USPA Safety Day advertisement POLL

[riggerpaul 1]

So, a poll seems in order.

Since I am specifically polling about a USPA policy, I think it will be helpful to know if you are a USPA member.

But, I want anyone, USPA member or not, to be able to vote. So I have provided 4 options.

For the poll to have any practical value, please only vote once.

[diablopilot 2]

Your poll is flawed. The USPA has not made any rule about climbing exits, nor have they made rules about how a DZO must operate his aircraft that are above and beyond those of the FARs. What they have done is state their position on climbing exits, and that position says they have a higher level of risk.

Kinda like the USPA has said sub 100 sq foot canopies have a higher level of risk.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Your poll is flawed. The USPA has not made any rule about climbing exits, nor have they made rules about how a DZO must operate his aircraft that are above and beyond those of the FARs. What they have done is state their position on climbing exits, and that position says they have a higher level of risk.

Kinda like the USPA has said sub 100 sq foot canopies have a higher level of risk.

No, they have not made any outright rule.

But that have stated that a climbing aircraft is not in the correct configuration for an exit.

Quote

"Which placed the tail much lower than it should have been..."

My poll is not flawed - I want to know how people, USPA members or not, feel about allowing or disallowing climbing exits.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

My poll is not flawed - I want to know how people, USPA members or not, feel about allowing or disallowing climbing exits.

It is flawed.

For instance, you could have a flat jump run exit on a 182, just with out flaps and possibly have an issue. Or you can have a climbing exit in an Otter and possibly have no issue. The poll you presented is too distilled to answer accurately.

More accurately you could simply ask "do you want your jump pilot to fly correctly and safely for jumpers and exits." You will most likely get a 100% yes answer. That has been addressed in the past by the USPA.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

My poll is not flawed - I want to know how people, USPA members or not, feel about allowing or disallowing climbing exits.

It is flawed.

For instance, you could have a flat jump run exit on a 182, just with out flaps and possibly have an issue. Or you can have a climbing exit in an Otter and possibly have no issue. The poll you presented is too distilled to answer accurately.

More accurately you could simply ask "do you want your jump pilot to fly correctly and safely for jumpers and exits." You will most likely get a 100% yes answer. That has been addressed in the past by the USPA.

You are certainly free disagree with what I am asking. So don't answer.

The USPA Safety Day ad that is at the root of this says that an aircraft must be flying level for a safe exit.

Quote

Jumpers also need to learn to recognize when an aircraft is in level flight and safe to exit.

The message I get from this is that USPA says it is not safe to exit an aircraft that is not in level flight.

They didn't make any stipulations regarding aircraft type. So neither have I.

[billvon 2,475]

None of the options are really valid. It's like asking "allow newbie jumps" or "ban newbie jumps." In AFF? On bigways? On small canopies? On demos? What's a newbie?

Likewise, this question is incomplete. Ban climbing exits on Skyvans? What on earth for? Ban poised climbing exits on B90 King Airs? Might be a good idea for some DZ's.

USPA should neither ban nor allow climbing exits. They should educate jumpers and pilots so any exit can be done safely, and so DZO's can make better decisions on how they run their operations.

[riggerpaul 1]

Fine, so make a contribution to the discussion.

How should one make a poll to determine how many of us feel that the USPA Safety Day ad and the policy it sets forth is overreaching?

I am happy to have someone else start a better poll and move the discussion to that thread.

[VideoFly 0]

Much of this discussion seems to stem from Safety and Training issues, which are worthy of discussion. From a student’s early training, they are told about the possibility of a plane climbing during exits. Step 4 of the “Learn Spotting One Jump at a Time” section of the SIM states that the student is to “Look straight down, using horizon reference points. Avoid using the aircraft as a reference. On jump run, the plane is often climbing, banking, skidding, or crabbing.” I can only hope that these points are stressed during instruction and throughout each skydiver’s career.

Also, part of the purpose of Category F instruction is to prepare students for emergency exits, which may need to be executed with a plane in any position and/or attitude. Step 5 of Section 4- Category F of the SIM deals with aircraft emergencies with clear and pull recommendations. Within that step, it is stated:
a. A clear and pull is used for emergency exits and pre-planned low-altitude jumps.
b. Use a familiar, stable exit technique.
Again, I hope that skydivers are familiar with appropriate familiar exits, which are stable in varying instances.

One concern we may have with the SIM is that within the Category F Freefall Dive Flows for the 5,500 foot and 3,500 foot Clear and Pull exits, the SIM specifies the use of poised exits when it previously recommends the use of familiar, stable exits. Perhaps, instructors need to spend more time explaining that at times, we may need to use diving exits, particular during an emergency when the aircraft may be “climbing, banking, skidding, or crabbing.”

Either way, I have witnessed a tail strike with fatal results and have seen too many near strikes. This is a Safety and Training issue which merits more discussion.

[Beachbum 0]

It's been a few years since I did AFF, and I know that training has improved with the development and implementation of the ISP since then, but I was never instructed relative to climbing exits while a student. I can't remember it even being mentioned back then. I only got educated about it reading on here, then asking questions of more experienced folks at the dz. Maybe it would be a good idea to include something specifically about it in the ISP (or IS there now?)?

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[skycam321 0]

It has been proven time and time again that we can not make rules to save everyone from their own stupidity, and we need to stop trying before we can't tie our shoes in any way but the approved mannor. If we all used a little common sense, 2010 could be the poster year for USPA's Saftey Day.

"Stear clear of the terminally stupid!"

[pilotdave 0]

Climbing exits are fine for experienced jumpers when there's adequate communication between the jumper and the pilot. I've seen jumpers request climbing exits... never seen a pilot demand one. A poised exit is not appropriate when the plane is climbing. The jumper must be aware of that. I'd hate to see USPA try to ban climbing exits... they save time and money. But they are not "normal" exits and need to be treated with respect.

Dave

[BIGUN 1,106]

Quote

You are certainly free disagree with what I am asking. So don't answer.

Huh?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

You are certainly free disagree with what I am asking. So don't answer.

Huh?

The person posted that he did not like the poll I posted.

I said he was free to vote or not.

My point here is to get people to say how they stand on the matter of USPA's advertisement.

Flawed or not, the poll's point is to get some numbers.

USPA is an organization of members. Too often they get too little input from the membership.

[fcajump 153]

In the big picture I would suggest that a (generic) plane in a climb attitude is less safe than a plane that is trimmed for a standard flat/steady-state exit.

For a static line student in a Cessna or wing suiter in a King-Air, this might be a critical safety issue.

For an experienced jumper, exiting low from an Otter where the pilot is not in a max-climb, not as much of an issue (I do it with pilots that know me and I'm the only one going out at the time, but in the general case I would not necessarily recommend it.)

Just my $.03 (inflation)

JW

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

[billvon 2,475]

>Fine, so make a contribution to the discussion.

My contribution:

USPA should neither ban nor allow climbing exits. They should educate jumpers and pilots so any exit can be done safely, and so DZO's can make better decisions on how they run their operations.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

>Fine, so make a contribution to the discussion.

My contribution:

USPA should neither ban nor allow climbing exits. They should educate jumpers and pilots so any exit can be done safely, and so DZO's can make better decisions on how they run their operations.

Thank you Bill. This is something upon which we can both agree.

Can we also agree that it says that a climbing exit can be safe, so long as everyone understands what it requires, and executes to that requirement?

Because some have posted that the climbing exit is categorically unsafe. And I do not think that is a true statement.

[danielcroft 2]

I think climbing exits are fine, as you said, as long as people use the correct technique.

I think we can agree that, through jumper inattention, lack of training or loss of focus, a climbing exit is probably more unsafe than when in level flight.

I didn't read the ad as any different from what the USPA has said before to be honest but I voted "USPA member - allow climbing exits" because I think that people should be able to learn and know the difference between standard exits and "otherwise".

I tend to agree that it appears that the jumper in the ad looked more interested in geeking the camera (also an important part of skydiving but down the list a little) rather than thinking about the exit.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

>Fine, so make a contribution to the discussion.

My contribution:

USPA should neither ban nor allow climbing exits. They should educate jumpers and pilots so any exit can be done safely, and so DZO's can make better decisions on how they run their operations.

Thank you Bill. This is something upon which we can both agree.

Can we also agree that it says that a climbing exit can be safe, so long as everyone understands what it requires, and executes to that requirement?

Because some have posted that the climbing exit is categorically unsafe. And I do not think that is a true statement.

Thank you indeed, Bill, because your common-sense statement supports Paul's contention that it was inaccurate and therefore wholly inappropriate for USPA's Safety Day ad to declare that the tail was "much lower than it should have been."

No... it wasn't.

Which, of course, is why Paul is so concerned about the potential legal ramifications such a brain-dead declaration by the sport's governing association may have on drop zone operations.



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."

[billvon 2,475]

>because your common-sense statement supports Paul's contention that
> it was inaccurate and therefore wholly inappropriate for USPA's Safety
>Day ad to declare that the tail was "much lower than it should have been."

No, it does not. The tail in that picture was much lower than it should have been. The take-away from that is that a) pilots should configure their aircraft for safe exits, b) skydivers should be able to recognize when this has been done and c) skydivers should learn safe exit techniques when doing such exits. These will vary from DZ to DZ, from aircraft to aircraft and from jumper to jumper (a head-downer has different issues than a wingsuiter.)

[robinheid 0]

Quote

>because your common-sense statement supports Paul's contention that
> it was inaccurate and therefore wholly inappropriate for USPA's Safety
>Day ad to declare that the tail was "much lower than it should have been."

No, it does not. The tail in that picture was much lower than it should have been. The take-away from that is that a) pilots should configure their aircraft for safe exits, b) skydivers should be able to recognize when this has been done and c) skydivers should learn safe exit techniques when doing such exits. These will vary from DZ to DZ, from aircraft to aircraft and from jumper to jumper (a head-downer has different issues than a wingsuiter.)

Sigh...

No... it wasn't.

parallax [pæra;læks]
n
1. (Physics / General Physics) an apparent change in the position of an object resulting from a change in position of the observer

[via French from New Latin parallaxis, from Greek: change, from parallassein to change, from para-1 + allassein to alter]
parallactic adj
parallactically adv



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."

[riggerpaul 1]

Please clarify.

Tail too low for a safe climb?
Or tail too low for a safe exit?

If you are saying "too low for a safe climb", then you don't have enough information for that.

If you are saying "too low for a safe exit", doesn't it even matter that the exit did not, in fact, result in an tail strike? And doesn't it matter that, in fact, most low-tail climbing exits do not result in a tail strike?

That jumper did, in fact, exit safely, through no fault of his own.

And again I'll ask, if the pilot is responsible for getting the tail out of the way of an exiting jumper, how can we ever let a wingsuit out a low-tail side door aircraft? It will ALWAYS be possible for that wingsuit to hit the tail, no matter how high the pilot can arrange for it to be.

Why do you think things should be different between these two situations?

Either way, the safety of the exit depends on the jumper doing it correctly.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

No... it wasn't.

parallax [pæra;læks]

Not sure... the picture in the ad looks pretty bad, and it says he barely missed the stabilizer.

But here's another example... Looks pretty bad in the first pic, but of course she was many feet below the tail a split second later.

Dave

[billvon 2,475]

>tail too low for a safe exit?

Yes.

>If you are saying "too low for a safe exit", doesn't it even matter that
> the exit did not, in fact, result in an tail strike? And doesn't it matter
>that, in fact, most low-tail climbing exits do not result in a tail strike?

No. Most malfunctions do not result in serious injury or death. That does not mean that malfunctions are fine, or safe.

>And again I'll ask, if the pilot is responsible for getting the tail out of
> the way of an exiting jumper, how can we ever let a wingsuit out a
>low-tail side door aircraft? It will ALWAYS be possible for that wingsuit to
> hit the tail, no matter how high the pilot can arrange for it to be.

Correct. Both the jumper and the pilot must work together to accomplish such exits safely in low tail aircraft.

>Why do you think things should be different between these two situations?

They should not be.

>Either way, the safety of the exit depends on the jumper doing it correctly.

And the pilot.

Your attitude seems to be "the pilot bears no responsibility for what happens to his aircraft" which is silly. A Skyvan pilot could say just that, and decide not to use flaps and/or power to prepare the aircraft for jump run. Then, when a few people get on the back of the tail and the aircraft stalls, he could later say "hey, not my fault! They shouldn't have had more than two people on the tail."

Fortunately, most pilots are more responsible than that. They prepare the aircraft for exit AND jumpers limit the number of people on the tailgate. Both pilots and jumpers cooperate to make sure they can exit larger groups safely.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Your attitude seems to be "the pilot bears no responsibility for what happens to his aircraft" which is silly.

No, that is not my attitude.

My attitude is that a climbing tail-low exit is not a pilot error.

He is not flying the aircraft irresponsibly, carelessly, or recklessly.

He is flying the aircraft perfectly well.

If a jumper hits the tail during a climbing tail-low exit, it is the jumper's fault, not the pilot's.

It is the jumper's fault because there exists a safe manner in which to execute that exit, and he failed to use it.

USPA has chosen to say that the pilot should not let the jumper exit when the tail is low.

That is an absurd statement that USPA made irresponsibly.

[billvon 2,475]

>My attitude is that a climbing tail-low exit is not a pilot error.

It is if it represents an increased risk of collision with a jumper exiting.

>If a jumper hits the tail during a climbing tail-low exit, it is the jumper's
>fault, not the pilot's.

If the plane was not configured correctly for exit, then it is both their faults. How do we solve such a problem? Educate pilots how to configure aircraft for exit and educate jumpers on how not to hit the tail - as suggested by the ad.

>USPA has chosen to say that the pilot should not let the jumper exit when
>the tail is low.

No, they didn't. Did you read the ad?