Swooping is not a crime

[JumpRu 14]

Quote

Maybe you need to go back and read the thead about Danny and Bob, and how people DID talk to Danny and it made no difference...then come back and tell me that talking is still the only answer.

Or go read the "backflying with tandems" thread and see where it took the threat of consequences from the tandem manufacturer to straighten the situation out.

Talk all you want...until there's some teeth behind the talk, there's always someone that will blow it off.

Well, if that jumper was THAT dangerous under canopy then I would never be on the same jump with him or even on the same load. I have no control on others actions but i can sit one load and go on next one. Probably others should be doing the same. But I personally think that it was an accident. This is sad, this is a reminder to be careful.

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

Quote

Right. And I'm not trying to kill you. I'm just opening my canopy under you to see you go screaming by my open canopy. I've seen it for real and it is pretty cool - you can hear the ssssSSSWOOOoooo as they go by. (Well, cool in a "glad I survived that" sense.)

But don't worry - I'll check my airspace to make sure I open five feet from you, not directly under you.

and i won't rat you out to authorities, instead we will have a long and unpleasant conversation about proper separation. We will make sure that it won’t happen again. And then we go to next load. That is how it should to be. We don’t need “Big Brother” to solve our problems.
.

Apparently we do.

"Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action", Ian Fleming (Goldfinger).

...

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

[waltappel 1]

Quote

and i won't rat you out to authorities, instead we will have a long and unpleasant conversation about proper separation. We will make sure that it won’t happen again. And then we go to next load. That is how it should to be. We don’t need “Big Brother” to solve our problems.

Goot point. After his collision at Dublin, I had an unpleasant (but short) conversation with Danny Page. It went someting like this:

Me: Hey man, are you ok?!!!!!!
Danny: [dead silence]
Me: Can you fucking hear me?!!!!!!
Danny: [dead silence]
Me: [talking to 911]: I'm at the Dublin airport and we have two seriously injured jumpers--please send two ambulances as soon as possible!!!!!!
Danny: [dead silence]

Worked great--he hasn't invaded anyone else's space under canopy since. One problem, though--he's dead. So is the man he hit from behind--Bob Holler. The proposed BSR is not about ratting people out. It's about setting a consistent standard for landing patterns that will help us prevent tragedies like the ones we've seen in recent months. I'm all for the one-on-one talks, but we need a written standard to follow and enforce.

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Quote

But I personally think that it was an accident. This is sad, this is a reminder to be careful.

Saying the double fatality at Dublin was an accident is the equivalent of saying that if I shoot a rifle through a crowd of people with the intent of missing everyone just to show off my marksmanship and I kill someone, then it was an accident.

The problem is that in a scenario like that there is such a high level of disregard for others' safety that, "Oops, sorry--I didn't mean to do that", just doesn't cut it.

Walt

[billvon 2,380]

>then I would never be on the same jump with him or even on the same load.

Take the case of a jumper I know. He'd always pull low, spiral, and hook it to get down fast. Often he'd end up cutting off people on the PREVIOUS load - and these were people who had big canopies who had pulled high and were holding in brakes so they could land without a lot of traffic!

Now, the first thing (of course) is to talk to him. We all did. His answer was always the same - "yeah, I know it's dangerous, but my canopy is very reliable, I don't have an AAD and I never cut anyone off."

Next thing is to talk to an S+TA. Which also happened - but every S+TA had a slightly different view of what was OK. "Well, that's OK as long as he clears his airspace, but he should pull a little higher" or whatever. The jumper would, of course, listen to the S+TA who said it wasn't that bad and ignore the rest.

Next thing is to refuse to jump with him. Which is a bit hard to do, because you have to figure out what load will be dropping just after his - and then bump off the load if he was on your load OR the load before yours. Add in an ATC delay and you may end up with him following your load anyway.

Next thing is to "call the feds" (the DZO, the RD, USPA etc.) That's the only thing that worked. The DZO told him that if he did it again he was grounded, and that stopped him.

This isn't that uncommon. You have someone who will simply not listen. You can't just "not jump with them" without leaving the DZ. S+TA's argue about whether it's OK for him to do that. The only thing that works is the ultimate threat, which is that he will not be able to jump if he does it again. DZO's do that, and BSR's contain the standards that they use to make that call.

Now, in this case it worked without a BSR, but it took over a year for people to talk about it, decide if it was really that bad, try talking to him first etc etc. That was over a year for him to become the next Danny. I look forward to a time when that is unacceptable the very first time he does it because of a nationwide rule that says it's unacceptable.

[JumpRu 14]

Quote

Now, in this case it worked without a BSR, but it took over a year for people to talk about it, decide if it was really that bad, try talking to him first etc etc. That was over a year for him to become the next Danny. I look forward to a time when that is unacceptable the very first time he does it because of a nationwide rule that says it's unacceptable.

DZO don’t need no BSR to ground someone. Hell, he can ground or even kick you out of DZ forever at any moment for no reason, just because this is his place and if he does not like you then you won’t be jumping there. Period

Now with BSR and you favorite authorities. It won’t be so simple. Think of a legal process. First of all you are going to provide evidence, videotapes, witness reports and etc. Then you will have to wait for next BOD meeting and then USPA won’t be able to do anything because it only revokes ratings but not licenses. Next thing you know you and the guy will hire lowers and USPA becomes a courthouse. Do you really wont all that???

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

DZO don’t need no BSR to ground someone. Hell, he can ground or even kick you out of DZ forever at any moment for no reason, just because this is his place and if he does not like you then you won’t be jumping there. Period

Yup...and there's nothing to prevent that guy from going to the next place down the road and doing the SAME THING... why can't you understand that?

Quote

Now with BSR and you favorite authorities. It won’t be so simple. Think of a legal process. First of all you are going to provide evidence, videotapes, witness reports and etc. Then you will have to wait for next BOD meeting and then USPA won’t be able to do anything because it only revokes ratings but not licenses. Next thing you know you and the guy will hire lowers and USPA becomes a courthouse. Do you really wont all that???

You think it's not like that now? Look at the threads where people have sued DZ's... that's going to happen whether there's a BSR or not.

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

[billvon 2,380]

>DZO don’t need no BSR to ground someone.

Right. They merely serve as a framework that all USPA drop zones use. They make enforcement of important rules more uniform and fair.

>Now with BSR and you favorite authorities. It won’t be so simple.
>Think of a legal process. First of all you are going to provide evidence,
>videotapes, witness reports and etc.

What the heck are you talking about?

"Hey Joe, you can't swoop through the middle of the pattern like that."

"Hey dude, it's fine, I clear my airspace and I have mad skillz. I'm going to . . ."

"I don't care. It's right here in black and white. Do it again and you're grounded, period. Take it up with your RD if you don't like it."

No videotapes, no evidence, no legal proceedings, no BOD meeting. Is this another strawman?

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Quote

what difference is that from driving your car down the road and getting hit from behind and killed by another driver? get some insurance!!!

So you agree that a driver weaving through traffic at high speed is a danger, then... that's a good start!

I'll just chime in again with my thoughts on the matter here...while I appreciate the motivations of Bill & his supporters, I think they're ultimately misguided, if for only 1 reason: the fact that you're looking for "uniformity" of some sort across all USPA dropzones.

Problem is, there IS no uniformity across all USPA dropzones. A turbine DZ in, say, Maine is a heck of a lot different from a Cessna DZ in the middle of the desert.

I recognize that option 2 of the BSR proposal was to make the requirement simply that every DZ would set its own policy for landings...but that potential option seems to have been set aside in recent discussions, in favor of finding a "uniform policy."

It's similar to the anaology I quoted above: A driver weaving through freeway traffic in Atlanta at high speed is a danger, yes...but what about a driver passing a semi on a 2-lane road in the middle of Utah with virtually no traffic? Why do we not have a uniform speed limit for all county roads, state roads, US routes and interstates? Because each road's unique conditions warrant its own individual speed requirements.

We should not be attempting to set specific rules for every DZ's landing patterns, just because they work out well for our DZ's, or for boogies. Even if our suggested requirements work out for most DZ's, I'm sure there are still other DZ's (that are completely safety-conscious) who shouldn't be forced to meet the proposed BSR's just to satisfy the wants of people who regularly jump at places like Perris, Eloy, and De Land.

The only reasonable option, as I see it, is to allow each DZ to decide its own traffic patterns (which, to my knowledge, most already do.) Otherwise, we'll be forcing DZ's who are already operating completely safe landing patterns to change their patterns to match policies that will offer them no significant benefit in safety.

Signatures are the new black.

[mnealtx 0]

The "separation by time" option covers the DZ with limited space.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's similar to the anaology I quoted above: A driver weaving through freeway traffic in Atlanta at high speed is a danger, yes...but what about a driver passing a semi on a 2-lane road in the middle of Utah with virtually no traffic? Why do we not have a uniform speed limit for all county roads, state roads, US routes and interstates? Because each road's unique conditions warrant its own individual speed requirements.

There no road in the country with legal 3x differentials in speed. I don't think you can even find a 2x. Closest I know is a steep downhill with trucks at 35 and cars at 55. And the reality of course is that both trucks and cars are going faster.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Quote

It's similar to the anaology I quoted above: A driver weaving through freeway traffic in Atlanta at high speed is a danger, yes...but what about a driver passing a semi on a 2-lane road in the middle of Utah with virtually no traffic? Why do we not have a uniform speed limit for all county roads, state roads, US routes and interstates? Because each road's unique conditions warrant its own individual speed requirements.

So what cars have to do with skydiving?



There no road in the country with legal 3x differentials in speed. I don't think you can even find a 2x. Closest I know is a steep downhill with trucks at 35 and cars at 55. And the reality of course is that both trucks and cars are going faster.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Quote

It's similar to the anaology I quoted above: A driver weaving through freeway traffic in Atlanta at high speed is a danger, yes...but what about a driver passing a semi on a 2-lane road in the middle of Utah with virtually no traffic? Why do we not have a uniform speed limit for all county roads, state roads, US routes and interstates? Because each road's unique conditions warrant its own individual speed requirements.

There no road in the country with legal 3x differentials in speed. I don't think you can even find a 2x. Closest I know is a steep downhill with trucks at 35 and cars at 55. And the reality of course is that both trucks and cars are going faster.

You're missing my point. I was using another poster's analogy to point out that different roads have varying conditions requiring different speed limits, just as different DZs have varying characteristics that may make it difficult (and inefficient, and not much safer at all) to, say, separate the landing areas.

I don't think this proposed BSR is very viable, unless it's very broad, leaving the control in the DZO's hands of how to implement separation...and some opponents would argue that "That's the way it is now, so why bother?"

Since all DZs don't have the same number of planes flying the same number of daily loads over the same uniform landing area, it just doesn't make sense to try and force them all to adhere to a BSR that specifically dictates one specific rule, one specific standard. Some DZ's might not be able to make separate landing areas happen, for instance...and for some of them, there's nothing wrong with that (because they already have rules in place, such as "nobody swoops after the first person enters the standard landing pattern.")

And yes, I realize that the last option I quoted above is one of the options in the proposed BSR...but in the cacophony of people weighing in on the matter, it seems like everyone is talking about it in terms of mandatory prodcedures for separating landings, instead of saying "it's mandatory that each DZ figure out the best way to do it at that particular DZ."

That's what I'm in favor of. What works at Perris might not be the best thing for a Cessna-182 DZ.

Signatures are the new black.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That's what I'm in favor of. What works at Perris might not be the best thing for a Cessna-182 DZ.

I'm less worried about home jumpers (some serious exeptions there). I see more issues when someone visits from a drastically different DZ (that includes big home-DZ visitors to smalls DZs too - not just the other snob way around).

If a 'general' rule is in place in the BSRs, and newbies study and are tested on it in their written D license test, etc, at least they aren't completely clueless when visiting another DZ. Even if their local DZ is forced to opt for something quite different from the BSR for special reasons.

It also helps people recognize BS on the DZO's part if he sets up something stupid for any reason.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

There no road in the country with legal 3x differentials in speed. I don't think you can even find a 2x. Closest I know is a steep downhill with trucks at 35 and cars at 55. And the reality of course is that both trucks and cars are going faster.

You're missing my point. I was using another poster's analogy to point out that different roads have varying conditions requiring different speed limits, just as different DZs have varying characteristics that may make it difficult (and inefficient, and not much safer at all) to, say, separate the landing areas.

The analogy was crap, and you're the one missing the point. Great speed differentials are never 'safe.' That's a big cause of the problem, and the most obvious one to address. (Yeah, S turns and accuracy pilots can be a menace, but a slow menace, like a drunk RV driver. )

And the 182 DZ has no problem at all - those planes take 4 or 5 people. Change the exit order so the swoopers leave first. If I'm on board (RW, 210 canopy), I have plenty of time on jump run to allow for any level of separation needed, or the pilot could do a cross wind course.

[IHazySky 0]

If you are scared you can HANG IN BRAKES till everyone lands. The hi-per canopies CAN't do that so the big ones should wait, NOT toggle spiral at the rate of me in half brakes.

[faulknerwn 36]

Quote

If you are scared you can HANG IN BRAKES till everyone lands. The hi-per canopies CAN't do that so the big ones should wait, NOT toggle spiral at the rate of me in half brakes.

That's not always so easy - I fly a traditional pattern with a 99 square foot canopy loaded at 1.6 - a fair number of swoopers have less wing-loading and/or are floatier than me. I do try and hold in brakes to get free airspace, but many swoopers try to do the same thing to get their own free airspace.

I like separate landing areas..

[billvon 2,380]

>I fly a traditional pattern with a 99 square foot canopy loaded at 1.6 . . .

Yeah, when I'm in regular traffic I fly a standard pattern with a canopy loaded 1.95. It's not always possible to float above the guy who opened much higher than I did and is jumping a 1.7 loading.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

a fair number of swoopers have less wing-loading and/or are floatier than me.

Don't under estimate the control range (or floatability if that's even remotely close to being a word) of a cross-braced canopy. I surprised the shit out of myself a couple of years ago. I did a high pull jumping a highly loaded Velo wearing a 20lb weight belt (wingloading exceeded 2.3 to 1) with someone flying a Sabre2 170 (loaded at about 1.0 to 1). I was faster than he was horizontally and had to do shashay turns to stay with him, but I had no issues what so ever staying with him vertically. Yes the people at a disadvantage in this sort of scenario are the ones who fly highly loaded traditional canopies.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

shashay turns

You drrrrrrrrrrrrrrty S-turner!!!



Surprising, though... I figured you would have sunk right away from the other jumper...

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I figured you would have sunk right away from the other jumper

You can't even begin to imagine how effecient a cross-braced canopy is until you jump one.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[mnealtx 0]

<<< (looking over there) That's OBVIOUSLY a ways away in *my* future!!

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

[chinchman99 0]

Yes.. swooping is not a crime.. not only that, but it is a thrilling discipline of skydiving. However, we do participate in a dangerous sport, and we need to do anything we can possibly do to make it safer. I saw Danny Page and Bob Holler DIE right in front of my eyes in Dublin. Something has to be done to prevent this from happening again. I think there should be a totally different landing area for swoopers... keep away from students, tandems, normal people, etc. Brian Germain is much more experienced than I may ever be, but we who like our skies safe don't want to see swooping go extinct, we want to be able to go home to our families at night.

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

Apparently Real Swoopers(TM) don't do things that might kill other people.

Awww man now I need to pay Kallend 10 cents every time I say real swoopers

Bugger

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.