Take Back the Sky

[skybytch 259]

Quote

what new rules and regulations would you instill to prevent thus from happening again in the future?

Like I said above, requiring that every jumper complete a basic canopy control training course would help a lot. Anything beyond that needs to be done on a dz by dz basis, since what works with one dz's physical location may not work at another.

Quote

banning swoopers from one landing area or limiting people to a 180 on landing unless you are cleared from management like sda has done is not really the answer either. education is the key here.

I could turn this around and say it's banning non-swoopers like me from a particular landing area. The way I see it, it's not about banning anybody. It's about both swoopers and non-swoopers working together to come up with some way to reduce the carnage.

I agree that education is key. I do think it is possible to safely share a landing area if everybody is controlling their pattern and nobody flies their canopy selfishly. But I also feel that until we've educated everybody, continuing to mix traditional and high performance landing patterns in the same sky will continue to kill.

Personally, I'm willing to give up a bit of my freedom so that my friends and I can all survive to make another jump. Especially when the alternative is what kallend suggested...

[HillerMyLife 0]

Fact of the matter is, swooping is a dangerous and quite unneccesary part of the sport. Thats the bottom line. But for some people the skydive isn't enough and they need to poke death in the face once more, regardless of whether or not it endangers others.

Someday Never Comes

[DirtBagSwooper 0]

Quote

She....is one of your National Directors.

And that's why I didn't vote for her, these sort of knee jerk reactions. Just like the density altitude bullshit she tried to get passed in a meeting a couple of years ago. Sure it makes a slight difference, but its a knee jerk reaction to a bigger problem. Overall education instead of focusing on the small things that good quality coaching will allow people to overcome without clouding the true issue.

If the USPA would quit fucking around paying lip service to Laidlaw's AIC and turn around and say people like Scott Miller can't have an approved canopy course or they create a canopy coach curriculum, then the system is obviously broken.

Education is the key to preventing future fatilities. Just like the low pull "situation" we had a number of years ago and the AAD knee jerk reaction we had a few years after that. Education has pretty much fixed that problem and education is the key to fixing the problem with canopies. Creating more rules on DZs through the USPA to further show that the USPA is a tiger with no teeth will further spin our sport down the drain continuing to show the FAA that the USPA can't regulate their own sport. Educating jumpers, just as the AOPA educates their pilots, is the path towards fixing the current crop of problems the jumping community are experiencing.

If education is sought and taught then in a few more years we'll talk about "back in the day" when people didn't know how to properly fly a canopy and kept killing themselves and each other. Then we can move on to whatever new situation is killing our friends in this sport.

Once you have tasted flight, you'll wonder why it tastes like fart.

[OSOK 0]

Reading some of the posts here (and trying to skip the bs) I came up with 2 ideas:

1) Setting a limit on when it's ok or not ok to swoop that depends on the number of people in the air at the same time. I know many incidents (including a recent one) occured when there were only 2 canopies in the sky, but all the same, the more people airborne, the bigger the chances.

2) Setting a 'recurrency' on flying a straight pattern. I assume some people do s-turns (me being one) is because they have a hard time getting to where they want to without it. If you set some kind of "goal" ... like before getting your A license you need a to do a barrel roll ... so that every so often you have to perform a straight landing pattern, it might keep people current and make them able to do it when needed. It kinda sounds silly... it's just a very vague idea being thrown out there.

[Zenister 0]

more emphasis on canopy control and flight patterns IN THE LICENSING PROCESS..

dont make additional licenses, dont require more courses or coaching. Integrate it into the FIRST lessons you learn about skydiving.If AFF is about teaching you 'how not to die' before you learn how to 'actually skydive recreationally' then Canopy Control, Landing patterns and procedures need to be addressed right then at the beginning of the process...

learning how to fit "your landing" into the currently existing pattern is the problem.. i've yet to see any formal instruction on it, i've seen people talk about land marks etc.. but those are inflexable systems that dont/wont account for every circumstance.. you have to teach the PRINCIPLES.. not a set of 'follow the numbers' steps...

some basic skills pattern analysis would be helpful too... most accidents can be seen coming miles away if you are looking for them... teaching people how to analyze flight patterns early on will help them look for and avoid potential conflicts BEFORE they occur...

banning any degree of turn is just short sighted and stupid.. it is putting a bandaid over an immediate problem without addressing or attempting to solve the core issues. It is the skydiving equivalent of the old Dr joke...

