robinheid

I couldn't disagree more. A wing is a wing is a wing.. Aside from his thousands of hours as a fixed wing pilot, I'll bet he was applying *everything* he knows and has learned about lift, airspeed, drag, glide angle, emergency procedures, etc. To a fixed wing pilot that is accustomed to landing on long paved runways, I'll bet that field would look impossibly small. For someone that is used to landing a parachute in fields a fraction of that size, I'm sure it looked do-able. It all crosses over. Way to go, Bill! +1 I was thinking the same thing watching the news video. The good outcome started when Bill picked out "his" field, then put her down and did what was necessary to stay in the field. As you say, a wing is a wing and the process and procedure Bill used to create that good outcome is a great example for anyone forced to land out. BTW, this is the second Florida "Bill emergency landing" that has process/procedure lessons for jumpers: Bill Kitchen (inventor of Skycoaster and Skyventure and now a retired skydiver) had his 182 catch fire while in flight. I've attached the story I wrote about it in the March 2007 issue of SKYDIVING. Congrats, Mr. Booth. I still remember fondly the rides I took in that little beast with you. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Not unless you're going to fly the suit without the rig. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Actually, you're not too far off. Long ago, a cutting edge jumped named Kevin Shea wrote about getting to know your gear, and he strongly advocated wearing it around the house, even eating meals in it, so that it felt as much a part of you and as second-nature to you as your clothes. He was talking about harness/container systems, but adding the wingsuit to it makes sense too. Think about it. Even without it being inflated, you start to get familiar with where the handles are, how the material moves when you move, what happens to all of the orientations and relationships between suit, gear and body as you go through your day. And of course, you can watch TV on your belly and do those practice pulls you asked about. You can't duplicate the inflation, but you can duplicate the body position and pull motion and develop the muscle memory that will help you when you do "take it live" and start jumping it. (One caveat here: If any of the experienced WS instructors think you should not practice the pull in your living room because you might do it wrong and then have a bad habit to break, I defer to their judgment.) Whatever the exact details, the idea is to get to know your suit well enough before you jump it that it's a friend, not a stranger. In the meantime, I second McCordia's advice to just develop your overall skydiving skills and save the live pull practice for the FFC. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Do you ever do research before flexing your fingers? There is one word very familiar to parachutists that both answers your question and also serves to shoot down your supposition: BEER. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Thanks, mountainman and a huge shout out to DZ.C and L&B too. I found a forgotten Pro-Dytter in an old helmet the other day. Put new batteries in it but couldn't remember how to set it. Searched the DZ.C forums for "pro-dytter" and found this thread. Went to mountainman's link and there was the pro-dytter manual. Time from entering search term to unit up and running: About two minutes. Thanks to all. I have an audible again for the price of two CR2330 lithium batteries. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Interesting article on Marketing techniques and student retention. But I didn't notice a proposal on how to ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting, understanding aerodynamics, and teaching new students in the article? I thought that was what is being discussed, not how to retain more tandem students? Thanks for your feedback. I do not propose ways to "ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting." I declare that "AFF" should be summarily executed because it is a fatally flawed system that is pedagogically psychotic and thus fundamentally incapable of providing "complete and comprehensive" basic canopy pilot training. Please go back to post #12 and read my comments from there on through the end of the first page and you will see within those posts an outline to replace "AFF" as the basic parachute training course with something that is pedagogically more sane. Go to post #24 for three documents on how do better deliver basic parachute training. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

It only points out the failures of the AFFIC....passing people who have very little real skydiving knowledge and then expecting them to pass proper methods, techniques and knowledge on to the students. That's because essentially every "AFF" course instructor is an "AFF" graduate. When you build sand castles on sand, it's no wonder they don't stand the test of time, tides or tiddlywinks. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Tanks monn... 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Was saddened to see your post, Usetawuz. For anyone interested in the circumstances of John's death, you can read it here. Bottom line: He got ambushed by badly-neglected "Road Closed" signage and drove off the end of a washed-out road during a rainstorm into an irrigation ditch. Anyway, I jumped and skiied with John for years many years ago in Colorado. He was indeed a big guy and jumped really big gear, yet was one of the most graceful skiers I'd ever seen. He also had a real trying time for about year way back in the late 1970s or early 1980s. He bought a 252 Parafoil and after a few jumps he started having trouble landing it. He kept hammering in and we kept trying to work with him on his approach and flare, brake line length, etc. He was one P.O.ed big bad dude about this because all of us, including him, thought he was doing something wrong. And the worst part was, no one else had a Foil so we didn't know much about the canopy characteristics. He never injured himself, but he sure biffed in a bunch -- and then it turned out that Parafoil had gotten a bad bunch of fabric that lost its porosity after 25 jumps or so, and that had been his problem all along. I don't remember if they replaced it or he just bought something else, but when he instantly started landing the new canopy like he knew what he was doing, he was the happiest big bad dude on the block. Also one of the funniest. Although much of his humor would today fall even outside the normal parameters for politically incorrect speech, here is a sample that should give you an idea of his big bad sense of humor: John was pretty fit for a big old guy but he did have a bit of a belly so one day somebody kidded him about his belly, and without missing a beat he said: "You can't drive a spike with a tack hammer." BSBD, John. I love ya, man. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

The Straw Man Assassin strikes again. I wrote my proposal; 20 years ago. The documentation you say has not been available was published in Skydiving Magazine 17 years ago and 15 years ago, respectively. I also wrote two other articles that deal directly with this fatally flawed system and how it affects the marketing, health and potential survival of the sport. Both were also published in Skydiving: one in 1992; the other in 2006. I have attached the latter document to this post, since you apparently never read Skydiving Magazine. So my perspective, proposals and projects have been out there almost twice as long as you've been skydiving, and they were published repeatedly in the world's most prestigious and widely read parachuting publication. I have also repeated those perspectives, proposals and projects on this website multiple times. So the only real questions are: Where have you and every other "AFF" apologist been on this for the last 20 years? When are you going to actually do something concrete instead of beating up straw men? Seriously, Tom, you are merrily trying to put bandaids on a severed artery while the sport bleeds out because of its fatally flawed fundamental training structure. In fact, you inadvertently underscore this point when you relate your opposition to replacing "AFF" jumps with tunnel time by saying that "being an AFF I is more than just teaching freefall, you have to teach canopy control equally as well, and there is no tunnel time replacement for canopy control experience gained to be passed on through flying in a tunnel." Notice you keep saying "canopy control": No basic aerodynamics, navigation or meteorology, no learning to be a pilot because, yo, we gotta get them into freefall immediately. So you can babble all you want about how "AFF" instructors have to teach "canopy control" too, but they do not teach basic parachute piloting because the emphasis -- as confirmed by the very name of the training system -- is on freefall fun skills instead of parachute survival skills. Period. Full stop. Enjoy the read. Feedback appreciated. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Im not trying to limit anything Robin. You, and anyone else that wants to contribute to the thread is free to do so. I was simply replying to this, the first sentence of the OP's post: ***Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all. And again......I am simply saying 1) I havent seen that, or anything close to that, at all over the last few years, so if it happening, as Im a BOD member as you pointed out, where specifically is it being seen? Places, people and dates? Doesnt have to be public, simply send me a private message. I dont see it at all that way, and I actually travel quite extensively to USPA DZs domestically and abroad. As for the remainder of your point/counter point of my reply, again, I will leave the content of my posts up the community to decide for themselves its merit, or lack there of. Sigh... As I said, you are trying to limit this to a subsidiary element of the thread; In fact, you did not address the primary purpose of the thread at all; you just wanted to debate with the OP about how frequently "AFF" instructors land off-DZ or not. Congratulations on demolishing that straw man, but that is not the subject of this thread. As the OP said in full: "Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all. Should these instructors be teaching canopy control to AFF students if they themselves cannot fly their own canopies proficiently? Should There be a canopy proficiency portion to the AFF Instructors Evaluation?" I don't recall that you answered his questions; you just want to "reply" to him about whether or not "AFF" instructors land on the DZ almost all the time, or somewhat less than almost all the time. Now that is a great use of your BOD time, isn't it? Sorry I misunderstood your intent: I actually thought you were showing some interest in doing something about the fatally flawed training system we've been foisting on an unsuspecting public for decades, a fatally flawed training system that not only kills people down the road but radically reduces our retention efforts because it's so mindlessly put together. Heck, it's fundamentally illegitimate because compared to private pilot training and scuba training to name two, you don't even end up with a license when you finish this "training:" you have to spend a few thousand MORE $$$ for coaching jumps and renting gear, etc etc... But I digress. Thank you for your invaluable contributions to this thread; it's great to know that in your experience almost all "AFF" instructors land on the DZ while they're not focusing on teaching people first and foremost the fundamentals of how to operate their equipment and fly and navigate their parachutes so that they don't kill themselves doing something ignorant 100 or 1000 jumps removed from their "AFF" training that doesn't even earn them a license for all of their trouble and energy and $$$ spent. Way to zero in on the critical path, Tom. No wonder people voted for you! 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Sorry, Tom, that is not what you "asked" above. In your previous post, you "asked" this: "if you want to suggest that the canopy flight of today's AFF Is is subpar and needs fixing? I'm all ears, provide examples with valid data, names, dates and locations to me directly and I'll bring it to the board." I answered by saying that I didn't have to provide examples because USPA already has it -- and not in a "secret file" but in the very public fatality report file, the contents of which has been published in Parachutist Magazine. I said to look at all the pilot-error-under-a-good-parachute fatalities dating to the year that such fatalities became the most prevalent cause of parachuting fatalities, then break out the number of those fatalities who were "AFF" instructors. I don't know what the numbers will be, but there are only three possible outcomes -- the percentage of pilot-error fatalities among "AFF" instructors will be: lower than their numbers in the general parachuting population equal to their numbers in the general parachuting population higher than their numbers in the general parachuting population And again, I say: After we get the actual data, then we can continue this part of the conversation. Assume makes an ass of u and me and hope is not a plan or a course of action. Assuming and hoping? In one sentence? Kinda doubling down on doing nothing, wouldn't you say? It would if basic pilot training started with aerobatics and instrument flight instead of ground school and basic flight training that covered basic aerodynamics, basic flight maneuvers and basic navigation and meteorology. That is precisely my point. Parachute training does not mirror private pilot training; it starts with the advanced fun stuff at the expense of the basic survival stuff. Sorry, Tom, no it wasn't. This is a poll and thread about whether "AFF" instructors should have a canopy coach rating so they can better teach parachute piloting to their students. I said no because it'll just make an already fatally flawed system even worse. This is a big-picture thread, Tom, and you're trying to limit it to one subsidiary element thereof, even though as a member of the BOD, you're tasked with looking at the big picture. So if you're truly "all ears," then read the documents I attached to my reply to Pops, and then we can more productively continue this conversation. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

That's the part I missed. Thanks I still like it, FWIW. Thanks again. I have attached the work I first did on this subject back in 1993, and my followup work in 1996 and 1998. You will note that in my initial formulations, I presented a parachute pilot course as an adjunct to, as well as a standalone alternative to, the current training system then and now - "AFF." So, back then I too was "too zoned in on AFF" to realize that it cannot serve as the first level training if we are serious about reducing pilot-error parachuting fatalities. Anyway, some of what's in these documents is dated and/or has been superseded by better solutions, but some of it is also prescient, and the scariest part of all is that most of it is still as on-target now as it was then and little of it has in reality been incorporated into our training system, documentation lip service notwithstanding. Feedback appreciated. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

LOL... what exactly is casual about the notion that the number of people dying from pilot error is directly correlated to the fatally flawed training system from which both they and the vast majority of their instructors "graduated?" But to the main thread: I "suggested" nothing; I commented on REALITY -- that requiring a "canopy coach" rating for AFFIs just makes worse an already fatally flawed system, and I commented on your supposition that some AFFI off-landings come from them choosing the wrong tool for the job -- i.e., a canopy that is not compatible with the work they do. Neither did I "suggest" that "the canopy flight of today's AFF Is is subpar and needs fixing." That is also REALITY, based on the principal fact that essentially all AFFIs jumping today are "graduates" of that fatally flawed system themselves so of course they lack the fundamentals that make good parachute pilots. Some of them learn their way out of it, but a lot of them do not, and a good number of them don't even notice that they have a problem or they wouldn't be passing on their lack of knowledge to their students, who then graduate and kill themselves 100 or 1000 jumps later doing something stupid under canopy that they should have learned when they were trained in basic parachuting -- oh wait, they weren't trained in basic parachuting; they went through "AFF." As for your "request" that I "provide examples with valid data, names, dates and locations to (you) directly and (you'll) bring it to the board:" I don't have to provide that data -- USPA already has it. Look at all the pilot-error-under-a-good-parachute fatalities dating to the year that such fatalities became the most prevalent cause of parachuting fatalities, then break out the number of those fatalities who were "AFF" instructors. When you're done, let's continue this conversation and maybe then you won't be so casual about it. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I agree with you John. I don't have the same time in sport as the OP, but in say the last 10+ years or so, I simply don't see any great volume or increase in AFF Is or I/ES failing to make it back to the DZ or exhibit problematic accuracy skills. Add to that, there are many reasons an AFF I or I/E could find themselves landing away from the primary LZ. AFF student or I/E puts the AFF I in the basement, AFF course eval jump goes to shit and low (they can sometimes, it's the nature of a course), maybe the AFF I or candidate is jumping a canopy that comes out of the sky fast, versus a flat glider and occasionally doesn't have the glide to make it back where another canopy choice could? My point is just that there certainly exists a number of situations, beyond just "today's AFF instructors and I/Es can't fly their canopies". I guess my only gripe, if you even want to call it that.....is a broad stroke statement that is given without specifics. For example: "I see today's AFF Is landing, and they can't land on the DZ it seems." (Lacks validity. Where do you see them, how often do you see it?) Versus "At DZ XYZ, I saw 3 instructors land off 6 times last weekend on AFF jumps. Is that normal for AFF today?" (That type of statement is easily quantifiable, and a statement of fact.) One question I would throw out there to anyone that sees that sort of thing and questions it, would you go to the S&TA and/or the DZOs in a constructive manner and inform them of your concern, to help correct the situation? We're a small sport and not everyone is on here or has access to modern evolutions in training or performance changes and it may very well be that the person we see failing to meet a standard of some sort that others hold themselves to, just may not know what they don't know and would welcome a friendly infusion of information. just my thoughts. If those AFFIs had had decent fundamental parachutist training themselves when they started, they wouldn't be making the kind of decisions that result in the "justifiable" off-landing scenarios you describe. Like jumping canopies that are incompatible with the job-related scenarios you described above. Seriously, how long would a construction materials driver keep his job if he tried to do it in a sports car? The whole AFF system is fatally flawed in the literal sense of the word. Yes, its apologists point to its great overall safety rate, but they don't count all the "AFF" "Graduates" who kill themselves (and others) later because they never learned how to be a basic parachutist during their "AFF" training -- which by definition and name means neglecting the parachute part of their training no matter what is written in our ridiculously complicated training system... all they ever really learned was the freefall fun part, not the parachute survival part. That statistical evidence makes that very clear and not arguable. One of these days maybe this sport will get its collective head out of the dark world and figure out that arguing about whether we need more rules and regulations about what parachutes people can pilot and when is a useless exercise compared to changing the training so we quit creating so many bad pilots that wee need to make more rules and regulations to compensate for it. Solve the problem at its source. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Thanks, Pops, I'm glad you lilke it. However, I have no idea what you mean by "the book and safety knowledge (being) included in #1-7 and is part of the #8 exam". The Basic Parachutist Training would be completely separate and unrelated to "AFF." It would have nothing to do with that fatally flawed system. BPT would precede and be the prerequisite for advancement to freefall training. Pretty simple -- just like a high school diploma or GED is required to get into college, just like a BA being required before you can go to graduate school. The BPT would also have no prescribed number of jumps; you would graduate when you accomplished all of the tasks and passed all the written and practical tests. And the cool thing about that is that it would address Peek's "apprentice" issue too because it would likely take more than 8 jumps to pass BUT each of those eight jumps would be about 1/4 the cost of an "AFF" jump because: a) you need one instructor instead of two b) you split the instructor cost between more than one jumper in many cases c) you're only going to 3,000 feet Which means you could get 32 jumps for the price of 8 -- and also get all the "apprentice value" of those extra jumps... you would also be free after graduation to make hop and pop jumps using rental gear until you decided to move on to freefall training. Then you would learn the freefall part faster for the reasons described in my first post; you already know what you're doing when you get to the most critical part: pulling, navigating, flying and landing. Right now, however, we have this psychotic system where we are basically putting people into graduate school before they have graduated from high school or earned an undergraduate degree. When you look at it that way, it's pretty easy to see why we have such a high dropout rate, yes? 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

You mean like a BIC? (Basic Instructors Course?) USPA had that some years ago. (I see you have been skydiving for 7 years. The BIC might pre-date you so you might not know that it existed.) The BIC was a pretty good idea in my opinion, because it was a teaching course that taught people how to teach, before they went to one of the method specific courses, which were evaluation courses. Also, the Coach rating is supposed to be a "license to learn", which would be similarly helpful, with Coaches being supervised by Instructors as they learn. But for the most part that does not happen. They are just turned loose with students. (I have even heard of new Coaches ignoring the advice of seasoned Instructors because, well, after all, they just got their rating so they don't need anything else.) Here is the real problem. Skydiving instruction used to be learned via apprenticeship, as in following a rated instructor around for at least a few weekends if not an entire season, teaching a numerous topics under their supervision, and having them signed off on a proficiency card when they were proficient. Then they went to an evaluation course. Now everything is expected to be learned via formalized education in a "course", and I think we have enough (at least empirical) evidence that this is not working very well for skydiving. I think that the apprenticeship method of learning/evaluation being changed over to going to "course" learning/evaluation happens as any activity grows and matures, (and I believe the commercialization of an activity has something to do with it.) The apprenticeship/course issue is important but it is a secondary problem. The "real" problem is that we continue to teach people the fun freefall skills first instead of the survival canopy-gear skills. In a rational, reality-based world, training would start with static line/IAD jumps where the sole focus is on learning how to use the gear generally, and learn basic canopy control and navigation specifically. Basic Parachute Training instructors would be qualified separately from AFF instructors. Individuals may hold both ratings, but in no case could an AFF-only instructor teach a BPT course without a BPT rating. Students "graduate" from basic parachutist training when they met the requirements, which would include being able to: 1. Name all of the main components of a dual parachute system and describe what each component does. 2. Assemble a main parachute (bag, bridle, pilot chute) and attach it to and detach it from a rig. 3. Pack your main parachute without assistance. 4. Gear up completely without assistance. 5. Declare your exit point accurately. 6. Navigate and control your parachute properly. 7. Land within 50 meters of the target center without radio assistance. 8. Pass a "ground school" exam similar in character but not scope to general aviation private pilot ground schools, with considerable attention paid to basic aerodynamics, the theory and practice of flying landing patterns; and basic meteorology. After students graduated from BPT, then they could continue on to Basic Freefall Training, formerly known as AFF (a stupid name if there ever was one), or they may stay "down low" as a basic parachutist who just flies their canopy around after hop and pop or static line jumps (Denmark did and maybe still does have a rating like this IIRC). Two things will happen: 1. Parachutists will learn the survival skills first and foremost and because of the FOCUS thereon, they will be better pilots throughout their jumping careers. 2. Those who go on to freefall training will learn at a faster rate and be better at it because they will have the comfort factor of having become autonomous parachutists already able to take care of themselves after their parachutes open -- so they can FOCUS better on the freefall training and segment of their jump. Net result? Better trained parachutists, and probably significantly fewer fatalities and injuries. This is how a rational, reality-based training system would be organized. The current "AFF" system is neither rational nor reality-based but it is so politically and psychologically entrenched that it may never change, so to get back to the question that titles this thread: The answer is no because asking "AFF" instructors to have a "canopy coach" rating (even if there was one) is akin to asking for a bandaid to take care of the artery you severed because you thought that was the best way to lose weight. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I made my first wingsuit jump. I think I made my 100th wingsuit jump around that time Wow, you must be really old. I made my 200th ws jump about that time....omg what does that make me? 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Sure; The best way is to refer you to previous writings. These are sequential as they track the development of line stows to where we are today. The first one tells of the new balanced line stows and how they work. However, it doesn't speak to un-balanced stows. Unbalanced stows are where the distance between the stow bands is greater than twice the length of the bight. http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=NEWSTOW&SortBy=DATE_D http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Speedbag&SortBy=DATE_D http://www.jumpshack.com/default.asp?CategoryID=TECH&PageID=Reserve_Speedbag&SortBy=DATE_D As to how this all affect deployment. When the bag is jerked out of the pack tray only the bag is loaded to the bridle. The canopy wants to stay in the container and the lines also want to stay. The lines are locking the bag giving the caniopy no choice but to go for the ride. The only thing keeping the lines to the bag are the rubber bands and they (the lines)are trying to stay in the pack tray. If the mass of the lines between the rubber bands is greater than the twice the mass of the bights (there are 2 bights) then the lines will pull out of the rubber bands and stay in the pack tray allowing the bag to open and release the canopy before you reach line streatch. This is what that looks like: Thanks, John... that's exactly what I had in mind. Now the discussion can continue based on clear definitions of the issues in question. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

That is correct! Double stowing is a waist of time on bags with balanced line stows. To demonstrate how this is used in everyday jumping we use standard rubber band on our tandems. Sure if you have bights about an inch long you had better double stow them. However if the bag has balanced stows it is unnecessary. JS John, if you wouldn't mind clarifying a point for this discussion, could you do a little Line Stow 101 on what is the difference between "balanced" and "unbalanced" line stows and how this difference affects deployment? You've touched on most of this, but unless I missed it, there are some fundamental definitions and so forth that have been assumed rather than spelled out. thanks 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

IIRC, most of the USPA $$$ spent on wingsuiting relate directly to the preposterous proposal you tried to ram down everyone's throat, your advocacy of which was rife with, ahem... "nitpicking, arguing, twisting, prevaricating, or manipulating anything" said by anyone who disagreed with you. Fortunately, the BOD saw through all that to the preposterousness and that was the end of that except for all the $$ your actions caused USPA to blow. That aside, I agree with Simon that Bill can do whatever he wants -- it's his DZ. He did the same thing with swooping a while back too -- I think there's a 90-degree landing turn limit. IIRC, though, no swooping advocate got on the forums and started spouting sputum about the percentage of DZs in the past 5 years that have banned swooping. 44 Please support your preposterous claim that USPA spent a dime on the WSI proposal. If USPA spent a dime, it'll be shown in the financial report. Given that I personally paid for all handouts, DVDs, and for all my own travel, hotel...I'm curious how you'd make such a bullshit claim. Then again, prevarication *is* your stock in trade. USPA spent/lost more money on the now-known to be manipulated Chicago record that they had to rescind (first rescinding due to a cheater in the history of USPA, who buys the beer?) than spent on the WSI proposal. The financial records were reported at the meeting, they're published, a resourceful dude like yourself should be able to find backup for your specious claim. Since you toss the accusation, back it up. Otherwise, STFU, Robin. Or are you gonna call my employers and tattle and whine about me again? I rest my case. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

IIRC, most of the USPA $$$ spent on wingsuiting relate directly to the preposterous proposal you tried to ram down everyone's throat, your advocacy of which was rife with, ahem... "nitpicking, arguing, twisting, prevaricating, or manipulating anything" said by anyone who disagreed with you. Fortunately, the BOD saw through all that to the preposterousness and that was the end of that except for all the $$ your actions caused USPA to blow. That aside, I agree with Simon that Bill can do whatever he wants -- it's his DZ. He did the same thing with swooping a while back too -- I think there's a 90-degree landing turn limit. IIRC, though, no swooping advocate got on the forums and started spouting sputum about the percentage of DZs in the past 5 years that have banned swooping. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Not exactly the land of the free any more. More details here. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

N/A

LOL... guess you didn't see this post just above the one to which you refer -- or the "gracious" manner in which "Spot" responded to it. Re: [DSE] Wingsuit Instructor/Coach Rating Input Needed. [In reply to] Quote | Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You won this debate before the USPA. That's great. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks, Douglas. I appreciate your kind words but I can accept only partial credit for this victory of common sense and good governance. I am indeed proud of whatever small part I played in poop-canning that preposterous proposal, but there are many others who deserve as much or even more credit, starting with Dr. Lee and his compelling farewell letter commentary that contributed so much to this debate. Next on the list is Professor Kallend, and next after that I think probably belongs all the DZOs, S&TAs and wingsuiters who put their heads together and came up with a plan that has reduced wingsuit tail strikes from crisis-level frequency to essentially nil, all without the imposition of a single new rule, regulation or bureaucracy. Without their excellent and stunningly effective work, the outcome may have been different. And finally, great credit for the result goes to those on the board of directors who saw the big-picture consequences of a wingsuit instructional bureaucracy and acted accordingly. It was truly a community effort and we should all be proud that our community was able to sort through all the narrow-focus nonsense to process the big-picture pattern to arrive at an intelligent decision. One more thing, too: Thanks to you, Douglas, for your enormous contributions to the debate, and to the development and advancement of wingsuiting. First off, as Buzz said above, and I have mentioned in the past, you've created a great system at Elsinore and no one could go wrong by adopting it for their own DZs. Second, while your demand for a new advanced training bureaucracy was in fact preposterous, there is little if anything preposterous about your concerns over how wingsuit training is currently conducted and your goal to improve it. The bottom line is that "standardized training" is a great goal and it is the correct course of action, but you didn't actually propose standardized training: you demanded "bureaucratized training" and that, as the board rightly decided, was indeed preposterous. So please take this to the bank, my brother from another mother: You won this debate too. Due primarily to your relentless pursuit of better training standards and techniques, people at all levels and in every corner of sport parachuting are now not only much more aware of wingsuiting issues, they are giving much more thought to what the training should look like, and how it can fit into their DZs, and that is good for everybody. So good on ya, mate - and thank you. = = = = 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."