Recommended Posts
PhreeZone 20
Here is the "survey" http://tayaweiss.com/
Its not a survey but more of a "If you are against the USPA doing a Wingsuit Instructor program sign this". I see a few names on there that I know only have 100 jumps or so and a lot of foreign jumpers also.
One issue with the "survey" is there is no way to validate the person is a current USPA member since those data points were not collected and nothing is preventing someone from just typing names away and keep pressing submit.
Its not a survey but more of a "If you are against the USPA doing a Wingsuit Instructor program sign this". I see a few names on there that I know only have 100 jumps or so and a lot of foreign jumpers also.
One issue with the "survey" is there is no way to validate the person is a current USPA member since those data points were not collected and nothing is preventing someone from just typing names away and keep pressing submit.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
I've spoken with quite a few people on this matter and there seems to be a lot of less than factual 'information' being disseminated by those against it.
QuoteAnd by those for it. Some of the events in the report happened in other countries were a USPA WS instructor would not/ will not have had an effect.
Quote
I'm not a wingsuiter and I can see the need for this, my eyes were shocked open a short while back while performing at an airshow, when a young woman approached me as a 'Skydiver' wanting to know where she could rent a parachute.
It seems she had made ONE tandem 5 years prior thus qualifying her as a jumper, she found the website on-line and rented a wingsuit so she could emulate the wingsuit videos she'd seen on YouTube.
Dismayed the suit did not come with the parachute she was trying everything she could to get a rig in the next few days to 'go out west' and jump.
Somebody is gonna make the headlines in a big way one of these days, and 'WE' will be the villains for turning a blind eye.Quote
That is an insane example. That would be the equivalent of a non pilot getting access to an aircraft, which has happened may times, and the untrained airman proceding to steal, fly and crash it as the reason for the FAA to impose new regulation in general aviation. You gotta be smarter than that.
I seriously AM curious as to the reasoning against this, are some current 'instructors' fearful they won't be able to make the program quals?
Is the USPA worried about the time & money the program will involve?Quote
There are plenty of good qualified people available to mentor wingsuits to an experienced skydiver as domestically defined by the SIM that simply want to grow their discipline but don't want to get a full blow AFF type rating to do so. Just like the people that mentor in CRW or FF. There is nothing more complex about wingsuits than say CRW and we are not requiring a rating there.
More than half of all wingsuit manufacturers rely on the mentors in the field and don't have an in house instructor program... The system works it does not need fix.
Yeah it was recommended to enter USPA # but after the fact in my case. I can't drop my name twice. I don't know how you can tell who is and isn't a skydiver. I personally know over 50 people on the list all active wingsuiters. The WSI poll here had what 50 responses from us? Not counting what was gathered from DZOs and others.
pms07 3
airtwardo; I don't think the AFF and tandem comparisons are very compelling. In those programs we are not teaching licensed skydivers with a minimum of 200 jumps. Rather we are teaching basic students. Much different...
If we are to have rated instructors for specialized equipment I suggest we start with high performance canopies/performance landings as that is an area where we clearly have a problem. Then add CRW to the list, style and accuracy, etc, as many skydiving activities use specialized equipment.
I was attending USPA Board meetings when we implented the PRO rating. The purpose had little to do with smoke and flags (specialized equipment) at the time...rather accuracy skills were the primary issue I remember.
I was involved in the AFF implementation also and earned the USPA rating the first year of the program (1982). The USPA program is what made AFF mainstream…I just don’t see much similarity to AFF in 1981-82 to where we are with wingsuits in 2012.
I provided the USPA sub-committee with input. Briefly that included; we have a basic standardized wingsuit FFC syllabus (it's in the SIM). That should be greatly expanded as a starting point…using widely gathered input from the community.
We need a significant educational effort for S&TAs, DZOs and jump pilots to better understand wingsuit flight patterns and jump run issues, deconflicting airspace, airspeed and tailstrike issues, etc. Handouts or video educational materials, or seminars, would be very useful in that effort.
We also need to help DZOs better understand the differences in the size and performance of various size/model wingsuits...and which are appropriate at what experience level. A chart or similar product that shows common models and performance characteristics might be useful.
I don’t run a wingsuit school, sell wingsuits, or coach a FFC. Nor do I intend to anytime in the foreseeable future. So, if USPA decides to implement a program based on the current proposal there is little impact to me personally.
I have also seen the wingsuit program that DSE runs and it is very professional and thorough. If the USPA does approve this proposal I would probably go through the instructor rating course just to expand my knowledge. I just don’t believe implementing this program right now is a decision the USPA has fully considered or gathered input on.
I do appreciate that the USPA has spent so much time and effort in helping the wingsuit discipline mature. Bottomline; I don't believe we have consensus in the community on what a uniform or universally accepted FFC would look like. Nor do I believe the USPA has gathered all the input to make that decision. In fact wingsuiting is rapidly evolving and there isn't a "certain way" as you suggest.
If we are to have rated instructors for specialized equipment I suggest we start with high performance canopies/performance landings as that is an area where we clearly have a problem. Then add CRW to the list, style and accuracy, etc, as many skydiving activities use specialized equipment.
I was attending USPA Board meetings when we implented the PRO rating. The purpose had little to do with smoke and flags (specialized equipment) at the time...rather accuracy skills were the primary issue I remember.
I was involved in the AFF implementation also and earned the USPA rating the first year of the program (1982). The USPA program is what made AFF mainstream…I just don’t see much similarity to AFF in 1981-82 to where we are with wingsuits in 2012.
I provided the USPA sub-committee with input. Briefly that included; we have a basic standardized wingsuit FFC syllabus (it's in the SIM). That should be greatly expanded as a starting point…using widely gathered input from the community.
We need a significant educational effort for S&TAs, DZOs and jump pilots to better understand wingsuit flight patterns and jump run issues, deconflicting airspace, airspeed and tailstrike issues, etc. Handouts or video educational materials, or seminars, would be very useful in that effort.
We also need to help DZOs better understand the differences in the size and performance of various size/model wingsuits...and which are appropriate at what experience level. A chart or similar product that shows common models and performance characteristics might be useful.
I don’t run a wingsuit school, sell wingsuits, or coach a FFC. Nor do I intend to anytime in the foreseeable future. So, if USPA decides to implement a program based on the current proposal there is little impact to me personally.
I have also seen the wingsuit program that DSE runs and it is very professional and thorough. If the USPA does approve this proposal I would probably go through the instructor rating course just to expand my knowledge. I just don’t believe implementing this program right now is a decision the USPA has fully considered or gathered input on.
I do appreciate that the USPA has spent so much time and effort in helping the wingsuit discipline mature. Bottomline; I don't believe we have consensus in the community on what a uniform or universally accepted FFC would look like. Nor do I believe the USPA has gathered all the input to make that decision. In fact wingsuiting is rapidly evolving and there isn't a "certain way" as you suggest.
Food for thought...I thank you for that!
I condend however that 'gathering more information' is at this point a way of ignoring the issue to an extent.
The USPA has been given a well conceived, thoroughly thought out, properly written set of guidelines with which to move forward. . .failure to do so after what's already been looked at says (to me anyway) that some other kind of issue is retarding the implementation.
Is it financial concerns? I truly don't know...but if that's NOT the sole reason, what MORE do we need to look at regarding the downside?
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
I condend however that 'gathering more information' is at this point a way of ignoring the issue to an extent.
The USPA has been given a well conceived, thoroughly thought out, properly written set of guidelines with which to move forward. . .failure to do so after what's already been looked at says (to me anyway) that some other kind of issue is retarding the implementation.
Is it financial concerns? I truly don't know...but if that's NOT the sole reason, what MORE do we need to look at regarding the downside?
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
bigbearfng 18
Rather than repeating most everything in this thread....
Take a look at the wingsuit forum /Wingsuit Instructor/Coach Rating Input Needed.
thread.
Take a look at the wingsuit forum /Wingsuit Instructor/Coach Rating Input Needed.
thread.
I can possibly shed some light as to why there is hesitation. Currently there is poll of well over 2oo actual wingsuiters against this. Enough to build the wingsuit world record three times over. They are also part of the constituency. Not sure of who will be allowed to vote, whether it will be a sub committee or the whole board. Some of the BOD have actual personal wingsuit experience and don't have to rely on sensationalized facts or fiction to decide.
I'm sure others don't want to jump down the wrong track as an example the decision to make the USPT a demo money maker for the team fund.
They have to represent everybody involved.
Again, my question is what kind of poll...how exactly were the polling questions phrased?
Was the poll structured by someone with an agenda against the program? (it was, there by invalidating any use as a tool to show much of anything other than transparent desperate measures )
A question like 'are you against USPA regulating wingsuit instruction' isn't really a 'poll' at all, and representing it as signed by all active wingsuiters when in fact it isn't, some aren't even skydivers ...is rather telling in regard to it's validity.
I doubt that anyone giving that 'poll' a hard look will think much of it.
I'm not a wingsuiter (yet) but this issue interests me because even the most basic research that I have done shows me there is quite a bit of disparity in the instructional programs as they now exist, I do a lot of research before 'jumping' into something new.
I find with this, as in a lot of things,... that it's not until you begin to ask the follow-up questions, check the 'facts' being stated and demand acceptable responses do you begin to get the whole picture.
Lets face it, most people passionate on either side of the issue have an agenda that they are pushing...true in most arguments.
I'm saying I believe that having some oversight and direction regarding who teaches what and how pertaining to a new branch of the sport in which improper or incomplete education can & has killed people... is positive & forward thinking.
Opponents to that opinion thus far have countered with things like it's an unnecessary layer that will hinder the sport. . .and offer little else.
OK, ...how so exactly?
Show me logically and with referanceable data that speaks directly to how the program will hinder the safe growth of the sport in that new area.
In other words CONVINCE me with something other than blind emotional rhetoric and laughable 'polls'...it's the same way we got USPA to take the 2nd look at at USPT's demo debacle, cut through the blind emotional 'agenda' bullshit and look at the facts.
Personally I have no agenda with this issue, I see a side with a positive outcome and no real downside ~
~and then there are those opposing ...that have no real reason they can logically put forth, and attempt to use mis-information as a platform to stand on.
Buzz words and scare tactics have little effect on me, I've been around the block a few times and I know how the 'Chicken Little's' operate...Don't just sensationalize and tell me the sky is falling, prove it.
Sorry, but give me an argument against that actually tells me something, I'll check your facts and THEN decide if you're shooting straight.
When ya build a platform on bullshit you tend to sink to your elbows in it ~and that throws off the aim...
~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites