Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners

[GobbleGobble 0]

Quote

Quote

What's your point? Are you feeling that wingsuiters can negotiate with an insurance company or the federal gov't?

My point is if you want to properly represent your niche of our sport then you have to be able to answer these questions.

I feel that it is everyones entrenched positions that are leading them to ignore potentially valuable data or information from sources because it might hurt their current position. This does nobody any good.

If more dzo's get this letter and start coming down hard on wingsuiting or on uspa's rules aren't you one of the people the uspa will probably ask for an opinion? Why don't any of the stakeholders have definitive statistical evidence to support the theory that the wingsuit bsr has increased safety in the way it was intended or it hasn't.

Isn't this something the uspa should have ready to go about all facets of the sport in case they have to defend their position to the faa or insurance companies?

If it hasn't been in place long enough yet say that but don't settle for half truths because it is convenient.

Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.

What are you envisioning as a metric that can be quantitatively analyzed? I'm not seeing it. "Safer" is completely qualitative.

I don't know how to measure it, but I would say that most jumpers know "more" at 200 jumps than they did at 100.

What do you feel has been missing from the conversation (other than a variety of statistical measures that may or may not be meaningful)?

[GobbleGobble 0]

The last post was deleted but here is my reply:

Here are some facts:

Tailstrikes year over year are showing an upward trend. And have been for some time. Spot has a graph that I've seen. I don't have it handy.

Each successive generation of suits is higher performance than the last. This is important to note for a few reasons. A more highly pressurized suit is more difficult to shut down at pull time. Weak exit discipline, and poorly thought out exits become even more dangerous. These are just a few examples.

While rapid downsizing is a concern to the general community. Wingsuiters can suffer from upsizing suits too soon.

Wingsuit training even with the materials in the SIM is inconsistent and widely varies from instructor to instructor. DZ to DZ.

Currently there is no method to identify who is capable of being an instructor via the USPA (no demonstration of competence in the sky and knowledge).

There are plenty more. While an impartial examination of the facts would be most excellent it is mostly possible to read between the lines.

I'm not taking pot shots at you here. It's not immediate but but I believe a standardized training curriculum administered by an instructor that has been evaluated in their ability to do so will pay large long term dividends to the community writ large.

In the short term Eli is compiling some best practices for pilots that should be followed and ideally would have been done in the first place. Signage, wavers and constant reminders might help but it sounds like it might not take many screwups to force this issue. People with bad habits or incomplete knowledge don't always hit the tail. They might even have an obscenely high success rate, but it doesn't take much to make a close call an incident.

[Fast 0]

Quote

Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.

Funny. Who do you think is going to do this negotiation? The only answer we have is USPA, because speaking from the standpoint of both a wingsuiter and a DZM, I have no room to bargain with the insurance company, they don't care about me cause we don't' spend enough money with them. If rates go up even $1000 a year it might well not be worth it. There is very little money in sport jumpers in general, let alone sport jumpers who wingsuit.

We need the industry as a whole to fix this problem now (as in quick like). (i.e. USPA)

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.

Funny. Who do you think is going to do this negotiation? The only answer we have is USPA, because speaking from the standpoint of both a wingsuiter and a DZM, I have no room to bargain with the insurance company, they don't care about me cause we don't' spend enough money with them. If rates go up even $1000 a year it might well not be worth it. There is very little money in sport jumpers in general, let alone sport jumpers who wingsuit.

We need the industry as a whole to fix this problem now (as in quick like). (i.e. USPA)[/reply]

You are correct to say that the industry as a whole needs to fix this problem now but "quick fix" and "USPA" are mutually exclusive terms.

Quick fix means a private enterprise solution, i.e., what Skydive Lebanon, Skydive Spaceland and Skydive Elsinore have already done, within a couple of days, and others are formulating even as we debate here.

This is not a dig at USPA, just a reminder of reality: By their very nature, government institutions, to include self-government institutions such as USPA, do not and literally cannot "quick-fix" anything. They are deliberative bodies that must -- and should -- take time to ponder all of the ramifications of their actions before acting because:

a) they must take into account the wants and needs of multiple interest groups within their jurisdiction;

b) their solutions must be comprehensive, not targeted; and

c) it takes so long and costs too much to undo their actions if they turn out to be wrong.

So, again, let's save the formal regulation v. informal regulation debate for another day and focus instead on fixing the tail strike problem now -- as in:

What new procedures and policies can DZs, wingsuiters and all jumpers put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes?

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."

[DSE 3]

Quote

What new procedures and policies can DZs, wingsuiters and all jumpers put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes?

44

Several dropzones already have implemented extremely effective new procedures and policies; it's called "No more wingsuiting at this DZ." And they've done it in the last week.

Programs like the one implemented at Skydive Elsinore 3 years ago have worked well too, but they were years in development.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

What new procedures and policies can DZs, wingsuiters and all jumpers put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes?

44

Several dropzones already have implemented extremely effective new procedures and policies; it's called "No more wingsuiting at this DZ." And they've done it in the last week.

Programs like the one implemented at Skydive Elsinore 3 years ago have worked well too, but they were years in development.

Your "Fight the Bite" sticker next to the Pavlov light was years in development?

The notion of waiting three seconds after exit before opening your wings was years in development?

As NW Flyer informed us further up in this thread, Skydive Spaceland has in just the last few days instituted a new wingsuit protocol that can be used as a model for other DZs.

As SwampGod informed us further up in this thread, Skydive Lebanon has in just a few days instituted a new wingsuit protocol that can not only be used as a model for other DZs but as a template to modify Section 6-9 of the SIM to serve, as he put it, as a procedure manual that will appeal to the insurers.

No new grand exalted wingsuit sensei bureaucracy needed.

The problem with focusing on just one solution in which you have much buy-in is that it's hard for you to see Occam's Razor even if you step on it. As Upton Sinclair basically said it:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his status depends upon his not understanding it.

Your solution scope limiter notwithstanding, it's to be expected that some drop zones without a big stake in wingsuiting would just ban it for the time being, pending a workable way out of the problem.

Those with a larger stake, however, are not debating the pros and cons of a "solution" that will, as you say, be years or at least months in the making.

They need something in place now that will have a real --not theoretical -- effect on reducing or eliminating wingsuit tail strikes, and which is focused exclusively thereon.

So if you really want to minimize the number of drop zones that ban wingsuiting because of the tail strike threat, then please: enough with expounding on your pet project and focus first, foremost and right now on reducing that threat.

The whole sport will benefit if you do because you have unarguably contributed a lot to the advancement of wingsuiting -- and by helping rather than hindering the quick development of wingsuit-friendly new procedures and policies that can be put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes you'd contribute significantly more.

Peace out, dude.

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."

[billvon 2,400]

>Those with a larger stake, however, are not debating the pros and cons of
>a "solution" that will, as you say, be years or at least months in the
>making.

Smart people with a larger stake will likely pursue both a quick fix and a long term solution.