Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Aircraft insurers do NOT demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 6, 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #101 of 149 (2026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Yes, they're world-wide. The broad majority of them are in the US. There are a few not on the list because they've either surfaced after the last list was generated, or they are not confirmed. "more" doesn't seem better in this conversation.

How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 6, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #102 of 149 (2015 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?



We've heard it Doc ~ how about every time the urge to ask for proof a WSI program would lower incedent rates 'his ya'... YOU think of me sayin' show me proof it won't.

We'll save tons of bandwidth! WinkSly




Just to remind everyone...the 'tail-strike' issue is only one of many procedural standardization issues addressed in the proposed WSI program.

Though in my opinion it's certainly a good and an immediately important 'time critical' reason, it's just one of many.



~just don't want those who may have not read the proposed curriculum to think that exits/tail-strikes is the ONLY thing it addresses.

Whether or not the aircraft insurers 'support standardized wing-suit training' is ~

(1) actually kinda unclear...after being totally bombarded with questions, comments & complaints regarding a 'business correspondence' that in all likelihood wasn't intended for public distribution & discussion, I get the impression the insurers are saying 'do what you have to' - just leave me the fuck alone.

(2) ...of little consequence in regard to Skydivers needing to consider instituting an industry wide system of oversight & regulation addressing ALL factors encompassed with standardized procedural training & assessment of skills.

Insurers primary focus is on hull damage caused by improperly performed exits...I have no doubt they aren't overly concerned with how it's dealt with, nor should they be.

They aren't in the business of dictating Skydiving Safety & Training policy.

I'm sure that if enough 'experts' called & emailed them enough times, stating that tail-strikes could be avoided if everyone stuck a rubber duck up their ass they'd say go for it...

It's results regarding eliminating tail-strikes they are after...let's not lose sight of that, WE are concerned with the long-term BIG picture.

The engineers at Cessna to the best of my knowledge were never consulted regarding the content of the AFFI standardized curriculum...just because we use their product in our sport doesn't mean they run our training program.

It's just as ludicrous to give a shit what some guy behind a desk at an insurance company says he supports or doesn't support when referring to an overall program.

His primary concern is only with one small area to save dollars ~ Skydivers primary concern is with saving LIVES...at least is should be!


kallend  (D 23151)

Oct 6, 2012, 12:58 PM
Post #103 of 149 (2008 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?




We've heard it Doc ~
No, that question has NOT been answered, despite being asked several times.

Until someone answers, expect to hear it again.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 6, 2012, 1:24 PM
Post #104 of 149 (2002 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?




We've heard it Doc ~

No, that question has NOT been answered, despite being asked several times.

Until someone answers, expect to hear it again.

LaughLaughLaugh....Yeah Okay. Cool


Divalent  (C 40494)

Oct 6, 2012, 7:40 PM
Post #105 of 149 (1973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
... How many were inexperienced wingsuiters who had been inadequately or incorrectly briefed on exit procedure?

In reply to:
No, that question has NOT been answered, despite being asked several times. Until someone answers, expect to hear it again.


Okay, I'll bite: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! (Their level of experience is irrelevant.)

They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

(Note: I'm not a wingsuiter and don't really have an opinion on the proposal.)


jonstark  (D 8298)

Oct 6, 2012, 7:56 PM
Post #106 of 149 (1968 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

How 'bout this fellas?

About two weeks ago I fixed a poster to the aft bulkhead of my Otter that says...

"Wingsuit
Do not open your wings until at least three seconds after exit to avoid tailstrike."

I don't think anyone will be able to get to altitude and out the door without at least seeing this reminder. I'll post others too when I can at other strategic locations around the DZ and inside the a/c.

jon


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 6, 2012, 8:02 PM
Post #107 of 149 (1966 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonstark] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How 'bout this fellas?

About two weeks ago I fixed a poster to the aft bulkhead of my Otter that says...

"Wingsuit
Do not open your wings until at least three seconds after exit to avoid tailstrike."

I don't think anyone will be able to get to altitude and out the door without at least seeing this reminder. I'll post others too when I can at other strategic locations around the DZ and inside the a/c.

jon

I think it's a great idea Jon, one of many. I applaud your efforts!


Skwrl  (C 36419)

Oct 7, 2012, 6:36 AM
Post #108 of 149 (1935 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Divalent] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Okay, I'll bite: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! (Their level of experience is irrelevant.)

They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

(Note: I'm not a wingsuiter and don't really have an opinion on the proposal.)

I had decided to stop talking in threads about this subject because it had rapidly become as pointless as a Speaker's Corner thread, however I've finally found a comment worthy of the attached image.

Not true. Demonstrably not true. One simple case in point - the one and only wingsuit tailstrike fatality in the US (Steve Harrington, 2009, Elsinore).

Steve was a highly experienced wingsuiter (in excess of a thousand wingsuit jumps) who co-founded a school that taught first flight courses. I learned how to wingsuit from him and another instructor at that school. Steve consistently warned me and many other students about the threat of the tail - in fact he specifically talked to me about the increased risk of tail strikes a year before his death when I started doing a lot of wingsuit videography work (i.e., from a camera step).

He clearly knew proper exit procedure in a wing suit, he was capable of doing it, and knew the importance of doing it every time.

So how did it happen? Complacency. Combine that with a reportedly fast exit speed and a distance run that probably had him slightly nervous and wanting to get max flight fast to get back to the DZ.

Complacency is the biggest killer in skydiving.

Would a USPA rating have prevented Steve's death? I can't see how. He KNEW the issue; he was CAPABLE of closing his wings (unless you're trying to twist the word "CAPABLE" to mean "DID", which is a semantic game that obviously falls apart fast). He knew it had to be done EVERY TIME. He was complacent, though. Would an active and constant series of reminders to avoid the tail have helped? Maybe. If somehow they prevented his complacency.

[Personally, I'm still on the fence about the proposal. There are arguments in favor and arguments against. I will sleep happily at night either way. If Dante is right, at least I'll have the best place to make smores. But as I've consistently said, if we decide to do (or not do) something, let's take that action based on evidence and reason, not hysteria and reactionary behavior.]
Attachments: fractal wrongness.jpg (130 KB)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 7, 2012, 8:02 AM
Post #109 of 149 (1913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skwrl] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Okay, I'll bite: EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! (Their level of experience is irrelevant.)

They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

(Note: I'm not a wingsuiter and don't really have an opinion on the proposal.)

I had decided to stop talking in threads about this subject because it had rapidly become as pointless as a Speaker's Corner thread, however I've finally found a comment worthy of the attached image.

Not true. Demonstrably not true. One simple case in point - the one and only wingsuit tailstrike fatality in the US (Steve Harrington, 2009, Elsinore).

Steve was a highly experienced wingsuiter (in excess of a thousand wingsuit jumps) who co-founded a school that taught first flight courses. I learned how to wingsuit from him and another instructor at that school. Steve consistently warned me and many other students about the threat of the tail - in fact he specifically talked to me about the increased risk of tail strikes a year before his death when I started doing a lot of wingsuit videography work (i.e., from a camera step).

He clearly knew proper exit procedure in a wing suit, he was capable of doing it, and knew the importance of doing it every time.

So how did it happen? Complacency. Combine that with a reportedly fast exit speed and a distance run that probably had him slightly nervous and wanting to get max flight fast to get back to the DZ.

Complacency is the biggest killer in skydiving.

Would a USPA rating have prevented Steve's death? I can't see how. He KNEW the issue; he was CAPABLE of closing his wings (unless you're trying to twist the word "CAPABLE" to mean "DID", which is a semantic game that obviously falls apart fast). He knew it had to be done EVERY TIME. He was complacent, though. Would an active and constant series of reminders to avoid the tail have helped? Maybe. If somehow they prevented his complacency.

[Personally, I'm still on the fence about the proposal. There are arguments in favor and arguments against. I will sleep happily at night either way. If Dante is right, at least I'll have the best place to make smores. But as I've consistently said, if we decide to do (or not do) something, let's take that action based on evidence and reason, not hysteria and reactionary behavior.]

IMO 1,2,3 are correct, you just added a #4.

Maybe if there was a standard for that type of wingsuit jump, he would have been successful and still here with us today?

Matt


Skwrl  (C 36419)

Oct 7, 2012, 9:07 AM
Post #110 of 149 (1897 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
IMO 1,2,3 are correct, you just added a #4.

Maybe if there was a standard for that type of wingsuit jump, he would have been successful and still here with us today?

Matt

Hi Matt,

Not sure I follow - a different standard for a high speed exit? Personally, I do the same for high speed exits as I do for regular exits (which is currently found in the SIM, by the way). If there's a difference, it's that I make an extra-special point of not being complacent on a high speed exit. However, if you had described the situation to Steve and asked for advice, I am certain he would have said "keep your wings suit for two seconds out the door". And yet, he didn't. It was complacency, not lack of knowledge.

If you are saying all four of those elements (knowledge of the issue, ability to do it, knowing the need to do it every time, and avoiding complacency) are needed to avoid tail strikes, then yes. Agreed.

However, if you are saying that a USPA rating would have changed what happend to Steve, then I don't follow. What would he have learned in a first jump course that would changed his behavior? (In other words, what do you think he didn't know?) Keep in mind, he had over a thousand wingsuit jumps, so even under the proposal, it would have been a thousand wingsuit jumps after his USPA-rated FJC... To me, claiming that the FJC course would have changed things is much like claiming that by saying "don't turn to close to the ground" in AFF, you're going to solve the problem of people femuring on a swoop. The swoopers are usually hundreds or perhaps thousands of jumps after their AFF...

So, to me, the important part is diagnosis of the problem before we prescribe a cure. I personally like to make my decisions based on data, and at least to me, the data are incomplete. The $64,000 question - are all these tail strikes being caused as a result of lack of knowledge or are they being caused by complacency?

If they are caused by bad training, then tail strikes are a valid reason to support the USPA wingsuit instructor rating proposal. If that's what the data showed, then I'd support the proposal.

If tail strikes are being caused by experienced wingsuiters who were trained and told how to safely exit, but for whatever reason don't (i.e., they are are complacent, perhaps coupled with too large of suit), then I don't see how the USPA wingsuit instructor rating proposal addresses that (except very indirectly). If that's the cause, the rating is not really addressing the problem head on, but only sort of obliquely and indirectly. There are probably much more effective means. If that's what the data showed, I'd probably not support it.

What we are missing in this dialogue is verifiable data, either way. We get lots of anecdotes on both sides of the proposal, with few specifics. For example, of the 11 incidents on the list, who were they? Can we verifiably ask them "hey, were you trained badly or did you just mess up?" Sure, it might be embarrassing, but I'd rather a few people be embarrassed so we can take the right next steps in favor of safety. In short, the answer to that question would really help those of us who don't know whether or not to support this.

Even if this proposal passes, what about the thousands of us who won't be effected by the proposal? (By that, I mean we skydivers who are already wingsuiting.) What initiative is in place to stop tail strikes by us? To me, current wingsuiters are a far greater risk of being the tail strike that causes the insurance companies to cut us off - we are the ones that will get complacent first. Yet I see nothing being done by USPA to address that.


Divalent  (C 40494)

Oct 7, 2012, 9:10 AM
Post #111 of 149 (1895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skwrl] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Ya, my point was not so much directed at the problem, as at the question as posed. It seems to be a problem that threatens the discipline, and the solution to eliminate it (yet still allow wingsuiting) is almost certainly education/training/emphasis in one form or another. Maybe various FFCs need to increase the priority, emphasis, coverage, and practice of proper exits, maybe just sticky-note reminders by the door will do, or maybe a combination of those and other strategies (like a publicity campaign to make the issue more prominent in the minds of existing wingsuiters). And maybe also a component of the solution is a stardardized curriculum to ensure that all wingsuiters get proper training with proper emphasis.

My interest in the issue is only as a fellow jumper interested in ensuring there are planes to take me up for my non-wingsuit jumps at a price that does not reflect a risk I have no control over.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 7, 2012, 9:33 AM
Post #112 of 149 (1891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skwrl] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

You said his points 1 to 3 are " not true" I didn't think they happened to be absolute, and thought you made a good argument for a #4. I am also of a mind that many more points could be added.

If there is a standardized set of "how too's", wouldn't it make the tragedy you wrote about less likely to happen? You mention you do things a particular way, how many other have this "standardization"?

Matt


Skwrl  (C 36419)

Oct 7, 2012, 9:48 AM
Post #113 of 149 (1890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Ah, thanks for your explanation, Matt. I was responding to an absolute statement with an exception. In other words, he said:

Quote:
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! * * * They either 1) did not know proper exit procedure in a wing suit, or 2) were incapable of doing a proper exit despite their knowledge, or 3) did not know the importance of doing a proper exit every single jump in a wing suit.

I was saying "No" in absolute terms, because in Steve's case it wasn't any of those three, it was a different issue (complacency).

There's a standard "how to" in the USPA SIM (Section 6-9). It walks through how a FFC should be taught and what should be covered. Could it be updated with input from the best and brightest? Sure.


(This post was edited by Skwrl on Oct 7, 2012, 9:49 AM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 7, 2012, 10:16 AM
Post #114 of 149 (1887 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skwrl] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

And maybe given some "teeth" after the update, to help in getting tail strikes reduced and maybe, just maybe appease the Insurance Co's, and avoid the FAA's questions over flying out of the Notam'd Radius.

Matt


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 7, 2012, 10:19 AM
Post #115 of 149 (1884 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skwrl] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In short, the answer to that question would really help those of us who don't know whether or not to support this.

In reply to:

Again, I'd like to remind people that the WSI proposal is NOT singularly focused on training to eliminate tail-strikes.

That's only one small (though important) area of a standardized method of training it addresses.

I strongly encourage everyone to review the proposal in it's entirety and not get sidetracked with all the bantering over a single issue before making a choice whether to support it or not.

The proposed WSI standardized curriculum was assembled long before the aircraft insurer sent out the email to it's clients asking for a resolution to the tail-strike hull damage claims they were receiving.

The WSI program definitely addresses instruction in proper exit procedure...along with a multitude of other things that are and sometimes aren't currently being taught.

The program's intention is to monitor who is allowed to teach what to whom...nothing more. The intention is to put everyone involved on the same page, it makes perfect sense to do it earlier rather than later.

Wingsuit is currently and for the foreseeable future, the fastest growing discipline in the sport, if you can see the advantage of insuring uniformity regarding method & content of instruction...consider supporting it.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 7, 2012, 10:22 AM)


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 7, 2012, 10:26 AM
Post #116 of 149 (1877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Well stated.


fasted3  (D 30104)

Oct 7, 2012, 10:40 AM
Post #117 of 149 (1874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
avoid the FAA's questions over flying out of the Notam'd Radius.

That is a completely different subject that has been somewhat overlooked in the heat of the other discussions. One similarity is that it is used to support the WSI initiative, and again a straw man that does not need to be addressed in this manner.
Again, it is more experienced winsuiters that are likely offenders, and has little to do with basic instruction. To stop it, make a clear policy at each drop zone exactly where the limits on flying are. Involve the pilots to make sure they don't let anybody out too close to the line, and have consequences for violators, ie: first offence, warning, second offence grounding, 10 lashes, or whatever.
Problem solved.


airtwardo  (D License)

Oct 7, 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #118 of 149 (1865 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

...it is more experienced winsuiters that are likely offenders, and has little to do with basic instruction.


In reply to:

But keep in mind that 'more experienced wingsuiters' were less experienced at one time...if the information would have been hammered in from the beginning there probably wouldn't be the issue now.


Certainly what you're proposing has merit in addressing the current situation...but doesn't it make sense to uniformly download that information to everyone coming through now and that will in the future, in the same factual & concise nomenclature?

Piecemeal fixes can get confusing, should we settle on 'just' adding a sticker and another paragraph in a waiver to address the next 4 or 5 things too?


The fact discussions on topics like this are taking place lends me to believe that there are some holes in the current system. Blaming it on complacency and throwing out suggestive reminders is certainly one way of approaching it.

There are IMO other equally effective if not better ways as well.


When I was an instructor I was once reminded~

If the person I taught doesn't 'KNOW' something then I failed.

If they can't 'DO' something then I failed.

If they know something and can do it but don't, then it's THEIR failure.

So in essence ~ proper & complete instruction combined with critically accurate evaluation of skills can eliminate 2/3's of potential problems.


(This post was edited by airtwardo on Oct 7, 2012, 11:33 AM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Oct 7, 2012, 11:54 AM
Post #119 of 149 (1848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...it is more experienced winsuiters that are likely offenders, and has little to do with basic instruction.


In reply to:

But keep in mind that 'more experienced wingsuiters' were less experienced at one time...if the information would have been hammered in from the beginning there probably wouldn't be the issue now.


Certainly what you're proposing has merit in addressing the current situation...but doesn't it make sense to uniformly download that information to everyone coming through now and that will in the future, in the same factual & concise nomenclature?

Piecemeal fixes can get confusing, should we settle on 'just' adding a sticker and another paragraph in a waiver to address the next 4 or 5 things too?


The fact discussions on topics like this are taking place lends me to believe that there are some holes in the current system. Blaming it on complacency and throwing out suggestive reminders is certainly one way of approaching it.

There are IMO other equally effective if not better ways as well.


When I was an instructor I was once reminded~

If the person I taught doesn't 'KNOW' something then I failed.

If they can't 'DO' something then I failed.

If they know something and can do it but don't, then it's THEIR failure.

So in essence ~ proper & complete instruction combined with critically accurate evaluation of skills can eliminate 2/3's of potential problems.

Start as soon as we can, no matter the discipline, and we can get every one, informed, educated, taught, standardize, etc. Over all effect, a safer discipline, with less outside looks at it.

Matt


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 7, 2012, 1:27 PM
Post #120 of 149 (1830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

"make sure they don't let anybody out too close to the line"

Just HOW much wingsuit experience do you really have????

Unimpressed


fasted3  (D 30104)

Oct 7, 2012, 2:10 PM
Post #121 of 149 (1845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
"make sure they don't let anybody out too close to the line"

Just HOW much wingsuit experience do you really have????

Unimpressed

Quite a bit.
I don't understand what you mean by that comment, but will be glad to reply if you will clarify it for me.


Ron

Oct 7, 2012, 6:23 PM
Post #122 of 149 (1808 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Every time anyone tries to discuss the facts...we all end up here.

Maybe thats because you have not actually bothered to read any replies... Well, I can't say any, but I can say your position and reply to me shows you have not read any of mine.

Quote:
I just don't understand WHY some are SO angrily against an attempt to improve wingsuiting.

This just proves you have not read a thing I have written. Until you do actually read anything written.... You will continue to falsely think the things you do.

Quote:
I will vote accordingly.

As will I.


Ron

Oct 7, 2012, 6:29 PM
Post #123 of 149 (1806 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydivesg] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
" It appears that the skydiving community can not find a consensus to address our concerns on these hull damage claims due to "wingsuit jumpers".

Wingsuiters can't even agree.

You seem hell bent on creating yet another boondoggle run by the USPA. Are you going to support "Bigway instructor" ratings next?

Some WS'rs are behind this because it will make them money. Some are because they think it will give them legitimacy. Because all the benefits they keep saying this will bring could be brought about by other methods.

Me, I don't WS. What I do know is the USPA is too big and does too much unneeded crap already. Some want to make it a bigger organization... One has to wonder why since the benefits could be gained in other ways.


Skydivesg  (D 10938)

Oct 7, 2012, 7:49 PM
Post #124 of 149 (1788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
" It appears that the skydiving community can not find a consensus to address our concerns on these hull damage claims due to "wingsuit jumpers".

Wingsuiters can't even agree.

You seem hell bent on creating yet another boondoggle run by the USPA. Are you going to support "Bigway instructor" ratings next?

Some WS'rs are behind this because it will make them money. Some are because they think it will give them legitimacy. Because all the benefits they keep saying this will bring could be brought about by other methods.

Me, I don't WS. What I do know is the USPA is too big and does too much unneeded crap already. Some want to make it a bigger organization... One has to wonder why since the benefits could be gained in other ways.

I think you need to re-read my post and try really hard not to read betweeen the lines.

I really don't care how the sport addresses the issue of wingsuit tail strikes.

I don't know enough about wingsuitng to offer anything of value other than to say I know insurance and how that industry works.

I now it's possible that someone could be crying wolf to advance their own agenda but if it is true that the company/companies that insure our jump planes get fed up with what ever they perceive to be an unecessary high risk then we will all pay the price.

I don't want USPA to be more involved in rulemaking than they already are which is why I hope the wingsuit community gets this figured out on their own.

I think if you read my original post you will see it says just that. It does not mention or elude to USPA in any way.

.


normiss  (D 28356)

Oct 8, 2012, 6:44 AM
Post #125 of 149 (1748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fasted3] Aircraft insurers do NOT support "standardized wingsuit training via USPA" [In reply to] Can't Post

Depending on winds aloft, direction, speed, traffic, and distance, sometimes getting out right ON the line is critical.
Smile

I would prefer to not land off when possible.
Cool


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)