Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

[hukturn 0]

One question I have failed to ask. In the spirit of your proposed BSR, how would you seperate landing areas on small DZ's? Would you advocate the crossing of two seperate landing patterns?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The bottom line is thet we need tough people to make tough decisions.

and if a BSR gives a DZO and an S&TA justification to grow a pair on this issue?

as you said, the BSR is interesting, but it doesn't make us use good judgment, but it is a good set of basic safety "recommendations" for DZOs and S&TAs to be tough (and consistent from DZ to DZ)

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

One question I have failed to ask. In the spirit of your proposed BSR, how would you seperate landing areas on small DZ's? Would you advocate the crossing of two seperate landing patterns?

In the spirit of a the proposed BSR, don't ask Billvon, ask a DZO with a small DZ.

...
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

[stayhigh 2]

woudln't canopy still be in conflict in HP landing area, ppl doing diffrent degree of turn, 180 vs 270 vs 360??

so do we need THREE diffrent HP landing area??? or is swooper just has to look out for themselves?? IF all swoopers are cool with option of landing in same area regardless of ppl doing diffrent turning technique and if they are fine with it,, that means/proves swooper are not the problem to canopy fatalites.

how about ppl with skyslug trying to learn HP, do they still go to HP and land with other zoomies???

even if we somehow make ppl just to 90 degree turn wouldn't there still be canopy issue when we try to merge in????

and mixing faster canopy with slow canopy we'll still have issue even if all landing are done on 100 mile straight away, all landing in same direction......

MORE canopy in air=more canopy collision
simple as that, unless we make canopy that could hover..

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[billvon 2,379]

> No...I pull because I want to. Nobody from USPA has ever pulled for me.
>I don't pull low to be macho.

Right. Unfortunately, some people DO still pull low. That BSR helps keep them alive, because there's really no argument as to whether pulling at 800 feet is OK. It's not - here's the BSR.

Likewise, most people don't swoop in crowded airspace. A few do; a few have killed other people. This BSR will do nothing for you, or the vast majority of skydivers who have common sense. It will help save the next Bob from the next Danny.

>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.

There IS a pull altitude BSR. And you do NOT pull by 2000 feet when required to for safety reasons. So your argument is invalid.

>No...losing more freedom is not worth the tradeoff.

Then avoid USPA dropzones. They have BSR's.

>No...the S&TA did not handle it appropriately if what you say is true.

How would he have handled it appropriately?

>But, Danny was allowed to do this on every DZ.

Right - because there is no rule common to all DZ's that says his behavior is unacceptable. That's what we are trying to solve.

> 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.

I was once in that S+TA's shoes. There were three new swoopers at our DZ who we knew were going to injure or kill themselves or someone else. I did everything I could to prevent that - talked to them, told them they had to upsize. Didn't work. Finally I grounded them.

That didn't work either. They went to another DZ, then bragged to me that I had no power over them there. I got them grounded there too because I knew the owners. They went to a second; same thing. Finally they went to a third where the DZO didn't know me, and they were able to jump.

One broke his femur; that was enough to 'scare him straight.' The second broke his thumb. That wasn't enough, and he later broke his pelvis so badly that he will never walk without crutches again. The third one (fortunately) got spooked by all that and stopped jumping before anything happened to him.

Needless to say, I was the asshole that was "playing politics." I "hated swoopers." I "didn't understand their skills because I wasn't a swooper." I was "just jealous of their skill." "Why don't you leave us the fuck alone and go back to your little pond where you can be the big fish?"

Now, we are all fortunate these three didn't take anyone else with them. But if they had - what else could I have done? After all, there was no BSR I could point to to say "hey, enforce it." And the S+TA there didn't know me, so he had to go through the whole learning process with these guys all over again.

>This is a DZ issue, let the DZ's resolve it.

I agree. Pass a BSR that requires separation, and let DZO's decide how to handle that.

>The bottom line is thet we need tough people to make tough decisions.
>We do notneed Big Brothers involvement.

If we could handle it on our own, that would be great. So far we can't. And when people like Danny are killing other people who are doing their best to land safely - then we need tough people to make tough decisions to protect skydivers. Not just at one DZ, but everywhere in the US. It's not OK that friends of mine get killed by someone else just because they are at another DZ. We all share the skies.

[billvon 2,379]

>In the spirit of your proposed BSR, how would you seperate landing areas on small DZ's?

Up to them. Perhaps they would separate them by time, so that swoopers land first, then standard pattern people. Perhaps they would separate the landing area with a line of flags, or dig a swoop pond, or have swoopers on one side of the runway. Every DZ will be different.

[stayhigh 2]

okay example 1.
4 way RW team exiting first with big sized canopy, followed by freefliers with extra small canopy, followed by even smaller canopy which tandem cameramen uses.

do we make freefliers exit first?? or RW team still goes first?? or than do we make that tandem cameramen exit first and hope that somehow he can use the wing to float and wait for tandems???

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

okay example 1.
4 way RW team exiting first with big sized canopy, followed by freefliers with extra small canopy, followed by even smaller canopy which tandem cameramen uses.

do we make freefliers exit first?? or RW team still goes first?? or than do we make that tandem cameramen exit first and hope that somehow he can use the wing to float and wait for tandems???

The intention to swoop or not doesn't change safe exit order.

If the pattern isn't clear, you dont swoop. How difficult is that?

Want to 'get your swoop on' over everything else? Take a H&P.

Want to do your FS stuff first? Accept the fact that you may not be able to swoop due to traffic.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

okay example 1.
4 way RW team exiting first with big sized canopy, followed by freefliers with extra small canopy,

typically, it's the other way around.

4way experienced team has little canopies, newbies learning to freefly with less than 100 jumps with boats

actually - 4way little canopies out first, 2way belly newbies with big canopies, experienced freefliers with little, freefly wannabes with boats leaving as solos - tandems with compatible cameramen since the canopy video is needed too.

but the exit separation thing is to avoid freefall collisions - 1st priority, canopy separation is 2nd to that and can be handled otherwise with different landing areas and different passes. This has been beaten up so much, I can't believe you are bringing it up again in such a clumsy fashion.

you want to get your swoop on? take a low pass or open high. Or join that first out/first over group (4way or whatever) and make sure your teammates know you are counting on being first down.

...
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 2,379]

>4 way RW team exiting first with big sized canopy, followed by freefliers
> with extra small canopy, followed by even smaller canopy which tandem
>cameramen uses.

>do we make freefliers exit first??

RW exits first for exit separation safety. What they do on landing is up to each DZ.

>or than do we make that tandem cameramen exit first and hope that
>somehow he can use the wing to float and wait for tandems???

Tandem cameramen generally pull shortly after the tandem does, putting them significantly higher. What he does on landing is up to the DZ.

[hukturn 0]

"The intention to swoop or not doesn't change safe exit order.
If the pattern isn't clear, you dont swoop. How difficult is that?
Want to 'get your swoop on' over everything else? Take a H&P.
Want to do your FS stuff first? Accept the fact that you may not be able to swoop due to traffic. "


The best recommendation I have heard from anyone thus far, by far. And, these are mangeable at the DZ level so you don't need BSR's to do it and they do not require segregated LZ's. Ultimately it is ging to rest on the shoulders of the S&TA or DZO to enforce anyway, no matter whether it is local policy or BSR. Great job translating all of this thread into a few sentences...you have my vote.

[mnealtx 0]

I don't necessarily DISagree with the "leave it up to the STA/DZO" approach - the problem is enforcement. The BSR lets the STA/DZO enforce it without it being a "hating on the swoopers" type of situation.

It puts teeth behind the action, AND it gets everyone on the same sheet of music. Everyone then knows that they're NOT going to get away with pulling dumbass stunts in traffic REGARDLESS of where they're jumping.

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

[marks 0]

creating a "rule" because a DZO is too much of a pussy to stand up isn't what we are after...

the dzo is the one that is going to have to stand up either way you look at it.

some already have.

[hukturn 0]

My only point of contention in this is that the "teeth" are still going to be at the DZ level. You do not need USPA for that. You can establish a local policy and if anyone violates it, ground them.

This is not a "hate the swoopers" issue. This is a safety issue. We can swoop safely, realatively speaking. No matter what, the S&TA or DZO will be the hated one...the enforcer. So, why even involvbe USPA?

Still love your ideas, though. Is this the policy at your DZ?

[mnealtx 0]

Agreed - it's up to the DZO and STA to make those decisions. Some haven't...or some haven't made hard enough decisions.

I mentioned that the BSR would put teeth into the DZO / STA's threats of grounding - that is still true.

However, you're both still missing a point - those same teeth then go into USPA's relationship with the DZO.

Let's say that this BSR goes into effect - do you think the STA / DZO is going to blow off grounding or banning someone that asshats around in traffic, knowing that their licenses / certs / membership could be at stake?

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

[wmw999 2,114]

Quote

If the pattern isn't clear, you dont swoop. How difficult is that?

It's been fatally too difficult for at least 6 people in the last four years; 4 of them in the last year or so. We could ground them, but, well, they're already dead. And in some cases, other people are dead too.

Wendy W.

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

[diablopilot 2]

I might agree on two of the Eloy incidents (hotdogs on holliday discounted of course), but Bob was not jumping at a USPA GM DZ, and the student/student incident at Elow would have probably still happened.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Bob was not jumping at a USPA GM DZ

Only germane if you are saying that NO non-GM DZ follows ANY of the BSRs. A non-GM DZO can still choose to follow a BSR.

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

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

Bob was not jumping at a USPA GM DZ

Only germane if you are saying that NO non-GM DZ follows ANY of the BSRs. A non-GM DZO can still choose to follow a BSR.

true, but what is also true is the teeth you speak of is not there either.

[nbblood 0]

Quote

The petition is:

We, the undersigned, support a BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings.

It seems to me that this petition only indicates the problem with only a vague stab at any proposed resolution. What this petition says to me is "we have a problem, fix it for me please". Yeah, I got it, the BOD should help with solutions. Yeah, Ok, separate landing areas. What does that mean? How do you propose we separate landing areas? What about DZs that simply don't have the space to separate landing areas? What are the specific requirements that make landing areas "separated"? There's some pretty good recommendations, including diagrams and such on this site. But as far as I can tell, this doesn't include any specific measures to fix the problem.

This petition just provides a whole list of problems with no proposed solutions. It really annoys me, people tell me things are all jacked up and they need to be fixed but don't have any recommended solutions.

Is there something to this petition besides this that I'm missing?

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[kallend 1,619]

Quote

Quote

The petition is:

We, the undersigned, support a BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings.

It seems to me that this petition only indicates the problem with only a vague stab at any proposed resolution. What this petition says to me is "we have a problem, fix it for me please". Yeah, I got it, the BOD should help with solutions. Yeah, Ok, separate landing areas. What does that mean? How do you propose we separate landing areas? What about DZs that simply don't have the space to separate landing areas? What are the specific requirements that make landing areas "separated"? There's some pretty good recommendations, including diagrams and such on this site. But as far as I can tell, this doesn't include any specific measures to fix the problem.

This petition just provides a whole list of problems with no proposed solutions. It really annoys me, people tell me things are all jacked up and they need to be fixed but don't have any recommended solutions.

Is there something to this petition besides this that I'm missing?

You have mis-stated it, and the rest of your post is therefore moot. Separating landings does NOT necessarly imply separate landing areas.

Secondly, each DZ is unique, so a centrally mandated solution is highly unlikely to work and will just piss people off. That's why it is smart to allow each DZ to taylor a solution to its particular circumstances.

...

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

[billvon 2,379]

>What this petition says to me is "we have a problem, fix it for me please".

Actually, the petition says "tell drop zones to fix their problems."

>Yeah, Ok, separate landing areas. What does that mean?

It might mean physically separate areas, or one area with a line down the middle and opposite pattern directions. It might mean a separation by time; swoopers land first. It's up to each DZ.

>How do you propose we separate landing areas?

See above.

>What about DZs that simply don't have the space to separate landing areas?

They can do it by time if they so choose, or use the line method.

>What are the specific requirements that make landing areas "separated"?

See Brian Germain's article for a good overview. If you have suggestions, I invite you to write to your RD or come to the USPA meeting in July to give your input.

>But as far as I can tell, this doesn't include any specific measures to fix the problem.

Right. One specific measure that works for dropzone A may not work for dropzone B. We originally had three recommendations - two specific (separation in time, separation in space) and one more general (each DZO choose on their own.) Based on feedback we've gotten here, via PM's, emails and phone calls, the third option seems to be the winner, since it gives DZ's the flexibility to solve their own problems.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

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...... 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?

I get your point here, a BSR would not change what anyone would do (I believe) In fact as far as I care you could get rid of this BSR.

If SOMEONE smokes it in low, screws up their EP's and goes in I am going to be sorry, and miss them, and it's bad for the sport. BUT and its a BIG BUT....they killed themself. They didn't take me with them.

Obviously personal freedoms mean a lot to you. Me to. But I'm sure you agree that as, Bill pointed out, you understand the need to not drink and drive. You give that freedom up - or not - but if you are caught you pay a price. There is also (as one gets older) peer preassure to not drink and drive.

A BSR for this will do the same. When it becomes the "norm" to not swoop in traffic because of the BSR, when a low time jump can say "hey what the hell are you doing and the big jump number, swooper god will have nothing that can be said other than "oops" plus a lot more people have the right to say something if there is a BSR

And for the record if a swooper cuts off another swooper it's just as bad. It a normal pattern flyer cuts off another N.P.F. it's just as bad but if you seperate the two at least I know that there is a better chance that the other pilot will be doing a 90.

Good luck be safe

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

[kallend 1,619]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bob was not jumping at a USPA GM DZ

Only germane if you are saying that NO non-GM DZ follows ANY of the BSRs. A non-GM DZO can still choose to follow a BSR.

true, but what is also true is the teeth you speak of is not there either.

If a certain safety practice becomes industry standard, then non-compliance leading to an accident exposes the business to liability.

...

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

[kallend 1,619]

We are hearing a lot of WHINING about the BSR proposal, but I'd like to know if ANYONE thinks mixing high performance landings and normal pattern landings is a good, or even an acceptable, idea?

...

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