Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

[hukturn 0]

In response, please reference my response to Kallend. I believe it addresses your post, also.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The idea of seperated landing areas may work in some areas...but not all.

You've obviously NOT read the recommendations or several posts in this thread and others, then, or you would have seen the discussion about "separation in time".

Please explain this "greater good" that you are advocating. You still haven't given any valid reason for the BSR suggestion to NOT go forward except that you don't care to have a rule telling you when you can and cannot swoop.

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

[hukturn 0]

You do not know me so please do not attempt to imply that I would benefit from any of this either way. The truth be told, I swoop with double front risers, 90degs and 180 degs. Most often, I take a much more reserved final these days. So, I would not benefit from most of this anyway. Thus, your attempt to make this appear to be a campaign for my personal gain is proven invalid.
It appears that you are the one who has failed to keep track of this thread. The main proponent of this BSR has stated twice in this thread that this is a BSR to seperate landing areas. Now, he has alsy indicated that a seperation in time "might" be adequate. But, let'snot mince words...this is about seperated landing areas and you are being sold on the premise that it may mean "other" forms of seperation.
I have given many reasons why the BSR fails. Please review my arguements and you will see them very clearly. My primary point of contention is that the DZ's need to impliment local policies to address the issues, not be force fed by USPA.

[mnealtx 0]

Your arguments to date have been:

1. Let the DZs do it. The counterargument is that this BSR *makes* the DZs do it - hence, a standardized approach across the board - each DZ has to devise a way to safely accomodate HP and standard landing approaches.

2. A false premise that the separation HAS be by distance, which has been pointed out to you as a false assumption many times. Yet, to which you still cling to as proof that since *ALL* DZs can't separate by distance that the BSR would be invalid on it's face.

3. A vague argument against USPA having more authority over jumper's activities. Again, false on it's face - USPA cannot (I have been told) take action against an individual jumper - it *CAN*, however, take action against rated individuals and group member DZs for failure to follow safety regulations.

So, no...you haven't shown *ANY* VALID reason why a BSR proposal should NOT go forward, and I cannot see why you would not support a regulation that would make *ALL* DZOs make their operations safer for *ALL* jumpers.

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

[hukturn 0]

If anyone would like a sample letter to copy and paste into an e-mail to submit to their Regional Director, please contact me.

[hukturn 0]

"DZ has to devise a way to safely accomodate HP and standard landing approaches."

Then let the DZ's do it without USPA intervention.

"It does this by separating landing areas." posted by billvon Jun 19, 2007, 10:54 AM
"...one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate." posted by billvon Jun 22, 2007, 1:03 PM

Quotes...not assumptions

"USPA cannot (I have been told) take action against an individual jumper - it *CAN*, however, take action against rated individuals and group member DZs for failure to follow safety regulations."

Then let the DZ's do it without USPA intervention.

Anyone;
And, just curious, because I do not know...when was the last time that the USPA "took action" against a DZ representatives rating for being unsafe or failing to apply BSR's? When was the last time a Group Membership was revoked? A DZ fined? I just can not recall many. So, wht would you nee dthe BSR...safety violations and BSR non-compliance occurs everyday on the DZ's.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote from option 1 of the suggested BSR:

Quote

"c. Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will
separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in
the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in
the standard landing pattern area. [FB]
***

Quote from option 3:
***c. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures
for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each
other. [NW]

There - NOW you have correct info....and not the BS that was being bandied about in the other threads.

Now...if you want to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong ... give me a HARD REASON why one of those suggestions would NOT work. Tell me why holding ALL dropzone operators accountable to a standard of safety for ALL jumpers is a bad thing. Show me how a DZO deciding that they don't have to do anything about mixing high-speed and standard landing patterns is better.

Vague protests about how USPA shouldn't be involved doesn't cut it - we all allow USPA to have at least SOME control over what we do when we fill out that membership application.

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

"DZ has to devise a way to safely accomodate HP and standard landing approaches."

Then let the DZ's do it without USPA intervention.

.

If they do it anyway, a BSR isn't infringing on them. If they don't, what is YOUR solution?

And quit with the selective quoting of Bill to misrepresent the proposal- we are all aware of what you are doing. Post 1 of this thread contains the proposal that I understand is going forward.

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

...

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

[recovercrachead 0]

F the USPA, does this mean I cant pull low anymore?

Track high, Pull LOW!!!

[billvon 2,396]

>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.

The people who post here are actually a small but vocal minorty. The majority of skydivers do not post here.

>I want people who are paid to to a job to do it.

S+TA's are generally not paid. I wasn't, and no S+TA I know is.

>The rules are for everyone and if the S&TA can not apply them then you
>need another S&TA.

So you are saying we NEED rules to enforce. I agree; that's why we are proposing the BSR.

>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.

Then you have not been reading. We are not proposing that all DZ's separate their landing areas geographically. It is more useful to discuss what is actually being proposed, rather than make stuff up to have something to object to.

[hukturn 0]

I do not support your BSR proposal. I agree to disagree. You take your road and I will take mine.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

>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.

Then you have not been reading. We are not proposing that all DZ's separate their landing areas geographically. It is more useful to discuss what is actually being proposed, rather than make stuff up to have something to object to.

I'm still undecided on the proposed BSR issue, Bill, but FWIW, I began to steer clear of this thread at one point because it seemed like everyone discussing it - yourself included - had decided on solving the problem via "separate landing areas." It seemed like it had become part of the common vernacular, a few pages of posts back, until people like hukturn began questioning it.

The only reason I wanted to post now is because I noticed it myself, and it gave me a bad taste in my mouth...reason being, I also don't think that separate landing areas will work for everywhere.

It may be that you and the others making this proposal had the general acceptance of "separate landing areas" in this thread called to your attention by folks like hukturn and others, and are now going back to your original proposal and placing more emphasis on the "separation by time OR distance" approach, but for a while (a few pages back, maybe 100 posts or so ago), it definitely read to me like most people on this thread were marching behind the flag of separating the landing areas. So I can understand hukturn's aversion to the idea of this BSR. It seemed to me like people (yourself included) were getting a bit carried away and accepting one leg of the proposal as a given.

And when we're talking about a bunch of people going up to SF to push for this proposal, and not a lot of people vocally saying they're going to go there to question it (I personally can't make it...and I'm not necessarily against it, but I DO want it to accommodate all DZ's, not just Perris and others like it), then it's worrisome that when reading the thread a ways back I got the impression that people had begun to accept it as "separating the landing areas," instead of "separating the approaches."

Anyway, not wanting to stir up a beehive, but felt like it needed to be said: it's not just hukturn that got that impression. I noticed it, too...and you now going back to what you 'originally proposed' doesn't negate the tone of general acceptance of a 'separate landing area' requirement that I caught midway through this thread, when I was actively following it a few weeks back. I think hukturn's quotes of you in support of that argument are valid.

That being said, I'm still not sure whether I support the proposal or not...possibly because I support the option in which pilots are not allowed to make HP approaches after the first SLP person has begun their pattern (it works best at my DZ). No one has been paying much attention to that option for a while...and really, I think it's because of the mentality that "if we're gonna change something, let's CHANGE it." But I'm sure we can agree that change for change's sake isn't what we want to accomplish here. If we implement a BSR, it should be universally applicable. And I can't see how not allowing camera flyer (who's the first person down from the load after shooting a tandem video) to practice his swooping at the student target when no one else is around is going to hurt things. "Separating by time" - if by that we mean requiring low passes for swoopers - would require that lone tandem camera flyer to perform an SLP, even if he was 1000' lower than the rest of the people on the Cessna load. That seems...prohibitive to a responsible skydiver.

If there's one thing I do support, it's that this BSR should not make 'lawbreakers' out of responsible, safety-conscious skydivers who are flying safely. Sacrificing them at the expense of having a "one-size-fits-all" rule runs counter to the entire individualist spirit of skydiving.

So I sit, ponder, and watch the discussion from the sidelines.

Regardless, I'm glad that hukturn's questioning is leading people like mnealtx to begin to re-examine the original proposal, instead of piling on top of whatever direction the tides were then turning. I think it's easy for all of us to get carried away on dz.com...and obviously, I'm sure we can all agree that this is an issue that we don't need to let ourselves get carried away on.

I'll continue to lurk, and ponder, and engage in the discussion when I can, as obviously it's a very important matter.

Blue skies,

KC

Signatures are the new black.

[billvon 2,396]

>It may be that you and the others making this proposal had the
> general acceptance of "separate landing areas" in this thread called to
>your attention by folks like hukturn and others, and are now going back to
>your original proposal and placing more emphasis on the "separation by
>time OR distance" approach . . .

