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, 11:20 AM

Views: 2241
Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
How's that working for us?
Unsure

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.



.

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 oversight...is 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.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.


But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

Again and as you well know, other areas of aviation address similar situations of operating complex hardware with standardized training and accepted performance of skills.

So though it's true I can not say definitively that it will work in this exact instance, there are solid examples of positive results in similar situations.

That's kinda how we operate in general terms, I can't say with a 100% degree of certainty my reserve will open next time I need it...it's new and it's 'never worked before' so I can't PROVE it will.


I reality does anyone ever have 100% solid evidence anything 'will' absolutely work in the future?


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 5, 2012, 11:27 AM)


Edit Log:
Post edited by airtwardo () on Oct 5, 2012, 11:27 AM


Search for (options)