Ron 7 #26 October 3, 2012 QuoteWhat then would you suggest? That the USPA does what it is supposed to do and try to keep the govt off of our backs.... Just like the AOPA. As you put it "staving off GOVERNMENT regulation, their administration and promulgation of most of the student program, and FAA relations, etc". Instead of trying to run programs like the "USPA Championship Demo Team" the "Group Member Program" etc. Simply put this whole issue could be fixed with a regulation or BSR about how to exit a side door plane. It does not need an entire new training program for a handful of jumpers. Even easier, it could be fixed by someone like DSE creating a best practice and sending it to every DZO that wants it. Then the DZO can decide how he wants to run HIS DZ, and he then has to deal with HIS insurance to cover HIS planes."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #27 October 10, 2012 I just read this entire thread and it's tremendous. Excellent point and counter-point dialogue. Most of you know me. Most of you know that I've been an instructor since I was 18 years old (I'm 49 now). I hold every wingsuit manufacturer "instructor"and "examiner" rating and I've trained more people to do this safely than I could possibly count. Personally, I don't care if USPA adopts this program. It's not going to change the way I conduct training. What I DO hope, though, is that dropzone S&TA's (like me) get off their asses and DO THEIR JOBS. It's simply not OK to let some unknown kid show up at your DZ in an Apache XRW and let him jump out of your plane without proof of training and currency. This never, ever happens at Raeford Parachute Center and it should not happen at your DZ. Formalized wingsuit instruction has been around since 1999. There are PLENTY of opportunities at boogies and PLENTY of dropzones with formal wingsuit schools where you can get proper training. There is no excuse for cutting corners. Ultimately, if the proposal passes I am to be one of the instructor examiners since I have been doing it on the "private" side since the inception of such programs. Again, though, I don't care one way or another. It's not going to affect the way I conduct my business. I've never been a "champion" skydiver, but I have ALWAYS been an instructor; that's what drives me. Thanks for your time, Chuck Blue, D-12501 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WickedWingsuits 0 #28 October 10, 2012 Well said. Regardless of how this turns out it will be down to the local level to monitor and enforce, something they could be doing now.Summer Rental special, 5 weeks for the price of 4! That is $160 a month. Try before You Buy with Wicked Wingsuits - WingsuitRental.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbearfng 9 #29 October 21, 2012 I commend you for taking the time to screen unknown WS jumpers at your DZ and hope you include unknown jumpers on pocket rocket canopies. Just curious-if the powers that be had decided you wouldn't qualify as one of the I/E's under this proposal what would your take on it then be? Would you then go take a course from one the sanctioned people? Or???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shredex 0 #30 January 5, 2013 It won. 2,686 voted Yes 2,053 voted No Source Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #31 January 5, 2013 Quote I commend you for taking the time to screen unknown WS jumpers at your DZ and hope you include unknown jumpers on pocket rocket canopies. Just curious-if the powers that be had decided you wouldn't qualify as one of the I/E's under this proposal what would your take on it then be? Would you then go take a course from one the sanctioned people? Or???? Skydive Instruction is what I do for a living. I've been an instructor since I was 19 years old (I'm 49 now). I've been instructing wingsuiting since 2000. If this does get approved and for some odd reason I were not made a part of the initial group of examiners then I would pay for the examiner course so that I could still "legally" (assuming USPA control) continue to do what I've been doing for 13 years. It's the right thing to do if the forces that be mandate it. I'm just going to write the cost off on my taxes anyway. Then again, USPA has not mandated anything at this point. Chuck Blue, D-12501 AFF/SL/TM-I, PRO, S&TA, PFC/E DragonFly Wingsuit School Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigbearfng 9 #32 January 5, 2013 And I hope USPA doesn't mandate any of this crap...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #33 January 5, 2013 Well, you could say that 44.6% of voting members voted "YES", and 55.4% didn't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #34 January 5, 2013 In a similar context, 75% of the voters didn't vote "no." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #35 January 7, 2013 Quote It won. 2,686 voted Yes 2,053 voted No Source It most emphatically did NOT win; the 2,686 "yes" votes were soundly beaten by the combined 3,342 "no" and "no opinion" votes -- the latter 1,289 of which carry as much weight in this ridiculously designed and fundamentally flawed "poll" as a "yes" or "no" vote. Ergo, if the new BOD does not summarily poopcan this methodologically illegitimate "poll," it must absolutely weight the "no opinion" vote equally with the "no" votes and the "yes" votes -- which means: THE MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT SUPPORT ACTION TO IMPOSE THIS ILL-ADVISED, POORLY THOUGHT-OUT INITIATIVE ON THE SPORT. PERIOD. Seriously, beyond being methodologically illegitimate and amateurishly executed, the results of this "poll" -- which would be invalid even if the "yes" vote actually won -- show clearly and emphatically that the USPA membership either actively opposes or is indifferent to the creation of a mindless rating system that increases liability across the whole sport, reduces the fun factor, and does absolutely nothing to address the principal issues facing wingsuit skydiving in the United States. Hopefully, the new BOD will exercise more common sense in aborting this defective baby than did its predecessor. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SStewart 13 #37 January 7, 2013 + 2 Not to mention this stupidity is not enforceable. Most DZ's will ignore it and then what? Group member drop zones will lose their status? So what? That may be all it takes to drop out of the GMDZ program. If an experienced mentor takes somebody on a jump without the new rating what then, will they be kicked out of USPA? Will the indivduals membership and ratings be revoked? I mean what exactly are you going to do to us? Most skydivers don't give a shit about USPA to begin with, this type of thing only drives them farther away. USPA has one main function only and that is to defend skydivers from restrictions and protect our rights to skydive. Everything else is secondary. That is why the PCA and the later USPA were established. My instructor told me something 32 years ago and it is still true today "Skydiving did not begin the day you started jumping" I think some folks have lost sight of that.Onward and Upward! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #38 January 7, 2013 +3 (in support of those who did not vote being significant) Maybe instead of making a complex instructor program, and having pretty pictures on the front of the USPA Magazine - they should make a cover story that is more newsworthy/educational instead of travel blog about the last boogie, and have a real factual article about wingsuit safety and known risks. I would bet a jumpticket that if the poll had a 3rd option, "should the USPA focus 2013 on wingsuit education and wingsuit safety, include new educational content in the SIM regarding wingsuiting including recommended wingsuiting instruction techniques, but not implement a formal instructor program" - that item would have "won" hands down... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #39 January 7, 2013 Quote Maybe instead of making a complex instructor program, and having pretty pictures on the front of the USPA Magazine - they should make a cover story that is more newsworthy/educational instead of ..... It's a membership magazine! I'm guessing if YOU or any member write that article and submit it, they would happily print it. (the following not aimed specifically at tdog) Once again, too many people wanting everything done for them. At some point you have to take the bull by the horns! But, If you choose not to be proactive, someone else will. At which point your bitching about it has no value other than to affect minor changes in the policies they implement. Lesson..... Stop bitching and be Proactive!! Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #40 January 7, 2013 >It most emphatically did NOT win It won. Even though lots of people didn't care, the people who cared overwhelmingly supported it. Which is fine; I'd rather that people who have no opinion or who don't care or who don't know what the question is about abstain from voting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #41 January 7, 2013 Quote>It most emphatically did NOT win It won. Even though lots of people didn't care, the people who cared overwhelmingly supported it. Which is fine; I'd rather that people who have no opinion or who don't care or who don't know what the question is about abstain from voting. ^ So far, that is the only honest perspective on the poll results. The result is "Yes", if one whats to say the "No Opinion" votes need to be "No" votes, the same argument can be used as "Yes" votes. Reality is the only ones that count are "Yes" or "No", "Yes" won. Apathy, is a vote for the one vote majority. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #42 January 7, 2013 >and have a real factual article about wingsuit safety and known risks. ?? There have been several of these. >I would bet a jumpticket that if the poll had a 3rd option, "should the USPA focus >2013 on wingsuit education and wingsuit safety, include new educational content in the >SIM regarding wingsuiting including recommended wingsuiting instruction techniques, >but not implement a formal instructor program" - that item would have "won" hands >down... That sounds good too, and I'd support your efforts to do that. (Keep in mind, though, that there IS new educational content in the SIM regarding wingsuiting including recommended wingsuiting instruction techniques - including a full first flight course syllabus.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #43 January 7, 2013 >USPA has one main function only and that is to defend skydivers from restrictions >and protect our rights to skydive. Here is USPA's stated purpose: ====== The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs. ====== #1 is promoting safe skydiving through training, licensing and instructor qualification programs. >My instructor told me something 32 years ago and it is still true today "Skydiving >did not begin the day you started jumping" I think some folks have lost sight of that. Agreed. The sport is changing and growing all the time, and USPA is growing along with it. Some people may not like the direction the sport is going in (higher performance parachutes, wingsuits etc) and they are always free to choose another sport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ufk22 32 #44 January 7, 2013 Quote>It most emphatically did NOT win It won. Even though lots of people didn't care, the people who cared overwhelmingly supported it. Which is fine; I'd rather that people who have no opinion or who don't care or who don't know what the question is about abstain from voting. This is a POLL. Not even a good poll. Nothing won or lost, but I wouldn't try to say that a measure that was "approved" by 8% of USPA's total membership is a sign of membership approval. I have no problem with USPA adopting a uniform training program in the same fashion as the recomended training for rw or crw. I have no probelm with the manufacturers adopting their own training program. To implement a requirement for training and a new I and I-E structure I cannot support.This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #45 January 7, 2013 >This is a POLL. . . . .Nothing won or lost, but I wouldn't try to say that a measure that was "approved" True, it would be more accurate to say that the poll indicated support for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #46 January 7, 2013 Quote >This is a POLL. . . . .Nothing won or lost, but I wouldn't try to say that a measure that was "approved" True, it would be more accurate to say that the poll indicated support for it. ^^^^ This!!! Keep in mind, it's a work in progress and input from membership is important, regardless which side of this issue you're camping in. Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NSEMN8R 0 #47 January 7, 2013 Quote True, it would be more accurate to say that the poll indicated support for it. It would be even more accurate to say that only 45% of those responding to the poll indicated support for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #48 January 7, 2013 >It would be even more accurate to say that only 45% of those responding to the >poll indicated support for it. And just as accurate to say that of the ~32,000 USPA members eligible to vote, only 6.4% indicated that they had a problem with such a program. But again those are numbers games. The poll indicated support for the proposal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #49 January 7, 2013 Quote >It would be even more accurate to say that only 45% of those responding to the >poll indicated support for it. And just as accurate to say that of the ~32,000 USPA members eligible to vote, only 6.4% indicated that they had a problem with such a program. But again those are numbers games. The poll indicated support for the proposal. No it didn't. It was a methodologically illegitimate, amateurishly executed attempt to obtain a desired result, which it did. Period. Full stop. Ask ANY credible pollster what the results of this "poll" mean and see what they say. Go ahead, Bill. Try that instead of pretending that these "results" are in any way shape or form legitimate or indicative of anything except the originator's bias and methodological ignorance. Are those crickets I hear chirping? LOL... 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NSEMN8R 0 #50 January 8, 2013 Without any numbers games, the poll did indicate 45% support for it. I guess the big question is "will they push it through with less than 50% of the membership asking for it?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
