New Tandem, Student, Re: wingsuit BSR

[Baksteen 84]

DougH

You are missing the point, by a very wide margin.

As long as he misses it by 500 ft, it's all good.

Time to stop feeding the trolls, people.

"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

[DougH 270]

Bealio

***
The [head down skydives] are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk.

Your head down comparison is apples to horses.

Seems pretty comparable to me.

Really, a jump between licensed skydivers, seems comparable to a wing-suit fly by on jump involving a student skydiver?

Your not winning over any hearts and minds, but your logic skills are impressive to say the least.

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

[Bluhdow 31]

DougH

The fly bys are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

Okay, let's try a few more:

The head down jumps are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

The swoops are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

The tandem skydives are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

See where I'm going with this? Here's the real gap in logic:

We allow tandem students to consent to a whole lot of risks that they are, in no way, academically qualified to consent to. What's the difference here?

It appears that the difference is that some TIs and some BOD members don't like it. I guess that's just politics.

Apex BASE
#1816

[gowlerk 1,910]

Bluhdow

***The fly bys are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

Okay, let's try a few more:

The head down jumps are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

The swoops are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

The tandem skydives are occurring, they are unnecessary, and they add risk. None of that can be argued, so the problem clearly exists.

See where I'm going with this? Here's the real gap in logic:

We allow tandem students to consent to a whole lot of risks that they are, in no way, academically qualified to consent to. What's the difference here?

It appears that the difference is that some TIs and some BOD members don't like it. I guess that's just politics.


OK, let's try just one more time. The things you have listed add personal risk to the participants. Those participants are in a position to judge the risks they are willing to take. And balance that against the enjoyment they may get.

Students, including tandems are in no such position to judge and get little to no benefit. All the benefit and enjoyment goes to the grand standing wingsuiter in this scenario.

If you are nearly done banging your head against the wall trying to defend your position, stop for a moment and look at all the support you are getting.

Comparing it to other activities is not helping. Apples and oranges here. If you don't get it, too effing bad I guess.

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

[Di0 1]

Dude, skydiving is occurring, is unnecessary and adds risk.
Stop it.
That being said: the fact that you seem to not understand (or rather, you're playing Devil’s Advocate for the pure sake of rhetoric at this point) why USPA and Manufacturers will treat a licensed member of a skydiving association differently than an "outside" paying customer with no affiliation, and thus assess different levels of acceptable risk as to what's allowed and what's not, became pedantic a while ago.


Tandems are NOT regular skydives, get over it.

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]

Let's stop running in circles. My position isn't popular, but that doesn't mean it's indefensible. I'm not changing any of your minds obviously, but I still see a lack of consistency in this measure. Too bad for me I suppose. What's done is done.

The forum has chosen it's position, so I'll leave it at that.

Apex BASE
#1816

[normiss 622]

^This.
Sad what we all pay for the foolishness of the idiots.

[JohnMitchell 14]

DougH

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.

What Doug said.

[riggerrob 558]

I doubt if tandem students notice wing-suit fly-bye.

For example, several years ago, the most experienced wing-suiter on our DZ asked permission to fly by my tandem.
We briefed a flight pattern, more than 3 canopy spans off to the side, etc.
Shortly after opening, I spotted him over my left shoulder and pointed him out to my student. My student did not notice the wing suit until he was almost level with us. The student only tracked him for a few seconds, then lost sight of the wing suit (in the ground clutter) after he descended below the horizon.
The student did not mention the wing suit after we landed.

Conclusion: the wing-suit fly-by did not stick in the student's memory.

[GoHuskers 0]

Bluhdow

We allow tandem students to consent to a whole lot of risks that they are, in no way, academically qualified to consent to. What's the difference here?

Tandem students face more risk from jumping in sketchy weather conditions and with sketchy equipment in a single season than they do from wingsuit fly-bys since the invention of wingsuits. I would guess that actual injuries or close calls happen significantly more frequently from DZ's choices to squeeze in a sketchy weather load or squeeze another season out of a ragged out main canopy. Why wouldn't USPA focus on a risk, a very tangible risk, to protect its tandem students and create a BSR setting weather limits or gear limits?

The examples I gave probably go past "not academically qualified" to judge risk and more towards "are intentionally misled to believe an unsafe condition is perfectly safe." It may not happen at your DZ but you know it happens.

[yoink 321]

Again - it's a question of risk vs reward.

The payoff for doing a jump in marginal conditions is that they actually GET to make a jump when they might not otherwise be able to. Tandems don't expect to just hang around at a DZ weekend after weekend, after all.

This produces revenue for the DZ and Tandem Instructor, has a chance of getting a new jumper into the sport and can be used as teaching-time if it's a working tandem.

There is simply no benefit for the student to have a wingsuit do a flyby. None. It's the skydiving equivalent of dividing by Zero... Mathematically stupid.

[Di0 1]

yoink

.dividing by Zero... Mathematically stupid.

I agree with everything else you said, but don't even get me started here.

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]

I AM mathematically stupid. Maybe that's the problem.

[Bluhdow 31]

When you're all done patting each other on the back here I'd suggest you check this thread:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4789246;#4789246

This rule is not as popular as you'd all like to think.

Apex BASE
#1816

[skytribe 16]

Not popular with Wingsuit jumpers. Who make piss poor excuses as to why they can't keep a distance away from the tandems - despite there ability to fly long distances in their suits.

Guess what - there is no reason for them to be doing fly-by's of tandem except to get their own jollies. Unpopular among wingsuiters - I can live with that.

As to making rules with jump numbers etc. That wouldn't work either, every jumper has different abilities/skills. These jumper number rules, people ignore them (normally the jumpers with least ability and unable to meet the jump numbers). Why can't wingsuiters simply follow the rules that have been established - its not all about you....

[gowlerk 1,910]

Bluhdow

When you're all done patting each other on the back here I'd suggest you check this thread:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4789246;#4789246

This rule is not as popular as you'd all like to think.

That's funny. Even among the wingsuit group you are an outlier in your level of opposition. But that's beside the point. Just as there was no need to consult the bird people, the fact that some of them object is irrelevant. It's about the safety of the students. Nothing more, nothing less.

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

[DJL 232]

Bluhdow

When you're all done patting each other on the back here I'd suggest you check this thread:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4789246;#4789246

This rule is not as popular as you'd all like to think.

The base fatality list is pretty thick with the worlds most experienced wingsuiters putting themselves into objects. Just....stop.

http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/wiki/BASE_Fatality_List

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

[yoink 321]

Bluhdow

This rule is not as popular as you'd all like to think.

Which is singularly irrelevant.


Answer me this - why do you think it's a good idea that you should be allowed to fly within 500ft of tandem students? What tangible benefit does it bring to them to offset the risk?

The biggest issue is that it seems like your position is 'you're stopping me having fun' to which every reasonable skydiver is replying 'you don't get to have fun with students... Go and play with other experienced jumpers.'

I fail to see how this is in any way unreasonable.

[GoHuskers 0]

yoink

Again - it's a question of risk vs reward.

Yeah I get what you're saying but let's no kid ourselves. The new rule is only preventing a statistically non-significant risk that produces zero income for the DZ. (If you wish to debate that its a significant risk, then please point to a fatality or incident which resulted from a fly-by)

There is a significant additional of risk and a financial reward for continuing operations in sub-par conditions or with sub-par equipment and BOD won't touch that because its tied to money.

The new BSR is being presented as necessary for the safety of tandem students. You can see the inconsistency in this argument when more tangible risks are present and not acted upon.

Protecting the business is fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But the BOD is not elected by businesses its elected by fun jumpers. If the USPA wants to wonder out loud why they have such small voter turn outs, perhaps they should look back at what they are doing for the fun jumpers.

[Di0 1]

You know what's funny?
Last night I couldn't sleep, for a change, and I was randomly looking for info about the "speed" cypres.
For no reason, really.
Anyway, I landed on a thread here, from 2004 or 2005 when it was first announced.
The reactions? Pretty much the same here.
"AHAHA, SHAME on airtec for trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist"
"AHAHA I swoop regurlarly, never had a problem! I don't get it"
"AHAHA They are pushing on us new products that have no place in the market, maybe 100 people in the world could use this"
"AHAHA it's statistically irrelevant, I NEVER heard of a reserve firing during a swoop, I don't think it can happen because [wall of text of explanation I didn't bother to read]".
Etc. Etc. Etc.

In the following years, we had several AAD activations mid-swoop because of this problem that doesn't exist.

Every single time something changes, someone will stress out how useless the change is and how it makes everything worse.
Then few years go by and we can't even imagine a time when it was different.

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]

That doesn't make it right.

Apex BASE
#1816

[Di0 1]

Maybe, maybe not.
But at least it shows that often "preventing" a problem is doing something that might seem like "fixing a problem that doesn't exist".

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.

[mjosparky 3]

Bluhdow

That doesn't make it right.

And it doesn't make it wrong. Give it up Kid, you don't have a defensible position.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[GoHuskers 0]

Di0

You know what's funny?
Last night I couldn't sleep, for a change, and I was randomly looking for info about the "speed" cypres.
For no reason, really.
Anyway, I landed on a thread here, from 2004 or 2005 when it was first announced.
The reactions? Pretty much the same here.
"AHAHA, SHAME on airtec for trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist"
"AHAHA I swoop regurlarly, never had a problem! I don't get it"
"AHAHA They are pushing on us new products that have no place in the market, maybe 100 people in the world could use this"
"AHAHA it's statistically irrelevant, I NEVER heard of a reserve firing during a swoop, I don't think it can happen because [wall of text of explanation I didn't bother to read]".
Etc. Etc. Etc.

In the following years, we had several AAD activations mid-swoop because of this problem that doesn't exist.

Every single time something changes, someone will stress out how useless the change is and how it makes everything worse.
Then few years go by and we can't even imagine a time when it was different.

You very well could be right that they are heading off a slew of future incidents. No one can say with any certainty since there is not a reliable volume of data of fly-by's and incidents to predict from. I don't wingsuit and my DZ's marketing strategy is mostly word of mouth so they don't skimp on gear maintenance and they don't drop in sketchy conditions.

The difference between your example and this BSR is that you're example is a new product that a jumper can choose and this BSR is mandatory for all USPA license holders.

The Hypothetical Rabbit Hole: An established wingsuiter with 300 plus wingsuit jumps and 600 total jumps is paying for his father/mother's tandem and wants to do a fly-by to make it extra special... DZO, S&TA, TI, and Fun Jumper agree that is a special moment for the loyal patron and his father/mother. Sorry can't do it, its a BSR. If wingsuiting near a tandem presents an unnecessary risk then why allow a D-License holder to skydive with a tandem, its unnecessary, it provides no income to the DZ. If the wingsuiter's can't do it why should D license holders be allowed to do it?

The issue I see is that USPA is a self-regulating organization and when I first started lurking this website 5 years ago the general attitude was that the USPA keeps the FAA off our backs through promoting individual responsibility and education instead of regulation. It seems like the current trend is to keep the FAA off our backs by regulating. What makes it worse is that it removes the calculated judgement of the DZ, its instructional staff, and its fun jumpers. It was done, as rumor would have it, with very little input from the fun jumper community. That is a slippery slope.

[DJL 232]

Reliable data? Wingsuiters run into things all the time that they only intented to fly near. Very good ones too. http://www.blincmagazine.com/forum/wiki/BASE_Fatality_List

Go to the bottom of the list and start with the most recent. Time after time: Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit, Impact/Wingsuit.

What do you think would happen if that board meeting ended and the announcement was "USPA will make no restriction on wingsuiters flying in proximity to students or tandems either in freefall or under canopy."?

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