Thoughts on license requirements

[jdfreefly 1]

There was a thread in the freefly forum about going straight to freeflying. This is something I don't agree with but while composing my response it got me thinking.

Our license requirements are kind of weak.

I posted that I would not mind seeing a requirement for 2 8 point 4 way belly jumps added to the C license requirement. Also, a similar requirement for freefly and belly added to the D.

Obviously jumpers already holding a C and D license would be grandfathered in.

Many people will argue that if all they ever want to do is freefly, why should they be required to do belly work? Also, if all someone wants to do is flatfly, why should they need to learn freeflying?

My answer is, you don't have to learn either. You can go straight to your head or your belly and never look back. But if you want to get one of the higher licenses, and the priviledge and respect that go with it, you should make an attempt to be a well rounded skydiver.

The D is supposed to be an expert skydiver. How can we consider someone an expert if they can't do an eight point 4 way belly jump and a 4 point 2 way freefly jump?

I understand that this should not apply to people that have been in the sport for years. It was a different sport when they started and that is fine. But people that have entered in the last five have access to an incredible base of knowledge in both disciplines. To ignore either is, to me, a sign that they are not deserving of a license that claims them to be an "expert".

I know this idea has been kicked around before, but I just felt like stiring the pot a little.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[newsstand 0]

I'm new to the sport and have low numbers and want to try it all but I have to completely disagree with this. It would be the same as saying all gymnasts must be able to perform on all pieces of equipment. What is the point?

Why not require everyone to do X number of camera jumps? Throw in a few birdman ones too?

I am a more accomplished driver because I can drive a stick but no requires that I learn it to get a license.

Now if you want to add specialty ratings to the license that would be different.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You're assuming that all jumpers have access to loads which accomodate 4-way formations. What about small Cessna DZs? What about clicky DZs where you're lucky to find one person let alone three people to jump with? What about the people jumping at tandem factories? 4-ways are a luxury not everyone has access to.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[jdfreefly 1]

That is a decent point, but the C license already requires an 2 point 8 way.

I don't feel that shows proficiency as much as 8 point 4 ways would.

And my recommendation for the freefly requirement on the D was a 4 point 2 way.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Praetorian 1]

Quote

Obviously jumpers already holding a C and D license would be grandfathered in.

if your gonna make it a requirement why grandfather anyone? I mean as long as your at it, how about CREW? X number of Breakaways?

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[jdfreefly 1]

I wouldn't mind a crw requirement, but that has not become as prevelant as the other 2 disciplines.

You would grandfather people because it would be unfair to take people's licenses and ratings away. The same way they did not take away the D licenses of people with 300 jumps when they bumped the limit to 500.

New qualifications would serve 2 purposes. The first being that I am very worried that flatflying will become a lost art. The other, is that I don't think it is hard enough from a skill perspective to get a D or C license. A D or C license should have requirements that people work for...not just be something that you fill out the paper work for when you have met the jump numbers.

How many times have you heard on these forums that jump numbers are a poor measure of a skydiver's skill level?

And requiring cuttaways is tricky because, for the most part, you can't work at that. Yes I know they have intentional cutaway rigs.

And by the way, posing an argument against a progressive change because it isn't a big enough change, is not a good tactic for debate.

A better tactic would be to explore how the sport would be hurt If the changes I suggested went into effect. Personally, I don't see how this could do anything but help us to turn out better skydivers.

Maybe making this change would push us in a direction that would eventually lead to a crw requirement and all the disciplines this sport has.

I guess my main gripe is that a D or a C license should reflect on a person's skill level, and it doesn't.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[AggieDave 6]

Actually, I would like to see a CReW requirement as well, but that would actually lead to some serious incidents, since folks wouldn't get proper training, they'd get their buddy and go do it since they needed it for the license.

Adding questions to the written exam would be a nice alternative, since it would require a demonstration of atleast a bit of knowledge of FF. Also, change the in air requirements to allow for FF manuevers instead of just RW or a style series.

That would seem the most practical.

FF isn't easy. Just like RW isn't easy. As low as the jump numbers are for all the licenses, it wouldn't make sense to force people into becoming "jacks of all trades, masters of none" just to appease all fliers in the skydiving world.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jdfreefly 1]

My goal isn't to "appease all the fliers in the skydiving world". My goal is to bring us to a place where a D license means something more than having 500 jumps.

