LetsGoOutside

My comment: Obviously have re-iterated a stance I've had on here. Y'all have changed my mind on requiring a USPA coach rating to teach, so long as folks who don't know USPA's teaching method follow this to a T. That said, I still think anyone who teaches skydiving at any level should read the IRM essentials at a minimum, and take the Coach if time and money allows.

I have this on mine and it works great.

Do a tandem for your first jump regardless. There's so much less to think about that you can just enjoy the skydive. THEN determine if it's something you want to do. I started with AFF and didn't really get all I expected out of a jump until I was cleared for solo.

I'd have to go with the first one, based on foot launching sport canopies in extremely turbulent conditions. Running with a little pressure on the front risers cuts through it better than no input or any pressure on brakes or rears. Speed is stability.

I slide in on my feet at the end of a swoop so I don't have to run (except at the end of downwind landings where you have to run or at least take some quick steps after the slide). When you start getting more speed from your swoop on smaller canopies, you really can't run it out without some headwind. It takes a little practice -- somewhat akin to riding a skateboard or surfing -- but it will save your knees. When you feel the lift of your swoop bleed off, gently let your feet meet the ground, then plant them down a bit a keep your balance -- similar to surfing. More importantly, though -- keep flying your canopy. Don't think about it too much -- it comes naturally when you just go for it. I'm assuming you are swooping, as you should not have to run landing straight in on pretty much anything (assuming into the wind).

What's most important is that you are comfortable with the canopy you're flying. I fly a Katana 97 load at 2:1 with a wingsuit with no issues, but know the canopy really well. I spent some time learning the canopy before I started jumping it with a wingsuit.

I'm seeing the same thing.

I wouldn't agree that it has a longer arc at all. Backing this up having jumped both around the same size. Safire 2 is much less a swooper than the Sabre2. Good all around canopy still, though.

Dude, you should totally pull higher next time.

I jumped exactly this canopy with a wingsuit over 300 times loaded around 1.8. Nothing but a great experience. I fly a Katana 97 with my wingsuit now and also nothing but great (but I've got 700 - 800 wingsuit jumps so my deployments are dialed). Even the times where I have had line twists, spinning never occurred.

Well, technically, the USPA can't require anything. The USPA makes recommendations in their guidelines. The member drop zones decide what to enforce. Though a good member DZ will take USPA's recommendations and turn them into requirements, a more lax DZ may not.

Which is why the focus really should be on clarifying the language into something the drop zone staff understands. I doubt hardly anyone at my home DZ could tell you how many jumps I have, how long I've been jumping, etc -- or pretty much any other jumper there. But things like "D license", "USPA Coach", "AFF-I", etc -- the DZ staff most likely knows which of these their jumpers have. If so-and-so A licenser shows up with a wingsuit and there's a C minimum. It doesn't matter what kind of instructor wants to take them up or how much they've padded their logbook, there's a better chance that it will be interrupted. Not impossible to slip by, but far less likely than going by jump numbers alone. If a S&TA knows the DZ's policy (adopted from USPA guidelines) is to not let anyone with less than a C license fly a wingsuit, they won't let that jumper go. If that jumper heads down to another drop zone, he'll check in with his A license number and probably won't be able to jump his wingsuit there, either. It's a lot easier to pad a logbook than fake a license number or S&TA signature (for those who have met the requirements but did not pay for the license).

True. I guess my thinking is that there is a lot more for a 200 jump wonder to botch on a first wingsuit jump than other disciplines. The penalties for screwing up an exit, losing heading awareness, instability, skimping on gear check, etc can be much more severe on wingsuit jump than in other disciplines. Of all the disciplines out there, wingsuit flying is the most different from a standard skydive. The first flight candidate has new exits (which can result in an aircraft strike if not performed properly), a flight plan (totally new concept), new "wave off" and deployment procedures, a very different body position, modified emergency procedures, water landing procedures, etc. Even sitting in the plane and boarding is different. Literally everything from gear up to post-deployment is new, and the first wingsuit skydive doesn't become "familiar" again until the toggles are in hand. Because of that, I can see justification for requiring instruction from someone who knows how to teach a Section 4 Category ? jump on first wingsuit flights, but not other disciplines. A first freefly jump modifies exit order, maybe exit technique, and freefall body position. It's not too much to add to a newbie's knowledge. Same goes for canopy piloting, etc, where the instruction only modifies part of the skydive, not the whole thing. Some thoughts, anyway...

I feel that it should be for anyone who teaches skydiving. You could be a shit hot freeflyer or canopy pilot, but if you can't organize your skills into a lesson plan, teach the lesson plan effectively, and observe and debrief, your student won't benefit from your instruction. A student will get more from a mediocre wingsuit pilot with solid teaching ability than a badass wingsuit pilot with disorganized curriculum.

Oh, I agreed with all your points. I addressed the "con" to see about fixing it. We're on the same page. So, taking into consideration a lot of what people have said here, here's the gist of what I wrote to Jay Stokes a moment ago. Changes that we should make to reduce fatalities and injuries to (and aircraft damage from) low timer would be wingsuit skydivers: 1) Change SIM 6.9.C.1.a to the following "meet all the requirements for a USPA D license; or meet all the requirements for a USPA C license and perform at least two successful wingsuit skydives under instruction and obversation by a USPA Coach and D license holder with at least 100 wingsuit skydives. " 2) Outline two skydives in the SIM section 6-9, akin to the categories in Section 4, so that coaches have a curriculum to teach and TLOs to check against. 3) As inferred above, an appropriate "instructor" to sign off the low-timer holds a USPA Coach rating and has logged at least 100 wingsuit skydives. The current quidelines do not give rise to strict enforcement and allow for non-proficient jumpers with the right jump numbers (or padded logbook) to get into a wingsuit. This proposal makes it easier on the DZ to enforce some common sense guidelines. The drop zone has a better grasp of who their license and rating holders are than so-and-so's currency level or jump numbers. It's easier for a DZ to say... "You need a D license" "I need to see two jumps signed off by a coach in your logbook" "Let's set you up with [USPA Coach] to clear you for solo wingsuit flights" This pairs sufficiently experienced and proficient students with sufficiently experienced and proficient instructors, while giving more experienced skydivers the freedom they've earned. If you're a BMI or other type of "wingsuit instructor" without at least a Coach rating... AT LEAST get an IRM and expose yourself to the USPA's teaching method. Better yet, go ahead and do the Coaches Course. You'll be really surprised at how much you'll learn and how much better of an instructor you will become.

Well... check out the wording on, say, the requirements for night jumps in the SIM: To make a night jump, you need to meet the requirements for a B license, not necessarily have one. Same could apply here. If we just changed one line of the SIM, I think that'd do it. Something like... SIM 6-9.C.1.a Meet all the requirements for a USPA D license; or meet all the requirements for a USPA C license and perform at least two successful freefall skydives in a wingsuit under instruction and obversation by a USPA Coach with at least 100 skydives. Those "two successful freefall skydives" would need to be outlined in the SIM, as well, so coaches have TLOs to sign off the low timer.

Demonstrating the C license level of stability, recovery from instability (maneuvers), altitude awareness, flying in proximity to others, etc are all relevant to wingsuit flying or any other type of "advanced" freefall. The point is that all these things should be second nature before adding a wingsuit into the mix. When basics like exits, altitude/landing zone awareness, gear checks, etc aren't ingrained due to low experience or lack of currency, it's a bad idea to add a new level of complexity. This applies to any discipline in skydiving, really, but wingsuits do have some specific issues that the other ones don't have. A student armed with a wingsuit can get very far into the wrong direction, slam into the jump plane, or hide the legstraps they aren't wearing, as we've seen. Minimum jump and proficiency requirements for wingsuiting help to ensure that first flight candidates won't make such hideous mistakes. The fatalities that sparked all this really have inexperience to blame more than anything. On the instruction side, there is a way to teach skydiving that isn't the same way to teach other things in life. By requiring a USPA Coach rating, low timers trying out wingsuits are more likely to get effective, consistent instruction. Each suit and instructor has its difference, but the foundation of proven teaching techniques will be there.

Thanks for backing me up on that. ;)

What does an individual with 200 jumps and a C-license have the an individual with 200 jumps and an A-license doesn't have that is beneficial towards wingsuiting? A logbook that has been (hopefully) inspected for accuracy by an S&TA or BOD member, and documented completion of some exercises that require air awareness and experience beyond just flailing around for 200 jumps. ^ This. ^

How about this:

No one with under 200 skydives has any business flying a wingsuit. I once thought there were exceptions. I even took someone up with 150 skydives who was the most heads up and intelligent guy around yet he still managed to completely blow the flight plan. It's too much to add to someone who hasn't dialed the basics. I also believe that proper instruction should be given to those who are not D license holders. That proper instruction should come from someone who knows how to teach skydiving. Here's what I suggest. - Manufacturers require USPA Coach rating to receive certification. - Minimum C license to fly a wingsuit. Instruction from experienced flyer or manufacturer's instructor HIGHLY recommend. - Minimum D license to fly a wingsuit. Instruction recommended. The real key here is requiring a C license to fly a suit and requiring a Coach rating to become an instructor with a manufacturer. The USPA Instructor rating is excessive because A) these are licensed skydivers, not actual "students" and B) a large part of the instructor's role is to show how to assemble, don, and care for a particular make of suit. A USPA WI rating doesn't really work with those two.

I agree with this. I also feel that the manufacturers should take it upon themselves to require instructor candidates to have a USPA Coach (or equivalent) rating (which I believe anyone who teaches any form of skydiving at any level should have). And those instructors would only need to be there for jumpers in that 200 - 500 range. An actual USPA instructor rating seems excessive, since we're not dealing with first jump students.

Ha! Glad it worked out for you. But come on... do you really expect anyone to explain the nuances of a night swoop on a message board?

If you have to get advice on here, you probably shouldn't be attempting it.

Back when I became a BMI in 2003, I lacked any USPA ratings and was not familiar with the USPA instruction method. Having since gone through the coach course and getting ready for AFF, I regret getting that head start. USPA's instruction method is extremely effective for this type of activity. If you've earned this basic instruction rating, you're at least going to (or should) have a solid instruction methodology, proper observation skills, and will likely pay very close attention to the details of your students' gear. Whether there is an actual instructor rating for wingsuits or manufacturer ratings akin to tandems, I strongly feel candidates should have a coach or equivalent rating at a minimum. My 2¢.