BSR proposal for canopy patterns

[rhys 0]

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.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[raymond_jones 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

"your the shit till you eat it !!!!!!!! damn that wall hurts..."

[2shay 0]

isn't a BSR just a reccomendation?

don't try your bullshit with me!!!

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

isn't a BSR just a reccomendation?

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2791734#2791734

...

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

[billvon 2,380]

>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 2,380]

>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.

[holleresque 0]

... 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.

[beezyshaw 0]

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?

[holleresque 0]

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.

[diablopilot 2]

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.

Oh, and who are ya?

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

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

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.

...

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

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.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[beezyshaw 0]

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 2,380]

This discussion may get people heated, but as a reminder, there are no personal attacks allowed. Your one warning.

[RichardCranium 0]

Quote

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 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....

[Salsa_John 0]

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.

"You did what?!?!"

MUFF #3722, TDSM #72, Orfun #26, Nachos Rodriguez

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

.

Surely you're not saying boogies.....

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

[ematteo 0]

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 2,380]

>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.

[superstu 0]

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.

Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

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.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

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

Performance Designs Factory Team

[superstu 0]

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.

Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

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.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[JumpRu 14]

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.