D jump requirements - USPA

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

Thanks for starting a new thread. I’m all for making the D more difficult to get, but as mentioned previously, there should not be a D requirement to be a TI. If an individual meets the manufacturer’s requirements why does USPA place an additional burden on them of getting a D?

The "D license" requirement for Tandem Instructors in the USA comes from the FAA, not the USPA:

FAR Sec. 105.45 — Use of tandem parachute systems.
(a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless—

(1) One of the parachutists using the tandem parachute system is the parachutist in command, and meets the following requirements:

(i) Has a minimum of 3 years of experience in parachuting, and must provide documentation that the parachutist—

(ii) Has completed a minimum of 500 freefall parachute jumps using a ram-air parachute, and

(iii) Holds a master parachute license issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, and

(iv) Has successfully completed a tandem instructor course given by the manufacturer of the tandem parachute system used in the parachute operation or a course acceptable to the Administrator.

(v) Has been certified by the appropriate parachute manufacturer or tandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used.

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[gearless_chris 1]

The NSL meets should count as competition, they are judged by official judges, and the cost is pretty minimal compared to trying to be competetive at Nationals. It's just up to 10 jumps over a weekend and a small meet fee. You shouldn't have to be on a podium to qualify for your D, just compete at least once.

The demo's may be a problem at some dz's. I had no trouble doing demo's at the 182 dz I started at, but demo's are far and few between at SDC. They aren't going to let just anybody do them.
You have to have the D license before you get an instructor rating, so maybe make the requirement to have a coach rating to get the D license.

"If it wasn't easy stupid people couldn't do it", Duane.

My momma said I could be anything I wanted when I grew up, so I became an a$$hole.

[danielcroft 2]

I'm with Ron on this one, I'd also like the required jump numbers to go up for all licenses. I have a coach rating and a pro rating. I've competed in 4 way and FF events locally at my DZ (not saying that counts mind) but I'd be happy to meet a higher standard in order to get the "new D". I'm not much for the competition side of things (I can be an ugly competitor ) but as long as there were some skill requirements that non-competition people could meet to satisfy the requirements then I'm all for it. Actually, I'm all for it anyway, screw me if I can't meet the requirements.

Another alternative that I have a feeling won't be popular would be to add another license after D with much stricter and more difficult skills requirements and leave the other licenses as they are. That way we can keep all the lame requirements for the existing licenses and say the "E" license would require some serious commitment to get and genuinely be an expression of skill.

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

You have to have the D license before you get an instructor rating, so maybe make the requirement to have a coach rating to get the D license.

The only USPA instructor rating which requires a D license is Tandem:

USPA SIM 3-1.E.3. Persons holding a USPA C license are able to exercise all privileges of a B-license holder, are eligible for the USPA Instructor rating (except USPA Tandem Instructor), participate in certain demonstration jumps, may ride as passenger on USPA Tandem Instructor training and rating renewal jumps, and must have--

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

While I actually like that plan, not everyone is cut out for, want to be, or SHOULD be an instructor/ competitor or demonstrator.

As a wise old guy who everybody knows and sits on the ground when the winds get squirrelly you'll be talking to youngsters more than other skydivers and it wouldn't hurt to have some instructing/training aptitude to combine with your words of wisdom.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I think an instructor rating of some sort should be required. If you don't know the sport well enough to teach it to others, then I don't see that you've earned a top license.

I'm gonna disagree with that part. You can be an instructor with just a couple of years in the sport, and that doesn't mean that you "know the sport" better than someone with thousands of jumps over one or more decades who has done things other than instructing.

It's usually those non-instructor types that teach the newbies how to do real group skydiving, once the newbies are no longer using instructors. One of the common complaints is that after students finish their formal student training, they're kicked out into the world on their own with no one to continue their upbringing. And that's where the veteran non-instructor jumpers come in. They play a valuable role in the sport that should not be discounted. That IS teaching the sport to others. Just because those veterans don't have a card that says "Instructor" on it, or because there's no USPA checklist, doesn't mean that they have nothing to offer, nor any role in teaching new jumpers.

[billvon 3,006]

>You can be an instructor with just a couple of years in the sport, and that doesn't mean
>that you "know the sport" better than someone with thousands of jumps over one or
>more decades who has done things other than instructing.

Agreed. But an instructor with thousands of jumps over one or more decades who has done a variety of things in the sport knows the sport a lot better than one who has never instructed.

[nigel99 501]

Quote

>I think that to get a "D" License you should have to show some level of proficiency in
>more than one thing.

Agreed. I think I would make two lists.

List A would be a list of (say) eight requirements, all of which must be met. Instructor rating, night training, water training (maybe make it live), competition experience in anything, demo experience, accuracy requirements, perhaps even basic aircraft flight instruction (a 2 hour familiarization flight.) Maybe add Kallend's "twilight jump" training. All requirements intended to add to lifesaving and judgment skills.

List B would be a list of say ten requirements, of which five have to be met. These would be the specialized skill category, like wingsuit flight or CRW. These are the cool-to-haves but not essential from the point of view of safety.

I think this approach would be the best. I would say a top license should involve doing and not simply learning though. So where you have water training (already covered by B license) an actual water jump would be more challenging.

As far as the discussion on instructor ratings go. In many martial arts to achieve the highest ranks you must teach. I don't see the coach rating as being an unreasonable and useful requirement.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[virgin-burner 1]

thank god there's only one license here and i dont have to deal with yet another thread with lots of yadda-yadda, complaining and ego-stroking!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[nigel99 501]

Quote

thank god there's only one license here and i dont have to deal with yet another thread with lots of yadda-yadda, complaining and ego-stroking!

I enjoy diversity and challenge. At my progression rate I am unlikely to achieve more than a C license. I also enjoy competing. It is useful to really know how good you are. I thought my accuracy was pretty good - till I came last in the competition.

When I do get a license I want to know that I earned it, not that it came free in a cornflakes box.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

thank god there's only one license here and i dont have to deal with yet another thread with lots of yadda-yadda, complaining and ego-stroking!

I enjoy diversity and challenge. At my progression rate I am unlikely to achieve more than a C license. I also enjoy competing. It is useful to really know how good you are. I thought my accuracy was pretty good - till I came last in the competition.

When I do get a license I want to know that I earned it, not that it came free in a cornflakes box.

When you get to OZ, we'll work on increasing your "jump rate" I'm an old man and you have to AT LEAST keep up with me

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

thank god there's only one license here and i dont have to deal with yet another thread with lots of yadda-yadda, complaining and ego-stroking!

I enjoy diversity and challenge. At my progression rate I am unlikely to achieve more than a C license. I also enjoy competing. It is useful to really know how good you are. I thought my accuracy was pretty good - till I came last in the competition.

When I do get a license I want to know that I earned it, not that it came free in a cornflakes box.

did an accuracy-competition/canopy course when i got my license; i came in first.

probably as a result that my license DIDNT came free in a cornflake-box - at 25 jumps!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[cocheese 0]

There should be an "F" license for fun jumpers who are fun to jump with. They don't have anything to prove except they are safe while having fun.

Raft dives, Horny Gorilla, Tandem lurking, cross country, Stillghetto swooping, banging end cells, and forgeting to turn on the camera are required.

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

There should be an "F" license for fun jumpers who are fun to jump with. They don't have anything to prove except they are safe while having fun.

Raft dives, Horny Gorilla, Tandem lurking, cross country, Stillghetto swooping, banging end cells, and forgeting to turn on the camera are required.

Dang, I don't qualify..

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[cocheese 0]

If your swoop is old school and not very long and you don't get hurt, then you qualify.

[tdog 0]

Quote

I also think that a cutaway should be required.

If so, then:

1) I will need to buy an intentional cutaway rig to rent to a lot of candidates to make money.

2) I would have needed to pack a lot differently for my first 2000 jumps because my first legitimate cutaway in a typical skydiving rig was around 2000 jumps... (I had a non-skydiving malfunction on a base canopy packed in a skydiving rig at around 1000 jumps that would not have happened but for the base canopy)

[tdog 0]

Quote

For example two of the below:
* Instructor rating (Coach or higher)
* Competition exp.
* 8pt 4way or 4pt 8way RW
* 4pt VRW
* CRW 4 stack
* Wing Suit flock 4 or larger
* 50 way or larger RW
* PRO rating
* Style set in less than 10 seconds

At risk of sounding arrogant, I disagree 100%.

Here is why:

Who cares about D licences? No one really, except DZOs and S&TAs who are setting rules for difficult landing conditions with a group of unknown skydivers, such as at a boogie where they have "specialty jumps" or "off DZ jumps" or "beach landing jumps".

I have seen very few jumps limited to D licence holders, but every time, it was due to the landing being very difficult.

Thus the only thing important is canopy proficiency. You only have two canopy related things on your list, PRO rating and CRW.

Further, if you look at incidents resulting in fatalities, D licence holders top the list of people who die. If you read the ways they die, canopy control is the low hanging fruit. 4pt VRW and being at a competiton won't save lives, focusing on canopy coaching will.

Most of the things that I have read in this thread are great accomplishments, such as VRW, RW, 50 ways, etc. These are things that give skydivers ego boosts and old-skolers would put patches on their jumpsuit to brag. But they do not answer the needs of S&TAs or DZOs have when they analyze a tough jump and need to know the people can land safely. Generally, freefall is the same no matter where you jump, unless it is a highly specialized north pole or high altitude jump where everyone on the jump will be known personally by the organizer and licences won't matter.

Likewise, no one asks people on invite only jumps, such as 100 way head downs, or 400 way RW, "what licence do you have?" By then your skills are known by the organizers and no one will care if you have an A or D.

So the D licence as a tool towards safety needs to be mostly focused on canopy control. I think the PRO landing requirements would be a good example of a requirement for a D licence. Or maybe proof of continuing education in canopy control including X hours of classroom and X number of coached canopy jumps. Forget the freefall.

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

If your swoop is old school and not very long and you don't get hurt, then you qualify.

I drug for about 100' under a T-10 and walked away from it, does that count?

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[nigel99 501]

Quote

Here is why:

Who cares about D licences? No one really, except DZOs and S&TAs who are setting rules for difficult landing conditions with a group of unknown skydivers, such as at a boogie where they have "specialty jumps" or "off DZ jumps" or "beach landing jumps".

I have seen very few jumps limited to D licence holders, but every time, it was due to the landing being very difficult.

I think you raise a very valid point. I honestly see the "D" as a badge of honour rather than a practical requirement. At the risk of going back over old ground, you shouldn't need a "D" to get awards etc.

I don't believe there is much that a fun jumper can't do without a "B" license and the appropriate number of jumps.

I don't know why some people with all the skills necessary for a "D" choose not to get it. An AFF-I with 1000+ jumps and holding a "C" certainly has the necessary skills.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Thanks for starting a new thread. I’m all for making the D more difficult to get, but as mentioned previously, there should not be a D requirement to be a TI. If an individual meets the manufacturer’s requirements why does USPA place an additional burden on them of getting a D?

In the US the D requirement is a Manufacturer's requirement, USPA just followed suit.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

For example two of the below:
* Instructor rating (Coach or higher)
* Competition exp.
* 8pt 4way or 4pt 8way RW
* 4pt VRW
* CRW 4 stack
* Wing Suit flock 4 or larger
* 50 way or larger RW
* PRO rating
* Style set in less than 10 seconds

At risk of sounding arrogant, I disagree 100%.

Here is why:
...

.

I agree with you. The proposals in this thread sound fine for some kind of "All Around Skydiver Award of Merit", but not for a LICENSE.

A license is permission to do something, and the criteria for granting it should reflect that.

...

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

[billvon 3,006]

>Most of the things that I have read in this thread are great accomplishments, such as
>VRW, RW, 50 ways, etc. These are things that give skydivers ego boosts and
>old-skolers would put patches on their jumpsuit to brag. But they do not answer the
>needs of S&TAs or DZOs have when they analyze a tough jump and need to know the
>people can land safely.

Agreed; that's a PRO rating.

But it would help answer the question of "can I leave this guy in charge?" "can this guy make good decisions about this demo?" "can this guy oversee this competition?" "can this guy be a chief instructor?"

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

I also think that a cutaway should be required.

If so, then:

1) I will need to buy an intentional cutaway rig to rent to a lot of candidates to make money.

2) I would have needed to pack a lot differently for my first 2000 jumps because my first legitimate cutaway in a typical skydiving rig was around 2000 jumps... (I had a non-skydiving malfunction on a base canopy packed in a skydiving rig at around 1000 jumps that would not have happened but for the base canopy)

dont you USPA-guys need a cutaway if you want to be a TI!?

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[theonlyski 8]

Quote

dont you USPA-guys need a cutaway if you want to be a TI!?

Only Strong TI's need the cutaway.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

dont you USPA-guys need a cutaway if you want to be a TI!?

Only Strong TI's need the cutaway.

for all i know, you need a cutaway here for any rig; i could be mistaken tough, but i think not!?

fish, where are you when we need you!?

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda