New USPA BSR banning wingsuit fly-bus

[riggerrob 558]

The new USPA BSR is being debated on the wingsuit thread and the safety thread and the training thread. USPA is saying that wing-suits need to maintain a minimum of 500 feet horizontally from tandems hanging under canopy.

Why is the new BSR not being debated on the tandem thread?
What do TIs think of banning wingsuits from flying-by tandems under canopy?
Should USPA be allowed to ban the sacred "right" of wing-suiters using tandems as slalom pylons as they fly back to the DZ?

[normiss 622]

IMO, flybys and slalom courses are worlds apart.
I have always been very selective of those allowed to zoom by me under canopy.
Never would I have zoomed someone without permission either.

I just see this rule as almost flat out unenforceable.
Unless you hold the measuring device whilst zooming.

[skytribe 16]

So how is this rule unenforceable.

The planned flight for wingsuit jumpers should be no-where near the tandems. If the wingsuiter jumper can't fly a path that keeps them away from the tandems then they probably shouldn't be flying the suit. If the wingsuit jumper choses the ignore this info and do flybys anyway then they are knowingly breaking this BSR.

I like doing CRW but that doesn't mean I should be doing it with a tandem. I'm sure the tandem student would enjoy that as well. But there are rules for that as well.

[wasatchrider 0]

skytribe

So how is this rule unenforceable.

The planned flight for wingsuit jumpers should be no-where near the tandems. If the wingsuiter jumper can't fly a path that keeps them away from the tandems then they probably shouldn't be flying the suit. If the wingsuit jumper choses the ignore this info and do flybys anyway then they are knowingly breaking this BSR.

I like doing CRW but that doesn't mean I should be doing it with a tandem. I'm sure the tandem student would enjoy that as well. But there are rules for that as well.

the problem isn't that the wing suiters can fly where they want we could land off 5 miles off each jump if wanted but we fly back the dz which is where the tandems seem to be hanging out. It is fun flying past them but its just a bonus more for them and the passengers this stupid rule does not really bug me.

BASE 1519

[fencebuster 7]

Not replying specifically to riggerrob, but this has been the rule at my DZ since we opened. How would I enforce it? I am the DZO and I get to say who jumps at my DZ. Our rule, posted in manifest and on the wall in the hangar is "No wingsuit flybys within 500 feet of an open canopy. Period." Violate my rule and you get to go somewhere else to jump.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[DougH 270]

normiss

IMO, flybys and slalom courses are worlds apart.
I have always been very selective of those allowed to zoom by me under canopy.
Never would I have zoomed someone without permission either.

I just see this rule as almost flat out unenforceable.
Unless you hold the measuring device whilst zooming.

Here is my view of what will happen with the new rule. Instructors that have been having their buddies do planned flybys who they have been comfortable with will continue per usual. Some of their stupid human trick videos will make it on YouTube, and they will need to explain what they were doing in light of the new rule.

The rule itself might dissuade the 300 jump wonder with a new wing suit from trying something stupid.

And if something unplanned and dangerous happens the tandem instructor is going to have more leverage when dealing with the culprit.

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

[DJL 232]

Are you asking if the BSR bothers me or if wingsuiters doing flyby's bother me?

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

[Bluhdow 31]

Your poll options make less sense than the BSR. Why not a "Support the BSR" or "Do Not Support the BSR" options?

Apex BASE
#1816

[gowlerk 1,905]

Bluhdow

Your poll options make less sense than the BSR. Why not a "Support the BSR" or "Do Not Support the BSR" options?

Finally, we agree on something. Not only is the poll unclear, the BSR does not ban fly-bys.

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

[michaelmullins 77]

Quote

I just see this rule as almost flat out unenforceable.
Unless you hold the measuring device whilst zooming.

Quote

As a skydiver you are also required, by the FAA, to remain at least:

500' below a cloud
1000' above a cloud
2000' horizontally from a cloud

If above 10.000' MSL:

1000' below
1000' above
1 statue mile horizontally

You also must have 3 miles visibility, and, if above 12,500' MSL, 5 miles visibility.

So, our sport is chock full of distance requirements that you are required to comply with.

Next time a FAA Inspector asks how far you were from a cloud, just tell him that his rule is "flat out unenforceable" and you were not carrying "a measuring device".

Mike Mullins

• Quote

[normiss 622]

That's an incorrect answer, I'm smarter than that.

[riggerrob 558]

Bluhdow

Your poll options make less sense than the BSR. Why not a "Support the BSR" or "Do Not Support the BSR" options?

.........::::...............................

Good!
I was being sarcastic!
My political education started in Quebec .... is it any wonder that my politics are confusing????????

[gowlerk 1,905]

Rob votes "maybe" in referenda!

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

[radical_flyer 0]

Poll is perfectly clear. The responses relate to your opinion of wingsuiters doing fly-bys, not about the BSR.

[riggerrob 558]

Naturally, I am biased.
Tried it once and did not see much advantage.
Do not see the profit on repeating the stunt??????

[tkhayes 125]

there is zero value for a tandem to have a wingsuit fly by them at any distance.

There is only ego value to the wingsuiter and possibly the TI to have a wingsuit fly by a tandem.

Tandem passengers are paying for a thrill, and a safe one and have the expectation that you will operate safely and without undue risk. Jumping out of an airplane, freefalling and landing is pretty much that thrill.

They did not sign up for amateur or professional stunts, nor should they be exposed to that. The sport is dangerous enough already, and recent wingsuit collision demonstrates that it can happen to anyone, despite the level of competency, planning or skill.

It's like a commercial airline flying formation with an F-18 or doing a barrel roll to 'excite' the passengers. It is simply not necessary and the risk, however small, is in fact there, and if the accident happens, then retroactively there is no excuse for allowing it to happen in the first place.

The tandem/TI could be injured/killed, the wingsuiter could be injured/killed, and the dropzone, the pilot (maybe), and the industry as a whole would be paying the price for that stupidity.

Pretend you are in a court room defending that wingsuit/tandem collision and trying to explain how you thought it was a rational and safe thing to do.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Absolutely fucking spot on. Thanks.