DSE 3
Recommended Posts
All that having been said, I submit it's a valid debate that the USPA is negligent in not offering an "advanced coach" or similar rating for swooping/canopy control,
The one facet that represents one third of all fatalities. And wingsuit fatalities represent what percentage? Is it even 3%?
The111 0
Quote
The one facet that represents one third of all fatalities. And wingsuit fatalities represent what percentage? Is it even 3%?
Well, you need you look at per capita stats and not total percentages. In which case I'd guess swooping would still "win," but not by nearly as large of a margin.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com
kallend 1,619
QuoteQuoteback to the question at hand;
do we need a uspa wingsuit instructor rating? it's a fair question, and one that deserves debate. I vote hell no. such a thing will only increase cost, and restrict access. will a wingsuit license, with another tax, be required next?
imo, the proper regulating authority for such things is the dzo / s&ta.
I will be glad to respond in greater length and details to my view on this subject, but first a quick question~
So a guy has his private pilots liscense and has about 40 hours, which is alot more time than a liscensed skydiver, and also much more complex than simply jumping out a plane with a parachute on. Now would it be ok to take that same private pilot, and tell him, hey, i know you want to fly jumpers, so why dont you come out to the Huey with me, and ill give you an hour breifing and set u loose to take the next load up?
This relationship is akin to the newer skydivers inability to comprehend all the forces involved, and profeciancy required in order to safely execute the plan... I know I wouldnt get on that huey~
Just a thought... be back later
I don't think it would make much difference to ability to fly a Huey if the guy had a PPL and 40 hours or an ATP with 5,000 hours, all on airplanes.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,619
I see this as a solution for an almost non-existent problem.
There isn't an epidemic of WS accidents due to poor instruction.
Sounds like something the TSA would propose.
There isn't an epidemic of WS accidents due to poor instruction.
Sounds like something the TSA would propose.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Just seems to me that the wingsuit community looking to the USPA for regulation is tantamount to the skydiving community looking to the FAA for regulation. Do you really want to go there? Are things really that bad?
Personally, I’m happy with the way things are. I’ve never been one to subscribe to the notion that somebody else, or governing entity, is more committed to my best interests than myself. The guidance is, and resources are, widely and readily available to make wise choices without more rules and regulations.
What might help and be worthy of an experiment is a rating system like they do for washer/dryers and college professors. If you claim to be a wingsuit instructor or coach, put your name on the board and let the ratings and comments come.
Ya, there are all sort of pitfalls in the implementation (preventing the posting of multiple glowing reports/high ratings for one’s self, etc.), but, with a bit of thought it could work. And, if it isn’t working, I’m fairly sure folks that listed their name will remove it, and so the whole thing will just go away.
If regulation really up for serious consideration, just wondering what can of worms we might be opening. Once you go down that road – there is no turning back.
Personally, I’m happy with the way things are. I’ve never been one to subscribe to the notion that somebody else, or governing entity, is more committed to my best interests than myself. The guidance is, and resources are, widely and readily available to make wise choices without more rules and regulations.
What might help and be worthy of an experiment is a rating system like they do for washer/dryers and college professors. If you claim to be a wingsuit instructor or coach, put your name on the board and let the ratings and comments come.
Ya, there are all sort of pitfalls in the implementation (preventing the posting of multiple glowing reports/high ratings for one’s self, etc.), but, with a bit of thought it could work. And, if it isn’t working, I’m fairly sure folks that listed their name will remove it, and so the whole thing will just go away.
If regulation really up for serious consideration, just wondering what can of worms we might be opening. Once you go down that road – there is no turning back.
Jumper with 200 jumps shows up at a new DZ with a 96 Velo.
DZO laughs and says not here.
Jumper with 150 Jumps shows up with a WS.
DZO laughs and says not here.
Another perspective....
Jumper shows up at a new dropzone with a WS. How are other jumpers supposed to know if he has done it before or how much?
With any instructor comes a training progression. How many flights before you set a new bird loose. You train a new bird out of a Skyvan, and he goes back home and promptly hits the rear stabilizer of a PAC.
