Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners

[hcsvader 1]

Bring back the skyvans

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Bring back the skyvans

first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[hcsvader 1]

Quote

Quote

Bring back the skyvans

first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined

Ah crap, who will be the instructor examiner?

Have you seen my pants?
it"s a rough life, Livin' the dream
>:)

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bring back the skyvans

first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined

Ah crap, who will be the instructor examiner?

That guy who shoved on it so hard it came off the aircraft and it went into feefall (he learned from the experience).

[DBCOOPER 1]

Quote

Quote

Bring back the skyvans

first there is the certification for Skyvan door operation, for which you need to be coached and examined

It will be the next USPA rating. You'll have to be a coach first, then pay a couple hundred for the course and then you'll get free jumps and paid to teach people how to open the door.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[cocheese 0]

Hi, I'm Carlton, your doorman..... would you like to exit now? Can we talk?


For the young ones:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruefrPXqhDg

[tdog 0]

Quote

Jeff Norris, real insurance broker to nearly every turbine jump ship in America.

Wingsuit tailstrikes, one every 29 days last year in America.

Experience levels of wingsuiters striking tails, noob to expert.

I find this stat hard to believe... Why no incident reports online here every 29 days? Has Parachutist had a feature article? I would think at least 50% of the strikes would cause enough injury someone would notice???

Anyway - I almost had one years ago. A good friend was in the door with me, and he was stepping on my legwing/foot accidentally. When he/we left, I tumbled, with my leg wing zipper being torn open and my shoe falling off. I was told I was inches from the tail. It can happen to experienced people trying hard not to screw up, so maybe this is a problem that does exist that we need to discuss?

[Opie 0]

Quote

Quote

Jeff Norris, real insurance broker to nearly every turbine jump ship in America.

Wingsuit tailstrikes, one every 29 days last year in America.

Experience levels of wingsuiters striking tails, noob to expert.

I find this stat hard to believe... Why no incident reports online here every 29 days? Has Parachutist had a feature article? I would think at least 50% of the strikes would cause enough injury someone would notice???

Anyway - I almost had one years ago. A good friend was in the door with me, and he was stepping on my legwing/foot accidentally. When he/we left, I tumbled, with my leg wing zipper being torn open and my shoe falling off. I was told I was inches from the tail. It can happen to experienced people trying hard not to screw up, so maybe this is a problem that does exist that we need to discuss?

You think all incidents get reported here? I know of a couple aircraft incidents this year (not wingsuit related) that are not reported here at all. The consensus of some that I know personally is that they are sick of the rampant speculation that goes on in the incidents forum and are unwilling to share here online because of it.

It's sad because you used to be able to get the facts of what happened and learn from it but anymore it is the same handful of posters that go off into endless speculation and jumping to conclusions when all the facts haven't even had a chance to come out yet.

[tdog 0]

Quote

You think all incidents get reported here?

Of course not... I get it. OK, so have you seen any articles in the USPA rag? I looked back at all the USPA professional newsletters for 2012. Silent... You would think 11 strikes would have piqued their interest?

So I looked at: http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx

I did find two wingsuit strikes, but more of the strikes were non-wingsuit (of the ones I clicked in order for the first few pages)...

Maybe the USPA needs to notice this is a concern and educate - or maybe the 11 is wrong?

Seems like the insurance companies have better data than the USPA. The insurance broker should be reporting data to the USPA, even if general, so they can react (because god knows DZOs are not going to self report safety issues.)

[PhreeZone 14]

The 11 was from all of 2011. At least 6 of them had occurred on Caravans, 2 of them on 206's, 1 on a PAC 750. Looking back to 2009 there was even a fatality on a tailstrike on an Otter. All of this was presented to the UPSA at the latest BOD meeting from the group that is trying to get a Wingsuit rating. Numbers from 2012 have not been collected yet since people are not really willing to report them except to make insurance claims to fix their aircraft.

USPA is having issues right now even getting S&TA's to turn in Fatality reports. I just spoke to a member of the BOD in the last 2-3 weeks that said we only had the paperwork on something like 50% of the fatalities from this year sent in and they are now looking at options to get the S&TA's to send in the paperwork or to remove their ratings. Getting S&TA's to send in paperwork on injuries and things like tailstrikes is asking a lot if they won't even talk about fatalities.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kallend 1,618]

Quote

The 11 was from all of 2011. At least 6 of them had occurred on Caravans, 2 of them on 206's, 1 on a PAC 750. Looking back to 2009 there was even a fatality on a tailstrike on an Otter. All of this was presented to the UPSA at the latest BOD meeting from the group that is trying to get a Wingsuit rating. .

And now it suddenly turns up in an insurance agent's letter. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

How EXACTLY is a WS instructor rating going to prevent very experienced wingsuiters like Steve H. from screwing up anyway?

...

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

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

...the S&TA's to send in the paperwork or to remove their ratings

What possible good will that do to improve the amount of reports being sent in???

Or does that mean remove their instructional ratings, not the S&TA label?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

...the S&TA's to send in the paperwork or to remove their ratings

What possible good will that do to improve the amount of reports being sent in???

Or does that mean remove their instructional ratings, not the S&TA label?

+1. The day the USPA BOD threatens me, an S&TA who is trying to make things better while being slandered and harassed by jumpers, and pressured by DZO's, is the moment they loose the last shred of support I have left.

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

[PhreeZone 14]

My interpretation was the loss of the S&TA function with the appointment of a new S&TA at the DZ as a replacement. Once again I don't see that leading to much of a change in the environment since if the first person was not willing to do it there is no driving factors that the second person would do the paperwork either.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[JohnMitchell 14]

Why would an S&TA not do the 30-1 fatality report?

It's not like fatalities are a big secret. Is it laziness or something more goal oriented?

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Jeff Norris, real insurance broker to nearly every turbine jump ship in America.

Wingsuit tailstrikes, one every 29 days last year in America.

Experience levels of wingsuiters striking tails, noob to expert.

For the record, no WS at my DZ due to airspace and LZ concerns.

Carry on...

Thanks, Grimmie.

You reinforce my premise: no new bureaucracy needed; let it be handled at the DZ level and at the aircraft level.

You choose not to have wingsuits because of the conditions you listed (and IIRC, you also have a C or D license restriction due to the landing area).

Given what Phree says about the aircraft types involved in the 11 2011 wingsuit tail strikes, maybe Caravan operators should consider leaving wingsuit jumping off of their list of offered services.

Again, though, it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane. Period. End of problem.

No has yet answered my question: Why all the hoo-hah about creating a new bureaucracy, 99 percent of which will have nothing to do with avoiding tailstrikes, in order to avoid tailstrikes when even a whuffo loader, pilot or manifestor can handle that job?

Anybody?

Hello?

44

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."

[-ftp- 0]

I just don't get how having an instructor rating, flight courses, wigsuit rating, etc. is going to keep people from hitting the tail of an aircraft?

Ok, chances are if you are jumping a wingsuit, you know you are supposed to keep your wings closed until clear. Just like we know we are supposed to pull at a decided altitude, wave off, clear air space, not hook into the ground at 50 feet, etc., etc., etc.

Its a risk, just like ALL of this sport is, if you don't take the risks seriously and PAY ATTENTION, hell maybe even use a little common sense, then you are going to get hurt or killed one way or the other.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Why would an S&TA not do the 30-1 fatality report?

It's not like fatalities are a big secret. Is it laziness or something more goal oriented?

Couple threads on that topic recently with lots of discussion.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4348610
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4349115

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[robinheid 0]

Quote

>The bottom line here is wingsuit tailstrikes. Solving that issue does not require a training program, an instructor rating, an experienced wingsuiter -- or even a skydiver.

You are correct. And as another poster explained, solving the problem is simple. "No wingsuiting." That's easy and guaranteed, and is what will happen if we "self regulate" it as well as we've self regulated canopy safety over the past ten years.

Congrats on WHACKIN' that ol' straw man, Bill. He is DEMOLISHED!

This thread topic is about the possible insurance consequences of continued tail strikes.

Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period.

Why do we need a new bureaucracy that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding tailstrikes to reduce tailstrikes?

Quote

>whuffo manifestor who has wingsuiters sign an additional waiver specifically spelling
>out their responsibilities as a wingsuiter

Requiring a 17th signature to go with the 16 signatures on another document the jumper didn't read won't do anything, other than make Kinko's a few more bucks in photocopying costs.

Read and comprehend, Bill. I say "an additional waiver," required only by wingsuit jumpers, one that has just one signature, one that, as I have detailed in other threads, says very simply: "I pledge to keep my wings closed for one second after I leave the plane and promise that I or my heirs will pay for all damage to the aircraft should I violate my pledge and hit the tail."

Other ways to further reduce tailstrikes without imposing a costly and onerour new bureaucracy on anyone who wants to wingsuit:

1) Put signs near the Pavlov light at the door: "Wingsuiters: DO NOT OPEN YOUR WINGS until 1 second out the door."

2) Put a little camera on the door that records every exit so that when the usually-last-out wingsuiters go, there's a record of when they opened their wings. Violators don't get grounded -- just prohibited from doing wingsuit jumps at that DZ.

All this gets done locally, DZ by DZ, as necessary, all without imposing a new bureaucracy, all without creating that nw bureaucracy's attendant extra costs, friction and asseociated power borkers and gate keepers.

Again, Bill, instead of making cutesy liitle straw man arguments, why not try to seriously answer the question that you and every other proponent of a new bureaucracy so far declines to answer:

Why do we need a new bureaucracy 99 percent focused not on avoiding tailstrikes in order to reduce tailstrikes?

44

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."

[pchapman 261]

Quote

it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane.

True, but mind you, that simple rule doesn't necessarily translate into the proper physical action -- People sometimes have to learn how tightly they need to bring the arms in, or not to forget about the legs when stepping off, etc.

Which is why it does help to have someone supervise a wingsuit newbie -- whether or not the supervisor has any rating from any particular organization...

[billvon 2,379]

>Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one
>second after the leave the plane. Period.

And reducing landing fatalities is simple as well; wing level before getting to the ground. Period. Simple but didn't reduce fatalities. Saying "just make it so the incidents don't happen" is useless unless one includes a way to change what's happening now - which is that people ARE hitting tails.

>Why do we need a new bureaucracy that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding
>tailstrikes to reduce tailstrikes?

We don't need a new bureaucracy. We need more education, and a way to stop people from wingsuiting who are immune to education.

>Put signs near the Pavlov light at the door: "Wingsuiters: DO NOT OPEN YOUR WINGS
>until 1 second out the door."

Might work. Given how often skydivers actually read warnings I'm doubtful, but probably worth trying.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane.

True, but mind you, that simple rule doesn't necessarily translate into the proper physical action -- People sometimes have to learn how tightly they need to bring the arms in, or not to forget about the legs when stepping off, etc.

Which is why it does help to have someone supervise a wingsuit newbie -- whether or not the supervisor has any rating from any particular organization...

+1

44

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."

[travelguru 0]

I have to agree that this is very simple. Keep your wing closed. Its the same as when you do a RW jump you don't jump up.

This should be taught to all jumpers.

I have ask for for details on the 11 tail strikes last year a few times now and have yet to see anything. I wish USPA would share. If we can identify a commonality then we may be able to find a solution. Either way the solution should come in part form the WS community. I personal believe in self regulation at the DZ level. I have seen it work very well at a few drop zones. When the wingsuiters and the DZO are on the same page it works.

Its sad to hear that a DZO is just going to say no to wingsuits. With the right culture wingsuits can operate safely at almost any dropzones. (maybe even at ocenside some day Rich)

[kallend 1,618]

Quote

Quote

it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane.

True, but mind you, that simple rule doesn't necessarily translate into the proper physical action -- People sometimes have to learn how tightly they need to bring the arms in, or not to forget about the legs when stepping off, etc.

Which is why it does help to have someone supervise a wingsuit newbie -- whether or not the supervisor has any rating from any particular organization...

1. How many of these alleged strikes involved newbies?

2. Of the alleged strikes that involved newbies, how many had received no exit instruction?

3. Why does it take a USPA rating to be able to tell a newbie to keep his/her wings closed on exit until the tail has passed by?

4. How come this insurance guy suddenly gets wind of the same set of alleged tail strike data as was presented to the USPA board?

...

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

[billvon 2,379]

>How come this insurance guy suddenly gets wind of the same set of alleged tail strike
>data as was presented to the USPA board?

Because they are paying the bills for the repairs.