DSE

Super stuff, no doubt. Beautiful to see. Design, colors, formations...

This is not so. There are many, many AFFI candidates with fewer than 500 skydives. We're in agreement in theory. USPA isn't likely going to back off the 100 jump requirement. If every coach candidate were trained to the Skydive University standard (as they're supposed to be), then we don't have a problem with the coach being a 100 jump coach, IMO. I don't believe it's bad to raise the requirement to 200, but I don't believe it'll happen. Therefore, the next-best thing is what I suppose I'm looking for. I don't accept that the problem is related to being paid to jump. On the greater whole, I'd wager *most* coaches aren't paid, not even their slot. Larger DZ's don't use low-number coaches for jumps; they are used to train up tandems, assist with FJC's, and that's about it. For the most part, I feel this conversation is semantic, as we're not seeing COACHES have camera/student problems. It's a theoretical thing more than an actual thing. But we are seeing problems with small format cameras on the whole, in skydiving, so it's difficult to have the camera conversation without having the coach "numbers" conversation. I feel the first part of the problem lies with Coach Examiners. FWIW, as a C/E, I don't allow the candidate to fly a camera with me. Either they use outside video (highly recommended) or I fly a camera on my helmet to be used for debrief.

I'm on the other side of that conversation. Keep coaching requirements at 100 jumps, but prevent them from wearing cameras, and using outside video. If we push coaching to 200 jumps, we lose some of the enthusiasm, and a big part of the coaching program/process is to instill safe practices while jumpers are 'young.' At 200 jumps, they're also going to be off doing other things. Yet, if they're flying with Cat G/H students for say...30 or more jumps during their initial tenure as coaches, then they do learn a lot more about flying their body, stable flying, and safe practices. Someone who has been truly following the program *should* be ready for a camera by 200 jumps. Holding the coach requirement up to 200 jumps is (by far) a better idea in theory, but in practice, I think it'll hurt more than it would help. Therefore, I'm more in support of precluding cameras from being on coaches with sub-200 jumps, and encouraging outside video.

I'll leave it to Parachutist to comment on the "off the shelf" because he does this weekly. However... Run Vegas 11. Upgrade is cheap and the difference in AVC rendertimes is absolutely worth the cheap upgrade. Sony built their own AVC module/decode so they're not relying on MainConcept anymore. Much faster. FWIW, I just had Parachutist spec out a new 'puter for me that is for Vegas 11 and Sonar X3. Turns out the VASST turnkey is pretty much the right answer. One thing I'm loving is that we added SSD's to the boot/application drive on the Elsinore machines. It's much more nimble and more stable. Haven't hit the heat of summer, but I'm betting it's gonna be just as solid.

What do you want to bet this in response to the gap between the requirements for a Coach rating and the reccomendation for camera flying? If you can be a coach with 100 jumps, but are not supposed to jump a camera until you have 200, there are a bunch of coaches out there who aren't able to video the jumps they do. Many DZs like to offer POV video on coach dives, and the GoPros have made it fairly inexpensive, but then you have the problem of coaches who lack the experience to meet the USPA reccomendation. If I am correct, the worst part about it is that DZOs are lobbying to have the reccomedation reduced for the purpose of putting jumpers with less than 200 jumps in the sly with unlicensed jumpers while wearing a camera. As if the idea that a jumper with 100 jumps should be coaching anyone isn't bad enough, now they want them to fly video too. What would your answer to the problem be, Dave?

His ignorance of copyright is hilarious. "If you upload a photo of you and a friend and Beyonce' is in the background, that's copyrighted shit, and they'll take that picture and the website down." Fearmongering and bullshit when the truth is powerful enough.

Right, copyright doesn't end in death (goes for 70 years past, right?) However, there are precedents (I'm not smart enough to find them online, but they're published in Richard Stim's book on clearing copyright. If there is no publisher and no assigned heirs, my understanding (from Stim and LOC) is that the escheat laws would grant the state the copyright. After trying to find the heirs, sending a certified to LKA, and exhausting efforts, I'd move forward. The value of the work doesn't need to perish with the author of the work. Me...I'd be willing to accept the risk, and be sure I disclosed in reps & warranties to the licensee, and accepted full legal responsibility for any license issues that may later arise. What would you recommend to a client if heirs cannot be located, and there is no known assignment of copyright? Would de Minimus factor into the conversation from your perspective?

It's not too difficult. Send a certified letter to the last known address of the copyright holder, letting them know that you're holding a physical representation of their copyright, and you'd like to license it. Wait 30 days. In the meantime, make a detailed document of all the efforts you've undertaken to locate the heirs (these days, it's usually pretty easy to find people). Then in your reps and warranties, you'll need to have these two documents (returned certified and document of best attempts to locate) and provide that to the party that is licensing (not purchasing) the photo. The material/mechanical device (printed photo) is a separate object from the copyright itself; if the heirs EVER step forward, it's their image, their license, their money. The licensee may balk at that factor, but I'd be a little surprised. Bear in mind, I'm not an attorney, I only play the role on the internet. Andy or one of the others may have some background in IP law.

I have the UPT/Berger bag; Most of the guys at the DZ have em' too. They're great. I'm not a fan of the magnetic. Did a couple dozen jumps over 2 weeks on them, and had a couple nasty openings. I'm told it's how I put the bag in the container. I've packed intentional linetwists (for video) with the UPT, and no slammers yet (knock wood). Somewhere around 500 jumps on the UPT so far, most of them wingsuit.

IMO, the author of the article reveals how lost he really is if he is not understanding the revenue model generated by FB. My clients use it, my company uses it, and I personally use it. Does it carry responsibilities? Sure. Just like anything else online. If you buy online with a credit card, it's more "dangerous" than being on FB. Anyone who thinks privacy exists needs to think again. Whether you're on FB or not. FB may indeed run its course at some point, but it is a huge revenue generator, and smart business know how to use it to reach very specific, very targeted markets.

Outstanding!

Thanks for sharing, Travis. Great story!

in reference to Simon saying that he had people tell him that wingsuit coach jump do not count to fulfill the requirement. But, then you later said, that you yourself do not qualify them and would not sign off on them. Why, then, do you doubt that Simon was told this by others? Second, why did you offer to talk to these people privately? What would you discuss? How much you agree with them on not counting wingsuit coach jumps? Why should a discussion on personal perspective be public? Believe it or not, a great deal transpires in the real world, over phone and in person, that doesn't appear here on DZ.com. I'd like their input on why they feel they shouldn't count, just as I asked for input from an I/E that has counted the jumps in the past. Or maybe I'd just like to speak with other I/E's about wingsuiting in general. How people perceive various information is often 180 degrees apart, so the more opinions, the more points of consideration there are, no? I'd also like to better understand S&TA, I/E, Instructor shopping. A lot of that seems to transpire, and understanding more positions provides conversational fodder for IERC's and Standardization meetings. Instructor-shopping is what got Dan Kulpa dead.

You seem to be frequently confused. How can I help you be less confused? I agree with Matt; I don't agree it's the rule. The rule is not literally defined. That's why there are C/E's, S&TA's that will sign off on non-ISP jump renewals. I'm not one of them. I'd like to see that changed. It's unfortunate this confuses you. Lemme know if I can help you further.

We're in agreement, but there are at least two C/E's that are of differing opinions, and one of them has signed off wingsuit coaching as qualifying for the 15 required. This is one of the by-products of the rating; the jumps would qualify as coaching jumps.

I gave you your answer. It's just not what you want to hear. Since USPA does not explicitly recognize coaching jumps outside of the ISP program, the answer cannot be specifically given until the BOD votes on it. Until then, you're likely going to receive 22 different answers. It seems you don't understand how rating programs work. Attend an IRC (you're supposed to anyway, every 2 years), and you might have a better understanding. Don't blame me because USPA has not defined wingsuit coaching jumps. A few of us are trying to change this. An ISP coaching jump has a specific syllabus, has a pedagogy, a method through which the effectiveness a coach may be measured. Wingsuiting currently does not, and therefore it cannot be defined at this time. You demand clarity; a wingsuit coach rating absolutely clarifies this conversation. Sorry, I don't buy it. Specifically name the S&TA, I/E, or Instructors who told you this. Send me a PM, I'll talk to them privately if you wish. Again, please answer the question. Do you feel that a USPA coach rating is all that should be required by USPA, for someone who is teaching First Flight Courses?

Experience of one jump repeated 100 times does define an experienced wingsuit flier. The criteria should revolve around some kind of quantifiable performance metrics. I agree with you, John. Those metrics should be/are part of the proposed evaluation procedures. If one cannot perform to the standard, one doesn't achieve the rating, similar to any other rating program. "Do Wingsuit Coaching jumps count towards maintaining a Wingsuit Coach/Instructor rating?" As there is no Wingsuit Coach/Instructor rating, the answer would be "maybe." You might find an S&TA willing to sign off on WS Coach jumps as counting, but the USPA position doesn't currently define this. If a rating program is implemented, then of course FFC's and WS coaching would apply towards maintaining a coach rating, just as renewing an AFF/I, IAD/I, SL/I, T/I rating include the coach rating renewal. Would you sign off a coach renewal if the jumps were only wingsuit based? A S&TA isn't required, an Instructor or Coach Examiner can also sign it. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_rating_renewal_2009_07.pdf My point is I don't think it should be a "maybe", I think the IRM should clearly state that the coach jumps need not be pre-A license Belly jumps which is how many interpret it. That would allow wingsuit, freely, canopy coaching all to count towards a Coach renewal. I suppose I need to write a letter to USPA and get myself on a future agenda! Simon What you're dancing around then, is that you feel a USPA Coach rating is all that should be required to provide First Flight Courses, is that correct?

Experience of one jump repeated 100 times does define an experienced wingsuit flier. The criteria should revolve around some kind of quantifiable performance metrics. I agree with you, John. Those metrics should be/are part of the proposed evaluation procedures. If one cannot perform to the standard, one doesn't achieve the rating, similar to any other rating program. "Do Wingsuit Coaching jumps count towards maintaining a Wingsuit Coach/Instructor rating?" As there is no Wingsuit Coach/Instructor rating, the answer would be "maybe." You might find an S&TA willing to sign off on WS Coach jumps as counting, but the USPA position doesn't currently define this. If a rating program is implemented, then of course FFC's and WS coaching would apply towards maintaining a coach rating, just as renewing an AFF/I, IAD/I, SL/I, T/I rating include the coach rating renewal.

I'm not clear on what you're wanting in the above sentence. Are you suggesting the BSR should be amended that one must possess a Coach rating to fly a wingsuit? I'd strongly disagree with that idea. Any step forward by the USPA should have zero impact on any wingsuiter that isn't providing FFC's in my opinion. If 100 WS jumps isn't enough to define "an experienced wingsuiter," then what is the right number in your mind? For your convenience, I've attached the USPA Instructor Rating org chart. I believe Wingsuiting is one of the potential instructional ratings to fall under "Other."

The windows Snip tool is specifically provided to capture stills of a screen's content. The sole purpose of Snip (or Camtasia SnagIt) is to capture screens. What's your point?

Do you feel a wingsuit coach jump should be provided the same merit as an FFC? If so, why? If not, why not?

IN your windows Search box, type "Snip" The Windows Snip tool will open. Makes it easy to grab screenshots.

http://www.uspa.org/SIM/Read/Section6/tabid/169/Default.aspx#984 The SIM is the syllabus Coaches should reference for FFC's. If you've read the 2010/2011/2012 SIM, you've perhaps noticed there are a number of references to coach responsibilities. The rating program should be similar to S/L, IAD, etc. in its implementation/training/system for several reasons. Recommended requirements for coach candidates are similar to current and past manufacturer's requirements. -100 WS jumps (on a personal note, I'd like to see this as a higher number, but the reality is what it is). -USPA Coach rating If the USPA accepts the rating proposal, then the USPA Coach Course would be the template to the WS rating, ie; Two SATisfactory jumps out of three attempts, using an eval sheet identical to the current USPA Coach Course eval sheet (changed up to be relevant to wingsuiting). I've attached a PFC Eval sheet; this is a proposed template, although there are some changes I'd like to see made, based on live student experiences and coach course experiences.

Bill, Just in case you are not speaking with you tong in cheek, I offer the following info. At the last PIA meeting Robert Feldman, Attorney for UPT et ux, raised this item and had it put on the agenda to go to USPA as a request. It is biased upon the USPA directive about low reserve openings, or failure to deploy within 750 feet after AAD confirmed firing. I did a poll on this form predicting this action. Under Gear & Rigging: "Should the AAD activation altitude be raised to 1250 feet?" Booth is behind it because his reserves and others, won't always open within the required distance of 300 feet. He has publicly stated on Youtube at the PIA convention http://www.youtube.com/...5#p/u/30/tQuJr5wuvSw that this is his desire, to raise all altitudes. John PS; I would support this increase if there was a smattering of proof that it would help. But if a PC won't pull a bag out in 750 feet then I don't see any reason it would do any better from a higher altitude. We don't need more altitude just gear which works. JS Given that there are plenty of recent AAD fires and low-reserve deployments coupled with small, high performance canopies, I can see perhaps why this is being brought about. It would seem to be a stage-one component of a multi-stage effort, to raise AAD firing points too. I don't accept for a second that Bill is "worried about HIS" reserves as he's more concerned with overall incidents. Did you mean to say the request for this to be heard is BIASED or BASED? I was at PIA, and didn't hear Feldman speak about "failure to open within 750' of confirmed AAD firing." I did hear/record the discussion about low reserve deployments, but I didn't attend every session, either. The correct link for the Booth interview is here; http://youtu.be/tQuJr5wuvSw

Same here. My average is 3000' according to my AltiTrak. There are some where I'm in the saddle as low as 1400, and some saddled out by 3600. AFF and tandem video jumps are typically higher, as are specialty/commercial video jumps.