matto765 0 #26 July 9, 2009 I think that the only problem we have in wingsuiting is that people are starting too early without the required experience. The 2 main enablers of this are: (1) Too many instructors (I'm using that term loosley) that are overly willing to take up people without the prerequisite experience, and (2) wingsuits are readily available and very easy for an inexperienced person to obtain. There really is no way to fix number 2, because even if manufacturers refused to sell wingsuits to sub 200 jump pilots, wingsuits can still be found here on DZ.com from people willing to sell to anyone. The remedy to number 1 is not very easy either. You will always be having someone willing taking up people who don't meet the requirements, wether they have some special WSI rating or not. Other than the USPA instituting some form of disciplinary action for offenders (which would be laughable at best), the only thing we can do as a discipline is to pretty much blacklist those instructors. I think that idea sounds stupid as well, but I can't think of anything else other than to tar and feather them, or burn their names in the grass in the landing area at Z-hills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #27 July 9, 2009 Quote Other than the USPA instituting some form of disciplinary action for offenders (which would be laughable at best), the only thing we can do as a discipline is to pretty much blacklist those instructors. . I believe the new administration at the USPA have demonstrated that "there is a new sheriff" in town. It's true that it could be a morass of work for an RD to perform (damn, they hate investigating incidents) but they *have* shown some balls that the previous admins haven't shown. Look at the minutes from the February BOD meeting; you'll see what I mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LetsGoOutside 0 #28 July 9, 2009 QuoteI think the first part means that you would require the USPA coach rating to teach FF, Crew, etc. thus the same for WS is consistant thinking. And you are right with your other points about quality, etc. I would not require a USPA coach rating for anyone except students not having an A license, so my thinking is consistant too. The program was developed for them, and traditionally a licensed skydiver has been able to choose anyone they want to help them learn new skills. I'm OK with that, and would encourage everyone to get the best coaching available, I just wouldn't require it.True. I guess my thinking is that there is a lot more for a 200 jump wonder to botch on a first wingsuit jump than other disciplines. The penalties for screwing up an exit, losing heading awareness, instability, skimping on gear check, etc can be much more severe on wingsuit jump than in other disciplines. Of all the disciplines out there, wingsuit flying is the most different from a standard skydive. The first flight candidate has new exits (which can result in an aircraft strike if not performed properly), a flight plan (totally new concept), new "wave off" and deployment procedures, a very different body position, modified emergency procedures, water landing procedures, etc. Even sitting in the plane and boarding is different. Literally everything from gear up to post-deployment is new, and the first wingsuit skydive doesn't become "familiar" again until the toggles are in hand. Because of that, I can see justification for requiring instruction from someone who knows how to teach a Section 4 Category ? jump on first wingsuit flights, but not other disciplines. A first freefly jump modifies exit order, maybe exit technique, and freefall body position. It's not too much to add to a newbie's knowledge. Same goes for canopy piloting, etc, where the instruction only modifies part of the skydive, not the whole thing. Some thoughts, anyway... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LetsGoOutside 0 #29 July 9, 2009 QuoteOther than the USPA instituting some form of disciplinary action for offenders (which would be laughable at best)Which is why the focus really should be on clarifying the language into something the drop zone staff understands. I doubt hardly anyone at my home DZ could tell you how many jumps I have, how long I've been jumping, etc -- or pretty much any other jumper there. But things like "D license", "USPA Coach", "AFF-I", etc -- the DZ staff most likely knows which of these their jumpers have. If so-and-so A licenser shows up with a wingsuit and there's a C minimum. It doesn't matter what kind of instructor wants to take them up or how much they've padded their logbook, there's a better chance that it will be interrupted. Not impossible to slip by, but far less likely than going by jump numbers alone. If a S&TA knows the DZ's policy (adopted from USPA guidelines) is to not let anyone with less than a C license fly a wingsuit, they won't let that jumper go. If that jumper heads down to another drop zone, he'll check in with his A license number and probably won't be able to jump his wingsuit there, either. It's a lot easier to pad a logbook than fake a license number or S&TA signature (for those who have met the requirements but did not pay for the license). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skittles_of_SDC 0 #30 July 9, 2009 Quote ... 1) Change SIM 6.9.C.1.a to the following "meet all the requirements for a USPA D license; or meet all the requirements for a USPA C license and perform at least two successful wingsuit skydives under instruction and obversation by a USPA Coach and D license holder with at least 100 wingsuit skydives. "... That's completely stupid. Why a C license and 2 successful wingsuit dives? Why not keep it at 200 skydives and add 2 successful wingsuit dives? If I don't meet the requirements for a C license due to not having accuracy done why should I be punished? It's not like the actual landing changes any. But I'm sure my opinion means nothing in here as I'm barely qualified to wingsuit... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #31 July 9, 2009 maybe you should get your accuracy done anyway!? landing off with a suit (happens easily) will not be pleasant if you hit those powerlines.. besides, the accuracy-thing is a requirement to become licensed in my country! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #32 July 9, 2009 Quote Quote ... 1) Change SIM 6.9.C.1.a to the following "meet all the requirements for a USPA D license; or meet all the requirements for a USPA C license and perform at least two successful wingsuit skydives under instruction and obversation by a USPA Coach and D license holder with at least 100 wingsuit skydives. "... That's completely stupid. Why a C license and 2 successful wingsuit dives? Why not keep it at 200 skydives and add 2 successful wingsuit dives? If I don't meet the requirements for a C license due to not having accuracy done why should I be punished? It's not like the actual landing changes any. Helping you stay alive and uninjured is not punishment. And since your chance of an off-landing is higher with a WS, your accuracy IS important. Quote But I'm sure my opinion means nothing in here as I'm barely qualified to wingsuit... OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bofh 0 #33 July 9, 2009 Quote Of all the disciplines out there, wingsuit flying is the most different from a standard skydive. The first flight candidate has new exits (which can result in an aircraft strike if not performed properly), a flight plan (totally new concept), new "wave off" and deployment procedures, a very different body position, modified emergency procedures, water landing procedures, etc. Even sitting in the plane and boarding is different. Literally everything from gear up to post-deployment is new, and the first wingsuit skydive doesn't become "familiar" again until the toggles are in hand. It doesn't have to be like that though. First a little background and then I'll describe the way I teach first flight students (all three times). In Sweden we have a C-license plus 300 jumps limit for those wing suits that don't limit your freedom much (like PF's Prodigy) and a D-license plus 500 jumps limit for other wing suits. You should also have a briefing with an experienced wing suit flyer before your first flight, experienced being defined as someone that have done 25 WS flights... There are some more rules too, but that's another topic. The briefing I got was; "have you read the manual?", "have you practiced to pull a few times?" followed by "ok, you're ready to go". To me that worked out quite well, but its not for everyone... In my club there are no WSIs of any kind, so I've instructed three newbies. The first time my student was rather experienced and I didn't think about it much at all, I just gave a short briefing (although slightly longer than the one I had received...) and then did a proper gear check before boarding. Since we hadn't practiced much he had a horrible flight (tumbling for 1000 meters and line twists after deployment with his HP canopy...). I learned a lot there. After that I wrote myself some instructions about what to teach. Now that I read the proposal linked from this thread I noticed that its instructions were quite like my own. With the next two persons I taught, I took it in steps. First they perform a tracking jump and practiced the pull sequence in their normal jump suit (after some ground training). When they felt comfortable with that, they jumped with tracking pants/suit and also followed a flight plan. After that they did their first WS flight with a Prodigy. This way there were a lot less new things to practice on each jump and they are more relaxed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skittles_of_SDC 0 #34 July 9, 2009 Quote Quote Quote ... 1) Change SIM 6.9.C.1.a to the following "meet all the requirements for a USPA D license; or meet all the requirements for a USPA C license and perform at least two successful wingsuit skydives under instruction and obversation by a USPA Coach and D license holder with at least 100 wingsuit skydives. "... That's completely stupid. Why a C license and 2 successful wingsuit dives? Why not keep it at 200 skydives and add 2 successful wingsuit dives? If I don't meet the requirements for a C license due to not having accuracy done why should I be punished? It's not like the actual landing changes any. Helping you stay alive and uninjured is not punishment. And since your chance of an off-landing is higher with a WS, your accuracy IS important. Quote But I'm sure my opinion means nothing in here as I'm barely qualified to wingsuit... OK. I realize that accuracy is important when landing off. However to make it out to be so important that you shouldn't be allowed to jump a wingsuit without being able to land within 2M of the target 10 times (which doesn't mean you can do it everytime anyway) is a little silly. At least it is to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #35 July 9, 2009 have you ever landed off!? and i dont mean like the field outside your landing area!? were there are houses, lakes, people walking and riding on their bikes and a construction site, and all you have left is a small spot to go into, no real clue about the winds.. it can become very important very fast! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #36 July 9, 2009 QuoteHelping you stay alive and uninjured is not punishment. And since your chance of an off-landing is higher with a WS, your accuracy IS important. I think this is a true statement. Hell, I've had some scary off landings when wingsuiting. But I'm also a fan of people being internally consistent. Using the same approach you took initially, where's the systemic problem, John, that requires your approach as a solution? I skimmed through the Incidents forum and I didn't see any that talked about an injury resulting from an off landing in connection with a wingsuit jump. Maybe I missed one, but even with one or two incidents, is that a systemic problem?Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #37 July 9, 2009 skittles broke his leg on an off-landing on one of his first WS-flights.. yes, it IS ironic! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skittles_of_SDC 0 #38 July 9, 2009 Quote skittles broke his leg on an off-landing on one of his first WS-flights.. yes, it IS ironic! You got your facts wrong. First of all it wasn't a wingsuit jump. Secondly even if it would have been it wouldn't have been one of my first. I had done about 8 jumps that week alone. I was already up to jump 13. Also it wasn't just because it was an off landing it's because I had moving objects in my way and was too low to turn. Better accuracy wouldn't have helped. PLFing would have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #39 July 9, 2009 sorry then.. well, mate, honestly, when there are moving objects in your way, who did some piss poor planning on his approach!? i'll only give you slack for hungry alligators! your canopy-skills suck, thats why you broke your leg; yes, its that simple! man, i had the hardest time getting my landings down, it took many jumps.. you might want to work on that!? “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skittles_of_SDC 0 #40 July 9, 2009 Quote sorry then.. well, mate, honestly, when there are moving objects in your way, who did some piss poor planning on his approach!? i'll only give you slack for hungry alligators! your canopy-skills suck, thats why you broke your leg; yes, its that simple! man, i had the hardest time getting my landings down, it took many jumps.. you might want to work on that!? I'm too tired to get into an argument defending myself but there is more to the story than the information you seem to have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #41 July 9, 2009 so, what you're saying is, the canopy has been piloting you then!? “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #42 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteHelping you stay alive and uninjured is not punishment. And since your chance of an off-landing is higher with a WS, your accuracy IS important. I think this is a true statement. Hell, I've had some scary off landings when wingsuiting. But I'm also a fan of people being internally consistent. Using the same approach you took initially, where's the systemic problem, John, that requires your approach as a solution? I skimmed through the Incidents forum and I didn't see any that talked about an injury resulting from an off landing in connection with a wingsuit jump. Maybe I missed one, but even with one or two incidents, is that a systemic problem? And how would a USPA Rated WS Instructor improve Skittles's landing accuracy? There DOES seem to be general agreement that a first time WS jumper needs certain attributes that can only be achieved through experience. Licenses are the way the sport has chosen for someone to demonstrate achievement of experience AND to grant privileges for more advanced skydiving activities. It would be perfectly consistent with the way skydiving in the USA operates to use a license requirement to be allowed to WS. It would NOT be consistent at all to create a WS instructor rating.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #43 July 9, 2009 Quote Quote skittles broke his leg on an off-landing on one of his first WS-flights.. yes, it IS ironic! You got your facts wrong. First of all it wasn't a wingsuit jump. Secondly even if it would have been it wouldn't have been one of my first. I had done about 8 jumps that week alone. I was already up to jump 13. Also it wasn't just because it was an off landing it's because I had moving objects in my way and was too low to turn. Better accuracy wouldn't have helped. PLFing would have. You are not helping your case, Chief, but keep digging.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy_Copland 0 #44 July 9, 2009 Quote were there are houses, lakes, people walking and riding on their bikes and a construction site, and all you have left is a small spot to go into, no real clue about the winds.. Dude, you live in Switzerland, if you land off it just means you have further to walk, lets google map your DZ and see the green! Also no real clue about the winds? Dont you look at the sun and direction of the wind to it before getting on the AC? Not the most accurate, but helpful in those situations. 