BSR proposal for canopy patterns

[billvon 2,396]

>Education. And demanding a higher standard from instructors.

We've done that.

Years ago I wrote an article for Parachutist called "the training gap." It was about the lack of training for advanced skills (mainly canopy piloting) that was leading to many of the injuries we were seeing at that time. I badgered the BOD, wrote letters, campaigned for more training, and got other people to do the same.

A lot of other people bugged USPA for something similar, and finally USPA created the ISP. (Maybe just to shut us up!) It was a training program that covered a lot of what was missing from AFF instruction at the time. It's fully spelled out in the SIM, along with order of presentation, learning objectives, quizzes etc.

It didn't solve the problem. Why? Because it was optional. Why should anyone waste their time doing the ISP when there were tandems to be taken up, freefly jumps to be made, swoops to be perfected? Most skydivers think the ISP is a great idea - for everyone else. (Although some DZ's do indeed push it/require it, which is good.)

So you can hope that S&TA's, DZO's, DZM's, and instructors will participate, educate, and discipline more - but they won't. They didn't do it when the ISP came out, why would they do it now?

>If someone had grounded Danny the first time he did something like this......

. . . Bob would be alive today. This proposal gives DZO's help in explaining that future Dannys _should_ be warned (or grounded) when they do stupid shit. Not every DZO is an expert canopy pilot, and many are susceptible to bullshit from their own staff (i.e. "270's are perfectly safe! I always clear my airspace. Danny was an idiot and I'm not. etc etc") Giving them a clear statement of what's acceptable and what isn't will go a long way towards getting people like Danny talked to, warned and perhaps even grounded.

[wmw999 2,120]

The landing environment today is more challenging than it was years ago, but instruction really hasn't kept up.

Frankly, I never really heard much about a pattern when I was in my first skydiving life. You just landed and kept out of others' ways. Canopies were slower then. And this was at a busy dropzone.

And canopy collisions were supremely less common.

Today's environment is more challenging, and it probably ought to be addressed from two sides. One side is to help education, but the other is to limit the environment somewhat.

When cars got faster, they started building racetracks, so that people who were eminently capable of driving really, really fast didn't endanger people who neither knew how, nor wanted to have to keep out of their way. And some people still street race (or just go really, really fast), and sometimes they kill others.

To go along with a BSR (personally, I like the one where you get the kind of talking to for landing in the HPL that you'd get for a low opening) I think that a 5-jump series of canopy instruction would be good. People are no more born knowing this than anything else. If nothing else, it's harder to learn, because there isn't any video or buds on the jump to tell you how you screwed up.

"Success" in canopy control is often defined by landing standing up as close as possible. Read any early jumper thread about not standing up their landings if you doubt this. There's a large selection to choose from.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[marks 0]

Quote

(i.e. "270's are perfectly safe! I always clear my airspace. Danny was an idiot and I'm not. etc etc")

are you serious?, do you really still not get it?

It isnt a 270 that is the problem.

I thought you figured that out by now.

[billvon 2,396]

>It isnt a 270 that is the problem.

270's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. 360's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. There's nothing wrong with doing a 270 - but they are not perfectly safe to do whenever you like. Danny did one in the middle of a traffic pattern and killed another jumper - which is how this whole thing got started.

[marks 0]

Quote

>It isnt a 270 that is the problem.

270's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. 360's IN TRAFFIC are a problem. There's nothing wrong with doing a 270 - but they are not perfectly safe to do whenever you like. Danny did one in the middle of a traffic pattern and killed another jumper - which is how this whole thing got started.

you dont get it then..

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

>If someone had grounded Danny the first time he did something like this......

. . . Bob would be alive today. This proposal gives DZO's help in explaining that future Dannys _should_ be warned (or grounded) when they do stupid shit. Not every DZO is an expert canopy pilot, and many are susceptible to bullshit from their own staff (i.e. "270's are perfectly safe! I always clear my airspace. Danny was an idiot and I'm not. etc etc") Giving them a clear statement of what's acceptable and what isn't will go a long way towards getting people like Danny talked to, warned and perhaps even grounded.

