billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 10:50 AM
Post #1 of 292
(3991 views)
Shortcut
BSR proposal for canopy patterns
Can't Post
Below is a document that several skydivers (including myself) have spent some time working on. We will be discussing it here, via email with other DZO's, and at the upcoming USPA meeting in July. This thread is intended for discussion; I will later post a thread for anyone who wishes to add their name to the petition. ----------------------------------- Dear Fellow Skydivers,
In the aftermath of many recent canopy related incidents, with the catalyst being the deaths of Bob Holler and Danny Page, several skydivers got together and began to discuss how to help prevent incidents like this in the future. The proposals below are the result of this collaboration. We present them here to encourage feedback and discussion over the pros and cons of the various implementations.
Our intent is to propose a new BSR to increase safety under canopy for all skydivers.
With the advance of the sport over the decades, the BSRs have remained largely unchanged for experienced skydivers. Today, the largest single cause of injury and death in our sport is pilot error under an open and flying canopy. Recently we have seen an alarming increase in one sort of canopy incident - an incident where one jumper turns into another one. These collisions rarely have good outcomes.
There are recommendations, suggestions, and guidelines in the SIM regarding flying parachutes in a pattern but the statistics show that these are not sufficient to slow down the increase in these injuries. We therefore see a need for a landing area BSR to help DZO's to keep jumpers from killing themselves (and more importantly other jumpers.)
Below we present three options for additions to the BSR's:
-------------------- OPTION 1:
H. Drop zone requirements
4. Landing Patterns:
a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW]
b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]
c. Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in the standard landing pattern area. [FB]
d. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed regardless of location. [NW]
e. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the center of the area and land on the edges. [NW]
----------------------
OPTION 2:
H. Drop zone requirements
4. Landing Patterns:
a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW]
b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]
c. Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. [NW]
-----------------------------------
OPTION 3:
H. Drop zone requirements
4. Landing Patterns:
a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW]
b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]
c. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. [NW]
-----------------------------------
Aircraft flight patterns were devised to keep pilots from crashing into each other while landing on the same runway, even when radio services are not available. These FAR rules have worked well for a century and been modified as technology has advanced the capabilities of aircraft.
USPA needs to remain proactive with the need to enforce safety. Canopy collisions in the landing pattern are the next serious safety issue USPA needs to address.
The last major threat to the sport was seatbelts. After a series of aircraft crashes with skydivers on board and the apparent lack of seatbelts being worn, the FAA wanted this problem fixed, quickly. The FAR requiring seatbelt usage already existed, it was just overlooked by most people in the sport. USPA solved the seatbelt issue by adding a BSR to the SIM, and by working with DZOs, aircraft owners and skydivers via a proactive campaign to educate all in the sport about seatbelt usage. Currently it is second nature for a jumper to put on a seatbelt in a jump aircraft. We want this same second nature attitude for jumpers flying into the landing pattern.
Shiara Holler C-32753 Molly Osborne D-23904 Val Thal-Slocum D-5837 Bill von Novak D-16479 Paul Sitter D-2714 Flip Colmer D-6157 Dan "dob" O'Brien D-5362 Kate Cooper D-7333
Apr 30, 2007, 11:05 AM
Post #2 of 292
(3944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Bill, You list 8 people who contributed to drafting this document. What are the stats of these people (number of jumps/years in sport/canopy/disciplines practiced)? Also of these 8 people do any of them routinely perform high performance landings?
(This post was edited by Mostly_Harmless on Apr 30, 2007, 11:06 AM)
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #3 of 292
(3877 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
You list 8 people who contributed to drafting this document. What are the stats of these people (number of jumps/years in sport/canopy/disciplines practiced)? Also of these 8 people do any of them routinely perform high performance landings?
Not one on that list are any HP Canopy Pilot that I know of or have met (not to say that means they aren't).
Apr 30, 2007, 11:56 AM
Post #4 of 292
(3875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Mostly...
Mind if I ask why the stats of these individuals or whether they perform HP landings are relevant? I think we've (the skydiving communty at large) already determined that this IS NOT a swooper issue, but rather an issue with everyone under a canopy. In addition, I haven't a clue as to what their 'stats' do for this conversation either.
Something, aside from a knee-jerk reaction, needs to be done and this is the closest thing I've seen to date...
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 11:57 AM
Post #5 of 292
(3873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
e. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the center of the area and land on the edges.
Depends on which edge and how they get there.
IMO they should be dealt with as harshly as a pilot doing HP's in a non HP area. For all intents and purposes it should be a no-fly zone.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 12:05 PM
Post #6 of 292
(3856 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>IMO they should be dealt with as harshly as a pilot doing HP's in a non HP area.
Any skydiver always has the option of doing a non-HP landing. Most skydivers do not have the option of doing a HP landing.
Apr 30, 2007, 12:10 PM
Post #7 of 292
(3841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Glitch] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Mostly...
Mind if I ask why the stats of these individuals or whether they perform HP landings are relevant? I think we've (the skydiving communty at large) already determined that this IS NOT a swooper issue, but rather an issue with everyone under a canopy. In addition, I haven't a clue as to what their 'stats' do for this conversation either.
Something, aside from a knee-jerk reaction, needs to be done and this is the closest thing I've seen to date...
I would just like to know who the people are who are writing this up. I don't think it's a rediculious question to ask. If this is an "issue with everyone under a canopy" situation then I think that every needs to have a say including jumpers who perform high performance landings routinely. I wouldn't want people with solely RW experience to write the rules regarding a VRW competition in the same way I wouldn't want people with 5,000 staight in landings to dictate rules with no input from pilots who perform high performance landings.
I agree that something needs to be done. I don't want to die because of someone elses neglect. I also agree that what Bill posted seems pretty fair to all pilots. But considering I am not a swooper (would like to be one day) I would like to know that the rules to a degree satisfy everyone. Maybe I am playing the devil's advocate (not really trying too) so if I am out of line with these questions then I will stop.
Apr 30, 2007, 12:11 PM
Post #8 of 292
(3838 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
c. Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. [NW]
How do you determine if someone is a SLP jumper other than after the fact? What if I enter the pattern with intent to do a 270, screw up my base, and bail into a nice safe 90? Does that mean that the three guys stacked above me are now prohibited from busting their move?
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 12:12 PM
Post #9 of 292
(3835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Any skydiver always has the option of doing a non-HP landing. Most skydivers do not have the option of doing a HP landing.
Bill, that's not the point. The point is that if they are in, or around, the HP area they are an incredible danger to themselves and those doing HP landings.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 12:15 PM
Post #10 of 292
(3823 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I would just like to know who the people are who are writing this up. I don't think it's a rediculious question to ask. If this is an "issue with everyone under a canopy" situation then I think that every needs to have a say including jumpers who perform high performance landings routinely. I wouldn't want people with solely RW experience to write the rules regarding a VRW competition in the same way I wouldn't want people with 5,000 staight in landings to dictate rules with no input from pilots who perform high performance landings.
I agree that something needs to be done. I don't want to die because of someone elses neglect. I also agree that what Bill posted seems pretty fair to all pilots. But considering I am not a swooper (would like to be one day) I would like to know that the rules to a degree satisfy everyone. Maybe I am playing the devil's advocate (not really trying too) so if I am out of line with these questions then I will stop.
I agree. If someone hasn't dedicated part, if not all, of their skydiving career to learning canopy flight, how are they qualified or equipped to think of all the ways flight around the HP area can effect both the HP and the non-HP pilots?
Apr 30, 2007, 12:19 PM
Post #11 of 292
(3810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
You're right someone without VRW should not dictate the competition rules, but we are talking about a BSR; this concerns everyone. John Kallend's head down skills (or lack thereof) were not important when he explained to us why they get out after the belly flyers.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 12:20 PM
Post #12 of 292
(3809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
in terms of their experience, look at the D numbers; mostly very low. Frankly, swooper, non-swooper, current, non-current, it takes a group like these guys to get *something* initiated. We can't know if it's the wrong thing til it's had some time to be experienced and fine-tuned. Gotta applaud this team for making the effort, and hopefully this forum (small representation of skydivers) and the others that I'm confident are providing feedback outside of this community that Bill et al can use to strengthen/improve whatever foundation they are laying with this recommendation.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 12:27 PM
Post #13 of 292
(3792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
> The point is that if they are in, or around, the HP area they are >an incredible danger to themselves and those doing HP landings.
I agree. Hence the section stating "If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area."
Apr 30, 2007, 12:31 PM
Post #14 of 292
(3784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andrewwhyte] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Andrew, I agree with you, it does concern everyone which is why I believe pilots from both sides should be included.
DSE, I noticed the low D numbers right away. While the does show input from long time jumpers, it doesn't show there currency or there participation in certain disciplines. Someone with a low D number could have made 200 jumps 20 years ago and haven't made one since then.
Bill posted this document up on dz.com for disscussion ( as stated in the begining of his post) so I am just adding my 2 cents (whatever they might be worth). As I said before I am a wannbe swooper and therefor I would like to know that there will be a place for it when I reach the experience level to which I feel comfortable enough to pursue it. Until then I can only count on the experienced pilots of today to ensure a certain level of "fairness" in the rules.
Apr 30, 2007, 12:34 PM
Post #15 of 292
(3773 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I don't think its relevant whether they swoop or not.
People don't need to drive a car to create common sense rules about how cars should behave with regard to each other.
Now if it was a rule about how one should execute a high performance landing, clearly you would want swoopers to have a LOT of input.
To decide that swoopers and non swoopers shouldn't land in the same place I don't think you even need to be a skydiver. All you have to do is look at what can happen when the two mix in the same landing area.
(This post was edited by ChrisL on Apr 30, 2007, 12:35 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 12:35 PM
Post #16 of 292
(3770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>What are the stats of these people . . .
My stats:
Jumping since 1991, ~5000 jumps AFF/Tandem/SL instructor at various times S+TA for two years Bigway world records 2002, 2004, 2006 Current discipline is RW; training for 8-way Last jump was yesterday Current canopy is a Nitro 108 loaded 1.95 to 1 Most of my landings are 90 degree front riser swoops since I usually land in traffic When I have the space I do 180-270 degree swoops
I have emailed the other people on the proposal and told them that someone asked this question; they can answer if they choose. I won't try to speak for them.
(This post was edited by billvon on Apr 30, 2007, 12:36 PM)
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 12:37 PM
Post #17 of 292
(3760 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
I don't think its relevant whether they swoop or not.
I disagree with you. How can you know enough about the dynamics of the environment you're proposing if you don't understand it in the first place?
It isn't only about seperate landing areas, it's about how those areas intersect in patterns, pattern direction, flight paths, and the necessary safety buffers required around those to make it work - and that's just to start with off the top of my head.
Unless you have an obnoxiously large landing area these are some issues you will have to deal with.
Blues, Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Apr 30, 2007, 12:40 PM)
Apr 30, 2007, 12:43 PM
Post #18 of 292
(3735 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
If separating the landing areas into two different zones (one for non-HP landings the other for HP landings) is all it's going to take then I am all for it. As I mentioned before I don't want to die because of someone elses neglect as much as I believe no one wants to kills an innocent person. But how much of a DZ's landing area do we give to HP pilots and non-HP pilots? Should there be a certain distances between them? What if a certain DZ's landing area is too small to accommadate both types of pilots?
I only have 2 years in this sport. I have jumped at 5 DZ's out of hundreds. So if my questions seem stupid or out of line just let me know. Share the knowledge.
Apr 30, 2007, 12:45 PM
Post #19 of 292
(3727 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
I don't think its relevant whether they swoop or not.
I disagree with you. How can you know enough about the dynamics of the environment you're proposing if you don't understand it in the first place?
It isn't only about seperate landing areas, it's about how those areas intersect in patterns, pattern direction, flight paths, and the necessary safety buffers required around those to make it work - and that's just to start with off the top of my head.
Unless you have an obnoxiously large landing area these are some issues you will have to deal with.
Blues, Ian
I don't think these proposals were meant to have that kind of granularity, but rather, they were just the basic framework.
I would think the specifics would need to be worked out for each dropzone at each dropzone depending on their layout and amount of space.
At that time, swoopers would DEFINITELY need to be involved in the process for the very reasons you state.
For these basic recommendations? I still don't see that the chosen disciplines of the people that came up with them is relevant.
(This post was edited by ChrisL on Apr 30, 2007, 12:47 PM)
Apr 30, 2007, 12:53 PM
Post #21 of 292
(3700 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
As I mentioned before I don't want to die because of someone elses neglect as much as I believe no one wants to kills an innocent person.
Me either. I don't want a swooper to take me out, nor do I want to stupidly blunder into the path of a high performance landing.
The result would be the same whether it was his fault or mine.
We would both be seriously injured or dead.
Separate landing areas would certainly seem to prevent either scenario or at least seriously reduce the chances of such an event taking place.
In reply to:
I only have 2 years in this sport. I have jumped at 5 DZ's out of hundreds. So if my questions seem stupid or out of line just let me know. Share the knowledge.
I don't have much knowledge. I'm not all that experienced either. I do believe that some common sense stuff is not directly tied to experience in the sport.
Apr 30, 2007, 1:00 PM
Post #22 of 292
(3679 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Well it looks at though we all can agree on one thing
Something needs to be done.
seperate landing areas are definitely needed.
However from the looks of it, it's not going to just be cut and paste on this issue.
I think everyone needs to keep it simple. People who don't want to HPL it know where they should be landing, and those that are HPL'n it also know where they should be landing.
If one or the other end up in the others landing area it's a tough call. A non HPL pilot can not do an HPL. However a HPL pilot can do a SLP. My suggestion is given the landing zone, make the two far far apart from each other. As far as possible.
Then maybe because of wind patterns these areas can be switched up, this being needed because of landing zone constraints.
This is a tough one. I trust billvon and the others will come up with a truly acceptable solution, as will all of us.
Apr 30, 2007, 1:08 PM
Post #24 of 292
(3660 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hi--kate here sounding in per Bill's request:
Jumping since 1978, 8000 + jumps SL instructor--not current Pro Rating--current Bigway world records, 12 in FS, 1 in FF Current discipline is RW; training for 8-way and currently conducting events and coaching seminars worldwide. Have medaled in FS at the local, regional and national levels. Last jump was Saturday (Denmark), I've made 150 jumps this year. I've remained current--by anyone's standards--since I started jumping. Current canopies include a Katana 107, a Pilot 104, a Crossfire2 109, a Sabre2 107 and a Sabre2 120 (yes, I jump them all, and no, it does NOT suck to be me) Most of my landings are straight in--sometimes, if space allows, I will do a 90 degree riser turn I am actively coaching and training jumpers to do large formation FS at all levels. Adherence to strict canopy patterns is VERY important to me.
I believe in these changes. I am tired of losing friends. I want US to save this sport before others step in to "help" us save it.
I'm off to the US tomorrow, will be off line for a while. I'll be at Perris from 1-14 May and available for comments or conversations.
Apr 30, 2007, 1:27 PM
Post #26 of 292
(1381 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
OPTION 2:
H. Drop zone requirements
4. Landing Patterns:
a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW]
b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]
c. Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. [NW]
Like DSE, I applaud you all for taking some action. I'll just add my two cents, as the only way to get something good is going to be to discuss all the different "what if's."
First and foremost, I'm inclined to be cautious about implementing a BSR, for one reason (the same reason why I often have issues with the government overstepping its bounds) - that which works for one DZ may not work for another DZ. The question of local control versus national control, and the benefits and detriments of each, need to be considered. (For what it's worth, if we are to implement a BSR on landing patterns, I find option #2 to be the best of the above). Here's why:
One of the DZ's I jump at, for instance, has a number of turbine aircraft, and at any given time of day, there always seems to be a load on jump run, and a load under canopy. This DZ has a separate, HP landing area, and I applaud them for that. It only makes sense, given the perpetually-busy sky.
Another turbine DZ I jump at has a single plane that rarely (if ever) runs in tandem with another plane. The result being, even on a full Otter load, one almost always knows who's in the sky. This DZ lands tandems at the student target, and camera flyers for tandems are usually the first ones down so they can video landings. (There is an alternate "experienced" landing area as well, and many people opt for that one.)
It would hardly seem fair to make someone flying camera with 5000+ jumps give up on a swoop in an open landing area (meaning, no one's touched down there yet), just because they were landing at the student target to capture the moment a tandem's toes touched down.
Sure, they could fly in a nice SLP approach...but if they're being aware and safe, and if they know they'll be the first ones to the ground before others even enter the pattern, I don't support them being restricted from swooping. Let's not criminalize that which is not outwardly dangerous.
If they were taking that same approach at the other DZ I mentioned, however, it would in fact be more dangerous, because a student from the previous load might still be in the air, for instance. But at the single-plane DZ (and, say, Cessna DZ's), it doesn't make much sense to force separate landing areas, when a good, solid head and some safety-conscious thought is what's needed the most.
Personally, I think the best answer is to implement local guidelines/requirements (rather than BSR's) to encourage safety. DON'T pull a swoop in these conditions - if so, you'll be grounded. Swoopers allowed in this area only. That sort of thing...whatever works for that particular DZ. Laying blanket restrictions on everyone who's already safety-conscious, just because someone in a completely different situation, at a completely different DZ made a bad call smacks of a knee-jerk reaction.
I'm a nut about safety at the DZ. But let's not forget - we don't all jump regularly at Perris or DeLand. Dropzones are different, and all too often, one size does not fit all. I think those at smaller DZ's should be particularly cognizant of any attempts to change the BSR's in this manner, for that reason.
I hope we have the foresight to find a good solution to this growing problem without overstepping our bounds as a knee-jerk reaction to the unfortunate loss of Bob and Danny.
Apr 30, 2007, 2:15 PM
Post #28 of 292
(1329 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I believe this is the correct direction that we need to take.
Option 3 seems the best so that individual DZs can seperate traffic in a way that works for them.
I applaud the efforts of those involved to improve the safety in our sport for all.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 2:18 PM
Post #29 of 292
(1319 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LloydDobbler] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>that which works for one DZ may not work for another DZ.
That would suggest that option 3) would be a better choice, since it requires only that DZO's make their own decisions on how to separate canopy traffic.
Apr 30, 2007, 2:24 PM
Post #30 of 292
(1308 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jheadley] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
What would one do if non-HPL jumpers are forced to land in the HPL area due to the spot or some other situation?
I'd think one should avoid it like avoiding a body of water or a briar patch. I can't think of any circumstances that really would force a person to land in any particular area. Sometimes circumstances prevent you from landing somewhere, but not usually the other way around.
Apr 30, 2007, 2:29 PM
Post #31 of 292
(1307 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I have 1050 jumps or so, I don't have my logbook handy. First jump 1998- so nine years but 2 years off recovering from injury in there so 7 active years.
Mostly RW 1 year competing in 4 way last year (I am looking for a team) World records: JFTC 2002 JFTC 2005 WT 2006
I do a straight in approach. I have almost killed myself once so I will just stick to a normal pattern. I have taken Scott Millers basic canopy course twice, his advanced course once. Those are excellent courses by the way.
Last skydive: My Boyfriend's Ash Dive 3/23/07- Bob Holler. Hopefully you will understand- but I am not ready to skydive yet so I am taking a break (if I am not current enough for you). I am on the AZ Challenge in May. & up to March I had about 50-60 jumps this year.
Our goal to make canopy flight safer for everyone- swoopers & non swoopers. Bob was a swooper. Damn good one too. He just knew when it was appropriate to swoop, and when it wasn't. He was killed by Danny. Bob was following the pattern, doing everything he was supposed to doing. He never had a chance. Lets stop this now- so that others may live.
Separate areas or by time will make it better for all. Please continue the discussion, its all great- we all need to be a part of this.
(This post was edited by mollyo on Apr 30, 2007, 2:34 PM)
Apr 30, 2007, 2:43 PM
Post #32 of 292
(1284 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Drafter stats?
I'm Paul Sitter. The other 7 folks did the work (lots) in drafting the proposal. I answered some questions. I do fly standard patterns. I started skydiving in '69 and for the next 20 years was way active. Since then, I've had varying levels of participation. I've got more than 5100 jumps. I've been a competitor in R-dub and classic events, Golden Knight, equipment manufacture and sales, DZ operator, jump pilot, a USPA BOD member, AFF course director and a tandem master.
The reason the folks that did all the work invited my participation was that I've written the annual fatality summary for the last 25 years and am too familiar with the way people get killed in our sport. Best guess? The proposal, if accepted, will will on average result in 1 or 2 less people dying each year.
Thanks for the discussion. It's a great grass roots way to grow our sport.
Apr 30, 2007, 2:44 PM
Post #33 of 292
(1279 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
So:
-1- HPL's require a separate landing area or a separate pass (proposals above). -2- A separate landing area and separate passes are not economically viable (see Brian Burke's post).
Adding [1] and [2] together leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.
Apr 30, 2007, 2:46 PM
Post #34 of 292
(1276 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
>that which works for one DZ may not work for another DZ.
That would suggest that option 3) would be a better choice, since it requires only that DZO's make their own decisions on how to separate canopy traffic.
Oops. I stand corrected. Got interrupted from reading by a quick meeting, and must've read the wrong one, thinking it was #3.
Change my vote to #3. I like the sound of that. Obviously, even if one DZ is different from another one, we all benefit when there are established rules and everyone is made aware. I would agree that that's a given.
Thanks for clarifying (& for including that option), Bill.
Apr 30, 2007, 3:03 PM
Post #35 of 292
(1253 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
To BSR writers:
What is wrong with you guys? Last year you were pushing WL BSR. Now you suggest CP BRR. I understand you like BSR and want to write many more good BSR for us, but maybe you should focus on your own jumping instead?
Apr 30, 2007, 3:15 PM
Post #37 of 292
(1246 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
To BSR writers:
What is wrong with you guys? Last year you were pushing WL BSR. Now you suggest CP BRR. I understand you like BSR and want to write many more good BSR for us, but maybe you should focus on your own jumping instead?
Less politics more jumping!
they're jumping plenty.
I believe the intent in their proposals is to direct DZs to separate out the HP traffic, either by location (preferable) or time. It seems difficult to change the problem at hand merely by telling people not to screw up.
BTW, the wingloading proposals covered a very different concern than the canopy patterns.
One proposal a year isn't that overbearing.
(This post was edited by kelpdiver on Apr 30, 2007, 3:16 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 3:22 PM
Post #38 of 292
(1236 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jheadley] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>What would one do if non-HPL jumpers are forced to land in the HPL >area due to the spot or some other situation?
If we adpoted that particular BSR option, then I would imagine it would be treated like a low pull. If you did it because someone was above you and you had to take it a little low? You might get a talking to. If you did it several times for no good reason? The DZO might decide to put your name on a warning board, or ground you.
Similarly, if you landed in the middle of the HP area because the spot was bad and there were no other safe options? You might talked to about checking your spot a bit better or choosing better outs. If you did it consistently for no good reason? You might get warned or grounded.
(This post was edited by billvon on Apr 30, 2007, 3:26 PM)
Apr 30, 2007, 3:28 PM
Post #40 of 292
(1229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Now days BSR seems to be an answer to everything. I’m all for separate landing areas, low passes and etc. But lets face it BSR has nothing to do with economic efficiency of “hop and pop” passes and they won’t enlarge landing area too
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 3:36 PM
Post #41 of 292
(1217 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>What is wrong with you guys?
I think we saw too many of our friends die.
>Less politics more jumping!
I'd prefer less politics, less fatalities and more jumping. This BSR is one way to make that happen. It's not the only way, but it is one way that has a good chance of being effective at reducing the number of canopy collision fatalities.
Apr 30, 2007, 5:00 PM
Post #43 of 292
(1157 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
> The point is that if they are in, or around, the HP area they are >an incredible danger to themselves and those doing HP landings.
I agree. Hence the section stating "If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area."
What if that's their only "out" and there are other obstacles that would prevent them from "avoiding".
Clearly there's been a lot of thought put into this, perhaps a broader brush is needed? I've not given it too much thought lately, as my most recent jumps, it's just been me and my team in the sky, and we brief the patter beforehand, and we're jumping StarTracs...no HPLs to worry about.
Apr 30, 2007, 5:09 PM
Post #44 of 292
(1148 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I know sport and classic accuracy doesn't mean anything to 99.9% of the jumpers out there.But, if these BSR's were to take effect then accuracy jumpers practicing their set-up would be banned from doing anymore than a 90 degree flat-turn on approach. OR am I reading this wrong???
Apr 30, 2007, 5:42 PM
Post #45 of 292
(1133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
What does the other side want?
I want everyone to start making better decisions under canopy. Right now we cant get people to follow a simple rule such as "no swooping on a bigway". Rules were in place to prevent many of the recent accidents that have occurred... they just havnt been enforced.
Apr 30, 2007, 6:08 PM
Post #47 of 292
(1117 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I can see your proposal working on larger DZ's or boogies , I don't think you need the same rules for the Smaller Cesna DZ's where 4 people might be in the air at one time . Another thing is just how much space are you talking about between separate landing areas ?
Apr 30, 2007, 8:09 PM
Post #49 of 292
(1062 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Ok, fair enough. I have to admit though that I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of choosing to land off before landing in the HP area. It may not be a big deal at some DZs but I'm thinking of several that have very few outs, and the outs they do have are pretty sketchy. If given the choice of landing in trees, a tight back yard, or a nice open area that's designated for HP landings, I'd have trouble not choosing the open area. Maybe I'd hook it just to stay within the rules.
Apr 30, 2007, 8:42 PM
Post #50 of 292
(1048 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
I think we saw too many of our friends die. I'd prefer less politics, less fatalities and more jumping. This BSR is one way to make that happen. It's not the only way, but it is one way that has a good chance of being effective at reducing the number of canopy collision fatalities.
This is very emotional, but does not explain why we need to make BSR out of this? Low pull BSR was put in place because people were doing intentional low pulls. I'm sure no one were intentionally involved in those canopy collisions.
Make a recommendation and i'll sing this with you.
There are many things that make a lot of sense: Gear checks, proper separation, looking down before exit and etc why don't we make BSR out of this too?
I think BSR is not replacement for common sense.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 9:07 PM
Post #51 of 292
(1353 views)
Shortcut
Re: [imdskydiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I can see your proposal working on larger DZ's or boogies , I don't think >you need the same rules for the Smaller Cesna DZ's where 4 people might > be in the air at one time . . .
Well
1) It's not my proposal; I wasn't the original author of any of them
2) In the case you mention, surely the following proposal would work:
"Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other."
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 30, 2007, 9:19 PM
Post #52 of 292
(1347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Low pull BSR was put in place because people were doing intentional low >pulls.
No, the low pull BSR was put in place because people were dying when they did low pulls. No one really cares if people pull low; they do care if people pull low and then die.
Likewise, no one really cares if people do 270's or 360's in a pattern. They do care when they die doing them - and they really care when they kill other people doing them.
We are not proposing this BSR because we don't like swoopers. We aren't even proposing this BSR because skydivers regularly kill themselves doing 270's and 360's in normal traffic patterns. The major impetus behind this is that people doing those manuevers kill OTHER people who are doing their best to skydive safely. That is inexcusable.
>I'm sure no one were intentionally involved in those canopy collisions.
And I am sure that no one who pulled low intentionally went in.
>There are many things that make a lot of sense: Gear checks, proper >separation, looking down before exit and etc why don't we make BSR out >of this too?
To hit on this point by point:
Because people who neglect gear checks do not generally kill other people.
Because people who do not understand exit separation do not generally kill other people.
Because if you are the last diver on a 20-way, looking down before exit is both impractical and does not really buy you anything. And again, the lack of such an action does not generally kill other people.
(This post was edited by billvon on Apr 30, 2007, 10:43 PM)
Apr 30, 2007, 10:12 PM
Post #53 of 292
(1339 views)
Shortcut
Re: [imdskydiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I can see your proposal working on larger DZ's or boogies , I don't think you need the same rules for the Smaller Cesna DZ's where 4 people might be in the air at one time.
The people that worry me the most are the ones that normally jump at small DZs, then show up at multi-turbine boogies. They're used to having the sky to themselves and often fly that way even when there's 20 other canopies in the sky with them.
Apr 30, 2007, 11:21 PM
Post #54 of 292
(1316 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I do not support this BSR proposal.
I agree that things need to be done, but another set of non-enforceable rules to address problems created outside "normal" DZ operations will not help.
Requiring more of our instructors in this sport WILL have a marked impact.
May 1, 2007, 5:49 AM
Post #55 of 292
(1270 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
I think we saw too many of our friends die. I'd prefer less politics, less fatalities and more jumping. This BSR is one way to make that happen. It's not the only way, but it is one way that has a good chance of being effective at reducing the number of canopy collision fatalities.
This is very emotional, but does not explain why we need to make BSR out of this? Low pull BSR was put in place because people were doing intentional low pulls. I'm sure no one were intentionally involved in those canopy collisions.
.
People are intentionally doing 270s (and more) into standard traffic patterns. I've been hit by such an individual. By pure luck, I am still here to tell you about it. Others have not been so lucky.
May 1, 2007, 6:28 AM
Post #56 of 292
(1249 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
"I do not support this BSR proposal.
I agree that things need to be done, but another set of non-enforceable rules to address problems created outside "normal" DZ operations will not help."
I agree with JP here. Even if you institue this rule do you honestly think that it will fix th eroot cause of the problem? The cause of the problem is people making stupid decisions at inopportune times.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 7:02 AM
Post #57 of 292
(1231 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Spizzzarko] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Agreed.
But of course it's just much easier to attempt and regulate the problem away, without looking at what the root of the problem really is. Not just the results of it.
May 1, 2007, 7:25 AM
Post #58 of 292
(1215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
But of course it's just much easier to attempt and regulate the problem away, without looking at what the root of the problem really is. Not just the results of it.
And it is even easier to complain about those that are trying to do something without offering a better suggestion.
In reply to:
without looking at what the root of the problem really is.
Root Cause?? How about Humans make mistakes. Speed Magnifies these mistakes. Setting guidelines and rules in place so that the effect of the Bad Decision can be minimized is a good thing.
May 1, 2007, 7:47 AM
Post #59 of 292
(1199 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Bio for Flip Colmer
Skydiving Experience
3683 Skydives. 70+ Hours of FreeFall. First Jump: October 1976. Last Jump: February 2006. Retired successfully alive.
Have held Static Line I/JM, AFF I/JM/Evaluator and Tandem Master ratings.
Started and operated Napoleon Skydiving Center, Napoleon, MI from 1991 to 1992.
Participated in 357, 300, 246, 200, 120 and 100 person world records. Got hurt two days prior to the 400 way. Missed that one.
Last parachute flown was a Stiletto 135 and I always wore a Cypres. Max wing loading was 210 pounds under a Stiletto 120.
Preferred not to ever land via a ‘standard’ landing pattern, but did when I was told to.
I’m including my aviation experience as there is much to be learned from the airplane world. I was able to bring to the discussion knowledge and experience that normally would not get to the table.
Aviation Experience
Total Flying Time: 14,000+ hours. First Flight: October 1975.
Employed by Northwest Airlines, Inc. since April 1989. Currently flying as Airbus 319/320 Captain. Have flown DC-9, Boeing 727 and Airbus 320 at NWA.
From August 1978 until December 1998, United States Naval Aviator having flown F/A18 Hornet and A-7E Corsair in aircraft carrier operations. 360 Aircraft Carrier arrested landings. Flew T-34C Mentor, T-2C Buckeye and TA-4J Skyhawk in training operations including 1000 hours as instructor pilot in Formation Flying, Departure and Spin Training, Air to Air Gunnery, Low Level Flying and Instrument Flying.
Have flown in skydiving formation flights C-182, C-206, Queen Air, King Air, Twin Otter, Skyvan, DC-3 and Caribou.
Helped coordinate aircraft for many skydiving world record attempts involving 12-14 aircraft, as well as liaison with Royal Thai Air Force for World Team.
Largest Formation Flight to date: 30 aircraft.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 8:33 AM
Post #60 of 292
(1173 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Thanatos340] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
And it is even easier to complain about those that are trying to do something without offering a better suggestion.
Sorry you see thinking about a problem as complaining. Jay, I've mentioned on numerous occasions that, I believe stronger education policies will go far further than regulation. I still believe that.
Quote:
Root Cause?? How about Humans make mistakes.
How exactly are these guidelines going to remove mistakes? That's just something you cannot regulate away. People will still make the same mistakes in different areas.
Tell me how this BSR would have prevented over 84% of the fatalities worldwide related to canopy collisions (granted I know the USPA isn't a worldwide organization)? Would it have prevented 2 incidents....probably, but it doesn't address the majority of them in any way.
So, IMO, this BSR while moving in the right direction for reducing fatalities, will do NOTHING AT ALL to reduce the BULK of the canopy collision fatalities.
Till pilots start taking canopy flight, and education, seriously we'll have this problem.
Case in point, Scott Miller was at Skydive Atlanta recently. Not ONE instructor took the course offered Fri, Sat and Sun.
If you want to take thinking about the bigger picture as complaining then go right ahead, there's nothing I can do to stop that - but it's not the intent.
Blues, Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on May 1, 2007, 8:36 AM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 8:38 AM
Post #61 of 292
(1166 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Till pilots start taking canopy flight, and education, seriously we'll have this problem.
Bob Holler took canopy flight (and education) seriously. He was killed by someone who did not, and could not be talked to. Had Danny been warned and/or grounded because of his careless pattern work, Bob would be alive today.
Will it save everyone who has a canopy control problem? Most likely no. Will it save some of the people out there who are hit and killed by other pilots? Most likely yes.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 8:40 AM
Post #62 of 292
(1163 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
>Till pilots start taking canopy flight, and education, seriously we'll have this problem.
Bob Holler took canopy flight (and education) seriously. He was killed by someone who did not, and could not be talked to. Had Danny been warned and/or grounded because of his careless pattern work, Bob would be alive today.
Will it save everyone who has a canopy control problem? Most likely no. Will it save some of the people out there who are hit and killed by other pilots? Most likely yes.
And, as I said, Bob's incident would almost definitely be one of 2 that would have been prevented with this BSR.
That, as unfortuate as it may be, still doesn't address the majority of the problem.
May 1, 2007, 8:49 AM
Post #63 of 292
(1152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jheadley] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
If given the choice of landing in trees, a tight back yard, or a nice open area that's designated for HP landings, I'd have trouble not choosing the open area. Maybe I'd hook it just to stay within the rules.
if you can spot to keep yourself out of the trees you can spot to keep yourself out of the HP area.
If you don't know how to spot (god knows, these days alot of peeps don't) it really isn't that hard. ask somone to teach you the math behind it. it is very simple. (don't go on green, check your spot if you don't want to land there)
May 1, 2007, 8:53 AM
Post #64 of 292
(1144 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlipColmer] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
3683 Skydives. 70+ Hours of FreeFall.
68 seconds per jump average. I didn't know jumping from 14K was typical 20 to 30 years ago.
anyway - thanks for doing this - you and the rest
In many cases, having a set of BSRs (which guide training curriculum, and students have to learn the BSRs to pass the licensing tests) can help. And won't hurt. It might also give the S&TAs and DZOs that agree, additional justification to go out and enforce safe landing practices.
(This post was edited by rehmwa on May 1, 2007, 8:55 AM)
May 1, 2007, 8:59 AM
Post #65 of 292
(1134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
>Till pilots start taking canopy flight, and education, seriously we'll have this problem.
Bob Holler took canopy flight (and education) seriously. He was killed by someone who did not, and could not be talked to. Had Danny been warned and/or grounded because of his careless pattern work, Bob would be alive today.
Will it save everyone who has a canopy control problem? Most likely no. Will it save some of the people out there who are hit and killed by other pilots? Most likely yes.
And, as I said, Bob's incident would almost definitely be one of 2 that would have been prevented with this BSR.
That, as unfortuate as it may be, still doesn't address the majority of the problem.
Blues, Ian
I strongly believe in education to prevent people from killing themselves.
I believe in rules to prevent them from killing other people.
May 1, 2007, 9:03 AM
Post #66 of 292
(1129 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jheadley] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
What would one do if non-HPL jumpers are forced to land in the HPL area due to the spot or some other situation?
If a jumper lands on an airport runway with a powered aircraft on final, the airplane pilot does a go-around and waits for a clear runway. Sure, he may be inconvenienced, but that's the procedure, and everyone understands that it exists in the interest of safety. The jumper probably will get talked to, to see if a genuine emergency forced his runway landing. If there was no emergency, he gets his ass chewed, and learns a lesson.
Obviously, a canopy pilot can not add power and make another trip around the pattern. He can, however, abort his HP landing and make a straight-in approach if a non-HP landing is taking place in the HP area. The non-HP jumper gets talked to about the rules, and the HP jumper goes up for another shot at his swoop. Everyone has a beer at the end of the day, and no one gets killed.
Jumpers have shared airspace with other users for a long time. Most of these operate in performance envelopes that are far different from those of our parachutes. The fact that we now have parachutes and landing styles that are different from each other simply means more airspace divisions and more rules. Parachutes don't own the sky. Neither do ultralights, balloons, or rotor craft. The same is true for swoopers and straight-inners.
The BSR proposals are great. We need to kick them around with everyone's input until we have a good useable set of rules that give everyone room to operate while allowing safe operation. If we leave it to the feds, we'll all be wearing beacons and transponders.
Kevin
(This post was edited by kkeenan on May 1, 2007, 9:28 AM)
May 1, 2007, 9:19 AM
Post #69 of 292
(1104 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I believe stronger education policies will go far further than regulation
I completely agree. How do you propose we accomplish this?
In reply to:
How exactly are these guidelines going to remove mistakes? That's just something you cannot regulate away. People will still make the same mistakes in different areas.
And that will save lives. Make a mistake over the Swoop area with less traffic and fewer slow canopies in your way.. Less likely to kill someone else because you are not in the same place as the majority of canopy traffic.
Humans will always make mistakes. we cant save everyone but we can have rules in place that make it safer for most.
In reply to:
this BSR while moving in the right direction for reducing fatalities, will do NOTHING AT ALL to reduce the BULK of the canopy collision fatalities.
I agree no matter what we do, People will still make mistakes and die But in the first part of your statement.. You say "this BSR while moving in the right direction for reducing fatalities".. OK.. It sounds like a good place to start.
I dont think anyone sees this as the end all be all solution to the problem. But it is a good place to start.
The canopy Pilots that keep mentioning "Better Education". I ask again.. OK.. How do we get there?
(BTW.. Ian I know what you are doing and know that you are doing more than anyone else I have seen on this front ... That is why I am asking these question. I think you have many answers but here are allot of people that are not seeing that.)
This group (the Original Posters) have presented a well thought out very specific proposal for discussion. A generic answer of Better Education and we are all part of the problem (Not your words but what I have heard from other that oppose any rules regarding HPL`s) is great.. But how do we get there?
In reply to:
me how this BSR would have prevented over 84% of the fatalities worldwide related to canopy collisions
Statistics can be manipulated to show what ever you want.
In the past 6 months there have been 3 incidents involving Swoopers coming into the main landing area and encountering traffic resulting in 4 deaths. Spin the numbers however you want but if the proposed BSRs were followed, Atleast 3 possibly 4 would be alive today.
Not just Danny and Bob but also the 2 Accidents at the Holiday Boogie.
No matter how much education and Training you give someone, Humans still make mistakes. Separating High Perfaomance landings from Standard landing patterns WILL reduce Fatalities related to canopy collisions.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 9:25 AM
Post #70 of 292
(1096 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Thanatos340] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I ask again.. OK.. How do we get there?
First step is a canopy coach rating, with a syllabus drawn from the various schools out there (Germain's, Miller's etc.)
If that doesn't help, then start adding canopy skill requirements to the various licenses (other than the 10 meter circle.) Require people learn and prove that they can now handle their canopy.
May 1, 2007, 10:28 AM
Post #71 of 292
(1068 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Thanatos340] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
And it is even easier to complain about those that are trying to do something without offering a better suggestion.
<sigh>We have.
Education. And demanding a higher standard from instructors.
Know why canopy control courses are all the rage right now? Because the standard has slipped, and the industry has let it.
Instructors used to be the teachers, at least one of those who has signed this BSR proposal is/was that kind of instructor. I know because he trained me.
Making a rule that isn't enforced now, isn't going to be the fix. a rule doesn't prevent people from doing something, it just means they broke a rule when they did it.
If S&TA's, DZO's, DZM's, and instructors would participate, educate, and disciplined more, without worrying that they might upset someone....well we wouldn't be talking about this.
If someone had grounded Danny the first time he did something like this......
If someone had cared enough to talk to jumpers invited to a massive boogie first....
May 1, 2007, 10:33 AM
Post #72 of 292
(1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Aircraft flight patterns were devised to keep pilots from crashing into each other while landing on the same runway, even when radio services are not available. These FAR rules have worked well for a century and been modified as technology has advanced the capabilities of aircraft.
Uncontroled airports don't see the same sort volume as we see in DZ landing areas.
Never in the modern day would you see 80 aircraft invited to land on the same runway at the same time without some sort of positive control system, ore pre-planning.
We do see this in skydiving ESPECIALY at mega-boogies.
May 1, 2007, 1:12 PM
Post #74 of 292
(947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Don't buy into the myth that swoopers are the problem.
Non standard patterns, too many people into small landing areas, poor judgement and training, lack of supervision, unwillingness to snub friends.....those are the problems.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 1:28 PM
Post #75 of 292
(934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Never in the modern day would you see 80 aircraft invited to land on >the same runway at the same time without some sort of positive control >system, ore pre-planning.
Right. And never at a DZ would you see parachutes needing to set up on final a mile out. landing at 90 knots, and needing 3000 feet to stop. We can handle MUCH tighter traffic patterns than airports for that reason.
Go to any ultralight fly-in; they're a lot closer to us in flight characteristics than, say, a Cirrus SR22. You'll see a dozen ultralights buzzing around the pattern, landing next to each other, taking off in 200 feet. Some have radios, some don't. Not too much different (traffic-wise) than a typical day at a one-otter DZ. Again, they can do that because they follow standard patterns; you know that the guy on base in front of you is ALWAYS going to turn right to land.
>We do see this in skydiving ESPECIALY at mega-boogies.
Yes, we do. Which means that the need for standard patterns is that much greater.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 1:41 PM
Post #76 of 292
(1259 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Education. And demanding a higher standard from instructors.
We've done that.
Years ago I wrote an article for Parachutist called "the training gap." It was about the lack of training for advanced skills (mainly canopy piloting) that was leading to many of the injuries we were seeing at that time. I badgered the BOD, wrote letters, campaigned for more training, and got other people to do the same.
A lot of other people bugged USPA for something similar, and finally USPA created the ISP. (Maybe just to shut us up!) It was a training program that covered a lot of what was missing from AFF instruction at the time. It's fully spelled out in the SIM, along with order of presentation, learning objectives, quizzes etc.
It didn't solve the problem. Why? Because it was optional. Why should anyone waste their time doing the ISP when there were tandems to be taken up, freefly jumps to be made, swoops to be perfected? Most skydivers think the ISP is a great idea - for everyone else. (Although some DZ's do indeed push it/require it, which is good.)
So you can hope that S&TA's, DZO's, DZM's, and instructors will participate, educate, and discipline more - but they won't. They didn't do it when the ISP came out, why would they do it now?
>If someone had grounded Danny the first time he did something like this......
. . . Bob would be alive today. This proposal gives DZO's help in explaining that future Dannys _should_ be warned (or grounded) when they do stupid shit. Not every DZO is an expert canopy pilot, and many are susceptible to bullshit from their own staff (i.e. "270's are perfectly safe! I always clear my airspace. Danny was an idiot and I'm not. etc etc") Giving them a clear statement of what's acceptable and what isn't will go a long way towards getting people like Danny talked to, warned and perhaps even grounded.
May 1, 2007, 2:10 PM
Post #77 of 292
(1242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
The landing environment today is more challenging than it was years ago, but instruction really hasn't kept up.
Frankly, I never really heard much about a pattern when I was in my first skydiving life. You just landed and kept out of others' ways. Canopies were slower then. And this was at a busy dropzone.
And canopy collisions were supremely less common.
Today's environment is more challenging, and it probably ought to be addressed from two sides. One side is to help education, but the other is to limit the environment somewhat.
When cars got faster, they started building racetracks, so that people who were eminently capable of driving really, really fast didn't endanger people who neither knew how, nor wanted to have to keep out of their way. And some people still street race (or just go really, really fast), and sometimes they kill others.
To go along with a BSR (personally, I like the one where you get the kind of talking to for landing in the HPL that you'd get for a low opening) I think that a 5-jump series of canopy instruction would be good. People are no more born knowing this than anything else. If nothing else, it's harder to learn, because there isn't any video or buds on the jump to tell you how you screwed up.
"Success" in canopy control is often defined by landing standing up as close as possible. Read any early jumper thread about not standing up their landings if you doubt this. There's a large selection to choose from.
May 1, 2007, 2:27 PM
Post #78 of 292
(1230 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
(i.e. "270's are perfectly safe! I always clear my airspace. Danny was an idiot and I'm not. etc etc")
are you serious?, do you really still not get it?
It isnt a 270 that is the problem.
I thought you figured that out by now.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 2:32 PM
Post #79 of 292
(1223 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marks] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>It isnt a 270 that is the problem.
270's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. 360's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. There's nothing wrong with doing a 270 - but they are not perfectly safe to do whenever you like. Danny did one in the middle of a traffic pattern and killed another jumper - which is how this whole thing got started.
May 1, 2007, 2:45 PM
Post #80 of 292
(1215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
>It isnt a 270 that is the problem.
270's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. 360's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. There's nothing wrong with doing a 270 - but they are not perfectly safe to do whenever you like. Danny did one in the middle of a traffic pattern and killed another jumper - which is how this whole thing got started.
you dont get it then..
(This post was edited by marks on May 1, 2007, 2:46 PM)
May 1, 2007, 2:51 PM
Post #81 of 292
(1207 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
>If someone had grounded Danny the first time he did something like this......
. . . Bob would be alive today. This proposal gives DZO's help in explaining that future Dannys _should_ be warned (or grounded) when they do stupid shit. Not every DZO is an expert canopy pilot, and many are susceptible to bullshit from their own staff (i.e. "270's are perfectly safe! I always clear my airspace. Danny was an idiot and I'm not. etc etc") Giving them a clear statement of what's acceptable and what isn't will go a long way towards getting people like Danny talked to, warned and perhaps even grounded.
And who ya gonna get to enforce it?
The ISP works, but the industry and more importantly the USPA has allowed the quality of those given instructor ratings to slide in response to a shortage of instructors.
There is also nothing in place to require instructors to create safe skydivers, simply to get them through the levels.
May 1, 2007, 3:27 PM
Post #82 of 292
(1187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stitch] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
The way I read it, classic accuracy would be a HP landing. With the crazy patterns, s turns and all. But what do I know, I'm just getting into accuracy.
If we are going to be making (NW) BSR's we should have something about classic accuracy for that .001% that still do it.
May 1, 2007, 3:44 PM
Post #83 of 292
(1171 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
The passion for teaching is what is going to make the difference. Even if greater requirements are made for instructors they can still end up being bad teachers. There needs to be a certain amount of personal responsibility taken in these situations. After hearing a conversation between some senior jumpers at my DZ it made me think about where the sport is. They said that in the past all skydivers had much more in common. Now the community has been split into many different areas, RW, wingsuits, FF, CRW, BASE, Swooping. Respect for jumpers in different disciplines and common courtesy are whats needed. How about exit separation? When freeflying came around I'm sure there were some issues because no longer were you dealing with two groups who largely fell in the same manner. So steps were taken to make things safer for everyone. Are there going to be RW people who wait too long and screw the spot? Yes. Are there going to be FF people who insist on getting out first? Yes. Respect and concern for your fellow skydiver is what needs to improve. A respect for what the other is trying to achieve. So you don't get to try that new move this jump. If you make it a safe skydive there is a really good chance you can try it on the next jump.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 1, 2007, 3:51 PM
Post #84 of 292
(1162 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pwln] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
> The way I read it, classic accuracy would be a HP landing.
Correct. Which makes sense - such a landing is not a standard pattern either, and can cause chaos and close calls in a standard pattern.
Perhaps it would be better to call it a "nonstandard pattern" instead of a "HP approach" since any unexpected maneuver in the pattern - whether it's an accuracy approach, a 270 hook, or a student doing a 360 to lose altitude - is a problem.
The way I read it, classic accuracy would be a HP landing. With the crazy patterns, s turns and all. But what do I know, I'm just getting into accuracy.
If we are going to be making (NW) BSR's we should have something about classic accuracy for that .001% that still do it.
Classic accuracy has no place in a traffic pattern either. As drafted, these BSRs would require the same separation of such landings from a SLP as would be required for HPLs. My only recommended change in that regard would be to clarify the inclusion of, not make exceptions for, classic accuracy.
In reply to:
Ok, fair enough. I have to admit though that I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of choosing to land off before landing in the HP area. It may not be a big deal at some DZs but I'm thinking of several that have very few outs, and the outs they do have are pretty sketchy. If given the choice of landing in trees, a tight back yard, or a nice open area that's designated for HP landings, I'd have trouble not choosing the open area. Maybe I'd hook it just to stay within the rules.
No one is suggesting that riflemen be stationed in the HPL areas to ensure landing straight in there is more dangerous than landing in trees or power lines. Likewise, no one is suggesting that you "hook it for safety!" (tm) if you do find yourself landing there.
Said simply, however, you can not have your cake and eat it to. If a high-performance landing area is set up at your dropzone in the interest of improving safety, its boundaries need to be taken very seriously by everyone who jumps there. It is not, I repeat not, "just another patch of grass."
A good comparison was made earlier in the thread to landing on an active runway. If a plane that is landing sees you and can do something about it, he will avoid hitting you. If he can't, you are prop food. If you land straight in (and in a predictable fashion) at the HPL area, people will most likely see you and avoid you. If you fly a weird pattern and end up there and/or they don't see you, someone may get seriously injured or killed.
May 1, 2007, 5:19 PM
Post #86 of 292
(1124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [champu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I know that classic accuracy is not / should not be part of a standard pattern. I just wanted to point out what I was reading into the proposal. I also do not think there should be any exception for classic accuracy. I also do not think that classic accuracy should be over in a HP landing area. I know a tuffet can be moved pretty much anywhere, but a pea pit would be a little more difficult to move.
(I still land in the peas, because I suck and I may miss the tuffet...)
Thanks for considering the almost forgotten things, I think classic accuracy is really a non-issue, my concern was the (NW) and no mention of it.
May 1, 2007, 5:53 PM
Post #87 of 292
(1106 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Don't buy into the myth that swoopers are the problem.
Non standard patterns, too many people into small landing areas, poor judgement and training, lack of supervision, unwillingness to snub friends.....those are the problems.
I didn't state they are the problem. But the inherent speed differentials and rate of descent do seem incompatible with a crowded landing area. If people spend all their time looking 400ft above and behind, when do they look forward where they're going?
If judgement/training/patterns of HP and nonHP fliers continue to persist despite all efforts to 'better educate them,' at what point do you simplify the problem and separate them?
How to do it isn't simple, especially to codify it. Byron has the swooping path adjacent to the rest of the LZ, but separation seems to work quite well, and newcomers are briefed not to fly over the pond. Elsinore has 3 areas that would meet any specified requirements, but the skies above can be a bit chaotic as people try to get from their opening to the desired field.
so you hash it out.
I just don't see "education" is the answer as a reason not to try.
May 2, 2007, 5:26 AM
Post #91 of 292
(991 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marks] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I see some highly-respected canopy pilots piping in here but most of them are not making concrete suggestions for improving the situation.
Come on guys. Pipe up with some suggestions/alternatives etc.
Pointing the finger at a cause and naysaying Bill's proposals is fine but let's see your ideas for improvement.
Bill's proposals are a good start. I believe that given the severity of the circumstances, a quick response is better than no response at all. This is not a case where the proposals will create a more dangerous situation. Please don't paralyze your input by getting all locked up in the "this proposal is not perfect, therefore do nothing" thought process.
Also realize that nothing is going to change overnight. Whatever approach is adopted will take time to show results and in the meantime, the approach can be tweaked as we go.
Someone mentioned pulling ratings. How about the S&TA? Why not pull his rating if it can be shown that he/she has a pattern of ignoring unsafe actions. No S&TA at the DZ? Pull the senior instructor's rating. Nobody responsible at the DZ? Pull the group membership.
May 2, 2007, 6:58 AM
Post #92 of 292
(959 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Also realize that nothing is going to change overnight. Whatever approach is adopted will take time to show results and in the meantime, the approach can be tweaked as we go.
agreed. also a bsr is not going to fix anything.
education is the long slow road, but it is the correct one.
if you teach the up and commers this is wrong, they "hopefully" won't turn into that "camera" geek with a skygod mentality and think they are above the law.
you know the type! the ones you go up to and say something and they say "ohh, I wasn't as close to them as you thought. I had pleanty of room to cut that newbie off." you know who you are.
a bsr is not going to FIX this mentality. and those with this mentality are some of the ones teaching others.
what can fix this mentality, is for a dzo to ground this fool till hw agrees to quit. and most likely what will happen to him is his ego will take him to another DZ which the whole process will start ovee again.
if this was never accepted in the first place, we wouldn't have a problem.
so educate these newbies, use the jackass as a symbol. "don't turn into this guy, and here is why"
PhreeZone (D License)
Moderator
May 2, 2007, 7:26 AM
Post #93 of 292
(938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marks] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
If it takes 4-6 years to educate the new jumpers that are just starting about why its so bad to do behaivor like this what do we do until the education is in place and is being used? Those years in between are going to continue to have close calls and incidents until the education is there. There is no replacing common sense but I think everyone has had a lapse of that at some point or another while skydiving. A hard chow in the pond would be a fatality if it was over land, a demo with a tiny sport canopy with limited outs can turn ugly fast. All of these are common sense things but yet people are out doing them all the time.
I see this proposal as more of a stop gap until the education can catch up to the progression of canopy skills.
May 2, 2007, 8:00 AM
Post #94 of 292
(920 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
I didn't state they are the problem. But the inherent speed differentials and rate of descent do seem incompatible with a crowded landing area. If people spend all their time looking 400ft above and behind, when do they look forward where they're going?
Why should they spend their time looking 400ft above and behind?
Rules of flight clearly say that the low man has right of way, and that anyone choosing to hook from above must give way.
May 2, 2007, 8:10 AM
Post #95 of 292
(912 views)
Shortcut
Re: BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I like it Marks and Phreezone.
Getting away from the Kool-Kid mentality and over to the Serious Canopy Pilot mentality will go a long way.
Ian is doing everything he can to promote the Serious Canopy Pilot mentality...those that are listening, are learning. Those not listening...well.....maybe they'll respond to peer-pressure.
(This post was edited by popsjumper on May 2, 2007, 8:11 AM)
May 2, 2007, 8:11 AM
Post #96 of 292
(908 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Someone mentioned pulling ratings. How about the S&TA? Why not pull his rating if it can be shown that he/she has a pattern of ignoring unsafe actions. No S&TA at the DZ? Pull the senior instructor's rating. Nobody responsible at the DZ? Pull the group membership.
Yeah, I'm a hard-ass.
Bingo.
As I said before, who's gonna enforce this BSR?
The gist of the BSR is great, I love the idea of seperated landing areas, but we can't get DZO's, and DZM's to agree to monitor people's flying as it is.
In the past 4 years I can count the number of times I've seen an S&TA gig someone for landing infractions on one hand.
It's just not "economically viable" to piss the jumpers off I guess.
What ever happened to people listening to instructors after student status?
When's the last time someone you saw someone grounded?
How about the last time you saw someone asked not to come back to the DZ because of unsafe actions?
BSR or no BSR, untill someone gets out on the field who cares enough to be the "bad guy", ain't nothing gonna change.
I appreciate all the people who took the time to be the "bad guys" in my skydiving career, even if I didn't in the heat of the moment. I thank them, because of them, I'm still sucking air.
(This post was edited by diablopilot on May 2, 2007, 8:13 AM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 2, 2007, 8:47 AM
Post #97 of 292
(885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [marks] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
> what could be done to the offender if they break this bsr?
Warnings, groundings, calling other DZ's to let them know. As with BSR violations now, it will be up to each DZO.
>also, what would be done if the offender feels he is "above the law" >and the dzo fails to ground him.
Same thing as with any other BSR. He will likely continue to get away with it until he becomes smarter or kills himself. There are no real enforcement tools for BSR's; they are at best a short list of important rules that people should follow if they want to stay alive. Having a short list like this helps out DZO's because they don't have to listen to thirty-seven different opinions and pick one guy's opinion to enforce; they have it right there on one page in the SIM.
May 2, 2007, 10:29 AM
Post #99 of 292
(839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
While this seems like a good idea, I don't have enough experience or knowledge in all relevant disciplines to state it as such. At a first glance... I like it. That said, I'm not going to be landing in the HPL... so...
Disclaimer aside, I have one potential concern. Let's say that something like this was implemented and the landing areas were separated. My biggest fear is that those performing nonstandard landing patterns would become so accustomed to only looking for other swoopers that on the one day when some student floats into the wrong landing area... nobody would think to look for them.
I'm not saying swoopers are or will be irresponsible and stop looking for those performing SLPs in their area, so don't shoot down the concern for that reason. For example:
A jumper is on a light load. He knows that the three others in his 4-way will be swooping, but the others on the load are students or solos. As this jumper is setting up for landing, he looks around and sees the rest of his group setting up for their landings. He assumes he knows where all three additional pilots aiming for the HPL are and initiates his swoop. A few seconds later, he plows into a student who didn't know [how] to land in the SLP area.
Obviously with this BSR in place, everybody would still have to be aware of the other pilots planning on landing in the other area... this road goes both ways. While there may be numerically fewer chances of such an impact occurring with this BSR [fewer swoopers + SLP pilots in the same area], I wonder if the percentage chance [greater chance of swooper/SLP impact with a sample size of one] of such an impact occurring would rise when somebody does find themselves in the wrong landing area.
(This post was edited by MB38 on May 2, 2007, 10:31 AM)
May 2, 2007, 11:32 AM
Post #100 of 292
(805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Would it have prevented 2 incidents....probably, but it doesn't address the majority of them in any way.
Out of curiosity, how many preventable deaths is acceptable to you?
If a BSR saves even ONE LIFE, I'll bet that one guy would think it was well worth it. His one little life might not be important in the grand scheme, but I guarantee you that its EVERYTHING to him.
You just stated that it would probably have prevented TWO of these incidents.
Thats SWEET
Seem to be more than adequate justification to me.
(This post was edited by ChrisL on May 2, 2007, 11:36 AM)
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
May 2, 2007, 11:54 AM
Post #101 of 292
(955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Would it have prevented 2 incidents....probably, but it doesn't address the majority of them in any way.
Out of curiosity, how many preventable deaths is acceptable to you?
If a BSR saves even ONE LIFE, I'll bet that one guy would think it was well worth it. His one little life might not be important in the grand scheme, but I guarantee you that its EVERYTHING to him.
You just stated that it would probably have prevented TWO of these incidents.
Thats SWEET
Seem to be more than adequate justification to me.
The problem, as I see it, is that it takes away from the focus of what the problem really is. It's way too easy for the skydiving population to continue to ignore the problem if they think that a BSR seperating the landing areas will fix it.
My concerns don't lay so much with the BSR as much as they lay around the mentality I am concerned they will foster. It's quite clear just how many people think the problem will magically go away with seperate landing areas without considering the other issues that may raise.
Now, of course this doesn't mean I'm against it, but instead I'd really like to see it supplemented with some sort of Canopy Coach rating and something that requires people to be trained more throughly on canopy flight, regardless of jump numbers and regardless of whether or not they're HP pilots or not.
IMO a large segment of the 'experienced' jumper community is already 'lost'. By that I mean they're never going to listen, never going to try and get better with their canopy skills, or never going to seek out better canopy knowledge and instruction. There's not much we can do about them....what I want to be sure of, is that we are priming ourselves to better educate the next generation of jumpers and not just trying to put up a BSR to make ourselves feel better about the problem without actually dealing with the root cause of it.
Blues, Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on May 2, 2007, 11:55 AM)
May 2, 2007, 12:00 PM
Post #102 of 292
(949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
I didn't state they are the problem. But the inherent speed differentials and rate of descent do seem incompatible with a crowded landing area. If people spend all their time looking 400ft above and behind, when do they look forward where they're going?
Why should they spend their time looking 400ft above and behind?
Rules of flight clearly say that the low man has right of way, and that anyone choosing to hook from above must give way.
And how well has that been working...
The whole reason we're having this discussion is because it doesn't. And if you don't want to blame the swooper (as you indicated to me yesterday), then you blame the system and try to improve it. Again the reason for this discussion.
Many people also have expressed the sentiment that if you skydive, you accept the risk of this happening to you. (And keep your head on a swivel) Clearly not everyone wants to accept this risk anymore.
May 2, 2007, 12:16 PM
Post #103 of 292
(934 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
68 seconds per jump average. I didn't know jumping from 14K was typical 20 to 30 years ago.
In reply to:
A pointless contribution to the thread, but hey, I'll bite. 20 to 30 years ago people wore big, baggy jumpsuits and fell considerably slower. Also, people generally pulled at two grand because their mains didn't take 1000 feet to open.
May 2, 2007, 12:42 PM
Post #104 of 292
(913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
IMO a large segment of the 'experienced' jumper community is already 'lost'. By that I mean they're never going to listen, never going to try and get better with their canopy skills, or never going to seek out better canopy knowledge and instruction. There's not much we can do about them....
Yes there is. Not just Create, But enforce rules for landing patterns.
A BSR helps define what these rules are.
This will make it easier to get rid of/ Ground/ or otherwise address these LOST jumpers you are referring to. As it stands now, There are really no clearly defined rules except at certain DZ`s.
May 2, 2007, 12:47 PM
Post #105 of 292
(907 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Now, of course this doesn't mean I'm against it, but instead I'd really like to see it supplemented with some sort of Canopy Coach rating and something that requires people to be trained more throughly on canopy flight, regardless of jump numbers and regardless of whether or not they're HP pilots or not.
I would certainly support viewing a BSR as "a good start" but not a solution in and of itself.
We dont want to dismiss it because its not perfect, though, and waiting for the perfect solution could take a long time and cost a lot of lives in the meantime.
Certainly more issues will need to be addressed.
Lets start with this now and then refine it as we go along. One of the couple lives it saves might be yours or mine
From a trauma surgeons point of view, we should stabilize the patient first.
(This post was edited by ChrisL on May 2, 2007, 12:57 PM)
May 2, 2007, 12:57 PM
Post #106 of 292
(890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
The problem, as I see it, is that it takes away from the focus of what the problem really is. It's way too easy for the skydiving population to continue to ignore the problem if they think that a BSR seperating the landing areas will fix it.
My concerns don't lay so much with the BSR as much as they lay around the mentality I am concerned they will foster. It's quite clear just how many people think the problem will magically go away with seperate landing areas without considering the other issues that may raise.
I've been mulling over this, reading the replies from both sides and my thoughts have finally matured to a point I'll throw in a half cent or so.
Ian - correct me if I'm wrong - but the argument I am hearing from the swoopers side is that education of jumpers (or lack thereof) is the root cause.
The 'other side' (if you want to call it that) wants to remove swoopers from the equation by isolating them to another landing area or seperate passes.
Why can't this BSR or something similar be the vehicle for that education? Example - lets say you have a 30 jump guy/girl, sees a swooper tearing up the swoop area. "I want to land there" "You can't" "Why not?" "You don't swoop." "well, how do I swoop?" "Come this way young padawan..."
Or during the ground training - you mention two seperate landing areas - a student raises his hand "why the two areas?" that would provide a nice segue into a discussion on the differences in landing pattern and why the pattern must be followed. (Maybe we need to go a step further and actually look at canopy licences??) It seems many of the BSRs that are in place now are written in the blood of the jumpers that came before us.
I will agree with everyone that it is a problem we all have to face up to but not just this one issue - it pertains to ALL the BSRs and practices that keep us safe - from helmets on during take off (how many of you violate that?) to having your main container open by the appropriate altitude (how many bust that one on a regular basis?)
I support the BSR but only if it is used to enhance jumper education so that in the end - it really becomes a moot point because jumpers are looking out for each other in the air.
May 2, 2007, 1:14 PM
Post #107 of 292
(873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
I didn't state they are the problem. But the inherent speed differentials and rate of descent do seem incompatible with a crowded landing area. If people spend all their time looking 400ft above and behind, when do they look forward where they're going?
Why should they spend their time looking 400ft above and behind?
Rules of flight clearly say that the low man has right of way, and that anyone choosing to hook from above must give way.
And how well has that been working...
Quote:
It's been working great. Where and when it's enforced.
One more time, like the broken record I am..... "Who ya gonna get to enforce this BSR?"
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 2, 2007, 1:49 PM
Post #108 of 292
(850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
> It's quite clear just how many people think the problem will magically > go away with seperate landing areas without considering the other issues > that may raise.
I haven't spoken to/emailed a single person who thinks that this BSR will make the problem magically go away, any more than the pull altitude BSR made low pulls magically go away. It did not stop them - but it did help DZO's enforce reasonable pull altitudes.
>but instead I'd really like to see it supplemented with some sort of >Canopy Coach rating and something that requires people to be trained >more throughly on canopy flight . . .
I agree 100%. I tried pushing for that two years ago, but unfortunately our efforts (letters to Parachutist, emailing RD's and the BOD) didn't produce much in the way of results. We're trying a different tack this time. It may not work either, but I think I owe it to Bob to try.
This is an important part of the discussion, but not really applicable to this BSR. I'll start another thread on the subject.
>IMO a large segment of the 'experienced' jumper community is already 'lost'.
I also agree with that. These people will not be helped by any sort of educational program, because they already know it all. The only thing that will stop these people is a DZO who says "violate that rule one more time and you're grounded."
May 2, 2007, 2:06 PM
Post #109 of 292
(839 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Now, of course this doesn't mean I'm against it, but instead I'd really like to see it supplemented with some sort of Canopy Coach rating and something that requires people to be trained more throughly on canopy flight, regardless of jump numbers and regardless of whether or not they're HP pilots or not.
I was taught by my instructors how to fly and land a parachute without injuring myself or others during AFF.
After 2200+ canopy landings I guess I should feel lucky to be alive without all that fancy canopy school stuff. If these self proclaimed canopy experts/coaches can teach me how to survive a fall from 100 feet after being crashed into PLEASE sign me up, until then I will just keep working with what I already know, thank you.
It seems to me that more people are getting injured and killed under canopy since these canopy courses have been taught.
Bottom line is I have a whole lot to live for and I don't need someone taking me out and I am going to do everything I can to protect myself. If this means supporting rules in order to do so, then so be it.
Chris
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
May 2, 2007, 2:17 PM
Post #110 of 292
(828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chriswelker] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
After 2200+ canopy landings I guess I should feel lucky to be alive without all that fancy canopy school stuff.
That right there, IMO, is part of the problem. Last I checked none of us knew it all, regardless of how many skydives we have.
Quote:
Bottom line is I have a whole lot to live for and I don't need someone taking me out and I am going to do everything I can to protect myself.
So if you're going to do everything you can to protect yourself, you don't consider continuing to educate yourself on good canopy practices (be that swooping or regular landings) to encompass that?
Quote:
It seems to me that more people are getting injured and killed under canopy since these canopy courses have been taught.
Come on Chris, I met you a few years ago so I hope I'm taking this out of context, but I hope you aren't suggesting that the education of canopy pilots is hurting more than helping?
Blues Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on May 2, 2007, 2:20 PM)
May 2, 2007, 2:39 PM
Post #111 of 292
(811 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
So if you're going to do everything you can to protect yourself, you don't consider continuing to educate yourself on good canopy practices (be that swooping or regular landings) to encompass that?
Beacuse it would be like taking sand to the beach, not necessary.
Quote:
Come on Chris, I met you a few years ago so I hope I'm taking this out of context, but I hope you aren't suggesting that the education of canopy pilots is hurting more than helping?
May 2, 2007, 2:47 PM
Post #112 of 292
(803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chriswelker] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
So if you're going to do everything you can to protect yourself, you don't consider continuing to educate yourself on good canopy practices (be that swooping or regular landings) to encompass that?
Beacuse it would be like taking sand to the beach, not necessary.
Quote:
Come on Chris, I met you a few years ago so I hope I'm taking this out of context, but I hope you aren't suggesting that the education of canopy pilots is hurting more than helping?
YES, YES I AM!
Chris
please point out to me why you think that it is hurting more than it is helping.
why do you think this?
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
May 2, 2007, 3:05 PM
Post #113 of 292
(785 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chriswelker] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Well then I guess we disagree 100% on the issue.
Personally I think 'thinking you know it all' mentality is the biggest culprit.
I'd be interested to see, of those that are statistics, who furthered themself by education and who thought they were above it.
Blues, Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on May 2, 2007, 3:14 PM)
May 2, 2007, 3:24 PM
Post #116 of 292
(764 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chriswelker] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
please point out to me why you think that it is hurting more than it is helping.
why do you think this?
Because more people are getting killed or injured under open flying canopies while skydiving as a whole is getting smaller.
If education is doing so much good would you please show me your numbers to back this up?
It is all about the results!
Chris One potential cause of education causing more harm than good is introducing high performance tecniques to "younger" skydivers (by younger read less experienced).
I don't know that I agree with this but can see a little logic in it. Also high performance landings may be more mainstream and seen more. I say its down to the CCI/DZO to set strict limits on experience levels carrying out HPL
May 2, 2007, 3:34 PM
Post #117 of 292
(755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Generally I would agree that education is a good thing. It sure is.
On the other hand Im not so sure weather it would really make that much difference. Im sure most of us have been taught that doing HP -landings in traffic is dangerous. On this specific problem education IMO is not the biggest problem. The attitudes towards these known facts are.
I dont see why specific HP-landing areas whould be that bad idea. After all its going to make my airspace clear and this way decreasing the possibility of me being cut off by a SLP jumper below me.
I would see this as a win win situation where no one looses and everyone wins.
Sure on some dropzones this could mean the HPL area is not as ideally located next to the packing hangar, but its a fair price to pay for the advantages achieved
May 2, 2007, 3:48 PM
Post #118 of 292
(746 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chriswelker] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
After 2200+ canopy landings I guess I should feel lucky to be alive without all that fancy canopy school stuff. If these self proclaimed canopy experts/coaches can teach me how to survive a fall from 100 feet after being crashed into PLEASE sign me up, until then I will just keep working with what I already know, thank you.
I've now taken one from both of the two most commonly named canaopy classes. One was a great value for the money, and the other was a good day to practice HnPs. But neither contained anything that would increase the accident rate.
May 2, 2007, 4:40 PM
Post #121 of 292
(711 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
i always thought a BSR stood for Basic Safety Recomendation. And a recomendation is just that a recomendation. as in wearing and altimeter, landing into the wind, ect. since the uspa is not a regulatory authority on skydiving, or so they claim in all their publications, and only give recomendations........... is this BSR really going to matter? nobody, and I mean nobody, does everything by the "book" on every skydive. until they do, including instructers especially, they have no hill, or legal standpoint, to stand on. what are the consenquesnces is a DZ is not a U.S.P.A. member? higher insurance and no reference of your buisness in their magazine? my point is: "don't put faith in govt., throughout history there has been revolts and the govt. overthrown, and a new govt has been put into place, until another one comes." Besides isn't having a monoply on something in the U.S. illegal?
"Less bitching, more jumping, let the tards weed themselves out!!!!!"
May 2, 2007, 4:59 PM
Post #123 of 292
(697 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Sorry to sound repetitive, but only if enforced.
It's a lot easier to enfoce a rule on the dropzone. Everyone observes it. Only those nearby in the landing order may notice an individual violation, and if friends, may not care as much.
May 2, 2007, 6:26 PM
Post #124 of 292
(667 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Mostly_Harmless] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hello, I am one of the authors of the BSR proposal. "dob" Dan O'Brien. 31 years "o my gawd" 31 years of skydiving. mostly competition belly flying. few hundred wingsuit jumps. few hundred headdown. except for 25 round jumps and an A license under reserves, almost all high wing loaded canopy landings. so, yes, i guess i'm a swooper.
Canopy flight education is great, if everybody groks it/understands it. Many do not. So, everybody must become involved in "enforcement". Everybody must bear responsibility for theirs and others canopy control. Speak up, make a difference.
The 6 fatailies in 4 months from canopy collisions has caused this knee to jerk. Along with the accumulation over the past 20+ years of perfectly good canopies being flown into other skydivers and the Earth.
SKYDIVING HISTORY -less than 100 skydives in last year, not so current as I used to be as a DZO, 500 a year. -last skydive, releasing Bob Holler's ashes in freefall 23 March 2007. -canopy wing loading for past 10 years; 2.1 - 1.7. -landing pattern, aggressive, 180 or greater to final BUT will follow rules, mostly. -number of friends buried or in wheelchairs from canopy collisions; 11 and climbing.
-2007 31 years skydiving; 9,9998 Skydives; 170+ hours of freefall; former DZO. past ratings: PRO Rating, JM, S/L, AFF, Tandem; 10 years as Coordinator for High Altitude (30,000 ft.) skydives. -2006 World Team ‘06: FAI Official World’s largest skydiving formation (400 skydivers, 30 nations): Assistant Aerial Director and Participant. -2004 World Team ‘04: FAI Official World’s largest skydiving formation (357 skydivers, 28 nations): Assistant Aerial Director and Participant. -2002 Airspeed 300: FAI Official World’s largest skydiving formation (300 skydivers, 12 nations): Alpha-Team Captain. -2000 1986-2000 DZO SkyDance SkyDiving Davis, CA -1999 World Team ’99: FAI Official World’s largest skydiving formation (282 skydivers, 32 nations): Assistant Aerial Director and Participant. -1997 3rd Blade Running Championships; Squaw Valley, California, USA: Event Manager, Site Coordinator and Assistant Technical Organizer. -1996 World Team ’96: World’s largest skydiving formation (297 skydivers, 24 nations): Assistant Aerial Director and Participant. -1996 2ND Blade Running Championships; Squaw Valley, California, USA: Event Manager, Site Coordinator and Assistant Technical Organizer. -1994 World Team ’94: World’s largest skydiving formation (216 skydivers, 26 nations): Co-captain, Participant. -1992 World Record 200-person skydiving formation: Co-captain and Participant. -1991 Boogie in Bali II: Assistant Festival Director & Technical Organizer. -1991 9TH World Parachuting Championship, Formation Skydiving; Czechoslovakia: US Team Leader. -1991 Friendship ’91: team member, trained and competed at USSR National Championships. -1990 Jakarta Air Show, Indonesia: Demo Team Coordinator. -1989 Indonesian Int. Skydiving Championship, Bali: Assistant Festival Director & Technical Organizer (750 participants, 29 nations). -1988 24TH Olympiad, Olympic Opening Ceremonies; Seoul, Republic of Korea: Assistant Co-Organizer, Choreographer and Performer. Seoul Olympic Skydiving Exhibition Team (100 members); Deputy Director: Olympic Rings Freefall Exhibition. -1987 World Cup of Champions, Seoul, Republic of Korea: Team Captain for concept of 1988 Olympic skydive. -1986 FAI Official World Record 100-person skydiving formation: Participant. -1982 World Cup Parachuting Championships, Formation Skydiving; Austria: US Team Captain, competitor. World Champion 8way and 4way and Bronze Medal 4way. -1980 FAI Official World Record 40-person skydiving formation: Participant.
May 2, 2007, 6:57 PM
Post #125 of 292
(650 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
So if you're going to do everything you can to protect yourself, you don't consider continuing to educate yourself on good canopy practices (be that swooping or regular landings) to encompass that?
What exactly is a person flying a regular pattern with 90 degree turns supposed to do to protect themselves from being hit by someone starting a HPL 300ft above them and closing in fast on them from above and behind? What education would prevent that person from becoming a fatality?
May 2, 2007, 7:17 PM
Post #126 of 292
(1405 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I'm glad another thread of debate has been started by this BSR proposal for safe canopy flight by all. I think the other recent thread from Bryan Burke at Skydive Arizona is a very good one. http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2772931;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;
As one of the authors of this working document for a BSR, the feedback and discussions are raising some of the issues that will help make canopy flight into a landing area safer for all.
The principle of education and enforcement has to start from 1 person before it can spread to others. Take responsibility for yourself first, am I safe in the landing area, that means a hard look in the mirror. Then take it to others that are not so observant of safety in the landing area. Peer pressure is a great tool.
BSRs, let us count the Basic Safety Requirements, not FAA regs/FARs, that pertain to most skydivers, read experienced - C & D license, 1 BSR, that be ONE BSR. "Thou shalt not have container opening below 2,000 feet AGL (above ground level)".Period end of USPA regulations for most experienced jumpers. Two reasons this is self enforcing is that AADs (and the cost of rearming) and slower opening parachutes have kept the habitual violators in check. It just seems like common sense to open at a reasonable altitude.
Seatbelts were almost never used 16+ years ago in jump aircraft. A lot of fatalities changed that attitude. Along with a very very aggressive education campaign by USPA for 2 years. It just seems like common sense to put a seatbelt on before takeoff in a jump aircraft.
That is all we are asking of this BSR proposal. Make it seem like common sense to land everybody safely in a landing area.
The crafting of the words needs to be broad enough for all BUT the education and common sense part needs to be a very very very aggressive campaign by ALL skydivers and USPA.
My good friend Bob Holler lived by a creed for 30 years; "These things I do, that others may live." We want to carry on his creed and tradition in his name for a sport he loved dearly, to death.
May 2, 2007, 8:18 PM
Post #127 of 292
(1380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
What exactly is a person flying a regular pattern with 90 degree turns supposed to do to protect themselves from being hit by someone starting a HPL 300ft above them and closing in fast on them from above and behind?
You can start by discussing and agreeing to a landing direction with everyone on your load before you even get on the plane. Then discuss if anyone is going to do a HPL and where you intend to perform such HPL (or if even such HPLs are allowed, i.e. no HPLs on bigways). If you are all agreed, go have fun. If the discussion leads to something that is not within your personal safety parameters or makes you uncomfortable, then dont get on the airplane and go talk to the DZO and/or DZ Staff to resolve the situation. It is your responsibility to know what the other people in the air are going to do around you. No BSR or any other "Rule" release you from that responsibility.
May 2, 2007, 10:05 PM
Post #128 of 292
(1346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
As I said before, who's gonna enforce this BSR?
The same people who don't enforce the current ones.(depending on the dz your at)
Quote:
but we can't get DZO's, and DZM's to agree to monitor people's flying as it is.
Or to back S&TA's who wish to put a shoe in jumpers ass It's just not "economically viable" to piss the jumpers off I guess.
Quote:
Correct or they (jumper) are SO & SO from DZ xyz and well known superstar.
What ever happened to people listening to instructors after student status?
Quote:
That went out of fashion with the belly warts...
When's the last time someone you saw someone grounded?
Quote:
Sept. 2000 and before that around 1981 or 82.
How about the last time you saw someone asked not to come back to the DZ because of unsafe actions?
Quote:
Also Sept. 2001 for running down wind under a TDM trying to make the LZ and hook turning into the parking lot. Should have had TM rating yanked right then and there, but seeing how this TM wrote a check for his rating to some old fuck in Ohio who handed them out back then, he shouldn't have ever had a TM. But that is for another thread.
BSR or no BSR, untill someone gets out on the field who cares enough to be the "bad guy", ain't nothing gonna change.
Quote:
Even then those who feel the wrath of said "badass" cry and whine as a group till the DZO gives in because as you said, "It's just not "economically viable" to piss the jumpers off" So those who rock the boat end up run off or not listened too.
I appreciate all the people who took the time to be the "bad guys" in my skydiving career, even if I didn't in the heat of the moment. I thank them, because of them, I'm still sucking air.
May 2, 2007, 10:23 PM
Post #129 of 292
(1337 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dob] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Thanks for taking the time to support your ideas Dan, and even if we don't see eye to eye on the way to fix this problem, energies are being directed towards addressing it.
Thanks too for taking the time 9 years ago to see an eager jumper trying to jump a canopy above his skill level, and take him on a high altitude hop and pop, so he could see safely, just how in over his head he might have been getting.
May 2, 2007, 11:51 PM
Post #130 of 292
(1321 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
It's been working great. Where and when it's enforced.
One more time, like the broken record I am..... "Who ya gonna get to enforce this BSR?"
I agree, a BSR that just says, don't swoop in traffic, won't accomplish anything if DZOs don't enforce it.
But a BSR (NW) that directs DZs to segment their traffic will result in change.
Just to clarify, by 'segment their traffic,' do you mean 'separate their landing areas,' or do you mean 'bar swoopers from initiating HPL's into SLP traffic'?
If it's the former, as I mentioned before, part of that change you speak of is that small DZ's, with canopy pilots operating safely (i.e. swoopers being the first ones down, and after the first person enters the SLP, the swooping stops - catch it on the next load), will be restricted for no good reason.
I'll say it again - one size does not fit all. All DZ's don't operate the same way as Eloy or Perris.
May 3, 2007, 3:02 AM
Post #131 of 292
(1312 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captainbb7] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
What exactly is a person flying a regular pattern with 90 degree turns supposed to do to protect themselves from being hit by someone starting a HPL 300ft above them and closing in fast on them from above and behind?
You can start by discussing and agreeing to a landing direction with everyone on your load before you even get on the plane. Then discuss if anyone is going to do a HPL and where you intend to perform such HPL (or if even such HPLs are allowed, i.e. no HPLs on bigways). If you are all agreed, go have fun. If the discussion leads to something that is not within your personal safety parameters or makes you uncomfortable, then dont get on the airplane and go talk to the DZO and/or DZ Staff to resolve the situation. It is your responsibility to know what the other people in the air are going to do around you. No BSR or any other "Rule" release you from that responsibility.
So you think it's OK for someone to do 270s into the standard pattern as long as you've talked about it first. I'm glad you're not on loads with me.
Now, back to the question you didn't answer - what does someone flying a STANDARD pattern do to protect from a hotshot coming at them fast from their blind spot above and behind their canopy.
May 3, 2007, 6:12 AM
Post #132 of 292
(1289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
So you think it's OK for someone to do 270s into the standard pattern as long as you've talked about it first. I'm glad you're not on loads with me.
Now, back to the question you didn't answer - what does someone flying a STANDARD pattern do to protect from a hotshot coming at them fast from their blind spot above and behind their canopy.
My Friend, if you are going to wait until you are under canopy to start thinking about protecting yourself, then you are doomed. Nothing will protect you from the person who intentionally breaks a "no swooping on bigways rule" or other such canopy related BSR. Once you are in the air, you have no control over what other people will do. That is why canopy safety must begin before you even board the plane. Discuss what canopy behavior is appropriate on your load BEFORE you board. This is the time where you do have control. Find out what the people around you intend to do, not only under canopy, but also during freefall (i.e., are they freeflying, RW, tracking dive, pulling higher than you, etc). The more information you have, the better decisions you can make about your own safety. If someone ends up breaking the plan that was agreed to by everyone, then hold them accountable.
Secondly, nowhere did I say that it was appropriate to perform HPLs in any situation as long as its been discussed. Example, HPLs are not allowed on bigways (most of them anyway). This is a complicated issue and what works for one DZ may not work at another (i.e., Cessna DZ compared to a Boogie DZ). There is a time and place for HPLs and that is for each DZ to decide and ENFORCE (if you dont like the DZs answer, then jump elsewhere). However, the person ultimately responsible for your safety is yourself... so make good decisions.
May 3, 2007, 7:40 AM
Post #134 of 292
(1263 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
apparently, they were supposed to drop off of the load and not jump
Yes. If the situation is outside of your personal safety parameters (be it from wind gusts, number of people in the air, who is in the air, etc) then dont jump... and live to jump another day when the situation is within your personal safety parameters. If the cause of your safety issues is man made, then discuss it with the appropriate DZ authorities.
May 3, 2007, 9:05 AM
Post #135 of 292
(1230 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captainbb7] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
apparently, they were supposed to drop off of the load and not jump
Yes. If the situation is outside of your personal safety parameters (be it from wind gusts, number of people in the air, who is in the air, etc) then dont jump... and live to jump another day when the situation is within your personal safety parameters. If the cause of your safety issues is man made, then discuss it with the appropriate DZ authorities.
This reasoning would seem to imply that anyone should be allowed to perform any high performance, high risk maneuver they want, and its up to the people that don't want to be a target of this guy to scratch from the load.
Something seems fundamentally wrong with that.
To take this reasoning to the highway, I should be allowed to drive as fast as I want to, and anyone that doesn't want to partake of the increased risk this poses to them should stay home or take the train.
All I have to do is let everyone know that I'm gonna be driving REALLY fast and then its on them to stay the hell outta my way.
(This post was edited by ChrisL on May 3, 2007, 9:18 AM)
May 3, 2007, 9:24 AM
Post #136 of 292
(1215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
If we limit what skydivers can do beyond what is reasonable, we will effectively kill the sport. It is a step backward due to fear, rather than a step forward toward solutions.
Separation by time and location, yes. Banning the human spirit, No!
May 3, 2007, 9:41 AM
Post #137 of 292
(1201 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
This reasoning would seem to imply that anyone should be allowed to perform any high performance, high risk maneuver they want,
That is not what I am saying. There is a time and place for HPLs and that varies according to each DZ. If you have someone who is not willing to follow the rules laid down at your DZ, then scratch off the load if necessary and get the DZ management to ground the unsafe person for not following the rules. Then go get back in the air and have fun. My point is, you wont know what other people intend to do unless you ask them.
Quote:
and its up to the people that don't want to be a target of this guy to scratch from the load.
Hopefully the situation could be handled amicably without the need to miss a load. But in the end, if you dont feel safe with the situation, then go get the DZ staff and make it safe.
May 3, 2007, 9:55 AM
Post #138 of 292
(1188 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captainbb7] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
That is not what I am saying. There is a time and place for HPLs and that varies according to each DZ. If you have someone who is not willing to follow the rules laid down at your DZ, then scratch off the load if necessary and get the DZ management to ground the unsafe person for not following the rules.
I agree in theory, but if this guy plans to perform HP maneuvers in violation of DZ policy, what assurance does the average fun jumper have that this guy will disclose ahead of time that he intends to violate said safety policies?
This awesome skydiver doesn't feel these policies apply to him, so I doubt he will publicly broadcast that he is going to perform a HP landing if the policy says that they aren't allowed at that time or landing area.
That might lead to someone specifically telling him that he cant do it, and thats a lot harder to ignore than a general, and maybe not strictly enforced, policy.
If nobody knows what he intends, its very unlikely that he would be told not to do it
(This post was edited by ChrisL on May 3, 2007, 10:00 AM)
May 3, 2007, 10:11 AM
Post #139 of 292
(1175 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In the aftermath of many recent canopy related incidents, with the catalyst being the deaths of Bob Holler and Danny Page, several skydivers got together and began to discuss how to help prevent incidents like this in the future. The proposals below are the result of this collaboration.
[snip]
Shiara Holler C-32753 Molly Osborne D-23904 Val Thal-Slocum D-5837 Bill von Novak D-16479 Paul Sitter D-2714 Flip Colmer D-6157 Dan "dob" O'Brien D-5362 Kate Cooper D-7333
I am truly sorry that Danny Page did a stupid, selfish act and took out Bob Holler and himself. We cannot change the outcome of March 17, 2007. We can only change the future.
I fully support separating HP landing patterns from conventional landing patterns, in time or space. But a BSR is not needed and should not be implemented.
There are DZs that separate the patterns and have great success. Elsinore is one such DZ. Elsinore has a swoop pond, a student area and an area for the conventional patterns. Elsinore's current setup was precipitated by a non-fatal canopy collision in May 2000. The local jumpers demanded that the patterns be separated.
Implementation and enforcement of separate landing areas has to be at the local level. That involves the DZO and local jumpers working out a solution that works for their particular DZ. What works at Elsinore may not be needed at a small Cessna DZ. A geographically small Cessna DZ may have a separation plan that is determined by exit order and exit altitude. The proposed BSR does not allow for a swooper and a classic accuracy jumper to exit at 5k and then a second pass at 12.5K. The swooper executes a HP type approach, the classic accuracy jumper executes a classic approach and the freefallers to execute conventional patterns, all landing in the same physical area.
There are many other scenarios that the BSR would essentially ban, but we know can work.
There is also much more fundamental reason not to impulsively implement 'separate landing areas, in time or space' as a BSR.
I will call this the 'There ought to be a law!' syndrome.
'There ought to be a law!' syndrome: This happens when friends or family of someone that dies in skydiving get on a path saying 'If only such-n-such was in place, then my little Johnny would be alive today.' 'If only such-n-such was in place, then many accidents like this would be prevented in the future.'
We've seen this in Nevada, when the parents of a student campaigned and succeeded in getting the USPA BSRs written into the state law.
We've seen this from Jane Melbourne when she tried and failed to get local, state and federal laws changed after the death of her son.
In the two cases mentioned above, most jumpers took a stance of 'No we don't want the government to regulate us. We can do it ourselves.'
Inside the skydiving community, we self regulate. RW, CRW, vRW and Swoop organizers regulate who gets on what loads to maintain the highest safety level. We impose rules upon our groups that USPA or any other national parachute organization does not mandate.
PST has qualification jumps. RW has qualification jumps. VRW has qualification jumps. CRW has qualification jumps.
We impose rules of 'thou shall not swoop on a x-way'. We cut those that violate these self-imposed rules. We don't call up USPA and say "Well, Joe Blow here did a 270 approach in the middle of a 100-way. Can you suspend his membership?" We cut Joe Blow off the load. We implement safe canopy patterns based upon the event and people on the load. We do it without a (perceived) heavy hand from a national organization. We do it based upon our authority as jumpers in the same airspace.
We do need to separate the different types of patterns in time or space. We already have the authority to do that. We do not need a BSR. We should not bend to 'There ought to be a law.' pundits within skydiving anymore than we would do so if they were promoting local, state or federal laws.
If we follow this path, next it will be the 'mandatory RSL' pundits. That would have saved two people at a recent WFFC. Then it'll be the 'mandatory AAD' pundits. Etc, etc etc...
Education is a significant part of canopy patterns. Please contact me at aerosoftware_AT_makeithappen.com ( _AT_ = @ )to see a preview of an article that will appear in SNM June 2007.
May 3, 2007, 10:22 AM
Post #140 of 292
(1164 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BrianSGermain] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
If we limit what skydivers can do beyond what is reasonable, we will effectively kill the sport. It is a step backward due to fear, rather than a step forward toward solutions.
Separation by time and location, yes. Banning the human spirit, No!
Just my thoughts... +
True, but really vague and touchy feely. What's your position on a BSR that encourages DZs use a method to "separate by time and location" (I find BSRs to be 'recommendations' rather than 'requirements' in real practice).
Can you clarify what you are talking about? whether you think that
1 - a BSR of this kind is a good idea vs
2 - whether you think a BSR of this kind is a 'step backward due to fear'.
May 3, 2007, 10:27 AM
Post #141 of 292
(1172 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captainbb7] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
apparently, they were supposed to drop off of the load and not jump
Yes. If the situation is outside of your personal safety parameters (be it from wind gusts, number of people in the air, who is in the air, etc) then dont jump... and live to jump another day when the situation is within your personal safety parameters. If the cause of your safety issues is man made, then discuss it with the appropriate DZ authorities.
I actually agree with your part that we should have a very good idea of what's going to happen on a load with everyone. In practice, good luck making that happen (maybe you should propose a BSR that requires each load to have a pre-brief).
But that is an ongoing idea and doesn't preclude a recommendation in the BSRs that encourages separate landing areas at DZs that can do it.
As far as Kallend and me and Chris misreading your statement that any jerk can pull off a 360 over slow traffic just because he loudly announces it - well, the misread was right there because it was written that way. The responses were made because, even though "you" didn't mean it that way, there are people out there that would be totally serious in that position and it's hard to tell the difference if you are one of them or not.
May 3, 2007, 10:51 AM
Post #142 of 292
(1153 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
'There ought to be a law!' syndrome:
I disagree with you! When Roger Nelson got taken out myself and others took our concerns to the S&TA as well as the DZo about a few pilots who kept doing the same crap as Danny did load after load and used students as pylons to swoop thru. We asked for a second landing area for the swoopers and were met with a bad attitude from not only the swoopers but the DZO as well. I felt at that time and I still feel we need a BSR and have for some time now. You and the rest of the BOD have sat on your ass for a number of years now without addressing the concerns of many of the membership with regard to HP canopies and those who shouldn't be under those wings, to the point we are today that now instead of having to clean up one mess we get to clean up some other dead person who was taken out while following the rules in place.
You don't want a BSR, fine how about a USPA canopy flight instructor rating then, and a BSR for high wingloadings then.
Quote:
You and the rest of the BOD have sat on your ass for a number of years now without addressing the concerns of many of the membership with regard to HP canopies and those who shouldn't be under those wings,
Sorry I forgot you guys did spend a bunch of membership money for a video and poster to show at safety day, that was a big help....wasn't it.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 3, 2007, 11:11 AM
Post #143 of 292
(1139 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captainbb7] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>My point is, you wont know what other people intend to do unless you ask them.
And often even then you won't. When I have asked, I've often gotten "I'm going to land like I always do, and I always clear my airspace" or "I'll follow the pattern" or "Don't worry about it." Not notably helpful. Needless to say, further discussion on what constitutes a standard pattern, or further probing on what they mean by "don't worry about it" might shed some light on things - but yelling such questions over a turbine engine as 20 people try to get into an Otter is not likely to produce good results.
c. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. [NW]
do you find objectionable? It doesn't dictate what the procedures should be, just that procedures should exist.
c. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. [NW]
do you find objectionable? It doesn't dictate what the procedures should be, just that procedures should exist.
If you read SIM Section 6-10.F you will see that this recommendation is already in place.
This is a recent addition to the SIM. Perhaps, many jumpers are not aware of this.
May 3, 2007, 12:17 PM
Post #151 of 292
(964 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Basic Safety Recommendations That is what a BSR is a recommendation not a rule or law or FAR.
Really?
(This post was edited by JumpRu on May 3, 2007, 12:21 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 3, 2007, 12:31 PM
Post #152 of 292
(947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>This is a recent addition to the SIM. Perhaps, many jumpers are not aware of this.
Indeed, the objective of this BSR is clearly stated in the new material:
6-11 3.B.3.b: Fly the landing pattern or land elsewhere.
It's clearly a good idea (hence its inclusion in the SIM) but the lack of people following that suggestion has led to a lot of dead jumpers. Hence the desirability of turning it from a recommendation on page 150 into something more authoritative.
May 3, 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #153 of 292
(943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
If we limit what skydivers can do beyond what is reasonable, we will effectively kill the sport. It is a step backward due to fear, rather than a step forward toward solutions.
Separation by time and location, yes. Banning the human spirit, No!
Just my thoughts... +
True, but really vague and touchy feely. What's your position on a BSR that encourages DZs use a method to "separate by time and location" (I find BSRs to be 'recommendations' rather than 'requirements' in real practice).
Can you clarify what you are talking about? whether you think that
1 - a BSR of this kind is a good idea vs
2 - whether you think a BSR of this kind is a 'step backward due to fear'.
I believe that this is not a reason for another BSR. I think we have plenty of rules already.
I think that specifics are going to be difficult to enforce, especially since there are such a variety of landing areas out there. We need to take each situation on a case-by-case basis, and use our heads.
Rules can be used to avoid thinking. That is not what we are about. Lets just increase our level of awareness and do what makes sense.
Here's my plan:
1) Have two separate landing zones for box pattern and high speed approaches. 2) Do our best to create separation in time and altitude by staggering opening altitudes and by talking to each other about our plan in the loading area. 3) Create vertical separation under canopy before getting to pattern altitude. 4) Have someone in the landing area filming every landing so we can learn from our mistakes, as well as our successes.
May 3, 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #154 of 292
(941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Yea just like it's a requirement for DZs' to follow in order to be a GM. As far as I'm concerned they are only Basic Safety "Recommendations" They have no teeth and can't be enforced by anyone anywhere at anytime and the USPA BOD has a long history of looking the other way as it suits the needs of their buddys.
So what year did they change the word from Recommendations to requirements?
May 3, 2007, 12:47 PM
Post #156 of 292
(927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Yea just like it's a requirement for DZs' to follow in order to be a GM. As far as I'm concerned they are only Basic Safety "Recommendations" They have no teeth and can't be enforced by anyone anywhere at anytime and the USPA BOD has a long history of looking the other way as it suits the needs of their buddys.
I agree that USPA is not a police agency. I think you need to separate the 'old' BOD from the 'current' BOD actions. I may be on the USPA BOD now, but I am not accountable for what happen before I was on the BOD.
In reply to:
So what year did they change the word from Recommendations to requirements?
It was definitely before 1988. I think it was 1976 or so. There was a Parachutist article on the name change, but I don't have it at my fingertips (or it would take hours to find).
Well it's whole different can o' worms but, you sure about that?
Know much about the GM program?
--------------------
Well I was thinking that it is not USPA job to tell DZO how to do business... and proposed BSR’s kind of doing just that. That is one of my reasons against them. I think those BSR's are not productive and in general won’t do us any good.
May 3, 2007, 1:14 PM
Post #160 of 292
(891 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
If we limit what skydivers can do beyond what is reasonable, we will effectively kill the sport. It is a step backward due to fear, rather than a step forward toward solutions
Brian Germain is right. I think this is a bad direction to go and it's kneejerk.
Quote:
I appreciate all the people who took the time to be the "bad guys" in my skydiving career, even if I didn't in the heat of the moment. I thank them, because of them, I'm still sucking air
You guys only say this when someone dies. I warned Danny several times over the years. Someone of his age, experience, and attitude doesn't listen. Furthermore, if I had grounded Danny or what it really would've taken, kicked him off the DZ, I'd feel the backlash for weeks from the jumpers. And it still would not have changed him. On the other hand, if the jumpers would've made him an outcast for being dangerous and refused to jump with him, he might have listened. But Danny was very popular at our DZ at that was never gonna happen. Be that as it may, I have grounded staff members at our DZ last year. Each have more than 4,000 skydives. It made no difference. I have even kicked people off the DZ for bad continued canopy judgement before. These proposed rules are not going to change much. What it will do is set up the DZ for a law suit unless they agressively enforce them. You jumpers need to take some responsibility and quit expecting the rules, DZO's, and USPA to make it "safe". The safest I ever felt it was at the DZ was when Ian Drennan as a senior jumper was discouraging unsafe behavior very publicly and refusing to allow unsafe people on the "good freefly jumps".
May 3, 2007, 1:27 PM
Post #161 of 292
(882 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
I may be on the USPA BOD now, but I am not accountable for what happen before I was on the BOD.
Your are correct, sorry to lump you in with older members, that was not fair of me.
Quote:
It was definitely before 1988. I think it was 1976 or so.
You maybe right, but I don't think it was as early as 76, I'm guessing 84 or 85, but don't know for sure and no need to get into a pissing contest on the date.
When I say I think we need a firm rule, I'm thinking of people I personally know who have blown off good advice and used their ratings to preach to noobs and steer them in the wrong direction with really bad out comes and had we had more real enforcement available, there would be one less dead tandem master taken out by a 4 yr hotshot superswoop'n skygod with all the ratings one could have. We have lowered the standards for instructors these days and we are seeing the results of going "mainstream" this sport is not for everyone and it should stay that way. The bottom line is the current rules, recommendations, requirements, or what ever fancy word you care to dress it up as, isn't working!
This sport for me has never been about a team thing, there is no one to hold your hand and keep you safe, but you. It has always been everyone for them selfs. So I for one will keep on keeping on and stay far far way from the current crop of mainstream idiots in the sport today as best I can. ("mainstream" the ones who are to stupid to know I'm talking about you)
It is sad to meet a longtime jumper this week who has done a lot in this sport to learn they won't jump anymore because of the danger of the current mainstream jumpers we have today. But at least I got some cool old gear from a cool old guy, this sport lost a lot when he quit. (you know who you are, you lurker)
May 3, 2007, 1:33 PM
Post #162 of 292
(874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
This reasoning would seem to imply that anyone should be allowed to perform any high performance, high risk maneuver they want, and its up to the people that don't want to be a target of this guy to scratch from the load.
I think what he is saying is that the landing procedures should be discussed, and that's when any differences in philosophy will come to light:
Load Org: "...OK, we'll all land into the wind with straight-in approaches and keep an eye out for each other in the pattern."
Swooper: "Well, I usually do a 270 to a downwind and stop right over there. But I always clear my airspace before I turn. Is that cool?"
Other 20 people: "No"
Swooper: "OK, how about if I scratch and get on the next load ?"
Everybody: "See ya"
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 3, 2007, 1:37 PM
Post #163 of 292
(863 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyberdyber] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Furthermore, if I had grounded Danny or what it really would've taken, >kicked him off the DZ, I'd feel the backlash for weeks from the jumpers.
