bigbearfng

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    557

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by bigbearfng

  • Quote



    Mandatory background checks for ALL transfers. Both parties go to jail, no exceptions, for a violation.



    Still not a fix.....
    See my post above about the background checks-due to HIPAA privacy laws you can't check for mental health records unless the 5150 was written by a LEO.

  • Lots of good food for thought in this thread.
    Of course our idiot knee jerk politicians wouldn't be able to think of any common sense ideas.

    One other "food for thought" clarified. (And this is applicable to several crazies shooting incidents)

    When you fill out the form to purchase a firearm it is basically on your honor when asked if you're addicted to drugs or have a mental health history.
    If a person is taken 5150 by LEO then it is in the checkable system along with criminal history.
    (5150 is CA H&S code for a 72 hr psych hold.)
    However a 5150 by mental health or an MD is not checkable at all.
    Thank HIPAA for this......
    So several of the recent nutters would never have been able to buy those weapons if a real background check had been able to be performed.
    Now as to a central record of "nutters" so to speak ever becoming a possibility in our current politically correct privacy advocates society...........

  • Seems you replyed to my post but addressed the Q to EFS4LIFE?
    If I may answer from my perspective of the "power grab" comment?
    Quote from an above post follows.

    "It appears that the model that’s intended to be used for the WS rating program is the AFF program. The original AFF proposal resulted in an instructional program ruled by 4 individuals that held onto their power with an iron grip for over 15 years! The “I” course had a pass/fail rate of 50/50 and this was accepted for the sake of “quality” and “standardization”. For a long time pre-courses were not only discouraged they weren’t even offered. Course training was done by senior AFF I’s or by a few designated Evaluators. It was only when DZ’s and DZO's where unable to get certified Instructors did the Board step in and allow mere mortals to get Course Director ratings and prospective I’s didn’t have to guess about the standards of the course they were about to take. The current plan for Wingsuits calls for only 7 IE’s so it’s going to take a long time to make WSI’s a common DZ staff member available to the rank and file. "
    _________________________________________________

  • Quote

    Quote

    No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry.
    Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft.
    I'm in favor of standardization.



    Thats funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven effiecency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right?

    Seems like a power grab to me.

    I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have.



    +10!
    There may well be no further financial gain to be had for you, however with your above statement calling it a "power grab" is sure how it comes off.

    And with all due respect, I still would really like to know what these exit techniques are that encourage tailstrikes that are being taught out there?

  • Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives?
    __________________________________________________
    Could you please address this?

    __________________________________________________
    Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed.
    __________________________________________________
    I really would like to know exactly what this referred to "method of exit" is?

    Versus what is addressed in the SIM?

  • Quote

    Exactly. The fatal incident in Elsinore was a VERY experienced wing suiter. [:/]

    Any ideas?



    In another thread it was mentioned about "sticker-avoid the bite-wingsuiter awareness campaign"

    So being that the tailstrikes have been by experienced WS-
    Why not as a first step initiate something like the above?

    Post reminder stickers at the door-keep your wings closed on exit.....
    Kinda like the click it or ticket campaign?

    I'm sure someone could lay out something better than I am here..........

  • From my prior posts it's obvious where I stand on this issue.
    I was reading your withdrawal letter with respect for the other side of the argument until I got to
    "I'm disgusted with those that feel "more people need to die before we consider this kind of training"."
    Sorry, but you lost a lot of my respect for your letter there.......
    No matter anyones motivation, if both sides of this could cut out the "sensationalism" it could help.

  • Quote

    Good thing that is what was presented to the USPA then.
    Wingsuiting stuff.
    :P

    Stop feeling threatened as an instructor. Plenty of people can do it and do it well.



    Oh, you mean plenty of people are teaching wingsuiting and they're not even "USPA certified WSIs".....and yea, they are doing it well....:P

  • Quote

    I think Wingsuiting is a lot more like CRW than it is similar to AFF, Tandem or swooping.

    In CRW you have to understand and respect equipment, aircraft, exits and airspace to name a few.



    Simon



    Hey come on-don't mention CRW here!
    I was planning on lookin up the local
    CRWdogs to learn ....now I'm going to have to end up finding an "official" instructor!!!!
    Though the "official" instructor might be cheaper than the bar tab for a CRWdog!

  • I hear you about more instructors increases the availability of instruction and therefore the opportunity for a skydiver to learn to wingsuit.
    However have you considered....
    First by mandating that only "official" instructors may instruct-you just decreased the number of skydivers that can assist other skydivers in learning to WS by excluding current WS skydivers that have been safely mentoring all along.

    Another biggie that I believe most everyone is missing on this point.....
    Manufacturer insrtuctors have at their disposal numerous wingsuits in all different sizes for new WS skydivers from the manufacturer. No out of pocket cost to them.
    Currently the WS mentors out there seem to hang onto their old WS and end up offering those suits for other skydivers to learn on. Limited to skydivers that will fit in their old suit, but opens opportunties for others.

    Now take a skydiver who goes thru this proposed USPA instructor rating.
    Is he going to buy a bunch of wingsuits out of pocket to outfit his WS students????
    How would this work?
    Who could afford that!?
    Do you really think the manufacturers are going to supply every new USPA WS instructor with a pile of WS?

  • Quote

    Quote

    Wanna learn wingsuiting from a pdf???
    [:/]
    Good luck reading it in freefall.
    :S



    It doesn't matter where you learn to wingsuit. You can get the absolute best instruction, go through the excersises on the ground over and over until you are raw . BUT once you are in the air the feedback sensation may be overwhelming and nobody regardless of their ability to teach or your previous experience and ability to absorb this will be a factor in predicting the outcome of your first flight.

    You can have the very best instructor with you in the air and in the case of instability or spiraling the showcase instructor will be powerless to "TOP DOCK" and fix your situation. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN IN WINGSUITS.

    So yes a PDF with simple verbal description and graphics would be acceptable so would having a good instructor if you want.

    Literally ANYBODY could state they have a fool proof way of exiting to avoid tail strikes or skydiver proof way of navigatiing the dropzone pattern and then not give at least a verbal discription of it. My guess is verbal description just wouldn't be that revolutionary.


    +10 on your post.
    Once you're out the door in a WS you are on your own!
    The information in the SIM is an excellent thing to have-I make sure anyone that wants to try a WS reads it, then I also go over even more points.
    Go do a jump with the person first if you don't know them and make sure their skills/jump numbers are good.
    I believe using the SIM and the above is sufficient.
    This isn't AFF.
    I understand the folk who are pushing safety-but as we've already found out you can't idiot proof everything without draconian measures.
    I can't help but remember the past push by some for "official course/instructors for freefly;
    even an official course of instruction for automati!
    So make a minimum jump number mandatory-you bet.
    Require they read the SIM and use an appropriate beginner suit-yes.
    If you want, even have the S&TA or DZ manager/DZO give pre-approval.
    But mandatory instruction set up similar to AFF-
    NO WAY!

  • Quote

    Define "pushing the envelope".



    Which is what I'd like to know.......at least what most folks perception of it is when it comes to swooping.
    Do you agree "threading the crack" is pushing the envelope?

    Seems changes are in the wind.........and I figure the general perception of swooping in the skydiving community is going to play a big part in which way it may go.