billvon 3,080
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Aircraft insurers do NOT demand "standardized wingsuit training via USPA"
Recommended Posts
Quote>New AFF students are required to buy USPA membership, but not the SIM that they're
>supposed to learn out of-that never made sense to me....
?? The SIM is free to download. Do you suggest that by making it cost $$ and then requiring new students to buy it, it will be read more often?
Not sure, but I think he was just suggesting that it be made a requirement for students to have, instead of just a 'suggestion' that they purchase it or download it. As it is, it's similar to going to class at school, and being able to buy or download the book "if you want to."
Signatures are the new black.
QuoteQuoteSOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.
Perhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low." Given how USPA headquarters manages safety conversations, probably a good thing.
-Outside of that, public details are:
-What kind of aircraft
-Suit model
-Experience level of wingsuiter
-Injury type (where known)
-Cost/damage (where known) to aircraft
A circulating rumor says that the strike chart includes "a foot hitting the door on exit."
This is not accurate.
A wingsuit tailstrike by definition is "A portion of a body or rig striking a horizontal stabilizer."
It can't be defined by "exit" as there are also one confirmed historical strike (not on the charts) where the vertical stab was struck through a combination of pilot error and wingsuiter error after launch had occurred.
Repair cost was nearly 100K$.
While I understand your reasoning behind confidentiality agreements, Spot...I'm sure you can understand that it opens the door to the perception that the information you're relaying is hearsay. (Not suggesting that it is...but as I'm sure you know - and as anyone with a scientific of legal background knows - it's important to be able to verify the facts of claims.)
Again, not saying you're doing this, but I could easily come up with a list of false incidents where a deployment in the door nearly took down a plane, put them in a spreadsheet with non-identifying details, and talk about the rise of closing loop-related incidents over the past year.
While I know you and don't think that you're doing that, I'm sure you can understand why some people would question why you're not forthcoming with this information, if it's so important. If you need to maintain that confidentiality for the sake of protecting DZO's, or protecting your ability to jump at certain DZ's, I understand...but you should probably accept that doing so means not everyone is going to take you at your word, without some hard facts to back it up.
---
That being said, I think where the misconception about the "foot hitting the door on exit" comes from this Wingsuit Tailstrikes list that you posted previously. Line 8 lists an incident in which someone exited a Caravan flying a Stealth2: "Bad Exit opened full in doorframe. Hit back of doorframe with ankle." The injury was a broken ankle. There was no damage to the aircraft.
At first glance, that reads to me (and obviously, a lot of other people) like someone hit the doorframe and broke their ankle.
---
Back to my previous point, directly above that entry, there's also an incident that was from a "Dornier or Caravan," for which the injuries are uncertain, which reads a lot less like a verified incident and more like a story told by someone who watched a video on Youtube. If it was verified, wouldn't the type of aircraft and the injuries be known? What does "verified" mean, anyway?
I know it sounds like I may be drawing conclusions here - I'm not. But I am questioning (it's what I do - I've been burned by rumor mills and the telephone game before). And I think if you're leading this charge, you would do well to try and look at it from the other perspective, and question it as well. It will help you make a more compelling argument, without leaving things like this open to interpretation.
Because until I have something to back it up, all I can do is question it. I can't draw a conclusion either way (as much as I'd like to).
---
tl;dr - Human communication is flawed. And when only one person has access to the primary sources, we all potentially set ourselves up to be the victims of omission...or of flawed communication.
We're all, in essence, playing the telephone game.
Edited for grammar.
Signatures are the new black.
We've drifted well off-topic again.
What are you and the drop zones at which you jump doing today to stoｐ wingsuit strikes?
That is the critical path.
Please stick to it.
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."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
I dont know about everybody else but I close my wings until I have cleared the aircraft seems to work GREAT 
EFS4LIFE 0
QuotePerhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."
Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor."
I am an asshole, but I am honest
SOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.Quote
QuotePerhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."
Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor."
That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.
Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals
EFS4LIFE 0
QuoteThat’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.
Sparky
Reach ya maybe, in a court of law you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. I am not trying to advocate that necessarily.
Let's look at it this way. If I am using a CI (confidential informant) to make drug buys off of a dealer. Then I in turn apply for a warrant to a judge. That warrant needs to be based off of probable cause. In court that CI WILL be brought to light. There is no way around it. A defendant has a right to face his accusers. That is why it is important to know the background of your CI's. If they have character issues or CH (criminal history) they will be flamed by the defense and worthless. Entire cases have been lost off of this in the past.
DSE is in this example applying for the warrant. WE are the judges (voting memebers) You can bet your ass the judge wants to know the CI's character and CH before signing that warrant.
I want the same.
He has stated anonymous examples of tailstrikes and known WS schools teaching bad exit techniques, but is not making the facts known. He won't name them. Is his assumptions based off of probable cause? I don't know, because he won't allow us to know.
I am not signing yet.
I personally think he may have got the diagnosis wrong. Sometimes good cops make honest fuckups. DSE is probably a good cop, with good intentions, but lets dot the I's and cross the T's here.
I am an asshole, but I am honest
kallend 2,112
QuoteSOMEONE collected the data on tail strikes. SOMEONE omitted to find out (or failed to report) the detail that would actually make their case. One wonders why that was.Quote
QuotePerhaps someone honors their commitment to DZO's that have asked for confidentiality as they wish to remain "on the down-low."
Wouldn't it be great if this is how evidence actually worked? I mean I could go into court and say "The boogie man told me Johnny was selling drugs and that why I stopped him and violated his 4th admendment rights your Honor."
That’s quite a reach. You of all people should be able to see the difference between evidence gathered to be submitted in a court of law and a list someone put together to post in a public forum on the net.
Sparky
If it were just a rant on the internet I would agree with you.
HOWEVER, this (absence of) evidence is being used to try to change the way our national organization works and affect the way USPA members vote.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
DSE 5
The proposal is a wholistic approach to a number of issues that face DZO's, wingsuiters, and communities. The tailstrike issue only became urgent when an insurance agency jumped into the conversation thanks to a very unhappy DZO and a number of hysterical FB postings in August of 2012.
It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion.
Tailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012.
The wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.
It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion.
Tailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012.
The wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.
QuoteThe proposal is a
wholisticholistic approach to a number of issues that faceDZO'sDZOs, wingsuiters, and communities. The tailstrike issue only became urgent when an insurance agency jumped into the conversation thanks to a very unhappy DZO and a number of hysterical FB postings in August of 2012.
So why wasn't it urgent before that? You had the data; why didn't you act proactively and focus on removing a clear and present danger to the sport instead of using it disingenuously to impose an advanced training requirement that is outside USPA's scope and none of its business?
Quote
It's very unfortunate that this has devolved into (mostly) a tailstrike discussion.
Unfortunate? It's critical! In fact, it's the only thing that matters.
QuoteTailstrikes were reasonably minimal in 2008 when this program was first proposed. They were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2008 just as they were a bullet point among many bullet points in 2012.
I'm sure Mr Norris and the insurance companies will be happy to hear that the chief pusher of USPA wingsuit regulation thinks there is such a thing as "reasonably minimal" tailstrikes.
QuoteThe wingsuit fatality that occurred a couple days ago was not a tailstrike, for example.
Off-topic.
This thread is about what we can do as individuals and as a community to reduce tailstrikes now, not lament how that discussion distracts from pushing forward your agenda to involve USPA in something that is none of its business.
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."
"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."
To be fair, he has been talking to the BOD and many of the USPA members for a few years now. He has gone through the natural progression of his idea.
Matt
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
>supposed to learn out of-that never made sense to me....
?? The SIM is free to download. Do you suggest that by making it cost $$ and then requiring new students to buy it, it will be read more often?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites