Responding to "Swooping is not a crime"

[billvon 2,772]

>Although it is simple enough on paper, I don't think people will really
>execute in the real world setting.

They are at several DZ's I know of. Otay, for one. There's a line of flags - standard pattern on one side, swooping on the other.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You come back and say that he's wrong, that landing != swooping (which I agree) and that he should search the database.

If landing=Swooping, "What is "I noticed the powerlline (or tree, or person, or other object) at the last second and burried a toggle to avoid it and died because of that (under say a 170 loaded at 1:1 with a straight in approach with 50 jumps or so)?" this would be a landing fatality and these types of accidents happen every year.

!= <-- Not equals

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

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Required education - for everybody, not just swoopers, not just pre-A license holders - will reduce canopy related incidents.

I tend to agree, which is what I've been suggesting when I say "education". If a canopy course & such is required before an A license, I definitely believe it would be helpful. And if we're educating that early, we're educating before one has the opportunity to become a "skygod".

Absolutely there will be some that regardless of the training will make mistakes unintentionally or purposefully later on.

The bottomline, however, is there is definitely not enough canopy-control, pattern landing, etc. information given to students.

If I had a penny for all the things I "learned later" instead of initially regarding patterns & canopy-control, etc. I'd be a billionaire.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

"Education" that people keep referring to will have little effect at all on the Skygod that already knows it all.

I have never said education is the answer to the problem with already licensed skydivers. When there's a problem, one has to look at an immediate solution as well as solutions to make things even better in the future.

Educating students on canopy-control, patterns, etc. will be better than the status quo as far as future incidents. Education can be part of the answer.

No-one, at least not me, said it is THE answer.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 2,772]

>Required education - for everybody, not just swoopers, not just
>pre-A license holders - will reduce canopy related incidents.

It will help, but primarily with people drilling themselves into the ground. It will not help with the people who know they are good enough to swoop through traffic. Education can help people learn; it cannot change strongly held attitudes.

[justinhawxhurst 0]

I have been trying to keep up with this depate which is going on on 5 different threads. Is it getting anywhere? I just have not had time to read all of it and find out if it is getting solved or not.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Is it getting anywhere?

Apparently not. Some still think limiting turn ratio is not "banning" a swoop, technically speaking.

But, I think now we also have opposite sides argueing for the same thing.--I see both sides agreeing to separation of landing time & space.

There is still arguement over whether there should be a BSR change and/or additional education required.

Happy to catch you up.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

The bottomline, however, is there is definitely not enough canopy-control, pattern landing, etc. information given to students.

How about amend the B-License Requirements to include a Requirement for completion of a Specified Canopy Control Course?
Maybe add an additional requirement for the A License that a Jumper must demonstrate a proper landing pattern on X number of Jumps? Include questions on the A License test about Spiraling over the LZ and S-turns on Final.

Those would help but does nothing to address the issue of very experienced Jumpers doing HP Landing in and around slower Traffic. The only thing that will help THAT problem is a consistent rule that says when it is and is not appropriate to do a HP Landing in the main landing area. Leaving it up to the Judgment of the individual Jumpers to make that decision isn’t working. DZO`s don’t want to say “hey, you cant do that here” because then the jumper will just go down the road to the next DZ that lets them get away with it. If we had a consistent recommendation (BSR) for when it is and is not safe to do a HP Landing in regards to slower traffic in the area (Separation in Time and/or Area), Then the S&TA`s could do something. Till then we leave it open for the jumper to just say “Show me where it says I cant do that.”

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

How about amend the B-License Requirements to include a Requirement for completion of a Specified Canopy Control Course?
Maybe add an additional requirement for the A License that a Jumper must demonstrate a proper landing pattern on X number of Jumps? Include questions on the A License test about Spiraling over the LZ and S-turns on Final.

Great idea!

Quote

Those would help but does nothing to address the issue of very experienced Jumpers doing HP Landing in and around slower Traffic.

Never said it would, and absolutely agree! It might, however, make the future HP lander think a bit more before doing so even if in their own pattern traffic.
I think some people just don't think enough b/c they don't have enough to think about.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[justinhawxhurst 0]

THanks for the update I will check back in a fwe days to see if it has gotten any further.

[PLFXpert 0]

No worries.
This is Carrie reminding you to help control the pet population; have your pets spayed and neutered.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 2,772]

>How about amend the B-License Requirements to include a
>Requirement for completion of a Specified Canopy Control Course?

We tried that a few years ago. Got the same sort of outrage. "You'll be killing people for no good reason!" was one. "Why do you want to force everyone to fly high performance canopies?" was another. Here's one letter we wrote to USPA:

---------------------------------------------
Letters to the Editor
USPA
1440 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 836-3495


Over the past few years, we have watched as more and more skydivers injure and kill themselves under high performance canopies. In 99% of the cases, this happens to a jumper who does not have the education and experience to fly his canopy safely. In the majority of cases, a larger canopy would have prevented the fatality or mitigated the injury. We, the undersigned, call on USPA to increase their role in canopy training to help prevent these sorts of fatalities in the future.

It is our position that only education can prevent accidents like these. Modern, heavily loaded high performance canopies can be flown safely only after sufficient education and/or experience has been obtained by the jumper. We ask USPA to do the following:

-Develop canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. They should include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, and a written and practical test. Once these are in place, add canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license, with a grandfather clause so this does not affect people currently jumping high wing loadings. As with other skills, restricted licenses would be available for jumpers who choose not to demonstrate HP canopy skills.

-To prevent exceptional jumpers from being held back unnecessarily, allow any instructor, I/E or S+TA to waiver these requirements based on a demonstration of canopy skills.

-Develop a Canopy Instructor (CI) rating which focuses on skills required to safely land heavily loaded high performance canopies. Currently, many jumpers receive no practical HP canopy training at all; it is possible to progress through the ISP jumping only a 288 square foot canopy. With the rapid development of very high performance canopies, canopy skills are as critical for skydiver survival (if not more critical) than freefall skills. The intent of the CI would be to teach the canopy skills required for the new licenses, and to waiver those who demonstrate the skill required to progress to small canopies more quickly than their jump numbers would ordinarily allow.

We recognize that any additional restrictions placed on skydivers should be considered very carefully; skydiving has never been a sport of heavy regulation, and regulations alone will not keep anyone safe. However, new regulations are falling into place already. Individual DZ's are implementing canopy loading restrictions with no education, no commonality and no way to "waiver out" of the requirements. We feel that USPA could implement a canopy training program that will educate more jumpers, be less restrictive and keep even pilots of very high performance canopies alive and jumping.


Signed,

William von Novak D16479
Chuck Blue D12501
Derek Vanboeschoten D18847
Lisa Briggs D14633
Marcus Eich D24738
Scott Campos D25931

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

We tried that a few years ago. Got the same sort of outrage. "You'll be killing people for no good reason!" was one

Maybe it is time to try again. I think more people now understand that Canopy Control Courses Benefit everyone and not just HP Canopy pilots.

Of course none of this addresses the issue of HP Canopy Pilots swooping in and around slower traffic. Which is why we need some clear rules on when that is appropriate. Not just leaving it up to the individual Jumper to determine if they think they might be able to thread that needle.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

We tried that a few years ago. Got the same sort of outrage. "You'll be killing people for no good reason!" was one. "Why do you want to force everyone to fly high performance canopies?" was another. Here's one letter we wrote to USPA:

I was suggesting more canopy training for students and a canopy course under a regular canopy.

No-one should be "forced" to fly a high-performance canopy for a license requirement (unless it's a special license, not the A, B, C or D). That was NOT my suggestion.

But, for those wanting to fly a high-performance canopy, it's not a bad idea to have them complete a course first.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[justinhawxhurst 0]

I will keep that in mind and pass it on.

[billvon 2,772]

>I was suggesting more canopy training for students . . .

More training than the ISP provides? What would you add?

>and a canopy course under a regular canopy.

You mean later, I assume, when they were getting their B-C-D licenses? Yeah, that was our hope as well. Right now the only canopy control requirements are accuracy; we sought to expand that to add things like flat turns, flare turns, landing crosswind etc along with the training required to learn to do that.

>No-one should be "forced" to fly a high-performance canopy for a license requirement.

Right, just as no one is trying to ban swooping now. But sometimes emotion gets the better of people.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

You mean later, I assume, when they were getting their B-C-D licenses? Yeah, that was our hope as well. Right now the only canopy control requirements are accuracy; we sought to expand that to add things like flat turns, flare turns, landing crosswind etc along with the training required to learn to do that.

What I meant is almost exactly that--more requirements for canopy-training & expanding on what is required now.

Quote

Right, just as no one is trying to ban swooping now.

Some have restricted turn ratios. Many view this as a "ban". I agree the sky is not falling. But change is necessary to keep it from doing so, metaphorically speaking.

And with that, I'm out like trout for the weekend.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

You might have more success, both in saving lives, and with adoption, if you focus on enabling safe swoops, vs trying to preserve the old ways. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

If you believe that swoopers are the problem, then decide if it is a growing or shrinking issue. If swooping is a flash in the pan, banishing swoopers and all other undesirables to the outskirts of the main landing area might work.

If, on the other hand, you believe swooping to be evolution of the sport, like the transition from round to square parachutes, we are better served by creating safe places to swoop.

In my view, as both a swooper and a regular pattern flier (mostly with tandems), a dedicated swoop / high speed area will save the most lives. Far more so than creating a box pattern area and an "other" area.

Note that this is different from your proposals, in that focuses on keeping the swoopers safe, and thus safely out of range of all others. The 3 proposals you advanced endanger swoopers by encouraging slow, unpredictable canopies to join their airspace.

This is the order in which I would add landing areas, if I were king:

One Area:
everyone in the same space. Try to separate by time and be as safe and aware as possible.

Two Areas:
students in one area. All others in the second area.

Three Areas:
students in one area. swoopers only in another area. all others in the third area.

Here is my reasoning:
Speed differences, and different pattern altitudes, are the biggest new risk factors on the scene. Eliminate these difference by providing a safe place for swoopers to land, and the new risks decrease dramatically. Unpredictability of slow canopies in the main landing area is not new. It may be unpleasant, but is not nearly the magnitude of risk of mixing fast & slow canopies, and 1000' & 200' turns to final.

If you revise your BSR proposals to focus on swooper safety, you will save more lives and have a better chance of adoption.

Evan

[mnealtx 0]

In other words, rewrite it where it makes swoopers the prime benificiaries of any changes... which has basically been your objection to any idea brought forth yet.

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

[billvon 2,772]

>You might have more success, both in saving lives, and with adoption, if
>you focus on enabling safe swoops, vs trying to preserve the old ways.

I agree 100%. Having a separate area will enable safer swoops. We have to move away from the "anything goes in the main area" policies we've had up till now.

>The 3
>proposals you advanced endanger swoopers by encouraging slow,
>unpredictable canopies to join their airspace.

You have not read them, then. I encourage you to read the proposals before commenting on them. One separates the two landings by distance. Swoopers can land in the main area only if they fly a standard pattern; pattern flyers can only land in the swoop area on the margins, and only in emergencies (like they can't reach the main area.)

The second allows separation by time. The area is open to swooping until a standard-pattern jumper enters it. This allows one area to serve both.

The third allows each DZO to do whatever they like to separate the patterns.

>This is the order in which I would add landing areas, if I were king:

Not a bad list, although I suspect it would change depending on the population of the DZ.

>If you revise your BSR proposals to focus on swooper safety, you will
>save more lives and have a better chance of adoption.

I will not support any proposal that supports safety of one group to the detriment of another. The proposals we have drawn up attempt to make both swoopers and pattern flyers safer. Keep in mind that swoopers can land in a standard pattern if they have to; people flying a standard pattern can not always do a 270 to land. So the 'default' will always be a standard pattern for safety's sake.

[NeedToJump 0]

Quote

The second allows separation by time. The area is open to swooping until a standard-pattern jumper enters it. This allows one area to serve both.

There are a few possible issues I see with this. At busy dropzones with multiple planes you can have the first people from one load who want to swoop while the last people from the previous load are landing. Sometimes these two groups may conflict and then the swoopers should not swoop. However, sometimes the people from the last load will be on their final leg just about to land and, while they are still technically flying the pattern, there is no possible way that the swoopers' pattern would interfere.

Another case, which I think is extremely common, is that many of the guys who do tandem video are swoopers. These guys get out after all the fun jumpers and very often have clear airspace and can swoop safely even though standard-pattern jumpers have entered the airspace (and landed.)

I think that all the proposals I have read so far (other than your third proposal) would never allow the video people to swoop. They don't get to choose their landing area since they have to land with the tandem, and they have to get out after all the other jumpers. Very often, at least from what I see, they do have clear airspace to swoop and are not causing any pattern conflicts. Obviously if there are other people still in the air flying standard patterns below then the video people should not swoop.

Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com

[ematteo 0]

These are the proposals I refer to. which I have read several times, carefully:

http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2786877

You know I read them, because I asked you detailed questions about them, and this issue, before posting.

If there are updated proposals, please provide a link.

My challenge with these three proposals, as I read them, is that the all "support the safety of one group to the detriment of the other." Box pattern fliers become safer, but at great and unreasonable danger to responsible swoopers (from slow, "non-standard" canopies with which they are forced to land). That, in my view, would be irresponsible governance of the sport.

In contrast, if you separate the groups by speed of approach and pattern altitude, you benefit the entire population of skydivers, not just people flying a box pattern.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

These are the proposals I refer to. which I have read several times, carefully:

http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2786877

You know I read them, because I asked you detailed questions about them, and this issue, before posting.

If there are updated proposals, please provide a link.

My challenge with these three proposals, as I read them, is that the all "support the safety of one group to the detriment of the other." Box pattern fliers become safer, but at great and unreasonable danger to responsible swoopers (from slow, "non-standard" canopies with which they are forced to land). That, in my view, would be irresponsible governance of the sport.

In contrast, if you separate the groups by speed of approach and pattern altitude, you benefit the entire population of skydivers, not just people flying a box pattern.

What 'great and unreasonable danger' would the swoopers be in? I've read the proposals as well, and the only thing I saw that would be of any danger to the swoopers would be if a normal pattern jumper couldn't make it back to their area - in which case they would land on the EDGES of the HPL area - hardly a "great and unreasonable danger" to swoopers, as that possibility exists NOW if someone has a bad spot and is pushing to get back to the DZ.

A secondary point is that, if the swoopers are as heads-up and aware of traffic as everyone is saying, then they would notice that jumper and abort their swoop.

So, I ask again... where is the 'great and unreasonable danger' that these proposals would place the swoopers under that they do NOT ALREADY FACE now?

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

[ematteo 0]

Mike,

Many people feel that the current situation is unacceptable. "See and avoid" doesn't work when there are massive differences in speed, and pattern altitude.

This is why so many people are agitating for change.

The great and unreasonable danger is in creating a swoop zone which is also where you push any "non-standard" slow, low-pattern-altitude flier. Instead of making life safer for this population, you increase the number of potential conflicts.

At the risk of sounding dramatic, I think this will unnecessarily kill many people if implemented.

Evan

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike,

Many people feel that the current situation is unacceptable. "See and avoid" doesn't work when there are massive differences in speed, and pattern altitude.

This is why so many people are agitating for change.

The great and unreasonable danger is in creating a swoop zone which is also where you push any "non-standard" slow, low-pattern-altitude flier. Instead of making life safer for this population, you increase the number of potential conflicts.

At the risk of sounding dramatic, I think this will unnecessarily kill many people if implemented.

Evan

Then HOW are you "seeing and avoiding" NOW, with many more canopies in the air??? I'm sorry, I just don't see it as a valid argument.

Pattern speed puts even MORE responsibility on the fast jumper to see/avoid the slow jumper - just like in today's traffic pattern.

Accuracy jumper in the pattern? Lower jumper has right of way, and you have to abort your swoop - just like in today's traffic pattern.

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