BSR proposal for canopy patterns

[mollyo 0]

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.

[FlipColmer 0]

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.

Blue SKies, Flip

[hukturn 0]

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

[hukturn 0]

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.

[hukturn 0]

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.

[hukturn 0]

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.

[hukturn 0]

Rock on! I second that proposal!

[hukturn 0]

"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.

[hukturn 0]

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.

[hukturn 0]

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!!

[hukturn 0]

Nope...I thought that for a very long time, too. A BSR is a Requirement, not a recommendation. Have a look at the title on this USPA web page...

http://www.uspa.org/Publications/SIM/2007SIM/section2.htm

[hukturn 0]

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 2,384]

>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.

[billvon 2,384]

>where does the ignorance really fall...you?

Your one warning. If you cannot discuss this civilly, then do not post here.

[DSE 3]

Quote

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).

[JumpRu 14]

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.

[mnealtx 0]

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.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,621]

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 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.

...

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

[hukturn 0]

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 2]

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

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[diablopilot 2]

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.


As we can tell some can't hack it.

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

[hukturn 0]

"...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.

[mnealtx 0]

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.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

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.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker