 1 has put together a real nice program they are teaching. Ive taken the 101 and 102 course. There was so much amazing material to try and absorb Im considering going down and taking the whole thing again in Feb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craigbey 0 #10 January 9, 2014 The discussion about a proposed Wingsuit Instructor Rating included many reasons why some people resisted or simply did not agree with a formal, USPA sanctioned program... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4316817;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Not saying it is exactly the same issue with CC, but similar discussions have occurred regarding formalized training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #11 January 9, 2014 Doug_Davis***It has been almost 10 years and there has been little if any advancement on this issue. That was the main reason I posted it. Sparky I cant speak to advancement or not within the USPA formally but I do know Flight 1 has put together a real nice program they are teaching. Ive taken the 101 and 102 course. There was so much amazing material to try and absorb Im considering going down and taking the whole thing again in Feb. I wasn’t aware of what Flight 1 is doing. Thanks for the information. Knowledge is power. A smart man takes every opportunity to gain more. Knowledge can keep you alive in this sport. Sparkly I just went to their web site and am impressed. I sure up and coming jumpers will take advantage of what they have to offer. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,914 #12 January 9, 2014 My thoughts FWIW (not much). When we talk of "HP" canopy skills we general mean the art of aiming our canopy at the ground in order to gain speed for the fastest and most graceful landing we can manage. There are some truly wonderful people doing truly wonderful things along these lines, and I love to watch them. But it is a black art. It is so unforgiving of mistakes that no sanctioning body such as USPA will ever publish a methodology for learning these skills, nor should they, as it would encourage even more people to do it. Indeed, what the population in the sport generally does is discourage this activity. Also as it should be. There is no truely safe way to learn it, just ways of lowering the risk. If you want to follow this path, you will need to find willing mentors, or unsanctioned "schools". Good luck and be safe.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #13 January 9, 2014 gowlerk But it is a black art. It is so unforgiving of mistakes that no sanctioning body such as USPA will ever publish a methodology for learning these skills, nor should they, as it would encourage even more people to do it. Absolutely! Especially not the "Ban Parachuting Altogether" organisation. While maybe not as onerous as Jerry's requirements, the criteria to be a CP Coach under the BPA are: Quote a) Is a BPA ‘D’ Licence holder [200 jumps under old licensing system, 1000 since 1998] b) Is a CP Grade 1 (CP1) holder c) Has been involved in Sport Parachuting for a minimum of 2 years. d) Is fully familiar with the current CP Manual. *d) Is at least a; (i) Category System Basic Instructor, or (ii) Has attended a Sportscoach UK Course on `Coaching Methods and Communication`, or (iii) Has specific teaching or coaching qualifications, or (iv) Has attended a Methods of Instruction lecture, given by a BPA Advanced Instructor, or (v) Has attended a Military Methods of Instruction Course. The requirements for CP1 are Quote 6.3.1. To obtain Grade 1 in Canopy Piloting (CP1) the parachutist must hold a ‘C’ Licence and a Grade 2 in CH (CH2) and be introduced to CP1 by a CCI/Advanced Instructor nominated ‘D’ Licence or above CP1 Grade parachutist or equivalent of proven CP instructional ability or Canopy coach and have a log book endorsement from the CCI/Advanced instructor, have received a full safety brief and been instructed, both theoretically and practically in canopy piloting relevant to CP1, and has successfully achieved the following: a) Proficiency at conducting canopy drills (dive recovery techniques, straight approaches - 90°, 90° - 160°, 200° - 270° turns) at altitudes above 3,000ft AGL. b) Proficient, high performance landings, using front risers during a straight on approach, on at least 5 consecutive descents. c) Proficient, high performance landings, using a front riser/harness to create a final approach turn of between 45° and 90°, on at least 5 consecutive descents. d) Proficient, high performance landings, using a front riser/harness to create a final approach turn of between 90° and 160°, on at least 5 consecutive descents. e) Proficient, high performance landings, using a front riser/harness to create a final approach turn of between 200° and 270°, on at least 5 consecutive descents. f) A CP1 written examination. N.B.(1) Initially in air drills and high performance landings must be supervised by a CP coach or equivalent. Student Canopy Pilots may then practise their skills. The CP Student must not progress to the next stage unless a CP coach or equivalent has endorsed BPA Form 248. N.B.(2) All successful high performance landings must be validated by a CP coach or equivalent using BPA Form 248. The candidate must also countersign the coach’s validation on BPA Form 248. N.B.(3) Upon successful completion of each stage the candidate must not attempt larger degree final approach turns before gaining a requisite amount of experience as dictated by a CP coach or equivalent, who has evaluated the candidate over a reasonable period of time. N.B.(4) Training programmes other than those contained in the BPA Canopy Piloting Manual are acceptable for training for CP1, provided all the requirements of sub-para 6.3.1. (above) are met.. N.B.(5) Parachutists who have not been awarded CP1 must not attempt unsupervised high performance/swoop landings. Skills should only be practised at a Club/Centre where a CP coach or equivalent is available for guidance. N.B.(6) BPA ‘C’ Licence CH2 Grade parachutists who hold Official ‘Pro Swooping Tour’ ‘Advanced’ qualification are deemed to have qualified as CP1. N.B.(7) CP1 written examination can be found on BPA Form 249 Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,914 #14 January 9, 2014 Obviously BPA feels differently than me! God bless them, and a nanny state organization to boot! I did not know, thanks. I am not an HP pilot, and like I said my feeling may not be worth much.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #15 January 10, 2014 gowlerkMy thoughts FWIW (not much). When we talk of "HP" canopy skills we general mean the art of aiming our canopy at the ground in order to gain speed for the fastest and most graceful landing we can manage. There are some truly wonderful people doing truly wonderful things along these lines, and I love to watch them. But it is a black art. It is so unforgiving of mistakes that no sanctioning body such as USPA will ever publish a methodology for learning these skills, nor should they, as it would encourage even more people to do it. Indeed, what the population in the sport generally does is discourage this activity. Also as it should be. There is no truely safe way to learn it, just ways of lowering the risk. If you want to follow this path, you will need to find willing mentors, or unsanctioned "schools". Good luck and be safe. When I first started jumping RW was considered a “Black Art” and was not allowed at some DZ’s. It has always taken time for new things to be accepted by the group. Skydiving in all its forms is unforgiving and always will be. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn't continue refine the skills needed to make it safer. They have developed the methodology to teach people to fly jet fighters a 1400 mph and then land on a carrier deck at 150 mph. It can surely be done for canopies flying a 60 mph. As for “unsanctioned schools” the one that Doug Davis referenced is run by members of PD factory Team. These guys and gal are probably the best collection of HP canopy pilots in the world. This is what the sport has needed for many years to help stem the carnage. Sparky http://flight-1.com/sport/My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craigbey 0 #16 January 11, 2014 QuoteAs for “unsanctioned schools” the one that Doug Davis referenced is run by members of PD factory Team. These guys and gal are probably the best collection of HP canopy pilots in the world. This is what the sport has needed for many years to help stem the carnage. Flight-1 does offer training for advanced HP canopy control, but many of the participants are attending the 101/102 classes to learn fundamental elements of CC. These are concepts and techniques that do not require champion HP canopy pilots to teach. In its current format, the material could probably be taught by many USPA rated instructors. Flight-1 is great and I've had a chance to participate in 3 of their day-long classes (101/102 and 102 again). Most of what they covered however, was material that should be taught by USPA rated instructors as part of regular, on-going CC training and evaluation. I doubt the USPA will get too much into advanced HP canopy control education in the same manner as the BPA. The USPA has made some steps in the right direction, but still has a lot of catching up to do regarding CC education. Flight-1 and other sources have been available for some time now and they are excellent, but the USPA can and should do more to offer standardized CC training and evaluation to first ensure that licensed jumpers understand the concepts and techniques that are taught in the basic CC classes like those offered by Flight-1. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #17 January 12, 2014 QuoteFlight-1 does offer training for advanced HP canopy control, but many of the participants are attending the 101/102 classes to learn fundamental elements of CC. These are concepts and techniques that do not require champion HP canopy pilots to teach. In its current format, the material could probably be taught by many USPA rated instructors. I see nothing wrong learning the basics from the best in the world. You are right that they may not need a world champion CP to teach basic CC but they appear willing to take on the job where others have dropped the ball. While some of the present USPA instructors are capable of teaching basics there is no way of knowing who they are. D. Instructor Qualifications 1. USPA does not issue instructional ratings specifically for canopy coaching. With canopy control problems being the leading cause of fatalities in the sport for the last several years USPA’s lack of leadership in this area are inexcusable. It not like trend just suddenly appeared. I think it’s time for USPA to step up aggressively address this issue. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bluhdow 31 #18 January 12, 2014 mjosparkyTraining The pilot should have “prober” training. It is the author’s opinion that a seminar in advanced canopy control, incorporating the information provided in this document, should be formalized by the USPA and offered to intermediate jumpers through local drop zones and part of D license qualifications. However, in the vacuum that currently exists prospective pilots should seek advice and coaching from proven knowledgeable authorities who also exhibit the proper responsible attitude .One without the other is useless. The last point above “training”, points out that there are really two levels of qualifications at issue here. The first, obviously, are those of the prospective High Performance (HP) canopy pilot. However, in that no document alone (certainly not this one) is adequate to teach all the necessary skills, there must be some individual who functions as the Instructor. So what are the prerequisites of a good instructor? In that there are no existing standards, how can one recognize a suitable source of information and advice? The author recommends the following standards for someone to a qualified mentor to pilots transitioning to HP canopies. 1. They should have a minimum of 5 years in the sport 2. They should have a minimum of 1000 jumps. 3. They should have made at least 100 jumps in the preceding 12 months. 4. They should hold a USPA Instructor rating or an FAA Flight Instructor rating. 5. They should have at least 100 jumps in each of the canopy class (es) for which they are rated. 6. They should have experience on the specific canopy the prospective pilot will be using. This was published May 13, 1994 by Jerry Sobieski. Any thoughts? Sparky No.* *Footnote: I don't swoop.Apex BASE #1816 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #19 January 13, 2014 BPA, CSPA, APF, Skydive University, etc. have all published pamphlets, syllabi, video tapes, etc. on the basics of high-speed landings. The challenge is convincing A-License jumpers that they need to do front-riser approaches ... until they get consistent ... then do 90 degree front riser approaches until they get consistent ... then do 180 degree front riser approaches until they get consistent ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craigbey 0 #20 January 13, 2014 We're pushing in the same direction, but I see 2 issues... 1 - There are too many people who continue to jump and do not get any more CC training than what was available (or mandated) during their original student training. The USPA needs to include more of the material that is covered by Flight-1 introductory courses into student programs and include CC evaluations with license progression. The basic concepts and techniques that do not require champion HP canopy pilots to teach should also not require a unique CC instructional rating. But there would have to be a process to train and evaluate USPA instructors on the additional CC training components of the student program and the skills that other jumpers would be evaluated on for license progression. 2 - There are too many people who continue to pursue HP canopy flight (a unique discipline) with little or no formal training. Teaching advanced HP flight however, would require a unique CC instructional rating. That is another discussion and would probably be similar to the one regarding a wing-suiting instructional rating. Not saying that was right or wrong, but it does need to be hashed out. FWIW: I'm not an instructor and have no ratings other than what is listed in my profile. But I'm happy to participate as a student and I'm enjoying the journey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #21 January 13, 2014 craigbeyWe're pushing in the same direction, but I see 2 issues... 1 - There are too many people who continue to jump and do not get any more CC training than what was available (or mandated) during their original student training. The USPA needs to include more of the material that is covered by Flight-1 introductory courses into student programs and include CC evaluations with license progression. The basic concepts and techniques that do not require champion HP canopy pilots to teach should also not require a unique CC instructional rating. But there would have to be a process to train and evaluate USPA instructors on the additional CC training components of the student program and the skills that other jumpers would be evaluated on for license progression. 2 - There are too many people who continue to pursue HP canopy flight (a unique discipline) with little or no formal training. Teaching advanced HP flight however, would require a unique CC instructional rating. That is another discussion and would probably be similar to the one regarding a wing-suiting instructional rating. Not saying that was right or wrong, but it does need to be hashed out. FWIW: I'm not an instructor and have no ratings other than what is listed in my profile. But I'm happy to participate as a student and I'm enjoying the journey. I think we agree on things. It just seems USPA Is dodging the issue. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites