Making a buck vs. safety

[airdvr 197]

Where do you draw the line?

I see more and more possibilities as of late.

Run the plane vs. do the required repairs.

Sell the toad that hot canopy.

100 jump wonders with cameras on their helmets.

Put a guy with 110 jumps in a wingsuit.

It's always been there, but lately it seems more and more people are getting hurt and killed doing things that they shouldn't be doing with their present skillset.

I fear it's more and more about making a buck in an extremely competitive market.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DSE 3]

Quote

Where do you draw the line?

I see more and more possibilities as of late.

Run the plane vs. do the required repairs.
Seems to be a DZO issue, yet your direction seems to be individual. The plane has FAA controls, moreso than does a rig, camera, or wingsuit.

Sell the toad that hot canopy.
There will always be those that will sell a canopy to a low number jumper, and always low number jumpers that lie about their jump numbers.

100 jump wonders with cameras on their helmets.
So...Best Buy and Bonehead need to be on the lookout for jump numbers now?

Put a guy with 110 jumps in a wingsuit.
It's obvious that you're referring to the incident in Sebastian.
A-How much money (if any) did the instructor make on that jump?
B-Why did no one give this same grief to the instructor of the young man who died in Moab, Utah, with approximately the same skill level? Why is this *now* an issue?
C-How do you know the young man didn't conceal or amplify his jump numbers?

I fear it's more and more about making a buck in an extremely competitive market.

I fear it's more and more about deception, anticipation, aggressive excitement, and the ease of access to gear, opportunity, and jumps, than it is about making a buck. The internet makes it really easy to buy gear you're not qualified to buy. It's also very easy to fake a log book entry when you arrive at a DZ without your log book. If you have an A Licence, it's pretty easy to fool anyone, isn't it?

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

Where do you draw the line?

I see more and more possibilities as of late.

Run the plane vs. do the required repairs.
Seems to be a DZO issue, yet your direction seems to be individual. The plane has FAA controls, moreso than does a rig, camera, or wingsuit.

Sell the toad that hot canopy.
There will always be those that will sell a canopy to a low number jumper, and always low number jumpers that lie about their jump numbers.

100 jump wonders with cameras on their helmets.
So...Best Buy and Bonehead need to be on the lookout for jump numbers now?

Put a guy with 110 jumps in a wingsuit.
It's obvious that you're referring to the incident in Sebastian.
A-How much money (if any) did the instructor make on that jump?
B-Why did no one give this same grief to the instructor of the young man who died in Moab, Utah, with approximately the same skill level? Why is this *now* an issue?
C-How do you know the young man didn't conceal or amplify his jump numbers?

I fear it's more and more about making a buck in an extremely competitive market.

I fear it's more and more about deception, anticipation, aggressive excitement, and the ease of access to gear, opportunity, and jumps, than it is about making a buck. The internet makes it really easy to buy gear you're not qualified to buy. It's also very easy to fake a log book entry when you arrive at a DZ without your log book. If you have an A Licence, it's pretty easy to fool anyone, isn't it?

Point taken. Maybe we need to revisit the certification requirements. Should there be a WS certificate? Camera certificate? Canopy certificate? RW certificate etc...

We did it with the PRO rating only after some demos went bad. Is it foolproof? Nothing in this sport will ever be. But the ways to kill yourself have compounded over the years. The rating system has not kept pace with the realities.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DSE 3]

There already exists a canopy proficiency card. All 10 people here that have undergone the Proficiency card process, please raise your hands.

I don't disagree with a camera rating, nor do I disagree with a Wingsuit Instructor rating.
IMO, the Birdman Instructor program is a lame joke, and the Phoenixfly program is the punchline to the lame joke. There are at least half a dozen "instructors" from both camps that got their "I" rating over a beer or lunch (no exaggeration). TonySuit and a couple of other manufacturers don't have a rating.
It's a good discussion to have, IMO. Again, in my opinion....A wingsuit instructor should at least
-possess a D license
-possess a Coach rating
-have at least 250 wingsuit skydives
-have demonstrated certain, definable skills on the ground and in the air.
-have participated in at least two large (16 or larger) flocks
-pass a written examination that covers recommended equipment, safe flying procedures/practices, flight patterns, navigation.

