Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Swooping and Canopy Control:
Anti BSR Swoop discussions

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

hukturn  (D 16219)

Jun 29, 2007, 5:38 PM
Post #51 of 131 (1056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

So then it is agreed. The BSR in it's entirity should read;

"The lower jumper has the right of way".

Oh, but we already have that one. So another BSR is needed to make a pre-existing BSR work? That's silly.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 30, 2007, 6:18 AM
Post #52 of 131 (1034 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So then it is agreed. The BSR in it's entirity should read;

"The lower jumper has the right of way".

Oh, but we already have that one. So another BSR is needed to make a pre-existing BSR work? That's silly.


Can you recall a single incident of a collision or near miss between a swooper and a SP flyer where the SP flyer was higher or overtaking?

As things stand, swoopers don't have ROW in a potential collision scenario with a slower flying canopy. Wouldn't it be nice to have a dedicated time or place to yourselves?


mirage62  (C 15580)

Jun 30, 2007, 7:27 AM
Post #53 of 131 (1026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Not to call names but for all the people that JUST KEEPS ASKING "what happens when a S.P. pilot lands in the H.P. landing area. (say from a bad spot or a mistake)

You do the samething to them that you do to the H.P. pilot that lands in the S.P. landing area!!!

It's going to happen both ways, the H.P. group isn't beyond making a mistake.


FlipColmer  (D 6157)

Jun 30, 2007, 11:17 PM
Post #54 of 131 (997 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mirage62] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hello Bob!

Quote:
Not to call names but for all the people that JUST KEEPS ASKING "what happens when a S.P. pilot lands in the H.P. landing area. (say from a bad spot or a mistake)

You do the samething to them that you do to the H.P. pilot that lands in the S.P. landing area!!!

It's going to happen both ways, the H.P. group isn't beyond making a mistake.

I'm glad you get it. We do not want to point the damning elbow and any sub-group of the sport. We just want to make the landing arena safer.

Blue SKies, Flip


livenletfly  (D 28096)

Jul 1, 2007, 11:54 PM
Post #55 of 131 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

i am a strong supporter of sepprate landing areas whenever possible. i do NOT support a bsr change that will ban swooping if the dz can not have sepperate areas.
i feel 270's or greater have NO place in the standard landing pattern. i do feel 180's or less can be done safley without having to sepperate area's.
thats why i dont support the bsr change because it doesnt allow this optiion to the dz's thatr can not support 2 laning areas.

at my dz we have 3 seperate lz's. main lz, student lz, and hp lz. you are allowed to do 180 turns in the main landing area. we've never had even a close call in 5 years of this being implmented. so i truly beleive with education 180's can be done sfaley in standard traffic.

im very open to dissenting opinions.


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jul 2, 2007, 6:34 AM
Post #56 of 131 (943 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livenletfly] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
it doesnt allow this optiion to the dz's thatr can not support 2 laning areas

since you are wrong on that, then have you changed your mind?


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Jul 2, 2007, 7:00 AM
Post #57 of 131 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livenletfly] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
so i truly beleive with education 180's can be done sfaley in standard traffic.

Please check out the diagrams I did for patterns, and explain to me how exactly flying directly towards people on their final is a safe option? IMO 180's are the WORST kinds of turns in traffic because of the pattern flight requirements.

Pattern diagrams

Blues,
Ian


livenletfly  (D 28096)

Jul 2, 2007, 10:13 AM
Post #58 of 131 (922 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

i agree but we dont fly directly at others for very long. i enter the pattern at 90 degrees then turn to 180 for just long enough to allow my canopy to unload, (a few seconds) before i began my 180. i hope that makes sense its hard to explain in writing.

plus we are usually much higher than a sp on final so it not like im on level coming at others. its no different than sp flying base leg down the middle then doing a conventional 180 to final,other than i will over trake the lower sp so i must be sure i have a clear lane.i have aborted a bunch if i dont have a clear lane because of canopys beneath.

guys im not saying this is flawless but neither is 23 sp trying to land near the packing tents. unless everyone does solo's on their own pass there is risk involved. not much if everyone is heads up though. so im not saying 180s in slz is a great thing but it can be done safley as ive stated 5 years not one close call.


livenletfly  (D 28096)

Jul 2, 2007, 10:20 AM
Post #59 of 131 (918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

sincle i dont know the eact wording i guess its hard to say if im for or against. i feel its a slippery slope when you start having governing body's make rules when people are scared. people tend to sign there freedoms and rights away when there is fear invloved.

if these are suggestions not mandates then yes i would be for it if it allows dzo's to decide whats best for their dz. i am all for not allowing 270 and greater in the main lz. ive always felt that way, but im opposed to banning any hpl in standard traffic all together. (180's or less)


FlipColmer  (D 6157)

Jul 2, 2007, 6:38 PM
Post #60 of 131 (874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livenletfly] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hello Jeff!

Quote:
sincle i dont know the eact wording i guess its hard to say if im for or against.

I believe the full text of our proposal is posted in a thread in the Safety and Training section. Just remember, we wrote our proposal as a starting point of the discussion within the Board for a BSR addressing landing patterns. We in no way believe any of our currently written options will survive to implementation.

Quote:
if these are suggestions not mandates then yes i would be for it if it allows dzo's to decide whats best for their dz.

Option 3 says exactly that: DZs are REQUIRED to apply safe separation criteria to their LZs, but leaves it up to them as to how to do that.

Quote:
i am all for not allowing 270 and greater in the main lz. ive always felt that way,

Great, we agree!

[but im opposed to banning any hpl in standard traffic all together. (180's or less)

Okay, what about 181-269 degrees? Are those compatible with standard traffic?

Good thoughts. Keep the discussion going.

Blue SKies, Flip


captainbb7  (D 28154)

Jul 2, 2007, 7:25 PM
Post #61 of 131 (866 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlipColmer] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Okay, what about 181-269 degrees? Are those compatible with standard traffic?

Good thoughts. Keep the discussion going.

Blue SKies, Flip

Something else to consider... Is flying the standard left hand box pattern under a 60 square ft canopy while wearing 40lbs of lead compatible with standard traffic? Where does the speed differential amongst canopies fit into the discussion?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 2, 2007, 9:32 PM
Post #62 of 131 (857 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

>The BSR in it's entirity should read;
>"The lower jumper has the right of way".
>Oh, but we already have that one.

No, we don't. Can we therefore take it that you would support adding such a rule to the BSR's?


livenletfly  (D 28096)

Jul 3, 2007, 12:27 AM
Post #63 of 131 (844 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlipColmer] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

hi flip, thankyou for not attacking my post like so many others do on the forums.
i looked for the bsr proposal and couldnt find it in saftey and training. i think many of us are assuming what this proposal says because we havent read it. if its posted please tell me where. if its not then why not start a thread with it.

i started out completly against this type of action, but the more i read about the proposal the more i keep thinking this may be a good thing and i may want to get on board.

i agree something should be done. i know of a very busy dz that hosts alot of swoop comps that the dzo is refusing to sepperate the lz's. in fact the SWOOPERS took the time and resources to sepperate the landing area by digging a line in the field and filling it with sand so it was visible from the air. this line would have sepperated the hp area from the main area

i was amazed to hear that instead of a pat on the back for making things safer these up jumpers where reamed for doing this and forced to vacume the sand out and fill in the line!!!! the dzo refuses to sepperate the areas with no valid argument as to why.
maybe a bsr would get dzo's like this one to wake up and help make things safer.

i dont want to loose anymore freinds to avoidable accidents, but i also dont want my dicipline of choice to be railroaded out of the sport. i think some of us feel that the sport of swooping is being attacked. how do we get swoopers to feel that its actually trying to be preserved by these changes. im starting to think that the biggest threat to hp landings is not this brs proposal. the biggest threat is if nothing is done to make things safer. if people keep dying banning swooping will begin to happen. hell its already happened at one of the largest dz's in the world, sda. instead of sepperating the lz's they have partially banned hp turns.

thats not what we want, is it folks?


(This post was edited by livenletfly on Jul 3, 2007, 12:46 AM)


FlipColmer  (D 6157)

Jul 3, 2007, 2:02 PM
Post #64 of 131 (797 views)
Shortcut
Re: [livenletfly] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hello Jeff!

