Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions: Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" : Edit Log

airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 5, 2012, 10:54 AM

Views: 7088
Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

In reply to:
In reply to:
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:


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.


We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

Somehow I don't see answering the concerns with ~ It's a complacency issue and... well you know, boyz will be boyz.
is gonna cut it with the companies losing $ fixing the aircraft.

(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 5, 2012, 10:59 AM)

Edit Log:
Post edited by airtwardo () on Oct 5, 2012, 10:59 AM

Search for (options)