B-License Canopy Control Proficency Card

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

As of January 1, 2012, the USPA B-license requirements will change for the first time in decades. In addition to the B-license application, a completed and signed USPA Canopy Piloting Proficiency Card will be required. A USPA Safety & Training Advisor must verify that the applicant has completed the training and must sign the proficiency card before it is submitted to USPA Headquarters for processing. The training material and guidelines, including the recommended qualifications for those who can teach the course materials, appear in Skydiver’s Information Manual Sections 6-10 and 6-11. The proficiency card is available in the SIM and as a download on the USPA website.

I think it's a good plan, just gotta see how it gets implemented. Also, who's authorized to be a 'verifying official'? The card says it has to be a S&TA who must verify the training and only they can endorse the card... but the DZ is responsible for verifying the S&TA and verifying officials' qualifications.

"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

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

As of January 1, 2012, the USPA B-license requirements will change for the first time in decades. In addition to the B-license application, a completed and signed USPA Canopy Piloting Proficiency Card will be required. A USPA Safety & Training Advisor must verify that the applicant has completed the training and must sign the proficiency card before it is submitted to USPA Headquarters for processing. The training material and guidelines, including the recommended qualifications for those who can teach the course materials, appear in Skydiver’s Information Manual Sections 6-10 and 6-11. The proficiency card is available in the SIM and as a download on the USPA website.

I think it's a good plan, just gotta see how it gets implemented. Also, who's authorized to be a 'verifying official'? The card says it has to be a S&TA who must verify the training and only they can endorse the card... but the DZ is responsible for verifying the S&TA and verifying officials' qualifications.

Actually the Regional Director appoints S&TA's, they "verify" the S&TA's credentials.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Para5-0 0]

Hello TOS,

Just to give you some insight about the card and maybe clear up why we decided to give the S&TA oversight on the proficiency card. This was debated at length by the S&T committee.

There were some concerns raised when discussing who can teach the canopy portions of the course to include going over section 6-10 and 6-11. It was brought up that there were some excellent and very qualified people teaching canopy skills at certain dropzones who were not coaches or instructors., do we really want to exclude them. (Another topic and I wont side track). This was a bit of a stumbling block to overcome to get the card up and running. We decided that if we empower the S&TA to select who he/she felt was the most qualified person to teach the course, they could allow a non coach or instructor to teach it, if that was their particular situation. The S&TA's are a direct link with USPA and if we need to get information out quickly to make additions or deletions to the canopy syllabus it would be easier and give us a chain of command so to speak also.

The long term goal was to have a syllabus that all canopy courses and teachers could start to combine there course with. At the end of the day the student should have the entire card completed at the end of any quality canopy course. Again keeping in mind this is our atempt at continueing education in the canopy area.

It used to be that we had to go to students and beg them to take a canopy course, and quite frankly the ones that really needed it didnt. In my experience the ones that volunterred to take a canopy course were generally the safety conscious skydivers. Now, by implementing the card all students must come to us. and by us I mean anyone wanting to educate newer jumpers in the canopy area.

It is very important to understand this is just a starting point and it might take some tweaking as we move forward. There are so many teams out there teaching canopy that it will take some time to get everything pertinent into the syllabus. So input is encouraged, especially those who have been teaching a course for some time.

I hope that shed a bit of light but feel free to ask me any specific questions. I promise to bring all concerns forward for discussion. I already have had some great input from the top canopy coches out there. My thought is not to recreate the wheel but use everyones experience and knowledge to improve upon it.

Thanks,
Rich Winstock
National Director

[sxc 0]

Can people who are already licensed fill this canopy proficiency card and get a "canopy endorsement", so to speak?

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Can people who are already licensed fill this canopy proficiency card and get a "canopy endorsement", so to speak?

I don't believe there is a 'canopy endorsement', however I'm positive if you want to get it filled out, the USPA is behind you 100%. You just don't have to send it in for your license (or at all for that matter).

"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

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

Can people who are already licensed fill this canopy proficiency card and get a "canopy endorsement", so to speak?

1. No you can't get a "canopy endorsement". The level of performance requred by this canopy proficiency card is elementary. It doesn't warrant an acknowledgement.

2. The canopy proficiency card is not new. It has been around for at least 5 years. USPA has revised it for this new requirement to make it simpler and easier to administer.

3. If you want to work on your canopy skills and already have your B-license... I suggest that you take a look at the PREVIOUS canopy proficiency card, which has more requirements. I have attached the previous card. Of course, using this card with a canopy control coach is the smart way to approach improving your skills.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[nigel99 143]

Thanks for the details.

Is this going to be phased in for C&D licenses as well?

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Thanks for the details.

Is this going to be phased in for C&D licenses as well?

I wondered that, too. Otherwise, conceivably, a person could evade this requirement simply by skipping the B license and just moving on to the C or D once he's otherwise eligible. (Right?)

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for the details.

Is this going to be phased in for C&D licenses as well?

I wondered that, too. Otherwise, conceivably, a person could evade this requirement simply by skipping the B license and just moving on to the C or D once he's otherwise eligible. (Right?)

No. In order to get a higher license one also has to meet all the requirements for the lower licenses. I "skipped" B but documented all the requirements when I applied for my C (thus I only had to pay for the C, though I earned both).

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for the details.

Is this going to be phased in for C&D licenses as well?

I wondered that, too. Otherwise, conceivably, a person could evade this requirement simply by skipping the B license and just moving on to the C or D once he's otherwise eligible. (Right?)

http://www.uspa.org/SIM/Read/Section3/tabid/165/Default.aspx

[Quote]C License

3. Persons holding a USPA C license are able to exercise all privileges of a B-license holder, are eligible for the USPA Instructor rating (except USPA Tandem Instructor), participate in certain demonstration jumps, may ride as passenger on USPA Tandem Instructor training and rating renewal jumps, and must have--

a. met all current requirements for or hold a USPA B license


You have to meet all the requirements for the licenses you are skipping.

Edit: Too slow, NWFlyer beat me to it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Thanks for the details.

Is this going to be phased in for C&D licenses as well?

I don't know either.

I would strongly agree with having similar, more advanced canopy requirements for each and every higher license.

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

[voilsb 1]

Quote

I would strongly agree with having similar, more advanced canopy requirements for each and every higher license.

I would even support requiring the B, and theoretical C and D canopy cards to be filled out by existing licensed jumpers in order to renew their license.

For example, you have a D license and your membership expires in 1/2012. If you've only sent in the B card by Jan 31st, your new USPA card now lists your old B number. When you send in your C or D card you get a new USPA card with your old C or D number on it.

And life members get to slip through the cracks, or have it required to renew ratings.

Brian

[craigbey 0]

Quote

I would strongly agree with having similar, more advanced canopy requirements for each and every higher license.

+1 ... with caveat

There will always be a need for ongoing canopy control and canopy safety training. But if I don't pursue the advanced licenses, I may not fall under the radar for the training.

And if I do get the license, I don't want to jump for 20 more years and miss out on CC 'training opportunities' (thanks BV) because it's no longer a requirement due to my advanced license.

From Jim Crouch's wish list for the upcoming year on page 70 of the December issue of Parachutist:

Quote

I also want ... all jumpers, especially ratings holders, to attend a canopy course led by a professional canopy trainer using a structured program.

Adding more advanced CC requirements to the higher licenses is a great idea, but it needs to be implemented together with some other tool that encourages -- or requires -- ongoing CC training for all.

Here is where I anticipate someone -- not you pops -- to jump in about their xx years in the sport and how they "don't need more CC training". Or someone else to say "I don't swoop, so why do I need advanced CC training?"

Part of the problem ... attitude.

I'd be more than happy to print off a copy of the 'B' license proficiency card and start the new year off with a formal review of those basic skills. I didn't have to do them when I got my 'B' license, but I would be happy to demonstrate those skills now. Or when it gets a little warmer ... sheeesh.

I would be interested to see a discussion about what additional CC skills could be incorporated into 'C' and 'D' license proficiency cards. Perhaps some of the other instructors and CC coaches could throw out some suggestions.

I haven't done much contact CRW, but I suspect that might creep into such advanced requirements and I'd be happy to participate.

[craigbey 0]

Quote

I would even support requiring the B, and theoretical C and D canopy cards to be filled out by existing licensed jumpers in order to renew their license.

Looking for 'Like' button...

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

I would even support requiring the B, and theoretical C and D canopy cards to be filled out by existing licensed jumpers in order to renew their license.

That's an interesting idea, but that does go against the general principle that has been in operation that you earn the license based on the standards that are in place at the time you earned the license. Back (just before my time) when the D license requirement was bumped up to 500 jumps there were a lot of folks scrambling to get it under the old standard (that's why from time to time you'll see someone with a D license but <500 jumps).

There are other skills /proficiencies that have been added to or removed from the license requirements throughout the years; one could argue that anyone who has a license that hasn't been earned based on the current standard would have to re-earn it. I'm not sure I agree with that premise (not to mention it could get really complicated really quickly to try to figure out what was the standard when you earned it).

All that said, what you're proposing sounds like a license renewal requirement rather than a "get your license up to the current standard" requirement. Currently, skydiving licenses are renewed even more easily than driver's licenses. In most states you only have to pass a vision test to get a driver's license renewed, though many would argue that periodic driving tests would help to weed out folks whose mental/physical capacities have diminished such that they shouldn't drive anymore.

Of course, right now, the only requirement to renew your USPA license is the ability to pay the membership dues for another year. But we have renewal requirements for instructional ratings; we could put the same thing in place for license renewals, though it'd be an interesting exercise to think through what types of skills we'd want to put into a license renewal.

Then there's the flip side argument that says "If I've jumped enough to earn the top license in the sport, I can damn well make my own decisions about how much I jump or what kinds of skills I work on without USPA telling me I need to do X every year to keep my license."

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I would even support requiring the B, and theoretical C and D canopy cards to be filled out by existing licensed jumpers in order to renew their license..

I would not. I got my B license a little over a year ago. This past spring I took a canopy control course. As part of that (and I assume most basic canopy control courses are this way, though I don't know) we completed all the drills on the canopy proficiency card. Because it was not a license requirement at the time, the only proof I have of completing those skills is my logbook. Perhaps my S&TA would sign off on the proficiency card on that basis, maybe he wouldn't. At least I haven't moved of changed home DZs though. Just one of many possible complications.

I do support continued canopy instruction for all license holders, I just don't see this sort of retroactive requirement as being practically problematic.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[mchamp 1]

Quote

.....
It used to be that we had to go to students and beg them to take a canopy course, and quite frankly the ones that really needed it didnt. In my experience the ones that volunterred to take a canopy course were generally the safety conscious skydivers. Now, by implementing the card all students must come to us. and by us I mean anyone wanting to educate newer jumpers in the canopy area.

....
Thanks,
Rich Winstock
National Director

I've only been in the sport for 2 years and have taken 3 canopy courses. As for a newer jumper I can not imagine why someone would decline to participate within a canopy course other than not being available/having other commitments during that allotted time.

It's like when you purchase a car, wouldn't you WANT to take a car control clinic course/class to help you further improve/enhance your driving skills and understand the limitations to what your vehicle can do in the snow, rain or shine & how it reacts?

For info regarding lift ticket prices all around the world check out
http://www.jumpticketprices.com/dropzones.asp

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

I've only been in the sport for 2 years and have taken 3 canopy courses. As for a newer jumper I can not imagine why someone would decline to participate within a canopy course other than not being available/having other commitments during that allotted time.

Mad skillz, that's why.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[virgin-burner 1]

great, now a USPA license starts becoming a license, and not a treat you pull from a dispenser.

there's a reason why a citizen of this country coming back with even a B-license is still considered a student here.

to get a license here, all of the above is included, and then some.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I would not. I got my B license a little over a year ago. This past spring I took a canopy control course. As part of that (and I assume most basic canopy control courses are this way, though I don't know) we completed all the drills on the canopy proficiency card. Because it was not a license requirement at the time, the only proof I have of completing those skills is my logbook. Perhaps my S&TA would sign off on the proficiency card on that basis, maybe he wouldn't. At least I haven't moved of changed home DZs though. Just one of many possible complications.

In the big scheme of things, I don't see it as a big problem. Is there some reluctance to repeating those drills for an S&TA sign-off?

IMO, it's no different than current A-license Proficiency Card requirements in that doing it once doesn't really make anyone proficient in anything.

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

[Para5-0 0]

A prficiency card for C and D license was discussed and I am obviously in favor of it. It would be a nice goal but we would need to get input from membership, BOD, curent Canopy instructors,.... Implementing something new unfortunately has to be done systematically to avoid missing something obvious or causing more trouble than it is worth.

I think it is a great idea for a long term goal. I want to see how the B card is received and if we can correlate statistics showing it has done something positive.

I think it would be great if we had a canopy card for C and D licenses. It would definately keep with the continueing education in this area, mission.

So many questions come to mind with advanced requirements and I am sure that there will be as many devils advocates out there against it. I will start to toss it around to see thoughts but remember the new B Card just came out. We might want to give it some time to evaluate.
Rich

[voilsb 1]

I agree. I've taken 3 or 4 formal canopy classes, and I've written my own canopy currency syllabus based on those classes. Even still, I would be fine demonstrating proficiency on a couple of cards, one time, to update my licenses to the current requirements. A good thing to do on those days the cloud ceiling is at 3 grand and the plane isn't really flying.

Brian

[craigbey 0]

Quote

A prficiency card for C and D license was discussed and I am obviously in favor of it. It would be a nice goal but we would need to get input from membership, BOD, curent Canopy instructors,.... Implementing something new unfortunately has to be done systematically to avoid missing something obvious or causing more trouble than it is worth.

I think it is a great idea for a long term goal. I want to see how the B card is received and if we can correlate statistics showing it has done something positive.

I think it would be great if we had a canopy card for C and D licenses. It would definately keep with the continueing education in this area, mission.

So many questions come to mind with advanced requirements and I am sure that there will be as many devils advocates out there against it. I will start to toss it around to see thoughts but remember the new B Card just came out. We might want to give it some time to evaluate.
Rich

Good on the USPA for implementing the B-license CC proficiency card. That is certainly a step in the right direction.

Requiring additional CC skills throughout the licensing progression just seems like common sense. Obtaining higher licenses from the United States Parachute Association should require demonstration of higher levels of CC skill.

And just in case someone goes there ... yes, the PRO rating is a different issue.

[btvr 0]

Just another "administrative" control that won't make a difference. Like a DMV road test. Everyone takes it but yet people still die in auto accidents? Why? Gee I don't know. That piece of laminated paper called my license says I know how to drive..

Now I think training is great and even doing those for the "B" license no big deal. Why not do it for the "A" license?
So in other words..
"Go ahead and not know these things and if you survive until you get 50 jumps, We'll see if you are capable to progress"..

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

Why not do it for the "A" license?

There is already a canopy section on the A-license Proficiency Card:

Canopy skills
1. Plan and fly a landing approach pattern that
promotes smooth traffic flow and avoids obstacles.
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________

2. Demonstrate a stand-up landing.
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________

3. Perform a braked approach and landing.
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________

4. Land within 20 meters of a preselected target
on at least five jumps.
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________

5. Perform rear-riser turns (brakes set and released).
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________

6. Above 2,500 feet, perform a maximum-performance
90-degree toggle turn, followed immediately
by a turn of at least 180 degrees in the opposite
direction (two times).
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________

7. Above 1,000 feet, perform front riser dives and
turns (may be waived if insufficient strength).
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________

8. Accurately predict the presence and effects of
turbulence in the landing area.
Jump #_______ I_______ Lic. #______________