Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners

 


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Sep 12, 2012, 2:19 PM
Post #1 of 157 (7373 views)
Shortcut
Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners Can't Post

I was forwarded a message from a DZO that got this letter from their insurance carrier. For years people have been talking about the fear that the FAA may make us stop doing activities, it looks like we were worrying about the wrong group stepping in since the insurance carrier that is insuring the majority of the jump fleet out there is in the position to implement restrictions to anyone that wants to keep their planes insured. Currently in the cross hairs are airplane formation takeoffs, formation flights with jumpers and wingsuiting due to the high number of tail strikes occurring. We as a community need to come together to correct these issues or we could be finding that the plane operators might need to stop allowing those activities to occur if they want to keep insured.


Quote:
From: AIR, Inc
Date: September 12, 2012 8:47:55 AM PDT
Subject: WINGSUIT PROBLEMS - BROADCAST E-MAIL FROM AIR, INC.

(Seems I have a little more of a voice with respect to certain subjects than I realized. Thank you all for your feedback and responses. I always welcome comments either pro or con. I feel the more conversation I encourage, the safer I believe we all will all be.)

This e-mail contains two major points of discussion:

1. Insurance Industry considers Wingsuit and Airplane formation flight an unapproved operation.

2. The number of wing suit tail strikes show a dramatic increase. Tail strikes have to stop!

It is like my previous e-mail on formation take-offs; they look cool, pilot's love them, and they are a catastrophe waiting to happen. The same logic applies to wing suit and airplane formation flying. Our underwriter has informed me that they consider wing suit and aircraft formation flying an unapproved operation. If one of us files a hull claim that is a result of a wing suit strike from an attempted formation flight with a wing suit jumper, we are now on notice that the operator's continuing insurance coverage will be subject to termination. If you want to engage in this high risk activity then it will be at your own risk and others in the skydiving insurance group will not be subject to a rate increase due to your desire to engage in what is an unnecessary operation.

The Skydiving Industry had 11 wing suit aircraft tail strikes last year. It is really very simple math, if we don't do something to correct this problem, than we are forcing the insurance industry to do something about it. Their only means of correcting the problem is either through overall rate increases or the elimination of coverage for claims as a result of a wing suit strike. I think we can all agree that neither outcome is acceptable. Let's be a little more pro-active.

I know there is a lot of activity already with respect to standardizing and regulating wing suit jumping and there is also a lot of resistance to it's regulation. I have heard the argument that USPA does not regulate freeflying or Crew activities so why regulate wing suit jumping? I would argue that those two activities are not causing the same problem that the wing suit jumpers are causing with aircraft collisions. Let's not wait to do something until someone brings down a whole airplane as a result of wing suit jumper ripping the horizontal stabilizer right off the fuselage.
I can not tell you all what to do and I don't have the answer for you anyway. All I can do is let you know what is happening from the Insurance side of the problem. As I mentioned above, wing suit tail strikes have become a big problem from an insurance stand point and if something isn't done immediately that reduces the frequency of wing suit tail strikes than we are forcing the insurance industry to the only responses available to them. Let's make wing suit operations as safe as they can be. Let's give the insurance companies another choice!


DougH  (D License)

Sep 12, 2012, 3:10 PM
Post #2 of 157 (7269 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Has there really been 11 aircraft collisions between jump planes and skydivers wearing wing-suits last year?

That sounds absolutely absurd. Unimpressed


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Sep 12, 2012, 3:16 PM
Post #3 of 157 (7252 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

So is this the right interpretation of what the guy's trying to say?

1) Don't chase wingsuiters with the plane. If you do and there's a claim because a wingsuiter contacts the plane when engaging in such a formation, the claim will be denied and your coverage will be terminated.

2) Be proactive about stopping wingsuit tail strikes because we've noticed the numbers and they're not good. Don't wait till a wingsuit tail strike brings down a plane to do something about it.


(This post was edited by NWFlyer on Sep 12, 2012, 3:17 PM)


DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

Sep 12, 2012, 3:26 PM
Post #4 of 157 (7228 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Did a google search on Air,Inc and came up empty...


tvandijck  (D 30374)

Sep 12, 2012, 3:40 PM
Post #5 of 157 (7199 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DBCOOPER] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

http://aviationinsurance.com/

also, can we cross-post this to the wingsuit forum, I'm sure we can have some brand wars and other general name calling and indecent behavior about this..


(This post was edited by tvandijck on Sep 12, 2012, 3:43 PM)


tvandijck  (D 30374)

Sep 12, 2012, 3:48 PM
Post #6 of 157 (7183 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DougH] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Has there really been 11 aircraft collisions between jump planes and skydivers wearing wing-suits last year?

That sounds absolutely absurd. Unimpressed

Well, those are the 11 that this company got claims for, so that does not include potential strikes at dropzones that insure their planes at other insurances, or potential strikes that no claim was filed for. So while the number sounds absurd, it may be just the tip of the so called iceberg.


DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

Sep 12, 2012, 3:54 PM
Post #7 of 157 (7177 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tvandijck] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm sorry I don't see a relationship between Air Inc and aviationinsurance.com. Could you help me out?


scottygofast  (D 28686)

Sep 12, 2012, 4:10 PM
Post #8 of 157 (7161 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWFlyer] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds a lot like what many of us have been saying & trying to accomplish for quite some time now, and give the insurance company the other choice they need. He basically said that if we dont stop WS tailstrikes, and we do not have some type of standardized training to help do so, they will no longer insure any A/C that allow wingsuiting. Insurance company being the first to act, likely means the FAA isn't far behind. Insurance is the one to pay out on these clams, hence them being first, and having the numbers to support it. This is a solvable problem with proper training and standards, & shows why this is a wingsuit issue, not any other disciplines'. Hope this is enough for the nay-sayers to understand the scope of the issues at hand. I know Id like to be able to still fly my wingsuit, don't you?

Scotty Burns


tvandijck  (D 30374)

Sep 12, 2012, 4:26 PM
Post #9 of 157 (7144 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DBCOOPER] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm sorry I don't see a relationship between Air Inc and aviationinsurance.com. Could you help me out?


I'm sorry, I was googling for the name of aircraft insurance etc, and ended up there, I might have made an error... however, this would be what I found otherwise:

Air, Inc
8975 Vanns Tavern Rd
Gainesville, GA 30506
678-947-1780
678-947-1781 fax

So it appears you are right, and the two are entirely unrelated. I'm sorry...


dninness  (D 19617)

Sep 12, 2012, 4:51 PM
Post #10 of 157 (7101 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tvandijck] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

So the bottom line is: this is a case where "money talks" and bullshit walks.

When an aircraft insurer says to the owner/operator "hey, yeah, if you let wingsuiters out of the plane, my actuaries tell me I've gotta charge you 3x the premium" you're gonna see a whole lot more of "Wingsuiting: Not permitted" at DZs around the country.

Not many DZOs want to pay more for -anything- than they have to, and if it means upsetting/eliminating a subset of jumpers to avoid having to pass a disproportionately ballooning cost on to the other jumpers, well "Wingsuiting: Not Permitted" takes about 10 seconds to type and costs zero.


tvandijck  (D 30374)

Sep 12, 2012, 4:58 PM
Post #11 of 157 (7088 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dninness] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So the bottom line is: this is a case where "money talks" and bullshit walks.

When an aircraft insurer says to the owner/operator "hey, yeah, if you let wingsuiters out of the plane, my actuaries tell me I've gotta charge you 3x the premium" you're gonna see a whole lot more of "Wingsuiting: Not permitted" at DZs around the country.

Not many DZOs want to pay more for -anything- than they have to, and if it means upsetting/eliminating a subset of jumpers to avoid having to pass a disproportionately ballooning cost on to the other jumpers, well "Wingsuiting: Not Permitted" takes about 10 seconds to type and costs zero.

this exactly, and so this email is a warning that that particular decision is imminent unless we take action as a community.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 12, 2012, 5:08 PM
Post #12 of 157 (7071 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I was forwarded a message from a DZO that got this letter from their insurance carrier. For years people have been talking about the fear that the FAA may make us stop doing activities, it looks like we were worrying about the wrong group stepping in since the insurance carrier that is insuring the majority of the jump fleet out there is in the position to implement restrictions to anyone that wants to keep their planes insured. Currently in the cross hairs are airplane formation takeoffs, formation flights with jumpers and wingsuiting due to the high number of tail strikes occurring. We as a community need to come together to correct these issues or we could be finding that the plane operators might need to stop allowing those activities to occur if they want to keep insured.


Quote:
From: AIR, Inc
Date: September 12, 2012 8:47:55 AM PDT
Subject: WINGSUIT PROBLEMS - BROADCAST E-MAIL FROM AIR, INC.

(Seems I have a little more of a voice with respect to certain subjects than I realized. Thank you all for your feedback and responses. I always welcome comments either pro or con. I feel the more conversation I encourage, the safer I believe we all will all be.)

This e-mail contains two major points of discussion:

1. Insurance Industry considers Wingsuit and Airplane formation flight an unapproved operation.

2. The number of wing suit tail strikes show a dramatic increase. Tail strikes have to stop!

It is like my previous e-mail on formation take-offs; they look cool, pilot's love them, and they are a catastrophe waiting to happen. The same logic applies to wing suit and airplane formation flying. Our underwriter has informed me that they consider wing suit and aircraft formation flying an unapproved operation. If one of us files a hull claim that is a result of a wing suit strike from an attempted formation flight with a wing suit jumper, we are now on notice that the operator's continuing insurance coverage will be subject to termination. If you want to engage in this high risk activity then it will be at your own risk and others in the skydiving insurance group will not be subject to a rate increase due to your desire to engage in what is an unnecessary operation.

The Skydiving Industry had 11 wing suit aircraft tail strikes last year. It is really very simple math, if we don't do something to correct this problem, than we are forcing the insurance industry to do something about it. Their only means of correcting the problem is either through overall rate increases or the elimination of coverage for claims as a result of a wing suit strike. I think we can all agree that neither outcome is acceptable. Let's be a little more pro-active.

I know there is a lot of activity already with respect to standardizing and regulating wing suit jumping and there is also a lot of resistance to it's regulation. I have heard the argument that USPA does not regulate freeflying or Crew activities so why regulate wing suit jumping? I would argue that those two activities are not causing the same problem that the wing suit jumpers are causing with aircraft collisions. Let's not wait to do something until someone brings down a whole airplane as a result of wing suit jumper ripping the horizontal stabilizer right off the fuselage.
I can not tell you all what to do and I don't have the answer for you anyway. All I can do is let you know what is happening from the Insurance side of the problem. As I mentioned above, wing suit tail strikes have become a big problem from an insurance stand point and if something isn't done immediately that reduces the frequency of wing suit tail strikes than we are forcing the insurance industry to the only responses available to them. Let's make wing suit operations as safe as they can be. Let's give the insurance companies another choice!

Until I see the actual document from the insurance carrier, I take this "letter" with a grain of salt because its content is just more of the same puppy poop: A narrow-based problem (wingsuit exit tailstrikes) must be solved by the imposition of a broad-based bureaucracy or wingsuiting will be banned.

BTW, who wrote the parenthetical comment? The "insurance" guy or the DZO?

And who wrote the body of it? The "insurance" guy or the DZO? If the former, then how is it that a whuffo insurance guy writes like an experienced wingsuiter in support of instituting a new wingsuiting bureaucracy?

Finally, the writer cites concern about tailstrikes and offers evidence related thereto -- but offers no evidence or other reasons why formation takeoffs, which have been conducted for decades without incident, are lumped together with this relatively new activity, the tailstrike problems of which are related not at all to formation takeoffs.

Let's see a scan of the real letter.

Let's see the name of the actual insurance industry person who sent it, with contact information.

And the name of the DZO who passed it on.

Then we can discuss.

Otherwise, this "letter" needs to be flushed with the rest of the poop.

44
Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Sep 12, 2012, 5:58 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Sep 12, 2012, 5:22 PM
Post #13 of 157 (7050 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dninness] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So the bottom line is: this is a case where "money talks" and bullshit walks.

When an aircraft insurer says to the owner/operator "hey, yeah, if you let wingsuiters out of the plane, my actuaries tell me I've gotta charge you 3x the premium" you're gonna see a whole lot more of "Wingsuiting: Not permitted" at DZs around the country.

Not many DZOs want to pay more for -anything- than they have to, and if it means upsetting/eliminating a subset of jumpers to avoid having to pass a disproportionately ballooning cost on to the other jumpers, well "Wingsuiting: Not Permitted" takes about 10 seconds to type and costs zero.

That’s quite a jump from “no wingsuit collisions” to no wing suits allowed.

Sparky


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Sep 12, 2012, 5:28 PM
Post #14 of 157 (7041 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Robin,

I can assure you this letter is not to be taken lightly. It was constructed by Jeff Norris the leading underwriter for jump aircraft insurance. I also believe he has jump experience. I am sure if you ask around you will find out that a majority of dropzones are using them to insure thier aircrafts.

I liken this letter to federal funds for the highways. If you choose to have a higher speed limit on your highways then you will not receive federal funds. In this case come up with some standard or we will raise your rates or worse not insure you.

It's not a surprise to see this has finally hit the public airwaves. This is but one of the concerns facing the wingsuit community and DZO's. It came up in the DZO questionnaire a few times.

This is also why I've been in support of a standardized wingsuit training program. Without standards, skydiving cannot show insurers nor the FAA that we have a baseline from which people are taught.

There will be a question on the November USPA ballot, asking "Should USPA adopt a standardized wingsuit instructor rating?"


Rich Winstock
USPA
National Director


(This post was edited by Para5-0 on Sep 12, 2012, 5:39 PM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 12, 2012, 5:35 PM
Post #15 of 157 (7032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [scottygofast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Sounds a lot like what many of us have been saying & trying to accomplish for quite some time now, and give the insurance company the other choice they need. He basically said that if we dont stop WS tailstrikes, and we do not have some type of standardized training to help do so, they will no longer insure any A/C that allow wingsuiting. Insurance company being the first to act, likely means the FAA isn't far behind. Insurance is the one to pay out on these clams, hence them being first, and having the numbers to support it. This is a solvable problem with proper training and standards, & shows why this is a wingsuit issue, not any other disciplines'. Hope this is enough for the nay-sayers to understand the scope of the issues at hand. I know Id like to be able to still fly my wingsuit, don't you?

Scotty Burns

This is a solvable problem, all right, and it can be solved without imposing a new regulatory bureaucracy complete with power brokers and gatekeepers. Really, how hard is it to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the plane? You need a bureaucracy for that?

Really, what "training and standards" do you need to tell someone to not open their wings until they're one second out of the plane? You need a bureaucracy for that?

Seems to me that the current instructor gods aren't doing a very good job if so many of their "graduates" don't know this very simple rule. Why is it that forcing people to pay for their services before they can jump a wingsuit will somehow make all these current wingsuit instructor gods so much better?

And Scotty, you can wingsuit no matter what the FAA or the insurance carriers do. You just have to go carbon-free with your launch platform.

44
Cool


dninness  (D 19617)

Sep 12, 2012, 5:41 PM
Post #16 of 157 (7021 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That’s quite a jump from “no wingsuit collisions” to no wing suits allowed.

I had to re-read it (and see the original, which I have) to get that there are two points: wingsuits in formation with aircraft (holy smokes, anybody doing that here in the US?) and wingsuit tail strikes.

(Not 100% sure where the formation take off thing comes from, appears maybe it was in "last week's email"? Not sure, not clear)

The insurer(s) are saying "don't fly your plane in formation with wingsuiters. It would be bad, and uninsureable."

And then they're saying "We're looking at the increase in claims [damage claims, I'm assuming, to the aircraft for aircraft repair, not liability claims] surrounding wingsuit tail strikes. We might have to charge you out the ass if you keep allowing wingsuiters to jump out of your planes AND wingsuiters keep colliding with the empennage. Can we stop the wingsuiters from colliding with the tail? Please?"

Insurers can tell the insured pretty much whenever that certain kinds of actions will void their coverage.

Example: My ex-wife worked for a company that did collections for Avis rent-a-car. Apparently, if you drive on a dirt road, you're in violation of the rental agreement, and any insurance you have doesn't cover you if you violate the rental agreement.

So someone would drive onto a dirt road, go "Whoops, gotta turn around, wrong place.." and put the car into a culvert or a ditch or something, causing damage.

The Avis insurance that you paid extra for is void if you're in violation of the rental agreement. Your insurance apparently is too.

And _everybody_ is sure their auto policy covers them when driving a rental, but judging by the conversations I heard the collectors have with people, is likely NOT the understanding that your insurance company has...

So they were substantially collecting from people who had driving down a dirt road, totaled the car, and Avis said "See, right here, says you can't drive off the paved surface.. (or whatever it says) Pay us."

Insurance is a big racket and controls the purse strings. A badly handled insurance claim could put an owner/operator or DZ out of business.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 12, 2012, 5:56 PM
Post #17 of 157 (7002 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Robin,

I can assure you this letter is not to be taken lightly. It was constructed by Jeff Norris the leading underwriter for jump aircraft insurance. I also believe he has jump experience. I am sure if you ask around you will find out that a majority of dropzones are using them to insure thier aircrafts.

I liken this letter to federal funds for the highways. If you choose to have a higher speed limit on your highways then you will not receive federal funds. In this case come up with some standard or we will raise your rates or worse not insure you.

It's not a surprise to see this has finally hit the public airwaves. This is but one of the concerns facing the wingsuit community and DZO's. It came up in the DZO questionnaire a few times.

This is also why I've been in support of a standardized wingsuit training program. Without standards, skydiving cannot show insurers nor the FAA that we have a baseline from which people are taught.

There will be a question on the November USPA ballot, asking "Should USPA adopt a standardized wingsuit instructor rating?"


Rich Winstock
USPA
National Director

Thanks for your reply, Rich, but sorry, it's just more puppy poop. What they want to see is reduced wingsuit-related tailstrikes, not a training system that is 99 percent not devoted to avoiding tailstrikes.

They want people to quit hitting the airplanes they insure, not a new bureaucracy.

If Mr. Norris is a real guy, then he is parroting one "solution" that has only peripheral relevance to his concern.

And if Mr. Norris is such a parachuting-educated insurance guy, then why does he lump wingsuit tailstrikes with formation takeoffs, which have zero relevance to wingsuit tailstrikes, and which have gone on essentially incident-free for decades?

But I digress, so I ask again:

Why do you need a bureaucracy in order to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the airplane? A whuffo can do it, or the loader, or the pilot, or the last non-wingsuit people out of the plane.

All you supporters of this new bureaucracy talk a grand glorious and convoluted game and not one of you has yet answered this really simple question.

44
Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Sep 12, 2012, 6:02 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Sep 12, 2012, 5:59 PM
Post #18 of 157 (6990 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dninness] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
That’s quite a jump from “no wingsuit collisions” to no wing suits allowed.

I had to re-read it (and see the original, which I have) to get that there are two points: wingsuits in formation with aircraft (holy smokes, anybody doing that here in the US?) and wingsuit tail strikes.

(Not 100% sure where the formation take off thing comes from, appears maybe it was in "last week's email"? Not sure, not clear)

The insurer(s) are saying "don't fly your plane in formation with wingsuiters. It would be bad, and uninsureable."

And then they're saying "We're looking at the increase in claims [damage claims, I'm assuming, to the aircraft for aircraft repair, not liability claims] surrounding wingsuit tail strikes. We might have to charge you out the ass if you keep allowing wingsuiters to jump out of your planes AND wingsuiters keep colliding with the empennage. Can we stop the wingsuiters from colliding with the tail? Please?"

Insurers can tell the insured pretty much whenever that certain kinds of actions will void their coverage.

Example: My ex-wife worked for a company that did collections for Avis rent-a-car. Apparently, if you drive on a dirt road, you're in violation of the rental agreement, and any insurance you have doesn't cover you if you violate the rental agreement.

So someone would drive onto a dirt road, go "Whoops, gotta turn around, wrong place.." and put the car into a culvert or a ditch or something, causing damage.

The Avis insurance that you paid extra for is void if you're in violation of the rental agreement. Your insurance apparently is too.

And _everybody_ is sure their auto policy covers them when driving a rental, but judging by the conversations I heard the collectors have with people, is likely NOT the understanding that your insurance company has...

So they were substantially collecting from people who had driving down a dirt road, totaled the car, and Avis said "See, right here, says you can't drive off the paved surface.. (or whatever it says) Pay us."

Insurance is a big racket and controls the purse strings. A badly handled insurance claim could put an owner/operator or DZ out of business.

I just received more information via PM and I take back my post. It’s not quite a jump it is a reality.

Sparky


tvandijck  (D 30374)

Sep 12, 2012, 6:51 PM
Post #19 of 157 (6936 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why is it that forcing people to pay for their services before they can jump a wingsuit will somehow make all these current wingsuit instructor gods so much better?

I think this argument fails in the first part a little bit.. I don't think the added bureaucracy forces people to pay for instruction. An instructional rating is like any other rating with the USPA and comes at the cost of approx. 30,= to renew on a yearly bases. If you currently hold a 'coach' rating you already pay this, and hence having the extra "WSI" checkbox does not add any additional cost. If you do not hold a 'coach' rating, you should not be coaching in the first place.

Secondary, if you are the coach, you make the price for teaching others, if you wish to teach others entirely for free, the rating does not change that in any way, and if you wish to ask 500USD per jump, then you are free to do so too.. I myself coach people merely for slot typically, and often I forget to ask even that, I don't feel I have to suddenly change my price if the rating becomes official.

Sure getting the rating may be a bit of an investment depending on which "Examiner" you go to, but there again it is the examiner that sets the price, not USPA, and hence if I were to be an examiner at some point I'm free to continue offering my service for slot and continue to forget and ask about that.


In reply to:
Why do you need a bureaucracy in order to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the airplane? A whuffo can do it, or the loader, or the pilot, or the last non-wingsuit people out of the plane.

All you supporters of this new bureaucracy talk a grand glorious and convoluted game and not one of you has yet answered this really simple question.

44

This is somewhat of a point I'm struggling with too, I'm not at all in favor of adding additional bureaucracy, however it seems that within the USPA as an organization there is no other way to standardize training methods but to make a rating for it. There simply is no other procedure for attaining standardization. And we as a community can't even agree on anything let alone a standard training method, so lets just say that "doing it ourselves" is not really a strong argument considering our past with doing things "ourselves". I've never seen a community with so much drama.

So why standardize? well, in my opinion
- if all coaches did teach the same material it becomes easier for those coaches to exchange experiences.

- Furthermore each new wingsuiter can assume a certain level of quality, just like going to mcdonalds always gets you the same burger. (although admittedly that may be a poor example depending on whether you like mcdonalds or not).

- if everyone teaches the same material we can fall back on that material by way of a checklist to assure you have covered everything. For some of you it may be so natural because you have taught to 100's of student, but for others like me that may not be the case. Having reference material is a good way to prevent missing something. I often refer back to the SIM and AFF manuals to refresh my mind before I take on a student.

- Measuring is a big thing for me too, measuring someones performance is not objective without having something to measure with. Are you good to become a coach or not?

- Accountability: We can be held accountable as a coach for the things we teach, and thus held against higher standards.

All this said, we can start today with making plane loaders make that comment as you suggested, we can start today by having loader look for a sticker on your rig to prevent you from going onto the airplane without a DZ briefing. And we can start today by talking to each other constructively about our training methods and see if we can align them as we claim we're so good at ("we don't need bureaucracy because we can do it perfectly fine ourselves"), and then maybe the USPA doesn't have to step in at all...

Ultimately the USPA is only stepping in because we've been acting like a bunch of little kids. It started with the brand wars, then the grid had and still has it's drama, the next thing we're going to have drama about competitions, all because we're too ego and want to be the first to propose something and get our 15 minute of fame...

Anyway, I guess more puppy poop ;) I'll shut up now...


Krip  (Student)

Sep 12, 2012, 7:01 PM
Post #20 of 157 (6924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Mr Sparky

Worst case: Even if the DZO can only put out tandems, they willl still be able to get insurance and they will be they be able to at least break even break even and stay in businessWinkSly

Can't jump out of a airplane anymore? Wan't to turn points? thats easySmile TunnelWink

Want to fly like a bird?. Base Cool

Make room for the tandems]TongueUnsureFrown

R.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 12, 2012, 7:10 PM
Post #21 of 157 (6914 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tvandijck] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Why is it that forcing people to pay for their services before they can jump a wingsuit will somehow make all these current wingsuit instructor gods so much better?

I think this argument fails in the first part a little bit.. I don't think the added bureaucracy forces people to pay for instruction. An instructional rating is like any other rating with the USPA and comes at the cost of approx. 30,= to renew on a yearly bases. If you currently hold a 'coach' rating you already pay this, and hence having the extra "WSI" checkbox does not add any additional cost. If you do not hold a 'coach' rating, you should not be coaching in the first place.

Secondary, if you are the coach, you make the price for teaching others, if you wish to teach others entirely for free, the rating does not change that in any way, and if you wish to ask 500USD per jump, then you are free to do so too.. I myself coach people merely for slot typically, and often I forget to ask even that, I don't feel I have to suddenly change my price if the rating becomes official.

Sure getting the rating may be a bit of an investment depending on which "Examiner" you go to, but there again it is the examiner that sets the price, not USPA, and hence if I were to be an examiner at some point I'm free to continue offering my service for slot and continue to forget and ask about that.


In reply to:
Why do you need a bureaucracy in order to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the airplane? A whuffo can do it, or the loader, or the pilot, or the last non-wingsuit people out of the plane.

All you supporters of this new bureaucracy talk a grand glorious and convoluted game and not one of you has yet answered this really simple question.

44

This is somewhat of a point I'm struggling with too, I'm not at all in favor of adding additional bureaucracy, however it seems that within the USPA as an organization there is no other way to standardize training methods but to make a rating for it. There simply is no other procedure for attaining standardization. And we as a community can't even agree on anything let alone a standard training method, so lets just say that "doing it ourselves" is not really a strong argument considering our past with doing things "ourselves". I've never seen a community with so much drama.

So why standardize? well, in my opinion
- if all coaches did teach the same material it becomes easier for those coaches to exchange experiences.

- Furthermore each new wingsuiter can assume a certain level of quality, just like going to mcdonalds always gets you the same burger. (although admittedly that may be a poor example depending on whether you like mcdonalds or not).

- if everyone teaches the same material we can fall back on that material by way of a checklist to assure you have covered everything. For some of you it may be so natural because you have taught to 100's of student, but for others like me that may not be the case. Having reference material is a good way to prevent missing something. I often refer back to the SIM and AFF manuals to refresh my mind before I take on a student.

- Measuring is a big thing for me too, measuring someones performance is not objective without having something to measure with. Are you good to become a coach or not?

- Accountability: We can be held accountable as a coach for the things we teach, and thus held against higher standards.

All this said, we can start today with making plane loaders make that comment as you suggested, we can start today by having loader look for a sticker on your rig to prevent you from going onto the airplane without a DZ briefing. And we can start today by talking to each other constructively about our training methods and see if we can align them as we claim we're so good at ("we don't need bureaucracy because we can do it perfectly fine ourselves"), and then maybe the USPA doesn't have to step in at all...

Ultimately the USPA is only stepping in because we've been acting like a bunch of little kids. It started with the brand wars, then the grid had and still has it's drama, the next thing we're going to have drama about competitions, all because we're too ego and want to be the first to propose something and get our 15 minute of fame...

Anyway, I guess more puppy poop ;) I'll shut up now...

LOL... no, you're at least thinking about it.

The bottom line here is wingsuit tailstrikes. Solving that issue does not require a training program, an instructor rating, an experienced wingsuiter -- or even a skydiver. The whuffo loader can remind people of this. So can the whuffo manifestor who has wingsuiters sign an additional waiver specifically spelling out their responsibilities as a wingsuiter at that DZ. So can the whuffo pilot whose butt is more on the line than anyone else when an idiot wingsuiter opens his or her wings less than one second out of the plane.

It ain't rocket science, people.

44
Cool


(This post was edited by robinheid on Sep 12, 2012, 9:29 PM)


grimmie  (D 18890)

Sep 12, 2012, 9:53 PM
Post #22 of 157 (6798 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Jeff Norris, real insurance broker to nearly every turbine jump ship in America.

Wingsuit tailstrikes, one every 29 days last year in America.

Experience levels of wingsuiters striking tails, noob to expert.

For the record, no WS at my DZ due to airspace and LZ concerns.

Carry on...


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Sep 12, 2012, 9:59 PM
Post #23 of 157 (6794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

>The bottom line here is wingsuit tailstrikes. Solving that issue does not require a
>training program, an instructor rating, an experienced wingsuiter -- or even a skydiver.

You are correct. And as another poster explained, solving the problem is simple. "No wingsuiting." That's easy and guaranteed, and is what will happen if we "self regulate" it as well as we've self regulated canopy safety over the past ten years.

>whuffo manifestor who has wingsuiters sign an additional waiver specifically spelling
>out their responsibilities as a wingsuiter

Requiring a 17th signature to go with the 16 signatures on another document the jumper didn't read won't do anything, other than make Kinko's a few more bucks in photocopying costs.


piisfish

Sep 13, 2012, 12:31 AM
Post #24 of 157 (6731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Easy fix, let's have the wingsuiters and swoopers come over to the Land of the Un-free (that would be Europe) and have them perform their disciplins where they can.
And leave the Land of the Free with their tandems.
FS people and freeflyers could stay in their tunnels, but we also have a couple of these over here to cater for multidisciplin jumpers.


Joellercoaster  (D 105792)

Sep 13, 2012, 1:27 AM
Post #25 of 157 (6713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm curious as to why you think this would remain a US problem? Insurance is a very global business, and it follows the numbers.


(This post was edited by Joellercoaster on Sep 13, 2012, 1:28 AM)


hcsvader  (E 2952)

Sep 13, 2012, 2:27 AM
Post #26 of 157 (1391 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Bring back the skyvans Tongue


piisfish

Sep 13, 2012, 2:29 AM
Post #27 of 157 (1388 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hcsvader] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Bring back the skyvans Tongue
first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined LaughLaugh


hcsvader  (E 2952)

Sep 13, 2012, 2:38 AM
Post #28 of 157 (1387 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Bring back the skyvans Tongue
first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined LaughLaugh

Ah crap, who will be the instructor examiner?


mr2mk1g  (C 103449)

Sep 13, 2012, 3:18 AM
Post #29 of 157 (1378 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hcsvader] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Bring back the skyvans Tongue
first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined LaughLaugh

Ah crap, who will be the instructor examiner?

That guy who shoved on it so hard it came off the aircraft and it went into feefall (he learned from the experience).


DBCOOPER  (D 24112)

Sep 13, 2012, 4:52 AM
Post #30 of 157 (1359 views)
Shortcut
Re: [piisfish] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Bring back the skyvans Tongue
first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined LaughLaugh

It will be the next USPA rating. You'll have to be a coach first, then pay a couple hundred for the course and then you'll get free jumps and paid to teach people how to open the door.


cocheese  (D 24000)

Sep 13, 2012, 5:31 AM
Post #31 of 157 (1344 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DBCOOPER] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi, I'm Carlton, your doorman..... would you like to exit now? Can we talk?Laugh


For the young ones:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruefrPXqhDg


(This post was edited by cocheese on Sep 13, 2012, 5:35 AM)


tdog  (D 28800)

Sep 13, 2012, 6:02 AM
Post #32 of 157 (1324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Jeff Norris, real insurance broker to nearly every turbine jump ship in America.

Wingsuit tailstrikes, one every 29 days last year in America.

Experience levels of wingsuiters striking tails, noob to expert.

I find this stat hard to believe... Why no incident reports online here every 29 days? Has Parachutist had a feature article? I would think at least 50% of the strikes would cause enough injury someone would notice???

Anyway - I almost had one years ago. A good friend was in the door with me, and he was stepping on my legwing/foot accidentally. When he/we left, I tumbled, with my leg wing zipper being torn open and my shoe falling off. I was told I was inches from the tail. It can happen to experienced people trying hard not to screw up, so maybe this is a problem that does exist that we need to discuss?


Opie  (D 13906)

Sep 13, 2012, 6:25 AM
Post #33 of 157 (1309 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Jeff Norris, real insurance broker to nearly every turbine jump ship in America.

Wingsuit tailstrikes, one every 29 days last year in America.

Experience levels of wingsuiters striking tails, noob to expert.

I find this stat hard to believe... Why no incident reports online here every 29 days? Has Parachutist had a feature article? I would think at least 50% of the strikes would cause enough injury someone would notice???

Anyway - I almost had one years ago. A good friend was in the door with me, and he was stepping on my legwing/foot accidentally. When he/we left, I tumbled, with my leg wing zipper being torn open and my shoe falling off. I was told I was inches from the tail. It can happen to experienced people trying hard not to screw up, so maybe this is a problem that does exist that we need to discuss?

You think all incidents get reported here? I know of a couple aircraft incidents this year (not wingsuit related) that are not reported here at all. The consensus of some that I know personally is that they are sick of the rampant speculation that goes on in the incidents forum and are unwilling to share here online because of it.

It's sad because you used to be able to get the facts of what happened and learn from it but anymore it is the same handful of posters that go off into endless speculation and jumping to conclusions when all the facts haven't even had a chance to come out yet.


tdog  (D 28800)

Sep 13, 2012, 6:36 AM
Post #34 of 157 (1300 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Opie] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You think all incidents get reported here?

Of course not... I get it. OK, so have you seen any articles in the USPA rag? I looked back at all the USPA professional newsletters for 2012. Silent... You would think 11 strikes would have piqued their interest?

So I looked at: http://www.uspa.org/...abid/81/Default.aspx

I did find two wingsuit strikes, but more of the strikes were non-wingsuit (of the ones I clicked in order for the first few pages)...

Maybe the USPA needs to notice this is a concern and educate - or maybe the 11 is wrong?

Seems like the insurance companies have better data than the USPA. The insurance broker should be reporting data to the USPA, even if general, so they can react (because god knows DZOs are not going to self report safety issues.)


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Sep 13, 2012, 7:02 AM
Post #35 of 157 (1278 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

The 11 was from all of 2011. At least 6 of them had occurred on Caravans, 2 of them on 206's, 1 on a PAC 750. Looking back to 2009 there was even a fatality on a tailstrike on an Otter. All of this was presented to the UPSA at the latest BOD meeting from the group that is trying to get a Wingsuit rating. Numbers from 2012 have not been collected yet since people are not really willing to report them except to make insurance claims to fix their aircraft.

USPA is having issues right now even getting S&TA's to turn in Fatality reports. I just spoke to a member of the BOD in the last 2-3 weeks that said we only had the paperwork on something like 50% of the fatalities from this year sent in and they are now looking at options to get the S&TA's to send in the paperwork or to remove their ratings. Getting S&TA's to send in paperwork on injuries and things like tailstrikes is asking a lot if they won't even talk about fatalities.


kallend  (D 23151)

Sep 13, 2012, 8:29 AM
Post #36 of 157 (1240 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The 11 was from all of 2011. At least 6 of them had occurred on Caravans, 2 of them on 206's, 1 on a PAC 750. Looking back to 2009 there was even a fatality on a tailstrike on an Otter. All of this was presented to the UPSA at the latest BOD meeting from the group that is trying to get a Wingsuit rating. .

And now it suddenly turns up in an insurance agent's letter. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

How EXACTLY is a WS instructor rating going to prevent very experienced wingsuiters like Steve H. from screwing up anyway?


tonyhays  (D 26336)

Sep 13, 2012, 9:05 AM
Post #37 of 157 (1216 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
...the S&TA's to send in the paperwork or to remove their ratings

What possible good will that do to improve the amount of reports being sent in???

Or does that mean remove their instructional ratings, not the S&TA label?


diablopilot  (D License)

Sep 13, 2012, 9:09 AM
Post #38 of 157 (1202 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhays] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
...the S&TA's to send in the paperwork or to remove their ratings

What possible good will that do to improve the amount of reports being sent in???

Or does that mean remove their instructional ratings, not the S&TA label?

+1. The day the USPA BOD threatens me, an S&TA who is trying to make things better while being slandered and harassed by jumpers, and pressured by DZO's, is the moment they loose the last shred of support I have left.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Sep 13, 2012, 9:30 AM
Post #39 of 157 (1189 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhays] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

My interpretation was the loss of the S&TA function with the appointment of a new S&TA at the DZ as a replacement. Once again I don't see that leading to much of a change in the environment since if the first person was not willing to do it there is no driving factors that the second person would do the paperwork either.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Sep 13, 2012, 10:06 AM
Post #40 of 157 (1165 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Why would an S&TA not do the 30-1 fatality report?

It's not like fatalities are a big secret. Is it laziness or something more goal oriented?


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 13, 2012, 10:28 AM
Post #41 of 157 (1156 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Jeff Norris, real insurance broker to nearly every turbine jump ship in America.

Wingsuit tailstrikes, one every 29 days last year in America.

Experience levels of wingsuiters striking tails, noob to expert.

For the record, no WS at my DZ due to airspace and LZ concerns.

Carry on...

Thanks, Grimmie.

You reinforce my premise: no new bureaucracy needed; let it be handled at the DZ level and at the aircraft level.

You choose not to have wingsuits because of the conditions you listed (and IIRC, you also have a C or D license restriction due to the landing area).

Given what Phree says about the aircraft types involved in the 11 2011 wingsuit tail strikes, maybe Caravan operators should consider leaving wingsuit jumping off of their list of offered services.

Again, though, it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane. Period. End of problem.

No has yet answered my question: Why all the hoo-hah about creating a new bureaucracy, 99 percent of which will have nothing to do with avoiding tailstrikes, in order to avoid tailstrikes when even a whuffo loader, pilot or manifestor can handle that job?

Anybody?

Hello?

44
Cool


-ftp-

Sep 13, 2012, 10:28 AM
Post #42 of 157 (1155 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

I just don't get how having an instructor rating, flight courses, wigsuit rating, etc. is going to keep people from hitting the tail of an aircraft?

Ok, chances are if you are jumping a wingsuit, you know you are supposed to keep your wings closed until clear. Just like we know we are supposed to pull at a decided altitude, wave off, clear air space, not hook into the ground at 50 feet, etc., etc., etc.

Its a risk, just like ALL of this sport is, if you don't take the risks seriously and PAY ATTENTION, hell maybe even use a little common sense, then you are going to get hurt or killed one way or the other.


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Sep 13, 2012, 10:42 AM
Post #43 of 157 (1149 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Why would an S&TA not do the 30-1 fatality report?

It's not like fatalities are a big secret. Is it laziness or something more goal oriented?

Couple threads on that topic recently with lots of discussion.
http://www.dropzone.com/...rum.cgi?post=4348610
http://www.dropzone.com/...rum.cgi?post=4349115


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 13, 2012, 10:46 AM
Post #44 of 157 (1141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>The bottom line here is wingsuit tailstrikes. Solving that issue does not require a training program, an instructor rating, an experienced wingsuiter -- or even a skydiver.

You are correct. And as another poster explained, solving the problem is simple. "No wingsuiting." That's easy and guaranteed, and is what will happen if we "self regulate" it as well as we've self regulated canopy safety over the past ten years.

Congrats on WHACKIN' that ol' straw man, Bill. He is DEMOLISHED!

This thread topic is about the possible insurance consequences of continued tail strikes.

Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period.

Why do we need a new bureaucracy that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding tailstrikes to reduce tailstrikes?


In reply to:
>whuffo manifestor who has wingsuiters sign an additional waiver specifically spelling
>out their responsibilities as a wingsuiter

Requiring a 17th signature to go with the 16 signatures on another document the jumper didn't read won't do anything, other than make Kinko's a few more bucks in photocopying costs.

Read and comprehend, Bill. I say "an additional waiver," required only by wingsuit jumpers, one that has just one signature, one that, as I have detailed in other threads, says very simply: "I pledge to keep my wings closed for one second after I leave the plane and promise that I or my heirs will pay for all damage to the aircraft should I violate my pledge and hit the tail."

Other ways to further reduce tailstrikes without imposing a costly and onerour new bureaucracy on anyone who wants to wingsuit:

1) Put signs near the Pavlov light at the door: "Wingsuiters: DO NOT OPEN YOUR WINGS until 1 second out the door."

2) Put a little camera on the door that records every exit so that when the usually-last-out wingsuiters go, there's a record of when they opened their wings. Violators don't get grounded -- just prohibited from doing wingsuit jumps at that DZ.

All this gets done locally, DZ by DZ, as necessary, all without imposing a new bureaucracy, all without creating that nw bureaucracy's attendant extra costs, friction and asseociated power borkers and gate keepers.

Again, Bill, instead of making cutesy liitle straw man arguments, why not try to seriously answer the question that you and every other proponent of a new bureaucracy so far declines to answer:

Why do we need a new bureaucracy 99 percent focused not on avoiding tailstrikes in order to reduce tailstrikes?

44
Cool


pchapman  (D 1014)

Sep 13, 2012, 10:55 AM
Post #45 of 157 (1136 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane.

True, but mind you, that simple rule doesn't necessarily translate into the proper physical action -- People sometimes have to learn how tightly they need to bring the arms in, or not to forget about the legs when stepping off, etc.

Which is why it does help to have someone supervise a wingsuit newbie -- whether or not the supervisor has any rating from any particular organization...


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Sep 13, 2012, 11:28 AM
Post #46 of 157 (1113 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

>Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one
>second after the leave the plane. Period.

And reducing landing fatalities is simple as well; wing level before getting to the ground. Period. Simple but didn't reduce fatalities. Saying "just make it so the incidents don't happen" is useless unless one includes a way to change what's happening now - which is that people ARE hitting tails.

>Why do we need a new bureaucracy that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding
>tailstrikes to reduce tailstrikes?

We don't need a new bureaucracy. We need more education, and a way to stop people from wingsuiting who are immune to education.

>Put signs near the Pavlov light at the door: "Wingsuiters: DO NOT OPEN YOUR WINGS
>until 1 second out the door."

Might work. Given how often skydivers actually read warnings I'm doubtful, but probably worth trying.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 13, 2012, 11:53 AM
Post #47 of 157 (1093 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane.

True, but mind you, that simple rule doesn't necessarily translate into the proper physical action -- People sometimes have to learn how tightly they need to bring the arms in, or not to forget about the legs when stepping off, etc.

Which is why it does help to have someone supervise a wingsuit newbie -- whether or not the supervisor has any rating from any particular organization...

+1

44
Cool


travelguru

Sep 13, 2012, 12:36 PM
Post #48 of 157 (1064 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

I have to agree that this is very simple. Keep your wing closed. Its the same as when you do a RW jump you don't jump up.

This should be taught to all jumpers.

I have ask for for details on the 11 tail strikes last year a few times now and have yet to see anything. I wish USPA would share. If we can identify a commonality then we may be able to find a solution. Either way the solution should come in part form the WS community. I personal believe in self regulation at the DZ level. I have seen it work very well at a few drop zones. When the wingsuiters and the DZO are on the same page it works.

Its sad to hear that a DZO is just going to say no to wingsuits. With the right culture wingsuits can operate safely at almost any dropzones. (maybe even at ocenside some day Rich)


kallend  (D 23151)

Sep 13, 2012, 1:15 PM
Post #49 of 157 (1040 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane.

True, but mind you, that simple rule doesn't necessarily translate into the proper physical action -- People sometimes have to learn how tightly they need to bring the arms in, or not to forget about the legs when stepping off, etc.

Which is why it does help to have someone supervise a wingsuit newbie -- whether or not the supervisor has any rating from any particular organization...

1. How many of these alleged strikes involved newbies?

2. Of the alleged strikes that involved newbies, how many had received no exit instruction?

3. Why does it take a USPA rating to be able to tell a newbie to keep his/her wings closed on exit until the tail has passed by?

4. How come this insurance guy suddenly gets wind of the same set of alleged tail strike data as was presented to the USPA board?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Sep 13, 2012, 1:19 PM
Post #50 of 157 (1032 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

>How come this insurance guy suddenly gets wind of the same set of alleged tail strike
>data as was presented to the USPA board?

Because they are paying the bills for the repairs.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Sep 13, 2012, 1:35 PM
Post #51 of 157 (1630 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period.

And reducing landing fatalities is simple as well; wing level before getting to the ground. Period. Simple but didn't reduce fatalities. Saying "just make it so the incidents don't happen" is useless unless one includes a way to change what's happening now - which is that people ARE hitting tails.

"Duh-deh-dunt-dunt-dunt..another one bites the dust!"

Bill von 2
Straw men 0

Order of magnitude difference between reminding people to keep their wings closed for one second when they exit and teaching them how do do high-performance landings without injury.

And please read with comprehension, wouldja? I have repeatedly "(included) a way to change what's happening now - which is that people ARE hitting tails":

Remind people in multiple ways to keep their wings closed for one second after they exit -- and provide consequences for failure.

In reply to:
We don't need a new bureaucracy. We need more education, and a way to stop people from wingsuiting who are immune to education.

Already did by proposing consequences that include grounding them from flying wingsuits if they don't follow the one-second rule. No bureaucracy needed. No rating system needed. No grand exalted senseis needed.

In reply to:
>Put signs near the Pavlov light at the door: "Wingsuiters: DO NOT OPEN YOUR WINGS
>until 1 second out the door."

Might work. Given how often skydivers actually read warnings I'm doubtful, but probably worth trying.

Right. No bureaucracy needed. No rating system needed. No grand exalted senseis needed -- and a whuffo can put the sign below the Pavlov light... and have them sign the wingsuit-specific waiver... and remind them to keep their wings closed for one second after they leave the plane.

44
Cool

P.S. And every jumper on the plane can issue these reminders to the wingsuiters too, you know? I mean, what are we now -- skydivers sheep who stare in frozen terror at a threat and hope the new bureaucracy and grand exalted senseis sheepdogs will save us before we die?


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Sep 13, 2012, 1:42 PM
Post #52 of 157 (1626 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>How come this insurance guy suddenly gets wind of the same set of alleged tail strike
>data as was presented to the USPA board?

Because they are paying the bills for the repairs.

You don't need a wing suite for a tail strike.Crazy


scottygofast  (D 28686)

Sep 13, 2012, 1:55 PM
Post #53 of 157 (1619 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

1. How many of these alleged strikes involved newbies?

Does it matter?

2. Of the alleged strikes that involved newbies, how many had received no exit instruction?

Does it matter?

3. Why does it take a USPA rating to be able to tell a newbie to keep his/her wings closed on exit until the tail has passed by?

Does it matter? The wingsuit community has been asking for standardized instruction for 4 years. 82% of wingsuiters want it (according to uspa) Why can't people see that standardized training reaches a long way past the first wingsuit jump??? How many times did you practice E/P's in AFF before your first jump? would it not be good to establish a similar training protocol for WS students rather than someone on the internet or a sign saying "just keep your wings closed for one second"?

4. How come this insurance guy suddenly gets wind of the same set of alleged tail strike data as was presented to the USPA board?

You don't think that 1000 posts on FB, hundreds of tweets, a blog broadcast doesn't get attention? Maybe of the wrong people? I mean, It's not like they have to pay the bills for aircraft damage or anything.

Scotty Burns


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Sep 13, 2012, 2:37 PM
Post #54 of 157 (1582 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

>You don't need a wing suite for a tail strike.

Agreed. But, per the frequency of the occurrence of tail strikes with wingsuits, they sure help.


Fast  (D 28237)

Sep 13, 2012, 3:16 PM
Post #55 of 157 (1561 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Getting to participate in the DZO side of this conversation, I have already seen one more dropzone ban wingsuiting to just not have to deal with the problem.

To anyone who says "if you're jumping a wingsuit you know to keep your wings closed on exit", you're wrong. I have seen people with no practical knowledge try to go skydiving with a wingsuit.

I personally, would like to get to the point where I can be a wingsuit instructor/coach. The real question I have is, who should I get to teach me this stuff. I mean - I know all the practical basics, why don't I just put myself out there now as a first flight instructor. I want to see wingsuiting grow and I want to see my people in the air.


kallend  (D 23151)

Sep 13, 2012, 3:40 PM
Post #56 of 157 (1549 views)
Shortcut
Re: [scottygofast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1. How many of these alleged strikes involved newbies?

Does it matter?

2. Of the alleged strikes that involved newbies, how many had received no exit instruction?

Does it matter?

3. Why does it take a USPA rating to be able to tell a newbie to keep his/her wings closed on exit until the tail has passed by?

It matters if you care whether or not this is a problem that can be cured by instituting an additional training bureaucracy.

Just like if you have a headache it matters whether it is caused by a brain tumor or a hangover when prescribing a remedy.


sundevil777  (D License)

Sep 13, 2012, 3:47 PM
Post #57 of 157 (1543 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period.

Apparently it is easy for people forget such things.

I do not believe that many wingsuiters that have hit the tail or come close have lacked the proper instruction.

Whether it is by formal training with USPA endorsed/certified instructors and curriculum, or more careful application of the more informal methods currently used, how will we accomplish the goal of getting people to not forget? I think that is what the focus needs to be, How can training achieve the goal of people not forgetting?

Maybe a ground simulator with electro-shock punishment for bad behavior?


(This post was edited by sundevil777 on Sep 13, 2012, 3:50 PM)


tkhayes  (D 18764)

Sep 13, 2012, 3:59 PM
Post #58 of 157 (1530 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DBCOOPER] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

Air Inc is the broker that pretty much exclusively provides hull insurance for skydiving aircraft in the USA. No Air Inc, no insurance, no industry, pretty much that simple.

Bottom line is that insurance companies do have a great effect on our industry and we have no choice but to listen to them unless you want skydives that cost $75 each.

Create policies all you want and tell people 'not to do it', but unless real action is taken, 'they' will ban the wing-suiting, not the DZO, and the DZO will follow suit because they have a huge mortgage on their airplane and they need the insurance.

It was a heads up - and all of us turbine operators got the email from Air Inc. And we are paying attention to it.

That does not mean we plan to ban anything, but we sure will be making sure the people on a wing-suit on our million dollar plus aircraft have a half clue what they are doing and have a plan to stick to it. And that they understand how serious WE are taking the issue.

Now who wants to be strike #12?


(This post was edited by tkhayes on Sep 13, 2012, 4:06 PM)


Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

Sep 13, 2012, 4:52 PM
Post #59 of 157 (1500 views)
Shortcut
Re: [scottygofast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1. How many of these alleged strikes involved newbies?

Does it matter?

Yes it matters a lot because the strikes I am aware of included people that really knew they needed to keep their wings closed.

What aircraft were these? I think a totally valid solution is to restrict wing suiting to the more forgiving aircraft.


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Sep 13, 2012, 5:18 PM
Post #60 of 157 (1482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
1. How many of these alleged strikes involved newbies?

Does it matter?

Yes it matters a lot because the strikes I am aware of included people that really knew they needed to keep their wings closed.

What aircraft were these? I think a totally valid solution is to restrict wing suiting to the more forgiving aircraft.

To be clear you are saying that it would be acceptable to you to ban wingsuiting from DZ's entirely that don't operate higher tail aircraft. And that you find this position to be more reasonable than taking a serious look at establishing a formal training doctrine and instructors to over see it?

I'm sorry I just have a hard time agreeing with that. The insurance company(ies) might take that position in which case no one is gonna have much of a choice in the matter. But for us a community to cut the legs out from under potential wingsuiters because they can't regularly jump an Otter is just wrong.

EDIT: IIRC in one of the many threads on the WSI topic I seem to recall you being against for several reasons. One of which was access to a WSI at smaller dropzones. What you've posted above is clearly in disagreement with what I recall you saying earlier. If that wasn't you I apologize.

Would a WSI program fully prevent a tail strike from ever happening again? Of course not. Would it help? I think it couldn't hurt. Will insurance companies be happier if there was a formalized training program for wingsuiters? Yes, in their eyes and in reality it has a large potential to reduce risks associated with the discipline. Insurance whatever you want to say about it is largely about risk mitigation.


(This post was edited by GobbleGobble on Sep 13, 2012, 5:28 PM)


The111  (D 29246)

Sep 13, 2012, 6:22 PM
Post #61 of 157 (1452 views)
Shortcut
Re: [WickedWingsuits] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes it matters a lot because the strikes I am aware of included people that really knew they needed to keep their wings closed.

I still ride the fence on the "regulation" issue, but I am very interested in something from people who keep pointing out what you are. And a sidenote: your point seems true at face value, but then again I've never occupied the brains of those experienced wingsuiters who have hit tails, so I really can't say for sure what they knew, or what importance they placed on it. In another light though, it would appear to be NOT true, because if those people DID "know" how important it was, then they probably would NOT have made that mistake. But truth of that statement (and the semantics of the word "know") notwithstanding, let's continue...

So my question is... where are you going with that point? If it is true... it seems to me that if people who "know better" are still going to hit tails, then the only logical conclusion is that people will always hit tails (no matter what they know) and that there is no logical solution short of banning wingsuiting. Which I of course do not want, nor do you... so I wonder where you are going with this line of reasoning.

So... if people that know better will hit tails (of planes like Otters)... then what? What do you propose? Why do you keep bringing that up? Even if it's true, I'm not sure it helps our cause, because it sounds like a logical dead end, mainly designed to hold off regulation. It would be a shame to win at holding off regulation (and again I have no dog in that fight) only by losing at the chance of ever wingsuiting at a big DZ again.


(This post was edited by The111 on Sep 13, 2012, 6:23 PM)


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Sep 13, 2012, 7:01 PM
Post #62 of 157 (1431 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Will insurance companies be happier if there was a formalized training program for wingsuiters? Yes, in their eyes and in reality it has a large potential to reduce risks associated with the discipline. Insurance whatever you want to say about it is largely about risk mitigation.

Insurance companies don't give a rats tail if a training program is put in place. They're bean counters! They only care about their investments not being put at risk. The only thing they will warm up to is ... No More Tail Stikes.


sundevil777  (D License)

Sep 13, 2012, 7:19 PM
Post #63 of 157 (1410 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
To be clear you are saying that it would be acceptable to you to ban wingsuiting from DZ's entirely that don't operate higher tail aircraft. And that you find this position to be more reasonable than taking a serious look at establishing a formal training doctrine and instructors to over see it?

I think this is reasonable (from a DZO perspective) because people that definitely know better are still forgetting to do it the right way. As I said before, the current situation is that people that have been trained to not screw up still do screw up.

So, how do we keep people from forgetting to do it the right way every single time? Until we figure out how to do that, I don't think any more formal/expensive/endorsed by whatever governing body training program is going to change things. The training/procedures/I don't know what needs to change, but we don't yet know how it should change.


(This post was edited by sundevil777 on Sep 13, 2012, 7:20 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Sep 13, 2012, 7:43 PM
Post #64 of 157 (1398 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I find this stat hard to believe... Why no incident reports online here every 29 days?

http://i397.photobucket.com/...cted-Tailstrikes.jpg

Sparky


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Sep 13, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #65 of 157 (1363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Will insurance companies be happier if there was a formalized training program for wingsuiters? Yes, in their eyes and in reality it has a large potential to reduce risks associated with the discipline. Insurance whatever you want to say about it is largely about risk mitigation.

Insurance companies don't give a rats tail if a training program is put in place. They're bean counters! They only care about their investments not being put at risk. The only thing they will warm up to is ... No More Tail Stikes.

Certainly but they charge premiums based on the associated composite risk score. An analogy would be Motorcycle Safety Foundation courses. IIRC there are still only two: Basic and Advanced. Having completed a course and providing proof to your insurer will result in a lower premium. Why? Completion of the course and receiving the course card signifies that you have demonstrated a certain level of text book knowledge as well as demonstrated the ability to handle the bike.

Whether this model would hold true with wingsuiting and skydiving a/c premiums... I'd like to actually read one of these policy documents. I'm wondering what is in there currently.


(This post was edited by GobbleGobble on Sep 13, 2012, 8:47 PM)


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Sep 13, 2012, 8:46 PM
Post #66 of 157 (1355 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
To be clear you are saying that it would be acceptable to you to ban wingsuiting from DZ's entirely that don't operate higher tail aircraft. And that you find this position to be more reasonable than taking a serious look at establishing a formal training doctrine and instructors to over see it?

I think this is reasonable (from a DZO perspective) because people that definitely know better are still forgetting to do it the right way. As I said before, the current situation is that people that have been trained to not screw up still do screw up.

So, how do we keep people from forgetting to do it the right way every single time? Until we figure out how to do that, I don't think any more formal/expensive/endorsed by whatever governing body training program is going to change things. The training/procedures/I don't know what needs to change, but we don't yet know how it should change.

My thoughts on this mirrors a few other's I've spoken with. Standardizing the basic training associated with wingsuiting would IMO begin creating a culture within wingsuiting that would be a little more aware and safety conscious. This doesn't mean that all the fun is going to be sucked out of it.

If I go up on a CRW jump with someone who has 20 or 30 jumps in discipline I more or less know what to expect. If I go up on a wingsuit jump with a guy that has 20-100 wingsuit jumps I have no clue what I'm going to bear witness to.


scottygofast  (D 28686)

Sep 13, 2012, 9:33 PM
Post #67 of 157 (1336 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

The FAA and Insurance companies will be more amenable if they see standardization efforts occurring. This is very similar to aviation flight schools that ignored the FAA FITS system and TAA training. Eventually the FAA persuaded schools to "see the light" and standardize with the rest of the country, and they became eligible for federal $$ again. (or in this case, able to continue flying wingsuits out of insured aircraft). Any ban on wingsuiting from anyone other than a DZO, will destroy the WS industry, from manufacturing, sales, training, jump tickets bought (and even rentals too).

Gobble Gobble hits it on the head up there. Dont think I could have put it much better myself, on either post. only thing to add ~

We can do something, or we can do nothing. If we do nothing, we might be able to jump out of balloons, but that'll be about it. 3 more drop zones since this email went out have banned wingsuiting. Insurance companies don't negotiate. They will, however, see standardization as a means of mitigating risk.

if this is not proof positive to anyone who has not seen this to be a threat to all of our ability to fly a wingsuit out of an aircraft if we so choose, then you must be drunk with Elvis right now. If these events continue, no-one but a few of us will notice if wingsuiting in the US disappears. And that would just suck.


Scotty Burns


LloydDobbler  (D 30655)

Sep 13, 2012, 9:42 PM
Post #68 of 157 (1329 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I find this stat hard to believe... Why no incident reports online here every 29 days?

http://i397.photobucket.com/...cted-Tailstrikes.jpg

Sparky

Glad someone finally found that and shared it.

This is still my primary issue (of a few) with this entire discussion. Take another look at that blurry list image you posted. How many locations do you see? How many specific dates? Where are names that can be verified?

You won't find them there. Or anywhere, for that matter. This is just a typed out list of aircraft names and events that supposedly happened. That no one can verify (except for the person who put it together via word of mouth).

Let's assume all of these did happen. How many of them actually involved damage to the aircraft, and how many of them were "near misses" as was originally reported? What constitutes a "near miss"?

Why all the secrecy? Why are we basing this whole discussion on hearsay?

I've asked repeatedly for specifics so I can know the justification for what's being proposed, and the person putting this together tells me he won't reveal them because he wants to protect the confidentiality of the DZ's in question. (And also he wants to make sure that people will continue to tell him when bad things happen.)

Call me crazy, but making sure that people tell you what they heard happened at the DZ today is hardly a good basis for a study of how many incidents we had last year. Eyewitness accounts? Awesome. But so far, I haven't met anyone who was actually there at one of these supposed incidents, with the exception of one. If this were a courtroom, the person presenting the evidence would be asked to come back with something more substantial.

And here we are, trying to discuss a big change of regulation in our sport...all based on a report with details redacted.

Whoever passed this list along to Air, Inc., obviously left out some important details. And as discussions on this board can verify, things can look pretty darn troubling with details left out. Pirate

This troubles me.

--

I'm not saying I would immediately jump onboard with a wingsuit instructor rating if all those details came out. But at least if we could verify that they actually happened, and get some more info (has this person been jumping wingsuits since 1999? Are they new? Were they already breaking the BSR's?). If nothing else, that could help us discern whether taking what's already written in the SIM as a BSR and making it so someone with a rating has to actually teach it to you will help the issue, or if it won't.


scottygofast  (D 28686)

Sep 13, 2012, 10:45 PM
Post #69 of 157 (1303 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LloydDobbler] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

I vaguely recalled seeing that someplace before, so I looked for you. Here you go. :)

http://www.dropzone.com/...t;postatt_id=132656;

Obviously, with as many blogs, posts, and bs about why we dont need to anything, there's a reason this has come to the attention of fortunately the insurance companies instead of the FAA first. They pay the repair bills. They are giving us a heads up, and the opportunity to fix it before they do. The FAA wouldn't. I think we should.
Cool

If the information provided thus far isn't enough to make anyone realize the scope of this situation, remember, NASA faked the moon landings too...

Scotty Burns


LloydDobbler  (D 30655)

Sep 14, 2012, 12:24 AM
Post #70 of 157 (1272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [scottygofast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I vaguely recalled seeing that someplace before, so I looked for you. Here you go. :)

http://www.dropzone.com/...t;postatt_id=132656;

Obviously, with as many blogs, posts, and bs about why we dont need to anything, there's a reason this has come to the attention of fortunately the insurance companies instead of the FAA first. They pay the repair bills. They are giving us a heads up, and the opportunity to fix it before they do. The FAA wouldn't. I think we should.
Cool

If the information provided thus far isn't enough to make anyone realize the scope of this situation, remember, NASA faked the moon landings too...

Scotty Burns

Thanks for the more non-blurry version, Scotty!

As other people can now see, there are no identifying locations or names of the incidents. I'd still like to actually know where these events happened, and hear some firsthand reports. It's currently a game of telephone, with no way to verify that's how things actually went down.

Additionally, some of these don't necessarily lend themselves to the idea that a training program would help. Of the 10 listed from 2011 (I thought there were 12?), we've got:

  • 2 incidents with jumpers with >100 wingsuit jumps

  • 5 incidents of jumpers with more than 50 wingsuit jumps

  • 3 incidents with jump counts unverified (but one of those is a demo jump, so one could assume the person is Pro-rated and has a significant number of wingsuit jumps)

  • 1 incident with Euros as the amount of damage (which suggests it's not a USPA incident, and possibly took place in a country that already has training programs).

  • A lot of incidents with missing data (which makes me wonder if any more of them happened away from the U.S.)

  • ...and 1 non tail strike where someone got bitten by the door and broke their ankle. (I've hit the door on FS jumps more than I choose to count, and there's an incident thread open right now about someone who broke her arm exiting for a 2-way belly jump. Why are we pitching this as a "tail strike?")

All of these make me wonder how big of a problem we have here in the U.S., and particularly among new wingsuit jumpers who would benefit from a formalized teaching of the existing BSRs. Unless we're going to set up new requirements for recurrency every year, I'm not sure an education program will do much.

I'm obviously not convinced we need a formalized program. But I'm willing to consider it. I just haven't yet seen good, verifiable evidence that we have a huge, *code red* problem, or that this mandatory education program will fix it. I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat - I'm just trying to be objective here, on the occasion of a few people who make money training wingsuiters presenting information to try and push for wingsuit training to become mandatory. I think the best thing we can do is to keep an open mind and to get all the information out in the open, so the USPA members can do their own due diligence and make an informed decision.

-------

Additionally, if these numbers are accurate, I'm curious about the trend. There were no tail strikes in 2010, and only one in the prior year by a very experienced wingsuiter. And then supposedly 12 in 2011. (Or 11, if you exclude the Euro-DZ.) (Or 10, if you don't count the door bite.)

I'd like to know how many tail strikes we've counted in 2012 so far. Is it trending upward, or was 2011 the outlier moment that always seems to happen with new skydiving disciplines (freeflying and swooping included) when people finally realize, "Crap. This shit can kill you"?


piisfish

Sep 14, 2012, 2:05 AM
Post #71 of 157 (1256 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LloydDobbler] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
  • ...and 1 non tail strike where someone got bitten by the door and broke their ankle.
  • I read somewhere that he struck the tail after breaking his foot in the doorbut that could be wrong


    tkhayes  (D 18764)

    Sep 14, 2012, 3:15 AM
    Post #72 of 157 (1250 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [LloydDobbler] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    Why all the secrecy? Why are we basing this whole discussion on hearsay?

    It's not heresay - it 16 incidents of tail strikes, 11 in the past year. There is no heresay. All the insurance company cares about is the numbers, that is true. We, as an industry are expected to do something about those numbers else reap the consequences.

    Quote:
    All of these make me wonder how big of a problem we have here in the U.S.,

    ditto - it is a problem of 16 stikes, 11 in the past year, apparently costing tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to aircraft. THAT is how big the problem is. The same planes flown int eh USA are being flown around the world. It does not matter where they happen, it matters IF they happen.

    You can stop 'wondering' now.


    Southern_Man  (C License)

    Sep 14, 2012, 4:26 AM
    Post #73 of 157 (1231 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [tkhayes] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Quote:
    Why all the secrecy? Why are we basing this whole discussion on hearsay?

    It's not heresay - it 16 incidents of tail strikes, 11 in the past year. There is no heresay.

    TK do you know where all these tail strikes occurred?


    tkhayes  (D 18764)

    Sep 14, 2012, 6:20 AM
    Post #74 of 157 (1204 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Southern_Man] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    No I do not, and it is not relevant.


    piisfish

    Sep 14, 2012, 6:24 AM
    Post #75 of 157 (1199 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [tkhayes] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    almost a tailstrike per month is A LOT.
    if they are discussed/announced, measures could be taken. If they are hidden, suddenly the total numbers announced are HUGE.
    I do understand the will of insurance companies to have a change in that.

    So much for "self-policing"


    SwampGod  (D 27345)

    Sep 14, 2012, 7:18 AM
    Post #76 of 157 (1030 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [GobbleGobble] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Insurance companies don't give a rats tail if a training program is put in place. They're bean counters! They only care about their investments not being put at risk.

    Certainly but they charge premiums based on the associated composite risk score.

    When our DZO forwarded me (an S&TA) these e-mails, he was looking for a solution today, right now. What we came up with goes beyond the scope of what a wingsuit coach would be able to do when training newbies, as it also involves the pilot. This is what it boiled down to:

    "My advice - Make sure your pilots (and staff) know the benefit of wingsuiters exiting from a properly trimmed and cut airplane with their wings closed until they clear the airplane."


    In another internet forum for DZOs I found what I believe to be the same concept... they just used better words:

    "This is an easily avoidable problem. Make sure the pilots never fly a climbing, power on jump run, and make sure all of the wingsuiters are trained to roll out of the door with the wings collapsed. If this is done, they drop like a stone away from the airplane. If anyone at the drop zone teaching wingsuit flight is teaching anything else for an exit, they should be corrected, or not allowed to teach wingsuit flight."


    So when mixed together, is the above protocol for pilots mixed with Section 6-9 of the SIM shaping up to be the "procedure manual for wing suit jumps" the insurance company is looking for?

    http://www.uspa.org/...169/Default.aspx#69d

    Thanks to all for putting our heads together on this one!!!

    -eli


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 14, 2012, 9:22 AM
    Post #77 of 157 (978 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [sundevil777] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period.

    Apparently it is easy for people forget such things.

    I do not believe that many wingsuiters that have hit the tail or come close have lacked the proper instruction.

    Whether it is by formal training with USPA endorsed/certified instructors and curriculum, or more careful application of the more informal methods currently used, how will we accomplish the goal of getting people to not forget? I think that is what the focus needs to be, How can training achieve the goal of people not forgetting?

    Maybe a ground simulator with electro-shock punishment for bad behavior?

    Nice post -- and while your electro-shock punishment would no doubt help, it's probably too expensive to be practical -- although you could probably defray the costs by selling tickets.

    Wink

    Seriously, though, most people do receive some sort of training, and many of the tailstrikes are experienced people, so the problem does indeed seem to revolve around what you said:

    "Apparently it is easy for people forget such things."

    That is why the solution set I propose focuses on reminders throughout the process, independent of instruction, ability or experience:

    1. A separate, one-signature wingsuit-only waiver -- or contract, actually -- that says very briefly and non-legalistically that in exchange for being able to jump a wingsuit at that DZ, the jumper promises to not open his/her wings until one second after s/he leaves the plane, and accepts that failure to do so will result in immediate 30/60/365-day prohibition on doing wingsuit jumps at that DZ, and financial responsibility for any damage caused.

    2. Reminder by the loader and/or pilot upon boarding to not open their wings for one second after they leave the plane.

    3. Reminder by the other jumpers going out ahead of the wingsuiter(s) to not open their wings for one second after they leave the plane.

    4. Reminder by the wingsuiters to each other to not open their wings for one second after they leave the plane.

    6. Reminder near the Pavlov light to not open their wings until one second after they leave the airplane.

    7. A slogan near the DZ rules, landing area maps, et al, that says "Wingsuiters! Remember the 1-second rule!"

    8. Whatever other creative ideas individuals and DZs can come up with to minimize forgetfulness.

    Repetition helps minimize forgetfulness and there are some things about which we all need to be reminded, regardless of experience or expertise.

    One of my all-time favorite examples thereof:

    John Elway is in every conversation about who is the greatest pro football quarterback of all time. During one of the two Super Bowl victories that capped off his Hall of Fame career, in either his 15th or 16th year as a pro and 30th year of playing quarterback at any level, he started to trot out onto the field for an offensive series -- and his coach, Mike Shanahan said as he went: "Remember to set your feet."

    This is perhaps the most fundamental element of throwing a good pass, yet even the great John Elway forgot about it often enough that his coach felt it necessary to remind him to do it right before he went out on the field!

    The solution to wingsuit tail strikes really is a back-to-the-future proposition. We need to go back to the lurkfulness that existed in the old days of skydiving, where everyone looked out for one another, looked out for where they were and where they were going instead of everyone doing their own thing and trusting to Pavlov lights instead of even looking out the door before they jumped.*

    Perhaps one of the most bizarre things I have read in all of these threads and posts is in post #53, wherein it is claimed:

    "The wingsuit community has been asking for standardized instruction for 4 years. 82% of wingsuiters want it (according to uspa)."

    Assuming this is actually true, I find it disconcerting that instead of applying lurkfulness to the equation and being responsible for their own actions and those of the sub-discipline to which they belong, they plead for a higher authority to supervise and control them. It inspired me to write this summation (with apologies to the 18 percenters who are wingsuit pilots, not wingsheep).

    Baa, baa, wingsheep,
    Have you any sense?
    No sir, no sir, we're just dense.

    We want a master
    To tell us what to do.
    We don't want it on us,
    We don't have a clue.

    44
    Cool

    * True story from Perris about ten years ago. Long-time DC-3 pilot Skip Evans flew an Otter load. SOP for Skip was turn on the green light, which meant: "Jump run. Spot your load and go when ready."

    Perris Otter SOP, though, was: "Red light - open door. Green light - go."

    So when Skip turned on the green light, the guys at the back opened up the door and went -- two miles from the DZ.

    So did everyone on the entire load, to include many highly experienced jumpers.

    Everyone forgot that simple reminder we all learn as children -- Look before you leap -- yet most of them were mad at the pilot instead of themselves.


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 14, 2012, 9:29 AM
    Post #78 of 157 (969 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Fast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Getting to participate in the DZO side of this conversation, I have already seen one more dropzone ban wingsuiting to just not have to deal with the problem.

    To anyone who says "if you're jumping a wingsuit you know to keep your wings closed on exit", you're wrong. I have seen people with no practical knowledge try to go skydiving with a wingsuit.

    I personally, would like to get to the point where I can be a wingsuit instructor/coach. The real question I have is, who should I get to teach me this stuff. I mean - I know all the practical basics, why don't I just put myself out there now as a first flight instructor. I want to see wingsuiting grow and I want to see my people in the air.

    If you are serious about wanting to learn freeflying or swooping or just good canopy handling, there are a bunch of schools out there -- privately created school completely independent of USPA -- that can do that for you.

    For wingsuiting, you can go to Elsinore's "SEWS" school, and I'm sure there are others scattered around, too, as well as individual instructors of good repute.

    No bureaucracy needed.

    The basic premise of the "new bureaucracy needed" camp is that, if we dont have USPA impose thise new bureaucracy, then nothing will happen and wingsuiting will be banned.

    This is provably puppy poop because in all other disciplines, the demands of the marketplace have resulted in ever more comprehensive training options being offerd -- voluntarily.

    And therein lies the principal danger here: Whenever you have a segment of private enterprise demanding that government force people to buy their products, then you run into a bunch of problems.

    44
    Cool


    mjosparky  (D 5476)

    Sep 14, 2012, 9:33 AM
    Post #79 of 157 (962 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    So when Skip turned on the green light, the guys at the back opened up the door and went -- two miles from the DZ.

    That why I have always called it the "lemming light". Crazy

    Sparky


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 14, 2012, 9:34 AM
    Post #80 of 157 (962 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [tkhayes] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Air Inc is the broker that pretty much exclusively provides hull insurance for skydiving aircraft in the USA. No Air Inc, no insurance, no industry, pretty much that simple.

    Bottom line is that insurance companies do have a great effect on our industry and we have no choice but to listen to them unless you want skydives that cost $75 each.

    Create policies all you want and tell people 'not to do it', but unless real action is taken, 'they' will ban the wing-suiting, not the DZO, and the DZO will follow suit because they have a huge mortgage on their airplane and they need the insurance.

    It was a heads up - and all of us turbine operators got the email from Air Inc. And we are paying attention to it.

    That does not mean we plan to ban anything, but we sure will be making sure the people on a wing-suit on our million dollar plus aircraft have a half clue what they are doing and have a plan to stick to it. And that they understand how serious WE are taking the issue.

    Now who wants to be strike #12?

    Well said, TK. There are multiple solution sets out there, all of which can be tailored to focus on the wingsuit tailstrike problem without having to impose a new bureaucracy upon the sport that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding tailstrikes.

    The list of real actions that I have proposed can have more and/or different elements, and not only can but should vary from DZ to DZ depending upon multiple factors.

    However, forcing a new bureaucracy upon DZOs and the membership should be absolutely last on that list.

    44
    Cool


    normiss  (D 28356)

    Sep 14, 2012, 9:37 AM
    Post #81 of 157 (968 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    I've gotten out over 6 miles from a dz before.
    Made it back easy.
    In a wingsuit.
    Tongue


    -ftp-

    Sep 14, 2012, 9:58 AM
    Post #82 of 157 (959 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [tkhayes] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    No I do not, and it is not relevant.

    Since when is accurate and verifiable data not relevant?


    kallend  (D 23151)

    Sep 14, 2012, 10:18 AM
    Post #83 of 157 (942 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [-ftp-] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    No I do not, and it is not relevant.

    Since when is accurate and verifiable data not relevant?

    Very often. Accurate and verifiable data on, for example, the Higgs Boson is not relevant to my choice of meat at the grocery store.


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 14, 2012, 10:36 AM
    Post #84 of 157 (924 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [SwampGod] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Insurance companies don't give a rats tail if a training program is put in place. They're bean counters! They only care about their investments not being put at risk.

    Certainly but they charge premiums based on the associated composite risk score.

    When our DZO forwarded me (an S&TA) these e-mails, he was looking for a solution today, right now. What we came up with goes beyond the scope of what a wingsuit coach would be able to do when training newbies, as it also involves the pilot. This is what it boiled down to:

    "My advice - Make sure your pilots (and staff) know the benefit of wingsuiters exiting from a properly trimmed and cut airplane with their wings closed until they clear the airplane."


    In another internet forum for DZOs I found what I believe to be the same concept... they just used better words:

    "This is an easily avoidable problem. Make sure the pilots never fly a climbing, power on jump run, and make sure all of the wingsuiters are trained to roll out of the door with the wings collapsed. If this is done, they drop like a stone away from the airplane. If anyone at the drop zone teaching wingsuit flight is teaching anything else for an exit, they should be corrected, or not allowed to teach wingsuit flight."


    So when mixed together, is the above protocol for pilots mixed with Section 6-9 of the SIM shaping up to be the "procedure manual for wing suit jumps" the insurance company is looking for?

    http://www.uspa.org/...169/Default.aspx#69d

    Thanks to all for putting our heads together on this one!!!

    -eli

    +1!!!!!!

    Really, Eli, this rocks!

    It addresses the total environment -- pilot/ac as well as wingsuits, creates the "paper trail" that helps with the insurance people, focuses tightly on tailstrike-specific instruction/reminders -- and does it all without imposing a new bureaucracy that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding tailstrikes.

    Really excellent work, Eli, and one that USPA can get to work on quickly -- and an informal version of which could be disseminated industry-wide in pretty short order.

    44
    Cool


    (This post was edited by robinheid on Sep 14, 2012, 10:47 AM)


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 14, 2012, 10:40 AM
    Post #85 of 157 (914 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [normiss] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    I've gotten out over 6 miles from a dz before.
    Made it back easy.
    In a wingsuit.
    Tongue

    LOL... Unfortunately, none of the people on this load was winging it.

    I guess for wingsuiters, "look before you leap" is not as important an adage as "keep your wings closed until 1 second after you leap."

    44
    Cool


    Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

    Sep 14, 2012, 10:53 AM
    Post #86 of 157 (905 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    According to a link from their FB page, Skydive Spaceland has responded to this by instituting a "wingsuit agreement" that must be signed by all wingsuiters.

    http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/...GzjA6334yO-hm1djqRLZ (Scroll down to mid-page).


    scottygofast  (D 28686)

    Sep 14, 2012, 10:55 AM
    Post #87 of 157 (904 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [SwampGod] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    to Eli:
    In Reply To

    "When our DZO forwarded me (an S&TA) these e-mails, he was looking for a solution today, right now. What we came up with goes beyond the scope of what a wingsuit coach would be able to do when training newbies, as it also involves the pilot."

    If I understand you clearly, you're saying that a proper FFC doesn't involve training/communication with the pilot on the part of the WS student and instructor?

    (Im a pilot, and I know I discuss what's happening with the pilot every jump I make, as I teach my students to do)

    How many people died doing wingsuit jumps with fewer than 200 skydives before 2010? At least 5. One of witch was told NO by myself and Chuck Blue, due to his lack of experience, but went and died anyways someplace else.

    How many people died doing wingsuit jumps with fewer than 200 skydives after 2010? None.

    That was the year of the BSR about wingsuits.

    Did the BSR save lives? Maybe. But from an insurance company view, it absolutely did stop fatalities, and proves that standards from USPA are at least having some effect, and that instructional standards would be most likely to have the same effect on the problem we currently see with tail strikes.

    Regardless of what anyone wants to believe, the situation is real, and is verified by DZO's on this thread, as well as a direct statement from the company responsible for brokering most all policies for turbine aircraft in the US. If their request for action isn't heeded, there will be no need for this conversation to continue, we just simply wont be able to fly wingsuits in the US anymore. if the insurance company says "NO", DZO's have no choice.

    Scotty Burns
    --


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 14, 2012, 11:11 AM
    Post #88 of 157 (887 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [scottygofast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

     
    Attachments: FightBite.jpg (141 KB)
      bad-exit_2.jpg (190 KB)


    SwampGod  (D 27345)

    Sep 14, 2012, 11:37 AM
    Post #89 of 157 (869 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [scottygofast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Quote:
    I says - "When our DZO forwarded me (an S&TA) these e-mails, he was looking for a solution today, right now. What we came up with goes beyond the scope of what a wingsuit coach would be able to do when training newbies, as it also involves the pilot.
    Quote:
    Scotty says - "If I understand you clearly, you're saying that a proper FFC doesn't involve training/communication with the pilot on the part of the WS student and instructor?"

    Gosh, that wasn't it at all. To clarify, what I'm saying is that a solution at our drop zone will involve not just the jumpers, but also our primary and visiting pilots.

    We need to make sure we have a policy in place regardless of whether or not our drop zone is offering First Flight Courses. When looking at tail strikes, the configuration of the airplane on jump run can be a contributing factor, regardless of whether any wingsuits are on board.

    My feeling is that this goes beyond the "do we need wingsuit ratings" debate. Even if there were ratings today, it would still go beyond them. First, as already noted, it's not all about the skydiver (the pilot has a role). Second, not every drop zone will have a wingsuit coach/instructor on site.... so there would need to be a solution independent of any training program. Not every drop zone that allows fun jumpers has an AFF or Static Line Instructor on site, and in those cases a protocol still exists for said jumpers. I'm just trying to find that protocol.


    In reply to:
    How many people died doing wingsuit jumps with fewer than 200 skydives before 2010? At least 5....
    How many people died doing wingsuit jumps with fewer than 200 skydives after 2010? None. That was the year of the BSR about wingsuits.
    Did the BSR save lives? Maybe.

    I was on site for two of the fatalities you are talking about, so this is very real to me. Both jumpers had just over 100 jumps. I have no problem with regulation per se, and feel the 200 jump BSR was an effective and thoughtful solution to a problem. We can't prove it, but I believe that particular BSR has saved lives.


    In reply to:
    But from an insurance company view, it absolutely did stop fatalities, and proves that standards from USPA are at least having some effect, and that instructional standards would be most likely to have the same effect on the problem we currently see with tail strikes.

    I agree that standards from USPA do have an effect. I don't agree that it proves ALL standards would have a positive effect. When it comes to tail strikes, education is part of the solution, to be sure. I'm not sure a factory or USPA recognized wingsuit instructor is the only person that can be teaching our pilots and jumpers this information, though.


    In reply to:
    Regardless of what anyone wants to believe, the situation is real,

    I agree, Scotty. Because this is such an important issue, we are looking for a solution that works now, today. So far it looks like that solution is going to be in the form of pilot training, reinforcement with wingsuiters of the known risk of tail strikes, and maybe even an agreement with people who want to wear wingsuits.

    Thanks for reaching out, and keeping it on track!

    -eli


    PS - I received a very cordial PM talking to me about the downsides of mandating rolling exits. Just for ze record, when I quoted the other DZO in an earlier thread talking about teaching people to, "roll out of the door with the wings collapsed," I must admit I wasn't meaning to reference any particular style of perching in the door... just the concept of exiting with the wings closed. Hope this whole thing clarifies my thoughts. Thanks, peoples!!!!


    SwampGod  (D 27345)

    Sep 14, 2012, 11:40 AM
    Post #90 of 157 (866 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    DSE - Is that "fight the bite" sign you attached posted on a low-tail aircraft, or are you referencing a policy on all airplanes? Well... all non-tailgate airplanes?

    Thank you!

    -eli


    -ftp-

    Sep 14, 2012, 12:30 PM
    Post #91 of 157 (830 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [kallend] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    No I do not, and it is not relevant.

    Since when is accurate and verifiable data not relevant?

    Very often. Accurate and verifiable data on, for example, the Higgs Boson is not relevant to my choice of meat at the grocery store.

    So if you hear your meat could potentially have mad cow desease, you don't care about the source or accuracy? Or does it become relevant then?

    You don't want to VERIFY the source of tailstrikes? Seems a little absurd to not want accurate data when that data is what is being used to create the issue at hand no?


    GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

    Sep 14, 2012, 12:57 PM
    Post #92 of 157 (797 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [SwampGod] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    DSE - Is that "fight the bite" sign you attached posted on a low-tail aircraft, or are you referencing a policy on all airplanes? Well... all non-tailgate airplanes?

    Thank you!

    -eli

    It's posted in the Caravan.


    normiss  (D 28356)

    Sep 14, 2012, 1:00 PM
    Post #93 of 157 (793 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    That's gotta be very challenging keeping your butt (or knees) on the floor for three seconds after exit.
    Tongue


    Fast  (D 28237)

    Sep 14, 2012, 1:08 PM
    Post #94 of 157 (783 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    If you are serious about wanting to learn freeflying or swooping or just good canopy handling, there are a bunch of schools out there -- privately created school completely independent of USPA -- that can do that for you.

    For wingsuiting, you can go to Elsinore's "SEWS" school, and I'm sure there are others scattered around, too, as well as individual instructors of good repute.

    No bureaucracy needed.

    The basic premise of the "new bureaucracy needed" camp is that, if we dont have USPA impose thise new bureaucracy, then nothing will happen and wingsuiting will be banned.

    This is provably puppy poop because in all other disciplines, the demands of the marketplace have resulted in ever more comprehensive training options being offerd -- voluntarily.

    And therein lies the principal danger here: Whenever you have a segment of private enterprise demanding that government force people to buy their products, then you run into a bunch of problems.

    44
    Cool

    You're fighting the wrong fight man. I have said this in other posts previously discussing canopy stuff. The bureaucracy already exists, it's called the USPA and FAA.

    Some important perspective here is that, you're opinion means absolutely nothing if someone farther up the food chain says they aren't happy with what we are doing.

    Your points to freeflying and swooping don't really relate well. Though, with how often fledgling swoopers injure or kill themselves maybe we need some focused instructional requirements there too. You can head on over to this thread if you want to argue that. (Other Controversial Topic, or one of the many threads about the canopy proficiency card).

    Back here in the discussion regarding wingsuits you have to consider where this is all coming from. I mean, when a skydiver goes in swooping, runs into someone head down or otherwise does something stupid in freefall, nothing bad happens to the plane, which most of the time isn't even owned by the dropzone and is shielded otherwise from liability. Welcome to the uninsured part of skydiving, you know the insurance that towns and airports often demand that we get, but doesn't exist. There is just too much risk in the average skydiving activity for any insurance company to get anywhere near it.

    Now, when it comes to wingsuits, they have a significantly greater chance of causing aircraft damage or problems. We use more airspace than regular freefall (while being much harder to see than a canopy) and because of the nature of our suits, it's easier to make a mistake and damage a plane on exit. Planes are one area we can thankfully get insurance still in this industry, cause w/o it, we wouldn't have many turbines flying around that's for damn sure.

    In our current setup, you as an outsider (or an insurance company, or the uspa, or anyone) have no idea what standards my dropzone follows regarding wingsuiters. You don't know who we do or don't let jump them and what the people who are getting them are taught. In the insurance world, that equates to an unknown variable. They don't like that.

    Now, in a world where USPA has a mandated training program and subsequent license endorsement, everyone can point to that as a standardized program that can be changed over time if needed to reflect best methods of training and improve upon problems. Then when a tail strike or xyz other problem happens, there are ways to combat the issue. Training can be adjusted, etc. There is a way for me as a DZM to know that someone showing up at my counter knows what they are doing. When someone does mess up it becomes an accident, not an industry wide lack of training.

    What we have now amounts to "Everyone do whatever they want and teach whatever standards they want." That doesn't work, we don't do that in AFF and we don't do that for Tandems. Not surprisingly, those are the areas that this sport has the least amount of problems. Get on board here, we need to fix this before wingsuiting just goes away.

    The way things are set up now with a first time AFF student, we put a person who has very little skill in a highly structured learning environment and teach them the rules of the road taking them from completely ignorant, to reasonably informed on safety. Then we basically turn them loose to do whatever DZO#329 lets them get away with. That just seems quite silly to me.

    None of this is a perfect system, but we have to work within the framework that is set up for us.


    (This post was edited by Fast on Sep 14, 2012, 1:11 PM)


    dninness  (D 19617)

    Sep 14, 2012, 1:19 PM
    Post #95 of 157 (771 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [tkhayes] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Air Inc is the broker that pretty much exclusively provides hull insurance for skydiving aircraft in the USA. No Air Inc, no insurance, no industry, pretty much that simple.

    Bottom line is that insurance companies do have a great effect on our industry and we have no choice but to listen to them unless you want skydives that cost $75 each.

    Create policies all you want and tell people 'not to do it', but unless real action is taken, 'they' will ban the wing-suiting, not the DZO, and the DZO will follow suit because they have a huge mortgage on their airplane and they need the insurance.

    It was a heads up - and all of us turbine operators got the email from Air Inc. And we are paying attention to it.

    That does not mean we plan to ban anything, but we sure will be making sure the people on a wing-suit on our million dollar plus aircraft have a half clue what they are doing and have a plan to stick to it. And that they understand how serious WE are taking the issue.

    Now who wants to be strike #12?

    I had a whole nice reply all jimmied up, and TK went and basically stole it from me. LOL. Well played, TK. Well played!

    At the end of the day, its going to come down to money. Plain and simple. As do many other decisions in this sport.

    If a/c owners are passed an increased premium from the insurers to continue to allow wingsuiters, they're going to either pass it along to their customer (the DZ) or disallow it altogether. Depending on their experience with wingsuiters, it could go either way. An a/c operator who has more than one dent in his horizontal stab from a wingsuiter's helmet is probably going to say "Yeah, uh, no more. Here's why."

    DZOs, who are notoriously cash-strapped as it is, will not absorb a cost premium to allow wingsuiters that gets passed on to them from the a/c owners. They will say "My aircraft provider now says that wingsuiters will cost me more than RW jumpers, tandems & freeflyers. Yeah, fuck wingsuiters."

    So you have a choice:

    A) A sign over the manifest window that says "Due to insurance concerns, wingsuiting is no longer allowed from any aircraft owned and/or operated by Truman Sparks Aviation LLC dba The Pecos Parachute School"; or

    B) A sign that says "Per our aircraft owner, effective immediately, wingsuit slots will incur a $10 surcharge per jump to cover increased insurance premiums."

    Honestly, would a little increased oversight/guidance/guidelines from the USPA and/or some BSRs around wingsuiting be better than the potential alternative of _not_doing_it_at_all_?


    (This post was edited by dninness on Sep 14, 2012, 1:20 PM)


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 14, 2012, 1:41 PM
    Post #96 of 157 (756 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Fast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:

    You're fighting the wrong fight man. I have said this in other posts previously discussing canopy stuff. The bureaucracy already exists, it's called the USPA and FAA.

    <snip>

    Now, when it comes to wingsuits, they have a significantly greater chance of causing aircraft damage or problems. We use more airspace than regular freefall (while being much harder to see than a canopy) and because of the nature of our suits, it's easier to make a mistake and damage a plane on exit. Planes are one area we can thankfully get insurance still in this industry, cause w/o it, we wouldn't have many turbines flying around that's for damn sure.

    In our current setup, you as an outsider (or an insurance company, or the uspa, or anyone) have no idea what standards my dropzone follows regarding wingsuiters. You don't know who we do or don't let jump them and what the people who are getting them are taught. In the insurance world, that equates to an unknown variable. They don't like that.

    <snip>

    None of this is a perfect system, but we have to work within the framework that is set up for us.

    And this is what is so absolutely brilliant about Eli's proposed solution set:

    It not only addresses wingsuit flyer conduct with regards to tailstrikes, it covers the pilot and related aircraft operations too -- no new bureaucracy needed.

    It also amends the association documentation to specifically address tailstrike avoidance, which is a key element for the insurers -- no new bureaucracy needed.

    Moreover, the pilot/aircraft operations element applies to ALL parachuting operations, thereby further reducing the risk of ALL tailstrikes -- which will show the insurers that our community is really serious about fixing the tailstrike problem, regardless of sub-discipline -- no new bureaucracy needed.

    Next, Eli's proposed solution can be implemented very quickly, whereas imposing a new bureaucracy will of necessity require a lot of time, debate, development and debugging before it can be employed.

    Finally, Eli's proposed solution requires from USPA and its volunteer BOD about 1/100th the effort and 1/1000th the headaches that imposing a new bureaucracy would add.

    44
    Cool


    (This post was edited by robinheid on Sep 14, 2012, 1:46 PM)


    Fast  (D 28237)

    Sep 14, 2012, 2:25 PM
    Post #97 of 157 (731 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    And this is what is so absolutely brilliant about Eli's proposed solution set:

    It not only addresses wingsuit flyer conduct with regards to tailstrikes, it covers the pilot and related aircraft operations too -- no new bureaucracy needed.

    It also amends the association documentation to specifically address tailstrike avoidance, which is a key element for the insurers -- no new bureaucracy needed.

    Moreover, the pilot/aircraft operations element applies to ALL parachuting operations, thereby further reducing the risk of ALL tailstrikes -- which will show the insurers that our community is really serious about fixing the tailstrike problem, regardless of sub-discipline -- no new bureaucracy needed.

    Next, Eli's proposed solution can be implemented very quickly, whereas imposing a new bureaucracy will of necessity require a lot of time, debate, development and debugging before it can be employed.

    Finally, Eli's proposed solution requires from USPA and its volunteer BOD about 1/100th the effort and 1/1000th the headaches that imposing a new bureaucracy would add.

    44
    Cool

    Who should be making sure this stuff is followed? DZOs? AFFIs? S&TAs? What if that person doesn't know anything about wingsuiting. Serious question, not sarcastic.

    I mean at a minimum, a lot of this stuff would have to go into the BSRs so that dropzones had to follow it. If the above mentioned person doesn't know anything about wingsuiting do we produce some kind of document to try and teach them? What if they don't want to learn, does the dropzone just ban wingsuiting?

    That doesn't even get into, how do we make sure that a person is at least reasonably competent in the air. For all the other mentioned disciplines the stuff boils back down the skills learned in AFF = basic safety. Wingsuiting is different, it's a whole different set of skills. Again, who do we get to teach the noobs in the sport, do we depend on the manufacturers? Do we require manufacturer training? Do we just let people buy a suit and wing it (hah).

    These are serious questions that I haven't seen people answering. I like this part of the sport, I don't want to see it go away for any reason. (Insurance companies, ratings, etc). But there has to be an answer to this kind of stuff. People need to get themselves in the shoes of the younger generations. The people who want to strap on a gopro on their aff level 3.

    What's the answer? Wingsuiting is very different than regular skydiving. I have taken 2 first flight courses and they taught different things. Who has the right answer?

    How the hell do we sort all this stuff out.


    Edit to add: Given what people have suggested, the only option I can see to support is having some kind of wingsuit instructor rating. Most of the other suggestions people have made are basically fancy versions of "just keep doing what we are doing". I haven't seen anyone put anything out there with substance that is going to make sure people are getting educated on this stuff and following best practices. If people don't want to support the WSI thing, there at least needs to be some kind of better option proposed other than "damn the man, no soup for you". Otherwise this part of the sport that I really dig could end up going away and that will make me and a lot of other people sad.


    (This post was edited by Fast on Sep 14, 2012, 2:31 PM)


    Fast  (D 28237)

    Sep 14, 2012, 2:44 PM
    Post #98 of 157 (719 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [normiss] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    That's gotta be very challenging keeping your butt (or knees) on the floor for three seconds after exit.
    Tongue

    Funny, but what I see that's challenging in that sign is doing anything bigger than a 2-3 way (no floaters allowed???) How the hell do the other people in the group get in position to exit?

    Also, flying stable 3 seconds fully closed up is kinda a bitch when it comes to building formations. It's also entirely not nessecary. After 3 seconds you're 200 feet or more away from the plane.


    tkhayes  (D 18764)

    Sep 14, 2012, 4:22 PM
    Post #99 of 157 (685 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [-ftp-] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    just because YOU might feel the need to 'verify it' is also not relevant. They happened. You can pick it apart and say it is this and that, and come up with all the excuses and plans you want. But while that is happening the insurance company just might close down your dropzone.

    I have no idea where they happened. I have no idea why they happened. i have no idea if it is a trend, or whatever. But I do know that my insurance policy is in jeopardy if we do not do something about it.


    SwampGod  (D 27345)

    Sep 14, 2012, 4:23 PM
    Post #100 of 157 (686 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Fast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Ok, let me let my brain catch up.

    It seems we have an issue. The solution could come in the form of more regulation or more education, or even both. Either way, said solution will then have to be communicated to everyone if there’s a chance of people following it.

    The problem? Tail strikes are bad. Check.

    So what makes a tail strike more likely? Exiting when the aircraft is flying faster than normal or climbing is riskier… as is using a large wingsuit, or exiting improperly in any type of suit (birthday included).

    To manage this risk we communicate with the wingsuiters and the pilots (the two parties directly involved) to make sure we're minimizing said risk.

    At our drop zone the DZO, S&TAs, Instructors, Pilots, and manifest help work together to keep things running as safe and smooth as possible. Therefore, all of the above would have our dz wingsuit procedures shared with them.


    In reply to:
    Who should be making sure this stuff is followed? DZOs? AFFIs? S&TAs? What if that person doesn't know anything about wingsuiting. Serious question, not sarcastic.

    Right now the heat has been turned up by the insurance companies. So I would say the first people that realistically would make sure this stuff is being followed would be aircraft owners. They would ultimately be responsible for the training of their pilots, as well.

    DZOs and S&TAs work with pilots and aircraft owners (if they're not the DZO). I, as an S&TA, am motivated by the huge paycheck and fame.... wait.... something’s not right… start over.

    Apart from the riches, I am motivated by safety. When in doubt, I consult my elders in the sport in the discipline they excel in. When no elders are present, I use the SIM as a reference. I'm fairly sure I'm not alone, but I may be the only one to admit it. :)


    In reply to:
    I mean at a minimum, a lot of this stuff would have to go into the BSRs so that dropzones had to follow it. If the above mentioned person doesn't know anything about wingsuiting do we produce some kind of document to try and teach them? What if they don't want to learn, does the dropzone just ban wingsuiting?

    I read and follow the BSRs, but also read and follow most of Section 6 of the SIM (Advanced Progression)… to prep for night jumps, brief on jumping cameras, and most recently talk to B License candidates about canopy control. I did not consult the SIM to learn about CRW or tail strikes... that teaching was all done by life.

    I guess my point is that if no expert is available, we still have a section on Wingsuiting in the SIM, and there is even a part on exiting.

    Quote:
    SIM Section 6-9

    D. Wingsuit exit and flight

    b. The Coach should observe the exit to evaluate:
    (1) the students’ stability; and
    (2) that the student delayed opening their wings as instructed to avoid the horizontal stabilizer.

    If the assumption that only an experienced wingsuit pilot can tell if someone didn’t keep their wings closed, I would not support that statement. However if I am misreading this, please let me know.


    So... we have aircraft owners that have a huge financial incentive to make sure this is followed, and a couple of simple procedures to be followed, most of which are already in the SIM.

    My question is… where will this stuff end up? Section 6? As a download on the website? In the mailing for Group Members? Again, the procedures involve more than just wingsuits, so maybe Section 6-9 isn’t the right place for this…


    Because I believe the tail strike issue goes beyond mere wingsuits, the rest of your questions (“how do we make sure that a person is at least reasonable competent in the air”) pertain to wingsuit training specifically more than tail strikes specifically. I think they are good questions, but might belong in another thread. Let me know if I missed your point, though.

    Later, all!

    -eli


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 14, 2012, 6:50 PM
    Post #101 of 157 (1484 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [tkhayes] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    There are exit methods being taught today that encourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

    There are exit methods being taught today that discourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

    ###

    At least 5 sub-200 skydives before wingsuiting fatalities occurred prior to USPA reluctantly passing a BSR that says (BSR 2, Sec J-6)
    "Any person performing a wingsuit jump must have at least 200 skydives, and hold a current USPA license.[E]"

    How many fatalities of sub 200 jump jumpers since the passage of the BSR?
    Zero.


    To any outside agency this says "The governing body took action, the issue has been significantly reduced/halted."
    Before the passage of the BSR, some people said "Not enough people have died to warrant a BSR being passed."

    How more effectively may DZO's, aircraft providers, and insurance companies be assured persons in a wingsuit have been taught the same principles and techniques?
    Without standardized instruction, they cannot be assured of anything except "more of the same," which isn't good enough.
    Change the training, change the culture.
    Attachments: BSR_1981.jpg (162 KB)
      Good-Exit.jpg (273 KB)
      wingsuit-leaving-door.jpg (53.7 KB)
      OpenWing_41.jpg (26.9 KB)


    skyjumpenfool  (Student)

    Sep 15, 2012, 1:19 PM
    Post #102 of 157 (1408 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Change the training, change the culture.

    Standardized training may give the culture a chance to survive, thus evolve? Smile

    Pictures tell a thousand words! Thanks DSE.


    mjosparky  (D 5476)

    Sep 15, 2012, 8:27 PM
    Post #103 of 157 (1360 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [-ftp-] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    No I do not, and it is not relevant.

    Since when is accurate and verifiable data not relevant?

