Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

[airtwardo 6]

So why not create a wingsuit rating exactly like the demo? You did notice that we didn't create an instructor rating to teach demos... Right?

Quote

Don't give me any ideas Ron...I keep hearin' about all the $$ one can make setting up a program!

Of course big-picture, there probably are more WS jumps on any nice weekend than there are demo jumps in a year...could have something to do with it.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Don't give me any ideas Ron...I keep hearin' about all the $$ one can make setting up a program!

And unless you are giving it away for free, you can. Make your training 'mandatory' and then you have just put a lock on the market.

Quote

Of course big-picture, there probably are more WS jumps on any nice weekend than there are demo jumps in a year...could have something to do with it.

Yep, more money to be made so some see it as more worth the effort.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Are my expectations too high...can't we address more than one issue at a time?

The USPA has shown it can't. The USPA has shown it can't really do what it was created to do very well.

1. The USPA didn't create AFF.
2. The USPA didn't create Tandem training.
3. The USPA didn't promote the use of throw outs.
4. The USPA didn't create coaching.
5. The USPA didn't teach canopy control.
6. The USPA didn't teach free flying.
7. The USPA banned wingsuits.

So, no.... Not only do I not see a need for this level of a solution - But the USPA has proven to be pretty bad at doing much of anything.

Simply put, if I didnt have to be a member to jump at most DZ's.. I'd tell them to pound sand.

If I was going to support any education from the USPA, it would be canopy control, something that effects EVERY member, not just a very small sample.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[airtwardo 6]

If I was going to support any education from the USPA, it would be canopy control, something that effects EVERY member, not just a very small sample.

Quote

Ron I couldn't agree with you more!

Just need somebody to write it up A ~ Z, get all parties to concur on content, language & format.

Hand it to the BOD with 25,000 sigs demanding action and we're set...!

Wonder if I could get a $10,000 'loan' from the general fund to get the ball rolling!!

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

[DSE 3]

Quote

Was it brought up by DSE who would stand to gain quite a bit personally? Do some critical thinking on the issue please. If you have, and you have made your decision then okay. I respect you two guys a lot. Bill your checklist on downsizing was a great contribution to upcoming jumpers such as me. Airtwardo I dig your long time commitment to the sport, and I agree with your post 99.9% of the time,.

DSE doesn't stand to gain sh** personally, but it's a convenient untruth told by many.
You're welcome (even invited) to call my DZO's and ask them exactly how much I profit from wingsuiting instruction.

The answer is, the same exact amount you and anyone else has ever paid for my written guides, video instruction, reference manuals for DZO's and S&TA's, or anything else I've ever published here on DZ.com, Vimeo, Facebook, or anywhere else that isn't on a DVD.
Zip.

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

DSE doesn't stand to gain sh** personally, but it's a convenient untruth told by many.

So I have been told Spot. Let me ask you something though. Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

Why do you think it is necessary to start a whole new I & I/E system?

It is not an attack on you personally that people are skeptical of the reasoning for what many feel is unneeded. If people feel it is unneeded then it is natural to question why it is being brought up and what motives there may be.

If it is truly because you feel you can make the dicipline you hold dear safer and better, then I applaud your efforts, even if I disagree with the method you propose.

I honestly feel that it is complacency amoung experienced wingsuiters that is causing the often brought up tailstikes. Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[billvon 2,400]

>Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught
>by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

I'd support it provided he knew and understood the curriculum. (i.e. it wouldn't help things much if people were teaching to inflate their wings right at exit.)

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

I'd support it provided he knew and understood the curriculum. (i.e. it wouldn't help things much if people were teaching to inflate their wings right at exit.)

Come on Bill what wingsuiter that is another instructor and has at least 200 WS jumps would be teaching open wings on exit? Especially if the curriculum was standardized and spelled out? Really?

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught
>by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

I'd support it provided he knew and understood the curriculum. (i.e. it wouldn't help things much if people were teaching to inflate their wings right at exit.)

I'm sure that AFF-I's teach not to turn low to the ground, but it doesn't stop experienced skydivers from killing themselves with low turns.

The issue is complacency and poor judgment, not poor instruction.

It's exactly the same as pilots flying VFR into IMC, or low level buzzing. Every pilot is taught not to do it, but it's still a big killer of GA pilots.

You won't solve a misdiagnosed problem with a remedy to a different problem.

This proposal is like prescribing chemotherapy for bird flu.

...

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

[EFS4LIFE 0]

and the Professor speaks wisdom. +1

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[robinheid 0]

no.

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."

[craigbey 0]

Quote

If I was going to support any education from the USPA, it would be canopy control, something that effects EVERY member, not just a very small sample.

The 'P' in the name stands for something. The USPA should be all over the development, implementation and oversight of canopy control well beyond what they have done up to now. They need to take more of a leadership role in that process instead of hoping that other groups will pick up where they have stopped.

Recent changes are steps in the right direction, but CC is something that affects everyone and deserves more attention.

Sorry for the tangent.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

DSE doesn't stand to gain sh** personally, but it's a convenient untruth told by many.

So I have been told Spot. Let me ask you something though. Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

Why do you think it is necessary to start a whole new I & I/E system?

It is not an attack on you personally that people are skeptical of the reasoning for what many feel is unneeded. If people feel it is unneeded then it is natural to question why it is being brought up and what motives there may be.

If it is truly because you feel you can make the dicipline you hold dear safer and better, then I applaud your efforts, even if I disagree with the method you propose.

I honestly feel that it is complacency amoung experienced wingsuiters that is causing the often brought up tailstikes. Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?

I'll say it again
There are exit techniques being taught that ENCOURAGE tailstrikes (plenty of video as recent as last week to demonstrate this)
There are exit techniques that discourage tailstrikes.
Taught to new wingsuiters, these techniques and methods become habitual in one direction or another.

Every week, we have someone come through the school for advanced coaching that has not been taught proper ISR techniques (if any at all). This is very troubling.

Cutaways happen with some degree of frequency to new wingsuiters; this is not acceptable. This is in great part due to poor training.

Tandem Instructors, Static Line Instructors, IAD Instructors, AFF Instructors all share a common language. Yet we have wingsuit "Instructors" that have no training background at all, no concept of the most basic pedagogy used by instructors.
DZO's know that every Tandem Instructor, Static Line Instructor, IAD Instructor, AFF Instructor, or Coach has been trained to, and met (at minimum) a standard line of achievement before being allowed to coach/teach on the dropzone. They have demonstrated safety ability, and understand the underpinnings of USPA philosophy and process. Wingsuit "instructors" do not. I believe this is why almost every DZO and S&TA polled voted in favor of standardized instruction administered by USPA.

Just because a guy has 4-5 wingsuit jumps and survived does not make him an "instructor."
Perhaps ask yourself how a school solely dedicated to wingsuit instruction can demonstrate hundreds of First Flight Courses, thousands of instructional jumps over a 4 year test period, and show zero incidents, off landings, and only 2 cutaways (not FFC-related). Is that luck? Or perhaps a program steeped in the best traditions and practices of USPA and instructional excellence?

It's not just complacency; it's bad training by people who have no idea how to train. They may have many wingsuits in their closet, they might even be a bad-ass wingsuiter. But that doesn't give them the knowledge needed to teach.

FWIW, USPA administration of a standard training program is not "regulation." Actual "Regulation" comes in the form of insurance companies threatening or acting against wingsuiters, and actual regulation comes from the FAA getting into the wingsuit conversation.

##

To specifically answer your question, I would (and do) support a standardized instructional training system. That is the entire goal of the proposal. However...USPA only has one "box" for instruction. It's called a "rating." I didn't design the system, I'm merely trying to work within the boundaries created within the system.

I've made all my materials free to the public because I believed at one time, that people would use the materials if they were available.
Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed.
It shouldn't be about "I can't support this because that guy is a dick" or "I can't support that because it's not USPA's charter to train advanced skydivers."

It's all about safety and growing the discipline. That's all it's about, and all it should be about.

[bigbearfng 9]

Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?
__________________________________________________
Could you please address this?

__________________________________________________
Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed.
__________________________________________________
I really would like to know exactly what this referred to "method of exit" is?

Versus what is addressed in the SIM?

[DSE 3]

Quote

Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?
__________________________________________________
Could you please address this?

__________________________________________________
Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed.
__________________________________________________
I really would like to know exactly what this referred to "method of exit" is?

Versus what is addressed in the SIM?

The proposal is aimed at reducing tailstrikes, off landings, incidents involving instability, general aviation concerns, equipment differences, navigational issues, traffic issues. Insurance companies, FAA, and DZO's really don't care about how we deal with these issues; they merely want them dealt with. Internally is easier and more effective than external forces.

The SIM can't address various aircraft configs, and there was quite a bit of disagreement from one of the vocal people that teach WS, that insisted on not having an exit pro forma in the SIM. So, it was left out.

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter?

Sorry Spot but you never answered this question.

Maybe you either didn't read up thread, or I was unclear earlier, however by "experienced wingsuiter" I was referring to a current USPA instructor with at least 200 winsuit jumps. The lowest common denominator of which would be a coach with at least 200 WS jumps. That would equal 200 (the current BSR for WS, plus 200 WS jumps for a total of 400 jumps, 200 which would have to be WS experience.

I seem to have the opinion this would be more than adequate to teach a FFC. I mean we are talking about experienced jumpers with 200 jumps here. Not a FJC course where they have never jumped before, yet USPA currently allows coaches to those wuffos the FJC.

How was the process conducted to pick these 7 I/E's and 40 WS-I's?

Spot I wish you would stop being so defensive for a minute and realize a few things. One I have never made a wingsuit jump. I know that you have been in the WS game for a very long time. No one is doubting your credentials as far as that goes brother. Some people are just of differing minds when it comes to how this should be implemented. I am relatively sure that your curriculum as far as the FFC should be the standard, just not that we need a new examiner and instructor program for what are already experienced jumpers. Every other examiner and instructor program in the USPA is for the instruction of non licensed skydivers, not people with 200+ jumps already.

So I ask you for the last time one simple plain sentence that really only requires a yes or a no.

Would you Douglas Spotted Eagle support your FFC curriclum being taught by already current USPA instructors that have at least 200 WS jumps?

If not, please tell us why?

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[DSE 3]

Quote

Would you Douglas Spotted Eagle support your FFC curriclum being taught by already current USPA instructors that have at least 200 WS jumps?

If not, please tell us why?

No.
I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I'll say it again
There are exit techniques being taught that ENCOURAGE tailstrikes (plenty of video as recent as last week to demonstrate this)

Please share with the rest of us. And tell us where and who the "instructors" are who teach these methods that you believe are unsafe.

...

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

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

Thats funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven effiecency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[bigbearfng 9]

Quote

Quote

No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

Thats funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven effiecency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.

+10!
There may well be no further financial gain to be had for you, however with your above statement calling it a "power grab" is sure how it comes off.

And with all due respect, I still would really like to know what these exit techniques are that encourage tailstrikes that are being taught out there?

[WickedWingsuits 0]

Quote

It appears that the model that’s intended to be used for the WS rating program is the AFF program. The original AFF proposal resulted in an instructional program ruled by 4 individuals that held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take. The current plan for Wingsuits calls for only 7 IE’s so it’s going to take a long time to make WSI’s a common DZ staff member available to the rank and file.

For this system to work it's going to require a lot of traveling by either the evaluators or the evaluated. Of course, if you’re the one at the top, it’s understood that the person wanting the instruction pays. I see a lot of money in course costs, travel, and per diem, not to mention aircraft slots and classrooms. Somehow I don’t think that these new IE’s and I’s are going to hand out ratings for free. Also if I were looking for a job right now I’d be checking at USPA to see if all the Admin support jobs in the Safety and Training Department have been filled. I see a massive bureaucracy being paid for by both the jumper wanting to wingsuit and the general membership.

I also see Wingsuiting as a discipline being severely restricted by this system in it’s creativity in the name of “standardization” much like progressive thinking was (and is) discouraged in AFF teaching techniques. I keep reading on here about current WSI’s that believe they won’t have to make any changes to what they are already doing but if WS becomes a rating, if they are teaching at a USPA GM dropzone, they will have to be rated by USPA and essentially teach the syllabus provided. If you’re a current WSI make sure you read the proposal and be prepared to attend a rating course and to teach the proposed syllabus.

All this being said, I don’t think I can support the current proposal of a full rating system. The USPA survey question is supposed to be in the November issue which I haven’t seen yet but I’ll be interested in seeing how the question is phrased. I support more basic WS instruction but a rating system is excessive. Hopefully this won’t be handled the way the canopy instruction problem was handled and just passed off to some S+TA to designate someone they think knows what they are teaching. I am seeing that with more resistance to the rating idea being posted on-line that some people have ideas that would work and I would hope that everyone keeps an open mind when it comes to solving this problem with the least amount of intrusion and cost toi the average jumper.

If there were a LIKE button this would get my vote. If not rolled out correctly with multiple examiners and instructors in place well before it becomes mandatory we will kill wingsuiting. That is more of a risk than these FAA ghouls.

Summer Rental special, 5 weeks for the price of 4! That is $160 a month.

Try before You Buy with Wicked Wingsuits - WingsuitRental.com

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

That's funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven efficiency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach?

The one I went through spent quite a bit of time discussing HOW to relay the information to someone in a way they would not only understand it, but would also be on the same page (hopefully) with every OTHER coach teaching the course anywhere else.

Quick story~ A good friend of mine went through an AFF course on the left coast a few years ago. He's a very intelligent athletic guy not some dweeb.

He voiced some concerns to me after 10-12 jumps, about realizing he wasn't comfortable with some EP's and wondered if anyone had ever thought of making a 'hanging harness' type training aid.

We rigged one up in his garage and went through the drill a couple dozen times one night...during the course of the evening I came to realize that his initial instructor was not only unthorough - skipping an integral part of the training, but also rather unclear regarding important terminology.

I didn't understand something my friend was trying to relate to me so I unpacked my rig and said point to the risers...he grabbed the slider.

It seems during the class the AFFI had picked up the slider on an unpacked rig and pointing down, began discussing the risers.

~no doubt the AFFI knew what he meant, you & I know what he meant...but the guy needing the information didn't get it because that AFFI either forgot or never knew HOW to relay it.

Maybe I just got lucky with the Coach rating examiner and he's really good...I was a SL I for 20 years, taught AFF before there was a rating, got my TI rating when drogues were just coming out. I figured I know how to teach, I'm an active skydiver, the coach thing is a 'gimme' needed to jump with n00bs...going through that class made it clear there was a lot more to it than I'd thought.

So no, I don't agree with you that after a couple hundred wingsuit jumps 'just anybody' can 'teach'.

Just because ya KNOW doesn't mean ya can SHOW it.

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

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
I'm in favor of standardization.

That's funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven efficiency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

Seems like a power grab to me.

I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.

+10!
There may well be no further financial gain to be had for you, however with your above statement calling it a "power grab" is sure how it comes off.

And with all due respect, I still would really like to know what these exit techniques are that encourage tail-strikes that are being taught out there?

Just to be clear~

It was EFS4LIFE that made the 'power grab' comment not DSE.


~this part is addressed to EFS4LIFE: power grab

I'm not trying to be condescending in anyway here, I have nothing but respect for you and your accomplishments both in & out of the sport...but I want to point something out to you, that ya may wanna reflect on for a second.

This is the 2nd argument you've voiced that IMO has no validity in fact.

The 1st was in regard to the monetary gains DSE would 'surely realize' if this thing goes through.

Via PM's I asked you if you had any factual information to cite or if it was an opinion you were basically parroting - unfounded concerns you'd heard.

As I did then on that - I'll ask you now on this.

~ how exactly do you perceive this 'power grab' that you brought up will take place?

Sketch it out for me because I don't understand HOW the pathway to power (and riches) presents itself to an instructor at a southern California drop-zone who is IMO simply trying to promote a safe progression into an area of the sport with which he's intimately familiar??

IF that were the case, trust me the USPA is the last place DSE would be lobbying to get a standardized curriculum instituted.

So again~ how EXACTLY does this power grab take place?

You're an LEO, you understand the importance of being objective and not relying on unfounded conjecture.

When I hear the Power Grab argument I think - prema facie case, for the record, are ya stating opinion, theory or what.

I object - Hearsay ~ you're stating facts not in evidence.

How EXACTLY did you arrive at that conclusion...


Edited to add:
The reason I bring this up this way is because it's an easy trap to fall into.

I did it myself, this past summer I was presented with some 1st hand information regarding Wicked Wingsuits that allowed me to draw some conclusions that were NOT necessarily accurate.

Instead of contacting WW with my concern I went off 'ready-fire-aim'.

Later WW cleared some things up with me showing that just because 'A' is true, my conjecture that 'B' & 'C' must also be true was not only unfounded but but also unfair.

I realize that though I had some valid concerns and still might on a couple of things, I had/have no evidence to support my fear...oops.

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

[bigbearfng 9]

Seems you replyed to my post but addressed the Q to EFS4LIFE?
If I may answer from my perspective of the "power grab" comment?
Quote from an above post follows.

"It appears that the model that’s intended to be used for the WS rating program is the AFF program. The original AFF proposal resulted in an instructional program ruled by 4 individuals that held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take. The current plan for Wingsuits calls for only 7 IE’s so it’s going to take a long time to make WSI’s a common DZ staff member available to the rank and file. "
_________________________________________________

[airtwardo 6]

held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take.

Quote

I see by your profile your time in the sport wouldn't allow you to necessarily understand the what's & why's with that.

When AFF came out it was figured (rightly so) that it was a somewhat technically difficult & intense manner of instruction. In order to make it work, to show a positive result of it's utilization, only the best of the best COULD pass the requirements.

The sport grew...the best instructors couldn't handle the volume, the requirements were downgraded, then the pool of qualified AFFI's stated to experience 'burn out' ...the sport NEEDED instructors, the quals were again lowered.

Where we are now...

Couple of years ago I stopped by an out of state DZ to make a few jumps, there was an AFF certification course going on.

By chance I was in the aircraft when some of the final eval jumps were being made.

One forgot his altimeter, one couldn't get the 'student' in position at the door for over 3 minutes, one started crying because she's forgotten to check if her PC was cocked...these were the cream of the crop on their final eval jumps!

Over a beer I was discussing what I'd seen with a long time friend who was the visiting AFF-IE.

To paraphrase ~ That IS currently the best of the best in the available pool.

Yeah things have changed...but take from someone that's seen the whole thing happen. Not ALL changes are necessarily for the better, some are out of necessity.

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

• Quote