Skwrl

I don't believe this is correct. My understanding is that the data was compiled by DSE long before the USPA WSI rating proposal came about. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Ah, thanks for your explanation, Matt. I was responding to an absolute statement with an exception. In other words, he said: I was saying "No" in absolute terms, because in Steve's case it wasn't any of those three, it was a different issue (complacency). There's a standard "how to" in the USPA SIM (Section 6-9). It walks through how a FFC should be taught and what should be covered. Could it be updated with input from the best and brightest? Sure. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Hi Matt, Not sure I follow - a different standard for a high speed exit? Personally, I do the same for high speed exits as I do for regular exits (which is currently found in the SIM, by the way). If there's a difference, it's that I make an extra-special point of not being complacent on a high speed exit. However, if you had described the situation to Steve and asked for advice, I am certain he would have said "keep your wings suit for two seconds out the door". And yet, he didn't. It was complacency, not lack of knowledge. If you are saying all four of those elements (knowledge of the issue, ability to do it, knowing the need to do it every time, and avoiding complacency) are needed to avoid tail strikes, then yes. Agreed. However, if you are saying that a USPA rating would have changed what happend to Steve, then I don't follow. What would he have learned in a first jump course that would changed his behavior? (In other words, what do you think he didn't know?) Keep in mind, he had over a thousand wingsuit jumps, so even under the proposal, it would have been a thousand wingsuit jumps after his USPA-rated FJC... To me, claiming that the FJC course would have changed things is much like claiming that by saying "don't turn to close to the ground" in AFF, you're going to solve the problem of people femuring on a swoop. The swoopers are usually hundreds or perhaps thousands of jumps after their AFF... So, to me, the important part is diagnosis of the problem before we prescribe a cure. I personally like to make my decisions based on data, and at least to me, the data are incomplete. The $64,000 question - are all these tail strikes being caused as a result of lack of knowledge or are they being caused by complacency? If they are caused by bad training, then tail strikes are a valid reason to support the USPA wingsuit instructor rating proposal. If that's what the data showed, then I'd support the proposal. If tail strikes are being caused by experienced wingsuiters who were trained and told how to safely exit, but for whatever reason don't (i.e., they are are complacent, perhaps coupled with too large of suit), then I don't see how the USPA wingsuit instructor rating proposal addresses that (except very indirectly). If that's the cause, the rating is not really addressing the problem head on, but only sort of obliquely and indirectly. There are probably much more effective means. If that's what the data showed, I'd probably not support it. What we are missing in this dialogue is verifiable data, either way. We get lots of anecdotes on both sides of the proposal, with few specifics. For example, of the 11 incidents on the list, who were they? Can we verifiably ask them "hey, were you trained badly or did you just mess up?" Sure, it might be embarrassing, but I'd rather a few people be embarrassed so we can take the right next steps in favor of safety. In short, the answer to that question would really help those of us who don't know whether or not to support this. Even if this proposal passes, what about the thousands of us who won't be effected by the proposal? (By that, I mean we skydivers who are already wingsuiting.) What initiative is in place to stop tail strikes by us? To me, current wingsuiters are a far greater risk of being the tail strike that causes the insurance companies to cut us off - we are the ones that will get complacent first. Yet I see nothing being done by USPA to address that. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I had decided to stop talking in threads about this subject because it had rapidly become as pointless as a Speaker's Corner thread, however I've finally found a comment worthy of the attached image. Not true. Demonstrably not true. One simple case in point - the one and only wingsuit tailstrike fatality in the US (Steve Harrington, 2009, Elsinore). Steve was a highly experienced wingsuiter (in excess of a thousand wingsuit jumps) who co-founded a school that taught first flight courses. I learned how to wingsuit from him and another instructor at that school. Steve consistently warned me and many other students about the threat of the tail - in fact he specifically talked to me about the increased risk of tail strikes a year before his death when I started doing a lot of wingsuit videography work (i.e., from a camera step). He clearly knew proper exit procedure in a wing suit, he was capable of doing it, and knew the importance of doing it every time. So how did it happen? Complacency. Combine that with a reportedly fast exit speed and a distance run that probably had him slightly nervous and wanting to get max flight fast to get back to the DZ. Complacency is the biggest killer in skydiving. Would a USPA rating have prevented Steve's death? I can't see how. He KNEW the issue; he was CAPABLE of closing his wings (unless you're trying to twist the word "CAPABLE" to mean "DID", which is a semantic game that obviously falls apart fast). He knew it had to be done EVERY TIME. He was complacent, though. Would an active and constant series of reminders to avoid the tail have helped? Maybe. If somehow they prevented his complacency. [Personally, I'm still on the fence about the proposal. There are arguments in favor and arguments against. I will sleep happily at night either way. If Dante is right, at least I'll have the best place to make smores. But as I've consistently said, if we decide to do (or not do) something, let's take that action based on evidence and reason, not hysteria and reactionary behavior.] Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Even using the broadest definition of "wingsuit-related death", I don't think that there have been "five newbie wingsuiters that went in." In a different thread, I posted the following block of text. Note that I am not taking a position on whether the wingsuit was a causal factor in these deaths, simply reporting that the following fatalities occurred while the jumper was wearing a wingsuit. * * * In the US, there have been five [now six] fatalities in which the jumper was wearing a wingsuit in the past five years. In 2007, Christopher "Race" Price died in an apparent low/no pull situation (Moab, Utah). From what I understand, he had fewer than 200 jumps and not many wingsuit jumps. (I don't have exact numbers.) In 2008, Dan Kulpa died when he failed to wear his leg straps on his second wingsuit jump (Sebastian, Florida). He also had fewer than 200 jumps. In 2009, Steve Harrington died when he struck the tail (Elsinore, California). He had multiple thousands of skydives and at least a thousand wingsuit jumps. He taught numerous first flight courses, including part of mine. In 2010, Pete Luter died when he had a spinning mal followed by a very low cutaway (Zephyrhills, Florida). A witness reported he appeared to be non-responsive during his malfunction. A medical event was suspected. He reportedly had hundreds of wingsuit jumps. Also in 2010, Kerry Lou Kirch died after landing, when her canopy re-inflated and she fell backwards and struck her head on a rock. (St. Mary's, Georgia). My understanding was that she also had over a hundred wingsuit jumps. * * * Add to this the most recent fatality (Irina Sinitsyna, the subject of this thread), and the total is 6, only two of which (Messrs. Price and Kulpa) could be reasonably considered "inexperienced" wingsuiters, in my opinion. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Where's the "Neither, I like my life as it is." option? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

So, I was curious who was right and who was wrong on this question. So I Googled it. Came up with this Forbes article (hardly a liberal rag): http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/ Can you explain what Forbes got wrong? By the way, I'm not an Obama supporter. But I

I'm replying to myself, but an added thought... There's a similar (not the same, but similar) concept in the US under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. First, a little background - Bayh-Dole applies to any inventions that are made using Federal funds. A lot of universities get federal funds in one form or another (e.g., private universities that receive NIH grants, as a simple example, but there are lots of others). Technically, Bayh-Dole only applies to inventions that use those very federal dollars, but because Bayh-Dole provides a bunch of benefits (I'll explain in a sec), a lot of universities take the position that almost everything that gets invented at the university is covered by Bayh-Dole, because they don't separately track funds (not entirely true, in some cases, I'll admit). Non-academic government contractors usually limit the application of Bayh-Dole just to the specific project. Anyway, Bayh-Dole provides that the university (or government contractor) can retain rights to inventions that it makes using federal funds, and provides a mechanism by which those inventions can be commercialized (e.g., licensed out to commercial interests), subject to a few rules. One of the rules is a requirement that the university or government contractor share some of the benefits of commercialization of the product. So while it's not quite the same as the German, Austrian, or Japanese example, it's a similar sharing of compensation. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

It's not a "capitalism vs. non-capitalism" thing at all. Let's start with some basic concepts. In the US, if I am the inventor on a patentable invention, I am the patent's initial owner. However, in the US, it's fairly typical that employees are required (either by operation of employment law or through an invention-assignment agreement that is signed on the first day of work) to assign to their employers inventions that are created in connection with their job (the "in connection with" varies from state to state and agreement by agreement"). Generally, there is no additional consideration (payment) required to be paid to the employee-inventor. So if I come up with the cure for death at my pharmaceutical company (which would be impressive, since I work in the legal group), I don't have a right to any additional payment at all... However, that's not universally true. In Germany, Austria, and Japan, there are "Employee - Inventor Laws". They vary from country to country, but in general they require that the employee - inventor offer the invention to their employer. If the employer elects to keep the invention, it is required by law to provide some additional consideration (payment) to the employee. If the employer doesn't want the invention, under some jurisdiction's laws, it becomes the employee's property (and they are free to commercialize it as they see fit). The amount of payment is usually negotiated by the employee and the company, however if the employee doesn't like what's being offered (or if the company thinks the employee is asking too much), they can present the matter to a board that will make a rough determination of the amount that has to be paid (based on a bunch of factors, like the commercial value of the invention, the seniority of the inventor, etc.) Two different approaches. Both of these, it should be noted, are "capitalist". (So we don't need to turn this into the usual "ZOMG SOCIALISMS!!!" that show up in Speakers' Corner discussion...) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I may be wrong, but I believe Kallend has one. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

That's the one. Awesome! Thanks. We need more videos like that. Every time we watch a video in which we take ourselves too seriously, God kills a kitten. Think of the kittens. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

A while ago, I saw a video out of Europe (not sure where, I think Schweiz, but I'm not 100% sure...) that had Martin Solevig's "Hello" as the sound track. It was awesomely unusual - picture a tinfoil looking wingsuiter with a tinfoil'ed head... Can one of you guys help me track it down? My 12 year old is dying to see it. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

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

Not sure I agree with that. A lot of the "Internet BS" is the product of stuff that happens at events. Add Internet access and time, and you get more sniping... Personally, I love coming back to this forum for the same reason I slow down to check out the car crash on the highway... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Now that's comedy gold right there, folks... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I just pull mine out. Is there a problem with doing that? Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Fewer photons pushing you downward toward the Earth. (I just post this stuff to make Kallend's head explode.) I

All very true. And good idea on the 100 wingsuits minimum. QuoteI'd also say AAD on both jumpers mandatory. The changes of two people smashing into eachother hard due to a messed up exit are quite realistic. Somewhere in my stack of pictures and videos (no luck finding it so far), I have video from a few years ago of a smallish woman riding on the back of one of my friends; the exit got botched and she basically flipped over the front of him. (Picture her still holding on after it went to Chaos, but her back was basically laying on his head and he was basically flying straight down.) She was determined as Hell to hold on, and to their credit they were able to right the formation, but I could very easily seen it play out with her hurting him pretty badly (laying down on his head), her getting hurt pretty badly (Tonfly helmet jammed into her back), or both. That's a long-winded way of saying, "yeah, an AAD is a really good idea." Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4301192;page=1;mh=-1;;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Huuuuuuh? Why do you think that I think that I "got you all figured out"? I have no clue about anyone; never claimed that I did, except for the following: A lot of people throw the word "existentialism" around without knowing what it means or its background. From the posts I've read, Ron appears to be a Christian guy. (Did I figure that out right?) So when he used the world "existentialism" in what I thought was a kind of loose way (which is why I asked him what he meant), I thought he might be interested to find out that that "existentialism" and Christianity are perfectly compatible. (There are Christian existentialists; there are atheist existentialists.) So, when you said "[Skwrl] think(s) [he] figured [us] out..." No. I thought Ron might find it interesting. But that's because I remembered him; his posts have been memorable. In fact, I can't say that I've ever read anything you've written before - maybe I have but I don't remember it - so you're making a big assumption yourself when you use the word "us". Of course, that could be because I don't really read Speaker's Corner much... Sort of a waste of idle time, I guess. After all, I have yet to see anyone say, "Oh, yes, you raised a compelling point. Your observation has shifted my world view." Maybe it happens discretely, but it seems like it's just a forum for non-wingsuiters to pointlessly bicker with each other. (The wingsuiters have one, too, we call it the wingsuit forum.) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I had a feeling it was something like that... Have you ever read any of Søren Kierkegaard's works? He was a Christian existentialist. From a quick read of some of your posts on dropzone.com, he might be right up your alley. (I'll admit his actual writings aren't all that exciting - his books tend to be a bit dull and slow - but if you pick up commentary on him, you might dig it. Heck, you can even start with the the Wikipedia article on him...) Or better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_existentialism But to my original point, for what it's worth, "existentialism" doesn't mean "situational ethics." Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

Some of the folks at Northeast Bird School use 100 as a rough threshold. Personally, I don't think there is anything special or difficult about holding onto a wingsuiter's back. However, I think the reason why 100 makes sense is that you want a jumper who is experienced enough with landing his or her canopy that they can handle an out landing in case things go to Hell right out the door. You also want an experienced "horse", too - someone with just a few wingsuit flights really shouldn't be taking passengers. It's really a judgment call, though. [Shrug.] Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I'm curious what you think the term "existentialist" means, Ron. (And to be clear, I ask because a lot of people use the term loosely - or just plain wrong - and it's not always clear which way it's being used. Are you asking whether he believes existence precedes essence?) Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

I saw them for that price, too. Ordered one from one place (small shop), they delayed and delayed until I finally cancelled the order. The same thing happened at another small shop with a similar price (I'm not sure what their game is with that, by the way, other than hoping they can buy them cheaper and satisfy open orders...) Finally gave up and bought it from B&H. I don't have the projector model - if I'm going to buy a fancy camera, I figured it was best to hook it up with a mini-HDMI to a decent TV, not broadcast it on a wall... Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

The CX760 has awesome stabilization technology (B.O.S.S.), which is a plus. It's also about $1400, which is a minus. Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork