Tandem Flybys:

[sdctlc 0]

Quote

And there you have it. That's two different sources.

FAA looking at us using on line video sites coming from the 2 Different sources.. I hope that the WS community takes notice... Clouds less so but the Tandem Flyby's probably are not the best thing to post. Even far off ones do offer an increased risk and are not for low time WS flyers. They should not be done with out prior conversation with the TM period, which is something that I think we can all agree on. Tandems are under a different set of rules then regular skydiving and the FAA is more involved. Flyby problems has thankfully not been an issue that has come up so far but I do know some DZ are against it even with Prior consent.

Given the Tandems open higher, are slower and are on most loads at DZ's with Bigger planes, they are much more of an object to go for in a WS compared to other sport canopies... At many/most DZ's the Tandem $'s are what really generates the nicer facilities for us to utilize. If that gets disrupted from an incident we are all really screwed.

Obviously I would hate to have something happen just in general terms but with the ramifications for Skydiving in general noted from the above couple of Posters I pose the Question ---> IS THE RISK WORTH THE REWARD????

Alternatives to get the WS Buzz Job Jollies going, CRW seems to be getting some looks as a fun object to flyby as I have seen more flyby's of stacks lately.

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Contrary to what most skydivers (and a lot of DZO's) believe, liability waivers are not bulletproof or absolute.

If a tandem student is injured/killed due to a fly-by, especially if there's a collision, I doubt a "standard" waiver (i.e., one that does not specifically mention a fly-by and specify its unique hazards) would offer very much legal protection at all.

[matto765 0]

Quote

In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Contrary to what most skydivers (and a lot of DZO's) believe, liability waivers are not bulletproof or absolute.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If a tandem student is injured/killed due to a fly-by, especially if there's a collision, I doubt a "standard" waiver (i.e., one that does not specifically mention a fly-by and specify its unique hazards) would offer very much legal protection at all.

Any business (Walmart, sports venues, dropzones, etc) that invites people to come to its premise must show a certain level of care. That is required by law. The business CAN NOT relieve themselves of that responsibility through a waiver. A waiver is more or less designed to relieve the business of any liablity that they may incur because of a negligent action on the customer's part. The waiver typically will not cover the business's negligent actions. That leaves it up to the employees of the business to show the required degree of care to avoid liability issues. An example of this would be that when you go to a supermarket, and a jar of liquid falls and spills in an aisle. An employee will show up very quickly to clean up the mess and put a sign on the ground signifying a wet floor. This is all done to prevent a slip and fall because the store would be held liable for that if it were to happen. If the store did not see the mess, or chose to not clean it up, that would constitute negligence on the store's part which would open themselves up to liability issues and potential lawsuits. I would assume that if a tandem master gave the wingsuiter permission to do a flyby, and there was a collision, that would constitute negligence on the tandem master's (and therefore, the dropzone's) part, which would not be covered by the waiver signed by the student.

The concepts of risk, liability, and negligence are very poorly understood not just by the general skydiving population, but by most people on this planet. Many dropzones I have been to seemed to have the mentality of "you signed the liability waiver, so we are absolved of any liability." That cannot be any further from the truth. Liability waivers should always be considered a back up in the event of an incident. In my opinion, dropzones should be run with a mindset that there is no waiver, and they need to take an active approach to mitigate any liability incurred by the inherent risks of the sport. The waiver is a nice thing to have to fall back on, but it isn't bullet proof by any means, and should never be a dropzone's first and only line of defense against liability.

Lawsuits (especially in the US) are unfortunately a part of life. People are as willing as ever to sue for even the most minor issues. In a sport such as ours where risk is always present and very high, we need to be responsible with our actions to keep ourselves and others out of trouble. That goes for dropzone employees and fun jumpers alike.

I am really not looking foward to the day where I go into the incident forum and see a new post that reads Triple Fatality: Tandem-Wingusit Collision. That will signify the end of what we consider fun. The general sentiment in the wingsuit community seems to be against regulation and for self policing. If thats the case, then lets get off of our asses start self policing. Its up to us to prevent the next wingsuit incident.

[VectorBoy 0]

It's kind of funny, we go out and do really stupid stuff and then post it on YouTube as quick as we can to tell our "no shit there I was" story, and in this case, it's bitten our butts.

[DSE 3]

I didn't videotape it (I could barely run my wheelchair) but I'm likely the source of one of the three stories that were talked about.
I told a story of a jump I'm aware of where a WS pilot skimmed a main or at the least flew close enough over it to burble the tandem.
There were a couple of other stories exchanged not quite as intense. One involved a WS opening in the path of, and facing an already deployed tandem, at Eloy. One DZO on the board wasn't aware tandem buzzing was happening anywhere in the world, while Jessie Farrington commented that the moment she'd heard of it, she banned it from her DZ. One of the other BOD members said the same thing; they'd banned it at their DZ. I think the USPA folks like Ed Scott and Randy Ottinger were really happy to see the discussion happen, because due to the FAA input, Randy indicated he's very concerned we're going to sometime see bodies explode in the air like they did on the GK jump.

[VectorBoy 0]

I told a story of a jump I'm aware of where a WS pilot skimmed a main or at the least flew close enough over it to burble the tandem.

[bodypilot1 0]

Quote

Equally suspect as we called every active dropzone on the west coast for news of this tandem strike and none had heard of anything of the sort.

As were the calls to all 3 DZ's in Utah where said strike was rumored to have happened.....

www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

[DualHawk 0]

Quote

Are you equally aware that this very "story" is the one that Chucky turned into a wingsuiter on the west coast has already flown into a tandems suspension lines? Do you care?

Equally suspect as we called every active dropzone on the west coast for news of this tandem strike and none had heard of anything of the sort.

Douglas has a copy of my email correspondence with Chuck, the "suspension lines" thing was his (Chuck's) own creation. Sort of like when you pass a story on, it grows in proportion. Point is, it was a one on one conversation between an RD and a regional wingsuiter, in which the RD (me) was asking the well known wingsuiter to help curb this insane practice of swooping tandems in wingsuits before three people got killed, citing the information that Douglas shared at the (open to members) S&T meeting about this "incident" where a wingsuiter made contact with a tandem pair. (The burble possibility was not given at the time.)

As for you calling all the dropzones in the West Coast, that's your perogative, but you chose to do that instead of waiting a day or two for the details. I mean seriously, what would you personally have learned by confirming what happened on a Tuesday that couldn't wait till Wednesday? Gee, I don't know......DON'T SWOOP TANDEMS?

So to any and all that feel wronged because they "called around" to dropzones searching for info on this situation, it was your own "me-now" need for info that's to blame, certainly not Douglas, myself, or even Chuck.

I am a very strong proponent of dropzone.com, but this is a perfect example of how dropzone.com does not work at times. This forum/thread effectively created a mountain out of a mole hill. A private conversation between two people erupted into west coast witch hunt for a wingsuit incident.

Tom Noonan

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

As for you calling all the dropzones in the West Coast, that's your perogative, but you chose to do that instead of waiting a day or two for the details. I mean seriously, what would you personally have learned by confirming what happened on a Tuesday that couldn't wait till Wednesday? Gee, I don't know......DON'T SWOOP TANDEMS?

I don't swoop tandems there is no lesson for me there. Are you profiling me because I fly a wingsuit Tom? I guess all wingsuiters can expect more negative profiling if some of our own members keep spinning up the BOD and DZOs with incedents that never happened. We called around to our wingsuiting buddy's and DZ manifests to check up on the details of an incedent that has no details because its hearsay. There would be nothing to learn by waiting for details as there are no details. We suspected this going in so no worrys.

Quote

I am a very strong proponent of dropzone.com, but this is a perfect example of how dropzone.com does not work at times. This forum/thread effectively created a mountain out of a mole hill. A private conversation between two people erupted into west coast witch hunt for a wingsuit incident.

The conversation failed to stay private when a claim of a west coast strike was posted here based on this private conversation all driven by a claim of an unsubstantiated incedent that someone was "aware of". It isn't a witch hunt it was a fact hunt. Seems we got to the truth.

BTW I don't blame you or Chuck. You just happened to be pawns to someone else's agenda.

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

The funniest thing about this entire online discussion is that my comment actually came from an e-mail I was having with Tom about me getting cross-trained onto the Strong tandem system! The tandem fly-by discussion was entirely an afterthougth to that. I read Tom's renewed, post BOD thoughts on the subject and I decided to reconsider my position on fly bys, which I promptly added to both of these threads on the subject. Tom heard what he heard, thought it odd, passed it on to me; I also thought it odd, then you guys did your own sleuthing and found no evidence of such an event. Excellent. You have answered both mine and Tom's curiosity, at least on the "facts" of such an event. You have also, in your own words, unearthed someones personal agenda (which is neither mine nor Tom Noonan's. )

Peace out,

Chuckie

[DualHawk 0]

Quote

BTW I don't blame you or Chuck. You just happened to be pawns to someone else's agenda.

Thank you. I have no agenda against wingsuiting. I actually support you guys and want to advocate for the discipline on the BOD. I only have 2 wingsuit jumps to date, but I plan on more this fall. I really enjoyed the two I made, I just can't seem to find the time lately to make more, doing alot of tandem and aff lately but I want to make sure that when the topic of the WS rating and education comes up again in six months at the next BOD meeting, that I have 100 wingsuit jumps so that I can make better educated choices and decisions. I don't know how many members of the BOD Safety and Training committee jump wingsuits, but I promise you, you'll have atleast one, me.

If I can answer anyones questions, or if you want to voice any concerns, feel free to email me at: [email protected]

Tom Noonan

[MarkM 0]

I guess I'll break from the pack and say I don't think tandem flybys are particularly dangerous, if you're not flying stupid close. At wingsuit speeds you're not in the tandem's airspace for more than a second and a tandem canopy isn't going to travel a lot in that time frame.

So as long as you leave a safe "bubble" of space around the canopy to cover unexpected cutaways and turns, a collision isn't going to happen. Wingsuits have a very fine level of control, otherwise we wouldn't be flocking within inches of each other. Though I think Chuck makes some very good points about the burble a wingsuit makes.

To me this is an issue about respect more than safety. Wingsuiters 100% have to respect the airspace of TMs and other jumpers. If they don't want you within 100 yards of them, then you have no business being within a 100 yards of them.

[DSE 3]

I don't have a problem (maybe I should say I *didn't* have a problem) with flybys until this last BOD meeting when I was pulled outside and told stories, informed, and somewhat chastised.
I didn't realize the 'real-world' ramifications of what a tandem/wingsuit (or for that matter, a tandem/whatever collision/incident would be. Being told that every tandem rig and every skydiving aircraft would be grounded pending investigation that could last up to a year...seemed pretty much a good reason to not do them any more. I've done them, I feel I've been very safe flying in the 50' or farther range....but I'm done doing them. The risk just is too much greater than the reward. I can't fly like Chuck or Ed.

[MarkM 0]

I guess the 3 things that worry me would be:

1> A "stunt" level flyby, being way too close where a canopy turn or turbulence kicks you into the canopy. There's no reason to be flying this close to a tandem passenger.

2> A flyby with a too close WS canopy opening causing a collision. You have more control in your wingsuit than you do under your opening canopy. For me, this is the part of the flyby I worry about the most: off heading opening, line twists, aimed right at the tandem....

3> Some wingsuiter not paying attention and colliding with a canopy.

Even if we discourage flybys I'm guessing at some point #3 will happen. There are ways to minimize it(don't let noobs into wingsuits), but it's sort of a numbers thing. Put enough wingsuits and canopies in the air and at some point they'll collide.

[bdrake529 0]

Quote

So to any and all that feel wronged because they "called around" to dropzones searching for info on this situation...

Please explain what gave you the idea that someone felt "wronged" for calling around.

Brian Drake

[DualHawk 0]

Quote

...Do you care?

Equally suspect as we called every active dropzone on the west coast for news of this tandem strike and none had heard of anything of the sort.

Quote

As were the calls to all 3 DZ's in Utah where said strike was rumored to have happened.....

Please forgive me Brian if I do not engage you on this point beyond my reply here, it's a moot point now at best.

Tom Noonan

[kallend 1,623]

Being a mere Midwesterner and not party to any of these goings-on, I am confused.

Was there a real incident, or is it fiction?

Was the incident, real or fictional, presented to the BOD as real?

...

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

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Being a mere Midwesterner and not party to any of these goings-on, I am confused.

You don't have to be from the Midwest to be confused by this all...

I don't get it either. +1 to John's question...

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[bdrake529 0]

+2

Brian Drake

[VectorBoy 0]

Was there a real incident, or is it fiction?

Was the incident, real or fictional, presented to the BOD as real?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Was there a real incident, or is it fiction?

Was the incident, real or fictional, presented to the BOD as real?

There is no tandem strike incedent. There was a presentation to the BOD with the FAA present as if there was one. Check posts #30-31 of this tread.

[VectorBoy 0]

My diagnosis is wingsuiters munchausen syndrome.

Paint a false picture of discipline that its hurting, in need of regulation and out side intervention in policing it self. Possibly destroying it in the process in order to appear as its saviour.

[bdrake529 0]

Quote

Paint a false picture of discipline that its hurting, in need of regulation and out side intervention in policing it self. Possibly destroying it in the process in order to appear as its saviour.

With that (on subject) intro, I think I can get one jab in here before I'm told to go to the bonfire...

That's pretty much how every government intervention goes. Pretend there's a problem, usurp power to "fix" the "problem", unintended consequences result creating an actual problem, blame the new problem on not enough intervention then rinse and repeat...

Brian Drake

[jonmurrell 0]

So I usually lurk around this forum and don't post much but this is ridiculuos so here it goes...

It seems to me that this whole thing was propagated by someone trying to standardize/regulate wingsuit instruction (which could eventually lead to the whole discipline) with their standards and methods. Their way must obviously be superior and produce safer wingsuit 'pilots' while every other instructor/school/experience jumper who interacts with new wingsuiters is promoting unsafe behavior through their obviously inadequate instruction.

So let's advance our method by shunning and decrying others as unsafe to a governing body/regulatory government agency. Now the discipline everyone enjoys could be jeopardized by this political-chess bull shit. It's too late to ask, but to whoever did/does this please don't continue to risk what we love with your fear-mongering.

@the original question: I've buzzed canopies with a plan inside 5m and tandems (no closer than 200m). I've also had TIs ask me to come find them under canopy. In my opinion, tandems seem to like it more when you're a ways off in front of them so they can see your gayly colored suit in flight and then your opening too. If the last tandem aka your 'target' is flying up jumprun then you can go by safely at a distance (farther is better as they can see more of your sick flight), open and fly back. You can be seen pretty much the whole time and thought of as cool by someone who can't remember their own name when they land, usually amid shrieks and screams.


...back to lurking...

edit: I'm in iraq and haven't seen a parachute in 6-7 months, so I could be 'behind' or 'tactless' as the sand makes me grumpy.

This isn't flying, its falling with style.

[DSE 3]

The story, relayed to me by a TI who alleged that a wingsuiter either struck his canopy, or was close enough to have burbled him hard. I have no reason to doubt him.
That's what was relayed, nothing more.
Following that was someone else' story of a wingsuiter that opened up very near a tandem and was heading towards the tandem. The tandem had to avoid the wingsuit.
Outside of the session in the hallway, more "no shit" stories were brought up by DZO's and other skydivers as well.

The stories weren't used as a scare tactic by any means. They were part of a small point being made that the BOD doesn't have a clue about what goes on. JP Furnari brought up other aspects of that point. In the same breath, I said "The recommendations are bullshit and a fucking joke, people laugh at them all over the world." JP had a story to underscore that statement as well.
The BOD wonders why S&TA's don't report a lot of incidents to them, but they end up here on DZ.com or go entirely unreported.

A WSI rating or merely a USPA-adopted syllabus isnt going to prevent anyone from dying during a tandem flyby, striking an aircraft on downwind/base/final, or wingsuiters striking each other (or someone else) in a cloud. All the rating or syllabus will accomplish is making people aware that these things can be/are dangerous and should be carefully considered (assuming someone doesn't make a motion to change anything about tandem/wingsuit jumps at the next BOD meeting).

{editd to add} the only "fear-mongering" that is occurring here is the FUD being spread by those opposed to a wingsuit instructor rating, most of whom admit they don't teach.
A US-standardized program (that is supported by most of the wingsuit manufacturers and many instructors) is far better than no standard at all, which is currently what we have for instruction.
I continue to find it hilarious that there are those that call themselves "instructors" that have never had to prove that they can fly. I can name at least a dozen wingsuiters that relate stories of "I never saw my instructor once." Those sorts of instructors have no business teaching.
Back to tandem flybys....The FAA came to US saying they're watching. Their interruption of an exit was before anything had been said about the WSI rating that morning. They're watching. On YouTube, Vimeo, etc. If you think that needs to be blamed on someone, fine. Blame the people that post that content so it can be seen by the FAA.