Night jump requirements for D?

[billvon 3,058]

>Since you don't need a D to get on that late sunset load in the first place,
>how does the D night jump requirement help?

Well, you don't need a D license (with the accuracy requirements that go with it) to get out on a bad spot, either. But learning how to land in a small area is a very good idea when you do get out on a bad spot.

One of the most fundamental maxims in this sport is that the A license is just a "license to learn." A license jumpers have demonstrated the absolute bare minimum to be able to jump on their own. Should they get on a late sunset load, or get out last on a long spot, or get a tiny main? No - but after they get their A, they get to decide to make that mistake.

As they progress through the levels of licenses, ideally they gain experience and training that will help keep them safe, and will let them better deal with an after-sunset jump, an off landing, a water landing or a downwind landing. Since these things happen eventually to most jumpers, it makes sense to put them in one of the license levels.

>Now, I suppose we could have taken off an hour early, and managed to
>be climbing for two hours, and so it was night by the time we were on jump
>run. But in that case, I'd stay with the plane.

That might well be a good decision. Actually making night jumps will give you a much better basis on which to make that decision.

[diablopilot 2]

One reason, and it should be enough is pride. One should be proud of having met all the requirements to EARN a D license, and it would be a shame to discredit those who have done so by softening the requirements.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[labrys 0]

All this discussion is getting a tad out of hand. My email address is kellyo3us_at_yahoo.com. SMS is 330_485_6868

Send an email / txt to me the next time you're able to do a night jumps and I'll call in a jump ticket for you.

Maybe USPA needs to hold meetings / ST&A's need to exercise discretion blah, blah, blah...

If we can make this a moot point for a few bucks. I'll ante up.

Owned by Remi #?

[ridestrong 1]

If one wears dark sun glasses, or goggles.... and they find themselves surprised that the load they just got on will be exiting in dusk/sun set, they surely lack any respectable common sense.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[kimemerson 7]

Quote

Haha,

I knew that wouldnt slip by. Okay the rationale that was explained to me involved a D licensed skydive being considered a Master Skydiver for lack of a better term. The thought was, at the time, that person should have experienced or accomplished all aspects of the sport to be knighted with the D license accomplishment.

Okay Devils Advocate: I know the first thing out of anyones mouth is going to be; Do we require D license candidates to make a wing suit jump, a CRW jump, a skyboard jump.. The answer is no we do not.

So to boil it down, should we keep the requirement based on the thought, "we have always required it? or do we maybe require a jump in all disciplines?

or---do away with the night jump requirement all together.

Andy - why exactly do you think it is requirred? and more importantly what do you think would be a solution. I guess first you would have to agree or disagree with the night jump requirement, then justify either way. I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.
Sorry for SP errors I rushed.
Thanks,
Rich

The only reason I ever felt a night jump should be a license requirement has to do with it also being linked to qualification for the Instructor rating. I always felt that if you're going to teach this sport to beginners then I'd like you to be far and away well more experienced the one you're teaching. In that sense I have no real issue with adding wing suit, CRW etc as further qualification for instructing. I'd love to believe that every person involved in any USPA instructor program is a candidate for best-skydiver-in -the-world status. But that just reflects my notion of an ideal. I'd like each instructor to be able to answer every question from a student from a position of experience. Wherever possible.
While it has been argued that we don't skydive at night by accident, I'd add that the word 'accident', by design, is meat to cover a lot of stuff, none of it anything you can be prepared for. But you can maybe be in freefall at a time when though it may not be USAP legal 'night', it could be too dark for you.

Is the D still required to compete? Frankly I don't know. If so, then couldn't there be a D for competitor and a different D for instructing? Like maybe both need to meet many similar requirements but there would be differences depending on what course the skydiver would like to take. If they want both, then it's just a matter of qualifying for the differences and obtaining both.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Okay the rationale that was explained to me involved a D licensed skydive being considered a Master Skydiver for lack of a better term. The thought was, at the time, that person should have experienced or accomplished all aspects of the sport to be knighted with the D license accomplishment.

The response I got from USPA was along the lines of what Craig posted in Post#18 - a need to protect those who might, well, let's say "accidently", jump out of that late-sunset ride.
"Logical reason for keeping it: skydivers being who they are tend to push the limits of safety. One of those limits is the division between day and night. Many jumpers have left the ground for a "sunset load" only to find out they are on a "near night jump," with their dark goggles, no illumination, and at a boogie."

To me that is totally illogical reasoning.
Here's why:

So you find yourself on a late "sunset" jump having no night jump training.
What does a smart one do....stays on the plane.
What does the less smart one do...bails out.

There's no such thing as "accidently" bailing out in the dark.

A better thing would be to enforce the idea that bailing out at "night" without night-jump training is a not-so-good idea.
A DZO could go a long way in preventing that after-dark scenario for the non-trained.

On top of that...holders of A, B and C license have no night jump requirement for those jumps.

If one was truly fearful for those bailing out of late sunset rides, one would make night jumps a requirement for A-license and up.

Let's take it one step further:
Consider water landings.
Which is more likely to happen...an accidental water landing or an accidental bail-out on an "after-dark" ride.

One could accidently land in water...it'd be hard to accidently bail out in the dark.

Which do you think is more important for training?
IMO, both are equally important. - water landings because of the intentional/accidental aspect of it and night jumps because of the potential emergency aspect of it.

IMO, you train first for what you have the least control over. This is why we train students for water landings. Wouldn’t it be a grand idea to train them for night jumps also? Wouldn’t it be grand to have them do a night jump as soon as they are ready instead of delaying it until D-license requirement? I say, “Yes.” And to note, we have even less control over those emergency situations.

But, USPA elected to eliminate the water requirement and keep the night-jump requirement.

IMO, a night jump is a specialty jump and should be treated just as the others are with the exception of teaching students what to do if they get caught in a situation beyond their control and have to face an emergency bail-out situation in the "dark".

Quote

So to boil it down, should we keep the requirement based on the thought, "we have always required it? or do we maybe require a jump in all disciplines?...or---do away with the night jump requirement all together.

The simple answer is a requirement for training and maybe an endorsement on your license before any specialty jump that will be for demo purposes. (Another can of worms, eh?) This could apply to all specialty jumps.

If not a license endorsement, then an S&TA/RD sign-off in a logbook maybe.

For fun jump purposes, we're handling it somewhat well enough as is, I think. Night jump training is already a requirement prior to jumping one.

I really don’t see a need to make night jumps a requirement for any license at all. I see a need for earlier training…preferably before the emergency situation hits.

You WANT to do a special demo jump? Then you need to show that you have been trained for it.

The "we've always done it that way" doesn't fly. Things change. Things progress.

The well-round skydiver idea doesn't fly unless one, as mentioned, includes all those specialty jumps. Yikes!

Quote

Andy - why exactly do you think it is requirred?

My logic only tells me to cover an emergency bail-out situation that happens after normal jumping hours. In light of that, a logical conclusion could be made to bring back the water jump requirement, too.
It’s my belief that the D-license requirements were changed only to accommodate those DZs in the middle of nothing but dirt where water landings are highly unlikely.

Quote

and more importantly what do you think would be a solution.

Train for it starting with students...just like the water landings. Remove the requirement from the license. Treat it just as any other specialty jump.

Quote

I guess first you would have to agree or disagree with the night jump requirement,

I don't disagree with it being a requirement. … for demo purposes, that is.
I see the need to make it requirement that people need to be trained earlier in the process.


My questioning is all about:

-Why attach it to a license at all. And IF you have to attach it to a license, do it at an earlier stage because a jumper may be caught in that situation regardless of his license level.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The safety rules and requirements should be written in red ink, to remind everyone of the blood of those we lost before we learned.

OMG how adamantly I agree with that.

Quote

Personal reason for keeping requirement: I like them.

top

Me too. In spite of the forest landing on the first one.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The only reason I ever felt a night jump should be a license requirement has to do with it also being linked to qualification for the Instructor rating. I always felt that if you're going to teach this sport to beginners then I'd like you to be far and away well more experienced the one you're teaching.

WooooHooo! One more logical reason for teaching night jumps earlier...if you're gonna teach it, it'd be nice to know what your talking about and have the experience to back it up.

Quote

I'd like each instructor to be able to answer every question from a student from a position of experience. Wherever possible.

And have the professionalism to direct those questions to subject matter experts when unsure.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

>Now, I suppose we could have taken off an hour early, and managed to
>be climbing for two hours, and so it was night by the time we were on jump
>run. But in that case, I'd stay with the plane.

That might well be a good decision. Actually making night jumps will give you a much better basis on which to make that decision.

Using the logic of the underlined sentence, I would need to swoop to know I don't want to.

If the night training is needed earlier, make the training a requirement earlier.

The night jump requirement for a D license does not in any way address the problem of untrained people making jumps for which they are not prepared.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

The only reason I ever felt a night jump should be a license requirement has to do with it also being linked to qualification for the Instructor rating. I always felt that if you're going to teach this sport to beginners then I'd like you to be far and away well more experienced the one you're teaching.

WooooHooo! One more logical reason for teaching night jumps earlier...if you're gonna teach it, it'd be nice to know what your talking about and have the experience to back it up.

On the other hand, if you want an Instructor to have that experience, make it a requirement for the rating.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

On the other hand, if you want an Instructor to have that experience, make it a requirement for the rating.

Personally, I would have little problem with that. An instructor with more experience is never a bad thing, IMO.

OTOH, one could argue that one does not need the experience of a night jump in order to teach what to do on one. While I can see the reality of that, I still think more experience is better.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,098]

Quote

Quote

We can discuss whether or not the requirement is a good one or not, forget that, I dont want to open that can.

And why not. THAT is the real issue. The logic USPA uses to justify night jump requirements at all is severely flawed. Regardless of how you feel about the requirement, the logic of the reasoning is flawed...stupidly flawed.

[sarcasm]
Oh, I know...not enough of them will admit to making a mistake and have the balls, or lack thereof as the case may be, in correcting it.
[/sarcasm]

If they want to keep the night jump requirement, at least have them come up with some logical reason for it.

I agree 100%. Every "logical" argument I've seen is so obviously flawed I'm surprised apparently smart people can bring themselves to put it in writing.

It all boils down to "we've always done it that way".

...

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

[topdocker 0]

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

So give us a logical reason not to require them. If you want change, then give valid reasons for that change.

What??? Nothing I've said rings true? Nothing?
Am I that far off base?

Please point me in the right direction.

How about these reasons then (yes, I'm not a happy camper right now):
1. It's stupid to make a requirement for somebody who has no desire to do it.

2. It's stupid to hang on to something only because "that's the way we've always done it".

3. It's stupid to make it a requirement only for D-license when sub-licenses will potentially be facing the same emergency situations with no training.

4. It's stupid to constantly throw out calls for reasons when plenty of them have already been provided by numerous people over a long period of time. Makes people think "lip service".

USPA has some smart people in it. All it takes is actually listening to them.


So...on the flip side:
How about you providing valid reasons for not changing anything related to night jumps.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Personal reason for keeping requirement: I like them.

Just out of curiosity.
What does your liking them have to do with them being kept as a requirement of any sort?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

Personal reason for keeping requirement: I like them.

Just out of curiosity.
What does your liking them have to do with them being kept as a requirement of any sort?

Sorry, Andy, but your "It's stupid to make a requirement for somebody who has no desire to do it." argument is equally weak for the other side. Theoretically you could make that argument for any license requirement for any license ... and it wouldn't be any stronger. (However, I do think there's some merits to your points #2 & 3 and haven't heard a good rebuttal to them from anyone).

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Quote

Personal reason for keeping requirement: I like them.

Just out of curiosity.
What does your liking them have to do with them being kept as a requirement of any sort?

I probably won't vote to change it unless a huge number of people in my region convince me that is what they want. Because once its not a requirement, very few people or DZ's will ever do them.

top

Jump more, post less!

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Quote

So give us a logical reason not to require them. If you want change, then give valid reasons for that change.

What??? Nothing I've said rings true? Nothing?
Am I that far off base?

Please point me in the right direction.

How about these reasons then (yes, I'm not a happy camper right now):
1. It's stupid to make a requirement for somebody who has no desire to do it.

2. It's stupid to hang on to something only because "that's the way we've always done it".

3. It's stupid to make it a requirement only for D-license when sub-licenses will potentially be facing the same emergency situations with no training.

4. It's stupid to constantly throw out calls for reasons when plenty of them have already been provided by numerous people over a long period of time. Makes people think "lip service".

USPA has some smart people in it. All it takes is actually listening to them.


So...on the flip side:
How about you providing valid reasons for not changing anything related to night jumps.

1. Just because you call it stupid does not mean that it is. The rule has no brain, so it can have no intelligence. If someone has no desire to skydive, can they still earn a D-license? No, the jump numbers are a requirement of the organization. If you do not desire a night jump, stick with your C-license, there is nothing in life that says you have to earn a D.

2. This rule is probably second to the age requirement for the amount of times it has been reviewed for possible change. We don't keep it "just because," but because we think it is still a valuable requirement for our membership.

3. I agree. I think it should be a B license requirement. A licensees have a lot on their plate and are crammed with requirements, I think the B licensees could handle it. Not my call, however.

4. I use chapstick so I do not need "lip service." I thought that is what an intelligent discussion is all about: The exchange of ideas so people could make judgements based upon the merits of the arguments. Not everyone has been around a long time and maybe they would like to hear the pros and cons.

I concur, USPA does have some smart people in it. I am here listening, are you?

Sorry to hear that you are not a happy camper right now, but if this one issue has totally ruined your mood, then perhaps we should step away and let calmer thinking prevail.

I never said I didn't want to change it. I would love to see a larger number required, and at an earlier stage in a jumper's license stage.

My reasons for keeping it (this may be repetitive):
1. Jumpers push the envelope with regards to sunset. If you have already done some night jumps when you expected them, then doing dusk jumps will not be so daunting.

2. Like balloon jumps, jet jumps, water jumps, night jumps push the comfort zone of those involved. For some people that is fun, for others it is a great learning experience as to how they will handle unplanned emergencies. Many D license candidates have been jumping for years and getting a little complacent with jumping. The night jumps help put a little respect for the seriousness of what we do.

3. Unlike water jumps, jet jumps, and balloon jumps night jumps are very easy for ANY dropzone to do. A 182, some chem lights, some brighter lights, and a few cars in the landing area. Probably, it is the one area where a smaller DZ can outdo the bigger turbine place.

4. D-license holders can do demos, and some of those demos are at night. Yes, we could move the night jump requirement to the PRO-rating, but then members would be upset that it would take a PRO rating to do any demo. (This would be a good argument to move the night jump requirement to the C-license).

5. D-licensees are most likely those that go on to get Instructor ratings. If they are going to teach about night jumps, then they should have done some. Yes, I think water jumps are very valuable too, but making them a requirement would damage a lot of gear. (the whole water jump thing would have to be a new thread)

6. A D license should not be handed out like popcorn. The requirements of that license have been hammered out through hundreds of hours of meetings by the Safety and Training Committee and the full Board of Directors. To have that license is to have earned it through your demonstration of skills, the number of jumps, time in the air, and commitment to the sport that we feel is important. I used to think it is a little silly that each new D license is approved by the Regional Director, but it also signals just how important that milestone really is.

7. Isn't "they are fun" enough?

top

Jump more, post less!

[kallend 2,098]

Quote

I agree 100%. Every "logical" argument I've seen is so obviously flawed I'm surprised apparently smart people can bring themselves to put it in writing.

It all boils down to "we've always done it that way".

[kallend 2,098]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personal reason for keeping requirement: I like them.

Just out of curiosity.
What does your liking them have to do with them being kept as a requirement of any sort?

I probably won't vote to change it unless a huge number of people in my region convince me that is what they want. Because once its not a requirement, very few people or DZ's will ever do them.

top

Your own words tell the whole story of why they're not relevant. What you wrote is just "because that's what we've always done" using different words.

...

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

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Personal reason for keeping requirement: I like them.

Just out of curiosity.
What does your liking them have to do with them being kept as a requirement of any sort?

I probably won't vote to change it unless a huge number of people in my region convince me that is what they want. Because once its not a requirement, very few people or DZ's will ever do them.

top

Your own words tell the whole story of why they're not relevant. What you wrote is just "because that's what we've always done" using different words.

Night jumps are relevant: they are needed for a D license!

Also, we still have the NCCS and NCCR, night freefall records, etc. Night jumps are still part of our sport.

"Just because that is what we have always done," does not make something inherently wrong. It is reviewed and discussed constantly.

top

Jump more, post less!

[Ron 10]

Quote

Oh, that's easy. They shouldn't be required because they have no relevance whatever to the privileges granted by the "D" license.

Would you propose removing the night flying from a private ticket?

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

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

Would you propose removing the night flying from a private ticket?

And call it a Sport license? It already exists. Daytime VFR only, at most one passenger, and limitations to aircraft weight/performance.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[Ron 10]

Quote

And call it a Sport license? It already exists. Daytime VFR only, at most one passenger, and limitations to aircraft weight/performance.

So the "C" is a 'sport license' in skydiving. Both have limitations. If you do not want the limitations, you do the required things to get the other rating.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Sorry, Andy, but your "It's stupid to make a requirement for somebody who has no desire to do it." argument is equally weak for the other side. Theoretically you could make that argument for any license requirement for any license ... and it wouldn't be any stronger.

If you want to stretch it out to include things other than what we are talking about, then I agree.
If you keep it on-topic, then I don't agree.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239