USPA Safety Day advertisement

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody buy YOU has suggested it.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody buy YOU has suggested it.

Quote

During this low pass, the pilot continued the airplane's climb to a higher altitude, which placed the tail much lower than it should have been during a time when a jumper is exiting. To help avoid tail-strike, pilots must provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit.

USPA says the aircraft was configured wrong, and the pilot must configure it right.

USPA says the tail is too low, USPA says the pilot must raise the tail.

You cannot climb in this aircraft without lowering the tail.

USPA is saying this aircraft must not be climbing during exits, because this aircraft's tail was too low.

How is that NOT a rule?

Looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it.

Lepka 61
If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.


Lepka 67
I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).


Jacketsdb23 81
USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft.


Lepka 94
The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.


Kallend 111
Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.


Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35
The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike.

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."

[jacketsdb23 49]

I have an idea. If YOU want to exit the aircraft in a climbing low pass make that an exception, discussed between you and the pilot prior to exiting.

If its not discussed, make SOP exiting with reduced power and level configuration.

If it cost to much to do that. Raise the price of a hop n pop.

As we saw with the recent wing suit fatality, even experienced seasoned skydivers can fuck up and hit the tail. But he should have known better right? He had years of experience. Should have never happened. And the plane was properly configured for jump run.

Everyone fucks up at some point. I hope that isn't you or me or anyone else on here. But it will happen.

Something that is so easy to do and costs so little, should be SOP. It just makes sense. There is really no down side to it.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[billvon 3,058]

>USPA says the aircraft was configured wrong, and the pilot must configure it right.

Yes, he should; it increases the safety margins for low exits.

>USPA says the tail is too low, USPA says the pilot must raise the tail.

No, no one said that. The pilot must configure the aircraft properly for exit, which is what USPA said. If he cannot do that he has no business flying jumpers.

>You cannot climb in this aircraft without lowering the tail.

?? An unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

>USPA is saying this aircraft must not be climbing during exits,
>because this aircraft's tail was too low.

>How is that NOT a rule?

You should not jump a NOVA, since they have been shown to collapse in turbulence. I've even seen USPA warn people about this in the incident reports at the time.

No rule against jumping Novas, though. I think there's a bit of a hole in your logic.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I have an idea. If YOU want to exit the aircraft in a climbing low pass make that an exception, discussed between you and the pilot prior to exiting.

If its not discussed, make SOP exiting with reduced power and level configuration.

If it cost to much to do that. Raise the price of a hop n pop.

As we saw with the recent wing suit fatality, even experienced seasoned skydivers can fuck up and hit the tail. But he should have known better right? He had years of experience. Should have never happened. And the plane was properly configured for jump run.

Everyone fucks up at some point. I hope that isn't you or me or anyone else on here. But it will happen.

Something that is so easy to do and costs so little, should be SOP. It just makes sense. There is really no down side to it.

What you say would be absolutely acceptable to me.

Way back at the beginning of these threads, my objection was to the strength of USPA's wording.

When they say it is an error to have an exit with the tail low, it carries more weight than if they'd said that under most circumstances it would be their recommendation to use a more traditional jump run.

When they say it is an error, they imply that a pilot who might allow such a thing is wrong, careless and/or negligent.

My objection is that a shrewd lawyer might use that statement to establish an attitude of careless or negligent behavior on the part of a dropzone, even if the particular legal action did not involve a tail strike.

The wording in the ad makes it a de facto rule.

If USPA had chosen to make it a recommendation, and clearly worded it as such, it would have been acceptable.

But my communication with HQ make it clear that they were not interested in changing the wording.

All the rest followed from that.

It has been suggested that those who wish to could still use the climbing exit, even though the strong wording might put them in legal jeopardy. I don't like that idea at all. The possibiliity of legal jeopardy remains. It would be like "don't ask, don't tell".

If it is to be a rule, make it a BSR. If it is not intended to be a rule, the wording should be changed.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it.

Lepka 61
If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.


Lepka 67
I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).


Jacketsdb23 81
USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft.


Lepka 94
The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.


Kallend 111
Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.


Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35
The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike.

Show us the proposal before the BOD to put in in the BSR and you will convince us.

Otherwise you are just plain WRONG.

...

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Tail strikes due to climbing passes aren't a big deal so we don't need to make more rules to deal with them; informal reminders are more than sufficient.

News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it.

Lepka 61
If you make it the SOP to provide a cut and level off, then all you have to rely on is the highly trained, highly experienced commercial turbine pilot in the front seat. All he has to do is pull a lever back, push the yoke forward and wait.


Lepka 67
I've clearly stated several times that I am all for jumper training and personal responsibility. However, I cannot understand the resistance to the idea that making a level pass the SOP. It eliminates the need to rely on that training, and subtracts the possibility of a tailstrike (aside from outragously bad behavoir).


Jacketsdb23 81
USPA would be smart to take a position that says leveling off the plane and reducing power is the proper configuration for exiting the aircraft.


Lepka 94
The trouble is that we are running out of 'safety nets' for people who shouldn't be skydiving. Today it's the climbing low pass. Let's get rid of that, and then we won't have a fatality or paralyzed jumper every couple of years.

That's all just pie-in-the-sky talk. What we actually have to deal with now are the jumpers currently in AC across the country, and you just can't trust every single one of them to do the right thing, so we have to pull the power and push the nose over. For now.


Kallend 111
Flying straight and level on jump run is a better procedure. It should be standard operating procedure.


Kallend – USPA Safety Ad Poll thread 35
The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft and all its occupants, not just for the person doing a H&P. A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike.

Show us the proposal before the BOD to put in in the BSR and you will convince us.

Otherwise you are just plain WRONG.

1) diablopilot wrote: "News flash: Nobody is making a rule, nobody but YOU has suggested it."

Each one of the above comments does, in fact, suggest that a "no climbing exits" rule be made because, logically speaking, how exactly do you enforce it if it's not a rule, Professor Kallend? Moreover, the term "SOP" usually is equivalent to a rule, and in this case, most of the "suggestions" were that "no climbing exits" be adopted as SOP industrywide.

2) There you go again, Professor, making stuff up.... The comment to which I responded declared only that no one suggested that "no climbing exits" be made a rule; no claim has been made by anyone except you that the word suggestion in this context is defined as a "proposal before the BOD to put it in the BSR."

3) Now, lest the followers of this thread forget where it all started, Paul wrote thusly:

I worry that if this had been published by USPA early enough, the plaintiff's lawyers in the Lodi tail strike case could have argued that the national organization was taking the position that the pilot should be found at fault in that accident.

Personally, I believe that if I informed the pilot that I wanted to exit on the climbing low pass, a climbing aircraft is "properly configured" per the agreement between the pilot and myself. I believe that it is then completely up to me to conduct the jump so as not to jeopardize the aircraft and the other jumpers. Should I fail to do that, it in no way reflects on the pilot; he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

I invite discussion regarding this ad, and I also invite USPA members to express their feelings, whether for or against the ad, to their USPA BOD members so that they can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership.

And so there has been been a spirited, thoughtful and insightful discussion that has, on balance, remained remarkably civil as well.

Paul's objective - to get this issue out of USPA's back rooms and into the light of open debate so that "USPA BOD members can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership" - has been achieved.

So, good on everybody and I hope USPA will take heed.

And with that, I hereby retire from this thread.

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."

[kallend 2,099]

Lame excuse for a response. The rules are found in the SIM and the FARs.

...

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

[NovaTTT 2]

Quote

Paul's objective - to get this issue out of USPA's back rooms and into the light of open debate so that "USPA BOD members can get a fair reading of the sentiments of the membership" - has been achieved.

So, good on everybody and I hope USPA will take heed.

Tailstrikes happen, and that sucks. It's human nature to place blame, I suppose, but the person to blame is the jumper.

If a jumper thinks the plane has too much airspeed, ask for a cut. If it's nose-high, ask for a leveling.

If the pilot won't, for whatever reason, sit down or jump. If a jumper feels it's not safe to exit, then don't! It's an individual's choice, and it's that individual's responsibility to know how to make that judgment call.

We know the risks involved in skydiving, and they begin when the propeller starts turning. The exit needs to be planned as with any other part of the skydive. I think we don't need more hand-holding and we sure as hell don't need more USPA in what is a DZ matter - jump run configuration.


.02

Nova

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[fasted3 0]

I don't think so. I understand the point that this 'rule' can be enforced just as effectively by threat of a lawsuit, which was the original point of the thread.

But what do I know?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

During this low pass, the pilot continued the airplane's climb to a higher altitude, which placed the tail much lower than it should have been during a time when a jumper is exiting. To help avoid tail-strike, pilots must provide skydivers with a properly configured aircraft for every exit.

Quote

>USPA says the aircraft was configured wrong, and the pilot must configure it right.

Yes, he should; it increases the safety margins for low exits.

>USPA says the tail is too low, USPA says the pilot must raise the tail.

No, no one said that. The pilot must configure the aircraft properly for exit, which is what USPA said. If he cannot do that he has no business flying jumpers.

If what I said is wrong, please tell us what constitutes a properly configured aircraft?

Quote

>You cannot climb in this aircraft without lowering the tail.

?? An unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

If you could climb this aircraft with the tail higher, there would be no Safety Day Ad about it in the first place. You yourself have said that the tail is too low for a safe exit.

If my statement is an unsubstantiated assumption, please correct me. Don't just say I made an error.

Quote

>USPA is saying this aircraft must not be climbing during exits,
>because this aircraft's tail was too low.

>How is that NOT a rule?

You should not jump a NOVA, since they have been shown to collapse in turbulence. I've even seen USPA warn people about this in the incident reports at the time.

No rule against jumping Novas, though. I think there's a bit of a hole in your logic.

USPA never said it was wrong to jump a Nova. They recommended against it.

In the USPA Safety Day ad, they said the pilot was wrong to allow this exit. They said the tail was "much lower than it should have been".

That language says the pilot made an error. That language says he was wrong to fly an exit that way.

That is not a recommendation. It is an accusation.

Bill, your reply was beneath you. Your silly little word games add nothing to the discussion, and they sully your fine reputation. Is this really the way you want to refute my point of view?

[billvon 3,058]

>If what I said is wrong, please tell us what constitutes a properly
>configured aircraft?

Varies from aircraft to aircraft. Involves airspeed, power settings (sometimes differential power settings) and flap settings. You don't need to "get the tail up" on a Skyvan, for example, but you generally do need flaps.

>If you could climb this aircraft with the tail higher, there would be no
>Safety Day Ad about it in the first place.

You CAN climb that aircraft with the tail higher and there IS a Safety Day ad about it. Perhaps in the future the pilot will learn how. He might even be motivated to learn that as a result of the ad. Which might just save someone's life one of these days.

Mission accomplished.

>USPA never said it was wrong to jump a Nova. They recommended
>against it.

They were pretty clear that the jumper made a mistake by jumping an unstable canopy. So did the pilot, in this case.

>Bill, your reply was beneath you. Your silly little word games . . .

Pot. meet kettle. You keep talking about banning climbing exits. No one - not USPA, not me, not anyone advocating - has claimed they want to make climbing exits illegal. It's a stupid strawman argument that no one other than you is making.

What we should do is educate jumpers and pilots concerning the potential risks and how to minimize them. And yes, it takes both pilots and jumpers to make exits safer. It is amazing to me that you have spent so much time, energy and ego arguing against that.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

No one - not USPA, not me, not anyone advocating - has claimed they want to make climbing exits illegal. It's a stupid strawman argument that no one other than you is making.

What we should do is educate jumpers and pilots concerning the potential risks and how to minimize them. And yes, it takes both pilots and jumpers to make exits safer. It is amazing to me that you have spent so much time, energy and ego arguing against that.

Here is a quote from an email I have from HQ

Quote

But pilots of low tail aircraft must provide a level jump run for a low pass, the same as they do for the full altitude exits.

That is a rule - it establishes what will or will not be considered acceptable aircraft operation.

A "level jump run the same as they do for the full altitude exits" is not a climbing aircraft. So, even if it is possible, as you say, to climb in a Caravan in a level attitude, it is not acceptable to USPA, because it is not "the same as they do for the full altitude exits".

I asked USPA to consider language that made it clear that their statements were not a rule, but a strong recommendation.

They flatly refused.

So, what we have is USPA trying to make an end run around the established rulemaking process, with the clear intent that what they say should be interpreted with the weight of a rule.

You may not agree with my analysis. That is your right.

But it is also clear that there are members who see it the same way I do, and disagree with what the USPA is doing here.

No matter if it is a rule or not, if we, the members, do not like what the USPA is doing and saying, we have a right and an obligation to make our objections known.

That is why I have spent so much time and energy. Because we have a right and an obligation to let USPA know what we feel either way.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

>If what I said is wrong, please tell us what constitutes a properly
>configured aircraft?

Varies from aircraft to aircraft. Involves airspeed, power settings (sometimes differential power settings) and flap settings. You don't need to "get the tail up" on a Skyvan, for example, but you generally do need flaps.

>If you could climb this aircraft with the tail higher, there would be no
>Safety Day Ad about it in the first place.

You CAN climb that aircraft with the tail higher and there IS a Safety Day ad about it. Perhaps in the future the pilot will learn how. He might even be motivated to learn that as a result of the ad. Which might just save someone's life one of these days.

