USPA 200 skydives for WS . . . What's up around the world?

[DarkZero 0]

It will be interesting to know which regulations set in non-USPA related countries about the numbers of skydives before getting into wingsuits.

Who knows from:

Russia
Hungary
China
South America
Mexico
New Zealand
Australia
Japan

or other countries special regulations???

Please let us know

Thanks

...your mother...

www.pralle-zeiten.de

[dragon2 0]

The Netherlands:

B-license and follow the requirements of the manufacturer, meaning we require a minimum of 200 jumps in the last 1 1/2 yrs (ie, be current) but prefer more jumps.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[phoenixlpr 0]

In Hungary:

(FAI) IPC CoP „C” license needed.

[AlRedler 0]

In UK, C Licence and 500 jumps, or 200 jumps in the last 18 months.

[mccordia 73]

To further specify on what Saskia posted

KNVvL Holland:

B licence

Dytter manditory

200 jump minimum

The B licence also means a jumper should have:

10 jumps with a landing within 5 meters of a pre-selected target

Completed the basic skills for one of the competition diciplines (FS, Freefly etc). So demanding a basic skillset (solo tracking for 200 jumps doesnt get you there).

Demonstrated skills in gear-checks and equipment knowledge

10 Coached canopy control canopy flights under canopy

On top of that, jumpers are restricted in what canopy they can use, due to a combination of Licence/Jumps/Weight.

Its still pretty open for interpretation/cheating, if wished, but in general a good basis.
I am hoping to see the recommended 'manufacturer requirements' move towards a set of rules not linked to manufacturers (if one of the companies would suddenly start allowing wingsuit jumps from 20 jumps onward, we'd be seriously f*cked)

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[pacma 0]

In France :

for the suits in two parts : arms are free (prodigy,access, indy.....)
150 jumps
ability to track correctly

for the normal wingsuits : reduced mobility of arms
200 jumps (D licence)
had done at least 40 jumps with a "beginner" suit (suits in two parts)

for experts wingsuits : very reduced arms mobility
600 jumps
had done at least 50 jumps with a normal wingsuit

of course, during the training :
no videos, no group jumps (except with the instructor)
dytter recommended
opening altitude 1500m
elliptical canopy not advised

the difference between the normal wingsuit and the expert wingsuit is not so clear....they talk about bigger suit that's it !

the complete pdf file in french :

http://www.ffp.asso.fr/IMG/pdf/Reglementation_WING_SUIT-2.pdf[url]

nabil

eat with your fingers, dive with your hearth

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

I am hoping to see the recommended 'manufacturer requirements' move towards a set of rules not linked to manufacturers

Putting my lawyer hat on:

One of the things that I've never understood from a liability perspective is why the manufacturers are so eager to go out on a limb and give recommendations for experience levels. The moment they do that, they open themselves up to the possibility that some annoying fuck of a plaintiff's lawyer - following a wingsuit tragedy - will say, "well, the manufacturer said 200 jumps, the deceased guy had 210, therefore it should have been safe..."

Everyone in this forum knows that it's way more complicated than that in reality to judge skill/readiness, but what will end up happening is that the waiver that is generated by the dropzone will cover the wingsuit instructor (maybe) but not the Wx manufacturer - it's not the same deal as the tandem rigs in that regard.

And some little old ladies on the jury will read the phrase "Manufacturer X recommends that you don't begin wingsuiting until ..." as "It's safe if you begin after..." The little old ladies will then look at the dead guy's widow and orphans, and then they will financially kick the shit out of the "big, bad negligent" Wx manufacturer.

Shitty risk management strategy on the part of the Wx manufacturers, if you ask me...

Similar arguments can be levied at the manufacturers' instructor programs (if you have a program, you have a legal duty to police it to make sure your instructors don't suck, and are consistent in their training, etc.). [Which, by the way, was part of my thinking as to why a USPA rating made sense - it reduced the legal exposure of the manufacturers...] The Wx manufacturers with those programs have avoided that problem (so far) with a healthy dose of luck. But we all know that luck always runs out...

-Skwrl

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I am hoping to see the recommended 'manufacturer requirements' move towards a set of rules not linked to manufacturers

Putting my lawyer hat on:


...

It's all about perception of risk/reward ratio.

Rather like Ford with the Pinto.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mccordia 73]

Quote

Putting my lawyer hat on:

One of the things that I've never understood from a liability perspective is why the manufacturers are so eager to go out on a limb and give recommendations for experience levels.

Would the lawsuits be any different compared to when there is no advice at all regarding use and recommended instuctional steps to take?

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

I am hoping to see the recommended 'manufacturer requirements' move towards a set of rules not linked to manufacturers

Putting my lawyer hat on:

One of the things that I've never understood from a liability perspective is why the manufacturers are so eager to go out on a limb and give recommendations for experience levels. The moment they do that, they open themselves up to the possibility that some annoying fuck of a plaintiff's lawyer - following a wingsuit tragedy - will say, "well, the manufacturer said 200 jumps, the deceased guy had 210, therefore it should have been safe..."

Everyone in this forum knows that it's way more complicated than that in reality to judge skill/readiness, but what will end up happening is that the waiver that is generated by the dropzone will cover the wingsuit instructor (maybe) but not the Wx manufacturer - it's not the same deal as the tandem rigs in that regard.

And some little old ladies on the jury will read the phrase "Manufacturer X recommends that you don't begin wingsuiting until ..." as "It's safe if you begin after..." The little old ladies will then look at the dead guy's widow and orphans, and then they will financially kick the shit out of the "big, bad negligent" Wx manufacturer.

Shitty risk management strategy on the part of the Wx manufacturers, if you ask me...

Similar arguments can be levied at the manufacturers' instructor programs (if you have a program, you have a legal duty to police it to make sure your instructors don't suck, and are consistent in their training, etc.). [Which, by the way, was part of my thinking as to why a USPA rating made sense - it reduced the legal exposure of the manufacturers...] The Wx manufacturers with those programs have avoided that problem (so far) with a healthy dose of luck. But we all know that luck always runs out...

-Skwrl

Jeff,

This was discussed to some length and intensity in the S&T subcommittee. If the acceptance of a manufacturer rating system was not part of the "package" with USPA, there was simply no way that we'd achieve concensus within the wingsuit manufacturers. Three manufacturers said they'd be thrilled as hell to had the rating system/procedures off to USPA. One remained steadfast, saying they would never agree to USPA managing the instructional aspects of wingsuiting.
And it's true, the new BSR can leave the instructor (and student) at risk of punitive action in the event of an incident, but that in part, was the intent of the motion to generate a new BSR.
We tried...

[helxen 0]

Russia: Entirely DZ-dependant, though most common is either 200 or 300 jumps and Instructor-led training.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Would the lawsuits be any different compared to when there is no advice at all regarding use and recommended instructional steps to take?

In a lawsuit against the manufacturer? For sure. If they didn't, they wouldn't have to worry about suit so long as the wingsuit wasn't defective (which isn't what we're talking about here).

General rule: once you go down the path of giving instruction/advice, you're liable for the instruction/advice you (or your agents) give.

Quote

One remained steadfast, saying they would never agree to USPA managing the instructional aspects of wingsuiting.

I guess that's my point. I don't know which one it was that objected, but in my opinion it's really short sighted. Personally, it doesn't impact me at all, so I guess I don't really care, but I suppose there's a benefit to not having one of the manufacturers sued into insolvency...

Quote

It's all about perception of risk/reward ratio. Rather like Ford with the Pinto.

For sure. It always is. (It's worth mentioning that Ford got its ass handed to it as a result of that, by the way...) I just think it's a bad approach. But I also believe in the inalienable right to make foolish business decisions, so if one or more of them believes it gets more of a benefit than it puts at risk, who am I to object?

* * *

Sorry about the thread-jack - carry on with the original subject.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am hoping to see the recommended 'manufacturer requirements' move towards a set of rules not linked to manufacturers

Putting my lawyer hat on:

One of the things that I've never understood from a liability perspective is why the manufacturers are so eager to go out on a limb and give recommendations for experience levels. The moment they do that, they open themselves up to the possibility that some annoying fuck of a plaintiff's lawyer - following a wingsuit tragedy - will say, "well, the manufacturer said 200 jumps, the deceased guy had 210, therefore it should have been safe..."

Everyone in this forum knows that it's way more complicated than that in reality to judge skill/readiness, but what will end up happening is that the waiver that is generated by the dropzone will cover the wingsuit instructor (maybe) but not the Wx manufacturer - it's not the same deal as the tandem rigs in that regard.

And some little old ladies on the jury will read the phrase "Manufacturer X recommends that you don't begin wingsuiting until ..." as "It's safe if you begin after..." The little old ladies will then look at the dead guy's widow and orphans, and then they will financially kick the shit out of the "big, bad negligent" Wx manufacturer.

Shitty risk management strategy on the part of the Wx manufacturers, if you ask me...

Similar arguments can be levied at the manufacturers' instructor programs (if you have a program, you have a legal duty to police it to make sure your instructors don't suck, and are consistent in their training, etc.). [Which, by the way, was part of my thinking as to why a USPA rating made sense - it reduced the legal exposure of the manufacturers...] The Wx manufacturers with those programs have avoided that problem (so far) with a healthy dose of luck. But we all know that luck always runs out...

-Skwrl

Jeff,

This was discussed to some length and intensity in the S&T subcommittee. If the acceptance of a manufacturer rating system was not part of the "package" with USPA, there was simply no way that we'd achieve concensus within the wingsuit manufacturers. Three manufacturers said they'd be thrilled as hell to had the rating system/procedures off to USPA. One remained steadfast, saying they would never agree to USPA managing the instructional aspects of wingsuiting.
And it's true, the new BSR can leave the instructor (and student) at risk of punitive action in the event of an incident, but that in part, was the intent of the motion to generate a new BSR.
We tried...

Let's not leave out the very salient fact that NO ONE on the BOD was in favor of adopting and or implementing a USPA wingsuit instructional rating....I'll say it again, NO ONE on the BOD was in favor of USPA taking this responsibility on. Insisting that they do would have been like pushing a snowball up hill in hell with the same results.

The BSR enables S&TAs/DZOs/ DZs/Instructors etc to now have a means of enforcing a standard that actually has teeth under Sec 1-6.

The fact that the BODs vote to pass this *BSR* was unanimous after discussion shows that this was seen as the best means to accomplish a means of accountability without putting an additional financial onus on USPA members or limiting the
wingsuiting communities ability to continue to bring people into the sport and the discipline.

Lastly, lets not forget that everyone from the WSing community that was there stood up in front of the BOD to show their support for this BSR during discussion prior to the BODs unanimous decision being made. We reaped what we sowed.


*For those who do not know it, the BOD as a whole are extremely resistant to add anything as a BSR. Having one passed unanimously in such a short order of time is almost unheard of. *

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[DSE 3]

Quote

Let's not leave out the very salient fact that NO ONE on the BOD was in favor of adopting and or implementing a USPA wingsuit instructional rating....I'll say it again, NO ONE on the BOD was in favor of USPA taking this responsibility on. Insisting that they do would have been like pushing a snowball up hill in hell with the same results.

This is true, but there was quite a bit of momentum in hallway talks with several, to support an endorsement on a Coach rating. There was an RD willing to propose, and an RD willing to second. Whether it would have passed the full board, dunno.
I will keep fighting to get manufacturers out of the "rating game" simply because they have one incentive; sell suits. The BSR will only work when there are injuries or fatalities, but as you point out, it does give some serious teeth to an s&TA, DZ0, or even casual jumpers when dealing with the "I have 50 jumps and bought a used suit on DZ.com" guy.

It was a really powerful moment when the wingsuiters spread about the room stood up as one voice asking for this BSR. Thanks for all your input on the motion.

[mccordia 73]

Quote

I will keep fighting to get manufacturers out of the "rating game" simply because they have one incentive; sell suits.

Though saying the same, in a different wording, I do think most manufacturer ratings where initially aimed at safe use of their products, as opposed to generating actual sales.

The training programs currently around, are there due to a missing unified voice in terms of what the training standard should be.
For the USPA, the ball is rolling, but dont forget that for most other countries, the 'rating game' isnt there yet. And the manufacturers guidelines are sometimes all the have.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[DSE 3]

Believe me, Jarno...I get the point of needing the manufacturers to at the least step up for now.
Please don't misunderstand.
At the same time, has there EVER been someone wit a BMI/PFI that has lost their rating from a manufacturer due to unsafe training, poor information, etc? If the manufacturers aren't going to punitively step up, then a governing body probably should.
I didn't convey my message properly with that last statement; the USPA can't immediately replace the manufacturer's system. I'm hopeful that the manufacturers will eventually adhere to the syllabus that has been put out there for public comment, and recently edited by Scott Campos, myself, Taya Weiss, Phil Peggs, and Scotty Burns with some input from a couple of others. That'll take time.
The system started by Chuck, Henny, Scott several years ago set the stage. However, the discipline has evolved. Other than the new PFC program, has anything new been introduced to instructional information? A recent example might be the person who is taught to cut away their wings when they're unstable.
Hopefully some day, like AFF, the time will come to not have manufacturer ratings vs a governing body rating. We're far, far off from that happening, IMO.
There is no doubt that for the time-being, Phoenix-fly and Birdman have the best of what there is currently available.

[mccordia 73]

Quote

At the same time, has there EVER been someone wit a BMI/PFI that has lost their rating from a manufacturer due to unsafe training, poor information, etc?

This is one of the major changes in the PFI system, which has been reworked quite a bit. This week, new Examinors will be announced here for both Europe and USA.

Everyone listed on the (new) website, will be responsable for who they train. People not training based on the recommended standard in terms of experience and skill, will be removed from the list as active coach/instructor.

Everyone can get into a situation where someone lies about experience levels, to the point where a full CIA background check would only show the true experience. But its the KNOWINGLY teaching of underskilled/underexperienced individuals that must definately be halted. Something sadly still happening way to much. Even by respected and visable members of the wingsuit community.

Cupsize, eagerness, other hobbies or money shouldnt be factors in being trained on an FFC, if the jumpnumbers/experience levels arent there...

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[Skyjester 0]

hey guys, you lost the question !!!

Jarno, you should know that cupsize always must count, even there is no skills.
In this fact it needs just lots more of time and special attention to invest.

don´t pester the jester . . or better: WHY SO SERIOUS ? ?

www.pralle-zeiten.de

[bofh 0]

In Sweden for non-restrictive wingsuits like the Prodigy:
* 300 jumps.
* C license

for more restrictive wingsuits:
* 500 jumps.
* D license.
* The arm-wings should have a cut system.

For both kinds:
* AAD
* Audible altimeter
* BOC
* No bungee-pilot.
* No flying near tandems.

The first two jumps should be solo jumps and after a briefing from someone with at least 25 wingsuit jumps. The deployment altitude of the first twenty jumps should be above 1000m.

[Waldschrat 0]

Quote

hey guys, you lost the question !!!

Jarno, you should know that cupsize always must count, even there is no skills.
In this fact it needs just lots more of time and special attention to invest.

Thats right, the average wingsuit scholar in germany.....

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jun2004/CupSize1.jpg

[DarkZero 0]

Quote

In Sweden for non-restrictive wingsuits like the Prodigy:
* 300 jumps.
* C license

for more restrictive wingsuits:
* 500 jumps.
* D license.
* The arm-wings should have a cut system.

For both kinds:
* AAD
* Audible altimeter
* BOC
* No bungee-pilot.
* No flying near tandems.

The first two jumps should be solo jumps and after a briefing from someone with at least 25 wingsuit jumps. The deployment altitude of the first twenty jumps should be above 1000m.

Thanks for this precise description!
A nice example for what I expected.

It would be nice to have more infos like this from other countries, but it seems like the wingsuiter of this forum doesn't travel a lot or just not interested in the rules of others

Come on guys, that can't be all...

...your mother...

www.pralle-zeiten.de

[BrianM 1]

Canada requires a C licence and training from an experienced wingsuit jumper. The C licence requires 200 jumps.

"It's amazing what you can learn while you're not talking." - Skydivesg

[mccordia 73]

It is almost a shame that something thats been a clear and uniform recomendation for years, needs to become a rule, before people realise its there for a reason. Hopefully this uspa change from recomendation to rule makes a difference for those who formaly operated outside of 'recommened' experience levels..and sets an example for other countries to follow..

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[diablopilot 2]

It is a shame, but when those that call them selves wingsuit instructors with nothing to back it up repeatedly ignore those recommendations, and as a result we see that at least 3 of the more recent wingsuit fatalities involve jumpers with sub 200 jumps, then what else should be done?

Maybe, just maybe this will be a speed bump to help slow some people down.

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

[mccordia 73]

When I said 'its a shame' its the attitude of ignorant 'instructors' I was refering to,
and not the (good) initiative to put these recomendations down as law..

Nothing but praise there..

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?