There are other ideas/suggestions I'd have as well, but these are personal starter points. I've seen instructors take wingsuit students up in 60 knot (aloft) winds, seen em' take up students with no legstraps done up (my first jump was exactly that) and seen em' allow students with fully elliptical canopies. They weren't doing so out of defiance of safety recommendations, they simply didn't know what any of the above meant.

There will be those that scream "I already give enough money to the USPA for my PRO, AFFI, TI, etc. Valid point, perhaps USPA should consider a "bundle" for rating renewals....or not.
A rating won't prevent anything, but it does provide candidates/students a means by which their skills and enthusiasm may be measured.

[airdvr 197]

I've seen instructors take wingsuit students up in 60 knot (aloft) winds, seen em' take up students with no legstraps done up (my first jump was exactly that) and seen em' allow students with fully elliptical canopies. They weren't doing so out of defiance of safety recommendations, they simply didn't know what any of the above meant needed to make some money.

Fixed it for ya

I'm not talking about requirements to instruct. I'm talking about requirements to be eligible to recieve the instructions.

Wingloading is a gray area. Camera use is a gray area. WS use is a gray area.

Take a look at what the Hang Gliding and ParaGliding page shows as ratings and skills.
http://www.ushpa.aero/ratings_table.asp

I have no idea whether you have to be certified before you can attempt any of the "special skills" section, but they have codes for them so I'll assume you must have recieved instruction in those areas before attempting them.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[monkycndo 0]

Quote

There will be those that scream "I already give enough money to the USPA for my PRO, AFFI, TI, etc. Valid point, perhaps USPA should consider a "bundle" for rating renewals....or not.

There is currently a single $20 fee covering all the ratings a member has.

Renewal form

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[chuckakers 370]

Same ol' problems, just a new day.

As far as the wingsuit incident, it doesn't appear that the victim's experience was the problem. His (and his "instructors"?) failure to check his gear was the cause of this fatality, and we all learn that as students.....don't we?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[airdvr 197]

Quote

As far as the wingsuit incident, it doesn't appear that the victim's experience was the problem. His (and his "instructors"?) failure to check his gear was the cause of this fatality, and we all learn that as students.....don't we?

I'll submit that inexperience overall was a factor. I have never done a WS jump but I know that it's not just another skydive.

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. I've just made my first WS jump and it was awsome. Now, I have to get out of it, pack my rig, and get ready to go again. Maybe I just heard the 15 min call. Shit! I'm behind schedule. I've got to get rigged up so I don't miss the plane!

Bad juju for an inexperienced person without adding in the WS.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[skybytch 259]

Send those tandems up despite the 30 mph winds.

Go ahead and send those first jump students up at deep sunset too.

Quote

I fear it's more and more about making a buck in an extremely competitive market.

I agree, in part. Money is a big part of why many dual rated instructors (tandem and AFF) will choose to do tandems over AFF jumps - more money for less effort.

But I also think that a big part of a few of the issues that you brought up (situations that occur post-A license) are our own fault. Consider this scenario -

Bob survived doing something that others told him he wasn't ready for. When Joe asks about doing the same thing, Bob tells him he'll be just fine. Joe listens to Bob instead of to Henry (that old fart who jumps that big ass old boat of a canopy and tells everyone that they shouldn't do that; eh, his 20 years in sport don't mean shit). Somehow Joe survives doing the same stupid thing. After Joe gets an instructional rating (since there are no requirements for maturity or common sense to get any rating), Ricky asks Joe the same question and gets the same answer - and since Joe is an instructor of course Ricky will believe that his advice is golden even though it conflicts with accepted safe practices (ie the recommendations in the SIM - which Ricky has never seen).

Unfortunately, Ricky wasn't as lucky; he ends up getting hurt doing whatever it was he really wasn't ready for. But Bob and Joe aren't going to understand that it was they who got lucky and that they bear at least some moral responsibility for the injury; they assume (and tell all their buddies) that Ricky fucked up because he is a dumbass who shouldn't be skydiving.

And the circle remains unbroken.

Quote

There already exists a canopy proficiency card. All 10 people here that have undergone the Proficiency card process, please raise your hands.

This kinda proves the point - there is a complete canopy control course outline in the SIM. Have we seen a huge increase in available canopy control courses? No. Why not? Because instructors can make more money and log more jumps hucking meat than they can spending an entire day or weekend teaching canopy control.

