Skwrl

I have no idea what anyone said (my role here is to make dumb jokes), but keep in mind that anything televised has been heavily edited. That often results in a lot of stuff being taken out of context, and key parts of the conversation (for all we know) could have been edited out... We're quick to convene the lynch mob here on dropzone. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Wow. I didn't know Jade did CReW, too... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Screw that, man... I wanna make a wingsuit Calabi-Yau shape. /Off to figure out how to fly at right angles to myself. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

You don't have to be from the Midwest to be confused by this all... I don't get it either. +1 to John's question... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Her.. Her... etc. Well done, Taya, and thanks for hard work. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Where is that posted? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

For the uninitiated, a "Donohue trap" occurs when a wingsuiter is outsmarted by an inanimate object. Get well soon, Spot. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

You're assuming that I'm making an argument here that I'm not, John. Besides, I don't think my position on that other topic is as cut and dried as you might think it is. (Read my posts carefully - at no point do I say words to the effect of, "we should have a WSI rating no matter what". My position on that topic was if the USPA was adopting a WSI role, we (the wingsuiting community) ought to control it. I also asked the question - not a rhetorical one - "if we don't have such a program, how are conveying the information that we need to convey, and are we doing that in the best way?" Other than that, I took no position. I'm open to any approach that increases education effectively. A WSI rating is one approach. There are others. My other posts were to correct someone who attributed the project to Flock U and to correct someone who claimed the First Flight Manual that I wrote was a copy... If you think I said something other than that, you're mistaking me for someone else...) Anyway, back to the original question: where's the systemic problem? At least some wingsuiters disagree with your assertion that that the accuracy exercises in a C license are relevant. Presumably, if we're going to take the "everyone ought to take care of themselves" approach to self-regulation, one of the things that I should do as a skydiver before I put on a wingsuit is to assess whether or not I have the necessary canopy skills. I'm sure there are people, like Glen's friend, who could end every wingsuit jump with an accuracy landing - and only hold an "A". I know that there are others who have a "C" and can't land consistently... Speaking of consistency... So are we regulating based on systemic need or consistency? If you're talking about changing it from a recommendation of 200/18 mos. or 500 to a requirement of a "C", then I'm still waiting to see the need – not at an individual level, but at a organization-wide level. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I think this is a true statement. Hell, I've had some scary off landings when wingsuiting. But I'm also a fan of people being internally consistent. Using the same approach you took initially, where's the systemic problem, John, that requires your approach as a solution? I skimmed through the Incidents forum and I didn't see any that talked about an injury resulting from an off landing in connection with a wingsuit jump. Maybe I missed one, but even with one or two incidents, is that a systemic problem? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

So unless I'm missing something, the "Coach rating or a D" thing is already in the manufacturer-branded programs, right? (I guess what I'm wondering out loud is if there are any other manufacturer-branded instruction programs in the US... Does S-Fly have such a program? Any others?) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Thanks for that info, Brian. I was wrong. I'm sure some Birdman Instructor could let us know whether they require the same... Of course, it doesn't address the other issue (the question of what you do if there's no branded instructor). Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

One question: on the coach certification issue, what do you do for manufacturers who don't have an instructor certification program (in other words, those who don't have "branded instructors")? I mean, your solution could be applied to the BMI and Pheonix Fly programs, but since there's no "Tonysuit Instructor" program, for instance, it would treat some manufacturers differently than others. Besides, if I understand what you're proposing, you're basically asking the manufacturers (nicely) to adopt a Coach rating requirement. Presumably, if they thought they should do that, they would have already done it, right? (I'm not quibbling with the coach rating requirement - whether you require that or not is a different issue - but I'm pointing out an issue with the manufacturer-driven approach. My suspicion is that none of the manufacturers will want to do it unless they all do it...) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Well, I also said that I'm an atheist, so I'm going with something along the line of "the fucker doesn't like me." Ding, ding, we have a winner. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

You keep acting like this is somehow an us versus them thing. This is why we can't have nice things... Let's recap. A proposal was made by a few groups in response to information that indicated that regulation was coming. One of the groups was willing to share their proposal with the public. In fact, those in our group all agreed that it was not just a really good idea - but the whole damn point. If I have a self-criticism or a "lessons learned" for our group, it's that we didn't present it to the wingsuiting community earlier. Lots of people don't like the proposal. They wanted something else or nothing at all. Personally, I'm totally cool with that - I think I told that to a bunch of you in PMs already. Here's why: We made a well thought out product. We made a damn good - and original - first flight manual (I got to see a copy of a Birdman manual earlier today, I stand by my earlier statement that ours is NOT a copy of the Birdman manual. They teach the same stuff, for sure, but we didn't copy theirs and it doesn't even really look like we did, as had been previously asserted.) The First Flight Manual summarizes many of the best practices that we were able to gather from the instructors in the working group and their friends. Did you even read the First Flight Manual? It very easily could serve as a useful resource for non-USPA regulated wingsuiters (be they Phoenix Fly, Birdman, or independents). If - as I suspect - USPA makes no changes, we still have offered up a great resource to all wingsuit instructors, not just in the US, but everywhere. That's a pretty neat thing, and I'm proud to have played a small role in it. We got the community talking about the pros and cons of regulation - and I think we pointed out a few problems with some instructors and methods of instruction (that's not a comment about any school or rating, it's a comment about the stories of, for example, instructors who weren't there for first flights). I think we stopped talking about whether there are "problem instructors" and started talking about how to deal with them. That's progress. We got people talking about the importance of standardization - to make sure that all new wingsuiters learn everything that they need to know to do it safely and to have fun doing it. Again, that's a good thing. The very people who didn't like the proposal are now talking about making a C license a requirement. Stop and think about that! That itself is change. (I'm not going to get into how it's inconsistent with the whole "Freeeeeedoooooom" argument that some of them used, but if the general consensus is that USPA requires a C license, that's cool. It might reduce the 99 jump wonders who put on a wingsuit, who knows.) Others who didn't like our proposal have suggested that wingsuiting instructors should have a coach rating. In my opinion, that's a good idea, too. Hell, it was part of our proposal! (Oh, and by the way, I'm a professional instructor and I would benefit from a coaching course were I to want to become a wingsuit instructor. Different skills are taught and learned in different ways. Just because I'm a good law professor doesn't mean I could teach yoga well.) If Stokes' letter and the various proposals hadn't come about, I wonder how much we'd be talking about these subjects. My bet is not at all. So I think the net result is a good thing, no matter how it shakes out. Bottom line is that the proposal stirred dialogue. It was meant to be presented to the wingsuiting community for just that purpose (see, e.g., the memo... you did read the memo, right?). So whether it gets adopted or not, I view it as a success. So if that's tarring and feathering, I dig it - you need feathers to be a good bird anyway, right? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Actually, it was the Republican Party. I know that at least some of the members of the working group are members of the Republican Party, so it must be an elaborate plot to control wingsuiting that the Republicans are pushing. That's how your logic works on that one. Let's break it down: DSE - Flock U Scotty Burns - Flock U Scott Callentine - Flock U Jeff Donohue - not Monkeyboy - Flock U Nebelkopf - not Peggs - not Shorb - Flock U Warnock - not Weiss - not But wait! Lurch is a Flock U instructor, and he's said publicly that he's not in support of changing the rules. Harry Parker's a Flock U instructor also, but I don't know his opinion - he's probably too busy jumping and taking kick-ass pictures... Oh noez! Could it be that it just happened to be a bunch of friends, some in a wingsuit school and some not, who got together to make a proposal? Naaaaaah... You don't need to worry about letting facts get in your way, right? At this point, I think the thread is just populated by trolls. I'll let you guys breathe your own fumes from here on in. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

That's industrial haze, Matt. Duh! Can't you tell the difference?

