Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"
In reply to:
In reply to:
How's that working for us?
Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:
HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?
John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.
I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.
However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.
If they perceive that wingsuit jumping is too risky to insure then they will simply remove that risk from the policy i.e. exclusion rider or price that risk so that they can justify the coverage or simply do away with the coverage entirely.
If most non-wingsuiters had their drothers I would venture to say they would vote for the exclusion so that they don't have to pony up more money for a jump ticket.
I hope it doesn't come to that because I don't want wingsuiting to go away.
What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump.
You can always go back and tweak the system.
There are a lot of businesses that have closed their doors because they could no longer afford the insurance premiums.
It's time for cooler heads to prevail.
Someone much smarter than I once said "If not us - who? If not now - when?"
(This post was edited by Skydivesg on Oct 5, 2012, 9:50 AM)
Post edited by Skydivesg
() on Oct 5, 2012, 9:50 AM