Wingsuit Syllabus Online for Comment

[danielcroft 2]

Wingsuit Syllabus Online for Comment
USPA members presented a proposed change to the wingsuit recommendations in Section 6-9 of the Skydiver’s Information Manual at the July USPA Board meeting in Dallas. Several experienced wingsuit flyers worked on the new syllabus, which is much more detailed than the current information presented in the SIM. The proposed syllabus is available on USPA's website for comments and suggestions. The syllabus and comments will then be reviewed by the board at its next meeting in February. If approved, the information will replace what’s currently contained in Section 6-9.

http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/WingsuitDraft/tabid/495/Default.aspx

[bdrake529 0]

Quote

c. AAD
i. FFC students must use an AAD for FFC jumps.

Why? There is no AAD requirement (USPA-wise, dropzones may vary) for licensed jumpers. Why must someone with 200+ jumps suddenly procure an AAD to learn to use a wingsuit?

If the student does not have an AAD in their gear, then they must either buy one (over $1000 new, plus installation cost), or borrow gear that has an AAD for their FFC. Is it really wise to have someone jump a rig other than their own for a FFC? Aren't they already dealing with a ton of new info/variables with the FFC alone? Add on top of that a container they're not used to and potentially a main canopy they haven't been flying regularly?

Brian Drake

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Why?

Brian,

Simple - it's not correct. You flagged one of a few issues that I have with it as well.

A little background might help.

I know that you read the proposal that the working group made a while back relating to the wingsuit rating. In connection with that proposal, a wingsuit first flight manual was created and included in the materials that were presented to USPA (and to the wingsuiting community in that .pdf that was posted a while back). The first flight manual was intended to be a "best practices" document (i.e., it would describe what people currently think is the best practice in the art of wingsuit instruction). The FFC manual iteself was the product of a series of interviews with instructors and observations of first flight courses. It describes how a representative sampling of instructors teach today.

Now, keep in mind, the purpose of that document originally was to be part of the WSI rating system, which set forth requirements. As you know, that rating proposal was not adopted, but the first flight manual was seen by some to be a useful educational by-product of the WSI rating project. (After all, it's "education not regulation" that we want, right?) As a result, it was proposed that the first flight manual be included in SIM 6-9 (and not replace SIM 6-9 as the e-mail states).

Everything in it would be a recommendation and not a Basic Safety Requirement.

So, in short, that should read that AADs are recommended, since nothing in the FFC manual as now contemplated by the USPA is a requirement. It must have been missed when that document was transferred over to USPA's hands.

-JD

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[LetsGoOutside 0]

My comment:

Quote

It's a bit wordy and redundant (relative to the whole SIM) in spots, but it's very thorough and will do nicely.

I feel the recommendation for minimum requirements to fly a wingsuit should be having met the requirements for a C license or higher. It's one thing to have 200 skydives. It's another to have at least 200 skydives where control and knowledge have been demonstrated. Meeting C requirements would also help in keeping jumpers who've entered the sport just to fly wingsuits from simply padding their logbooks to get into one earlier, which is undoubtedly taking place.

Other than that, this looks good and am glad the SIM has guidelines for anyone who wants to teach. Thanks to USPA for giving this discipline the attention it deserves.

Obviously have re-iterated a stance I've had on here. Y'all have changed my mind on requiring a USPA coach rating to teach, so long as folks who don't know USPA's teaching method follow this to a T. That said, I still think anyone who teaches skydiving at any level should read the IRM essentials at a minimum, and take the Coach if time and money allows.

[tr027 0]

That's just one of the many problem sections.Good syllabus but it is littered with irrelevant, extraneous, and redundant sections that will confuse students. Overcomplicates the task somewhat, but after some streamlining should be a good revision.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[Skwrl 56]

So you're willing to send in edits, right?

I'm in the process of tracking down a MS Word version of that file so that everyone can provide edits more easily - if anyone wants a copy, let me know.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[tr027 0]

Sure, with the .doc file it would be no problem.

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[MarkM 0]

I sent in some comments, what I suggested:

1> Drop the AAD requirement and make it recommended.
2> Same with the audible requirement.

Don't require extra gear on a FFC if a skydiver hasn't been using it already. Neither of these items is a huge safety thing(as opposed to the student jumping his velo 90).

3> Don't even mention the chest mounted altimeters.

Why were these even brought up? Most wingsuiters don't even use them. Don't complicate.

4> Drop the attachment section entirely and just state: follow the manufacturer guidelines

This has changed a lot in 5 years. The next 5 years may see new designs and changes.

5> 200 jumps should not be "recommended", it should be required. There needs to be way more emphasis on demonstrated pre-skills.

But otherwise I thought it was pretty decent.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Drop the attachment section entirely and just state: follow the manufacturer guidelines

Mark,

Good point, although I'm not sure these exist for all manufacturers, at least not in written form... There probably should be something that says, "Follow the manufacturer's guidelines unless there aren't any or they are unavailable, in which case, to the extent applicable, do the following..."

Quote

1>Drop the AAD requirement and make it recommended.
2> Same with the audible requirement

I think everyone agrees on the AAD and audible "requirements" that should be "recommendations" (as I mentioned before, the USPA intended that the entire document be "recommendations", so anything other than that is a holdover from when the document was being used for a different purpose).

Quote

200 jumps should not be "recommended", it should be required. There needs to be way more emphasis on demonstrated pre-skills.

Without taking a position on this either way, based on third hand knowledge my understanding is that the USPA isn't entertaining changing that at this time. Thus the current recommendations will remain the recommendations.

Personally, I think it's a different issue than the First Flight Manual though - certainly one worthy of discussion, regarless whether you are for or against that change. (Although it's not like it hasn't been discussed a lot already in this forum and elsewhere...)

Quote

3> Don't even mention the chest mounted altimeters.
Why were these even brought up? Most wingsuiters don't even use them. Don't complicate.

It was brought up because the majority of the wingsuit instructors involved in the drafting project recommend having a mudflap or chest mount altimeter. Remember that this document is effectively a survey of what a statistical sampling of instructors currently do. Is it possible that the sampling wasn't representative and, in reality, most wingsuit instructors don't recommend a mudflap or chest mount? Sure. I'd be curious to hear input from Instructors on this...

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[DSE 3]

Quote

5> 200 jumps should not be "recommended", it should be required. There needs to be way more emphasis on demonstrated pre-skills.

But otherwise I thought it was pretty decent.

I was told by more than one member of the Board that for reasons of insurance that they are not interested in changing 200 jumps from a recommendation to a BSR. This was part of the impetus of working towards a wingsuit instructor rating, because the instructor would then be responsible/accountable for anyone taking an FFC with fewer than 200 jumps.

Keep the comments coming, they're all very helpful, useful, and contributive.

[MarkM 0]

Quote

because the instructor would then be responsible/accountable for anyone taking an FFC with fewer than 200 jumps.

Wow.

I've typed and deleted a bunch of other stuff several times because all my brain can really wrap my head around is the word "wow".

USPA Fail.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

because the instructor would then be responsible/accountable for anyone taking an FFC with fewer than 200 jumps.

Wow.

I've typed and deleted a bunch of other stuff several times because all my brain can really wrap my head around is the word "wow".

USPA Fail.

I'm not clear on which part you're "failing." That USPA won't change the recommendation to a requirement, or that instructors should be held accountable if they take someone with fewer than the recommended number of jumps on a First Flight?
The USPA won't publish an official wingloading chart for the same reason; insurance and liability.

[MarkM 0]

Our regulating body can't publish something that says "no 120 jump wonders under 2.0 canopy or flying a wingsuit". You don't see how that's a fail?

[DSE 3]

Quote

Our regulating body can't publish something that says "no 120 jump wonders under 2.0 canopy or flying a wingsuit". You don't see how that's a fail?

If their insurance or legal advisors say they can't, I can't see how it's a fail.
I totally agree, it would be great if wingloading was regulated like it is in other countries (and tied to licenses) and if wingsuiting was regulated like it is in other countries (and tied to licenses), but if the company that insures USPA says "We will not support this language in a document due to legal exposure...." I can't blame the USPA, I have to then look at the legal system=fail.
In one specific cited example, a USPA rep explained that the reason they don't offer an official wingloading chart that says something like "no wingloading higher than 1.0 until after 200 jumps, is that as soon as someone goes in on a lightly loaded canopy that is within the guidelines, they're open to litigation for "suggesting" that the lighter wingloading is safe(er). They're very conservative, and on one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I think it's criminal that they don't step up and try to prevent/reduce hook turn fatalities through requiring coaching programs, ratings, wingloading charts, whatever.

Back to the original point, I'm looking forward to seeing your suggested edits to the syllabus.

[MarkM 0]

I don't think we're on different pages in our thoughts on it. It's just rather sad and I wish the USPA would step up.

I don't mean to knock the syllabus either, I thought it was pretty good. Most of it seemed pretty common sense stuff and I can see the benefit of having it sort of standardized.

Has there been any discussion on the requirements(or "suggestions" LOL) for the instructors themselves?

[DSE 3]

Quote

I don't think we're on different pages in our thoughts on it. It's just rather sad and I wish the USPA would step up.

I don't mean to knock the syllabus either, I thought it was pretty good. Most of it seemed pretty common sense stuff and I can see the benefit of having it sort of standardized.

Has there been any discussion on the requirements(or "suggestions" LOL) for the instructors themselves?

There has been a tremendous amount of discussion on requirements to become a wingsuit instructor.

This goes beyond the syllabus that is currently in front of the wingsuit community to comment on, however. The goal at this point is to come up with a document that the majority of the current wingsuit community can agree with, that will become the standard for future training.
Who knows, with luck we'll someday have a wingsuit instructor rating via the USPA, but for the time being, that's not part of the current goal.

[Skwrl 56]

Jim Crouch was kind enough to provide me a .doc file with the content from the .pdf to comment on, which I've attached.

A few suggestions/comments:

First, do not edit the formatting or auto-numbering - that will be re-created at a later point, so your efforts will be wasted.