Quote:
i looked for the bsr proposal and couldnt find it in saftey and training. i think many of us are assuming what this proposal says because we havent read it.

Here it is for your reading pleasure. Keep in mind our philosphy of change here. We believe our proposal is a starting point, not the final language if indeed a BSR is adopted by USPA.

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. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and other types of approaches do not conflict with each other.
----------------------------------

Quote:
i agree something should be done.

On this most people agree. It's the leap of faith that a BSR is needed vice JUST an education campaign.

Quote:
i was amazed to hear that instead of a pat on the back for making things safer these up jumpers where reamed for doing this and forced to vacume the sand out and fill in the line!!!! the dzo refuses to sepperate the areas with no valid argument as to why.

I personally believe that this DZO is in the minority. DZOs not only have a vested interest in the landing area, but they prefer safe vice unsafe practices. However, every DZO has their world view about how to make their operation safe. A BSR would definitely help this DZO address the issue. The 'line in the sand' just may not have fit this DZO's world view and did not like unilateral action at HIS/HER business. That's understandable. Not addressing the landing pattern isn't.

Quote:
maybe a bsr would get dzo's like this one to wake up and help make things safer.

That's what we think. No more hinting and hoping at the National level.

Quote:
im starting to think that the biggest threat to hp landings is not this brs proposal. the biggest threat is if nothing is done to make things safer.

Exactly.

Some will accuse you of drinking our Kool Aid. It's a great flavor by the way. However, I prefer to say you are about to make a leap of faith about how best to proceed in our landing arena.

Blue SKies, Flip


FlipColmer  (D 6157)

Jul 3, 2007, 2:09 PM
Post #65 of 131 (796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captainbb7] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Hello Brian!

In reply to:

Quote:
Something else to consider... Is flying the standard left hand box pattern under a 60 square ft canopy while wearing 40lbs of lead compatible with standard traffic? Where does the speed differential amongst canopies fit into the discussion?

In my mind, a Tiny Winy Velocity and a Gigantic Manta can fly the SLP together and be safe. That track over the ground keeps them predictable even if the small canopy could fly rings around the large one.

It's the same philosophy of why a Cessna 150 and a Citation can operate from the same airport: defined course rules.

But you have hit on a problem we had as a group coming up with our proposal. How do you define our terms? We each had a different definition of a HP landing. It could be size of canopy. Wing loading. How it's flown. And many more. Enough to make your head hurt if you're trying to come up with an all encompassing definition. Virtually impossible.

But if we don't address the issues, we are just hinting and hoping. We do not feel that is a valid way to address the landing arena anymore.

Blue SKies, Flip


Spizzzarko

Jul 3, 2007, 3:09 PM
Post #66 of 131 (788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FlipColmer] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

"It's the same philosophy of why a Cessna 150 and a Citation can operate from the same airport"

Those are powerd aircraft. I have not been able to get my Velocity to do a go around yet... Is there something I am missing?Laugh

Sure the Manta and the velo can hang together, but it isn't the best mix, especially if the velo wants to fly in anything other than 90% breaks and flaring from there would suck a little.


FlipColmer  (D 6157)

Jul 3, 2007, 6:37 PM
Post #67 of 131 (779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Spizzzarko] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Hello Grant!

In reply to:
"It's the same philosophy of why a Cessna 150 and a Citation can operate from the same airport"

Quote:
Sure the Manta and the velo can hang together, but it isn't the best mix, especially if the velo wants to fly in anything other than 90% breaks and flaring from there would suck a little.

Nothing in our proposal says everyone has to be single file to land at a DZ. I don't expect the Velocity to stay with the Manta in terms of speed of advance or rate of descent. Unless of course you want to. The analogy is that just like different performing aircraft can share the same landing field, so can differing performing canopy/pilot combinations.

In our sport we have an added advantage: we don't have a single landing surface where you do have to follow each other around single file. Yet, in the aircraft example, you have many ways to get yourself aligned with the runway: 45degree entry, crosswind entry, straight in, and even the military overhead entry. All the different aircraft types and pattern entry manuevers are compatible if everyone knows the rules and follows them. That there is a single surface to land on helps everyone sort out the pattern.

However, it is much easier to keep the our landing pattern safer if everyone is flying a predictable pattern. For example, if everyone is flying left turns in the pattern, both the high person and the low person, both the slow person and the fast person, both the floater and the anvil descent rate person have a much better chance of flying to a successful landing.

A set of rules that promotes predictability, jumpers willing to learn and fly by the rules and a drop zone that fosters all of that makes for a safer landing arena.

Blue SKies, Flip


hukturn  (D 16219)

Jul 4, 2007, 11:32 AM
Post #68 of 131 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

section B 6-c The lower canopy has the right of way, but one jumper should not maneuver to assert right of way over another.

http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2007SIM/Section4CatE.htm

Hmmmm....let me give that some thought. Because this is not a BSR, it is a ISP. Now, if your proposed BSR stated The lower canopy has the right of way, but one jumper should not maneuver to assert right of way over another. and there were no other stipulations, I might be more interested. My concern is that this is still something that should be handled at the DZ level, not by USPA. DZ's have integrated ISP's into their normal operations as policy even with advanced jumpers. Therefore, the "lower canopy has the right of way" ISP has seemd to work with advanced jumpers for a very long time. To be fair, I will give it more thought but I still just don't see this as a BSR issue.


FlipColmer  (D 6157)

Jul 5, 2007, 6:36 AM
Post #69 of 131 (689 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Hello Matt!
In reply to:
Quote:
Hmmmm....let me give that some thought. Because this is not a BSR, it is a ISP. Now, if your proposed BSR stated The lower canopy has the right of way, but one jumper should not maneuver to assert right of way over another. and there were no other stipulations, I might be more interested. My concern is that this is still something that should be handled at the DZ level, not by USPA.

If I were king, option one of our proposal would be my first choice as I would only be considering safety in the decision process. It sets out a course rules structure that will provide the safest landing environment.

However, I am not king, nor is safety the only criteria for any rule implementation. Therefore option three is my favored choice, and does exactly what you want: "something that should be handled at the DZ level, not by USPA". Option three just states that DZs will come up with their own course rules.

Nothing in our proposals gets away from low person has right of way and that no one should manuever to assert right of way. Those are great rules of the road to live by. However, by separating out different traffic patterns, you give each jumper a better chance of working with the 'low person has right of way concept.'

Again, I do not want to usurp any rule making authority from the DZO. I just want the DZO to be required to 'scrub' his or her landing patterns for safety.

Blue SKies, Flip

PS The best thing in the world I've ever done was start a DZ. The second best thing I've ever done was sell it! (g)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 5, 2007, 10:11 AM
Post #70 of 131 (666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hukturn] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

>Now, if your proposed BSR stated The lower canopy has the right of way,
> but one jumper should not maneuver to assert right of way over another.
>and there were no other stipulations, I might be more interested.

How would that solve anything? Swoopers who wish to do 270's in crowded landing areas would state "I am well aware that the lower canopy has right-of-way, and when I swoop over them I will remain clear of them." Danny probably felt the same way until he collided with Bob.

>My concern is that this is still something that should be handled at the DZ
>level, not by USPA. DZ's have integrated ISP's into their normal operations
>as policy even with advanced jumpers. Therefore, the "lower canopy has
>the right of way" ISP has seemd to work with advanced jumpers for a very
>long time.

Most jumpers do not read the ISP.

Note that the SIM also says "fly the pattern or land out." If we implemented that as a BSR it WOULD solve all the problems, but it means swoopers would always have to land out. So that's probably not a good answer.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Jul 5, 2007, 10:23 AM
Post #71 of 131 (669 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If we implemented that as a BSR it WOULD solve all the problems, but it means swoopers would always have to land out. So that's probably not a good answer.

It absolutely would NOT solve all the problems. You continue to ignore that the majority of collisions worldwide over the last 4 years do not involve a HP pilot.

The BSR proponents continue to push this as some sort of magical solution that will suddenly make the skies safe - people will still break the BSR -some intentionally and some unintentionally. Both will still make the skies more dangerous.

Blues,
Ian


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Jul 5, 2007, 10:24 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jul 5, 2007, 10:46 AM
Post #72 of 131 (664 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

>You continue to ignore that the majority of collisions worldwide over
>the last 4 years do not involve a HP pilot.

I am not addressing the problems of all collisions. We are attempting to address the problems that arise when a jumper flies a nonstandard pattern through an area where others are flying a standard pattern. That's all.

>The BSR proponents continue to push this as some sort of magical
>solution that will suddenly make the skies safe . . .

No, we're not. That's as misleading as saying that swoopers want to be able to swoop through crowded traffic patterns with impunity. It might get people on 'your side' to say "go Ian!" but it does not get us any closer to solving this problem.

We need to be working on solutions, not choosing sides and trying to batter the other one down. Everyone loses if we do that.


Pendragon  (D 104102)

Jul 5, 2007, 11:47 AM
Post #73 of 131 (652 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No, we're not. That's as misleading as saying that swoopers want to be able to swoop through crowded traffic patterns with impunity. It might get people on 'your side' to say "go Ian!" but it does not get us any closer to solving this problem.

We need to be working on solutions, not choosing sides and trying to batter the other one down. Everyone loses if we do that.

Fine, but please stop being on that side of the fence that includes all those that don't swoop and therefore aren't affected by the proposals and appear to think that making it difficult for swoopers is somehow going to make it better.

Yes, the low man has right of way... but not the right to fly an upredictable pattern either (somthing that I've seen WAY too much of!) A 270 swoop isn't necessarily much of a non-standard pattern as it is predictable; when we're talking about the "low man" we're also referring to the point that by swooping you increase your descent speed and potentially catch-up/overtake someone below you - certainly landing before them. You don't have to be swooping to do that; somoeone on any highly-loaded canopy can do that.

People should just learn to stack correctly and look out for each other; we don't need people spiraling through the stack, "catching thermals" above the LZ, blindly turning (swooping or otherwise) nor bell-ringing on finals!

We should also be thinking about exit order in terms of canopy size a little more... and yes I still vehemently hate the fact that many places put freeflyers out after flat flyers even when the uppers aren't strong which only serves to have more groups open on the same level, increase canopy congestion and eliminate a non-existent risk.


stevo  (D 28946)

Jul 5, 2007, 4:00 PM
Post #74 of 131 (626 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Pendragon] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
People should just learn to stack correctly and look out for each other; we don't need people spiraling through the stack, "catching thermals" above the LZ, blindly turning (swooping or otherwise) nor bell-ringing on finals!

We should also be thinking about exit order in terms of canopy size a little more... and yes I still vehemently hate the fact that many places put freeflyers out after flat flyers even when the uppers aren't strong which only serves to have more groups open on the same level, increase canopy congestion and eliminate a non-existent risk.

amen brother!! the way we exit a plane has a huge impact on landing pattern traffic. but don't bring this up with any of Brian Burke's coolaid drinking followers. if we need a separate area for the 2 to 4 people per load doing 270's out of the 17-18 sport jumpers on the typical otter(minus students/tandems) i'd say this sport is collectively a pack of morons. multiple planes/passes is different. if there is a group on the plane who are all on sub 90ft x-braced canopies put them out 2nd or 3rd so they open right on top of the landing area, they would be out of the way and on the ground before anyone. problem solved.


superstu  (D License)

Jul 5, 2007, 4:03 PM
Post #75 of 131 (625 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Anti BSR Swoop discussions [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
>You continue to ignore that the majority of collisions worldwide over
>the last 4 years do not involve a HP pilot.

I am not addressing the problems of all collisions. We are attempting to address the problems that arise when a jumper flies a nonstandard pattern through an area where others are flying a standard pattern. That's all.

cool, so we're addressing the minority side of collisions. well hey, when things don't change and the SP collisions still occur at the same level and you ask yourselves "how'd this happen again" maybe we'll start looking at the real issue...REQUIRING "advanced" canopy courses with QUALITY instructors as part of their B license.

honestly, this whole dz.com squable is bullshit. none of us are going to change anything typing this crap while the uneducated are at the dz engraining bad/dangerous habits. go to your dz this weekend and help one person at a time or your own dz, cause that's where you'll actually make a difference.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Swooping and Canopy Control

 


Search for (options)