Changes are needed, but not the knee-jerk way that some are proposing …

[AFFI 0]

Quote

every level of license, or rating should have some type of canopy requirement. Should we have to give the USPA another $25 for each one, hell no. Should we have some willing "mentor" to assist other with achieving those goals, yes. Our instructors should be the most highly trained individuals on the block, especially those that teach new jumper progression.

I do not understand how more can be expected without any expectation to pay for additional services.

I do not understand how more can be expected from those who make skydiving their livelihood to train and teach for nothing by those who make their livings outside of skydiving. For fulltime skydivers, that is how they pay to feed their families, to pay for their children’s doctor bills, to house and clothe themselves and their families. Yet they should work for free?

To earn my AFF rating, when you calculate the expense of training and preparation, then the actual cost of the course and the time off work during the busy season it came to over $3,000 – that was out of an already meager annual salary as a full time skydiver, yet those of us who make skydiving their livelihood are expected by those who do not skydive as a sole vocation to perform services for free?

I just do not think that the demands to work for free by those who do not make their living this way is fully understood by the weekend warriors. I have been going through some serious health issues and have not been able to work hardly at all in over a year, my payable taxes in 2006 was $397, yet when I went to see my doctor last week I still had to pay him, and did not expect him even for a moment to provide his services to me for free simply because I have respect for him and his choice to do what he does for a living.

We should have the best, highest trained instructors yet we are not going to pay them anything? We should have canopy piloting guidelines and courses but they should be free?

I just do not understand this mindset…
-

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I think that you just proved that in many respects people living full-time in the skydiving world are not economically viable. Sorry I couldn't resist.

Let the market figure itself out. If you charge too much for your services, then you will drive your potential clients away. If you price yourself properly, then you will keep yourself busy. You should be paid a fair wage for your services. But at the same time your clients/students should not be gouged for the lifestyle you choose (oh and this is in reference to the entire industry - not just yourself). But remember if you choose to work full-time in this business and if you can't find a way to support your family, then maybe you should be looking for another way to suppliment your income so that you can support them.

I would love to jump full-time. Believe many many many times I have thought about selling my house, cutting away and moving to some DZ and being one of the full-time jumpers. But in the end I think what will I do once I burn through all my money. So I decided to continue to be the weekend warrior. Sure I'm not nearly as good a skydiver as I could be if I was jumping everyday. But I am financially sound and I have choices.

With all due respect, yes you should be fairly compensated for your services, but you are preeching to the wrong crowd if you expect us to fund your lifestyle.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

>Shouldn’t we be training people to become competent canopy pilots
>before we train them to become freefallers?

Absolutely. I've been bugging USPA to create a canopy-coach rating for years now, and been bugging them for "graduate training" for a lot longer than that. We finally have the ISP which, when implemented, can help a lot - but many places do not implement it. And it's still light on canopy training.

>We need segregated landing lanes for fast and slow canopies in this sport.

Careful, there, or someone will accuse you of having a knee-jerk reaction towards banning swooping!

I would love to participate in a canopy coach rating

I think it is important and not enough time is spent teaching it...

I do spend a lot of time with people trying to teach them what I have learned from a lot of wonderful people who sat with me and talked to me and taught me how to be safer (and the some that yelled at me and told me what I did wrong too sometimes

It would be great if we focused on the canopy piloting aspect of skydiving with students a bit more

I have said this a lot

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[gemini 0]

We have an issue when the winds blows from the South which is most of time since we are near the coast.

The main landing area is like an upside down L that wraps around the South side and East side of the hanger. Total landing area outside the main landing area is 126 acres and is for the most part unobstructed.

With a South wind most of the non-swoopers will land East of the hanger with final to the South. Some of the swoopers prefer to land crosswind, so they will land with final to the East.

Since the hanger sits inside the L it creates a blind corner where jumpers may cross each other.

Wind from any other direction seems to work ok.

Blue skies,

Jim

[billvon 3,107]

>The more I look at it, and IMHO, every level of license, or rating
>should have some type of canopy requirement. Should we have to give
>the USPA another $25 for each one, hell no.

So add em to each license level. No new costs, just new skills you have to demonstrate, like flat turns at low altitude.

>Should we have some willing "mentor" to assist other with achieving those
>goals, yes. Our instructors should be the most highly trained individuals on
>the block, especially those that teach new jumper progression.

You want the most highly trained people in the sport to work for free? Give the paying jobs to the lesser experienced people? I don't think that's going to work. You will end up with the weekend warriors teaching canopy piloting, and the career instructors/swoopers taking all the paying jobs (like, say, hauling tandems.)

>I dont consider myself to have much to offer when it comes to one-on-one
>education of others, but I did offer, to our DZO, for anyone who wanted, I
>would take a day or two and work with individuals on their landing patterns,
>and landings, with video, for free.

That's great! People like you can definitely make a difference. But at Perris, the most experienced jumpers are too busy trying to eke out a living (and jump enough to train) to give up their days in such a way.

[yardhippie 0]

Quote

>Should we have some willing "mentor" to assist other with achieving those
>goals, yes. Our instructors should be the most highly trained individuals on
>the block, especially those that teach new jumper progression.

You want the most highly trained people in the sport to work for free? Give the paying jobs to the lesser experienced people? I don't think that's going to work. You will end up with the weekend warriors teaching canopy piloting, and the career instructors/swoopers taking all the paying jobs (like, say, hauling tandems.)

Ummmm.... where did you see "free" in my post? I specifically mentioned USPA and $$, but not folks working for free. I said "willng mentors", but not "free".

I realize that there a folks trying to scratch out a living jumping. Like you said elsewhere, the economics of the situations will work itself out. Realistically, it's already expensive to start this hobby, adding to that may even beging to scare away even those who have the means, but really safety always over money.

Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD
"What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me
"Anything you want." ~ female skydiver
Mohoso Rodriguez #865

[wildfan75 1]

Quote

You want the most highly trained people in the sport to work for free?

It happens at my dz. Highly qualified instructors, two of which are World Teamers. They do it all for free, for the love of the sport, knowing, or rather hoping that a few that will continue to jump will eventually get good enough to do the same and pay it forward.

Quote

You will end up with the weekend warriors teaching canopy piloting...

All our instructors, every single one of them, are weekend warriors. Everyone gets up on Monday morning and heads to their regular job. They wouldn't be able to afford to do things like go to Thailand to break world records, break Texas state records (the jumper with the highest jump number no less), head to the Denver tunnel so they could get better and therefore be a better instructor, if they didn't have their full time jobs.

Does that make them any less of a skydiver, any less of an instructor? No. IMO, it makes them more admirable and respectable than someone sitting back complaining because they're skydiving job doesn't provide a 401K.

I know I've only been in the sport a short while and I only have a few jumps, but I'm just as passionate about this sport as anyone here. I live, breathe and dream for the weekend so I can jump. But it is a sport. Sure it's a little different in nature than say hockey or soccer or baseball, but it is a sport. How much do you think youth coaches are making to coach the local baseball team? Probably nothing, and certainly not enough to ever make it their career. Sure we have pro teams where coaches make a living. But they are coaching professional, and those professionals are getting paid to play. I'd equate that to teams like Arizona Airspeed, and the Golden Knights. They are professionally paid skydivers who are coached by professionally paid instructors. Not a youth league team who's coach is trying to make a living off coaching them.

[billvon 3,107]

I think we're saying the same things. Weekend warriors can indeed do a lot of good. They're not the best in the sport, but often they are good enough. (And this is coming from a weekend warrior/world team guy.) And indeed often you don't need Andy Delk teaching you how to do 2-ways or Scott Miller teaching you how to land your parachute.

To support them, we could get USPA to institute a canopy coach rating. That will allow jumpers who want to teach canopy control to get standardized training, thus making canopy coaching everywhere more effective. As with your average coach, they can choose whether or not to charge for their time. Many do not, which is great. Some do, which is also good for people who need X training in Y days and can't wait until someone is done with AFF's to give them pointers. For these people, paying someone to be available when they need them can work as well.

>I'd equate that to teams like Arizona Airspeed, and the Golden
>Knights. They are professionally paid skydivers who are coached by
> professionally paid instructors.

Right, and these are the most highly trained/most experienced people in our sport. They are also some of the best professional coaches out there.

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Canuck,

You make a good point about student (airplane) pilots being taught to deal with crosswind landings right from the get-go. I too was once a student pilot and recall this, but had never thought along those lines when it comes go came to student (canopy) pilots. I'll be honest, I'm not 100% sure I'm on-board with the idea of landing student canopy pilots crosswind on purpose, no matter how slight the crosswind component. For one thing, I've seen too many students, or low-time jumpers, or high-time jumpers get a bit crosswind and stick and arm or leg out when they get shoved sideways and break it. Okay, some will propose "more training", but that's an instictive reaction that's hard to break. In an airplane, when landing crosswind, you have a lot of "airplane" wrapped around you AND you have an engine that gives you the option to go around and take another look at it. Under a parachute, you have neither.

Having said that, while one's plan may not be to land one's parachute cross-wind, if you're in this sport long enough, you'll learn to deal with it. I'm still not sure putting students who's canopy piloting skills are pretty much from wrote is best; i.e. students with a handful of jumps are not yet to the point where they can improvise based on experience... feel what the canopy is doing... or better yet, anticipate what its going to do and fly through it. I'm not sure when the best time to teach it is, but I'm thinking putting a student that still has less then 25 jumps in an "unsual landing condition" (example... cross-wind) isn't the best thing to do. Just my opinion.



As for "lanes" and "landing areas" for high performance swoop landings. Obviously there's got to be some way of managing the traffic and traffic pattern with multiple canopies landing in the same general area... but there will always be those that argue they "can handle it" or "why is a 270 hook worse then a 180 hook"... basically, it comes down to the DZO and/or S&TA have to take a stand, what ever that stand may be, and stick to it.

I am though starting to wonder if the move towards "landing directions" y'all see at some DZs rather then "landing into the wind & landing patterns" isn't part of the problem. For instances, you'll see a lot of DZs that say the main landing area is EAST <> WEST or NORTH <> SOUTH only, first person down sets the pattern... or others that are TOWARDS THE insert large landmark here IN NO WIND OR LIGHT WIND CONDITIONS. What I mean is, this mentality (for lack of a better word) is getting folks into the mind-set of "oh, I'm just going to land in that direction" and away from the mind-set of once they get under canopy they have to "check the windsock", "evaulate it for both wind direction and magnitude", use this information to "set-up a pattern" and "think about how to get into the pattern with the rest of the canopies / pilots on the load with them."

In other words, is this move towards "just land in this direction" creating a situation where folks aren't "piloting" their canopies as much as "aiming" and paying less attention to whats going on around them, is what I'm begining to wonder?



Canuck... not directed at you... just to all in the verse...

I don't think any rule change or new policy should be viewed as a "knee-jerk" reaction to 6 fatalites in about 4 months due to canopy collisions or near collisions in the landing pattern.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am though starting to wonder if the move towards "landing directions" y'all see at some DZs rather then "landing into the wind & landing patterns" isn't part of the problem.

I am NOT a fan of these policies.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhreeZone 20]

Are you a fan of them saying everyone lands ---> that way if the wind sock is limp and not really moving? At least in those conditions everyone heads the same direction hopefully.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com