1338 People aint made of nothin' but water and shit. Until morale improves, the beatings will continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skwrl 56 #45 July 9, 2009 QuoteAnd how would a USPA Rated WS Instructor improve Skittles's landing accuracy? You're assuming that I'm making an argument here that I'm not, John. Besides, I don't think my position on that other topic is as cut and dried as you might think it is. (Read my posts carefully - at no point do I say words to the effect of, "we should have a WSI rating no matter what". My position on that topic was if the USPA was adopting a WSI role, we (the wingsuiting community) ought to control it. I also asked the question - not a rhetorical one - "if we don't have such a program, how are conveying the information that we need to convey, and are we doing that in the best way?" Other than that, I took no position. I'm open to any approach that increases education effectively. A WSI rating is one approach. There are others. My other posts were to correct someone who attributed the project to Flock U and to correct someone who claimed the First Flight Manual that I wrote was a copy... If you think I said something other than that, you're mistaking me for someone else...) Anyway, back to the original question: where's the systemic problem? At least some wingsuiters disagree with your assertion that that the accuracy exercises in a C license are relevant. Presumably, if we're going to take the "everyone ought to take care of themselves" approach to self-regulation, one of the things that I should do as a skydiver before I put on a wingsuit is to assess whether or not I have the necessary canopy skills. I'm sure there are people, like Glen's friend, who could end every wingsuit jump with an accuracy landing - and only hold an "A". I know that there are others who have a "C" and can't land consistently... Speaking of consistency... QuoteIt would be perfectly consistent with the way skydiving in the USA operates to use a license requirement to be allowed to WS. So are we regulating based on systemic need or consistency? If you're talking about changing it from a recommendation of 200/18 mos. or 500 to a requirement of a "C", then I'm still waiting to see the need – not at an individual level, but at a organization-wide level.Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #46 July 9, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd how would a USPA Rated WS Instructor improve Skittles's landing accuracy? You're assuming that I'm making an argument here that I'm not, John. Besides, I don't think my position on that other topic is as cut and dried as you might think it is. (Read my posts carefully - at no point do I say words to the effect of, "we should have a WSI rating no matter what". My position on that topic was if the USPA was adopting a WSI role, we (the wingsuiting community) ought to control it. I also asked the question - not a rhetorical one - "if we don't have such a program, how are conveying the information that we need to convey, and are we doing that in the best way?" Other than that, I took no position. I'm open to any approach that increases education effectively. A WSI rating is one approach. There are others. My other posts were to correct someone who attributed the project to Flock U and to correct someone who claimed the First Flight Manual that I wrote was a copy... If you think I said something other than that, you're mistaking me for someone else...) Anyway, back to the original question: where's the systemic problem? At least some wingsuiters disagree with your assertion that that the accuracy exercises in a C license are relevant. Presumably, if we're going to take the "everyone ought to take care of themselves" approach to self-regulation, one of the things that I should do as a skydiver before I put on a wingsuit is to assess whether or not I have the necessary canopy skills. I'm sure there are people, like Glen's friend, who could end every wingsuit jump with an accuracy landing - and only hold an "A". I know that there are others who have a "C" and can't land consistently... Speaking of consistency... QuoteIt would be perfectly consistent with the way skydiving in the USA operates to use a license requirement to be allowed to WS. So are we regulating based on systemic need or consistency? If you're talking about changing it from a recommendation of 200/18 mos. or 500 to a requirement of a "C", then I'm still waiting to see the need – not at an individual level, but at a organization-wide level. See post#13 of this thread. I don't actually see ANY problem that needs USPA attention. My suggestion was just a way of formalizing the current "recommendation".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LetsGoOutside 0 #47 July 9, 2009 Well, technically, the USPA can't require anything. The USPA makes recommendations in their guidelines. The member drop zones decide what to enforce. Though a good member DZ will take USPA's recommendations and turn them into requirements, a more lax DZ may not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbl 0 #48 July 10, 2009 I see everyone mentioning the 200 jumps but no one has added that it says within the previous 18 months. Is that an issue for anyone? Or is it 200 jumps has a C-License but those jumps are over the past 4 years. Does that pose a problem for anyone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antonija 0 #49 July 10, 2009 Just one question from non(yet)wingsuiter: The number 200 jumps (within 18 months).... is that the lowest minimum of minimums that you'd suggest before even thinking about putting on a wingsuit or is it a proper "with the right equipment and good coach it's fairly safe to do it" kind of thing?I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mccordia 73 #50 July 10, 2009 200 is a bare minimum. Having more experience is recomendable from both a safety and enjoyment pov. with regards to your FFC experience..JC FlyLikeBrick I'm an Athlete? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
