New Tandem, Student, Re: wingsuit BSR

[gowlerk 1,912]

The following new BSR is being discussed in the wingsuit forum, where it is meeting with general disapproval.

Quote

"At its most recent meeting in late February, the USPA Board of Directors approved a new Basic Safety Requirement regarding wingsuit flight close to solo and tandem students: "Wingsuit flight within 500 feet vertically or horizontally of any student, including tandem students, is prohibited."

Additionally, the board added the following recommendation to the Skydiver's Information Manual: "Wingsuit flight within 500 feet vertically or horizontally of any licensed skydiver under canopy requires prior planning and agreement between the canopy pilot and wingsuit pilot."

Both the new BSR and recommendation are effective immediately."

I'm wondering what the wider instructor community thinks. I see it as protection of tandems and other students. Others are seeing it as unnecessary and unenforceable rules for wingsuiters.

Edited to remove a reference to "rights" of wingsuiters.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[yoink 321]

gowlerk

I'm wondering what the wider instructor community thinks. I see it as protection of tandems and other students. Others are seeing it as stepping on the rights of wingsuiters.

Wingsuiters don't have rights to endanger other people - let alone students. That's just stupid.

The is absolutely no reason that a wingsuiter needs to get within 500ft of a student except for their own kicks.
It sets a bad example for a student skydiver and increases risk on the skydive in an already more-risky-than-normal scenario.

The face that the USPA thinks it even NEEDS a BSR to explain why this behavior is moronic reflects poorly on the judgement making skills of those wingsuiters. Every other skydiving discipline knows that you don't mess with students....

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

yoink

The is absolutely no reason that a wingsuiter needs to get within 500ft of a student except for their own kicks.
It sets a bad example for a student skydiver and increases risk on the skydive in an already more-risky-than-normal scenario.

The fact that the USPA thinks it even NEEDS a BSR to explain why this behavior is moronic reflects poorly on the judgement making skills of those wingsuiters. Every other skydiving discipline knows that you don't mess with students....

^This. Big time. No reason to pull that sort of stunt. No reason for the instructor to tolerate it.

I have a feeling that this is as much USPA covering their asses as anything else.

Edit to add:

I just read the thread over in Wingsuits. I see some of their points. It's pretty unenforceable. Flybys can be done safely.

But that doesn't justify putting students at extra risk.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[riggerrob 558]

Last time a wingsuiter suggested flying by my tandem, I told him to stay more than 3 wingspans off to the side in case the student pulled a hasty turn.
That was 3 years ago.
Now I will follow the new USPA guideline.
If any wingsuiter flies too close to a tandem, I will ask manifest to keep him off any load I am on. Since these days tandems pay to keep DZs open and most loads contain tandems .... the offending wingsuiter will spend the rest of the day on the ground.

These days I divide my jumps between tandems and wingsuits, but the bulk of my jumps are tandems.

The new USPA guideline is "best business practice" even though I no longer live in the USA and have not paid USPA membership in 15 years.

[fcajump 153]

The is absolutely no reason that a wingsuiter needs to get within 500ft of anyone under canopy without pre-jump flight-planning and permission from all involved.

I do not believe that tandem students should be subjected to the added risks, and solo students are (IMHO) not qualified to evaluate the risks and requirements of being involved in a close fly-by.

No offense to birdmen, but I don't like surprises especially when I perceive a risk to my health/well-being.


Just my $.02
JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[Bluhdow 31]

Quote

The is absolutely no reason that a wingsuiter needs to get within 500ft of anyone under canopy without pre-jump flight-planning and permission from all involved.

I agree. So why doesn't the BSR allow for tandem flybys when permissions are granted and planning is performed? Ah yes, they aren't qualified to make that decision...right?

Quote

I do not believe that tandem students should be subjected to the added risks, and solo students are (IMHO) not qualified to evaluate the risks and requirements of being involved in a close fly-by.

Are tandem students qualified to evaluate the risks of having a video flyer present? How about a handcam on the TIs wrist?

Why do we allow tandem students to consent to adding some risks to their jump, but not others? What makes a qualified video flyer in proximity to a tandem any different than a qualified wingsuit flyer?

The answer, I believe, is that outside video and handcams drive revenues. Money talks. If the USPA applied this rule to any revenue-generating activity the DZs would be up in arms. Wingsuiters however, have a very poor lobby in the USPA.

Apex BASE
#1816

[fcajump 153]

Bluhdow

Quote

The is absolutely no reason that a wingsuiter needs to get within 500ft of anyone under canopy without pre-jump flight-planning and permission from all involved.

I agree. So why doesn't the BSR allow for tandem flybys when permissions are granted and planning is performed? Ah yes, they aren't qualified to make that decision...right?

***I do not believe that tandem students should be subjected to the added risks, and solo students are (IMHO) not qualified to evaluate the risks and requirements of being involved in a close fly-by.

Are tandem students qualified to evaluate the risks of having a video flyer present? How about a handcam on the TIs wrist?

Why do we allow tandem students to consent to adding some risks to their jump, but not others? What makes a qualified video flyer in proximity to a tandem any different than a qualified wingsuit flyer?

The answer, I believe, is that outside video and handcams drive revenues. Money talks. If the USPA applied this rule to any revenue-generating activity the DZs would be up in arms. Wingsuiters however, have a very poor lobby in the USPA.

FWIW - I'm not in favor of handcams, but that's a topic for another discussion.
Outside video, in addition to its financial and entertainment value to the student, is also very useful as a teaching aide. So we permit it with minimums, qualifications and coordination with the TI. There is (or is intended to be) a very low speed delta between the Tandem and Vidiot. To me (and I'm open to new opinions) this is closer (at least in closure rate) of saying that the vidiot can start out 5 seconds behind and get the dramatic footage as he passes us in an angle dive...
Finally, while there are certainly very skilled wings out there, there are also many whose skills are more wishful thinking. (YES I know, the same can be said for vidiots and we do have that problem too... but again, the closure rate is a big difference IMHO) This is proximity flying with a moving target where mistakes endanger the other individuals... and no, I don't think T-students are qualified to make an informed decision to take on that unnecessary risk without benefit to their jump.

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[Di0 1]

Bluhdow

I agree. So why doesn't the BSR allow for tandem flybys when permissions are granted and planning is performed? Ah yes, they aren't qualified to make that decision...right?

Same reason why CRW is OK if planned in general, but it's still forbidden at any degree with Tandems? Certain things are just better left alone when there are tandems involved. IMHO it's not a stupid rule, considering that Wingsuiters are usually left half a mile, to a mile out, and dropped several seconds after the tandems left, even when navigation brings you above some deployed tandems, most of the times you hare a good 1000 ft vertical above them.
I fly a P3 certainly in not the most efficient way, and when for some reason we end up close to tandems (which I don't like in the first place, but yes, sometime it happens), I am always able to clear tandems several thousand feets above them with no need to do flybys.
Although, of course then there is an increased risk of being between tandem under canopy in the pattern, but at that point that's a whole different discussion (and we are lucky enough to have separate patterns and landing areas for this very reason strictly enforced for WS vs Tandems, where I jump, which is again a very good rule if you ask me)

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[yoink 321]

Bluhdow

Why do we allow tandem students to consent to adding some risks to their jump, but not others? What makes a qualified video flyer in proximity to a tandem any different than a qualified wingsuit flyer?

Because the risks / benefits are entirely different.

Show me a wingsuit flight that can creep up to a tandem with a single-digit closing speed and maintain that. Show me that the benefit to the student of having someone perform a close flyby is equal to that of having outside video in terms of either generating repeat custom or as a teaching tool.

Tandem instructors are skydivers first and so can evaluate and predict the risks and behavior of having another discipline they're familiar with on the jump. They may have no experience with wingsuiting at all.

The only people who think buzzing students is acceptable are the wingsuiters and it's purely for their own kicks. There is basically zero benefit for the student, just increased risk.


We've had pretty much the exact same argument with swoopers about getting them to swoop away from the main landing area on this site. The only reason they wanted to swoop spectators or the beer line was for their own kicks as well which was just as idiotic and selfish...


Again, I think it's stupid that the USPA felt that they had to introduce this BSR - enforcable or not. If you have to be told not to mess with students then there are wider problems...

[DJL 232]

Quote

The answer, I believe, is that outside video and handcams drive revenues. Money talks. If the USPA applied this rule to any revenue-generating activity the DZs would be up in arms. Wingsuiters however, have a very poor lobby in the USPA.

This was brought before the board not only because it was starting to happen but because some places were offering it to tandem students for an up-charge. So the $-talks argument is out the window. There's absolutely no reason for a wingsuiter to do a flyby on a student except for their own enjoyment, the student is simply incapable of being part of the planning required for it to be safe.

As for it being unenforceable, no you can't tell that someone was 490 feet away but you can tell if they were 30 feet away and that's when it becomes an issue. The 500 ft distance was chosen because it's the distance at which a wingsuiter could see a canopy in their path and react to avoid a collision with a few seconds.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Di0 1]

A number must be chosen.
No, you won't get your ass chewed for deploying at 2499 feet either.
Yes, you probably do if you deploy at 1300 ft.
Yet, everybody seems ok with a "number" given for the deployment altitude by our BSRs, and not because it makes any more or any less sense, but simply because it's been that way for long enough that people simply accept it.

Leave this new BSR in place for long enough and people will accept it too, after whining and bitching just the right amount. :D

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[Bluhdow 31]

fcajump

Outside video, in addition to its financial and entertainment value to the student, is also very useful as a teaching aide. So we permit it with minimums, qualifications and coordination with the TI. There is (or is intended to be) a very low speed delta between the Tandem and Vidiot. To me (and I'm open to new opinions) this is closer (at least in closure rate) of saying that the vidiot can start out 5 seconds behind and get the dramatic footage as he passes us in an angle dive...
Finally, while there are certainly very skilled wings out there, there are also many whose skills are more wishful thinking. (YES I know, the same can be said for vidiots and we do have that problem too... but again, the closure rate is a big difference IMHO) This is proximity flying with a moving target where mistakes endanger the other individuals... and no, I don't think T-students are qualified to make an informed decision to take on that unnecessary risk without benefit to their jump.

Really? We're going to claim that tandems paying an extra fee for outside video is a teaching aid? For the vast majority of tandem students this is simply not the case, and therefore cannot be used to justify the added risk of outside video.

I get the lower speed delta. So make the WS minimum distance 75 feet. You can keep a higher delta and increase the distance. Is a high speed pass at 75 feet more dangerous than a variable speed flyer coming in for close up video? I guess it depends on the flyer, which by your own admission is highly variable.

The reality is that outside video is baked into the revenue stream of the sport. Flybys are not. I also heard that much of the debate during the meeting centered around rumors and hearsay. Perfect.

The rule was clearly passed without sufficient information, sufficient evidence, or sufficient time to be reasonable.

If the USPA really believes that it's so critical then why don't they poll the TIs? I'd be willing to bet that most TIs don't have a problem with this as we've been working together without issue and having fun. Thanks USPA, for solving a problem that never existed in the first place!

Apex BASE
#1816

[Bluhdow 31]

You should change your sig line.

Apex BASE
#1816

[DJL 232]

Bluhdow

You should change your sig line.

hahahaaa....nope.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Baksteen 84]

Just go buzz your skydiving buddy instead.

Plan accordingly, have him get you on video and you'll get pretty amazing footage into the bargain. I really don't see the problem. Nor, I might add, the added value for the Wingsuiter of buzzing some random tandem.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[DanG 1]

Quote

Nor, I might add, the added value for the Wingsuiter of buzzing some random tandem.

I'm guessing the hot chicks get buzzed more than the fat dudes, so it is not entirely random.

- Dan G

[Di0 1]

At first, I was thinking that making this a BSR rather than a recommendation/guideline was a bit excessive.

But after reading the people defending their God Given Right to buzz tandems like this is the reason they joined the sport in the first place, is more than enough reasons to why it needs to be a BSR.

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[DiverMike 5]

Not all wingsuiters live to buzz tandems. I personally don't buzz them.

The greater concern I have is the degree of precision used to write the BSR. It must be written to increase safety and decrease liability. The preliminary wording prohibits flying a wingsuit within 500 feet of a student. It does not include 'while the student is under freefall or canopy', nor does it define anywhere what is considered to be a 'wingsuit'. What about camera suits with wings? This BSR might be increasing liability if a videot flying outside video bumps into a tandem student. I hope this is addressed in the final BSR.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[DougH 270]

I think it is worded just fine.

It is going to be policed by tandem instructors.

Regardless of how it is written it obviously won't apply to camera flyers with camera jackets with wings, because no DZO or tandem instructor is going to interpret the wording in that manner.

I think it is a stretch to think that this increases legal liability of people shooting outside video. You are covered by the waiver, and it is highly unlikely for you to find yourself in a position of being personally sued unless you did something they can define as gross negligence, and you are a good financial target.

I also really don't care that wingsuiters are up in arms. If they want to insert themselves in the experience of first time jumpers they can get instructor ratings.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Di0 1]

What this BSR means is very clear, people trying to split hair are doing a piss poor job at finding possible loopholes for the pure fun of it.
The BSR says: don't fly your wingsuit close to Tandems and other students.

We all know what a wingsuit is, it's defined elsewhere, and no: it doesn't affect camera jackets, in the same way the section of the SIM about wingsuit FJC does not apply to camera jackets.
There is no need to define what a wingsuit is in this specific BSR. This specific BSR says to not buzz students with your wingsuit.

If anything, I would rephrase it to not even mention wingsuits and include any sort of "fly-by", whether with a wingsuit, a tracking suit or a skin angle diver.
Unless you leave the plane with the Tandem, for whatever reason, do not go intentionally near the tandem, end of story.
If it happens, and yes, it might happen, whether by accident or genuine mistake, treat it accordingly. This most often will probably mean a talk between the TI and the other jumper to understand what happened, if one of the two felt that it was too close.
Really, it's not the end of the world.

Claming that this rule is stupid, or unenforceable, because it would imply that wingsuiters are not allowed near students in the plane or on the ground is as a moot point as a moot point can get.

I'm standing on the edge
With a vision in my head
My body screams release me
My dreams they must be fed... You're in flight.

[DiverMike 5]

The following statement, as written, isn't open to interpretation:

Quote

"Wingsuit flight within 500 feet vertically or horizontally of any student, including tandem students, is prohibited."

By not including the condition 'under canopy', it requires that wingsuiters must always exit last if students are on the plane (which generally is what happens anyway). Is that really USPA's intent? Why the hell did they specifically include 'under canopy' in the recommendation about licensed skydivers and not include it in the BSR about students? Maybe USPA really does want to prohibit wingsuits from exiting a plane carrying students. Maybe they don't want to expose students to the higher possibility of a tail strike by a wingsuiter.

As written, there is no ambiguity. You cannot exit a plane with a wingsuit on if there are students on the plane. That would include any student on the plane who backed out of doing the tandem and wants to ride it down.

I don't know if they have actually published the wording of the BSR, but I hope it includes 'under canopy' if their intent is to avoid buzzing.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

We all know what a wingsuit is, it's defined elsewhere

I looked through the SIM and could not find the definition of a wingsuit anywhere.

I guess a wingsuit is like hard core pornography. As Supreme Court Justice Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio, "I know it when I see it"
Oops - found it in the glossary. Nevermind. Your point is correct

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[DJL 232]

DiverMike

The following statement, as written, isn't open to interpretation:

Quote

"Wingsuit flight within 500 feet vertically or horizontally of any student, including tandem students, is prohibited."

By not including the condition 'under canopy', it requires that wingsuiters must always exit last if students are on the plane (which generally is what happens anyway). Is that really USPA's intent? Why the hell did they specifically include 'under canopy' in the recommendation about licensed skydivers and not include it in the BSR about students? Maybe USPA really does want to prohibit wingsuits from exiting a plane carrying students. Maybe they don't want to expose students to the higher possibility of a tail strike by a wingsuiter.

As written, there is no ambiguity. You cannot exit a plane with a wingsuit on if there are students on the plane. That would include any student on the plane who backed out of doing the tandem and wants to ride it down.

I don't know if they have actually published the wording of the BSR, but I hope it includes 'under canopy' if their intent is to avoid buzzing.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody thinks this has anything to do with that 3 seconds it takes for a student to drop 500 feet away from the plane while a wingsuiter is still in it or exiting just after (or vice versa). If you have an actual gripe then call/email USPA and suggest they edit the wording. This isn't a foot in the door for some weird anti-wingsuiter agenda.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

If you have an actual gripe then call/email USPA and suggest they edit the wording.

I have.

Adding 'under canopy' would clarify the USPA's position.

As a point of order, I think wingsuiters buzzing anybody is a fundamentally stupid idea. I think anybody lurking, buzzing, hanging around tandems who isn't part of the tandem jump and is fully qualified to be there is just as stupid.

I agree completely in what I believe is the intent of the new BSR. I think it is poorly worded and as such has unintended consequences.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Are tandem students qualified to evaluate the risks of having a video flyer present? How about a handcam on the TIs wrist?

Why do we allow tandem students to consent to adding some risks to their jump, but not others? What makes a qualified video flyer in proximity to a tandem any different than a qualified wingsuit flyer?

Typically the video flyer is staff who hopefully has been vetted. If wingsuiters as a group had held themselves to and policed themselves to the same standard we wouldn't be in this position. But they didn't. They acted like children and were treated as such. Some may want to self examine their actions.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.