A secondary goal is to see that people with D and C licenses have at least a rudimentary understanding of both FF and RW. As it stands now, I see no reason why someone who was B qualified shouldn't be able to perform the maneuvers required for the C. Notice that there are no manuevers required for the D. How does that make sense?

Once someone had met the D requirements, if they decided they wanted to pursue a D license, then they could concentrate on a specific discipline. I don't believe this would turn out "jacks of all trades, masters of none".

Again, how would this benefit the sport and how would it hurt?

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[AggieDave 6]

How many jumps and how much time does it take to get reasonably good at RW? Without tunnel camps.

How many jumps and how much time does it take go get reasonably good at FF? Without tunnel camps?

How is someone supposed to fit all of that into 500 jumps?

I have roughly 400 FF jumps, 200 RW jumps, 300 tandems and the rest are "canopy dives" which were hop and pops (low and high) including some CReW.

Ok, lets take the tandems out of it, so that leaves me with 700 jumps. Lets scratch 200 of those off, so I'm down to the D jump number of 500 jumps. I'm going to take 100 from the FF and 100 from the RW just to keep things even.

What did that leave me with? 300 FF jumps and 100 RW jumps and 100 "canopy dives."

Tell me, am I a master at any three of those at that point?

Lets take the FF number since its higher. 300 jumps, how many 300 jump FFers do you know of that are truely safe, can fly any axis and can fly well enough to be in a 4 way holding docks?

If all I had done for my first 500 jumps was to do FF, and had access to good coaching, then sure, I'd be there, good to go. How many of the DZs around the US has good FF coaching? How many have good RW coaches? Since reasonable RW skill is needed to get ratings, especially AFF, then I would assume that its pretty safe to say that even "bob's DZ" with a single 182 has some reasonably good RW guys and gals that can teach. How many good FFers that can teach are there? Maybe some, I hope.



I stand by my statement, that if anything, allowing for FF or RW in the requirements (and possibly doing away with the style series), would be the best course of action.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[damion75 0]

Quote

I am very worried that flatflying will become a lost art

I have seen a couple of threads about that subject be the final upshot seems to be that this is not the case and that competition in FS is as hot as ever. I am not sure that licencing changes would affect that -for better or worse.

Quote

A better tactic would be to explore how the sport would be hurt If the changes I suggested went into effect. Personally, I don't see how this could do anything but help us to turn out better skydivers.

Perhaps rather than focusing on licences, which seem pretty limited on the different skills required, DZs and jumpers should focus more on the qualification gradings (FS1, FF1, CF1 etc) which, being far more specific, can really indicate a minimum level of skill in an individual discipline. I don't know if these are standardised between the different licencing organisations but this might be one way to go?

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

How many jumps and how much time does it take to get reasonably good at RW? Without tunnel camps.

How many jumps and how much time does it take go get reasonably good at FF? Without tunnel camps?

How is someone supposed to fit all of that into 500 jumps?

Well then they won't be able to get their D when they have 500 jumps. It might take some people more than 500. I don't really see a problem with that.

Quote

What did that leave me with? 300 FF jumps and 100 RW jumps and 100 "canopy dives."

Can you do an 8 point 4 way rw jump and a 4 point 2 way freefly jump? Those were the ideas I threw out there, I never said anything about a 4 point 4 way freefly jump. Those requirements aren't impossible with those low jump numbers. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it certainly isn't impossible. Just because someone has the numbers for the D does not mean they have to have one. I waited until I had 800 jumps to get my tandem rating, mostly because I wanted to be sure I was ready for it.

I never said people need to have mastered a discipline to get the D, I just suggested that we up the requirements and make people show some profficency.

EDIT TO ADD: I'll bet those 100 canopy dives have paid off more than the others....ever have to land a tandem in a back yard? I'll bet you could.

Quote

If all I had done for my first 500 jumps was to do FF, and had access to good coaching, then sure, I'd be there, good to go. How many of the DZs around the US has good FF coaching? How many have good RW coaches? Since reasonable RW skill is needed to get ratings, especially AFF, then I would assume that its pretty safe to say that even "bob's DZ" with a single 182 has some reasonably good RW guys and gals that can teach. How many good FFers that can teach are there? Maybe some, I hope.

This is a very good point. A side effect of requiring FF would be that the people described above, who would probably make very good AFF instructors, would not be able to attain a D license. In my opinion this is the best argument against my idea yet, especially since this idea is birthed from my concern that we are going to have a generation of skydivers who have no RW skills and that this will in turn cause a shortage of skilled instructors.

Quote

I stand by my statement, that if anything, allowing for FF or RW in the requirements (and possibly doing away with the style series), would be the best course of action.

This would have the exact opposite effect of what I was attempting to accomplish. Do we really want D licensed skydivers who can't even stay level, or hold a heading on a 4 way RW jump? That is what would happen if we started allowing people to skirt the rw requirements.

Don't get me wrong. When I am not chucking drogues, I am freeflying. But I still believe that rw is the basic skill set.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

this is not the case and that competition in FS is as hot as ever.

FS is all but dead in the US...look at the number of FS teams that competed at Nationals last year.

Quote

Perhaps rather than focusing on licences, which seem pretty limited on the different skills required, DZs and jumpers should focus more on the qualification gradings (FS1, FF1, CF1 etc) which, being far more specific, can really indicate a minimum level of skill in an individual discipline. I don't know if these are standardised between the different licencing organisations but this might be one way to go?

In the US, we don't have any of those qualifications. We do have awards that show some competency in different disciplines, but they aren't licenses and aren't required for any of the most basic instructor ratings.

to see our licensing go here:
http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2004SIM/section3.htm

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[damion75 0]

Quote

In the US, we don't have any of those qualifications. We do have awards that show some competency in different disciplines, but they aren't licenses and aren't required for any of the most basic instructor ratings.

Roger - this demonstrates some of the major differences between the US and the UK then which I did not know existed!

In the UK, FS is still largely viewed as the more common way to jump with FF slightly in the minority (although increasing in popularity with new jumpers for all the obvious reasons - finding people to jump with, seen as more exciting etc)

Do you feel that introducing discipline related qualifications would aid your cause? For us the gradings are linked to the licences (ie. for a C licence it is necessary to have the B licence and a further 'grade one' ie FS1, FF1 etc) there is therefore no direct requirement to be skilled at everything but to get those gradings you have to prove that you are a competent and safe skydiver as well as good at that discipline.

To look at the other issue of 'encouraging' people to do more FS, I believe that this can only be achieved by the FS jumpers ourselves sharing our passion and our jump time with Newly Qualified Skydivers and avoiding being 'cliquey'!

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[crwmike 0]

What I don't understand is what exactly is broken with the present system ...what exactly are you tryiing to fix?

Michael

Quote

There was a thread in the freefly forum about going straight to freeflying. This is something I don't agree with but while composing my response it got me thinking.

Our license requirements are kind of weak.

I posted that I would not mind seeing a requirement for 2 8 point 4 way belly jumps added to the C license requirement. Also, a similar requirement for freefly and belly added to the D.

Obviously jumpers already holding a C and D license would be grandfathered in.

Many people will argue that if all they ever want to do is freefly, why should they be required to do belly work? Also, if all someone wants to do is flatfly, why should they need to learn freeflying?

My answer is, you don't have to learn either. You can go straight to your head or your belly and never look back. But if you want to get one of the higher licenses, and the priviledge and respect that go with it, you should make an attempt to be a well rounded skydiver.

The D is supposed to be an expert skydiver. How can we consider someone an expert if they can't do an eight point 4 way belly jump and a 4 point 2 way freefly jump?

I understand that this should not apply to people that have been in the sport for years. It was a different sport when they started and that is fine. But people that have entered in the last five have access to an incredible base of knowledge in both disciplines. To ignore either is, to me, a sign that they are not deserving of a license that claims them to be an "expert".

I know this idea has been kicked around before, but I just felt like stiring the pot a little.

[robskydiv 0]

IMHO, RW is all about team work. Canuck makes a good point about finding those willing to fly with you. I say, find those who have the skills themselves to be able to turn those points. The onus of fulfilling these requirements should not be a heavy burden for the inexperienced. Harry

[wzettler 0]

In the spirit of what crwmike said let me play devils advocate for a bit.
Why is this necessary? I am not reading about a bunch of incidents that have been caused by freeflying.
People like to have the freedom to do what ever they want in the air. Skydiving is about feeling free. I don't think we should try to limit that "for their own good." Its their choice. Besides, how are you going to enforce this? You can't watch what everyone does on their jumps.

Another thing, say there is a more stringent requirement to get licenses. (like the 8 point 4-way you suggested, I think) The other three people can cater to the newbie/underskilled jumper and help them complete the requirement in the air. (ie everyone flying to newbie, everyone have the same fall-rate as the newbie, etc.)
Just some thoughts I had...

I think when Jesus said "love your enemy" he probably meant don't kill them.

[Ron 7]

I have said this before...

I think that to get the "D" you should have to show proficancy in more than one aspect of skydiving.

I would say two or three different styles.
They could be things such as:

1. Instructor ratings.
2. Camera jumps.
3. Proven RW skill such as 8 point 4way or 4 point 8way.
4. FF award such as a AD#
5. Performance on a big way such as a 60+ way.
6. CRW such as a 4stack.
7. Passing the Pro swoop tour test.
8. A PRO rating.

With the different options almost anyone could find three they can try and do. I personally have done everything but the FF AD# and the Pro swoop tour test. I have no interest in doing FF or the Pro swoop tour.

Making people swoop of do FF would be wrong..There are several other ways to be a good skydiver with out FF or swooping...Instructor ratings in my opinion are the top...But not everyone wants to or should be an instructor. I think CRW and a PRO rating are next...But not everyone would agree..

So thats why there is a large list.

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

[Skyflyer1 0]

Quote

FS is all but dead in the US...look at the number of FS teams that competed at Nationals last year.

Huh? There were 76 4way teams alone. 76, that was the record for a US nationals. Look at how many teams compete in the NSL. Now how many Freefly teams competed at Nationals? 15,. and those teams are composed of 3 people not 5. I find it extremely hard to believe that FS is becoming a lost art.

Thats about as believable as freeflyers should get out first cause they fly smaller canopies. Which is far from the case, because I see as many if nor more FS people flying tiny canopies than the inexperienced 1-200 Jump Freeflyers.

Either discipline though I encourage teams to form. Jump with the same people on a regular schedule. DZ might offer some discounts if they see you working hard, which means even more jumps, Plus after a few jumps you figure out fall rate, flyging styles etx so you can actually start to learn something instead of wasting dive after dive with random people all over the place

I do agree with you, and think that higher requirements for licensing is good, or better yet extend to an E license at 1000 or 1500 jumps. (dont even want to consider the politics going into who would get E-1).

[Ron 7]

Quote

FS is all but dead in the US...look at the number of FS teams that competed at Nationals last year

HUH?!?!?!?

76 four way teams with 380 people
15 FF teams with 45 people.

RW had three classes, FF two.
RW had four events (4way, 8way, 10 way, 16 way)
FF had one.

How again is RW dead?

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

How about the UK progression system. For Licenses we need both jump numbers and "sticker" qualifications. We can choose between a number of different qualifications in order to get the License.

We are also effectively prohibited from FF or FS jumps (appart from coached jumps) where we do no hold the appropriate sticker.

See this chart for a good description: http://www.bpa.org.uk/progression.htm

[jdfreefly 1]

FS is freestyle, not RW!

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Ron 7]

Quote

FS is freestyle, not RW!

damion75 is using FS as Formation Skydiving...You took it as Free Style.

Quote

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1064565#1064565

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I am very worried that flatflying will become a lost art

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have seen a couple of threads about that subject be the final upshot seems to be that this is not the case and that competition in FS is as hot as ever. I am not sure that licencing changes would affect that -for better or worse.

For Freestyle I would agree with you. Free Stylists seem to be absorbed by the FF folks.

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

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Again, how would this benefit the sport and how would it hurt?

No recently issued C or D says "Expert" or "Master" on it, that went out a few years ago.

The license requirements should mirror the privileges granted. See what privileges the "C" and "D" grant, and then decide if your (or anyone else's) suggestions make sense.

Otherwise everyone will throw in his or her pet interests as a requirement. I like big ways - so how about being on a completed 50 way for a "D" requirement? It soon gets really silly.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Otherwise everyone will throw in his or her pet interests as a requirement. I like big ways - so how about being on a completed 50 way for a "D" requirement? It soon gets really silly.

Not if you worked it according to my idea....A big way a Tandem rating and an AD# would qualify you.

As would a PRO, an 8 point 4way, and a 4 stack.

Or an AFF ticket, qualifying for the Pro swoop tour, and camera jumps.

Kinda like how Padi does its "Advanced" card.

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

[kelel01 1]

Quote

It would be the same as saying all gymnasts must be able to perform on all pieces of equipment. What is the point?

Um, all gymnasts MUST be able to perform on all pieces of equipment. In large international or collegiate competitions they perform on their best events to help the team score, but that does not apply to most competitions. They will never make it past the preschool gymnastics level if they aren't proficient at and compete in every event. You kind of proved jdfreefly's point, but you did it backwards and unintentionally.

Kelly