DSE

If someone, ANYONE, had presented some evidence that this proposal would fix the apparent issues, then I'd agree. However, that hasn't been done. We simply don't know that safety will improve, but we do know that costs will increase. Following your logic, we should have special USPA rated intructors for ALL disciplines beyond basic 2-way belly flying: camera, head-down, sit, swooping, CRW, bigways... since all of these have produced fatalities. There was no standardized flight training for pilots in the USA, and no evidence standardized flight training would create safer pilots/fewer incidents either. But the Army Air Service felt the need to standardize flight training due to budgets and damaged/destroyed aircraft and oddly enough...there were fewer incidents once standard training began at Ft. Sill. Spend some time on ERIC and read the hundreds of papers on standardized training systems in the civilian and military world, and the value of standards are overwhelmingly evident. In our sport, we cannot have standards without a body maintaining those standards. USPA is that body. With (now 5) separate groups providing wingsuit "ratings" and only one of them having any USPA background, it's no wonder we're in a messy spot. Choose the person that will give you your "rating" because he's easier/cheaper/more of a cool dude" and you have the letters. It's like getting your PhD over the internet. Anyone can do it. Of all people, it would seem an educated person would comprehend the value. You demand evidence in a vacuum because it's an easy argument. It's a weak argument to look backwards and say "doing this wouldn't have prevented that." However, empirical data from several sports proves the value of standardized training and behavior, administered by a communal body (Snowboarding is perhaps the best recent example). Snowboarders were banned from mountains for years until a governing body was created, best practices standardized, promised, and adhered to. Now, it's grown to be one of the biggest winter sports. Historically, standards have caused activities to significantly grow. No other discipline can exit the aircraft at least a minute after tandems and open up 3-4 miles away from the exit point, up to 4 minutes after the exit. No other discipline can zoom past a tandem at 100 mph. No other discipline uses different deployment techniques, has instability potential, nor tail strike potential like wingsuiting does. No other discipline is being eyeballed by FAA or insurance companies, either. Please provide historical evidence that any insurance company has ever written a letter regarding any skydiving discipline and potential pushback on insuring aircraft.

Rolling your shoulders is good; consider pointing your elbows towards the line of flight. This will naturally roll the shoulder and properly place the head at the same time. It'll also put your torso in the correct configuration so that the "planking" John mentions will be flatter while keeping efficiency.

Perhaps because a tandem skydive already has enough complexities with the student that don't need to be added to by a camera/snagpoint/distraction? Because the DZ is in the business of assuring a "safe as possible but high risk" experience? Fly camera for enough tandems, you eventually see some very 'interesting' moments that (IMO) would only be more complicated by adding a wrist or chest mount camera. if nothing else, then how about the "The DZ offers outside or hand cam to best assure your safety and great experience?"

Truthfully, someone else put their time and money towards the same solution 2 years ago. You criticized it. It all comes down to politics, not what the right thing to do may be.

I'm not a lawyer and you're not the first to point to the law. It's not a secret that a couple SoCal DZ's released a large number of staff last year for positive tests. At least two of those let go had MMJ cards at the time. I don't know the particulars, I just know that tandem/AFF staff were released.

DSE isn't the only one who has access to the info, he's just the only willing masochist.

The proposal is a wholistic approach to a number of issues that face DZO's, wingsuiters, and communities. The tailstrike issue only became urgent when an insurance agency jumped into the conversation thanks to a very unhappy DZO and a number of hysterical FB postings in August of 2012. It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion. Tailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012. The wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.

I sure wish you were right. If there was a way to cram a 1.5 day course (not including eval jumps) into half a day...I'd have more time to watch "Storage Wars"

im pretty sure there is absolutely no protection for anyone using Dope when it is a requirement to be drug free especially in any field that is dangerous and or people's lives are at stake. Could be wrong the communist republic of califuckedup might have something retarded like that. An MMJ card doesn't protect you from losing your job if you piss positive on a dropzone. DZ policy makes that determination.

Haven't seen this fogging problem yet, but it's also not cold here. Sony sells the cover without the lens in it. Be aware, the Sony lens isn't replaceable like the GoPro lens is, so if it's damaged...camera is effectively gone.

No. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry. Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft. I'm in favor of standardization.

The proposal is aimed at reducing tailstrikes, off landings, incidents involving instability, general aviation concerns, equipment differences, navigational issues, traffic issues. Insurance companies, FAA, and DZO's really don't care about how we deal with these issues; they merely want them dealt with. Internally is easier and more effective than external forces. The SIM can't address various aircraft configs, and there was quite a bit of disagreement from one of the vocal people that teach WS, that insisted on not having an exit pro forma in the SIM. So, it was left out.

Either Vegas on Bootcamp, or Adobe premiere. FCPX is a good tool with a funky thought process behind it.

It's an ambarella chip, so I *believe* it's native. But it's still a super small chip.

So I have been told Spot. Let me ask you something though. Would you agree with and support your standardized instruction FFC being taught by any Instructor that is an experienced wingsuiter? Why do you think it is necessary to start a whole new I & I/E system? It is not an attack on you personally that people are skeptical of the reasoning for what many feel is unneeded. If people feel it is unneeded then it is natural to question why it is being brought up and what motives there may be. If it is truly because you feel you can make the dicipline you hold dear safer and better, then I applaud your efforts, even if I disagree with the method you propose. I honestly feel that it is complacency amoung experienced wingsuiters that is causing the often brought up tailstikes. Yourself even said once the 200 jump BSR went into effect there were no new WSer fatalities. If it worked then what gives? I'll say it again There are exit techniques being taught that ENCOURAGE tailstrikes (plenty of video as recent as last week to demonstrate this) There are exit techniques that discourage tailstrikes. Taught to new wingsuiters, these techniques and methods become habitual in one direction or another. Every week, we have someone come through the school for advanced coaching that has not been taught proper ISR techniques (if any at all). This is very troubling. Cutaways happen with some degree of frequency to new wingsuiters; this is not acceptable. This is in great part due to poor training. Tandem Instructors, Static Line Instructors, IAD Instructors, AFF Instructors all share a common language. Yet we have wingsuit "Instructors" that have no training background at all, no concept of the most basic pedagogy used by instructors. DZO's know that every Tandem Instructor, Static Line Instructor, IAD Instructor, AFF Instructor, or Coach has been trained to, and met (at minimum) a standard line of achievement before being allowed to coach/teach on the dropzone. They have demonstrated safety ability, and understand the underpinnings of USPA philosophy and process. Wingsuit "instructors" do not. I believe this is why almost every DZO and S&TA polled voted in favor of standardized instruction administered by USPA. Just because a guy has 4-5 wingsuit jumps and survived does not make him an "instructor." Perhaps ask yourself how a school solely dedicated to wingsuit instruction can demonstrate hundreds of First Flight Courses, thousands of instructional jumps over a 4 year test period, and show zero incidents, off landings, and only 2 cutaways (not FFC-related). Is that luck? Or perhaps a program steeped in the best traditions and practices of USPA and instructional excellence? It's not just complacency; it's bad training by people who have no idea how to train. They may have many wingsuits in their closet, they might even be a bad-ass wingsuiter. But that doesn't give them the knowledge needed to teach. FWIW, USPA administration of a standard training program is not "regulation." Actual "Regulation" comes in the form of insurance companies threatening or acting against wingsuiters, and actual regulation comes from the FAA getting into the wingsuit conversation. ## To specifically answer your question, I would (and do) support a standardized instructional training system. That is the entire goal of the proposal. However...USPA only has one "box" for instruction. It's called a "rating." I didn't design the system, I'm merely trying to work within the boundaries created within the system. I've made all my materials free to the public because I believed at one time, that people would use the materials if they were available. Nope...hasn't worked out that way. Just last week, saw two FFCs online from two very well-known wingsuit "instructors" using the very popular method of exit that I believe is greatly responsible for the tailstrike issues we've observed. It shouldn't be about "I can't support this because that guy is a dick" or "I can't support that because it's not USPA's charter to train advanced skydivers." It's all about safety and growing the discipline. That's all it's about, and all it should be about.

DSE doesn't stand to gain sh** personally, but it's a convenient untruth told by many. You're welcome (even invited) to call my DZO's and ask them exactly how much I profit from wingsuiting instruction. The answer is, the same exact amount you and anyone else has ever paid for my written guides, video instruction, reference manuals for DZO's and S&TA's, or anything else I've ever published here on DZ.com, Vimeo, Facebook, or anywhere else that isn't on a DVD. Zip.

I have some 4K files from highly contrasted, total dark with firedancers. It'll be part of the almost-done DZ.com review It's going to surprise people, but what you're saying is pretty much spot-on (no pun intended)

A worthy read It's not complete, been busy with life, but there is a lot there.

It's been brought up several times in AFFI/E conversations; there was a guy a few years ago who qualified for an AFF rating at around 350 jumps. He'd starting winging at 100 jumps. Since this isn't defined, it's a topic that affects other programs too.

http://www.uspa.org/AboutUSPA/USPAStaffDirectory/tabid/151/Default.aspx ext 310

Trunk has the latest on the wifi update, but I don't believe that you can trigger more than one at this time. There is a guy that built a 3D cable longer than the stock cable http://www.eyeofmineactioncameras.com/Replacement_GoPro_3D_Sync_Cable_p/eg3sy.htm that can trigger two at once.

With a hand-waver like Biden, I woulda used moleskin around a Tram, and looped for isolation. Had they silked him, it likely would have reduced the rubs by a significant amount. I just watched the debate again, and the highly compressed audio on YouTube makes the compressor pumping more apparent. Biden is a perfect candidate for a hairline mic. Then there would be no noise, no slap, no hassle at all.

This goes into the top-ten of sensible things ever said on this website.

I double-dog dare you to go throughout the next 48 hours without seeing a red Jeep on the road.

Times may change in the classroom, yet the amount of time available to a distracted or entangled skydiver hasn't. People aren't any more adept with a camera at 100 jumps today than they were 10 years ago. Camera size doesn't play a significant role in this conversation. Texting has indeed become a part of day to day life; jumping out of airplanes wearing a camera at 25 jumps is not.