0
MikeTJumps

Sunday's report: USPA BOD meeting

Recommended Posts

Quote

>But really, how intelligent can it be to "get out in front of a potential issue?"

I know! It's like quitting smoking before you get lung cancer, or training people to fly their canopies before they kill someone else. Totally idiotic.

>Oh wait, never mind... you think Hitler is still alive . . .

That whoosing noise you just heard was not Hitler swooping . . .




Get a grammatical grip, Billy:

Getting lung cancer from smoking is not a potential issue.

Killing yourself and/or others when you don't know how to fly an airfoil parachute is not a potential issue.

As for that "whoosing" sound... that's the air going out of DWE's plan to create an unnecessary bureaucracy to "solve" a problem that does not exist.

But then, you know that, so why are you defending him and his immoderate snarkiness?

44
B|
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Probably the most revealing post I've read in a long time.

Of course you would think it was intelligent, DWE... you're the guy who will most benefit from the imposition of your new bureaucracy.

But really, how intelligent can it be to "get out in front of a potential issue?"

You know, potential -- as in something that doesn't exist but might at some statistically unquantifiable point in the future?

Oh wait, never mind... you think Hitler is still alive and that you're his close personal friend.

Who else do you count among your close personal friends: the Easter Bunny and honest politicians?

44
B|




Robin, you're a pretty intelligent, articulate guy.
Would you please explain to the gallery how I "most benefit" from the imposition of a new bureaucracy?
Inquiring minds wanna know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would you please explain to the gallery how I "most benefit" from the imposition of a new bureaucracy?
Inquiring minds wanna know.



Everyone knows it's all the pay off's and hot chicks you'll get....
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Getting lung cancer from smoking is not a potential issue.

Sure it is. You could smoke all your life and never get lung cancer. How stupid is it to change your behavior over a POTENTIAL, hypothetical disease that you might never get? Why not wait until it's a proven problem before expending all that effort?

>Killing yourself and/or others when you don't know how to fly an airfoil parachute is
>not a potential issue.

Really? You've killed someone under canopy? In that case I agree; for you it is not a potential issue, it is a real one.

Same thing here. We've had several people die in part due to their unfamiliarity with wingsuits. So we know that _in_general_ it's a problem. For every individual skydiver out there, it is a potential future problem that we could try to mitigate now, before they're dead.

Or we could just attack anyone who tries to work the problem. Then attack USPA when they don't do anything about it. Then attack them when they do do something about it. It's the skydiver way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Same thing here. We've had several people die in part due to their unfamiliarity with wingsuits. So we know that _in_general_ it's a problem.



No, we can't generalize from a few (very few) specific cases.
...

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



We've had several people die in part due to their unfamiliarity with wingsuits. So we know that _in_general_ it's a problem.



You see Bill, this is the bullshit that gets me every time. No, we do not have several people die in part due to unfamiliarity with wingsuits!!!
We also do not have people die left and right.
This is unsubstantiated lie.

So let me spell it out. Dan Kulpa did not die because his unfamiliarity with wingsuits, he did not put his leg straps on. You may as well blame his AFF instructor for doing a piss poor job.
Stephen Harrington didn't die because of his unfamiliarity with wingsuits, he had thousands of jumps and he knew the risk of opening wing prematurely.

Now you have a polish guy a few weeks ago, his reserve had entangled with his death trap helmet. Happened on non wingsuit jumps too. He also had 2k jumps and why did he jump a death trap video setup?

Is there any other people dying left and right from wingsuits that I missed here??

I get the improve safety argument, make shitty instructors accountable or even prevent them from teaching argument, I agree.
But I cannot agree with this dying left and right bullshit fear mongering argument used here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi, Ive been watching this wingsuit debate for awhile now, and saw a post on facebook on Taya Weiss's wall that pointed out salaries and budgets for the USPA, and the post disappeared before I could copy it, and was very interested to review what she posted. Did anyone happen to copy that post before it was deleted? thank you!


