Hooknswoop

More the former than the latter. You don't have to be good, just safe. Or at least not un-safe. Don't worry. Pay attention and try to relax. Remember it is normal to be afraid/anxious/nervious/scared at very high levels, all at once. Be prepared for that and deal with it. Focus on the training and what you have to do. That will get you through. Relaxation is the key, once you relax, you will see how easy it really is. You don't like someone that would get the rare bowling ball speech, so don't worry. Derek

If someone lacks the ability to skydive without being a serious danger to themselves and others around them. Obviously some fall through the cracks. Derek

The DZ could see how the transition goes, and how well it would work. I could see a difference in the learning curve between AFF and AFP students. The trend should be obvious to the DZO and Instructors. Nothing is going to change overnight. I think in order for the proposal to be accepted and begin to make a difference, it would have to grandfather everyone in. I don't think it stands a chance if it didn't. Would it be more effective if it didn't grandfather anyone in? Yes, but it wouldn't be implemented then and wouldn't affect anyone. If it can be implemented without grandfathering everyone, that would be great and make a difference sooner, but I don’t think it would be. I think that is why the sooner it happens, the better. How many people have been injured, killed that this BSR may have prevented? Derek

I've given a couple of times, but usually asking them why they jump and shuting up was enough. In the process of answering my question they realized they didn't want to jump and were only doing it becuase they didn't want to quit. Another I suggested some wind tunnel time before their next jump and he never came back. As a side note, the only people that should be present for such a conversation is the Instructor and student. Derek

Get it re-packed with a good rigger and don't use or recommend the sloppy rigger anymore. Derek

Talk to someone that has seen the new and old courses. The new course standards are lower. I had an AFFCC CD admit this to me. I think the 2/3 was the first change, then it went to 3/4. Irregardless, there are AFFI's out there that could have have passed the old course because their abilities aren't up to the old course's standards. Again, if you do not believe this, ask around. Not enough Instructors in the country.....What to do, what to do? Pay more? No way! Treat the Instructors better? No way! Give them perks? No way! I know, make more Instructors, since the DZ makes the same $ regardless of the quality of the instruction. Derek

That and the way Instructors are treated, I think anyway. I agree. A standardized pre-course would have been a better solution. Not bashing the AFFI's that have passed the new course at all. They earned their ratings. My point is USPA is not out to help skydivers. They are out to help DZO's, even at the cost of safety. USPA is a puppet organization controlled by DZO's. Derek

They changed the format AND the standards to pass the course. If you did the pre-course card correctly, that would prepare you for the course, I passed. For example; Old course required 12 points from a maximum of 6 dives. Each dive could earn from 0 to 4 points. To get 4 points, it must be on video and all the evaluators must agree that it is a 4 point dive. New course, pass 2 out of 3 dives, or pass more than you fail, with no limit on number of eval dives. An example of how it is an easier format: Old course: First dive score a 2. New course: First dive score a sat. Old course: Second dive, score a 0. New course: Second dive, score an un-sat. Old course: Third dive score a 2. New course: Third dive score a sat and earn your rating. With the old course at this point, you have 3 dives to score 8 more points. You must demonstrate higher than average abilities to recover from the failed Second dive. Old course: Fourth dive score a 2 Old course: Fifth dive score a 2. You must now score a 4 on the last dive to earn your rating, no pressure. Old course: Sixth dive, score a 2 or 3, fail the course. If you do not believe me that the course has lowered it’s standards, ask other people that have seen both the old and new courses. I watched a candidate that could not catch the evaluator while they were on their back become an AFFI because they simply kept jumping with him, passing the other two presentations that didn’t include the evaluator on his back until he had more sats that un-sats and passed. The standard to become an AFFI has been lowered. Derek

I call it mine, but it is just a collection of mainly other people's ideas. Maybe you could collect everything on the topic, take the best of each and present a really, really good proposal that can then be presented to a few DZ's to see if they will try it and return the results? Derek

Positive contributions, editing, revising, adjusting, finalizing, expanding, all of these things- yes! Nitpicking like an old housewife- no. You are not the sounding board. You are not the proposed BSR foundation president. You are not grading this like a term paper. You are a peer. Act like it. Contribute to the effort if you want to help. But don’t nit-pick. So, as is, do you feel my proposal, that I copied earlier in this thread, needs more revising, or is it ready to be finished with all the missing details (WL & jump #’s, specific canopy control training requirements for each license, etc)? [This is an open question to everyone] Derek

I still support jump number based WL restrictions with the option to exceed those limitations on a case by case basis. I also support mandatory canopy control training for the "B" through "D" licenses. You are wrong. The onus is on us, as skydivers (in my case, ex-skydiver), to improve the safety of the sport any way we can. USPA, experienced jumpers, Instructors, S & TA's, DZO's all owe it to each other and new jumpers to continuelly improve the sport. This is why your posts regarding this matter are so aggravating. You have a 'me' and 'them' mentantility. 'They have to prove to me this is a good idea and will work'. No. We have to work together to come up with a solution. You are not the 'proposal police' with veto power and your approval is not required. Your input is appreciated, your nit picking is not. You want proof that the proposal will work? Get a couple fo DZ's to try it on a test basis, same as they did with ISP. What could it hurt? Derek

I'm not shutting down criticism, I'm shutting down useless bantering. You both are simply taking shots at it, not pointing out flaw(s)/shortcoming(s), and offering fix(es). You want un-realistic, labratory experiments and piles of data. The problem simply doesn't require all that. Your solution is incorporated into my proposal, over a year ago. I am beginning to wonder if you actually read my proposal and have been arguing for the fun of it. It might. I doubt it, but it is possible. Can you show me your analysis of my proposal that demonstrates flaws or un-intended consequences? Worse case scenario- my proposal doesn't work. That should be discovered during the trial period at a couple of DZ's and will be simple to abandon. There is a problem. I have offered a solution (as have others) that has a very good chance of making an improvement. But you want to cut tails off of rats and make pretty little pie charts. Actually, you don't want to do that, you want us to do that, then present the results to you for grading. We aren't your students, proffessor. It doesn't work that way. So, now that I have bold faced the part of my solution that you agree with, do you have any other ideas? Derek

At the course I went to in 1999, 7 of 15 people passed. No one passed that shouldn't have and no one failed that shouldn't have. USPA didn't need to lower the standard to make it cheaper. The old course wasn't too hard. It should be very difficult, you have people's lives in your hands. What was missing from the old course was a standardized pre-course. People didn't know what to expect and *gasp* over-estimated their abilities. So instead of saying, "Ya, I failed because I wasn't good enough., they would say, "I failed because it was too hard." Not their fault, you see. Derek

Hahahaha. Serves you right. I'll be your campaign manager. Derek

It is a fact that USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI. There are people getting their ratings at the new course that would have smoked the old course too, I don't want to take anything away from those people. How can lowering the standards to be an Acclerated Free Fall Instructor be in the interest of skydivers? Why would USPA do this? I strongly believe that the Instructor shortage and the lowering of the standards was not a coincidence and was, in fact, in response to the Instructor shortage. Opinions/thoughts? Derek

Very well said. Interesting to hear the view of a DZO. I think it is because how they presented themselves, ignorance on the state of affairs by the average jumpers, and DZO's ability to influence elections to get people elected that will look after their interests. Derek

Me too, AFP is better. But ISP is beter than old-school AFF. And I've seen AFFI's that would have NEVER passed the old course. I agree. I am not going to run for ND. My time has passed, if I ever would have run. DZ.com is as far as I am willing to go. There are people that could do a great job out there, they just need to be elected. Very true. But if USPA doesn't do it and demonstrate to the FAA that they are doing it, when (not if, but when) there is a high-profile incident, skydiving might have a chance. Derek

Gotta agree that not all the ND's are worthless. Me too. It is too easy for a DZO to get jumpers to vote how they want them too (I've seen a DZO zerox ballots and hand them out at manifest for people to sign). Derek

So you don't want to help, you just want to be the self-appointed judge of ideas. You want to argue, not help. No, not helpful at all. There you go with the 'we' word again. So far you are not part of the 'we' that is coming up with a solution. Just because you haven't been around long enough to see the rpoblem and see that the solution will make a positive difference, doesn't mean it isn't so. You didn't answer the question. Afraid to express an opinon that YOU might have to defend? It is easier to sit back and judge than to present your own work. Quit being lazy. Put forth the effort if you want to participate and work towards safety. Put your idea(s) out there. Make a difference. Don't just sit back and try to torpedo other's efforts. You are quickly reaching the point of not even being worth responding to. This isn't a class room excercise, this is an honest effort to improve safety. Get off the sidelines and get into the game. Derek

So, what do you think? Derek

You miss the point. The concept is we work together to come up with the best solution possible, not I come up with a solution and you take shots at it at your leisure. If you think our idea sucks, that’s OK, but immediately after saying that, you should follow it up with “, and here is how I think you can change it to make it better and this is why.” It may not seem like a big difference to you, but trust me, it is a significant difference. Ahh, see, you are confused, so far this hasn't been a 'we' effort. You haven't helped at all. Do want to be on the team that is trying to fix the problem? If so, PM me and I’ll tell you how you can help. "all kinds of regulatory innovation"? Have you read the proposal(s)? Does the BSR that establishes minimum container opening altitudes make sense to you? Or do you have all sorts of theories and experiments on rats to prove that the BSR is flawed/worthless? Derek

Then quit helping, because you are not helping. My, and other's proposal(s) are not based on good intentions, but experience and common sense. So you are saying your only input is and is going to be negative input? You aren't going to add anything useful? Thanks for helping, but don't. Again, you are not helping. Want to help? Apply some of that education and dive into whatever data you can get and post your results. Surely you are capable of going to the next step after analysis and creating a solution? Bottom line; If you have something useful to add to the discussion, please do. If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, don't add to the discussion. Derek

You also seem to simply want to attack other people's proposals for increasing safety. I would like to see your analysis and your proposal to decrease the rate of landing incidents. You have an opinion and that is great, but try to focus on solutions and not just try to trash other's solutions without offering a 'fix' to any problems you may see. Derek

GPS databases can show airports, but don't show that skydiving may be located at that airport. So an unsuspecting pilot may fly right over the top of the airport/DZ, using the GPS for navigation, and never know that they flew over a DZ. Getting DZ's into GPS databases would have a direct impact on safety. I hope it gets done. Derek

He has my 'endorsement'