You would have felt less backlash if he got grounded at every DZ he went to because he was breaking a very clear rule. And you would have felt zero backlash if Danny had realized that he could either fly a normal pattern or be grounded. He did it because he could get away with it - if not with you, then with some other DZO who didn't understand HP canopy flight as well.
>What it will do is set up the DZ for a law suit unless they agressively enforce them.
Deaths cause lawsuits. Preventing deaths is the #1 way to prevent lawsuits.
May 3, 2007, 1:46 PM
Post #164 of 292
(845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kkeenan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I think what he is saying is that the landing procedures should be discussed, and that's when any differences in philosophy will come to light:
Load Org: "...OK, we'll all land into the wind with straight-in approaches and keep an eye out for each other in the pattern." Swooper: "Well, I usually do a 270 to a downwind and stop right over there. But I always clear my airspace before I turn. Is that cool?" Other 20 people: "No, guess I have to scratch" Swooper: "Cool, I get the whole plane to myself?" Everybody: "sigh"
May 3, 2007, 1:48 PM
Post #165 of 292
(844 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BrianSGermain] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Here's my plan:
1) Have two separate landing zones for box pattern and high speed approaches. 2) Do our best to create separation in time and altitude by staggering opening altitudes and by talking to each other about our plan in the loading area. 3) Create vertical separation under canopy before getting to pattern altitude. 4) Have someone in the landing area filming every landing so we can learn from our mistakes, as well as our successes. +
thanks, that's much clearer
I like your plan. Agree with it 100%. However, I think staggering opening altitudes is not something people will ever be able to do on purpose.
How about we put it in the SIM under a new section
"Common Sense Recommendations"
along with canopy loading and progression guidelines, exit order and separation info, warnings about he idiocy of the 45 degree farce and things like that, etc......
then we don't have to do the semantics game of why the BS Requirements are enforced or not at local DZs
(This post was edited by rehmwa on May 3, 2007, 1:50 PM)
May 3, 2007, 2:02 PM
Post #166 of 292
(831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Preventing deaths is the #1 way to prevent lawsuits.
perhaps I should've said you are giving attorneys an easier route to win. Hate to break it to you dude. This is skydiving. You aren't going to make it death-proof. I've heard so much about this incident in the last month. My main conclusion is that everyone seems to have forgotten that skydiving is dangerous and that's a big reason why people do it. IT IS DANGEROUS AND PEOPLE DIE. And that will never change. You can try to idiot-proof it, they'll just build a better idiot. This sort of "legislate good judgement rather than personal responsibility" attitude is what goes on in Washington. Take a good look at our laws guys. It hasn't worked there it's not going to work here. But it'll make you guys feel good about yourselves like your doing something about it and it's popular, so never mind whether it'll actually work or makes any sense.
Based on your response to me, I don't know why you bothered to post for comments. You seem to have already made up your mind.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 3, 2007, 2:49 PM
Post #167 of 292
(803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyberdyber] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Hate to break it to you dude. This is skydiving. You aren't going to make it death-proof.
Of course. But we try to prevent fatalities through better gear (AAD's, reserves, Skyhooks, RSL's, helmets etc) better procedures (exit separation times, landing pattern rules) better training (the ISP) etc etc. The claim "we can't fix everything so we shouldn't try to do anything" is a non-starter, fortunately - skydiving would suck today if the pioneers in this sport had that attitude.
>My main conclusion is that everyone seems to have forgotten that >skydiving is dangerous and that's a big reason why people do it.
That may well be true. And if so, I have no problem with people risking their OWN lives. I have a very big problem with irresponsible jumpers risking OTHER people's lives.
Bob Holler was a pretty careful jumper. He decided what sort of risks he wanted to take and jumped accordingly. Then someone else killed him due to their negligence. That's the problem we're trying to solve here.
If you have all the education you need to make an intelligent decision about the risks you take, and you push the limits and kill yourself - well, that's sad, but it was your decision. If you decide to push the limits and you kill someone else - that is absolutely inexcusable, and that's the level that rules come into play. It's OK to drive drunk on your own road and kill yourself; it's not OK to drive drunk on a public road and kill someone else.
>You seem to have already made up your mind.
Not at all. If someone came up with a better idea, I'd be all over it. I haven't seen one yet. This proposal is merely the best that a group of jumpers could do on their own. One of the reasons we are posting this is to look for better ideas or modifications to this one - and I have already seen a few good suggestions.
May 3, 2007, 3:40 PM
Post #168 of 292
(784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kkeenan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
I think what he is saying is that the landing procedures should be discussed, and that's when any differences in philosophy will come to light:
That is correct (you said it better than I did, thanks!) I was not advocating any specific landing procedure/policy, (thats for each individual DZ to specify) just for everyone to discuss it before you board... or at least in the plane on the ride to altitude. If for some reason you cant come to an agreement on how you are going to land, at least you know who to keep on your radar screen under canopy.
May 3, 2007, 3:56 PM
Post #169 of 292
(775 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I could not agree with any one of the options you have produced on this thread but I might if a few things were merged together. I have posted a revision for your group to view, it may inspirer new thoughts. I have included a brief comment about each at the end.
Over all I agree with Brian Germain plan, if I owned and DZ with enough property I would establish separate landing areas, including a student area then this would not be an issue.
H) Drop zone requirements 4. Landing Patterns:
a) The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW]
b) Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]
c) Drop zone operators shall create and maintain landing approach patterns to ensure traffic continuity with in each separately, SLP and HPL, in a manner that SLP and HPL shall not conflict with each other. [NW]
d) Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted shall do one of the following, so that an individual performing HPL can not interfere with an individual fallowing a SLP: [FB]
1) Shall separate the landing areas and traffic patterns geographically
2) Shall separate by time to establish adequate clear air space
(a & b) This is necessary to clearly define the difference between Standard Landing Pattern and High Performance Landing Pattern so this has not been changed.
(c) Is something that we should be doing where ever we jump, it should be established, depending on wind direction, and that our landing approach pattern is either a right or left hand pattern.
(d) This one pains me, because it has come to the point that we have become so inept that it takes a BSR to enforce what we were supposed to have learned, meaning what were taught, lower and slower have the right of way.
(d) 1) and 2) Gives DZ the flexibility depending on their individual setting and size so the DZ may provide for their customers, if they so choose.
May 3, 2007, 7:07 PM
Post #170 of 292
(719 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bob.dino] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
I can see your proposal working on larger DZ's or boogies , I don't think you need the same rules for the Smaller Cesna DZ's where 4 people might be in the air at one time.
The people that worry me the most are the ones that normally jump at small DZs, then show up at multi-turbine boogies. They're used to having the sky to themselves and often fly that way even when there's 20 other canopies in the sky with them.
Yup. When I went to Eloy for the first time for the holiday boogie, I had 49 jumps at Cessna DZ (though ten of 'em were from Mullins' King Air). On the recommendation of some people who sent PMs, I showed up the night before the boogie officially started and got on one of the first loads which was light, and only turning one plane. As they ramped up capacity throughout the next few days, I was ready for it because I'd been slowly integrating. if I'd just shown up halfway through and jumped on a Skyvan and been in the air with 40+ other people from multiple planes, I'm not sure I wouldn't have been a hazard. I'd like to think I wouldn't have, but really, who can say?
May 3, 2007, 9:14 PM
Post #174 of 292
(669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Do you really think any of that has made the sport safer? Or just allowed us to get away with making it more dangerous?
I think it has made it safer for dangerous people, and more dangerous for safe people. In other words people who would have never been let to jump or would have burned in had it not been for their aad are still out there flying around endangering others. All aads have done is allowed many people to fly with their heads up there ass as S.O.P.
Edit to add, I do know two or three people who were really saved by an AAD, both were knocked out cold by another. But I know way more who fired them because they can't read a dial or see the big ass planet their about to smack into.
(This post was edited by stratostar on May 3, 2007, 9:17 PM)
May 4, 2007, 12:10 AM
Post #175 of 292
(641 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LloydDobbler] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Just to clarify, by 'segment their traffic,' do you mean 'separate their landing areas,' or do you mean 'bar swoopers from initiating HPL's into SLP traffic'?
segment means separate, either by time or location.
May 4, 2007, 12:54 AM
Post #176 of 292
(1295 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hi all,
I couldn't be bothered to read all 7 pages of posts. so i might sound like a scratched record but...
This is definitely a step in the right direction.
What I don't agree with is
Quote:
b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]
By that rationale someone that S turns in to land in generally a straight line instead of the suggested landing pattern, should therefore do the said approach in the high performance landing area?
not a very good idea!
We need to think of the swoopers' safety as well as the 'Majority' to keep us all safe.
May 4, 2007, 1:45 AM
Post #177 of 292
(1292 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Drop zone operators are required...
last time i checked USPA is organization of jumpers, not Drop zone operators
Well it's whole different can o' worms but, you sure about that?
Know much about the GM program?
this may be on a whole different subject and possibly deserve a different post, but............... why are DZ owners even allowed to be on any position in the U.P.S.A. board or elections? Thats sort of like the president of the U.S. being the C.E.O. of wallmart. (of course their going to favor legistation (BSR's) in their direction. (gotta make a dollar right?) seriously though. if we as a group (skydivers) are going to make some changes in our sport, why not start at the top? Why elect ppl that have a monetary gain in some regulation that they propose? of course their "group membership" won't get revoked if their DZ makes too many mistakes. They're on the board and thats ok. it's the do as I say; not the do as I do mentality. Some of the board members/Dz owners probablly should have had their membership revoked years ago, yet lets yank a tandem instructers rating who made 1 mistake in 10 years instead of yanking a board member/Dz owner whose business has made ten times that number in the same amount of time. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 4, 2007, 10:00 AM
Post #180 of 292
(1218 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Do you really think any of that has made the sport safer? Or just >allowed us to get away with making it more dangerous?
Overall it has made a jumper who started in 1991 safer. (I'm using that date because that's when I started, so I'm familiar with those people!) Is it making a jumper who starts _today_ safer? Yes and no. Gear doesn't generally fail any more - but people are taking perfectly good canopies and using them to fly themselves into the ground. That is because, I think, people tend to increase risk in one area when risk in another area is decreased. (Booth's Law.)
So now we have people who are dying because of what they do instead of because what their gear does to them. And that's an improvement, because killing yourself because _you_ pushed the limits is a lot more acceptable to most skydivers than dying because your harness failed or your main collapsed or the plane crashed. That way you're in charge of your own survival (or lack thereof.)
The situation we're seeing now is jumpers killing other jumpers, which is something relatively new. The argument can be made that even if we get this BSR (or something like it) passed, and even if it's effective, people will just find another way to kill themselves. And there might some validity to that point of view from a Boothian perspective, but I think that overall it's still an improvement. If we can keep the number of jumpers dying the same, but reduce the number of jumpers killed by other people, we are still improving the sport.
(That's assuming that the number will stay the same, which I suspect it will not - it will decline slightly.)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 4, 2007, 10:04 AM
Post #181 of 292
(1214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rhys] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>By that rationale someone that S turns in to land in generally a >straight line instead of the suggested landing pattern, should therefore >do the said approach in the high performance landing area?
That's a good point, and one that we're going to try to address in the next version.
First off, the term "high performance landing" is a misnomer. It's really "nonstandard pattern." It's not just the people doing 270's that are causing problems, but also the jumpers making accuracy approaches through a busy pattern, the students doing sudden 360's to lose altitude, the guy doing big S-turns to lose altitude etc. So we should really be referring to "nonstandard patterns" instead of "high performance landings."
Secondly, that's an argument for the third option instead of the other two, so a DZO can designate the other landing area as (say) swoopers only, or accuracy only, or whatever the situation at his DZ merits. The only requirement would be that he come up with a plan to keep them separate, without forcing anyone to do a specific kind of approach in the "other" area.
May 4, 2007, 11:21 AM
Post #182 of 292
(1187 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyberdyber] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
... and someday you too might end up as a part of that sad reality that skydiving is dangerous because you failed to EVOLVE with the changing climate of the sport... it is exactly this kind of attitude that needs to change so that we may all be the FITTEST skydivers that we can be in order to survive.
I've read most of this thread, but by the time you filter through a couple of hundred posts and opinions, it all gets to be hard to decipher. (Plus this stomach flu I've had all week doesn't help my mental state much either) But, nonetheless, there seems to be two main branches of thought here;
One group thinks that a BSR, in whatever form may finally be agreed upon, is a good idea and a step in the right direction to reduce canopy collision accidents.
The second group, however, seems to think a BSR is unecessary, and that a better approach to the problem is jumper education and the increased skills under canopy that would be the result.
My take on this (at least at this juncture) is this: Why can't there be improvements at the USPA level that address both at the same time? For instance, in order to progress through the license and/or ratings system, better canopy skills and traffic management understanding could come into play. At the same time, a new BSR (and in my opinion "option 3" the best of what's been thrown out so far) could help make sure that all group member dz's have and enforce a canopy traffic policy that addresses this issue?
I'm sure that getting down to the nuts and bolts of writing doctrine that will do the most to improve this safety concern will be a very difficult task, and so I do realize my suggestions are very over-simplified. But to address "the rules" without furthering individual skills would be nothing more than adding a layer of bureaucracy, and at the same time, what in the world could the harm be in a BSR that states that gm dz's shall have and enforce a traffic management system that they tailor to their own situation?
May 4, 2007, 11:41 AM
Post #184 of 292
(1163 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
It is people like you that have no regard for safety in this sport, that make it unsafe. Bob Holler would have called you out on your arrogance and every little unsafe move that you do. I hope to hell that your ignorance doesn't kill you or someone else some day.
May 4, 2007, 11:48 AM
Post #185 of 292
(1150 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holleresque] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
As hard as it is, try to check the emotions at the door. We're all passionate about this, but as I know from way too much personal experience, inflamitory remarks usually ruin these discussions.
May 4, 2007, 12:21 PM
Post #186 of 292
(1125 views)
Shortcut
Re: [beezyshaw] Re:BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I've read most of this thread, but by the time you filter through a couple of hundred posts and opinions, it all gets to be hard to decipher. (Plus this stomach flu I've had all week doesn't help my mental state much either) But, nonetheless, there seems to be two main branches of thought here;
One group thinks that a BSR, in whatever form may finally be agreed upon, is a good idea and a step in the right direction to reduce canopy collision accidents.
The second group, however, seems to think a BSR is unecessary, and that a better approach to the problem is jumper education and the increased skills under canopy that would be the result.
My take on this (at least at this juncture) is this: Why can't there be improvements at the USPA level that address both at the same time? For instance, in order to progress through the license and/or ratings system, better canopy skills and traffic management understanding could come into play. At the same time, a new BSR (and in my opinion "option 3" the best of what's been thrown out so far) could help make sure that all group member dz's have and enforce a canopy traffic policy that addresses this issue?
I'm sure that getting down to the nuts and bolts of writing doctrine that will do the most to improve this safety concern will be a very difficult task, and so I do realize my suggestions are very over-simplified. But to address "the rules" without furthering individual skills would be nothing more than adding a layer of bureaucracy, and at the same time, what in the world could the harm be in a BSR that states that gm dz's shall have and enforce a traffic management system that they tailor to their own situation?
Several of the now dead skydivers had no lack of skills. Lack of judgment was the problem.
The person who hit me from behind had excellent skills. I survived the collision by luck, not skill.
May 4, 2007, 12:21 PM
Post #187 of 292
(1124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holleresque] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
It is people like you that have no regard for safety in this sport, that make it unsafe. Bob Holler would have called you out on your arrogance and every little unsafe move that you do. I hope to hell that your ignorance doesn't kill you or someone else some day.
I would not expect Bob Holler or anyone else to be so omnipotent to quash every self-righteous, arrogant skydiver by themself. It takes a village - so to speak.
Bob knew Danny and how Danny could come across as an arrogant SOB on occasions. Bob was on at least two dives previously, on the day of the accident, where others have said Danny did HP approaches. Why didn't Bob ream Danny's ass then?
Then again, there is the issue that this accident happened at a non-GM DZ. It's a DZ that is only in existence for one event per year. How would or could a USPA doctrine technically have any influence upon a DZ that does not pay money to pledge to abide by the USPA BSRs?
The event organizer and many others who were at this event did say there were rules in place. Danny, apparently, violated those rules. Why he wasn't talked to or maybe he was and blew it off, I don't know.
Stop throwing stones and look at what you can do to change the future.
May 4, 2007, 12:59 PM
Post #188 of 292
(1099 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Re:BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Several of the now dead skydivers had no lack of skills. Lack of judgment was the problem.
The person who hit me from behind had excellent skills. I survived the collision by luck, not skill.
Here's Webster's definition of skill:
(1) the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance b: dexterity or coordination especially in the execution of learned physical tasks (2) a learned power of doing something competently : a developed aptitude or ability __________________________________________________
I'm not clear on what you're trying to tell me here. Whatever the case, I suggest that you may be confusing "skill" with "ability". The person that collided with you may have great ability, but they certainly were NOT demonstrating "skill". I was at the Dublin boogie and I also was on many, many skydives for many years with Danny. While he indeed had no lack of ability, on numerous occasions he clearly demonstrated a serious lack of skill. I say that because "skill" includes a level of competency that Danny, and obviously the jumper that almost took you out, did not demonstrate.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 4, 2007, 1:10 PM
Post #189 of 292
(1092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holleresque] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
This discussion may get people heated, but as a reminder, there are no personal attacks allowed. Your one warning.
May 4, 2007, 1:48 PM
Post #190 of 292
(1074 views)
Shortcut
Re: [2shay] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
isn't a BSR just a reccomendation?
Joel, no offense buddy, but maybe you need to do more reading and less posting. You don't seem to be too familiar with USPA rules, and you haven't caught on to the answer to your question, which was <answered already> in this thread.
I have been seeing a number of your quick replies all over the forums lately. I don't know if you are a newly rated instructor, or have just now gotten some magic number of jumps that makes you know everything, but....
May 4, 2007, 1:59 PM
Post #191 of 292
(1065 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I see this as an issue with jumpers in general that do HPL's. I am mindful that not all jumpers are swoopers.
I have personally seen a much higher number of injuries among jumpers that do HPL's than ones that don't.
I have seen someone turn his canopy perpendicular to the ground at less than 50 feet in a area where there were already numerous jumpers landing and gathering their gear. When I remarked about how he should be careful I got attitude. "Don't put your limitations on me". Though I applaud his obvious skill and finesse as a canopy pilot, I strongly disagree with the chosen time and place.
I have seen numerous almost in air and on ground collisions, on ground collisions, one in air collision, numerous jumpers getting cut off all by HPL jumpers.
I see a definite trend.
Though most HPL jumpers do not have this person's attitude, most feel it is their right to do HPL's.
I totally agree with Billvon's post option 1 and think representatives from all disciplines should be chosen to decide on an update to the BSR regarding HPL's
I have lost 2 friends, had several friends injured, and seen numerous other jumpers nearly injured or killed.
I am personally shocked that the HPL's jumpers were not the first to propose safety changes and in some cases are fighting them.
Even after the recent deaths, the behaviors continue to cause injury and death.
I see this now as a case as "You won't clean up your house, so we will do it for you."
I teach safety in another industry.
I repeatedly tell my students 2 things:
1. The only good safety device is between your ears.
2. If you are not always thinking about safety, you are not being safe, just lucky.
We need to do something now and Billvon's group has mad a good start. I like term non-standard landings.
If we can separate freeflyers from rw'rs and rw'rs from wingsuit flyers by jump order. I am sure we can put our collective intelligences together to address this issue.
(This post was edited by Salsa_John on May 4, 2007, 2:05 PM)
May 4, 2007, 3:35 PM
Post #192 of 292
(1033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
It is people like you that have no regard for safety in this sport, that make it unsafe. Bob Holler would have called you out on your arrogance and every little unsafe move that you do. I hope to hell that your ignorance doesn't kill you or someone else some day.
I would not expect Bob Holler or anyone else to be so omnipotent to quash every self-righteous, arrogant skydiver by themself. It takes a village - so to speak.
Bob knew Danny and how Danny could come across as an arrogant SOB on occasions. Bob was on at least two dives previously, on the day of the accident, where others have said Danny did HP approaches. Why didn't Bob ream Danny's ass then?
Then again, there is the issue that this accident happened at a non-GM DZ. It's a DZ that is only in existence for one event per year. How would or could a USPA doctrine technically have any influence upon a DZ that does not pay money to pledge to abide by the USPA BSRs?
The event organizer and many others who were at this event did say there were rules in place. Danny, apparently, violated those rules. Why he wasn't talked to or maybe he was and blew it off, I don't know.
Stop throwing stones and look at what you can do to change the future.
May 5, 2007, 11:13 PM
Post #193 of 292
(958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Bill,
You are a well-known poster, and your comments carry a lot of weight.
I am concerned about this comment, which separates the world into people flying a non-swoop landing pattern and 'everyone else who is dangerous.'
As a swooper, I value a place to safely do my standard, predictable 270 turns, free from the hazards of an S-turn across my final approach.
Given today's demographics, it might make sense to set up separate "high performance" and "box pattern" landing areas. There is strong demand for both. But someone doing S-turns or slow 360-s has no place in either pattern (unless last down).
FWIW, I knew Cliff. And Tommy. I miss them both and want us to find a solution to this issue. Pushing dangerous (unpredictable) fliers into their landing area would not have helped either of them.
Evan
Quote:
>By that rationale someone that S turns in to land in generally a >straight line instead of the suggested landing pattern, should therefore >do the said approach in the high performance landing area?
That's a good point, and one that we're going to try to address in the next version.
First off, the term "high performance landing" is a misnomer. It's really "nonstandard pattern." It's not just the people doing 270's that are causing problems, but also the jumpers making accuracy approaches through a busy pattern, the students doing sudden 360's to lose altitude, the guy doing big S-turns to lose altitude etc. So we should really be referring to "nonstandard patterns" instead of "high performance landings."
Secondly, that's an argument for the third option instead of the other two, so a DZO can designate the other landing area as (say) swoopers only, or accuracy only, or whatever the situation at his DZ merits. The only requirement would be that he come up with a plan to keep them separate, without forcing anyone to do a specific kind of approach in the "other" area.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 6, 2007, 1:41 PM
Post #194 of 292
(905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I am concerned about this comment, which separates the world into >people flying a non-swoop landing pattern and 'everyone else who is dangerous.'
Well, "everyone else" isn't dangerous. What's dangerous (IMO) is mixing patterns. That goes for a swooper doing a 270 in a standard pattern, a student doing a 360 in the swoop area, a less than competent canopy pilot doing a lot of S-turns on final in the standard pattern etc.
Right now many DZ's separate the student landing area from the 'main' area. This is done primarily because students need a larger area, but has the secondary effect that it removes many of the big, erratic student canopies from the main pattern. Often the 'unusual' approaches (accuracy, PRO rating jumps) are done in the same student area just to separate them from the regular pattern. DZO's can certainly continue that practice if they choose.
>As a swooper, I value a place to safely do my standard, predictable 270 >turns, free from the hazards of an S-turn across my final approach.
That sounds like another argument for a separate dedicated swoop area, which is definitely one way to deal with the problem.
>Given today's demographics, it might make sense to set up separate >"high performance" and "box pattern" landing areas. There is strong >demand for both.
I agree, and I think that's the sort of thing a DZO would implement under the third proposal.
May 7, 2007, 9:37 AM
Post #195 of 292
(828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I was at a DZ this past weekend where there was almost another canopy collision. this DZ has seperate landing area's for high performance and conventianal landings, a "no greater than 180 degree" rule in the main landing area, and a "first person down sets the direction".
in this instance the first person down set a cross wind landing (winds were shifting a little bit), as others landed one jumper initiated a 180 turn to landing in the set cross wind landing and as this person rolled out another person doing a standard landing patter decided to land in to the wind which meant he was cutting off everyone else landing in the proper direction including this swooper. as the person who did the 180 planned out from their turned they were aware enough to turn and avoid the collision. the person doing the standard approach was clueless until they were talked to.
kind of goes to show that it's not the pattern as much as the pilot...kind of like swooping or landing in general, it's not the parachute that makes people good it's the pilot.
in this situation the key preventing factor should have been education. the jumper that landed in to the wind and cut everyone off needs to understand the importance of everyone landing the same direction, how to land cross wind if necessary, and also just how to be more aware.
to all you tandem, AFF, S/L instructors, and experienced canopy coaches, these fundementals MUST be taught right from the begining. if they aren't then it might cost you more than you expect.
May 7, 2007, 11:01 AM
Post #196 of 292
(800 views)
Shortcut
Re: [superstu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
person doing a standard landing patter decided to land in to the wind which meant he was cutting off everyone else landing in the proper direction
I really enjoy how landing into the wind isn't the proper landing direction any more.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 11:06 AM
Post #197 of 292
(792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
person doing a standard landing patter decided to land in to the wind which meant he was cutting off everyone else landing in the proper direction
I really enjoy how landing into the wind isn't the proper landing direction any more.
Some dropzones have that rule as a matter of necessity.
For example, in Thomaston, you have the choice of landing crosswind and having a 600+ long area with plenty of over or undershoot room where tarmac is the only obstacle (and that should never be an obstacle)
OR over an active runway which you have to cross at less than 500 feet to make the landing area, then taxi-way
OR landing over powerlines, hangers, a 300 feet wide landing area towards the taxi-way and then the active runway.
In some cases, crosswind is a lot safer.
Regardless - landing against the set direction, no matter what that may be or what the dz rules are on setting it, isn't the proper landing direction...period.
Blues, Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on May 7, 2007, 11:15 AM)
May 7, 2007, 11:09 AM
Post #198 of 292
(791 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Landing into the wind is common practice at this DZ, however, as stated the wind was very much variable this day and was switching directions as people were landing, thus the importance of following the same direction as the first person down. also to note, the winds were less than 5 mph so people should be able to land crosswind in those kind of conditions or they shouldn't be flying that canopy or flying at all.
edited to add: by the way, the person who set the pattern was not a swooper.
(This post was edited by superstu on May 7, 2007, 11:13 AM)
May 7, 2007, 11:53 AM
Post #199 of 292
(768 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I really enjoy how landing into the wind isn't the proper landing direction any more.
Don't you think that it's better to have the entire load agree upon a proposed landing direction before the airplane even takes off? Airplanes often land with crosswinds, why can't skydivers? There is nothing wrong with a little crosswind landing action if it makes everyone in the pattern a little safer. Banning swooping isn't going to make skydiving safe.
(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on May 7, 2007, 12:46 PM)
May 7, 2007, 12:26 PM
Post #200 of 292
(748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I wonder where DZ will get money for those separate landing areas? Something tells me that will be my jump ticket. Want to pay $30 for a jump? Sign this BSR and you will get it. I doubt they will put additional costs in tandem price.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 12:44 PM
Post #201 of 292
(830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
> I wonder where DZ will get money for those separate landing areas?
Options 2 and 3 do not require separate landing areas.
May 7, 2007, 1:33 PM
Post #203 of 292
(809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
> I wonder where DZ will get money for those separate landing areas?
Options 2 and 3 do not require separate landing areas.
You right the essence of your BSR is separation by time or space: lets take a look at separation by time:
Best thing would be to have separate passes or separate loads for conservative and HP pilots. Unfortunately separate passes takes extra gas so we will end up with 30$ jump tickets. Separate loads are even worse idea if you try it for reality test. Lets say you have 15 jumpers at drop zone so they can all get on Twin Otter and jump all day long. Lets say 10 of them are conservative pilots and 5 would like to do HP landings. My numbers are approximate but it is easy to see that there is not enough people to take up conservative or HP load (10 people is not enough to take up TO). End result – everyone sitting on the ground or 30$ jump tickets. Not to mention that we are about to put a huge gap between experienced and new jumpers. Experienced people prefer HP landings and new jumpers obviously don’t. How we suppose to teach them? If we won’t be able to jump together on the same load or on the same pass? I’m not talking about students, I’m talking about people with 1-200 jumps who has license but still needs to learn a lot. Personally I’m happy to teach new jumpers for free but only if I can safely practice my swoops.
(This post was edited by JumpRu on May 7, 2007, 1:35 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 1:49 PM
Post #204 of 292
(796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Best thing would be to have separate passes or separate loads >for conservative and HP pilots. Unfortunately separate passes takes extra >gas so we will end up with 30$ jump tickets.
We already have separate passes (up to 5 on one load) and our jump tickets aren't $30.
> Lets say you have 15 jumpers at drop zone so they can all get on >Twin Otter and jump all day long.
If you have 15 jumpers, it's going to be awful hard on the plane. That's one shutdown/restart for each load. On days like that, smaller aircraft (which most DZ's have) are going to be more economical.
But in any case, in your scenario, let's look at the options:
1) They let the swoopers out at 5K and let the freefallers out at 12K. Separation by time.
2) They let the swoopers out at 12K, do another pass, and let everyone else out. Separation by time.
3) Swoopers land by the swoop pond/swoop area, standard pattern people land in the main area. Separation by distance.
All three of these would be completely practical in the three DZ's I frequent (Otay, Perris, Elsinore) and none of them have $30 jump tickets. You are worried about things that might happen to make your jump ticket price go up, but all those things have already happened at various DZ's - and ticket prices didn't go up to $30.
May 7, 2007, 2:07 PM
Post #205 of 292
(787 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
>Best thing would be to have separate passes or separate loads >for conservative and HP pilots. Unfortunately separate passes takes extra >gas so we will end up with 30$ jump tickets.
We already have separate passes (up to 5 on one load) and our jump tickets aren't $30.
> Lets say you have 15 jumpers at drop zone so they can all get on >Twin Otter and jump all day long.
If you have 15 jumpers, it's going to be awful hard on the plane. That's one shutdown/restart for each load. On days like that, smaller aircraft (which most DZ's have) are going to be more economical.
But in any case, in your scenario, let's look at the options:
1) They let the swoopers out at 5K and let the freefallers out at 12K. Separation by time.
2) They let the swoopers out at 12K, do another pass, and let everyone else out. Separation by time.
3) Swoopers land by the swoop pond/swoop area, standard pattern people land in the main area. Separation by distance.
All three of these would be completely practical in the three DZ's I frequent (Otay, Perris, Elsinore) and none of them have $30 jump tickets. You are worried about things that might happen to make your jump ticket price go up, but all those things have already happened at various DZ's - and ticket prices didn't go up to $30.
I guess things look different from East Cost: at most DZ where I had a chance to jump there is one landing area, one airplane sometimes Twin Otter, some times Cassa and it is hard to fill them if it is not big boogie or something. Some places do multiple passes some places don’t. That is how I see things. Yes some DZ use smaller airplane PAC or KA and that eliminate most of traffic issues. I think you need to evaluate situation with landing areas and airplanes at more them 3 drop zones before proposing something for entire country.
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 2:29 PM
Post #206 of 292
(761 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I think you need to evaluate situation with landing areas and airplanes >at more them 3 drop zones before proposing something for entire country.
We (as in the authors of this proposal) have jumped at just about every DZ in the country. Personally I've jumped at 29 DZ's from Pepperell to Brown Field. That's not a lot, but it has given me a view of drop zones from the tiny (Skydive Long Island at Spadaro's) to the huge (Eloy.)
Each DZO is going to have their own slightly different solution, which is why one of our suggestions is simply that each DZO come up with their own method of separating standard pattern traffic and nonstandard pattern traffic.
May 7, 2007, 3:04 PM
Post #207 of 292
(750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
We (as in the authors of this proposal) have jumped at just about every DZ in the country.
I assume you guys jumped at SAZ too...
how about separate landing area for HP landings? or maybe low passes for everyone?
No... Instead they ban serious swooping
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 3:15 PM
Post #208 of 292
(744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>how about separate landing area for HP landings? >or maybe low passes for everyone?
>No...
It's too bad that SDAZ did not leave one of the main landing areas open for nonstandard patterns (although swooping has certainly not been banned.) A BSR might have given them something less disagreeable to enforce.
So the choice you will be presented with will be - a BSR that calls out how to separate traffic? Or more Skydive Arizonas and Crosskeys?
May 7, 2007, 3:43 PM
Post #212 of 292
(740 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
We (as in the authors of this proposal) have jumped at just about every DZ in the country.
I assume you guys jumped at SAZ too...
how about separate landing area for HP landings? or maybe low passes for everyone?
No... Instead they ban serious swooping
I am getting somewhat annoyed at the people who think that "swooping" is much of an issue one way or another.
I insist that people quit bitching about how they are subject to discrimination for being swoopers. It is patent nonsense, and gets away from the key point at hand, which is that, if you fly in traffic, you must fly WITH traffic.
Right up front: if you want to swoop, knock yourself out.
However, if you want to fly so that you are putting people in the pattern at risk of death or serious injury, that is not okay.
Pay attention here - it does not matter whether you are coming through the pattern at a significant Mach number after a blind setup or are sashaying your way back and forth across the windline, you cannot fly so as to endanger others.
In aviation, you can get away with a lot of questionable procedures, but one transgression that is codified is that it is patently illegal to violate the traffic pattern. For example, if you fly a right hand pattern where a left is published, or vice-versa, you are subject to sanctions.
The idea that people feel they have the right to fly their canopies with disregard to the most fundamental principles of aviation safety is mind boggling.
Nobody says you can't swoop. Nobody says you can't do 360s. Nobody says you can't sashay. You just can't safely do any of these things in the pattern, and there is nothing personal in that.
If you want to do these things, fine. You simply have to do them at some other place or time than people flying a standard pattern. How tough is that to comprehend?
The best swoopers I know can also fly in close formation with other canopies without incident. Threading the needle through traffic to effect a swoop is not so much a demonstration of skill as it is bad judgment.
The BSR is not about swooping, it's about traffic safety.
May 7, 2007, 4:35 PM
Post #213 of 292
(717 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
This has been a very interesting thread to follow. Resumes have been posted, opinions given and some scary points of view also discussed.
One thing that gets lost in the swooper vs, non-swooper debate is one simple point...people are trying to impiment some things that may save a life or two. But all rules, regulations and advice in skydiving come down to one simple thing...YOU...the individual.
I have read about the Canopy Control Course. If that is implimented then every single jumper on the face of the planet needs to take it, from AFF student to AFF instructor, and evryone in between...even the hot shot pilots. I witnessed a canopy collision between a Golden Knight and a French 8way team member once. Damn it was ugly and loud, but they both lived. You think those two guys would know how to fly canopies...
And then I read all of the folks posting that CRW training will save everyone. I witnessed CRW teamates collide violently right next to the peas at about 3 feet off of the ground after a training jump at the CRW Nationals years ago. It was horrendous, but they both lived. I guess not wrapping during roatations wasn't exciting enough for those Crew Dogs...
And I read all about the pattern work. Downwind, base and final. I witnessed a gut wrenching canopy collision at a Christmas Boogie once. Luckily they both survived, barely. The guilty party was an AIRLINE PILOT. And a world renowned balloon world record pilot. You would think he could fly a pattern...
Which leads me to another thought. Those collisions where back when a Sabre 150 was hot stuff. And now we have some real rocketships in the air.
A few points to ponder. 1. Have canopies have passed average jumpers abilities. 2. Many high time jumpers still have a hard time standing a landing, but they usually don't fly an eratic pattern. 3. Are tunnels creating amazing flying skills until the parachute pops out, and then confidence overtakes ability under nylon. 4. Are parallel jump runs putting way too many race cars and station wagons in the sky together? 5. Until someone witnesses a collision, does it really sink in what can actually happen to you? 6. Is the skydive over for too many jumpers once the toggles are in their hands? 7. You can always tell a skydiver, but you can't tell them much...
I run a boogie once a year for 10 days. I stress the landing pattern and make everyone look at the LZ before they jump. I stand in the LZ for a few days "guiding" certain jumpers. I have seen two bad accidents happen right in front of me in three years. Both powerline strikes. Both jumpers admit to careless mistakes on their part. I sent one jumper home that travelled the farthest to attend the boogie because of severe safety violations once.
So when all is said and done, courses are held, patterns are laid out and BSR's instituted it comes down to one simple thing...YOU, the jumper.
Let's all get our heads outta you know where and fly safe. If you can't land straight in, you're on the wrong canopy. If you can't fly a pattern buy golf clubs. This isn't an "us vs. them" issue, it's a staying alive issue.
Be safe everyone and see you guys in Lost Prairie!
May 7, 2007, 4:36 PM
Post #214 of 292
(715 views)
Shortcut
Re: [winsor] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Winsor,
Is a box pattern the only "right" kind of parachute landing pattern?
Can you conceive that there might be a place where it is standard to approach from one direction, perform a 270 turn, then land in a common direction? Where a box pattern would be inappropriate and dangerous?
It is a major flaw of this proposal that there are no swoopers represented on the committee. The committee seems not to know (or care) what it doesn't know.
Skilled swoopers are highly experienced, current, and generally very concerned about safety. They also tend to be role models for up and coming jumpers. Why go out of your way to alienate this group by drafting old-school-biased rules and excluding swoopers from the table?
May 7, 2007, 6:38 PM
Post #217 of 292
(667 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
If you fly a box pattern into the designated swoop lane at my DZ, you are likely to get someone hurt. Box patterns are appropriate in the main landing field, and the student field.
Why are there no swoopers on the BSR committee? Swooping has become a significant part of our sport.
Quote:
Sure... you find me a place where you'd HAVE to do, say, a 270 left instead of a 90 right to final due to safety reasons and I'll agree with you.
Can't see THAT dz getting much repeat business, since I'm not sure how well an AFF 1 would do on that 270 left for landing...
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 6:50 PM
Post #218 of 292
(658 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>It is a major flaw of this proposal that there are no swoopers represented >on the committee.
I think Dan might take exception to that!
>Can you conceive that there might be a place where it is standard to >approach from one direction, perform a 270 turn, then land in a common >direction?
Absolutely! The problem is not a steep approach, nor is it a 180/270/360 approach or an approach full of S-turns. The problem is trying to cram all those different approaches in with a busy standard pattern. (We call it a "standard" pattern because aircraft have been using it for nearly 100 years with good success - so we have a track record.)
>Why go out of your way to alienate this group by drafting >old-school-biased rules and excluding swoopers from the table?
You are more than welcome at the table! We'll be meeting in San Francisco in July for the USPA BOD meeting. The more viewpoints the better.
May 7, 2007, 6:56 PM
Post #219 of 292
(656 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Why are there no swoopers on the BSR committee? Swooping has become a significant part of our sport.
I wouldn't call it a committee, just a group of skydivers looking to make a change. From the sound of this discussion, which swoopers are welcome to, they don't want change. The problem with the status quo, is that people are dieing. I have been reading a lot of swoopers getting defensive, but none offering a solution to seperate standard traffic pattern flyers from non-standard traffic flyers. That is what the people offering up this BSR as an idea are trying to do. They are not out to get swoopers.
Do have a solution to the problem identified by the recent fatalities between people flying standard and non-standard patterns?
Seems to me that swoopers and other non-standard pattern flyers should take the lead with this sort of thing and come together and develop a solution that will fix the issue with the minimum inconvience for all involved.
Fighting against change in order to keep the status quo doesn't seem like a good use of time or resources. A better use of time and energy would be to solve the issue in a way that makes everyone happy and keeps them alive.
Take some time and watch the canopy traffic at your DZ. Identify where similar collisions could happen and develope one or more concepts that would reduce the chances of a collision happening. Kick those concepts around, at the DZ, with as many jumpers as possible and even here for even more input. Then impliment the concept that pisses of the least amount of people. If you don't, and there is another double fatality, who is responsible?
May 7, 2007, 7:16 PM
Post #220 of 292
(641 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Winsor,
Is a box pattern the only "right" kind of parachute landing pattern?
No, not at all. The Airborne uses a standard landing pattern that involves coming straight down, and it works pretty well.
They do, of course, use rounds, but you did not get overly specific.
With ram-airs straight-ins work, and there are other approaches that can be used without getting maimed or killed, but the basic aircraft traffic pattern is the gold standard because it works.
In reply to:
Can you conceive that there might be a place where it is standard to approach from one direction, perform a 270 turn, then land in a common direction? Where a box pattern would be inappropriate and dangerous?
Okay, I will dignify this with a response. A 270 into traffic is dangerous, and I do not care a whit who is doing it.
Even if you had eyes in the back of your head, the likelihood that you would put together the four-dimensional analysis of collision parameters in real time and keep it safe is nil.
If you can even formulate such a question in all seriousness, I strongly recommend a few years of intense study of the physics involved ("can you concieve...?" Jesus.)
In reply to:
It is a major flaw of this proposal that there are no swoopers represented on the committee. The committee seems not to know (or care) what it doesn't know.
Again, I am floored by presumptions inherent in your statement. What special knowledge of the physics involved is possessed by people you deem to be "swoopers?"
If you think a "swooper solution" would be an improvement, let's hear it.
Be advised, however, that your implication that a blind approach can improve safety tends to discredit much you might have to add.
In reply to:
Skilled swoopers are highly experienced, current, and generally very concerned about safety. They also tend to be role models for up and coming jumpers. Why go out of your way to alienate this group by drafting old-school-biased rules and excluding swoopers from the table?
Evan
By golly, you're right. We old farts are too hung up on old-school considerations. All the people we've watched get maimed and killed could have been spared by the input by Skilled Swoopers.
Boy, you sure could tell us a thing or two about how it should be done. Yup, the place to dial in blind turns and commit to highway speeds is where the outs are the fewest, the population density is the highest and everbody is moving. What could be more obvious?
I can't wait for your explantaion that shows why everyghing I know is wrong.
You are, of course, going to upset the Medical Lobby. When Skilled Swoopers show us the way, the amount of work we send to the Orthopedic wards will dwindle to just about nothing.
When the Skilled Swoopers hold a seminar on how to achieve perfect safety without resorting to old-fashioned traffic patterns, I want to be there, taking copious notes.
May 7, 2007, 8:03 PM
Post #221 of 292
(618 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Bill,
Thanks for the response.
And thanks for the invitation to join you guys in July. Can you post details of the meeting? If you are doing outreach, there are more skilled and experienced swoopers than me who may want to get involved. Would you be open to including pro swoopers in your proposals?
The main issue I take with these 3 proposals is that they lump everything that is not a box pattern into an "other" bucket. There is a very large and growing percentage of experienced skydivers who swoop on every jump (when it seems safe). The industry can either adapt, as it did when people transitioned from rounds to squares, and again when freeflying emerged, or resist change and risk alienated the new guard.
In this case, change might mean equal or near equal priority for a high performance landing area vs. a box pattern landing area. Without advocates for a place to swoop safely on a BSR committee, it is hard to see the large percentage of the experienced jumper population getting representation.
There should definitely be separation of landing areas.
If there is only room for a small landing area, perhaps everyone should fly a box pattern. But I take great issue with the idea that S-turns and lazy 360s have any place remotely near a "high performance" landing area. An alternate way to define the problem might be to separate areas for high performance landings (intentionally induced speed with a minimum wing loading?) and all other landings. That way each area at least has people going the same speed.
Like the other impassioned posters on this board, I have recently, and tragically, lost friends to canopy collisions. There needs to be change, and it needs to recognize that swooping is a valid and growing component of our sport.
E
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 8:15 PM
Post #222 of 292
(611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
I don't know when this particular issue will be discussed. But part of the idea of the meeting is to just get everyone in one room.
>Would you be open to including pro swoopers in your proposals?
Sure. One of the reasons I posted this was to try to "draw in" some swoopers into the process.
>If there is only room for a small landing area, perhaps everyone should >fly a box pattern. But I take great issue with the idea that S-turns and lazy >360s have any place remotely near a "high performance" landing area.
I agree. In most cases I think you still have a student area (where 360's and steep approaches are OK) and at least one or two other areas. For DZ's with limited space, it might make more sense to separate them in time instead of distance, which would suggest options 2 or 3.
May 7, 2007, 8:29 PM
Post #223 of 292
(607 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Hooknswoop] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Derek,
Swoopers will welcome change that makes everyone (including them) safer and lets them safely and consistently advance their discipline.
My issue with these 3 proposals is that they reduce safety for swoopers by inviting slow speed maneuvers (S-turns and lazy 360s) in a high speed, "high performance" landing area. I doubt the committee members thought of it that way, but that could be because the committee members are generally not swoopers.
Far from fighting change, swoopers are the major change in the sport. The challenge now is how the sport will accommodate this change with the fewest people dying.
A start could be to designate landing areas by speed of approach (induced speed with high wingloading vs. traditional).
May 7, 2007, 9:01 PM
Post #224 of 292
(590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Bill,
Thanks for the meeting details. If you or someone else coming in for the meeting needs a place to crash, I have a guest room and space in the garage (central SF).
Regarding your proposals,
I would like to see the Standard Landing Area (SLA) and High Performance Landing Area (HPLA) defined by whether or not there is induced speed immediately prior to landing. In the Standard Landing Area, things would be as they were before those darned swoopers started killing everyone (:P). A box pattern would prevail and there would be a few "individuals" doing sashays and spirals over loud protests from the S&TA.
A High Performance Landing Area would be reserved for induced-speed landings, perhaps with a wing loading in excess of some amount (1.2? 1.3?).
Anyone not inducing speed for landing should land in the Standard Landing Area and avoid the HPL below 1000 feet. If they cannot otherwise avoid the HPL, they should land out. Anyone inducing speed (above a 90 or 180 degree turn, whatever is deemed appropriate) should land in the High Performance Landing Area and not the Standard Landing Area.
If there is not room for two landing areas, the DZO decides the rules based on their unique situation.
Thoughts?
E
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 7, 2007, 9:07 PM
Post #225 of 292
(587 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I would like to see the Standard Landing Area (SLA) and High Performance >Landing Area (HPLA) defined by whether or not there is induced speed >immediately prior to landing.
I think you'd want to distinguish them by type of pattern flown, not speed on landing. I think the problems you're seeing now are based on people not being able to clear their airspace and/or predicting where people are going. If you know for sure that everyone is going to make two right turns and land, then clearing airspace becomes a LOT easier. Likewise, if you know that the swoop area is going to have people doing 270's, it's a lot easier to predict what's going to happen.
A 360 in a standard pattern isn't OK even if he lands going slowly, and a wide standard pattern in the HP area isn't ideal if the guy just wants to double front a landing.
>Anyone inducing speed (above a 90 or 180 degree turn, whatever is deemed appropriate) . . .
I think that's the key. Set the limit to say 90 degrees and make that the "hard line." Easier to judge, easier to enforce, and it solves the problem.
>If there is not room for two landing areas, the DZO decides the >rules based on their unique situation.
Yep, that's basically option 3.
I should also mention that there's an option 4, which is just "do what the SIM says to do." There's already an entire section on HP landing pattern behavior (6-1 and 6-2) but since no one reads the SIM it's not often used.
May 7, 2007, 9:30 PM
Post #226 of 292
(1461 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
The major issue I see with traffic doing a swoop landing is unpredictable folks below me. If they are fast, I can wait them out and stage my landing, no matter what bizarre thing they do. But if there is a floaty guy down there, the swoop pattern stacks up and eventually I (and everyone above me) has to go.
I think this is a fundamental difference between swoop landings and traditional landings. The issue really is the speed of descent, more than the particular pattern for swoop safety.
May 7, 2007, 9:58 PM
Post #227 of 292
(1452 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
The major issue I see with traffic doing a swoop landing is unpredictable folks below me. If they are fast, I can wait them out and stage my landing, no matter what bizarre thing they do. But if there is a floaty guy down there, the swoop pattern stacks up and eventually I (and everyone above me) has to go.
I think this is a fundamental difference between swoop landings and traditional landings. The issue really is the speed of descent, more than the particular pattern for swoop safety.
Why, in that instance, couldn't you simply abort your swoop? Or is that what you mean by "has to go"....
May 7, 2007, 10:18 PM
Post #228 of 292
(1444 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Sure, you abort. Then you have to land in unpredictable traffic, which is a hazard.
If the BOD approves a new BSR, it should make landing safer for both non-swoopers and swoopers.
The most effective thing we can do to reduce conflicts with swoopers is to have a designated high-speed landing area that is not used by slow canopies (whatever pattern they are following).
May 8, 2007, 8:38 AM
Post #229 of 292
(1399 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
It's too bad that SDAZ did not leave one of the main landing areas open for nonstandard patterns (although swooping has certainly not been banned.) A BSR might have given them something less disagreeable to enforce.
So the choice you will be presented with will be - a BSR that calls out how to separate traffic? Or more Skydive Arizonas and Crosskeys?
That is exactly the same argument you were making about WL BSR couple years ago. Back then you were telling us that if we won’t go with WL BSR for everyone then every drop zone will implement wing loading restriction themselves. I guess you tried to position WL BSR like a good thing. Now couple years later I know about only one DZ that has some sort of WL restrictions and they had it before your WL BSR was even proposed. So it does not look that many DZ went this way and implemented WL restrictions. Why do you think it will happen this time?
May 8, 2007, 11:01 AM
Post #230 of 292
(1376 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Sure, you abort. Then you have to land in unpredictable traffic, which is a hazard.
If the BOD approves a new BSR, it should make landing safer for both non-swoopers and swoopers.
The most effective thing we can do to reduce conflicts with swoopers is to have a designated high-speed landing area that is not used by slow canopies (whatever pattern they are following).
Agreed - landing in unpredictable traffic is more dangerous. A thought, here, if you can take yourself back in time - what do you think your swoop is, to the person in the 'standard pattern'?
I agree with the idea of separating standard and non-standard patterns by some method, whether it be time or distance.
May 8, 2007, 2:20 PM
Post #231 of 292
(1337 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
The major issue I see with traffic doing a swoop landing is unpredictable folks below me. If they are fast, I can wait them out and stage my landing, no matter what bizarre thing they do. But if there is a floaty guy down there, the swoop pattern stacks up and eventually I (and everyone above me) has to go.
Evan - some of this comes from the exit order, which may have me exiting first with a canopy in the 1.1-1.2 range. (and obviously other RWs with lighter loads), but have the last FF solo or duo at the back. Ideally I'm in full flight at 2500, so depending on how long jump run is and where you've opened, you'll either catch up to me before your 270/360 or not. Definitely an issue for the smaller LZ. But is there a way to solve this problem without the terminal speed collisions?
At Byron the swoop area is pretty obvious, but less so at Skydance, though with my shoulder break I've only been out there one day in 2006/7.
May 8, 2007, 3:02 PM
Post #232 of 292
(1321 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
At Byron the swoop area is pretty obvious, but less so at Skydance, though with my shoulder break I've only been out there one day in 2006/7.
The swoop area at Skydance is actually very obvious...its west of the peas- basically the gravel "runway." "Not sure when the last time you came out was, but just ask anyone next time if you are still unsure.
That brings up a good point too. As jumpers its our responsibility to familiarize our self with the local rules at dz that we visit. Most dz try to give briefings to new jumpers, but don't rely on them to offer it (that was not directed at anyone in particular)
May 8, 2007, 5:49 PM
Post #234 of 292
(1289 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
It's too bad that SDAZ did not leave one of the main landing areas open for nonstandard patterns (although swooping has certainly not been banned.) A BSR might have given them something less disagreeable to enforce.
So the choice you will be presented with will be - a BSR that calls out how to separate traffic? Or more Skydive Arizonas and Crosskeys?
That is exactly the same argument you were making about WL BSR couple years ago. Back then you were telling us that if we won’t go with WL BSR for everyone then every drop zone will implement wing loading restriction themselves. I guess you tried to position WL BSR like a good thing. Now couple years later I know about only one DZ that has some sort of WL restrictions and they had it before your WL BSR was even proposed. So it does not look that many DZ went this way and implemented WL restrictions. Why do you think it will happen this time?
Rules to prevent you from killing someone else can be far more easily justified than rules to prevent you killing yourself. IMO.
May 8, 2007, 8:19 PM
Post #235 of 292
(1253 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I posted in haste late last night and what I really meant to say was:
Thanks for making this thread become a discussion on canopy landing area issues a good one. We have considered updating the Options to reflect "being politically correct", trying not to single out “swoopers”, “accuracy”, “erratic flyers”, etc. and adding a Option 4.
But that will be the job of USPA, Safety & Training Committee and the Board.
With input from all skydivers willing to voice their opinion. So please contact your Director.
Our goal continues to be: adding a BSR concerning canopy safety in the landing area.
Bluest Skies & Peace,
dob
edited by request
(This post was edited by billvon on May 9, 2007, 11:43 AM)
May 8, 2007, 9:04 PM
Post #236 of 292
(1234 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dob] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hey, D O'B! :-) :-)
Thank you guys for starting this discussion.
There has been a lot of background grumbling for a long time with respect to mixing such dissimilar flying styles, but nothing has come of it until recently.
With this plus the changes at Eloy it feels like the discussion has officially begun.
I just found out a couple weeks ago that I'm going back to China in a couple weeks, so I haven't been around here.
On the off chance that you guys get this worked out before I come back, please leave me a note around here somewhere so I'll know how to act when I get back in the air.
May 8, 2007, 9:15 PM
Post #237 of 292
(1231 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dob] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Dan,
What's up.
How do you see most dropzones accommodating a "non-standard landing area?"
Does the "non-standard landing area" merge into the student area, or take over the swooping area? I say "take over" because it becomes unsafe to swoop when we push slow, erratic canopies into an area.
If a major problem is collisions between swoopers and standard pattern folks, let's advocate giving swoopers a safe place to land.
I am suggesting that any BSR define a High Performance Landing area as a protected space. Specifically that anyone not inducing speed to land fast under a highly-loaded canopy be barred from landing in this area, or overflying it below 1000 feet. This includes slow canopies doing lazy spirals and guys shooting accuracy.
Given the choice between slow, erratic folks in either a standard (up jumper) landing area, or a swoop landing area, why on earth would you put them with the swoopers?
May 9, 2007, 10:44 AM
Post #238 of 292
(1156 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Yo, just trying to be "politically correct" and trying to cover all aspects of what a non-standard landing might be. You and our original proposal are more correct in defining a "high performance landing area". Similar to an aircraft "aerobatic box" being declared and active. Trying to encompass all non-standard landings is a whole other can of worms. What we want is a defined "standard landing pattern". How and when that occurs is in our outlined Options 1-3. thanks for keeping the discussion moving.
May 9, 2007, 11:23 AM
Post #239 of 292
(1138 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dob] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I agree that separating standard landing people from nonstandard landing people is an important first step.
I also agree that people screwing around under Mantas have no business mixing it up with people executing HPLs.
In the motorcycle world you have people who, if I ride up on my Harley (shovelhead), will go into a discourse on how their crotch rockets set them apart, and that people of my generation have no idea whatsoever. Of course, when I pull up on my Suzuki (GSXR 1100) they skip the diatribe.
Similarly, I get one lecture from people when I'm jumping a Raven IV, but don't hear about it as much when I'm jumping an EXTreme 99 FX.
In any event, my contention is that, while hot landings under tiny canopies are exhilerating, swooping is by nature a not a primary consideration. By that I mean that the #1 goal to have everyone land uninjured, having a great time is a close second, and doing the aforementioned in a "hey, y'all, watch this!" fashion comes in third at best.
To have separate areas strictly devoted to standard patterns, HPLs and erratic low performance stuff involves a lot of work to organize, and I don't blame a DZO who doesn't bother to do so. Running a successful DZ tends to leave one with a pretty full dance card to begin with.
Regardless of what approach is taken, it is imperative that the jumpers involved are all on the same page before boarding the aircraft. If, while waiting to board, someone says to the group "I'm going to be swooping the pond, setting up for a right 270 over there and landing to the West - is everyone okay with that?," you don't have people surprised to find it out under canopy. I've seen it work at various DZs for years.
I am not sure if I am crazy about seeking safety through regulation, since the mandated solution may be less effective than another approach that is summarily forbidden. Again, I prefer getting everyone on the same page before takeoff to counting on someone not killing me because doing so would be against the rules.
I do applaud DZs that forbid the mix and match of landing styles, giving priority to those doing a standard approach.
Whatever we do, making a safe standard approoach a viable option for any jumper that chooses it has to come first, and others should be free to push the limits elsewhere.
May 9, 2007, 12:33 PM
Post #240 of 292
(1112 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
With a recent rise in canopy collision many people have been taking steps to help solve this fatal problem. Steps ranging from separate landing area’s to banning a certain landing pattern. However, like all emergency situations or accidents there are signs of trouble before anything ever happens. So here I would like to share some things that might help prevent future accidents and situations starting from the beginning and an attempt to look at the whole picture of how we can prevent future issues not just the moment when we land.
DZ Responsibilities - Acceptable sized landing area and locations [Student landing area, Main landing area, High Performance Landing area (HPL).] - Communication on DZ landing rules to all jumpers continuously and frequently. - Basic understanding of what swooping is to all new jumpers along with the importance of smooth, predictable landing patterns
Pre- boarding of aircraft - Know who’s on your load, what are they flying, where are they landing - Communicate landing direction, especially in light and variable winds - Know who’s opening up behind you, if there’s someone flying a small parachute help get them into the pattern by possibly sitting in breaks so they can pass you.
Exiting - Give longer separation between groups, this will “open up” the air
Opening altitudes - Students, A, and B, deploy by 3500’ - C and D deploy by 3000’ - Remember altitude is your friend, the more altitude we have means the more space we have to work with so open higher - Plan your dive, dive your plan…open when you say you’re going to open
Canopy flight - Clear your airspace and look to see where you will fit into the pattern, you might have to go into brakes to fit into the pattern. - Do NOT spiral over the LZ to try and be the first to land if it’s putting others in jeopardy. Spiraling over the DZ below 1000’ under a large canopy is no different then starting a swoop at 800’
Landings - Land where you say you were going to land - If traffic is heavy do NOT swoop - If swooping, do it in the HPL area - If landing straight in, do it in the main landing area - Be aware of the landing direction as to not land perpendicular to other jumpers. Remember straight in pilots can just as easily cut-off and kill other straight-in pilots just as swoopers can. - No S-turns, they are unpredictable and take up much of the airspace.
Some things you might not have known about the aspects of swooping or speed induced flight approaches
A typical, but not all, swooper will initiate a 270 degree turn any where from 600’ to 850’ with some of the bigger turns (450-630) starting as high as 1400’ above the ground. This means that if you’re over the HPL at these altitudes there could be swoopers coming down as well, and it is highly advise NOT to be over the HPL below 1500’
A typical, but not all, swoopers wingloading can range from 1.8 – 2.4. This means that in full flight a swooper can have the same decent rate as someone under a canopy wingloading of 1.0 – 1.3 doing spirals. This means that the person doing the spirals on a lower wingloading is now condensing the airspace and creating a hazard for themselves and everyone else around and behind them.
Remember, we need to look at the whole picture and not just one aspect of the canopy flight. We also need to realize that knowledge is power and the more informed about skydiving, swooping, and surviving, the better off everyone will be. There is NO quick fix for this but if we work together on this constructively then we can at least get through it.
Please add or comment on anything you see here, just make sure it’s constructive.
Stu
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
May 9, 2007, 12:57 PM
Post #241 of 292
(1114 views)
Shortcut
Re: [superstu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
That's a great outline. There's a similar one in sections 6-10 and 6-11 in the 2007 SIM that goes into more depth on some of those topics.
May 10, 2007, 10:45 AM
Post #243 of 292
(1007 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hi everyone,
As Cliff Heller's widow, I'd like to add my 2 cents...
The issue of separating the HPL area from the SPL has already been addressed as jumpers for the most part already distinguish and utilize these areas. There should be no harm in making it an official BSR to be implemented. Like seatbelts, it is common sense. But everybody has different levels of common sense which is why rules are set by society.
Yes, I am a newbie and there are many nuances to this issue that I do not understand. But Cliff was not a newbie, and I know he was extremely dedicated to safety. I endured many lectures on safety, in particular being aware of other jumpers under canopy, knowing where they are what they are doing at all times, but most of all remembering to use my own knowledge and judgement to land myself safely. Isn't the issue here pilot error under canopy? Checking blind spots, altitude awareness and appropriate skill level? I'm not saying it shouldnt necessarily be implemented, but I'm not sure this BSR proposal is going to end up decreasing the death toll...
May 10, 2007, 12:19 PM
Post #244 of 292
(975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I think several valid questions need to be answered before approaching USPA with those new BSRs:
1.That would be interesting to see real data on how many DZ have separate landing areas for conventional and swoop landings?
2. Second question that should be answered is how many DZ willing to introduce those landing areas?
Finally we need to look at results: lets say 10 percent of drop zones have separated landing areas and 90 percent willing to introduce them – then we clearly on the right track. On the other hand if only 30 percent drop zones are willing to introduce those separate landing areas then our BSRs will do more harm then good.
Other possible scenario is that lets say 90 percent drop zones already have separate landing areas then clearly we don’t need no new BSR we just need to enforce proper usage of what we already have.
I think we need accurate data not speculation to justify introduction of those BSRs.
Same approach should be taken on time separation of traffic. 1.How many DZ provide low passes? 2.How many DZ will do multiple passes at altitude?
I think that is not that many drop zones in US so it should be easy to collect this data.
May 18, 2007, 6:44 AM
Post #245 of 292
(847 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ematteo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I have a couple of comments.
First, I wouldn't say that swoopers aren't going to be represented. Everyone is welcome to attend the USPA BOD meeting. I will do my best to schedule the presentation time for Safety and Training Committee's first meeting Saturday. This should allow more attendance than Friday, but enought time left for us to consider the presentation. We have a busy meeting, so the presentation needs prepared.
There is no amount of regulation that USPA can institute without it being enforced on a local level. The enforcement must be done by the DZO's, DZM's, S&TA's, Instructors, jumpers, and you.
Todd
(This post was edited by tspillers on May 18, 2007, 7:25 AM)
May 20, 2007, 9:58 AM
Post #246 of 292
(792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Thanks Todd. Will there be a time limit on the BSR proposal presentation to the S&T Committee? If other jumpers show to speak up, pro or con, will a time limit be set on each person or group??
Quote:
There is no amount of regulation that USPA can institute without it being enforced on a local level. The enforcement must be done by the DZO's, DZM's, S&TA's, Instructors, jumpers, and you.
Completely in agreement on the "no amount of regulation " comment. WE ALL have to become VERY PROACTIVE on landing area issues!!!
May 20, 2007, 12:27 PM
Post #247 of 292
(770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dob] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I would say to have your presentation as effecient as possible to allow more time for member comments. We do have plenty to accomplish on the agenda, so we may have to interupt and continue at a late night session. As long as there are valuable comments and input, I would like to hear them. If it becomes a volley of arguements, we will have to move on.
May 22, 2007, 8:54 PM
Post #248 of 292
(698 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tspillers] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Thank you todd for having us on the agenda on saturday. We would like 30 minutes for our group just in case...we don't to run out of time & it would be easier to give time back for others to speak vs not having enough.
I hope many skydivers will also be present at the meeting to share opinions & concerns. The more skydivers involved the better to help make our sport safer.
Just to let everyone know too- we will be on the group membership committee agenda too, hopefully for saturday as well. We are also planning on talking to the full BOD- again I am unsure on the day/time at this point.
Jun 17, 2007, 9:26 PM
Post #249 of 292
(568 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mollyo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
hey all, just a mini update...but I am still waiting for official dates/times from folks
we will be presenting at the first meeting on saturday (7/14) on the safety & training agenda but I don't the exact time of that meeting yet/what time the first meeting starts at.
We are still hoping for either a saturday or sunday presentation time slot on the group membership agenda vs a friday slot.
I hope to see & meet many of you at the USPA meeting!
Jun 18, 2007, 8:13 PM
Post #250 of 292
(534 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mollyo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Has everybody that has read these threads or participated in these threads (2 very distinct crowds judging by the views & replies numbers) (and I mean landing BSR and swooping is not a crime threads) contacted their respective S&TA, DZO, Regional Director or National Director and voiced their opinion??? All the talk here on DZ.com is great and it gives those that like to shout or talk or discuss a venue to do so. But where the hook-turn hits the road is with the rules-masters. Get involved, get it in the open, make it safer by being proactive.
Jul 3, 2007, 8:07 AM
Post #251 of 292
(740 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dob] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hi All- this is from Sherry Butcher, BOD- they have finalized the times for our slots on the agenda:
----------- Just want to give you a final update on the committee meeting times.
Your group is scheduled first on the agenda for both committees. The Safety and Training committee will start at 9:00am on Saturday morning and the Group Membership committee will start at 1:00pm on Saturday afternoon. The location of the meetings will be posted in the main meeting room. They are generally posted on Friday afternoon.
Jul 3, 2007, 6:18 PM
Post #252 of 292
(696 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mollyo] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hello Molly!
Thanks for posting the meeting times. I hope all interested parties show up for these committee meetings. The more input, the better the final outcome.
Jul 3, 2007, 7:39 PM
Post #253 of 292
(684 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
No. Your theory of low license numbers is irrelevant. There are dumb skydivers with alot of experience or who have simply been around for a long time. In fact, Danny (described as the catalyst of all of this) would have fallen right into the middle of their experience level based upon licensure.
Danny Page; USPA A-9184, B-13153, C-18550, and D-11162 Licenses http://www.parachutehistory.com/skydive/uspa/elections/page.html
Jul 3, 2007, 7:45 PM
Post #254 of 292
(682 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisL] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hmmm...I dunno. If you look at history, we have allowed the mixing of landings. Some DZ's have imnplimented landing rules which have worked really well. And, when you review the number of incidents related to canopy collisions involving HP landings -vs- any other type of incident you will find that the incident rate is much lower. While the incidents at hand are regrettable, the fight for a new BSR has only arisen for one reason. The high profile of the persons involved. If it had been you and I who had collided and died on March 17th, there would be no push for a BSR.
Jul 3, 2007, 7:47 PM
Post #255 of 292
(681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Like it or not, Bill, but at 1.95:1 on front risers, you are performing an HP landing. You are just setting a BSR around what you like to do. HP is HP, no matter the turn. Clarify the language of the BSR.
Jul 3, 2007, 7:54 PM
Post #256 of 292
(678 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Buit you do not need a new BSR to start that. There are enough rules currently on the books to effectively address ANY problem which arises. And, whatever rules are not on the books can be determined by the DZO & S&TA without another BSR.
Jul 3, 2007, 8:03 PM
Post #258 of 292
(674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
"No-one's desire to swoop..."
But this is not about swooping and/or swoopers. Right?!? It seems that there are some underlying issues which are not being discussed. It seems like you (not you specifically Kallend)) are building a BSR against swoopers and labelling it something else.
How many skydives last year in the US? How many swooping related canopy collisions? What is the percentage? Just curious.
Jul 3, 2007, 8:15 PM
Post #259 of 292
(669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Thanatos340] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Well, then let's back this all the way up to the manufacturers. Do we Really need high performance canopies? Since we are human and we can make mistakes maybe we should not have the tools which allow us to make those mistakes? You can have rules without BSR's. Have you read he SIM? Ther is already a rule for anythig you might encounter in the sportr. It just needs to be applied. So, we don't need a BSR to enforce BSR's. This BSR is a proposal in redundancy.
Jul 3, 2007, 8:23 PM
Post #260 of 292
(665 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Wow!! And you did it without a BSR. Honestly, great work. You are taking a positive step. Unfortunately for many, this is also an indication that there is no need for another BSR. It indicates that DZ's are capable of determing what they need to create a safe (realatively) skydiving experience. Great job!!
Jul 3, 2007, 8:59 PM
Post #262 of 292
(649 views)
Shortcut
Re: [holleresque] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
This hsould not be an emotional debate. This is about policy, not feelings. To respond in kind; I hope that your ignorance oes not kill the sport. If you reference the SIM, there are plenty of pre-existing BSR's to address this issue. Not ot mention the creativity of the Drop Zones. With there being rules in place, and information available, where does the ignorance really fall...you?
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 3, 2007, 9:45 PM
Post #263 of 292
(642 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>Like it or not, Bill, but at 1.95:1 on front risers, you are performing an >HP landing.
Correct. But I am flying a standard pattern. That's what the BSR is about. Landing fast does not kill people; flying an opposite pattern into them does.
>Clarify the language of the BSR.
I have. You should check out the proposal! It explains that we're talking about patterns, not landing speeds.
>Buit you do not need a new BSR to start that. There are enough rules >currently on the books to effectively address ANY problem which arises.
There are plenty of fatal incidents that prove that line of thinking is incorrect.
(This post was edited by billvon on Jul 3, 2007, 10:09 PM)
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 3, 2007, 9:45 PM
Post #264 of 292
(642 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>where does the ignorance really fall...you?
Your one warning. If you cannot discuss this civilly, then do not post here.
DSE (D 29060)
Moderator
Jul 3, 2007, 9:54 PM
Post #265 of 292
(638 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
No. Your theory of low license numbers is irrelevant. There are dumb skydivers with alot of experience or who have simply been around for a long time. In fact, Danny (described as the catalyst of all of this) would have fallen right into the middle of their experience level based upon licensure.
Danny Page; USPA A-9184, B-13153, C-18550, and D-11162 Licenses http://www.parachutehistory.com/skydive/uspa/elections/page.html
I don't have a "theory;" the fact is, the people involved with this proposal when I posted, excepting a couple, all have low D numbers. That may or may not mean they're great skydivers. As I've come to learn in my progress through this sport, license numbers only mean they've been around for a while, jump numbers only mean they've jumped a lot. Neither are a substantial indicator of intelligence, skill, or common sense. I've seen jumpers with 50 jumps that are very skilled, and seen one or two with a couple thousand jumps that I won't jump with. and vice versa. But I'm still glad someone is trying to do something, anything beyond the status quo. I'm sure we've *all* had close experiences in a pattern (or out of one).
Jul 3, 2007, 10:51 PM
Post #266 of 292
(629 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I feel strongly against BSR and have posted my objections. I think that safety always will be individual choice. No BSR’s you can think of will turn hot dog into safe responsible jumpers. It is always personal choice that comes from experience and influence of other jumpers. By now everyone knows how dangerous to perform HP landings into the traffic and all we need is to teach new jumpers proper values. I’m sure that majority of skydivers understand the issue and already modified their flying technique to be safer – I did. The one who keeps doing stupid stunts on landing and consistently put others in danger are in minority and can be considered as an exception. Drop zone officials and local jumpers should work with them on individual basis. There is literally no reason for new BSR. People who put others in danger should be dealt with no matter what they did! It is not just landing it is everything from wearing seatbelts on takeoff to leaving proper separation between groups and etc. One more thing: DZ owners also understands this issue in my state 2 out of 4 drop zones already implemented their own policy for separation of HP and slow traffic and from what I know they are dead serious about it. The other DZs might also have something in place (I just don’t know about it). So there is no reason for new USPA regulation from this point of view ether.
Jul 4, 2007, 2:25 PM
Post #267 of 292
(578 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
I think that safety always will be individual choice. No BSR’s you can think of will turn hot dog into safe responsible jumpers. It is always personal choice that comes from experience and influence of other jumpers.
Nobody is disputing that - we just want the DZOs to make it safer for everyone. This gives them more teeth to take action against fucktard jumpers that put others in danger.
Quote:
By now everyone knows how dangerous to perform HP landings into the traffic and all we need is to teach new jumpers proper values. I’m sure that majority of skydivers understand the issue and already modified their flying technique to be safer – I did.
Good for you!! But the "educate, don't regulate" campaign isn't doing so well in regards to death tolls...it's time to try something different.
Quote:
in my state 2 out of 4 drop zones already implemented their own policy for separation of HP and slow traffic and from what I know they are dead serious about it. The other DZs might also have something in place (I just don’t know about it)
So, some have implemented it on their own - good! We're just trying to make ALL dzs implement a separation plan that works for them.
Quote:
So there is no reason for new USPA regulation from this point of view ether.
Sorry, but no - inaction on this subject just isn't acceptable anymore. It's the "let the jumpers (or STA or DZO) decide" attitude that has led us to this place.
It's time to make SURE that everyone steps up to the plate, safety-wise.
Jul 4, 2007, 3:30 PM
Post #268 of 292
(567 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
in my state 2 out of 4 drop zones already implemented their own policy for separation of HP and slow traffic and from what I know they are dead serious about it. The other DZs might also have something in place (I just don’t know about it). So there is no reason for new USPA regulation from this point of view ether.
If they've already implemented a policy, a BSR won't affect them at all. A BSR is for those who haven't bothered to do anything.
(This post was edited by kallend on Jul 4, 2007, 3:31 PM)
Jul 4, 2007, 5:29 PM
Post #269 of 292
(544 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I'm sorry, holleresque.
I did not post this as a personal attack but I can see how it appears so, in retrospect. My thought process was that if the information is available and you fail to explore it then that is where the fault lies. I have never considered the term "ignorance" a dirty word. Sorry for being educated and I am sorry for posting in a manner which could be conceived as insulting.
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Jul 4, 2007, 6:26 PM
Post #270 of 292
(530 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Good for you!! But the "educate, don't regulate" campaign isn't doing so well in regards to death tolls...it's time to try something different
Really? In my experience a TINY (and I mean TINY) amount of skydivers have had any formal canopy training other than AFF or basic A license stuff.
Education hasn't been given a shot yet - it's not taken seriously by the majority of the community.
Blues, Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Jul 4, 2007, 6:26 PM)
Jul 4, 2007, 6:53 PM
Post #271 of 292
(523 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
Good for you!! But the "educate, don't regulate" campaign isn't doing so well in regards to death tolls...it's time to try something different
Really? In my experience a TINY (and I mean TINY) amount of skydivers have had any formal canopy training other than AFF or basic A license stuff.
Education hasn't been given a shot yet - it's not taken seriously by the majority of the community.
Blues, Ian
According to all these people arguing against the BSR, the education is already out there and ongoing ... are you saying that's not true? Seems like all the MORE reason to have something in place to protect everyone while the education continues.
I also defy you to find where anyone arguing FOR the BSR is saying that continuing to education people ISN'T needed... once again, y'all are arguing against a point that wasn't there...
Jul 4, 2007, 7:26 PM
Post #272 of 292
(517 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Good for you!! But the "educate, don't regulate" campaign isn't doing so well in regards to death tolls...it's time to try something different.
It's not working because the standards for becoming an instructor have hit the bottom of the fucking toilet. That's what we're saying, we want the USPA to get it's collective head out and do something about it.
Get rid of the S&TA's that sit behind a desk, challenge people to become great instructors rather than lower standards because of a shortage, and stop trying to turn this into an "everyone-can-do-it-feel-good-koom-by-ya" sport.
Jul 4, 2007, 7:29 PM
Post #273 of 292
(511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
"...arguing FOR the BSR is saying that continuing to education people ISN'T needed... " Actually, there have been pretty substantial implications on behalf of the BSR supporters that education will not improve the topic at hand. And, there have been many statements that you need a BSR to "put some teeth into it". But, you do not need a BSR, you just need DZO's and S&TA's who are willing to establish rules and apply the rules to everyone equally. Thus, you are really dealing with a people issue, not a rules issue. You need tough people to make tough decisions. There are some good S&TA's out there but there are also some who are weak, bullied, tired or uncaring. Tha is where your problem lies. Not in the rules. I believe what Ian is stating is that education will improve canopy skills unilaterally. And, no BSR anyplace in the world will replace competence. And, I believe he is correct. People can live by rules. But, don't you want people who live by rules because they want to instead of because they have to? I and an old Style and Acc (and only moderate at that)jumper and I have made it 16 years without a formal canopy course. But, I recognize it's value and I plan to take one very soon (anything coming up, in the MA, Ian?). But, I am doing so to improve my abilities...not because I have to take one. A BSR will only be another piece of forced legialation. And, how is it going to be applied? Believe me or not, but a DZO or S&TA will not ground an AFF/I, DZO, S&TA, Tandem, JM, I, etc. in many instances. They will simply turn their back and say to themselves "I know he knows what he is doing". Now, you have a BSR that does not work and will not be applied equally. Please do not misunderstand. I believe that there need to be measures in place. In fact, I believe that most people in opposition to the BSR believe so. But, this is not a BSR issue...it should be solely at the discretion of the DZ to determine what will best suit their needs and the needs of their clients. And, actually, the "death tolls" are not restricted to HP canopy collisions. There are several other categories which yield higher "tolls" which are going unaddressed. We have managed to make several hundreds of thousands of skydives with minimal incident. This is only being addressed because of the high profile of the incident and the people involved. Geez...I apologize for being so long-winded.
Jul 4, 2007, 7:53 PM
Post #274 of 292
(506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
You're saying "let the DZs that want to do it, do it"; we're saying "make ALL DZs do it".
Which makes it safer for EVERYONE?? Because, if there's NOT a BSR....you know damn good and well there's going to be SOME that won't do it.
I agree with what Ian is saying about canopy control education - I took one this year and learned a lot, and I'll be taking more. That is NOT w/in the scope of this proposal, though.
Here's what the anti-argument comes down to: We shouldn't force the DZs to make it safer, because the STA/DZO won't enforce/the swoopers will leave/accuracy jumpers will be flying the swoop lane/etc.... and, to be honest, quite a lot of it sounds like "I won't be able to do 'x' anymore".
We *ALL* realize that there's going to be asshats that are going to fuck around in traffic. I truly hope that NOBODY will let that crap go on anymore.
BUT - do you REALLY think it is safer for SOME DZs to implement a plan and some not? That is what it boils down to - DZO, we're not going to force you to make it safer for us to jump.
Jul 4, 2007, 8:42 PM
Post #275 of 292
(498 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
Quote:
I think that safety always will be individual choice. No BSR’s you can think of will turn hot dog into safe responsible jumpers. It is always personal choice that comes from experience and influence of other jumpers.
Nobody is disputing that - we just want the DZOs to make it safer for everyone. This gives them more teeth to take action against fucktard jumpers that put others in danger.
I don't know what reality you live in, but the reality that I live in, already has DZOs with the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. "If you don't wear the red tshirt on Thursdays, you cannot jump." or "If you don't have an AAD you cannot jump here." There is no reality to 'more teeth' given to the DZO by these proposed BSRs. DZOs already have teeth and use it. Trust me, I know from experience.
Probably the worst aspect of these proposed BSRs is that they do not address the problem. The problem is, as you say, 'fucktard jumpers that put others in danger'. That may be the next person 'pulling a Danny', or someone spiraling in the pattern or someone s-turning or someone crossing over to the wrong side of the landing area. These proposed BSRs do not address or correct the behavior of the problem child. Option 3 tends to put accountability on a DZO for the 'fucktard jumper that put others in danger'. That is why these proposed BSRs are not right. They introduce problems and liabilities for the DZO and USPA. If you did a swoop turn that 'went bad' would you hold the DZO accountable for it? These BSRs propose to do just that.
I fully agree that we need to correct the behavior of jumpers that either don't know any better or are a 'fucktard jumper that put others in danger'. Education is the way to do that. Word gets out about a 'fucktard jumper that put others in danger' pretty quickly. There is a lot to be said about peer pressure correcting the behavior of a miscreant.
Maybe what we need are t-shirts that morph a hotdog into a responsible jumper or one that says 'Don't do a Danny' or more articles in the mags or more 'everyday average jumpers' 'talking to' the ones that do something that could cause a collision or more watchdogs at the busy DZs
It's like you are pounding away with a hammer to try and open a trunk, but forgot that you have a key that will open it.
.
(This post was edited by MakeItHappen on Jul 4, 2007, 9:45 PM)
Jul 4, 2007, 9:40 PM
Post #276 of 292
(698 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
No, you're right - the BSR proposal doesn't have penalties in it for a 'wayward jumper'. Oddly enough, I can't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs - so you seem to be talking through your hat on that issue. As you keep saying yourself, penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.
The BSR puts the STA and DZO on notice that they HAVE to take a proactive approach to the problem - what's the problem with that?
...>>> they do not address the problem.
You're looking in micro - we're looking in macro. You want to count on education to prevent people from mixing traffic? It doesn't address the rest of the people that aren't going to listen to anything short of a grounding.
What the BSR DOES do, in a macro view, is get the MAJORITY of HP landings separated from the slower standard pattern. I'm sorry that you don't seem to realize the obvious safety aspects of this.
>>>they introduce problems and liability for the DZO and USPA.
I think there will be MORE liability if nothing is done, very soon:
Quote:
Prosecuting attorney: Mr. DZO, you were well aware of the increased danger of mixing high and low performance landings, and yet you did NOTHING to separate them?
DZO: Well, I talked to them and told them to stay away from each other.
Prosecuting attorney: You didn't do anything else?
DZO: There was talk of separating the landing areas, but we didn't think it was necessary.
Jury: Your Honor, we find for the plaintiff.
Do you REALLY think that the scenario above ISN'T going to happen in the future? If not, then you're probably not being very realistic.
There is MORE liability, especially on USPA's part, to not do anything concrete to alleviate the problem.
.... more education / articles / tshirts / etc....
Again, the arguments against can be boiled down to "The BSR will never work, so we shouldn't waste time doing it". Well, guess what? THE EXACT SAME THING can be said for the education approach. It's been tried and it's NOT working. How many articles in the last few years about landing patterns, canopy collisions, drop zone safety, etc? How well did all that education get through to Danny?
No, it's time to quit throwing good money after bad (so to speak) and try something new. Anything less is telling our dead that we don't care that they died and that we don't care that more die.
Jul 4, 2007, 10:23 PM
Post #277 of 292
(690 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
No, you're right - the BSR proposal doesn't have penalties in it for a 'wayward jumper'. Oddly enough, I can't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs - so you seem to be talking through your hat on that issue. As you keep saying yourself, penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.
There are no 'official', published or standardized 'penalties' for any BSR violation.
Now, as you have noted, the 'penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.' That is exactly the point. That is in place today. Twenty words written in a one-inch thick manual, sitting in the school, will not have any impact upon the implementation of how a DZO runs the DZ. The 'enforcement' comes from the DZO or S&TA. That won't change with a new BSR.
In reply to:
The BSR puts the STA and DZO on notice that they HAVE to take a proactive approach to the problem - what's the problem with that?
No they don't. USPA is a voluntary organization. No one is 'forced' to do anything. If someone doesn't do something that USPA 'requests' they may be kicked out or denied membership. USPA is not the FAA or police. USPA does not have the clout to go into a DZ and say 'you must do yadda, yadda. yadda or else'. USPA politely asks DZOs to do 'yadda, yadda, yadda.'
In reply to:
...>>> they do not address the problem.
You're looking in micro - we're looking in macro. You want to count on education to prevent people from mixing traffic? It doesn't address the rest of the people that aren't going to listen to anything short of a grounding.
What the BSR DOES do, in a macro view, is get the MAJORITY of HP landings separated from the slower standard pattern. I'm sorry that you don't seem to realize the obvious safety aspects of this.
Excuse me, but just when did I say separated patterns were not a good idea?
In reply to:
>>>they introduce problems and liability for the DZO and USPA.
I think there will be MORE liability if nothing is done, very soon:
Quote:
Prosecuting attorney: Mr. DZO, you were well aware of the increased danger of mixing high and low performance landings, and yet you did NOTHING to separate them?
DZO: Well, I talked to them and told them to stay away from each other.
Prosecuting attorney: You didn't do anything else?
DZO: There was talk of separating the landing areas, but we didn't think it was necessary.
Jury: Your Honor, we find for the plaintiff.
Do you REALLY think that the scenario above ISN'T going to happen in the future? If not, then you're probably not being very realistic.
This has to be the most fucking stupid arguments posted on these threads combined. Look - skydiving is dangerous. Oh so Mr. DZO allowed skydiving to happen at his DZ. Sue him - he shudda known better. You too need to read 'Jumping Through Clouds'. You are 'Jane Seymore'-ing the event.
In reply to:
How well did all that education get through to Danny?
Danny's 'problem' was not one of education. It was one of ego. You gotta a BSR for egos?
Just out of curiosity, do you really only have 45 jumps in 12 years??
.
(This post was edited by MakeItHappen on Jul 4, 2007, 10:41 PM)
Jul 5, 2007, 3:47 AM
Post #278 of 292
(671 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
I believe that there need to be measures in place. In fact, I believe that most people in opposition to the BSR believe so. But, this is not a BSR issue...it should be solely at the discretion of the DZ to determine what will best suit their needs and the needs of their clients.
Jul 5, 2007, 3:49 AM
Post #279 of 292
(669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
No, you're right - the BSR proposal doesn't have penalties in it for a 'wayward jumper'. Oddly enough, I can't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs - so you seem to be talking through your hat on that issue. As you keep saying yourself, penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.
There are no 'official', published or standardized 'penalties' for any BSR violation.
Now, as you have noted, the 'penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.' That is exactly the point. That is in place today. Twenty words written in a one-inch thick manual, sitting in the school, will not have any impact upon the implementation of how a DZO runs the DZ. The 'enforcement' comes from the DZO or S&TA. That won't change with a new BSR.
.
That reasoning applies to every existing BSR too. Are you against all BSRs?
Jul 5, 2007, 12:13 PM
Post #280 of 292
(624 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
No, you're right - the BSR proposal doesn't have penalties in it for a 'wayward jumper'. Oddly enough, I can't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs - so you seem to be talking through your hat on that issue. As you keep saying yourself, penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.
There are no 'official', published or standardized 'penalties' for any BSR violation.
In reply to:
NOW we're starting to get somewhere... ok, Ms. RD... what ARE the penalties to a DZO or STA that willfully, consistently disregards safety regulations?
In reply to:
Now, as you have noted, the 'penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.' That is exactly the point. That is in place today. Twenty words written in a one-inch thick manual, sitting in the school, will not have any impact upon the implementation of how a DZO runs the DZ. The 'enforcement' comes from the DZO or S&TA. That won't change with a new BSR.
No, it won't change, and shouldn't. What it DOES do is make the DZO create a plan to separate traffic. It doesn't leave it up to whether or not they WANT to (like the failed education option does), it says they WILL.
In reply to:
In reply to:
The BSR puts the STA and DZO on notice that they HAVE to take a proactive approach to the problem - what's the problem with that?
No they don't. USPA is a voluntary organization. No one is 'forced' to do anything. If someone doesn't do something that USPA 'requests' they may be kicked out or denied membership. USPA is not the FAA or police. USPA does not have the clout to go into a DZ and say 'you must do yadda, yadda. yadda or else'. USPA politely asks DZOs to do 'yadda, yadda, yadda.'
And if they don't, they lose their Group membership and the other advantages and perqs that go with that. DZO and STA could lose certifications / licenses, based on the severity of the problem - or are you saying that USPA would ignore a willful safety violation and do nothing?
In reply to:
In reply to:
...>>> they do not address the problem.
You're looking in micro - we're looking in macro. You want to count on education to prevent people from mixing traffic? It doesn't address the rest of the people that aren't going to listen to anything short of a grounding.
What the BSR DOES do, in a macro view, is get the MAJORITY of HP landings separated from the slower standard pattern. I'm sorry that you don't seem to realize the obvious safety aspects of this.
Excuse me, but just when did I say separated patterns were not a good idea?
Saying that "education is enough" *IS*, in fact, saying that not separating patterns is ok - because you leave it up to the DZO to decide whether or not to do it.
In reply to:
>>>they introduce problems and liability for the DZO and USPA.
I think there will be MORE liability if nothing is done, very soon:
Quote:
Prosecuting attorney: Mr. DZO, you were well aware of the increased danger of mixing high and low performance landings, and yet you did NOTHING to separate them?
DZO: Well, I talked to them and told them to stay away from each other.
Prosecuting attorney: You didn't do anything else?
DZO: There was talk of separating the landing areas, but we didn't think it was necessary.
Jury: Your Honor, we find for the plaintiff.
Do you REALLY think that the scenario above ISN'T going to happen in the future? If not, then you're probably not being very realistic.
This has to be the most fucking stupid arguments posted on these threads combined. Look - skydiving is dangerous. Oh so Mr. DZO allowed skydiving to happen at his DZ. Sue him - he shudda known better. You too need to read 'Jumping Through Clouds'. You are 'Jane Seymore'-ing the event.
Stupid argument, because it disagrees with you?? You've never heard of anyone suing a DZ? Funny, because I have...
Do you think that if (God forbid) another tandem pax falls to their death through an unmodified harness, that the jury WON'T find in favor of the plaintiff? This is the same principle.
In reply to:
In reply to:
How well did all that education get through to Danny?
Danny's 'problem' was not one of education. It was one of ego. You gotta a BSR for egos?
Do you have some sort of new education that's going to cure egos? I didn't think so, either. Allowing a DZO to do NOTHING on this subject is no longer acceptable.
In reply to:
Just out of curiosity, do you really only have 45 jumps in 12 years??.
My skydiving history is here on the board. I actually have 20 jumps more than that, with a 10 year hiatus in the middle of it. However, when I started back up I could no longer find my old logbook, so I 'started over', numbers-wise (except # years in sport).
Not everyone lives in the States and has access to DZs. Some have to wait until vacations to get any jumps in at all.
Jul 5, 2007, 12:20 PM
Post #281 of 292
(626 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In other words, safety should be optional.
Seems like it is no?
ianmdrennan (D 25821)
Moderator
Jul 5, 2007, 12:28 PM
Post #282 of 292
(620 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
In other words, safety should be optional.
No, in his words (paraphrased) - the dzo's should implement the solution according to their dropzone needs. Pretty much the same thing the bsr proposes except he doesn't feel that it should be 'law'.
John, if you have to intentionally misrepresent the poster to make your point, maybe it's time to re-evaluate how you're making it - or maybe admit that you're both striving for the same objective but don't necessarily agree how to get there. That doesn't make either one of you more right than the other - just different approaches.
Blues, Ian
(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Jul 5, 2007, 12:35 PM)
Jul 5, 2007, 12:37 PM
Post #283 of 292
(611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
can't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs
There are no 'official', published or standardized 'penalties' for any BSR violation.
In reply to:
That reasoning applies to every existing BSR too. Are you against all BSRs?
I think what they are trying to say is what is the point of having a law/policy/rule if there is not enforcement of it whatsoever?
If laws against murder or speeding are not enforced at all, then why should it be against the law if violators go completely unchecked?
Here in Texas, there is a law against sodomy, why is that even on the books? It is ridiculous, like the sodomy squad have been going around kicking in bedroom doors and setting up anus check points. There is also a law against fucking a dead cat… What would you say to the judge? “I swear your Honor, I thought that cat was alive, I wouldn’t fuck a dead cat – that’d be sick”!
I believe that the frustration some may have with BSR’s/rules/policies/laws concerning skydiving is that they are seemingly not enforced, so what is the point of having any if violators go unchecked? So perhaps it is not a matter of “being against” BSR’s, but rather not understanding the point of having them in the first place if there is no type of enforcement (other than the honor system) whatsoever.
I do not have any quick solutions, just thinking out loud…
Jul 5, 2007, 1:00 PM
Post #284 of 292
(599 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AFFI] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
There is also a law against fucking a dead cat… What would you say to the judge? “I swear your Honor, I thought that cat was alive, I wouldn’t fuck a dead cat – that’d be sick”!
I know my post is not to the point, but I ended up rolling on the floor laughing at that...
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 5, 2007, 1:11 PM
Post #285 of 292
(597 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AFFI] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>I believe that the frustration some may have with BSR’s/rules/policies/laws >concerning skydiving is that they are seemingly not enforced . . .
A compressed list of the BSR's:
- Follow FAR's. Basically a BSR that says "follow rules you have to follow anyway" so not much of a BSR.
- Use seatbelts. Followed most places.
- Certify that you are medically fit to skydive. Followed most places by a statement on the waiver you have to sign. TM's need a class 3 medical. Again, followed most places.
- Must be 18/16 years old. Followed most places.
- A whole lot of student training requirements. These are followed by most USPA DZ's.
- Wind limits for students and experienced jumpers. Followed most places.
- Minimum opening altitudes. Followed most places. If you open low consistently you generally get warned a few times then grounded.
- Clearance from hazards for students and experienced jumpers. Followed most places. (Note that this is one of those that puts the requirement on the DZO, not the jumper.)
- Winds. Often the provision for determining upper winds is _not_ followed; this can sometimes lead to problems.
- S+TA must advise on extraordinary jumps. Done in most places that I've seen.
- Intentional cutaway limits. Followed most places.
- Demo limits by experience. Followed most places.
- No tandem CRW. Followed most places.
- No stadium tandem demos. Followed most places with some pretty spectacular exceptions.
- Need a light at night. Followed most places.
- Student required equipment. Followed most places.
- Student crossover training. Followed in most places.
- AFF JM gear requirements. Followed most places.
- Water gear requirements. Followed most places.
- Oxygen available above 15,000 feet MSL. Followed most places with the exception of a few boogies I've been to.
So that's a list of 20 BSR's. 2 of the 20 I have occasionally seen disregarded with no consequence; I have seen perhaps 10 of them disregarded by individual jumpers on occasion. This is usually followed by someone getting yelled at. 1 is sort of pointless ("obey the law") but is probably good from a relationship-with-the-FAA perspective.
Now, as mentioned in the past, there are no USPA police to enforce these. DZO's enforce them because 1) they generally make sense and will reduce injuries/fatalities/lawsuits, 2) they are generally inclined to start with USPA rules as a basis for their own (just plain easier) and 3) it makes it easier on jumpers that there's a consistent set of rules throughout the country.
In the end, it all comes down to the DZO, not the jumper. Jumpers will generally do what they want and can get away with. Only the DZO really has the authority to enforce any of these rules. Heck, as we've seen here, many people don't even know what the BSR's _are_! Often it falls to the local S+TA to educate jumpers on the BSR's and tell them what they can and can't do.
Jul 5, 2007, 6:04 PM
Post #286 of 292
(562 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AFFI] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hello Mykel!
[reply
Quote:
So perhaps it is not a matter of “being against” BSR’s, but rather not understanding the point of having them in the first place if there is no type of enforcement (other than the honor system) whatsoever.
You bring up a good point philosphically. Rules that are not enforced; are they beneficial or do they lead to people doing the frowned upon activity because they are not enforced? Sometime these questions seem like the one of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
Skydiving is an amazingly self-regulated sport. In the big scheme of things, very little goes wrong statistically. When it does though, the consequences are dire.
There is very little interference in what we do by the Feds. Think if the FAA wrote our S.I.M. It would be as big as the A.I.M. and just as unwieldy. However, we have a pretty decent relationship with that branch of the government. So for the most part, we are left alone.
But being self-regulated doesn't mean we ignore hazards. IF a hazard exists, we need to address it. Whether or not someone obeys rules that are set up, the rules still need to be set up. Without a concrete target to aim at, an education campaign will fall short, compliance will be spotty as folks will not know what to comply with and enforcement will be lax as there is nothing to enforce.
Folks are saying that DZOs will make the rules and enforce them. I applaud all who have already. But not everyone will, and some may let their rules lapse.
Skydivers can always vote with their wallets and feet. But why have to make that choice when a simple requirement to address the landing zone is so simple to comply with?
That's all we are asking. At the National level, make a requirement to 'scrub' and landing arena.
Blue SKies, Flip
PS I've started using the terms scrub and scrubbed to address the landing arena. Many drop zones have already implemented changes they feel will improve the safety at their DZs. But as someone wrote to me recently, as time goes on, a constant attention to the landing zone will be required as jumpers push the envelope more, and manufacturers create new products. This isn't a one time fix but a safety culture we are trying to instill Nationally towards the landing arena.
Jul 6, 2007, 7:27 AM
Post #287 of 292
(522 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RB_Hammer] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Hello Rick!
In reply to:
Quote:
I know my post is not to the point, but I ended up rolling on the floor laughing at that...
Me too! No matter what else is said on this subject, we all still have to keep our senses of humor as we go through life. I just can't get that picture out of my mind though. What kinda cat do you see?
Jul 6, 2007, 7:51 AM
Post #288 of 292
(514 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
...Now, as mentioned in the past, there are no USPA police to enforce these. DZO's enforce them because 1) they generally make sense and will reduce injuries/fatalities/lawsuits, 2) they are generally inclined to start with USPA rules as a basis for their own (just plain easier) and 3) it makes it easier on jumpers that there's a consistent set of rules throughout the country.
Please address this: USPA Group Membership requires a signed pledge to follow FAA and USPA rules and regulations. DZOs sign the pledge but are not requied to follow "recommendations".
Jul 6, 2007, 8:28 AM
Post #289 of 292
(502 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote:
Danny's 'problem' was not one of education. It was one of ego. You gotta a BSR for egos?
I think this is rhetorical question BSR is no replacement for common sense!
billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 6, 2007, 9:34 AM
Post #290 of 292
(488 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JumpRu] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
>BSR is no replacement for common sense!
Definitely true. You cannot legislate common sense. But you can use rules to make it clear to people that if they do not do X they will be grounded.
It's like drunk driving. Everyone knows that it's a bad idea to drive drunk; that's common sense. But some still do it. The laws against it reduce the incidence of drunk driving and reduce fatalities associated with it. How do they do that? By forcing people to have common sense? Nope, that never works. The laws work because people do not want to get a ticket/get arrested, and they change their behavior accordingly. The laws do not replace common sense; they do often keep people with no common sense from doing stupid things.
Jul 6, 2007, 10:52 AM
Post #291 of 292
(474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mnealtx] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
In reply to:
In reply to:
No, you're right - the BSR proposal doesn't have penalties in it for a 'wayward jumper'. Oddly enough, I can't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs - so you seem to be talking through your hat on that issue. As you keep saying yourself, penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.
There are no 'official', published or standardized 'penalties' for any BSR violation.
In reply to:
NOW we're starting to get somewhere... ok, Ms. RD ND... what ARE the penalties to a DZO or STA that willfully, consistently disregards safety regulations?
As I said before, there is no menu of penalties. What happens in real life is that the RD tries to correct the situation with persuasive arguments, aka diplomacy. If that does not work, the issue may be elevated to a formal disciplinary action. Also serious safety violations usually end up with a formal action, but not always (The reason for that is another topic.). The formal action procedure is detailed in the Governance Manual Sec 1-6, available on the USPA web site.
In reply to:
In reply to:
Now, as you have noted, the 'penalties for individual jumpers have to come from the STA/DZO.' That is exactly the point. That is in place today. Twenty words written in a one-inch thick manual, sitting in the school, will not have any impact upon the implementation of how a DZO runs the DZ. The 'enforcement' comes from the DZO or S&TA. That won't change with a new BSR.
No, it won't change, and shouldn't. What it DOES do is make the DZO create a plan to separate traffic. It doesn't leave it up to whether or not they WANT to (like the failed education option does), it says they WILL.
Consider this illustrative example: Say there was a BSR that said: "DZOs will create a plan for minimum pull altitudes based on jumpers' license level."
DZO A says "Pull whenever you want, just don't hit the dirt at high speed." DZO B says "Pull by 2000 ft AGL for all experience levels." DZO C says " <insert current USPA minimum pull altitude bsr here>"
Each DZO fulfilled the BSR requirement. Does this create an 'industry standard'? Does this put additional liability upon the DZO? Does this correct the behavior of a low puller? Does this educate jumpers about the hazards of pulling low?
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
The BSR puts the STA and DZO on notice that they HAVE to take a proactive approach to the problem - what's the problem with that?
No they don't. USPA is a voluntary organization. No one is 'forced' to do anything. If someone doesn't do something that USPA 'requests' they may be kicked out or denied membership. USPA is not the FAA or police. USPA does not have the clout to go into a DZ and say 'you must do yadda, yadda. yadda or else'. USPA politely asks DZOs to do 'yadda, yadda, yadda.'
And if they don't, they lose their Group membership and the other advantages and perqs that go with that. DZO and STA could lose certifications / licenses, based on the severity of the problem - or are you saying that USPA would ignore a willful safety violation and do nothing?
see above and read the Governance Manual.
In reply to:
Saying that "education is enough" *IS*, in fact, saying that not separating patterns is ok
- because you leave it up to the DZO to decide whether or not to do it.
You forget about all the staff and customers a DZO has. A free market will compel DZOs to make their operations safer.
There have been lots and lots of big ways that have traffic patterns set by organizers and the jumpers. These pattern rules, when followed, allow many jumpers to land safely at the same time.
Since your experience is low, have you ever seen a 100-way from the ground? You'll be amazed at the staged break-off procedures and pull altitudes that happen on these dives. Then after all are open, they proceed to the ground in an orderly fashion. This is all arranged by the organizers and jumpers. DZOs rarely are involved with these rules. USPA is never involved. Organizers take corrective actions. They don't call up USPA and ask 'Can you cut Jimmy Jumper off my load because he did a HP landing in the middle of a 100-way?'.
In reply to:
You've never heard of anyone suing a DZ? Funny, because I have...
You really need to read the book I mentioned.
In reply to:
Do you have some sort of new education that's going to cure egos?
The usual 'slap up the side of the head' will work. (Figuratively speaking)
Jul 16, 2007, 9:37 PM
Post #292 of 292
(390 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] BSR proposal for canopy patterns
[In reply to]
Can't Post
hey all. just wanted to give you an update & close out this post. See Billvon's post
titled "Results of USPA meeting." in this forum. A hug step forward for safe skies for all. Thank you everyone for your input in preparation for the meeting.