    Very often. Accurate and verifiable data on, for example, the Higgs Boson is not relevant to my choice of meat at the grocery store.

    So if you hear your meat could potentially have mad cow desease, you don't care about the source or accuracy? Or does it become relevant then?

    You don't want to VERIFY the source of tailstrikes? Seems a little absurd to not want accurate data when that data is what is being used to create the issue at hand no?

    I think you are missing the point. The insurance companies are the source. What you think if that source is not important. This is an issue between the DZO’s and their insurance carrier. You might think of it as your play ground but is their business….their lively hood. They will make discussions based on what is best for their business not what is best for ftp.

    Sparky


    davelepka  (D 21448)

    Sep 16, 2012, 6:23 AM
    Post #104 of 157 (1321 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [mjosparky] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    I think you are missing the point

    There's a lot of that in this thread.

    The insurance company only sees one thing, and that's the growing list of claims for airframe damage due to wingsuits. They don't care who did the damage, how many jumps they have, what suit they jump, or how they were trained. All they know is that their insured aircraft was damaged, and they had to pay the claim.

    The insurance company also doesn't care how this problem is solved, just that there is an immediate and complete end to this type of claim. The wingsuit community has backed itself into a corner by allowing this string of tightly grouped incidents to take place. It's not one or two, or even five, it's better than one per month and it used up all of our 'get out of jail free' cards.

    In my mind, the insurance company is right up there with the FAA. They hold the 'keys to the kingdom' and could easily shut wingsuiting down in the US. You might be able to find an uninsured 182, or one covered by another carrier, but one thing is for sure, there won't be any more disputes about who is, or is not, inside the grid.


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 16, 2012, 7:06 AM
    Post #105 of 157 (1304 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    as a side note~

    The insurance company that covers the demo policy has in effect regulated a training protocol in that in order to be covered, the jumper must be qualified & current on the type & size of the canopy being used during the performance.

    At an ICAS convention some years back I was amazed at the knowledge an underwriter I spoke with had regarding the canopy types, sizes and the flight & landing characteristics.


    Krip  (Student)

    Sep 16, 2012, 8:09 AM
    Post #106 of 157 (1286 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [airtwardo] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    as a side note~

    The insurance company that covers the demo policy has in effect regulated a training protocol in that in order to be covered, the jumper must be qualified & current on the type & size of the canopy being used during the performance.

    At an ICAS convention some years back I was amazed at the knowledge an underwriter I spoke with had regarding the canopy types, sizes and the flight & landing characteristics.

    Hi Mr T

    When you were talking with the guy you passTongue

    There were a few claims on that list for tail stikes that IMO were for chump changeCrazy we learned a long time ago not to turn every little car Pirate into the insurance company.

    Because if they pay, your rates will go up.Shocked

    A $500,000 claim is a lot of moneyPirate, but a $6k is one days tandems at some DZ's.

    Interesting in hind sight that the DZ at Harvey Field (snohomish)
    said no more WS's before the letter became public knowledge.

    TBSS If the industry of "skydiving" wants to be self regulated than even with thier waiver they need to clean up their act, or the insurance company will regulate them out of existance. Except Tandems.Wink

    R.


    ksjumper  (D 12628)

    Sep 16, 2012, 9:56 AM
    Post #107 of 157 (1260 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Krip] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    We are insured by the insurance company listed in Parachutist. Maybe I missed it in the 5 pages of talk in this thread but i don't understanded the blow up because there are clauses that if the damage was cause by the skydiving activity, ie a jumper, the insurance company will not pay(quoting from our insurance policy):

    "AIRCRAFT PHYSICAL DAMAGE we will not pay for any physical loss of or damage to your aircraft caused by anyone jumping or attempting to jump from your aircraft while the aircraft is in flight or attempting flight."


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 16, 2012, 11:10 AM
    Post #108 of 157 (1237 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [ksjumper] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    We are insured by the insurance company listed in Parachutist. Maybe I missed it in the 5 pages of talk in this thread but i don't understand the blow up because there are clauses that if the damage was cause by the skydiving activity, ie a jumper, the insurance company will not pay(quoting from our insurance policy):

    "AIRCRAFT PHYSICAL DAMAGE we will not pay for any physical loss of or damage to your aircraft caused by anyone jumping or attempting to jump from your aircraft while the aircraft is in flight or attempting flight."

    WE as jumpers are insured to a limited extent regarding liability, through the USPA set up policy.

    The insurance on the aircraft, with the policy held by the owner is a whole different animal.

    ~or am I misunderstanding your post?


    lurch  (D 27583)

    Sep 16, 2012, 11:52 AM
    Post #109 of 157 (1221 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [PhreeZone] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    I'd like to make a suggestion.
    Time is against us.

    We do not have time to spend as we have so far, infinitely bickering among ourselves and accomplishing nothing.

    It takes time to institute new bureaucracy of any sort. We can argue about the creation of a rating all we want. Perhaps we should move forward with that as well but it is a separate issue.

    The problem is that we have too many people flying wingsuits who do not understand or are not aware of the level of risk they are taking and the physics involved. They are not educating themselves, nor are they putting even the minimum amount of thought into it, actually thinking about, understanding and taking into account the physics and conditions involved. Not all of us need to be forced or led. I flew all sizes of suits for years and kept myself safe by paying attention to what I was doing. I had nobody to teach me. I was learning it by studying the physics and the techniques of the few other birds who existed at the time. Nobody ever needed to warn me about the tail, (they did anyway though, especially the year we had a Caravan, thank you!) I understood the threat from the start and developed ingrained habits to avoid it. It seemed incredibly obvious. Like the consequences of NOT flaring. Especially on low tailed aircraft, I learned to scrunch desperately like my life depended on it, because it does. I am among the lighter weight wingsuit pilots flying the biggest of suits and am more vulnerable to this threat than almost anyone else in the sky. Which is why I'm so aware of it. To me all tails are a guillotine blade I must dodge each and every time.

    But the pioneer days are over, we exist in mass numbers now and we have made it look too easy and too accessible. Now we have rapidly increasing numbers of people with wingsuits and almost no awareness of what they can actually do. Many of these tailstrikes, including the fatality from '09 who happened to be a close friend of mine, were caused by experienced wingsuiters screwing up. Simply shouting from the rooftops "We have to have a rating" Is not an effective way to address the issue.

    It is a large, indirect blanket method, typical of bureaucratic police thinking and does nothing to address the fact that many of these strikes are by people already experienced enough that such a rating program would have had no effect on the outcome whatsoever.

    The '09 fatality. I taught him from first flight myself. Including the hazards of tails. Flew with him his whole wingsuit career. Led by example. He watched me experiment with prototypes that jacked my tailstrike risk 1000fold, watched me successfully deal with it all without incident and STILL he was unaware. He had years of experience. He was repeatedly warned about increasing carelessness by his own crew. And it was still not enough to prevent his death. He let his guard down and it killed him.

    A concrete, effective action solution is required NOW. Not 6 months from now after half a dozen more tailstrikes and 50,000 pages worth of political maneuvering for status and power within the community only to arrive at an expensive and complex bureaucratic "solution" that does NOTHING to actually STOP this and is guaranteed to provoke instant reflex defiance from every wannabe rebel in the sport, of which we have many. Wingsuiting attracts such people like flies. Any solution must address their existence AND their nature.

    The creation and mandating of a rating will have no effect on the already well-experienced wingsuit population responsible for half these incidents.

    I do not argue against a rating. For what its worth, more and more I support the idea of its creation. With mass adoption comes mass stupidity, mass carelessness and mass arrogance and so we get the Miami Tailstrike Contest. What did they think they were doing, a carnival ride where everything's been made safe enough for a drug-addled juvenile to survive it no matter what they do?

    The complete, oblivious carefree idiocy on display was a symptom of fatal mindlessness growing endemic throughout our community. What we have done so far is not working. When wingsuits were exclusive to the highly aware daring explorer types among us who could take care of themselves we were fine. Now, wingsuits are the new Swooping and we are attracting mass numbers of guys like Sangi (if you don't know, do a search for the tale of his short and brutal career as a "mad skyllz swooper") but now they have the power to take the entire aircraft with them. And with the bullheaded pig-ignorant stupidity of all such types, they will not stop or change course until they actually DO take down a plane.

    We've been lucky so far. Our luck has just run out.

    One of the tailstrikes in the last year was by a guy with over 7,000 jumps. I'd have thought surely THAT was enough to prepare the guy and assure his awareness of airflow/gear interaction possibilities but clearly it was not. Experience is no guarantee, and a rating will not touch those who think they already know what they're doing. Including those careless ones who HAVE been trained, take a casual skygod attitude, let down their guard and continue to have tailstrikes anyway.

    I argue for direct, effective action, NOW. The most effective way to stop this and stop it cold is to get the information out there. By any means necessary. Jam it in everybody's faces.

    The images Spot put up here are revealing. The sight of bird after bird exiting with wings half-spread is like watching kids tap-dancing on the interstate, oblivious. I want to slap them for waltzing into such a threatening situation with such a cavalier attitude and without taking the trouble to even make THEMSELVES aware of the hazards they're facing... and creating.

    Point 1: A rating will help but it is not a solution in itself. Creating such rating and declaring "We fixed it, see?" is begging for a fall. What will we do when the experienced but careless birds, unaffected by regulations imposed on newbies, continue to smack tails anyway? Wail "But we FIXED it?" We didn't. It'll look all proper, satisfy the bureaucrats, (for awhile) there'll be all kinds of i's to dot and t's to cross and signatures to collect and people will feel smug and satisfied that they "did something effective" because The System says thats how all things are fixed, and it will, not, actually, stop the tailstrikes.

    "You have all these rules and you think they'll save you." -The Joker

    Point 2: It could take years longer before any real consensus or agreement is reached in the community. We don't HAVE years. In the middle of a mal you don't spend time debating what is the best emergency procedure. You ACT. To the best of your knowledge, with whatever you have at hand. Not by some rigid process depicted in a policy manual but by whatever means will ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM NOW.

    A half-effective solution may be worse than no solution at all. After we have a rating, and "we" have collectively notified the insurance industry that "we have policies in place now" and the tailstrikes continue, what then? I have little but contempt for most forms of institutional authority because it only knows one blind, blanket solution to all problems. "People are breaking or ignoring the rules? We'll make even MORE rules, that'll stop em!"

    Point 3: There is only one way I can think of that can be at least unopposed if not enthusiastically promoted by all, to address this in a concrete manner.
    A direct information campaign. The procedures we need to propagate and make known are basic and can be depicted on a single sheet. It will be a whole lot easier to get the entire community to agree on a simple set of procedures to post in every aircraft and at every boarding area for addressing exit hazards than an entire rating and its attendant requirements and bureaucracy.

    Spot already has this handled at his place. He did not wait for the system to solve it for him. While waiting to see how the rating effort turned out, he ACTED DIRECTLY.

    But his efforts are limited in effect to his sphere of influence. Its a massive help and the most professional operation we've got going that I know of but it is not enough. We have a large assortment of small kingdoms watched over by the birds who founded them but all the spaces in between are unguarded. Miami is proof of that. And a preview of the results. We can no longer count on the intelligence and awareness of the individual birds involved because the filtering mechanism that used to protect us is no longer functioning. Fear and ignorance no longer keep the idiots out. They got the idea this is easy, too many of them ventured over the line without getting bit, and now they're coming for us. We are outnumbered and we cannot win. Not as we are. Take a good look at the "mad skillz" swoop community. How many of them REFUSE to learn till AFTER they shatter their bodies. With years and hundreds of examples to ignore. The danger only encourages them to prove how "mad skillz" they REALLY are and how THEY are the exception they don't NEED canopy skill drills or education because THEY are faster smarter and ahead of all those average guys and so we have a neverending supply of them, new ones to replace the fallen as fast as they can break themselves. Thats us next week.

    We need a solution that will be noticed and heeded by newbs and veterans alike. The veterans causing half the problem will blow off, ignore and dismiss the rating before its even created because the rules already do not apply to them.

    I know of two forms of action that are actually effective in addressing such issues.
    The first is to get the damn info out there. Short. Succinct. Bullet points and one or two cartoon graphics on a simple sign we can post at every boarding area and in every aircraft. A simple image of a wingsuit in midexit with wings tightly scrunched and a "1...2...open" followed by an image of a wingsuit in midexit with wings open, striking the tail, with little cartoon X's over his eyes and a big red X across the image. Get it OUT there. By any means necessary, polite or obnoxious. Jam it in people's faces so thoroughly it cannot be dismissed or ignored.

    Get the wingsuit waiver made. Its a start. Convince DZOs to institute it of their own free will out of rational self interest.

    People can argue that it will be ignored and initialed the way the basic waivers we already sign for general jumping are. But they miss the point. The waiver is NOT ignored. Some try to, and try to sue anyway, but everyone who jumps signs one, and everyone who jumps knows what they are signing and WHY. THAT, is what we need to make known...the WHY. There isn't a single skydiver who does not constantly encounter the words "Parachuting is a high risk activity that may result in injury or death" everywhere they look. Its on the waiver. Its written on our canopies. Our rigs. In our manuals.

    This approach HAS ALREADY WORKED against threats that could have ended skydiving. NOBODY can plead ignorance. That example is the most thorough awareness-saturation campaign that has ever been held by skydivers and it WORKED.

    THAT is what we must do. Now.


    The second form of action is simple peer pressure. Talk about it. To everybody. Rehearse. Publicly. Explain what and why. Refer them to the damn signs! Don't wait for one, don't wait for mine, make your own.

    Explain that this threat exceeds all others that we know of and that anything less than hypervigilance is no longer acceptable

    Spot teaches 3 seconds' delay. Its thorough and leaves a margin for error including newbies counting at triple speed due to excitement. Some argue that its excessive. Robin argues for just 1 second. I say this is not enough. I could do a rushed "one-count", pop my apache half a second into the exit and still hit the tail. We do not want to bet the future of our sport on a borderline one second wide. We need a commonly known procedure that works even if you screw it up because people WILL. Count on it.

    At least let us settle on two seconds as a MINIMUM safety standard. To HELL with how it affects building formations. A wasted second after exit makes less difference to us than any other form of skydiver. We HAVE the time. AFTER we're out and clear. If an additional one second delay is enough to prevent a bird from making it into a formation that bird does not in fact know how to exit and fly the hill yet and has no business IN the formation and needs to stick to basic flight practice until they do. This can be taught by rating holders LATER. They need to have the basic survival skills made known to them, unignorably, NOW. THAT, we can do immediately.

    I'm sure the bickering skygods will make drama and protest whats all the hysteria about, we don't need no waiver, etc... but its existence and the signs everywhere will be causing them to ASK THE QUESTION in spite of themselves and their own attitude. It will force the issue to the front of their minds even against their will, in spite of their best efforts to ignore it or cop an attitude that they're so skilled it doesn't apply to them.

    Which is the point. Our problem isn't "not enough rules" our problem is "not enough AWARENESS."

    We can fix THAT much faster than we can make and enforce new rules and new bureaucracy.

    If we don't stop this now there won't BE any formations. There will be people who rush the "one-count" but making common procedure a mental state of waiting 2 beats means even a half-panicked hyped-up "onetwoopen!" by an overexcited noob still incudes more than the one actual second required to clear the aircraft. A minimum extra margin for error MUST be built into universally known procedure because people will need it, people will use it, and if that margin isn't taught as an inherent part of the procedure this approach will not work. People will obey the peer pressure rules as best they can and hit the tail anyway.

    I am not going to wait around for the rest of the community to get the picture and come to an agreement either. The necessary minimum action to begin addressing this is clear. To demonstrate by action that I do not think myself any more exempt than anyone else, I shall go first. And I begin acting on this, today. I will be seen demonstrating and practicing proper exit technique by the mockup even if there are no other birds present to see. Some aspiring birds WILL see. And ask. And learn. Which is the point.

    Anyone with some art skills willing and able to create a custom "public sign style" cartoon image in the nonverbal style used for road signs and public things such as fire exits and wet floors depicting the threat and its solution for prompt release to public domain to help me with this, please contact me immediately. I cannot offer to pay you. All I can offer is that if this works, your work will be seen posted in every Manifest office, aircraft and boarding area in the industry.

    I've made quite a few friends in this thing. I have deliberately refrained from asking for favors or backup on any issues I could handle myself so that IF I ever needed to call for help for real, that call, would be taken seriously.

    I'm calling for it now. I need the Cavalry. Even those of you with opposing agendas and even outright interpersonal animosity. Please. Set aside the issues you fight over and work together with me. For this. For US. On just this one thing. Even if you believe it will be ineffective. Indulge me. This is Lurch, and I am calling for your aid. I want more than anything to stop this now before some insurance bureaucrat closes the gates and locks me out of the sky so his shareholders can save a few bucks against the possibility of a risk I myself don't even present because I actually take this seriously. We can't make a rating overnight without wrecking half the community in the process by reflexive defiant opposition but we CAN do THIS and we can do it right now.

    Jeff. Spot. Scotty. Taya. Ed. Scott Bland. Chuck Blue.
    All my heroes and friends. Everyone I know. And I mean everyone. At least everyone in the United States. If you fly a wingsuit this involves YOU.

    Once...just once... I ask us to all pull together in the same direction to accomplish something.
    All the cynics and jaded birds. Mock me if you must for my silly dramatic idealism but HELP me this one time. Take this request seriously. Just be willing to help post this...when it is made... be willing to help spread the waiver idea. Its not a total solution but its a start and its a lot faster and more direct than a rating. We can't wait around for a rating, we can't wait around for somebody else to "make policy". WE have to make it. NOW. Not by writing it down in some rulebook somewhere but by putting it UP, everywhere. I can do NOTHING alone. I can fix one dropzone... mine. I can have little effect on anything else without a lot of help.

    I am not going to wait around for an answer. I'm setting off for the DZ now to get started. I'll do whatever I can, today. If you're going to help, do it now, talk about it later. We've lost too much time as it is.
    -B


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 16, 2012, 1:28 PM
    Post #110 of 157 (1194 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    There are exit methods being taught today that encourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

    There are exit methods being taught today that discourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

    ###

    At least 5 sub-200 skydives before wingsuiting fatalities occurred prior to USPA reluctantly passing a BSR that says (BSR 2, Sec J-6)
    "Any person performing a wingsuit jump must have at least 200 skydives, and hold a current USPA license.[E]"

    How many fatalities of sub 200 jump jumpers since the passage of the BSR?
    Zero.


    To any outside agency this says "The governing body took action, the issue has been significantly reduced/halted."
    Before the passage of the BSR, some people said "Not enough people have died to warrant a BSR being passed."

    How more effectively may DZO's, aircraft providers, and insurance companies be assured persons in a wingsuit have been taught the same principles and techniques?
    Without standardized instruction, they cannot be assured of anything except "more of the same," which isn't good enough.
    Change the training, change the culture.

    +1!

    This whole post is Exhibit A for the affirmative for Eli's proposition, to wit: add something to the SIM and related pilot/AC operations that focuses speficially on procedures that minimize the chance of tailstrikes, not just for wingsuiters but for all jumping sub-disciplines -- no new bureacucracy needed.

    As this poster points out so eloquently, significant and important improvements in the system can be achieved by adjusting and/or adding minor elements to already existing procedures, policies and publications -- all without imposing a new bureacucracy on the sport or its governing body.

    Moreover, when the poster writes that "(t)here are exit methods being taught today that encourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career (and) exit methods being taught today that discourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career," he underscores my points 4 and 5 in Post #96:

    Quote:
    Next, Eli's proposed solution can be implemented very quickly, whereas imposing a new bureaucracy will of necessity require a lot of time, debate, development and debugging before it can be employed.

    Finally, Eli's proposed solution requires from USPA and its volunteer BOD about 1/100th the effort and 1/1000th the headaches that imposing a new bureaucracy would add.

    Given that tailstrike avoidance is the critical path here, and given that there are competing schools of thought over how best to teach exit/avoidance, then it is inevitable that trying to solve this problem by imposing a new bureaucracy will in fact take a lot of time the industry doesn't have, and generate a lot of headaches that the association's volunteer board doesn't need -- because there will in fact be a big fight over which of the competing "principles and techniques" should adopt to minimize tailstrikes.

    All of this can be avoided by adopting Eli's proposal, the basic premise of which is, as this poster has so succinctly pointed out, already proven to be highly effective when used in terms of jump numbers required for a first wingsuit jump -- and will undoubtedly be equally effective when applied to tailstrike avoidance.

    You know, reasonable and informed people can disagree over the need to impose a new training bureacuracy on sport parachuting in the United States, and everyone knows the side of that discussion on which I come down.

    But right now is unequivocally not the time to have that discussion. Now is the time to fix the tailstrike problem, which is a 1 percent part of the new training bureaucracy debate but a 100 percent part of whether wingsuiting becomes effectively banned in the US because of tailstrike problems.

    Eli's proposal does exacty that, and that's a win for the "new training bureaucracy" camp too -- because if we don't get that done tout de suite, then there won't be any need for a new wingsuit training bureaucracy, will there?

    44
    Cool


    ksjumper  (D 12628)

    Sep 16, 2012, 1:48 PM
    Post #111 of 157 (1183 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [airtwardo] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    I am certain that USPA began excluding damage to aircraft cause by jumpers quite a few years ago. I beleive just before or after a tail strike on Mullin's king air in the 90's. It is basically only covering damage you might cause to property or person(non-jumper) on the ground. But forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought it also would not pay if the damage was inflicted on another member or his/her property. IE, if you crashed into another member's vehicle, you are not covered.


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 16, 2012, 1:59 PM
    Post #112 of 157 (1178 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [ksjumper] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    I am certain that USPA began excluding damage to aircraft cause by jumpers quite a few years ago. I beleive just before or after a tail strike on Mullin's king air in the 90's. It is basically only covering damage you might cause to property or person(non-jumper) on the ground. But forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought it also would not pay if the damage was inflicted on another member or his/her property. IE, if you crashed into another member's vehicle, you are not covered.


    I think that was brought up in another thread a while back...a DZO's car was hit, he is a member and it was in fact covered.

    I don't know about the Mullins tail strike thing, it was my understanding that a lot of claims were being put in for paint jobs and interior damage that was 'normal wear' for the operation in that environment...some aircraft got a 'free' face-lift prior to being sold was what I heard. Wink


    DARK  (B 31685)

    Sep 17, 2012, 6:50 AM
    Post #113 of 157 (1090 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:

    At least 5 sub-200 skydives before wingsuiting fatalities occurred prior to USPA reluctantly passing a BSR that says (BSR 2, Sec J-6)
    "Any person performing a wingsuit jump must have at least 200 skydives, and hold a current USPA license.[E]"

    How many fatalities of sub 200 jump jumpers since the passage of the BSR?
    Zero.

    How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 17, 2012, 7:24 AM
    Post #114 of 157 (1075 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DARK] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:

    How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters
    Historically pre-BSR?
    70+ (which is why they were banned by USPA)
    Post BSR specifically related to the wingsuit and skydive? 2, arguably 3.

    The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?


    davelepka  (D 21448)

    Sep 17, 2012, 7:37 AM
    Post #115 of 157 (1067 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

    Another interesting point about the crowd who are against a wingsuit instructor rating, or some sort of standardized course is that every one of them learned without a course and went on to continue wingsuiting with some degree of success. While this might seem to support the anti-instructor argument, it does not.

    Those folks have proven over time that they are 'cut out' for wingsuiting. They began, learned, and found they they 'fit' with that activity, and thus stuck with it. Now if everyone had the neccesary physical/mental traits to succeed as such, then maybe formal, established instructors and training courses are not needed.

    Of course, we know that not everyone fits that mold. This doesn't mean that those people don't jump, or want to try wingsuiting, and this is the reason that we need a formal training system in place at every DZ. Not some DZs, not just the ones where a couple of good WSs happen to jump, but a standardized training program that is either 'that way or the highway', meaning if a DZ cannot support the program (like with a rated instructor), then no first flight course will take place at that DZ.

    Compare it to primary training. We all know there are some 'naturals' who could have been released on their first AFF jump, and probably didn't need instructors in the first place. I know a guy who I am sure you could toss out of a plane with about 30 min of ground school and he would do fine. However, we still have a structured training program with rated instructors in place because most people don't fit that mold. Most people do need the assistance of the instructors, and the formal classroom training.

    So it comes to pass that the real risk here is not from the wingsuit jumps, but from what botched exits will do to the insurance policies. News flash, aircraft owners will not pay one extra cent to keep wingsuiters on the plane, and the insurance companies will not tolerate any further tail strikes, regardless of the cause, circumstance or jumper.

    All of the arguing back and forth about training, techniques, and what 'should' work is now over. The insurance company has put their foot down, and short of the FAA, that's the biggest foot around. Everyone knows the number one cost of a DZ is the plane, and if the insurance company says 'jump' (no pun intended), the DZO will jump, and wingsuiters will not.


    Skwrl  (C 36419)

    Sep 17, 2012, 8:20 AM
    Post #116 of 157 (1052 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [davelepka] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    The insurance company has put their foot down, and short of the FAA, that's the biggest foot around. Everyone knows the number one cost of a DZ is the plane, and if the insurance company says 'jump' (no pun intended), the DZO will jump, and wingsuiters will not.

    Agreed. But let's be super clear here. The insurance companies will not give even the tiniest consideration about whether we have a USPA rating or not. They will only consider whether there are claims coming in (i.e., things they have to pay for) from a particular activity or not. And if claims are coming in, they will either (a) raise their rates to reflect their costs or (b) revise their policies to exclude coverage from wingsuiting tail strikes. Saying "but... but... but... we have a rating now!" will not dissuade them from their simple cost/benefit analysis. That's what insurance companies are; that's what they do. Nobody should be fooled on this point...

    Now, maybe a rating is a good idea, maybe not. In the long run, a standard program should result in everyone with a wingsuit having been told at least once in their training to keep their wings closed. It will not stop complacency (any more than being told "don't turn too low to the ground" in AFF stops people from hooking it in). And it won't stop the bad habits of current wingsuiters who won't have to take a course. I agree that it will probably instill a greater safety culture over time. But in any case, that's a long run solution to an immediate problem. We need triage, now. We need no more God damn tail strikes, now.

    My suggestion: Create an immediate USPA awareness raising campaign, to mail to all DZs with the goal of it being posted prominently where wingsuiters will see it. Stickers that say "avoid the tail" or whatever catchy stuff we can come up with. Show S&TA's what they have to know. (It's not rocket surgery.) Include pictures - like the ones in Spot's (really great) materials - that highlight the problem and show how to avoid it. Get the word out. If USPA cares about wingsuiting, an awareness campaign should be a priority now.

    Personally, I'm willing to help in any way I can. (I'm not an authority, and instructor, or anything else, just a guy who takes pictures.) So let's recruit a bunch of volunteers to put the word out and make sure it gets heard. Time for partisan ("Team Taya!" "Team Spot!") crap is over - if wingsuiting is still around, we can revisit it later. We have an immediate concern that we have to address.

    Let's get to the business of getting this message out before it's too late.


    (This post was edited by Skwrl on Sep 17, 2012, 8:21 AM)


    davelepka  (D 21448)

    Sep 17, 2012, 8:29 AM
    Post #117 of 157 (1043 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Skwrl] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    But let's be super clear here. The insurance companies will not give even the tiniest consideration about whether we have a USPA rating or not. They will only consider whether there are claims coming in

    This is my point exactly. All the arguments against more formalized training, or getting the USPA involved have become moot. The only obejective now is the preservation of the insurance policies without a 'no wingsuit' provision.

    However, one thing to consider is that without a USPA program in place we ended up where we are now, with a tail-strike every 29 days. So all the talk about why a more formalized program isn't needed, why we can just count on the 'good old boys' to teach the new guys what they need to do has come to an abrupt end.

    One benefit to a USPA program with an instructional rating to go along with it, is that it puts the DZOs in the position of having to do things that way. It would no longer be acceptable for 'some guy' to teach wingsuiting however they feel is correct, it would make sure that all training is up to speed, so to speak.

    The other side of the coin is that the more correct information there is out there, the more properly trained wingsuiters there, and once you introduce a group of instructors who have a rating to protect, the whole community gets a bump up in the area of awareness and proactive safety practices.


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 17, 2012, 8:46 AM
    Post #118 of 157 (1027 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:

    How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters

    Historically pre-BSR?
    70+ (which is why they were banned by USPA)
    Post BSR specifically related to the wingsuit and skydive? 2, arguably 3.

    The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?
    For starters, where did the "70+" number come from?

    Scope, sample, definition, please.

    Next, please identify the pronoun in your parenthetical remark: "which is why they were banned by USPA."

    Thank you.

    44
    Cool


    (This post was edited by robinheid on Sep 17, 2012, 8:47 AM)


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 17, 2012, 1:23 PM
    Post #119 of 157 (969 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [davelepka] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    However, one thing to consider is that without a USPA program in place we ended up where we are now, with a tail-strike every 29 days. So all the talk about why a more formalized program isn't needed, why we can just count on the 'good old boys' to teach the new guys what they need to do has come to an abrupt end.

    In reply to:

    I should have but obviously hasn't.

    From what I'm seeing, the writing is on the wall with this one. It's no longer a question of if and how...but one of when will be to late?

    Requiring formalized training needs to come and quickly, I don't think the naysayers really have a logical leg to stand on anymore in light of the way this wind is blowing.


    rifleman  (Student)

    Sep 17, 2012, 2:51 PM
    Post #120 of 157 (951 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [davelepka] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    As a noob (still on s/l) I'm a long way from wingsuiting but I do know that the BPA has had a formalized WS rating and training program for a while. I've attached the relevant documents for information.

    Just like we have a licence endorsement for RW (FS1), FF (FF1) etc, we have WS1 and WS2 which you need a C licence for.
    Attachments: BPA-Wing-Suit-Training-Manual.doc (283 KB)
      Form-134E-WS-Coach-Application.doc (44.5 KB)


    davelepka  (D 21448)

    Sep 17, 2012, 3:14 PM
    Post #121 of 157 (945 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [rifleman] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    the BPA has had a formalized WS rating and training program for a while

    True, but not going to help. Up until this point, tail strikes were 'one' problem in wingsuiting, but not viewed as a pivotal issue. People going in with wingsuits was much more of a concern, of course based on the loss of life. Not all tailstrikes end in a fatality (most don't), but every time someone goes in, they're dead.

    Anyway, with that in mind, waaaay more people die under open canopies than wingsuits and tailstrikes combined, and to that end, many, many other countries have limitations to wing loading and canopy type, as well as required canopy control courses as jumpers progress, and these programs have been in place for years. Despite that, the USPA continues to take little to no action in terms of canopy control training or selection. Even though the programs have been proven in other countries, they don't seem to catch on over on this side of the pond.

    So while you're on the right track with your info, I don't see it doing much good. It should, but I don't think it will.


    michalm21  (Student)

    Sep 17, 2012, 3:34 PM
    Post #122 of 157 (935 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    How many tail strikes so far in 2012?


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 17, 2012, 3:56 PM
    Post #123 of 157 (919 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    How many tail strikes so far in 2012?


    REPORTED you mean? Wink


    Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

    Sep 17, 2012, 4:27 PM
    Post #124 of 157 (907 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:

    How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters

    Historically pre-BSR?
    70+ (which is why they were banned by USPA)
    Post BSR specifically related to the wingsuit and skydive? 2, arguably 3.

    The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?
    I would like to learn more about the 70ish batwing fatalities. Is there an archive somewhere?


    pchapman  (D 1014)

    Sep 17, 2012, 4:46 PM
    Post #125 of 157 (897 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [WickedWingsuits] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    I would like to learn more about the 70ish batwing fatalities. Is there an archive somewhere?

    [Care to start a new History & Trivia thread to ask about this maybe??]

    I think that number once got published somewhere, and then it keeps getting quoted. Yet some other author later said it was B.S.
    Some high profile cases are well known, like Clem Sohn & Leo Valentin -- but were there really 70 such jumpers? I'm highly doubtful.


    "Don't believe everything you read on the internet." -- Abraham Lincoln


    (This post was edited by pchapman on Sep 17, 2012, 4:49 PM)


    Premier WickedWingsuits  (D 30916)

    Sep 17, 2012, 6:10 PM
    Post #126 of 157 (961 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [pchapman] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    I think 70+ has to include early pioneers of the sport jumping off buildings and out of balloons.

    I heard it was a thriving business till the insurance companies banned jumping off the Eiffel tower.


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 17, 2012, 6:22 PM
    Post #127 of 157 (955 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [WickedWingsuits] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    I think 70+ has to include early pioneers of the sport jumping off buildings and out of balloons.

    I heard it was a thriving business till the insurance companies banned jumping off the Eiffel tower.


    Now THAT's funny! Laugh


    And I gotta agree, 70 sounds a bit high, I'd be curious to see the history on it...I remember back in the 70's, some of the 'old timers' back then talking about the ban and named a few 'they' knew of that had gone in.




    Not trying to be antagonistic or anything WW~

    ~Curious as to your take on the Insurance Issue unfolding and it's possible implications regarding a structured instructional program...has it changed your opinion any?


    (This post was edited by airtwardo on Sep 17, 2012, 6:27 PM)


    normiss  (D 28356)

    Sep 17, 2012, 6:24 PM
    Post #128 of 157 (951 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [airtwardo] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Are the numbers used strictly sky jumping or is BASE included?


    pchapman  (D 1014)

    Sep 17, 2012, 6:53 PM
    Post #129 of 157 (929 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [WickedWingsuits] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Ok, I found a good source to debunk the 72 batwing deaths crap. Michael Abrams, who wrote "Birdmen, Batmen, and Skyflyers" discussed the issue in a blog of his from years back:

    http://icarusreport.blogspot.ca/...tal-subtraction.html

    The 72 deaths statement ended up in a BirdMan owners manual, on the BPA website, and in various magazines.

    It sounds like it all started as a casual boast by one of the early pioneers, that got paraphrased in someone else's book :

    Quote:
    Roy "Red" Grant, self proclaimed as the last of the birdmen, estimates there were never more than seventy-five of these characters. He figures three quit the business, he is alive and the rest of the batmen made a big hole in the ground."

    That's in the same vein as saying, "Skyboarding? Nobody does that anymore; they all died!"


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 17, 2012, 9:06 PM
    Post #130 of 157 (889 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [pchapman] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Ok, I found a good source to debunk the 72 batwing deaths crap. Michael Abrams, who wrote "Birdmen, Batmen, and Skyflyers" discussed the issue in a blog of his from years back:

    http://icarusreport.blogspot.ca/...tal-subtraction.html

    The 72 deaths statement ended up in a BirdMan owners manual, on the BPA website, and in various magazines.

    It sounds like it all started as a casual boast by one of the early pioneers, that got paraphrased in someone else's book :

    Quote:
    Roy "Red" Grant, self proclaimed as the last of the birdmen, estimates there were never more than seventy-five of these characters. He figures three quit the business, he is alive and the rest of the batmen made a big hole in the ground."

    That's in the same vein as saying, "Skyboarding? Nobody does that anymore; they all died!"

    Valid point, the book only offers 30-odd names. The rest are just numbers.
    Whatever the number was, it was enough to cause USPA to ban wingsuits until the late 80's.


    michalm21  (Student)

    Sep 18, 2012, 5:13 AM
    Post #131 of 157 (856 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [airtwardo] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    How many tail strikes so far in 2012?


    REPORTED you mean? Wink

    Reported or unreported.
    Trying to see if there's a trend. Yes, 11 is too many but it does not necessarily indicate the future and is not a trend (yet)

    I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

    So I'm simply asking, what's going on this year so far? Do we have 8-9 ail strikes this year that supports the 'tail strike every 29 days' argument.

    I respond well to evidence. I'm curious to see if it's a trend or if people are realizing the stupidity of leaving the plane opened up already.

    I will talk with my dzo this coming weekend and print out the dse posted pictures to be hanged in the loading area.


    (This post was edited by michalm21 on Sep 18, 2012, 5:14 AM)


    davelepka  (D 21448)

    Sep 18, 2012, 6:05 AM
    Post #132 of 157 (825 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    So I'm simply asking, what's going on this year so far? Do we have 8-9 ail strikes this year that supports the 'tail strike every 29 days' argument.

    I respond well to evidence.

    The problem here is that nobody cares what you think (with regards to this issue). It's gone beyond one jumper arguing with another jumper about the way things should or should not be. It's in the hands of the insurance company now, and they have drawn the line in the sand. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for more data (tailstrikes) to come in to see if it's a 'trend' or a 'spike'.

    A very conservative estimate would be that 11 tailstrikes cost the insurance company $100,000. Once they realized this, they gave the aircraft owners the courtesy of a warning, and that's the letter that was sent out. What's done is done, those incidents took place and those claims were paid out. The best they can do (for themselves) is continue coverage, but lay down the law future incidents will result in rate hikes of coverage drops.

    So what it comes down to is that even if this was a 'spike', it left a mark on the insurance company, so that moving forward even if we return to a 'reasonable' rate of tail strikes it will be viewed as either an increasing trend or the start of another spike, neither of which the insurance company will tolerate. Even if last year was a spike, through no fault of our own, an unintended consequence has appeared.


    normiss  (D 28356)

    Sep 18, 2012, 6:28 AM
    Post #133 of 157 (817 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Hanging DSE in the boarding area won't help.
    Unless you can lock him into the correct body position for exit anyway...


    michalm21  (Student)

    Sep 18, 2012, 7:30 AM
    Post #134 of 157 (787 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [davelepka] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Quote:
    So I'm simply asking, what's going on this year so far? Do we have 8-9 ail strikes this year that supports the 'tail strike every 29 days' argument.

    I respond well to evidence.

    The problem here is that nobody cares what you think (with regards to this issue). It's gone beyond one jumper arguing with another jumper about the way things should or should not be. It's in the hands of the insurance company now, and they have drawn the line in the sand. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for more data (tailstrikes) to come in to see if it's a 'trend' or a 'spike'.

    A very conservative estimate would be that 11 tailstrikes cost the insurance company $100,000. Once they realized this, they gave the aircraft owners the courtesy of a warning, and that's the letter that was sent out. What's done is done, those incidents took place and those claims were paid out. The best they can do (for themselves) is continue coverage, but lay down the law future incidents will result in rate hikes of coverage drops.

    So what it comes down to is that even if this was a 'spike', it left a mark on the insurance company, so that moving forward even if we return to a 'reasonable' rate of tail strikes it will be viewed as either an increasing trend or the start of another spike, neither of which the insurance company will tolerate. Even if last year was a spike, through no fault of our own, an unintended consequence has appeared.

    So what you're saying is "everybody panic"! Got it.

    It is not true that nobody care what I think. There will be someone who cares. I for one, regardless of what happens next, want to know if we still are throwing ourselves on the tail of the planes.

    Do you have an answer for me? If you don't care, please don't waste space and don't respond.


    (This post was edited by michalm21 on Sep 18, 2012, 7:32 AM)


    davelepka  (D 21448)

    Sep 18, 2012, 7:47 AM
    Post #135 of 157 (772 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    Do you have an answer for me? If you don't care, please don't waste space and don't respond

    That's ironic, because my answer (more or less) is that debating the issue at this point is a waste of space. There was a time when we could sit around and argue back and forth for months (or years) about what is or is not needed in terms of wingsuit training or regulation because there was no external pressure to act.

    So my point was that your interest in the nature of the tail strikes and their frequency, that being if it was a trend or a spike, is no longer relevant to the current situation. Waiting for additional statistics to come in and prove the nature of the curve (spike or trend) is not an an option because by the time that happens, wingsuiting will be an exemption on the insurance policies, and not welcome at most DZ in the US.

    Think about the cost of one tailstrike. Now take that cost and consider what the insurance companies would have to do to everyones rates to cover the cost of a dozen of those per year (according to their currently available stats). Now take that number, and consider how many wingsuit slots a DZ would have to fly to cover the rate hike if they wanted to include wingsuiting on their policy. They would have to fly 100s of wingsuit slots per year, and run the increases risk of aircraft damage (and down time) that comes with it, or just forget about wingsuits, higher insurance rates, and tailstrike risks all together. What do you think DZs will choose?

    'Everybody panic'? I'm not sure that's the correct action, but I am sure that by the time the insurance company takes note of a problem, and goes to the trouble to send a 'warning shot' to all the DZOs they insure, they we're on a pretty short leash and that the time to debate the issues is over, and the time for action has come. What is that action? Can't say for sure, but waiting around for more statistics to become avaiable is not it.


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 18, 2012, 8:06 AM
    Post #136 of 157 (760 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    more pix for you to post.
    The "Fight the bite" graphic in PSD is availablehttps://docs.google.com/...u4_IlaDRZX2Ftbk45SG8

    Crappy graphic, but the artist couldn't sketch up a Caravan or PAC.
    Trends

    Reported thus far in 2012, less than 2011 at this time. That's a good thing.
    Attachments: Open-wing-23.jpg (133 KB)
      Open-wing-46.jpg (58.7 KB)


    michalm21  (Student)

    Sep 18, 2012, 8:12 AM
    Post #137 of 157 (754 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [davelepka] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    If you carefully read my thread you will notice that I never referred to the insurance companies regarding the trend analysis.

    I wanted to find out for myself. I'm sorry that I'm trying to analyze this issue myself without relying on others to tell me how it is.

    If that makes you happy, I will gladly start (yet another - 4th?) thread about it if that's the only way for me (me) to get the answer.


    (This post was edited by michalm21 on Sep 18, 2012, 8:12 AM)


    DARK  (B 31685)

    Sep 18, 2012, 8:13 AM
    Post #138 of 157 (751 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

    You weren't using a meaningfull comparison thats all. If people are not allowed jump a wingsuit until after 200 jumps then obviously there will be no deaths of people with under 200 jumps on a wingsuit, that dosn't mean it has made anything safer.

    So you are confident that there were 70 student to novice level wingsuit deaths before the bsr and since the bsr there have been 2/3?

    While hard to believe if that is the case that is great.


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 18, 2012, 8:35 AM
    Post #139 of 157 (740 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DARK] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

    You weren't using a meaningfull comparison thats all. If people are not allowed jump a wingsuit until after 200 jumps then obviously there will be no deaths of people with under 200 jumps on a wingsuit, that dosn't mean it has made anything safer.

    So you are confident that there were 70 student to novice level wingsuit deaths before the bsr and since the bsr there have been 2/3?

    While hard to believe if that is the case that is great.

    With the thread meandering so much, I can see how one might miss some posts and read "70 deaths caused BSR."

    5 verified/known fatals in 4 years due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing a wingsuit.
    BSR passed in 2010.
    Since BSR, Zero fatals due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing wingsuit.


    (This post was edited by DSE on Sep 18, 2012, 8:36 AM)


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 18, 2012, 9:14 AM
    Post #140 of 157 (717 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

    In reply to:

    IIRC didn't Eloy make definite & mandatory changes in policy regarding landing patterns etc, which in all likelihood ended that 'spike'?
    Changes that were then somewhat adapted to several other large DZ's...possibly leading to lower incident numbers.


    As far as panic...we all know that when things start to go bad, that's a waste of time & energy.

    What we HAVE to do is react fast and with as much input as possible to correct the problem, before it becomes a permanent one that's critical & beyond recovery.

    The 'IF' we need to do something discussion is now moot, we are at the 'WHAT' to do part of the problem and time is critical.

    I can't say that having a WSI program will end the tail-strike trend the insurance carrier is concerned about, but it probably will have an effect...and I can say without reservation that having a positive plan in place that acknowledges & addresses the situation is the smart thing to do in the economic and legal environment we operate in.

    It's just makes good sense.

    I've been a professional airshow performer for over 30 years and I've seen similar situations arise in that arena.

    Trust me when I say, the absolute last this you want to hear from an agency that can effect your way of doing business is ~ 'you should have seen this coming and done something, now here's what WE'RE going to do'

    An example: Years ago the insurance industry was looking hard at totally revamping the way and even IF they would cover pilots performing in shows. The model they projected would have all but ended available coverage for many performers. The ACE rating was born, 'Aerobatic Competency Evaluation'.

    It's directly modeled after our PRO Rating in that certain specific standards of performance have to be met and maintained in order to hold the certificate.

    If you don't have the skills you get trained up until you do...or you don't perform. It not only raised awareness it set standards that were concrete and if nothing else showed the insurance people that positive action was being instituted. Things smoothed out accordingly. Premiums actually DROPPED as time went on and claim numbers decreased. Win-Win.

    I have other examples in which fast action preempted negative consequences, but that one most directly relates to our current situation.

    What 'we' think about trends and numbers and freedom to operate without red-tape is inconsequential at this point. A business decision has been made, we either react positively addressing the concerns or we turn a blind eye and actually LOSE some of that 'freedom'.

    We have the chance to do something ...we have the NEED to do it fast and do it right.

    Hey, we won't get a second chance once decisions are made. This is chess not checkers, we need a strategy addressing various counter-moves 'against' our little world.

    We have to do it now - so much better to suffer an little here than a whole lot later. Regaining the lost ground is always a difficult, expensive & time consuming battle.

    I say we need to institute the WSI program without further delay as that is the quickest solution with the most probable positive outcome.

    Certainly we can & should address this on other levels as well but make no mistake the clock IS ticking.


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 18, 2012, 9:19 AM
    Post #141 of 157 (718 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    If you carefully read my thread you will notice that I never referred to the insurance companies regarding the trend analysis.

    I wanted to find out for myself. I'm sorry that I'm trying to analyze this issue myself without relying on others to tell me how it is.

    If that makes you happy, I will gladly start (yet another - 4th?) thread about it if that's the only way for me (me) to get the answer.

    I'm sure the information you desire is available from the USPA or the insurance carrier, have you contacted them directly for concrete numbers?

    Might be the best way to insure the facts aren't tilted in any self-interest directions...let us know what you find out.


    Premier Remster  (C License)

    Sep 18, 2012, 9:20 AM
    Post #142 of 157 (718 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [airtwardo] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Quote:
    I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

    In Reply To

    IIRC didn't Eloy make definite & mandatory changes in policy regarding landing patterns etc, which in all likelihood ended that 'spike'?
    Changes that were then somewhat adapted to several other large DZ's...possibly leading to lower incident numbers.

    Actually, it was and is a trend. Canopy collisions were a much higher ratio of deaths the last few years than they were before. Between the Eloy ones, the Perris ones, many DZs implemented soon after rules to split landing patterns.


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 18, 2012, 9:31 AM
    Post #143 of 157 (707 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Remster] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Quote:
    I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

    In Reply To

    IIRC didn't Eloy make definite & mandatory changes in policy regarding landing patterns etc, which in all likelihood ended that 'spike'?
    Changes that were then somewhat adapted to several other large DZ's...possibly leading to lower incident numbers.

    Actually, it was and is a trend. Canopy collisions were a much higher ratio of deaths the last few years than they were before. Between the Eloy ones, the Perris ones, many DZs implemented soon after rules to split landing patterns.

    I know, the trend is ongoing...the spike was addressed quickly and with positive results all things considered. Most importantly, the effort was made to address it quickly and concisely.

    There was even some friction then as I recall, discussion about better possible alternatives to separate patterns...more education, maps, loader briefings etc. ~ but the fact that action was taken and a positive effect resulting, is what I'm addressing with my 'general' comparison.


    Premier Remster  (C License)

    Sep 18, 2012, 9:41 AM
    Post #144 of 157 (693 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [airtwardo] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    Agreed Twardo.... I was trying to re-enforce what you said.


    airtwardo  (D License)

    Sep 18, 2012, 9:44 AM
    Post #145 of 157 (688 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Remster] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Agreed Twardo.... I was trying to re-enforce what you said.

    CoolWink


    Premier billvon  (D 16479)
    Moderator
    Sep 18, 2012, 9:49 AM
    Post #146 of 157 (682 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Remster] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    > Between the Eloy ones, the Perris ones, many DZs implemented soon after
    >rules to split landing patterns.

    There is now a USPA requirement to do this for all DZO's. It's in their group member pledge agreement.


    DARK  (B 31685)

    Sep 18, 2012, 10:15 AM
    Post #147 of 157 (669 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:

    With the thread meandering so much, I can see how one might miss some posts and read "70 deaths caused BSR."


    well I read it like that because I asked you a straight up question and thats how you answered it

    In reply to:
    5 verified/known fatals in 4 years due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing a wingsuit.
    BSR passed in 2010.

    we are getting closer, this is part of what I wanted to know

    In reply to:
    Since BSR, Zero fatals due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing wingsuit.

    You are still not answering the question or comparing like with like, has there been a decrease in the number of novice wingsuiters being involved in incidents since the bsr was introduced?

    In other words are the wingsuit students better/safer then the students who started before the bsr or do they just have more jumps now when the incidents occur? That is the significant comparison

    Another way to ask the same question would be, are wingsuiters with less then say 25 wingsuit jumps behaving safer then pre bsr wingsuiters with less then 25 wingsuit jumps?

    I ask because we make assumptions about the causes of certain things and create rules in response but I see very little analysis after the rules are introduced to make sure they are working as intended.

    If we keep doing it that way we are going to be inundated with minor rules and changes that give the appearance of meaningfull action when in reality they are of no benefit whatsoever


    mjosparky  (D 5476)

    Sep 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
    Post #148 of 157 (626 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [michalm21] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)



    The year was 2011. It wasn’t a spike it was part of a trend.

    Canopy collisions

    2009 – 7 fatalities
    2010 - 12 fatalities
    2011 – 10 fatalities

    The insurance companies think 11 tail strike in a 12 month period is a trend. As Dave said what you think on the subject is moot.

    Education had nothing to do with slowing the trend down…enforcement of reasonable rules did.

    Sparky


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 18, 2012, 2:59 PM
    Post #149 of 157 (564 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DARK] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:

    With the thread meandering so much, I can see how one might miss some posts and read "70 deaths caused BSR."



    You are still not answering the question or comparing like with like, has there been a decrease in the number of novice wingsuiters being involved in incidents since the bsr was introduced?

    In other words are the wingsuit students better/safer then the students who started before the bsr or do they just have more jumps now when the incidents occur? That is the significant comparison

    Another way to ask the same question would be, are wingsuiters with less then say 25 wingsuit jumps behaving safer then pre bsr wingsuiters with less then 25 wingsuit jumps?

    I ask because we make assumptions about the causes of certain things and create rules in response but I see very little analysis after the rules are introduced to make sure they are working as intended.

    If we keep doing it that way we are going to be inundated with minor rules and changes that give the appearance of meaningfull action when in reality they are of no benefit whatsoever
    I'm not answering the way you'd like to interpret it; maybe a different explanation will help you.

    A-There were 5 verified pre-200 skydive wingsuit fatalities (majority of them in the 100-120 jump area) prior to BSR.
    B-There have been zero verified or rumored wingsuit fatalities of sub 100 skydive jumpers.
    This is objective.

    Are wingsuiters of 25 jumps today "behaving safer" than wingsuiters with 25 jumps 3 years ago? I'd say "no." But that's a subjective response. Statistically, tailstrikes are on the rise (for example). I hear off-landings are increased. Incidents would suggest as much.
    In our region, I'd give it a qualified "yes, they behave better" but then again, I hear that Elsinore's flight lanes and required briefing/sticker are "too much regulation." Crazy
    What's your point? Are you feeling that wingsuiters can negotiate with an insurance company or the federal gov't?


    (This post was edited by DSE on Sep 18, 2012, 3:46 PM)


    DARK  (B 31685)

    Sep 18, 2012, 4:37 PM
    Post #150 of 157 (537 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    What's your point? Are you feeling that wingsuiters can negotiate with an insurance company or the federal gov't?

    My point is if you want to properly represent your niche of our sport then you have to be able to answer these questions.

    I feel that it is everyones entrenched positions that are leading them to ignore potentially valuable data or information from sources because it might hurt their current position. This does nobody any good.

    If more dzo's get this letter and start coming down hard on wingsuiting or on uspa's rules aren't you one of the people the uspa will probably ask for an opinion? Why don't any of the stakeholders have definitive statistical evidence to support the theory that the wingsuit bsr has increased safety in the way it was intended or it hasn't.

    Isn't this something the uspa should have ready to go about all facets of the sport in case they have to defend their position to the faa or insurance companies?

    If it hasn't been in place long enough yet say that but don't settle for half truths because it is convenient.

    Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.


    GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

    Sep 18, 2012, 5:48 PM
    Post #151 of 157 (669 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DARK] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    What's your point? Are you feeling that wingsuiters can negotiate with an insurance company or the federal gov't?

    My point is if you want to properly represent your niche of our sport then you have to be able to answer these questions.

    I feel that it is everyones entrenched positions that are leading them to ignore potentially valuable data or information from sources because it might hurt their current position. This does nobody any good.

    If more dzo's get this letter and start coming down hard on wingsuiting or on uspa's rules aren't you one of the people the uspa will probably ask for an opinion? Why don't any of the stakeholders have definitive statistical evidence to support the theory that the wingsuit bsr has increased safety in the way it was intended or it hasn't.

    Isn't this something the uspa should have ready to go about all facets of the sport in case they have to defend their position to the faa or insurance companies?

    If it hasn't been in place long enough yet say that but don't settle for half truths because it is convenient.

    Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.

    What are you envisioning as a metric that can be quantitatively analyzed? I'm not seeing it. "Safer" is completely qualitative.

    I don't know how to measure it, but I would say that most jumpers know "more" at 200 jumps than they did at 100.

    What do you feel has been missing from the conversation (other than a variety of statistical measures that may or may not be meaningful)?


    GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

    Sep 18, 2012, 6:20 PM
    Post #152 of 157 (649 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DARK] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    The last post was deleted but here is my reply:

    Here are some facts:

    Tailstrikes year over year are showing an upward trend. And have been for some time. Spot has a graph that I've seen. I don't have it handy.

    Each successive generation of suits is higher performance than the last. This is important to note for a few reasons. A more highly pressurized suit is more difficult to shut down at pull time. Weak exit discipline, and poorly thought out exits become even more dangerous. These are just a few examples.

    While rapid downsizing is a concern to the general community. Wingsuiters can suffer from upsizing suits too soon.

    Wingsuit training even with the materials in the SIM is inconsistent and widely varies from instructor to instructor. DZ to DZ.

    Currently there is no method to identify who is capable of being an instructor via the USPA (no demonstration of competence in the sky and knowledge).

    There are plenty more. While an impartial examination of the facts would be most excellent it is mostly possible to read between the lines.

    I'm not taking pot shots at you here. It's not immediate but but I believe a standardized training curriculum administered by an instructor that has been evaluated in their ability to do so will pay large long term dividends to the community writ large.

    In the short term Eli is compiling some best practices for pilots that should be followed and ideally would have been done in the first place. Signage, wavers and constant reminders might help but it sounds like it might not take many screwups to force this issue. People with bad habits or incomplete knowledge don't always hit the tail. They might even have an obscenely high success rate, but it doesn't take much to make a close call an incident.


    (This post was edited by GobbleGobble on Sep 18, 2012, 6:21 PM)


    Fast  (D 28237)

    Sep 19, 2012, 7:46 AM
    Post #153 of 157 (588 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DARK] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.

    Funny. Who do you think is going to do this negotiation? The only answer we have is USPA, because speaking from the standpoint of both a wingsuiter and a DZM, I have no room to bargain with the insurance company, they don't care about me cause we don't' spend enough money with them. If rates go up even $1000 a year it might well not be worth it. There is very little money in sport jumpers in general, let alone sport jumpers who wingsuit.

    We need the industry as a whole to fix this problem now (as in quick like). (i.e. USPA)


    (This post was edited by Fast on Sep 19, 2012, 7:46 AM)


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 19, 2012, 8:26 AM
    Post #154 of 157 (571 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [Fast] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:
    Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.

    Funny. Who do you think is going to do this negotiation? The only answer we have is USPA, because speaking from the standpoint of both a wingsuiter and a DZM, I have no room to bargain with the insurance company, they don't care about me cause we don't' spend enough money with them. If rates go up even $1000 a year it might well not be worth it. There is very little money in sport jumpers in general, let alone sport jumpers who wingsuit.

    We need the industry as a whole to fix this problem now (as in quick like). (i.e. USPA)[/reply]

    You are correct to say that the industry as a whole needs to fix this problem now but "quick fix" and "USPA" are mutually exclusive terms.

    Quick fix means a private enterprise solution, i.e., what Skydive Lebanon, Skydive Spaceland and Skydive Elsinore have already done, within a couple of days, and others are formulating even as we debate here.

    This is not a dig at USPA, just a reminder of reality: By their very nature, government institutions, to include self-government institutions such as USPA, do not and literally cannot "quick-fix" anything. They are deliberative bodies that must -- and should -- take time to ponder all of the ramifications of their actions before acting because:

    a) they must take into account the wants and needs of multiple interest groups within their jurisdiction;

    b) their solutions must be comprehensive, not targeted; and

    c) it takes so long and costs too much to undo their actions if they turn out to be wrong.

    So, again, let's save the formal regulation v. informal regulation debate for another day and focus instead on fixing the tail strike problem now -- as in:

    What new procedures and policies can DZs, wingsuiters and all jumpers put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes?

    44
    Cool


    Premier DSE  (D 29060)

    Sep 19, 2012, 10:42 AM
    Post #155 of 157 (535 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:

    What new procedures and policies can DZs, wingsuiters and all jumpers put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes?

    44
    Cool


    Several dropzones already have implemented extremely effective new procedures and policies; it's called "No more wingsuiting at this DZ." And they've done it in the last week.

    Programs like the one implemented at Skydive Elsinore 3 years ago have worked well too, but they were years in development.


    robinheid  (D 5533)

    Sep 19, 2012, 11:15 AM
    Post #156 of 157 (517 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [DSE] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    In reply to:
    In reply to:

    What new procedures and policies can DZs, wingsuiters and all jumpers put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes?

    44
    Cool


    Several dropzones already have implemented extremely effective new procedures and policies; it's called "No more wingsuiting at this DZ." And they've done it in the last week.

    Programs like the one implemented at Skydive Elsinore 3 years ago have worked well too, but they were years in development.

    Your "Fight the Bite" sticker next to the Pavlov light was years in development?

    The notion of waiting three seconds after exit before opening your wings was years in development?

    As NW Flyer informed us further up in this thread, Skydive Spaceland has in just the last few days instituted a new wingsuit protocol that can be used as a model for other DZs.

    As SwampGod informed us further up in this thread, Skydive Lebanon has in just a few days instituted a new wingsuit protocol that can not only be used as a model for other DZs but as a template to modify Section 6-9 of the SIM to serve, as he put it, as a procedure manual that will appeal to the insurers.

    No new grand exalted wingsuit sensei bureaucracy needed.

    The problem with focusing on just one solution in which you have much buy-in is that it's hard for you to see Occam's Razor even if you step on it. As Upton Sinclair basically said it:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his status depends upon his not understanding it.

    Your solution scope limiter notwithstanding, it's to be expected that some drop zones without a big stake in wingsuiting would just ban it for the time being, pending a workable way out of the problem.

    Those with a larger stake, however, are not debating the pros and cons of a "solution" that will, as you say, be years or at least months in the making.

    They need something in place now that will have a real --not theoretical -- effect on reducing or eliminating wingsuit tail strikes, and which is focused exclusively thereon.

    So if you really want to minimize the number of drop zones that ban wingsuiting because of the tail strike threat, then please: enough with expounding on your pet project and focus first, foremost and right now on reducing that threat.

    The whole sport will benefit if you do because you have unarguably contributed a lot to the advancement of wingsuiting -- and by helping rather than hindering the quick development of wingsuit-friendly new procedures and policies that can be put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes you'd contribute significantly more.

    Peace out, dude.

    44
    Cool


    (This post was edited by robinheid on Sep 19, 2012, 11:25 AM)


    Premier billvon  (D 16479)
    Moderator
    Sep 19, 2012, 11:42 AM
    Post #157 of 157 (507 views)
    Shortcut
    Re: [robinheid] Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners [In reply to] Can't Post

    >Those with a larger stake, however, are not debating the pros and cons of
    >a "solution" that will, as you say, be years or at least months in the
    >making.

    Smart people with a larger stake will likely pursue both a quick fix and a long term solution.



    Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

     


    Search for (options)