0
mollyo

Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

Recommended Posts

Seperate landing patterns are not an answer to the problem. The problem is in the decision making process. Unfortunately, you may never change this.
But, there are too many other variables to make such a broad spectrum BSR. Too many "what ifs", too many different sized dropzones, too many levels of experience, there are just too many variables to impliment a new policy higher than at the DZ level.
Of course, it has only been a few years past that some DZ's decided that if you weren't using an AAD, you could not jump on their dropzones. Cool...I jump elsewhere. I fought dozens of AAD arguements for a decade. If you want one...great. But it is a personal choice. Now, I am a little softer in my old age and I do have an AAD in one of my rigs. But, that is my choice.
So, my biggest concerns is this. Stop making choices for me. I do 90's and 180's. But, if someone wants to do more, have at it. Do it responsibly. Don't overtake other canopies in the sky. This is not just about canopy collisions. This is about making choices. I believe that we are regulated enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>In my view, it is height difference in turn to final, more than anything else, that is causing conflicts.

Someone who turns onto final at 500 feet flying a standard pattern is 100% compatible with someone who turns onto final at 50 feet. Someone who does a 270 right over the landing area at 500 feet is NOT compatible with someone who flies a standard pattern and turns at 500 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill,

With all due respect, it is much safer to have a mixed pattern at the same altitude than to have a mixed pattern separated by 7-800 vertical feet (as would happen in your definition of an HPL area).

It is irresponsible to ignore what happens in the "other" zone you seek to create, outside of your "safe" 90 degree landing area.

Nearly 40% of skydivers swoop. Unless you also provide for their safety, your proposal will be (and should be) a really hard sell.

Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>With all due respect, it is much safer to have a mixed pattern at the
>same altitude than to have a mixed pattern separated by 7-800 vertical
> feet (as would happen in your definition of an HPL area).

I agree. It would be even safer to have segregated patterns.

>It is irresponsible to ignore what happens in the "other" zone you seek to
>create, outside of your "safe" 90 degree landing area.

I do not propose "ignoring" it. That's a strawman argument.

>Nearly 40% of skydivers swoop. Unless you also provide for their safety,
>your proposal will be (and should be) a really hard sell.

Keeping standard pattern people out of the way of swoopers will make swoopers safer. Keeping swoopers out of the way of standard pattern people will make standard pattern people safer. Both groups win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill,

You and I have gone 'round and 'round on this. For some reason we seem to be talking past each other.

On this, I agree:
Quote

Keeping swoopers out of the way of standard pattern people will make standard pattern people safer.



But this is, as you say, a"straw man argument:"
Quote

Keeping standard pattern people out of the way of swoopers will make swoopers safer.



I would much rather deal with my DZO's current, non-BSR-mandated solution than try to swoop around the motley crew you lump into the "HPL" landing area.

This is the issue: perfect conditions for one group at the expense of everyone else. That is not a workable solution.

Evan

PS Bill, I am happy to keep going back and forth with you, but I really feel like you are willfully trying to misunderstand what I write. Perhaps we should each let the other's comments be so other readers don't get frustrated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I would much rather deal with my DZO's current, non-BSR-mandated
>solution than try to swoop around the motley crew you lump into the "HPL"
>landing area.

No one is trying to lump accuracy jumpers in the HPL landing area. That's a point you keep bringing up that no one is proposing. Let's try this:

The pull altitude for C and D license holders is 2000 feet. That does not mean you have to pull at 2000 feet. That means you must pull AT OR ABOVE 2000 feet.

The wind limits for students is 14mph. That does not mean you have to wait for a day that is 14mph before students are allowed to jump. That means winds cannot be OVER 14mph.

We are proposing a BSR that requires separation of standard and non-standard patterns. That does not mean that accuracy jumpers have to land in the HPL landing area, nor does it mean they have to land in the main area. What it means is that there will be AT LEAST two landing areas or two time periods to separate standard and nonstandard patterns. There can be as many time periods or landing areas as you like; each DZ will choose their own system that works, as yours did.

You keep pulling this "you're forcing accuracy jumpers to land in the HP landing area!" out of your hat, I assume to try to garner support for your position. That's a meaningless argument, akin to complaining about the BSR mandated pull altitude because you want to pull at 3000 feet instead of 2000 feet. "After all, the BSR SAYS 2000 feet! That must mean I have to pull at 2000 feet! Unsafe! Unsafe!"

If you want to discuss how to separate swoopers and pattern people safely, by all means, do so. But when you argue against proposals that no one is making you don't add anything to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bill,

You and I have gone 'round and 'round on this. For some reason we seem to be talking past each other.

On this, I agree:

Quote

Keeping swoopers out of the way of standard pattern people will make standard pattern people safer.



But this is, as you say, a"straw man argument:"
Quote

Keeping standard pattern people out of the way of swoopers will make swoopers safer.



I would much rather deal with my DZO's current, non-BSR-mandated solution than try to swoop around the motley crew you lump into the "HPL" landing area.

This is the issue: perfect conditions for one group at the expense of everyone else. That is not a workable solution.

Evan



Ending up dead is not good for anyone either. 270 turns are not compatible with standard patterns, and that's that. It's not just about altitude differences, it's about geometry, and nothing you or anyone else can do will change that.

You may be happy with your DZO's solution, but what if you visit other DZs?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to play the Devil's Advocate, but I feel inclined. Your arguement validates the need to avoid a BSR for seperate landing areas. We don't have to pull at 2000ft, we chose to because we feel it is safer. So, take a similar position at theDZ level. If the DZ wants a seperate landing area, let them do it because they feel it is safer instead of mandating another BSR.
This is not about Regulations. This is about poor choices which may affect our future. Let the DZ's manage the problem at a local level. We live by too many rules already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is about poor choices which may affect our future. Let the DZ's manage the problem at a local level. We live by too many rules already.



Poor choices and the lack of rules penalizing poor choices have killed several people this year alone.

One of the options is for each DZ to come up with it's own plan - why are you against that?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No it wouldn't have.

They were not jumping at a USPA DZ.



Agreed - it wouldn't have carried the same authority as at a USPA dz.

Does that also mean that nobody is going to care if people are opening at 1k?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Nearly 40% of skydivers swoop.



Evan, can you tell me how you came up with this number? If it is a factual number it would be of great interest to me. OTOH if you just estimating, no problem.

Thx
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on a recent survey on this site asking how many people would avoid a DZ that banned turns over 90 degrees.

http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2843046;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

38% said "I wouldn't visit a dz that put limits on hp landings."

A pretty good sample size for a dz.com poll (319 votes so far).

Regards,
E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Evan!

***Please consider modifying your definition paragraphs to better identify the groups that need to be separated. In my view, it is height difference in turn to final, more than anything else, that is causing conflicts. If you want a single criterion for dividing landing areas, that should be it.

Define "high performance landings" as patterns with a turn to final initiated above a certain point (500 feet?). Define a "standard landing pattern" as patterns with a turn to final initiated below a certain altitude (again, proposing 500 feet).***

Quote

You've just eloquently touched on the problem of making any kind of a rule or recommenation: defining a problem, parameters or basic components of the problem.

If we were to start a thread and ask 'how do you define a high performance landing', how many different answers would we get? Some will look at wing loading, others the maneuver itself, others equipment. Yet, we as a committee (small that we are) had to come up with something that we could get behind to start this process.

Notice we did not define what a high performance landing (or non-standard landing) is. We essentially left that to the rule making body, USPA, and the implementors and enforcers of any and all rules: the drop zone owner.

What we did define is something we all can agree to: what a standard landing pattern could be. As I said in an earlier post, I could see a shallow angle of bank, unaccellerated, smooth continuous 180 degree turn to final as fitting into what we are trying to accomplish. But our initial proposal gets very unwieldly if we try to write what we want as FINAL language. Especially as we'd have to outlaw all of DOB's landing manuevers! ;)

I think the best person/s to address this is the drop zone owner. But without a BSR, there is no requirement to. That is why we are pushing for a change. Not so you, Evan, have to obey any particular rule, but so the membership at large is better served NATIONALLY.

Blue SKies, Flip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Matt!

***Seperate landing patterns are not an answer to the problem. The problem is in the decision making process. Unfortunately, you may never change this.***

Quote

You are absolutely correct! We will never prevent all mishaps because human beings make mistakes. However, by creating a better landing plan at all drop zones across the planet (I was about to say the country, but there was a recent landing pattern fatality in Russia. Hopefully a USPA BSR would lead the way worldwide.), some of the mishaps will be prevented. If even one mishap is prevented, the BSR change served its purpose.

Quote



***But, there are too many other variables to make such a broad spectrum BSR. Too many "what ifs", too many different sized dropzones, too many levels of experience, there are just too many variables to impliment a new policy higher than at the DZ level.***

Quote

Again, absolutely correct. We want the drop zone owner to create a better landing plan. The BSR would make that a requirement, but without forcing any particular model onto the DZO. But without the BSR, nothing forces the change in behavior to happen.

Quote



***So, my biggest concerns is this. Stop making choices for me. I do 90's and 180's. But, if someone wants to do more, have at it.***

Quote

Nothing in our BSR proposal limits any skydiver from doing any kind of turn. Look at the drafters of the proposal. We don't want to be limited either. What we want is to address a hazard and modify how differing landing patterns CAN work at the same DZ.

***Do it responsibly.***

Quote

And here is the whole enchilada. You cannot make someone be responsible 100% of the time. As I said in an earlier reply, no skydiver has 100% situational awareness (S.A.) 100% of the time. By making a better landing plan at every drop zone, we can eliminate the future fatalities of some of our friends.

Quote



Blue SKies, Flip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Thanks", Flip. Your response is well received.

It seems that you and I are somewhat in agreement. I do believe there needs to be something in place. But what so many people are stating is that we need more regulation from USPA. I just do not believe that this should be a USPA issue. I think that DZO's are responsible and should take ownership for what happens on their DZ. Seperated landing areas may not work everywhere. Thus, again, it should be addressed locally. We who have been around for a while have all seen what happens when USPA "suggests" something. It is not long until the DZO believes "I have to do this to remain a USPA DZ". And, before long, a rcommendation becomes a regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>We don't have to pull at 2000ft, we chose to because we feel it is safer.

Incorrect. You have to pull by 2000 feet at USPA DZ's. That BSR has saved lives - because while most people do indeed pull higher than that, some people would pull as low as possible just because they can. In the words of one such jumper, because "he has a really reliable canopy and he has to get down fast to pack."

>This is not about Regulations. This is about poor choices which may affect
>our future.

Agreed. And I think you should have every right to make poor choices that affect YOUR future. You have no right at all to end someone ELSE's future through your poor choices. That's where rules become required - when people start killing other people, rather than just themselves.

>We live by too many rules already.

If the problem went away, the need for a rule would as well. If you want to stop a new BSR, the very best thing you can do is stop this from happening. Next time you see a swooper swoop through a crowded landing area, make sure it won't happen again. Talk to him. If he doesn't listen, ground him. If you can't ground him, pull his reserve handle.

Or do nothing, and let it happen again. Then you will see the BSR come along - because doing nothing is simply not an option when irresponsible people are killing other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Based on a recent survey on this site asking how many people would avoid a DZ that banned turns over 90 degrees.

http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2843046;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

38% said "I wouldn't visit a dz that put limits on hp landings."

A pretty good sample size for a dz.com poll (319 votes so far).

Regards,
E




interesting because the majority of people I know that actually skydive don't ever look at dz.com. I wouldn't use a poll you found on the internet, unless it can be backed up with real skydivers (not saying people on here aren't - just no way to really prove they are) Also, I would have to say that MAYBE 25% of the jumpers at my home dz swoop.

Judy
Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed on some points, disagree on others. But I appreciate your feedback.

"You have to pull by 2000 feet at USPA DZ's..."
No, I have to pull by 2000ft because I want to. When I am in the air, USPA is not with me and they are not making the decisions. THAT is the difference. I make sound choices becaus I want to...not because I have to. I have pulled low and y'know what, may have taken a grim note had I done otherwise. I have never been grounded because oif pulling low because it was warranted in each circumstance. There are always times when rules need to be flexible.

Don't lie...BSR's never go away even when we change our habits. The only thing that goes away is freedom. Don't get me wrong, I feel that there is a need for something. I am open to recommendations. But, USPA should not be the decision maker in this. It is a DZ problem which should be addressed at the DZ level.

This is not about swooping through a crowded landing area. Let's not get too side tracked.T his is about segregated landing areas...that is what you are proposing. Landing areas can be crowded in swoop lanes or on the non-swoop LZ. In either event, people can still be hurt on the ground. So, let's repoint this to the real issue...canopy collisions and traffic patterns. Those are the two areas which yo can impact. But, they can be impacted by rigid DZ policies or they can be dictated by USPA. USPA is not on the DZ and they are not aware of daily operations or the needs of the DZ. Therefore, the most knowledgeable person becomes the DZO or the S&TA. Thus, they should be able to make the decisions which impact their operations.

Do not pull someones reserve. Let your DZO or S&TA handle it. Peoples actions are highly interpretable and pulling someones reserve is a major infringement. You just might have reacted to without knowing all of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>No, I have to pull by 2000ft because I want to.

Incorrect. You have to pull by 2000 feet because if you always pull at 800 feet you will get grounded due to BSR violations. Sure, you'll be able to get away with it once or twice - but not much more than that.

Same thing with this sort of BSR we are talking about. If we pass a BSR that requires separation, you'll probably still be able to get away with flying through an incompatible pattern once or twice. But after that you'll be grounded. Which might be bad for the swooper (or accuracy jumper, or standard pattern flyer) involved - but it removes the risk you pose to others.

>BSR's never go away even when we change our habits.

That's right. That 2000 foot pull altitude rule is still around, and still saving lives.

>The only thing that goes away is freedom.

That's also correct. But losing some of your freedoms to preserve the lives of others is a reasonable tradeoff. It's like passing a law that says you can't drive drunk. Have you lost some of your freedoms? Yes. Is it worth it in that specific instance? Probably.

>This is not about swooping through a crowded landing area. Let's not
>get too side tracked.T his is about segregated landing areas...that is
>what you are proposing.

It is a BSR intended to prevent swooping through crowded landing areas (which is what killed Bob.) It does this by separating landing areas.

>Landing areas can be crowded in swoop lanes or on the non-swoop LZ.
>In either event, people can still be hurt on the ground.

Absolutely. And jumpers can still be hurt by their brake lines failing during the flare. They can be injured by colliding with a small child who runs in front of them, and they can be injured later when they're dirt diving and the mockup breaks. We're not trying to solve all of skydiving's problems here, just one we've identified that has affected us personally, and is on the rise.


>But, they can be impacted by rigid DZ policies or they can be dictated
> by USPA. USPA is not on the DZ and they are not aware of daily
>operations or the needs of the DZ. Therefore, the most knowledgeable
>person becomes the DZO or the S&TA. Thus, they should be able to
>make the decisions which impact their operations.

Exactly. Which is why I am pushing a BSR that says "DZO's shall ensure that standard landing patterns and high performance landing patterns are separate." Let DZO's and S+TA's decide how to implement it.

>Do not pull someones reserve. Let your DZO or S&TA handle it.

That's what happens now. And the result is Bob and Danny. Danny was talked to several times; the DZO's "handled" it well enough that he went up and killed someone. That sort of "handling" has to stop. You say you wouldn't pull someone's reserve handle if that's what it takes - which means we can't rely on jumpers to "handle" it. That leaves USPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No...I pull because I want to. Nobody from USPA has ever pulled for me. I don't pull low to be macho. I have nly done so in the interest of skydiving safely in bad circumstances. And if I was grounded you would still be wrong...I would just go to another DZ until my restrictions were lifted where I want to jump. But, I am not talking about pulling low like 800ft. I mean the brief moment where you watch the person above you delploy before you throw because they tracked over you. So, maybe I should just dump into someones face? But, rules are rules, despite what ever else may be going on. Riught?!? Well, that is what USPA thinks.
No...losing more freedom is not worth the tradeoff. I know that this is my personal decision and I know very few people share it. But I believe there is balance in everything.
No...the S&TA did not handle it appropriately if what you say is true. But, Danny was allowed to do this on every DZ. So, Now what you have is still a training issue since I have NEVER known Danny to be grounded. The S&TA has the authority on the DZ. If he was too weak to stand his ground he should have been fired. Particularly if he believed what was occurring was unsafe. But I doubt that he really ever addressed the issue. I do not know who the S&TA is and I don't want to know at this point. By your arguement, he could have saved my friends life and he failed miserably.
This is a DZ issue, let the DZ's resolve it. If they feel they need seperate landing areas, let them. If they feel they can not control it, they can close. The bottom line is thet we need tough people to make tough decisions. We do notneed Big Brothers involvement..
Everyone - I apologize for hording this thread. I will try not to be so reactive and just listen. I just do not believe that USPA should set forth BSR's on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0