Concerned Jumper



Dear concerned jumper, this information is a public record.

Ed Scott is the only person earning salary from the executive/bod.
Here were brief revenue and expenses reported for 2010 (links below)
Total Revenue 3,127,118
Total Expenses 2,871,515

Parachutist - Revenues 461,206 ; Expenses 844,195
Membership Services - Revenues 1,971,355 ; Expenses 558,040
Safety and Training - Revenues 0 ; Expenses 86,269

Other program services (schedule O)
Skydiver Interest DC Involvement (aviation groups)- Revenue 0; Expense 1,280
Competition - Revenue 0; Expenses 101,605
USPA Store - Revenue 0; Expenses 86,027
AAD - Revenue 0; Expenses 9,000
BOD - Revenue 0; Expenses 65,504
Government Relations - Revenue 0; Expenses 74,760
Sport Promotion - Revenue 0; Expenses 112,053

Compensation is on pages 7,8.

USPA IRS990 2010
USPA IRS990 2009
USPA IRS990 2008
USPA IRS990 2007
USPA IRS990 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> No, we do not have several people die in part due to unfamiliarity with wingsuits!!!

Yes, we have. The wingsuit contributed to their deaths. As in most fatalities it was not the only reason.

>We also do not have people die left and right.

Agreed. I did not claim that.

>So let me spell it out. Dan Kulpa did not die because his unfamiliarity with wingsuits,
>he did not put his leg straps on. You may as well blame his AFF instructor for doing a
>piss poor job.

Why would you have blamed his AFF instructor?

>But I cannot agree with this dying left and right bullshit fear mongering argument used here.

OK. So stop with the fear mongering bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you please explain to the gallery how I "most benefit" from the imposition of a new bureaucracy?
Inquiring minds wanna know.

Quote



I'm still curious on that one too...I've heard it from more than a few people, yet no one seems to be able to give an actual scenario in which you 'benefit' from the proposal ...other than through the safety it would bring to an area of the sport you are involved with.











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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

> No, we do not have several people die in part due to unfamiliarity with wingsuits!!!

Yes, we have. The wingsuit contributed to their deaths. As in most fatalities it was not the only reason.



Show me examples to back it up.
If wingsuit contributed to Stephen's fatality, so did the airplane and the pilot flying high speed jump run like we did all week during the record (to make it clear - we did not do normal exit speeds, so it was unusual in that sense)

There are people hitting the tail without wearing wigsuits - like in Lodi for examlpe it was reported here a year or two ago.
In that case, did his jumpsuit contribute to the tail strike?

Quote


>So let me spell it out. Dan Kulpa did not die because his unfamiliarity with wingsuits,
>he did not put his leg straps on. You may as well blame his AFF instructor for doing a
>piss poor job.

Why would you have blamed his AFF instructor?



If you can partially blame a wingsuit, I will partially blame his AFF instructor.

So show me examples of where wingsuit was partially responsible for the death. If you can't prove it it's just speculation.

And the 3rd fatality of the polish jumper - crossfire linetwist and reserve entanglement with helmet deathtrap might have happened on non wingsuit jump as well, it was just a matter of time and bad luck - that's why we make sure we don't put death traps on our heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If wingsuit contributed to Stephen's fatality, so did the airplane and the pilot flying
>high speed jump run . . .

Correct. Take away any of those issues and you reduce the odds of it recurring.

>If you can partially blame a wingsuit, I will partially blame his AFF instructor.

So you have no rationale whatsoever for that blame? OK, I'll ignore it then.

>crossfire linetwist and reserve entanglement with helmet deathtrap might have
>happened on non wingsuit jump as well

Of course. And a jumper under a Velo 78 might have hook turned and died with a Navigator 260. But odds are he wouldn't have. Thus the Velo contributed to the fatality far more than a Navigator might have.

What's the problem with more education? I don't understand the anger and hostility towards the concept of teaching people how to safely fly wingsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What's the problem with more education? I don't understand the anger and hostility towards the concept of teaching people how to safely fly wingsuits.



That right there is THE only issue with improving jumper education.
I don't understand any of it. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

What's the problem with more education? I don't understand the anger and hostility towards the concept of teaching people how to safely fly wingsuits.



I don't get that either?????????

.



So to clear it up. I am not against education. Hell, I'm happy DSE publishes his course, and I want people to be better so they don't kill me (for one).
I don't think i am angry about it either or hostile to people.

What really is annoying is that this regulation is pushed under premise of wingsuit fatalities as a justification where wingsuit was not a primary cause of death.
And those who say "I'm tired of people dying left and right" implying wingsuit fatalities.
And people's personal agenda.

If you want safety, regulate canopy control first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you locate the beginning of that attitude?
I have yet to see it.
I never saw that approach being used.
I see the more education will improve safety attitude.

Albeit there are a handful of shining examples why we need to improve training and education.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>

What's the problem with more education? I don't understand the anger and hostility towards the concept of teaching people how to safely fly wingsuits.



There you go again.

The problem is not education.

The problem is establishing an unnecessary new bureaucracy with all of its attendant, gatekeepers, power brokers -- and associated costs.

The whole premise is ridiculous. When CRW started, it was banned from many DZs, people were kicked off DZs for doing it, and if any member of the Golden Knights was caught doing it, they were kicked off the team. And, of course, there was outrage and hand wringing over the few deaths directly attributable to this new subset of parachuting in which only a few USPA people took part.

Now, of course, it's embraced as a legitimate part of the sport, it is part of FAI world competition, the Knights have their own CRW demo team, and CRW deaths declined even further -- all without a "CRW pilot rating" or any of the other balderdash associated with this proposed wingsuit rule/regulation/bureaucratic superstructure silliness.

Long tale short, we figured out a way to work it out -- to educate -- all without creating another unnecessary and thus crony-driven bureaucracy.

44
B|

P.S. I piloted the first 8-stack in the world built outside of California (CCR-55) and was a principal author of the original USPA safety and competition rules for CRW -- which did not, by the way, include the establishment of "CRW Instructor" ratings or mandatory CRW training courses, etc etc, ad nauseam, or any of the other crapola outlined in DWE's preposterous proposal.
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to explain the non-US countries that HAVE created a WSI?

I think the fear of "crony-driven bureaucracy" is pretty funny.
That bit I don't understand. Because it doesn't create any of that. It's already in place. Simply insert one chapter and we're through.

this is just so silly....the pissing and dick size contests are what is limiting wingie growth.

Grow the fuck up people.:|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Care to explain the non-US countries that HAVE created a WSI?



Can you please educate me on those countries that implemented it. I haven't found anything on the BPA website (and BPA is one of the strictest out there with their freefly ratings and canopy ratings), and I don't read french to find out the french federation ratings. Checking every country would take me a long time, so I'd appreciate if you could let me know of those that adopted it.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing wrong with education.

Nobody on the "against list" is anti education, I dare any of you to prove that. Like Robin says you want a new level of Control and Enforcement. I read the words teeth somewhere.


You all admit any given failure is a result of multiple weak links in a chain of events. Some or most of those links might be way out of the initial trainers control. An AFFI is responsible to assess the students readiness (who is a wuffo BTW ) to proceed in training that day and through the course. You guys want teeth to punish a WSI for something that might happen well after the WS pilots (who is not a wuffo) initial training that may have been affected by a multitude of factors....... Up jumpers are not watched like fresh A licenses. Factors can include:
Exhaustion
Impairment from parting the night before
New LZ and therefore a new offset flight area
Blame it on the helmet
Blame it on the googles
Blame it on the gopro
Skydiving currency
Wing suit currency, I always worry about those that don't do many WS jumps compared their primary discipline but were well trainined.

Hell I can bombard you with an excel file of horrible AFF level 3s way more expansive than the tail strike report. Sink your teeth into that.

And as far as the "blame the go pro" we can just write a few paragraphs based on the WSI template and have us a photo/ video instructor rating to deal with that...... I'm bathing in safety!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reference guide posted last week.

Second to last page has requirements of a few foreign countries, requirements we're bound to by USPA agreements and dropzone policy. It's not at all uncommon to contact a safety officer or similar at a foreign dropzone to verify a student's creds or rules of his country.
The PF website has a much more detailed list.


Never were fatalities quoted as a "reason" or cause to justify the rating proposal. Not in 2009 proposal nor in the 2010 nor 2012 presentation.
You'll see in the presentation, fatalities, specific tailstrikes, specific incidents aren't addressed. The idea is that the trend for problems with FAA, NTSB, off-landings, tailstrikes, and yes...fatalities/injuries is on the rise. DZ's have banned WS, and we're not done with that conversation yet. The proposal is geared to two achievements;
~Standardization in training (something everyone agreed on in 2008-2009 before political sides came into play)
~Getting ahead of the curve on the above topics. Most everyone who has served on the board wishes this had occurred with canopies 15 years ago.

I still recall being in my wheelchair and walker in front of the USPA BOD, and Taya Wiess helping to hold me up as we both explained why USPA needs this sort of a program. The proposal has changed very little in content since 2008/2009. The formatting and number of incidents have dramatically changed.

It also should be pointed out that should the USPA adopt the proposal, it has zero impact on any wingsuit pilot who isn't desirous of teaching new wingsuiters. If you don't teach and don't want to teach, it's all status quo.

Like many others, I can't comprehend the fear of an instructor performing and teaching to a standard, and being responsible for the words and actions used in training others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Standardization in training...

~Getting ahead of the curve...


Quote



I seriously don't see any logic in an argument against that.

The proposal seems to me to be a way of achieving those goals in both a time and cost effective way.

The 'arguments against' thus far seem to center around a combination of misinformation and resistance to change.











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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Reference guide posted last week.

Second to last page has requirements of a few foreign countries, requirements we're bound to by USPA agreements and dropzone policy. It's not at all uncommon to contact a safety officer or similar at a foreign dropzone to verify a student's creds or rules of his country.
The PF website has a much more detailed list.


Never were fatalities quoted as a "reason" or cause to justify the rating proposal. Not in 2009 proposal nor in the 2010 nor 2012 presentation.
You'll see in the presentation, fatalities, specific tailstrikes, specific incidents aren't addressed. The idea is that the trend for problems with FAA, NTSB, off-landings, tailstrikes, and yes...fatalities/injuries is on the rise. DZ's have banned WS, and we're not done with that conversation yet. The proposal is geared to two achievements;
~Standardization in training (something everyone agreed on in 2008-2009 before political sides came into play)
~Getting ahead of the curve on the above topics. Most everyone who has served on the board wishes this had occurred with canopies 15 years ago.

I still recall being in my wheelchair and walker in front of the USPA BOD, and Taya Wiess helping to hold me up as we both explained why USPA needs this sort of a program. The proposal has changed very little in content since 2008/2009. The formatting and number of incidents have dramatically changed.

It also should be pointed out that should the USPA adopt the proposal, it has zero impact on any wingsuit pilot who isn't desirous of teaching new wingsuiters. If you don't teach and don't want to teach, it's all status quo.

Like many others, I can't comprehend the fear of an instructor performing and teaching to a standard, and being responsible for the words and actions used in training others.



Thanks for the links.
I really like your program and all training material, even though I don't teach people.
I understand the current jumpers won't be affected, but I am against advanced discipline regulation.

If you don't use fatalities as a reason, great! But many people do. Even on this forum.

My question to Normiss was about actual instructional ratings that have been apparently adopted in other countries related to wingsuit instruction.
I want to verify his claim. That is all. What you posted are minimum requirements to attend a FJC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0