Bluhdow

You could apply to "behind the curve" argument to any hypothetical issue that hasn't actually turned out to be a problem in reality. I know, let's make a rule to ban head down jumps. We don't want to get "behind the curve" with respect to the dangers these kinds of jumps create. Especially with newer jumpers who simply aren't qualified to judge their own ability! Again, it's a rule created to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. But we're just running in circles here. We'll have to agree to disagree and I thank you for your input. Honestly. Apex BASE #1816

Really? Is there a particular string of incidents which suggest that we've failed in self regulating? Have we failed more than, for example, swoopers? I think it's just heavy-handed regulation of a (relatively) new and unfamiliar discipline to many of the higher ups. Apex BASE #1816

If tandem instructors are having wingsuiters fly by them without permission and/or without control there is already a fix in place. TELL THE DZO. The wingsuiter will be grounded and/or banned from repeating such behavior. Done deal. This rule doesn't hurt TIs that don't want to be flown by. They've always had the option and power to opt out. This only hurts those of us who have been enjoying flybys responsibly. And as for legal liability, what's another set of initials on the existing waiver document? Tandem students initial their lives away including clauses relating to camera flyers, gear failures, etc. Why can't there be an extra paragraph with a yes/no option related to the POTENTIAL for a flyby? How is that different than the terms they already sign? Oh, and they aren't qualified to sign up for any of those risks either, so don't give me that line of crap. Apex BASE #1816

On the contrary, we chose to self-regulate like adults. Apex BASE #1816

If we know nothing else, I hope we can all understand that the rules and the truth are very frequently in conflict with one another. Apex BASE #1816

You should change your sig line. Apex BASE #1816

Really? We're going to claim that tandems paying an extra fee for outside video is a teaching aid? For the vast majority of tandem students this is simply not the case, and therefore cannot be used to justify the added risk of outside video. I get the lower speed delta. So make the WS minimum distance 75 feet. You can keep a higher delta and increase the distance. Is a high speed pass at 75 feet more dangerous than a variable speed flyer coming in for close up video? I guess it depends on the flyer, which by your own admission is highly variable. The reality is that outside video is baked into the revenue stream of the sport. Flybys are not. I also heard that much of the debate during the meeting centered around rumors and hearsay. Perfect. The rule was clearly passed without sufficient information, sufficient evidence, or sufficient time to be reasonable. If the USPA really believes that it's so critical then why don't they poll the TIs? I'd be willing to bet that most TIs don't have a problem with this as we've been working together without issue and having fun. Thanks USPA, for solving a problem that never existed in the first place! Apex BASE #1816

I agree. So why doesn't the BSR allow for tandem flybys when permissions are granted and planning is performed? Ah yes, they aren't qualified to make that decision...right? Are tandem students qualified to evaluate the risks of having a video flyer present? How about a handcam on the TIs wrist? Why do we allow tandem students to consent to adding some risks to their jump, but not others? What makes a qualified video flyer in proximity to a tandem any different than a qualified wingsuit flyer? The answer, I believe, is that outside video and handcams drive revenues. Money talks. If the USPA applied this rule to any revenue-generating activity the DZs would be up in arms. Wingsuiters however, have a very poor lobby in the USPA. Apex BASE #1816

To suggest that flybys are banned because they "add more risk" is hypocritical. This sport markets, packages, and sells risk for profit. I recognize that student safety is important in order to preserve the business (and the sport) but the USPA is trying to solve problems that don't exist. What are we accomplishing with this BSR? Are wingsuiters flying by unwilling tandem students and instructors? Are TIs raising their pitchforks in fury here? Freefall adds more risk. Why aren't all tandem students static lined? Camera flyers add more risk. Why aren't they named in this BSR? Handcams add more risk. Multiple canopies in the air add more risk. IT ALL ADDS MORE RISK. The only consistency I see in the pattern is this: Adding risk is acceptable only when we can charge for it. Freefall is more attractive to students than static lines, charging for handcams and outside flyers, jamming a pattern full of canopies...it all adds to the bottom line. Flybys do not raise revenue, therefore they aren't allowed. Allow me to let the business of skydiving in on a little secret: Wingsuits are the biggest, most valuable piece of free marketing this sport has ever had. YouTube, Hollywood, video games, you name it. Wingsuits have captured the attention of the non-skydiving public and WE ARE SELLING TANDEMS FOR YOU. With that in mind I would like to submit that flybys do add to the bottom line. It's fun for wingsuiters and fun for tandem students. This BSR is a loss for wingsuiters, a loss for tandem students, and a loss for dropzones. Good job USPA. Apex BASE #1816

Good start. Is there some reason you need to skydive? If not, we should ban skydiving. In fact, ban everything that can't be justified by the nebulous measure of being "necessary." Both students and wingsuiters have fun with flybys. Every tandem I've flown by has indicated that it was additive to their experience. Thanks mom. I am not kidding. We allow them to sign up for risk by skydiving in the first place. Do they know all of the risks there? Do we present them with detailed statistics and studies about skydiving? What's different in allowing them to consent to a flyby? Oh, I know what it is. Money. They pay money for the tandem so we allow them to consent to that risk. They don't pay for flybys so there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to consent to that. Maybe if there was money in flybys the USPA would take a different approach. Have fun with your yardsticks. We'll see who gets busted for 500 feet. This is just another unenforceable "solution" which solves a non-existent problem. If you're a TI and you don't like them you don't have to consent to them. I've never flown by a TI without getting their permission first. That's all I have to say about that. Apex BASE #1816

It's stupid. Yet another solution in search of a problem. Qualified wingsuit pilots and tandem instructors have been safely planning and performing flybys without incident for years. What's the catalyst for this ruling? Now I understand and agree that a tandem should be notified and informed of the additional risks associated with such a jump, and should obviously be allowed to veto the idea, but I really don't see an issue with flybys. Why not re-word it to something more reasonable? 100 feet still allows safe flybys without killing the whole game. Were any wingsuiters consulted when this was written? Apex BASE #1816

I don't think you know what a Skyhook is. Stop trying to be cool with a gigantic laptop phone and buy a normal one. Next question. Apex BASE #1816

Perris is the closest option. Elsinore and Oceanside would be next in line. Apex BASE #1816

I hate to break the news to you buddy, but that can't possibly be the case. Apex BASE #1816

I need to find a way to block your posts. Are you paid by PF to aggressively defend and/or promote them in every possible post? I have all PF suits and love their stuff but give it a rest already. Apex BASE #1816

Awesome idea. Very clever and I love it. I share the same concerns as others. What protection is the renter afforded in the event of damage beyond normal wear and tear? What would constitute normal wear and tear? For example, if someone lands in the mud in rental gear it's a $100 cleaning fee at Perris. If I recall correctly. Will such a provision be included in these deals? Apex BASE #1816

Consider getting a canopy that packs small. An Epicene comes to mind, though I'm not sure how/if you'd need to adjust the pack job for non-WS deployments. Alternatively, you could always get a BASE canopy and freepack it. Apex BASE #1816

"SAIL!" Apex BASE #1816

"I think it's commonly accepted to spell 'wingsuiting' as a single word." Feel free to use my quote however you wish. Apex BASE #1816

Sounds about right. Apex BASE #1816

Just start pulling lower to get your money's worth. Apex BASE #1816

The reality for 99% of wingsuit consumers (myself included) is that it really doesn't matter anymore. The suits are all good enough that you can't go wrong (at least with the big 3...and more legit competitors seem to be entering the arena). The difference in times in the WWL were like 1 second or less, regardless of suit. Unless you're racing...professionally...then the differences to the consumer in performance between a C2, C-Race, Scorpion, Scorpion 2, Arrow, V-Race, V-Sughoi, V-Mig, or V-C-Race-Scorpion are negligible. Want to skydive with friends? Then it totally doesn't matter. Want to do some WS BASE? Then it totally doesn't matter. Want to do some light proximity? Then it totally doesn't matter. Want to do some hardcore terrain flying? Then it might matter A LITTLE TEENY TINY BIT. Literally the only time it matters is when you want to be competitive at the very highest level. Otherwise you're no different than the guy who buys the sickest and newest race bike every year just to go putt around the track. For us lowly 99%ers, the suit will never be the limiting factor. It will always be the pilot. So buy a suit, fly it for a few years, and replace it when it's ragged out. You'll be a much better pilot when your new suit arrives. Apex BASE #1816

Not a bad idea. Maybe you could bundle it with a paraglider/paragliding organization to get some scale. Apex BASE #1816

I use these front and back. I've never been able to get my handles inside the suit. Even if the zippers can move in tandem...if the hole is too small for the handle to fit through I don't see how it can ever be swallowed. I think the main issue was bungees, where the size of the hole could grow. Fixing the distance between the zips seems to work for most people. Maybe there are more rare bodies/containers where this isn't enough. I also have a large metal reserve handle. If you're buying a WS rig...the mini pillows on both sides seem like a bad idea. Apex BASE #1816

Johnny Strange did it a few years back. Great guy with a ridiculous amount of adventures under his belt. Unfortunately he died in Switzerland last week. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJgTYnOVz5c Apex BASE #1816