And who ya gonna get to enforce it?

The ISP works, but the industry and more importantly the USPA has allowed the quality of those given instructor ratings to slide in response to a shortage of instructors.

There is also nothing in place to require instructors to create safe skydivers, simply to get them through the levels.

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

[pwln 0]

The way I read it, classic accuracy would be a HP landing. With the crazy patterns, s turns and all. But what do I know, I'm just getting into accuracy.

If we are going to be making (NW) BSR's we should have something about classic accuracy for that .001% that still do it.

[mnskydiver688 0]

The passion for teaching is what is going to make the difference. Even if greater requirements are made for instructors they can still end up being bad teachers. There needs to be a certain amount of personal responsibility taken in these situations. After hearing a conversation between some senior jumpers at my DZ it made me think about where the sport is. They said that in the past all skydivers had much more in common. Now the community has been split into many different areas, RW, wingsuits, FF, CRW, BASE, Swooping. Respect for jumpers in different disciplines and common courtesy are whats needed. How about exit separation? When freeflying came around I'm sure there were some issues because no longer were you dealing with two groups who largely fell in the same manner. So steps were taken to make things safer for everyone. Are there going to be RW people who wait too long and screw the spot? Yes. Are there going to be FF people who insist on getting out first? Yes. Respect and concern for your fellow skydiver is what needs to improve. A respect for what the other is trying to achieve. So you don't get to try that new move this jump. If you make it a safe skydive there is a really good chance you can try it on the next jump.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[billvon 2,396]

> The way I read it, classic accuracy would be a HP landing.

Correct. Which makes sense - such a landing is not a standard pattern either, and can cause chaos and close calls in a standard pattern.

Perhaps it would be better to call it a "nonstandard pattern" instead of a "HP approach" since any unexpected maneuver in the pattern - whether it's an accuracy approach, a 270 hook, or a student doing a 360 to lose altitude - is a problem.

[champu 1]

Quote

The way I read it, classic accuracy would be a HP landing. With the crazy patterns, s turns and all. But what do I know, I'm just getting into accuracy.

If we are going to be making (NW) BSR's we should have something about classic accuracy for that .001% that still do it.

Classic accuracy has no place in a traffic pattern either. As drafted, these BSRs would require the same separation of such landings from a SLP as would be required for HPLs. My only recommended change in that regard would be to clarify the inclusion of, not make exceptions for, classic accuracy.

Quote

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.

No one is suggesting that riflemen be stationed in the HPL areas to ensure landing straight in there is more dangerous than landing in trees or power lines. Likewise, no one is suggesting that you "hook it for safety!" (tm) if you do find yourself landing there.

Said simply, however, you can not have your cake and eat it to. If a high-performance landing area is set up at your dropzone in the interest of improving safety, its boundaries need to be taken very seriously by everyone who jumps there. It is not, I repeat not, "just another patch of grass."

A good comparison was made earlier in the thread to landing on an active runway. If a plane that is landing sees you and can do something about it, he will avoid hitting you. If he can't, you are prop food. If you land straight in (and in a predictable fashion) at the HPL area, people will most likely see you and avoid you. If you fly a weird pattern and end up there and/or they don't see you, someone may get seriously injured or killed.

[pwln 0]

I know that classic accuracy is not / should not be part of a standard pattern. I just wanted to point out what I was reading into the proposal. I also do not think there should be any exception for classic accuracy. I also do not think that classic accuracy should be over in a HP landing area. I know a tuffet can be moved pretty much anywhere, but a pea pit would be a little more difficult to move.

(I still land in the peas, because I suck and I may miss the tuffet...)

Thanks for considering the almost forgotten things, I think classic accuracy is really a non-issue, my concern was the (NW) and no mention of it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Don't buy into the myth that swoopers are the problem.

Non standard patterns, too many people into small landing areas, poor judgement and training, lack of supervision, unwillingness to snub friends.....those are the problems.

I didn't state they are the problem. But the inherent speed differentials and rate of descent do seem incompatible with a crowded landing area. If people spend all their time looking 400ft above and behind, when do they look forward where they're going?

If judgement/training/patterns of HP and nonHP fliers continue to persist despite all efforts to 'better educate them,' at what point do you simplify the problem and separate them?

How to do it isn't simple, especially to codify it. Byron has the swooping path adjacent to the rest of the LZ, but separation seems to work quite well, and newcomers are briefed not to fly over the pond. Elsinore has 3 areas that would meet any specified requirements, but the skies above can be a bit chaotic as people try to get from their opening to the desired field.

so you hash it out.

I just don't see "education" is the answer as a reason not to try.

[stitch 0]

Quote

I think classic accuracy is really a non-issue,

More like REALLY, as most jumpers shooting accuracy exit on the same low pass as the swoopers.

I recently had an issue with a swooper while flying a rogue pattern.

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

[FlipColmer 0]

You're right about that. We just opened lower back then. (g)

Blue SKies, Flip

[marks 0]

what could be done to the offender if they break this bsr?

also, what would be done if the offender feels he is "above the law" and the dzo fails to ground him.

I know for a fact this is going on. have heard complaints. not that I have seen at my home dz, but elswhere.

could we "as jumpers" report him and have his ratings pulled? that's a little drastic isn't it?

[popsjumper 2]

I see some highly-respected canopy pilots piping in here but most of them are not making concrete suggestions for improving the situation.

Come on guys. Pipe up with some suggestions/alternatives etc.

Pointing the finger at a cause and naysaying Bill's proposals is fine but let's see your ideas for improvement.

Bill's proposals are a good start. I believe that given the severity of the circumstances, a quick response is better than no response at all. This is not a case where the proposals will create a more dangerous situation. Please don't paralyze your input by getting all locked up in the "this proposal is not perfect, therefore do nothing" thought process.

Also realize that nothing is going to change overnight. Whatever approach is adopted will take time to show results and in the meantime, the approach can be tweaked as we go.

Someone mentioned pulling ratings. How about the S&TA? Why not pull his rating if it can be shown that he/she has a pattern of ignoring unsafe actions. No S&TA at the DZ? Pull the senior instructor's rating. Nobody responsible at the DZ? Pull the group membership.

Yeah, I'm a hard-ass.

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

[marks 0]

Quote

Also realize that nothing is going to change overnight. Whatever approach is adopted will take time to show results and in the meantime, the approach can be tweaked as we go.

agreed. also a bsr is not going to fix anything.

education is the long slow road, but it is the correct one.

if you teach the up and commers this is wrong, they "hopefully" won't turn into that "camera" geek with a skygod mentality and think they are above the law.

you know the type! the ones you go up to and say something and they say "ohh, I wasn't as close to them as you thought. I had pleanty of room to cut that newbie off." you know who you are.

a bsr is not going to FIX this mentality. and those with this mentality are some of the ones teaching others.

what can fix this mentality, is for a dzo to ground this fool till hw agrees to quit. and most likely what will happen to him is his ego will take him to another DZ which the whole process will start ovee again.

if this was never accepted in the first place, we wouldn't have a problem.

so educate these newbies, use the jackass as a symbol. "don't turn into this guy, and here is why"

[PhreeZone 15]

If it takes 4-6 years to educate the new jumpers that are just starting about why its so bad to do behaivor like this what do we do until the education is in place and is being used? Those years in between are going to continue to have close calls and incidents until the education is there. There is no replacing common sense but I think everyone has had a lapse of that at some point or another while skydiving. A hard chow in the pond would be a fatality if it was over land, a demo with a tiny sport canopy with limited outs can turn ugly fast. All of these are common sense things but yet people are out doing them all the time.

I see this proposal as more of a stop gap until the education can catch up to the progression of canopy skills.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I didn't state they are the problem. But the inherent speed differentials and rate of descent do seem incompatible with a crowded landing area. If people spend all their time looking 400ft above and behind, when do they look forward where they're going?

Why should they spend their time looking 400ft above and behind?

Rules of flight clearly say that the low man has right of way, and that anyone choosing to hook from above must give way.

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

[popsjumper 2]

I like it Marks and Phreezone.

Getting away from the Kool-Kid mentality and over to the Serious Canopy Pilot mentality will go a long way.

Ian is doing everything he can to promote the Serious Canopy Pilot mentality...those that are listening, are learning. Those not listening...well.....maybe they'll respond to peer-pressure.

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

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Someone mentioned pulling ratings. How about the S&TA? Why not pull his rating if it can be shown that he/she has a pattern of ignoring unsafe actions. No S&TA at the DZ? Pull the senior instructor's rating. Nobody responsible at the DZ? Pull the group membership.

Yeah, I'm a hard-ass.

Bingo.

As I said before, who's gonna enforce this BSR?

The gist of the BSR is great, I love the idea of seperated landing areas, but we can't get DZO's, and DZM's to agree to monitor people's flying as it is.

In the past 4 years I can count the number of times I've seen an S&TA gig someone for landing infractions on one hand.

It's just not "economically viable" to piss the jumpers off I guess.

What ever happened to people listening to instructors after student status?

When's the last time someone you saw someone grounded?

How about the last time you saw someone asked not to come back to the DZ because of unsafe actions?

BSR or no BSR, untill someone gets out on the field who cares enough to be the "bad guy", ain't nothing gonna change.

I appreciate all the people who took the time to be the "bad guys" in my skydiving career, even if I didn't in the heat of the moment. I thank them, because of them, I'm still sucking air.

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

[billvon 2,396]

> what could be done to the offender if they break this bsr?

Warnings, groundings, calling other DZ's to let them know. As with BSR violations now, it will be up to each DZO.

>also, what would be done if the offender feels he is "above the law"
>and the dzo fails to ground him.

Same thing as with any other BSR. He will likely continue to get away with it until he becomes smarter or kills himself. There are no real enforcement tools for BSR's; they are at best a short list of important rules that people should follow if they want to stay alive. Having a short list like this helps out DZO's because they don't have to listen to thirty-seven different opinions and pick one guy's opinion to enforce; they have it right there on one page in the SIM.

[popsjumper 2]

As DZs, group members are pledged to follow FARs and BSRs?

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

[MB38 0]

While this seems like a good idea, I don't have enough experience or knowledge in all relevant disciplines to state it as such. At a first glance... I like it. That said, I'm not going to be landing in the HPL... so...

Disclaimer aside, I have one potential concern. Let's say that something like this was implemented and the landing areas were separated. My biggest fear is that those performing nonstandard landing patterns would become so accustomed to only looking for other swoopers that on the one day when some student floats into the wrong landing area... nobody would think to look for them.

I'm not saying swoopers are or will be irresponsible and stop looking for those performing SLPs in their area, so don't shoot down the concern for that reason. For example:

A jumper is on a light load. He knows that the three others in his 4-way will be swooping, but the others on the load are students or solos. As this jumper is setting up for landing, he looks around and sees the rest of his group setting up for their landings. He assumes he knows where all three additional pilots aiming for the HPL are and initiates his swoop. A few seconds later, he plows into a student who didn't know [how] to land in the SLP area.

Obviously with this BSR in place, everybody would still have to be aware of the other pilots planning on landing in the other area... this road goes both ways. While there may be numerically fewer chances of such an impact occurring with this BSR [fewer swoopers + SLP pilots in the same area], I wonder if the percentage chance [greater chance of swooper/SLP impact with a sample size of one] of such an impact occurring would rise when somebody does find themselves in the wrong landing area.

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Would it have prevented 2 incidents....probably, but it doesn't address the majority of them in any way.

Out of curiosity, how many preventable deaths is acceptable to you?

If a BSR saves even ONE LIFE, I'll bet that one guy would think it was
well worth it. His one little life might not be important in the grand scheme, but I guarantee you that its EVERYTHING to him.

You just stated that it would probably have prevented TWO of these incidents.

Thats SWEET
Seem to be more than adequate justification to me.

__

My mighty steed