Yeah, I think what's happening is we're talking about several different things. And given how long these threads have become, it's not really reasonable to expect everyone to have "followed along" completely.

Here's the history as I see it:

First came the BSR proposals, where we proposed three different ways of accomplishing this. They were:

1) Separate the landing areas geographically or by time. (Basically what the conclusion of the USPA incident report said.)

2) No nonstandard patterns once a standard pattern has been established.

3) DZO's come up with their own procedures so standard and nonstandard patterns are separated.

None of the proposals required separate landing areas, although it was called out as one possibility for option 1). The underlying objective was to separate the _patterns_ from each other, which is still the goal.

It seemed like the overwhelming majority preferred option 3), which is what we've been concentrating on. That's why I posted the original list of options, to try to get feedback from the rest of the skydiving community as to what sort of BSR might work over another.

Now, I think it goes without saying that none of us should be writing specific BSR's, whether you're a 200 jump wonder, one of the World Team organizers, a canopy designer, a PST distance winner or a drop zone owner. The objective here is to bring USPA our request for a solution; it has to include all the above people if it is to work. Hence the petition we will present is not for any specific regulation, it is:

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

We think this is important. In a recent poll here of almost 200 jumpers, 71% thought we needed some sort of BSR to deal with the problems we've been seeing.

>If we implement a BSR, it should be universally applicable.

Well, no very specific BSR is going to be universally applicable, which is why we've been leaning towards option 3 (let each DZO decide on their own.) But again, we don't plan to go to USPA with a written BSR and say "do this." We plan to go there with the inputs from this thread, the petition, the polls on the subject, and our proposals, and say "here's what we have so far - now we have to take the next step." That's why I am hoping a lot of people show up at the meeting, to best represent the range of people who will have to live with any new BSR.

[ematteo 0]

Bill, what is the source for your 71% number?

Thanks,
E

[billvon 2,396]

>Bill, what is the source for your 71% number?

Poll: How should we deal with pattern collisions?

Do nothing at the national level. 13 / 7%
Voluntary education only, pushed by USPA. 42 / 23%
Education + BSR change requiring separation of patterns, but leave the specifics to each DZO. 115 / 62%
Education + BSR change with specific landing patterns called out. Have USPA set the requirements. 16 / 9%


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2826117;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

[ematteo 0]

OK, thanks. I thought there might have been a real-world survey.

There were a lot of "none-of-the-above" responses to that poll. One I saw a lot was "mandatory education at a national level, but no BSR."

[hukturn 0]

Of course, that is only the percentage of people who participated in the poll. But, as Bill stated, DZ.com is not representative of the skydiving public. Of course, I tried to state that DZ.com would represent a cross section of the skydiving population but he does not believe that either. So, it appears that the poll is for naught.


"The people who post here are actually a small but vocal minorty. The majority of skydivers do not post here." Posted by Billvon, Jun 23, 2007, 8:43 PM


Oops...sorry, I am involved again. Will try harder.

[mollyo 0]

yes, even w/ our poll, we are only hitting a small percentage of the skydiving population, just like the other poll you are referring to.

Shoot, I never visit dz.com unless I want to sell or buy something really or read some article I have been referred to. Most of the skydivers I know do not come to this site but this is still a great way to get as many opinions as we can- everyones- including you :)

I have also gotten alot of emails sent to me about the subject (mostly pro bsr vs not) so I am just trying to collect everything...all opinions. This thread will be brought w/ us to uspa & all my emails too. This is just one easy way for people to voice out & give their support for a bsr for canopy patterns (or not). The more opinions, the more people involved, the better. Change for safer skies has to happen, now. For everyone.

No one wants to ban swooping in our small little group that has presented this- I am frustrated that people will post that, its not true. I want swoopers to have their own airspace however the DZ deems most appropriate for all ( i like option 3 the best). I would think swoopers would appreciate no slow toads like me in their way.

Bob LOVED to swoop. LOVED it. I could never be for banning swooping- thats not what he would have wanted. Bob would want safer skies for everyone! Thats what he educated. He was one of the safest skydivers I knew & made so many skydivers safer.

I have been scared to death under canopy especially the last couple of years- and have almost been taken out by a swooper 2 weeks before bob, my boyfreind died. I was looking everywhere, my head was on a swivel. I never could have seen that skydiver that cut me off from above. I talked to him after I landed & he didn't care at all. He was annoyed I was in HIS way. Then my boyfreind is killed 2 weeks later...hell has truly frozen over & no more staying quiet. I want to be part of the solution, part of the process....and I want everyone to be part of it. We need separation for different canopy patterns. Our sport must evolve along with the technology of high performance canopies. I thank you for all your comments & arguements.

I hope more, continue to voice their opinion either way like you have. Really, thank you. I mean it.

[Spizzzarko 0]

"and have almost been taken out by a swooper"

Can you please use the propper terminology. It is "someone who made a mistake" instead of a swooper. When you people use the term swooper it effects many more that just the person who made the mistake.

You say:
"No one wants to ban swooping in our small little group that has presented this" If you continue to bundle all people who make mistakes into the group called swoopers than you will end up getting swooping banned. Please think about the words that you type and please do not lump me into the group of fuck ups that turn before they look.

[mnealtx 0]

The operative point is that mollyo was almost herself taken out by someone doing a high performance landing maneuver in crowded airspace. Semantics games so you can point the finger at some other group and say "it's not US, it's those guys" is adding what, exactly, to the discussion?

I don't see many accuracy jumpers ripping a 180+ degree turn to final... do you?

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

[Spizzzarko 0]

"Semantics games so you can point the finger at some other group and say "it's not US, it's those guys""

Go and look at the fatalities. Ian Drennan has pointed out that the majority of the collisions are by non swoopers.

"I don't see many accuracy jumpers ripping a 180+ degree turn to final... do you?"

Think about what you just said... Accuracy jumpers do not do big turns for their discipline. Instead they fly in deep brakes and make many sashe's to get to the disk. It goes to show that you are speaking out of your ass, and yess I have done accuracy jumps before so I know what I'm talking about.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Semantics games so you can point the finger at some other group and say "it's not US, it's those guys""

Go and look at the fatalities. Ian Drennan has pointed out that the majority of the collisions are by non swoopers.

Maybe you should go back and find my post with the comparison of landing fatalities... it *should* open your eyes...but it won't, I'm sure.

Quote

"I don't see many accuracy jumpers ripping a 180+ degree turn to final... do you?"

Think about what you just said... Accuracy jumpers do not do big turns for their discipline. Instead they fly in deep brakes and make many sashe's to get to the disk. It goes to show that you are speaking out of your ass, and yess I have done accuracy jumps before so I know what I'm talking about.

I doubt it was a normal pattern jumper that came screaming past her canopy... but you go ahead and willfully misconstrue what's being said so you can try to claim some sort of moral high ground all you want.

Those of us that DON'T have an emotional attachment to swooping see your tactic for what it is.

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

[waltappel 1]

Quote

"and have almost been taken out by a swooper"

Can you please use the propper terminology. It is "someone who made a mistake" instead of a swooper. When you people use the term swooper it effects many more that just the person who made the mistake.

You say:
"No one wants to ban swooping in our small little group that has presented this" If you continue to bundle all people who make mistakes into the group called swoopers than you will end up getting swooping banned. Please think about the words that you type and please do not lump me into the group of fuck ups that turn before they look.

Yeah, I get your point. It's like saying, "...and have almost been taken out by a black guy".

Only the difference is that the color of someone's skin doesn't hurt anybody. A fucked up swoop can easily kill someone.

How about if we say, "...and have almost been taken out by someone who fucked up while swooping". That should make you feel more comfortable since you obviously are incapable of fucking up while swooping.

Walt

[billvon 2,396]

>Can you please use the propper terminology.

Swooper is correct in this context. She was almost taken out by someone who was swooping. It's like calling someone doing accuracy an accuracy jumper, or someone jumping a wingsuit as a wingsuiter.

>If you continue to bundle all people who make mistakes into the group called swoopers . . .

No one is doing that. All sorts of people make mistakes. Some swoopers land in crowded landing areas doing 270's; some standard pattern people land in the swoop area doing S-turns. Both are problems, and both must be addressed by any solution we come up with.

[kallend 1,623]

Given that the low person has right of way, it is pretty rare for the person flying a standard pattern to be at fault if hit from above and behind by a swooper. It is unusual for a swooper to be the low person in a collision with someone flying a standard pattern.

If the HP and standard patterns are separated, the risk of a mistake leading to a fatality is going to be reduced, regardless of who makes a mistake.

I HAVE been hit (at 100' agl) from above and behind, by someone flying non-standard pattern. I would prefer that it doesn't happen again.

...

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