0
billvon

Meet Stan the Student (long)

Recommended Posts

Quote

We test knowledge, skill and ability for all license levels, instructor ratings and PRO ratings. Not academic at all.

Yes. There is also a minimum number of jumps to qualify for each of those ratings. One can have more jumps, but not fewer.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

We test knowledge, skill and ability for all license levels, instructor ratings and PRO ratings. Not academic at all.

Yes. There is also a minimum number of jumps to qualify for each of those ratings. One can have more jumps, but not fewer.

Wendy P.



I didn't claim they were perfect.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally it's been the low jump number people that disagree with the recommendations of people like Brian Germain.

Quote

it can't be all that drastically wrong.



It absolutely can be drastically wrong. There are a number of examples where someone has been under a high performance wing with low jump numbers at a pretty high wing loading and have injured themselves. You can rely on being lucky rather then building up skill under a less aggressive canopy and wing loading, but it's a bad idea.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are a number of examples where someone has been under a high performance wing with low jump numbers at a pretty high wing loading and have injured themselves. .



Yes.

And there are a number of examples where someone has been under a moderate performance wing with HIGH jump numbers at a pretty moderate wing loading and have injured or killed themselves.

And there are a number of examples where someone has been under a high performance wing with low jump numbers at a pretty high wing loading and have NOT injured themselves.

I have seen no data to suggest a systematic problem that applies ONLY to people with low jump numbers.

Neither have I seen any data to suggest that there is a *magic number* of jumps that just by chance happens to be an integer multiple of 100.
...

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

Do you have a proposal?

Wendy P.



Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.

Just like the FAA requires before a licensed pilot can fly a taildragger, a 201hp airplane, a retractable, a plane with a constant speed prop, or a glider tug.

The ASSumption that some magic number of jumps guarantees it is absurd, just as is the assumption that 500 hours flying a Cessna 152 guarantees that you can fly a Pitts S2S.

Saying it's just a minimum and the individual needs to be evaluated too is equally absurd. If she's going to be evaluated anyway, what is the relevance of the number of jumps it took to achieve the knowledge and skills?

"Well, Wendy, you have all the skills, knowledge, awareness and focus to jump with a camera. Too bad you only have 176 jumps."
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a minimum number of hours to become a private pilot? How about commercial etc?

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is there a minimum number of hours to become a private pilot? How about commercial etc?

Wendy P.



We aren't discussing licensing requirements. Don't muddy the waters.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you see the addition of a camera or wingsuit as a type rating, rather than as an advanced skill rating? Hadn't looked at it that way.

I'd've put it closer to something like IFR (which does, I believe, have a number of hours associated with it).

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The things Kalllend was mentioning are endorsements, simple instructor sign offs.

In airplanes many times the limiting factor is insurance. Unless you have the cash to buy an airplane outright you'll have to have insurance. In most cases the insurance companies are more limiting than the FAA.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So you see the addition of a camera or wingsuit as a type rating, rather than as an advanced skill rating? Hadn't looked at it that way.



Wendy P.



Yep. Like a taildragger endorsement, a "complex" endorsement or a glider tug endorsement. No hours specified, just a signed statement from a qualified evaluator that you are up to it.

After all, consider a skydiver, let's call her "Rita", who took 40 jumps to pass AFF, broke both femurs on jump #102 because she forgot to flare, and people only jump with her because they feel obliged to be sociable. She gets to 200 jumps and right now USPA is happy for her to strap on a camera.

OTOH, "Wendy" passed AFF with flying colors, could out-track her instructor, joined a 4-way team and competes in NSL, winning her class, got her coach rating at jump #105. Took BG's canopy course. Completed a P3 camp and did back to back 100-ways. This year she's doing VRW competitively, going to nationals. Only has 176 jumps, unqualified to fly with a camera.
...

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

Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......



I suggest an instructor endorsement rather than a license.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Why is it a problem? It is not a law. It's one guy's recommendation.

That's like asking "so people are reading the packing manual incorrectly and are getting a lot of main/reserve entanglements. What's the problem? It's just a recommendation on how to pack."

It's a problem because one of the best canopy pilots and coaches in the business put some significant effort into making a really useful chart which - if used correctly - could save a lot of people from death and/or injury. And it's being misused.

>I am glad I just downsized. If you "experts" can't agree - it can't be all that
>drastically wrong.

Who did you ask who disagreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You can't realize that you have a knucklehead on the plane until after you've seen him or her do something stupid in the air. For me, that's too late (I have my own inexperience and progression to keep me plenty busy, thanks!) to decide to jump elsewhere.

.



Must be really nice to have that as an option. Many people don't unless they want to travel for 12 hours or longer and that makes the experience very spendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......



I suggest an instructor endorsement rather than a license.



The problem witht that is it's too subjective. On paper that sounds like a good idea, but in reality you will get many different opinions from a group of instructors as to whether or not the a specific student has demonstrated the necessary skills to fly X canopy. Jump numbers while not being perfect and can "hold back" a very few people is easier to deal with and in reality doesn't hold anyone back but simply delays there movement higher performance canopies. What is the big deal with just waiting? It doesn't hurt to hold off on buying that Katana or Velocity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is an extremely small minority to base off of. People like "Wendy" are extremely rare and would have a huge amount of tunnel time that they could point to as reference. No one has ever and will ever be in competitive VFS at less then 200 jumps with out lots and lots of tunnel time. It isn't natural for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That is an extremely small minority to base off of. People like "Wendy" are extremely rare



Is that a reason to ignore them?

The youngest winner at Indy 500 was 22. I doubt he was told he couldn't drive an Indy car because he hadn't had a drivers license long enough.

Four 19 year olds have competed in F1 Grand Prix races. No-one told them they couldn't drive an F1 car until they were older.

The youngest winner of a Nobel Prize in physics was a 1st semester grad student when he did his prize winning work. I don't think anyone told him he couldn't do cutting edge research until he had been at it a few more years.
...

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

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......



I suggest an instructor endorsement rather than a license.



The problem witht that is it's too subjective. On paper that sounds like a good idea, but in reality you will get many different opinions from a group of instructors as to whether or not the a specific student has demonstrated the necessary skills to fly X canopy. Jump numbers while not being perfect and can "hold back" a very few people is easier to deal with and in reality doesn't hold anyone back but simply delays there movement higher performance canopies. What is the big deal with just waiting? It doesn't hurt to hold off on buying that Katana or Velocity.



Back to "easy", like the drunk looking for the lost keys under the streetlight.

Jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important - judgment, awareness, skill, ability.
...

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

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......



I suggest an instructor endorsement rather than a license.



The problem witht that is it's too subjective. On paper that sounds like a good idea, but in reality you will get many different opinions from a group of instructors as to whether or not the a specific student has demonstrated the necessary skills to fly X canopy. Jump numbers while not being perfect and can "hold back" a very few people is easier to deal with and in reality doesn't hold anyone back but simply delays there movement higher performance canopies. What is the big deal with just waiting? It doesn't hurt to hold off on buying that Katana or Velocity.



Back to "easy", like the drunk looking for the lost keys under the streetlight.

Jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important - judgment, awareness, skill, ability.




I still don't understand why there is a need to allow new student's to rush forward and ignore jump number minimums. Even if they are being "held back" it's really not that big of a deal. This does't compare to your examples of a race care driver or a young genius. There are no time outs in skydiving. You can't just pull over and gather your thoughts. On every jump you only have one chance to get the landing right. If you haven't built up the muscle memory and sight picture it makes landing more diffucult. Just trying to identify those extreme minority of people who catch on quick can be very dangerous. One mistake is all it takes to end up in a wheel chair for the rest of their life and your skydiving prodigy's skydiving is over. Is it worth it to just wait and do a few more jumps to reach a base minimum before adding more complexity to a skydive? I think so. Getting in a hurry can be very a painful and deadly experience in skydiving with very little reward to simply pacing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Four 19 year olds have competed in F1 Grand Prix races. No-one told
>them they couldn't drive an F1 car until they were older.

Cool! Could a six year old?



Howabout a 96 year old?
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......



I suggest an instructor endorsement rather than a license.



The problem witht that is it's too subjective. On paper that sounds like a good idea, but in reality you will get many different opinions from a group of instructors as to whether or not the a specific student has demonstrated the necessary skills to fly X canopy. Jump numbers while not being perfect and can "hold back" a very few people is easier to deal with and in reality doesn't hold anyone back but simply delays there movement higher performance canopies. What is the big deal with just waiting? It doesn't hurt to hold off on buying that Katana or Velocity.



Back to "easy", like the drunk looking for the lost keys under the streetlight.

Jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important - judgment, awareness, skill, ability.




I still don't understand why there is a need to allow new student's to rush forward and ignore jump number minimums..



Because jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important, so their use as such is inappropriate when better indicators are available.
...

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

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......



I suggest an instructor endorsement rather than a license.



The problem witht that is it's too subjective. On paper that sounds like a good idea, but in reality you will get many different opinions from a group of instructors as to whether or not the a specific student has demonstrated the necessary skills to fly X canopy. Jump numbers while not being perfect and can "hold back" a very few people is easier to deal with and in reality doesn't hold anyone back but simply delays there movement higher performance canopies. What is the big deal with just waiting? It doesn't hurt to hold off on buying that Katana or Velocity.



Back to "easy", like the drunk looking for the lost keys under the streetlight.

Jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important - judgment, awareness, skill, ability.




I still don't understand why there is a need to allow new student's to rush forward and ignore jump number minimums..



Because jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important, so their use as such is inappropriate when better indicators are available.




Better indicators are not necessarily available everywhere and that is the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, get signed off by a rated instructor that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to move to a more advanced discipline.



I COMPLETELY agree with your philosophy that you test skills (demonstrated) rather than arbitrarily assigning 'easy' criteria.

I do worry that USPA would then start acting like PADI and start charging for a 'license' to do every single thing in the sport. Wait, they are already beginning to walk down that path......



I suggest an instructor endorsement rather than a license.



The problem witht that is it's too subjective. On paper that sounds like a good idea, but in reality you will get many different opinions from a group of instructors as to whether or not the a specific student has demonstrated the necessary skills to fly X canopy. Jump numbers while not being perfect and can "hold back" a very few people is easier to deal with and in reality doesn't hold anyone back but simply delays there movement higher performance canopies. What is the big deal with just waiting? It doesn't hurt to hold off on buying that Katana or Velocity.



Back to "easy", like the drunk looking for the lost keys under the streetlight.

Jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important - judgment, awareness, skill, ability.




I still don't understand why there is a need to allow new student's to rush forward and ignore jump number minimums..



Because jump numbers are very poor indicators of what is important, so their use as such is inappropriate when better indicators are available.




Better indicators are not necessarily available everywhere and that is the point.



So you prefer the easy over the good. Fair enough.
...

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

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