USPA Safety Day advertisement POLL

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

But here's another example... Looks pretty bad in the first pic, but of course she was many feet below the tail a split second later.

What kind of plane was that?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[robinheid 0]

Quote

>tail too low for a safe exit?

Yes.

>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?

No. Most malfunctions do not result in serious injury or death. That does not mean that malfunctions are fine, or safe.

>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.

Correct. Both the jumper and the pilot must work together to accomplish such exits safely in low tail aircraft.

>Why do you think things should be different between these two situations?

They should not be.

>Either way, the safety of the exit depends on the jumper doing it correctly.

And the pilot.

Your attitude seems to be "the pilot bears no responsibility for what happens to his aircraft" which is silly. A Skyvan pilot could say just that, and decide not to use flaps and/or power to prepare the aircraft for jump run. Then, when a few people get on the back of the tail and the aircraft stalls, he could later say "hey, not my fault! They shouldn't have had more than two people on the tail."

Fortunately, most pilots are more responsible than that. They prepare the aircraft for exit AND jumpers limit the number of people on the tailgate. Both pilots and jumpers cooperate to make sure they can exit larger groups safely.

Sigh...

There are no safe exits; some are just less dangerous than others.

Skydiving is never safe; sometimes it's just more dangerous than others.

Thus your foundation premise is specious and your entire argument is built on the quicksand of one parallactically suspect photograph.

So what's your point?



d5533
base44
ccs37

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."

[pilotdave 0]

Grand Caravan.

Dave

[MakeItHappen 15]

I think some observations of the 2 pics Dave posted may help some people realize that they may not be considering all of the physics involved with these exits.

I put excerpts of the two pics in my attachment.

The red circles the elevator position.
It appears to be in the same position in both pics.

The yellow lines are an eyeball-freehand line drawn parallel to the HS from the bottom edge of the door thingy-bob.

The blue lines are the view of the distance between the bottom of the HS and the top of the door thingy-bob.

Now from looking at that, can you determine whether the AC pitch changed or whether the photographer moved his head?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

>My attitude is that a climbing tail-low exit is not a pilot error.

It is if it represents an increased risk of collision with a jumper exiting.

>If a jumper hits the tail during a climbing tail-low exit, it is the jumper's
>fault, not the pilot's.

If the plane was not configured correctly for exit, then it is both their faults. How do we solve such a problem? Educate pilots how to configure aircraft for exit and educate jumpers on how not to hit the tail - as suggested by the ad.

>USPA has chosen to say that the pilot should not let the jumper exit when
>the tail is low.

No, they didn't. Did you read the ad?

Here is the text of the ad.

Quote

This jumper nearly struck the tail of a Cessna Caravan while exiting on a low pass in an upright, head-high position. Thankfully, he missed the horizontal stabilizer but only by mere inches. 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. Jumpers also need to learn to recognize when an aircraft is in level flight and safe to exit. Additionally, performing a low, diving-type exit can help ensure clearing the tail of an airplane.

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.

[riggerpaul 1]

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?

[billvon 2,991]

>I underlined the parts where the USPA is saying the pilot made a
>mistake to allow this exit.

Correct. However, you said "USPA has chosen to say that the pilot should not let the jumper exit when the tail is low." USPA, in fact, said nothing about the pilot "letting" the jumper exit. It said they must configure the plane correctly for exit (which apparently you agree with.)

>It is my position that that is a silly thing to say, since climbing exits are
>done safely as a common practice.

Cutaways are done safely all the time. That does not mean that malfunctions are perfectly acceptable.

>The simple question is whether or not a climbing configuration
>constitutes a "tail too low" for a safe exit.

Depends on the aircraft and its configuration. Again, on a Skyvan, and generally on an Otter, a climb is fine. On a King Air, generally it's not.

>these statements could be used in a court of law . . .

Of course. ANY such statement could be used in a court of law. If two jumpers collide, and an injury results, then anything said about a mistake made by one of them could be used by the other jumper in a lawsuit. If we refuse to discuss any such incidents for fear of a lawsuit, though, then people don't learn - and we have more incidents and more lawsuits.

The purpose of Safety Day (and that ad) is to educate jumpers and pilots in how to avoid incidents, not to help lawyers win court cases. Which is how it should be; PARACHUTIST is for jumpers, not lawyers.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

See my above point.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

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?

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.

...

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

If you don't like it, vote with your feet, and wallet. No one says you HAVE to be a member.

JP, your 'my way or the highway' attitude sucks. I'm glad you didn't get elected. How much Kool-Aid have you drank?
BTW, the anti-trust policy of USPA that requires GMs to demand that their customers be USPA members will be tested eventually one way or another.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

The purpose of Safety Day (and that ad) is to educate jumpers and pilots in how to avoid incidents, not to help lawyers win court cases. Which is how it should be; PARACHUTIST is for jumpers, not lawyers.

The ad did not discuss all of the parameters that go into exits like that. It was definitely slanted to one side.
Most likely that jumper in the ad jumped up on exit. That (the jump-up) has been a contributing factor in the handful of tail strikes.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[pchapman 279]

Quote

The pilot in command has responsibility for the aircraft [...] A tail strike can take out the aircraft. The pilot should configure the A/C to minimize the possibilty of a tail strike.

Or, alternatively, this is an argument that the pilot should ensure there are procedures in place to always brief skydivers on what standard procedures are.

[pilotdave 0]

If a DZ makes climbing passes a normal occurence (as opposed to a special request), the DZ, one way or another, needs to educate all jumpers on how to exit safely. I don't know who to blame for that particular "near miss" and I don't care who was at fault in that case.

In general, jumpers expect the aircraft to be configured "normally" when they exit. If a climbing pass is not the norm, the pilot must let the jumper know he'll be making a climbing pass. The jumper needs to know what to do with that knowledge.

Both the pilots and the jumpers need to be educated on the dangers of climbing passes. I think THAT is USPA's point. It's a great safety day topic. It's not about blaming or setting rules, it's about education. Remember, it's a freaking safety day ad, not a recommended BSR or FAR.

I fully agree that climbing passes can be done safely. The people I've seen request them most often are classic accuracy jumpers. They're mostly old and have been around a long time and know what they're doing. And they know how to save the DZ a couple bucks. But a climbing exit is NOT something a pilot should ever surprise a jumper with. That is extremely dangerous. But there's a great way to prevent accidents caused by jumpers that exit innapropriately on climbing passes. Teach them all about it at safety day.

Dave

[billvon 2,991]

>The ad did not discuss all of the parameters that go into exits like that.

Agreed; nothing a few sentences long can go into detail on an issue like that. Hopefully it will encourage pilots and jumpers to discuss the issue on Safety Day (or indeed at any time.)

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

No one says you HAVE to be a member.

Yeah, my DZO says that by virtue of the USPA group membership, so do all the dropzones in my area. So I can disagree and not jump or suck it?

I don't think the USPA has done the wrong thing in that they're trying to point out safety issues but I do agree that the wording of this particular ad had too much emphasis on the pilot's responsibility and not enough on the jumper.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

See my above point.

So what will you applaud next: USPA deciding to put the safety of its members ahead of the dollar by declaring that loading jumpers with the props spinning is unsafe?

Or that hot fueling is unsafe?

Multiple arguments can be made that both of these also common, routine, and widely accepted practices are, in fact, too dangerous to do.

Except for the key point that makes all of this climbing exit blah blah prima facie specious:

Skydiving is dangerous. People die when they make mistakes, and sometimes even when they don't.

Making sure you don't hit the tail on the way out the door is Personal and Group Safety 101 - just as is making sure you don't snag your reserve handle on the way out the door.

It is patently silly to go on and on and on and ON about proportional blame and reponsibility and climb angles during exit... especially when most of the silliness is predicated on a parallactically suspect single photograph for which there is no supporting data except hearsay, and a database that says this is a minor problem compared to the primary safety issue in sport parachuting; poor canopy pilot training and the use of highly loaded canopies by those unqualified to operate them.

I know the tandem/AFF culture produces dependent, Pavlovian dipsticks who jump when the green light goes on without looking at the ground or the tail or anything else, and it is that dependent, "the-DZ-must-protect-me-so-I-don't-have-to-think-for-or-protect-myself" mentality that gave rise to the lawsuit which precipitated this debate.

But really, all you peeps pedantically pontificating about pitch angles need to man up and take personal responsibility for yourself when you go out the door, and tell everyone around you to do the same thing instead of blaming pilots and making technically unsupportable pronouncements about the way things "should" be.



d5533
base44
ccs37

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."

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

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.

3 fatalities in less than 5 years. Not to mention injuries, aircraft damage, and endangering a plane load of jumpers.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

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.

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.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

JP, your 'my way or the highway' attitude sucks. I'm glad you didn't get elected. How much Kool-Aid have you drank?
BTW, the anti-trust policy of USPA that requires GMs to demand that their customers be USPA members will be tested eventually one way or another.

Sorry you feel that way. I think you completely misunderstand my attitude. As for Kool-Aid, I prefer Cherry. I assure you, my thoughts are my own, safety to me is paramount to any other concerns in this matter. It just so happens my thoughts on how to keep this situation safe are in line with USPA's thinking.

I'll refer everyone in this thread to the GovManual now: From Sec 1-1 Constitution

Quote

2. The purposes for which USPA is formed are as
follows: To encourage unity among all persons
interested in skydiving; to promote safety in all
skydiving activities in the United States, to sanction
skydiving competitions; to document officially all
national and world skydiving records set by citizens
of the U.S., to promote and encourage the study and knowledge of skydiving among the membership and
the public at large; to cooperate with all government
agencies connected with aeronautics or aeronautical
activities; to compile information regarding the
science of skydiving and to edit, publish, and
disseminate the same; to select and train the United
States Parachute Team for world competition.

I don't see a word about protecting a DZ's liability, or increasing a DZ's profits.

It is fact that providing a level jumprun with use for flaps will decrease the chance of a jumper striking the tail. It is also true that a low or diving exit will decrease the chance of a jumper striking the tail.

No one in this thread has been willing to offer a reason to increase the level of risk to the jumpers remaining in the airplane, the pilot, the jumper exiting, and persons and property on the ground by making a climbing pass.

I'll take any one good reason that does not put dollars over safety under consideration.

Jan: Again my thoughts are my own, and I am sorry you feel that way, but as an S&TA, pilot, and instructor who is often very far from the door to be making an emergency exit with a student I'll continue to insist on jumpruns being level, with flaps in many aircraft, and a power reduction.

Paul: Every student of mine has received instruction on what to look for and how to safely exit an aircraft. But what if one of them gets excited or preoccupied, and forgets? Well if the aircraft is level, we have another margin of error, don't we. And what of those still in the aircraft? Should their margin of safety be reduced? What's this all about? Do you really think a climbing exit is as safe as a level exit? Or is this about you thinking the USPA is somehow increasing your liability?

Reality check: If you (and your DZO) want to do climbing exits all day long, the USPA hasn't told you you can't. And if you do them safely, well then there is no problem is there?

Robin: Gee thanks for the progress report. I live to please your notions of what I should "grow into". Save it.

How many fatalities have we seen from hot fueling, or loading while spinning props? Now how many have wee seen from collisions with the tails of airplanes? And of those how many we climbing aircraft? Need me to go get those numbers for you?

BTW, Paul, Jan, Robin, are any of you a current instructor dealing with the current wave of students, in this modern age of skydiving, tandem mills, youtube, and media? Then I'm wondering who you are all talking about when you say "WE" are doing a bad job of training people. I don't believe you fully understand the challenges.

The majority of tail strikes have been from exiting while the aircraft was still configured for, and in a climb. We rarely see tail strikes from level jumpruns, using flaps, and power reductions, and those that we have seen are extraordinary circumstances i.e. wingsuits.

Q.E.D. Margins of safety can be improved by providing a level jumprun with a power reduction and flaps dependent on aircraft type.

To anyone interested: I couldn't care less about whether people think I'm being "political", or have a "vendetta". My focus has been, is, and will continue to be safety ahead of all else. My thoughts are my own, my reasons are valid, and based on examining history, and applying simple corrective actions.

I've about had it with this thread and topic. It seems some people will not be swayed by the facts, but would rather believe in their own reality. Some people have even created a false reality of their own about me. Fine. I hope they have puppies and candy in your worlds too. My purpose is to spread the ideas of safety to skydivers, and hopefully some of them reading this are getting it.

I'm out.

Edit: This whole argument is a joke. And all it will serve to do in the long run is paralyze an already schizophrenic BOD into less action then before. So many complain about the USPA doing nothing, well let me tell you how it is having been to the last 3 years worth of meetings.

There is a very hard working staff that believes in the USPA and it's members, and providing service to those members consistent with the guidelines laid out in the original Constitution (see above). They are more than likely the ones who came up with this advertisement.

They are directed in their overall actions and goals by the BOD, a group of people who for better or worse have won a popularity contest among no more than 10% of the USPA membership. Some are very representative of the members in their regions, some represent only those elements that voted for them, and all have personal motives that drive them. Many have conflicts or perceived conflicts in those motives, i.e. DZO's, make their living from industry, millitary, etc. Right or wrong, what this seems to do is often provoke a major level of inaction to issues that need action, because of concerns of liability, profitability, and popularity.

After all, how is one going to be elected if one puts safety over popularity.

Now I'm really out.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Paul: Every student of mine has received instruction on what to look for and how to safely exit an aircraft. But what if one of them gets excited or preoccupied, and forgets? Well if the aircraft is level, we have another margin of error, don't we. And what of those still in the aircraft? Should their margin of safety be reduced? What's this all about? Do you really think a climbing exit is as safe as a level exit? Or is this about you thinking the USPA is somehow increasing your liability?

Reality check: If you (and your DZO) want to do climbing exits all day long, the USPA hasn't told you you can't. And if you do them safely, well then there is no problem is there?

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.

Quote

This jumper nearly struck the tail of a Cessna Caravan while exiting on a climbing low pass in an upright, head-high position. Thankfully, he missed the horizontal stabilizer but only by mere inches.

When exiting any aircraft, you must ensure that your exit technique provides adequate clearance to avoid contact with the tail of the aircraft.

If you plan to exit a climbing, low-tail, side door aircraft, diving down from a kneeling position in the door will ensure adequate clearance.

As an alternative to the climbing low pass, a pilot may decide to fly the low pass with a more traditional jump run configuration as a way to minimize the danger of a jumper failing to use a safe exit technique.

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.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

How many fatalities have we seen from hot fueling, or loading while spinning props?

I don't have the number right in front of me, but as I recall, there have been at least as many walk-into-prop deaths in the last ten years as there have been tail strike deaths, so according to your "logic," loading with props spinning must cease forthwith - and a parallactically suspect photo of a "near miss" (with accompanying and equally suspect text) must be published in multiple issues of Parachutist.

Quote

Now how many have wee seen from collisions with the tails of airplanes? And of those how many we climbing aircraft? Need me to go get those numbers for you?

If you would, please, yes. Thanks.

Quote

Q.E.D. Margins of safety can be improved by providing a level jumprun with a power reduction and flaps dependent on aircraft type.

Oooops... you got that backwards too... twice.

1) Q.E.D. quod erat demonstrandum

(kyoo ee dee)
interj. 1. Which was demonstrated; - a phrase used after the conclusion of some line of reasoning, especially in mathematical or logical proofs.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

2) The primary way to improve safety margins is for the jumpers to pay attention to what they're doing, not demand that pilots make operational allowances to compensate for said jumpers' lack of attention. Q.E.D.

Quote

This whole argument is a joke.

+1

Glad to see that you finally noticed.



d5533
base44
ccs37

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."

[billvon 2,991]

>I know for an absolute fact that I will NEVER, EVER, EVER hit the tail of
>any aircraft. It simply will never happen.

I am sure the guy in the group before me at Rantoul a few years back thought the same thing. No one expects to hit the tail. It still happens; it can happen to me or you. Both pilots and skydivers can plan ahead to minimize the risk of that.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I know for an absolute fact that I will NEVER, EVER, EVER hit the tail of any aircraft. It simply will never happen.

Sure about that? I know at least three people who hit tails while exiting a level properly configured aircraft. They we on the outside of stalled aircraft. Who bears the responsibility for that one? Or how about the students I've seen that had a deployment that caused them to find the tail?

It's all about minimizing risk.

Quote

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.

Maybe I should preface everything by saying it's my opinion, but then no one else has.

Quote

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.

I don't believe that is a concern of the USPA. It certainly isn't within the purpose of the USPA as spelled out in the Constitution.

As to your alternate wording, It works, but it doesn't have the emphasis of the original which I support. I support it because it tells jumpers who otherwise may feel pressured to accept the status quo that there is an alternative and it is well within their power to demand it or choose to jump elsewhere. How many times have we seen a DZ where the DZO has said "my way or the highway" (thanks Jan) and put dollars ahead of safety and pressured jumpers who have not been around long enough to form their own opinions. Hell if the DZO does it with his/her staff, next thing you know, anything they say, goes, and before long you have a whole new culture of jumper who SUPPORTS things like climbing exits in exchange for cheap jumps. What's next?

I'll make my stand here.

Paul, I still don't have a reason that puts safety over dollars to support the increased risk of climbing exits.

Darn it. I had said I was out.

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

>I know for an absolute fact that I will NEVER, EVER, EVER hit the tail of
>any aircraft. It simply will never happen.

I am sure the guy in the group before me at Rantoul a few years back thought the same thing. No one expects to hit the tail. It still happens; it can happen to me or you. Both pilots and skydivers can plan ahead to minimize the risk of that.

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.