Every dropzone has at least one instructor on staff, S/L. AFF, TI whatever. How many DZ's have a WS Instructor? A new bird goes home and is the only one at his DZ. Goes out and tries backflying. Promptly flies across jump run. Are you going to require people from smaller dropzones to travel across the country for a FFC? What then they go home and in most cases have no one to talk to about about continuing their learning?
A wingsuit instructor rating means little without a corresponding license or certificate. So is that the next step a WS "endorsement" on your USPA card?
In response to your post, camera does not require unique equipment that alters flight? Camera wings? Pulling your PC through your wing? What about snag hazards? What about getting fixated on getting the shot. Freeflying, someone with a Vector 2 goes with another jumper with a Flexon. They do a linked exit, the Vector 2 has a premature opening and entangles with the other jumper. Also, I am sorry but I do not see the relationship between a tandem and a wingsuit jump. Your main handle is in the same place as every other jump. Your emergency procedures are the exact same. On tandems, your handles are in different places. Your emergency procedures are much more complex, and you have someone attached to you that has no idea what is going on and has a mind of their own. Oh yeah they are trying to kill you, even if they don't know it.
But... what do I know, I only have 160 wingsuit jumps, and a fresh tandem rating, ~50 tandems. Feel free to discount anything I have to say.
DZO laughs and says not here.
Jumper with 150 Jumps shows up with a WS.
DZO laughs and says not here.
Another perspective....
Jumper shows up at a new dropzone with a WS. How are other jumpers supposed to know if he has done it before or how much?
With any instructor comes a training progression. How many flights before you set a new bird loose. You train a new bird out of a Skyvan, and he goes back home and promptly hits the rear stabilizer of a PAC.
Every dropzone has at least one instructor on staff, S/L. AFF, TI whatever. How many DZ's have a WS Instructor? A new bird goes home and is the only one at his DZ. Goes out and tries backflying. Promptly flies across jump run. Are you going to require people from smaller dropzones to travel across the country for a FFC? What then they go home and in most cases have no one to talk to about about continuing their learning?
A wingsuit instructor rating means little without a corresponding license or certificate. So is that the next step a WS "endorsement" on your USPA card?
In response to your post, camera does not require unique equipment that alters flight? Camera wings? Pulling your PC through your wing? What about snag hazards? What about getting fixated on getting the shot. Freeflying, someone with a Vector 2 goes with another jumper with a Flexon. They do a linked exit, the Vector 2 has a premature opening and entangles with the other jumper. Also, I am sorry but I do not see the relationship between a tandem and a wingsuit jump. Your main handle is in the same place as every other jump. Your emergency procedures are the exact same. On tandems, your handles are in different places. Your emergency procedures are much more complex, and you have someone attached to you that has no idea what is going on and has a mind of their own. Oh yeah they are trying to kill you, even if they don't know it.
But... what do I know, I only have 160 wingsuit jumps, and a fresh tandem rating, ~50 tandems. Feel free to discount anything I have to say.
Sky Canyon Wingsuiters
pms07 3
I think the basic question is; what is it you would like the USPA to accomplish, if anything, in regard to wingsuits? Once we understand that goal, then a plan for how to get there may become more apparent. Vague notions like "make wingsuiting more safe" probably need refinement. What specific problems would the USPA be addressing? Would it be jumping without donning your legstraps? Or is that too many inexperienced (or experienced) jumpers are getting in trouble with wingsuits because of inadequate training? Are the current instructors (pick the title you like; experienced wingsuit flyer, coach, advanced coach, or whatever...) not up to the task? Or is that too many start wingsuiting without an instructor and get hurt or dead? Or is that there is insufficient knowledge readily available on how to fly a wingsuit? Or is that the standards (assuming there any...) are too lax, ill defined or not enforced. Once you define more specific the objectives, then I think you can make decisions about how to get there. And I think at the end of the day, arguing about a rating and whether it's a wingsuit instructor, or coach, or whatever, is really just semantics. Maybe not worth arguing about...
Personally, I've worked in the USPA instructoral system for about 30 years and am a USPA supporter generally. I'm not enthusiastic about USPA implementing a wingsuit "instructor" rating at this point however, at least not with the information I have. Does anyone have the proposals being considered and can send to those interested?
Personally, I've worked in the USPA instructoral system for about 30 years and am a USPA supporter generally. I'm not enthusiastic about USPA implementing a wingsuit "instructor" rating at this point however, at least not with the information I have. Does anyone have the proposals being considered and can send to those interested?
DSE 3
Quote
A wingsuit instructor rating means little without a corresponding license or certificate. So is that the next step a WS "endorsement" on your USPA card?
In Australia, a "cloud stamp/endorsement" is required to be in your log book before you're allowed to jump through clouds. I don't see the USPA requiring a wingsuit stamp/endorsement as being any different, thus demonstrating to a DZO or manifest that the bearer has been through a USPA wingsuit instruction course.
fasted3 0
This sounds like a significant change from the current recommendation that someone with 500 jumps can fly without formal instruction. Do you feel that this is a needed change, as most of the justification for this is from low timers rather than experienced jumpers?
Granted, someone with 10,000 jumps will not know every aspect of wingsuits, however, they could quite easily learn by other methods than taking a rated course IMO.
Granted, someone with 10,000 jumps will not know every aspect of wingsuits, however, they could quite easily learn by other methods than taking a rated course IMO.
But what do I know?
DSE 3
I don't think jump numbers have all that much to do with it, frankly.
There are some absolute shit instructors out there, and some absolute gold ones out there. Unsuspecting kid that wants to jump a wingsuit and has 50-100 jumps doesn't know the difference.
That's merely one point in favor of a rating system.
Obviously, it's been felt for over a decade that quality wingsuit training is necessary. Jari/Chuck and others started it, Phoenix Fly continued it. Both programs have become so saturated with "first cousins" that it makes the genepools in Alabama look downright brilliant. Both are somewhat of a joke, IMO.
The myriad reasons for a non-manufacturer-operated wingsuit training program is obvious, IMO. That doesn't mean that the number of totally awesome wingsuiters will increase, but I'll wager hard that the "no shit, there I was" stories will decrease, and the quality and advancement of wingsuiting will exponentially increase.
There are some absolute shit instructors out there, and some absolute gold ones out there. Unsuspecting kid that wants to jump a wingsuit and has 50-100 jumps doesn't know the difference.
That's merely one point in favor of a rating system.
Obviously, it's been felt for over a decade that quality wingsuit training is necessary. Jari/Chuck and others started it, Phoenix Fly continued it. Both programs have become so saturated with "first cousins" that it makes the genepools in Alabama look downright brilliant. Both are somewhat of a joke, IMO.
The myriad reasons for a non-manufacturer-operated wingsuit training program is obvious, IMO. That doesn't mean that the number of totally awesome wingsuiters will increase, but I'll wager hard that the "no shit, there I was" stories will decrease, and the quality and advancement of wingsuiting will exponentially increase.
Zoter 0
Quoteheard through the grapevine that the BPA Board accepted changes to their regulation of wingsuiting: a new training manual and a "sticker" system for categorizing new wingsuit flyers. If Mark Harris reads this, maybe he can comment on it further - I'd be curious what the accepted proposal was...
The new 'rules' for us ...are here.
http://www.bpa.org.uk/doc_uploads/bpa%20wing%20suit%20training%20manual.pdf
Firstly....its important to note, in our organisation (The BPA) that most skydiving disciplines have a 'sticker' based system showing your basic competency in that discipline
There is usually a 'basic' and 'advanced' grading for each discipline.
'Basic' and 'Advanced' ...Those terms are relative of course, but basically the competencies required for getting each grade are put up by our organisation ( BPA) and if you are assessed to have completed them....you are awarded the relevant 'sticker' to put in your FAI licence book.
It also makes things a little safer as you are not allowed to do certain things without having the relevant qualification /'sticker'
(example.....a bunch of new jumpers with no freefly experience would not be allowed to do a head down multiway !)
Having the 'sticker' is just a quick, easy way (along with a log book) of a DZ or an Instructor knowing where you are 'at' ....important if they don't know you, and alot safer than just letting you do whatever you want, irrespective of your actual ability.
In the BPA environment , it was inevitable that we would be 'grading' wingsuit flying and slotting it into our 'sticker' based competency system.
I think Mark Harris et al have done a great job at taking a stab at drawing together best practice in WS flying to put it into a structured format for this type of grading system.
Its not perfect..and its not radically different from what is already best practice....but its a good start.
It seems to have the support of our more experienced wingsuit flyers and Instructors.
Most of the noise against it seems to be coming from beginners who may find its not quite as easy to just do what they want to do, after WS flight #1 ....and maybe a few individuals sulking because they were not automatically listed as an authorised BPA Wingsuit Instructor
Its true there are few, true serious WS 'incidents' ( well reported ones anyhow)....but waiting until there are, before doing anything about it.....is bad practice in my opinion.
As the number of people getting into the discipline increases , having a decent , nationally adopted system in place that looks at all aspects of safety in wing suiting can only be a good thing.
I personally think a standalone BPA /USPA etc implemented set of guidelines is preferential to the manufacturer based system....where ( how can I put this tactfully) the geographical location of the instructor may sometimes be of more importance than experience/ability, in terms of getting an 'Instructor' rating ;)
mccordia 73
Its a nice bit of text, but in the end the UK 'rules' are nothing more than recommendations as well, and dont prohibit non-BPA coaches or flyers (with a factory coaching/instruction badge) to teach students.
Next to that, the jumps proposed (to me) dont really ad a whole lot, and Id have a sincere feeling of ripping someone off by having them do the same FFC jump 3 times to get a sticker for their logbook. You could do so much more in 3 coached jumps than just watching someone do dummy-pulls.
This BPA document could have been much more IMO, had more people been involved in writing it and giving input. But seeing its accepted, it might be a nice startingpoint for future versions.
QuoteIt is recommended that only a BPA Wing Suit (WS) Coach or a wing suit coach, acceptable
to the Club CCI, from a reputable wingsuit manufacturer/organisation teaches a wing suit
first flight course.
Next to that, the jumps proposed (to me) dont really ad a whole lot, and Id have a sincere feeling of ripping someone off by having them do the same FFC jump 3 times to get a sticker for their logbook. You could do so much more in 3 coached jumps than just watching someone do dummy-pulls.
This BPA document could have been much more IMO, had more people been involved in writing it and giving input. But seeing its accepted, it might be a nice startingpoint for future versions.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
DSE 3
QuoteIt is recommended that only a BPA Wing Suit (WS) Coach or a wing suit coach, acceptable
to the Club CCI, from a reputable wingsuit manufacturer/organisation teaches a wing suit
first flight course.
This is not terribly intelligent, as it allows the exact "grandfathering" Glen mentioned up-thread. If you have a BMI or PFI, you're automatically a BPA instructor.
QuoteIts true there are few, true serious WS 'incidents' ( well reported ones anyhow)....but waiting until there are, before doing anything about it.....is bad practice in my opinion.
As the number of people getting into the discipline increases , having a decent , nationally adopted system in place that looks at all aspects of safety in wing suiting can only be a good thing.
I personally think a standalone BPA /USPA etc implemented set of guidelines is preferential to the manufacturer based system....
Couldn't agree with this more. Get the manufacturers the hell out of the training aspect of wingsuit flying. They did a great job of identifying the necessity for training, and a very good job of identifying the parameters of a training program. However, they also incentivize trainers to sell suits, and therein is where the first part of the problem begins. I agree, Mark made some significant strides towards improving the credibility of wingsuit instruction in the UK. It's my understanding that the APF (Australians) are looking at a similar system.
Does anyone know what the acceptable percentage of incidents/fatalities is for the USPA?
notsane 0
I have to agree with Mike here ... and also take issue with the idea that USPA should implement a BPA-style handholding system. I'd certainly like to think that we're somewhat more self-reliant here in the US.
Regulations should address systemic problems. If wingsuit instructors were regulated by USPA and 200 jumps was a mandated minimum number of jumps for a FFC, I don't think the accident the editorial mentions would have been prevented. The way I understand that incident, the jumper misrepresented their jump numbers to the instructor, and a rigging mistake by the jumper went undetected. I don't see how a regulation would have prevented that one accident.
As an instructor myself, I am quite comfortable with the current system, with one exception: if the manufacturer guidelines recommend 200 jumps minimum for a FFC, why would someone, like Fasted3's instructor, instruct him with fewer than that number of jumps? Did they have a bent for self-destruction? Putting aside the fact that the guideline is just plain a good idea, what will you, as an instructor do if things go bad? You want to be able to stand in front of the judge and say that you followed all the rules, and that what happened was outside your responsability.
If a wingsuit instructor is doing FFC's with folks who have less than 200 jumps, their instructor status from the manufacturer should be forfeited, IMO.
Scott
Regulations should address systemic problems. If wingsuit instructors were regulated by USPA and 200 jumps was a mandated minimum number of jumps for a FFC, I don't think the accident the editorial mentions would have been prevented. The way I understand that incident, the jumper misrepresented their jump numbers to the instructor, and a rigging mistake by the jumper went undetected. I don't see how a regulation would have prevented that one accident.
As an instructor myself, I am quite comfortable with the current system, with one exception: if the manufacturer guidelines recommend 200 jumps minimum for a FFC, why would someone, like Fasted3's instructor, instruct him with fewer than that number of jumps? Did they have a bent for self-destruction? Putting aside the fact that the guideline is just plain a good idea, what will you, as an instructor do if things go bad? You want to be able to stand in front of the judge and say that you followed all the rules, and that what happened was outside your responsability.
If a wingsuit instructor is doing FFC's with folks who have less than 200 jumps, their instructor status from the manufacturer should be forfeited, IMO.
Scott
mccordia 73
Though I think many would love seeing the current 'do as you wish/there are rules and recommendations, but you dont HAVE to follow them if you dont want to' thing just stay as is, wingsuit flying is definitely in need some some stricter policy as to who teaches what.
And the current system(s) have a right intentions, but with some of the key people in/from some of the current big-name teaching programs doing the opposite of what they are trying to get everyone else to do (teaching people with less than the recomended experience etc) I think its becoming more and more clear its really an ugly and rotten girl underneath all that pretty makeup on the outside.
Though this letter in the Parachutist may not be the thing everyone wants to read, I think its a strong signal...and luckely one where several people are already working on a good and thourough solution behind the screen. One I applaud and really like as to what Ive read and seen so far...
No more handouts...no more 'pay 300 euros to listen to me talk for a day' and be an instructor. Regardless of skill or teaching ability.
Even if thats only 1% of the 'instructors' currently out there. Thats 1% too much.
Wiping the slate clean, learning from past experiences and starting over sometimes is the best thing to do.
Viva la revolution..
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
fasted3 0
I think the key word is recommendation vs regulation. Have you ever had someone give you advice that you chose not to follow?
Do you know what the manufacturer requirements were for my suit at the time and place of my FFC? Again, if it were breaking a rule I would not have done it, and I'm sure my instructor would not have let me anyway.
If 200 jumps should be a minimum then make it a regulation.
I am also interested in how many agree with DSE that a FFC by a USPA rated instructor should be a mandatory requirement for 500+ jumpers.
I'd recommend it but not require it.
Do you know what the manufacturer requirements were for my suit at the time and place of my FFC? Again, if it were breaking a rule I would not have done it, and I'm sure my instructor would not have let me anyway.
If 200 jumps should be a minimum then make it a regulation.
I am also interested in how many agree with DSE that a FFC by a USPA rated instructor should be a mandatory requirement for 500+ jumpers.
I'd recommend it but not require it.
But what do I know?
Skwrl 56
QuoteIf a wingsuit instructor is doing FFC's with folks who have less than 200 jumps, their instructor status from the manufacturer should be forfeited, IMO.
I'm not going to argue with the sentiment behind Scott's idea, but I want to point out an unintended consequence of it.
Suppose I'm a manufacturer-licensed WSI, doesn't matter which one (a BirdFly instructor!) Some guy comes to me with 102 jumps and wants a first flight course. I'm going to say "come back when you have more experience", because I don't want to lose my BirdFly instructor ticket.
What is the aspiring wingsuiter going to do? If all of the manfacturers hold to the 200, he's going to read the part of SIM 6-9 where it says "recommendation". Then he's going to read about the stuff he thinks he needs to know on dz.com and in user manuals and self-teach.
I'm guessing that most of you instructors think doing the self taught thing is not a great idea. Maybe I'm wrong on that, I dunno.
Before anyone mis-reads my intent, I'm not disagreeing with Scott at all - they should have their tickets yanked by the manufacturer if hey are breaking the manufacturer's rules. I'm just pointing out an side effect of the "recommendation" language.
The whole "recommendation"/"requirement" thing is really an entirely different conversation, though - I'm not trying to de-rail the thread.
Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography
Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork
mccordia 73
QuoteI think the key word is recommendation vs regulation. Have you ever had someone give you advice that you chose not to follow?
The biggest issue is that people who really NEED rules, often come in here, asking if they are okay bypassing the RECOMMENDATIONS....
They dont really want advice..they want justification and confirmation on it being okay for them to bypass the very thing everyone is telling them they should do.
Having some solid rules, and also some firm parameters in which instructors work and follow those rules in what they teach..
It will be a step forward..
If I choose to teach someone straight from AFF, fuck up his FFC by doing the teaching over the internet and only being on the plane with him, going low directly on exit and signing his logbook without even seeing him jump, nobody is gonna come in an take my BMI patch away (the course I took in terms of getting into instruction).
If you do this on a Tandem of AFF, you'll be done teaching real soon, and have your instructors licence pulled.
But in wingsuit flying, there is always new peeps who dont know who is teaching what and how. So even the worst 'instructors' will always have an audience. And nobody will slap them on the fingers. They might see their load organising scedule grow a bit empty. But there will always be new first-timers for them to prey on..
Wiping the slate clean, and having people prove their skills (in both teaching and flying) and having one unified way of teaching. It will be a big step forward.
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
Wiping the slate clean, and having people prove their skills (in both teaching and flying) and having one unified way of teaching. It will be a big step forward.
I CANNOT agree more. That is how it should be, and how we proposed it.
Justin
Wingsuit organizing, first flight courses and coaching
Flock University
Tonysuits
Flock University
Tonysuits
fasted3 0
QuoteThe whole "recommendation"/"requirement" thing is really an entirely different conversation, though - I'm not trying to de-rail the thread.
But that is the real point of this thread. What difference does it make who is an instructor if the new bird does not have to use them? As long as things are only recommendations then anyone can do what they want anyway.
If they are going to regulate anything, it will start with defining who can participate, then what skills need to be instructed to whom, and by whom.
I see jump numbers as a key part of this discussion, and the desire to make regulations about that issue by some. Fair enough; the accidents have been by low timers and now there are eyes pointed this way. Stating instructor requirements or comparing different methods is fine, but defining who has to do what to get in the air and regulating it is what it's all about. What do we want, and what are we going to get? As I stated, I'm all for following rules, so whatever is regulated is fine by me.
I see this change as drawing a line at 200 jumps. After that everyone needs a FFC. The instructors will have to follow a syllibus, and also follow the rules, if they come about and however they are defined; not a bad thing.
Still and all, would I recommed that this become a regulation? I'd like to see the actual proposals and then decide. I've noticed that wing cutaways are recommended too, what if I don't have them?
Now that may be a hijack...
But what do I know?
None of the above disciplines require unique equipment that dramatically affects flight. None of them incur significant forward movement. They do not have unique deployment procedures, they do not require unique post-deployment procedures, they do not involve unique navigation skills, They don't have specific recommendations for equipment, and none of the above have a high potential for flatspins. None of them offer the opportunity for parts of the rig to be hidden or sucked inside the jumpsuit. A wingsuit skydive is more like a tandem skydive than any other discipline, IMO, simply because of the unique equipment and flight characteristics.
All that having been said, I submit it's a valid debate that the USPA is negligent in not offering an "advanced coach" or similar rating for swooping/canopy control, and perhaps for other high-risk disciplines.
I'd think that a wingsuit instructor rating would essentially be that; an "Advanced Coach" or "Coach II" rating.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites