robinheid

While USPA's mission does not specifically say "advanced training," it does not specifically disclude exclude it, either. Nor does it specifically mention "first-time skydivers." The mission statement doesn't say anything about Hertz car rental discounts, yet USPA provides for it. Training is training. Whether it's advanced or not. And "training" is part of the mission, isn't it? USPA is the *only* major skydiving body that does not have requisite wingsuit training standards. Is there any other discipline that has generated an insurance company threat letter? What other discipline that can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?. Additionally, all forms of skydiving use essentially the same equipment excepting Tandems and Wingsuits. What other discipline has demonstrated an increasing number of tailstrikes, that in the worst case may drop an aircraft onto a home or business? Faced with rising insurance cost, no assurance of skill, training, and knowledge, could possibly inspire a DZO to continue to allow wingsuiting? Several DZ's have now banned or severely regulated wingsuiting. This isn't a beneficial trend in the sport, IMO. Most every person on the board has realized error in the response to canopy issues, and most feel that error began 15 years ago. This is our chance to prevent wingsuiting from becoming another canopy issue. We can be ahead of the curve and not play "catch-up" like we are with canopy incidents. How many pre-BSR deaths were there of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? At least 5 we can prove, nearly double that in related incidents. How many post BSR deaths of low-time skydivers wearing wingsuits? Zero. The excellent and oft-asked question from an earlier post is responded to in an FAQ about the standardized training proposal. FAQ- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y-Exdt_44nB2AgINM7MEWkZ-SytVM-HuyzK_HNRWtD0/edit PowerPoint presented to board- https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13nX758ZMGlcsOMnRJxopHCDRWuhK60FKHr6yivLQNN8/edit Proposed Proficiency Card- https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxhZWxju4_IleEc2ZkhpNjR5eHM Proposed Evaluation Sheet-https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxhZWxju4_IlZFA4MEJTaXh1REk The original proposal in 2008/2009 in person and over email. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eQjtRcfi7yLimcf8xTqu1QoX0cH-u7MiyQ4nX8QKEIs/edit For some reason, dropzone.com doesn't always cooperate with the Gdoc links, apologies if you'll need to copy/paste. In 2010, USPA generated a poll, sent out to the general membership. This online poll produced a result of 65% of all respondents in favor of a required, standardized training. In 2012, USPA sent out a request for responses to this topic, sent over Twitter, Facebook (several pages) personal emails, and here on Dropzone.com. Greater than 80% of respondents have asked for standardized instruction, administered by USPA. There is no cost to USPA for these materials, the proposal, and there are no additional costs to develop the system as it's been tested for 5 years in development, 3 years in actual implementation. The safety record of 600 test cases is demonstrable both by numerous DZO's and other documentation. The system we use, although it is not tied in any direct way to the USPA proposal, demonstrates the quality of training materials used for the proposal. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxhZWxju4_IlYVhTc2lFdzNPM0k In short, the proposal merely asks that USPA adopt a required FFC using the same syllabus provided when I submitted a proposal to change SIM Sec 6.2 into a new section now seen as Sec 6.9, with all aspects of a proper FFC included. It's deplorable that this has become a tailstrike conversation. At the same time, the industry now has a different perspective and contributor to the conversation than it had 30 days ago. It would be a sad day in skydiving if the only exit points for wingsuiters was a cliff. Even in BASE, there are regulations being proposed and insurance required at certain exit points. It's not just a skydiving issue. Proposal Promoter - 20 Straw men - 0 The list of unsupportable, unprovable and irrelevant arguments with which you promote your proposal would be amusing if it didn't represent such a potential danger to the sport in general. One bottom line: As per floormonkey's query, as soon as an exception is made for wingsuiting, then GUESS WHAT, FOLKS? Any discipline without an equivalent "instructor rating" becomes lawyer food. Get a clue, people. There is a small minority of people who stand to benefit from this "instructor rating" that is at complete variance with everything USPA has done with regard to sport parachuting instruction during its entire existence. It rejects the private market solution which has proven to work across all of these other disciplines in favor of "crony capitalism" that forces people to purchase the services of "rated instructors" who are "anointed" (as the good perfesser Kallend so elegantly stated) by the association. Those who intone that we "must" do this because the insurance companies won't insure our airplanes otherwise are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the parachuting public. Another bottom line: The insurance companies do NOT care about a USPA-sanctioned rating system; they only want people to quit hitting the tails of the airplanes they insure. Period. Full stop. And they want it done now, not on the the months-long and/or even years-long event horizon of a "standardized wingsuit instructor rating" program. And nothing about a wingsuit "instructor rating" speaks directly to the insurance company's concern except as a selling-point subset of a larger "solution" to a manufactured problem. It's all a smokescreen for a select few who hope to be the "anointed ones" at the expense of the rest of the sport. Seriously, all of you who are involved in disciplines other than wingsuiting -- guess what's going to happen to the liability environment when there is a USPA-sanctioned, discipline-specific "instructor rating" for one discipline but not the others? This is Politics and Liability 101, people, and all of you non-wingsuiters who support this USPA-forced "wingsuit instructor rating" are just cutting your own throats. This whole thing is based upon an utterly bogus premise -- that somehow wingsuiting is "different" and "more dangerous" than other sport parachuting subdisciplines. It is not, and everyone who says it is does not know the history of parachuting, never mind basic physics. When people first started doing RW (aka "formation skydiving") it was frequently condemned as dangerous and foolhardy and a threat to jump aircraft. Ditto for CRW, about which people wailed and gnashed their teeth because "what other discipline can exit the aircraft 5 miles (or more) from the DZ and show up at point of deployment 4 minutes 9 minutes after exit, roughly 6 minutes 12 minutes following pilot notification of skydiving activity?" And when freeflying started THAT was a threat because of the higher speeds were incompatible and therefore dangerous to other freefallers. Etc etc ad nauseam. But guess what? We figured it out, didn't we? And all without imposing USPA-mandated sub-discipline "instructor ratings" that make the USPA bureaucracy proliferate and create endless liability permutations of which lawyers can take advantage. And then we come to the Great Canopy Debate (biiig straw man that), wherein the bureaucratic inertia of the training system we already have prevented USPA and even the industry itself from responding correctly and in a timely manner to that issue -- when canopy technology and performance outstripped a training regimen predicated on teaching freefall fun skills at the expense of parachuting survival skills. The AFF system is in fact the primary reason the canopy thing got out of hand for so long because the entrenched AFF bureaucracy resisted the major system overhaul necessary to reduce open-canopy injuries and fatalities -- i.e., discarding freefall-fun-skills-first-based teaching in favor of first teaching understand-your-gear-learn-how-to-fly-your-parachute. This is FACT, not rhetorical supposition based upon unsupported and unprovable straw man arguments. Moreover and in many ways more importantly, the bureaucracy proliferation that will start but not end with "standardized wingsuit training" will literally strangle the sport because, you know, like, dudes and dudettes, why the F did we start skydiving in the first place? For the freedom of it, the thrill of it, the adventure of it all -- not to be told at each and every incremental step of the way what to do, how to do it, when and where to do it, and only by those "anointed ones" who ride herd on us. The "revamped" training system is bad enough. Add this ridiculous proposition to it and watch the sport slowly die because you will drive away the very people who are most attracted to its essential nature. So please, instead of mindlessly accepting the feel-good premise of "standardized instruction," THINK IT THROUGH and consider all of the ramifications. As soon as you do, things will start looking much more clear. 44 P.S. For the record, I have no problem with any of the private-sector wingsuit training operations in effect right now, to include the one the Proposal Promoter developed at Elsinore. In fact, I wholeheartedly support it and its predecessors and progeny, just as I do all the private-sector, non-USPA-dictated RW, VRW, CRW, FF, demo and other sub-discipline schools out there. For the record also, I recognize and appreciate both the volume and quality of work the Proposal Promoter has done in developing and advancing wingsuiting training. I just wish he'd leave off with trying to force-feed it to everyone in alliance with the USPA and let the marketplace respond to the issue the way it does to all of the other subdisciplines. 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."

