Recommended Posts
The111 1
QuoteFar enough that a tandem instructor is not concerned.
I had a tandem instructor tell me once, in all seriousness, that he didn't want me flying by within a mile.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com
That seems extreme to me, but if that is what it takes to be within his comfort level to ensure student safety, that's his prerogative, and his opinion trumps all others.
Hopefully with planning and education that sort of margin won't be the norm. What prompts that sort of thing tends to be lower time jumpers with no ratings "telling" a TI that they're going to do a flyby. It seems to be common sense that a person would ask, and ask well before they were seated in the aircraft on the way to altitude, but there seems to be a shortage of that in portions of the wingsuit community.
Hopefully with planning and education that sort of margin won't be the norm. What prompts that sort of thing tends to be lower time jumpers with no ratings "telling" a TI that they're going to do a flyby. It seems to be common sense that a person would ask, and ask well before they were seated in the aircraft on the way to altitude, but there seems to be a shortage of that in portions of the wingsuit community.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
Sorry, but if a tandem instructor tells me to stay a mile away, I would say sorry not going to happen. I would also say that I would prefer if after he opens he flies at least a mile off jump run so as to not be in jumpers airspace. If a tandem instructors comfort zone is any bigger than what he could expect from other groups of jumpers that is unreasonable.
Sky Canyon Wingsuiters
The111 1
QuoteThat seems extreme to me, but if that is what it takes to be within his comfort level to ensure student safety, that's his prerogative, and his opinion trumps all others.
Seriously?
I have to open a mile away from the DZ because of a strange opinion? Never mind that there are plenty of other tandems opening within 1/4 mile of him.
To say his opinion trumps all also "seems extreme" to me.
www.WingsuitPhotos.com
Like I said, seems excessive to me, but if it's what that instructor feels is needed to ensure the safety of the student then it does trump any other opinion. Options other than the education and pre-planning options might mean separating the loads, or having the exit order different than standard.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
pattersd 0
What are the rules/BSR's about jumping with a tandem that you want to strengthen? Are the available in the SIM? USPA is a joke when it comes to regulating tandems, if it makes money its good.
DSE 5
QuoteWhat are the rules/BSR's about jumping with a tandem that you want to strengthen? Are the available in the SIM? USPA is a joke when it comes to regulating tandems, if it makes money its good.
You missed the USPA discussion about changing the legal age of tandem students to 16.
Well...it's not as young as the APF is considering, which is 12 years.
Then again, Australia is right next to New Zealand where there is no age limit.
Expecting a wingsuit to be 1 mile away from a tandem is a bit excessive as an opening requirement, IMO. What if the tandem is on a long spot? I suppose the wingsuiter(s) could ask for a go-around, but...Our flight plan as a general rule includes (or should include) a far enough out pattern or teardrop that we're well off of jump run anyway.
mccordia 74
QuoteLike I said, seems excessive to me, but if it's what that instructor feels is needed to ensure the safety of the student then it does trump any other opinion.
When there are written rules on these things, overly anal people like aforementioned TM CAN and WILL use this stuff to ban wingsuits from their load, or saddle us up with unreasonable limits as to what we can and cant do.
It might seem excessive to you, but in this case it would be allowing someones unreasonable fears for something he or she doesnt understand, and empower him/her to have others jump through hoops or not jump at all. Resulting in beyond silly situations (and dangerous stuff, maybe forcing people to land out due to a tandem 'blocking' their approach back at the DZ).
And educating people wont help. When someone fears a wingsuit and doesnt want it close, no ammount of talk is going to change that, Its like that old aunt you hated as a kid. No matter how often your mother tells you she is really nice, she'll still scare the crap out of you
JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?
QuoteI do think something needs to be done, I'd suggest the "recommendation" of 200 jumps in 18 months, or 500 jumps total, be strengthened to a BSR not because it will stop people from padding a logbook, but because it's an enforceable rule, and that makes instructors, DZO's, S&TA's other skydivers more likely to respect and enforce it.
