mnealtx 0 #276 July 5, 2007 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: QuoteProsecuting 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.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #277 July 5, 2007 QuoteNo, 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. Quote 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.' Quote ...>>> 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? Quote >>>they introduce problems and liability for the DZO and USPA. I think there will be MORE liability if nothing is done, very soon: QuoteProsecuting 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. Quote 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?? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #278 July 5, 2007 Quote 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. In other words, safety should be optional.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,619 #279 July 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteNo, 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?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #280 July 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteNo, 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.Quote 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? QuoteNow, 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. QuoteQuoteThe 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? QuoteQuote ...>>> 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. Quote>>>they introduce problems and liability for the DZO and USPA. I think there will be MORE liability if nothing is done, very soon: QuoteProsecuting 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. QuoteQuote 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. QuoteJust 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.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AFFI 0 #281 July 5, 2007 QuoteIn other words, safety should be optional. Seems like it is no?Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #282 July 5, 2007 QuoteIn 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, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AFFI 0 #283 July 5, 2007 Quotecan't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs There are no 'official', published or standardized 'penalties' for any BSR violation. QuoteThat 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…Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RB_Hammer 0 #284 July 5, 2007 Quote 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..."I'm not lost. I don't know where I'm going, but there's no sense in being late." Mathew Quigley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,379 #285 July 5, 2007 >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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FlipColmer 0 #286 July 6, 2007 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #281 July 5, 2007 QuoteIn other words, safety should be optional. Seems like it is no?Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #282 July 5, 2007 QuoteIn 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, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #283 July 5, 2007 Quotecan't seem to find ANY penalties in the SIM regarding BSRs There are no 'official', published or standardized 'penalties' for any BSR violation. QuoteThat 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…Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RB_Hammer 0 #284 July 5, 2007 Quote 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..."I'm not lost. I don't know where I'm going, but there's no sense in being late." Mathew Quigley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #285 July 5, 2007 >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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlipColmer 0 #286 July 6, 2007 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlipColmer 0 #287 July 6, 2007 Hello Rick! Quote 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?Blue SKies, Flip Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #288 July 6, 2007 Quote...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". True/False?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JumpRu 14 #289 July 6, 2007 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #290 July 6, 2007 >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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #291 July 6, 2007 QuoteQuoteNo, 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.Quote 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. Quote QuoteNow, 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 " " 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? Quote QuoteQuoteThe 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. Quote Saying that "education is enough" *IS*, in fact, saying that not separating patterns is ok No, this is incorrect. Try reading this. Quote- 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?'. QuoteYou've never heard of anyone suing a DZ? Funny, because I have... You really need to read the book I mentioned. QuoteDo 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) .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mollyo 0 #292 July 17, 2007 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)