billvon 2,400 #151 June 21, 2007 >I like to dream the dream that skydivers can police themselves. >It's worked at every DZ I 've jumped at. It works at some DZ's, not others (as we've seen.) One of the reasons that it works some places and not others is that there is no common set of recommendations/rules to follow, so it's fairly hit or miss. >You have both been around long enough to spot "that guy" before >you even get on the plane. Forcefully explain to everyone that IF they >intend to be a hotshot - they pitch high and land last. End of story. Never >had anyone disagree. Just grow the balls to take control of the load. I've met "that guy." You can talk until you're blue in the face, and he's very nice about it - but he has a good reason to spiral down past you and land first. Why not? There are no rules against it. >The USPA doesn't need a bunch of empowerment-hungry yahoos getting another BSR. We need skydivers killed by yahoos even less. I will take annoying a few rebellious anti-establishment yahoos over seeing them dead any day. >Even though I'm certain a BSR would instantly correct all dangerous behavior. No, it wouldn't. But it will help correct it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #152 June 21, 2007 QuoteBecause it's a waste of paper...which is undoubtedly exacerbating global warming. I'm all about the green. When you come to my DZ(s), I promise the swoopers will be well behaved. Come one, come all. Still not an articulative reply - I'll take that to mean that you don't actually have a reason you can list...you're just against it. What number was that on your list, Walt?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #153 June 21, 2007 I could articulate until the cows come home...and have done so in several posts. You wouldn't accept it regardless. So I'll not waste my precious time...again. If you read s-l-o-w-l-y---up---you'll see I even conceded a very good point. Show me some proof where a BSR regarding low pulls made significant inroads. It would be statistically insignificant simply due to the lack of population. Nothing against the good intentions - just the example. (personally I thought that was a poor example for someone so interested in articulation since MANY more people are croaking due to landing accidents than ever did low-pulling). We are dealing with a growth problem in BASE. Walt's aware of THAT discussion. Skydiving is having difficulty retaining membership. I am certain of one very prominent difference in the two. Give you an articulated cookie if you can point it out. And yes - it's relevant to this discussion. And a stunning example of self-regulation. Stick that on your "they don't agree with me so they must automatically be wrong" list.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #154 June 21, 2007 QuoteI could articulate until the cows come home...and have done so in several posts. You wouldn't accept it regardless. So I'll not waste my precious time...again. If you read s-l-o-w-l-y---up---you'll see I even conceded a very good point. Show me some proof where a BSR regarding low pulls made significant inroads. It would be statistically insignificant simply due to the lack of population. Nothing against the good intentions - just the example. (personally I thought that was a poor example for someone so interested in articulation since MANY more people are croaking due to landing accidents than ever did low-pulling). We are dealing with a growth problem in BASE. Walt's aware of THAT discussion. Skydiving is having difficulty retaining membership. I am certain of one very prominent difference in the two. Give you an articulated cookie if you can point it out. And yes - it's relevant to this discussion. And a stunning example of self-regulation. Stick that on your "they don't agree with me so they must automatically be wrong" list. Oooh.... poor widdle BASEr got his feeling hurt?? Put on your big boy pants, stop whining about how we're 'harshing your vibe' and come up with a VIABLE alternative. I see you don't have a problem with USPA as long as it's something that benefits you... rather hypocritical of you, Mr. "C" license holder. All the "education" and "letting DZ's decide" is what led us to this point - it's an excuse to continue the status quo of "I can do what I want, when I want" and it's time to make a change.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #155 June 21, 2007 I don't have feelings...you need to do more research. Big-boy pants? Um, OK. You got me there - I generally shy away from adversity, icky things, and spiders. And there was never a whine. Simply a point. And my alternative is very viable. Wow. I must say I am impressed however that the best PA you could come up with is attacking licenses. Bravo. Do the math and figure out when I got that measly license. Impress me. - Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #156 June 21, 2007 QuoteI don't have feelings...you need to do more research. And there was never a whine. Simply a point. And my alternative is very viable. Wow. I must say I am impressed however that the best PA you could come up with is attacking licenses. Bravo. I will assume by your statement that anyone with less than a D license should obstain from opinion? Do the math and figure out when I got that measly license. Impress me. I don't really CARE when you got your license. My post about hypocrisy IS, however, valid...you only care about what USPA is doing when it negatively affects you. You still haven't come up with something that GUARANTEES action by DZO / STA's. It's equally obvious that the "educate, not legislate" branch is having some problems with their curriculum, since people keep getting killed by other jumpers. Please, show me how a alternative that allows a DZ to take NO action to prevent mixing HP and standard landings to be 'viable'. 90% of the arguments against the proposed BSR can be boiled down to "how DARE they try to tell me what / where I can swoop" or "it'll never work, so we shouldn't do anything at all". Other discussions that actually had constructive ideas resulted in changes to the initial draft of the BSR. I know which group *I* am representing - I imagine you do, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para_Frog 1 #157 June 21, 2007 QuoteYou still haven't come up with something that GUARANTEES action by DZO / STA's. Quote BSRs guarantee nothing. They are guidelines, not laws. YOU guys explained that one ad infinitum in this very thread! I dare say my expressing to a peer on the DZ that he will get squashed if he violates landing rules has more teeth than a guideline. Though I will concede to BillV that yes - there are those beyond influence of even threatened alien probing. Now what's your answer again? Oh...a BSR. OK...good on ya. Bryan Burke once enforced a low-pull no-no on yours truly - in 1993. What made it stick was that good ol' "I oughta beat you." I was a punk kid and had no idea what a BSR was. (new flash - there are new ones out there). It was getting booted and seeing "The" man pissed that worked.- Harvey, BASE 1232 TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA BLiNC Magazine Team Member Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nbblood 0 #158 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #159 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou still haven't come up with something that GUARANTEES action by DZO / STA's. Quote BSRs guarantee nothing. They are guidelines, not laws. YOU guys explained that one ad infinitum in this very thread! Absolutely - yet, what does USPA do to DZ's and instructors that consistently, knowingly violate safety rules? That's an incentive for the DZ to 'get it done' and subsequently make operations at their DZ safer. QuoteI dare say my expressing to a peer on the DZ that he will get squashed if he violates landing rules has more teeth than a guideline. Though I will concede to BillV that yes - there are those beyond influence of even threatened alien probing. Yes... and a BSR will put that same "keep it up and get squashed" meme into the relationship between USPA and offending DZs, as well as between DZOs that may have wanted to do something similar but were worried about backlash from local jumpers. And again, it lets the DZO do it without the backlash from local jumpers that "they're perscuting the swoopers". QuoteNow what's your answer again? Oh...a BSR. OK...good on ya. What's yours? Oh....the same "education" theme that hasn't worked yet - easily provable, since jumpers are killing OTHER jumpers in the pattern. QuoteBryan Burke once enforced a low-pull no-no on yours truly - in 1993. What made it stick was that good ol' "I oughta beat you." I was a punk kid and had no idea what a BSR was. (new flash - there are new ones out there). It was getting booted and seeing "The" man pissed that worked. Yup. And the proposed BSRs will not only make USPA "the man" in relation to a DZ that allows swooping in traffic, but makes the DZ "the man" in relation to the jumper that does it. With the proposed BSR, there's more pressure on the DZO / STA to make sure that jumpers "fly right" because it could have more of an impact on the DZO - something that doesn't exist now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #160 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns?... 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 nbblood 0 #161 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute?Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #162 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute? Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule.... 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 hukturn 0 #163 June 21, 2007 Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. BSR's are violated everyday and S&TA's let it pass everyday. USPA does not know what is good for every DZ. common boanket policy will not change anything. DZ's don't take ownership, it fades and before long you are right back to point A. But, if you let the DZ's decide what s best at their operation, they are much more inclined to take ownership. "Yes", I am opposed to seperated landing areas. But, I am not arguing this point because I know it may work at some DZ's. It may even be very necessaru at some DZ's. What I am arguing is that it is not a USPA / BSR issue. It is a DZ issue that DZ's need to solve at a local level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nbblood 0 #164 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute? Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule. And also quite possible and even likely even if there IS a BSR. I guess what I'm trying to say, apparently ineffectually, is that if we're going to spend the time and effort to implement a BSR, why not provide specific recommendations for HOW to separate landings. There are a ton of good ideas out there. I realize that each specific DZ has specific issues to address and one solution doesn't fit all. But if a BSR contained recommendations to separate landings, I feel it would be more useful. For example DZ's should separate HP and normal pattern landings. Measures to help DZs separate landings include, but are not limited to: a. identifying separate landing areas for HP and normal pattern landings. b. separate landings by time. c. .... d. .... Include one or more of the diagrams to illustrate. In other words, provide a toolbox, instead of just saying fix it. It may have the potential to be useful then. Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule.Quote And what does this proposal do? It merely shifts the blame. Whew, we have somebody to blame now. Now what? Impose punishment on the DZ? How does that address the problem? If there's going to be a BSR, provide the tools to meet the BSR. That's what I'm trying to say.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #165 June 21, 2007 > Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. Correct. But it will make it MUCH more likely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #166 June 21, 2007 No. People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. Thus if the DZ develops the policy instead of being force fed by USPA, they are more likely to take action against infractions. I've no idea of your experiences in the Corporate world. I wish mine were a little less. But, it is a common fact that employees are more productive and take a proactive approach to leading their peers. Guess what...this idea is not restricted to the Corporate world. When toddlers are allowed to make decisions in the family setting, they are generally better behaved. Why? Because they recognize their involvement in the decision making process. People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #167 June 21, 2007 >People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. I agree, which is why we're trying to involve as many people as possible. >Thus if the DZ develops the policy instead of being force fed by USPA, they >are more likely to take action against infractions. Actually they are far more likely to do nothing. Why bother? Why deal with cranky jumpers if you don't have to? >People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. >Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy >collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. We ARE USPA. They are not a bunch of suits in a board room somewhere. They are us. We elect them and tell them what to do, and if they implement this BSR, it will be because they are listening to skydivers who want it. We are now trying to involve as many people as possible in the decisionmaking process so we can get a good rule. Doing nothing, or just listing the usual do-nothing solutions ("we need education, not regulation! But nothing mandatory, just a lot of optional stuff that no one will ever read") won't fix the problem - and there _is_ a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #168 June 21, 2007 Nobody here has said that there is not a problem. In fact, I think that is widely recognized that there is a valid concern. Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #169 June 22, 2007 >Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible > outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? No, there are still plenty of places that mix patterns without thinking about it much. >Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? No. Most jumpers do not spend their days posting on the internet, and many people who post heavily do not jump much. >Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky >S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. I think perhaps you might want to rethink who works for who at a dropzone. >1) We don't need a BSR Many people disagree. >2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). Correct. Which is why I support a BSR that simply requires separation; let each DZO decide how to best implement it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #170 June 22, 2007 QuoteNobody here has said that there is not a problem. In fact, I think that is widely recognized that there is a valid concern. Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? Only if every skydiver reads dz.com Quote Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. So you want a rule that meek S&TAs be fired. (How else would your suggestion be implemented?) And who gets to fire DZOs? Quote The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Have you been reading the discussion at all?... 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 nbblood 0 #171 June 22, 2007 QuoteOnly if every skydiver reads dz.com Are you really implying that you HAVE to read DZ.com to understand what's going on in skydiving and what current trends are??!!Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #172 June 22, 2007 >Are you really implying that you HAVE to read DZ.com to understand >what's going on in skydiving and what current trends are??!! No. Hukturn said that since the discussion here on DZ.com has gone on a long time, "the general skydiving population has spoken." Kallend and I believe that posters on dropzone.com do not represent the entire skydiving population, and thus you can't claim that all skydivers "have spoken." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FlipColmer 0 #173 June 22, 2007 Hello ParaFrog ***Bryan Burke once enforced a low-pull no-no on yours truly - in 1993. What made it stick was that good ol' "I oughta beat you." I was a punk kid and had no idea what a BSR was.*** However, Bryan did because USPA instituted the opening altitude BSR as the foundation for altitude safety. By having the BSR, there is something to educate to. Then when an old hand comes to some "punk kid" they have something to hang their hat on other than 'because I told you so.' That's why we want a landing pattern BSR. It will focus the DZs attention on the problem and therefore each individual jumper will have their attention shifted to the problem. Blue SKies, Flip PS Having had my share of altitude lectures from the safety folks over the years, some of us need the BSR more than others! (g) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DirtyDon 0 #174 June 23, 2007 Please add my name to the petition. Don Carr D28253 USPA# 165508 Good Luck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #175 June 23, 2007 "Only if every skydiver reads dz.com" No, dz.com represents a cross sectioon of the overall skydiving demographic. I believe the participants here are proportionate to the others who do not post. Just as on the DZ, people from all walks of life participate on dz.com. "So you want a rule that meek S&TAs be fired. (How else would your suggestion be implemented?)" Yes and no. I want people who are paid to to a job to do it. If you don't have the balls, don't take the job. What it means is that the S&TA's must stringently apply the rules to everyone. You can not make an exception for the AFF-I just because he works for the DZ. The rules are for everyone and if the S&TA can not apply them then you need another S&TA. "And who gets to fire DZOs?" More illustrative. It would really require a seperation of the skydiver from the DZ if they did not believe that the rules were fair and consistent. "Have you been reading the discussion at all?" Absolutely. Which is part of why I understand the need for someone to represent the greater good rather than allowing the introduction of needless legislation without rebuttal. The idea of seperated landing areas may work in some areas...but not all. Which is why the BSR does not work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 7 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 Go To Topic Listing
nbblood 0 #158 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #159 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteYou still haven't come up with something that GUARANTEES action by DZO / STA's. Quote BSRs guarantee nothing. They are guidelines, not laws. YOU guys explained that one ad infinitum in this very thread! Absolutely - yet, what does USPA do to DZ's and instructors that consistently, knowingly violate safety rules? That's an incentive for the DZ to 'get it done' and subsequently make operations at their DZ safer. QuoteI dare say my expressing to a peer on the DZ that he will get squashed if he violates landing rules has more teeth than a guideline. Though I will concede to BillV that yes - there are those beyond influence of even threatened alien probing. Yes... and a BSR will put that same "keep it up and get squashed" meme into the relationship between USPA and offending DZs, as well as between DZOs that may have wanted to do something similar but were worried about backlash from local jumpers. And again, it lets the DZO do it without the backlash from local jumpers that "they're perscuting the swoopers". QuoteNow what's your answer again? Oh...a BSR. OK...good on ya. What's yours? Oh....the same "education" theme that hasn't worked yet - easily provable, since jumpers are killing OTHER jumpers in the pattern. QuoteBryan Burke once enforced a low-pull no-no on yours truly - in 1993. What made it stick was that good ol' "I oughta beat you." I was a punk kid and had no idea what a BSR was. (new flash - there are new ones out there). It was getting booted and seeing "The" man pissed that worked. Yup. And the proposed BSRs will not only make USPA "the man" in relation to a DZ that allows swooping in traffic, but makes the DZ "the man" in relation to the jumper that does it. With the proposed BSR, there's more pressure on the DZO / STA to make sure that jumpers "fly right" because it could have more of an impact on the DZO - something that doesn't exist now.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #160 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns?... 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 nbblood 0 #161 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute?Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #162 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute? Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule.... 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 hukturn 0 #163 June 21, 2007 Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. BSR's are violated everyday and S&TA's let it pass everyday. USPA does not know what is good for every DZ. common boanket policy will not change anything. DZ's don't take ownership, it fades and before long you are right back to point A. But, if you let the DZ's decide what s best at their operation, they are much more inclined to take ownership. "Yes", I am opposed to seperated landing areas. But, I am not arguing this point because I know it may work at some DZ's. It may even be very necessaru at some DZ's. What I am arguing is that it is not a USPA / BSR issue. It is a DZ issue that DZ's need to solve at a local level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nbblood 0 #164 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute? Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule. And also quite possible and even likely even if there IS a BSR. I guess what I'm trying to say, apparently ineffectually, is that if we're going to spend the time and effort to implement a BSR, why not provide specific recommendations for HOW to separate landings. There are a ton of good ideas out there. I realize that each specific DZ has specific issues to address and one solution doesn't fit all. But if a BSR contained recommendations to separate landings, I feel it would be more useful. For example DZ's should separate HP and normal pattern landings. Measures to help DZs separate landings include, but are not limited to: a. identifying separate landing areas for HP and normal pattern landings. b. separate landings by time. c. .... d. .... Include one or more of the diagrams to illustrate. In other words, provide a toolbox, instead of just saying fix it. It may have the potential to be useful then. Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule.Quote And what does this proposal do? It merely shifts the blame. Whew, we have somebody to blame now. Now what? Impose punishment on the DZ? How does that address the problem? If there's going to be a BSR, provide the tools to meet the BSR. That's what I'm trying to say.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #165 June 21, 2007 > Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. Correct. But it will make it MUCH more likely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #166 June 21, 2007 No. People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. Thus if the DZ develops the policy instead of being force fed by USPA, they are more likely to take action against infractions. I've no idea of your experiences in the Corporate world. I wish mine were a little less. But, it is a common fact that employees are more productive and take a proactive approach to leading their peers. Guess what...this idea is not restricted to the Corporate world. When toddlers are allowed to make decisions in the family setting, they are generally better behaved. Why? Because they recognize their involvement in the decision making process. People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #167 June 21, 2007 >People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. I agree, which is why we're trying to involve as many people as possible. >Thus if the DZ develops the policy instead of being force fed by USPA, they >are more likely to take action against infractions. Actually they are far more likely to do nothing. Why bother? Why deal with cranky jumpers if you don't have to? >People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. >Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy >collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. We ARE USPA. They are not a bunch of suits in a board room somewhere. They are us. We elect them and tell them what to do, and if they implement this BSR, it will be because they are listening to skydivers who want it. We are now trying to involve as many people as possible in the decisionmaking process so we can get a good rule. Doing nothing, or just listing the usual do-nothing solutions ("we need education, not regulation! But nothing mandatory, just a lot of optional stuff that no one will ever read") won't fix the problem - and there _is_ a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #168 June 21, 2007 Nobody here has said that there is not a problem. In fact, I think that is widely recognized that there is a valid concern. Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #169 June 22, 2007 >Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible > outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? No, there are still plenty of places that mix patterns without thinking about it much. >Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? No. Most jumpers do not spend their days posting on the internet, and many people who post heavily do not jump much. >Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky >S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. I think perhaps you might want to rethink who works for who at a dropzone. >1) We don't need a BSR Many people disagree. >2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). Correct. Which is why I support a BSR that simply requires separation; let each DZO decide how to best implement it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #170 June 22, 2007 QuoteNobody here has said that there is not a problem. In fact, I think that is widely recognized that there is a valid concern. Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? Only if every skydiver reads dz.com Quote Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. So you want a rule that meek S&TAs be fired. (How else would your suggestion be implemented?) And who gets to fire DZOs? Quote The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Have you been reading the discussion at all?... 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 nbblood 0 #171 June 22, 2007 QuoteOnly if every skydiver reads dz.com Are you really implying that you HAVE to read DZ.com to understand what's going on in skydiving and what current trends are??!!Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #172 June 22, 2007 >Are you really implying that you HAVE to read DZ.com to understand >what's going on in skydiving and what current trends are??!! No. Hukturn said that since the discussion here on DZ.com has gone on a long time, "the general skydiving population has spoken." Kallend and I believe that posters on dropzone.com do not represent the entire skydiving population, and thus you can't claim that all skydivers "have spoken." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FlipColmer 0 #173 June 22, 2007 Hello ParaFrog ***Bryan Burke once enforced a low-pull no-no on yours truly - in 1993. What made it stick was that good ol' "I oughta beat you." I was a punk kid and had no idea what a BSR was.*** However, Bryan did because USPA instituted the opening altitude BSR as the foundation for altitude safety. By having the BSR, there is something to educate to. Then when an old hand comes to some "punk kid" they have something to hang their hat on other than 'because I told you so.' That's why we want a landing pattern BSR. It will focus the DZs attention on the problem and therefore each individual jumper will have their attention shifted to the problem. Blue SKies, Flip PS Having had my share of altitude lectures from the safety folks over the years, some of us need the BSR more than others! (g) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DirtyDon 0 #174 June 23, 2007 Please add my name to the petition. Don Carr D28253 USPA# 165508 Good Luck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #175 June 23, 2007 "Only if every skydiver reads dz.com" No, dz.com represents a cross sectioon of the overall skydiving demographic. I believe the participants here are proportionate to the others who do not post. Just as on the DZ, people from all walks of life participate on dz.com. "So you want a rule that meek S&TAs be fired. (How else would your suggestion be implemented?)" Yes and no. I want people who are paid to to a job to do it. If you don't have the balls, don't take the job. What it means is that the S&TA's must stringently apply the rules to everyone. You can not make an exception for the AFF-I just because he works for the DZ. The rules are for everyone and if the S&TA can not apply them then you need another S&TA. "And who gets to fire DZOs?" More illustrative. It would really require a seperation of the skydiver from the DZ if they did not believe that the rules were fair and consistent. "Have you been reading the discussion at all?" Absolutely. Which is part of why I understand the need for someone to represent the greater good rather than allowing the introduction of needless legislation without rebuttal. The idea of seperated landing areas may work in some areas...but not all. Which is why the BSR does not work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 7 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 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,623 #160 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns?... 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
nbblood 0 #161 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute?Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #162 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute? Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule.... 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
hukturn 0 #163 June 21, 2007 Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. BSR's are violated everyday and S&TA's let it pass everyday. USPA does not know what is good for every DZ. common boanket policy will not change anything. DZ's don't take ownership, it fades and before long you are right back to point A. But, if you let the DZ's decide what s best at their operation, they are much more inclined to take ownership. "Yes", I am opposed to seperated landing areas. But, I am not arguing this point because I know it may work at some DZ's. It may even be very necessaru at some DZ's. What I am arguing is that it is not a USPA / BSR issue. It is a DZ issue that DZ's need to solve at a local level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #164 June 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote 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? No, I don't think it's a good idea. . OK, so what IS your proposal to deal with a situation that you think is NOT a good idea. Well, MY proposal is let the DZs handle their specific issues and forget the BSR proposal as this one is stated. However, I've seen many good ideas that I think are reasonable and well thought out proposals and I may be in favor of some specific recommendation should it be proposed. However, the petition as it reads now is not useful. DZs already recognize the problem and many are making adjustments. A BSR that simply says to separate landing areas is unlikely, IMO, to be effective at all. So why? Again, if a recommendation that provided for different situations at different DZs were proposed, I may be in favor. However, right now I think let the DZs handle it. Apparently that's all the proposed BSR is saying anyway. So what would your "specific recommendation" be? What about the DZ's that do nothing? You seem to arguing that a BSR is too specific and too vague both at the same time. Well, I thought I clearly said my specific proposal was to let the DZs handle it and forget the BSR. However, I'm not closing my mind to well thought out recommendations such as have been discussed. Right now, though my proposal is let the DZs handle the issue. Many seem to be doing so already anyway. I'm not arguing that a BSR is too specific, not sure how you derived that. Really, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. If you think DZs should come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns (which you have already indicated is a good idea), what exactly is your objection to USPA telling DZs to come up with their own plan to ensure separation between swoopers and those doing standard landing patterns? QuoteReally, I'm not against this petition as proposed. I just don't think it will change anything as written and see it as a waste of effort and time. Are you really reading what I post or just trying to incite dispute? Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule. And also quite possible and even likely even if there IS a BSR. I guess what I'm trying to say, apparently ineffectually, is that if we're going to spend the time and effort to implement a BSR, why not provide specific recommendations for HOW to separate landings. There are a ton of good ideas out there. I realize that each specific DZ has specific issues to address and one solution doesn't fit all. But if a BSR contained recommendations to separate landings, I feel it would be more useful. For example DZ's should separate HP and normal pattern landings. Measures to help DZs separate landings include, but are not limited to: a. identifying separate landing areas for HP and normal pattern landings. b. separate landings by time. c. .... d. .... Include one or more of the diagrams to illustrate. In other words, provide a toolbox, instead of just saying fix it. It may have the potential to be useful then. Not at all - you haven't addressed what happens in the case a DZ doesn't bother to do anything to implement this "good idea", which is quite possible if there's no rule.Quote And what does this proposal do? It merely shifts the blame. Whew, we have somebody to blame now. Now what? Impose punishment on the DZ? How does that address the problem? If there's going to be a BSR, provide the tools to meet the BSR. That's what I'm trying to say.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #165 June 21, 2007 > Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. Correct. But it will make it MUCH more likely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #166 June 21, 2007 No. People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. Thus if the DZ develops the policy instead of being force fed by USPA, they are more likely to take action against infractions. I've no idea of your experiences in the Corporate world. I wish mine were a little less. But, it is a common fact that employees are more productive and take a proactive approach to leading their peers. Guess what...this idea is not restricted to the Corporate world. When toddlers are allowed to make decisions in the family setting, they are generally better behaved. Why? Because they recognize their involvement in the decision making process. People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #167 June 21, 2007 >People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. I agree, which is why we're trying to involve as many people as possible. >Thus if the DZ develops the policy instead of being force fed by USPA, they >are more likely to take action against infractions. Actually they are far more likely to do nothing. Why bother? Why deal with cranky jumpers if you don't have to? >People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. >Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy >collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. We ARE USPA. They are not a bunch of suits in a board room somewhere. They are us. We elect them and tell them what to do, and if they implement this BSR, it will be because they are listening to skydivers who want it. We are now trying to involve as many people as possible in the decisionmaking process so we can get a good rule. Doing nothing, or just listing the usual do-nothing solutions ("we need education, not regulation! But nothing mandatory, just a lot of optional stuff that no one will ever read") won't fix the problem - and there _is_ a problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #168 June 21, 2007 Nobody here has said that there is not a problem. In fact, I think that is widely recognized that there is a valid concern. Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #169 June 22, 2007 >Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible > outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? No, there are still plenty of places that mix patterns without thinking about it much. >Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? No. Most jumpers do not spend their days posting on the internet, and many people who post heavily do not jump much. >Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky >S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. I think perhaps you might want to rethink who works for who at a dropzone. >1) We don't need a BSR Many people disagree. >2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). Correct. Which is why I support a BSR that simply requires separation; let each DZO decide how to best implement it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #170 June 22, 2007 QuoteNobody here has said that there is not a problem. In fact, I think that is widely recognized that there is a valid concern. Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? Only if every skydiver reads dz.com Quote Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. So you want a rule that meek S&TAs be fired. (How else would your suggestion be implemented?) And who gets to fire DZOs? Quote The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Have you been reading the discussion at all?... 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
nbblood 0 #171 June 22, 2007 QuoteOnly if every skydiver reads dz.com Are you really implying that you HAVE to read DZ.com to understand what's going on in skydiving and what current trends are??!!Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #172 June 22, 2007 >Are you really implying that you HAVE to read DZ.com to understand >what's going on in skydiving and what current trends are??!! No. Hukturn said that since the discussion here on DZ.com has gone on a long time, "the general skydiving population has spoken." Kallend and I believe that posters on dropzone.com do not represent the entire skydiving population, and thus you can't claim that all skydivers "have spoken." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlipColmer 0 #173 June 22, 2007 Hello ParaFrog ***Bryan Burke once enforced a low-pull no-no on yours truly - in 1993. What made it stick was that good ol' "I oughta beat you." I was a punk kid and had no idea what a BSR was.*** However, Bryan did because USPA instituted the opening altitude BSR as the foundation for altitude safety. By having the BSR, there is something to educate to. Then when an old hand comes to some "punk kid" they have something to hang their hat on other than 'because I told you so.' That's why we want a landing pattern BSR. It will focus the DZs attention on the problem and therefore each individual jumper will have their attention shifted to the problem. Blue SKies, Flip PS Having had my share of altitude lectures from the safety folks over the years, some of us need the BSR more than others! (g) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDon 0 #174 June 23, 2007 Please add my name to the petition. Don Carr D28253 USPA# 165508 Good Luck! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #175 June 23, 2007 "Only if every skydiver reads dz.com" No, dz.com represents a cross sectioon of the overall skydiving demographic. I believe the participants here are proportionate to the others who do not post. Just as on the DZ, people from all walks of life participate on dz.com. "So you want a rule that meek S&TAs be fired. (How else would your suggestion be implemented?)" Yes and no. I want people who are paid to to a job to do it. If you don't have the balls, don't take the job. What it means is that the S&TA's must stringently apply the rules to everyone. You can not make an exception for the AFF-I just because he works for the DZ. The rules are for everyone and if the S&TA can not apply them then you need another S&TA. "And who gets to fire DZOs?" More illustrative. It would really require a seperation of the skydiver from the DZ if they did not believe that the rules were fair and consistent. "Have you been reading the discussion at all?" Absolutely. Which is part of why I understand the need for someone to represent the greater good rather than allowing the introduction of needless legislation without rebuttal. The idea of seperated landing areas may work in some areas...but not all. Which is why the BSR does not work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
