Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

This threads' title was obviously taken 'almost' directly from Robin Heid's thread regarding an aircraft insurer and his concern with tail-strikes.

I've received some calls & emails today that point to confusion that may be going on, and I'd like to address that away from the noise.




To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

It's a program that has been in the works for a considerable amount of time with assistance, input and feedback from many sources within the general membership as well as the BOD.

It's not one persons 'pet project' and reference to it in that manner is a disservice to others who have devoted considerable time & energy toward assembling what many believe to be a needed & useful tool.

A complete package that takes the logical step of standardizing the overall training of tested & approved practical practices & procedures particular to that discipline.

So although it DOES indeed address the exiting of aircraft safely with an eye toward totally eliminating tail-strikes, that is only one small part of it.

And again to be clear...satisfying an insurance company's vague recommendation wasn't the catalyst for any part of the program.





The program's ONLY intent is to monitor who will be teaching what to whom and when.

Some against this proposed system of training, tend to throw out the term 'regulate' portraying an obviously negative connotation since we've all pretty much been conditioned to perceive 'any' regulation as harmful to our sport.

I along with others contend that a uniformly structured system of instruction, which again, addresses 'all' specific skills beginning bird-men need to initially have will serve to grow that area of the sport and allow it to prosper quickly and safely

Critical skills not covered to any degree outside of that discipline.

And without USPA involvement there's no practical way of guaranteeing a minimal set of standards are met.



The good faith recommendations not withstanding, the current and projected rapid growth of this secular branch of the sport can benefit tremendously from focused guidance a standardized approach offers.

There's also a bit of a secondary benefit for the rest of the general membership not involved with wing-suits in that tail-strikes & airspace infringements have put us on the radar with both the insurance underwriter and the Feds.

Will standardized instruction effectively serve to eliminate those red-flags?

If it's done right it can, and through positive support I believe it will. . . IMO it can not be objectively argued that what's being done now, is nearly enough.


To quickly recap~

Doesn't matter what an insurance company not at all familiar with the total instructional program might 'demand' OR 'not demand' with regard to implementation of ~ "Standardized wing-suit training via the USPA".









**And how 'bout in the interest peaceful weekend coexistence with my honey~ address questions, comments & complaints on here...I'm gettin' the dreaded 'buffalo look' for being on the phone so much today!

I agree with alot of what you said and I see the benefit of having a standardized ffc that we all use. I just don't think requiring a special instructional rating to teach it is necessary.

Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed and understand the material?

I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

No.

Quote

I agree with alot of what you said and I see the benefit of having a standardized ffc that we all use. I just don't think requiring a special instructional rating to teach it is necessary.

Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed and understand the material?

I'm in the middle of opening a new dz right now. I don't want to sound rude, but if the uspa is going to make it a rule that I can no longer teach people to fly wingsuits out of my airplane until spot or whoever says I can, I think I'll pass on the group membership.

Thats exactly what I thought from the beginning. The USPA should group/organize the data and then distribute it to members and experienced wingsuiters so everybody can be working from the same 'textbook'.

Information not rules

Quote

>Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones
>make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed
>and understand the material?

Can you honestly say you've read and understood the waiver at every DZ you've visited?

Thats some legal mumbo jumbo, I can honestly say I've listened closely to every DZ briefing I've been given at new DZs by experienced jumpers. Thats a closer analogy even though the mediums are different (paper to talking).

Most waivers are presented in my experience like "this is something we have to do for legal reasons here ya go..."

They are not presented to skydivers as educational material like a USPA wingsuit textbook would be.

Quote

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

Quote

>Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones
>make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed
>and understand the material?

Can you honestly say you've read and understood the waiver at every DZ you've visited?

I can honestly say I read and understood the manual that came with my Bird man Classic before I jumped it. Everything you need to know for a safe first flight is in there.

Maybe uspa can come up with a quick written quiz to verify that you know the basics?

I disagree - the WSI proposal came before the insurance letter, correct?

Quote

I disagree - the WSI proposal came before the insurance letter, correct?

Read AGAIN what I wrote. Carefully:

"The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda..."

And it has. Right here on DZ.COM.

Why not just make a little booklet out of it and have the Group Member dropzones make everyone that's flying a wingsuit sign a statement saying that they've reviewed and understand the material?

Quote

As in - someone who's never jumped a wingsuit can 'read a booklet, sign a paper and jump'?

Might not be the best idea for anyone concerned.

I had some interesting discussions yesterday, several people I talked with seemed to be under the false impression that the program was set up to address the insurance tail-strike thing, and was aimed a experienced birdmen who've become complacent or weren't trained properly.

It's really not that.

It's a FIRST jump course type of thing for wingsuits, it teaches hands on, taking the 'student' through all of the steps in a logical manner.

The program allows for the supervised dissemination of pertinent information & the demonstration of critical basic skills.

Necessary beginner performance criteria & practical safety standards are in general what this thing addresses ~ basic survival skills taught & evaluated by a knowledgeable & experienced 'instructor'.


A few people I conversed with Sunday didn't understand much of anything 'factually' speaking and were quoting things to some extent that were post on this site by OTHER people who probably don't actually understand the scope & focus.

I encourage anyone interested in the facts to take a look at the link below, it does a lot as far as explaining the what & why of the program... and base your opinion regarding the program's implementation on your personal - knowledgeable - thought out opinion and not the emotional hype from either corner.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y-Exdt_44nB2AgINM7MEWkZ-SytVM-HuyzK_HNRWtD0/edit?pli=1

If you are going to vote, know what you're really voting on.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Quote

Quote

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

No I really don't...MY statement is verifiable fact, yours is hype.

If you're saying DSE 'published' the letter, check your facts.

If your saying the program was designed AFTER the letter was published...you're very wrong.

~disingenuous indeed.


The insurers letter which was an email, was not intended for public distribution...'certain individuals' knew that & were just as surprised to see it on the web as it's author.

Ah, the personal vendetta bullshit.
Still.

Grow up people.

Should WE demand a Standardized DZO training via USPA for safety?

Do you mean like this?

http://www.uspa.org/SIM/Read/Section6/tabid/169/Default.aspx#984

Section 6-9 of the USPA SIM, available for free from the USPA website.

Let the DZ's decide how they want to treat wingsuits, just like they decide how to treat every other discipline.

Adding a{n} (unnecessary) rating will add to the cost of our annual group membership.

Adding regulations/required instructions for only one discipline will expose USPA and drop zones to added liability for injuries from other discipline's that don't have the same requirement.

Adding a specific rating for one (very small, low population) discipline will expose the users and manufacturers to added liability in case of accidents (oh, you have to take a special class for that. Must be more dangerous).

This is a sport of personal responsibility. Let the DZ's take responsibility for what they allow on their DZ. Let the jumpers take responsibility for their actions.

Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for every conceivable discipline, there is no place for making a rating for one individual discipline.

Unless the USPA is going to make an advanced coaching requirement for the ONE, SINGLE thing all parachutists do-namely Canopy Flight-there is no place for a rating for one individual discipline.

Unless the USPA is going to make and advanced coaching requirement for the discipline/activity that causes the most fatalities in the sport-Canopy Flight-there is no place for a rating for one individual discipline.

If the USPA makes a rating for wingsuit coaching, then by the same logic, there should be a rating for each discipline listed in Section 6 of the USPA SIM.

Quote

Quote

Quote

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

No I really don't...MY statement is verifiable fact, yours is hype.

If you're saying DSE 'published' the letter, check your facts.

If your saying the program was designed AFTER the letter was published...you're very wrong.

~disingenuous indeed.


The insurers letter which was an email, was not intended for public distribution...'certain individuals' knew that & were just as surprised to see it on the web as it's author.

I meant exactly what I wrote.

It has nothing to do with which came first or who leaked it.

It HAS been leveraged, right here on DZ.COM among other places, to provide support for the proposal, despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies led to the problems described.

Quote

As in - someone who's never jumped a wingsuit can 'read a booklet, sign a paper and jump'?

Might not be the best idea for anyone concerned.

Why not?

That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.

I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me.

It really just isn't that hard.

Quote

>That's how I and hundreds of others learned to do it.

And people once learned to jump squares by making at least 100 jumps on rounds. (Was even on the warning label of many square canopies.) It worked, but might not be the best way to do it.

>I doubt I would have been any safer if I'd had an instructor read it to me. It
>really just isn't that hard.

It actually is somewhat hard, and not getting it right can kill you.

What part of wingsuiting do you feel is so difficult that you couldn't read about it and understand what is meant? I can't think of one single thing about flying a wingsuit that is confusing enough to need someone to explain it instead of just reading it from a flight manual.

Yes, not getting it right can kill you but that could happen with or without an instructor watching you. If your out there "not getting it right", it's not like your WSI is going to swoop in and stop your spin or pull for you like an AFFI.

Quote

standardized wingsuit training

I have no problem with the training part of this debate. I do have a issue with adding an additional rating. Why? Well there is already a case where a USPA rated instructor, granted not a WSI but none the less a rated I, who took a kid who had no business being trained to jump a wingsuit and was sent packing by one upstanding member of the industry till he had the EXP to come learn.

Then, the kid goes down the road to visit the USPA rated I, who then allowed the "student" board the aircraft and exit the aircraft without his leg straps on and he bounced. The instructor in question is in fact, now a big name in WS world and I bet he is on the "approved list" of future granted WS IE ratings.

This is not the kind of person I want teaching jack shit or being handed a rating, because of who he is and where in the pecking order he sits.

USPA is already fucking up the IE's and killing that rating by forcing people to attend AIC & then meetings every two years and at great expense to the mom & pop operators and their staff. Those rules only favor those who seek to run rating schools and can travel the country putting on courses.

Quote

It actually is somewhat hard, and not getting it right can kill you.

The training itself is pretty simple, especially when it comes to exiting the aircraft. The problem as I and a lot of others see it is not training, it is execution.

Like a swooper who has been instructed not to do a >90 deg rotation without seperation, but does it anyway because he believes that he is good enough to do it safely, wingsuiters who hit tails think they can exit safely by not executing a 2-3 sec wings closed delay. 99 times out of 100 they can.

A program for tailstrike reduction I think follows a swoop regulation model. Lots of warning posters, stickers, etc, and vigilance by other wingsuiters. We can't have an S&TA busting people like a beer-line violation without a exit shot camera taking pics of people, but we need something to point out to people that are pushing it, and build a culture that does not tolerate getting open early.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

To be clear ~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

What a disingenuous statement. The insurer's letter has been carefully leveraged and publicized to promote the agenda of certain individuals, and you know that full well.

No I really don't...MY statement is verifiable fact, yours is hype.

If you're saying DSE 'published' the letter, check your facts.

If your saying the program was designed AFTER the letter was published...you're very wrong.

~disingenuous indeed.


The insurers letter which was an email, was not intended for public distribution...'certain individuals' knew that & were just as surprised to see it on the web as it's author.

I meant exactly what I wrote.

It has nothing to do with which came first or who leaked it.

It HAS been leveraged, right here on DZ.COM among other places, to provide support for the proposal, despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies led to the problems described.

I did not say it was leveraged and I did not say it wasn't leveraged, what I said was~

The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

You came back saying that statement is disingenuous and with more of your usual 'certain people' bullshit.

The statement is true, it was aimed at some whom I've spoken with, that because of vague and misleading accusative conjecture incorrectly believed that the program was set up as a quick fix answering the underwriters original tail-strike email 'to his customers'.

The discussion tone and manner of the follow-up to Robin thread helped lead to the confusion as the 'not demand' was misinterpreted as 'not needed' therefore no longer an issue.

Well...the WSI program IS still an issue.

What's disingenuous is inferring that since the insurance broker doesn't 'demand' USPA involvement...we ALL should ignore any benefit a program encompassing much more than tail-strike avoidance procedures offers.


What's disingenuous is regurgitating your "despite containing no evidence whatsoever that training deficiencies..." as some form of (what) misdirection as a response to my attempt to clear up a misunderstanding that's not relevant to 'leverage' in anyone's mind but yours.

What's disingenuous is vague and incomplete references accusing 'certain people' of doing 'some things'...


This isn't sewing circle fill in the blanks rumor mill...if Joe Shit the rag-man put the high hard one to your prize goat, then SAY ~ Joe Shit fucked BigBilly behind the barn again.


I stand by MY statement~
The proposed standardized wing-suit training program was NOT designed to address specifically or generally, any concerns an aircraft insurer may have voiced.

It's NOT disingenuous, vague, or misleading...it's not meant as between the lines accusation OR justification for what 'certian people' 'may' or 'may not' have done, at 'one time or another' regarding 'that thing' we're all so intimately familiar with...what was it again?

THAT instructor has never had any USPA instructor ratings.
If he had, they would have been yanked following the incident.
The USPA rated instructor told the kid he wasn't ready for wingies yet, as he should have.