New USPA Wingsuit BSR & Recommendation

[kallend 2,106]

gowlerk

Enforcement is not the primary tool of BSRs. This one sends a clear message for wingsuits to stay away from students. The 500 feet? It's far enough to mean stay far away.

Specifying a distance that is intrinsically IMPOSSIBLE to measure with any existing technology is nonsensical.

The rule may be well intentioned, but so is the road to Hell.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bluhdow 31]

To suggest that flybys are banned because they "add more risk" is hypocritical.

This sport markets, packages, and sells risk for profit.

I recognize that student safety is important in order to preserve the business (and the sport) but the USPA is trying to solve problems that don't exist. What are we accomplishing with this BSR? Are wingsuiters flying by unwilling tandem students and instructors? Are TIs raising their pitchforks in fury here?

Freefall adds more risk. Why aren't all tandem students static lined? Camera flyers add more risk. Why aren't they named in this BSR? Handcams add more risk. Multiple canopies in the air add more risk. IT ALL ADDS MORE RISK.

The only consistency I see in the pattern is this: Adding risk is acceptable only when we can charge for it. Freefall is more attractive to students than static lines, charging for handcams and outside flyers, jamming a pattern full of canopies...it all adds to the bottom line.

Flybys do not raise revenue, therefore they aren't allowed.

Allow me to let the business of skydiving in on a little secret: Wingsuits are the biggest, most valuable piece of free marketing this sport has ever had. YouTube, Hollywood, video games, you name it. Wingsuits have captured the attention of the non-skydiving public and WE ARE SELLING TANDEMS FOR YOU.

With that in mind I would like to submit that flybys do add to the bottom line. It's fun for wingsuiters and fun for tandem students. This BSR is a loss for wingsuiters, a loss for tandem students, and a loss for dropzones. Good job USPA.

Apex BASE
#1816

[megamalfunction 1]

It's okay Maverick. You can still buzz the tower every once in awhile.

[diablopilot 2]

normiss

As a TI and wingsuiter, I've experienced a shit load of fly-bys.

I'm curious who will carry the measuring tape when I ask a friend to do one.
At 500.1ft of course.

And I'm a TI, wingsuiter, and an S&TA. 500 feet is determined when I think you're too close. I think this rule is as asinine as the fact the wingsuit community has failed to police itself enough that it was deemed necessary to make the rule.

It will transfer liability to the DZs in the event of an incident. Simplest way to handle it would simply to ground violators. How close is too close? When the instructors and S&TAs say you're too close. Period.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[verticalflyer 11]

A few thoughts from across the pond, as a basic courtesy if I am going to buzz a tandem, I ask the tandem master if he is cool with that and what colour his canopy is. I also explain that I will buzz no lower than 4K and from either right or left, so he is not mid spiral etc and knows which way I am coming from. This conversation usually takes all of 30 seconds. Some TI do not want to be buzzed and will let you know in no uncertain terms. however most would rather you engaged and asked before than surprised them with 150mph dive across them. Some people are also very proficient at targeting their wingsuit accurately others are not, so if a TI does not trust you its not happening. As for students I generally avoid them as they miles away from my airspace and if they I near it, I still avoid them as they may just toggle a turn last minute at you without realizing your approaching them.

Dont just talk about it, Do it!

[pms07 3]

I think JP nailed it. The rule is not well thought out and was a hastily enacted knee-jerk reaction by the BOD. With that said, we as a community earned it. You don't have to look very hard to see a wingsuit flight path get too close to a tandem or other buffoonery. Too close meaning you either scared or annoyed the TM.

I take the point on being difficult to enforce but there is a lot precedence for this type of distance rule in aviation. Just look at FAR 105.17, parachute flight visibility rules.

[DJL 235]

Quote

Specifying a distance that is intrinsically IMPOSSIBLE to measure with any existing technology is nonsensical.

The rule may be well intentioned, but so is the road to Hell.

This was brought before the board not only because it was starting to happen but because some places were offering it to tandem students for an up-charge. There's absolutely no reason for a wingsuiter to do a flyby on a student except for their own enjoyment, the student is simply incapable of being part of the planning required for it to be safe.

As for it being unenforceable, no you can't tell that someone was 490 feet away but you can tell if they were 30 feet away and that's when it becomes an issue. The 500 ft distance was chosen because it's the distance at which a wingsuiter could see a canopy in their path and react to avoid a collision with a few seconds.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Bealio 0]

DJL

This was brought before the board not only because it was starting to happen but because some places were offering it to tandem students for an up-charge.

That's awesome. Wingsuit pilots could get their slot paid for and make some cash. They could also add the video from the ws pilot to the tandem video.

[normiss 846]

Quote

the student is simply incapable of being part of the planning required for it to be safe

This would be true of all tandem jumps....

[jakee 1,558]

Quote

he 500 ft distance was chosen because it's the distance at which a wingsuiter could see a canopy in their path and react to avoid a collision with a few seconds.

Nonsense. 500 ft was chosen because it's a nice round number.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skydave89 19]

I've spoken with a uspa BOD member about this issue. They agree the 500ft is a little silly, but basically said the same thing as someone above: 500, 400, 300, 200ft, etc isn't easy to discern, but 15ft is pretty obvious and that's what they're really trying to stop.

Personally, I did tons of tandem flybys before this was actually a BSR, and now I'm just going to randomly upload them for the rest of my jumping career . If you see a flyby of mine, it was taken years before this ruling.

[diablopilot 2]

normiss

Quote

the student is simply incapable of being part of the planning required for it to be safe

This would be true of all tandem jumps....

The FARs state differently.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Bluhdow 31]

If we know nothing else, I hope we can all understand that the rules and the truth are very frequently in conflict with one another.

Apex BASE
#1816

[pms07 3]

Bluhdow

To suggest that flybys are banned because they "add more risk" is hypocritical.

This sport markets, packages, and sells risk for profit.

I recognize that student safety is important in order to preserve the business (and the sport) but the USPA is trying to solve problems that don't exist. What are we accomplishing with this BSR? Are wingsuiters flying by unwilling tandem students and instructors? Are TIs raising their pitchforks in fury here?

Freefall adds more risk. Why aren't all tandem students static lined? Camera flyers add more risk. Why aren't they named in this BSR? Handcams add more risk. Multiple canopies in the air add more risk. IT ALL ADDS MORE RISK.

The only consistency I see in the pattern is this: Adding risk is acceptable only when we can charge for it. Freefall is more attractive to students than static lines, charging for handcams and outside flyers, jamming a pattern full of canopies...it all adds to the bottom line.

Flybys do not raise revenue, therefore they aren't allowed.

Allow me to let the business of skydiving in on a little secret: Wingsuits are the biggest, most valuable piece of free marketing this sport has ever had. YouTube, Hollywood, video games, you name it. Wingsuits have captured the attention of the non-skydiving public and WE ARE SELLING TANDEMS FOR YOU.

With that in mind I would like to submit that flybys do add to the bottom line. It's fun for wingsuiters and fun for tandem students. This BSR is a loss for wingsuiters, a loss for tandem students, and a loss for dropzones. Good job USPA.

I'm not here to defend the BSR but you should at least acknowledge that our behavior, or perceptions about our behavior, drove the decision. We can do better and need to educate both those that regulate us and those in our community that engage in buffoonery.

"Are wingsuiters flying by unwilling tandem students and instructors?" I have seen this, both intentional but more frequently unintentional.

"Are TIs raising their pitchforks in fury here?" Sometimes, at least at one or two drop zones I visit a few times a year.

"but the USPA is trying to solve problems that don't exist." I know at least a few TMs at large drop zones that will disagree, they don't trust us and think we are a problem. Some DZOs, manufacturers of tandem gear, and BoD members are concerned as well. If not, the BSR would not exist.

Rather than trying to convince DZOs, TMs and gear makers how wingsuit flybys contribute to their profit, education and policing our own might be a better approach.

[reactor 1]

I am quite surprise people don't take this recommendation seriously. I am a TM, I enjoyed fly by, some passenger did so too.

When I saw this thread I started think about the possibility, the risk, the things involve.
Dose it worth the risk? Does passenger know the risk? Fly by isn't common practice of regular tandem skydive. Does it address the risk in the waiver? Does instructor tell passenger he or she could die if get hit by wingsuiter?

Tandem passenger come for skydive isn't because there is risk to die or injured, they come because they like the thrill skydive give them, just like taking thrill ride in amusement park.

Two qualified driver/race car driver/stunt car driver could end with disaster when driving in control environment. Qualified wingsuiter and TM's plan base on their believed could end up bad too. It's just the matter of when.

It is only recommendation though, but it's time to think about how to make our sports safer.

[diablopilot 2]

Bluhdow

If we know nothing else, I hope we can all understand that the rules and the truth are very frequently in conflict with one another.

I'd suggest that most often that is due to a lack of honesty and effort on one (or more) parties part.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Bluhdow 31]

If tandem instructors are having wingsuiters fly by them without permission and/or without control there is already a fix in place. TELL THE DZO. The wingsuiter will be grounded and/or banned from repeating such behavior. Done deal.

This rule doesn't hurt TIs that don't want to be flown by. They've always had the option and power to opt out. This only hurts those of us who have been enjoying flybys responsibly.

And as for legal liability, what's another set of initials on the existing waiver document? Tandem students initial their lives away including clauses relating to camera flyers, gear failures, etc. Why can't there be an extra paragraph with a yes/no option related to the POTENTIAL for a flyby? How is that different than the terms they already sign?

Oh, and they aren't qualified to sign up for any of those risks either, so don't give me that line of crap.

Apex BASE
#1816

[pms07 3]

Bluhdow

If tandem instructors are having wingsuiters fly by them without permission and/or without control there is already a fix in place. TELL THE DZO. The wingsuiter will be grounded and/or banned from repeating such behavior. Done deal.

This rule doesn't hurt TIs that don't want to be flown by. They've always had the option and power to opt out. This only hurts those of us who have been enjoying flybys responsibly.

And as for legal liability, what's another set of initials on the existing waiver document? Tandem students initial their lives away including clauses relating to camera flyers, gear failures, etc. Why can't there be an extra paragraph with a yes/no option related to the POTENTIAL for a flyby? How is that different than the terms they already sign?

Oh, and they aren't qualified to sign up for any of those risks either, so don't give me that line of crap.

You are "tilting at windmills" bro. I'm not trying to defend the BSR, but rather portray the reality. Talk with some of the BoD members, gear manufacturers, TMs and DZOs that are behind the BSR. You will likely find little support for your rationalization. At least that is my experience.

[sammielu 3]

I'm taking a tandem instructor course in a few weeks and am studying all aspects right now. The common theme in a tandem skydive is customer service... to a point. "Your fun stops where my safety begins" applies to tandem instructors addressing students who ask for things they think are fun, like doing "flips and shit" or doing canopy turns, or getting the pretty sunset photo.
Given that it is possible to do a flyby safely with planning and skills, how could the TI possibly communicate to the wingsuit pilot that the plan needs to change immediately for saftey purposes? For example, if there is a malfunction, the passenger is unconscious or puking, or the TI needs to be watching another situation on the ground/in the air, canopy flight goals change immediately. All fun stops on a tandem when there is any saftey issue, so how could a flyby be stopped if needed?

[Hajo 0]

just for me to understand ...

at what altitude do Tandems pull?
at what altitude do WS pull?
How many seconds are between Tandems and WS at exit?
What is the fallrate of a Tandem?
What is the fallrate of a good WS-Pilot?
How can a WS-Pilot manage to catch up to the frame where
a) the Tandem is flying under a Canopy
b) pull at safe height (estimating he is not wearing BASE-gear)

at my dropzone, the first Wingsuits usually open when the last Tandems are so low that a flyby would not be possible..
I always thought that a good WS is waaaay slower in freefall as a regular jumper and has a different path to fly.
But technically, how does it work? flyby on the very last second?

--------------------------------------------------

With sufficient thrust,
pigs just fly well

[yeyo 1]

gowlerk

.... Do they enhance the experience of the tandem passenger, or are they for the pleasure of the wingsuiter?

They definitely enhance the experience. I've had 2 fun jumpers confess to me that the reason they took AFF was because of my flyby, they are now wingsuiters. And many others said in the post jump interview that their favorite part of the jump was when the wingsuit guy flew by...and I do them at a very safe distance and planned with the TI. Example:

https://www.facebook.com/yeyo.pesquera/videos/10152839913302494/?l=350340342696459455

HISPA #93
DS #419.5

[DJL 235]

Yeah, and they'll also say that their favorite part was falling through the clouds or that the airplane did a flyby or that they got to eat a pound of chocolate and play on the train tracks. Wait, sorry I started thinking about children who need adult supervision because then have no understanding of the consequences. (Sorry, had to humor myself with a little sarcasm.)

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[yeyo 1]

Hey! I was just answering a valid question, dont attack me!
But yeah, I do see and agree with your point.
I think that buzzing too close (

HISPA #93
DS #419.5

[gowlerk 2,246]

Quote

but flying in their view 200'-300' away is pretty safe'ish

And 500' away would be a little safer and still potentially in their view. But not as much fun for the wingsuiter.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jonmurrell 0]

I'm sure you've heard of (or even remember) the days where only one of the fancy "ram-air" canopies was allowed per pass or load... we can't have people flying wherever they want after all.

The USPA needs to expand this rule to cover all jumpers in freefall and/or under canopy to prevent collisions.

This isn't flying, its falling with style.