Parachutist Editorial

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

This thread has generated a good deal of responses and views. I'll repeat what Scott Bland put out there already. If you can take the time to write a post here on DZ.com or read this thread, you can take the time to e-mail your Regional and National Director and voice your stance in a few sentences. I have and they have already responded and shared their thoughts on it with me.

I 100% agree with that statement...

http://www.uspa.org/AboutUSPA/USPABoardofDirectors/tabid/140/Default.aspx

At least 2 groups have submitted something per the request of a USPA Board Member with that request being very specific in terms of goals.. What the driving force was or support behind that from other USPA Board members or RD's I dont know for sure. I spoke to my RD this weekend as well as a AFF I/E who knows a little about it and now have a better understanding of the situation. If you cant talk to yours at least fire off a E-Mail using the link above if you don't have their contact info, BEFORE the meeting. This is a public forum and not the place where a/any decision will be made ultimately.

The document that was created within the group I was asked to participate in, I think met the goals asked. Is it perfect, I wish I could say it was but given it was generated by an experienced yes, but small group of people does not make it the be all end all. As I understood it,t once we were finished it was going to go into an open review period for comment which was part of why I agreed to work on it. All of that said, Does it carry a good amount of information that can be drawn from and used to formulate something different if that is what ultimately is decided, I hope the answer is a resounding yes.

I stated above I don't think the system is completely broken as it is but I do think it can be improved and this discussion having been generated by the editorial and then the public link to a proposal hopefully will lead to that.. If nothing else people should agree, after readig the thread here, that the minimum standards need to be adheared to given so many posters in this thread, even some of the ones railing against the idea of a WSI, have noted knowledge of wingsuit flights by under experienced jumpers and classes being taught by manufacturer Instructors, not just one manufacturer program but all of them..

IF you want or don't want to have some program, IF you want the recommended (and I would say accepted) standards to fly a wingsuit be bumped up to a BSR, IF you feel an expansion of the Wingsuit section in the Sim will help, of IF you want nothing --> take a minute and use the link above..

Scott Callantine
D-16437
USPA TM-I, S/L-I

Done.

I am not a wingsuiter, but I felt I could voice my opinion to my regional director as a member of the skydiving community. Wingsuits are typically none of my business, but because 1 wingsuiter can kill or harm anybody on the load with them, then I think that makes it my business. For example, take the fatality at Sebastian. What if Dan had fallen out of his harness and down through my canopy 500 or 1000 feet beneath his and killed me? Or another jumper? So, yes, I am concerned about whats going on here even though this is outside of my discipline of choice in skydiving.

Has anybody put out in plain language or a table the good vs. the bad if this proposal was actually put through? Even if it were to make it just a smidge safer out there do you think its worth it? I'll use the Sebastian incident again as an example. Say a system was set up with a USPA WS-I if he met all USPA reccomendations, same as if somebody has passed level 3 AFF in their log book would get assigned to an instructor for AFF 4. I would picture it much like AFF-I or T-I where the student, Dan, would have to go to manifest and check in with his log book and they would pair him up with the rated WS-I. Now we can get into a whole other argument about padding the log book and getting around the standards that would be set and more enforced through this program, but thats a whole other thread. Theoretically, maybe this would have saved him from himself (I'm sure he was a great guy, but it's stupid to try and pull what he pulled IMO) and helped an instructor not aide people in their stupidity.

Is this proposal going to make wingsuiting any LESS safe? Stay the same? Safer?

Just my .02, and maybe some of this is over my head, but like I said I feel it affects me when I am on a load with a wingsuiter. If the USPA can help better regulate wingsuiting so incidences maybe have less chance of occurring where a 100 jump wonder falls out of his harness and possibly plow through my canopy underneath him, then my opinion is for the USPA to do what they can as long as it makes it safer for everybody.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[bdrake529 0]

I don't get it. DSE is an advocate of a 200 jump minimum for wingsuits. The email you posted clearly says 200. What's your point?

Brian Drake

[174fps 1]

The CSPA technical recommendation is a C CoP
and just to remind you the USPA recommendation is not 200 jumps but
200 in the last 18 months.

If you are going to set yourself up as an advocate for safety
going to an other country and deciding their recommendations are not necessary is somewhat hypocritical

that is my point.

[bdrake529 0]

Quote

not 200 jumps but 200 in the last 18 months.

That is a valid point.

Quote

If you are going to set yourself up as an advocate for safety
going to an other country and deciding their recommendations are not necessary is somewhat hypocritical

I don't see that as "hypocritical" per se. If an instructor advocates 200 in 18 months, and a country recommends say 300 in 18 months (just making that up), it's not "hypocritical" for the instructor to go with the number he personally believes in. You may disagree with that, but it's not hypocritical. Hypocrisy is declaring one thing and doing another. To stick with 200 is consistent.

Brian Drake

[VectorBoy 0]

Asley,

I don't need a wingsuit to plow unresponsively through your canopy or deploy up from beneath you. Anybody on your load with wrong ideas about exit separation or poor tracking skills can do that.

In fact on an average flock you would be on the ground before the wingsuit group returns to the pattern area. Once more since we tend to fly docile mains there is less of a chance of us performing a poor attempt at a high performance turn into you while you were on approach. We are not angels but there are much higher threats to your safety on a dropzone.

You may like to do a little easy research. Most of the wingsuit instruction manuals are on PDF on the manufacturers websites along with other valuable educational materials thoughtfully prepared, it free. They may answer some questions you never knew you had or inspire you to try wingsuiting when your time is right if you have the desire.

[fasted3 0]

Quote

The CSPA technical recommendation is a C CoP
and just to remind you the USPA recommendation is not 200 jumps but
200 in the last 18 months.

If you are going to set yourself up as an advocate for safety
going to an other country and deciding their recommendations are not necessary is somewhat hypocritical

Going to another country without knowing the letters of their law is somewhat common. The C CoP requires 200 jumps, so not that big a deal anyway, and similar enough to ours that it's easy to overlook, IMO. Another issue is that pesky word recommendation. Nobody commented on another one I threw out there: Wing cutaways. They are recommended now, and who knows, may become a regulation. I don't have, need or want any. Right now it's a recommendation I am free to ignore; am I wrong to do so?

But what do I know?

[174fps 1]

Quote

Quote

The CSPA technical recommendation is a C CoP
and just to remind you the USPA recommendation is not 200 jumps but
200 in the last 18 months.

If you are going to set yourself up as an advocate for safety
going to an other country and deciding their recommendations are not necessary is somewhat hypocritical

Going to another country without knowing the letters of their law is somewhat common. The C CoP requires 200 jumps, so not that big a deal anyway, and similar enough to ours that it's easy to overlook, IMO. Another issue is that pesky word recommendation. Nobody commented on another one I threw out there: Wing cutaways. They are recommended now, and who knows, may become a regulation. I don't have, need or want any. Right now it's a recommendation I am free to ignore; am I wrong to do so?

Spot stated the C CoP recommendation in two posts ..he knew.

Thats all I'm going to say

Hope you heal up soon Spot, get back to flying

[DSE 3]

Quote

Spot stated the C CoP recommendation in two posts ..he knew.

Thats all I'm going to say

Hope you heal up soon Spot, get back to flying

I knew, after I'd already had a couple of email discussions with Lyal and a wingsuiter in the area.
I also met someone on the Saturday I was there who had 300 jumps over 3 years. I explained to her that I'd need to do a tracking jump with her to evaluate whether or not she could participate or not. I guess that makes me a bad person too.
I've taken up one person prior to 200 jumps, learned the hard way when he had a cutaway. I don't fuck with that rule/recommendation/requirement at all as a result. I usually learn in one. Let's hope I've learned to never drop a toggle again.

[Taz 0]

UPDATE: Thought I'd report in from the USPA Dallas Board meeting.

The Safety and Training Committee, after hearing a presentation and Q&A from me on Friday and from DSE yesterday (Subject: Wingsuit Safety & Training discussion + Instructor Rating Proposal), presented a motion to the full board.

The motion was to place the "best practices" first flight course syllabus put forward at this meeting onto the USPA website for public viewing and feedback prior to the next Board meeting in the winter. The GOAL is to include a collaboratively edited version of a First Flight Course syllabus in THE NEXT SIM (Skydiver's Information Manual) section 6-9, WINGSUIT RECOMMENDATIONS.

Since the current recommendations are under 2 pages long and were adopted in 2002, it's a good time for an update. It's also an open process where written feedback will be accepted from anyone who wants to make constructive and specific comments between now and January 2010. It also keeps everything in the realm of recommendations and education/information.

There was no motion for the creation of a new rating or changes to the USPA Instructional Rating Manual (IRM).

Those are the facts as they stand.

Thanks, -T

It's the Year of the Dragon.