michalm21

+1

I agree. 10Mil in NYC sounds like a scam, unless it's NJ or Long Island/Upstate.

Not only you are retarded you clearly have emotional problems. Good luck to you.

Awesome, Tonysuits rock!

Pendragon, I think we had you beat in 2009 Elsinore Big Way when we emptied the plane (22 wingsuiters) in 6.5 seconds from the moment first person let go to the last one out! I believe Matt has the video. I agree with the rest :)

If you carefully read my thread you will notice that I never referred to the insurance companies regarding the trend analysis. I wanted to find out for myself. I'm sorry that I'm trying to analyze this issue myself without relying on others to tell me how it is. If that makes you happy, I will gladly start (yet another - 4th?) thread about it if that's the only way for me (me) to get the answer.

The problem here is that nobody cares what you think (with regards to this issue). It's gone beyond one jumper arguing with another jumper about the way things should or should not be. It's in the hands of the insurance company now, and they have drawn the line in the sand. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for more data (tailstrikes) to come in to see if it's a 'trend' or a 'spike'. A very conservative estimate would be that 11 tailstrikes cost the insurance company $100,000. Once they realized this, they gave the aircraft owners the courtesy of a warning, and that's the letter that was sent out. What's done is done, those incidents took place and those claims were paid out. The best they can do (for themselves) is continue coverage, but lay down the law future incidents will result in rate hikes of coverage drops. So what it comes down to is that even if this was a 'spike', it left a mark on the insurance company, so that moving forward even if we return to a 'reasonable' rate of tail strikes it will be viewed as either an increasing trend or the start of another spike, neither of which the insurance company will tolerate. Even if last year was a spike, through no fault of our own, an unintended consequence has appeared. So what you're saying is "everybody panic"! Got it. It is not true that nobody care what I think. There will be someone who cares. I for one, regardless of what happens next, want to know if we still are throwing ourselves on the tail of the planes. Do you have an answer for me? If you don't care, please don't waste space and don't respond.

REPORTED you mean? Reported or unreported. Trying to see if there's a trend. Yes, 11 is too many but it does not necessarily indicate the future and is not a trend (yet) I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck) So I'm simply asking, what's going on this year so far? Do we have 8-9 ail strikes this year that supports the 'tail strike every 29 days' argument. I respond well to evidence. I'm curious to see if it's a trend or if people are realizing the stupidity of leaving the plane opened up already. I will talk with my dzo this coming weekend and print out the dse posted pictures to be hanged in the loading area.

How many tail strikes so far in 2012?

I actually don't completely agree with your dz outrage from what you described. True that if he was told not to jump then he should have not lied and jumped it and that part of outrage I get. 170 may be bit too small (1.1 loading?), but what if he had a 190? Is that too small at 35 jumps? I was about 190 when I started and after jumping a Navigator and Voyager 240, I demoed a PD Spectre 210 at like 16 jumps and then 190 and got Sabre2 190 at 32 jumps. Loading 1:1. DZO, Instructors, PD reps were completely fine with it and nobody questioned me once about it. Also keep in mind that I believe there is a dz training students on Sabre2 with 1:1 wing loadings during AFF (unless they don't do it any more then I am mistaken) So what are the today's guidelines? 1:1 out of student status is too aggressive? What is the line you guys, as instructors, draw?

Is there evidence pointing that said "coach" in question did not teach his "students" to close wings when leaving the aircraft? If not, it's a case of do as I say, not as I do...

Sorry, buy what did I just watch?

Sounds a lot like you and Kallend are the drama queens. The drama mostly seems to be centered around money, BOD meetings and 'records'. Avoid those things, and you'll see the wingsuit crowd is nothing but awesome people. Whatever drama there is, it stays on the ground, and the air is all fun and awesomeness. The last 5 years wingsuiting (fl0cking) make me want to think the opposite. Constant fear to not stop on anyone feathers and not offend brand x or y or who's dick is bigger (read: who is a better flyer) Enough was enough. I actually find you as a drama queen afficionado

Yeah. I've been having awesome freeflying jumps with my girlfriend, and some friends on the dz. In wingsuiting, I've been having awesome solos that were aimed at performance or cloud flying. I rarely do not have fun skydiving. If I did, I would not be jumping. But I now also avoid wingsuiters and their dramas and choose to do solos.

Scott Miller swooping a 220 Navigator

Get the X3

Well, by definition, you had nothing and now you have something. You paid 0 even though it has a price tag. It wasn't a gift. It looks like stealing. But I don't have a problem with it. You can even call me a thie... ahm banker. Big fan of private trackers.

Not to disagree, but throw another angle. It could have been done for the news piece only, as to provide a better video of "first" person under canopy etc. The cameraman of this tandem trains at my dz so I could ask him, I guess

Sure. Banks lend money to people. They choose whom to lend by credit scores and income because they want to only loan to people who wil pay them back. If they have concerns that a person may not pay them back (no credit, bad credit, or lower income) they charge a higher interest rate to compensate for that person defaulting on the loans. This can be done on smaller purchases such as cars, but harder to charge that level of interest on houses. The argument was "Houses appreciate in value, so a bank could loan to anyone and if they failed to pay, just foreclose on the house and resell it." Foreclosures are costly and take time. They are not measures taken to maintain profit or even break even. Banks determined that the risk of these loans was not worth the reward. * First the government offered to buy some of the loans to limit the bank's risk. * When positive reinforcement wasn't enough in came the lawsuits and other measures. Is this something you mostly just made up or did you get it from faux news?

