Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

Quote

I've been around guns for 50 years and never shot myself, never 'got complacent' ~ Strong training & vigilance pays off.

Good, now never let yourself unconciously allow yourself to be "that guy" It CAN happen.

Quote

If it saves a life is it worth it?

YES (IF)

Quote

I strongly urge those on the wire to ask questions of the right people...get facts don't go on rumor or unreasonable assertions.

I ask the same.

Quote

EFS ~ If you seriously believe DSE stands to gain $$ from this I urge you to ask him directly. I think you'll be surprised by the real answer.

I may just do that.

BTW my previous response was prior to my PM response.

Quote

Quote

....... Do we have incidents of low time WSers dying? The recent incidents I remember all entail very very experienced wingsuiters.

very very experienced wingsuiters.... who may not have been trained properly? Herein lyes the problem.

Following that logic, every very very experienced skydiver who hooks in under a perfectly good canopy may not have been trained properly, yet they were trained by USPA rated instructors.

Quote

And this is a problem that we can fix.

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

Quote

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.

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

Quote

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

Quote

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.

...

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

Quote

Quote

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

Quote

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.

And it's nice you agree it can only be 'FIXED if'...So you admit that there IS a problem that needs fixing, step one complete.


I offer a fix....you show me indisputable proof it won't work and then we'll discuss the benefit of doing nothing.

I think we have a pretty good handle on what the doin' nothing thing accomplishes fixing problems.

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

No

We should demand that USPA concentrate on real issues that affect all skydivers like airport access.

How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.

Quote

No

We should demand that USPA concentrate on real issues that affect all skydivers like airport access.

How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.

Are my expectations too high...can't we address more than one issue at a time?

Quote

Quote

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

Quote

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.

It seems to me that USPA realized they missed the boat on the canopy thing. They have started now to go back and put some things into place (like a required canopy course for a B license ect.). I think they just really want to get out ahead of this before it gets equally out of control as the carnage under canopy.

To me, that is a good thing. Like Twardo said, I think the USPA can handle a few different issues/programs at once. Nobody at HQ is saying "drop everything, we need to focus on wingsuits". Im sure canopy and IE issues are on the menu as well.

BASE 1384

Quote

Quote

Quote

It can only be fixed if it has been properly diagnosed in the first place, and so far there is NO PROOF AT ALL that improper training is the correct diagnosis.

Quote

Yeah we can let the patient die while we discuss what constitutes proof of correct diagnosis, or we can plug the hole like we did successfully on the last few that came through and lived.

Nice to see you admit that all you have is a guess, and no proof whatsoever of a correct diagnosis. Yet you want to impose a whole new bureaucracy on us and set a precedent for USPA on account of a GUESS!

So why aren't you campaigning for USPA Canopy-I and -I/E ratings? Canopy flight kills lots more skydivers than wingsuiting and you have exactly the same amount of proof that poor training is cause of the problem.

It seems to me that USPA realized they missed the boat on the canopy thing. They have started now to go back and put some things into place (like a required canopy course for a B license ect.). I think they just really want to get out ahead of this before it gets equally out of control as the carnage under canopy.

To me, that is a good thing. Like Twardo said, I think the USPA can handle a few different issues/programs at once. Nobody at HQ is saying "drop everything, we need to focus on wingsuits". Im sure canopy and IE issues are on the menu as well.

Go read the fatality reports and report back to us on which issue is the more urgently in need of a fix - canopy flight or wingsuits.


Next show us some evidence that adding USPA ratings will solve either problem.

Then show us this "menu" of which you speak.

...

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

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.

For this system to work it's going to require a lot of traveling by either the evaluators or the evaluated. Of course, if you’re the one at the top, it’s understood that the person wanting the instruction pays. I see a lot of money in course costs, travel, and per diem, not to mention aircraft slots and classrooms. Somehow I don’t think that these new IE’s and I’s are going to hand out ratings for free. Also if I were looking for a job right now I’d be checking at USPA to see if all the Admin support jobs in the Safety and Training Department have been filled. I see a massive bureaucracy being paid for by both the jumper wanting to wingsuit and the general membership.

I also see Wingsuiting as a discipline being severely restricted by this system in it’s creativity in the name of “standardization” much like progressive thinking was (and is) discouraged in AFF teaching techniques. I keep reading on here about current WSI’s that believe they won’t have to make any changes to what they are already doing but if WS becomes a rating, if they are teaching at a USPA GM dropzone, they will have to be rated by USPA and essentially teach the syllabus provided. If you’re a current WSI make sure you read the proposal and be prepared to attend a rating course and to teach the proposed syllabus.

All this being said, I don’t think I can support the current proposal of a full rating system. The USPA survey question is supposed to be in the November issue which I haven’t seen yet but I’ll be interested in seeing how the question is phrased. I support more basic WS instruction but a rating system is excessive. Hopefully this won’t be handled the way the canopy instruction problem was handled and just passed off to some S+TA to designate someone they think knows what they are teaching. I am seeing that with more resistance to the rating idea being posted on-line that some people have ideas that would work and I would hope that everyone keeps an open mind when it comes to solving this problem with the least amount of intrusion and cost toi the average jumper.

Quote

Quote

No

We should demand that USPA concentrate on real issues that affect all skydivers like airport access.

How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.

Sure. We can determine what the real issues are rather than guessing. THEN we devise real fixes for the actual problems rather than arrogantly assuming without any proof that we know what to do.

If the issue is complacency among experienced skydivers (which is the way the evidence points), then adding new USPA ratings won't fix it.

...

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

• Quote

Quote

If the issue is complacency among experienced skydivers (which is the way the evidence points), then adding new USPA ratings won't fix it.

+1 Thank you, exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.

Quote

How we have come to make such a big deal out of a such a non-issue is beyond me.

Connect the dots. Seriously it isn't hard to figure out who started the issue and the few that stand to benefit. It has been mentioned several times.

Quote

How many pre-BSR deaths were there of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? At least 5 we can prove, nearly double that in related incidents.
How many post BSR deaths of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits?
Zero.

This is DSE's quote from his Online opinion Poll sticky. Now correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this prove the BSR worked? and if so where the hell is there the need for WS-I & I/E? I fully supported the 200 jump BSR, and I could support adding to it as far as seeking instruciton from an experienced WSer but this proposed regime is unfounded.

Supporters need to open their eyes and mind instead of blindly supporting bullshit.

Quote

there is a very big difference (IMO) between reading "launch with your wings collapsed" and doing it several times while someone is watching you, ready to tell you what you did wrong if you don't do it.

I agree and I would support adding a standardized course backing it by mandation through a BSR. I just can not support DSE and a handful of others being the only ones that can teach it. There are PLENTY of wingsuiters out there capable of teaching me the basics of wingsuiting safely. If a buddy that has hundreds of wingsuit jumps is willing to teach me for free then he should be allowed to. We are not talking about an ISP program here. We are talking about jumpers with at the minimum 200 jumps.

Can you see a problem with a standardized course being mandated for new coming wingsuiters, but it being allowed by any experienced wingsuiter with at least a coach rating and say 200 WS jumps? This standard would include at least a couple coach jumps. I mean we let coaches with 50 jumps teach the non-method specific portion of the FJC to people that have NEVER skydived before!!!

I am all for education and safety Bill. I have been teaching the FJC's at my DZ for two years. I am an instructror in other professions as well which helps. My DZO recently said I did a better job at teaching it then him, which felt like an awesome compliment. Although I can't speak for him Gary Peek would probably approve of my instruction too. I just think this regime of 7 is wholey unnecessary. There will be a significant cost to the USPA, and individual members, all benifiting a few monetarily.

Schools like Flock-U and DSE's etc would still be doing their thing, and if qualified I would be able to seek my instruction from a mentor that is qualified. I had the benift of learning a little from a freeflier by the name of Sean Hutto. He has never charged me a dime. Same with Kiwi Hamilton at couch freaks, all I had to do was pay for the 5 jump tickets for him. That is the way it should be.

I think there is a middle ground here that would accomplish the same thing, and I wish some of these supporters would just think about that. Many are just going to see the ballot and check yes because the figure "safety" when they haven't done their homework or considered the consequences of instituting this.

Would current winguiters be grandfathered to this "rating" or will they have to go pay DSE? This is just wrong, not even needed, and not the only way to accomplish the goals.

Actually Bill, I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases complacency. It makes it much easier to relax knowing that you were taught 'everything important'.

Quote

I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases complacency.

Can you explain what you mean by a "one off" course?

Edited to add: Do you even know the courses that Flock-U and DSE teach currently?

Quote

>Actually Bill, I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases
>complacency.

?? I took a one-off AFF JCC. It definitely did not "increase complacency." If anything it taught me how little I knew about teaching skydiving. Same for my seaplane rating, divemaster rating (PADI not USPA) wreck certification etc.

>It makes it much easier to relax knowing that you were taught 'everything important'.

??????? No course in skydiving teaches "everything important." How the heck did you get that idea?

+1,000,000

Quote

>Actually Bill, I'd argue that a one off course increases rather than decreases
>complacency.

?? I took a one-off AFF JCC. It definitely did not "increase complacency." If anything it taught me how little I knew about teaching skydiving. Same for my seaplane rating, divemaster rating (PADI not USPA) wreck certification etc.

>It makes it much easier to relax knowing that you were taught 'everything important'.

??????? No course in skydiving teaches "everything important." How the heck did you get that idea?

What I'm getting at is continuing education and assessment are more effective than a course for people beyond the 'baby steps'. People tend to forget what they are taught over time, and develop bad habits. Human nature is to assume that because I was taught xyz 10 years ago I know what I'm doing.

In your case you've committed to continuing education. Compare that to someone with x number of jumps, whose never had tuition beyond the bare minimum for their A license. There are enough of them around, and they 'know everything'.

Quote

Quote

Quote

This parallels his (and many other people's) belief that you should not need a wingsuit instructor rating to instruct licensed skydivers in wingsuiting.

Quote

Because UNLIKE all other areas of aviation, licensed Skydivers are just 'born' with skills & knowledge allowing for transition to more complex equipment & procedures...without needing to concern themselves about experienced instruction or performance standards evaluation.

So you'd like a PRO-I, PRO I/E and PRO-course director rating from USPA to train people to get PRO ratings - no one is born knowing how to get a PRO rating.

Ditto for freeflying - no-one is born knowing how to freefly.

Ditto for CRW - no one is born knowing how to do CRW.

Ditto for skysurfing - no-one is born knowing how to jump a board.

Ditto for pond surfing - no-one is born knowing how to do that.

What a lot of new USPA ratings you want.

Nope they sure aren't born with the skills...so what they do is boldly go into the unknown and hope they learn through osmosis before they get hurt or killed, or they pay someone with both the experience and the ability to teach it effectively, which is a safer and smarter way to go IMHO.

Of course some of them get hurt or killed anyway...hummm, bygosh maybe your right!

If there was only a way we could make sure the paid teachers are qualified to be teaching, and that they are all covering the same material the same basic way...what a wonderful world it WOULD be!






and like I said before...as soon as any or all of those various disciplines creates a situation across the board due to incidents...which if not addressed satisfactorily could in effect entirely change the way a drop-zone can do business, if at all

~ then yeah, I'm pretty sure some evaluation of skills and secondary training parameters might be put in place.

Uh the Pro rating was created because a bunch of yahoos were hurting themselves and others at demos.

So why not create a wingsuit rating exactly like the demo? You did notice that we didn't create an instructor rating to teach demos... Right?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Nigel99 I know your reply was focused to Bill, however that is what I was saying earlier up thread. No FJC or FFC is going to fight complacency. However, I don't see a lot of up jumpers being onboard with some kind of continuing education and evalutation of theirs skills. Hey lets go tell guys like Nick, Ian, BG, and such that we think they could get complacent so they have to now go do X. Um yeah that won't work, rightfully so. The ONLY way to battle complacency is through CONSTANT SELF-VIGILANCE. Don't take my experience or word for it, just look at all the study and research that has been conducted by the military, the secret service, law enforcement, etc.

Your "one off" course comment is what is being implemented. No one is really arguing about what should be taught in a FFC. People pretty much agree on that. But do we need a whole new I & I/E program to teach what has already been being taught? There is NO evidence to suggest that we do.

I agree with Ron. We don't have I & I/E for Pro, a point I brought up early in the thread. Hell I would change the verbage there too. I would call it a Pro endorsement. We could have a Wingsuit endorsement system as well. An experienced wingsuit should be allowed to give you a FFC and a couple coach jumps and sign you off.

DSE's own quote I posted early up thread confirms the BSR change worked. We do not need to make this more complicated and expensive than it needs to be. There is zero need for a new regime of I/E's just for wingsuits.

USPA should set a standardized FFC sure, I can buy that, but to think a Wingsuiter with a couple hundred winguit jumps who is already an instructor in other disciplines can't teach me is ridiculous.