Re: [DSE] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"
In reply to:
In reply to:
SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.
Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low." Given how USPA headquarters manages safety conversations, probably a good thing.
-Outside of that, public details are: -What kind of aircraft -Suit model -Experience level of wingsuiter -Injury type (where known) -Cost/damage (where known) to aircraft
A circulating rumor says that the strike chart includes "a foot hitting the door on exit." This is not accurate. A wingsuit tailstrike by definition is "A portion of a body or rig striking a horizontal stabilizer." It can't be defined by "exit" as there are also one confirmed historical strike (not on the charts) where the vertical stab was struck through a combination of pilot error and wingsuiter error after launch had occurred. Repair cost was nearly 100K$.
While I understand your reasoning behind confidentiality agreements, Spot...I'm sure you can understand that it opens the door to the perception that the information you're relaying is hearsay. (Not suggesting that it is...but as I'm sure you know - and as anyone with a scientific of legal background knows - it's important to be able to verify the facts of claims.)
Again, not saying you're doing this, but I could easily come up with a list of false incidents where a deployment in the door nearly took down a plane, put them in a spreadsheet with non-identifying details, and talk about the rise of closing loop-related incidents over the past year.
While I know you and don't think that you're doing that, I'm sure you can understand why some people would question why you're not forthcoming with this information, if it's so important. If you need to maintain that confidentiality for the sake of protecting DZO's, or protecting your ability to jump at certain DZ's, I understand...but you should probably accept that doing so means not everyone is going to take you at your word, without some hard facts to back it up.
That being said, I think where the misconception about the "foot hitting the door on exit" comes from this Wingsuit Tailstrikes list that you posted previously. Line 8 lists an incident in which someone exited a Caravan flying a Stealth2: "Bad Exit opened full in doorframe. Hit back of doorframe with ankle." The injury was a broken ankle. There was no damage to the aircraft.
At first glance, that reads to me (and obviously, a lot of other people) like someone hit the doorframe and broke their ankle.
Back to my previous point, directly above that entry, there's also an incident that was from a "Dornier or Caravan," for which the injuries are uncertain, which reads a lot less like a verified incident and more like a story told by someone who watched a video on Youtube. If it was verified, wouldn't the type of aircraft and the injuries be known? What does "verified" mean, anyway?
I know it sounds like I may be drawing conclusions here - I'm not. But I am questioning (it's what I do - I've been burned by rumor mills and the telephone game before). And I think if you're leading this charge, you would do well to try and look at it from the other perspective, and question it as well. It will help you make a more compelling argument, without leaving things like this open to interpretation.
Because until I have something to back it up, all I can do is question it. I can't draw a conclusion either way (as much as I'd like to).
tl;dr - Human communication is flawed. And when only one person has access to the primary sources, we all potentially set ourselves up to be the victims of omission...or of flawed communication.
We're all, in essence, playing the telephone game.
Edited for grammar.
(This post was edited by LloydDobbler on Oct 12, 2012, 7:27 PM)