Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

[popsjumper 2]

Man, you should quit while you're ahead....Oooops...too late. You're not making a very good representative for swoopers, dude.

Mike...no need to respond to this guy anymore, obviously.

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

[ematteo 0]

The line dividing the dedicated swoop zone from the (much large) main landing area at Davis is officially called the "line of death." The implication is, if you cross that line below 1000 ft and you are not swooping, you might die. It actually works pretty well at preventing conflict.
BTW, I don't consider myself to be any kind of god, swoop or other. I just want swoopers to have a safe place to do their thing. I have no problem flying a box pattern on a big way, or when showing a CATB tandem how to land. Why do non swoopers have a problem staying completely out of a swoop lane?

Quote

You started out faairly well and then hit on this:

Quote

...
A key element: there should be no expectation of right of way for a non HPL flier wandering into the HPL landing area, even if they are the "low man."

Wow.
Man, this is exactly the swoop-god attitude and lack of education that is getting people hurt.
Hopefully that is not the prevalent attitude at Davis.
Think students and youngsters and plain old shit happens people!

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

If any of the above guys "in the right " expect the other to yield to them, they will probably die. And it will be their own fault, not the guy who "failed to yield."

If one jumper cuts off another jumper, there is a good chance that both will die. One may be at fault, one may not, or both may be at fault. Who cares? They're both dead.

A high performance landing area is a dangerous place to be doing anything. Even swoopers start their turns from a wide variety of altitudes and from all different directions. But clearly, doing anything there other than swooping is a really bad idea. I totally agree with you there.

But if you're approaching the high performance landing area or the single landing area expecting to make a high performance landing, and you see traffic below you that may be in your way, it is your obligation to do what is required to avoid the collision.

That guy might be wrong. Maybe he shouldn't be there. Maybe it's a student that can't find the DZ 500 feet below him. Maybe it's a reserve canopy. Who cares? He's there, in your way, so you can't swoop. End of story. Well... you can go yell at him and punch him and tell him he has to buy you a jump or whatever you want to do afterward. But you do not have the right to create a hazard by swooping through traffic. Lower canopy has the right of way. Even if he's wrong.

This thread scares me.... seriously.

Dave

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I don't want slow canopies in the swoop lanes as much as you do. But the bottom line is, if there is a canopy below you and safe seperation does not exist, YOU HAVE TO ABORT!!! Do you swoop the swoop course when the swooper in front of you crashes? Do you swoop if you stack up on the guy in front of you? NO YOU ABORT.

I'm in favor of the ideas behind these BSR proposals. I just don't feel that an actual BSR is needed. Each and every DZ needs to adopt a landing policy that serves their DZ, we need to educate people how to fly their canopies and then not tolerate unsafe behavior under canopy regardless if they are a newbie, a wannabee or the experienced DZ employee. And finally we need to keep our eyes open and know when to abort.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Thanatos340 1]

I think whatever "Penalty" there is for breaking the Rules should apply equally.

If Someone is going to Be grounded for Swooping the Main Landing Area..

The Exact same penalty should apply to someone Floating into the HP Landing area.

ROW Rules still apply, Every hopefully walks away and the DZ`s become a safer place for everyone. The only problem with this would be when it is an AFF Student that ends up in the wrong place. DZO are not likely to Ground Cash Cows. But at a Minimum the Student should be told in no uncertain terms how much they just endangered themselves and the Swoopers in the Air.

Any Licensed Jumper that makes that mistake should be grounded.

[skinnyshrek 0]

Only thing i see wrong with that is overloading the students with that information. For the most part students land last anyways and pose no real threat. I would hate to see a student do a low turn just because he thought it was dangerous to land in the swoop area

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[Thanatos340 1]

We tell Students not to Land on the Runway or Cross it under 1000 feet... Just tell them the Swoop Area is Just like the Run way. Dont do it.

Quote

I would hate to see a student do a low turn just because he thought it was dangerous to land in the swoop area

It IS Dangerous for them to land there for them and for others. They should be told.

