Insurance brokers warning to DZO's/Plane owners

[WickedWingsuits 0]

I think 70+ has to include early pioneers of the sport jumping off buildings and out of balloons.

I heard it was a thriving business till the insurance companies banned jumping off the Eiffel tower.

Summer Rental special, 5 weeks for the price of 4! That is $160 a month.

Try before You Buy with Wicked Wingsuits - WingsuitRental.com

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

I think 70+ has to include early pioneers of the sport jumping off buildings and out of balloons.

I heard it was a thriving business till the insurance companies banned jumping off the Eiffel tower.

Now THAT's funny!


And I gotta agree, 70 sounds a bit high, I'd be curious to see the history on it...I remember back in the 70's, some of the 'old timers' back then talking about the ban and named a few 'they' knew of that had gone in.




Not trying to be antagonistic or anything WW~

~Curious as to your take on the Insurance Issue unfolding and it's possible implications regarding a structured instructional program...has it changed your opinion any?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[normiss 806]

Are the numbers used strictly sky jumping or is BASE included?

[pchapman 279]

Ok, I found a good source to debunk the 72 batwing deaths crap. Michael Abrams, who wrote "Birdmen, Batmen, and Skyflyers" discussed the issue in a blog of his from years back:

http://icarusreport.blogspot.ca/2006/08/fatal-subtraction.html

The 72 deaths statement ended up in a BirdMan owners manual, on the BPA website, and in various magazines.

It sounds like it all started as a casual boast by one of the early pioneers, that got paraphrased in someone else's book :

Quote

Roy "Red" Grant, self proclaimed as the last of the birdmen, estimates there were never more than seventy-five of these characters. He figures three quit the business, he is alive and the rest of the batmen made a big hole in the ground."

That's in the same vein as saying, "Skyboarding? Nobody does that anymore; they all died!"

[DSE 5]

Quote

Ok, I found a good source to debunk the 72 batwing deaths crap. Michael Abrams, who wrote "Birdmen, Batmen, and Skyflyers" discussed the issue in a blog of his from years back:

http://icarusreport.blogspot.ca/2006/08/fatal-subtraction.html

The 72 deaths statement ended up in a BirdMan owners manual, on the BPA website, and in various magazines.

It sounds like it all started as a casual boast by one of the early pioneers, that got paraphrased in someone else's book :

Quote

Roy "Red" Grant, self proclaimed as the last of the birdmen, estimates there were never more than seventy-five of these characters. He figures three quit the business, he is alive and the rest of the batmen made a big hole in the ground."

That's in the same vein as saying, "Skyboarding? Nobody does that anymore; they all died!"

Valid point, the book only offers 30-odd names. The rest are just numbers.
Whatever the number was, it was enough to cause USPA to ban wingsuits until the late 80's.

[michalm21 2]

Quote

Quote

How many tail strikes so far in 2012?

REPORTED you mean?

Reported or unreported.
Trying to see if there's a trend. Yes, 11 is too many but it does not necessarily indicate the future and is not a trend (yet)

I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

So I'm simply asking, what's going on this year so far? Do we have 8-9 ail strikes this year that supports the 'tail strike every 29 days' argument.

I respond well to evidence. I'm curious to see if it's a trend or if people are realizing the stupidity of leaving the plane opened up already.

I will talk with my dzo this coming weekend and print out the dse posted pictures to be hanged in the loading area.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

So I'm simply asking, what's going on this year so far? Do we have 8-9 ail strikes this year that supports the 'tail strike every 29 days' argument.

I respond well to evidence.

The problem here is that nobody cares what you think (with regards to this issue). It's gone beyond one jumper arguing with another jumper about the way things should or should not be. It's in the hands of the insurance company now, and they have drawn the line in the sand. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for more data (tailstrikes) to come in to see if it's a 'trend' or a 'spike'.

A very conservative estimate would be that 11 tailstrikes cost the insurance company $100,000. Once they realized this, they gave the aircraft owners the courtesy of a warning, and that's the letter that was sent out. What's done is done, those incidents took place and those claims were paid out. The best they can do (for themselves) is continue coverage, but lay down the law future incidents will result in rate hikes of coverage drops.

So what it comes down to is that even if this was a 'spike', it left a mark on the insurance company, so that moving forward even if we return to a 'reasonable' rate of tail strikes it will be viewed as either an increasing trend or the start of another spike, neither of which the insurance company will tolerate. Even if last year was a spike, through no fault of our own, an unintended consequence has appeared.

[normiss 806]

Hanging DSE in the boarding area won't help.
Unless you can lock him into the correct body position for exit anyway...

