kallend 1,621 #301 June 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteyou 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? ONLY when you have a clearly delineated landing time/place for HP landings will you be able to say the SP flyer is at fault. Otherwise it's ALWAYS the fault of the high, fast flyer diving down from behind. Separating the patterns provides protection to HP canopy flyers that they do not currently have.... 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
pilotdave 0 #302 July 1, 2007 Quoteif 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? It'd still have been the swooper's fault. He failed to see and avoid traffic below him. The other jumper obviously would have contributed to the accident, but the low guy still has the right of way for obvious reasons. What if a swooper landing in a high performance landing area has to abort his swoop and suddenly becomes a low, slow canopy? The jumpers above him still have to see and avoid him. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #303 July 1, 2007 Mark asked: 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? Billvon replied: Quote If this DZ had separated patterns as we are discussing? It would be Bob's fault for flying his canopy in an incompatible pattern. Kallend replied: Quote ONLY when you have a clearly delineated landing time/place for HP landings will you be able to say the SP flyer is at fault. We have now entered the Twilight Zone. The low person has the right of way. That rule should not change. The advantage gained by having separate areas is that it will be much easier for the higher person - about to execute a HP landing - to see potential traffic. That advantage does not give the higher person carte blanche to swoop into a lower person. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #304 July 1, 2007 QuoteWe have now entered the Twilight Zone. The low person has the right of way. That rule should not change. Bingo. And worth repeating.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlipColmer 0 #305 July 1, 2007 HEllo jp! How was the landing area at Skydance during the 50 ways? Blue SKies, Flip Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlipColmer 0 #306 July 1, 2007 Quote Hello Jan! ***We have now entered the Twilight Zone. The low person has the right of way. That rule should not change. The advantage gained by having separate areas is that it will be much easier for the higher person - about to execute a HP landing - to see potential traffic. That advantage does not give the higher person carte blanche to swoop into a lower person.*** No Twilight Zone at all. This is called 'the real world'. We can have all the course rules we want to, but not every situation falls neatly into the rules. What we want though is a structure that accomodates most circumstances. Exceptions to the rules are fine and common sense must apply at all times. If someone makes a common sense decision, and creates a hazard from that, it's not about groundings or warnings, it's about fine tuning our landing patterns. Most safety infractions warrant just a talking to the offender to make sure this doesn't become a habit. Someone who pulls low once isn't a problem. Someone who pulls low a lot is. If there was a funnel at breakoff and I had to extricate myself from all those around me, that would be a valid reason why I pulled low and no disciplinary action would be warranted. On the other hand, if on breakoff you and I did a post star, then a standup then wrestled to below pack opening altitude, remedial corrective actions would be warranted. If a swooper sees a herd of cows in the swooping area, it's best not to swoop there. If a 50 way lands and everyone walks through the swoop lane, probably not a good idea to swoop there. But the 50 way group needs counciling to ensure they do not do that again. Way too many people are focusing in on the exceptions to the landing pattern plans, rather than on establishing what we want to have happen. The exceptions will come and they will be sorted out. Blue SKies, Flip . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #307 July 1, 2007 QuoteMark asked: 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? Billvon replied: Quote If this DZ had separated patterns as we are discussing? It would be Bob's fault for flying his canopy in an incompatible pattern. Kallend replied: Quote ONLY when you have a clearly delineated landing time/place for HP landings will you be able to say the SP flyer is at fault. We have now entered the Twilight Zone. The low person has the right of way. That rule should not change. The advantage gained by having separate areas is that it will be much easier for the higher person - about to execute a HP landing - to see potential traffic. That advantage does not give the higher person carte blanche to swoop into a lower person. . If I blunder uninvited into O'Hare's class B airspace in my Mooney and am hit from behind by a descending 767, I am fairly sure the FAA will assign a large share of the blame to me.... 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
popsjumper 2 #308 July 1, 2007 Quote ... If I blunder uninvited into O'Hare's class B airspace in my Mooney and am hit from behind by a descending 767, I am fairly sure the FAA will assign a large share of the blame to me. Probably so. There is a small difference in maneuverability capabilities between that big passenger jet and whatever you would be flying, I'm fairly sure. There is small thing about that jet only having few options on place and method of landing. 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
diablopilot 2 #309 July 1, 2007 Too crowded, and unorganized, which is why I chose to land out for the last 4 of 5 jumps.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks 0 #310 July 2, 2007 QuoteThe low person has the right of way. That rule should not change. good rule to have. do you think there should be another rule to state that this rule exists? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #311 July 2, 2007 >The low person has the right of way. That rule should not change. I agree. However, that rule is insufficient to prevent canopy collisions, as we have discovered recently. >That advantage does not give the higher person carte blanche to swoop into a lower person. I also agree there; nothing does. However, some landing manuevers inherently limit visibility; thus the requirement (that some DZ's have already implemented) that swoopers use a separate area for nonstandard patterns. No one ever has "carte blanche" to risk someone else's life in this sport for any reason. All jumpers have a responsibility to fly in ways that do not pose hazards for other jumpers. If you spiralled down to get in front of/below a tandem, cut them off and forced them to turn crosswind to land, you might technically be "in the right" because you were the low person. You'd still get an ass-chewing at most DZ's, because you put a tandem master and a student at risk by your actions - and if there was an injury as a result, you'd bear a large part of the responsibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #312 July 2, 2007 Quote If I blunder uninvited into O'Hare's class B airspace in my Mooney and am hit from behind by a descending 767, I am fairly sure the FAA will assign a large share of the blame to me. John, quit comparing apples and oranges. You want to compare a heavy landing atop a light weight AC to a swooper overtaking a 'low and slow' canopy. There is no airport anywhere in the US that would consider a 270 approach as an acceptable approach. You are trying to compare totally different scenarios. Canopies do not have an ATC (radio contact) to direct traffic. Canopies do not have transponders. Canopies do not have 'go-around' capabilities. If you really want to live in your imaginary world go read this. Your BS commentaries tend to polarize people as opposed to bringing them together to find a solution as much as Billvon's exaggerations of "we're looking at another few hundred deaths before we see most DZ's change over." You and Bill, and DOB and Flip to lesser extent, are now into polarizing people's views on this instead of trying to come up with workable solutions that can be implemented at each individual DZ. Look at the situation this way, if you cannot have a BSR implemented to your desires, what would you like to see happen? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #313 July 2, 2007 QuoteQuote Look at the situation this way, if you cannot have a BSR implemented to your desires, what would you like to see happen? . A VERY strong recommendation in the SIM. However, I don't think that will be effective, as only nerds like you and me actually read the SIM.... 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 KathleenL 0 #314 July 2, 2007 After reading this thread I think everyone here should hear from a low time jumper about this issue. I was at Dublin and witnessed Danny and Bobs collision. I was with my coach and on jump #12 when it happened. I almost never got back into a plane. Keep this in mind when you read the rest of this post. I was never taught anything about canopy control in AFF just the basic pattern and flairing. I took it upon myself to find a canopy control course. I inherently knew that there had to be more than a left hand pattern into the wind and flairing. Wow was I right. I took Scott Millers canopy course and have to say that in my opinion that course should be mandatory for everyone to get a licence. You learn control and even better how to actually plan your landing pattern. Including vertical and horizontal seperation. I am not sure if changing the BSR's will help collisions. But I know that education will. I almost had a collision two weeks ago at my home DZ from a visiting jumper who flew the wrong pattern we were both slower canopy jumpers. Everyone is taught to turn to the right to avoid collision. I went into brakes and flat turned right creating vertical and horizontal seperation and avoided the collision at 300 ft agl. Thank you Scott for teaching me something that can save my life. When I get on a load I ask everyone on the plane what they are doing not just on the jump but what they plan on doing as far as landing. Plan the dive, dive the plan that includes the landing pattern etc. I personally have no problem with swoopers because I know how many are on my load, I tell them, (if they don't already know) what my canopy looks like and to not swoop near me AND I hang up in the air till I see them land. Then I will land in the normal pattern. So teach all the canopy control that you can to new and low time jumpers. It might save YOUR life if us low timers know how to fly our canopies. Lastly, nothing is going to control hotshots out there doing hp landings in a crowd. But if you are one of those I will know it if you are on my load and I will let you go screaming down to the earth before me. And if for some reason you are behind me and you swoop near me after I have said on the plane not to. You and I will have a come to Jesus meeting when I get to the ground I promise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #315 July 2, 2007 There is no airport anywhere in the US that would consider a 270 approach as an acceptable approach.*** Now that I would like to see. (tower) N 34 bravo your cleared to land 15 right. (N34B) roger 15 right. (starts into 270 at mid approach) (tower) N34 bravo, what are your doing? (N34B) doing my high Perf landing man all the good pilots are doing it these days.... you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #316 July 2, 2007 doing my high Perf landing man all the good pilots are doing it these days I know I only have 100 flight hours, but I'm REALLY good and can handle it even now. Those experienced pilots don't give me enough credit. I'm a plane hooker. It's what I do. It's what I am ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #317 July 2, 2007 >Canopies do not have an ATC (radio contact) to direct traffic. >Canopies do not have transponders. >Canopies do not have 'go-around' capabilities. All that is true of many sailplanes. Yet sailplanes share the same airspace too by flying standard, predictable patterns. (I really can't believe you're arguing against standard patterns; what is the point you're trying to make?) >You and Bill, and DOB and Flip to lesser extent, are now into polarizing >people's views on this instead of trying to come up with workable solutions >that can be implemented at each individual DZ. I am sorry you feel that way. I want to come up with a workable solution that can be implemented at each individual DZ. I think where we disagree is that you do not believe this is important enough to _require_ drop zones to come up with a workable solution that can be implemented at each individual DZ. I don't think "do whatever you want in the landing area" is OK - and that's what we will have at many DZ's until we do something about it. >if you cannot have a BSR implemented to your desires, what would you like to see happen? The same thing happen at an optional level. Have each DZO implement procedures to separate standard-pattern and high performance traffic. We are seeing that now at places like Eloy. Unfortunately, Eloy has implemented this in such a way as to discourage swoopers from swooping at all (although they can still swoop by the wind tunnel.) A BSR would standardize the approach, and help dropzones like Eloy implement rules that allow both swoopers and standard pattern jumpers to share the skies safely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #318 July 2, 2007 Can somebody post the latest BSR revision, as it stands? Thanks. IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #319 July 2, 2007 Attached is my proposal. BSR=Basic Skydiver Retrainer. Keep one in each Landing area and use when needed. Floater in the HP landing area.. Use it. Swooper in the Area for standard Patterens.. Use it. S Turns on Final.. Use it. Spiral down over the main landing area.. Use it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #320 July 2, 2007 I support your BSR Jay Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,380 #321 July 2, 2007 > Can somebody post the latest BSR revision, as it stands? Here are our proposals. Definitions of "standard pattern" and waiver notes have been omitted for brevity. The one we are favoring is bolded. Note that we are NOT advocating that any of these get used as-is; the board (and membership) will likely decide the final wording if any such BSR is implemented. OPTION 1: Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in the standard landing pattern area. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed, regardless of location. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the center of the area and land on the edges. OPTION 2: Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. OPTION 3: Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #322 July 2, 2007 You know that "BSR" won't work! there will never be one around when you need one, the drunks will have already burnt it in the fire pit. What ya need is the new and improved "BSR's" or the crappie little SSK model. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ematteo 0 #323 July 2, 2007 Bill, Can you post your current definition of "High Performance Landing" ("HPL")? Thanks, Evan Quote> Can somebody post the latest BSR revision, as it stands? Here are our proposals. Definitions of "standard pattern" and waiver notes have been omitted for brevity. The one we are favoring is bolded. Note that we are NOT advocating that any of these get used as-is; the board (and membership) will likely decide the final wording if any such BSR is implemented. OPTION 1: Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in the standard landing pattern area. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed, regardless of location. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the center of the area and land on the edges. OPTION 2: Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. OPTION 3: Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FlipColmer 0 #324 July 3, 2007 Hello Evan! I don't have the exact wording at my fingertips although it is in a thread on the forum somewhere. Please keep in mind that when our committee started talking about this, we had as many definitions of 'high performance landing' as there were members of the group. Rather than attempt to start the discussion within USPA with what is a 'HPL', we all felt we could provide a definition of a 'standard landing pattern' that would be more universal. But even with that we know people will disagree. We said what a SLP was, and for the purposes of the BSR proposal starting point, everything else was a HPL. Although one would not think of an accuracy jump as a HPL, it would not fit the definition of SLP so therefore for discussion purposes it would be a HPL. We could label non-SLP landings many different things to suit the sensibilites of the jumping populace: non-conforming landing, non-standard landing pattern, unconventional landing pattern. However, I think that is best left to the committee process once USPA decides if they want to go ahead with this as a BSR, or an education campaign or both. Hope that answers your question and gives you a little background into our thinking behind the proposal. Blue SKies, Flip Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,621 #325 July 3, 2007 QuoteHello Evan! I don't have the exact wording at my fingertips although it is in a thread on the forum somewhere. Please keep in mind that when our committee started talking about this, we had as many definitions of 'high performance landing' as there were members of the group. Rather than attempt to start the discussion within USPA with what is a 'HPL', we all felt we could provide a definition of a 'standard landing pattern' that would be more universal. But even with that we know people will disagree. We said what a SLP was, and for the purposes of the BSR proposal starting point, everything else was a HPL. Although one would not think of an accuracy jump as a HPL, it would not fit the definition of SLP so therefore for discussion purposes it would be a HPL. We could label non-SLP landings many different things to suit the sensibilites of the jumping populace: non-conforming landing, non-standard landing pattern, unconventional landing pattern. However, I think that is best left to the committee process once USPA decides if they want to go ahead with this as a BSR, or an education campaign or both. Hope that answers your question and gives you a little background into our thinking behind the proposal. Blue SKies, Flip That may well be the reason for the antagonism towards the proposal, in that defining a HP landing as anything not conforming to a standard pattern, you are grouping together things that are themselves quite incompatible. Clearly that needs to be fixed.... 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 Prev 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next Page 13 of 14 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
KathleenL 0 #314 July 2, 2007 After reading this thread I think everyone here should hear from a low time jumper about this issue. I was at Dublin and witnessed Danny and Bobs collision. I was with my coach and on jump #12 when it happened. I almost never got back into a plane. Keep this in mind when you read the rest of this post. I was never taught anything about canopy control in AFF just the basic pattern and flairing. I took it upon myself to find a canopy control course. I inherently knew that there had to be more than a left hand pattern into the wind and flairing. Wow was I right. I took Scott Millers canopy course and have to say that in my opinion that course should be mandatory for everyone to get a licence. You learn control and even better how to actually plan your landing pattern. Including vertical and horizontal seperation. I am not sure if changing the BSR's will help collisions. But I know that education will. I almost had a collision two weeks ago at my home DZ from a visiting jumper who flew the wrong pattern we were both slower canopy jumpers. Everyone is taught to turn to the right to avoid collision. I went into brakes and flat turned right creating vertical and horizontal seperation and avoided the collision at 300 ft agl. Thank you Scott for teaching me something that can save my life. When I get on a load I ask everyone on the plane what they are doing not just on the jump but what they plan on doing as far as landing. Plan the dive, dive the plan that includes the landing pattern etc. I personally have no problem with swoopers because I know how many are on my load, I tell them, (if they don't already know) what my canopy looks like and to not swoop near me AND I hang up in the air till I see them land. Then I will land in the normal pattern. So teach all the canopy control that you can to new and low time jumpers. It might save YOUR life if us low timers know how to fly our canopies. Lastly, nothing is going to control hotshots out there doing hp landings in a crowd. But if you are one of those I will know it if you are on my load and I will let you go screaming down to the earth before me. And if for some reason you are behind me and you swoop near me after I have said on the plane not to. You and I will have a come to Jesus meeting when I get to the ground I promise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #315 July 2, 2007 There is no airport anywhere in the US that would consider a 270 approach as an acceptable approach.*** Now that I would like to see. (tower) N 34 bravo your cleared to land 15 right. (N34B) roger 15 right. (starts into 270 at mid approach) (tower) N34 bravo, what are your doing? (N34B) doing my high Perf landing man all the good pilots are doing it these days.... you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #316 July 2, 2007 doing my high Perf landing man all the good pilots are doing it these days I know I only have 100 flight hours, but I'm REALLY good and can handle it even now. Those experienced pilots don't give me enough credit. I'm a plane hooker. It's what I do. It's what I am ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #317 July 2, 2007 >Canopies do not have an ATC (radio contact) to direct traffic. >Canopies do not have transponders. >Canopies do not have 'go-around' capabilities. All that is true of many sailplanes. Yet sailplanes share the same airspace too by flying standard, predictable patterns. (I really can't believe you're arguing against standard patterns; what is the point you're trying to make?) >You and Bill, and DOB and Flip to lesser extent, are now into polarizing >people's views on this instead of trying to come up with workable solutions >that can be implemented at each individual DZ. I am sorry you feel that way. I want to come up with a workable solution that can be implemented at each individual DZ. I think where we disagree is that you do not believe this is important enough to _require_ drop zones to come up with a workable solution that can be implemented at each individual DZ. I don't think "do whatever you want in the landing area" is OK - and that's what we will have at many DZ's until we do something about it. >if you cannot have a BSR implemented to your desires, what would you like to see happen? The same thing happen at an optional level. Have each DZO implement procedures to separate standard-pattern and high performance traffic. We are seeing that now at places like Eloy. Unfortunately, Eloy has implemented this in such a way as to discourage swoopers from swooping at all (although they can still swoop by the wind tunnel.) A BSR would standardize the approach, and help dropzones like Eloy implement rules that allow both swoopers and standard pattern jumpers to share the skies safely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #318 July 2, 2007 Can somebody post the latest BSR revision, as it stands? Thanks. IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #319 July 2, 2007 Attached is my proposal. BSR=Basic Skydiver Retrainer. Keep one in each Landing area and use when needed. Floater in the HP landing area.. Use it. Swooper in the Area for standard Patterens.. Use it. S Turns on Final.. Use it. Spiral down over the main landing area.. Use it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #320 July 2, 2007 I support your BSR Jay Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #321 July 2, 2007 > Can somebody post the latest BSR revision, as it stands? Here are our proposals. Definitions of "standard pattern" and waiver notes have been omitted for brevity. The one we are favoring is bolded. Note that we are NOT advocating that any of these get used as-is; the board (and membership) will likely decide the final wording if any such BSR is implemented. OPTION 1: Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in the standard landing pattern area. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed, regardless of location. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the center of the area and land on the edges. OPTION 2: Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. OPTION 3: Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #322 July 2, 2007 You know that "BSR" won't work! there will never be one around when you need one, the drunks will have already burnt it in the fire pit. What ya need is the new and improved "BSR's" or the crappie little SSK model. you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #323 July 2, 2007 Bill, Can you post your current definition of "High Performance Landing" ("HPL")? Thanks, Evan Quote> Can somebody post the latest BSR revision, as it stands? Here are our proposals. Definitions of "standard pattern" and waiver notes have been omitted for brevity. The one we are favoring is bolded. Note that we are NOT advocating that any of these get used as-is; the board (and membership) will likely decide the final wording if any such BSR is implemented. OPTION 1: Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in the standard landing pattern area. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed, regardless of location. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the center of the area and land on the edges. OPTION 2: Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. OPTION 3: Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlipColmer 0 #324 July 3, 2007 Hello Evan! I don't have the exact wording at my fingertips although it is in a thread on the forum somewhere. Please keep in mind that when our committee started talking about this, we had as many definitions of 'high performance landing' as there were members of the group. Rather than attempt to start the discussion within USPA with what is a 'HPL', we all felt we could provide a definition of a 'standard landing pattern' that would be more universal. But even with that we know people will disagree. We said what a SLP was, and for the purposes of the BSR proposal starting point, everything else was a HPL. Although one would not think of an accuracy jump as a HPL, it would not fit the definition of SLP so therefore for discussion purposes it would be a HPL. We could label non-SLP landings many different things to suit the sensibilites of the jumping populace: non-conforming landing, non-standard landing pattern, unconventional landing pattern. However, I think that is best left to the committee process once USPA decides if they want to go ahead with this as a BSR, or an education campaign or both. Hope that answers your question and gives you a little background into our thinking behind the proposal. Blue SKies, Flip Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #325 July 3, 2007 QuoteHello Evan! I don't have the exact wording at my fingertips although it is in a thread on the forum somewhere. Please keep in mind that when our committee started talking about this, we had as many definitions of 'high performance landing' as there were members of the group. Rather than attempt to start the discussion within USPA with what is a 'HPL', we all felt we could provide a definition of a 'standard landing pattern' that would be more universal. But even with that we know people will disagree. We said what a SLP was, and for the purposes of the BSR proposal starting point, everything else was a HPL. Although one would not think of an accuracy jump as a HPL, it would not fit the definition of SLP so therefore for discussion purposes it would be a HPL. We could label non-SLP landings many different things to suit the sensibilites of the jumping populace: non-conforming landing, non-standard landing pattern, unconventional landing pattern. However, I think that is best left to the committee process once USPA decides if they want to go ahead with this as a BSR, or an education campaign or both. Hope that answers your question and gives you a little background into our thinking behind the proposal. Blue SKies, Flip That may well be the reason for the antagonism towards the proposal, in that defining a HP landing as anything not conforming to a standard pattern, you are grouping together things that are themselves quite incompatible. Clearly that needs to be fixed.... 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