I'd also like to see a USPA membership pledge that states that you won't hang a shingle out that says "instructor" unless you've been through a course and obtained a USPA instructional rating. I think anyone you does otherwise is defrauding the skydiver they are "instructing".
These are both critical portions of the letter that I sent to the S&T committe prior to the BOD meeting. Also, I will fight any "standardized document" or syllabus which was collaborated by people, most of whom do not possess USPA Instructional ratings. PARTICULARLY if it was plageurized from the BMI Instructor course manual that I co-wrote in 2002 and which I gave a copy to a group of people in 2005 so that they could create their own First Flight manual for the manufacturer they work for. It's shameless to me, it all reeks of forwarding a personal agenda, and it undermines the work of many of us who have already created solid instructional methodology which has been in use for a very long time.
I am done with this thread.
Chuck Blue
D-12501
AFF/TM/SL-I, PRO, S&TA
Z-Flock Wingsuit School (all brands)
DSE 5
Chuck,
First, let me say I have a tremendous respect for you.
Second, no one plagiarized your work.
I wrote *all* the initial documents for our project and my writings became the foundation of our project, and the secondary point of the project was that it *not* be manufacturer specific.
The same thing was said to someone else when he wrongfully claimed we'd plagiarized his work.
Not one word of our program was plagiarized from anything.
Of course you've pioneered a lot of techniques in this sport, and there is no doubt that some of the "Chuck Blue" technique has filtered down through various instructors and students you've taught. But...we've pioneered a few things ourselves.
I've never seen either the Birdman documents nor the PF documents. I did have a copy of Campos' book but that was lent out long ago. I didn't find the book very helpful from a "learning" perspective in terms of First Flight help and I haven't had the book around for nearly a year.
The program/syllabus we submitted was written entirely based around personal knowledge/experience, and was not aimed towards any specific wingsuit manufacturer. It's a wingsuit rating. Not a BM, PF, TS,FYB, EG, whatever manufacturer rating.
FWIW, the greater majority of those involved in creating the program *do* have some form of USPA instructional rating, either Coach, AFFI, TI.
It's also true, you and others created a solid Birdman instructional program that very few still adhere to. Just because you are an outstanding wingsuit instructor with a method based around the Birdman program does not mean that others hold the same passion for quality instruction that you do.You're a rare bird, Chuck. But face it...the time for a *single* consistent instructional program that has a foundation based on the USPA training methodology that has been of benefit to ISP/AFF students for years....has come. Administered by one body rather than 4-5 competitors that for the greatest part, have instructors that don't follow the recommendations (Although I know you do).
First, let me say I have a tremendous respect for you.
Second, no one plagiarized your work.
I wrote *all* the initial documents for our project and my writings became the foundation of our project, and the secondary point of the project was that it *not* be manufacturer specific.
The same thing was said to someone else when he wrongfully claimed we'd plagiarized his work.
Not one word of our program was plagiarized from anything.
Of course you've pioneered a lot of techniques in this sport, and there is no doubt that some of the "Chuck Blue" technique has filtered down through various instructors and students you've taught. But...we've pioneered a few things ourselves.
I've never seen either the Birdman documents nor the PF documents. I did have a copy of Campos' book but that was lent out long ago. I didn't find the book very helpful from a "learning" perspective in terms of First Flight help and I haven't had the book around for nearly a year.
The program/syllabus we submitted was written entirely based around personal knowledge/experience, and was not aimed towards any specific wingsuit manufacturer. It's a wingsuit rating. Not a BM, PF, TS,FYB, EG, whatever manufacturer rating.
FWIW, the greater majority of those involved in creating the program *do* have some form of USPA instructional rating, either Coach, AFFI, TI.
It's also true, you and others created a solid Birdman instructional program that very few still adhere to. Just because you are an outstanding wingsuit instructor with a method based around the Birdman program does not mean that others hold the same passion for quality instruction that you do.You're a rare bird, Chuck. But face it...the time for a *single* consistent instructional program that has a foundation based on the USPA training methodology that has been of benefit to ISP/AFF students for years....has come. Administered by one body rather than 4-5 competitors that for the greatest part, have instructors that don't follow the recommendations (Although I know you do).
Butters 0
QuoteBut face it...the time for a *single* consistent instructional program that has a foundation based on the USPA training methodology that has been of benefit to ISP/AFF students for years....has come.
It hasn't come ... a group of people with personal agendas are proposing new ratings and regulations while using incidents that are either fictional or wouldn't be prevented by the proposed ratings and regulations.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
DSE 5
What is our personal agenda? You've made this accusation before, along with claims of how regulation will "hurt you."
Yet you offer no specifics.
You think there is a pot of gold at the end of this rating rainbow?
For hells sake, wake the fuck up. The rating didn't pass the BOD meeting.
True, I have a somewhat "personal" agenda.
I want to see good instruction become the norm in wingsuiting. I want to see people waiting til they're ready. I want to see fewer kids dying. Argue it all you want; had the "reccomendations" been "rules" that were enforceable and accountable, Dan and Race would likely not have died when they did. But hell, you knew them both, right? So you know better.
None of us that proposed the rating get anything out of it except putting up with attacks, threats, and PM's from people like you that cry "WOLF" over regulations that don't exist, won't exist, and out of fear of actually having to demonstrate skills if you want to wear the badge of "instructor." Man, that must suck to brag about your flying skills all over DZ.com but be worried about whether or not you can stay with an examiner flying as a "student." Scary indeed.
One more time, just in case you weren't listening; the WSI rating proposal didn't pass. So, I flew to Dallas, stood in front of the BOD in my pajamas, had spasms that made me look like an escapee from a mental ward...all for nothing.
Meow.
Yet you offer no specifics.
You think there is a pot of gold at the end of this rating rainbow?
For hells sake, wake the fuck up. The rating didn't pass the BOD meeting.
True, I have a somewhat "personal" agenda.
I want to see good instruction become the norm in wingsuiting. I want to see people waiting til they're ready. I want to see fewer kids dying. Argue it all you want; had the "reccomendations" been "rules" that were enforceable and accountable, Dan and Race would likely not have died when they did. But hell, you knew them both, right? So you know better.
None of us that proposed the rating get anything out of it except putting up with attacks, threats, and PM's from people like you that cry "WOLF" over regulations that don't exist, won't exist, and out of fear of actually having to demonstrate skills if you want to wear the badge of "instructor." Man, that must suck to brag about your flying skills all over DZ.com but be worried about whether or not you can stay with an examiner flying as a "student." Scary indeed.
One more time, just in case you weren't listening; the WSI rating proposal didn't pass. So, I flew to Dallas, stood in front of the BOD in my pajamas, had spasms that made me look like an escapee from a mental ward...all for nothing.
Meow.
I guess everyone is entitiled to their own definition of the terms "intellectual property" and "plageurism" , but that is besides the point.
My point is now, and has always been,that safe, common-sense wingsuit training methodology has been available to anyone who wanted it for a very long time. The current consortium trying to advance their personal version of things onto the USPA board for BSR consideration are spinning their wheels in my opinion. A great effort, but entirely self-serving.
The BPA just added a slightly-tweaked version of the old BMI first flight course to their rules and have created a rating system. Good for them, but I have always felt that those guys are killing themselves with so many sign-off's and rating requirements. Never mind the positively astronomical rate they pay for yearly dues!
Ultimately, I believe that the simple manner of making the current "reccomendations" into "regulations" and adding in a good first flight syllabus are all that's needed. That is, beyond vigilant policing by S&TA's, DZO's, and regional directors.
There is no one "perfect way" to teach a first flight course and there will certainly never be any agreement by anyone on what should be considered "perfect" instructor qualifications. Tandem jumps were conducted in the USA for a whopping 20 years under a waiver from the FAA. We called that the "test period". During that time both major US manufacturers had similar requirements to become a TM, but not "the same". Same went for their examiner courses. Consider even having wingsuit recommendations in the SIM our "test period".
Some of you older skydivers on here will remember how so many people whined like bitches when even the basic inclusion of wingsuiting into the SIM Oddly, this was simply because those recommendations were submitted by Scott Campos, another "devil-like BirdMan guy".
Listen, it's definitely not "my way or the highway", but if a group of guys wants to strike out on their own and "create" something that all of us are expected to eat, then they might ought to have included the other authorities on such issues in their plan. Also, labeling me, at this point in my wingsuiting instructional career "a BirdMan (inc., all rights reserved, etc) guy" is really starting to grate on me. If that's going to continue, then lets just call a spade a spade and name Spot's proposal to the BOD the "Flock University/Tony Suit" syllabus, because that's what it is.
It wasn't four years ago that I offered to FREELY run a BMI course (because I was rated by that manufacturer to do so) on this dropzone to several people at the local jumpsuit factory. They all, for whatever reason, declined, but did not hesitate to take my documents when I offered them. Anyone in that group wanting to argue that point might want to ask Jeff Nebelkopf, Flora, or Tony Uragallo. Had ANY of those people bothed to take a day and a half out of their time and actually sat through at least the lecture I would be much less angry over what is going on now.
I can't believe I got suckered into posting again.
Anyone wanting to argue with me about anything I have written, just call me. Anyone wanting to call me out against on anything I have written can expect a call from me from now on.
It positively pains me that I was unable to attend the BOD to physically stand up and present my opinion on wingsuiting and it's needed direction. It was simply impossible for me to turn off my family driving down to visit me then. It has become very clear to me that the written word does not hold nearly as much credence as the spoken presentation. Two different RD's have told me that in the past few days.
It was said in the BOD meeting that BirdMan, EU (the company and Jari himself) backed the "joint proposal". Absolutely not true. I was also just told that another moderator on these forums (John Hawke) who was at those meetings heard my name was thrown in as supporting this program by Spot as well. I very-specifically told Scotty Burns that my name was, under NO circumstances, to be associated with this or any other outside proposal because I had absolutely nothing to do with it's creation and had no read even a basic draft of it. I have no idea why Spot went through Scotty and just didn't call me himself.
My point is now, and has always been,that safe, common-sense wingsuit training methodology has been available to anyone who wanted it for a very long time. The current consortium trying to advance their personal version of things onto the USPA board for BSR consideration are spinning their wheels in my opinion. A great effort, but entirely self-serving.
The BPA just added a slightly-tweaked version of the old BMI first flight course to their rules and have created a rating system. Good for them, but I have always felt that those guys are killing themselves with so many sign-off's and rating requirements. Never mind the positively astronomical rate they pay for yearly dues!
Ultimately, I believe that the simple manner of making the current "reccomendations" into "regulations" and adding in a good first flight syllabus are all that's needed. That is, beyond vigilant policing by S&TA's, DZO's, and regional directors.
There is no one "perfect way" to teach a first flight course and there will certainly never be any agreement by anyone on what should be considered "perfect" instructor qualifications. Tandem jumps were conducted in the USA for a whopping 20 years under a waiver from the FAA. We called that the "test period". During that time both major US manufacturers had similar requirements to become a TM, but not "the same". Same went for their examiner courses. Consider even having wingsuit recommendations in the SIM our "test period".
Some of you older skydivers on here will remember how so many people whined like bitches when even the basic inclusion of wingsuiting into the SIM Oddly, this was simply because those recommendations were submitted by Scott Campos, another "devil-like BirdMan guy".
Listen, it's definitely not "my way or the highway", but if a group of guys wants to strike out on their own and "create" something that all of us are expected to eat, then they might ought to have included the other authorities on such issues in their plan. Also, labeling me, at this point in my wingsuiting instructional career "a BirdMan (inc., all rights reserved, etc) guy" is really starting to grate on me. If that's going to continue, then lets just call a spade a spade and name Spot's proposal to the BOD the "Flock University/Tony Suit" syllabus, because that's what it is.
It wasn't four years ago that I offered to FREELY run a BMI course (because I was rated by that manufacturer to do so) on this dropzone to several people at the local jumpsuit factory. They all, for whatever reason, declined, but did not hesitate to take my documents when I offered them. Anyone in that group wanting to argue that point might want to ask Jeff Nebelkopf, Flora, or Tony Uragallo. Had ANY of those people bothed to take a day and a half out of their time and actually sat through at least the lecture I would be much less angry over what is going on now.
I can't believe I got suckered into posting again.
Anyone wanting to argue with me about anything I have written, just call me. Anyone wanting to call me out against on anything I have written can expect a call from me from now on.
It positively pains me that I was unable to attend the BOD to physically stand up and present my opinion on wingsuiting and it's needed direction. It was simply impossible for me to turn off my family driving down to visit me then. It has become very clear to me that the written word does not hold nearly as much credence as the spoken presentation. Two different RD's have told me that in the past few days.
It was said in the BOD meeting that BirdMan, EU (the company and Jari himself) backed the "joint proposal". Absolutely not true. I was also just told that another moderator on these forums (John Hawke) who was at those meetings heard my name was thrown in as supporting this program by Spot as well. I very-specifically told Scotty Burns that my name was, under NO circumstances, to be associated with this or any other outside proposal because I had absolutely nothing to do with it's creation and had no read even a basic draft of it. I have no idea why Spot went through Scotty and just didn't call me himself.
I can't believe I got suckered into posting again.
Quote
You didn't get suckered. Its a very good post and some fraudulent, never been evaluated, over the phone rated, bogus BMI, current USPA commitee member could never say you have no credibility and your opinion does not count by baselessly accusing you of being dangerous.
Glad to have you back Chuck.
Quote
True, I have a somewhat "personal" agenda.
I want to see good instruction become the norm in wingsuiting. I want to see people waiting til they're ready. I want to see fewer kids dying. Argue it all you want; had the "reccomendations" been "rules" that were enforceable and accountable, Dan and Race would likely not have died when they did.
Good instruction we have now. How will the proposed method make it better?
Two young men who were both told "NO wingsuits for you yet" by people that were looking out for them. That is the current systems enforcement in action. These boys went someplace else where they were just a face in the crowd, they did not disclose their low experience. They successfully circumnavigated oversight with disregard to wingsuit recommendations.
Who do you want held accountable and to what measure? How does the proposed system enforce this due process of accountability?
sdctlc 0
WOW, Thread Drift Warning! This was started as a thread about the opinions of Tandem FlyBys. After it was accused that somehow this was tied to the WSI and "regulation" threads Spot (at the meeting) and Chuck (e-mails with a RD) BOTH confirmed the fact of being talked to about this and the scrutiny of the FAA. I don't know when it turned into an extension of the other thread about peoples opinions (Good, Bad, Ugly, Stolen ect...) of the WSI rating proposal that was discussed at the BOD Meeting last weekend.
If in fact the FAA is looking at our section of Skydiving given we potentially can have an interaction with the portion that THEY are very interested in (Tandems) I think it is a discussion that we all have a stake in. I would love to see this discussion continue regarding that and leave the Hate for the other thread.. At least that way this can be some what constructive and I can look at the other one to see bitching...
Scott C.
If in fact the FAA is looking at our section of Skydiving given we potentially can have an interaction with the portion that THEY are very interested in (Tandems) I think it is a discussion that we all have a stake in. I would love to see this discussion continue regarding that and leave the Hate for the other thread.. At least that way this can be some what constructive and I can look at the other one to see bitching...
Scott C.
"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"
Far enough that a tandem instructor is not concerned.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites