Basejumper.com - archive

This is a spin off of "What do do , who to trust?"

There was allot of good information comming out of there that i thought it diserved its own post...


Ok Nick, Tom and everyone here. Lets pool thoughts like the Rand Corporation, and come up with solid ideas how to prepair new base jumpers better than we already do. There is always new way to teach and old ideas with a new spin on them that can benifit everyone. For instance, Why not take the FJC and have it evolve into FJC2...Lets say you do a 3 day camp with Helicopter jumps, balloon jumps, tracking dives, rigging tought by not just one person but a few who excell in these areas. This could also evolve to say Dougs teaching a 3 day E class. There is so much talent out there that could be put to such a great use. I would like to here about what anyone else has to say ...good or bad as this is over a few Coronas....

I wonder how much you are going to be able to (a) convince people to teach, or (b, alternately) convince students to pay for.

Will people really be willing to take the time to learn and practice skills, when they'd rather just be out jumping? Would they be willing to pay for such things?

The problem is not in our training methods or with our mentors. The problem is in our students.

A good student completing a poor training program will always be a safer jumper than the poor student in the best training program.

There are those that realize that a training program is just that; a collection of guidelines and advice. They won't take anything for granted, and first and foremost rely on their own prudence, intelligence and judgement to make decisions.

And there are those that think a training program is a liability insurance that will keep them safe. It's the "I paid money so I won't die, right?" motto.

Improving training methods is not going to reduce the number of accidents. At most it will make the first category of jumpers progress faster in their BASE career.

What will reduce the predicted number of beginner accidents is filtering out the second category of jumpers; those are much better of doing safe jumps out of airplanes and playing video games.

Damn, I'm a snob. Sorry...

Edited to add: I don't believe in the common argument that this second category of jumpers will get into BASE on their own if we filter them out. Perhaps a few lone dumbasses might go ahead and do so, but I think we're actually quite successful in scaring away a large group of people that aren't quite fit for BASE (yet).

Wouldn't a good training method instill some of those qualities that are necessary, and emphasize that developing them is important?

So a "good" training program would both act as a filter, and try to change student attitudes and approaches?

I'm not sure. I guess that touches on a much bigger philosophical issue; can people really change? Certainly in the face of extreme emotional stress, like after a near accident, people can change their attitudes. But if I simply don't have an interest in BASE history, I don't think I'll change my mind when my mentor keeps hammering on it.

Since I have started, I have learned a lot about BASE and all associated theory and practice. However, my basic attitude towards it hasn't changed much. I still BASE for the same reasons, and I still care about the same values.

I find there are those that get into it for the circus, and those that are in it for more spiritual reasons. I'm a big believer in grey areas and equilibrium. In this case however, my opinion and experience is very black and white.


But what if you accept a poor student in good training and find that you can't change his attitude? You have now given him a weapon he can take into the world and hurt himself with.

Edited to add; I'm not attaching any opinion to my circus versus spiritual comment. Both types of jumpers can coexist and demonstrate equally foolish or equally skillful and respectful BASE behaviour.

Presumably part of it being "good" training is an ability to screen out poor students.

I had an interesting conversation with JP about this last year at Bridge Day. It's a very difficult topic, since the total pool of people who've actually got a statistically relevant sample of former students is vanishingly small.

...which can be very hard if part of your income comes from students. It's understandable that commercial FJCs have lower standards. The BASE manufacturers are far from wealthy, and I can't blame them for trying to make some extra money throwing students of a relatively safe bridge without worrying too much about their future.

It might not be the most ethical thing, but it's certainly understandable. I hope this doesn't read judgemental, it's just an observation.

Just out of curiousity; you ask applicants to write down their motivations for jumping, right? Have you found any relationship between these motivations and the perceived attitude during the actual course?

As Tom says maybe it could. Maybe a mentor making a student do hop and pops with a base canopy while watching all his buddies swoop and freefly might just filter the ones who dont have the dedication ..... Ans who's to say you cant make a 3day class worth people wanting to attend.


i dont really think that this is the case. Most students that are deticated to a principle and will do whatever it takes can shine...I've seen guys in Ranger school who i never expected to make it a day shine in the end .... Sometimes a student is only as good as his training...and yes...there is the complete moron...but they usally filter all the way out....

I have heard some great points so far.... i still think a day of low track heli jumps and balloon jumps could be allot of fun and allot learned... I mean you figured out that jumping off a building could be fun so you must have a great sense of imagination....

Why not use that to make the "Poor Rich Guy " that everyone speaks of jumping kjreg after 20 bridge jumps and make him relize 20 or so balloon jumps and 20 or so heli jumps might prepair him better for the task at hand. With of course is mentors decision that he is prepaired.....

Not really.

The biggest indicators I've seen to attitudes during the course have been the student's age and previous life experiences. Folks who have been around the block a few times seem like they are in less of a hurry to prove themselves in the BASE arena.

I have, in all seriousness, played with the idea of instituting a minimum age limit for my courses. Unfortunately, I've had a couple of really good students who were also very young, so I'm not sure that this is useful in that way (as a disqualifying factor). It's more of a guide to who's likely to be good than who's likely to be bad. The closest I've come to using it is to screen out some applicants from courses because I had too many young people simultaneously.

I've come to the conclusion that my other half is right: some people should never BASE jump and no amount of money, training, or enthusiasm will change that, especially in Australia.

I donno...

I think that everythig that you mentioned is availible to any who seek it.

Heli jumps, balloon jumps, tracking dives, and rigging... not to difficult to find on your own, if you want.

I don't think a safe (as possible) approach to BASE progression is really rocket science:

take a FJC.
buy BASE specific gear.
Get comfortable with sub- terminal exits: if you have a slow plane @ the DZ, get the pilot to slow it as much as he's comfortable with for you, befriend a heli pilot, befriend your local PG tandem pilot... jump with someone more experienced who can correct you.
Practice tracking, get good, and get coaching.
Learn body awareness... freefly, learn basic gymnastics and diving.
Jump the bridge alot.
Have reliable more experienced friends. Listen to them.
Jump some high n-ten-a's.
Take the Kjerag course.


Just the approach that I've been taking... how difficult is that?

-Briggs

I agree with you that unlikely candidates can surprise you and excel, but that only works if its possible to fail the course.... I don't think anyone running FJC's has "fail" criteria (please correct me if I'm wrong).

This is an interesting topic; I know of people who have done a manufacturers FJC that I really think shouldn't be BASE jumping.... but there again that's only my opinion - given that the sport essentially has no rules, who am I to judge?

Fair point.... But I don't think this discussion is so much about being able to gain the required skills, but more about ethics and approach.... There are many potential BASE jumpers out there who have all the ability to learn the skills, but that doesn't mean they won't day blaze all the objects in their area when they come back from Potato land.

"You done a course, 'aven't you Tyrone?"
"Course I 'ave"

you're talking about a program that you can fail, and MUST be passed to continue in the activity, right?

neither trait exists in a BASE FJC, so the comparison is lame.

the problem is the students. some, like yourself, seem to want everything given to them upfront.

(others will walk from a course that is too lengthy.)

unfortunately, no one currently has all the answers. every jumper is a test pilot and their own rigger. it is a sport that many participants advise against. done well, BASE jumping demands self-reliance, judgement, and creativity.

students should emerge from a course cautious and wary, not feeling like they have all the answers.

I didnt say i wanted everything given to me upfront. I only made a idea about continued learning .... I will seek all that i need to make myself comfortable and at my own pace ... for my first step....i am doing it for me and know body else...I could after that continue with my goals of to make big Euro E's or say this is not for me and walk away with no regrets..

But i will seek the best and nesessary tools, people and information to help me with this...

A good training program should screen potential jumpers and eliminate potential poor students. I have had to say no to a teaching request before.

I agree whith Tom,who would take such a cours?

its too expencive and you learn alot outside BASE...

Atleast people from Europe try to make their skills up ok before a course(all i spoke to and have heard about).
I think that you must expect BASEstudents to have skills to enter a BASE-FJC not to get them as theyre there...
More expencive courses will lead people to learn them self,and lead to european to stay hom,e as the trip itself to US aint cheap...

one difficulty in designing training really lies with the students and their personal expectations.

- many can't objectively analyze their own skill set
- some desire no effort and are happy with a death camp
- others wish to be trained as extensively as a NASA astronaut

these students are free to choose between the available programs and will vote with their feet. so even if this thread could create a single "magical" method, there is no mechanism to compel compliance.

each instructor must make choices about what to teach, who to teach, how many to teach, etc. will these choices match every student's expectations? doubt it.

some dissatisfied, potential students will always attempt to reinvent the wheel.

it is the instructor with the significant knowledge base. each instructor should hold firm to their personal standards. afterall, they must sleep with their decisions.