Mission accomplished.

>USPA never said it was wrong to jump a Nova. They recommended
>against it.

They were pretty clear that the jumper made a mistake by jumping an unstable canopy. So did the pilot, in this case.

>Bill, your reply was beneath you. Your silly little word games . . .

Pot. meet kettle. You keep talking about banning climbing exits. No one - not USPA, not me, not anyone advocating - has claimed they want to make climbing exits illegal. It's a stupid strawman argument that no one other than you is making.

What we should do is educate jumpers and pilots concerning the potential risks and how to minimize them. And yes, it takes both pilots and jumpers to make exits safer. It is amazing to me that you have spent so much time, energy and ego arguing against that.

Let's look at this from a different point of view, shall we?

The whole question of if this is intended to be a rule or not is moot. We cannot really meaningfully discuss it because you, in fact, agree with the idea that a climbing exit is inherently bad.

You see nothing onerous about what is being said because you agree with it. I don't mean that as any sort of accusation. It is just a statement of the fact that we have to work with.

I will never be able to make you think it is onerous, and you will never be able to make me think it is not.

Again, I don't mean to say anything about who is right or who is wrong. That doesn't matter at all.

So, I'll stop trying to convince you that a climbing exit is a good thing, and you stop trying to convince me that it is bad, okay?

What we are left with is the question of whether or not this should be a rule.

As I see it, if it is as important as you say, it should be a rule. If this is the way to prevent the injuries and fatalities that resulted from tail strikes, IT SHOULD BE A RULE.

Making it a BSR would make it crystal clear what the weight of the statements would be. Do you agree?

So, why not just do that?

Would you object to having a BSR that says that all jumpruns should be the same as the ones we use at the full altitude?

Please feel free to further qualify this to your own satisfaction. Exclude tailgate and high tail aircraft if you like. Say whatever you like so that you are satisfied that the result is what should be a rule. I don't want to mince words with you about flaps or airspeeds or anything like that. You are absolutely correct that doing that would be a waste of time and effort.

Do you have any problem with making whatever we get from this exercise a rule?

I don't.

But, if you do have a problem with it, please tell us what that reservation is.

[kallend 2,099]

Quote

I don't think so. I understand the point that this 'rule' can be enforced just as effectively by threat of a lawsuit, which was the original point of the thread.

In the USA, anyone can file suit against anyone else for any reason, real or imagined. If threat of a lawsuit constituted a rule the entire country would be permanently paralyzed.

...

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

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

In the USA, anyone can file suit against anyone else for any reason, real or imagined.

http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/godblessamerica.html

[Dean358 0]

The Ranch recently added a Caravan to it’s fleet of Twin Otters and Pilatus turbine jump ships. I had the privilege of jumping out of it this weekend. For some of us, myself included, this was the first time we’ve ever exited from a low tail turbine aircraft. Know what? The USPA Safety Day Advertisement was posted in the aircraft, right_next_to_the_door, with a note alerting jumpers to the low tail.

While the pilots configured the ship correctly for exit on every pass – even low passes – having the ad there as an added reminder was genius!!! On every single jump run, everyone on the plane told everyone else, especially the wingsuiters, to be aware of the tail.

While some posters here found this ad controversial, I gotta tell you – I really, really, really appreciated looking at it before exit! Perhaps other drop zones might want to consider using the ad in this manner as well.

Cheers,
Dean

P.S. – Yes, I’m well aware of what all the “firsts” referenced in this post require :-)

www.wci.nyc

[danielcroft 2]

You owe me beer for sure Dean!

I think the Porter is being retired.

The ad on the door was interesting, good of them to put it up considering that we're all spoiled and used to Otters.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

From my reading of this article from Jan Meyer, I understand that level flight is not as important as avoiding "jumping up" when exiting a plane.

Both are factors and nobody should be erroding the margin of safety by not fulfilling their contribution to a safe skydive.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

From my reading of this article from Jan Meyer, I understand that level flight is not as important as avoiding "jumping up" when exiting a plane.

Both are factors and nobody should be erroding the margin of safety by not fulfilling their contribution to a safe skydive.

If you exit downward, you create your own margin, and do not rely on the action of any other to contribute to your safety.

If you really want to ensure your own safety, don't do something that relies on somebody else doing the right thing.

We call that "self preservation". It is a good thing in skydiving.

If you want to insist on a conventional jump run for your solo low-pass exit, fine. I support your right to do it that way.

But don't tell me that I cannot be safe without it.