Should WE demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me.

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.

Heres my 2 cents Kallend. Just for you.

you have roughly 15 times the amount of posts as you do jumps. you seem to talk about this a lot more than most, so its surprising you still dont get it. Im going to say this once for you.

Take your evidence and shove it directly where the sun doesn't shine.

Your evidence, you so desperately require, are contacts of friends that are in my phone that are dead that I cannot delete. They are also in the hundreds of students I have trained out there throughout the years. My opinion, which was in part formed by the numerous FAA ratings that I held even before skydiving at the age of 18, and the amount of standardized instruction Id received, and given since then, and for 5 years before that teaching scuba, from a standardized format. So pretty much from the time I was a teenager, I've been teaching a standardized course of some kind for something that could kill you. My evidence is in my experience, knowledge, and opinion based on those things. It's not guesswork. Id like to continue flying my wingsuit for years to come, and I've done my part by teaching people well. Why be so against something that is to help those coming up? from which we learned through experience? thats just plain stupid, and thats surprising because your a smart guy...

Evolution is unstoppable, and through what many of us have learned, we have found a way to put out safer students than maybe how we were once taught. Not all have the same experience.

Stop being the problem, get your head out of your ass, and help solve it.

Still love ya tho John


Scotty Burns

Quote

Quote

Quote

i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

There was no standardized flight training for pilots in the USA, and no evidence standardized flight training would create safer pilots/fewer incidents either. But the Army Air Service felt the need to standardize flight training due to budgets and damaged/destroyed aircraft and oddly enough...there were fewer incidents once standard training began at Ft. Sill.

Spend some time on ERIC and read the hundreds of papers on standardized training systems in the civilian and military world, and the value of standards are overwhelmingly evident.
In our sport, we cannot have standards without a body maintaining those standards. USPA is that body. With (now 5) separate groups providing wingsuit "ratings" and only one of them having any USPA background, it's no wonder we're in a messy spot. Choose the person that will give you your "rating" because he's easier/cheaper/more of a cool dude" and you have the letters. It's like getting your PhD over the internet. Anyone can do it. Of all people, it would seem an educated person would comprehend the value.

You demand evidence in a vacuum because it's an easy argument. It's a weak argument to look backwards and say "doing this wouldn't have prevented that." However, empirical data from several sports proves the value of standardized training and behavior, administered by a communal body (Snowboarding is perhaps the best recent example). Snowboarders were banned from mountains for years until a governing body was created, best practices standardized, promised, and adhered to. Now, it's grown to be one of the biggest winter sports. Historically, standards have caused activities to significantly grow.

No other discipline can exit the aircraft at least a minute after tandems and open up 3-4 miles away from the exit point, up to 4 minutes after the exit. No other discipline can zoom past a tandem at 100 mph. No other discipline uses different deployment techniques, has instability potential, nor tail strike potential like wingsuiting does.

No other discipline is being eyeballed by FAA or insurance companies, either.
Please provide historical evidence that any insurance company has ever written a letter regarding any skydiving discipline and potential pushback on insuring aircraft.

Oh, forgot to add, +10 Dse

:)


now to everyone with more than 5 times the amount of posts as they have jumps~ SHUT the hell up and go jump.

That is all. Good day~ :)

Reprinted with permission from a letter sent to his DZ's mailing list:

A personal message from Lee Schlichtemeier USPA Southwest Regional Director

[First two paragraphs omitted, not relevant to this discussion]
....
Third, there will be a 'beauty contest' vote also on the ballot. This will be a membership non-binding vote on whether or not to create a special instructional rating for Wingsuit instructors. The proposal is on the USPA website (even though it is a little hard to find). I hope you will vote 'No' on this issue. This vote will not institute the rating but will give a semblance of guidance to the next USPA Board of Directors with regard to developing this rating. My reasons for asking for a 'No' vote for this issue is as follows:

The issue of whether or not to create a Wingsuit instructor rating was not the idea of USPA Headquarters or the USPA Board of Directors. It was a request by a faction of the Wingsuit community to the board.

The issue has not been staffed [note: I'm pretty sure he meant to say studied] by USPA Headquarters. Therefore, no cost/benefit analysis or resource requirements have been examined by the USPA Headquarters department (Safety & Training) that would be called upon to institute this rating. And, again, it was not requested by USPA Headquarters (Safety & Training), the staff who would be called upon to institute this rating.

There is no measurable evidence that this rating would have usefulness with regard to the safety of Wingsuit flight.

Most importantly, this represents an entirely new direction for the USPA instructional system to embark upon. Specifically, there currently are no 'advanced ratings' for the average skydiver. If this proposal is instituted, it represents the first additional requirement for formal instructional training beyond licensure. It is the proverbial 'camel's nose under the tent.' It opens the door for additional training requirements for licensed skydivers to participate in other skydiving disciplines such as freeflight, formation skydiving, canopy formations, canopy piloting, etc. While we would all argue that additional experience and preferably training is desirable for these activities, you need to picture a world where you would be required to receive that training from a USPA-rated instructor (in that specific discipline) before being allowed to participate. This expansion of bureaucracy and rules (beyond BSRs) represents an unnecessary and complicated intrusion into the choices that are currently available to skydivers.

This issue and even placing this non-binding poll on the ballot was very contentious at the Safety & Training Committee level and at the full Board of Directors level. The issue was extensively debated and original motion modified several times and the final motion that allowed this non-binding membership vote passed the full board by a plurality, not a majority. Several board members abstained on the final vote and if they had voted, there may have not been sufficient votes to carry even this motion.


Again, I ask you to vote 'No' on this issue if you want the freedom of choice of skydiving disciplines that you currently enjoy to continue, if you feel this proposed instructional rating is unwarranted and unnecessary or if you feel that this issue should be more adequately evaluated by the proper and time-tested methods of developing USPA instructional programs.

Thank you.

Lee Schlichtemeier
USPA Southwest Regional Director
D-16256
[email protected]

I did not include his phone numbers, but I believe they can be found in the front of your Parachutist. If you aren't a member and can't view one online, pm and I'll send it to you. I changed formatting for the post, but it is otherwise unchanged except for noted changes in [brackets].

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me.

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.

Take your evidence and shove it directly where the sun doesn't shine.

That would be easy, since no-one has produced any evidence that poor initial training in a FFC caused any of the problems.

John, Here it is one more time, since it didn't sink in the first time around.. Heres your precious evidence.. As I said in my previous post :

Your evidence, you so desperately require, are contacts of friends that are in my phone that are dead that I cannot delete. They are also in the hundreds of students I have trained out there throughout the years. My opinion, which was in part formed by the numerous FAA ratings that I held even before skydiving at the age of 18, and the amount of standardized instruction Id received, and given since then, and for 5 years before that teaching scuba, from a standardized format. So pretty much from the time I was a teenager, I've been teaching a standardized course of some kind for something that could kill you. My evidence is in my experience, knowledge, and opinion based on those things. It's not guesswork. Id like to continue flying my wingsuit for years to come, and I've done my part by teaching people well. Why be so against something that is to help those coming up? from which we learned through experience? thats just plain stupid, and thats surprising because your a smart guy...

Would you now like a slice of my brain or to sinc with my smartphone to give you what your looking for?


And to Floormonkey and Lee Schlichtemeier,

How many wingsuit FFC's have you taught? How many people have started skydiving to come learn to fly a wingsuit with you? have you ever had to deal with phone calls from people who are ready to start flying a wingsuit but have never even heard of a dropzone? ever had to wonder how you could keep bad things from happening to your friends? Id like to think I stand for something, ask any of my students what they thought of the instruction they received. Id say I've got a clue what Im talking about.

I dont have time, nor the willingness to cut out my own brain, just to satisfy your need to know something that you should already know, but so many of us, that do this so much more than those Im replying to, have known, and been doing something about for quite some time. Id like to think my experience, knowledge, and opinion would be admissible in court as an expert witness, wouldn't you agree? So Id like to think that it might be something worth listening to. you may hover over your computer awaiting the next response on dz.com, But im not. As you can see, I havent posted on here much, just when its actually about something important.


oh, and are you really tellin me that poop covered toilet paper in the toilet isn't actually evidence of poop, if theres no physical turd in the bowl? Im pretty sure you could smell it walking into the room, but you have to see it too?

Wake up and smell the birds#it. the FFC i got in 05 was about 4 mins long, and consisted of "pull with both hands". Im pretty sure we've come a long way since then, and it sure sounds like your all listening to the wrong damn people.


Just so we're clear~ you cant have a piece of my brain as evidence, but you can come sit on my phone to sinc with it.


Scotty Burns

Quote

Reprinted with permission from a letter sent to his DZ's mailing list:

Quote

The issue of whether or not to create a Wingsuit instructor rating was not the idea of USPA Headquarters or the USPA Board of Directors. It was a request by a faction of the Wingsuit community to the board.

Fair enough.

Quote

The issue has not been staffed [note: I'm pretty sure he meant to say studied] by USPA Headquarters. Therefore, no cost/benefit analysis or resource requirements have been examined by the USPA Headquarters department (Safety & Training) that would be called upon to institute this rating. And, again, it was not requested by USPA Headquarters (Safety & Training), the staff who would be called upon to institute this rating.

Tone and composition suggest to me retired officer. Likely O-6 but maybe O-5. Given that I’m quite sure he meant staffed and not studied as you’ve suggested. I take special exception to the position that this initiative is inferior or groundless because it wasn’t dreamt up by USPA HQ or requested by USPA HQ. All USPA members should take this point that is raised seriously. He’s very seriously saying that the membership has no business telling our elected representatives what is important to us.

Quote

There is no measurable evidence that this rating would have usefulness with regard to the safety of Wingsuit flight.

Can we get a Kallend emoticon?

Quote

Most importantly, this represents an entirely new direction for the USPA instructional system to embark upon. Specifically, there currently are no 'advanced ratings' for the average skydiver. If this proposal is instituted, it represents the first additional requirement for formal instructional training beyond licensure. It is the proverbial 'camel's nose under the tent.' It opens the door for additional training requirements for licensed skydivers to participate in other skydiving disciplines such as freeflight, formation skydiving, canopy formations, canopy piloting, etc. While we would all argue that additional experience and preferably training is desirable for these activities, you need to picture a world where you would be required to receive that training from a USPA-rated instructor (in that specific discipline) before being allowed to participate. This expansion of bureaucracy and rules (beyond BSRs) represents an unnecessary and complicated intrusion into the choices that are currently available to skydivers.

Sure, legitimate point. The consternation that this proposal is generating in the community over a very small slice of the overall the skydiving population makes it hard for me to believe that we are in danger of these boogiemen.

Quote

This issue and even placing this non-binding poll on the ballot was very contentious at the Safety & Training Committee level and at the full Board of Directors level. The issue was extensively debated and original motion modified several times and the final motion that allowed this non-binding membership vote passed the full board by a plurality, not a majority. Several board members abstained on the final vote and if they had voted, there may have not been sufficient votes to carry even this motion.

Great so some board members didn’t feel like letting their personal position be known and abstained. What was the exact tally (for/against/abstained)? Who cares what might have been. I might have been an astronaut.

Quote

Again, I ask you to vote 'No' on this issue if you want the freedom of choice of skydiving disciplines that you currently enjoy to continue, if you feel this proposed instructional rating is unwarranted and unnecessary or if you feel that this issue should be more adequately evaluated by the proper and time-tested methods of developing USPA instructional programs.

Can you feel the boogieman placing his hands on your shoulders young child? A sampling of the membership wouldn’t lead to an instantaneous rollout. There has been an attempt at proper evaluation using “time-tested methods of developing USPA instructional programs”. And it has been stonewalled by opposition that has been overwhelmingly histrionic.

Lastly can someone tell me what this program will cost USPA to roll out? I doubt it. This was an extremely weak point raised by the opposition at the original presentation. Perhaps someone on S&T has put a few scribbles together but I’m not optimistic.

• Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

i think there should be a program for wingsuits that is similar to AFF. I know there will be extra costs for it but how do you put a price on safety and your life. Just my .02 cents

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree.

However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase.

Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities.

For someone who is involved in education, your lack of faith in education in raising standards surprises me.

Current educational practice, enforced by all accreditation agencies, requires EVIDENCE BASED continuous improvement. Not guesswork.

That's not really what I mean't. What I was asking you, is do you see NO value in educating jumpers?

I get the fact that you would like to see research and evidence gathered first. As we have no formal structure at present, it is difficult to have continuous improvement as there is nothing to measure against.

I think that Scott summed it up quite well - surely there is evidence from OTHER area's of life that show education improves safety? BTW I'm not picking on wingsuits, I'm happy with all advanced aspects requiring some form of training.

I don't think anyone disputes that education improves safety and that creating and mandating a standard assures a certain level of preparation for newbs and thus encourages safety.

What is being questioned is whether the danger associated with wing suit flying is so much greater than other skydiving disciplines so as to require an advanced rating, and, whether the non existence of such a standard is the only way (or the most effective way) to cure the problem of tail strikes (and thus the only way to keep the discipline alive) and promote safety.

That awareness has seemingly stopped the occurrence of tail strikes undermines the idea that a rating is necessary or the most efficient way to stop tail strikes: the most pressing issue at the time (the impetus as well as political tool to get this rating of the ground)

No one argues that bad exit techniques can and have been the result of bad training, but so far the only recorded fatality has occurred due to complacency and not due to initial bad training (demonstrable by the fact that the dead guy taught others the importance of proper exit technqiue). But even if the evidence suggests that tailstrikes have occured because of bad initial training the fact remains that communal awarness and self monitoring have done a sufficent job to curb the problem (as current evidence suggests). Thus implementing an advanced rating (and opening pandoras costly box) is not the only nor most efficient way to curb the primary problem associated with wing suiting.

The burden of proof remains with the pro rating side. It needs to be shown that a rating is necessary, that the problems of wingsuiting cannot be addressed otherwise and that the benefit of such a rating outweigh the costs (which are to a degree unknown).

Quote

However, empirical data from several sports proves the value of standardized training and behavior, administered by a communal body (Snowboarding is perhaps the best recent example). Snowboarders were banned from mountains for years until a governing body was created, best practices standardized, promised, and adhered to. Now, it's grown to be one of the biggest winter sports. Historically, standards have caused activities to significantly grow.

There are no standards regarding training methods in snow sports at all. There is a group AASA that is a sister organization to PSIA that examines instructors to give certification but it doesn't dictate how they teach. There is also no requirement to be certified to teach beginners, the reason most of us get certified is to be able to teach the upper levels which is where the fun is at.

The way we teach can be quite different depending on which ski resort you work for. Heck, in Breckenridge alone we have different styles between the pods.

Mountains started allowing snowboarders because teenage kids get to determine where their parents go on vacation.

Quote

With (now 5) separate groups providing wingsuit "ratings" and only one of them having any USPA background,

What does USPA background mean?

Yet in SCUBA if after receiving your basic instruction you want to go cave diving, wreck diving...use gas mix - you go through a standardized class and get the rating.

There is no standard in scuba training. Domestically we have available five different training organizations ( that I know of) with different methodology. The basics are all the same. There is even an online scuba certification.

I have gone cave and wreck diving without any ratings beyond open water and regularly shore solo dive with a bailout bottle....I have a lot of bottom time. Nobody is going to pull my card.

There is no such thing as a governing body fighting for snowboards. The resort owners wanted to cash in on what the cool kids were doing in the few limited "board parks" and this greed opened up the whole mountain eventially. But yes I remember when boards and skurfers were universally banned here and Europe, where I lived at the time. Today my kids rent boards and go all over the mountain with zero training because of business retention not due to a best practices policy of a governing body.

Stop comparing wingsuits and wingsuit training to other things that just don't apply. Snowboards, scuba and getting a PhD... really getting a PhD? Or aviation... unless you are going to enter the pattern and land your wingsuit.

I have gone cave and wreck diving without any ratings beyond open water and regularly shore solo dive with a bailout bottle....I have a lot of bottom time.

Quote

Good for you.


I'm sure disregarding basic safety practices totally enhances the experience for you, not to mention the swinging brass cool factor!

Hope ya don't get dead, and no offence but I don't dive with guys like you...SCUBA or SKY

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

Hope ya don't get dead, and no offence but I don't dive with guys like you...SCUBA or SKY

Hope I don't get dead before its the right time and no offence taken. The pleasure is all mine.

But we should strive to keep discussions relevant to wingsuit training. Not climbing, driving, dancing, diving, drinking, sking, boarding, flying.

Quote

Hope ya don't get dead, and no offence but I don't dive with guys like you...SCUBA or SKY

Hope I don't get dead before its the right time and no offence taken. The pleasure is all mine.

But we should strive to keep discussions relevant to wingsuit training. Not climbing, driving, dancing, diving, drinking, sking, boarding, flying.

I agree...your luck with disregarding safety has no relevance here.

What does however is the fact you speak from that mind-set, and your opinion should be noted as such and considered accordingly.

...only point I was making.

I agree...your luck with disregarding safety has no relevance here.

What does however is the fact you speak from that mind-set, and your opinion should be noted as such and considered accordingly.

...only point I was making.

Completely agree ! My mind set and opinion are only from one individual and I only get one vote, hardly a movement. My posts have been regarded " as such" way before you got here Princess.

This issue is way beyond a wingsuit " community" thang already. It has morphed into ratings for advanced disciplines. Lots more votes than just that tiny segment of jumpers.

So mind your facts on scuba and snowboarding. Some of the non-wingsuiting fallers may call you on some made up stuff sweetness.

My posts have been regarded " as such" way before you got here Princess.

Quote

I already knew that, just making sure everyone else did too...honey.

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

Quote

That's not really what I mean't. What I was asking you, is do you see NO value in educating jumpers?

Don't make up strawmen. I haven't claimed that.

Quote

I get the fact that you would like to see research and evidence gathered first. As we have no formal structure at present, it is difficult to have continuous improvement as there is nothing to measure against.

I think that Scott summed it up quite well - surely there is evidence from OTHER area's of life that show education improves safety? BTW I'm not picking on wingsuits,.

No-one disputes that training is needed. The issue is that NO EVIDENCE has been produced that the current system has resulted in any of the incidents being used to justify the creation of a whole new USPA bureaucracy with its associated costs. No evidence has been produced that the proposed USPA rating system will change anything.

A number of incidents have been described, but cannot be attributed to a poorly taught FFC any more than someone with 1500 jumps hooking it in can be attributed to poorly taught AFF.

Quote

I'm happy with all advanced aspects requiring some form of training

Confirming what many have pointed out, this proposal is just the camel's nose under the tent.