Well, I have zero interest in wading into this discussion any more than I have, but that statement is disingenuous. The question has been answered by Spot several times: in a nutshell, it was a perceived problem with the existing instructors, in terms of quality control, and a perception that there was no consequence to being a shitty instructor. It may not have been put in the form that I just did (a quotation of Brian’s or your writing followed by a response), but it's been addressed. In painful detail. On both sides. Ad nauseum. Like to the point where I want to go, "Please, merciful Jesus, make this thread go away..." And I'm an atheist. Whether you agree or disagree with Spot’s response is another matter entirely (and, like I said, not one I have any interest in championing at this point, since this thread has devolved into just a stream of gibberish), but it was addressed. [Shrug.] Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[ A hidden camera fades in from black . . . ] NARRATOR'S VOICE: We've secretly replaced Butters with a small computer script. Let's see if anyone notices! Clicky Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Thanks for the PM, Scott - I look forward to seeing it when you get it from the other computer. When you send it, I'll review and give you a call. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Well, you just did, right? I would welcome the opportunity to do so. My email is jeff.donohue@gmail.com. If Birdman is concerned about non-Birdman people seeing that document, I'll agree in writing not to disseminate the materials to anyone else, and to destroy them upon completion of the review. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

OK, I'm going to jump in here, and take your advice and call a spade a spade. I think what you're saying, Scott, is that the syllabus in those materials was taken from the Birdman documents. On this, I call bullshit. Why do I know that it's bullshit? Because I have never in my life seen the Birdman instructional materials and I was the principal architect of that document. I'm not saying that I came up with the information - that was provided by the various instructors in the working group through a long series of conference calls, meetings and summits. My job was to be the scribe. I got all of their information and feedback, and I turned that into a document that they then reviewed, made edits to, and approved. Now, without having seen the Birdman documents, I am willing to bet that they are indeed similar. As much as we love to breathe our own fumes in this forum, wingsuiting ain't rocket science. And there are only so many topics taught in a first flight course. You don’t need to talk about canopy control. And there's a logical order in which stuff gets taught. It would be bizarre to talk about how to unzip your stuff after a deployment without talking about the freefall. But that's about it. So implying - without adhering to your own request that we "grow a backbone and say what you mean and mean what you say" – that I stole Birdman’s stuff is utter bunk. I'm an intellectual property rights attorney and I teach intellectual property law at a law school. So I take accusations of plagiarism - which is basically an accusation of theft and unprofessional conduct - really fucking seriously. I never claim to be a wingsuit instructor (in fact I have made crystal clear that I’m not), but what I am is a professional who takes any job that gets assigned to me seriously. Scott, I give huge deference to your extensive experience and what you've done to make this sport safer and more fun for everyone, but the bottom line is that I don't care if you're a 99 jump wonder who wants to get into wingsuiting or the fucking ancient wizened guru elder of wingsuiting - if you call my work stolen (even if in a very coy manner), I'm going to call you on it. Because it wasn't. Period. And the accusation is utter fucking bullshit. I'm done with this project and this thread. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Yeah, sorry, that was sloppy of me - nylon nut with nylon bolt is what I meant. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Huh. I always thought of myself as a Leo who likes long walks on the beach and fireside conversation. Impressive research effort, but a little off. I was trained by Flock University instructors - and I certainly jump with the Flock U guys regularly - but I'm not a Flock University instructor or coach. (Nor do I do any other form of skydiving instruction or coaching.) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Well, I did the proof reading, so 'people who know what they are talking about' and Donohue. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

As a caveman, I take great offense. The threat of regulation by non-wingsuiters was precisely the reason I was willing to get involved. (Again, I'm not an instructor, coach, "experienced wingsuit jumper" as the SIM says, or even "helpful buddy". And I never will be.) For what it's worth, the message I was hearing through the grapevine was that regulation was coming, and that proposals to regulate were being made. It's worth noting, for example, that the proposal that Justin posted is not the only one that was submitted to the USPA. (I've not had access to the other one, however, so I can't comment on it.) I've worked with regulatory issues in a bunch of different industries (subject to a variety of different regulatory schemes), and one of the things that I've learned is that it's better to control the pen than be stabbed by it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong (using that phrase on dz.com has got to be one of the most pointless things ever, since people will correct me regardless of whether I'm right or wrong), but the BSRs are the USPA's "basic safety requirements" (see SIM 2-1) for USPA member dropzones. There is no BSR relating to wingsuiting, unless I'm mistaken. However, there's a recommendation set forth in SIM 6-9. So is what you're proposing, Scott, that the recommendations set forth in SIM 6-9 be made into requirements? If so, which ones? I'm assuming you mean just the 500 jump or 200 within 18 months and instruction recommendation, right? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork