robinheid

LOL... and that separates him from the average skydiver how...? 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Except Cost to much $$$$$ Why could that extra cost not be passed onto the "special needs" passenger? If done properly the extra costs for the time required could be negated versus a "normal" passenger. Factories gain their efficiencies and maintain quality by using identical parts.

Absolutely she could have been taken safely -- by following the "out of spec" protocol -- which must begin at the check-in counter, not at the TI level, where he's on a 15-minute call and is expected by the system to "make it work." Yes, he made a poor decision by doing that, but he was "set up to fail" by a one-track system -- and that is what needs to be fixed system-wide. The "in spec" / "out of spec" concept needs to become industry standard, period. Full stop. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

......................................................................... On many ocassions, manifest called me to inspect a student. I leaned my head in the hangar door and quickly concluded that the student: was an "armchair athlete," "needed commercial license plates", "burned diesel," "was under-tall for her weight," etc. ... frowned, shook my head "No" and wandered off. That was the end of that student's skydiving career. We need more TIs who know when to say "No." And tandem factories that will accept such a decision without firing the TI for making it. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

So how about you come clean and tell us why you have such a hard-on for Jim Slaton? Truth be told, this thread is the most exposure Jim has had around here in the last year or two, so if you really have a problem with the guy, all you've done is bubbled his name right up to the surface. I agree with the sentiment of others on this thread, you're so keen to point fingers at Jim, what the fuck have done in and for the sport? When it comes to swooping, I know Jim was instrumental in bringing swoop comps up to a national level. I also know he was on the fore-front of developing some of the freestyle moves used in competition, and I know he was the first guy I ever saw do a blindman. I guess I could also point out that he was the driving force behind the JVX, which is really just a modded VX, and I can only assume the 'J' stands for 'Jim', so he has an ultra high-performance canopy named after him. Did he save the world, or feed the starving children? No, not even close, but in our little world of skydiving, and the even smaller world of swooping, you can't argue with the fact that the guy has done some good and made a mark. +1 Not to mention that he was an US Army Ranger for several years before his skydiving career, putting his life on the line in defense of his country. BTW, in what combat arms unit did you serve your country, "Ashtanga?" 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 For all the holier-than-thous out there, this sort of thing is NOT a one-off. I've gotten repeated feedback from TIs and camera people since this video aired that can be summarized as: "I've seen worse." The thing is, the cameras always malfunctioned after these jumps, just as the footage was being transferred to a customer video/DVD. Which is a critical point: We have as an industry swept this under the rug for far too long; the assembly line factory tandem operation is widespread throughout the country and to stick our heads somewhere dark and blame it all on Bill and his TI is to perpetuate the fundamental problem: a "one-track" tandem system when what we need is a two-track" system that differentiates from the check-in counter on between "in spec" and "out of spec" students, to wit: those of normal age, weight, body shape and infirmities (none); and those who fall outside of "normal" for any of those criteria. In the case in question, the customer was way out of spec for each criterion, yet she was placed in the normal student flow, and the TI "tried to make it work" instead of cutting away from that student immediately and putting her in an "out of spec" traffic flow, where she belonged. If you examine the incident, you will find the standard 5 or 6 elements that added up to what should have been a fatallity except for the TI's (and customer's!) never-ever-give-up attitude and actions after everything went south: Just putting her out of an Otter instead of a King Air would have changed it all. Or adding the Y-strap. Or giving the TI extra time to fit the harness to that squishy body. Or going out last instead of first. All of which could have occured if she had been placed -- from the checkin counter on -- in the "out of spec" process flow. So, you know, maybe it is a good thing the FAA got involved because maybe it will make people take Samuel Jackson's advice and wake the eff up and realize we have to reorganize our assembly line practices before the FAA does indeed shut down all the factories. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

The designer was a rank amateur. First, the blob is meant to offset the red of the parachutist under canopy, but unless, like Grimmie, you know the outline and geography behind it, it's a blob that means nothing (the peak is visible from the DZ). There should have been a red image of a skydiver or two or three in freefall (FS/VFS/whatever) to balance out the canopy on the other side -- and maintain relevance to parachuting. Second, the canopy is flying off the page (see the position of the container on the body). This is a Composition 101 violation: photos and images always look/fly/point INTO the page so that your eye follows the direction into the page/art/whatever. Fundamental, amateur error. Finally, it may be that the lines between the red and blue were supposed to be pure white like the outline around the letters, but the amateur designer muted them to match the other outlines instead. All in all, an overly cluttered, amateurish design. Wonder how much we paid him/her to do it -- and/or to whom the artist is related on the staff or BOD? LOL... 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Exactly. Robin is not the first person I've heard crying that there has not been due process in this.... and any other recent incidences where the FAA has been involved at Lodi for that matter. I am really sorry, but if you don't know anything about the process that happens when you are fined by the FAA, then don't say anything. Both in the aircraft fines AND this fine for the tandem instructor, everybody is given the same due process. You are notified, you have a date, and you can file for an appeal. You can request to appeal to a board. What happened here is the instructor may not want to appeal to something he is obviously guilty of and has no chance in fighting. It's not worth the money or time. This is NOT the same of robbing him of his due process. It's craziness to think that everybody is throwing this guy to the wolves. You held this same defensive position with regards to Bill when he screwed the pooch on the whole aircraft mx thing. I'm sorry, but if it looks like a turd, and smells like a turd, people aren't going to look the other way. Neither is the FAA. So don't make us or the FAA out to be the bad guys. If you'll notice, the FAA did nothing until more than a year after the fact, after the video went viral. Then it acted with great dispatch and a heavy hand, and you can snivel all you want about it, but this was due process in form but not substance, and specifically designed to set precedence by going after someone no one on our side is smart enough to defend on principle. Please keep in mind the Euro weathermen who were recently arrested for not warning people sufficiently about a storm or something. When judgment calls at this level become legally actionable by regulatory agencies that are answerable to no one, freedom has a big problem. THAT is the focus of my comments, not 9th grade civics class debate points, but we can revisit this when you've been around a few more years. 44 The FAA probably didn't know about the incident until the video. I'm pretty sure Bill or any other employees from Lodi didn't give a courtesy 'just to let you know' call to the FAA after granny almost fell out of her harness. I'm sure if the FAA knew about it, they would have done something from the start; and I'm sure they still would have been 'quick and heavy' since Bill is already on their shit list from previous fines and allegations. Honestly, if the DZ hadn't 'polished a turd' (as somebody so eloquently put it in another thread a few months ago) by releasing the jump video, then the FAA still probably wouldn't know about it right now. The rest of what you have stated is opinion. You feel 'in substance' that there was no due process. Well, good for you. Majority of folks will probably disagree. Point still stands, the employee has been afforded the same due process as anybody else fined by the FAA. And I have no clue how you even equated this with the stuff that just happened with the scientists in Europe. And trust me, I should be the first to understand what you're trying to say because I'm a meteorologist and have been keeping a close eye on what happened to these scientists who were supposed to predict the ultimately unpredictable, like I do. You're really rambling and grasping here....which is something you'll still do if we talk down the road after I've had a few more years in (past the 11 I already have in) the sport. Both in this incident and in previous Lodi incidents-- Guy was wrong. Guy got charged by a regulating agency. You continue to cry foul. I just don't get it. Tell me something, if you blatantly ran a red light and just paid the fine/ticket instead of going to court, would you feel you were robbed your due process? Would you say the local authorities acted too heavy and swift? Or that they shouldn't be up in your business fining you at all? Considering the mountain of assumptions upon which you build your arguments, I sure wouldn't want to plan any outdoor activities based on your weather forecasts. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Exactly. Robin is not the first person I've heard crying that there has not been due process in this.... and any other recent incidences where the FAA has been involved at Lodi for that matter. I am really sorry, but if you don't know anything about the process that happens when you are fined by the FAA, then don't say anything. Both in the aircraft fines AND this fine for the tandem instructor, everybody is given the same due process. You are notified, you have a date, and you can file for an appeal. You can request to appeal to a board. What happened here is the instructor may not want to appeal to something he is obviously guilty of and has no chance in fighting. It's not worth the money or time. This is NOT the same of robbing him of his due process. It's craziness to think that everybody is throwing this guy to the wolves. You held this same defensive position with regards to Bill when he screwed the pooch on the whole aircraft mx thing. I'm sorry, but if it looks like a turd, and smells like a turd, people aren't going to look the other way. Neither is the FAA. So don't make us or the FAA out to be the bad guys. If you'll notice, the FAA did nothing until more than a year after the fact, after the video went viral. Then it acted with great dispatch and a heavy hand, and you can snivel all you want about it, but this was due process in form but not substance, and specifically designed to set precedence by going after someone no one on our side is smart enough to defend on principle. Please keep in mind the Euro weathermen who were recently arrested for not warning people sufficiently about a storm or something. When judgment calls at this level become legally actionable by regulatory agencies that are answerable to no one, freedom has a big problem. THAT is the focus of my comments, not 9th grade civics class debate points, but we can revisit this when you've been around a few more years. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Absolutely, unequivocally, unarguably yes. Periodically, yes. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

No kidding, the fine is light considering what could have happened, but it is also the start of a slippery slope. "We saw that you didn't give the student a drogue release, here is your fine..." We need to push out the likes of instructors that can't bother to properly fit a harness, and Tandem factories that don't give their instructors the time to do so. I would rather us do it internally, but that isn't happening. This is the first time I have heard of direct FAA action against the TI, has other instances occurred? I'm curious, anybody know if this is the first time such action was taken by the FAA? I can't immediately recall them ever being involved like this before. They haven't -- and in concert with the PLA "initiative," it's clear that the FAA is seeking to impose direct regulation on parachuting. This is a way for them to establish a precedent by going after someone no one (including USPA) will defend. And like merry sheep, we feed our little lamb to the wolf, hoping he won't come for us next. This fine should be resisted not only by the TI but by the USPA itself, and the tandem manufacturers because, you know, who exactly in the FAA made the determination of violation? Where is the due process? This is a process threat to sport parachuting hiding under the sheep's clothing of busting an alleged bad apple. Well, guess what, folks? By going after a TI on a non-USPA Group Member DZ, they are cutting him out of the herd because they know he won't be defended and then they have their precedent. Bye bye tandems within five years if the USPA and all of you holier-than-thous let this stand. DZs better start getting their static line systems back in working order and figuring out where they're going to sell all those turbines they won't need any more. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

So why wasn't it urgent before that? You had the data; why didn't you act proactively and focus on removing a clear and present danger to the sport instead of using it disingenuously to impose an advanced training requirement that is outside USPA's scope and none of its business? Unfortunate? It's critical! In fact, it's the only thing that matters. I'm sure Mr Norris and the insurance companies will be happy to hear that the chief pusher of USPA wingsuit regulation thinks there is such a thing as "reasonably minimal" tailstrikes. Off-topic. This thread is about what we can do as individuals and as a community to reduce tailstrikes now, not lament how that discussion distracts from pushing forward your agenda to involve USPA in something that is none of its business. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

I think he's wrong. The only restriction is that you can't endanger people or property on the ground. So as long as you make the pumpkin jump over open ground, you should be okay. Sec. 91.15 — Dropping objects. "No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property." The FSDO don't know shit. For christ sake, don't tell 'em in that you're going to do it, or ask permission for it. Just do it. Safely. Actually, there's another way that works too. Years ago, I was working with Felix B. on a IMAX movie to be shot on a Denver street. Base jump from a building plus a helicopter flying backwards and sideways down the street to film a "calvary charge" by several cars and trucks. FAA guy issued the chopper permit, then demanded that Felix and I have USPA PRO ratings for the BASE jump, which shut the production down because Felix didn't have one. So I checked FAR 105, which specifically states that it is related to parachuting from aircraft, then called the FAA guy and left a message in which I pointed that out - and then added: "Oh, by the way, if you insist on involving the FAA in a BASE jump, you would be the very first FAA offical in 20 years to decide on your own authority that such involvement was necessary. Thanks for your help on the chopper permit. Bye!" One hour later, the location manager called and said that the FAA guy had called him in a panic, "insisting" that he had never actually demanded PRO ratings for the BASE jump and that it was all a misunderstanding and please forget that he had said anything about it... The next day, Felix and I made our jumps and completed the shoot. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

We've drifted well　off-topic again. What are you and the drop zones at which you jump doing today to stoｐ wingsuit strikes? That is the critical path. Please stick to it. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

no. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is: HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING? John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that. I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side. However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company. . We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact. If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy. +1 This thread is getting far off topic and devolving once again into the very thing Jeff said we needed to stop doing; arguing about whether USPA should administer and standardize advanced wingsuit training. The "reminder chain" I proposed, and which Jeff disseminated throughout his client pool, is an example of what the insurers seek: immediate action to stop tail strikes. According to Jeff, the primary choice among DZOs to date has been to institute the "3-second rule" and/or to place Skydive Elsinore's "Fight the Bite" stickers near their Pavlov lights. To date, we have had no additional tail strikes since the last one, which, IIRC was 2-3 months ago. So we seem to have a good start., given that we were averaging about one a month before Jeff's initial insurance carrier warning email. But we need to stay focused on what we can do now to reduce tail strikes. The DZOs have already made their choices, either by suspending wingsuiting for now; or instituting the 3-second rule and various reminders. Next up should be dealing with something that the primary proposal pusher has asserted repeatedly: that various grand exalted wingsuit senseis are teaching different exit methods, some of which "encourage" tail strikes while others discourage it. It seems to me that, all the hoohah aside, the next step should to be convene an online or in-person meeting of the grand exalted wingsuit senseis and have them hash out a standardized exit. Period. Full stop. That is the standardization the insurers most want to see; a standardized exit that eliminates tail strikes -- and really, if all of the grand exalted wingsuit senseis agree simply on keeping their wings closed for 3 seconds, there isn't too much more to standardize except for the definition of "wings closed" -- which I propose should be based on the original Birdman technique that, IIRC, defines "wings closed" as: "elbows against your ribs, legs together until you can see that you are clear of the plane." Standardize the definition of "wings closed" and you standardize the exit, which will radically reduce the chance of tail strikes -- and then we can all argue about the rest later. That is what Jeff's email is all about, and for everyone's convenience, here again is the last paragraph thereof: 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

That is a great idea.... There is zero need to ask the USPA to do something it has never done before. Exactly, on both counts. It's interesting that the principal proposal pusher asserts that there are multiple "exit instruction" techniques being taught, some of which he further asserts "encourage" rather than discourage tail strikes. Okay, then, it seems patently obvious to me that before you try to get a bureaucracy to adopt a specific method that you first get all the grand exalted wingsuit senseis out there together and sort out this one simple element of their respective training syllabi. You know, like starting with 3-seconds-before-opening-your-wings -- which is pretty much what Birdman said when this all started, and which somehow has been lost in translation as the grand exalted wingsuit senseis proliferated and decided that they knew better. Really, as someone quoted from the BMI manual on another thread, the original exit technique was: elbows tight to body, legs together and then ... "after you see that you have cleared the plane," only then do you open your wings. You know, like what we all learned when we were five years old before crossing the street -- watch where you're going before you do anything stupid, like walk in front of a car, or fly into the tail of an airplane. There's a reason that book, Everything I Need to Know in Life I Learned in Kindergarten became such a huge seller. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

The word "support" has been changed to "demand" in the title because you and Dave are right; the word "support" can be read to suggest that the insurers oppose USPA regulation of wingsuiting and that is not the case -- as Jeff makes clear in his followup email, the insurers neither support nor oppose USPA regulation of wingsuiting; they just want tail strikes stopped yesterday. Thanks to both of you on that, and for your other comments. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

That statement, IMHO is not an entirely fair - nor fully accurate Ron, in the real-world, statement at all. Although it certainly does at least look glamorous, and sensationalist of one for you to make. Do I think that USPA does absolutely all things simply magnificently either, flawlessly - or heck, even well? No. That would be an equally ludicrous "broad brush" position or statement for anyone to make as well. But are all things really such "doom & gloom" &/or that bad, or badly run & handled (and our current resultant situations, and abilities for the most part to freely actively skydive here in the United States) really all that bad? "USPA is the begin-all and end-all evil pariah and bane to all our existences" A pretty poor, IMO premise really, upon which to base an argument, and I would submit also - quite simply is not fully accurate, or really appropriate under the circumstances, of a statement to make. If you were successful in getting people to agree with your position (based upon statement) that: What then would you suggest? We completely deconstruct the entire infrastructure currently in place is too - that IS USPA? Personally over all - although absolutely agreed, as would be ANY organization - is not perfect - - - I do not agree with you that USPA (with their effectiveness at staving off GOVERNMENT regulation, their administration and promulgation of most of the student program, and FAA relations, etc.) is, as this statement seems to want to position it, and have everybody believe - is necessarily all bad. I don't know what "the" answer is to this particular matter at hand is, nor do I pretend to know. Just my .02 + .02 To be fair to Ron, while he did paint USPA with too broad a brush, he's spot-on with his comments about "standardized wingsuit training via USPA." I would edit his broad-brush statement to say: "USPA has a terrible track record of running anything that's outside its scope and none of its business." Like any bureaucracy, USPA does many things within its mandate pretty well, and you listed most of them. The problem for bureaucracies is what I call the saddle blanket-burr problem: The horse doesn't notice how well the saddle blanket protects him from the saddle but he sure as heck notices when a burr gets under it. So we tend not to notice the things that USPA does well; only those that it screws up. And a lot of its screwups tend to come from taking on things that are outside its scope and/or none of its business. Ron and I and others contend that having USPA regulate advanced training of any kind is outside of its scope and none of its business. As BOD member Rich Winstock pointed out in the "Flock the Vote" thread, the USPA Safety and Training committee has already spent "hundreds of hours" on this issue -- and it will spend hundreds and perhaps thousands of hours more on it, all for a tiny subset of the sport parachuting population it oversees. That makes zero sense organizationally, and even less sense from a cost/benefit standpoint. USPA does many things well, chief among them keeping us in the air with minimal government restrictions and intrusions. It should stick to those things that it does well and that are within its scope and stay out of things that are none of its business. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Okay that was good. Now throw in there that 75 plus percent of the people who voted you in are in favor of this. Now what? You are taking you personal opinion and acting without any research, outreach, or facts. If you take that stance on every issue that comes before you, I contend you are representing yourself not the members. Political Organization 101: The US Parachute Association functions as a representative democracy. The USPA Board of Directors serves as elected representatives of the membership in lieu of a full democracy, wherein each and every decision affecting the association would be voted on by the entire membership. Each board member is elected by his or her constituency (national or regional) to make decisions on their behalf using their knowledge, experience and best judgment. If a board member makes one or more decisions or votes that is disliked by a sufficiently large percentage of his or her constituency, s/he will not be reelected. More specifically to your point, given my knowledge, experience and judgment, the 75 percent are misinformed and I will act in the manner that best serves them whether they realize it or not -- and then explain to them why I did it. If they like my explanation, and they like enough of my other votes and actions, they will reelect me. If they do not like my action and/or explanation on the wingsuit issue, but they like enough of my other actions and votes, then they will reelect me. If they like neither my wingsuit action nor a "tipping-point" number of my other actions and votes, then they will not reelect me. It's not rocket science, Rich, and I say again: This entire process is fundamentally illegitimate on multiple levels, from a single poll question to the poll's presence on the BOD ballot, to the deliberate misrepresentation of the insurance issue to repeated misinformation about how "different" and "special" wingsuiting is from other disciplines, and little else but a barnyard full of demolished straw men to support it. It's a bad pack job made with the best of intentions, but now it's a ball of puppy poop and the one remaining question is: Are you gonna cut that puppy away or ride it into the dirt because you put so much effort into the pack job? 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

There have been repeated assertions made by various individuals that if USPA does not adopt a "standardized wingsuit training" program and associated "wingsuit instructor rating" that insurance companies will stop insuring skydiving aircraft. These repeated assertions are based on an interpretation of one paragraph from an email sent last month to drop zone operators by Jeff Norris, whose company underwrites aircraft insurance for essentially all parachute centers using turbine aircraft. That paragraph read: From that paragraph, the primary proponent of "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" has created a sales pitch that starts out thusly: Throughout mutliple threads on this subject, others have made a similar argument, all based on the above paragraph from the Norris email. I too read that paragraph to mean that Jeff and/or the insurers seemed to be advocating a USPA-mandated wingsuit training course because the words he used seemd to be straight out of the primary proponent's own writings on the subject. So I called Jeff and we had a very interesting conversation about this subject (and some others, too: He's an old-time skydiver and flight instructor for many years, so he goes way beyond just being an insurance underwriter in terms of appreciating and understanding sport parachuting). Anyway, after our conversation, he sent me the following email, herre reproduced in its entirety per his request: 44 edited at poster's request SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Cmon, Rich, enough with the non sequiturs. If you're going to do a poll, just do it legitimately or not at all. You didn't even do the most basic research on how to go about doing such a poll legitimately or you would not have done it the way you are doing it. End of discussion. If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee as being outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization -- and encouraged its proponents to develop it privately along the lines of those that have proven successful in all other sport parachuting subdisciplines. Having been one of the primary crafters of CRW safety and basic operating guidelines back in the day, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that, along with the CRW recommendations in Section 6-6 of the Skydivers Information Manual, which were followed by Section 6-7 for high altitude jumping, and 6-8 for camera flyers, it is reasonable to create and promulgate similar guidelines for wingsuiting -- which we have already done in SIM Section 6-9, so no further action is needed. If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by pointing out that no such advanced training program exists for other disciplines, and that imposing a USPA-dictated advanced training system on one discipline but not the others would turn the teachers of those other disciplines into lawyer food -- and impose a lot of work on the Board to synchronize its other ratings and program with this outlier program for which there is no precedence. If I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have shot it down in committee by saying that it was systemically silly to impose the sort of workload required of the Board to accommodate this proposal that not only falls outside the parameters of what USPA should do as an organization, but only affects a very small subset of the membership. Finally, if I was a USPA Director on the BOD when a proposal was presented to the Safety and Training committee, I would have thanked the proposal proponent for coming before the committee with his proposal, and then moved on to more legitimate areas of concern for the committee, like figuring out how to further recduce open-canopy landing injuries and fatalities. I've already thanked you privately for the work and effort you put into this, and maybe publicly too, and I'll say it again now to be sure: I do appreciate the work and effort you put into this. Good on ya for that, mate. But you got played by someone much smarter and more experienced at this game than you are or you woulda killed this thing in committee or at the very least not volunteered to get in front of the firing squad like this. And now you've invested so much in it you won't cut away even though you can see that the whole thing has turned into a clusterfink. Precisely my point. The way you did it has already caused literally hundreds of hours of work for the sub committee -- hours that could have been spent on something much more productive, you know, like figuring out how to further reduce the continuing open-canopy carnage? And you're just getting started. If this silly proposal passes, and the BOD doesn't cut away from it, then those hundreds of hours are going to become thousands of hours -- all dedicated to something USPA should not be doing in the first place. SkyRide, WingRide, the membership is once again being taken for a ride. What now? Cut away from this while there's still time. This is not USPA's business. Close. You should have killed it in committee. It was outside of USPA's scope then, and it remains outside USPA's scope now. This is not USPA's business. Except that you wouldn't have wasted hundreds of hours of the committee's time. Sorry, try again on this one, Rich. I apologized for blasting you for something that you did not do, i.e., misrepresenting the insurance issue along with the primary proposal pusher. Absent that now-withdrawn and apologized-for blast, I have not blasted you IIRC. In fact, I have thanked you more than once for your efforts. Now I'm saying that while your effort is great, your results suck and you need to cut away from this turkey before you bounce. I don't forget that, and if you look it up, you'll see more support from me for the BOD and its individual members than probably anyone on this forum. It's a lot of work for no money and probably even less glory, and even though I once ran for the Board myself many winters ago, I still can't quite get my head around why anyone would do it. But you're conflating my opposition to this silly proposal and its primary pusher with disapproval for you and the Board generally, or even on this issue, and that is simply not the case. Look it up. Nowhere in any of these wingsuit regulation threads have I said anything about the board's decision on this. You all got played on this, and you all need to cut away from this mess while you still can. I mean, dude, we all pack our parachutes every time the best we can, and with the best intentions, but sometimes it just doesn't work out and we gotta cut away to save ourselves. Peace out. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

First off, I never waived the insurance letter in front of anyone, in fact I probably read it about the same time you did. 3rd grade? There is a question asking all USPA members if they think USPA should adopt a standardized program. I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question. Then I can sit back and monday quarterback your efforts. Do you mind showing me where I made the assertion that insurers will stop insuring planes? I never spoke to Jeff Norris and had no idea that letter even went out. You are entitled to question. I will answer. In public if you desire. But if you make allegations you should not generalize. Keep in mind for the tenth time Ihave no (ZERO) wingsuit jumps, I find it fascinating but just never had the urge or time. If I decide to make a jump I would want to sit through a FFC taught by an instructor that was being held to some standard other than self annointment. I would consider myself a STUDENT. And if nobody is listening quote me on this, "I do not believe that a skydiver with 200 jumps and jumping a wingsuit for the first time is considered advanced" "I consider you a student the same way I will consider myself a student if I decide to take a FFC". You are not encouraging healthy debate Robin all you are doing is further dividing the wingsuit community. Since this has started I have spoken to people on both sides of this topic and there is common ground. Your spear throwing will only hinder any constructive dialogue. I look forward to meeting you one day, I think a face to face conversation would fare much better. I would not call you a liar though even if I disagreed with you. What benefit would I get out of that I am not sure. I apologize for lumping you in with the the primary proposal pusher's assertion that USPA must take this over or aircraft operators will lose their insurance. I apparently made the mistaken assumption that you knew about this propaganda document, and its false statements related to insurance, and erroneously remembered you as one of the people making the "if we don't do this we lose our insurance" argument. That assertion is literally the first sentence of the propaganda document and repeated therein -- and then repeated by others. Again, my bad, and I withdraw any assertion or insinuation that you are in on the deliberate misrepresentation of the insurance issue in this discussion. Your methodology is 3rd grade because it is a leading question, Rich. The question is the in the same category as "Have you quit beating your wife -- yes or no?" And its placement in the BOD ballot is 3rd grade methodology too because its placement there elevates it to something as important and pivotal as the BOD election itself. This is so elementary, my dear Winstock, and your response to me on this point shows that you literally don't have a clue about how illegitimate your poll results will be given the leading question, BOD election-association elements thereof. Not to mention your "I would love to hear how you would ask every member of the USPA a question" comment. This is more 3rd grade methodology because, Polling 101: You never ask "a question." Period. Full stop. No legitimate poll ever asks one question. They ask a series of questions designed to get real answers, not lead people in certain directions, and to understand the thinking underlying the answers. Look it up. Finally, it's great to hear that the wingsuit community is divided on this; that's the first step toward killing this riduculous proposal once and for all. Please don't give me all the credit, though; there are several people publicly opposing it, and even more in very senior positions with whom I consult before launching my spears. Be certain of one thing, however: There can be no healthy debate as long as one side continues to misrepresent the facts and/or use obviously illegitimate poll methodology to support its argument. 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Rich, I've never ever not one time said anyone was pushing this for financial gain, have I? Look it up. The whole thing is BS for a multitude of reasons and apparently you have not been on the BOD long enough to know what a clusterfink you are creating because as soon as one subdiscipline gets a separate rating, all the other peope involved in teaching any of the other subdisciplines become lawyer food. Period. Full stop. Look it up. As soon as you add this standalone subdiscipline instructor rating, you create a cascade clusterfink in the entire USPA rating and instructioinal structure because now everything has to be synced up bureaucratically. Look it up. You want to know the absolute giveaway word about the coming clusterfink? The primary proposal pusher's assertion that this proposal "merely" does XYZ. * "Merely," huh? If this whole thing is about "merely" doing XYZ, then why exactly is there so much pressure and push to do it? Nothing any of you say about this adds up, to include: * the 3rd grade science class methodology of your "poll;" and * your provably false claim that if USPA doesn't take charge of this the insurers will stop insuring our airplanes. Really, Rich, why are you and the primary proposal pusher waving the insurance thing front and center when it is absolutely false -- when the insurers do not care one way or the other whether USPA regulates wingsuiting or not -- when all the insurers want is for people to quit hitting the tails of the planes they insure? Why the lies, Rich? Why? 44 * “'We just don’t need a "program" for this, it’s a lot of change.' Actually, it’s not. It’s merely requiring an FFC that uses the same content found in the current SIM Section 6.9. instruction." SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

+1 This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails." The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class. And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal? 44 Since I wasn't in the sport then I'll ask: How is USPA appointing the initial few IE's different from the adoption of the AFF model? It isn't, and that is a huge part of the problem. If you go here you'll see a section in my post #12 (a variation of my post #7 above) that explains why, and which I summarize here for your convenience: The same thing lies before us with wingsuiting. The private sector adapted quickly to changes in wingsuit technology and performance that rendered obsolete many of the training techniques and foci of the original methods. As soon as you "standardize" that training within a bureaucracy, however, adapation ends because, given the essential, change-averse nature of bureaucracy, you also freeze that training at that stage of development it was at when the bureaucracy adopted it. That happened with AFF and we are still paying the price today in blood, death, and broken bones because its very name points to its fatal flaw: it is accelerated freefall training, not "learn-about-your-gear-and-how-to-fly-your-parachute-first" training. Heck, when USPA adopted AFF, it wasn't even fully developed in the judgment of its father, Ken Coleman. I know this because we talked about it in person, over beers, way back when he was creating it. But then he died, and USPA "saluted" him by adopting his program as it was at the time of his death, which even he said was not ready for prime time. And then we were stuck with that flawed program for 20+ years before the entrenched bureaucracy "changed" it by making it worse because, guess what? Now it's more complicated and more expensive for DZs and their customers, and we're still bouncing people under open, properly functioning canopies at an unacceptably high rate because they still learn freefall fun skills without first focusing on learning how to fly and land their parachutes. Or as George Santayana said in a slightly different way: "Now let's do it with wingsuits!" 44 SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."