AFF Standardized Meeting

[Para5-0 0]

On Jan 18th and 19th 60 or so AFF I/E's, AFFI's. DZO's, STA's, DE's from around the globe... all converged on the Dulles Doubletree in Sterling Virginia. I say around the globe becuase there was representation from NZ and Japan. The meeting is recquirred to attend every two years to keep your AFF I/E rating current. The goal was to get everyone to brain storm certain criteria and make sure we are all disemminating and teaching similar information. Basically, getting us looking at AFF through the same glasses.
The meeting covered some general topics regarding new I/E requirements, evaluation standards, and canopy continuing education.
Brian Germain used the better part of the 2nd day to go over some basics of canopy flight and methods to teach the topic.
We were advised that 70% of the 2010 fatalities involved fully functioning canopies and that the average jump numbers were 200 up and exceeding several thousand.
In my opinion there is a problem and it is our obligation to try to address it. I am a believer of post A license continuing canopy education. Possibly at the C or D license level. One issue that must be addressed, if we decide to go that route is what will the sylabus contain and who will be authorized to teach it or sign off on it. Whether it is in the form of a canopy class or license requirement, USPA; if they are going to require continuing canopy education, will have to approve of the material and person or company administering it. Basically, Who canteach it? This took up some discussion time at the meeting.
Overall, after the 2nd day people had to scurry for cabs and planes so there was not much after the meeting networking. I think this would be a good thread to see if the meeting was successful and/or if any questions might have risen. Or even any further suggestions.
The Feb BOD meeting is approaching and if we do our duediligence we can hit the ground running and save some time.
Your thoughts.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Whether it is in the form of a canopy class or license requirement, USPA; if they are going to require continuing canopy education, will have to approve of the material and person or company administering it. Basically, Who canteach it? This took up some discussion time at the meeting.

Having a number of people come to me for canopy coaching who were taught flat out wrong information by their AFF instructors and coaches, I really don't have a lot of faith in the USPA anointing some sort of canopy instructional rating. Especially if a special class is needed to be taught for further licenses, by a USPA "canopy coach."

What I believe we are facing is a need for a complete paradigm shift in how canopy flight is approached on the fun jumper level. We need people to take canopy flight seriously, including being proactive in landing planning prior to boarding the aircraft for their jump. Too often we see DZs or jumpers with attitudes of "well, get out when the light turns green and follow the other jumpers down." That is setting up jumpers for failure when it comes to pattern congestion and canopy conflicts. With no idea of where their exit spot, deployment spot, location in the groups while under canopy, pattern entry point or sometimes even their landing direction.

The shift in thinking does have to come at the instructor level, especially since the instructor staff at a DZ are typically the most active and vocal jumpers on the DZ.

I would rather propose further instructor training on canopy flight. A class for current instructors could be created, but more importantly, topics up through some advanced canopy flight could be integrated into the IRM for people getting ratings. The concepts would be taught to the teachers, with tools and examples of how to express the complex nature of canopy flight in simple terms. Not every jumper wants to approach canopy flight from an aerospace engineering angle, but most jumpers want to have a simple to understand foundation of knowledge to base their decisions on.

Scott Miller is a prime example of someone who was in the habit of showing instructors how to break down complex canopy flight characteristics to students, and how to do it well.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[stratostar 5]

How about instead of dreaming up some new rating or class for everyone to attend and spend more money on.... how about we get back to having a real FJC instead of these fucking 4 hr cram's and open book tests....

The problem is too many I's short cut the class room and additional SIMS training in order to rush off to the next paying jump.

It's not like the info is not there for people to learn if I's really do their job, canopy flight is not that hard to teach but you have to spend the time to teach it in and out of FJC's.

People just need to do the f'ing job and stop being lazy slackers. However no matter how much you drill it in, there will always be those stupid fucks who think they have mad skillz and are hell bent on looking cool getting scrapped up off the dirt and most of those are to busy getting their jumps in to rush off for tee time's or some other bullshir to take the time to learn it, it's a lot like talking to wall.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

I would rather propose further instructor training on canopy flight. A class for current instructors could be created, but more importantly, topics up through some advanced canopy flight could be integrated into the IRM for people getting ratings.

Excellent post Aggie, this was specifically mentioned and brought up at the meeting. That is why Brian Germain spent so much time trying to emphasize the importance of all I/E's passing along the canopy information properly to new AFFI's. Keep in mind his audience was all I/E's and AFFI's. Sort of a train the trainer approach. Your angle is definately represented., and not being ignored.

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

If I recollect correctly, there is only ONE item on the AFF-I proficiency card which OVERTLY addresses canopy flight. It reads:

“5. Prepared an effective canopy flight plan and provided ground-to-air (for example, radio) instruction for winds up to 14 mph.”

That results in two outcomes:

1. AFF-I candidates are not forced to demonstrate canopy control knowledge beyond the elementary: "turn left now", "flare now".
2. The AFF-I candidate can easily get the impression that teaching canopy control is of low importance.

In addition, the canopy control item on the proficiency card is signed off by an AFF-I not an AFF-I/E. Thus, there is essentially no quality control, and again the message is sent that teaching canopy control is a low priority.

Yes, there is a bit of canopy control embedded in the two ground preps that AFF-I candidates are evaluated on. However since the ground preps are Cat C & D... The content is very, very elementary.

I wonder how often AFF-I candidates fail their rating course over canopy control issues (either relating to their ability to teach canopy control or their own demonstration of canopy control). My bet is that it is VERY rare.

The rating standards haven't kept up with the needs of the skydiving community. USPA is getting exactly the instructors which it asks for in its standards.

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

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

how about we get back to having a real FJC instead of these fucking 4 hr cram's

If you have a solid curriculum which has pieces of canopy control taught across the AFF and coaching jumps... the FJC should be kept to exactly what it is titled: FIRST JUMP COURSE. It should contain enough information to safely get the student through their FIRST JUMP. Teaching more in the FJC is NOT likely to increase learning, as most students are mentally spent at the end of a streamlined 6 hour course.

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

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

The problem is too many I's short cut the class room and additional SIMS training in order to rush off to the next paying jump.

I can not disagree that there are probably some AFFI's who think like this but overall I like to think that they are teaching the basic survival skills needed. If they follow the ISP the canopy material is there to teach, the time just needs to be put into it.
Keep in mind that of the 70% fatalities students made up zero of it. That tells me they are being taught enough to survive but once they start to feel their oats they are getting in trouble. Albeit, a closer analysis is needed. After A license is earned I want the student to feel they are not just being released to do whatever they feel they are ready for. Now some DZ's have excellent instructors, experienced jumpers, and a S&TA to keep an eye out and try to keep them from harming themselves or others but all DZ's do not have that luxury.

AFF I/E's asked, Specifically where are the deficiencies in the AFF instruction to students? The answer was it was not the students but the jumpers at a later stage in their careers.

I look at that 200 jump guy who wants to start flying higher wing loadings and playing with high performance landings as an example. What guidance do they have?

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

That results in two outcomes:

1. AFF-I candidates are not forced to demonstrate canopy control knowledge beyond the elementary: "turn left now", "flare now".
2. The AFF-I candidate can easily get the impression that teaching canopy control is of low importance

Wouldnt it be fair to say that if the AFF I/E's are educated in the need to emphasis canopy knowledge in new coach candidates and AFF candidates that it will produce people who pass down the information? or we hope it will?

Quote

I wonder how often AFF-I candidates fail their rating course over canopy control issues (either relating to their ability to teach canopy control or their own demonstration of canopy control). My bet is that it is VERY rare.

I would defer this to AFF I/E's who have experienced a candidate like this. and if they did would or could it be a reason for not issueing the rating?
maybe requiring a recognized canopy course prior to a coach or AFFI rating? just throwing that out there.

[DSE 5]

Cat G/H jumps have more canopy awareness, not to mention the additional A license requirements.
HOWEVER:
Asking a coach who is likely jumping a wingloading of 1.0-1.3;1 to accurately observe a student's canopy flight is sorta silly when the coach is deploying at 3.5 to 3 and the student deploying at 4, loaded at 0.7;1.

There is already a great Canopy Proficiency card available. Making it a requirement for the B license is one possible step forward, albeit not a complete solution. I've spoken with dozens of skydivers that are unaware of the canopy proficiency card.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

We were advised that 70% of the 2010 fatalities involved fully functioning canopies and that the average jump numbers were 200 up and exceeding several thousand.

That stat tells me we don't have a problem teaching students to fly and land their canopies and perform textbook pattern work, but rather we have a problem teaching our young "experienced" jumpers to deal with the combination of larger groups, lower break-offs, faster canopies, and increased traffic they confront as their freefall skills offer them new opportunities.

We will not solve the "fully functioning canopy" fatalities issue until we get serious about collecting highly detailed information about each incident, including near-misses. There are simply too many variables in these accidents to make effective changes to our training procedures without that data.

[edited for grammar]

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

We were advised that 70% of the 2010 fatalities involved fully functioning canopies and that the average jump numbers were 200 up and exceeding several thousand.

That stat tells me we don't have a problem teaching students to fly and land their canopies and perform textbook pattern work, but rather we have a problem teaching our young "experienced" jumpers to deal with the combination of larger groups, lower break-offs, faster canopies, and increased traffic they confront as their freefall skills offer them new opportunities.

We will not solve the "fully functioning canopy" fatalities issue until we get serious about collecting and highly detailed information about each incident, including near-misses. There are simply too many variables in these accidents to make effective changes to our training procedures without that data.

This is the issue Chuck.

We need to hammer on our "Students" up till they surpass us in jump numbers, ratings and experience. And if being nice doesn't do it, be the caring asshole and put the hammer down.

Matt

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

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Quote

Keep in mind that of the 70% fatalities students made up zero of it.  

Agreed.  However, I know of one student vs. coach canopy collision with serious injury in 2010.  That one is concerning on several levels.

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

[Para5-0 0]

At face value that seems strange. I would want to look at the facts before I jump to a conclussion and paint all coaches with a broad stroke based on one incident.
I know most coaches and instructors care. Note: I said most. I just dont know if they know what or how to teach canopy characteristics beyond basic survival skills. Because it either wasnt emphasized to them during their rating courses or they just dont know.

Do you have any more details on the incident you mentioned?

[riggerrob 643]

I disagree with Stratostar, but agree with the original poster.
Canopy control is far too complex a subject to be taught in one lecture. An all-in-one lecture would just over-load FJS and force them to forget something more important.

Instead, canopy control knowledge should be spoon-fed in small doses, then instructors should de-brief students to confirm learning.
"How much muscle did it take to pull down that front riser?"
"How fast did the canopy turn?"
"Did the rate of descent change?"

[stratostar 5]

The ISP part of CC is not designed to be crammed into to a FJC. My point was not only do I's do a shitty job of basic CC in FJC, they also do a shitty job of on going ed in the ISP. Mostly because their in too big a hurry to move on to the next paying jump, no one makes money to radio control skydivers and review their CC in a debrief.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[ufk22 33]

The Feb BOD meeting is approaching and if we do our due diligence we can hit the ground running and save some time.

Quote

If by "hit the ground running" you mean taking formal action at the Feb meeting, WHOA....
The last thing we need is a quick response so someone feels like they've done something. Most of these incidents are just plain and simple accidents, a mistake made. No amount of training can prevent these fom happening. Look at Roger Nelson's death. He certainly didn't need additional canopy training. He was one of the best in the sport. He made a mistake.
Most of the people I have know in the sport that have died under canopy were also in this catagory. They were very good at swooping. They new how to fly their canopy in traffic, They just made a mistake.
The other catagory of people I know who have hurt/killed themselves under canopy are those with "mad skilz". Most of these are going to do whatever they want in spite of your good intentions.
Do students/low time jumpers need canopy education? Of course.
BUT...
Let's think before we act. The last thing we need is another level of "professional instructors" under USPA. Every time something changes, it seems to do more to add cost than to add knowledge (the ISP being the exception to this rule).
The biggest problem with low-time jumpers geting basic canopy instruction is money. USPA has gone out of it's way to create "professional" skydivers, many of whom are more interested in the $$$ than spending additional time with the students required to teach canopy skills.


The meeting covered some general topics regarding new I/E requirements, evaluation standards, and canopy continuing education.

I do question why so much (at least by your report) of the time spent at an AFF Standardization meeting was spent discussing advanced canopy coaching, rather than reinforcing the basic canopy skills that are (or should be) taught during AFF and immediately after (by coaches who often don't have enough jumps to have developed anything more than basic canopy skills at best).


In my opinion there is a problem and it is our obligation to try to address it.

[SStewart 13]

Quote

The Feb BOD meeting is approaching and if we do our due diligence we can hit the ground running and save some time.

Quote

If by "hit the ground running" you mean taking formal action at the Feb meeting, WHOA....
The last thing we need is a quick response so someone feels like they've done something. Most of these incidents are just plain and simple accidents, a mistake made. No amount of training can prevent these fom happening. Look at Roger Nelson's death. He certainly didn't need additional canopy training. He was one of the best in the sport. He made a mistake.
Most of the people I have know in the sport that have died under canopy were also in this catagory. They were very good at swooping. They new how to fly their canopy in traffic, They just made a mistake.
The other catagory of people I know who have hurt/killed themselves under canopy are those with "mad skilz". Most of these are going to do whatever they want in spite of your good intentions.
Do students/low time jumpers need canopy education? Of course.
BUT...
Let's think before we act. The last thing we need is another level of "professional instructors" under USPA. Every time something changes, it seems to do more to add cost than to add knowledge (the ISP being the exception to this rule).
The biggest problem with low-time jumpers geting basic canopy instruction is money. USPA has gone out of it's way to create "professional" skydivers, many of whom are more interested in the $$$ than spending additional time with the students required to teach canopy skills.


The meeting covered some general topics regarding new I/E requirements, evaluation standards, and canopy continuing education.

I do question why so much (at least by your report) of the time spent at an AFF Standardization meeting was spent discussing advanced canopy coaching, rather than reinforcing the basic canopy skills that are (or should be) taught during AFF and immediately after (by coaches who often don't have enough jumps to have developed anything more than basic canopy skills at best).


In my opinion there is a problem and it is our obligation to try to address it.

Stop and think about this for a while before you take action. There is a problem, but doing "something" just so we can feel good about "doing something" isn't the answer.
Want to end swoop deaths? OUTLAW hook turns. It is the only way to keep people from making mistakes doing them. Limit turns to no more than 90's.
Want to end canopy collisions? OUTLAW 2 canopies within 200 yards of each other.
Is any of this realistic? Obviously not.
But neither is thinking more canopy education is going to solve this. It might help on the margins, but it won't solve the problem. It's our nature as skydivers.

[Beachbum 0]

First, I have to say that I agree with those saying that they don't believe that additional canopy training (or at least, JUST that) will make a big dent in good canopy injuries/deaths, and also with the idea that the FJC sufficiently covers canopy control for the first jump if taught correctly. That said ... I'm speaking strictly from my own viewpoint (just over 300 jumps, still learning a lot about canopy control). IF some sort of post A license canopy training gets instituted, one thing I think would be very beneficial is some proximity flying thrown into the mix. It would have to be a judgement call by local instructors as to exactly when each person is ready to really benefit from it, since we all learn at different rates, but it is very difficult to really determine/learn some things without it (such as Rob mentioned above, how much did your descent rate change). With no point of reference, that's a tough call for the less experienced canopy pilot. I have/am battled(ing) a lot of that stuff in my learning process, and when I went to a CRW camp recently I learned SO much on a very few jumps. I was amazed at how much difference what I considered a minor change in front riser pressure actually makes, etc. You can't get that stuff without proximity flying. Yes, instructors are generally flying smaller canopies at higher wingloading, but nothing keeps that from changing for this type of jump. If it was a goal of that particular jump to DO proximity flying, instructors could get on something appropriately sized/loaded so both could pull high and work on such things. Details as to how to instruct it, who does it, etc. I'll gladly leave to you folks with a lot of instructional experience, but I wanted to toss this out for consideration. I am certainly glad that the USPA is at least making a genuine effort to address the issue!

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Para5-0 0]

Whoa,

Slow down with the lynching fellas. Nobody said anything about extra ratings, requirred courses, or instructional canopy ratings. All I tried to do was exactly what is happening, get some different points of view on the topic. By doing this I feel I am just educating myself as to the issue and what different people think may or may not be a good idea.

In reference to Canopy instruction; it has been discussed on the USPA Blog, DZ.com in many threads including this one, at the S&T committee, and at the last AFF standardization meeting. I would say everyone is just trying to get as much information as possible before suggesting anything. Isn't that our job?
As far as IAD, or static line, it was not ignored at all canopy control is non method specific. We never metioned changing anything with just AFF instruction. In fact the majority thought that the basics are being taught correctly in AFF, Static, or IAD.
One thing I have noticed is that everyone is so fast to throw spears but not many are willing to put themself out in front and suggest some solutions. If you feel there is no problem than I hate to say it that is a point of view, the same as any other and should be respected.

What training is offered after a student receives his A license. Leave out bond fire discussions, S&TA lectures, or even instructor oversight because that is not offered everywhere. Although, I like to think it is or could be. from A license on, there is nothing offered or required to further educate a skydiver. Now with that in mind they will be doing and trying new cool things, wing suits, swooping, higher wing loads. Should they just figure it out for themselves?

Listen, I am not opening a shit storm here, just wondering some thoughts. Remember this year coming, if similar to last year, 70% of the fatalities could be canopy related. That means some of our friends could perish; if everyone is so knowledgeable then how do we at least attempt to reduce that number.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

There is already a great Canopy Proficiency card available. Making it a requirement for the B license is one possible step forward, albeit not a complete solution. I've spoken with dozens of skydivers that are unaware of the canopy proficiency card.

That is a really good Idea. I think we have to do something to help people a little better.

I took Scott Millers course around 50 jumps and Im glad I did.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[stratostar 5]

Quote

That means some of our friends could perish; if everyone is so knowledgeable then how do we at least attempt to reduce that number.

Nothing has changed in the last 15 years in this regard, the genie is out of the bottle, as long as USPA promotes and supports swooping (and even if they didn't) people are still going to hook in and die, as long as we keep pushing for smaller and faster canopies that scream out of the sky are for everyone off student status, people are still going to fly into each other, and now we see tandem I's doing hooks with tandems.

When students stand around and watch this stuff go on every day, all day and get listen to every person who they just watch land talk about how great that swoop was (& get to do one on a 1 st. TDM), then we can't expect the fresh off student status peeps to not want to rush into downsizing and flying like that too.

You can't fix stupid and you can't fix peoples depth perception or control all the variable's from winds, heat, cold, density altitude, or mixing landing areas. I have watched time and time again students grow up to become the next working parachute crashed and broken person because they, despite having been trained better or seen others pay the piper, think it won't happen to them in their rush to join the cool crowd.

Do you think Danny Page would have listened to anyone? I don't. It's not like the info wasn't already out there!

Even those who seek out coaching are not immune, http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4018902;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

No BSR's or license is going to fix it or put the genie back in the bottle and good deal of us have been preaching for years about this shit and it has done no good, period!

I don't have the answers your seeking, again the info has been published for years. I choose to jump a large canopy and pull higher now and fly with my breaks stowed to avoid the kiddies & blind old farts with the hotrods, those ground hungry canopies don't take long to clear the air for those of us using tuna boat canopies, I don't want to be anywhere around them, at boogies I land as far away as I can from the main lz on RW loads and the only time I land there is on video jumps because were last down.

We've promoted all this crap as "mainstream" & cool or necessary as an industry to the point that there are too many stupid fucking people flying wings they have no business being under in the first place and now everyone is all up in arms as too the death rate under working canopies....

Well DUH !

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

Quote

That means some of our friends could perish; if everyone is so knowledgeable then how do we at least attempt to reduce that number.

Nothing has changed in the last 15 years in this regard, the genie is out of the bottle, as long as USPA promotes and supports swooping (and even if they didn't) people are still going to hook in and die, as long as we keep pushing for smaller and faster canopies that scream out of the sky are for everyone off student status, people are still going to fly into each other, and now we see tandem I's doing hooks with tandems.

Lets be clear here. All deaths this year under good canopies were not all due to swooping. The one at STL was two very experience jumps and either were swooping.To make a broad statement like you did is wrong. Sounds like you want to outlaw swooping. Whats next i ask? We can all stop skydiving and know body will die.
Its the old theory its the gun not the shooter.

Im not sure what the answer is. I always continued to learn by education. That's just me. Not everyone wants to go down the path I chose. For some people its get their A. Come to the DZ once a month. Do three jumps. Have a beer or two and go home. Add USPA canopy Proficiency card would be a start. Maybe make it a C requirement since you have to show 25 accuracy jumps for the C.
Edited to add:
USPA's Canopy Card
http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_Canopy_Prof_Card_2007_04.pdf

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[ufk22 33]

Whoa,

Slow down with the lynching fellas.

Quote

The fact that you might consider this a "lynching" seems, unfortunately, common among many elected officials. I saw no personal attacks in the last posts, only disagreement with your (at least based on your initial post) opinion about having to "solve" this problem.

Nobody said anything about extra ratings, requirred courses, or instructional canopy ratings. All I tried to do was exactly what is happening, get some different points of view on the topic. By doing this I feel I am just educating myself as to the issue and what different people think may or may not be a good idea.

To quote your original post "In my opinion there is a problem and it is our obligation to try to address it. I am a believer of post A license continuing canopy education. Possibly at the C or D license level. One issue that must be addressed, if we decide to go that route is what will the sylabus contain and who will be authorized to teach it or sign off on it. Whether it is in the form of a canopy class or license requirement, USPA; if they are going to require continuing canopy education, will have to approve of the material and person or company administering it. Basically, Who can teach it?" If your desire is truly to "educate yourself", please consider what is being said. It's hard to see the value in what others are saying while defending one's position. I've been an instructor in this sport for almost 20 years and have been helping with and running rating courses for almost 15 years. I'm a current I-E and Coach -E. I've done more free "coach" or training jumps than I can count. I'm not saying things were better 20 years ago. The ISP has been one of the best things that ever happened to this sport, but the "professionalizing" of the sport also has it down side. It gets more expensive to get and keep instructional ratings every year. As this cost grows, I see fewer and fewer people getting ratings or spending their time and jumps to help bring low-time jumps along, unless they get paid.
I also see a lot of A license jumpers that have been pushed through, getting free-fall training but little or none of the rest of the ISP material because their instructors or coaches were more interested in making a little more money than spending the time necessary to cover all the material.


In reference to Canopy instruction; it has been discussed on the USPA Blog, DZ.com in many threads including this one, at the S&T committee, and at the last AFF standardization meeting. I would say everyone is just trying to get as much information as possible before suggesting anything. Isn't that our job?

Quote

Yes, without a doubt, but please don't get defensive about those who might disagree with you. References to "lynching" don't get any of us anywhere.


As far as IAD, or static line, it was not ignored at all canopy control is non method specific. We never metioned changing anything with just AFF instruction. In fact the majority thought that the basics are being taught correctly in AFF, Static, or IAD.

Quote

Here is a point of disagreement. I see canopy control not being taught well, especially in AFF, particularly with the "A-license in a week" type programs. S/L and IAD programs, by their nature, normally do a much better job with this because the student gets more jumps and more canopy time while under the supervision of instructors.


One thing I have noticed is that everyone is so fast to throw spears but not many are willing to put themself out in front and suggest some solutions. If you feel there is no problem than I hate to say it that is a point of view, the same as any other and should be respected.
What training is offered after a student receives his A license. Leave out bond fire discussions, S&TA lectures, or even instructor oversight because that is not offered everywhere. Although, I like to think it is or could be. from A license on, there is nothing offered or required to further educate a skydiver. Now with that in mind they will be doing and trying new cool things, wing suits, swooping, higher wing loads. Should they just figure it out for themselves?

Your last line was what is called "setting up a straw dog". Suggesting that the alternatives are either a new USPA program or nothing creates a "false set of choices". There is currently nothing required, but to suggest there is nothing offered is not correct. There are many good canopy courses, crw seminars, and many good wingsuit instructional programs.
Leaving out "bond fire discussions, S&TA lectures, or even instructor oversight because that is not offered everywhere"also seems foolish. The fact is that these things are happening at a lot of good DZ's. They are more common (at least from what I've seen) at smaller DZ's, but this is offset by the ability of larger DZ's to afford to bring in outside programs for canopy control, CRW and other things.


Listen, I am not opening a shit storm here, just wondering some thoughts.

If this is what you consider a "shit storm", just wait. This is by and large a pretty civil discussion.


Remember this year coming, if similar to last year, 70% of the fatalities could be canopy related. That means some of our friends could perish; if everyone is so knowledgeable then how do we at least attempt to reduce that number.

[Skydivesg 7]

So let me set myself up as a target for many of you.

I gave up my ratings years and years ago. One reason was because I was spending a great deal of my time training people who made one or two jumps and were never to be seen again.

My real enjoyment is to take people who have made 15-20 jumps or more (and usually after they have an A license) and help them learn more advanced free fall and canopy skills.

I've been conducting canopy courses since '02. My son and I wrote a curicullum after having Scott Miller at our DZ. At the time Scott did not have his in document form so we took the following winter and wrote our own. I'm happy to say it is very thorough.

It too invloves 5 jumps with 2 angles of video for a very intense debrief of everyone's pattern and landings. I've also been tweaking it over the past few years.

Everyone who has taken it has sent rave reviews and I've watched marked improvement of people's flight skills. One of the requirements of taking my course is that the attendees must agree to accepting additional input from me as I watch them fly their canopies in the future, even if it's years down the road.

I have, on ocassion, had to remind people of the agreement so they would be receptive to some corrective feedback I had to offer.

Here is the rub: I am not a USPA Instructor or coach and no longer hold any ratings.

When I advertise my course I make it very clear that it is not sanctioned by USPA and I have no ratings, and reiterate it at the beginning of the class. And yet my classes are always full.

Most of our instructors and the DZO encourage young jumpers to attend it.

No one else locally has ever even talked about conducting a course as they are always busy with the everyday duties of instruction.

For the sake of the conversation, let's assume that my course is very thorough and that I am a good teacher. Let's also assume that I have a passion for
improved canopy flight by everyone.

Do you think I should be allowed to continue?

If so, what about if and when USPA comes up with a canopy coach/instructor rating.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[ufk22 33]

Do you think I should be allowed to continue?

Quote

Only if you're willing to give up a couple of weekends and a few hundred $'s for the rating courses and some $'s to USPA for the ratings.
Having just spent well over $1000 (course fees, air travel, car rental, etc) to KEEP (not to get) my coach-E and I-E ratings, it only seems fair.

Seriously, you're one of the best organizers I've jumed with because of your ability to teach. The idea of you having to get USPA rated seems rather foolish, but that's not to say it won't happen.
And maybe Nick should have some kind of rating before he's allowed to do packing videos....

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.