should TIME IN SPORT also become a requirement instead of jumpnumbers alone..

[virgin-burner 1]

..for "advanced" disciplines, like wingsuit, camera-flying etc!?

this post made me wonder

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[kmills0705 0]

Yes, I absolutely agree with this.

Once upon a time when USPA had the Jumpmaster/Instructor rating system you had to have had your JM for one year prior to getting your I rating.

Now there is no time requirement between getting a Coach rating and then and Instructor rating. I think there is value in having time in the sport along with jump numbers.

Kim Mills
USPA D21696
Tandem I, AFF I and Static Line I

[Rover 9]

Not necessarily. For someone who wishes to move into the instructional side of skydiving I think a time requirement should be required. In NZ that time requirement is 2 years. However if someone wishes to jump a wingsuit for example,I think jump experience alone is enough.

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[pilotdave 0]

For instruction, yes. For other stuff, I don't think so. After a couple hundred jumps, currency is more important than time in sport for things like wingsuits and camera flying. But I do think people should have to be around a while before they can become coaches or instructors.

Dave

[billvon 2,380]

Depends on the level of training. For someone trained in a typical US AFF program, then you absolutely should have a time-in-sport requirement. Much of what a modern US skydiver knows is learned by osmosis, and someone in the sport for a month who has 500 jumps and ten hours of tunnel time just doesn't have enough time to learn by osmosis.

As an example - should someone with that level of experience, jumping at Perris, downsize to a Crossfire 109 without ever having had to deal with summer? Without ever seeing an injury? Without ever having to land with a bigway load? Without ever having to land in a constrained area?

[Reginald 0]

So which is better?

A. 500 jumps and 2 years and 6 months in the sport but at DZ 52 weekends a year
B. 500 jumps and 5 years in the sport but at DZ every OTHER weekend (26 weekends a year)

The problem with time “in sport” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s time applied TO the sport. In the example above both A and B have the exact equal amount of time applied TO the sport, assuming they only time they apply to the sport is while at the DZ (which is probably a reasonable assumption for everyone but the handful of DZ.com fanatics).

Does one gain knowledge by osmosis if they are at a day job, home with the kids, or focusing on something else? Does this knowledge only come from being at the DZ? Likely it is neither extreme.

Probably the reason for jump numbers or freefall time being the primary method of measuring experience is because they are the most reliable measure of time actually applied TO the sport. Is this the perfect system, of course not. Would adding time in sport be beneficial, possibly but likely the collinearity with jump numbers is such that it makes it appropriate to use only jump numbers instead.

While it’s off topic for your question about Wing suites, etc., personally, for USPA - AFFI’s I’d rather see a requirement for “X” number of coached jumps than I would time in sport. It’s more likely to be beneficial than number of years since a person’s first jump, or time since receiving a coaches rating.

Of course opinions vary…

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[mx19 0]

I may be missing something here but i dont think time in sport has much to do with anything.

You could have someone with 200 jumps in 3 years but spends no time at the dz apart from when they are garunteed jumping on good weather days, or someone that has racked up 200 in 8 months but spent more time at the dz trying to get those jumps in and therefore spending more time around the sport?

Max

[johan340 0]

Quote

For instruction, yes. For other stuff, I don't think so. After a couple hundred jumps, currency is more important than time in sport for things like wingsuits and camera flying. But I do think people should have to be around a while before they can become coaches or instructors.

Dave

I would agree with this, for those who are interested in teaching someone else then -time in sport- would be a good thing but in other case's then no,some people learn much quicker then others so it would suck if someone who wanna advance to something else like wingsuit etc is hold back not only because of jump numbers but also because they just not happen to have been in the sport long enough.

I have experienced that kind of thing in martial arts and it kinda takes the fun out of it when it happens. I can't help that I learn sports etc much faster then most people(or have had more experience then other newbies in the begining), should I be held back because I have easy to learn something? or should I be allowed to advance as soon I have proven my self "worthy" to advance?

I think quality before quantity is always the best thing and as long someone can prove them self that advancing is something they can handle then they should be allowed to do so.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Like Hugh Hefner once asked "What constitutes knowing someone, time spent with them or what happened during that time?"

I think all factors contribute to overall competence. Time in sport, experience, quality of experience, and a person's desire to learn and latent ability all contribute. These are not all easily quantified. That's why we have minimum standards. If someone meets those, more power to them. If one wants to work with students. there are further evaluations that should weed out those that aren't ready regardless of numbers.

Don't tandem ratings still require 3 years in sport?

[airtwardo 6]

I may be missing something here but i don't think time in sport has much to do with anything.

[billvon 2,380]

>so it would suck if someone who wanna advance to something else like
>wingsuit etc is hold back not only because of jump numbers but also
>because they just not happen to have been in the sport long enough.

It sucks even more when they are certain they are ready for something, try it and die in the attempt. We had a recent example of a wingsuiter doing just that.

>I have experienced that kind of thing in martial arts and it kinda takes
>the fun out of it when it happens.

If a Tae Kwon Do student progresses too rapidly he risks a broken wrist or the like. If a skydiver progresses too rapidly they can end up dead. The stakes are a little different. I'd rather take the fun out of ten newbies than see one of them die due to lack of experience.

>I can't help that I learn sports etc much faster then most people(or have
>had more experience then other newbies in the begining), should I be
>held back because I have easy to learn something? or should I be
>allowed to advance as soon I have proven my self "worthy" to advance?

If we had a formal test to really test if you are "worthy" perhaps - but we don't. Our more informal tests are all too often fatal if you fail.

[diablopilot 2]

Yes.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[wmw999 2,116]

Some people really are that good. If so, they tend to find mentors who are fairly universally respected.

And they can still end up dead or devastatingly injured. Because deep down, no one really ever thinks it will happen to them. With time in the sport, you've had some time to think about things that could happen and how you'd react to them. Of course, you might not, in which case that time in the sport doesn't help as much as currency.

The "time in sport" is there to make sure that people don't have to learn all lessons themselves the hard way. Some of them are better learned by example rather than experience.

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)

[pms07 3]

I'm not convinced drinking beer around the bonfire adds to your qualifications for "advanced" disciplines...

[johan340 0]

Well of course it is not up to them self to deside just like that but for them to have an instructor they can go to when they feel like they can prove that they are ready to advance for a course in wingsuit etc

I wasn't talking about something like Tae kwon do which btw was one of the lames things I have trained when it would come to a real life situation but more like combat arts like Kali or defendo were if you make a mistake you will get Very hurted and a mistake could also be faital (sp?) with a cracked skull, punctured lung , arterus cut up etc on a training but I understand your point folly and I agree.
--
Of course I'm aware of that as well and only an instructor should be able to say when someone is ready to advance like a trainer/instrocture of for instent an martial art can tell when a student is ready to advance before the actual time/upgrade is due.

like in smaller DZ where everyone pretty much knows everyone, then it would be easier for an instrocture to be able to tell if a person would be able to handle something like a wingsuit even before the 200mark if that person asked for it.

I do have an understanding for why there are minimal requiorments (sp?) in any type of sports where a simple mistake can be deadly.

[format 0]

Quote

but I understand your point folly and I agree.

Oh please gods give him a chance
He's so into it and well faced

What goes around, comes later.

[billvon 2,380]

>like in smaller DZ where everyone pretty much knows everyone, then
>it would be easier for an instrocture to be able to tell if a person would be
>able to handle something like a wingsuit . . . .

The smaller DZ is actually a bigger problem! It can be very easy to be the best skydiver at a small DZ - learning fast, having no problems, getting everything on the first try. Of COURSE they're ready for a wingsuit! And if anyone can land that Xaos-27, it's that guy.

Then they get to a bigger DZ - and they realize they're not really all that good. Joe was a much better canopy pilot and he died under a Xaos-27. Jim had a lot more experience and hurt himself trying to learn to fly a wingsuit.

That's one of the reasons that time in sport IS important. Someone with 500 jumps at one DZ over the course of six months hasn't seen other DZ's. He hasn't traveled much because he's only been jumping in the summer and fall. He hasn't seen other people land different canopies. He hasn't seen many wingsuit pilots talking about their problems. He's only seen the people in his little pond.

However, try to find someone who's been in the sport for five years who HASN'T travelled. Much harder to do.

[johan340 0]

Not really how I meant it but yes you are right.

[Will_Evo 0]

Quote

So which is better?

A. 500 jumps and 2 years and 6 months in the sport but at DZ 52 weekends a year
B. 500 jumps and 5 years in the sport but at DZ every OTHER weekend (26 weekends a year)

The problem with time “in sport” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s time applied TO the sport. In the example above both A and B have the exact equal amount of time applied TO the sport, assuming they only time they apply to the sport is while at the DZ (which is probably a reasonable assumption for everyone but the handful of DZ.com fanatics).

Does one gain knowledge by osmosis if they are at a day job, home with the kids, or focusing on something else? Does this knowledge only come from being at the DZ? Likely it is neither extreme.

Probably the reason for jump numbers or freefall time being the primary method of measuring experience is because they are the most reliable measure of time actually applied TO the sport. Is this the perfect system, of course not. Would adding time in sport be beneficial, possibly but likely the collinearity with jump numbers is such that it makes it appropriate to use only jump numbers instead.

While it’s off topic for your question about Wing suites, etc., personally, for USPA - AFFI’s I’d rather see a requirement for “X” number of coached jumps than I would time in sport. It’s more likely to be beneficial than number of years since a person’s first jump, or time since receiving a coaches rating.

Of course opinions vary…

Nice post.

I agree with the above...I am still new and still learning a ton, but the amount of information I take in at the DZ greatly outnumbers what I learn at home. There are some people on these forums with 50 jumps and 6 years in the sport...but you wouldn't treat them any differently than a 50 jump 1 year. 50 jumps is 50 exits, 50 freefalls, 50 canopy rides, and 50 landings..you can't gain that experience by just spending time with a license in hand. Anyways, I know I am low jump number and only 1 year in, but its makes logical sense

Plus, you old timers are crusty and crazy! lol JP!
Blue Skies everyone !


-Evo

Zoo Crew

[airtwardo 6]

Trust me, you're not the 1st to feel the way you do about the path of progression.

I for one still thought even after my Gold Wings that I was bullet proof...it wasn't until 10 years or so in the sport, after losing several friends did I realize no one is better than the ground.


It wasn't until 25 years in the sport that I understood finally how little I knew about staying alive and how lucky I was pushing the limits like it did.

Sure us old guys are crusty and grumpy, but we know what you're thinking, some of us thought that way too....we know what you 'believe'~

So what if your right?

So dead if your wrong!!

The thing is~ if you're wrong, there aren't any erasers yet known, that will let ya take back the mistake.

Listen to those that came before you, take your time...the rabbit didn't even finish the race IIRC!

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

[pms07 3]

Quote

Well of course it is not up to them self to deside just like that but for them to have an instructor they can go to when they feel like they can prove that they are ready to advance for a course in wingsuit etc

I wasn't talking about something like Tae kwon do which btw was one of the lames things I have trained when it would come to a real life situation but more like combat arts like Kali or defendo were if you make a mistake you will get Very hurted and a mistake could also be faital (sp?) with a cracked skull, punctured lung , arterus cut up etc on a training but I understand your point folly and I agree.
--
Of course I'm aware of that as well and only an instructor should be able to say when someone is ready to advance like a trainer/instrocture of for instent an martial art can tell when a student is ready to advance before the actual time/upgrade is due.

like in smaller DZ where everyone pretty much knows everyone, then it would be easier for an instrocture to be able to tell if a person would be able to handle something like a wingsuit even before the 200mark if that person asked for it.

I do have an understanding for why there are minimal requiorments (sp?) in any type of sports where a simple mistake can be deadly.

Really? Way off topic but you raised the issue so I can't help but wonder; how much time have you spent in combat and what your combat experience is with taekwondo? What rank do you hold and issued by what sanctioning authority? Care to elaborate?

[kj126 0]

With everything time and energy put into it will show you exactly where you stand.
My progression:
200 jumps- im the shit
1 yr ^
^
^
500 jumps- back then i did not know shit-but damn good now!
2.5 yrs ^
^
^
1000 jumps- Damn i sucked then- now im the master!
4yrs ^
^
^
2000 jumps- huh my ego was greater than my skill--ok ok im finally getting the picture..

I Am Sofa King We Todd Did!!

[squirrelgirl 0]

I don't think there's anything that can replace the combination of experience and time. As a total beginner, I find that I'm drawn to the advice offered by those instructors who have both. Not that any instructor is any less qualified, but this is my tendency.

That said, I can't think of any sport or skill I've ever adopted that didn't improve most with both time and experience.

[davelepka 4]

You need time in the sport. For sure.

Currency is only valuable up to a certain point. If you're jumping every weekend, let's say five jumps per weekend, then you're current.

If you're making ten jumps per weekend, you're not more current than the guy making five, and at the end of the month, you're not twice the skydiver as him. You just have more jumps.

Time in the sport will equal a greater exposure to more situations. Situations which you can learn from, and add to your personal library of information.

I'm not even sure how this is a question. It should be a no-brainer. When in the history of skydiving has it been a good idea to rush into anything?

A douchebag who wants to slam out 200 jumps so they can get to 'what they really want to do, like wingsuits and BASE jumping' it sadly missing the point.

Things like wingsuiting, BASE jumping, swooping and camera flying aren't what start off trying to do, those are things you earn if you live through the experince building needed to get to those things. Even then, just surviving isn't enough, you have to survive AND flourish to an extent before undertaking those types of jumps.

Skydiving isn't for everyone. Of those who are cut out for jumping, fewer still should ever consider BASE jumping, wingsuiting, camera flying or swooping. The final frontier is the 1 in a 100 jumper who will venture into those areas and rise to the top and become an 'expert'.

Any way you slice it, it takes time.

[johan340 0]

Quote

Really? Way off topic but you raised the issue so I can't help but wonder; how much time have you spent in combat and what your combat experience is with taekwondo? What rank do you hold and issued by what sanctioning authority? Care to elaborate?

A system were you have to train for several years in order to be able to put effectivly in a real life situation isn't effective, a system were they think one should use body force from the second one is going to throw a punch or a kick to the actual target is waste of energy and speed and there is no weapon training in tea kwon do, tea kwon do is a sport and not adapted for the streets.

Now a combat system like kali and defendo were even after a couple of month you will have great basic knowledge of how to defend your self from a real threat with for instent a knife or protect one self from being raped or being strangled etc etc because that is what they are meant for, there only purpose is to be used as efficiently as possible and with as little effort as possible on the streets against all types of weapons and several opponent attacks at the same time and that's the reason why its being used in one of the roughest country's in the world and used by both military and police forces around the world and trust me the training gets as real it can be, got many bloody memories and scars as much training is with real knifes and batons etc.

I have been training different arts sense I was 8 starting with karate, tea kwon do,krav maga, bjj,muay thai,defendo and now training kali and with what I have experienced, tea kwon do was the least efficiently and its even scientifically proven that tea kwon do is one of the least efficiently arts but of course its better to learn something then nothing but I would never recommend someone who wanna learn self defense to do something like tea kwon do or karate because of those reasons, to much waste of energy and speed and they are not adapted purely for the streets and it just takes to long for someone to really be able to use them.

And that is the thing "rank" an MA that uses ranks/belts is not something I care much for to train, now a system that have striped of something like ranks and rules is a system I'm more interested in training because on the street there are never any rules.

Check out -Deadly Martial Arts - Fight Science- and you can see the differents between different martial arts and there efficiency's.

Sorry for the rant and off topic.