[geofsmth 0]

If you see something where ever you are jumping (home DZ or elsewhere) and you see something that is jeaprodizing the safety of one or more jumpers YOU should say something. If you are not comfortable approaching the person or situation, every DZ has a S&TA that should be available to speak with. Don't expect that someone else is going to address it.

Gear and toys are more readily available and low time jumpers are chomping at the bit to do all the cool stuff and of course get it on video.

Take the time to mentor and pass on your knowledge and experience to those low time jumpers so they can learn from our mistakes and experience. Empahsize that going slow is fast and going too fast usually results in premature departure from the sport due to injury or worse, Be Patient. Take time to learn, and before you know you will have the skills to be doing all the cool stuff.

Like someone in another forum said. . . if the situation starts like the intro to an incident report then . . . . YOU say/do something. Don't wait til something horrible happens and join with all the other Monday morning quarterbacks who watched it unfold and say "I was going to say something but..." or "I didn't think he should be doing that but...

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

It's a good discussion to have, IMO. Again, in my opinion....A wingsuit instructor should at least
-possess a D license
-possess a Coach rating
-have at least 250 wingsuit skydives
-have demonstrated certain, definable skills on the ground and in the air.
-have participated in at least two large (16 or larger) flocks
-pass a written examination that covers recommended equipment, safe flying procedures/practices, flight patterns, navigation.

Others may disagree, but the USPA Coach program is more about CATS "G" and "H" and I'm not sure how it would pertain to WS Instruction.

If I were a WS manufacturer issuing manufacturer's rating; I would also ask/pay Chuck and/or Scott to write an Instructor Training Program and then send it to the other as a review committee. This would not be some "Evaluation Course," it would be a "Train the Trainer" course. Sluffing something off to the USPA isn't gong to protect me as a manufacturer from legal recourse and if need be; I'd want the highest standard in the industry available for defense.

Just my .02

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[airdvr 197]

Agreed. All the more reasoning for some type of certificate so that we don't rely on Bob and Joe to make this decision about Ricky. Ricky would already have a level of proficiency required, not recommended.

Let me go one step further. Seems to me the USPA BOD is mostly DZO's. Is it in the best interests of new jumpers for these types of regs, or is it in the best interest of DZO's not to have them?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[monkycndo 0]

Bigun, the coach course I went through was geared towards the different CATs, but also included material on the general methods/skills of teaching. I use/rely on that training every time I take a student through a WS FFC. I believe whole heartedly that all WSIs should have a coach rating, along with the manufacturer earned rating.

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[stratostar 5]

Quote

I don't disagree with a camera rating

So how many years jumping camera or camera jumps do we have to have in ordered to be grandfathered? Or do we all get to "start over", also who are the ones who get to decide "the new rules"?

I can think of a number of people who think they are god's gift to skydiving & camera flying in the last few years and personally I would care for their input of telling many of us "oldtimers" how to do it, let alone the rookies.

There's always some fuck nut who comes along & thinks they need to reinvent the wheel because we've all been doing it wrong all these years (such as should PIA take over rigging ratings), how about greedy DZO's just stop using or letting people who don't have the numbers or real training make the jumps or do the work.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Bigun, the coach course I went through was geared towards the different CATs, but also included material on the general methods/skills of teaching. I use/rely on that training every time I take a student through a WS FFC. I believe whole heartedly that all WSIs should have a coach rating, along with the manufacturer earned rating.

I'm sorry if I communicated that the Coach Course should not be a prerequisite - I think it should be also. It's a good building block for the next level, but being only 2 1/2 days long does not meet the threshold for training the trainer... It; not unlike the Riggers ticket is a rating to learn.

My Tandem Course was the first year of the USPA TI, so I had to do both the manufacturer's rating as well as the TI course. CM at Spaceland was my I/E and the course was almost a week long. We spent many hours not just on the basics of being a tandem mule to fulfill the manufacturer's portion, but more to fill the TI portion. When we had a weather day, he drilled me over and over on training the student, building habits in myself and in my students, how the AFP program works, and evaluated not only my tandem jump proficiency, but my training proficiency.

