fasted3

I think the first part means that you would require the USPA coach rating to teach FF, Crew, etc. thus the same for WS is consistant thinking. And you are right with your other points about quality, etc. I would not require a USPA coach rating for anyone except students not having an A license, so my thinking is consistant too. The program was developed for them, and traditionally a licensed skydiver has been able to choose anyone they want to help them learn new skills. I'm OK with that, and would encourage everyone to get the best coaching available, I just wouldn't require it. But what do I know?

Going to another country without knowing the letters of their law is somewhat common. The C CoP requires 200 jumps, so not that big a deal anyway, and similar enough to ours that it's easy to overlook, IMO. Another issue is that pesky word recommendation. Nobody commented on another one I threw out there: Wing cutaways. They are recommended now, and who knows, may become a regulation. I don't have, need or want any. Right now it's a recommendation I am free to ignore; am I wrong to do so? But what do I know?

Well, you focused on the cons. I thought my pros were pretty good too.

Pros: With 200 jumps you should be able to perform as a skydiver to a certain level. The license requirement is to ensure that you can. You have passed two tests and met other requirements. It is simple to impliment - No 'C,' no wingsuit. Cons: 20 bucks for a license. Being forced to be a cog in a world dominated by power hungry forces determined to control our every move. But what do I know?

Thank you. The difficulty in this is the involvement of dz staff. Proper maintenence of the system is vital. The first time people are directed in an obviously wrong heading you have a problem. Instruction and enforcement needs may require additional involvement as well. That does not make this an impossible goal, and indeed is what I proposed for this thread. If implimentation is the only thing holding it back then let's look for an easier way to do it. Is there anything we as jumpers can do to help? How about an arrow that can be set from manifest? Too complicated, or expensive, or something? Probably so, but something to think about. One poster suggested I stop going to boogies or give up my right to complain. I'm not complaining. I'm saying what I've seen work and not work. I'm trying to do something about it by using this forum, for whatever that's worth. But yes, I am cautious of boogies. I do prefer visiting DZs that have well orginized landing areas over those that don't. I'd like to be able to go anywhere, easily find out what the conditions are like there, get direction on what is expected of me, and then do it. I'd like every jumper there to do the same. If we all do, less people will get hurt. Landing directions that start off with one thing, but not if this, and maybe that, and of course something else are likely to cause problems. First man down is simple at least, but it doesn't work. Setting it on the plane only works when the wind is blowing the right direction when people get to the landing area. Land this way or else works the best. Now let's make 'this way' the best possible direction. Make it big, obvious, and simple to read. Enforce it's use. To do our part: Let's learn how to land our canopies in all conditions and not be afraid of light crosswind or downwind landings. Make sure you know what to do, especially at a new DZ. Go jump, have fun. But what do I know?

When you yank a toggle, you go one way, the canopy tilts and goes another way and you turn. A flat turn keeps you pretty much underneath the canopy, which remains level or flat. You lose less altitude, and use less space in front of you doing it. It can be done with toggles or rear risers, and should be learned at the appropriate time in your training. If you don't feel comfortable doing one by the time you have your A, then take a canopy course as soon as possible afterwords. Better yet, take one anyway. Psst: Use search and ask your instructors too But what do I know?

What else is it you're so afraid of? -New regulations. -USPA Involvement within our discipline not seen in other, more accident prone disciplines. -Licensed skydivers to be protected like AFF or Tandem students, by people that can't protect them. -Jumpers with 500 jumps being required to use a USPA approved instructor. -Resistance to change that is not seen as needed. An honest disagreement that I find interesting, sometimes irritating, but not so much that I'd want to fight about it. Heck, this is just politics. I do. Lighten up on the regulations and I'm all for it. Spot, They just want to beat you up because they wouldn't dare if you were in good shape; the sooner you heal up the better. Thanks for your work on this, and enduring all the flack about it. I think it will come out of the fire better for it. But what do I know?

I avoid acetaminophen (tylenol) like the plague. I'd rather not be on a transplant list. I avoid everything like that. I'll take vitamins and natural remedies on a regular basis sometimes, but that's it. Even prescription drugs are a last resort for me. 58 y.o. But what do I know?

Please tell me what mud I slung and I will sincerely beg your forgiveness for doing so. I state no conspiracy, but why not comment on the fact that MOST of the contributors to this come from the same place. My intention was to show the closed nature of this thinking rather than a conspiracy. When I discussed this with my non-wingsuit friends this past weekend, they attributed it to a USPA conspiracy. Go figure. The fact that you were asked by the USPA to provide a ... whatever this is ... does not give you and/or your friends free reign to regulate everything you want. Please understand that I still like everybody and hope they will feel the same towards me. If you think this amount of regulation is needed, by all means try and get it done. I think I've raised some fair questions about it, and openly disagree that it is called for. At the same time, I've commended this work and think it should be incorporated into the standard FFC. Just because I would not like to see it as a regulation does not mean that I'm against it, or anybody. I didn't think I passed along any false information. Please let me know what that was so I can correct it. But what do I know?

Phil, This is very useful for what I was asking about, and I do agree with you that it is not a subject for new wingsuit pilots, although it it of interest to all I bet. The 'washyness' of the SM1 has been a problem from the time I got it. That, combined with the loose fit has made this suit a chore from the get-go. I'm ready for something else and think I could probably fly any suit after a while. One main concern I had was the difference in material out at the end of the wing. I had no trouble with that before, but the configuration of this wing is different and I thought I'd ask. Thanks for the great answers to that and more.

I agree and wait for more reports about flying these new suits. The people I asked have already had some time in them and and were the ones I was hoping to hear from. I assume they would have some input about deploying in the new wing. Maybe they would have some comments about flying with small-wing suits. Just askin'. But what do I know?

QuoteFurther comment: !,000 jump inimum /reply] For the first WS flight? I vote no. 200/500 is fine by me. Don't forget that some have done fine with less. My suggestion is to make 200 a rule and stick with it. Forget the rest. Keep it simple. But what do I know?

I'm in. I like clouds. But what do I know?

Thanks for the input, Supergirl. It just so happens that most of the contributers to this proposal are from Flock U. I don't have a problem with that; Flock U represents the pinnacle of wingsuit flying in the US, IMO. As for the proposal being viewed as going further than is called for, I will stand by that. I like the new sylliblus for wingsuiting. I would strongly support it as a recommendation. Please do not mistake my comments as being critical of Flock U. I am not, and I support them in the goal of making wingsuiting as safe as it can be. If I disagree with the method that is currently being discussed, it does not mean that I disagree with the goal. But what do I know?

Not me! Save me a seat on Scott's side while I pop some corn. To recap: A need is seen to regulate wingsuits. (Unknown.) A proposal is created. (Flock U, Tonysuits.) The proposal is criticized. (Almost everybody.) "Bad" Birdman and PF Instructors are cited as the reason for the proposal. (A few people. Flock U) Questions are raised about the need for this: What exactly is the problem? (Everybody else.) Answer: "Bad Instructors are cited. Examples given: Low timers having problems. Examples given: Birdman instructors. (By the same few people.) Writers of the proposal publicly named. (Flock U.) News of BPA change. (Glad I don't live there.) More questions raised about the need for this. (Everybody else.) Examples given: Wingsuitor in Utah with no instructor, (as per DesertDevil,) and Sebastian incident. (Instructor, Jeff, Tonysuits, as per LouDiamond.) Conclusion drawn by the few? USPA Instructors are needed. Answer: No. Maybe a BSR for 200 jumps, but nothing like USPA instructors is called for. (Several people including me.) LouDiamond speaks up for Birdman, outs Jeff as the instructor in Sebastian. (Scott.) Points out that one of the best instructors in wingsuiting is also one of those 'bad' instructors. Jarno starts a fight with Scott, or vise versa, use search damnit! I might add that Jeff is not alone in thinking that some low number jumpers can learn to fly. West Coast Wingsuits comes to mind. Oh yes, me too. Can I change seats? Where was I? Never mind, my popcorn is done. Carry on. BTW: Here is what I sent out: Dear XXX, I understand that wingsuit regulation is being proposed and would like to share my thoughts. I jump at Gold Coast Skydivers and have 300+ wingsuit jumps. I do not support the USPA creating a wingsuit instructor rating. I think the current structure provides adaquite instruction. The only area that has been a problem is low timers, those under 200 jumps. If something 'must' be done, a requirement for 200 jumps minimum is all that is needed. I feel the the proposed regulations go too far and are not needed. Regards, Ed Cummings C36539 But what do I know?

Not me, I've done it a bunch of times starting with WS jump 2 in an Intro. That one was not in the plan, but showed me the value of learning how to get out of one. Getting out of control on purpose is a good way to learn getting back into control. I did a lot of flights that started with flinging myself into a mess just so I could get out of it with the most time to do it. I think this gives me the confidence to try more things than flying stable all the time would have. I agree that bigger suits are harder to deal with. Back to the topic: Does anyone have anything to offer on actually flying the X? Is it a good choice for flocking? I had some other questions but nobody answered them. But what do I know?

Brian was wingsuit flying when I did AFF; he was an instant hero for me, but still so friendly and willing to talk to me. I saw the light in his eyes as he talked about flying, and couldn't wait to follow in his footsteps. Last year I saw him fly with a broken leg better than many with 2 good legs, quietly doing what had to be done to do a tough job. Still, he took time to remember me and let me fly with him. The footsteps got bigger and further apart. Now that I've seen this video, Brian has surpassed where I even dare to go. Sir, you are a giant among us. I honor your contribution to wingsuiting, and advancement of the sport. But what do I know?

I'm thinking about a new suit anyway, and the new wings look great. How are they for deploying? Any problem with the wing getting in the way, or different technique needed? How do you think the x-bird would work as an all around suit? Maybe a t-bird would be a better choice for me. I like the floatyness of my SM1, but don't get the speed or control I want. It could be a better fit though, which is why I'm thinking about a new one. You once recommended a Raptor and that was right on for me. What about the new suits? But what do I know?

Have you done it? If you jump a PAC with a WS, have you tried an outside exit? I'm getting that there is a window to fly in with stalling on one end and hitting the tail on the other. Large groups outside can make it hard for the pilot to stay in that window so I wonder how wingsuits would factor in, as I may one day be asked to be in a group and get outside. This thread brought up some questions I had and seems like the place to ask some more.

nope, the outdrinking.. on 2nd thought, u're russian.. hey, u know there's hellaherb the coming weekend!? get your ass up here! i even got a shift at the bar friday night.. Thanks for the update on your social life. Any thoughts on landing direction? But what do I know?

You're right. Learn to read an arrow and tetrahedron. If you don't know, you need to find out. I think an arrow is better for not confusing people. For some reason people have more trouble with the tet. One place puts a happy face on the back and tells jumpers they want to see that face. I think they have fewer problems because of it. People that don't want to follow the arrow in the main landing area should have other places to go, ie: student area or unrestriced areas. I made this thread mostly about the main landing area because that is where almost all of the serious problems I've seen have happened. Almost all of them have involved people flying 180 degrees from each other at low altitude on light and variable wind days. Almost none of them resulted in a collision or injury. In this case, almost isn't good enough. The more close calls there are, the more accidents there will be. A person holding the arrow, when necessary, can make a difference. I agree with your statement: 'If the arrow is not pointing in the same direction as the surface winds, winds are too light to swing the arrow and winds are too light to affect landings, ergo you can safely land facing the same direction as the arrow.' This is the one that causes problems. Most people follow it but some don't. More would if there was a guy holding it and they knew he would be on their ass if they didn't do what he was clearly directing them to do. I am putting this out there as an idea. If it's good, I'd make it a recommendation. If it would help a DZ to reduce incidents by using it, then I think they should do it. I would not make it a regulation as it would not apply to all DZ's and I don't like regulations anyway. I do think there are too many cases of chaos on the LZ, and a fresh look at the problem can't hurt. But what do I know?

I'm glad you posted. I have limited experience with the PAC, but my jumps were from hanging outside. I did find the low tail scary but ignored it and dropped off OK. My question is how would that work for wingsuitors? Is there a greater danger of causing a stall with a group of WS outside? Have large WS groups used the PAC? I think I could dive out or roll out an exit, even with a big wingsuit. But what do I know?

Good one, and well worth repeating. By all means find out what the thing means! I learned with a windsock and discovered that tetrahedrons work the opposite way than I expected when I encountered one at Eloy. Luckily for me the wind was only blowing about 20 mph. Also, at 35 jumps I was a seasoned veteran More importantly, I was real good at PLF's, Sorry for hijacking my own thread, but I did learn an important lesson in surviving that downwinder: It could be worse.

Thanks for your reply. Same here on this being the method that I've seen work best. The only thing I would add to it is somebody to hold the arrow if necessary to make sure it's not wobbling around at landing time and is pointing at a preferred direction that will work best for everbody. Other methods that work well at getting everybody landing the same way, ie: land this way or else, can lead to ugly downwinders, especially at places where the wind can be quickly variable. Even then, IMO, once a direction is selected then the safest choice is to land that way or somewhere else. If that direction is selected as soon before landings as practical, I think you would get good results. Those landing in the main area should have the skill to land safely even somewhat off the wind line or they shouldn't be landing there anyway, especially on a light and variable day. Many days the wind is dependable and the arrow does not require close monitoring. On no wind days it could be locked. If that is a feature of those things. If so, it should be monitored carefully when locked as well, if in use and the conditions change. I've seen landing directions 180 degrees apart too many times. It's worked almost every time. The less it happens, the less times it won't work. Is holding the arrow once in a while really that hard to do? If adopted as a standard and it worked, would it be negligent to not do it? I don't know if it's a great idea or not, but I've seen enough crazy shit too, and would like to see less. A big giant arrow that says land this way dumbass, or else, would have done some good at least a few times that I know of. A fairly low collision that I saw had bad results, and at least one close call would have been 2 dead for sure. My worst moment has been a near miss at a boogie. Flying the right direction. That gives me a stake in this game, or made me realize better that I have one, and find this to be something that gets a lot of complaints but no resolution. We still are arguing about first man down! I'm throwing this out there because I've seen the present system not work. But what do I know?

Thanks! The presentation you provided is a great example of educating jumpers. The DZ should be commended on it, and it could be well implemented anyplace. But what do I know?