0
billvon

BSR proposal for canopy patterns

Recommended Posts

>This is a recent addition to the SIM. Perhaps, many jumpers are not aware of this.

Indeed, the objective of this BSR is clearly stated in the new material:

6-11 3.B.3.b: Fly the landing pattern or land elsewhere.

It's clearly a good idea (hence its inclusion in the SIM) but the lack of people following that suggestion has led to a lot of dead jumpers. Hence the desirability of turning it from a recommendation on page 150 into something more authoritative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

If we limit what skydivers can do beyond what is reasonable, we will effectively kill the sport. It is a step backward due to fear, rather than a step forward toward solutions.

Separation by time and location, yes.
Banning the human spirit, No!

Just my thoughts...
+



True, but really vague and touchy feely. What's your position on a BSR that encourages DZs use a method to "separate by time and location" (I find BSRs to be 'recommendations' rather than 'requirements' in real practice).

Can you clarify what you are talking about? whether you think that

1 - a BSR of this kind is a good idea vs

2 - whether you think a BSR of this kind is a 'step backward due to fear'.



I believe that this is not a reason for another BSR. I think we have plenty of rules already.

I think that specifics are going to be difficult to enforce, especially since there are such a variety of landing areas out there. We need to take each situation on a case-by-case basis, and use our heads.

Rules can be used to avoid thinking. That is not what we are about. Lets just increase our level of awareness and do what makes sense.

Here's my plan:

1) Have two separate landing zones for box pattern and high speed approaches.
2) Do our best to create separation in time and altitude by staggering opening altitudes and by talking to each other about our plan in the loading area.
3) Create vertical separation under canopy before getting to pattern altitude.
4) Have someone in the landing area filming every landing so we can learn from our mistakes, as well as our successes.

CYA
Brian
+
Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea just like it's a requirement for DZs' to follow in order to be a GM. As far as I'm concerned they are only Basic Safety "Recommendations" They have no teeth and can't be enforced by anyone anywhere at anytime and the USPA BOD has a long history of looking the other way as it suits the needs of their buddys.

So what year did they change the word from Recommendations to requirements?
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yea just like it's a requirement for DZs' to follow in order to be a GM. As far as I'm concerned they are only Basic Safety "Recommendations" They have no teeth and can't be enforced by anyone anywhere at anytime and the USPA BOD has a long history of looking the other way as it suits the needs of their buddys.



I agree that USPA is not a police agency. I think you need to separate the 'old' BOD from the 'current' BOD actions.
I may be on the USPA BOD now, but I am not accountable for what happen before I was on the BOD.

Quote

So what year did they change the word from Recommendations to requirements?



It was definitely before 1988. I think it was 1976 or so. There was a Parachutist article on the name change, but I don't have it at my fingertips (or it would take hours to find).

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Drop zone operators are required...



last time i checked USPA is organization of jumpers, not Drop zone operators B|


Well it's whole different can o' worms but, you sure about that?

Know much about the GM program?
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

--------------------



Well I was thinking that it is not USPA job to tell DZO how to do business... and proposed BSR’s kind of doing just that. That is one of my reasons against them. I think those BSR's are not productive and in general won’t do us any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If we limit what skydivers can do beyond what is reasonable, we will effectively kill the sport. It is a step backward due to fear, rather than a step forward toward solutions


Brian Germain is right. I think this is a bad direction to go and it's kneejerk.

Quote


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 guys only say this when someone dies. I warned Danny several times over the years. Someone of his age, experience, and attitude doesn't listen. Furthermore, if I had grounded Danny or what it really would've taken, kicked him off the DZ, I'd feel the backlash for weeks from the jumpers. And it still would not have changed him. On the other hand, if the jumpers would've made him an outcast for being dangerous and refused to jump with him, he might have listened. But Danny was very popular at our DZ at that was never gonna happen.
Be that as it may, I have grounded staff members at our DZ last year. Each have more than 4,000 skydives. It made no difference. I have even kicked people off the DZ for bad continued canopy judgement before. These proposed rules are not going to change much. What it will do is set up the DZ for a law suit unless they agressively enforce them.
You jumpers need to take some responsibility and quit expecting the rules, DZO's, and USPA to make it "safe". The safest I ever felt it was at the DZ was when Ian Drennan as a senior jumper was discouraging unsafe behavior very publicly and refusing to allow unsafe people on the "good freefly jumps".

http://www.skydiveatlanta.com
http://www.musiccityskydiving.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I may be on the USPA BOD now, but I am not accountable for what happen before I was on the BOD.



Your are correct, sorry to lump you in with older members, that was not fair of me.

Quote

It was definitely before 1988. I think it was 1976 or so.



You maybe right, but I don't think it was as early as 76, I'm guessing 84 or 85, but don't know for sure and no need to get into a pissing contest on the date.

When I say I think we need a firm rule, I'm thinking of people I personally know who have blown off good advice and used their ratings to preach to noobs and steer them in the wrong direction with really bad out comes and had we had more real enforcement available, there would be one less dead tandem master taken out by a 4 yr hotshot superswoop'n skygod with all the ratings one could have. We have lowered the standards for instructors these days and we are seeing the results of going "mainstream" this sport is not for everyone and it should stay that way. The bottom line is the current rules, recommendations, requirements, or what ever fancy word you care to dress it up as, isn't working!

This sport for me has never been about a team thing, there is no one to hold your hand and keep you safe, but you. It has always been everyone for them selfs. So I for one will keep on keeping on and stay far far way from the current crop of mainstream idiots in the sport today as best I can. ("mainstream" the ones who are to stupid to know I'm talking about you)

It is sad to meet a longtime jumper this week who has done a lot in this sport to learn they won't jump anymore because of the danger of the current mainstream jumpers we have today. But at least I got some cool old gear from a cool old guy, this sport lost a lot when he quit. (you know who you are, you lurker):P

Have a good day, everyone.:)
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This reasoning would seem to imply that anyone should be allowed to perform any high performance, high risk maneuver they want, and its up to the people that don't want to be a target of this guy to scratch from the load.



I think what he is saying is that the landing procedures should be discussed, and that's when any differences in philosophy will come to light:

Load Org: "...OK, we'll all land into the wind with straight-in approaches and keep an eye out for each other in the pattern."

Swooper: "Well, I usually do a 270 to a downwind and stop right over there. But I always clear my airspace before I turn. Is that cool?"

Other 20 people: "No"

Swooper: "OK, how about if I scratch and get on the next load ?"

Everybody: "See ya"
_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Furthermore, if I had grounded Danny or what it really would've taken,
>kicked him off the DZ, I'd feel the backlash for weeks from the jumpers.

You would have felt less backlash if he got grounded at every DZ he went to because he was breaking a very clear rule. And you would have felt zero backlash if Danny had realized that he could either fly a normal pattern or be grounded. He did it because he could get away with it - if not with you, then with some other DZO who didn't understand HP canopy flight as well.

>What it will do is set up the DZ for a law suit unless they agressively enforce them.

Deaths cause lawsuits. Preventing deaths is the #1 way to prevent lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think what he is saying is that the landing procedures should be discussed, and that's when any differences in philosophy will come to light:

Load Org: "...OK, we'll all land into the wind with straight-in approaches and keep an eye out for each other in the pattern."
Swooper: "Well, I usually do a 270 to a downwind and stop right over there. But I always clear my airspace before I turn. Is that cool?"
Other 20 people: "No, guess I have to scratch"
Swooper: "Cool, I get the whole plane to myself?"
Everybody: "sigh"



fixed it to show the other interpretation

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here's my plan:

1) Have two separate landing zones for box pattern and high speed approaches.
2) Do our best to create separation in time and altitude by staggering opening altitudes and by talking to each other about our plan in the loading area.
3) Create vertical separation under canopy before getting to pattern altitude.
4) Have someone in the landing area filming every landing so we can learn from our mistakes, as well as our successes.
+



thanks, that's much clearer

I like your plan. Agree with it 100%. However, I think staggering opening altitudes is not something people will ever be able to do on purpose.

How about we put it in the SIM under a new section

"Common Sense Recommendations"

along with canopy loading and progression guidelines, exit order and separation info, warnings about he idiocy of the 45 degree farce and things like that, etc......

then we don't have to do the semantics game of why the BS Requirements are enforced or not at local DZs

...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Preventing deaths is the #1 way to prevent lawsuits.



perhaps I should've said you are giving attorneys an easier route to win.
Hate to break it to you dude. This is skydiving. You aren't going to make it death-proof.
I've heard so much about this incident in the last month. My main conclusion is that everyone seems to have forgotten that skydiving is dangerous and that's a big reason why people do it.
IT IS DANGEROUS AND PEOPLE DIE. And that will never change. You can try to idiot-proof it, they'll just build a better idiot.
This sort of "legislate good judgement rather than personal responsibility" attitude is what goes on in Washington. Take a good look at our laws guys. It hasn't worked there it's not going to work here. But it'll make you guys feel good about yourselves like your doing something about it and it's popular, so never mind whether it'll actually work or makes any sense.

Based on your response to me, I don't know why you bothered to post for comments. You seem to have already made up your mind.

http://www.skydiveatlanta.com
http://www.musiccityskydiving.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Hate to break it to you dude. This is skydiving. You aren't going to make it death-proof.

Of course. But we try to prevent fatalities through better gear (AAD's, reserves, Skyhooks, RSL's, helmets etc) better procedures (exit separation times, landing pattern rules) better training (the ISP) etc etc. The claim "we can't fix everything so we shouldn't try to do anything" is a non-starter, fortunately - skydiving would suck today if the pioneers in this sport had that attitude.

>My main conclusion is that everyone seems to have forgotten that
>skydiving is dangerous and that's a big reason why people do it.

That may well be true. And if so, I have no problem with people risking their OWN lives. I have a very big problem with irresponsible jumpers risking OTHER people's lives.

Bob Holler was a pretty careful jumper. He decided what sort of risks he wanted to take and jumped accordingly. Then someone else killed him due to their negligence. That's the problem we're trying to solve here.

If you have all the education you need to make an intelligent decision about the risks you take, and you push the limits and kill yourself - well, that's sad, but it was your decision. If you decide to push the limits and you kill someone else - that is absolutely inexcusable, and that's the level that rules come into play. It's OK to drive drunk on your own road and kill yourself; it's not OK to drive drunk on a public road and kill someone else.

>You seem to have already made up your mind.

Not at all. If someone came up with a better idea, I'd be all over it. I haven't seen one yet. This proposal is merely the best that a group of jumpers could do on their own. One of the reasons we are posting this is to look for better ideas or modifications to this one - and I have already seen a few good suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think what he is saying is that the landing procedures should be discussed, and that's when any differences in philosophy will come to light:



That is correct (you said it better than I did, thanks!) I was not advocating any specific landing procedure/policy, (thats for each individual DZ to specify) just for everyone to discuss it before you board... or at least in the plane on the ride to altitude. If for some reason you cant come to an agreement on how you are going to land, at least you know who to keep on your radar screen under canopy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could not agree with any one of the options you have produced on this thread but I might if a few things were merged together. I have posted a revision for your group to view, it may inspirer new thoughts. I have included a brief comment about each at the end.

Over all I agree with Brian Germain plan, if I owned and DZ with enough property I would establish separate landing areas, including a student area then this would not be an issue.

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) Drop zone operators shall create and maintain landing approach patterns to ensure traffic continuity with in each separately, SLP and HPL, in a manner that SLP and HPL shall not conflict with each other. [NW]

d) Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted shall do one of the following, so that an individual performing HPL can not interfere with an individual fallowing a SLP: [FB]

1) Shall separate the landing areas and traffic patterns geographically

2) Shall separate by time to establish adequate clear air space

(a & b) This is necessary to clearly define the difference between Standard Landing Pattern and High Performance Landing Pattern so this has not been changed.

(c) Is something that we should be doing where ever we jump, it should be established, depending on wind direction, and that our landing approach pattern is either a right or left hand pattern.

(d) This one pains me, because it has come to the point that we have become so inept that it takes a BSR to enforce what we were supposed to have learned, meaning what were taught, lower and slower have the right of way.

(d) 1) and 2) Gives DZ the flexibility depending on their individual setting and size so the DZ may provide for their customers, if they so choose.

Memento Mori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



The people that worry me the most are the ones that normally jump at small DZs, then show up at multi-turbine boogies. They're used to having the sky to themselves and often fly that way even when there's 20 other canopies in the sky with them.



Yup. When I went to Eloy for the first time for the holiday boogie, I had 49 jumps at Cessna DZ (though ten of 'em were from Mullins' King Air). On the recommendation of some people who sent PMs, I showed up the night before the boogie officially started and got on one of the first loads which was light, and only turning one plane. As they ramped up capacity throughout the next few days, I was ready for it because I'd been slowly integrating. if I'd just shown up halfway through and jumped on a Skyvan and been in the air with 40+ other people from multiple planes, I'm not sure I wouldn't have been a hazard. I'd like to think I wouldn't have, but really, who can say?
cavete terrae.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

John-

When did you flip sides? What happened to "Education, not regulation"?

Derek



You apparently see no difference between endangering yourself and endangering other people? I see a world of difference.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

John-

When did you flip sides? What happened to "Education, not regulation"?

Derek



You apparently see no difference between endangering yourself and endangering other people? I see a world of difference.



don't loose touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But we try to prevent fatalities through better gear (AAD's, reserves, Skyhooks, RSL's, helmets etc)



Do you really think any of that has made the sport safer? Or just allowed us to get away with making it more dangerous?
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you really think any of that has made the sport safer? Or just allowed us to get away with making it more dangerous?



I think it has made it safer for dangerous people, and more dangerous for safe people. In other words people who would have never been let to jump or would have burned in had it not been for their aad are still out there flying around endangering others. All aads have done is allowed many people to fly with their heads up there ass as S.O.P.

Edit to add, I do know two or three people who were really saved by an AAD, both were knocked out cold by another. But I know way more who fired them because they can't read a dial or see the big ass planet their about to smack into.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0