Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
USPA Safety Day advertisement

 


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jan 29, 2010, 7:05 PM
Post #1 of 146 (3650 views)
Shortcut
USPA Safety Day advertisement Can't Post

I heard that the Lodi tail strike lawsuit was decided in favor of the dropzone, and that is wonderful news and is as it should be.

With that in mind, I'd like to open a discussion of the USPA Safety Day advertisement on page 64 of the January 2010 Parachutist magazine.

For your convenience, I have uploaded a scan of the item so everybody can see it even if you don't have the magazine handy.

This advertisement says a number of things that I have significant issues with.

They began by saying that the tail of the aircraft was "much lower than it should have been..." because the pilot was continuing to climb during the exit.

They also say that to help avoid a tail strike, a pilot must "provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit".

As I see it, these statements shift a great deal of the responsibility for a safe jump away from the jumper and towards the pilot.

I find that very disturbing.

I worry that if this had been published by USPA early enough, the plaintiff's lawyers in the Lodi tail strike case could have argued that the national organization was taking the position that the pilot should be found at fault in that accident.

Personally, I believe that if I informed the pilot that I wanted to exit on the climbing low pass, a climbing aircraft is "properly configured" per the agreement between the pilot and myself. I believe that it is then completely up to me to conduct the jump so as not to jeopardize the aircraft and the other jumpers. Should I fail to do that, it in no way reflects on the pilot; he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

I invite discussion regarding this ad, and I also invite USPA members to express their feelings, whether for or against the ad, to their USPA BOD members so that they can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership.

(FYI Since I wrote this, I have recently learned that the same ad ran in the February Parachutist. I have not received my copy, so I have not personally verified this, nor do I know that location of the ad.)
Attachments: USPA Safety Day Ad.jpg (61.3 KB)


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Jan 29, 2010, 8:43 PM
Post #2 of 146 (3546 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

From my reading of this article from Jan Meyer, I understand that level flight is not as important as avoiding "jumping up" when exiting a plane.

Collision Course

If this is the case, then it is important that all national skydiving organizations encourage people to know and understand reality.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jan 29, 2010, 9:41 PM
Post #3 of 146 (3528 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

(in my newbie thoughts)

I think it could be a problem with training as well as not being used to hop&pops.

In AFF you get taught how to do a poised exit, and they tell you to do the stable exit for your h&p for your A lic. The problem could come when they get on a plane as an experienced jumper, with a pilot who is flying loads as fast as they can, no cut/climbing exit. Guy thinks he needs to do the poised exit, doesnt think about the tail. Not quite anyones fault IMO, its more like the chain of events.

Maybe make an emphasis on students to learn the pitch of the aircraft (or is that the yaw?) as soon as you can start teaching them, so they can feel it out and know they need to adjust their exit accordingly.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jan 29, 2010, 10:12 PM
Post #4 of 146 (3516 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
(FYI Since I wrote this, I have recently learned that the same ad ran in the February Parachutist. I have not received my copy, so I have not personally verified this, nor do I know that location of the ad.)

pg 62, same exact ad.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 29, 2010, 11:49 PM
Post #5 of 146 (3503 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.


(This post was edited by diablopilot on Jan 29, 2010, 11:53 PM)


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jan 30, 2010, 6:22 AM
Post #6 of 146 (3470 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.

As I have said in other threads, I personally have perhaps hundreds of safe low pass climbing exits from low tail aircraft like the King Air 90. So it would not seem reasonable to state categorically that a climbing pass is a priori unsafe.

All that is required is to exit the aircraft downward.

Posing for the camera, as was shown in the advertisement, is not a safe manner to make this exit, but there certainly is a safe way to do it, over and over.

The decision to even provide any low pass exit is a business decision for the dzo. If he sees it as important to his bottom line that he provides it in this manner, that is his choice, and it reflects no careless or reckless behavior. The aircraft is safe as long as the jumper lives up to his responsibility to utilize a safe exit technique.

Speaking of technique, it is possible on a level jumprun with flaps etc, etc, to hit the tail if one's technique is sufficiently inappropriate. Do you want to require that all jumpruns be descending so that the tail is even higher? Should we only use high-tailed aircraft because it is possible to pitch a pilot chute over the tail of a low-tailed aircraft? Use this sort of logic and you will quickly see that all wingsuit jumps from low tailed aircraft are unsafe. Shall we make a rule that wingsuits can only be used with high-tail aircraft?

I am sure that someone will scream that making this decision based on the economics of the situation is somehow a terrible thing.

But, also as I have posted in other threads, we make these decisions all the time. Loading the aircraft would be more safely accomplished with the engines shut down. But that would mean a that a dzo would need 2 or 3 aircraft to provide the same lift capacity as he has now with a single aircraft. This is purely a business decision. How is it different?

Stop coddling the jumper. Coddling the jumper is what is a safety issue, not the climbing low pass.

When USPA makes statements like this one, it is no wonder we have jumpers whining and suing.

USPA's stated purpose is to promote skydiving. This ad directly opposes that goal in that it is clearly assigning blame for poor jumper technique to the dz instead of to the jumper.

Skydiving is not safe. But it can be made safer if each participant knows how to make his contribution safely. In ANY exit situation, it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the jumper to execute his maneuver in a manner safe and consistent with the conditions. Knowing how to make this exit safely is the jumper's responsibility. Trying to make it the responsibility of the dzo or pilot or anyone else is not going to help, because the root of this problem is in the jumper, not anywhere else.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 30, 2010, 7:05 AM
Post #7 of 146 (3449 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
USPA's stated purpose is to promote skydiving.

Where do you get that?

From Section 1-1 of the USPA Governance manual.

Quote:
1. The name of the corporation is United States
Parachute Association, Inc., hereinafter referred
to as USPA.

2. The purposes for which USPA is formed are as
follows: To encourage unity among all persons
interested in skydiving; to promote safety in all
skydiving activities in the United States, to sanction
skydiving competitions; to document officially all
national and world skydiving records set by citizens
of the U.S., to promote and encourage the study and
knowledge of skydiving among the membership and
the public at large; to cooperate with all government
agencies connected with aeronautics or aeronautical
activities; to compile information regarding the
science of skydiving and to edit, publish, and
disseminate the same; to select and train the United
States Parachute Team for world competition.


3. The principal office of USPA is in Alexandria,
Virginia, or as otherwise directed by the USPA Board
of Directors (BOD).


diablopilot  (D License)

Jan 30, 2010, 7:09 AM
Post #8 of 146 (3444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

The USPA has said pulling below 2,000 AGL is unsafe, but it's an economic way for people to get more skydive. Heck, DZO's could climb less, and therefor increase profits, and provide more slots and cheaper jumps for their customers.

People could pull "safe enough" at 1,000 if they knew how to do it.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jan 30, 2010, 7:16 AM
Post #9 of 146 (3439 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The USPA has said pulling below 2,000 AGL is unsafe, but it's an economic way for people to get more skydive. Heck, DZO's could climb less, and therefor increase profits, and provide more slots and cheaper jumps for their customers.

People could pull "safe enough" at 1,000 if they knew how to do it.

The question is about safe aircraft configurations for exits, not low pulls.

I'll ask again, if you want to ban climbing exits because a jumper who does it wrong is dangerous to all, should we also say that wingsuits should only be allowed on high-tail aircraft? Tailgates? If not, why not? How are the two problems different?


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Jan 30, 2010, 8:38 AM
Post #10 of 146 (3414 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what people believe and the physics that Jan used. If thats the case then one of them is wrong.
- Any physics/math people here that can show where Jan made a mistake?
- Or is it possible that the generally accepted "truth" is not correct?


jsaxton  (D 26818)

Jan 30, 2010, 9:08 AM
Post #11 of 146 (3389 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Jan may be a PITA and politically incorrect but she can do the math.


"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

Exits with a "jump-up" are unsafe. Exactly how far upward an individual jumper needs to jump for a given aircraft geometry, airspeed, attitude and climb rate in order to hit the stabilizer is immaterial at this time. The point is "Don't jump up on exit." What difference is one more foot of altitude going to make when you're already at 12,500 feet? "


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jan 30, 2010, 9:26 AM
Post #12 of 146 (3373 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jsaxton] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Jan may be a PITA and politically incorrect but she can do the math.


"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

Exits with a "jump-up" are unsafe. Exactly how far upward an individual jumper needs to jump for a given aircraft geometry, airspeed, attitude and climb rate in order to hit the stabilizer is immaterial at this time. The point is "Don't jump up on exit." What difference is one more foot of altitude going to make when you're already at 12,500 feet? "

So, Jeff, do you agree that the ad in Parachutist is over reaching?

I believe that the position put forth in that ad puts any dropzone that disagrees, and offers climbing low pass exits, at an increased risk for a judgement against them in an action like the Lodi tail strike suit.

Personally, I do not want USPA to make statements like that, because there are places that offer that service and have no problems.

And it doesn't even really matter if such a place never has a tail strike accident.

I worry that in some other situation, a plaintiff's lawyer could try to argue about a dropzone's careless attitude because the dropzone, who has had not tail strike accidents, does not comply with the USPA's policy.


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Jan 30, 2010, 9:27 AM
Post #13 of 146 (3371 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jsaxton] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Jan may be a PITA and politically incorrect but she can do the math.


"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

Exits with a "jump-up" are unsafe. Exactly how far upward an individual jumper needs to jump for a given aircraft geometry, airspeed, attitude and climb rate in order to hit the stabilizer is immaterial at this time. The point is "Don't jump up on exit." What difference is one more foot of altitude going to make when you're already at 12,500 feet? "

I too believe that Jan knows the math

If thats the case, then the USPA ad that this thread refers to is incorrect.


jsaxton  (D 26818)

Jan 30, 2010, 9:32 AM
Post #14 of 146 (3364 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey, I'm just an RW up-jumper. I almost never get out low so I don't really have a lot at stake personally in this but I did do a _little_ math way back when.

There are a LOT of people that cannot do math though. Just go to Nevada and look at all the people in front of slot machines ;)


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jan 30, 2010, 9:41 AM
Post #15 of 146 (3362 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It is a jumpers responsibility to jump safely and DZ's responsibility to provide safe aircraft and operate them in a safe manner.

It is NOT safe to offer climbing passes with no cut and no flaps ESPECIALLY in low tailed aircraft, i.e. King Air, Beech 99, PAC750, Caravan.

IT has not, now will ever be, and the USPA has been on board with that idea for MANY years. Long time aircraft operators agree as well, including one of the most notable King Air operators in skydiving, Mike Mullins. One only needs to look at the significant number of fatalities and incidents cause through no cut climbing exits to see it's a bad idea.

Hell, even instructors at the dropzone being discussed know it's foolish and have said as much.

It's not just about the jumper who leaves in a climbing exit's safety, but that of everyone else on the aircraft being put at risk.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what people believe and the physics that Jan used. If thats the case then one of them is wrong.
- Any physics/math people here that can show where Jan made a mistake?
- Or is it possible that the generally accepted "truth" is not correct?

(meaning only to reinforce Ian's points.)

When the generally accepted "truth" fails to agree with the empirical data, one must suspect that the "truth" was not true in the first place.

Lots of people have made these exits completely safely. A very few have managed to hit the tail.

We would never have a tail strike if the exit was performed properly.

Anything can be dangerous if you do it wrong.

The photo in that particular ad show a jumper posing for the camera, ignoring his responsibility for a safe exit. If he had hit the tail, that photo would be pretty good evidence that the jumper had made an error. It should not be used as evidence that the pilot did something wrong.

Or has posing for the camera somehow become one or our unalienable rights?


VideoFly  (D 25621)

Jan 30, 2010, 10:52 AM
Post #16 of 146 (3342 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

If we look at the ad from a logical perspective and read each sentence carefully we may gain the following:

The ad says, “To help avoid tail-strike, pilots must provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit.” I agree with that statement, but this is not to say that a flaps-up climbing airplane is not properly configured for skydivers to exit.

However, the prior sentence states “During this low pass, the pilot continued the airplane’s climb to higher altitude, which placed the tail much lower than it should have been during a time when a jumper is exiting.” That statement seems to indicate that the USPA admonishes pilots for continuing to climb to a higher altitude, placing the tail low during exits. That statement concerns me as it is quite possible to exit an airplane in such a configuration safely. Furthermore, in this age of litigation and blame, the statement concerns me as it may provide individuals with avenues for blame in respect to the performance of an airplane pilot, a DZO, and others; for a skydiver’s error in judgment.

The ad continues to promote an inflammatory stance by stating “Jumpers also need to learn to recognize when an aircraft is in level flight and safe to exit.” This statement may allow readers to assume that exiting an aircraft in un-level flight is not safe. Once again, I disagree with the statement.

I do credit the USPA for stating “Additionally, performing a low, diving-type exit can help ensure clearing the tail of an airplane.” That statement is important because unfortunately, we may find ourselves skydiving with individuals who are inexperienced/undereducated, pre-occupied, thoughtless, or perhaps even ignorant.

Moreover, in the ad cited, I take some exception to the USPA contradicting a common and potentially safe procedure. On the other hand, I must praise the USPA for statements made in other recent ads concerned with re-thinking minimum opening altitudes with higher performance canopies and helping to ensure that packers are adequately educated.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2010, 12:52 PM
Post #17 of 146 (3314 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>As I see it, these statements shift a great deal of the responsibility for a
>safe jump away from the jumper and towards the pilot.

Both people share the responsibility. It is the pilot's responsibility to configure the aircraft for exit before they open the door (or give the signal to open the door.) It is the jumper's responsibility to verify that the aircraft has been configured for exit, that the tail is low enough, the door is open wide enough, the airspeed is low enough etc for a safe exit. It is also his responsibility to perform a type of exit that gives him safe clearance under all conditions.

Safety Day is for both pilots and jumpers. Both need to get the message to make skydiving safer.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jan 30, 2010, 2:18 PM
Post #18 of 146 (3290 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>As I see it, these statements shift a great deal of the responsibility for a
>safe jump away from the jumper and towards the pilot.

Both people share the responsibility. It is the pilot's responsibility to configure the aircraft for exit before they open the door (or give the signal to open the door.) It is the jumper's responsibility to verify that the aircraft has been configured for exit, that the tail is low enough, the door is open wide enough, the airspeed is low enough etc for a safe exit. It is also his responsibility to perform a type of exit that gives him safe clearance under all conditions.

Safety Day is for both pilots and jumpers. Both need to get the message to make skydiving safer.

Did you even read the ad?

The first thing that USPA said in the ad was that the tail was "much lower than it should have been".

That makes it pretty clear that USPA feels that climbing exits are unacceptable. Doesn't it?

They say that the aircraft must be properly configured, but that was only said after they first said that the climbing aircraft's tail was "much lower than it should have been".

Nearly as an afterthought they add that a jumper should perform a proper exit, when, in fact, a proper exit on the part of the jumper alone would have eliminated all the danger.


tombuch  (D 8514)

Jan 30, 2010, 3:14 PM
Post #19 of 146 (3272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

It's apparent that in the photo in the ad the tail is much lower than it should have been. The pilot is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, including proper configuration. Heck, you don't need to go much further than FAR §91.113 which says:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

We can go on to look at §91.15, which says:

"No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property."

Allowing an exit with the tail low could certainly endanger the jumper, any jumpers remaining in the aircraft, and anybody on the ground that might be injured by an aircraft with structural damage. It's just not safe. Configuring the aircraft to reduce the likelihood of a tail strike is a necessary and reasonable precaution. There is simply no excuse not to do so.

RiggerPaul, you can search for justification, but there isn't any. USPA is absolutely correct that the pilot is responsible for providing a properly configured aircraft for every exit. And they should say so publicly, and often.

There may be a time when it is appropriate to configure or fly the aircraft differently, but those cases are rare, and should be carefully coordinated between a very experienced jumper and pilot, and additional precautions should be taken to avoid creating a hazard. I'm thinking of some unusual stunt jumps, and not a regular drop zone event. Applying this approach to a conventional commercial operation is just wrong, and especially so when other jumpers may be in the aircraft.


VideoFly  (D 25621)

Jan 30, 2010, 5:08 PM
Post #20 of 146 (3242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tombuch] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

As always, tombuch conveys well informed and cogent viewpoint on the topic of climbing exits. Subsequently, I ask the following question. Is there a specified or recommended window of angles of incline that pilots should remain within during skydiving exits? Of course, we know that correlations do not always indicate causation. In other words, must we remain cognizant to the fact that tail strikes on climbing planes may or may not be the sole responsibility of aircraft pilots? Or instead, is it possible that airplanes involved in skydiver tail strikes may have been flying at a safe incline while the skydiver may have been in error? As tombuch stated, the USPA ad photo does appear to show that the tail of the plane is quite low, possibly as he stated “much lower than it should have been.” On the other hand, the photo also seems to indicate that the jumper may have been more concerned with a photo op than the incline of the plane, and in turn, a safe exit. It appears that this issue needs more discussion and subsequent training for all involved in skydiving operations. It also opens the door for analyzing the effects of having cameras on jumps as they relate to individuals becoming distracted from performing safe procedures.

I am glad the jumper in the photo is okay.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2010, 6:30 PM
Post #21 of 146 (3218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jsaxton] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Jan may be a PITA and politically incorrect but she can do the math.


"The critical element of the exit is the "jump-up". All exits without a jump-up are safe. No-cut exits are safe. Climbing, no-cut exits are safe, too. These results agree with what jumpers have been doing for quite sometime.

I disagree. I've left a DZ that had a King Air because the pilot would keep climbing and not throttle back. I would have to ball up on exit and even then would come much closer than I'd like to the tail. I'm pretty damn sure if I had done a regular exit (not jumping up) I'd have hit the tail.

Ian


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jan 30, 2010, 6:33 PM
Post #22 of 146 (3217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tombuch] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

Can't this also be applied to the skydiver leaving the a/c as well? He/she has a responsibility not to injure themselves or damage the aircraft, which can endanger those still on the plane.

No citations were given out by the FAA in this case, therefore the authority in this case feels that a climbing pass is within normal operating parameters and it is up to the skydiver to exit accordingly or not exit at all. USPA, TomB, etc are not the authorities, the FAA is, and they feel it is ultimately the jumpers responsibility.

I have over 5000 h/p exits in Lodi and all over the world, there is no guarantee of any aircraft being "properly configured for exit." All you can do is communicate with the pilot, monitor the conditions before you exit, and not be afraid to ask for a go around or ride the plane down.

top


jsaxton  (D 26818)

Jan 30, 2010, 7:11 PM
Post #23 of 146 (3202 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Ride the airplane down??? Refuse to exit??? You want to live forever?


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jan 30, 2010, 11:09 PM
Post #24 of 146 (3176 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jsaxton] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Ride the airplane down??? Refuse to exit??? You want to live forever?

Nope, just want to drive all the staff in the nursing facility crazy when I'm old.... endlessly talking about all the skydiving, chasing the women, sneaking out to drink, dirt diving with my walker!

top


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Jan 31, 2010, 7:57 AM
Post #25 of 146 (3137 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tombuch] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's apparent that in the photo in the ad the tail is much lower than it should have been. The pilot is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, including proper configuration. Heck, you don't need to go much further than FAR §91.113 which says:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

We can go on to look at §91.15, which says:

"No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property."

Allowing an exit with the tail low could certainly endanger the jumper, any jumpers remaining in the aircraft, and anybody on the ground that might be injured by an aircraft with structural damage. It's just not safe. Configuring the aircraft to reduce the likelihood of a tail strike is a necessary and reasonable precaution. There is simply no excuse not to do so.

RiggerPaul, you can search for justification, but there isn't any. USPA is absolutely correct that the pilot is responsible for providing a properly configured aircraft for every exit. And they should say so publicly, and often.

There may be a time when it is appropriate to configure or fly the aircraft differently, but those cases are rare, and should be carefully coordinated between a very experienced jumper and pilot, and additional precautions should be taken to avoid creating a hazard. I'm thinking of some unusual stunt jumps, and not a regular drop zone event. Applying this approach to a conventional commercial operation is just wrong, and especially so when other jumpers may be in the aircraft.

Tom, please clarify.

Are you saying the tail was much lower than it should have been for a climbing aircraft?

Or are you saying it is much lower than it should have been for an exit?

Are you telling us that a climbing exit from a Cessna Caravan is a violation of the FARs?


kkeenan  (D 22164)

Jan 31, 2010, 12:14 PM
Post #26 of 146 (1276 views)
Shortcut
Re: [theonlyski] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...an emphasis on students to learn the pitch of the aircraft (or is that the yaw?)

Yes, it's pitch. In your case, it may be valuable to know the difference, unless you're one of those jumpers who is only interested in jumping and not airplanes.

Kevin K.


theonlyski  (D License)

Jan 31, 2010, 12:17 PM
Post #27 of 146 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kkeenan] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
...an emphasis on students to learn the pitch of the aircraft (or is that the yaw?)

Yes, it's pitch. In your case, it may be valuable to know the difference, unless you're one of those jumpers who is only interested in jumping and not airplanes.

Kevin K.

Give me a break, its been a while...

Airplane? Is that the thing that has the big door with the loud engines that I keep finding myself falling out of?


VideoFly  (D 25621)

Jan 31, 2010, 4:07 PM
Post #28 of 146 (1247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kkeenan] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Here is great animation of airplane pitch, yaw, and roll.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/.../airplane/short.html


fasted3  (D 30104)

Jan 31, 2010, 7:51 PM
Post #29 of 146 (1220 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

First off, I believe that lawsuits should not be an option for skydiving accidents, period. The fact that they do happen can not be denied, and that causes me to find falult with the ad, as I can see the liability issues that could arise because of it. I don't have any solution to that aspect of this subject, so I would rather the USPA not put out anything that may cause problems for any drop zone.

Other than that, I do think this subject is pertinent. Tail strikes are a very real danger, and for the USPA to take a stand on this is a good thing. It is an avoidable accident, and it should never happen. Both the jumper and the pilot are a factor. Both should do everything in their power to avoid it, as the consequences could be disaster!

Random thoughts:
It can happen by jumper errror on any plane, no matter how well the plane is flown.
It can be avoided by the jumper, in most cases, no matter how badly the plane is configured.

If that is true, it is our responsibility as jumpers to not hit the tail.

And if you do...
Suck it up Cupcake.
No lawsuits.


VideoFly  (D 25621)

Jan 31, 2010, 7:59 PM
Post #30 of 146 (1216 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Well stated!


jsaxton  (D 26818)

Jan 31, 2010, 8:01 PM
Post #31 of 146 (1217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [VideoFly] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

+2


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 1, 2010, 8:14 AM
Post #32 of 146 (1165 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jsaxton] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Just a reminder.

No matter what your position on this matter might be, I urge all USPA members to contact their USPA representatives (RD, NDs, S&TAs, etc) to let your position be known.

If we fail to give them input, we have only ourselves to blame if we don't like what they do.

And thanks to all who have participated in the discussion so far. I urge anybody who has an opinion on the matter to speak up.

No matter if I personally agree or disagree with what you may say, I appreciate anyone who takes the time to write.

I also ask anyone who is comfortable doing so to vote in the poll I posted.

Some say that the poll is flawed. Okay, sure, it is flawed. Most polls probably are.

But flawed though it may be, it might help us understand a little better the pulse of the membership.

Thanks to all!

-paul


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 1, 2010, 10:03 AM
Post #33 of 146 (1145 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Much of this issue comes down to what the "contract" is between skydivers and pilots. Are skydivers expected to be able to make some sort of "normal" exit without hitting the airplane structure? What is "normal"? And if not, what is adequate warning of special circumstances? We might decide that climbing exits with low tailed aircraft, even if normal for a particular DZ, are not considered normal in general, and thus deserve special attention especially for visiting jumpers.

Even if skydiver education generally is made to include more about different aircraft types, realistically people will always start with experience on one type and have to learn about other types and other DZ's procedures.

One hopes that the warning about a special exit isn't just something that hopefully someone on a load will mention if they remember. My DZO is a bit of a fogey but has a written DZ orientation sheet for anyone new on the DZ, to be discussed by an experienced local jumper, and signed off by the visitor. Not a bad idea really.

While I'm all for personal responsibility, you wouldn't want to go to a DZ and have someone tell you after your jump, "We locals all know there's that sharp metal at the side of the door frame; it's your dumb fault if you didn't notice, got cut up, and nearly snagged your reserve cable on it." While one tries to be alert for hazards, that isn't one that most jumpers consider normally acceptable.

None of this is black or white but it would be nice for more people to know what to expect when they try to exit the aircraft.

EDIT: I'd certainly like to hear whether what's in the ad is USPA policy, and if so, whether it is something that has been around a while or is new. It does seem a little unfair to pilots if they haven't had adequate opportunity to learn what the USPA standard is.


(This post was edited by pchapman on Feb 1, 2010, 12:28 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 1, 2010, 4:48 PM
Post #34 of 146 (1105 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>Did you even read the ad?

Yes.

>The first thing that USPA said in the ad was that the tail was "much lower
>than it should have been".

The tail _was_ lower than it should have been.

>That makes it pretty clear that USPA feels that climbing exits are
> unacceptable. Doesn't it?

I think it means that in this case the tail was lower than it should have been. This could have been ameliorated by the pilot configuring the aircraft differently. It would not have been an issue with a Skyvan, and probably would not have been an issue with an Otter, so saying that "USPA feels climbing exits are unacceptable" isn't really supported.

>Nearly as an afterthought they add that a jumper should perform a
>proper exit, when, in fact, a proper exit on the part of the jumper alone
>would have eliminated all the danger.

Agreed, as would configuring the aircraft for exit. Any incident is the result of several mistakes; the goal of Safety Day is to educate people (jumpers, pilots, DZO's) so they make fewer.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 2, 2010, 6:32 AM
Post #35 of 146 (1077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Did you even read the ad?

Yes.

>The first thing that USPA said in the ad was that the tail was "much lower
>than it should have been".

The tail _was_ lower than it should have been.

>That makes it pretty clear that USPA feels that climbing exits are
> unacceptable. Doesn't it?

I think it means that in this case the tail was lower than it should have been. This could have been ameliorated by the pilot configuring the aircraft differently. It would not have been an issue with a Skyvan, and probably would not have been an issue with an Otter, so saying that "USPA feels climbing exits are unacceptable" isn't really supported.

>Nearly as an afterthought they add that a jumper should perform a
>proper exit, when, in fact, a proper exit on the part of the jumper alone
>would have eliminated all the danger.

Agreed, as would configuring the aircraft for exit. Any incident is the result of several mistakes; the goal of Safety Day is to educate people (jumpers, pilots, DZO's) so they make fewer.

Tom Buchanon also said the tail was too low. So I asked him if he meant that the tail was too low for a safe climb, or if he meant the tail was too low for a safe exit. I don't think I saw any response from him.

So I will ask the same question to you. Tail too low for a safe climb, or for an exit?

USPA went on to say that a "low diving-type exit" might have been better for this situation. It is an interesting thing for them to say in light of their position on a climbing exit in the first place.

They don't like climbing exits. They say that a pilot must provide a properly configured aircraft for every exit. This implies that they consider that a climbing aircraft is an improperly configured aircraft.

So, if the proper configuration is a level flying aircraft, why say anything about a low diving-type exit?

This is an inconsistent message, and some of it could be taken to mean that a pilot who allows a climbing exit is wrong, careless, reckless, etc.

Someone who is getting out on a low climbing pass is not doing so without having asked for it. Most climbing airplanes won't even be over the dz at that time unless there is a jumper who has asked for the exit. If it is a dz's policy to make low passes while the aricraft remains ina climb, then that jumper knew about it, because he's the one who asked to make a low exit in the first place. If the jumper had wanted a level exit, he could have asked for it. He could have refused to exit if the aircraft was not configured to his liking.

But that's not what he did. He make an exit that was inches away from being an accident.

Any blame for this near miss should be squarely placed on the jumper who failed to use an exit technique that was appropriate for the situation at the time of his exit.

Coordination between the pilot and the jumper is always needed. But in this case, the failure to remain coordinated is on the jumper, not the pilot.

And, in this case, the USPA didn't make any sort of statement at all that the jumper had done something wrong. This might lead jumpers to think that a head high exit like this one is what they should be expecting and what they "deserve".

But that is not true at all. The jumper must act in a coordination with the pilot. The sort of exit this jumper used is just plain wrong, and trying to say that the pilot did anything wrong is just ridiculous.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 2, 2010, 5:22 PM
Post #36 of 146 (1033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kkeenan] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I'm just pleased that I'm not the poster boy for Safety Day again.Smile


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 2, 2010, 11:37 PM
Post #37 of 146 (1004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>So I will ask the same question to you. Tail too low for a safe climb,
> or for an exit?

For exit.

>USPA went on to say that a "low diving-type exit" might have been
> better for this situation.

Yep, also a good suggestion.

>So, if the proper configuration is a level flying aircraft, why say anything
>about a low diving-type exit?

For the same reason we teach students to flare to land softly AND to PLF. If someone was an instructor and took the attitude "if the proper flare brings you to zero vertical speed, why teach students to PLF?" they would be a poor instructor indeed.

> The jumper must act in a coordination with the pilot.

Absolutely. And if one of those two screws up, the other one can do his job to prevent an incident.

Any incident is the result of several mistakes in a row. Remove any one of those mistakes and the incident doesn't happen.

>And, in this case, the USPA didn't make any sort of statement at all that
>the jumper had done something wrong.

The ad stated two things the jumper could have done better - exited lower and realized the plane was not in the correct attitude for an exit. Failing to do those two things contributed to this close call.

Again, I think you need to read the ad before taking a position on it.


fasted3  (D 30104)

Feb 3, 2010, 12:40 AM
Post #38 of 146 (999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you think that you could not exit safely from that plane?
Would you have not jumped?


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 3, 2010, 5:42 AM
Post #39 of 146 (977 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
For the same reason we teach students to flare to land softly AND to PLF. If someone was an instructor and took the attitude "if the proper flare brings you to zero vertical speed, why teach students to PLF?" they would be a poor instructor indeed.
But we're not talking about a student doing something that they've never done before. We're talking about an experienced skydiver who should actually already have been taught how to deal with a climbing exit. Not to mention being able to tell that there hasn't been a cut.

You seem to be talking about risk management on the part of the pilot. Depending on the jumper, I don't think climbing exits do present more of a risk. You seem to be saying that, based on the pilot not knowing who's exiting, the best way to mitigate that risk is to not do climbing passes. I think that's reasonable except at dropzones where they do climbing passes and everyone knows it.

I still believe that the jumper holds more responsibility in this scenario for their exit than the pilot. I'm not saying the pilot bears none of the responsibility (there are big shades of gray here in terms of aircraft configuration and proximity of the stabilizer to door, etc.) just that, as an "experienced" (quotes are because I'm not all that experienced) skydiver, I should easily be able to recognize and deal appropriately with conditions on exit, or not exit.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 3, 2010, 7:07 AM
Post #40 of 146 (952 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
USPA, TomB, etc are not the authorities, the FAA is

Exactly!


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 3, 2010, 10:35 AM
Post #41 of 146 (928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>Do you think that you could not exit safely from that plane?

Yes, I could have by modifying my exit. If it had been me I would have yelled up to the pilot that we had a hop and pop so he could trim the plane for exit.

>Would you have not jumped?

Depends. If the tail was too low and I was fun jumping? Probably not; no reason to take the risk when the alternative is a free ride to altitude. Then I could talk to the pilot on the ground, where it's easier to communicate.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 3, 2010, 10:38 AM
Post #42 of 146 (927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>I still believe that the jumper holds more responsibility in this scenario
>for their exit than the pilot. I'm not saying the pilot bears none of the
>responsibility (there are big shades of gray here in terms of aircraft
>configuration and proximity of the stabilizer to door, etc.) just that, as an
>"experienced" (quotes are because I'm not all that experienced)
>skydiver, I should easily be able to recognize and deal appropriately with
>conditions on exit, or not exit.

Definitely! No one is saying that the pilot is 50% to blame, or that the jumper does not bear responsibility. The jumper bears the responsibility for making a safe jump. The pilot can help with that by configuring the plane to minimize the odds of a tail strike.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 3, 2010, 11:58 AM
Post #43 of 146 (915 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Definitely! No one is saying that the pilot is 50% to blame, or that the jumper does not bear responsibility.

I must take issue with this statement. The pilot was being blamed, and the jumper hardly so if at all.

Here is the text of the ad -

Quote:
This jumper nearly struck the tail of a Cessna Caravan while exiting on a low pass in an upright, head-high position. Thankfully, he missed the horizontal stabilizer but only by mere inches. During this low pass, the pilot continued the airplane's climb to a higher altitude, which placed the tail much lower than it should have been during a time when a jumper is exiting. To help avoid tail-strike, pilots must provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit. Jumpers also need to learn to recognize when an aircraft is in level flight and safe to exit. Additionally, performing a low, diving-type exit can help ensure clearing the tail of an airplane.

According to this, the pilot should have neither expected nor allowed a jumper to exit while the tail was low in a climbing configuration. They say that until the aircraft is in level flight, it is not safe to exit.

To me, that is placing the blame on the pilot.

It would have been a much much better thing to say something like this -

Quote:
This jumper nearly struck the tail of a Cessna Caravan while exiting on a climbing low pass in an upright, head-high position. Thankfully, he missed the horizontal stabilizer but only by mere inches.

When exiting any aircraft, you must ensure that your exit technique provides adequate clearance to avoid contact with the tail of the aircraft.

If you plan to exit a climbing, low-tail, side door aircraft, diving down from a kneeling position in the door will ensure adequate clearance.

As an alternative to the climbing low pass, a pilot may decide to fly the low pass with a more traditional jump run configuration as a way to minimize the danger of a jumper failing to use a safe exit technique.

Had they said that, I would have no objection.

Would you?


(This post was edited by riggerpaul on Feb 3, 2010, 1:28 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 3, 2010, 8:54 PM
Post #44 of 146 (864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
if this had been published by USPA early enough, the plaintiff's lawyers in the Lodi tail strike case could have argued that the national organization was taking the position that the pilot should be found at fault in that accident

What if that was the intention?

As an organization, the USPA has an official 'position' on many different aspects of skydiving. Often times, what the USPA backs becomes the 'standard industry practice' just because they back it.

In wording it this way, maybe the USPA does imply that a 'standard' configuration jumprun for a low pass is essentail to jumper safety, and that the pilot/DZ is responsible for providing such a jump run.

As you correctly stated, if the USPA does indeed take that position on the issue, a lawsuit as the result of a tail strike on a climbing jumprun would be an easy win for the plantiff. "The DZ, and pilot, went against the reccomendations of the USPA, and this accident is the result."

It wouldn't be hard to imagine that the USPA would lean that way anyhow. While you correctly argue that you can exit almost any aircraft safely on a climbing jumprun, some aircraft require a specific technique not always in common practice when exiting from full altitude. As such, some jumpers may not be familiar, proficient, or comfortable with that type of exit, and might be more likey to perform poorly in the door.

The flip side to this is that if EVERY jumprun was flown in a configuration where any exit that IS commonly found on a full-altitude jumprun would be safe, then you can be assured that ALL jumpers will be able to exit the aircraft safely.

By allowing a climbing jumprun, you are requiring the jumper to perform to a higher standard than they are used to. The safer bet, of the two, is to provide the level jumprun with reduced airspeed, and count on the jumper only to perform to the same standard to which they are accustomed.

That said, jumpers do need to be properly trained on how to identify a climbing jumprun, and how to safely exit from such a jumprun. Pilots forget, emergencies happen, and jumpers need to be informed and capable of exiting safely.

If the USPA lightly draws a line in the sand, and the good side is where everyone gets a cut and level-off, then so be it. I guess if you want a climbing jumprun, you should be able to get it. but barring any special requests, let's pull the power and lower the nose.

Any DZ operator who has a problem with this, just raise the price of a hop n pop by a buck. Nobody is going to stop jumping over a buck (they might say they will, but they'll show up and pay the extra dollar when it's warm and sunny).


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 4, 2010, 8:28 AM
Post #45 of 146 (833 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As you correctly stated, if the USPA does indeed take that position on the issue, a lawsuit as the result of a tail strike on a climbing jumprun would be an easy win for the plantiff. "The DZ, and pilot, went against the reccomendations of the USPA, and this accident is the result."

The problem with using such strong language is that it can be used even if the lawsuit is not about a tail strike. A plaintiff's lawywer will use that statement any time they feel it might bolster their assertion of carelessness or negligence on the part of a dropzone.

There are dzs that offer a climbing low pass, and have never had any problem because they correctly identify jumpers capable of the required exit performance. They teach jumpers what is required before the fact, and they ensure that only those jumpers who are capable are allowed this privilege.

At my home dz, we do not regularly offer such a climbing low pass to the random jumper. We don't offer a low pass as a general thing at all. As a privilege, I am allowed a low pass exit on the climb.

If my home dz somehow becomes involved in a legal action, the way that USPA has chosen to present itself puts the dropzone at risk of being labeled careless or negligent, by way of "violating" a USPA recommendation.

This could happen even if the incident in question has nothing at all to do with the low pass or a tail strike. It is a common tactic for a plaintiff's attorney to attempt to establish that a defendant has demonstrated a careless or negligent attitude beyond the question of the incident at hand by trying to find fault with activities not directly related to the immediate incident.

No dz has to offer a climbing low pass if they do not wish to do so. If they do not feel capable of the required self-regulation, they are free to make a general restriction that circumvents the entire question.

But with appropriate diligence, a climbing low pass presents no particular additional danger to anyone. If it is done correctly, it is simply not a problem.

As Robin mentioned, this is not unlike hot turns, and hot fueling. Both of these require additional diligence to accomplish safely. I have personally stopped people from walking into props during loading. Had I not, we would most certainly have had a fatality. We tolerate and allow this additional risk because most are capable of providing the higher level of diligence required.

Putting a dz at risk of being labeled careless or negligent because they safely operate in a manner that does not have USPA *approval* is inappropriate.

It is entirely appropriate for USPA to say that they prefer that the practice be significantly restricted. It is appropriate to say that they don't like it. But it is not appropriate to say that the pilot or the dz has made an error simply by allowing such an exit. USPA said that the pilot made an error when they said that the tail was lower than it "should have been" during an exit. This is simply not true.

Be clear. Some have likened this to the question of a low pull. It is not even a little like a low pull. In a low pull, there is an element of randomness that cannot be accounted for. As such, it was and is entirely appropriate for USPA to make rules about how low is too low.

But in the case of the climbing exit, all the variables can be accounted for so that there is no additional danger to anyone involved.

Dave, I proposed a different wording for the message from USPA.

What is your opinion of that different wording?
Does it say what needs to be said?
Does it adequately represent the position you would like USPA to have?

Please remember that there was a time when squares for students were against all standing policy. It was also once considered "essential to jumper safety" not to jump one of those dangerous new parachutes until you were considered an expert. Those who chose to go there (squares for students) were placed at serious legal jeopardy even if they exercised all due diligence.

As you are well aware, that notion has changed.

Am I trying to say that the climbing low pass exit is the same? No, that is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that what is or is not "essential to jumper safety" depends entirely on the level of diligence the participants are willing to provide.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 4, 2010, 8:44 AM
Post #46 of 146 (828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
if this had been published by USPA early enough, the plaintiff's lawyers in the Lodi tail strike case could have argued that the national organization was taking the position that the pilot should be found at fault in that accident

What if that was the intention?

Maybe you're on to something here, Dave - though not in the way you outlined.

Bill Dause has never joined the USPA GM program or required USPA membership and so he is in USPA's mind an infidel.

So yes, it could well be that this wording was intentional as a way to chop off Bill's head and thus remove his apostasy from American skydiving.

On the other hand, Mark Twain said "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" so in this case it's hard to know which condition carried the greater weight.

Seems to me, though, that it might be... interesting to investigate the genesis of this ad - who pushed for it, who approved it - and why.

Cool

d5533
base44
ccs37


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 4, 2010, 9:25 AM
Post #47 of 146 (813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Just to put it to rest before I proceed - we all know that anyone can exit any aircraft in an unsafe manner if they so desired. Let's set that fact aside for the purpose of this discussion, and assume jumpers wish to exit in a manner that is generally accepted as 'safe'.But with appropriate diligence, a climbing low pass presents no particular additional danger to anyone. If it is done correctly, it is simply not a problem.
Quote:

You're making the argument for the climbing low pass, however you have included two key words in your statement, "but" and "if".

Both of those words imply that certain conditions have to be met for your argument to be valid. If that's the case, a failure to meet either of those conditions would lead to an unsafe situaiton.

In order for a jumper to meet both of those conditions, they would have had to been exposed to a low tail AC, at a DZ that offers a climbing low pass, and they would have had to exited on such a low pass. You have to admit that's quite a list of criteria for a jumper to meet in order for them to be 'safe'. A lack of any of those factors would lead to a jumper who is not preparred for a climbing low pass from a low tail AC.

Again, let's play the flip side, and assume that every low pass from now on is flown with a full cut and level off. Now every jumper who has a license has been trained in the skills needed to safely exit the aircraft. No matter what DZ you learned at, what method was used, or what aircraft you're accustomed to, you have the training and experience to safely exit an airplane in that jumprun configuration.

So the USPA draws the party line, and it says that you have to level off and cut to provide a safe jumprun. Now every DZ has to make that type of jumprun the SOP in order to avoid the legal trap that you're concerned about. At this point, I'm just not sure what the problem is.

When I used to low passes at my DZ, the SOP was a full cut and level off. Myself and another highly experienced jumper pulled the pilot aside and told him not to worry about the cut or level off for us. Just fly over the DZ and we'll hop out when we're ready. I even took it a step further, and used to get a high speed pass at 120 knots, just for kicks. However, the SOP remained a full cut and level off, and unless the pilot was told directly by myself or anthoer staffer to deviate, that's what he did. Just because the SOP is one thing, doesn't mean that you can't make a special request when it's appropriate (like when all jumpers on the pass are qualified for the alternate jumprun).


I'm not going to comment on your alternate wording because I don't think the current wording is a problem. I think that putting the onus on the DZO to make the full-cut level jumprun the SOP for all passes is a good thing. It seems like a free point of increased safety by taking the 'conditions' out of making a safe exit.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 4, 2010, 9:33 AM
Post #48 of 146 (809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So yes, it could well be that this wording was intentional as a way to chop off Bill's head and thus remove his apostasy from American skydiving.

I don't know man. I thought that my theory, that is was a backhanded way to set the standard for all jumpruns to be flown with a full cut and level off, was a little far fetched, but yours is a downright accusatiuon of a conspiracy against Bill Dause.

If you're right, it would make for quite a story to hear how it all came about, who was involved, and how much effort went into it, but I don't think you are.

I'm not even sure I'm right. The simplest solution, which is often times the correct solution, is probably that they were just trying to point out a valid safety concern, with no backhanded legal positioning or conspiracies involved.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 4, 2010, 10:03 AM
Post #49 of 146 (794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

If USPA says, as it has, that a climbing low pass is unsafe and should not be used, it does not matter if it is SOP or not.

Simply doing it ever, even in the case you describe, is prima facia evidence of carelessness, because USPA has clearly said that it is WRONG for the pilot to let the jumper exit when the tail is low.

I do not say that this should be considered a normal jump. Far from it. It is a specialty jump.

We make lots of jumps that require a higher level of diligence than a "normal" jump.

Night jumps, swooping, CF, skyboards, wingsuits, and skyballs are all examples.

And a climbing low pass is not the only one of these that exposes innocents to the danger. Swoopers have gone into crowds. Skyboards and skyballs have been lost. Wingsuits have hit tails.

The particularly strong wording that has been applied in this is simply arbitrary, and it did not need to be done this way.

Call this what it is, and apply appropriate warnings.

Say it is a specialty jump. Say it should not be SOP. Say it requires additional skill and diligence that not every jumper is willing or able to provide. No problem.

But to say it is patently unsafe is simply not true.

It is done, and done safely, on a regular basis, by those who have the skills and are willing to apply the required diligence. Just like so many other specialty jumps.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 4, 2010, 10:12 AM
Post #50 of 146 (789 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>It is done, and done safely, on a regular basis, by those who have the
>skills and are willing to apply the required diligence.

So is pulling below 2000 feet. But I think it's a good idea for USPA to set that as a lower limit for deployment - even if people do it regularly and (in their opinion) safely.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 4, 2010, 10:21 AM
Post #51 of 146 (928 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It is done, and done safely, on a regular basis, by those who have the skills and are willing to apply the required diligence. Just like so many other specialty jumps.

Night jumps, swooping, CF, skyboards, wingsuits, and skyballs are all examples.

Yes, those are examples. They are examples of specialty jumps that require additional equipment, training, or other interaction with more qualified jumpers in order to participate in and still remain in the good graces of the DZ. As we all know, anyone can chuck a skyball out of the plane, or bust a 180 on short final, but we're not talking about renegade jumpers here.

The low pass does not require interaction with anyone except the manifestor. We would hope that other jumpers would intervene, and remind jumpers on a low pass of the orientaiton of the jumprun, and the danger of a tailstrike, but that's just a 'hope', and in my opinion, not good enough.

Even then, much like the Lodi incident, the reminders of other jumpers does not guarantee the correct performance of the jumper.

I disagree with your assertion that making any climbing low pass, even one done by the request of a qualified jumper and that proceeded without incident, would leave the DZ open to an accusation of carelessness in a case not involving a climbing low pass. My primary reason for this is that there would be no record of such a pass, and no way for it to be introduced into a lawsuit.

Without an injury, damage to the aircraft, or a lawsuit as the result, the nature of the pass would not be of note, and quite frankly very hard to prove.

I do think that all jumpers should be properly trained to recognize and handle exiting from different aircraft attitudes. I think it's important enough that it should be an item on the A license proficiency card, but I stand behind my position that the SOP for all passes should be a full cut and level off, and that the USPA wouldn't be wrong to back that position.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 4, 2010, 10:32 AM
Post #52 of 146 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Without an injury, damage to the aircraft, or a lawsuit as the result, the nature of the pass would not be of note, and quite frankly very hard to prove.
I think the point was that even one instance being put up on youtube on a tandem video can show that a DZ or pilot has a history of breaking the rules. It doesn't have to be on the jump in question.

I know I'm a noob here guys so I'm going to shut up and read but for the record, I feel like the wording was too heavy handed wrt the pilot's performance and not enough on the jumper's responsibility to also be safe.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 4, 2010, 10:48 AM
Post #53 of 146 (917 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
even one instance being put up on youtube on a tandem video can show that a DZ or pilot has a history of breaking the rules.

Good point, but I still think you're reaching.

In order for that to happen, somebody with an understanding of a climbing low pass would have to be scouring Youtube on the part of the plantiff, and even then they would have to spot the climbing low pass, and make note of it even if the lawsuit was not related to a climbing low pass.

Let's remember that this would be a successful climbing low pass, so spotting it on Youtube would be very tricky. Keep in mind that you can make a poised exit from many low tail AC on a climbing low pass without incident, you just can't jump up.

So you mean to tell me that the plantiff is going to hire a skydiving expert to review Youtube videos, and that person is going to spot a low tail on a successful low pass exit?

Even then, I still maintain that would not be the basis for a label of carelessness on the part of the DZ as a whole. Just like the plantiff could hire an expert witness, so could the defense. It wouldn't be hard to explain the hazzards of the climbing low pass, and that they only exist for inexperienced jumpers. The position of the USPA would be shown as a 'safe bet', in place to ensure that low time jumpers don't slip through the cracks and end up on a climbing low pass.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 4, 2010, 10:53 AM
Post #54 of 146 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
So yes, it could well be that this wording was intentional as a way to chop off Bill's head and thus remove his apostasy from American skydiving.

I don't know man. I thought that my theory, that is was a backhanded way to set the standard for all jumpruns to be flown with a full cut and level off, was a little far fetched, but yours is a downright accusation of a conspiracy against Bill Dause.

Dave, I did not make a "downright accusation of a conspiracy against Bill Dause."

I observed that deliberate malicious intent on the part of USPA to damage Bill Dause is one possible explanatioin for its action - the other being stupidity.

I assigned equal probabillity to either possibility - and to yours, for that matter, which to me falls into the "stupidity" category by virtue of its backhandedness.

Your "simplest solution" supposition may indeed be the actual answer, which of course means that it falls within the "stupidity" explanation rather than "malice."

But until it is investigated, anything anybody says about USPA's motives and "thinking" in putting up its stupid ad is speculation.

That is why I said it might be interesting to investigate it, though I didn't demand that either; investigations use up time and effort that could be better used on moving forward instead of looking back.

Cool

d5533
base44
ccs37


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 4, 2010, 10:56 AM
Post #55 of 146 (913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Good point, but I still think you're reaching.

...
That's exactly the subject being discussed at another DZ regarding tandem CRW etc in another thread (I do have better things to do, honest! Wink).

Sorry, I really will be quiet now. Angelic


DiverMike  (C 40024)

Feb 4, 2010, 11:21 AM
Post #56 of 146 (906 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

The easiest way to prove that a climbing low pass was done would be to put the jump pilot on the stand and ask the question. Every pilot I know isn't going to risk his ticket and lie about not performing a low pass. It isn't violating an FAR, so it is easy to admit to.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 4, 2010, 11:55 AM
Post #57 of 146 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Your argument sounds a little bit like "don't ask, don't tell".

We can do what we want in the face of the rules (de facto or otherwise, recommendations, whatever), since we won't get caught.

You are suggesting that the rules are mostly for appearance, and not actually something to be followed. That's a horrible precedent to set.

I much prefer that we be up front about this, and clearly instruct how to handle the situations we deal with.

Failure to do so puts USPA themselves in the cross hairs for failing to take appropriate actions against the "violators".

If it is as dangerous as some say it is, put it in the BSRs. If USPA cannot get the support to do that, maybe it is not as dangerous as some are claiming.

If you cannnot get get support for a BSR change, don't take gratuitous swipes that can do legal damage to people who should not have to protect themselves from the organization to which they belong.

As for your assertion that it would be hard to spot, there are often cameras watching from the ground. How hard is it to hear that there was no cut? Not too hard.


(This post was edited by riggerpaul on Feb 4, 2010, 1:41 PM)


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 4, 2010, 3:51 PM
Post #58 of 146 (867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

I just though of another option to address this "problem".

Place license restrictions on the privilege to exit a climbing low tail side door aircraft.

We have ample precedent with night and water jumps.

We could easily say that a climbing exit from low tail side door aircraft requires a "C" or even a "D" license.

Put questions about this on the license exams to ensure that people who might be doing this will understand the requirements.

Wouldn't this ensure that the people who do these exits are amply trained?

If not, then you pretty much admitting that our training and licensing systems are failing to do their jobs.

Fix what is broken.

Too many people drive drunk, but Prohibition (you know, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution) was not the answer.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 5, 2010, 12:37 PM
Post #59 of 146 (816 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just though of another option to address this "problem".

Place license restrictions on the privilege to exit a climbing low tail side door aircraft.

We have ample precedent with night and water jumps.

We could easily say that a climbing exit from low tail side door aircraft requires a "C" or even a "D" license.

Put questions about this on the license exams to ensure that people who might be doing this will understand the requirements.

Wouldn't this ensure that the people who do these exits are amply trained?

If not, then you pretty much admitting that our training and licensing systems are failing to do their jobs.

Fix what is broken.

Too many people drive drunk, but Prohibition (you know, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution) was not the answer.

Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 5, 2010, 12:40 PM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 5, 2010, 1:21 PM
Post #60 of 146 (808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he?

But I digress.

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Blue Sky, Black Death means something, you know?


Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 5, 2010, 8:03 PM
Post #61 of 146 (791 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Maybe, but we both know that they jump anyway.

With that in mind...

Quote:
The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

That is not the simplest solution. It might be the most idealistic solution, but not the simplest. That solution relies on EVERY jumper who exits on a climbing low pass to perform their exit correctly.

If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.

I have far more faith in the pilot's ability to do that, than I have for EVERY jumper performing correctly on EVERY exit.

I'm all for training new jumpers about different attitudes and airspeeds on jumprun, to include practicing the techniques needed to safely exit on a climbing pass. I'm also realistic about those jumpers ability (or willingness) to absorb, retain, and recall that information at the crucial moments.

Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

Yes, give people the oppertunity to learn and be responsible for themselves. When it comes to aircraft safety (for the sake of the remaining jumpers on board) pass the buck to the most highly trained person in the plane, el pilito.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 6, 2010, 5:34 AM
Post #62 of 146 (771 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he?

So no-one else was in the plane after this jumper exited? I wonder why it was still climbing, then.Unimpressed

The pilot is STILL responsible for the plane and any remaining occupants.

In reply to:

But I digress.

It seems to be a habit of yours.

In reply to:

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Blue Sky, Black Death means something, you know?


Cool

The skydiver is not responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants. The PIC is responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants and should fly the plane in a way that minimizes the possibility of a tailstrike.


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 6, 2010, 5:42 AM)


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 6, 2010, 6:57 AM
Post #63 of 146 (759 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The skydiver is not responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants. The PIC is responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants and should fly the plane in a way that minimizes the possibility of a tailstrike.

Every skydiver on every load has a responsibility to keep the aircraft as safe as possible for those still onboard, including the pilot. This means your gear is maintained so that when you climb out (on any type of exit) gear is not extracted possibly damaging the a/c. It means you minimize the amount of weight you shift to the tail as the plane slows down. Etc, etc.

Kallend, you make it sound as if the skydivers can get in the plane and do whatever they want, because its only the pilots job to keep the aircraft safe. This is a patently poor way of thinking, and I hope does not truly reflect your attitude towards aircraft safety.

One question no one is addressing here: if you put more restrictions on doing low passes, the net effect is they will be avoided by dropzone management. Do we want to work towards making the low pass go the way of the baton pass?

top


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 6, 2010, 9:06 AM
Post #64 of 146 (748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Just to reinforce topdocker.

Every time we let a poorly qualified jumper on the aircraft, we are putting the rest of the people in jeopardy.

If we didn't teach them to exit safely, what makes us think that they won't pitch that pilot chute over the tail, or make some other equally stupid mistake that kills us all?

You have no right to endanger me by allowing that person on the airplane in the first place.

Fix more problems - require only tailgate aircraft. Oh wait, there are the weight an balance issues. I know, we'll put in pilot-controlled turnstyles to control the exits.

Recently, I came to the realization that we are trying to fix this problem absolutely ass backwards.

We should make demonstrating a safe climbing low tail side door exit technique an "A" license requirement.

That way, we know we have to take special care of students, and we know anybody else on the plane has what it takes to do things properly.

We will know that we have prepared the jumper for the type of aircraft he is so likely to encounter.

The very best time to teach this skill would be right at the end of the primary training, AFF, IAD, whatever. The jumper will never be more receptive to the message and the learning than at that moment. He will have enough exposure to not be in a panic, yet we can still make it very clear that this is a special survival skill and that he needs to have this skill. Sure, it has a bit more danger associated with it, but it is as dangerous if not more so to not have the skill.

Even if USPA bans the climbing exit with a BSR, we should still be making this an "A" license requirement. Because accepting the notion that there are inadequately trained jumpers on the aircraft is just plain stupid. Even without a climbing exit, I don't want that person between me and the door when the pilot tells me to get out NOW. Because that's when the dummy will go into the tail and kill us all.

And, yes, I am saying that if USPA wants to ban it, they should use a BSR. That makes it clear, and nobody is going to think that it is okay to slip a quick one past anybody. The BSR is the correct mechanism for such a statement. It is why we have BSRs in the first place. If there is insufficient support for a BSR, then stop trying to say there is.

If this is such a problem, fine, take the steps you like to help deal with it. Use the band-aid of banning the climbing exit if you like.

But, at the same time, admit that we are not training the jumper adequately, and fix that problem too.

Because it is just plain stupid to be allowing poorly qualified jumpers to jeopardize the rest of us.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 6, 2010, 9:31 AM
Post #65 of 146 (745 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Maybe, but we both know that they jump anyway.

With that in mind...

Quote:
The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

That is not the simplest solution. It might be the most idealistic solution, but not the simplest. That solution relies on EVERY jumper who exits on a climbing low pass to perform their exit correctly.

Imagine that; expecting EVERY jumper to be personally responsible for his/her own safety from the beginning of the jump until the end.


In reply to:
If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat.

Right, every jump pilot is highly trained and experienced.

In reply to:
All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.


Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business.

In reply to:
I have far more faith in the pilot's ability to do that, than I have for EVERY jumper performing correctly on EVERY exit.


Yo Dave, we're not talking about every jumper on every exit; we're talking about the occasional jumper on the occasional load who gets out low when every other jumper is going high.

In reply to:
I'm all for training new jumpers about different attitudes and airspeeds on jumprun, to include practicing the techniques needed to safely exit on a climbing pass. I'm also realistic about those jumpers ability (or willingness) to absorb, retain, and recall that information at the crucial moments.


No... you're not. How hard is it for one jumper to absorb, retain and recall - before s/he jumps - to not hit the tail when they exit?

And if we have people jumping out of airplanes who are too stupid to remember the aerial equivalent of "look both ways before you cross a street," then we have a much bigger problem with our training system than we do with climbing exits -- especially when the rest of the peeps on the plane are there to remind him or her to not hit the tail (this is known as enlightened self interest).

In reply to:
Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

And this has what to do with remembering not to hit the tail when you jump?

In reply to:
Yes, give people the oppertunity to learn and be responsible for themselves. When it comes to aircraft safety (for the sake of the remaining jumpers on board) pass the buck to the most highly trained person in the plane, el pilito.

Dave, I aprreciate your respect for jump pilots, but this is laughably and provably incorrect; there are many loads on which there are far more highly experienced pilots sitting in the back than there are at the controls.

Which leads us full circle again: the simplest solution is for every jumper who exits on a low pass to take personal responsibility to perform their exit correctly.

Cool


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 6, 2010, 10:32 AM
Post #66 of 146 (735 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Complex solutions to a problem that is much more simply fixed - have the plane in level flight when the green light is on.

The pilot is responsible for the safety of the plane and its occupants. Allowing an exit in an attitude that increases the likelihood of a tailstrike is not good practice.

And once a jumper leaves the aircraft, s/he's no longer an occupant, is s/he?

So no-one else was in the plane after this jumper exited? I wonder why it was still climbing, then.Unimpressed

The pilot is STILL responsible for the plane and any remaining occupants.


And... so is the exiting jumper. The jumper's personal responsibility includes not just his or her own safety but that of his or her fellow jumpers. Remembering to not hit the tail when you jump (or dump your reserve or someone else's reserve into it) is part of enlightened self-interest, upon which most parachuting ethics are based - not centralized diktats.

In reply to:
But I digress.


It seems to be a habit of yours.

No... it's not. Digression on this thread continues to be the province of those who advocate centralized diktats over personal responsibility.

In reply to:

The simplest solution of all is for jumpers to man up and take personal responsibility for not hitting the tail when they exit.

Jumpers not smart enough or aware enough or competent enough to not hit the tail when they jump shouldn't jump.

Blue Sky, Black Death means something, you know?


Cool

The skydiver is not responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants. The PIC is responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants and should fly the plane in a way that minimizes the possibility of a tailstrike.

There you go again, hoping to change the foundation of parachuting by demanding that centralized diktats trump personal responsibility.

Because regardless of the change for which you hope, the bottom line is that each skydiver is in fact personally responsible for the safety of the plane and its remaining occupants, just as much as the pilot, just as much as the other jumpers.

That's because Blue Sky, Black Death does mean something; what we do is beautiful and very dangerous and wherever the Reaper lurks, we must in fact keep an eye out for each other as well as ourselves - which leads us once again back to enlightened self-interest; not only do you save your own life by remembering not to hit the tail on exit, you potentially save the lives of your fellow jumpers and the pilot and the aircraft as well.

Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 6, 2010, 10:42 AM
Post #67 of 146 (729 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Imagine that; expecting EVERY jumper to be personally responsible for his/her own safety from the beginning of the jump until the end.

What a wonderful world it would be...but it's not. Let's face it, the more people you have skydiving, the greater chance you're going to have a dumbo on the plane. Many jumpers today have little interest in the finer points of the sport, and are interested in, for all intensive purposes, a carnival ride. They don't care to spot, study the winds, pack, or do anything but show up, jump, and spend the rest of their time on their Blackberrys.

You continue to reference the way it should be, while I am referencing the way it actually is. It would be nice if every driver on the road took responsibility for themselves, but they don't, and you have conduct yourself accordingly to avoid accidents.

Quote:
Right, every jump pilot is highly trained and experienced

Dave, I aprreciate your respect for jump pilots, but this is laughably and provably incorrect; there are many loads on which there are far more highly experienced pilots sitting in the back than there are at the controls.

Yes, every turbine jump pilot is highly trained. In general you need 1000 hours to for the insurance company to sign off on you. On top of that, they all have eraned a commercial certificate, and made the transition into a turbine aircraft. All of this combined equals way more time, effort and training then anything in skydiving.

Come on now, I don't care who is sitting in the back of the plane, I only concerned about the guy at the helm. I jump with an orthopedic surgeon, who I'm sure has for more training than the pilot, but he's not up there performing surgery, so it's of little value. In terms of what people are doing on board, the pilot is clearly the most qualified of the bunch.

Quote:
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And this has what to do with remembering not to hit the tail when you jump?


It called an example. Handling a two out is something jumpers are taught, but since they rarely use that training, they quickly forget the details. Even if you train people to exit properly, you are at risk for them forgetting that as well.

I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).

You expect jumpers to pull both handles in the case of a malfunction, but you give them as RSL anyway. Why? Because even though you want them to follow through with their EPs, there is a device that can meet them halfway and help them out. So you do both, train them properly and equip. them with the RSL.

Same for the AAD. You teach them to save themselves, but in the case they fail, you also send them up with an AAD.

Same for the low pass. You teach them to exit properly, and in case they fail, you raise the tail anyway.

Quote:
Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business

No way. No way in hell.

The time difference between a climbing pass and a full cut is negligable. Thirty seconds, tops, from cut to throttle up.

It's a low pass. The pilot can keep climbing until right on top of the spot. Cut power, level off, and throw the light. An exit or three, add power, and get on with the climb.

No pilot, and no DZ for that matter, loads, fuels, taxis, or climbs with enough precision that anyone is going to notice an extra 30 seconds. Even then, liek you said it's a business and when costs go up (like for an extra 30 seconds), prices go up. If the consumer wants the product, they will pay the price. If they don't want to shell out the extra buck, then you, me, and everyone else on the thread has nothing to talk about because nobody will be getting out low.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 6, 2010, 11:57 AM
Post #68 of 146 (717 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

"Personal responsibility" is when, for example, a jumper decides whether or not to down-size his canopy, or to swoop, or to use an AAd. For the most part, it affects only him. A tail strike can bring down the plane, with all souls on board. That makes it everybody's business. Everything else is just happy horseshit.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 6, 2010, 12:01 PM
Post #69 of 146 (715 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Imagine that; expecting EVERY jumper to be personally responsible for his/her own safety from the beginning of the jump until the end.

What a wonderful world it would be...but it's not. Let's face it, the more people you have skydiving, the greater chance you're going to have a dumbo on the plane. Many jumpers today have little interest in the finer points of the sport, and are interested in, for all intensive purposes, a carnival ride. They don't care to spot, study the winds, pack, or do anything but show up, jump, and spend the rest of their time on their Blackberrys.

So you're also hoping to change the foundation of parachuting from freedom and personal responsibility into a nanny state with no freedom, no thinking, no personal responsibility?


Quote:
In reply to:
Right, every jump pilot is highly trained and experienced

Dave, I aprreciate your respect for jump pilots, but this is laughably and provably incorrect; there are many loads on which there are far more highly experienced pilots sitting in the back than there are at the controls.

Yes, every turbine jump pilot is highly trained. In general you need 1000 hours to for the insurance company to sign off on you. On top of that, they all have eraned a commercial certificate, and made the transition into a turbine aircraft. All of this combined equals way more time, effort and training then anything in skydiving.

Then why is it that we've had more fatal turbine crashes in the past five years than we have fatal tail strikes? (Not to mention the body count; as I recall, each fatal turbine crash killed a bunch, while each of the tail strikes killed just the idiot who didn't miss the tail when he jumped.)

In reply to:

Come on now, I don't care who is sitting in the back of the plane, I only concerned about the guy at the helm. I jump with an orthopedic surgeon, who I'm sure has for more training than the pilot, but he's not up there performing surgery, so it's of little value. In terms of what people are doing on board, the pilot is clearly the most qualified of the bunch.

Dave, you digress. I said there are often more experienced pilots sitting in the back than at the controls. I said nothing about the physicists, software engineers, surgeons, et al.

Quote:
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jumpers are currently trained on how to handle two canopies out, right? I would love to see how many out of, say, 20 guys with between 50 and 100 jumps could exlpain in full the procedures for all the different varieties of a two-out scenario. They were taught the material, and it could certainly be life saving information if you found yourself with a two-out, but I would be very surprised if 5 out of 20 could explain the procedured with the same accuracy and level of detail with which they were taught.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this has what to do with remembering not to hit the tail when you jump?

- - - - - -- - - - - -

It called an example. Handling a two out is something jumpers are taught, but since they rarely use that training, they quickly forget the details.


But they use exit training on every jump so your "example" is bogus.

In reply to:
I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility.


Then why do you seek centralized solutions to personal responsibility problems?

In reply to:

However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).

Because such a centralized solution also eliminates the need for personal responsibility and the need to "look before you leap."

In reply to:
You expect jumpers to pull both handles in the case of a malfunction, but you give them as RSL anyway.


Another bogus "example:" RSLs are not SOP.

In reply to:
Same for the AAD.


Another bogus "example:" AADs are not SOP.

In reply to:
Same for the low pass. You teach them to exit properly, and in case they fail, you raise the tail anyway.

RSLs and AADs are not SOP so making level low-level exits SOP is not the same.

Quote:
Sigh, this is where it gets... complicated, not simple. As soon as the pilot changes the flight profile, s/he changes the turnaround time, which then ripples through the whole operation. You know, why is it that pilots do climbing passes in the first place? To keep costs and cycle times lower, so they can keep jump prices lower, so they can...you know, stay in business

No way. No way in hell.

The time difference between a climbing pass and a full cut is negligable. Thirty seconds, tops, from cut to throttle up.
Okay, then, if it doesn't matter, then why do drop zones do it?

Cool


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 6, 2010, 12:08 PM
Post #70 of 146 (711 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"Personal responsibility" is when, for example, a jumper decides whether or not to down-size his canopy, or to swoop, or to use an AAd. For the most part, it affects only him. A tail strike can bring down the plane, with all souls on board. That makes it everybody's business. Everything else is just happy horseshit.

As I said in post #66:

"...Blue Sky, Black Death does mean something; what we do is beautiful and very dangerous and wherever the Reaper lurks, we must in fact keep an eye out for each other as well as ourselves - which leads us once again back to enlightened self-interest; not only do you save your own life by remembering not to hit the tail on exit, you potentially save the lives of your fellow jumpers and the pilot and the aircraft as well."

And I might add... personal responsibility also extends to the jumpers on the plane reminding the guy about to exit during a climb to not hit the tail.

Cool


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 6, 2010, 12:09 PM
Post #71 of 146 (710 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Evasive answer. I stand by my post.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 6, 2010, 1:01 PM
Post #72 of 146 (699 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Look brother, I can't do this anymore.

You're full of shit, and anyone reading your posts can clearly see that. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to point out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain.

I'm not talking about your viewpoint on the issue at hand, or mine, the subject of who is correct on that point remains to be seen, but the way you attempt to refute anyone elses viewpoint, and the way you seem not undertand the concept of making a 'comparison' or giving an 'example' makes you a real chore to communicate with.

Good luck with your 'black death' you seem to be so fond of, I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 6, 2010, 1:17 PM
Post #73 of 146 (696 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Look brother, I can't do this anymore.

Fair enough. Will you still talk with me?

I have posted that if you want to make this new rule, well, that's fine. I'd like it done with a BSR, but that's another matter.

But, much more central to the discussion as it has evolved, is the question of the USPA recognizing that they cannot in any effective way say that they have any confidence in the jumpers that our current training is producing.

Don't you feel you have the right to expect that the guy between you and the door knows what he is doing?

Don't you think that a USPA license should provide you with some assurance that he does?

Are you happy with the notion that you should reasonably expect that someone who has asked for a low pass would hit the tail?

These things don't make me happy. I don't think we should be satisfied with them.

Again, make the rule change if you want. I'll even stick by it. (Please use the proper channels and get the necessary support.)

But aren't you at all concerned that the way we are training people these days produces jumpers who you cannot reasonably expect to know how not to kill you?


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 6, 2010, 1:29 PM
Post #74 of 146 (694 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Evasive answer. I stand by my post.

As I do. I simply reiterated the part of my post #66 which agreed with yours: the safety of the plane is everybody's business who is on the plane - the pilot, the jumpers, the guy doing the climbing-pass exit.

I just think that micromanaging jump runs and exits is categorically not the business of USPA.

So please tell me: what part of my-post-that-agrees-with-yours is "evasive?"

Cool


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 6, 2010, 1:48 PM
Post #75 of 146 (691 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Look brother, I can't do this anymore.

You're full of shit, and anyone reading your posts can clearly see that.

Oh brother, there you go, digressing again.

In reply to:
I'm not going to spend any more time trying to point out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain.

True enough, but out of courtesy to you, I haven't pointed out what is glaringly obvious to anyone with a disciplined brain.

In reply to:
I'm not talking about your viewpoint on the issue at hand, or mine, the subject of who is correct on that point remains to be seen, but the way you attempt to refute anyone elses viewpoint, and the way you seem not undertand the concept of making a 'comparison' or giving an 'example' makes you a real chore to communicate with.

The only viewpoints I refute are those that are invalid.

The only comparisons and/or examples I "seem to not understand" are those that "compare" apples to oranges or are "examples" that do not apply.

In reply to:
Good luck with your 'black death' you seem to be so fond of, I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together.

Thanks! Good luck with your debate training.

Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Feb 6, 2010, 1:53 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 6, 2010, 3:59 PM
Post #76 of 146 (938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
But, much more central to the discussion as it has evolved, is the question of the USPA recognizing that they cannot in any effective way say that they have any confidence in the jumpers that our current training is producing.

Don't you feel you have the right to expect that the guy between you and the door knows what he is doing?

Of course I would love to have confidence in every other jumper on board, but that's just not the case. My hopes and dreams don't help some dumbass to make the right choice when push comes to shove. With that in mind, I look for the methods that will produce the highest rate of success, with success in this case being defined as safe skydiving.

The problem with modern day skydiving, is that it's not what it used to be. Skydiving used to be more of an 'outlaw' sport. For a long time there was no specialized gear, it was left over stuff from the military, and even after that gave way to sport skydiving gear, there was very little standardization. There were all sorts of rigs that all worked in different ways. There were no turbines, very few twins, no GPS, no reliable AADs, and a very 'relaxed' attitude about rules and regulations.

That environment attracted a certain type of individual. Actually it attracted all sorts of individuals, but if you weren't confident and self sufficient, the sport would either scare you off, or kill you. It was litterally Darwin at work, thinning the herd. Survival of the fittest.

Fast forward to 2010. Now we have standardized gear with RSLs, Skyhooks, AADs, very reliable mains and even better reserves. Big turbines are everywhere, with GPS, load organizers, and packers to back it all up. Making 6 or 8 jumps per day is the norm, all using $5000 worth of gear and wearing a $300 suit. On top of it all, you have the ever PC instructional machine that believes 'anyone can skydive', and works to make that true.

Nobody 'fails' a level, they just 'do not pass' (don't want to hurt their feelings), and it's not unheard of for jumpers to repeat levels over and over again, yet the instructors support them, hold their hands, and tell them everything will be OK.

This environment attracts a much wider scope of individuals. The sport is more open and accessible to people who could have never cut it a generation ago. It took a real man (or woman) to tough out the static line jumps with a round and a belly wart.

In today's world, virtually anyone can make a skydive. Even if you seem to be having trouble with the FJC, they'll still hook you up and tandem you. Most of the time they have 'demote' an AFF student to tandem, they turn around after the tandem and say, 'Well, you did pretty well on the tandem, come back nest week and give the FJC another shot. You can do it, and we will help!".

In the end, the skydivers out there today are not all the same as they used to be. If you want the market to be what it is today, you need the volume to support the planes and gear manufacturers. If you want to 'thin the herd' the whole sport will have to thin out as well.

So here we are, and now we have to deal with what we've created. There is a segment of our population that is not up to the par of days past. The only reason they survive is because of the system that created them. If you want to change that system, great, I'm all for it. Until that happens, we have to support the 'children' we created.

Al Frisby, in an interview with Skydiving magazine, once said "We're promising them Disneyland, but we're delivering Death Valley'. This was right around the time Point Break came out, and the business was booming. You had every shithead who saw the movie showing up at the DZ so they could back out of the Otter and say, 'Adios amigo!', which was fine, but the sport wasn't set up for every shithead who could buy a movie ticket. That's what Al was talking about.

Now we're set up for all of those shitheads, and as long as they're on the DZ, we have to account for them. By all means, try to train everyone to be the well informed, self sufficient, thinking skydiver that you want to have between you and the door, but as long as the skydiving environment remains 'friendly' and 'PC', that training isn't going to stick to all of them.

I have no idea how to fix this, by the way.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 6, 2010, 4:58 PM
Post #77 of 146 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Ron? Is that you?


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 6, 2010, 6:10 PM
Post #78 of 146 (923 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

I think climbing passes make much more of a difference when you're talking about a multiple otter DZ like mine. When you've got a couple of planes running back to back it has more of an affect on operations to have a level and cut pass.

As far as the "things aren't what they used to be", the genie is out of the bottle now, you can't put it back in. Coddling people in everything they do, won't make them stronger or better skydivers, it'll make them weaker and in more need of support.

I don't know where the line is (especially considering that I did tandem progression so apparently I'm at the bottom of the 'real man' barrel) but we're not going to hit bottom for a while if we're going to go down the path to dumb everything down to the point that we need someone to tell us HOW we get out of the plan because we can't figure it out.

I'm in favor of no climbing passes for anyone who doesn't have a D license (n.b. I have a C) if that's what it takes. People will aspire to that and look, we have something to say you need D for then!


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 6, 2010, 8:16 PM
Post #79 of 146 (912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The skydiver is not responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants. The PIC is responsible for the plane and its remaining occupants and should fly the plane in a way that minimizes the possibility of a tailstrike.

Every skydiver on every load has a responsibility to keep the aircraft as safe as possible for those still onboard, including the pilot. This means your gear is maintained so that when you climb out (on any type of exit) gear is not extracted possibly damaging the a/c. It means you minimize the amount of weight you shift to the tail as the plane slows down. Etc, etc.

The FAA places the burden clearly on the PIC. That's what the "IC" part means.

In reply to:


Kallend, you make it sound as if the skydivers can get in the plane and do whatever they want, because its only the pilots job to keep the aircraft safe. This is a patently poor way of thinking, and I hope does not truly reflect your attitude towards aircraft safety.


top

Nope - skydivers must do their part. However, skydivers are not given command responsibility for the safety flight of the A/C, the PIC is. That would include configuring the A/C to minimize the possibility that some jumper having a brain fart will take out the horizontal stabilizer.


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 6, 2010, 8:19 PM)


fasted3  (D 30104)

Feb 6, 2010, 8:39 PM
Post #80 of 146 (907 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Nope - skydivers must do their part. However, skydivers are not given command responsibility for the safety flight of the A/C, the PIC is. That would include configuring the A/C to minimize the possibility that some jumper having a brain fart will take out the horizontal stabilizer.

So would a pilot be justified in banning wingsuits, given that they increase the posibility of a tail strike?
If a wingsuiter hits the tail, is that the pilot's fault?


jacketsdb23  (D 29802)

Feb 6, 2010, 9:32 PM
Post #81 of 146 (901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't understand what the big deal is?

Cut and level the plane for hop n' pops. Seems simple.

I too have jumped from the king air on a climbing low pass. It was done safely, but a level plane is more safe. I've seen the same plane level out for a more inexperienced jumpers.

With that being said, I don't care if the plane is leveled out or not...but it seems leveling it out is a safe option and costs little. If there is a cost impact, raise the price. This practice won't put a DZ out of business and is a safer option independent of jumper education and knowledge.

USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 7, 2010, 12:25 AM
Post #82 of 146 (893 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The FAA places the burden clearly on the PIC. That's what the "IC" part means.
In reply to:


Really?? The FAA came out to our dz after a jumper was injured on a tail strike, did a thorough investigation, and did not fault the pilot at all. The authorities were satisfied that the PIC was flying the plane in accordance with all the FAR's and the manufacturer's restrictions. Therefore, the FAA places the responsiblity for the exit of a licensed, experienced skydiver solely on the skydiver.

According to Jan Meyer's mathematics, the critical factor on an exit is if someone jumps up or not. So, lets hear from pilots out there: would you rather be controlling a plane with possible damage to the tail section climbing under power, or level and cut?

top


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 7, 2010, 6:16 AM
Post #83 of 146 (886 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
... the safety of the plane is everybody's business who is on the plane - the pilot, the jumpers, the guy doing the climbing-pass exit.
Can't argue with that. It's a far cry from your original focus of the responsibility being on the jumper and not the pilot but there you have it.

I'm sorry guy, but expecting 30,000+ people to follow rules and safety guidelines is NOT realistic. It's more realistic to expect pilots to do that.

You've heard it...You can't fix stupidity. You gotta admit there are some less-than-smart people out here jumping out of airplanes and quality of training has nothing to do with it.

In reply to:
I just think that micromanaging jump runs and exits is categorically not the business of USPA.
The point here is that, yes, USPA is in the business of safety and aircraft orientation on exit is a safety issue.
If nothing else, leveling the plane will make it harder for the stupid to hurt themselves and possibly you, too.

In a nutshell, idealism is cool, but it's not realistic.

Might I suggest tasking a breather for re-evaluating your thoughts?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 7, 2010, 6:23 AM
Post #84 of 146 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...Nobody 'fails' a level, they just 'do not pass' (don't want to hurt their feelings), and it's not unheard of for jumpers to repeat levels over and over again, yet the instructors support them, hold their hands, and tell them everything will be OK.

<hijack>
Damn, Dave. You're one of those hardliners aren't you?
Your statement tells me that you focus on the negative instead of the positive.

Man, it's NOT about hurting feelings...it's about encouraging success. This is not anything like no score-keeping in little league. Please don't confuse it with that silliness.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 7, 2010, 6:34 AM
Post #85 of 146 (880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...Recently, I came to the realization that we are trying to fix this problem absolutely ass backwards.

We should make demonstrating a safe climbing low tail side door exit technique an "A" license requirement....

...The very best time to teach this skill would be right at the end of the primary training, AFF, IAD, whatever.

Tongue-in-cheek, was it?

Instructors should be teaching that stuff already with the A-license hop and pop requirement.

In reply to:
But, at the same time, admit that we are not training the jumper adequately, and fix that problem too.
Put me on-board with that. It's going to be rowing uphill trying to get that done, though. Too much stuff has been going on that dilutes the quality of training students get. Sheer massive numbers of Instructors and Course Directors is one cause.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 7, 2010, 6:59 AM
Post #86 of 146 (876 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
As far as the "things aren't what they used to be", the genie is out of the bottle now, you can't put it back in. Coddling people in everything they do, won't make them stronger or better skydivers, it'll make them weaker and in more need of support.

Right, which is why I advocate proper training for all skydivers. But even if you start today, and train every skydiver to be alert, aware, and self sufficient, you still have a generation of jumpers who are 'less than'.

We promised these jumpers Disneyland, and until they quit the sport, we have a responsibility to provide that. They were 'brought up' in an environment where everyone was reminded to keep their arms and hands inside the car at all times on every jump, and we have to continue on that way.

Change is good, and chnage should happen, but it's not instantaneous. It will take time to implement change, and even more time for it to 'trickle down' (up?) and leave a nice even coat on all surfaces.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 7, 2010, 7:01 AM
Post #87 of 146 (872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Nope - skydivers must do their part. However, skydivers are not given command responsibility for the safety flight of the A/C, the PIC is. That would include configuring the A/C to minimize the possibility that some jumper having a brain fart will take out the horizontal stabilizer.

So would a pilot be justified in banning wingsuits, given that they increase the posibility of a tail strike?
If a wingsuiter hits the tail, is that the pilot's fault?

A camera suit is just a wingsuit with small wings. I've seen a very very experienced cameraman hit the tail of a Caravan during a 120 way (at X-Keys in 2003).

Since hitting the tail IS possible if jumper makes an imperfect exit, and has happened in the past, I agree with the USPA ad on this issue.


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 7, 2010, 7:16 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 7, 2010, 7:05 AM
Post #88 of 146 (869 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The FAA places the burden clearly on the PIC. That's what the "IC" part means.
In reply to:


Really?? The FAA came out to our dz after a jumper was injured on a tail strike, did a thorough investigation, and did not fault the pilot at all. The authorities were satisfied that the PIC was flying the plane in accordance with all the FAR's and the manufacturer's restrictions.

The pilot is responsible for conducting the flight in a safe manner - which in this case would include configuring the plane appropriately for the exit. Doesn't mean the pilot is AT FAULT for everything that happens.

Was the plane climbing at the time, or flying level? Did the FAA sanction the jumper by suspending his certificate? --- oh, waitTongue


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 7, 2010, 7:25 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 7, 2010, 7:19 AM
Post #89 of 146 (862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
...Recently, I came to the realization that we are trying to fix this problem absolutely ass backwards.

We should make demonstrating a safe climbing low tail side door exit technique an "A" license requirement....

...The very best time to teach this skill would be right at the end of the primary training, AFF, IAD, whatever.

Tongue-in-cheek, was it?

Instructors should be teaching that stuff already with the A-license hop and pop requirement.

A "hop" is just a one legged jump. Perhaps we should start calling them "drop and pop" in case students get the wrong ideaWink


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 7, 2010, 7:20 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 7, 2010, 7:22 AM
Post #90 of 146 (859 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Damn, Dave. You're one of those hardliners aren't you?
Your statement tells me that you focus on the negative instead of the positive.

Man, it's NOT about hurting feelings...it's about encouraging success. This is not anything like no score-keeping in little league. Please don't confuse it with that silliness.

There's a degree of hardliner there, but I'm not a full fledged member of the dark side.

I'm all for encouraging people, and I'm all for giving people an opportunity to be people. People make mistakes, and people learn at different rates.

However, when it comes to not using the F word to describe what is, in actuallity, a failure, I think does more of a dis-service to the student than not.

These are adults were training here, and they are being trained to operate in an environment where there is real danger and real consequences for failure, and they should be treated as such. Part of being a skydiver is knowing how to 'act' (physically) like a skydiver, arching, pulling, flaring, etc. The other part is teaching people to think like a skydiver, being alert, organized, disciplined, and managing risk.

Anyone who would react poorly to being told they failed a level is not the sort of person I want in between me and the door of any jumpship. If you cannot accept the use of the correct term, 'fail', how can you be expected to deal with the other, far more harsh, realities of skydiving?

How do they react when their canopy 'tells' them they are having a malfunction?

How do they react when their situation 'tells' them they are getting backed up into the treeline?

There's no 'soft sell' when it comes to things going wrong in skydiving, so there shouldn't be one when things go wrong during skydiving training either.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 7, 2010, 7:34 AM
Post #91 of 146 (861 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Instructors should be teaching that stuff already with the A-license hop and pop requirement.

A "hop" is just a one legged jump. Perhaps we should start calling them "drop and pop" in case students get the wrong ideaWink

Back in the Bronze Age we called them "clear & pull". But that just wouldn't be vogue now.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 7, 2010, 8:40 AM
Post #92 of 146 (849 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have no idea how to fix this, by the way.

A clear admission that there is a problem might help some.

Considering the ad that started all this discussion, USPA should have been clear that the jumper made at least as big an error as any the pilot made.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 7, 2010, 9:02 AM
Post #93 of 146 (844 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
...Recently, I came to the realization that we are trying to fix this problem absolutely ass backwards.

We should make demonstrating a safe climbing low tail side door exit technique an "A" license requirement....

...The very best time to teach this skill would be right at the end of the primary training, AFF, IAD, whatever.

Tongue-in-cheek, was it?

Instructors should be teaching that stuff already with the A-license hop and pop requirement.

In reply to:
But, at the same time, admit that we are not training the jumper adequately, and fix that problem too.
Put me on-board with that. It's going to be rowing uphill trying to get that done, though. Too much stuff has been going on that dilutes the quality of training students get. Sheer massive numbers of Instructors and Course Directors is one cause.

Not tongue-in-cheek at all. That hop'n'pop is worthless for this as it seems to commonly be done.

The student is most likely to get a nice jumprun with a cut and flaps and no special considerations needed.

No, not tongue-in-cheek. I'm talking about a climbing low tail exit so they can see how low the tail is and understand that they must take care not to hit it. Make it like "The pilot just said GET OUT NOW. Here's what you've got to deal with. Here's how you do it right."


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 7, 2010, 9:48 AM
Post #94 of 146 (836 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A clear admission that there is a problem might help some.


A problem? It depends who you ask.

The USPA certainly doesn't have a problem with making skydiving more accessible to the general public. Membership (and dues $) are up, and the more DZs that it can support only makes for even more members. Gear manufacturers and DZOs, likewise, have no problem with catering to a wider audience.

The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

Sooner or later we're going to make skydiving as safe as it can ever be. Equipment, airplanes, policies, and procedures will all be as good as they will ever be, maybe even 'perfect'. However, you still have the individual jumper up there, making decisions on their own, where the USPA, engineers from Cessna and DeHaviland, and Bill Booth cannot help them. Maybe that's where the 'talent pool' of jumpers will find it's own level.

Of course that level will be a far cry from the 'personal responsibility' that many seem to be crowing for today. It will be a reflection of the hand-holding, nanny state (thanks Robin) that we will have created. The solution, of course, is to stop that, and get back to the reality of this which is that you have to be personally responsible for yourself, or something is going to bite you, be it a climbing low pass or otherwise.

That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 7, 2010, 9:53 AM
Post #95 of 146 (835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

[replyWas the plane climbing at the time, or flying level? Did the FAA sanction the jumper by suspending his certificate? --- oh, waitTongue
Full power climb. I talked to the FAA safety officer about this incident a little while ago, and he placed 100% of the blame on the jumper, not the pilot.

Think about the "load line" in some planes where a jumper cannot be aft of during flight. There is always some dickhead who has to plop down behind it even after they have been told to stay forward of it repeatedly. It is the PIC's responsibility to keep the plane in its weight and balance limits, but it ends up being those of us on the load moving the errant skydiver forward. So the next logical step would be to get planes that do not have a way for skydivers to put the plane out of cg. Do we then get planes that do not have propellers? That don't need stairs? When does it stop?

If we were really interested in improving everyone's survivability in this sport, we would ban small canopies, hook turns, and turf surfing. I see the issue of "climbing pass" as being very low on the priority list of things that can injure/kill the average skydiver. (Not wanting to hijack thread!)

I think getting this discussion happening has brought it tnto many jumpers minds and that is a good thing. Hopefully, more jumpers will look/think before they leap!

top
top


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 7, 2010, 11:02 AM
Post #96 of 146 (822 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Full power climb. I talked to the FAA safety officer about this incident a little while ago, and he placed 100% of the blame on the jumper, not the pilot.

And that's one person's opinion. That doesn't mean that it's the only one, or even necessarily the best one. If it was, then threads like this would be 3 posts long, and done.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 7, 2010, 9:19 PM
Post #97 of 146 (783 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Full power climb. I talked to the FAA safety officer about this incident a little while ago, and he placed 100% of the blame on the jumper, not the pilot.

And that's one person's opinion. That doesn't mean that it's the only one, or even necessarily the best one. If it was, then threads like this would be 3 posts long, and done.

Yes, but it was one that counted!

top


diablopilot  (D License)

Feb 7, 2010, 9:27 PM
Post #98 of 146 (781 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Be advised.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 7, 2010, 10:39 PM
Post #99 of 146 (776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Be advised.

LOL!


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 11:41 AM
Post #100 of 146 (734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

Maybe a better way than making safety nets for people who shouldn't be skydiving is to, uhhhh, not let them skydive?

There's been criticism on this thread about drop zone owners putting the dollar ahead of safety by doing climbing passes, but it seems to me that the larger problem of putting safety ahead of the dollar is coddling and making "safety nets" for people who shouldn't be skydiving instead of, once again, taking the simplest - and safest route by telling them point-blank that they shouldn't be skydiving.

This is perhaps the most bizarre and pervasive disconnect in sport parachuting today; it is a fact that to successfully skydive you need to be a little braver, a little more physically capable, a little more alert and aware than the average bear - and yet we support a governing association that creates and perpetuates a training system designed to get even far-below-average bears to shell out thousands so that they can skydive.

And that is, in fact, the genesis of AFF, which was founded on Ken Coleman's premise that if you had an instructor on each side of the student, then "anybody can make a skydive."

Well, maybe "anybody" can indeed make a skydive under constant, hand-holding supervision at all times, but what happens after we quit holding their hands?

A sport in need of "safety nets" to extend the hand-holding to protect people... who... shouldn't... be... skydiving... in... the... first... place.

So now it's being proposed that our liberty be further curtailed (as DZOs and individual jumpers) to provide "safety nets" for these people who shouldn't be skydiving in the first place - along with accompanying bureaucracy and the economic brakes and additional liability exposure it imposes on DZs.

The logical extension of this "safety net" mentality, however, is the ultimate banning of sport parachuting by government because it's too dangerous to provide a "safety net" for everyone who wants to do it -- because, no matter how safe we make the gear and the operations, people can still die or get hurt doing it, so not only do we need to ban climbing passes, but aircraft exits of all kinds. You know, zero exits, zero skydiving fatalities. (And if you think I'm exaggerating about that mentality, check out the Craighead brothers' report on NPS bear management in Yellowstone. The NPS actively tried to kill off the bears it was supposed to protect because the bears were attacking people and the bureaucratic mentality was: Zero bears, zero bear maulings.)

In reply to:
The solution, of course, is to stop that, and get back to the reality of this which is that you have to be personally responsible for yourself, or something is going to bite you, be it a climbing low pass or otherwise.

+ 1

In reply to:
That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.

- 10

"For now" reminds me of all those "temporary tax increases" politicians impose "for now" - to get past a supposedly transitory problem, but which then get extended, over and over again into perpetuity.

Finally, "trust(ing) every single one of them to do the right thing" on exit is a bogus premise: We don't need to "trust" them; we need to remind them.

And it really isn't that hard. My 3-year-old knows that she must stop before she crosses a street and look both ways to make sure it's safe. She even knows a little video jingle by heart:

STOP before you cross the street.
LOOK before you move your feet.
STOP before you cross the street.
LOOK left and right!

But just because she knows the jingle doesn't mean we don't remind her what she's supposed to do when she gets to a street.

So it seems to me that instead of imposing "safety nets" and deeper bureaucracy and more liability exposure on sport parachuting, we should just remind the 3-year-olds to do the aerial equivalent of looking both ways before they cross the street:

LOOK before you leave the door.
SEE the tail, don't ignore.
LOOK before you leave the door.
DON'T hit the tail!

Seriously, everyone on this thread arguing for a climbing pass ban is basically accepting - and trying to put bandaids on - a system that "passes" people through AFF training who can't think at a 3-year-old level.

So it seems to me that we need to think less about power settings and pitch angles and more about who we're letting on the airplanes.

Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Feb 8, 2010, 12:34 PM)


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 8, 2010, 12:49 PM
Post #101 of 146 (795 views)
Shortcut
Re: USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

So, anybody actually know the jumper in the photo that started this?

Is he reading the threads?

What does he think about all this?

Or, was it actually a stunt for the ad in the first place?


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 1:25 PM
Post #102 of 146 (779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 8, 2010, 1:40 PM
Post #103 of 146 (770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

You don't really want to go here, do you?

We'll like as not discover that the recent impressive number for US fatalities is an aberration, as opposed to a trend.

That would be sad, but not wholly unexpected.

Did you read the thread where the fellow with 80 jumps couldn't do a stable hop'n'pop from 3500' for a canopy course?

Perhaps USPA should mandate no exits below 5000'. Then everybody could get stable for the pull.

If it would save one life, it would be well worth it, right?


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 8, 2010, 1:59 PM
Post #104 of 146 (764 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

Probably so, but with the aid of GPS, AAD's, square reserves, three rings, better fitting gear, coaching, tandem training, and the wisdom we gleamed from the death of those "supermen," etc. Today's skydiving environment is way safer than it was twenty or twenty-five years ago. Or even ten.

Except for landing!!!

I don't think today's jumper is wimpier, but certainly they don't get near as much trial by fire as those of us who learned a while ago. And I don't want to go back to the "old way" either!

top


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 2:04 PM
Post #105 of 146 (761 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

Probably so, but with the aid of GPS, AAD's, square reserves, three rings, better fitting gear, coaching, tandem training, and the wisdom we gleamed from the death of those "supermen," etc. Today's skydiving environment is way safer than it was twenty or twenty-five years ago. Or even ten.

Except for landing!!!

I don't think today's jumper is wimpier, but certainly they don't get near as much trial by fire as those of us who learned a while ago. And I don't want to go back to the "old way" either!

top

The outcome IS the outcome. More jumpers, more jumps, fewer fatalities.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 2:05 PM
Post #106 of 146 (759 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

There you go again, making stuff up...

To repeat the thesis you misrepresent: in addition to the continuing mostly above-average-in-courage-capability-alertness-and-awareness people who start jumping (i.e., "supermen"), our system actively encourages instead of discourages the continued participation of that fraction of people who want to jump but shouldn't be jumping -- so imagine how much lower the fatality rate could go if we started saying "no" a little more often at the outset?

But thanks for the reminder, Professor Kallend; it supports my principal thesis throughout this thread, which is:

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders such as the jingle I proposed are more than sufficient.

LOOK before you leave the door,
SEE the tail, don't ignore.
LOOK before you leave the door,
DON'T hit the tail!

Cool


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 2:11 PM
Post #107 of 146 (753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

You don't really want to go here, do you?

We'll like as not discover that the recent impressive number for US fatalities is an aberration, as opposed to a trend.

I have been following the trend very carefully for many years now. I posted this a few years ago. It is down, and down by quite a lot, even without 2009's low numbers. In fact the long term trend (taking a moving average) is a 5% decline in fatality rate per year since 1986 (the earliest for which I had data).

Here are the raw US fatality numbers from "the Good Ole Days", a period when USPA membership was around half of what it is now:

Year - Fatalities
1969- 39
1970- 30
1971- 39
1972- 34
1973- 44
1975- 41
1976- 55
1977- 50
1978- 48
1979- 55
1980- 47
1981- 56
1982- 29
1983- 29
1984- 35
1985- 27
1986- 31
1987- 28
1988- 23
1989- 36

1990 was the first year USPA membership went over 20,000


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 8, 2010, 2:53 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 2:30 PM
Post #108 of 146 (738 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

There you go again, making stuff up...

Ahem - I've posted the numbers, which clearly support my claim and refute yours.

I hope you do your research more carefully when you are a "court certified expert"Tongue


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 8, 2010, 2:39 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 8, 2010, 2:32 PM
Post #109 of 146 (735 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I wanted so badly to be done with you on this subject, but your words drew me back in. Your crazy, crazy, words....but I digress (not really, just wanted to say it before you did).

Quote:
trust(ing) every single one of them to do the right thing" on exit is a bogus premise: We don't need to "trust" them; we need to remind them.

We who?

This is not the military, and we don't have a 'jumpmaster' standing by the door telling us what to do. There is no guarantee that there will be an experienced and reliable jumper on board every load with a lwo pass to remind the jumpers to mind the tail.

The only real guarantee is to remove the risk of the tailstrike but raising the tail.

Quote:
Seriously, everyone on this thread arguing for a climbing pass ban is basically accepting - and trying to put bandaids on - a system that "passes" people through AFF training who can't think at a 3-year-old level.

So it seems to me that we need to think less about power settings and pitch angles and more about who we're letting on the airplanes

So let's think about it. Let's be more realistic with the training. Let's treat people like adults, and tell them they failed when they fail, and that their life will end if they don't 'man up' and start paying attention to the details of their situation. Let's turn the tide, and mold the training to produce the jumpers we want to find in between us and the door in an emergency.

We're still left with a contingent of jumpers who had their hands held, their tears wiped from their crying eyes and were told that everything would be OK, and now we have to make sure that everything will indeed be Ok by raising the tail.

SIDENOTE?

Forget all the personal responsibility, legal liability, and USPA positioning. If a tailstrike is possible on a climbing pass and raising the tail would eliminate that risk, isn't the prudent move just to raise the tail?

As you correctly pointed out, a DZ is a business, and any costs related to raising the tail can simply be passed on to the consumer, and let the law of supply and demand do it's thing. It's not like we're rationing food or water in limited supply, it's just the price of jumps.

Costs go up, prices go up. It's the perfect crime (solution, the perfect solution).


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:03 PM
Post #110 of 146 (725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

There you go again, making stuff up...

Ahem - I've posted the numbers, which clearly support my claim and refute yours.

I hope you do your research more carefully when you are a "court certified expert"Tongue

Sigh...

What you made up was not the fatality numbers but your comparison between what you called today's wimpy jumpers and the supermen of yesteryear.

I made no such reference or distinction, nor did I use either term - you did.

So I will say again:

The fatality numbers you reference support my principal thread thesis (not the thesis you created for me out of thin air):

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders such as the jingle I proposed are more than sufficient.

LOOK before you leave the door,
SEE the tail, don't ignore.
LOOK before you leave the door,
DON'T hit the tail!


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:10 PM
Post #111 of 146 (724 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

The fatality rate is way down compared with 25 years ago.

Spin it anyhow you like, but that is the way it is.

The source of the data was Jack Gregory, former director of safety and training for USPA.

One of the reasons (among many) is better equipment. Another is better procedures.

Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.


(This post was edited by kallend on Feb 8, 2010, 3:14 PM)


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:14 PM
Post #112 of 146 (720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Perhaps USPA should mandate no exits below 5000'. Then everybody could get stable for the pull.

If it would save one life, it would be well worth it, right?


Touché


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:18 PM
Post #113 of 146 (713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Pity for your thesis that the current generation of wimpy jumpers is killing itself off at a significantly lower rate than the supermen of yesteryear that you admire so.

You don't really want to go here, do you?

We'll like as not discover that the recent impressive number for US fatalities is an aberration, as opposed to a trend.

I have been following the trend very carefully for many years now. I posted this a few years ago. It is down, and down by quite a lot, even without 2009's low numbers. In fact the long term trend (taking a moving average) is a 5% decline in fatality rate per year since 1986 (the earliest for which I had data).

Here are the raw US fatality numbers from "the Good Ole Days", a period when USPA membership was around half of what it is now:

Year - Fatalities
1969- 39
1970- 30
1971- 39
1972- 34
1973- 44
1975- 41
1976- 55
1977- 50
1978- 48
1979- 55
1980- 47
1981- 56
1982- 29
1983- 29
1984- 35
1985- 27
1986- 31
1987- 28
1988- 23
1989- 36

I didn't say anything about the good old days.

Look at the more recent numbers

1996 39
1997 32
1998 47
1999 27
2000 32
2001 35
2002 33
2003 25
2004 21
2005 27
2006 21
2007 18
2008 30
2009 16

These are all in the "modern" era, with membership numbers of over 32,000.

The numbers go up and down. Look at 2007. that was a pretty good year, and was followed by 2008 with 30.

The change from year to year goes up or down with about equal probability. I don't believe we are seeing any clear trend.

Being too particularly proud of ourselves for 2009 is a bit premature.

The February Parachutist has the list back to 1961.

The raw numbers don't really change all that much, especially considering the range of memberships involved. I don't know what that really means. The worst was 56 in 1981, when we had only half the members we have today.

So, maybe things are getting a bit better. I know for sure that the gear is better. It could be that the modern square parachute is when things really changed, but that's not entirely clear. Maybe AADs helped. But that wasn't really clear based on the numbers from the early 90s when the modern AAD emerged.

Sure, there appears to be hope. The numbers could be far worse, especially when you think about the membership numbers.

(Edit to remove the paragraph about plane crashes. They don't count in these numbers. Sorry.)

Thinking that we have some clear downward trend that we can expect to continue?

I don't think that is a sure thing at all.

But we digress.

I did not intend that post to be so much about the numbers but about the question about how far we should go procedurally to save another life.

Regarding the number, I only meant to say we should be cautious about being so proud of ourselves just yet.

But I really do want to explore the matter of how far we should go procedurally to save lives.

Should we say that all exits are 5000' or higher if it saves a life? If not, why not?

Based on my position regarding the climbing exit, I have been accused of not caring about the people who get hurt or killed. I was asked if banning the climbing exit would save one life, wouldn't it be worth it?

Okay, maybe it would.

Right now I am interested in finding out how far we should take that logic.


(This post was edited by riggerpaul on Feb 8, 2010, 3:45 PM)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Feb 8, 2010, 3:25 PM
Post #114 of 146 (709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It could very well be that the thing that makes 2009 special is that there were no plane crashes. That's mentioned in February's "Gearing Up" column. I think this may be more significant that the single sentence in the column might make it seem. One plane crash could have made the 2009 numbers much more similar to the other recent years than different

USPA does not add plane crash fatality number in with the annual total - that is a different number.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:30 PM
Post #115 of 146 (703 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I wanted so badly to be done with you on this subject, but your words drew me back in.

And I wasn't going to draw you back in but you mentioned me by name so I had to...

In reply to:
...There is no guarantee that there will be an experienced and reliable jumper on board every load with a low pass to remind the jumpers to mind the tail.

How experienced do you have to be to remind someone to not hit the tail when they go out on a climbing pass? This is part of my main objection with the "rulemaking" proposed in this thread:

* It's not that big a deal (as Professor Kallend's reminder emphasizes)

* It can be handled informally.

In reply to:
SIDENOTE?

Forget all the personal responsibility, legal liability, and USPA positioning. If a tailstrike is possible on a climbing pass and raising the tail would eliminate that risk, isn't the prudent move just to raise the tail?

Your question is flawed because the "possibility" of a tail strike exists with "raised tail" exits too so let me rephrase your question:

If a tailstrike is more likely on a climbing pass and raising the tail would reduce that risk, isn't the prudent move just to raise the tail?

The answer is "yes" when this small element of a drop zone operation is viewed from climbing-pass altitude, but "not necessarily" when looked at from 50,000 feet. Scroll through this thread and you'll multiple posts from people other than myself which detail why in big-picture terms "not necessarily" is the correct answer.

In reply to:
As you correctly pointed out, a DZ is a business, and any costs related to raising the tail can simply be passed on to the consumer, and let the law of supply and demand do its thing.

As you correctly point out, let supply and demand work instead of using centralized diktats to force all businesses to do what may or may not be in their best interests.

So I will say again:

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Feb 8, 2010, 3:34 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:32 PM
Post #116 of 146 (701 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The change from year to year goes up or down with about equal probability. I don't believe we are seeing any clear trend.

.

You are wrong. On average the downswings exceed the upswings.

The beauty of statistical analysis is that it allows you to separate out the random fluctuations and see the long term trend. I HAVE done this. The long term trend is a reduction in fatality rate of approximately 5% per year.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:38 PM
Post #117 of 146 (696 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

So I will say again:

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

Cool

Hook turns in the pattern aren't that big of a deal, most people get away with them without injury.

Low pull contests aren't that big of a deal, most people got away with them without any problem.

Blast handles and Novas didn't kill that many people - what's the big deal?


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:39 PM
Post #118 of 146 (694 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
<snip> On average the downswings exceed the upswings.

The beauty of statistical analysis is that it allows you to separate out the random fluctuations and see the long term trend. I HAVE done this. The long term trend is a reduction in fatality rate of approximately 5% per year.

Spot on, Professor, so now please apply this same statistical analysis to climbing-pass fatalities during the turbine era and I betcha a case of beer your statistical analysis will concur with my intuitive analysis:

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

Cool


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:43 PM
Post #119 of 146 (686 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
It could very well be that the thing that makes 2009 special is that there were no plane crashes. That's mentioned in February's "Gearing Up" column. I think this may be more significant that the single sentence in the column might make it seem. One plane crash could have made the 2009 numbers much more similar to the other recent years than different

USPA does not add plane crash fatality number in with the annual total - that is a different number.

Okay, yes, of course. Thanks for pointing that out. My mistake.

I'll edit that out of the post if I can.

-paul


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:49 PM
Post #120 of 146 (684 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The fatality rate is way down compared with 25 years ago.


Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.

So is the fatality rate for driving, doesn't mean the roads are any safer, just better cars and roads!

So, if I don't get a straight and level flight on any jumprun, I can turn the pilot into USPA? The FAA? If there is a rule, there must be enforcement. Who does that, the FAA? How straight and how level? Is 100ft/min climb too much? In turbulence, the tail may unexpectedly go up and down to maintain level flight, do you bust the PIC for that? What if the PIC is in a slight descent, there are dangers in that, too?

You don't trust skydivers enough to have judgement for exit, but you want them to have enough judgement to determine the pilot's flying skills and report them?

Can you imagine Joe Justahundredjumps in the door of the King Air wanting a go-round because it wasn't level enough???!! Then he wants a refund because the pilot totally screwed him by being in a slight turn!!!

top


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 3:51 PM
Post #121 of 146 (687 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The fatality rate is way down compared with 25 years ago.


Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.

So is the fatality rate for driving, doesn't mean the roads are any safer, just better cars and roads!

So, if I don't get a straight and level flight on any jumprun, I can turn the pilot into USPA? The FAA? If there is a rule, there must be enforcement. Who does that, the FAA? How straight and how level? Is 100ft/min climb too much? In turbulence, the tail may unexpectedly go up and down to maintain level flight, do you bust the PIC for that? What if the PIC is in a slight descent, there are dangers in that, too?

You don't trust skydivers enough to have judgement for exit, but you want them to have enough judgement to determine the pilot's flying skills and report them?

Can you imagine Joe Justahundredjumps in the door of the King Air wanting a go-round because it wasn't level enough???!! Then he wants a refund because the pilot totally screwed him by being in a slight turn!!!

top

You should know better than to post a straw-man argument. It doesn't help your case.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 4:06 PM
Post #122 of 146 (681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

So I will say again:

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

Cool

Hook turns in the pattern aren't that big of a deal, most people get away with them without injury.

Low pull contests aren't that big of a deal, most people got away with them without any problem.

Blast handles and Novas didn't kill that many people - what's the big deal?

"Hook turns" aren't regulated by central diktat but on a DZ-by-DZ basis, so your comparison is invalid.

Minimum pack opening altitudes were created in response not to low pull "contests" per se but because too many people were routinely opening too low to use their emergency procedures - and as I recall, this took place after 1976, when we had a then-record 55 fatalities in one year. So there was from a statistical analysis standpoint a valid reason to impose these rules. There is not a statistically analogous justification for imposing rules on climbing-pass exits.

Novas were not banned by centralized diktat. The law of supply and demand solved the "Nova problem."

Funny you should mention blast handles because USPA's ban of blast handles is a perfect example of that against which I'm arguing in this thread: Imposing a "solution" on a "problem" that doesn't exist. As I recall, there were a couple of fatalities and a few near-misses over a multi-year period that were not due to the blast handle per se but to improper rigging thereof. But rather than doing a statistical analysis, USPA just imposed a diktat that no one could jump with blast handles any more.

So I will say again:

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

Cool


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 8, 2010, 4:13 PM
Post #123 of 146 (673 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The change from year to year goes up or down with about equal probability. I don't believe we are seeing any clear trend.

.

You are wrong. On average the downswings exceed the upswings.

The beauty of statistical analysis is that it allows you to separate out the random fluctuations and see the long term trend. I HAVE done this. The long term trend is a reduction in fatality rate of approximately 5% per year.

Okay. You're surely better at statistics than I am.

Should we rule that all exits are from 5000 AGL or higher if it would get the number down to 15?


topdocker  (D 12018)

Feb 8, 2010, 4:27 PM
Post #124 of 146 (665 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

You should know better than to post a straw-man argument. It doesn't help your case.
Really, how would I know, just another stupid skydiver who can't remember to dive out....

How about every skydiver plan for a no cut, climbing exit on a low pass and be grateful when they get one? Then you've eliminated two factors in the equation.

top


chriswelker  (D 19678)

Feb 8, 2010, 4:30 PM
Post #125 of 146 (665 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

I have been following the trend very carefully for many years now. I posted this a few years ago. It is down, and down by quite a lot, even without 2009's low numbers. In fact the long term trend (taking a moving average) is a 5% decline in fatality rate per year since 1986 (the earliest for which I had data).

Here are the raw US fatality numbers from "the Good Ole Days", a period when USPA membership was around half of what it is now:

Year - Fatalities
1969- 39
1970- 30
1971- 39
1972- 34
1973- 44
1975- 41
1976- 55
1977- 50
1978- 48
1979- 55
1980- 47
1981- 56
1982- 29
1983- 29
1984- 35
1985- 27
1986- 31
1987- 28
1988- 23
1989- 36

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I didn't say anything about the good old days.

Look at the more recent numbers

1996 39
1997 32
1998 47
1999 27
2000 32
2001 35
2002 33
2003 25
2004 21
2005 27
2006 21
2007 18
2008 30
2009 16

These are all in the "modern" era, with membership numbers of over 32,000.

The numbers go up and down. Look at 2007. that was a pretty good year, and was followed by 2008 with 30.

The change from year to year goes up or down with about equal probability. I don't believe we are seeing any clear trend.

Being too particularly proud of ourselves for 2009 is a bit premature.

The February Parachutist has the list back to 1961.
In reply to:
Everyone is talking numbers but one of the stats that I have not been made aware of is how many total jumps were made in any given year of skydiving.

Once a person knows this number then we can see fatalities as a %%%% percentage of jumps made.

My opinion is USPA is running around like they saved the skydiving world from ourselves but did they really? If I had 2 customers and I add 2 customers for a total of 4, hell that is a 100% increase: however not very impressive when you look at what numbers made up the 100% increase.

The fatalities are down because jumps numbers on the whole are down and I am very interested in any available FACTUAL DATA that would prove me wrong in this matter.

The marketing guys at USPA should hook up with a clue. Why in the heck would you place a print that states there is a fine line between fun and disaster then show a potential disaster. If I am trying to sell the sport do you want this ad, that is intended for current skydivers not potential skydivers, to be your first point of contact for a potential skydiver? If some one is sitting on the fence about skydiving this ad probably won't help.Not a very well thought out plan from the people that are suppose to be looking out for us.

Robin your right, a lot of fatalities can be avoided at the pay window and in the class room. You just can't fix stupid.


diablopilot  (D License)

Feb 8, 2010, 4:56 PM
Post #126 of 146 (1389 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody buy YOU has suggested it.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 8, 2010, 5:32 PM
Post #127 of 146 (1380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody buy YOU has suggested it.

Quote:
During this low pass, the pilot continued the airplane's climb to a higher altitude, which placed the tail much lower than it should have been during a time when a jumper is exiting. To help avoid tail-strike, pilots must provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit.

USPA says the aircraft was configured wrong, and the pilot must configure it right.

USPA says the tail is too low, USPA says the pilot must raise the tail.

You cannot climb in this aircraft without lowering the tail.

USPA is saying this aircraft must not be climbing during exits, because this aircraft's tail was too low.

How is that NOT a rule?

Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 5:57 PM
Post #128 of 146 (1369 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it.


Lepka 61
If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.


Lepka 67
I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).


Jacketsdb23 81
USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft.


Lepka 94
The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.


Kallend 111
Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.


Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35
The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike.

Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Feb 8, 2010, 5:57 PM)


jacketsdb23  (D 29802)

Feb 8, 2010, 6:14 PM
Post #129 of 146 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

I have an idea. If YOU want to exit the aircraft in a climbing low pass make that an exception, discussed between you and the pilot prior to exiting.

If its not discussed, make SOP exiting with reduced power and level configuration.

If it cost to much to do that. Raise the price of a hop n pop.

As we saw with the recent wing suit fatality, even experienced seasoned skydivers can fuck up and hit the tail. But he should have known better right? He had years of experience. Should have never happened. And the plane was properly configured for jump run.

Everyone fucks up at some point. I hope that isn't you or me or anyone else on here. But it will happen.

Something that is so easy to do and costs so little, should be SOP. It just makes sense. There is really no down side to it.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 8, 2010, 6:34 PM
Post #130 of 146 (1343 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>USPA says the aircraft was configured wrong, and the pilot must configure it right.

Yes, he should; it increases the safety margins for low exits.

>USPA says the tail is too low, USPA says the pilot must raise the tail.

No, no one said that. The pilot must configure the aircraft properly for exit, which is what USPA said. If he cannot do that he has no business flying jumpers.

>You cannot climb in this aircraft without lowering the tail.

?? An unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

>USPA is saying this aircraft must not be climbing during exits,
>because this aircraft's tail was too low.

>How is that NOT a rule?

You should not jump a NOVA, since they have been shown to collapse in turbulence. I've even seen USPA warn people about this in the incident reports at the time.

No rule against jumping Novas, though. I think there's a bit of a hole in your logic.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 8, 2010, 7:02 PM
Post #131 of 146 (1347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jacketsdb23] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have an idea. If YOU want to exit the aircraft in a climbing low pass make that an exception, discussed between you and the pilot prior to exiting.

If its not discussed, make SOP exiting with reduced power and level configuration.

If it cost to much to do that. Raise the price of a hop n pop.

As we saw with the recent wing suit fatality, even experienced seasoned skydivers can fuck up and hit the tail. But he should have known better right? He had years of experience. Should have never happened. And the plane was properly configured for jump run.

Everyone fucks up at some point. I hope that isn't you or me or anyone else on here. But it will happen.

Something that is so easy to do and costs so little, should be SOP. It just makes sense. There is really no down side to it.

What you say would be absolutely acceptable to me.

Way back at the beginning of these threads, my objection was to the strength of USPA's wording.

When they say it is an error to have an exit with the tail low, it carries more weight than if they'd said that under most circumstances it would be their recommendation to use a more traditional jump run.

When they say it is an error, they imply that a pilot who might allow such a thing is wrong, careless and/or negligent.

My objection is that a shrewd lawyer might use that statement to establish an attitude of careless or negligent behavior on the part of a dropzone, even if the particular legal action did not involve a tail strike.

The wording in the ad makes it a de facto rule.

If USPA had chosen to make it a recommendation, and clearly worded it as such, it would have been acceptable.

But my communication with HQ make it clear that they were not interested in changing the wording.

All the rest followed from that.

It has been suggested that those who wish to could still use the climbing exit, even though the strong wording might put them in legal jeopardy. I don't like that idea at all. The possibiliity of legal jeopardy remains. It would be like "don't ask, don't tell".

If it is to be a rule, make it a BSR. If it is not intended to be a rule, the wording should be changed.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 8, 2010, 8:25 PM
Post #132 of 146 (1336 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it.


Lepka 61
If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.


Lepka 67
I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).


Jacketsdb23 81
USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft.


Lepka 94
The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.


Kallend 111
Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.


Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35
The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike.

Cool

Show us the proposal before the BOD to put in in the BSR and you will convince us.

Otherwise you are just plain WRONG.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Feb 8, 2010, 9:00 PM
Post #133 of 146 (1330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it.


Lepka 61
If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.


Lepka 67
I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).


Jacketsdb23 81
USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft.


Lepka 94
The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.


Kallend 111
Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.


Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35
The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike.

Cool

Show us the proposal before the BOD to put in in the BSR and you will convince us.

Otherwise you are just plain WRONG.

1) diablopilot wrote: "News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it."

Each one of the above comments does, in fact, suggest that a "no climbing exits" rule be made because, logically speaking, how exactly do you enforce it if it's not a rule, Professor Kallend? Moreover, the term "SOP" usually is equivalent to a rule, and in this case, most of the "suggestions" were that "no climbing exits" be adopted as SOP industrywide.

2) There you go again, Professor, making stuff up.... The comment to which I responded declared only that no one suggested that "no climbing exits" be made a rule; no claim has been made by anyone except you that the word suggestion in this context is defined as a "proposal before the BOD to put it in the BSR."

3) Now, lest the followers of this thread forget where it all started, Paul wrote thusly:

I worry that if this had been published by USPA early enough, the plaintiff's lawyers in the Lodi tail strike case could have argued that the national organization was taking the position that the pilot should be found at fault in that accident.

Personally, I believe that if I informed the pilot that I wanted to exit on the climbing low pass, a climbing aircraft is "properly configured" per the agreement between the pilot and myself. I believe that it is then completely up to me to conduct the jump so as not to jeopardize the aircraft and the other jumpers. Should I fail to do that, it in no way reflects on the pilot; he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

I invite discussion regarding this ad, and I also invite USPA members to express their feelings, whether for or against the ad, to their USPA BOD members so that they can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership.


And so there has been been a spirited, thoughtful and insightful discussion that has, on balance, remained remarkably civil as well.

Paul's objective - to get this issue out of USPA's back rooms and into the light of open debate so that "USPA BOD members can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership" - has been achieved.

So, good on everybody and I hope USPA will take heed.

And with that, I hereby retire from this thread.

Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Feb 8, 2010, 10:10 PM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 9, 2010, 7:23 AM
Post #134 of 146 (1303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Lame excuse for a response. The rules are found in the SIM and the FARs.


NovaTTT  (D 17887)

Feb 9, 2010, 7:48 AM
Post #135 of 146 (1293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Paul's objective - to get this issue out of USPA's back rooms and into the light of open debate so that "USPA BOD members can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership" - has been achieved.

So, good on everybody and I hope USPA will take heed.

Tailstrikes happen, and that sucks. It's human nature to place blame, I suppose, but the person to blame is the jumper.

If a jumper thinks the plane has too much airspeed, ask for a cut. If it's nose-high, ask for a leveling.

If the pilot won't, for whatever reason, sit down or jump. If a jumper feels it's not safe to exit, then don't! It's an individual's choice, and it's that individual's responsibility to know how to make that judgment call.

We know the risks involved in skydiving, and they begin when the propeller starts turning. The exit needs to be planned as with any other part of the skydive. I think we don't need more hand-holding and we sure as hell don't need more USPA in what is a DZ matter - jump run configuration.


.02

Nova


fasted3  (D 30104)

Feb 9, 2010, 7:48 AM
Post #136 of 146 (1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't think so. I understand the point that this 'rule' can be enforced just as effectively by threat of a lawsuit, which was the original point of the thread.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 9, 2010, 9:18 AM
Post #137 of 146 (1270 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
During this low pass, the pilot continued the airplane's climb to a higher altitude, which placed the tail much lower than it should have been during a time when a jumper is exiting. To help avoid tail-strike, pilots must provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit.

In reply to:
>USPA says the aircraft was configured wrong, and the pilot must configure it right.

Yes, he should; it increases the safety margins for low exits.

>USPA says the tail is too low, USPA says the pilot must raise the tail.

No, no one said that. The pilot must configure the aircraft properly for exit, which is what USPA said. If he cannot do that he has no business flying jumpers.

If what I said is wrong, please tell us what constitutes a properly configured aircraft?

In reply to:

>You cannot climb in this aircraft without lowering the tail.

?? An unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

If you could climb this aircraft with the tail higher, there would be no Safety Day Ad about it in the first place. You yourself have said that the tail is too low for a safe exit.

If my statement is an unsubstantiated assumption, please correct me. Don't just say I made an error.

In reply to:
>USPA is saying this aircraft must not be climbing during exits,
>because this aircraft's tail was too low.

>How is that NOT a rule?

You should not jump a NOVA, since they have been shown to collapse in turbulence. I've even seen USPA warn people about this in the incident reports at the time.

No rule against jumping Novas, though. I think there's a bit of a hole in your logic.

USPA never said it was wrong to jump a Nova. They recommended against it.

In the USPA Safety Day ad, they said the pilot was wrong to allow this exit. They said the tail was "much lower than it should have been".

That language says the pilot made an error. That language says he was wrong to fly an exit that way.

That is not a recommendation. It is an accusation.

Bill, your reply was beneath you. Your silly little word games add nothing to the discussion, and they sully your fine reputation. Is this really the way you want to refute my point of view?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Feb 9, 2010, 10:25 AM
Post #138 of 146 (1252 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

>If what I said is wrong, please tell us what constitutes a properly
>configured aircraft?

Varies from aircraft to aircraft. Involves airspeed, power settings (sometimes differential power settings) and flap settings. You don't need to "get the tail up" on a Skyvan, for example, but you generally do need flaps.

>If you could climb this aircraft with the tail higher, there would be no
>Safety Day Ad about it in the first place.

You CAN climb that aircraft with the tail higher and there IS a Safety Day ad about it. Perhaps in the future the pilot will learn how. He might even be motivated to learn that as a result of the ad. Which might just save someone's life one of these days.

Mission accomplished.

>USPA never said it was wrong to jump a Nova. They recommended
>against it.

They were pretty clear that the jumper made a mistake by jumping an unstable canopy. So did the pilot, in this case.

>Bill, your reply was beneath you. Your silly little word games . . .

Pot. meet kettle. You keep talking about banning climbing exits. No one - not USPA, not me, not anyone advocating - has claimed they want to make climbing exits illegal. It's a stupid strawman argument that no one other than you is making.

What we should do is educate jumpers and pilots concerning the potential risks and how to minimize them. And yes, it takes both pilots and jumpers to make exits safer. It is amazing to me that you have spent so much time, energy and ego arguing against that.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 9, 2010, 11:25 AM
Post #139 of 146 (1242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No one - not USPA, not me, not anyone advocating - has claimed they want to make climbing exits illegal. It's a stupid strawman argument that no one other than you is making.

What we should do is educate jumpers and pilots concerning the potential risks and how to minimize them. And yes, it takes both pilots and jumpers to make exits safer. It is amazing to me that you have spent so much time, energy and ego arguing against that.

Here is a quote from an email I have from HQ

Quote:
But pilots of low tail aircraft must provide a level jump run for a low pass, the same as they do for the full altitude exits.

That is a rule - it establishes what will or will not be considered acceptable aircraft operation.

A "level jump run the same as they do for the full altitude exits" is not a climbing aircraft. So, even if it is possible, as you say, to climb in a Caravan in a level attitude, it is not acceptable to USPA, because it is not "the same as they do for the full altitude exits".

I asked USPA to consider language that made it clear that their statements were not a rule, but a strong recommendation.

They flatly refused.

So, what we have is USPA trying to make an end run around the established rulemaking process, with the clear intent that what they say should be interpreted with the weight of a rule.

You may not agree with my analysis. That is your right.

But it is also clear that there are members who see it the same way I do, and disagree with what the USPA is doing here.

No matter if it is a rule or not, if we, the members, do not like what the USPA is doing and saying, we have a right and an obligation to make our objections known.

That is why I have spent so much time and energy. Because we have a right and an obligation to let USPA know what we feel either way.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Feb 9, 2010, 12:25 PM
Post #140 of 146 (1233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>If what I said is wrong, please tell us what constitutes a properly
>configured aircraft?

Varies from aircraft to aircraft. Involves airspeed, power settings (sometimes differential power settings) and flap settings. You don't need to "get the tail up" on a Skyvan, for example, but you generally do need flaps.

>If you could climb this aircraft with the tail higher, there would be no
>Safety Day Ad about it in the first place.

You CAN climb that aircraft with the tail higher and there IS a Safety Day ad about it. Perhaps in the future the pilot will learn how. He might even be motivated to learn that as a result of the ad. Which might just save someone's life one of these days.

Mission accomplished.

>USPA never said it was wrong to jump a Nova. They recommended
>against it.

They were pretty clear that the jumper made a mistake by jumping an unstable canopy. So did the pilot, in this case.

>Bill, your reply was beneath you. Your silly little word games . . .

Pot. meet kettle. You keep talking about banning climbing exits. No one - not USPA, not me, not anyone advocating - has claimed they want to make climbing exits illegal. It's a stupid strawman argument that no one other than you is making.

What we should do is educate jumpers and pilots concerning the potential risks and how to minimize them. And yes, it takes both pilots and jumpers to make exits safer. It is amazing to me that you have spent so much time, energy and ego arguing against that.

Let's look at this from a different point of view, shall we?

The whole question of if this is intended to be a rule or not is moot. We cannot really meaningfully discuss it because you, in fact, agree with the idea that a climbing exit is inherently bad.

You see nothing onerous about what is being said because you agree with it. I don't mean that as any sort of accusation. It is just a statement of the fact that we have to work with.

I will never be able to make you think it is onerous, and you will never be able to make me think it is not.

Again, I don't mean to say anything about who is right or who is wrong. That doesn't matter at all.

So, I'll stop trying to convince you that a climbing exit is a good thing, and you stop trying to convince me that it is bad, okay?

What we are left with is the question of whether or not this should be a rule.

As I see it, if it is as important as you say, it should be a rule. If this is the way to prevent the injuries and fatalities that resulted from tail strikes, IT SHOULD BE A RULE.

Making it a BSR would make it crystal clear what the weight of the statements would be. Do you agree?

So, why not just do that?

Would you object to having a BSR that says that all jumpruns should be the same as the ones we use at the full altitude?

Please feel free to further qualify this to your own satisfaction. Exclude tailgate and high tail aircraft if you like. Say whatever you like so that you are satisfied that the result is what should be a rule. I don't want to mince words with you about flaps or airspeeds or anything like that. You are absolutely correct that doing that would be a waste of time and effort.

Do you have any problem with making whatever we get from this exercise a rule?

I don't.

But, if you do have a problem with it, please tell us what that reservation is.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 9, 2010, 12:35 PM
Post #141 of 146 (1241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't think so. I understand the point that this 'rule' can be enforced just as effectively by threat of a lawsuit, which was the original point of the thread.

In the USA, anyone can file suit against anyone else for any reason, real or imagined. If threat of a lawsuit constituted a rule the entire country would be permanently paralyzed.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 9, 2010, 2:17 PM
Post #142 of 146 (1219 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In the USA, anyone can file suit against anyone else for any reason, real or imagined.

http://www.scoutsongs.com/...godblessamerica.html


Dean358  (D 28881)

Mar 8, 2010, 7:57 AM
Post #143 of 146 (1122 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

The Ranch recently added a Caravan to it’s fleet of Twin Otters and Pilatus turbine jump ships. I had the privilege of jumping out of it this weekend. For some of us, myself included, this was the first time we’ve ever exited from a low tail turbine aircraft. Know what? The USPA Safety Day Advertisement was posted in the aircraft, right_next_to_the_door, with a note alerting jumpers to the low tail.

While the pilots configured the ship correctly for exit on every pass – even low passes – having the ad there as an added reminder was genius!!! On every single jump run, everyone on the plane told everyone else, especially the wingsuiters, to be aware of the tail.

While some posters here found this ad controversial, I gotta tell you – I really, really, really appreciated looking at it before exit! Perhaps other drop zones might want to consider using the ad in this manner as well.

Cheers,
Dean

P.S. – Yes, I’m well aware of what all the “firsts” referenced in this post require :-)


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Mar 9, 2010, 8:19 PM
Post #144 of 146 (1038 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Dean358] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

You owe me beer for sure Dean! Tongue

I think the Porter is being retired.

The ad on the door was interesting, good of them to put it up considering that we're all spoiled and used to Otters. Smile


dorbie

Mar 24, 2010, 11:30 PM
Post #145 of 146 (937 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
From my reading of this article from Jan Meyer, I understand that level flight is not as important as avoiding "jumping up" when exiting a plane.

Both are factors and nobody should be erroding the margin of safety by not fulfilling their contribution to a safe skydive.


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Mar 25, 2010, 6:28 AM
Post #146 of 146 (917 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Safety Day advertisement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
From my reading of this article from Jan Meyer, I understand that level flight is not as important as avoiding "jumping up" when exiting a plane.

Both are factors and nobody should be erroding the margin of safety by not fulfilling their contribution to a safe skydive.

If you exit downward, you create your own margin, and do not rely on the action of any other to contribute to your safety.

If you really want to ensure your own safety, don't do something that relies on somebody else doing the right thing.

We call that "self preservation". It is a good thing in skydiving.

If you want to insist on a conventional jump run for your solo low-pass exit, fine. I support your right to do it that way.

But don't tell me that I cannot be safe without it.



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)