Standardized Wingsuit Instruction Opinion Poll

[billvon 2,400]

Without any numbers games the poll indicated 57% support for it.

It's funny; had the poll gone the other way all the anti-wingsuit-instruction people here would have been claiming that the poll was proof of their position, that the people had spoken etc. Since it didn't they are fudging the numbers and claiming it doesn't mean anything.

What it does mean is that most people who responded WOULD support it. Which is an indication of what the real world of skydiving thinks about the proposal, as opposed to Internet posters. Thus we can go two ways from here:

-Deny it
-Work towards a solution

I am partial to the latter approach.

[DBCOOPER 1]

Quote

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?"

It seems only a few asked for it. The rest were asked if they give a shit.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Without any numbers games the poll indicated 57% support for it.

It's funny; had the poll gone the other way all the anti-wingsuit-instruction people here would have been claiming that the poll was proof of their position, that the people had spoken etc. Since it didn't they are fudging the numbers and claiming it doesn't mean anything.

What it does mean is that most people who responded WOULD support it. Which is an indication of what the real world of skydiving thinks about the proposal, as opposed to Internet posters. Thus we can go two ways from here:

-Deny it
-Work towards a solution

I am partial to the latter approach.

Sorry, Billy boy, you're wrong on both counts.

First off, the "poll" is methodologically illegitimate no matter what its results so you sure won't hear from me that it's legit, or from any others who have challenged its fundamental legitimacy .

Second, it is absolutely false on its face to contend that "most people who responded WOULD support it."

THEY DO NOT!

MOST people who responded either opposed it or had no opinion, so who is the one trying to play games with the numbers?

Moreover, when the BOD votes on anything, a "yes" "majority" must beat both the "no" votes AND the abstentions, AKA "no opinion."

As I have said repeatedly, the whole thing if fundamentally illegitimate and if you'd bother to consult even one professional polling outfit you'd know that as fact not just my opinion, but even if you accept it as legitimate, the only way to "win" is to ignore the "no opinion" votes which count as much as "yes" or "no" votes --- otherwise, why were they included in the "poll"?

So please stop this nonsense, Bill. You're embarrassing yourself.

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."

[jumpinjackflsh 0]

I've been following all of this, throughout and have heard some good pro and con arguments.

I've also heard a lot of posturing, bickering, etc... Which is normal considering we are all human (well assuming).

I have to ask Robin, and I get your point about a legitimate poll and frankly, it pisses me off as bit as well considering our organization should've utilized a professional service and the "poll" should've been executed as best as possible.

However, all that aside, I'm incredulous that only 10% of the entire membership even voted. Considering that, 90% of the organization is happy to have whatever comes there way in regards to our board, etc...

Lastly, the thing that pisses me off to no end? "No Opinion"

Seriously, how can that be counted at all? Why bother? Who gives a shit, if you have NO OPINION?

That says to me, that you shouldn't even check a box!

Hell I voted no, only because my fear that the precedent will lead to the same thing in ALL aspects of the sport.

Not because I fear having good training, etc... but because there was so much left unanswered.

However, again, I have to ask? Who gives a shit about NO OPINION?

Last but not least, what the hell? Why would that even be on the poll?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

It's funny; had the poll gone the other way all the anti-wingsuit-instruction people here would have been claiming that the poll was proof of their position, that the people had spoken etc. Since it didn't they are fudging the numbers and claiming it doesn't mean anything.

.

I am on record as having stated clearly and unambiguously that that the poll was meaningless back when the wording was first announced. A result either way would be meaningless because of fundamental design flaws.

...

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

[NSEMN8R 0]

Quote

Without any numbers games the poll indicated 57% support for it.

It's funny; had the poll gone the other way all the anti-wingsuit-instruction people here would have been claiming that the poll was proof of their position, that the people had spoken etc. Since it didn't they are fudging the numbers and claiming it doesn't mean anything.

What it does mean is that most people who responded WOULD support it. Which is an indication of what the real world of skydiving thinks about the proposal, as opposed to Internet posters. Thus we can go two ways from here:

-Deny it
-Work towards a solution

USPA website has it listed as
2686 yes
2053 no
1289 no opinion

How is that not 44%, 34% and 21%?
Where does 57% come from?

[nigel99 144]

I'm a USPA member that voted "No opinion". I don't wingsuit, I don't intend to wingsuit and so why should I impose my views on those that do?

I think it is a valid option on the poll.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[ufk22 32]

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.

And it would be even more accurate to say that the poll did not indicate "majority" support for it.
Approval by less than 50% of those voting and only 8% of USPA membership would seem to minmize true concern by skydivers over the need for a new rating.
Also, since tailstrikes seem to be the biggest selling point, a BSR outlining exit procedures might be a simpler solution than a rating program, or since other skydiving diciplines have also had tailstrikes, maybe we need an "exiting the sircraft" I rating.
And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must be negligent and has a liability in the death".

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.

[billvon 2,400]

>a BSR outlining exit procedures might be a simpler solution than a rating program, or
>since other skydiving diciplines have also had tailstrikes, maybe we need an "exiting
>the sircraft" I rating.

Well, a BSR doesn't outline anything. It's a (generally) one sentence rule that says what you must do or not do.

But if you wanted to come up with an "exiting the aircraft" I rating go for it; let's see the proposal.

>And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW
>instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must
>be negligent and has a liability in the death".

USPA has mandatory water training but no mandatory low turn training, and low turns are the largest cause of death in the sport. No lawsuits yet. Not much of a concern.

[ufk22 32]

Quote

>a BSR outlining exit procedures might be a simpler solution than a rating program, or
>since other skydiving diciplines have also had tailstrikes, maybe we need an "exiting
>the sircraft" I rating.

Well, a BSR doesn't outline anything. It's a (generally) one sentence rule that says what you must do or not do.

Quote

"Do not extend wings til clear of the aircraft"
That should cover it

But if you wanted to come up with an "exiting the aircraft" I rating go for it; let's see the proposal.

My point is that you shouldn't have to set up a new Instructor heirarchy for every skill you need to teach.

>And then we get into the "someone died doing CRW, USPA has not developed a CRW
>instruction rating program, USPA does have a wingsuit program, therefore USPA must
>be negligent and has a liability in the death".

USPA has mandatory water training but no mandatory low turn training, and low turns are the largest cause of death in the sport. No lawsuits yet. Not much of a concern.

USPA does have mandatory canopy training. Most of it is done by any Instructor, the advanced portion by any S&TA approved person, no special instructor course or rating.

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.

[billvon 2,400]

>USPA does have mandatory canopy training.

Please point to the mandatory low turn training. (Which is what I was talking about.)

[jumpinjackflsh 0]

Yeah, I hear you Nigel, and I'm not downing you for it. I don't agree with Robin on everything, but, the poll was very poorly executed.

My point is, if you don't check, yes I support, or no I don't, then I would think by default you weighed in with a "No Opinion".

Counting the "No Opinion" votes in with the "No's" or the "Yes's" is well, ridiculous.

It would be like breaking into a heated debate/conversation over a political matter, or a family squabble, getting everyones attention and then saying "Yeah, I don't have anything to say".

What's the point?

[excaza 1]

Quote

Please point to the mandatory low turn training. (Which is what I was talking about.)

Is this not the point of the flat turn work on the B card?

[ufk22 32]

Quote

>USPA does have mandatory canopy training.

Please point to the mandatory low turn training. (Which is what I was talking about.)

It's part of the first jump course, as in "don't turn the canopy too low or you will die"
And also covered in the landing priorities section of the first jump course.
It's also cover during the student progression when they practice flat turns.

If what you're talking about is teaching people to swoop, that's another story.
Since you appear to support special "I" and "I-E" rating for wingsuits, do we also need the same for swoopers???
There is a big difference between mandatory emergency training and mandatory discipline training.

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.

[popsjumper 2]

*cough cough*

Wingsuiting?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,400]

>If what you're talking about is teaching people to swoop, that's another story.

Agreed. And still there has been no "someone died swooping, USPA has not developed mandatory swooping instruction, USPA does have a mandatory night jump instruction, therefore USPA must be negligent and has a liability in the death" lawsuits.

>Since you appear to support special "I" and "I-E" rating for wingsuits, do we also need
>the same for swoopers?

I think the need for standardized instruction for swoopers is even greater, based on fatality stats.