His approach made me re-evaluate the AFF/I rating evaluation course (which like many under the old program I had flunked on the first attempt). CM did not treat it like an evaluation course, it was a Train-the-Trainer program. Just as tandems are a very complex dive, one's first several WS dives are very complex and as such; imo... the WS/I rating should be geared more towards training the trainer.

EDIT: I guess what I'm trying to say is CM's professionalism in ensuring my professionalism was very important to me. My abilities and training of future students in the AFP program was to him - a reflection of the knowledge he passed downstream.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[riggerrob 558]

There are two standard responses to any accident.

The first response demands a new set of regulations.

The second response reminds people why we should follow old standards ... which are usually written in blood!
The latest wingsuit fatality reminds us to review old standards.
If USPA, FAA, tandem manufacturers, Birdman Inc. took ratings seriously, they would require some refresher training every year. If you are not doing refresher training on an old rating, then you should earn a new rating every year. This is similar to the FAA standard for commerical pilots.

Rob Warner
Strong Tandem Examiner since 2008
Exhibition Jump Rating since 2007
CSPA Rigger B since 2006
CSPA Skydiving School Instructor (audited) 2005
CSPA Rigger Instructor since 2004
Handy Cam operator since 2003
Progressive Freefall Instructor since 2002
factory-trained Softie rigger since 1998
Cypres & FXC Rigger Certification since 1997
factory-trained rigger for R.I. products since 1994
FAA Master Rigger since 1996
Racer Tandem Instructor since 1995
factory-trained rigger for Butler PEPs since 1992
FAA Senior Rigger since 1988
Strong and Vector Tandem Instructor since 1986
CSPA Rigger A since 1984
CSPA Instructor A since 1982
Private Pilot since 1997

[LouDiamond 1]

DSE wrote"

Quote

IMO, the Birdman Instructor program is a lame joke, and the Phoenixfly program is the punchline to the lame joke. There are at least half a dozen "instructors" from both camps that got their "I" rating over a beer or lunch (no exaggeration).

Doug, please send me an e-mail/PM when you have time and I will gladly explain to you the history as well as the actual requirements to become a BMI as your statement clearly shows "you don't know what you don't know". I can guarantee you that no one who has received their BMI from myself, Chuck. Rolf B., Ed P.,etc has gotten it over a beer or a lunch. I am as serious as dick cancer. Your statement about the BMI course could not be any more erroneous



Bigun wrote:

Quote

Quote

It's a good discussion to have, IMO. Again, in my opinion....A wingsuit instructor should at least
-possess a D license
-possess a Coach rating
-have at least 250 wingsuit skydives
-have demonstrated certain, definable skills on the ground and in the air.
-have participated in at least two large (16 or larger) flocks
-pass a written examination that covers recommended equipment, safe flying procedures/practices, flight patterns, navigation.

Others may disagree, but the USPA Coach program is more about CATS "G" and "H" and I'm not sure how it would pertain to WS Instruction.

If I were a WS manufacturer issuing manufacturer's rating; I would also ask/pay Chuck and/or Scott to write an Instructor Training Program and then send it to the other as a review committee. This would not be some "Evaluation Course," it would be a "Train the Trainer" course. Sluffing something off to the USPA isn't gong to protect me as a manufacturer from legal recourse and if need be; I'd want the highest standard in the industry available for defense.

Just my .02

The prerequisites you listed above already exist in the Birdman Instructor Course and for the most part are very close to what you posted. The Birdman Instructor Course and the first flight Course offered by Birdman instructors to those wanting to learn how to fly a wingsuit was the first standardized course that others have cannibalized/copied in part. The BMI course is a 2 day pass/fail course that requires both a ground and in air evaluation by a Birdman Chief Instructor Examiner. Standardized prerequisite criteria, written course materials and grading criteria,which are provided to all BMI candidates, has been the standard all BMIs have been trained to since late 2002/03 when myself, Chuck, Kim G. and Jari sat down and initially developed the current curriculum. I can confidently say that to the best of my knowledge, no other WS instructor program is as thorough as the Birdman Instructor program as it closely follows the USPA AFF-I format and utilizes a standardized written Program Of Instruction. The BMI course is designed as a "Train the trainer" course and goes beyond simply teaching someone how to regurgitate a first flight course to a student as it covers aspects of instructional methods and learning styles among other topics.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Standardized prerequisite criteria, written course materials and grading criteria,which are provided to all BMI candidates, has been the standard all BMIs have been trained to since late 2002/03 when myself, Chuck, Kim G. and Jari sat down and initially developed the current curriculum. I can confidently say that to the best of my knowledge...

Nuff said.
Perhaps it will become THE adopted standard by all WS Manufacturers.
Thanks for your time,

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

As far as the wingsuit incident, it doesn't appear that the victim's experience was the problem. His (and his "instructors"?) failure to check his gear was the cause of this fatality, and we all learn that as students.....don't we?

I'll submit that inexperience overall was a factor. I have never done a WS jump but I know that it's not just another skydive.

I'm trying to put myself in his shoes. I've just made my first WS jump and it was awsome. Now, I have to get out of it, pack my rig, and get ready to go again. Maybe I just heard the 15 min call. Shit! I'm behind schedule. I've got to get rigged up so I don't miss the plane!

Bad juju for an inexperienced person without adding in the WS.

Actually, you are driving my point home. Inspecting one's gear is fundamental to every skydive, regardless of a jumper's experience level (students not withstanding) or what other distractions are present. If anything about a skydive is so consuming that a jumper can't get the fundamentals right - and making sure you have on legstraps is definitely a fundamental - they should rethink making the jump under the existing conditions. Your mention of the jumper feeling behind schedule is a perfect example of my point.

And of course a first wingsuit jump is not "just another skydive. That's because no skydive is "just another skydive".

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[freakyrat 1]

"Actually, you are driving my point home. Inspecting one's gear is fundamental to every skydive, regardless of a jumper's experience level (students not withstanding) or what other distractions are present. If anything about a skydive is so consuming that a jumper can't get the fundamentals right - and making sure you have on legstraps is definitely a fundamental - they should rethink making the jump under the existing conditions. Your mention of the jumper feeling behind schedule is a perfect example of my point.

And of course a first wingsuit jump is not "just another skydive. That's because no skydive is "just another skydive".

Chuck, I completely agree with you. It seems like today we don't see the gear checks that we used to see in the past. I think we should get back to it and take more personal responsibilty for ourselves and our friends safety. I remember my little incident when I should have got a gear check when I had just hooked up my main canopy after a reserve repack. We had just broken ground. "Catfish" was sitting next to me on the Otter and cought a misrouted right side three ring. I rode the plane down and fixed it and then went up. I learned a lesson that day.

This wingsuit incident has upset me about as bad as the North Texas weather has. It was entirely preventable. It seems some newbies want to try things to fast in this sport. Swooping with tiny canopies, flying with cameras, Wingsuits whatever. Some good mentoring from us experienced skydivers might go a long way if we explained to them why they shouldn't be in such a hurry. It could save their lives and make their skydiving experiences a lot more enjoyable and SAFE.


Chris

[freakyrat 1]

I just want to add a thing here. I remember jumping one of the first lightweight Flite Suits back in the early 70's. It had the provision of putting the legstraps inside the suit. Same basic scenerio as with a wingsuit but less intense. I always had to check to make sure the legstraps were routed correctly and snapped. There were no thread-thrus in those day. Most of the time I would just leave them on the outside of the suit.

Chris

[skybytch 259]

Quote

It seems like today we don't see the gear checks that we used to see in the past. I think we should get back to it and take more personal responsibilty for ourselves and our friends safety.

Me too.

Yesterday's safety comment at the dz was "don't forget your legstraps." At about 8 grand on one load, it was noticed that a camera flier had a completely undone chest strap. While it's wonderful that it was noticed and fixed before jump run, it's not such a good thing that it wasn't noticed before he even got on the airplane.

The camera flier is a current jumper who is also very aware that someone just saved his life. The likelihood of him ever forgetting to do up his chest strap again is slim.

But the biggest lesson from this is for everyone else. Keep looking at your buddy's gear in the plane, but also take a moment to look over your buddy's gear while you are waiting in the loading area. Doesn't take a full gear check to catch a fatal error like a lack of leg or chest straps.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Actually, you are driving my point home. Inspecting one's gear is fundamental to every skydive, regardless of a jumper's experience level (students not withstanding) or what other distractions are present. If anything about a skydive is so consuming that a jumper can't get the fundamentals right - and making sure you have on legstraps is definitely a fundamental - they should rethink making the jump under the existing conditions. Your mention of the jumper feeling behind schedule is a perfect example of my point.

And of course a first wingsuit jump is not "just another skydive. That's because no skydive is "just another skydive".

Absolutely agreed Chuck. But it still seems there are people who will ignore the recommendations, or perhaps people who will exagerate their experience level to gain access to these special types of jumps.

I think the time may be close where you should be required to show proof of your meeting certain requirements to do these things, specifically WS, swoop, or camera.

We've seen all types of strange things these past few years. People coming out of tandem harnesses, whuffo rides that decide to end it all, aircraft so far out of line with even the most basic safety requirements, and sadly a WS jump where forgetting your legstraps didn't just make for an intereting NSTIWTIWGD story.

The opposite of "You're never too good to not die" ought to be "You're not good enough yet".

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[The111 0]

Quote

Quote

Standardized prerequisite criteria, written course materials and grading criteria,which are provided to all BMI candidates, has been the standard all BMIs have been trained to since late 2002/03 when myself, Chuck, Kim G. and Jari sat down and initially developed the current curriculum. I can confidently say that to the best of my knowledge...

Nuff said.
Perhaps it will become THE adopted standard by all WS Manufacturers.
Thanks for your time,

I agree that, from what I've seen, the BMI program is probably the most comprehensive out there (not saying it's complete or perfect by any means). But, becoming the standard adopterd by all manufacturers? Not as long as it keeps its current nomenclature of BMI. Sad but true. Not a jab at Bird-Man or the other manufacturers who would refuse to adopt a Bird-Man branded rating, just a comment on the incompatibility between instruction and name brands.

The "universal training standard" to end all arguments, whatever it will be, will need to be disassociated with any manufacturer, but at the same time will need to include knowledge of each manufacturer's unique suit features (which are always evolving rapidly).

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Standardized prerequisite criteria, written course materials and grading criteria,which are provided to all BMI candidates, has been the standard all BMIs have been trained to since late 2002/03 when myself, Chuck, Kim G. and Jari sat down and initially developed the current curriculum. I can confidently say that to the best of my knowledge...

Nuff said.
Perhaps it will become THE adopted standard by all WS Manufacturers.
Thanks for your time,

I agree that, from what I've seen, the BMI program is probably the most comprehensive out there (not saying it's complete or perfect by any means). But, becoming the standard adopterd by all manufacturers? Not as long as it keeps its current nomenclature of BMI. Sad but true. Not a jab at Bird-Man or the other manufacturers who would refuse to adopt a Bird-Man branded rating, just a comment on the incompatibility between instruction and name brands.

The "universal training standard" to end all arguments, whatever it will be, will need to be disassociated with any manufacturer, but at the same time will need to include knowledge of each manufacturer's unique suit features (which are always evolving rapidly).

I have no problem with changing the name and I am sure Birdman wouldn't either if it meant that the USPA or other countries governing bodies in skydiving adopted the Program Of Instruction as a recognized rating to be achieved. If the end result is jumper safety and standardized quality training of instructors then its a good thing. WSI is as non biased a title as you can get. However, this leads to the other side of the coin in that if the USPA/BPA,etc adopts it as a rating like AFF-I, etc the quality of the training given to the student is still dependent on the individual instructor, much as it is now with WS instructors, only without there being a universally accepted/recognized standard.

Things like this make me shake my head( and Matt I know you can relate to this) because if you dig back to around 2002 in the wingsuit forum there is plethora of heated threads about how we didn't need instructor ratings or a program of instruction and many were opposed to the idea, especially getting the USPA involved. When I raised the question about it becoming a USPA rating at the time, the feedback from the USPA was that they didn't see a need for it, as then, there weren't very many people jumping wingsuits and many hadn't even heard of them. Now, here we are actually discussing the possibility of it and in multiple forums and so far, it is still remaining civil. What's even crazier, is many of those who opposed it the loudest are now for having a instructor rating and students receiving proper training. It's funny how things are circular in almost all manners of life, skydiving is no exception if you hang around long enough. Perhaps it's time I revisited the idea with the USPA. I want to think about that a bit longer though as I have heard all the arguments against it and some of them have merit. This is a good example of "be careful what you ask for" if I've ever seen it.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING