Revised requirements for the D

[billvon 2,396]

>You are 100% right, teach that to the newbies, it should be included in the A >license progretion, don't leave it for after a 200 jumps thing. A person that has
> 200 jumps usually knows what to do (of course in every rule there is an
> exception). How many jumps had your 2 friends?
350 and 1200 jumps respectively. They just never learned what they needed to.
>>Do you really think that it's important to know the requirements for a skydive
>> from 40,000 feet, but not important to learn to control your canopy near the
>> ground?
>A D license is a person that is educated in the sport and that means he knows
> all the requirements, and he represents the USPA as an educated skydiver.
But again, knowing everything in the SIM (i.e. the requirements for a 40,000 foot jump) often isn't required for anything. And "represents the USPA?" To who? A whuffo? They don't care. To another skydiver? I know the SIM pretty well, and I would not claim to better represent USPA than, say, Dan BC.
>Two canopies out is an emergency, how to handle it? read the SIM.
Reading and not doing is a good way to get yourself killed. I once watched a woman give herself a horseshoe because she read the SIM on how to transition to a throw-out, but nowhere in the SIM does it say you actually have to let go of the pilot chute, so she didn't. The dangers of 'just reading.'
If you need a skill to survive, you _must_ practice it. Until you do, you don't have the skill.
> you wanna jump a HP? ok, do you have the skill for it? do you have the >teachings for it? do you know how to controll a normal canopy with normal
> wingload? No? then don't do it, get coaching if you want to do it, like
>I said a specialty.
The problem here is "normal." A 1:1 loaded canopy can kill you; it's a HP canopy - and that's considered a newbie canopy nowadays. Unless you are jumping a Manta your entire skydiving career, you will need to know how to control a HP canopy. If you don't, odds are you will eventually get hurt.
>What I do think is that the SIM must have more info on canopy control, there
>is nothing about HP (if am wrong please do tell me, cause I must of missed it).
Look in the ISP. There is some material there (not enough, I think.)
>People should use good judgment before doing something new. People should
> learn not to push theyr limits to the max, cause that will kill them.
I disagree. You learn by pushing your limits. If you do it under controlled conditions, after instruction, you have an excellent chance of surviving. If the first time you push your limits is when you need to, in order to survive (say, you get cut off at 50 feet) you may not survive.
>>CRW training can save your life.
>How? please do tell me, I wanna learn.
If you know how to initiate and control a downplane in a 2-stack, you will have a much better chance of surviving a 2-canopy-out situation.

[drenaline 0]

>They just never learned what they needed to.
>it's a HP canopy - and that's considered a newbie canopy nowadays.
Maybe it should be add to the A license canopy controll? or should we add a B license course? I agree with what you said but I think it should be teached on an A license or a B license.
>I once watched a woman give herself a horseshoe because she read the SIM on how to transition to a throw-out, but nowhere in the SIM does it say you actually have to let go of the pilot chute, so she didn't.
Don't you need the supervicion of a instructor, coach or JM to transition from the ripcord to the throw out? and you are right again, the SIM does not have info on it but I think its cause you need the supervicion of a instructor (but thats just my wild guess).
I think you are starting to convince me that the CRW training is needed, but I think that for the D is kinda late, maybe for the C or the B would be better.
Just made a quick look at the SIM and there is no good info about the HP, there is almost nothing.
I think I will keep thinking the same about pushing the limits to a lot more of what you can do (like I said to the max), you do have to push your limits but never cross the safe zone.
billvon and others, thanks for all the input on the subject.
"Life is full of danger, so why be afraid?"
drenaline

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

After reading everyone elses responses, I thought I would throw in my two cents.
I like night jumps. I have a bunch of them; work, sport, and demonstration. Yes, they take a bit of planning, but are not that big of a deal; at least not in the basic license-requirement form. A good briefing covers all the "new" things a person will experience on the jumps. Gear selection is discussed, as well as equipment marking, landing area lighting, etc. It is not anything crazy, or something to be afraid of. It is also not hard to find a place to do them. Most dropzones run them at least semi-annually, and some do them every week, no matter what phase the moon is in. It boils down to a confidence exercise, pure and simple.
I am also old enough to have had to perform a water jump to get my D-license. It was over a 4th of July weekend when I was 18 years old, jumping a ParaCommander. I have since done many water jumps as part of my job and don't mind them at all. I was kind of disappointed when the requirement was cut back to only "water training", since getting drug through the water backwards is quite different than hopping in a pool and just swimming out from under an old T-10.
CRW is great fun and is not hard to learn. I don't neccessarily think it ought to be mandatory, but I do think everyone ought to at least do a two-stack fairly early in their jumping career, just to see what it's all about. I went nearly a decade without doing any, but now am back doing it for demos with my StarTrac. We used to teach guys with 50 jumps how to do CRW with no problems whatsoever.
Jump numbers: yep, I think the USPA might be the only "civilized" national organization that has stuck with a paltry 200 jumps for the D (or most advanced) license. 500 is a much better number in my opinion; 250 for C, 100 for B. Changing it at this point would cause an incredible uprising from the old guard. You would have to grandfather a TON of people who have the "old" license and don't make a lot of jumps in a year. That would really piss off those same slower-pace, small DZ jumpers who want to compete, but can't get the 500 jumps. If we raised "D" to 500, then we would have to lower the competition licence requirement or face a dwindling crowd. You could not create an "E" or "F" license in the USPA without issuing them in precise order to the people with D licenses who already possess the new skills, in order of original issue. For example, giving Rook Nelson a lower E license number than Jerry Bird would probably cause a mafia contract to be written against the entire USPA board. Get my point? If you did not issue them in order, by who chronologically completed the task in order, USPA would implode. I know that with nearly 22 years in the sport I would have a complete hissy fit and want to stomp a mudhole in the USPA secretary's ass if some 1000 jump chump with two years in the sport got a lower number than me. Pure vanity, true, but that's the way type-AAA personalities think. Bottom line: I don't think we will see any higher "licenses" in the USPA's future, but we may well see the numbers and qualification gates raised.
Canopy training: the ISP is fairly straight forward when it comes to this. It is, at least, a marked improvement over what we had before. Every student, intermediate, and experienced jumper should have access to FREE advanced canopy training. Can't get it where you are? Then get a sylabus from somewhere and study it. There is absolutely no need to spend your money when the knowledge can be obtained freely. Jim Slaton uses a borrowed sylabus in his course in California. People anywhere near me can get all the free coaching they need. Anyway, as far as canopy training goes, the general concensus here seems to be that the majority of jumpers are not getting it. Shame on your DZ for spitting out bare-minimum skydivers if that is the case where you are. I can assure you that is not the case here, at least not on my watch.
Chuck (that's my name, monkey!)
D-12501(indicating how long I have been at it)
AFF,SL,and Tandem I (because I give back to the sport)
My webpage HERE

[Jessica 0]

Quote

I know that with nearly 22 years in the sport I would have a complete hissy fit and want to stomp a mudhole in the USPA secretary's ass if some 1000 jump chump with two years in the sport got a lower number than me.

Chuck, I would just like to say I love the way you write. Hooty-hoo!
Good points. Thanks for making them.
Er, to make this legal: To me, the licenses are virtually meaningless. Hell, the D license is probably attainable for me by the end of the summer, and I suck donkey balls.
So yeah, I'd support raising the bar on them. But oh well.
It's the Vicodin talking.

[polarbear 1]

I had resisted replying in this forum because I had too much to say. Luckily, Chuck said it for me.
Changing the license requirements will be a bitch and will piss many, many people off. However, I think the license requirements will continue to make less and less sense as time goes on. The might as well be addressed now.
One other point, while I am support of more advanced canopy training and even HP canopy flight, I do not think it is fair to require this for a standard skydiving license. The reason is because flying HP canopies or in a HP manner carries a significantly higher risk...true, night jumps and CRW jumps also carry more risk, but far fewer people get hurt or killed doing CRW or night jumps then swooping. If someone is "smart" enough (unlike me) to fly conservatively, I don't think they should be forced to do the riskier HP stuff. Exploring a canopy's basic flight characteristics is one thing...forcing them to crank a 180 and swoop is another. The only way I can see adding HP flight into a license is to make a whole new HP license. This isn't unheard of...pilots need different licenses to fly faster planes or do acrobatics.
The way I see it, the license requirements basically center around traditional skydiving...accuracy, belly RW, and style. All good skills, but these days skydiving has more facets...freeflying, HP canopy flying, CRW, etc. The license requirements should reflect these. True, it could be argued that turning that 2-pt. 8 way for the D license doesn't have to be on your belly (you could sit or head down or whatever), but it requires a lot more skill and practice to do this head down than on the belly. Also, more and more people are starting to swoop with lower jump numbers...I don't see too many swoops end with someone landing within a 2-m circle for the D license.
In addition to raising the jump number requirements, maybe more options could be added. Like for the D-license, you could turn a 2 pt. 8-way on the belly OR a 2pt. 4 way in a sit (or whatever would be appropriate).

[faulknerwn 36]

Its an informal requirement at my drop zone that everyone do CRW with me. I typically get them when they have 20ish jumps and their own gear and take them up. They learn a lot even on their first jump. They get briefed on emergencies, they learn what flying a biplane is about, they do a downplane, the whole works over a jump or two. I know that back before I did CRW, I had read the 2-canopies-out paper and thought I knew what to do if I had a Cypres fire or something. Once I started doing CRW I can look back at how clueless I was. Having done CRW has helped out at least 2 people at my dropzone - one was at a big boogie and had a canopy collision at 800 feet - she remembered the training and knew what to do. Another had a pc-in-tow or something and deployed her reserve and then the main inflated. She flew both canopies down to a safe landing - having done CRW before is a BIG help in those situations - you can't help but have a somewhat better grasp of the situation.
W

[riggerrob 558]

Reading about emergency procedures is not enough, you have to practice them if you want to remember them in an emergency.
Understanding how to do night jumps is a basic survival skill, because sooner or later the sunset load is going to be delayed and you will have to land after dark in unfamiliar terrain. If you have already done a few night jumps it will be easy.
As for the proposed requirement for HP training, come on folks, look at the statistics. The leading cause of death these days is low turns by people who don't know what they are doing! The old school has been rendered obsolete by newer, smaller, faster canopies. What was consider HP canopies 5 years ago, we now sell to first time buyers. Get your heads out of the sand folks! What you don't practice at 2,000' will kill you at 20'!
Thirdly, a few years back, I drew a chart of all the different canopy skills, and I kept coming back to a block of instruction on "bumping end cells." BEC involves reading the first chapter in any CRW text book, then doing two or three coach dives with a CRW coach. "Bumping end cells" leads to CRW, team landings, team accuracy and team blade running.
If you folks don't want to practice basic survival skills, then please stay off my DZ.

[airdrew20012001 0]

Quote

The permissions granted by the "D" are:
1. compete at Nationals
2. participate in certain record attempts
3. go on to more advanced ratings

Hey, I was told that a D license meant I could do anything. Dern it! lied to again! Frikin' USPA propaganda!!
Drewfus McDoofus

[drenaline 0]

Hey airdrew, they didnt lied, they said that you could anything... anything within the requirements
"Life is full of danger, so why be afraid?"
drenaline

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Understanding how to do night jumps is a basic survival skill, because sooner or later the sunset load is going to be
delayed and you will have to land after dark in unfamiliar terrain. If you have already done a few night jumps it will be
easy.

If sunset loads were restricted to "D" license holders only, your comments would make sense. I know of no DZ where they turn away people without "D" licenses from sunset loads.
While I don't dispute that learning how to make a night jump may be relevant and is fun, it is irrational to make it a requirement for competing at nationals (which is what most people who actually NEED a "D" need it for).

[quade 3]

Quote

While I don't dispute that learning how to make a night jump may be relevant and is fun, it is irrational to make it a requirement for competing at nationals (which is what most people who actually NEED a "D" need it for).

John --
It's only a requirement to compete in the Nationals for certain events and certain classes. For instance, you could easily compete in the Intermediate and Advanced classes of all the RW events with only a "C". See SCM 1-1.4.
I do not believe that competing at the Nationals is why the majority of people seek the D License. The D License shouldn't be about egos. It should be about qualifications.
I believe that since the D License is the highest level given by the USPA and that it allows individuals to then; get higher instructional ratings, be involved with "certain" demos (even without a Pro Rating) and set World Records, then it's only appropriate that the night jump requirement remain.
Instead of rewriting all the other sections to include a "night" rating, it makes far more sense to simply include the night jump requirement as part of the D License and then simply require the D License for the additional ratings and events.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

It's only a requirement to compete in the Nationals for certain events and certain classes. For instance, you could easily
compete in the Intermediate and Advanced classes of all the RW events with only a "C". See SCM 1-1.4.
I do not believe that competing at the Nationals is why the majority of people seek the D License. The D License
shouldn't be about egos. It should be about qualifications.

I carefully said "need", and not "seek". I suspect that most people with "D"s don't NEED them at all, in terms of the privileges granted.
I jump at a busy DZ and have seen lots of people getting "D"s 'cos they wanted to compete at Nationals, and just a couple who wanted to be AFF instructors. But the overwhelming majority don't want to do either of those things; the "D" is just like a boy scout merit badge for them.
The real point is that many years ago the USPA or its predecessor managed to co-mingle the concept of license (permission) and merit badge, and we are stuck now with a system that in some respects defies rational explanation.

[quade 3]

Quote

But the overwhelming majority don't want to do either of those things; the "D" is just like a boy scout merit badge for them.

All the more reason to keep the night requirements then!
quade
http://futurecam.com

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

r: quade
Subject: Re: Revised requirements for the D
In reply to:
But the overwhelming majority don't want to do either of those things; the "D" is just like a boy scout merit
badge for them.
All the more reason to keep the night requirements then!

Then let's stop calling it a license and call it a merit badge instead, and have a separate and realistic qualification for those that wish to compete or set records.

[quade 3]

You've missed my point (or maybe I didn't make it clearly enough).
Let's keep it the way it is and have people stop using it as a merit badge.
What I think we're both saying is that people are mostly getting it for ego reasons, which actually is fine with me as long as they're not bitching about lowering the requirements just so they can get it.
Of course, this reverses my opinion of several days ago. I've had a little while to think about it. Originally I was of the same mind set as a lot of other folks -- go ahead and do away with it for the D but make it a requirement of some of the higher ratings; Pro, Jumpmaster, stuff like that.
Now, upon further reflection, the way it currently stands seems less complicated and wouldn't diminish the accomplishments of those that have previously received the Ds the old fashioned way.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Shark 0]

Hey! I got my Night Merit Badge! I need my night crew badge now.....

[kopelen 0]

I agree with Quade.
I will say this, the requirement should definitely stay because you never know what situation you may find yourself in. (I am leaving this in broad terms since most of you think that you will never get yourself into one) Better to be prepared than find yourself up a creek without a paddle.

[polarbear 1]

I agree as well. Most people don't need a D, and getting one has become a matter of ego for many people. That is all fine, but that ego will crash if you lower the requirements.
Whether or not it is still called the "master" license, the fact that it is the highest license granted implies a high level of competency and experience. The current requirements for the D do not, in my opinion, require all THAT high level of competency in today's skydiving world. If anything, they need to be made more stringent.
Don't want to meet the requirements for the D? Fine, no problem, don't get a D. You probably don't need one anyway. If anyone cares they are just being egotistical. Just don't lessen the requirements.
I don't really want to write my thesis; maybe I should petition U of I to give me my Master's without writing it.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Now, upon further reflection, the way it currently stands seems less complicated and wouldn't diminish the accomplishments of those that have previously received the Ds the old fashioned way.

You have the merit badge mentality. It ISN'T a merit badge, it is a license. It isn't about the accomplishments of those who got it years ago, it's about the most relevant way to ensure that those wishing to compete in certain events are qualified to do so in 2002 and beyond. IMHO, having both been on a world record attempt and competed at nationals, night jumps were totally irrelevant and canopy skills were highly relevant.
If you want a merit badge for night jumps, how about the "Night Naked Freak Brother" number?
http://freak-brother.com/pics/Fbcards.jpg

[quade 3]

Quote

It ISN'T a merit badge, it is a license.

Exactly correct. Perhaps I've choosen my words poorly for you, but I think we are for the most part in agreement.
However, I certainly do NOT agree with this statement . . .

Quote

. . . it's about the most relevant way to ensure that those wishing to compete in certain events are qualified to do so in 2002 and beyond.

I don't believe the D License exists for the purposes of competition, but rather for as a progression toward Pro and Instructional ratings. I believe the competition requirements are only a byproduct of the system as a whole.
Rather than change the D License requirements, why not change the competition requirements to a C License and an equivilent number of jumps?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I don't believe the D License exists for the purposes of competition, but rather for as a progression toward Pro and Instructional ratings. I believe the competition requirements are only a byproduct of the system as a whole.

I disagree. The ratings have their own requirements and tests which can and do incorporate whatever is necessary for the holder of that rating. For the most part the D is irrelevant to the rating. OTOH, to compete in those certain events and record attempts, the D is the only formal gatekeeper.
I have been on 22 skydives where there were 300 or so canopies in the air at the same time. As per the rules, a "D" was required. On the whole, I'd consider canopy training far more important than having made 2 night jumps in qualifying people to do this.

[quade 3]

Quote

For the most part the D is irrelevant to the rating.

I don't think so. I see it the same way I saw getting my commercial and instrument certificates in order to get my CFI. It's all one long logical progression, if you choose to continue your training to the upper levels.

Quote

I have been on 22 skydives where there were 300 or so canopies in the air at the same time. As per the rules, a "D" was required. On the whole, I'd consider canopy training far more important than having made 2 night jumps in qualifying people to do this.

So then, don't change the D requirements -- change the requirements to be on the 300 ways! Wouldn't that make more sense?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[billvon 2,396]

I can see three ways to look at the license structure.
The first is as a merit badge. In a way, the licenses in their current form are indications that a jumper has reached a certain level of proficiency and skill in a few different disciplines - style, RW, night jumps, accuracy etc. Conceivably this could be expanded to include freefly, wingsuit flying etc. so that the D license (or future advanced licenses) could indicate an expert, well-rounded skydiver.
The problem with this approach is that what constitutes a well-rounded skydiver keeps changing. Today most people consider freeflying skills, RW and high performance canopy skills as the primary skydiving disciplines. Years ago it was style and big-canopy accuracy with some CRW thrown in. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to create a one-size-fits-all "expert" license that represents true expertise in the sport as it evolves.
The second way to consider it is as a license to do certain things - Nationals, big way attempts, demonstration jumps. I think this makes some sense. Organizers have a difficult job deciding who is competent to perform in certain events, and the requirement to prove competence helps them to keep these events both meaningful and safe. I think we should keep this in mind when we consider changes to the license structure, and make sure that any license required for an event really covers what a jumper needs to know to be safe to perform that event. For example, some CRW training would go a long way towards making big-ways safer, since being able to handle a dual deployments and the ability to fly a canopy relative to many other canopies is important in big ways.
The third is as a way to get better training to the general skydiving population. For as long as we call them "advanced licenses" there will be a general desire to get them - whether that desire comes from ego, or a desire to be challenged, or the desire to participate in something that requires the advanced license. Given that, I think it makes sense to also require training that benefits advanced skydivers, like HP canopy control, water training and night jumps. There is a benefit to require training that will help skydivers survive, even if that training comes past the 200 jump mark.

[IronMike 0]

After what happened at Perris last weekend, I have made a promise to myself that I will never do night jumps. Todays smaller canopies make it far too risky as far as Im concerned. I will never accidentally jump at night so why do I need to practice? Either they take this requirement away or I will never have a D.

[ramon 0]

yes yes yes.

screw night jumps (they are once in a while bonus activity and are mainly for those special operations robots at Fort Bragg).

If you are going to have a license that says you are an expert skydiver you may as well have some advanced canopy techniques in your portfolio.

ramon

"Revolution is an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment.", Ambrose Bierce.