Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners

[DSE 5]

There are exit methods being taught today that encourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

There are exit methods being taught today that discourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

###

At least 5 sub-200 skydives before wingsuiting fatalities occurred prior to USPA reluctantly passing a BSR that says (BSR 2, Sec J-6)
"Any person performing a wingsuit jump must have at least 200 skydives, and hold a current USPA license.[E]"

How many fatalities of sub 200 jump jumpers since the passage of the BSR?
Zero.


To any outside agency this says "The governing body took action, the issue has been significantly reduced/halted."
Before the passage of the BSR, some people said "Not enough people have died to warrant a BSR being passed."

How more effectively may DZO's, aircraft providers, and insurance companies be assured persons in a wingsuit have been taught the same principles and techniques?
Without standardized instruction, they cannot be assured of anything except "more of the same," which isn't good enough.
Change the training, change the culture.

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

Change the training, change the culture.

Standardized training may give the culture a chance to survive, thus evolve?
Pictures tell a thousand words! Thanks DSE.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

No I do not, and it is not relevant.

Since when is accurate and verifiable data not relevant?

Very often. Accurate and verifiable data on, for example, the Higgs Boson is not relevant to my choice of meat at the grocery store.

So if you hear your meat could potentially have mad cow desease, you don't care about the source or accuracy? Or does it become relevant then?

You don't want to VERIFY the source of tailstrikes? Seems a little absurd to not want accurate data when that data is what is being used to create the issue at hand no?

I think you are missing the point. The insurance companies are the source. What you think if that source is not important. This is an issue between the DZO’s and their insurance carrier. You might think of it as your play ground but is their business….their lively hood. They will make discussions based on what is best for their business not what is best for ftp.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I think you are missing the point

There's a lot of that in this thread.

The insurance company only sees one thing, and that's the growing list of claims for airframe damage due to wingsuits. They don't care who did the damage, how many jumps they have, what suit they jump, or how they were trained. All they know is that their insured aircraft was damaged, and they had to pay the claim.

The insurance company also doesn't care how this problem is solved, just that there is an immediate and complete end to this type of claim. The wingsuit community has backed itself into a corner by allowing this string of tightly grouped incidents to take place. It's not one or two, or even five, it's better than one per month and it used up all of our 'get out of jail free' cards.

In my mind, the insurance company is right up there with the FAA. They hold the 'keys to the kingdom' and could easily shut wingsuiting down in the US. You might be able to find an uninsured 182, or one covered by another carrier, but one thing is for sure, there won't be any more disputes about who is, or is not, inside the grid.

[airtwardo 7]

as a side note~

The insurance company that covers the demo policy has in effect regulated a training protocol in that in order to be covered, the jumper must be qualified & current on the type & size of the canopy being used during the performance.

At an ICAS convention some years back I was amazed at the knowledge an underwriter I spoke with had regarding the canopy types, sizes and the flight & landing characteristics.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Krip 2]

Quote

as a side note~

The insurance company that covers the demo policy has in effect regulated a training protocol in that in order to be covered, the jumper must be qualified & current on the type & size of the canopy being used during the performance.

At an ICAS convention some years back I was amazed at the knowledge an underwriter I spoke with had regarding the canopy types, sizes and the flight & landing characteristics.

Hi Mr T

When you were talking with the guy you pass

There were a few claims on that list for tail stikes that IMO were for chump change we learned a long time ago not to turn every little car into the insurance company.

Because if they pay, your rates will go up.

A $500,000 claim is a lot of money, but a $6k is one days tandems at some DZ's.

Interesting in hind sight that the DZ at Harvey Field (snohomish)
said no more WS's before the letter became public knowledge.

TBSS If the industry of "skydiving" wants to be self regulated than even with thier waiver they need to clean up their act, or the insurance company will regulate them out of existance. Except Tandems.

R.

One Jump Wonder

[ksjumper 0]

We are insured by the insurance company listed in Parachutist. Maybe I missed it in the 5 pages of talk in this thread but i don't understanded the blow up because there are clauses that if the damage was cause by the skydiving activity, ie a jumper, the insurance company will not pay(quoting from our insurance policy):

"AIRCRAFT PHYSICAL DAMAGE we will not pay for any physical loss of or damage to your aircraft caused by anyone jumping or attempting to jump from your aircraft while the aircraft is in flight or attempting flight."

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

We are insured by the insurance company listed in Parachutist. Maybe I missed it in the 5 pages of talk in this thread but i don't understand the blow up because there are clauses that if the damage was cause by the skydiving activity, ie a jumper, the insurance company will not pay(quoting from our insurance policy):

"AIRCRAFT PHYSICAL DAMAGE we will not pay for any physical loss of or damage to your aircraft caused by anyone jumping or attempting to jump from your aircraft while the aircraft is in flight or attempting flight."

WE as jumpers are insured to a limited extent regarding liability, through the USPA set up policy.

The insurance on the aircraft, with the policy held by the owner is a whole different animal.

~or am I misunderstanding your post?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[lurch 0]

I'd like to make a suggestion.
Time is against us.

We do not have time to spend as we have so far, infinitely bickering among ourselves and accomplishing nothing.

It takes time to institute new bureaucracy of any sort. We can argue about the creation of a rating all we want. Perhaps we should move forward with that as well but it is a separate issue.

The problem is that we have too many people flying wingsuits who do not understand or are not aware of the level of risk they are taking and the physics involved. They are not educating themselves, nor are they putting even the minimum amount of thought into it, actually thinking about, understanding and taking into account the physics and conditions involved. Not all of us need to be forced or led. I flew all sizes of suits for years and kept myself safe by paying attention to what I was doing. I had nobody to teach me. I was learning it by studying the physics and the techniques of the few other birds who existed at the time. Nobody ever needed to warn me about the tail, (they did anyway though, especially the year we had a Caravan, thank you!) I understood the threat from the start and developed ingrained habits to avoid it. It seemed incredibly obvious. Like the consequences of NOT flaring. Especially on low tailed aircraft, I learned to scrunch desperately like my life depended on it, because it does. I am among the lighter weight wingsuit pilots flying the biggest of suits and am more vulnerable to this threat than almost anyone else in the sky. Which is why I'm so aware of it. To me all tails are a guillotine blade I must dodge each and every time.

But the pioneer days are over, we exist in mass numbers now and we have made it look too easy and too accessible. Now we have rapidly increasing numbers of people with wingsuits and almost no awareness of what they can actually do. Many of these tailstrikes, including the fatality from '09 who happened to be a close friend of mine, were caused by experienced wingsuiters screwing up. Simply shouting from the rooftops "We have to have a rating" Is not an effective way to address the issue.

It is a large, indirect blanket method, typical of bureaucratic police thinking and does nothing to address the fact that many of these strikes are by people already experienced enough that such a rating program would have had no effect on the outcome whatsoever.

The '09 fatality. I taught him from first flight myself. Including the hazards of tails. Flew with him his whole wingsuit career. Led by example. He watched me experiment with prototypes that jacked my tailstrike risk 1000fold, watched me successfully deal with it all without incident and STILL he was unaware. He had years of experience. He was repeatedly warned about increasing carelessness by his own crew. And it was still not enough to prevent his death. He let his guard down and it killed him.

A concrete, effective action solution is required NOW. Not 6 months from now after half a dozen more tailstrikes and 50,000 pages worth of political maneuvering for status and power within the community only to arrive at an expensive and complex bureaucratic "solution" that does NOTHING to actually STOP this and is guaranteed to provoke instant reflex defiance from every wannabe rebel in the sport, of which we have many. Wingsuiting attracts such people like flies. Any solution must address their existence AND their nature.

The creation and mandating of a rating will have no effect on the already well-experienced wingsuit population responsible for half these incidents.

I do not argue against a rating. For what its worth, more and more I support the idea of its creation. With mass adoption comes mass stupidity, mass carelessness and mass arrogance and so we get the Miami Tailstrike Contest. What did they think they were doing, a carnival ride where everything's been made safe enough for a drug-addled juvenile to survive it no matter what they do?

The complete, oblivious carefree idiocy on display was a symptom of fatal mindlessness growing endemic throughout our community. What we have done so far is not working. When wingsuits were exclusive to the highly aware daring explorer types among us who could take care of themselves we were fine. Now, wingsuits are the new Swooping and we are attracting mass numbers of guys like Sangi (if you don't know, do a search for the tale of his short and brutal career as a "mad skyllz swooper") but now they have the power to take the entire aircraft with them. And with the bullheaded pig-ignorant stupidity of all such types, they will not stop or change course until they actually DO take down a plane.

We've been lucky so far. Our luck has just run out.

One of the tailstrikes in the last year was by a guy with over 7,000 jumps. I'd have thought surely THAT was enough to prepare the guy and assure his awareness of airflow/gear interaction possibilities but clearly it was not. Experience is no guarantee, and a rating will not touch those who think they already know what they're doing. Including those careless ones who HAVE been trained, take a casual skygod attitude, let down their guard and continue to have tailstrikes anyway.

I argue for direct, effective action, NOW. The most effective way to stop this and stop it cold is to get the information out there. By any means necessary. Jam it in everybody's faces.

The images Spot put up here are revealing. The sight of bird after bird exiting with wings half-spread is like watching kids tap-dancing on the interstate, oblivious. I want to slap them for waltzing into such a threatening situation with such a cavalier attitude and without taking the trouble to even make THEMSELVES aware of the hazards they're facing... and creating.

Point 1: A rating will help but it is not a solution in itself. Creating such rating and declaring "We fixed it, see?" is begging for a fall. What will we do when the experienced but careless birds, unaffected by regulations imposed on newbies, continue to smack tails anyway? Wail "But we FIXED it?" We didn't. It'll look all proper, satisfy the bureaucrats, (for awhile) there'll be all kinds of i's to dot and t's to cross and signatures to collect and people will feel smug and satisfied that they "did something effective" because The System says thats how all things are fixed, and it will, not, actually, stop the tailstrikes.

"You have all these rules and you think they'll save you." -The Joker

Point 2: It could take years longer before any real consensus or agreement is reached in the community. We don't HAVE years. In the middle of a mal you don't spend time debating what is the best emergency procedure. You ACT. To the best of your knowledge, with whatever you have at hand. Not by some rigid process depicted in a policy manual but by whatever means will ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM NOW.

A half-effective solution may be worse than no solution at all. After we have a rating, and "we" have collectively notified the insurance industry that "we have policies in place now" and the tailstrikes continue, what then? I have little but contempt for most forms of institutional authority because it only knows one blind, blanket solution to all problems. "People are breaking or ignoring the rules? We'll make even MORE rules, that'll stop em!"

Point 3: There is only one way I can think of that can be at least unopposed if not enthusiastically promoted by all, to address this in a concrete manner.
A direct information campaign. The procedures we need to propagate and make known are basic and can be depicted on a single sheet. It will be a whole lot easier to get the entire community to agree on a simple set of procedures to post in every aircraft and at every boarding area for addressing exit hazards than an entire rating and its attendant requirements and bureaucracy.

Spot already has this handled at his place. He did not wait for the system to solve it for him. While waiting to see how the rating effort turned out, he ACTED DIRECTLY.

But his efforts are limited in effect to his sphere of influence. Its a massive help and the most professional operation we've got going that I know of but it is not enough. We have a large assortment of small kingdoms watched over by the birds who founded them but all the spaces in between are unguarded. Miami is proof of that. And a preview of the results. We can no longer count on the intelligence and awareness of the individual birds involved because the filtering mechanism that used to protect us is no longer functioning. Fear and ignorance no longer keep the idiots out. They got the idea this is easy, too many of them ventured over the line without getting bit, and now they're coming for us. We are outnumbered and we cannot win. Not as we are. Take a good look at the "mad skillz" swoop community. How many of them REFUSE to learn till AFTER they shatter their bodies. With years and hundreds of examples to ignore. The danger only encourages them to prove how "mad skillz" they REALLY are and how THEY are the exception they don't NEED canopy skill drills or education because THEY are faster smarter and ahead of all those average guys and so we have a neverending supply of them, new ones to replace the fallen as fast as they can break themselves. Thats us next week.

We need a solution that will be noticed and heeded by newbs and veterans alike. The veterans causing half the problem will blow off, ignore and dismiss the rating before its even created because the rules already do not apply to them.

I know of two forms of action that are actually effective in addressing such issues.
The first is to get the damn info out there. Short. Succinct. Bullet points and one or two cartoon graphics on a simple sign we can post at every boarding area and in every aircraft. A simple image of a wingsuit in midexit with wings tightly scrunched and a "1...2...open" followed by an image of a wingsuit in midexit with wings open, striking the tail, with little cartoon X's over his eyes and a big red X across the image. Get it OUT there. By any means necessary, polite or obnoxious. Jam it in people's faces so thoroughly it cannot be dismissed or ignored.

Get the wingsuit waiver made. Its a start. Convince DZOs to institute it of their own free will out of rational self interest.

People can argue that it will be ignored and initialed the way the basic waivers we already sign for general jumping are. But they miss the point. The waiver is NOT ignored. Some try to, and try to sue anyway, but everyone who jumps signs one, and everyone who jumps knows what they are signing and WHY. THAT, is what we need to make known...the WHY. There isn't a single skydiver who does not constantly encounter the words "Parachuting is a high risk activity that may result in injury or death" everywhere they look. Its on the waiver. Its written on our canopies. Our rigs. In our manuals.

This approach HAS ALREADY WORKED against threats that could have ended skydiving. NOBODY can plead ignorance. That example is the most thorough awareness-saturation campaign that has ever been held by skydivers and it WORKED.

THAT is what we must do. Now.


The second form of action is simple peer pressure. Talk about it. To everybody. Rehearse. Publicly. Explain what and why. Refer them to the damn signs! Don't wait for one, don't wait for mine, make your own.

Explain that this threat exceeds all others that we know of and that anything less than hypervigilance is no longer acceptable

Spot teaches 3 seconds' delay. Its thorough and leaves a margin for error including newbies counting at triple speed due to excitement. Some argue that its excessive. Robin argues for just 1 second. I say this is not enough. I could do a rushed "one-count", pop my apache half a second into the exit and still hit the tail. We do not want to bet the future of our sport on a borderline one second wide. We need a commonly known procedure that works even if you screw it up because people WILL. Count on it.

At least let us settle on two seconds as a MINIMUM safety standard. To HELL with how it affects building formations. A wasted second after exit makes less difference to us than any other form of skydiver. We HAVE the time. AFTER we're out and clear. If an additional one second delay is enough to prevent a bird from making it into a formation that bird does not in fact know how to exit and fly the hill yet and has no business IN the formation and needs to stick to basic flight practice until they do. This can be taught by rating holders LATER. They need to have the basic survival skills made known to them, unignorably, NOW. THAT, we can do immediately.

I'm sure the bickering skygods will make drama and protest whats all the hysteria about, we don't need no waiver, etc... but its existence and the signs everywhere will be causing them to ASK THE QUESTION in spite of themselves and their own attitude. It will force the issue to the front of their minds even against their will, in spite of their best efforts to ignore it or cop an attitude that they're so skilled it doesn't apply to them.

Which is the point. Our problem isn't "not enough rules" our problem is "not enough AWARENESS."

We can fix THAT much faster than we can make and enforce new rules and new bureaucracy.

If we don't stop this now there won't BE any formations. There will be people who rush the "one-count" but making common procedure a mental state of waiting 2 beats means even a half-panicked hyped-up "onetwoopen!" by an overexcited noob still incudes more than the one actual second required to clear the aircraft. A minimum extra margin for error MUST be built into universally known procedure because people will need it, people will use it, and if that margin isn't taught as an inherent part of the procedure this approach will not work. People will obey the peer pressure rules as best they can and hit the tail anyway.

I am not going to wait around for the rest of the community to get the picture and come to an agreement either. The necessary minimum action to begin addressing this is clear. To demonstrate by action that I do not think myself any more exempt than anyone else, I shall go first. And I begin acting on this, today. I will be seen demonstrating and practicing proper exit technique by the mockup even if there are no other birds present to see. Some aspiring birds WILL see. And ask. And learn. Which is the point.

Anyone with some art skills willing and able to create a custom "public sign style" cartoon image in the nonverbal style used for road signs and public things such as fire exits and wet floors depicting the threat and its solution for prompt release to public domain to help me with this, please contact me immediately. I cannot offer to pay you. All I can offer is that if this works, your work will be seen posted in every Manifest office, aircraft and boarding area in the industry.

I've made quite a few friends in this thing. I have deliberately refrained from asking for favors or backup on any issues I could handle myself so that IF I ever needed to call for help for real, that call, would be taken seriously.

I'm calling for it now. I need the Cavalry. Even those of you with opposing agendas and even outright interpersonal animosity. Please. Set aside the issues you fight over and work together with me. For this. For US. On just this one thing. Even if you believe it will be ineffective. Indulge me. This is Lurch, and I am calling for your aid. I want more than anything to stop this now before some insurance bureaucrat closes the gates and locks me out of the sky so his shareholders can save a few bucks against the possibility of a risk I myself don't even present because I actually take this seriously. We can't make a rating overnight without wrecking half the community in the process by reflexive defiant opposition but we CAN do THIS and we can do it right now.

Jeff. Spot. Scotty. Taya. Ed. Scott Bland. Chuck Blue.
All my heroes and friends. Everyone I know. And I mean everyone. At least everyone in the United States. If you fly a wingsuit this involves YOU.

Once...just once... I ask us to all pull together in the same direction to accomplish something.
All the cynics and jaded birds. Mock me if you must for my silly dramatic idealism but HELP me this one time. Take this request seriously. Just be willing to help post this...when it is made... be willing to help spread the waiver idea. Its not a total solution but its a start and its a lot faster and more direct than a rating. We can't wait around for a rating, we can't wait around for somebody else to "make policy". WE have to make it. NOW. Not by writing it down in some rulebook somewhere but by putting it UP, everywhere. I can do NOTHING alone. I can fix one dropzone... mine. I can have little effect on anything else without a lot of help.

I am not going to wait around for an answer. I'm setting off for the DZ now to get started. I'll do whatever I can, today. If you're going to help, do it now, talk about it later. We've lost too much time as it is.
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

There are exit methods being taught today that encourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

There are exit methods being taught today that discourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career.

###

At least 5 sub-200 skydives before wingsuiting fatalities occurred prior to USPA reluctantly passing a BSR that says (BSR 2, Sec J-6)
"Any person performing a wingsuit jump must have at least 200 skydives, and hold a current USPA license.[E]"

How many fatalities of sub 200 jump jumpers since the passage of the BSR?
Zero.


To any outside agency this says "The governing body took action, the issue has been significantly reduced/halted."
Before the passage of the BSR, some people said "Not enough people have died to warrant a BSR being passed."

How more effectively may DZO's, aircraft providers, and insurance companies be assured persons in a wingsuit have been taught the same principles and techniques?
Without standardized instruction, they cannot be assured of anything except "more of the same," which isn't good enough.
Change the training, change the culture.

+1!

This whole post is Exhibit A for the affirmative for Eli's proposition, to wit: add something to the SIM and related pilot/AC operations that focuses speficially on procedures that minimize the chance of tailstrikes, not just for wingsuiters but for all jumping sub-disciplines -- no new bureacucracy needed.

As this poster points out so eloquently, significant and important improvements in the system can be achieved by adjusting and/or adding minor elements to already existing procedures, policies and publications -- all without imposing a new bureacucracy on the sport or its governing body.

Moreover, when the poster writes that "(t)here are exit methods being taught today that encourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career (and) exit methods being taught today that discourage potential tailstrikes throughout a wingsuiting career," he underscores my points 4 and 5 in Post #96:

Quote

Next, Eli's proposed solution can be implemented very quickly, whereas imposing a new bureaucracy will of necessity require a lot of time, debate, development and debugging before it can be employed.

Finally, Eli's proposed solution requires from USPA and its volunteer BOD about 1/100th the effort and 1/1000th the headaches that imposing a new bureaucracy would add.

Given that tailstrike avoidance is the critical path here, and given that there are competing schools of thought over how best to teach exit/avoidance, then it is inevitable that trying to solve this problem by imposing a new bureaucracy will in fact take a lot of time the industry doesn't have, and generate a lot of headaches that the association's volunteer board doesn't need -- because there will in fact be a big fight over which of the competing "principles and techniques" should adopt to minimize tailstrikes.

All of this can be avoided by adopting Eli's proposal, the basic premise of which is, as this poster has so succinctly pointed out, already proven to be highly effective when used in terms of jump numbers required for a first wingsuit jump -- and will undoubtedly be equally effective when applied to tailstrike avoidance.

You know, reasonable and informed people can disagree over the need to impose a new training bureacuracy on sport parachuting in the United States, and everyone knows the side of that discussion on which I come down.

But right now is unequivocally not the time to have that discussion. Now is the time to fix the tailstrike problem, which is a 1 percent part of the new training bureaucracy debate but a 100 percent part of whether wingsuiting becomes effectively banned in the US because of tailstrike problems.

Eli's proposal does exacty that, and that's a win for the "new training bureaucracy" camp too -- because if we don't get that done tout de suite, then there won't be any need for a new wingsuit training bureaucracy, will there?

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."

[ksjumper 0]

I am certain that USPA began excluding damage to aircraft cause by jumpers quite a few years ago. I beleive just before or after a tail strike on Mullin's king air in the 90's. It is basically only covering damage you might cause to property or person(non-jumper) on the ground. But forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought it also would not pay if the damage was inflicted on another member or his/her property. IE, if you crashed into another member's vehicle, you are not covered.

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

I am certain that USPA began excluding damage to aircraft cause by jumpers quite a few years ago. I beleive just before or after a tail strike on Mullin's king air in the 90's. It is basically only covering damage you might cause to property or person(non-jumper) on the ground. But forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought it also would not pay if the damage was inflicted on another member or his/her property. IE, if you crashed into another member's vehicle, you are not covered.

I think that was brought up in another thread a while back...a DZO's car was hit, he is a member and it was in fact covered.

I don't know about the Mullins tail strike thing, it was my understanding that a lot of claims were being put in for paint jobs and interior damage that was 'normal wear' for the operation in that environment...some aircraft got a 'free' face-lift prior to being sold was what I heard.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[DARK 0]

Quote

At least 5 sub-200 skydives before wingsuiting fatalities occurred prior to USPA reluctantly passing a BSR that says (BSR 2, Sec J-6)
"Any person performing a wingsuit jump must have at least 200 skydives, and hold a current USPA license.[E]"

How many fatalities of sub 200 jump jumpers since the passage of the BSR?
Zero.

How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters

[DSE 5]

Quote

How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

Another interesting point about the crowd who are against a wingsuit instructor rating, or some sort of standardized course is that every one of them learned without a course and went on to continue wingsuiting with some degree of success. While this might seem to support the anti-instructor argument, it does not.

Those folks have proven over time that they are 'cut out' for wingsuiting. They began, learned, and found they they 'fit' with that activity, and thus stuck with it. Now if everyone had the neccesary physical/mental traits to succeed as such, then maybe formal, established instructors and training courses are not needed.

Of course, we know that not everyone fits that mold. This doesn't mean that those people don't jump, or want to try wingsuiting, and this is the reason that we need a formal training system in place at every DZ. Not some DZs, not just the ones where a couple of good WSs happen to jump, but a standardized training program that is either 'that way or the highway', meaning if a DZ cannot support the program (like with a rated instructor), then no first flight course will take place at that DZ.

Compare it to primary training. We all know there are some 'naturals' who could have been released on their first AFF jump, and probably didn't need instructors in the first place. I know a guy who I am sure you could toss out of a plane with about 30 min of ground school and he would do fine. However, we still have a structured training program with rated instructors in place because most people don't fit that mold. Most people do need the assistance of the instructors, and the formal classroom training.

So it comes to pass that the real risk here is not from the wingsuit jumps, but from what botched exits will do to the insurance policies. News flash, aircraft owners will not pay one extra cent to keep wingsuiters on the plane, and the insurance companies will not tolerate any further tail strikes, regardless of the cause, circumstance or jumper.

All of the arguing back and forth about training, techniques, and what 'should' work is now over. The insurance company has put their foot down, and short of the FAA, that's the biggest foot around. Everyone knows the number one cost of a DZ is the plane, and if the insurance company says 'jump' (no pun intended), the DZO will jump, and wingsuiters will not.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

The insurance company has put their foot down, and short of the FAA, that's the biggest foot around. Everyone knows the number one cost of a DZ is the plane, and if the insurance company says 'jump' (no pun intended), the DZO will jump, and wingsuiters will not.

Agreed. But let's be super clear here. The insurance companies will not give even the tiniest consideration about whether we have a USPA rating or not. They will only consider whether there are claims coming in (i.e., things they have to pay for) from a particular activity or not. And if claims are coming in, they will either (a) raise their rates to reflect their costs or (b) revise their policies to exclude coverage from wingsuiting tail strikes. Saying "but... but... but... we have a rating now!" will not dissuade them from their simple cost/benefit analysis. That's what insurance companies are; that's what they do. Nobody should be fooled on this point...

Now, maybe a rating is a good idea, maybe not. In the long run, a standard program should result in everyone with a wingsuit having been told at least once in their training to keep their wings closed. It will not stop complacency (any more than being told "don't turn too low to the ground" in AFF stops people from hooking it in). And it won't stop the bad habits of current wingsuiters who won't have to take a course. I agree that it will probably instill a greater safety culture over time. But in any case, that's a long run solution to an immediate problem. We need triage, now. We need no more God damn tail strikes, now.

My suggestion: Create an immediate USPA awareness raising campaign, to mail to all DZs with the goal of it being posted prominently where wingsuiters will see it. Stickers that say "avoid the tail" or whatever catchy stuff we can come up with. Show S&TA's what they have to know. (It's not rocket surgery.) Include pictures - like the ones in Spot's (really great) materials - that highlight the problem and show how to avoid it. Get the word out. If USPA cares about wingsuiting, an awareness campaign should be a priority now.

Personally, I'm willing to help in any way I can. (I'm not an authority, and instructor, or anything else, just a guy who takes pictures.) So let's recruit a bunch of volunteers to put the word out and make sure it gets heard. Time for partisan ("Team Taya!" "Team Spot!") crap is over - if wingsuiting is still around, we can revisit it later. We have an immediate concern that we have to address.

Let's get to the business of getting this message out before it's too late.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[davelepka 4]

Quote

But let's be super clear here. The insurance companies will not give even the tiniest consideration about whether we have a USPA rating or not. They will only consider whether there are claims coming in

This is my point exactly. All the arguments against more formalized training, or getting the USPA involved have become moot. The only obejective now is the preservation of the insurance policies without a 'no wingsuit' provision.

However, one thing to consider is that without a USPA program in place we ended up where we are now, with a tail-strike every 29 days. So all the talk about why a more formalized program isn't needed, why we can just count on the 'good old boys' to teach the new guys what they need to do has come to an abrupt end.

One benefit to a USPA program with an instructional rating to go along with it, is that it puts the DZOs in the position of having to do things that way. It would no longer be acceptable for 'some guy' to teach wingsuiting however they feel is correct, it would make sure that all training is up to speed, so to speak.

The other side of the coin is that the more correct information there is out there, the more properly trained wingsuiters there, and once you introduce a group of instructors who have a rating to protect, the whole community gets a bump up in the area of awareness and proactive safety practices.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters

Historically pre-BSR?
70+ (which is why they were banned by USPA)
Post BSR specifically related to the wingsuit and skydive? 2, arguably 3.

The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

For starters, where did the "70+" number come from?

Scope, sample, definition, please.

Next, please identify the pronoun in your parenthetical remark: "which is why they were banned by USPA."

Thank you.

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."

[airtwardo 7]

However, one thing to consider is that without a USPA program in place we ended up where we are now, with a tail-strike every 29 days. So all the talk about why a more formalized program isn't needed, why we can just count on the 'good old boys' to teach the new guys what they need to do has come to an abrupt end.

Quote

I should have but obviously hasn't.

From what I'm seeing, the writing is on the wall with this one. It's no longer a question of if and how...but one of when will be to late?

Requiring formalized training needs to come and quickly, I don't think the naysayers really have a logical leg to stand on anymore in light of the way this wind is blowing.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[rifleman 70]

As a noob (still on s/l) I'm a long way from wingsuiting but I do know that the BPA has had a formalized WS rating and training program for a while. I've attached the relevant documents for information.

Just like we have a licence endorsement for RW (FS1), FF (FF1) etc, we have WS1 and WS2 which you need a C licence for.

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[davelepka 4]

Quote

the BPA has had a formalized WS rating and training program for a while

True, but not going to help. Up until this point, tail strikes were 'one' problem in wingsuiting, but not viewed as a pivotal issue. People going in with wingsuits was much more of a concern, of course based on the loss of life. Not all tailstrikes end in a fatality (most don't), but every time someone goes in, they're dead.

Anyway, with that in mind, waaaay more people die under open canopies than wingsuits and tailstrikes combined, and to that end, many, many other countries have limitations to wing loading and canopy type, as well as required canopy control courses as jumpers progress, and these programs have been in place for years. Despite that, the USPA continues to take little to no action in terms of canopy control training or selection. Even though the programs have been proven in other countries, they don't seem to catch on over on this side of the pond.

So while you're on the right track with your info, I don't see it doing much good. It should, but I don't think it will.

[michalm21 2]

How many tail strikes so far in 2012?

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

How many tail strikes so far in 2012?

REPORTED you mean?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[WickedWingsuits 0]

Quote

Quote

How many fatalities have there been involving people with more then 200 skydives but few wingsuit jumps and how does that compare to the numbers of fatalities before the bsr was implememnted because thats the comparison that matters

Historically pre-BSR?
70+ (which is why they were banned by USPA)
Post BSR specifically related to the wingsuit and skydive? 2, arguably 3.

The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

[pchapman 279]

Quote

I would like to learn more about the 70ish batwing fatalities. Is there an archive somewhere?

[Care to start a new History & Trivia thread to ask about this maybe??]

I think that number once got published somewhere, and then it keeps getting quoted. Yet some other author later said it was B.S.
Some high profile cases are well known, like Clem Sohn & Leo Valentin -- but were there really 70 such jumpers? I'm highly doubtful.


"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." -- Abraham Lincoln