Comments on Proposed USPA License Changes

[skr 1]

I just sent this to the safety and training committee,
safety@uspa.org, in response to their plan to change
the licenses.

If you have opinions about this change please let
them know. I know from decades of experience that
they do listen.

Comments on Proposed USPA License Changes                Wed 2003-3-5

-----------------------------------------                ------------


Part 1 - Comments on the Whole Licensing Philosophy

Part 2 - Comments on the FAI licenses


=====================================================================


Part 1 - Comments on the Whole Licensing Philosophy

---------------------------------------------------


I don't know why licenses were first created, but I assume

it was to indicate various levels of proficiency.


(My imagination pictures Jacque Istel and Lew Sanborn

(sitting around a kitchen table some snowy New England

(evening in the 50's ...

(

(   "We need some licenses. The French have them, the

(    Russians have them, everybody but us has them."

(

(   "OK .. Do you know anybody with 200 jumps? Nope,

(    me either, let's call that a Master Parachutist."

(

(   "Good, how about 10 jumps for a Novice and at 25

(    they're a Parachutist?"

(

(   "I think we need something in between, how about

(    Jumpmaster at 75?"

(

(   "Looks good, I think we need some requirements too,

(    how about so many style and accuracy jumps?"

(

(   "Right, and a Master should probably make a night

(    jump and a water jump too."

(

(   "I think we're done, Novice, Parachutist, Jumpmaster,

(    Expert. You want another beer?"

(

(   "Maybe we should number them, too."



In thinking about what properties a license structure for today's

world should have I come up with:


- It should reflect the many faceted nature of today's

and tomorrow's jump world.


- It should indicate levels of proficiency and experience.


- It should take into account the effect the license structure

has on the future course of skydiving.


- It should be easily expandable and adaptable to future developments.



Today's world looks like this:



~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~                                                                      ~

~   Big Ways                               Wingsuits                  AFF  ~

~                             Boards                         Demos          ~

~           Freeflying                                                      ~

~                                     Experimental                          ~

~                                                           Base Jumping    ~

~ CRW        Recreational Skydiving      Canopy Swooping                    ~

~                                                                           ~

~                                                     Formation Skydiving   ~

~           Coach Ratings      Stunt Jumping                                ~

~                                              Classic Style                ~

~ Relative Work                                                             ~

~                              Tandem Ratings           Skydancing          ~

~        Competition                                                        ~

~                                                    Classic Accuracy       ~

~                    Night Jumps                                           ~

~   Freestyle                         Record Attempts                    ~

~                                                                    ~

\          Camera Jumping       Raft dives                         /

\                                           Teaching FJC       /

\                                                        /

\          Test jumping         New stuff          /

\                                            /

\                                      /

\    Instructor Examiners        /

\                          /

\                    /

\    \ | /     /

|                       |

|   A cloud of mostly   |

|  unrelated activities |

|-----------------------|

|

|

|

|-------------------------|

|   A set of fundamental  |

|   parachuting skills    |

|   common to all these   |

|   unrelated activities  |

|          |              |

|          |              |

|   Gear maintenance      |

|   Canopy control        |

|   Weather / Spotting    |

|   Exit separation       |

|   Emergency procedures  |

|   Basic freefall skills |

|          |              |

|          |              |

|   First 100 - 200 jumps |

|-------------------------|



It seems that the old monotonic license structure - a few jumps,

a little style and accuracy, a few more jumps, a little more style

and accuracy - doesn't reflect or represent today's varied world.


Maybe a better model would be what pilots use - a couple basic

licenses covering the fundamentals common to all activities,

and then ratings for the more specialized activities.



Ratings would be somewhat helpful when people who don't know each

other are trying to jump together like at a boogie or in going to

a new dropzone, but their real use would be that they would foster

more training.


Want a Big Way rating? Go to a Big Way camp. Want a Freefly rating?

Go to a Freefly camp. Want a coach rating? Go to a coach course.


The way it is now learning is very haphazard, partly because there

is so little organized training available.


Nobody would *have* to get a particular rating, most people would

jump together because they already know each other, just like they

do now.


But when ratings become part of normal consensus reality people

will get them just because they're there and other people get them,

and that will result in more skydivers with better training.



Finally, it is easy with this model to adapt to new activities

without disturbing what is already there. If a new activity

reaches a certain level of maturity add a new rating.



It may be that the old linear A / B / C / D approach is too

entrenched even though it no longer matches the real world, but

maybe not.


The ISP is the first level of skills common to all jumps.

Perhaps in a few years the B license could become the second

level of skills common to all jumps.


A few years after that it could become possible to develop

appropriate ratings and some time after that switch over.



Thinking ahead to the world we will be leaving to the jumpers

10 and 20 years from now would be a *Certified Good Idea* [tm].



=====================================================================



Part 2 - Comments on the FAI licenses

-------------------------------------


I understand the intent is to align the American licenses with

the FAI licenses. Here are the FAI license requirements gleaned

from the Norwegian application form found at


ftp://www.fai.org/parachuting/CoP_form.zip


about 2/3 of the way down the page


http://www.fai.org/parachuting/certificates_proficiency/


near the pictures of the licenses.



Parachutist (FAI A license)

1. 25 freefall jumps.

2. 5 minutes of freefall time.

3. 5 formation skydives involving at least two participants OR

5 freefly jumps under the supervision of an instructor.

4. Demonstrate control of the body in all axes

(backloops, turns, barrel rolls etc.)

5. Ability to pack a main parachute.

6. Demonstrate ability to land a parachute within 50 meters of a target,

on at least 10 jumps.



Freefall Parachutist (FAI B license)

1. 50 freefall jumps.

2. 30 minutes of freefall time.

3. Successful completion of ten formation skydives,

OR ten formation freefly jumps, at least five of which,

in either discipline, must involve at least 3 participants.



Experienced Parachutist (FAI C license)

1. 200 freefall jumps.

2. 1 hour of freefall time.

3. Successful completion of fifty formation skydives,

OR fifty formation freefly jumps, at least ten of which,

in either discipline, must involve at least 4 participants.



Senior Parachutist (FAI D license)

1. 500 freefall jumps.

2. 3 hours of freefall time.



Now I understand where this word "discipline" for the various

activities came from. Let's see how the various requirements

are distributed across the licenses.



Jump Numbers and Freefall Times

-------------------------------


A -  25 jumps /  5 minutes

B -  50 jumps / 30 minutes

C - 200 jumps /  1 hour

D - 500 jumps /  3 hours


The B license seems a little out of balance.


75 jumps and 30 minutes would be more reasonable and would

be more in line with the rest of the progression.


Also, 50 more jumps beyond the A license would be more in

line with what they need to learn at this early stage and

how long it takes people to learn it.


Even 100 jumps for the B license would make a lot of sense.



Canopy Flying Requirements

--------------------------


A - 10 jumps within 50 meters

B - none

C - none

D - none


This makes sense but is incomplete.


It makes sense because the old 2 and 5 and 10 meter requirements

focus on the wrong canopy flying skills. People don't need the

braked approach, pea gravel and disk skills, they need traffic

management and flying a good pattern, and flaring, and thinking

ahead up high.


The American ISP canopy flying requirements are a good start

in this direction.


Let's develop a B license level canopy education program that

helps people deal with the peer pressure and fashion pressure

to downsize too fast, or make ignorant hook turns, or even

how to keep your wings level on landing and stay out of tight

situations that lead to stupid last minute moves.


A B license level person is thinking about their own gear.

We need a Consumer's Report type part of the SIM that helps

people learn how to shop for used gear, how to get it checked

out, how to think about wing loading vs elliptical vs cross

bracing vs airlocks vs ...


There's a lot of knowledge out there but it's not centrally

located. USPA could do a real service in this area by making

this more advanced knowledge part of the B license requirements.



Besides toggle technique and wings level for landing it would

be good to add something to the A / B level that starts them

learning how to think ahead after opening.


The only way I have found so far is some form of follow the

leader, either I lead them so they can see an example, or they

lead me so they can start thinking of their own plus other

people's flight path.


There must be some other ways to get at this. Perhaps some

form of CRW would help. I've used no contact but flying

fairly close over the years.



Freefall Requirements    (FS = Formation skydive, FFS = Freefly Skydive)

---------------------


A -  5 FS or  5 FFS (with instructor (or coach?))

B - 10 FS or 10 FFS ( 5 with at least 2 other people)

C - 50 FS or 50 FFS (10 with at least 3 other people)

D - none



Here is where I start thinking that a couple levels of

parachuting fundamentals plus a variety of ratings makes

more sense.


Why single out formation skydiving and freeflying (whatever

that means) for one thing? Activities come and go and this

is tying the licenses to what's popular at the moment.


Why not also wingsuits? Or what if freestyle or boards had

been added back when they were new, but are now done by only

a few people.


And why force people down one path, either 50 formation skydives

OR 50 freefly jumps, why not a total of 50 that could be any

mixture?



Also, and I'll try to stay calm here, doing freefly jumps

at the A license level is a really bad idea, even at the

B level there is a dubiosity factor.


I'm picturing a small girl, just off of AFF, standing there


- with an ill fitting student rig, chest strap loose,

main lift webs falling off her shoulders, pilot chute

barely held in place by a worn out elastic pouch with

a big loop of exposed bridle


- a protec helmet, well used goggles, a banged around

student altimeter, a height of fashion student jumpsuit


- who has never gotten on a plane unassisted, has never

looked out the door before going, is maxed out just

being in freefall and overloaded at pull time


- and a hot young stud with 125 jumps, a camera on his

helmet and a coach rating is going to take her out,

hang on to her harness, hold her head down so she can

totally lose sight of the ground and cover 1,000 ft

every 3 1/2 seconds


- and she's going to do 5 of those and then they're

going to turn her loose to jump on her own?


I think this would be wrong even if she had really good

gear and Mike Ortiz or Brian Germain were teaching her.


I encourage people at this stage to play around in freefall,

do a few maneuvers, try a stand up, fall off the plane

on their back and so on, *BUT*


************************************************************

*** What people really need at this stage is parachuting ***

*** skills, canopy flying, gear maintenance, exit        ***

*** separation, weather sense, aircraft and emergency    ***

*** procedures, and so on                                ***

************************************************************


Formation skydiving vs freeflying vs anything in freefall

is almost irrelevant.


We talk and talk about canopy injuries and deaths, but the

current mentality as reflected in these licenses is all

about freefall.


I think we would do a real service building a strong

canopy flying program into the license requirements.


Skratch

[skr 1]

Well, I don't know how to do markup to force
a monospace font so the formatting didn't work
but hopefully the meaning and intent are clear.

Skr

[PhreeZone 20]

Intent is clear and I hope the USPA takes a hard look at it since there are a LOT of good points in it.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[darkwing 5]

You make many valid points. I see nothing of substance to disagree with.

One case I will make in support of the current (and about to be implemented) structure is that it is simple, relatively easily overseen, and presents a simple picture to those outside of skydiving (i.e. the FAA).

I will suggest that there is a danger in your suggestion. I see it as likely that it would be implemented in such a way that it will suck more money out of participants. Now they will have to pay to get these supplemental ratings.... A complex bureaucracy will evolve to administer it, and this bureaucracy will require food (i.e. money).

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[skr 1]

>pay to get these supplemental ratings

>complex bureaucracy will evolve

>bureaucracy will require food (i.e. money)

Yes, I feel uneasy about those points myself.

Skr

[kallend 2,027]

Skratch, without commenting on any details (which are very well thought out):

1. A license is permission to do something, not an award or merit certificate. Any licensing scheme should bear this in mind.

2. Modern educational practice in colleges and universities, which is being strongly enforced by accreditation agencies, goes along the following lines:

A. Define the objectives of the program (what you hope your students will achieve)

B. Define educational outcomes for the program (specific skills they will be able to demonstrate at the completion of the program). The outcomes must be linked to the objectives in an obvious way, and must be observable/measurable).

C. Design an educational/training program that will develop these outcomes.

D. Monitor the outcomes and use the results to improve the program on a continuing basis. (Feedback loop #1)

E. Periodically re-evaluate the objectives, to ensure that they are in-line with current needs (Feedback loop #2).

While this is a distillation of what goes on, it provides a good general framework for any education or training program. It takes away a lot of "we do it this way because we always did it this way" thinking, and replaces it with a clear analysis of what the education or training is all about. Notice in particular that objectives come first, outcomes second, and program design third in the order of doing things.

It is interesting to contrast this way of thinking with the continuing debate over night jumps for the "D", where we currently have a program requirement (do the jumps), no defined outcome apart from survival, and general disagreement about why we require it anyway (no well-defined objective). This is a bass-ackwards way of doing things!

...

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

[skr 1]

>Modern educational practice
>goes along the following lines

Yes, I've seen you make this point several times
and I agree with it.

I think the task now is to say this to the safety and
training committee in enough different ways from
enough different people that they incorporate it
into their process.

--

By the way, I was told that safety@uspa.org goes
to the headquarters people but that if you want to
talk to the safety and training committee directly
you should use

MPRigging@aol.com,
SButcherMED@earthlink.net,
michaelmullins@skydivekingair.com,
aerosoftware@makeithappen.com,
kapowsin@eskimo.com,
jan@ucar.edu,
JCrouch@uspa.org


(hint hint .. nudge nudge :-) :-)

Skr

[kallend 2,027]

[reply

(hint hint .. nudge nudge :-) :-)

Skr

[samp76 0]

Quote

Jump Numbers and Freefall Times
-------------------------------

A - 25 jumps / 5 minutes
B - 50 jumps / 30 minutes
C - 200 jumps / 1 hour
D - 500 jumps / 3 hours

The B license seems a little out of balance.

75 jumps and 30 minutes would be more reasonable and would
be more in line with the rest of the progression.

I know I do not have a lot of experience yet but I see the B license attainable. At this stage you are probably not doing that many hop'n'pops, your are most likely getting as much freefall time as possible. 25 jumps at 10500 to 13500 depending on the fall speed will add up to 25 minutes in no time. I am not disagreeing that the jumper would be more experienced at 75-100 jumps just that it is attainable at 50.

-Sam-

Let go of the NUT!!

[flyhi 24]

Quote

Also, and I'll try to stay calm here, doing freefly jumps at the A license level is a really bad idea, even at the B level there is a dubiosity factor.

I'm picturing a small girl, just off of AFF, standing there - with an ill fitting student rig, chest strap loose, main lift webs falling off her shoulders, pilot chute barely held in place by a worn out elastic pouch with a big loop of exposed bridle - a protec helmet, well used goggles, a banged around student altimeter, a height of fashion student jumpsuit - who has never gotten on a plane unassisted, has never looked out the door before going, is maxed out just being in freefall and overloaded at pull time - and a hot young stud with 125 jumps, a camera on his helmet and a coach rating is going to take her out, hang on to her harness, hold her head down so she can totally lose sight of the ground and cover 1,000 ft every 3 1/2 seconds - and she's going to do 5 of those and then they're going to turn her loose to jump on her own?

Could not agree more. Nothing scarier to me than to see two people just off AFF, who opt for a two-way freefly ("We're gonna go out and do a sit-fly jump.") with each other. The best that can happen is they don't learn any bad habits.

If I might pontificate, I believe it is a reflection of the times we are in: instant gratification. Every situation most young people see today can be presented, a solution determined, and resolution reached, all within a half an hour, 22 minutes without commercials. If they go out and do a sitfly jump, they feel they have accomplished something, put the check in the box, and tell everyone, "I had an awesome sitfly jump." Been there and done that in a minimum amount of time.

If they opt to go the RW route, they may take 50 jumps or (easily) more, to get the hang of transitioning to the second point, doing a back-in, completing a compressed maneuver without spinning the entire formation, dive to a formation... The feeling of accomplishment is delayed and thus contrary to the immediacy to which we have become accustomed.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for those just off student status who decide to go the RW route first. It is a long and expensive path. And I am really not surprised that more people are choosing an alternate course.

I think that will be the biggest hurdle to implement a plan like yours. It's a great idea, but many will not be willing to put in the time and money to complete it. The money (food for the beast) will walk, and the DZO's will see that. I'm guessing here, but I bet those with a thriving student business will oppose it. And that's a shame.

Shit happens. And it usually happens because of physics.

[Deleted 0]

Quote

Jump Numbers and Freefall Times

-------------------------------


A -  25 jumps /  5 minutes

B -  50 jumps / 30 minutes

C - 200 jumps /  1 hour

D - 500 jumps /  3 hours


The B license seems a little out of balance.

Does anyone know where the FAI got these ff times vs jump numbers???
A - 25 jumps / 5 minutes = 12 sec/jump
B - 50 jumps / 30 minutes = 36 sec/jump
C - 200 jumps / 1 hour = 18 sec/jump
D - 500 jumps / 3 hours = 21.6 sec/jump

[Michele 1]

Nope, Jan. Maybe having to do with allowances for S/L training or shorter times due to freeflying, perhaps?

Why not ask at the meeting next week and let us know the reasoning behind it?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[indyz 1]

Quote

Does anyone know where the FAI got these ff times vs jump numbers???
A - 25 jumps / 5 minutes = 12 sec/jump
B - 50 jumps / 30 minutes = 36 sec/jump
C - 200 jumps / 1 hour = 18 sec/jump
D - 500 jumps / 3 hours = 21.6 sec/jump

I think they picked a jump number vs freefall time combination that they felt would give the jumper sufficient freefall experience to go with the privileges of the license, while at the same time not being unfair to those who choose to participate in disciplines with limited freefall time (i.e., CReW, accuracy, swooping, static line instruction, etc).

[PilotMike 0]

Quote

1. A license is permission to do something, not an award or merit certificate. Any licensing scheme should bear this in mind.

I think that is a very good point. A lot of people get each license just because. There isn't much benefit throughout the whole ABCD program. Let's see what privileges you earn past your A (from SIM)

B - perform night jumps
C - obtain Coach rating and ride with tandem instructors on training/renewal jumps
D - participate in certain demonstration jumps, obtain all USPA ratings

I never got my B license but have the other three. I have jumped at night and with a TM training but didn't apply for the licenses specifically for those reasons. I think they were just landmarks... I like the idea of Big Way and Freefly licenses. I don't like the idea of the added cost/bureaucracy of a system like that though.

Right now if you find out that someone has a D license, all you really know about their skills is that they have survived 200 freefalls. If there were discipline specific licenses, we would more easily be able to judge ones skills/accomplishments. (Let's not forget the Atmosphere Dolphin, which I really know nothing about).

Blue Skies

--------
Benefitting from the 'free capture of verticality.'

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Intent is clear and I hope the USPA takes a hard look at it since there are a LOT of good points in it.

Skratch,
I not only think USPA should take a long hard look at you proposals, but it would be in their,(ours) best interest to bring you in as a consultant. This is the second really great post I have seen this week. (right Hook)
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[sducoach 0]

Did this come to you at night in a dream, or did DJan whisper it in your ear?????
This type of comparison is what's needed before changes are made. Research and evaluation of other systems, experience, and results. Please have DJan take this with her to the BOD meeting. A little "tweaking" and your are on the right track.

Thanks for the effort.

Blues,

J.E.

(the other old guy!)

James 4:8

[skr 1]

mjosparky:
>I not only think USPA should take a long hard look at you proposals

sducoach:
>Please have DJan take this with her to the BOD meeting.

You guys are preaching to the choir (who appreciates it :-) :-)
but if you think USPA should look into this approach, please
tell it to the safety and training committee directly.



sducoach:
>Did this come to you at night in a dream, or ...

No, it's just something I've been proposing for a pretty long
time. This time it was sparked a few months ago by hearing
that they were aligning the USPA licenses with the FAI ones.

Skr

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

I don't know why licenses were first created, but I assume...

The first step of denying someone of an activity or privilege is to license them.