I didn't go far, but I checked Australia - it says 3 jumps are required with Wingsuit Tutor (tutor does not seem to be the equivalent to instructor here) Also jump 2 is optional with Tutor, but jump 3 is a mandatory 2-3 way. This could be a part of our SIM as required training too, not as a recommendation. Source: APF Training Operations Manual p.56 http://www.apf.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/165/TOM_201207_V2.pdf.aspx And from their Parachute Instructors Manual bottom of p.13 http://www.apf.asn.au/ArticleDocuments/157/PIM_V3-201105.pdf.aspx "The Instructor ‘D’ and Tutor must be under the direct supervision of a DZSO and is responsible to the Chief Instructor who has agreed to supervise their activities. The duties of an Instructor ‘D’ and a Tutor are to: • Brief and debrief student or novice parachutists on the practical aspects of their training descents; • Check the student or novice in their performance of emergency procedures and assess their competence; • Directly supervise student or novice training descents, including the fitting of equipment, pre-jump equipment check, briefing of pilot, GCO and TA, loading the aircraft and despatching or accompanying the student or novice in freefall, act as TA if necessary or required. Some tasks which a Instructor ‘D’ or Tutor MUST NOT perform are to: • Act as DZSO; • Act as an Instructor or Tutor if there is no DZSO; • Teach the first jump course, nor teach emergency procedures to students or novices (except that an Instructor ‘D’ may assist an Instructor ‘B’ or ‘A’). This sounds like a equivalent of a USPA coach rating. So I would think a wingsuit tutor is an experienced wingsuit coach who has a coach rating. Then on page 31: THE AFF, TANDEM, RW, S/L AND FREEFLY ENDORSEMENT EXAMINATIONS" There is no mention of an official wingsuit endorsement. Any Aussies to correct me? South Africa seems similar, I looked through their forms and do not see a reference to a wingsuit instructor/coach. They have a coach rating that has sub-disciplines but wingsuiting in not one of them http://www.para.co.za/Files/Form%2019%20Coach%20Rating%20Requirements.doc I see BPA has something called a wingsuit coach (note - not an instructor wording like in their AFF/Tandem section). From their section 4 - Instruction http://www.bpa.org.uk/assets/Operations-Manual.doc/sec-4.doc there are a few types of instructors but wingsuit is not of them. Now, I'm not surprised with wingsuit coach, they have BPA canopy coaches, BPA freefly coaches, BPA RW coaches, of level 1 and 2 and camera certifications and some really convoluted bureaucracy (see Radio License! I don't know many british jumper who thinks this is great. Many I know travel to Spain to train under USPA and avoid those rules as they have problems finding time/people to complete requirements and costs are very high. [edit] It also mentioned that a person can be trained by a non BPA wingsuit coach, so a PF coach is okay as long as the DZO and chief instructor (or however you call it) approves it. bottom of page 2 http://www.bpa.org.uk/assets/Forms/BPA-Wing-Suit-Training-Manual.doc I will have to look into the Dutch, they do have mandatory canopy progression so I may find something there but I already spent 1hr at work browsing through documents. If I find something, I will update this thread. And not to be a dick but I will call bullshit on Turkey and Saudis (and since you brought it up, the burden of proof should be on you ). First, I can't even find their websites with any documentation regarding training. Second, I'm afraid none of that would be english. Third, I would try not be model myself on Saudis.

Thanks for the links. I really like your program and all training material, even though I don't teach people. I understand the current jumpers won't be affected, but I am against advanced discipline regulation. If you don't use fatalities as a reason, great! But many people do. Even on this forum. My question to Normiss was about actual instructional ratings that have been apparently adopted in other countries related to wingsuit instruction. I want to verify his claim. That is all. What you posted are minimum requirements to attend a FJC.

Can you please educate me on those countries that implemented it. I haven't found anything on the BPA website (and BPA is one of the strictest out there with their freefly ratings and canopy ratings), and I don't read french to find out the french federation ratings. Checking every country would take me a long time, so I'd appreciate if you could let me know of those that adopted it. Thanks

I don't get that either????????? . So to clear it up. I am not against education. Hell, I'm happy DSE publishes his course, and I want people to be better so they don't kill me (for one). I don't think i am angry about it either or hostile to people. What really is annoying is that this regulation is pushed under premise of wingsuit fatalities as a justification where wingsuit was not a primary cause of death. And those who say "I'm tired of people dying left and right" implying wingsuit fatalities. And people's personal agenda. If you want safety, regulate canopy control first.

Show me examples to back it up. If wingsuit contributed to Stephen's fatality, so did the airplane and the pilot flying high speed jump run like we did all week during the record (to make it clear - we did not do normal exit speeds, so it was unusual in that sense) There are people hitting the tail without wearing wigsuits - like in Lodi for examlpe it was reported here a year or two ago. In that case, did his jumpsuit contribute to the tail strike? If you can partially blame a wingsuit, I will partially blame his AFF instructor. So show me examples of where wingsuit was partially responsible for the death. If you can't prove it it's just speculation. And the 3rd fatality of the polish jumper - crossfire linetwist and reserve entanglement with helmet deathtrap might have happened on non wingsuit jump as well, it was just a matter of time and bad luck - that's why we make sure we don't put death traps on our heads.