riggerpaul

Fine. Let me rephrase. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER, hit the tail of any aircraft that I exit from on the climbing low pass. Silly me, I thought we were talking about climbing low passes. But, fine, be that way. How can I make such a statement? Because I am below the aircraft before I am even aft of the door.

First off, I'll thank you for a clear and reasoned response. The whole notion that a person would become so preoccupied or forgets points to a systemic problem that will not be solved by ever increasing margins for error. As the saying goes, it is difficult to make things foolproof, because fools are so ingenious. I know for an absolute fact that I will NEVER, EVER, EVER hit the tail of any aircraft. It simply will never happen. Earlier you stated categorically that a climbing exit was unsafe and should not be allowed. But now you say if my DZO wants to let me do climbing exits all day long, there is no problem. But I do not think that is entirely correct. One of my original objections to what the USPA wrote was that it could be used to imply negligence on the part of a dz even if there never was any problem with a climbing exit. The strong language that USPA used, putting forth the idea that the pilot was flying incorrectly or dangerously, could be used to establish an "attitude of negligence", that could be extremely damaging in a civil proceeding. In the other thread, I proposed a different wording for the ad, and I would like to know what you think about it. I believe that it covers all that needs to be said, and that it avoids the contentious language to which I strongly object. For your convenience, I have copied the text from the other thread. I know that cross posting is frowned upon, but I hope that this will not be considered an abuse of the system. So, please, does this meet the goals? Sure, it can be tweaked, but I am interested in knowing if this comes close enough to consider as an alternate manner to say what USPA has said. Again, JP, thanks for a calm reasoned post. I value your thoughts, and always have. It is way to easy to get wound up when the issues are as heavy as these, and I am certainly not without fault. So, please, read my alternative and give it some consideration.

3 fatalities in less than 5 years. Not to mention injuries, aircraft damage, and endangering a plane load of jumpers. And before that? All I get from the quoted post is that in the last 5 years, we've done a particularly bad job at teaching people how to make a safe exit from a climbing low tail side door aircraft. Since the lemmings aren't looking at the tail, we'd better make the pilots protect them better. Any DZ that doesn't want to offer this sort of exit does not have to. Anyone who doesn't want to make this kind of exit does not have to. All you have to do to do it safely, is to do it right. Sounds to me like pretty much all the rest of skydiving in the first place. Don't take this option away from me because you know some people who cannot handle the responsibility.

I must take issue with this statement. The pilot was being blamed, and the jumper hardly so if at all. Here is the text of the ad - According to this, the pilot should have neither expected nor allowed a jumper to exit while the tail was low in a climbing configuration. They say that until the aircraft is in level flight, it is not safe to exit. To me, that is placing the blame on the pilot. It would have been a much much better thing to say something like this - Had they said that, I would have no objection. Would you?

And the USPA has decided that it is an unsafe practice. If you don't like it, vote with your feet, and wallet. No one says you HAVE to be a member. I applaud the USPA for putting the safety of it's members ahead of a dollar. See my above point. No, I am a USPA Life member. I vote with my vote. So, you say that if I disagree with their statemtents, I should not have the opportunity to say something about it? How very democratic of you. USPA has constantly said that they want the membership to participate. But, if I listen to you, I would only be welcome if I agree with them. My jumping, by the way, is at a Group Member dropzone that allows me exit their King Air 90 on a low pass from the climbing aircraft. I have never come anywhere close to the tail of that aircraft because I execute the exit in a manner safe and consistent with the condition of the aircraft at the time of my exit. You and USPA are way too willing to label dropzones and pilots negligent or careless or reckless for something that isn't causing a whole lot of problems. What you are applauding is USPA's willingness to hang the pilot out to dry when the jumper failed to exit safely. In the gamut of things that are causing problems for our sport, tail-strikes from climbing exits from low tail side door aircraft are not very high on the list. The USPA should not be calling a practice that is common, and safely executed the vast majority of the time "unsafe". While they were clearly admonishing the pilot for failing to have the tail up for an exit, they hardly said anything about the jumper, who, even though seeing the tail low, failed to execute a proper exit technique. They didn't say the jumper failed to do anything. If he didn't see that the tail was low, then he failed to check the conditions of his exit. If he saw the tail was low, he failed to take that into account with his exit technique. Geeking for the camera was more important than a safe exit. Or will you say that he wasn't trying for the photo?

Bill, something just occurred to me that I would like you to clarify. Is it your position that all climbing exits place the tail too low? Or is it your position that this particular climbing exit had the tail too low?

Here is the text of the ad. I underlined the parts where the USPA is saying the pilot made a mistake to allow this exit. I do not argue that the pilot must have the airplane properly configured. That is, of course, true. So you earlier rants about Skyvan flaps and other things serve only to deflect the discussion to irrelevant areas. The simple question is whether or not a climbing configuration constitutes a "tail too low" for a safe exit. If a tail is too low for a safe exit, then certainly it would be the pilot's fault. It is your contention, and that of the USPA, that the climbing configuration is a priori unsafe for an exit, and that the pilot is making a mistake to allow such an exit. It is my position that that is a silly thing to say, since climbing exits are done safely as a common practice. It is my position that USPA's statements that say such a thing is an error on the part of the pilot are irresponsible because these statements could be used in a court of law to say that an operator is careless or reckless or negligent even though he has had no incident related to this practice. You might not like that fact, and you are free to conduct yourself as you see fit to ensure your safety. If you don't want to exit a climbing aircraft, you certainly should not. You can choose to not visit dropzones that offer this, should you be so inclined. You can even say that a pilot might choose not to offer such an exit. Again, that's his CHOICE. He might make that choice for any number of reasons. Maybe he doesn't trust the jumpers he is carrying to exit his aircraft in a safe manner. But to say that it is an especially unsafe thing to do, and so it should not be done, is just ridiculous. It is done regularly and safely, and has been done so for years and years.

Just to be clear, my post was a response to cdhezel who asked how people got the wing loading information. I have not given you any advice. In a PM I asked you to confirm your weight. I used a PM so it you wouldn't think I was attacking you. In a post I asked how long you expected you might have to wait before you could safely use the Pilot 150 and the PDR 160. Answering my questions would have been nice, but it doesn't really matter. But I was not one of the people who was ragging on you.

No, that is not my attitude. My attitude is that a climbing tail-low exit is not a pilot error. He is not flying the aircraft irresponsibly, carelessly, or recklessly. He is flying the aircraft perfectly well. If a jumper hits the tail during a climbing tail-low exit, it is the jumper's fault, not the pilot's. It is the jumper's fault because there exists a safe manner in which to execute that exit, and he failed to use it. USPA has chosen to say that the pilot should not let the jumper exit when the tail is low. That is an absurd statement that USPA made irresponsibly.

Please clarify. Tail too low for a safe climb? Or tail too low for a safe exit? If you are saying "too low for a safe climb", then you don't have enough information for that. If you are saying "too low for a safe exit", doesn't it even matter that the exit did not, in fact, result in an tail strike? And doesn't it matter that, in fact, most low-tail climbing exits do not result in a tail strike? That jumper did, in fact, exit safely, through no fault of his own. And again I'll ask, if the pilot is responsible for getting the tail out of the way of an exiting jumper, how can we ever let a wingsuit out a low-tail side door aircraft? It will ALWAYS be possible for that wingsuit to hit the tail, no matter how high the pilot can arrange for it to be. Why do you think things should be different between these two situations? Either way, the safety of the exit depends on the jumper doing it correctly.

(By the way, I asked him in a PM to verify his weight, but he did not respond.) At some point he must have set his weight in his profile. For a time, his public profile showed that the 150 square feet main was loaded at of 1.47 pounds per square foot. That works out to be an exit weight of about 220 pounds, which would be, as you say, a body weight of nearly 200. He lists his reserve as a PD 160. Using the 220 pound exit weight, he has a loading on the reserve of about 1.37 psf. According to the Aerodyne canopy selector page for the Pilot, this weight on a Pilot 150 is somewhere between "Advanced" and "Maximum". Working the numbers, their Advanced wing loading would be 1.3 psf, and the Maximum would be 1.6 psf. Considering the PD Reserve 160, they would put this exit weight in the Expert category. As you say, just the information, not advice. But, now I will ask you, do you think these numbers are a bit scary? He's going to have brand new gear that he will be just itching to use. But, instead, he will have to borrow or rent gear that is appropriate now. Don't you think he will be strongly tempted to use his new gear before he is ready?

Thank you Bill. This is something upon which we can both agree. Can we also agree that it says that a climbing exit can be safe, so long as everyone understands what it requires, and executes to that requirement? Because some have posted that the climbing exit is categorically unsafe. And I do not think that is a true statement.

Tom Buchanon also said the tail was too low. So I asked him if he meant that the tail was too low for a safe climb, or if he meant the tail was too low for a safe exit. I don't think I saw any response from him. So I will ask the same question to you. Tail too low for a safe climb, or for an exit? USPA went on to say that a "low diving-type exit" might have been better for this situation. It is an interesting thing for them to say in light of their position on a climbing exit in the first place. They don't like climbing exits. They say that a pilot must provide a properly configured aircraft for every exit. This implies that they consider that a climbing aircraft is an improperly configured aircraft. So, if the proper configuration is a level flying aircraft, why say anything about a low diving-type exit? This is an inconsistent message, and some of it could be taken to mean that a pilot who allows a climbing exit is wrong, careless, reckless, etc. Someone who is getting out on a low climbing pass is not doing so without having asked for it. Most climbing airplanes won't even be over the dz at that time unless there is a jumper who has asked for the exit. If it is a dz's policy to make low passes while the aricraft remains ina climb, then that jumper knew about it, because he's the one who asked to make a low exit in the first place. If the jumper had wanted a level exit, he could have asked for it. He could have refused to exit if the aircraft was not configured to his liking. But that's not what he did. He make an exit that was inches away from being an accident. Any blame for this near miss should be squarely placed on the jumper who failed to use an exit technique that was appropriate for the situation at the time of his exit. Coordination between the pilot and the jumper is always needed. But in this case, the failure to remain coordinated is on the jumper, not the pilot. And, in this case, the USPA didn't make any sort of statement at all that the jumper had done something wrong. This might lead jumpers to think that a head high exit like this one is what they should be expecting and what they "deserve". But that is not true at all. The jumper must act in a coordination with the pilot. The sort of exit this jumper used is just plain wrong, and trying to say that the pilot did anything wrong is just ridiculous.

How many jumps do you think it might take before you are ready for a main loaded at nearly 1.5, and a reserve loaded at nearly 1.4?

Just a reminder. No matter what your position on this matter might be, I urge all USPA members to contact their USPA representatives (RD, NDs, S&TAs, etc) to let your position be known. If we fail to give them input, we have only ourselves to blame if we don't like what they do. And thanks to all who have participated in the discussion so far. I urge anybody who has an opinion on the matter to speak up. No matter if I personally agree or disagree with what you may say, I appreciate anyone who takes the time to write. I also ask anyone who is comfortable doing so to vote in the poll I posted. Some say that the poll is flawed. Okay, sure, it is flawed. Most polls probably are. But flawed though it may be, it might help us understand a little better the pulse of the membership. Thanks to all! -paul

Tom, please clarify. Are you saying the tail was much lower than it should have been for a climbing aircraft? Or are you saying it is much lower than it should have been for an exit? Are you telling us that a climbing exit from a Cessna Caravan is a violation of the FARs?

Huh? The person posted that he did not like the poll I posted. I said he was free to vote or not. My point here is to get people to say how they stand on the matter of USPA's advertisement. Flawed or not, the poll's point is to get some numbers. USPA is an organization of members. Too often they get too little input from the membership.

Did you even read the ad? The first thing that USPA said in the ad was that the tail was "much lower than it should have been". That makes it pretty clear that USPA feels that climbing exits are unacceptable. Doesn't it? They say that the aircraft must be properly configured, but that was only said after they first said that the climbing aircraft's tail was "much lower than it should have been". Nearly as an afterthought they add that a jumper should perform a proper exit, when, in fact, a proper exit on the part of the jumper alone would have eliminated all the danger.

Fine, so make a contribution to the discussion. How should one make a poll to determine how many of us feel that the USPA Safety Day ad and the policy it sets forth is overreaching? I am happy to have someone else start a better poll and move the discussion to that thread.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what people believe and the physics that Jan used. If thats the case then one of them is wrong. - Any physics/math people here that can show where Jan made a mistake? - Or is it possible that the generally accepted "truth" is not correct? (meaning only to reinforce Ian's points.) When the generally accepted "truth" fails to agree with the empirical data, one must suspect that the "truth" was not true in the first place. Lots of people have made these exits completely safely. A very few have managed to hit the tail. We would never have a tail strike if the exit was performed properly. Anything can be dangerous if you do it wrong. The photo in that particular ad show a jumper posing for the camera, ignoring his responsibility for a safe exit. If he had hit the tail, that photo would be pretty good evidence that the jumper had made an error. It should not be used as evidence that the pilot did something wrong. Or has posing for the camera somehow become one or our unalienable rights?

So, Jeff, do you agree that the ad in Parachutist is over reaching? I believe that the position put forth in that ad puts any dropzone that disagrees, and offers climbing low pass exits, at an increased risk for a judgement against them in an action like the Lodi tail strike suit. Personally, I do not want USPA to make statements like that, because there are places that offer that service and have no problems. And it doesn't even really matter if such a place never has a tail strike accident. I worry that in some other situation, a plaintiff's lawyer could try to argue about a dropzone's careless attitude because the dropzone, who has had not tail strike accidents, does not comply with the USPA's policy.

It is flawed. For instance, you could have a flat jump run exit on a 182, just with out flaps and possibly have an issue. Or you can have a climbing exit in an Otter and possibly have no issue. The poll you presented is too distilled to answer accurately. More accurately you could simply ask "do you want your jump pilot to fly correctly and safely for jumpers and exits." You will most likely get a 100% yes answer. That has been addressed in the past by the USPA. You are certainly free disagree with what I am asking. So don't answer. The USPA Safety Day ad that is at the root of this says that an aircraft must be flying level for a safe exit. The message I get from this is that USPA says it is not safe to exit an aircraft that is not in level flight. They didn't make any stipulations regarding aircraft type. So neither have I.

No, they have not made any outright rule. But that have stated that a climbing aircraft is not in the correct configuration for an exit. My poll is not flawed - I want to know how people, USPA members or not, feel about allowing or disallowing climbing exits.

The question is about safe aircraft configurations for exits, not low pulls. I'll ask again, if you want to ban climbing exits because a jumper who does it wrong is dangerous to all, should we also say that wingsuits should only be allowed on high-tail aircraft? Tailgates? If not, why not? How are the two problems different?

So, a poll seems in order. Since I am specifically polling about a USPA policy, I think it will be helpful to know if you are a USPA member. But, I want anyone, USPA member or not, to be able to vote. So I have provided 4 options. For the poll to have any practical value, please only vote once.