BSR proposal for canopy patterns

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

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.

KC

Signatures are the new black.

[jheadley 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> 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 would one do if non-HPL jumpers are forced to land in the HPL area due to the spot or some other situation?

Pick an out and walk back.

I'll say it again then.

What would one do if non-HPL jumpers are forced to land in the HPL area due to the spot or some other situation?

[FreeflyGoat 0]

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.

_________________________
goat
derka jerka bukkake jihad

[billvon 2,396]

>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.

[Lindsey 0]

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.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[mollyo 0]

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.

[paul.sitter 0]

***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.

[breadhead 0]

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.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

>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.

Signatures are the new black.

[JumpRu 14]

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!

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...What would one do if non-HPL jumpers are forced to land in the HPL area due to the spot or some other situation?

Option 1 (H, 4, e)
Option 2 (H, 4, c)
What would YOU do?
There’s some common sense involved here.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

[billvon 2,396]

>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.

[popsjumper 2]

I like Option 1 or 2 with #2 best.

Option 3 leaves too much to DZO interpretation.
DZOs, on the whole, have already proven themselves to be taking the path of least resistance.

One guy keeps asking “What do you do if non-HPL jumpers are forced to land in the HPL area?”
Options 1 and 2 address that issue.

You guys…do NOT forget about the students and young jumpers. Regardless of BSRs, they can and WILL find themselves unintentionally in the swoop area.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[JumpRu 14]

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 2,396]

>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.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Andrew,
I agree with you, it does concern everyone which is why I believe pilots from both sides should be included.

.

Sides? One side wants to prevent needless fatalities. What does the other side want?

I have been hit from behind at 100' agl. No-one's desire to swoop trumps my right to be safe.

...

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

[Gawain 0]

Quote

> 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.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[stitch 0]

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???

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[captainbb7 0]

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.

[Samurai136 0]

Bill, the proposed BSR's are Self-Defeating.

You have just defined every student and swooper in violation of BSR's.

That's a no go. USPA promotes skydiving for skydivers.

By the your proposed new rules; Anyone who diviates from a "proscribed" landing pattern is de-facto in error.

How does that promote skydiving? It promotes lawsuits.



This is


STUPID



california uber ales

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[imdskydiver 0]

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 ?

[matthewcline 0]

Except for me and Vern!

But I too think the proposal is worth while and added my endorsement today in E-mail ( it may not mean any thing to some).

We need to at least try and separate the landing areas so we have more of us to jump with when we get to the POPS, SOS etc level.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[jheadley 0]

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.

[JumpRu 14]

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.