+1 This is what's known in the business as the "DevilS in the dEtails." The premise is false, the processes and procedures are corrupt, and the polling methodology wouldn't pass muster in a fifth grade science class. And the other question not yet answered: Who are the people who currently meet the requirements of Section E Subsection 1 of the current proposal? 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."

No, it doesn't. A wingsuit I/E must hold a WS-I rating, and a WS-I candidate must be evaluated by an I/E. Neither of these currently exist. So the initial WS-I and WS-I/Es have to be ANOINTED by some unspecified process. +1 Anyone want to guess who the Anointed Ones will be? LOL... And as floorMonkey says, what about all of those other disciplines that do not have discipline-specific "instructor ratings?" As soon as an exception is made for wingsuiting, then GUESS WHAT, FOLKS? Any discipline without an equivalent "instructor rating" becomes lawyer food. Get a clue, people. There is a small minority of people who stand to benefit from this "instructor rating" that is at complete variance with everything USPA has done with regard to sport parachuting instruction during its entire existence. It rejects the private market solution which has proven to work across all of these other disciplines in favor of "crony capitalism" that forces people to purchase the services of "rated instructors" who are "anointed" (as the good perfesser so elegantly stated) by the association. Those who intone that we "must" do this because the insurance companies won't insure our airplanes therwise are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the parachuting public. Bottom line: The insurance companies do NOT care about a USPA-sanctioned rating system; they only want people to quit hitting the tails of the airplanes they insure. Period. Full stop. And nothing about a wingsuit "instructor rating" speaks directly to that. It's all a smokescreen for a select few who hope to be the "anointed ones" at the expense of the rest of the sport. Seriously, all of you who are involved in disciplines other than wingsuiting -- guess what's going to happen to the liability environment when there is a USPA-sanctioned, discipline-specific "instructor rating" for one discipline but not the others? This is Politics and Liability 101, people, and all of you non-wingsuiters who support this "wingsuit instructor rating" are just cutting your own throats. This whole thing is based upon an utterly bogus premise -- that somehow wingsuiting is "different" and "more dangerous" than other sport parachuting subdisciplines. It is not, and everyone who says it is does not know the history of parachuting, never mind basic physics. When people first started doing RW (aka "formation skydiving") it was frequently condemned as dangerous and foolhardy and a threat to jump aircraft. Ditto for CRW, and when freeflying started, THAT was a threat because the higher speeds were incompatible and therefore dangerous to other freefallers. Etc etc ad nauseam. But guess what? We figured it out, didn't we? And all without imposing USPA-mandated sub-discipline "instructor ratings" that make the USPA bureaucracy proliferate and create endless liability permutations of which lawyers can take advantage. Moreover and in many ways more importantly, the bureaucracy proliferation will literally strangle the sport because, you know, like, dudes and dudettes, why the F did we start skydiving in the first place? For the freedom of it, the thrill of it, the adventure of it all -- not to be told at each and every incremental step of the way what to do, how to do it, when and where to do it, and only by those "anointed ones" who ride herd on us. The "revamped" training system is bad enough. Add this ridiculous proposition to it and watch the sport slowly die because you will drive away the very people who are most attracted to its essential nature. So please, instead of mindlessly accepting the feel-good premise of "standardized instruction," THINK IT THROUGH and consider all of the ramifications. As soon as you do, things will start looking much more clear. 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."

Several dropzones already have implemented extremely effective new procedures and policies; it's called "No more wingsuiting at this DZ." And they've done it in the last week. Programs like the one implemented at Skydive Elsinore 3 years ago have worked well too, but they were years in development. Your "Fight the Bite" sticker next to the Pavlov light was years in development? The notion of waiting three seconds after exit before opening your wings was years in development? As NW Flyer informed us further up in this thread, Skydive Spaceland has in just the last few days instituted a new wingsuit protocol that can be used as a model for other DZs. As SwampGod informed us further up in this thread, Skydive Lebanon has in just a few days instituted a new wingsuit protocol that can not only be used as a model for other DZs but as a template to modify Section 6-9 of the SIM to serve, as he put it, as a procedure manual that will appeal to the insurers. No new grand exalted wingsuit sensei bureaucracy needed. The problem with focusing on just one solution in which you have much buy-in is that it's hard for you to see Occam's Razor even if you step on it. As Upton Sinclair basically said it: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his status depends upon his not understanding it. Your solution scope limiter notwithstanding, it's to be expected that some drop zones without a big stake in wingsuiting would just ban it for the time being, pending a workable way out of the problem. Those with a larger stake, however, are not debating the pros and cons of a "solution" that will, as you say, be years or at least months in the making. They need something in place now that will have a real --not theoretical -- effect on reducing or eliminating wingsuit tail strikes, and which is focused exclusively thereon. So if you really want to minimize the number of drop zones that ban wingsuiting because of the tail strike threat, then please: enough with expounding on your pet project and focus first, foremost and right now on reducing that threat. The whole sport will benefit if you do because you have unarguably contributed a lot to the advancement of wingsuiting -- and by helping rather than hindering the quick development of wingsuit-friendly new procedures and policies that can be put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes you'd contribute significantly more. Peace out, dude. 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."

Funny. Who do you think is going to do this negotiation? The only answer we have is USPA, because speaking from the standpoint of both a wingsuiter and a DZM, I have no room to bargain with the insurance company, they don't care about me cause we don't' spend enough money with them. If rates go up even $1000 a year it might well not be worth it. There is very little money in sport jumpers in general, let alone sport jumpers who wingsuit. We need the industry as a whole to fix this problem now (as in quick like). (i.e. USPA)[/reply] You are correct to say that the industry as a whole needs to fix this problem now but "quick fix" and "USPA" are mutually exclusive terms. Quick fix means a private enterprise solution, i.e., what Skydive Lebanon, Skydive Spaceland and Skydive Elsinore have already done, within a couple of days, and others are formulating even as we debate here. This is not a dig at USPA, just a reminder of reality: By their very nature, government institutions, to include self-government institutions such as USPA, do not and literally cannot "quick-fix" anything. They are deliberative bodies that must -- and should -- take time to ponder all of the ramifications of their actions before acting because: a) they must take into account the wants and needs of multiple interest groups within their jurisdiction; b) their solutions must be comprehensive, not targeted; and c) it takes so long and costs too much to undo their actions if they turn out to be wrong. So, again, let's save the formal regulation v. informal regulation debate for another day and focus instead on fixing the tail strike problem now -- as in: What new procedures and policies can DZs, wingsuiters and all jumpers put in place by this weekend to eliminate tail strikes? 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 user fee proposal long precedes Obama. I don't think it's a done deal yet. True enough, Two questions: 1) Does the amount of the proposed fee-per-contact also pre-date Obama? 2) What is the definition of "ATC contact?" Is it $100 per flight -- or $100 each time you key the mike on a flight? 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."

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."

For a Cessna that surely would be $25.00 pet jump ticket effectively driving 182's out of the skydiving business. The cited link indicates that piston aircraft used for recreational purposes are exempt. Skydiving aircraft are not used for recreational purposes by the DZOs, are they? They are used for business, and as I emphasize in previous posts, it is business to which the current regime is most hostile -- and the magnitude of that hostility is what makes this proposal not "business as usual." I do want to make clear, though that I generally agree with Paul because, historically, he's absolutely correct in his characterization of the proposal-lobbying-final result loop. I am just disagreeing with him in this particular case, and if you follow the links I provide in the above posts, you'll see the data that supports my case. Paul may well prove to be correct in this case, too; given the magnitude (there's that word again!) of the opposition to this proposal, which also dwarfs objections to GA-related proposals in the past, we may indeed have a "Move along, nothing to see here" thing going on with this one too. But given the stakes, do you really want to bet your gear on that? 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."

+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: 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."

And this is what is so absolutely brilliant about Eli's proposed solution set: It not only addresses wingsuit flyer conduct with regards to tailstrikes, it covers the pilot and related aircraft operations too -- no new bureaucracy needed. It also amends the association documentation to specifically address tailstrike avoidance, which is a key element for the insurers -- no new bureaucracy needed. Moreover, the pilot/aircraft operations element applies to ALL parachuting operations, thereby further reducing the risk of ALL tailstrikes -- which will show the insurers that our community is really serious about fixing the tailstrike problem, regardless of sub-discipline -- no new bureaucracy needed. 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. 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."

LOL... Unfortunately, none of the people on this load was winging it. I guess for wingsuiters, "look before you leap" is not as important an adage as "keep your wings closed until 1 second after you leap." 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."

Certainly but they charge premiums based on the associated composite risk score. When our DZO forwarded me (an S&TA) these e-mails, he was looking for a solution today, right now. What we came up with goes beyond the scope of what a wingsuit coach would be able to do when training newbies, as it also involves the pilot. This is what it boiled down to: "My advice - Make sure your pilots (and staff) know the benefit of wingsuiters exiting from a properly trimmed and cut airplane with their wings closed until they clear the airplane." In another internet forum for DZOs I found what I believe to be the same concept... they just used better words: "This is an easily avoidable problem. Make sure the pilots never fly a climbing, power on jump run, and make sure all of the wingsuiters are trained to roll out of the door with the wings collapsed. If this is done, they drop like a stone away from the airplane. If anyone at the drop zone teaching wingsuit flight is teaching anything else for an exit, they should be corrected, or not allowed to teach wingsuit flight." So when mixed together, is the above protocol for pilots mixed with Section 6-9 of the SIM shaping up to be the "procedure manual for wing suit jumps" the insurance company is looking for? http://www.uspa.org/SIM/Read/Section6/tabid/169/Default.aspx#69d Thanks to all for putting our heads together on this one!!! -eli +1!!!!!! Really, Eli, this rocks! It addresses the total environment -- pilot/ac as well as wingsuits, creates the "paper trail" that helps with the insurance people, focuses tightly on tailstrike-specific instruction/reminders -- and does it all without imposing a new bureaucracy that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding tailstrikes. Really excellent work, Eli, and one that USPA can get to work on quickly -- and an informal version of which could be disseminated industry-wide in pretty short order. 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."

Well said, TK. There are multiple solution sets out there, all of which can be tailored to focus on the wingsuit tailstrike problem without having to impose a new bureaucracy upon the sport that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding tailstrikes. The list of real actions that I have proposed can have more and/or different elements, and not only can but should vary from DZ to DZ depending upon multiple factors. However, forcing a new bureaucracy upon DZOs and the membership should be absolutely last on that list. 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."

If you are serious about wanting to learn freeflying or swooping or just good canopy handling, there are a bunch of schools out there -- privately created school completely independent of USPA -- that can do that for you. For wingsuiting, you can go to Elsinore's "SEWS" school, and I'm sure there are others scattered around, too, as well as individual instructors of good repute. No bureaucracy needed. The basic premise of the "new bureaucracy needed" camp is that, if we dont have USPA impose thise new bureaucracy, then nothing will happen and wingsuiting will be banned. This is provably puppy poop because in all other disciplines, the demands of the marketplace have resulted in ever more comprehensive training options being offerd -- voluntarily. And therein lies the principal danger here: Whenever you have a segment of private enterprise demanding that government force people to buy their products, then you run into a bunch of problems. 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."

Apparently it is easy for people forget such things. I do not believe that many wingsuiters that have hit the tail or come close have lacked the proper instruction. Whether it is by formal training with USPA endorsed/certified instructors and curriculum, or more careful application of the more informal methods currently used, how will we accomplish the goal of getting people to not forget? I think that is what the focus needs to be, How can training achieve the goal of people not forgetting? Maybe a ground simulator with electro-shock punishment for bad behavior? Nice post -- and while your electro-shock punishment would no doubt help, it's probably too expensive to be practical -- although you could probably defray the costs by selling tickets. Seriously, though, most people do receive some sort of training, and many of the tailstrikes are experienced people, so the problem does indeed seem to revolve around what you said: "Apparently it is easy for people forget such things." That is why the solution set I propose focuses on reminders throughout the process, independent of instruction, ability or experience: 1. A separate, one-signature wingsuit-only waiver -- or contract, actually -- that says very briefly and non-legalistically that in exchange for being able to jump a wingsuit at that DZ, the jumper promises to not open his/her wings until one second after s/he leaves the plane, and accepts that failure to do so will result in immediate 30/60/365-day prohibition on doing wingsuit jumps at that DZ, and financial responsibility for any damage caused. 2. Reminder by the loader and/or pilot upon boarding to not open their wings for one second after they leave the plane. 3. Reminder by the other jumpers going out ahead of the wingsuiter(s) to not open their wings for one second after they leave the plane. 4. Reminder by the wingsuiters to each other to not open their wings for one second after they leave the plane. 6. Reminder near the Pavlov light to not open their wings until one second after they leave the airplane. 7. A slogan near the DZ rules, landing area maps, et al, that says "Wingsuiters! Remember the 1-second rule!" 8. Whatever other creative ideas individuals and DZs can come up with to minimize forgetfulness. Repetition helps minimize forgetfulness and there are some things about which we all need to be reminded, regardless of experience or expertise. One of my all-time favorite examples thereof: John Elway is in every conversation about who is the greatest pro football quarterback of all time. During one of the two Super Bowl victories that capped off his Hall of Fame career, in either his 15th or 16th year as a pro and 30th year of playing quarterback at any level, he started to trot out onto the field for an offensive series -- and his coach, Mike Shanahan said as he went: "Remember to set your feet." This is perhaps the most fundamental element of throwing a good pass, yet even the great John Elway forgot about it often enough that his coach felt it necessary to remind him to do it right before he went out on the field! The solution to wingsuit tail strikes really is a back-to-the-future proposition. We need to go back to the lurkfulness that existed in the old days of skydiving, where everyone looked out for one another, looked out for where they were and where they were going instead of everyone doing their own thing and trusting to Pavlov lights instead of even looking out the door before they jumped.* Perhaps one of the most bizarre things I have read in all of these threads and posts is in post #53, wherein it is claimed: "The wingsuit community has been asking for standardized instruction for 4 years. 82% of wingsuiters want it (according to uspa)." Assuming this is actually true, I find it disconcerting that instead of applying lurkfulness to the equation and being responsible for their own actions and those of the sub-discipline to which they belong, they plead for a higher authority to supervise and control them. It inspired me to write this summation (with apologies to the 18 percenters who are wingsuit pilots, not wingsheep). Baa, baa, wingsheep, Have you any sense? No sir, no sir, we're just dense. We want a master To tell us what to do. We don't want it on us, We don't have a clue. 44 * True story from Perris about ten years ago. Long-time DC-3 pilot Skip Evans flew an Otter load. SOP for Skip was turn on the green light, which meant: "Jump run. Spot your load and go when ready." Perris Otter SOP, though, was: "Red light - open door. Green light - go." So when Skip turned on the green light, the guys at the back opened up the door and went -- two miles from the DZ. So did everyone on the entire load, to include many highly experienced jumpers. Everyone forgot that simple reminder we all learn as children -- Look before you leap -- yet most of them were mad at the pilot instead of themselves. 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."

"Duh-deh-dunt-dunt-dunt..another one bites the dust!" Bill von 2 Straw men 0 Order of magnitude difference between reminding people to keep their wings closed for one second when they exit and teaching them how do do high-performance landings without injury. And please read with comprehension, wouldja? I have repeatedly "(included) a way to change what's happening now - which is that people ARE hitting tails": Remind people in multiple ways to keep their wings closed for one second after they exit -- and provide consequences for failure. Already did by proposing consequences that include grounding them from flying wingsuits if they don't follow the one-second rule. No bureaucracy needed. No rating system needed. No grand exalted senseis needed. Right. No bureaucracy needed. No rating system needed. No grand exalted senseis needed -- and a whuffo can put the sign below the Pavlov light... and have them sign the wingsuit-specific waiver... and remind them to keep their wings closed for one second after they leave the plane. 44 P.S. And every jumper on the plane can issue these reminders to the wingsuiters too, you know? I mean, what are we now -- skydivers sheep who stare in frozen terror at a threat and hope the new bureaucracy and grand exalted senseis sheepdogs will save us before we die? 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."

True, but mind you, that simple rule doesn't necessarily translate into the proper physical action -- People sometimes have to learn how tightly they need to bring the arms in, or not to forget about the legs when stepping off, etc. Which is why it does help to have someone supervise a wingsuit newbie -- whether or not the supervisor has any rating from any particular organization... +1 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."

Congrats on WHACKIN' that ol' straw man, Bill. He is DEMOLISHED! This thread topic is about the possible insurance consequences of continued tail strikes. Reducing tailstrikes is simple: Make sure everybody keeps their wings closed for one second after the leave the plane. Period. Why do we need a new bureaucracy that is 99 percent not focused on avoiding tailstrikes to reduce tailstrikes? Read and comprehend, Bill. I say "an additional waiver," required only by wingsuit jumpers, one that has just one signature, one that, as I have detailed in other threads, says very simply: "I pledge to keep my wings closed for one second after I leave the plane and promise that I or my heirs will pay for all damage to the aircraft should I violate my pledge and hit the tail." Other ways to further reduce tailstrikes without imposing a costly and onerour new bureaucracy on anyone who wants to wingsuit: 1) Put signs near the Pavlov light at the door: "Wingsuiters: DO NOT OPEN YOUR WINGS until 1 second out the door." 2) Put a little camera on the door that records every exit so that when the usually-last-out wingsuiters go, there's a record of when they opened their wings. Violators don't get grounded -- just prohibited from doing wingsuit jumps at that DZ. All this gets done locally, DZ by DZ, as necessary, all without imposing a new bureaucracy, all without creating that nw bureaucracy's attendant extra costs, friction and asseociated power borkers and gate keepers. Again, Bill, instead of making cutesy liitle straw man arguments, why not try to seriously answer the question that you and every other proponent of a new bureaucracy so far declines to answer: Why do we need a new bureaucracy 99 percent focused not on avoiding tailstrikes in order to reduce tailstrikes? 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."

Thanks, Grimmie. You reinforce my premise: no new bureaucracy needed; let it be handled at the DZ level and at the aircraft level. You choose not to have wingsuits because of the conditions you listed (and IIRC, you also have a C or D license restriction due to the landing area). Given what Phree says about the aircraft types involved in the 11 2011 wingsuit tail strikes, maybe Caravan operators should consider leaving wingsuit jumping off of their list of offered services. Again, though, it all comes down to one very simple act: leaving your wings closed until you are one second out of the plane. Period. End of problem. No has yet answered my question: Why all the hoo-hah about creating a new bureaucracy, 99 percent of which will have nothing to do with avoiding tailstrikes, in order to avoid tailstrikes when even a whuffo loader, pilot or manifestor can handle that job? Anybody? Hello? 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."

I think this argument fails in the first part a little bit.. I don't think the added bureaucracy forces people to pay for instruction. An instructional rating is like any other rating with the USPA and comes at the cost of approx. 30,= to renew on a yearly bases. If you currently hold a 'coach' rating you already pay this, and hence having the extra "WSI" checkbox does not add any additional cost. If you do not hold a 'coach' rating, you should not be coaching in the first place. Secondary, if you are the coach, you make the price for teaching others, if you wish to teach others entirely for free, the rating does not change that in any way, and if you wish to ask 500USD per jump, then you are free to do so too.. I myself coach people merely for slot typically, and often I forget to ask even that, I don't feel I have to suddenly change my price if the rating becomes official. Sure getting the rating may be a bit of an investment depending on which "Examiner" you go to, but there again it is the examiner that sets the price, not USPA, and hence if I were to be an examiner at some point I'm free to continue offering my service for slot and continue to forget and ask about that. This is somewhat of a point I'm struggling with too, I'm not at all in favor of adding additional bureaucracy, however it seems that within the USPA as an organization there is no other way to standardize training methods but to make a rating for it. There simply is no other procedure for attaining standardization. And we as a community can't even agree on anything let alone a standard training method, so lets just say that "doing it ourselves" is not really a strong argument considering our past with doing things "ourselves". I've never seen a community with so much drama. So why standardize? well, in my opinion - if all coaches did teach the same material it becomes easier for those coaches to exchange experiences. - Furthermore each new wingsuiter can assume a certain level of quality, just like going to mcdonalds always gets you the same burger. (although admittedly that may be a poor example depending on whether you like mcdonalds or not). - if everyone teaches the same material we can fall back on that material by way of a checklist to assure you have covered everything. For some of you it may be so natural because you have taught to 100's of student, but for others like me that may not be the case. Having reference material is a good way to prevent missing something. I often refer back to the SIM and AFF manuals to refresh my mind before I take on a student. - Measuring is a big thing for me too, measuring someones performance is not objective without having something to measure with. Are you good to become a coach or not? - Accountability: We can be held accountable as a coach for the things we teach, and thus held against higher standards. All this said, we can start today with making plane loaders make that comment as you suggested, we can start today by having loader look for a sticker on your rig to prevent you from going onto the airplane without a DZ briefing. And we can start today by talking to each other constructively about our training methods and see if we can align them as we claim we're so good at ("we don't need bureaucracy because we can do it perfectly fine ourselves"), and then maybe the USPA doesn't have to step in at all... Ultimately the USPA is only stepping in because we've been acting like a bunch of little kids. It started with the brand wars, then the grid had and still has it's drama, the next thing we're going to have drama about competitions, all because we're too ego and want to be the first to propose something and get our 15 minute of fame... Anyway, I guess more puppy poop ;) I'll shut up now... LOL... no, you're at least thinking about it. The bottom line here is wingsuit tailstrikes. Solving that issue does not require a training program, an instructor rating, an experienced wingsuiter -- or even a skydiver. The whuffo loader can remind people of this. So can the whuffo manifestor who has wingsuiters sign an additional waiver specifically spelling out their responsibilities as a wingsuiter at that DZ. So can the whuffo pilot whose butt is more on the line than anyone else when an idiot wingsuiter opens his or her wings less than one second out of the plane. It ain't rocket science, people. 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."

Thanks for your reply, Rich, but sorry, it's just more puppy poop. What they want to see is reduced wingsuit-related tailstrikes, not a training system that is 99 percent not devoted to avoiding tailstrikes. They want people to quit hitting the airplanes they insure, not a new bureaucracy. If Mr. Norris is a real guy, then he is parroting one "solution" that has only peripheral relevance to his concern. And if Mr. Norris is such a parachuting-educated insurance guy, then why does he lump wingsuit tailstrikes with formation takeoffs, which have zero relevance to wingsuit tailstrikes, and which have gone on essentially incident-free for decades? But I digress, so I ask again: Why do you need a bureaucracy in order to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the airplane? A whuffo can do it, or the loader, or the pilot, or the last non-wingsuit people out of the plane. All you supporters of this new bureaucracy talk a grand glorious and convoluted game and not one of you has yet answered this really simple question. 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."

This is a solvable problem, all right, and it can be solved without imposing a new regulatory bureaucracy complete with power brokers and gatekeepers. Really, how hard is it to tell people to not open their wings until they're one second out of the plane? You need a bureaucracy for that? Really, what "training and standards" do you need to tell someone to not open their wings until they're one second out of the plane? You need a bureaucracy for that? Seems to me that the current instructor gods aren't doing a very good job if so many of their "graduates" don't know this very simple rule. Why is it that forcing people to pay for their services before they can jump a wingsuit will somehow make all these current wingsuit instructor gods so much better? And Scotty, you can wingsuit no matter what the FAA or the insurance carriers do. You just have to go carbon-free with your launch platform. 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."

Until I see the actual document from the insurance carrier, I take this "letter" with a grain of salt because its content is just more of the same puppy poop: A narrow-based problem (wingsuit exit tailstrikes) must be solved by the imposition of a broad-based bureaucracy or wingsuiting will be banned. BTW, who wrote the parenthetical comment? The "insurance" guy or the DZO? And who wrote the body of it? The "insurance" guy or the DZO? If the former, then how is it that a whuffo insurance guy writes like an experienced wingsuiter in support of instituting a new wingsuiting bureaucracy? Finally, the writer cites concern about tailstrikes and offers evidence related thereto -- but offers no evidence or other reasons why formation takeoffs, which have been conducted for decades without incident, are lumped together with this relatively new activity, the tailstrike problems of which are related not at all to formation takeoffs. Let's see a scan of the real letter. Let's see the name of the actual insurance industry person who sent it, with contact information. And the name of the DZO who passed it on. Then we can discuss. Otherwise, this "letter" needs to be flushed with the rest of the poop. 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."

I made my first wingsuit jump. I think I made my 100th wingsuit jump around that time I made my 200th wingsuit jump about that time. 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."

That's minutiae. Minutia is singular. 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."