USPA Safety Day advertisement

[kkeenan 13]

Quote

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

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

Kevin K.

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

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

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

Kevin K.

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

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

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[VideoFly 0]

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

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/short.html

[fasted3 0]

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

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

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

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

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

But what do I know?

[VideoFly 0]

Well stated!

[jsaxton 0]

+2

[riggerpaul 1]

Just a reminder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to all!

-paul

[pchapman 261]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[billvon 2,396]

>Did you even read the ad?

Yes.

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

The tail _was_ lower than it should have been.

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

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

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

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

>Did you even read the ad?

Yes.

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

The tail _was_ lower than it should have been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kallend 1,623]

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

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,396]

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

For exit.

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

Yep, also a good suggestion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fasted3 0]

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

But what do I know?

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

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

But we're not talking about a student doing something that they've never done before. We're talking about an experienced skydiver who should actually already have been taught how to deal with a climbing exit. Not to mention being able to tell that there hasn't been a cut.

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

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

[SStewart 13]

Quote

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

Exactly!

Onward and Upward!

[billvon 2,396]

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

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

>Would you have not jumped?

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

[billvon 2,396]

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

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

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

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

Here is the text of the ad -

Quote

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

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

Had they said that, I would have no objection.

Would you?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

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

What if that was the intention?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you are well aware, that notion has changed.

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

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

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

What if that was the intention?

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

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

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

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

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



d5533
base44
ccs37

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[davelepka 4]

Just to put it to rest before I proceed - we all know that anyone can exit any aircraft in an unsafe manner if they so desired. Let's set that fact aside for the purpose of this discussion, and assume jumpers wish to exit in a manner that is generally accepted as 'safe'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

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

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

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

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

[riggerpaul 1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call this what it is, and apply appropriate warnings.

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

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

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

[billvon 2,396]

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

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