You are correct that on a single Plane DZ.. Everyone should be Down before the Students (except for maybe the Tandems) anyway. But it could definitely be an issue at a Multi-plane DZ.

And NO Rule will ever take the place of Common Sense and keeping your head on a swivel.

[skinnyshrek 0]

Quote

We tell Students not to Land on the Runway or Cross it under 1000 feet... Just tell them the Swoop Area is Just like the Run way. Dont do it.

Quote

I would hate to see a student do a low turn just because he thought it was dangerous to land in the swoop area

It IS Dangerous for them to land there for them and for others. They should be told.

You are correct that on a single Plane DZ.. Everyone should be Down before the Students (except for maybe the Tandems) anyway. But it could definitely be an issue at a Multi-plane DZ.

And NO Rule will ever take the place of Common Sense and keeping your head on a swivel.

Exactly, that is why each dz has to set its own rules as a 3 turbine dz wil not work the same as a single cesna dz but that is up to the dzo's We also need to all be on the same program. My plan and yours are simple really. If i get cut off or a near miss due to some idiot doing a 270 then all we need the dzo is for to dial an ambulance

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

If i get cut off or a near miss due to some idiot doing a 270 then all we need the dzo is for to dial an ambulance

Keep Baseball Bats in the landing area. Use when needed.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If i get cut off or a near miss due to some idiot doing a 270 then all we need the dzo is for to dial an ambulance

Keep Baseball Bats in the landing area. Use when needed.

Clue x 4?

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

[hukturn 0]

Absolutely, all rules should apply to everyone unilaterally. But...always a but, right?!?
If we impliment a BSR, then you take the ownership of the plan away from the DZ. How often have you or someone you know broken the rules? Exceeded speed limits? Kept the overage of change that the cashier gave you? Pulled low? Gotten out too cloe to clouds? The bottom line is that people break rules. Unless people decide tha tthey want to do the right thing, there is no rule in the world that will work.
Really, do you think that the S&TA is going to ground his AFF/I if he cuts someone off? The S&TA will give the benefit of doubt to the AFF/I but he MIGHT ground him. Now, same scenario but the AFF/I has a class to handle and he os the only one available to do it. Now, do you think he will be grounded? Then, this has opened the window for continued non-compliance. Why? Because it was another rule shoved into the face of the S&TA. It is viewed as just something else he is supposed to do. Whereas, if the S&TA had designed the policy, he owns it. He is more apt to apply it equally. If it is not force fed to him, he will actually take pride in applying the policies.
I know that the arguement becomes "but under the BSR, the DZ will develop their plan". But, that is not ownership. That is simply making up another rule to satify USPA. I just do not buy into the idea that we need a BSR. I truly believe that this can be handled locally.
I believe in skydivers and I believe in educating. There is a time to swoop and a time to bail. I, too, am infavor of some of the ideas in these rules. Not all of them, but some. But, most importantly, the DZ needs to determine what works best for their DZ and they need to do so to make their operations better, not to satisfy USPA.

[hukturn 0]

"A blanket rule that says that you can not drive at unlimited speeds in residential areas does not infringe on much of anyone's rights"
This is not about speed, it is about traffic. So a better analogy would be with regard to weaving through traffic in your car. But, weaving through traffic is interpretable. So is safe swooping with regard to proximity, et cetera. That is why it is impoarant for the DZ to interpret what they need on their DZ.
"I knew Danny before you made your first jump."
I am sorry to have infringed on you, Mr. big bad skydiver. Because you knew Danny before me must have made you the authority on Danny. I look forward to the unauthorized biography.
"...he made an active decision to push his luck one time too many and got himself and an innocent killed."
He made a decision to perform the same maneuver he did many times over. It may have been inappropriate at the time buit that does not make him unsafe. It means that he performed an unsafe act but that does not define his entire life.

Wait a minute, I am getting side-tracked again. This is not a forum about Danny or Bob. This is about the proposed BSR. And I really believe the only way we can gain positive change is at the DZ...not through USPA.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

He made a decision to perform the same maneuver he did many times over. It may have been inappropriate at the time buit that does not make him unsafe. It means that he performed an unsafe act but that does not define his entire life.

It sure in the hell defines how I'll remember him. Same for Bob's loved ones. Danny Page killed an innocent man because he was unsafe.

He exemplified a kind of fucked up attitude that IMO needs to be purged from this sport. I don't give a flying fuck if some skygod wants to make himself into a grease spot on the ground. That's not what Danny Page did, though. He killed an innocent man along with himself.

Ironic as hell that he was an S&TA. That's like having Charles Manson in charge of home security.

Walt

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Keep Baseball Bats in the landing area. Use when needed

It's about time someone brings to the table a workable salution to the problem. Now would that be the good old standard Louieville slugger or should those new fancy aluminum kind?

I vote for the new kind because they won't get burnt in the bon fire by the drunks, and the new kind make a really cool sound when you thump someone up side their mellon with it & there lighter and easier to swing fast, you can call home and just ask my wife.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[skinnyshrek 0]

Quote

Quote

Keep Baseball Bats in the landing area. Use when needed

It's about time someone brings to the table a workable salution to the problem. Now would that be the good old standard Louieville slugger or should those new fancy aluminum kind?

I vote for the new kind because they won't get burnt in the bon fire by the drunks, and the new kind make a really cool sound when you thump someone up side their mellon with it & there lighter and easier to swing fast, you can call home and just ask my wife.

I see your on board with our new BSR's lol seriously, i am all for the new safety issues. But if anyone endangers my wife or myself because they do a danny. I will promise, i will do something. Hell, i may get my ass kicked but fuck it. I am sick of seeing close calls due to arrogant fucks.. Sometimes people only understand a quick old fashioned kicking

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[popsjumper 2]

I got $5 says the first bout is between you and Sandy.




Clue: Swing first, swing hard, then run like hell when she gets up.

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

[skinnyshrek 0]

sandy spends too much time lifting herself of the ground. I am sue\re she doesn't know what a BSR is anyways.

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A key element: there should be no expectation of safety for a non HPL flier wandering into the HPL landing area, even if they are "low man." The top guy will do his best (of course), but may not be able to abort and oh crap, you just killed two people.

Guys - you are cutting on matteo and I don't think your inference of his comment (this time) is fair.

I think that making a counter proposal is a great thing and much more productive than the previous discussions.

The above can be read two ways:

1 - Message to those that inadvertantly drift into the HPL cone - "Don't do it, it's not safe, cut it out. Avoid at all costs". I think you intend to emphasize to those that don't swoop how important that is. It's a good message, I think it can be rewritten to apply to anyone going into the area they are not intended to. Induce speed up high? stay out of the main landing area. Not Inducing up high? Stay out of the HPL. Emphasize to both danger areas, not just yours.

2 - HPL means that you get your swoop on even if there's inadvertant traffic. I don't think you meant that even if the knee jerk reaction was such. It came across as a "who'll get blamed after the fact, cover your ass" which is pointless and political. This is the inference because of the tone of previous comments - everyone 'else' is to blame. Again, I think you've changed your strategy with constructive discussion.


The key points, which can be neutral, is:
a - have defined landing patterns (separated by time or space)
b - if you don't fit a defined pattern, stay out of it - land in the one you do fit in, or go to a bail out area if you don't fit in one - if you screw up, you'll get serious flak for it - it's dangerous in today's world
c - people screw up (not on purpose) ROW still has to apply - there's no excuse to force a non-standard landing in traffic just because the zones are defined

Once you get off of making the emphasis of safe swooping, and expand it to safe 'everyone', these misunderstandings (inference 2) will go away.

I think a BSR is needed. I can work with my local DZO if needed. But I'd like to know that when I visit another DZ that there's a better chance they've done the right thing too. I've seen some pretty stupid stuff at other DZs, and I can't make change there, and they aren't initiating it on their own.

...
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

[billvon 2,400]

>If we impliment a BSR, then you take the ownership of the plan away from the DZ.

How does "DZO's shall separate standard and nonstandard traffic" take the ownership of the plan away from the DZO? It doesn't say "do this." It says "come up with your own plan."

>Whereas, if the S&TA had designed the policy, he owns it.

Right. And if that plan is "experienced, safe swoopers can swoop through traffic" then more people will die.

>If it is not force fed to him, he will actually take pride in applying the policies.

That's great. But taking pride in implementing policies that kill people isn't a win for skydivers as a whole.

> I truly believe that this can be handled locally.

It can be. But in many places it will not be; why bother?

>But, most importantly, the DZ needs to determine what works best for their
> DZ and they need to do so to make their operations better, not to satisfy
>USPA.

Agreed. USPA's role should only be to say "separate the patterns in whatever way works best for you."

>So a better analogy would be with regard to weaving through traffic in
>your car.

Fair enough.

>But, weaving through traffic is interpretable.

Right. So what's the answer? Is it to say "weaving through traffic is fine if you're a safe driver?" Or do you implement speeding and tailgating laws to prevent one driver from being a hazard to others?

>Wait a minute, I am getting side-tracked again. This is not a forum
>about Danny or Bob. This is about the proposed BSR. And I really
>believe the only way we can gain positive change is at the DZ...not
>through USPA.

Which is another way of saying "do nothing." I know you yourself may believe that you can implement safe policies at your DZ, and if you do so, great. Some other people who post here may try to do the same. But most skydivers do not read this forum, and most skydivers/DZO's will not change their behavior unless forced to do so. At Eloy, that change was forced by several fatalities. If we hope that this works at other DZ's - i.e. they implement their own rules after a fatality - we're looking at another few hundred deaths before we see most DZ's change over. A BSR is a way of forcing that to happen BEFORE all those deaths occur - and that is worthwhile.

No one likes new rules. If they save lives but do not do much to restrict what people can or cannot do, then they are sometimes worthwhile.

[kallend 1,623]

The petition in post #1 does not take local control away from DZ's, it requires DZs to exercise local control. It does not force a "one size fits all" plan on DZs, it asks them to develop a plan suitable for their own circumstances.

The petition does not pick on any group of skydivers, it simply says that skydivers flying incompatible landing patterns should not be in the same place at the same time. Common sense - except that recent fatalities and many near collisions show that it is not so common.

When people bring up the same misrepresentations over and over and over again as objections, one is forced to wonder if they have a different real motive that they are unwilling to state.

...

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

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

you know what. I have always respected you but your remarks are becoming assanine.

danny was a big way belly flier who half assly knew how to fly a canopy, and was arrogent enough to perform a half ass low turn to final when he shouldn't.

.

Your semantic games do not alter the fact that someone performing a high performance landing killed someone who was in a standard pattern. Bob did not kill Danny.

I like games...

haha,,

if bob was a standard pattern flyer, and he landed in the H/P area, and this same thing happened. who's fault would it be then?

[billvon 2,400]

>if bob was a standard pattern flyer, and he landed in the H/P area,
>and this same thing happened. who's fault would it be then?

If this DZ had separated patterns as we are discussing? It would be Bob's fault for flying his canopy in an incompatible pattern.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>if bob was a standard pattern flyer, and he landed in the H/P area,
>and this same thing happened. who's fault would it be then?

If this DZ had separated patterns as we are discussing? It would be Bob's fault for flying his canopy in an incompatible pattern.

HPL area or not, the low man STILL has right-of-way, and it's still the responsibility of the higher jumper to abort their maneuver if it can't be completed safely.

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

[diablopilot 2]

You're forgetting that the recent incidents, in fact just about all the incidents discussed in these threads were at major events and/or boogies. I seen nothing addressing that aspect of the situation.

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

[mnealtx 0]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Should there be something in the proposal about boogies/events, if the intent is to have the dzs develop their own plans?

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