Should a license expire?

[Deisel 35]

RE: Chasing a student

A previous post discussed a D licensed jumper that came back after 18 years. He was made to do a recurrency jump (as required) with an AFFI, then turned over to a coach.
Are we doing this the right way? My take is that after being gone for a while you should start over. Take the entire FJC and go through all the jumps. But how long should that period be?
At some point you are no longer qualified to jump. The gear evolves, EPs change, aircract are different, and technology moves us forward. But according to our current rules you can come back at any time, do a recurrency jump, and be good to go. I disagree. Thoughts?

D

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

But according to our current rules you can come back at any time, do a recurrency jump, and be good to go

That's not entirely correct. You have to pass a recurrency jump in order to be 'good to go'.

With regards to the incident you referenced, that jumper should not have been turned over to a coach. An experiecned jumper who was there that day and familiar with the situation admitted that the jumpers recurrency jump was 'less than' stellar. To then turn that student over to a coach is doing both the student and coach a dis-service.

A coach is not trained, or expected, to catch, stabilize or pull for a student. With that in mind, no student should be handed over to a coach until they have proven that they are capable of exiting, freefalling and pulling solo and stable. Any less is putting the coach in a very bad situation, as evidenced by the video of the incident in question.

For the record, I don't know of any DZ that would take a jumper who had been out of the sport for several years and just put them up on a recurrency jump. Depending on the individual, how much experience they had before the layoff, and the length of the layoff, DZs can choose to put them through the FJC, give them a one-on-one review with an instructor, and I have seen some of them give the FJC written exam to get a handle on what the jumper remembers and what they don't.

[theonlyski 3]

Also, your license is only valid as long as you're a USPA member in good standing (paying your money).

Granted, I've never heard of USPA starting someone over from step one when it comes to coming back after a long lay off, they have the wording to enforce it.

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

[sacex250 0]

Licenses do expire, at the exact same time that the jumper does!

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the jumpers recurrency jump was 'less than' stellar.

"Less than stellar" can still be a reasonable pass. We don't require "perfect", just ability to solo and self supervise safely.

Seems the implication is the AFFI didn't consider the student to be self supervisable, yet still passed them on. ooops

I know you didn't imply that, I'm just clarifying for the others.


18 years is a long time - I'd recommend a heavy duty retrain. Expiring license? that's nuts. We have currency requirements that meet the need.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Section 5-2 (recurrency) really does need to tie off with the ISP in some fashion. Or at least explicitly say they are leaving the details (what type of instructor, what does "observe" mean, etc) to the DZO or S&TA for each special instance.......

I know that my very thin recurrency experience (over 10 years ago) and supervision for a 5 year layoff is something that I would NOT recommend today for someone in a similar position.

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

[nigel99 143]

For what it is worth I really liked the way that the Farm handled my re-currency (granted I only had 100+ jumps).

I did the full FJC along with other AFF students, and then did a modified level 3 with Jeremy and Mike. There was a full understanding that if I failed to perform I would not proceed. I then did a modified level 5 prior to being cleared. As it turned out my second jump became a "fun jump" as I had completed the tasks by 9.5k. Clearly if I had had problems I could have been taken at a slower pace, and importantly that is where my expectations were set.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[kimemerson 7]

First, there is no requirement that has anything whatsoever to do with being current. Find it in the BSRs and I'll take back what I just said.

Second, regarding the argument that things change; not really so fast as that. Twin otters have been around for more than 25 years and if the returning jumper jumps his own gear, nothing changes there either. And today's gear is not really at all different than it was 20 years ago where it counts. All the handles are right where they were then. And sky is sky. The Earth is still right where it's been all along.

Third, I think the individual has to be taken into consideration. I've known people who get 300 jumps (D qualified) over ten years. I also know Jack Jeffries. 18 years from now if they both walk up to me and want to get back into the sport, I'd really strongly suggest the first guy go through the whole FJC again and I'd ask Jack to organize and be on an eight way as a welcome back jump. Also, what's the returning jumper been up to in 18 years? Sitting behind a desk all week and sipping martinis all weekend? Or rock climbing, hang gliding, drag racing... a life that keeps their edge, their timing, their reflexes all fine tuned?

There's no requirement. But we're often faced with these situations so there probably should be some sort of guideline for how to handle them.

[Deisel 35]

The SIM disagrees with you. Section 5-2 covers recurrency training and the need to cover changes and advancements.
My point here is that it's one big grey area. It's totaly up to the DZ staff how to handle jumpers coming back after a layoff. Granted, it has to ba a case by case basis but after a certain period of time you are no longer trained or safe.
Things do change. Todays canopies are much faster than they used to be and they are flown quite differently. It's not just about the individual but also the environment they are flying in.
I've done recurrency & transition jumps with folks like this. There is truly a huge gap that has to be filled in. The FJC is probably the best way to do it.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

The SIM disagrees with you. Section 5-2 covers recurrency training and the need to cover changes and advancements.

Quote

Jumpers should receive refresher training appropriate for their skydiving history and time since their last skydive.

Should, not must. Kim Said that there was no BSR that REQUIRES it.

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

[Deisel 35]

That's my point - no requirement. Should there be?

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

That's my point - no requirement. Should there be?

IMO, both yes and no.
No, if the DZ/Instructor is handling the situation with common sense and is safety-minded.

Yes, if not.

And therein lies the problem...some are better at it than others.
These days, it seems that more and more I's are doing nothing more than the minimum with safety be damned. That leads to the need for more rules and requirements. Does that mean those bozos will abide by any new rules and requirements? Unfortunately, no. Some people are going to get screwed no matter what the rules and requirements are.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[indyz 1]

Quote

That's my point - no requirement. Should there be?

There needs to be room for common sense. It's hilarious watching a coach with 210 jumps and a year in the sport take somebody with 6000 jumps on a recurrency jump, just because he hasn't jumped in 7 months.

[kimemerson 7]

Quote

The SIM disagrees with you. Section 5-2 covers recurrency training and the need to cover changes and advancements.

Section 5 is not Section 2. Section 2 is Basic Safety REQUIREMENTS. Within this section alone one finds what is required. ALL else in the SIM is damn good suggestions. Not following Section 2 can and may get you kicked out of the USPA. Not following everything else will not.

I would agree that it is best to get a returning jumper up to speed. But a full-on FJC follwed by the whole of AFF (or whatever the program might be) is a bit excessive. I've retrained plenty of long absent jumpers and a good, thorough EP refresher, for the most part, some body position and exit stuff, and some canopy drills, that and a single jump has been all that was needed. They all did fine. My own experiences have turned in no evidence that says there should be a BSR requiring anything. I would hope that having a current USPA Instructor rating or above would qualify you to make the right judgement. And a requirement alone can't guarantee that.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I would hope that having a current USPA Instructor rating or above would qualify you to make the right judgement.

agree here (if you exclude the Coaches)

and DZ's have retraining policies anyway - usually some ground work (thorough or cursory review depending on the individual and the lay off period) and then 'observe could be anywhere from observing the exit from the plane, all the way to doing a couple AFF jumps (again, "depending")

I'd like to keep the judgment calls to the DZ or Instructor, personally. 5-2 implies that by not having any additional direction. They could just say it right out though "extent of recurrency training should be determined by the local DZO, S&TA, Instructor,"

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

[kimemerson 7]

Quote

Quote

I would hope that having a current USPA Instructor rating or above would qualify you to make the right judgement.

agree here (if you exclude the Coaches)

Like I said, Instructor or above.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I would hope that having a current USPA Instructor rating or above would qualify you to make the right judgement.

agree here (if you exclude the Coaches)

Like I said, Instructor or above.

yeah, just want to be clear - Coach is called a type of "instructor" nowadays

(sorry coaches, I also don't like the idea of the PRO rating and a couple other things too. doesn't mean there aren't some very good coaches out there)

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

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

That's my point - no requirement. Should there be?

No.

That's a requirement that should be left to the discretion of the DZs.

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

[Deisel 35]

Just did that yesterday! Me being the student, that is Just to show that I'm no hypocrite - I had to do my own recurrency after coming back from deployment. Game on baby!

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[Deisel 35]

I agree in principle but have trouble with an absolute. Most folks that come back from a layoff dont need to repeat the FJC. But there are a few that turn up occasionally in need of complete retraining. Maybe its just my military schoolin that likes the idea of a more extensive recurrency requirement. Sometimes you just really need more than one or two jumps to get back up to speed. Thats not necessarily a bad thing.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

I agree in principle but have trouble with an absolute. Most folks that come back from a layoff dont need to repeat the FJC. But there are a few that turn up occasionally in need of complete retraining. Maybe its just my military schoolin that likes the idea of a more extensive recurrency requirement. Sometimes you just really need more than one or two jumps to get back up to speed. Thats not necessarily a bad thing.

Well, you don't really need to do the pre-jump every day you're going to jump.

'Jumpers: Hit it!'

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

[diablopilot 2]

I agree with you and that's why the decision is best left with those in the field who are working with the un current jumper. No one says it has to be "one and done" on recurrencies. If the jumper doesn't like it they can jump elsewhere. :-)

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

[Squeak 17]

I had the whole of 2009 away from jumping, I did my 1001st jump in Elsinore in Feb 2009, and my 1002nd jump back home in Australia in March 2010.

My Ci came up to me and asked how i felt, asked me about EPs. checked my gear.

Asked me what sort of jump I was doing. I told him a 2Way, FF, he asked Who with..
I told him who, he said. Have fun, pull a little higher and do some Canopy drills.


No probs.


ETA, I was bloody nervous on the climb to height

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[riggerrob 558]

Gear has changed a lot over the 34 years since In made my first jump, back in 1977.

If I showed up with a military-surplus, chest-mounted reserve, round and not steerable ... they would laugh me off the DZ!
"Lucky" students were loaned FXC 8000 or Sentinel Automatic Deployment Devices. After graduation, it was considered "unmanly" to depend upon an AOD.

Similarly, the military-surplus, static-line deployed, steerable round main ... was banned by CSPA and USPA circa 1989.

My container was a military-surplus, four-pin PEP modified for static-line. Many skygods wore "cool: three-pin main containers. Only the "coolest" of skygods had transitioned to piggyback containers. Most skydivers still struggled with variations on Capewell canopy releases, while only a handful wore the un-proven "3 Ring Circus." Hand deploy pilot chutes were debated long and long around the bonfire.
Granted, the 1956-vintage Cessna 182 is still widely used at many smaller DZs, but are gradually being replaced by "wide-body" 182s, better-suited to modern TIs.
Only the biggest DZs - in the USA - flew DC-3s, while the biggest jump-plane in Canada was Beech 18. Hint, the last Canadian Beech 18 (jump-plane) retired at the turn of the century.

Back durign the 1970s, turbine-engined jump-planes (Twin Otters, Porters, Dornier 228s, etc.) rarely flew at boogies.

[kimemerson 7]

Quote

Gear has changed a lot over the 34 years since In made my first jump, back in 1977.

If I showed up with a military-surplus, chest-mounted reserve, round and not steerable ... they would laugh me off the DZ!
"Lucky" students were loaned FXC 8000 or Sentinel Automatic Deployment Devices. After graduation, it was considered "unmanly" to depend upon an AOD.

Similarly, the military-surplus, static-line deployed, steerable round main ... was banned by CSPA and USPA circa 1989.

My container was a military-surplus, four-pin PEP modified for static-line. Many skygods wore "cool: three-pin main containers. Only the "coolest" of skygods had transitioned to piggyback containers. Most skydivers still struggled with variations on Capewell canopy releases, while only a handful wore the un-proven "3 Ring Circus." Hand deploy pilot chutes were debated long and long around the bonfire.
Granted, the 1956-vintage Cessna 182 is still widely used at many smaller DZs, but are gradually being replaced by "wide-body" 182s, better-suited to modern TIs.
Only the biggest DZs - in the USA - flew DC-3s, while the biggest jump-plane in Canada was Beech 18. Hint, the last Canadian Beech 18 (jump-plane) retired at the turn of the century.

Back durign the 1970s, turbine-engined jump-planes (Twin Otters, Porters, Dornier 228s, etc.) rarely flew at boogies.

While I agree with your comment as is, it should be noted that the changes you cite were in place 25 years ago and not much has changed since then. 3 rings then. 3 rings now. Hand deployed PC then. Hand deployed PC now. BOCs have been here 20+ years. It's been 20 years of Cypres already. AFF as an alternative to static line was first used in 1981. The Otter has been a primary jump plane at least 20 years. By the mid eighties it was a spectacle and an attraction to see someone jump a round. You might not be laughed off any self respecting DZ with a genuine interest in the whole of the sport. But you sure as hell would get noticed. Admired, even.

The various changes, the real radical ones, between the early 70s and the mid eighties have only been tweaked since then. Not much has changed in the past 25 years that compares in importance to the sport's future with the changes that took place before then. Most if not all of the sport's advancements in the last 25 or so years have been fine tuning and not revolutionizing. Cypress possibly being one exception.

Anyone who stopped jumping in the mid eighties would mostly recognize everything today. They would see that there have been changes like, for example, smaller canopies, PRO packing, BOCs. Not much would be a mystery. They may have already seen that canopies were rectangular and getting smaller back then. Why not 20 years later? They would have seen PRO packing, maybe, but would note that now they never really see flat packing. They would have seen that PCs were hand deployed, maybe already moved from the belly to ROL. Why not BOC? Retraining a jumper who has been out for the past 20 years would not be educating for the first time, but assuring a familiarity with old memories with only the slightest updates.