USPA Survey E (Expert) License Question

I got an e-mail from USPA yesterday. 
It was the survey they do every year (the one that used to come along with the 'mail in' renewal form).
Jumps, canopy size & loading, malfunctions, injuries, safety day, the usual stuff.

However, there was a new question, two in fact.

"Do you support the idea of an 'E-License' (Expert License)" (yes, no, no opinion).

And "What qualifications would you include in an Expert License?"

Sooooo...

I think an 'expert' license is a good idea. It wouldn't be a 'master' (so not required to be a TI).

What would other folks include in the qualification list?

Mine was:

Lots of jumps (2k+)
Night jumps
Real water landings (not just pool training)
Holding an instructional rating (more than a coach)
Rigger rating (how can you be an "expert parachutist" without being qualified to work on the gear?)

It occurred to me later that a 'biggish' way formation in more than one discipline would probably also be a good thing.
Say 20 or more belly

15 or more freefly

15 or more angle/tracking

10 or more wingsuit

Those numbers are pretty arbitrary, and I don't have enough experience in anything but belly to say "this many takes expert skills".
It could be a requirement of 2 or 3 of them.

I'm curious what others think. Of the idea of the expert license, and what qualifications it should have.

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm curious what others think.

I wondered what an E-rating would get you. Normally by the time you have that much into the sport, the people who would want/need to know already know.

Maybe if you showed up at some boogie and wanted to pitch in and L.O. or give some advice you may get into an dick measuring contest and could say "excuse me while I whip this out" and pull out the E-License and shut up all the 500 jump wonders.

Shrug. I don't really see it, but I'm not up in that rarefied air.

Calling it "expert" and being more than "master" would be weird though. Maybe cause my dad was career Navy, but to me master is the top.

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I got an e-mail from USPA yesterday. 
It was the survey they do every year (the one that used to come along with the 'mail in' renewal form).
Jumps, canopy size & loading, malfunctions, injuries, safety day, the usual stuff.

However, there was a new question, two in fact.

"Do you support the idea of an 'E-License' (Expert License)" (yes, no, no opinion).

And "What qualifications would you include in an Expert License?"

Sooooo...

I think an 'expert' license is a good idea. It wouldn't be a 'master' (so not required to be a TI).

What would other folks include in the qualification list?

Mine was:

Lots of jumps (2k+)
Night jumps
Real water landings (not just pool training)
Holding an instructional rating (more than a coach)
Rigger rating (how can you be an "expert parachutist" without being qualified to work on the gear?)

It occurred to me later that a 'biggish' way formation in more than one discipline would probably also be a good thing.
Say 20 or more belly

15 or more freefly

15 or more angle/tracking

10 or more wingsuit

Those numbers are pretty arbitrary, and I don't have enough experience in anything but belly to say "this many takes expert skills".
It could be a requirement of 2 or 3 of them.

I'm curious what others think. Of the idea of the expert license, and what qualifications it should have.

I like where you're going with this. Minus the rigger ticket. However, demonstrating complete knowledge of the entire parachute system would be a natural part of... Being proficient in ALL disciplines... 2K is a lot. Let's make it a little more accessible at 1K!   Also, PRO rated...   Swooping would be the grey area.  I don't promote that shit!   

A few points:

- I dont think the USPA has actually said an E license will be defined as 'expert'. I think you're just extrapolating that based on them both being the same letter.

- Even if they do call it an expert license, in general the term master is senior to expert. A master is above an expert, so that doesn't really make sense. Maybe they will call it demigod?

- Titles aside, what would be the point? What can you do with an E license that you cant do with a D license?

- Whatever the answer to that question is, I'd then argue well why was I fine doing it with a D license in 2021 but now in 2022 suddenly I'm not qualified to do it anymore?

- Above a B license, the C and D title dont really get you much. I've only ever once jumped at a DZ that requires a C license and there is only one DZ anywhere that I know of that requires a D. Restrictions are more likely to be defined in number of jumps rather than license level. Even the USPA does that. For example, the USPA BSR for WS jumps is 200 jumps. There is no mentioning of a requirement to have a C license though.

- Overall I think it will just add to the USPA's pocketbook by finding a reason to charge another license fee, but without the jumpers actually getting anything tangible out of it other than some new title that no one really cares about.

Qualification ofference for the "E" license:

- "D"-license at least 3 years, and 5 "D"-license holders who recognize the applicant as a guru.

- Combo: 3 TM jumps + 3 jumps as operator + 3 jumps as FF instructor + 3 jumps as AFF instructor or more in one day.

- One of the following: rigging in an airplane during a climb; 10 naked jumps, including in an area with cacti; 10 jumps in a large wingsuit with a crossbraced parachute at WL 3+; Eat a live bat.

it's a huge waste of resources that are better spent elsewhere, like actually contributing to safety.  maybe to include more plf training, having students do some before each day of jumping like they do in airborne school, and start an awareness program for canopy piloting.  things that still killing us would be where i would direct my energies, but i didn't get the job as executive director, so not my call now.

2 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

it's a huge waste of resources that are better spent elsewhere, like actually contributing to safety. 

Yeah that's the quick answer.

Especially at a high level, the fundamental question of "what is a license for?" gets even bigger than it is at other levels.

Would the E license actually be useful in selecting people for something?

(e.g, "You want on this 40 way head down? Oh, you have an E license, great, you're practically automatically selected."  That's unlikely to work when skills get so specialized at higher levels.)

At lower levels, licenses can be more useful for selecting people. (e.g., "C license or higher for this very tight landing area")

Is it about being an expert in at least one thing? Or a broad range of stuff?  (e.g., fulfilling at least 10 out of a possible 20 qualifications)

Or is it just a sort of a big scavenger hunt for bragging rights?

(e.g, "You were world champion in a freefly team? Haha, but you never did a wingsuit jump in your life so you can't qualify as an Expert. I'm an Expert because I've done a bunch of different things including my night CRW water jump using oxygen equipment with gear I rigged myself!")

Canada's CSPA used to have an E license until maybe 25 years ago before it was discontinued. While it did cover some useful and broad ranges of experience (like instructing, rigging, being in competitions, and the important-in-the-old-days disciplines of RW and accuracy), it was a bit of a scavenger hunt thing (e.g, 5 water landings), so only a dozen or so people ever got them. They can keep the license but otherwise the license no longer exists.

Not sure of the point as a D qualifies you for all aspects of the sport.  While we're at it, eliminate the night jump from the D license.  Not necessary and dangerous. No one has to make a night jump accidentally or unintentionally.

9 hours ago, danornan said:

  While we're at it, eliminate the night jump from the D license. 

That was dont a long time ago already. I think about six months back or so they changed that.

I don't need an E License to femur in.

My D works just fine for that.

On 2/10/2021 at 7:04 PM, danornan said:

Not sure of the point as a D qualifies you for all aspects of the sport.  While we're at it, eliminate the night jump from the D license.  Not necessary and dangerous. No one has to make a night jump accidentally or unintentionally.

do you recall when the d went to 500 jumps and when the ti rating came out?

I am opposed to E- just another level to pay to more money to uspa.   If you want a higher level- make the D harder to get.

if E is expert- and an injury occurs- do they graduate to F (fail)

there are too many disciplines out there- for another license level to show “skill”

On 2/10/2021 at 5:04 AM, sfzombie13 said:

it's a huge waste of resources

The only way for this to be true is if a huge amount of resources would be required for implementation, and I don't see how that could be true.

1 hour ago, psf said:

just another level to pay to more money to uspa.

They've already said there would be no fee

On 2/10/2021 at 6:04 AM, sfzombie13 said:

it's a huge waste of resources that are better spent elsewhere, like actually contributing to safety.  maybe to include more plf training, having students do some before each day of jumping like they do in airborne school, and start an awareness program for canopy piloting.  things that still killing us would be where i would direct my energies, but i didn't get the job as executive director, so not my call now.

The US ARMY will pay you EXTRA to learn how to PLF correctly.  FYI.   Also, you may learn the meanings of: INTEGRITY, HONOR, SELFLESSNESS, COURAGE and perhaps a few others. 

I got that survey question too.

Long ago I used to be a member of CSPA (Canadian Sport Parachuting Association) back when they still had an E license on the books.

I said that an E license was wrong back when CSPA did it.

And an E license would be wrong if USPA does it.

And two wrongs sure as hell don't make a Wright @BobWright LOL!!

More seriously, I did recommend to them in my response to the query that they talk to Bob. Bob is the only E license holder I've ever met, CSPA E-8. I jumped at his DZ a couple of times in 1986. I recall that the E license involved jumping through a lot of hoops, figuratively or literally. One had to have made five night jumps and five water jumps. The E license seemed to just involve bragging rights without really giving a lot of additional privileges. Most jumpers stopped at a D.

On 2/26/2021 at 11:06 PM, SivaGanesha said:

The E license seemed to just involve bragging rights without really giving a lot of additional privileges

I see this complaint a lot, but I never see anyone explain why it's a bad thing. If we don't want to give people bragging rights, should we stop holding competitions?

CSPA's E license also required water accuracy, night accuracy, camera jumps, high altitude jumps with supplementary oxygen, rigger rating, etc.

I fear that too many "ticket-punchers" will only do a handful of high altitude jumps - to qualify for an E - but will not remember any of that new information a few weeks later.

OTOH if you area long-time skydiver, you should be able to earn more that a D license. Back when I was working full-time, I made a personal challenge to add a new license or new rating or attend a PIA Symposium every year, just to stay ahead of the younger guys.