Second, although Jim didn't specify this, if you plan on using this document to provide edits, I'd suggest that you provide an explanation for your edits (unless it's blindingly obvious, like a spelling error or something like that). For example, if you think stuff in one section is redundant and you want to delete it, in addition to deleting it, you should indicate why you're deleting it (in this example, pointing out the other parts of the document that make the deleted text redundant). That's going to allow the Safety Committee to review your comments in a more intelligent fashion, rather than trying to guess the reasons for your changes. I suspect a bunch of people are going to make edits in this fashion, so they are going to have to wade through them and make everything conform...

I plan on making edits to this document this weekend (assuming I get another side project done on time). If anyone wants to team up and provide comments as a group, I'm happy to work with you.

Just to be clear - as I have said on a bunch of occasions, I'm not a wingsuit instructor nor do I play one on TV. As a result, my edits will be primarily focused on making this document more readable, user-friendly and internally consistent (like, for example, getting rid of the requirements and making them recommendations, getting rid of redundancies, fixing screwed up grammar, etc.).

-JD

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Our regulating body can't publish something that says "no 120 jump wonders under 2.0 canopy or flying a wingsuit". You don't see how that's a fail?

If their insurance or legal advisors say they can't, I can't see how it's a fail.
I totally agree, it would be great if wingloading was regulated like it is in other countries (and tied to licenses) and if wingsuiting was regulated like it is in other countries (and tied to licenses), but if the company that insures USPA says "We will not support this language in a document due to legal exposure...." I can't blame the USPA, I have to then look at the legal system=fail.
In one specific cited example, a USPA rep explained that the reason they don't offer an official wingloading chart that says something like "no wingloading higher than 1.0 until after 200 jumps, is that as soon as someone goes in on a lightly loaded canopy that is within the guidelines, they're open to litigation for "suggesting" that the lighter wingloading is safe(er). They're very conservative, and on one hand, I agree. On the other hand, I think it's criminal that they don't step up and try to prevent/reduce hook turn fatalities through requiring coaching programs, ratings, wingloading charts, whatever.

Back to the original point, I'm looking forward to seeing your suggested edits to the syllabus.

I'd like to know who thinks/says this, as I took an informal survey of several BOD members, and HQ Staff and couldn't find anyone who could come up with either a good reason why not to make a BSR, or a common reason that prevented it. If the ED didn't see a problem with it......

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

[MarkM 0]

I'm also curious as to why not putting in a requirement doesn't open them up to a lawsuit.

160 jump guy slams into a tandem killing the tandem passenger. Family sues the USPA for not setting down some basic experience rules for wingsuit jumping.

I mean, in that case the family's lawyers would have a long list of people going "Yes a dude with 160 jumps shouldn't be in a wingsuit. No I don't know why there isn't a rule against it." Hell, there'd be a 20 page thread in this forum saying as much before it got locked. All their lawyer would have to do is hit print and put it in front of the judge.

A lot of our existing BSRs set thresholds. You may not jump with x distance of water without this license. No night jumps without that license. Container must be open by y altitude. None of them imply that if you meet the BSR requirements the activity is safe.

[BobFolline 0]

Unlike what some people attributed to me at the board meeting, my objection is that the I don't believe this should be an instructor rating since you are assisting licensed jumpers. This sounds much more like a coach rating than an instructor rating.

Second I wanted a comment period before this was pushed through by the BOD. We are handling that with this review period so I am happy.

On the negative side there are many people out there, with wingsuit instructor ratings and without, who are not really qualified to be instructing. They know how to fly but don't know how to teach. And if they don't follow a syllabus they will sometime forget things and the student could go up unprepared. People will still make mistakes but we need to assure we do this right and not just do it.

I applaud all of your efforts in this regard.

Bob

Working to be the last flyer on a birdman suit. ;-)
...
Who also flies a tony suit.

[DSE 3]

thanks for your input, Bob. I was stunned when your name was specifically mentioned as being "110% against any wingsuit rating or instructional program."

So far we've had some really great input on the syllabus; looking forward to yours.

It would be great if the USPA had an "Advanced Coach" rating (for all disciplines), as that's how I see a WSI rating.

[DSE 3]

This came in a PM a couple of days ago; I've asked the author if I might post this here. He's a well-known skydiver that doesn't have a lot of wingsuit experience but does own a wingsuit and has a few dozen jumps in a wingsuit.

"I'll admit I was 100% against an WingSuit instructor rating but I'm ready to throw my support behind it. I watched a wingsuit instructor offer to teach people to fly a suit but since he doesn't currently have a suit himself, the best he can offer is to ground instruct and then debrief students when they land on the ground. I can't express how wrong I think this type of instruction is.

I think that any of the programs should require a note in there that an instructor needs to directly observe the first jump, it also needs to have a note in there that ALL wing suits need the 200 jumps. I think that even an Intro style suit needs 200 jumps and I've heard arrangements in person and at boogies as I'm out traveling that people seem to think it only needed 100. Without formal definitions from the USPA there are a lot of gray areas out there. For the direct observation its going to force instructors to either have a suit and directly train student or no longer offer training. "