[michalm21 2]

Quote

Quote

So I'm simply asking, what's going on this year so far? Do we have 8-9 ail strikes this year that supports the 'tail strike every 29 days' argument.

I respond well to evidence.

The problem here is that nobody cares what you think (with regards to this issue). It's gone beyond one jumper arguing with another jumper about the way things should or should not be. It's in the hands of the insurance company now, and they have drawn the line in the sand. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for more data (tailstrikes) to come in to see if it's a 'trend' or a 'spike'.

A very conservative estimate would be that 11 tailstrikes cost the insurance company $100,000. Once they realized this, they gave the aircraft owners the courtesy of a warning, and that's the letter that was sent out. What's done is done, those incidents took place and those claims were paid out. The best they can do (for themselves) is continue coverage, but lay down the law future incidents will result in rate hikes of coverage drops.

So what it comes down to is that even if this was a 'spike', it left a mark on the insurance company, so that moving forward even if we return to a 'reasonable' rate of tail strikes it will be viewed as either an increasing trend or the start of another spike, neither of which the insurance company will tolerate. Even if last year was a spike, through no fault of our own, an unintended consequence has appeared.

So what you're saying is "everybody panic"! Got it.

It is not true that nobody care what I think. There will be someone who cares. I for one, regardless of what happens next, want to know if we still are throwing ourselves on the tail of the planes.

Do you have an answer for me? If you don't care, please don't waste space and don't respond.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Do you have an answer for me? If you don't care, please don't waste space and don't respond

That's ironic, because my answer (more or less) is that debating the issue at this point is a waste of space. There was a time when we could sit around and argue back and forth for months (or years) about what is or is not needed in terms of wingsuit training or regulation because there was no external pressure to act.

So my point was that your interest in the nature of the tail strikes and their frequency, that being if it was a trend or a spike, is no longer relevant to the current situation. Waiting for additional statistics to come in and prove the nature of the curve (spike or trend) is not an an option because by the time that happens, wingsuiting will be an exemption on the insurance policies, and not welcome at most DZ in the US.

Think about the cost of one tailstrike. Now take that cost and consider what the insurance companies would have to do to everyones rates to cover the cost of a dozen of those per year (according to their currently available stats). Now take that number, and consider how many wingsuit slots a DZ would have to fly to cover the rate hike if they wanted to include wingsuiting on their policy. They would have to fly 100s of wingsuit slots per year, and run the increases risk of aircraft damage (and down time) that comes with it, or just forget about wingsuits, higher insurance rates, and tailstrike risks all together. What do you think DZs will choose?

'Everybody panic'? I'm not sure that's the correct action, but I am sure that by the time the insurance company takes note of a problem, and goes to the trouble to send a 'warning shot' to all the DZOs they insure, they we're on a pretty short leash and that the time to debate the issues is over, and the time for action has come. What is that action? Can't say for sure, but waiting around for more statistics to become avaiable is not it.

[DSE 5]

more pix for you to post.
The "Fight the bite" graphic in PSD is availablehttps://docs.google.com/open?id=0BxhZWxju4_IlaDRZX2Ftbk45SG8

Crappy graphic, but the artist couldn't sketch up a Caravan or PAC.
Trends

Reported thus far in 2012, less than 2011 at this time. That's a good thing.

[michalm21 2]

If you carefully read my thread you will notice that I never referred to the insurance companies regarding the trend analysis.

I wanted to find out for myself. I'm sorry that I'm trying to analyze this issue myself without relying on others to tell me how it is.

If that makes you happy, I will gladly start (yet another - 4th?) thread about it if that's the only way for me (me) to get the answer.

[DARK 0]

Quote

The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

You weren't using a meaningfull comparison thats all. If people are not allowed jump a wingsuit until after 200 jumps then obviously there will be no deaths of people with under 200 jumps on a wingsuit, that dosn't mean it has made anything safer.

So you are confident that there were 70 student to novice level wingsuit deaths before the bsr and since the bsr there have been 2/3?

While hard to believe if that is the case that is great.

[DSE 5]

Quote

Quote

The initial point was that USPA intervention (so far) has halted the several incidents and reversed the trend. Which part of that needs greater explaining?

You weren't using a meaningfull comparison thats all. If people are not allowed jump a wingsuit until after 200 jumps then obviously there will be no deaths of people with under 200 jumps on a wingsuit, that dosn't mean it has made anything safer.

So you are confident that there were 70 student to novice level wingsuit deaths before the bsr and since the bsr there have been 2/3?

While hard to believe if that is the case that is great.

With the thread meandering so much, I can see how one might miss some posts and read "70 deaths caused BSR."

5 verified/known fatals in 4 years due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing a wingsuit.
BSR passed in 2010.
Since BSR, Zero fatals due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing wingsuit.

[airtwardo 7]

I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

Quote

IIRC didn't Eloy make definite & mandatory changes in policy regarding landing patterns etc, which in all likelihood ended that 'spike'?
Changes that were then somewhat adapted to several other large DZ's...possibly leading to lower incident numbers.


As far as panic...we all know that when things start to go bad, that's a waste of time & energy.

What we HAVE to do is react fast and with as much input as possible to correct the problem, before it becomes a permanent one that's critical & beyond recovery.

The 'IF' we need to do something discussion is now moot, we are at the 'WHAT' to do part of the problem and time is critical.

I can't say that having a WSI program will end the tail-strike trend the insurance carrier is concerned about, but it probably will have an effect...and I can say without reservation that having a positive plan in place that acknowledges & addresses the situation is the smart thing to do in the economic and legal environment we operate in.

It's just makes good sense.

I've been a professional airshow performer for over 30 years and I've seen similar situations arise in that arena.

Trust me when I say, the absolute last this you want to hear from an agency that can effect your way of doing business is ~ 'you should have seen this coming and done something, now here's what WE'RE going to do'

An example: Years ago the insurance industry was looking hard at totally revamping the way and even IF they would cover pilots performing in shows. The model they projected would have all but ended available coverage for many performers. The ACE rating was born, 'Aerobatic Competency Evaluation'.

It's directly modeled after our PRO Rating in that certain specific standards of performance have to be met and maintained in order to hold the certificate.

If you don't have the skills you get trained up until you do...or you don't perform. It not only raised awareness it set standards that were concrete and if nothing else showed the insurance people that positive action was being instituted. Things smoothed out accordingly. Premiums actually DROPPED as time went on and claim numbers decreased. Win-Win.

I have other examples in which fast action preempted negative consequences, but that one most directly relates to our current situation.

What 'we' think about trends and numbers and freedom to operate without red-tape is inconsequential at this point. A business decision has been made, we either react positively addressing the concerns or we turn a blind eye and actually LOSE some of that 'freedom'.

We have the chance to do something ...we have the NEED to do it fast and do it right.

Hey, we won't get a second chance once decisions are made. This is chess not checkers, we need a strategy addressing various counter-moves 'against' our little world.

We have to do it now - so much better to suffer an little here than a whole lot later. Regaining the lost ground is always a difficult, expensive & time consuming battle.

I say we need to institute the WSI program without further delay as that is the quickest solution with the most probable positive outcome.

Certainly we can & should address this on other levels as well but make no mistake the clock IS ticking.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

If you carefully read my thread you will notice that I never referred to the insurance companies regarding the trend analysis.

I wanted to find out for myself. I'm sorry that I'm trying to analyze this issue myself without relying on others to tell me how it is.

If that makes you happy, I will gladly start (yet another - 4th?) thread about it if that's the only way for me (me) to get the answer.

I'm sure the information you desire is available from the USPA or the insurance carrier, have you contacted them directly for concrete numbers?

Might be the best way to insure the facts aren't tilted in any self-interest directions...let us know what you find out.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Remster 30]

Quote

I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

In Reply To

IIRC didn't Eloy make definite & mandatory changes in policy regarding landing patterns etc, which in all likelihood ended that 'spike'?
Changes that were then somewhat adapted to several other large DZ's...possibly leading to lower incident numbers.

Actually, it was and is a trend. Canopy collisions were a much higher ratio of deaths the last few years than they were before. Between the Eloy ones, the Perris ones, many DZs implemented soon after rules to split landing patterns.

Remster

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

In Reply To

IIRC didn't Eloy make definite & mandatory changes in policy regarding landing patterns etc, which in all likelihood ended that 'spike'?
Changes that were then somewhat adapted to several other large DZ's...possibly leading to lower incident numbers.

Actually, it was and is a trend. Canopy collisions were a much higher ratio of deaths the last few years than they were before. Between the Eloy ones, the Perris ones, many DZs implemented soon after rules to split landing patterns.

I know, the trend is ongoing...the spike was addressed quickly and with positive results all things considered. Most importantly, the effort was made to address it quickly and concisely.

There was even some friction then as I recall, discussion about better possible alternatives to separate patterns...more education, maps, loader briefings etc. ~ but the fact that action was taken and a positive effect resulting, is what I'm addressing with my 'general' comparison.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Remster 30]

Agreed Twardo.... I was trying to re-enforce what you said.

Remster

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Agreed Twardo.... I was trying to re-enforce what you said.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[billvon 3,006]

> Between the Eloy ones, the Perris ones, many DZs implemented soon after
>rules to split landing patterns.

There is now a USPA requirement to do this for all DZO's. It's in their group member pledge agreement.

[DARK 0]

Quote

With the thread meandering so much, I can see how one might miss some posts and read "70 deaths caused BSR."

well I read it like that because I asked you a straight up question and thats how you answered it

Quote

5 verified/known fatals in 4 years due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing a wingsuit.
BSR passed in 2010.

we are getting closer, this is part of what I wanted to know

Quote

Since BSR, Zero fatals due to sub 200 skydives prior to wearing wingsuit.

You are still not answering the question or comparing like with like, has there been a decrease in the number of novice wingsuiters being involved in incidents since the bsr was introduced?

In other words are the wingsuit students better/safer then the students who started before the bsr or do they just have more jumps now when the incidents occur? That is the significant comparison

Another way to ask the same question would be, are wingsuiters with less then say 25 wingsuit jumps behaving safer then pre bsr wingsuiters with less then 25 wingsuit jumps?

I ask because we make assumptions about the causes of certain things and create rules in response but I see very little analysis after the rules are introduced to make sure they are working as intended.

If we keep doing it that way we are going to be inundated with minor rules and changes that give the appearance of meaningfull action when in reality they are of no benefit whatsoever

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

I remember we had 4 or 5 canopy collisions with many fatalities in a stretch of like a month (2009 maybe?), few of them in Eloy. Didn't turn into an increasing number/trend, but was more like a one time spike (that was later probably mitigated by education and maybe even luck)

The year was 2011. It wasn’t a spike it was part of a trend.

Canopy collisions

2009 – 7 fatalities
2010 - 12 fatalities
2011 – 10 fatalities

The insurance companies think 11 tail strike in a 12 month period is a trend. As Dave said what you think on the subject is moot.

Education had nothing to do with slowing the trend down…enforcement of reasonable rules did.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[DSE 5]

Quote

With the thread meandering so much, I can see how one might miss some posts and read "70 deaths caused BSR."

You are still not answering the question or comparing like with like, has there been a decrease in the number of novice wingsuiters being involved in incidents since the bsr was introduced?

In other words are the wingsuit students better/safer then the students who started before the bsr or do they just have more jumps now when the incidents occur? That is the significant comparison

Another way to ask the same question would be, are wingsuiters with less then say 25 wingsuit jumps behaving safer then pre bsr wingsuiters with less then 25 wingsuit jumps?

I ask because we make assumptions about the causes of certain things and create rules in response but I see very little analysis after the rules are introduced to make sure they are working as intended.

If we keep doing it that way we are going to be inundated with minor rules and changes that give the appearance of meaningfull action when in reality they are of no benefit whatsoever

I'm not answering the way you'd like to interpret it; maybe a different explanation will help you.

A-There were 5 verified pre-200 skydive wingsuit fatalities (majority of them in the 100-120 jump area) prior to BSR.
B-There have been zero verified or rumored wingsuit fatalities of sub 100 skydive jumpers.
This is objective.

Are wingsuiters of 25 jumps today "behaving safer" than wingsuiters with 25 jumps 3 years ago? I'd say "no." But that's a subjective response. Statistically, tailstrikes are on the rise (for example). I hear off-landings are increased. Incidents would suggest as much.
In our region, I'd give it a qualified "yes, they behave better" but then again, I hear that Elsinore's flight lanes and required briefing/sticker are "too much regulation."
What's your point? Are you feeling that wingsuiters can negotiate with an insurance company or the federal gov't?

[DARK 0]

Quote

What's your point? Are you feeling that wingsuiters can negotiate with an insurance company or the federal gov't?

My point is if you want to properly represent your niche of our sport then you have to be able to answer these questions.

I feel that it is everyones entrenched positions that are leading them to ignore potentially valuable data or information from sources because it might hurt their current position. This does nobody any good.

If more dzo's get this letter and start coming down hard on wingsuiting or on uspa's rules aren't you one of the people the uspa will probably ask for an opinion? Why don't any of the stakeholders have definitive statistical evidence to support the theory that the wingsuit bsr has increased safety in the way it was intended or it hasn't.

Isn't this something the uspa should have ready to go about all facets of the sport in case they have to defend their position to the faa or insurance companies?

If it hasn't been in place long enough yet say that but don't settle for half truths because it is convenient.

Insurance companies can be negotiated with but they only deal with statistical evidence not opinion so if they ask you has the bsr increased safety relating to wingsuits I think you should have a better answer ready.