"Dr? It hurts when i move my arm."
"so dont move your arm."

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Fact of My Opinion of the matter is, swooping is a dangerous and quite unneccesary part of the sport.

fixed it for you...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[shropshire 0]

For what it's worth - I 100% agree with your post.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[udder 0]

Amen. I think regulation reaches a point of diminishing returns. The fatality rate has been pretty constant for the last 10 years...

"In one way or the other, I'm a bad brother. Word to the motherf**ker." Eazy-E

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Fact of the matter is, swooping is a dangerous and quite unneccesary part of the sport. .

the sport itself is unnecessary

as much as jumping with other people or freefalling or freeflying or wingsuiting can be seen as unnecessary.

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[darkwing 4]

Quote

... Most swoopers will be very quick to tell you that they are more affraid of the common people (non swoopers) than them making a mistake...

My sense is that the statistics won't support that fear -- by a wide margin. Most swoopers are their own worst enemy. Solo femurs are far more common than collisions.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[danornan 64]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What needs to happen is for each individual skydiver to think about what they are about to do before they do it. You can preach until you are blue in the face. You can make all the rules and regulations you want, but if the individual jumper does not feel that they need to adhere to your rules or regulations then they are not going to do it.

How about if they keep getting booted off DZs if they don't follow the rules and regulations? Eventually they'll run out of places to jump.

My concern is that not enough DZOs are willing to give up the revenue that they get from those habitual offendors.

Maybe a lawsuit or two for gross or culpable negligence that will not be protected by a waiver will get their attention.

At this stage, allowing reckless behavior known to endanger the lives of others is, IMO, culpable negligence.

VOTE WITH YOUR FEET (I wrote this to a Friend several days ago)

In light of the accidents of the past few weeks, (actually I witnessed a needless two fatality canopy collision about 3 years ago at Lake Wales) I have reached the conclusion that until a DZO or Drop Zone is sued because of allowing KNOWN hazards in the general landing area, I will continue to do what I have tried to do for the past few years and that is to land way out and walk back. My other choice is to not skydive where swoops are allowed in the general landing area but that only hurts me. I cannot change others behavior, but I am responsible for avoiding hazards if I think it they might happen.

I have ridden motorcycles for many years and the reason I am still alive is because I pretend that everyone on the road is out to get me. I am generally not disappointed and unfortunately I have to practice this bit of preventative avoidance when under canopy. I personally do not want any more excitement after my parachute opens and look forward to a safe predictable landing so I can go up and skydive again. It is prudent to always fly with your head on a swivel and never take normal flight for granted, but when you are taken out, from above, by someone doing a swoop, you are helpless.

Allowing unpredictable behavior in the general LZ is in my opinion negligent and I am afraid that the only way to stop this behavior is a law suit. An innocent bystander (someone flying a normal landing pattern in the general landing area) should not have to die because of reckless behavior. Seems to be the only way to change behavior is a law suit. IT IS NOW A KNOWN HAZARD.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dano

[OSOK 0]

Sorry to be off-topic... but I've thought about this, and who is going to sue? If both die, usually the person's family won't be in the 'loop' well enough to know why it happened. If both just get hurt and live, who will sue, risking 'popularity' with their peers and the community?

I haven't been in the sport that long, so when I talked about the nasty numbers recently, 3 double fatalities in a span of 9 days, I was told that the sport has its downs and ups. If someone was to actually sue because of an accident that could've been avoided, I personally wouldn't think of that person as some as*hole that is trying to kill the sport. On the other hand, I'd probably thank that person for probably saving numerous lives in the future.

Yes, it'd suck for it to get that point... but you know what, I rather take out part of the fun of the sport than to die because of it.

[danornan 64]

Quote

Sorry to be off-topic... but I've thought about this, and who is going to sue? If both die, usually the person's family won't be in the 'loop' well enough to know why it happened. If both just get hurt and live, who will sue, risking 'popularity' with their peers and the community?

Just the threat of a NOW KNOWN hazard will create an effect from the DZ's insurance carrier. Hopefully there will never be a law suit. The Preventive action from the insurance company will eliminate the swoop in the general area. Just my wish!

Dano

[winsor 186]

Quote

Ok, I am more than a little miffed about the events that took place this past weekend and the canopy collisions in the past several months. I am not going to wait for an 'official' decree from organizations.

I set up a web site Take Back the Sky for you and me and everyone else to add their two cents into what needs to be done. All contributions will be considered public domain.

Tell me what you think needs to be done.
BTW, saying that USPA needs to do something is not a good answer.
I want specific 'this needs to happen at this level in order to prevent canopy collisions' type of recommendations.

The domain was just registered and may not be available to some for another 48 hours.

.

I have a problem with people legislating safety, so when people ask me what the regulation should look like, my response is "other."

When I was a youngster in Germany, I once got into a car and was digging around for something while the driver patiently waited.

When I said to go ahead, she told me she would when I put on my seat belt. I said I was going to, and she said fine, she would go then.

Once belted in and underway, I asked if there was a law mandating seat belt use. She said there was not.

She did contend, however, that, if someone in the front seat was unbelted, she was officially uninsured and otherwise without rights. According to her, if she got broadsided by a drunk before I got my seatbelt fastened, she had no claim against the drunk and her insurance company would write her off.

Thus, I support the idea of a YOYO (You're On Your Own) clause regarding "Watch This!" landings. USPA, and any insurer, washes its hands of any incident involving an intentional turn beyond 90 degrees in the pattern.

Thus, a DZO can tell someone that they are free to execute high-performance landings at the DZ only if they have on file an insurance policy for, say, a million dollars that specifically covers hook turns.

This provides a solution and gets away from the regulatory process.

Once a DZO realizes that someone - anyone - who botches a 270 can put them out of business immediately, they are more likely to proscribe such activity in very strong terms.

If it gets down to raw economics, there is no value judgment involved - "What you just did cancels my insurance. I can't afford that. You're grounded, and every DZO within 250 miles will be advised that you are a threat to their insurance as well."

In addition, our culture has to change whereby people doing things that endanger others is simply not acceptable.

I have told a World Champion that swooping over the heads of whuffos was not acceptable. It did not happen again at that boogie.

If I know someone is likely to do a 270 in traffic, I'll scratch from the load without a second thought.

Education is not going to work. Some people could live to be 100, with the physics explained to them daily, and never have a clear picture of the collision scenario they risk.

Rules are likely to be treated with "smoking in the boys' room" contempt, like in the case of the JFTC people sneaking in the odd hook.

We have to quit thinking about how to regulate safety and think more in terms of a culture of safety. When there is a knee-jerk bout of rulemaking, I am reminded of the adage that, when a man's only tool is a hammer, he tends to see every problem as a nail.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

Maybe a lawsuit or two for gross or culpable negligence that will not be protected by a waiver will get their attention.

At this stage, allowing reckless behavior known to endanger the lives of others is, IMO, culpable negligence.

This is completely ducking the problem, and IMO, is much more dangerous to the sport as a whole than the "I make my own pattern" kind of attitudes.

So, so far we have come up with these ideas:

Better education
New rules
Law suits

"Never confuse movement with action." - Ernest Hemingway

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

email me your suggestions

Quit fighting the laws of probability. Streaks happen, deal with it.

The laws of probability are tools to be used to your best advantage. Since life is a crapshoot, you should load the dice in your favor as best you can.

If you find yourself playing Russian Roulette, dud ammunition or a broken firing pin can improve your odds. Using an automatic is not advised.

I am not against high performance landings per se. I do, however, consider them to be in a whole different category from the standpoint of risk.

Though your likelihood of pounding a landing is nonzero if you jump at all, the frequency and severity of bad landings are orders of magnitude greater when swooping than when executing a conservative approach.

There are ways to "deal with it" that are a bit more effective than sitting back and saying "insh'allah."

I also do not think a flurry of rulemaking is the hot tip, either.

I know DZOs that will throw a jumper off the DZ IMMEDIATELY for specific infractions, regardless of who that jumper is. If our culture changes such that you know for certain that you will be on the road with an unpacked chute if you do thing x, y or z - and will be blackballed by any DZ within driving distance - I submit that this streak will come to an end in short order.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[mirage62 0]

Please take the time to go to "Safety and Training" and vote in the Poll: Petition for seperate landing areas.

I'm really liking the points being brought out, you can post were ever you want but I'd like to see as many people vote.

thanks

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Please see updates on Take Back The Sky

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[ianmdrennan 2]

I'm curious. Does anyone have statistics on these fatalities and how many of them happen on a 'regular' weekend vs boogies/bigways or other events?

Lets say, over the last 10 years?

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

I'm curious. Does anyone have statistics on these fatalities and how many of them happen on a 'regular' weekend vs boogies/bigways or other events?

Lets say, over the last 10 years?

Blues,
Ian

While I get your drift is that really going to show something? I don't know. But at boogies we are jumping the same size planes we usually do just more back to back loads. Are you thinking it's the "atmosphere" around a boogie that leads to a change in behaviour leading to accidents? Quite possibly. But I think back to the two canopy collision I saw and they were both NOT at boogie events. One ended in a double fatality and the other a single fatality. This was year 2001 and 2003. The warnings went up then. It was broadcast that you can't do S-turns in a crowd or have people flying opposite patterns swooping without increasing your risk of collision a lot.

We are 6 years removed from those events and it doesn't seem we have learned anything. We have failed to educate the young and old in the sport as to what behaviours lead to reduced margins of safety. And it will take people talking to people at risk and forcing the issue to get it changed. But I fear the general attitude in skydiving is "you can't impede my God given right of freedom to do whatever I want consequences be damned!" It's pervasive in this industry and people have been trying to overcome it in all aspects for decades. We've just reached a point of velocity under canopies that poor attitudes and training that we got away with your decades are now resulting in fatalities at a regular rate.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

While I get your drift is that really going to show something? I don't know.

I'm not sure, but I'm curious to see.

Quote

Are you thinking it's the "atmosphere" around a boogie that leads to a change in behaviour leading to accidents? Quite possibly.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if it didn't. Lot of new people, in a new environment, in a party/excited mode. Still, I'm just looking to see what's out there.

Quote

But I think back to the two canopy collision I saw and they were both NOT at boogie events. One ended in a double fatality and the other a single fatality. This was year 2001 and 2003. The warnings went up then. It was broadcast that you can't do S-turns in a crowd or have people flying opposite patterns swooping without increasing your risk of collision a lot.

Definitely. I first thought of Roger when I started this train of thought. To the best of my knowledge it was a regular weekend. That said I'm very curious to see the 'event' statistics.

Quote

We are 6 years removed from those events and it doesn't seem we have learned anything. We have failed to educate the young and old in the sport as to what behaviours lead to reduced margins of safety. And it will take people talking to people at risk and forcing the issue to get it changed

You'll get no argument from me there. I do believe there is a big mindset issue to deal with. So far though, I'm not convinced we're going about it the right way. Now I'm not talking about seperating landing areas or whatever. What I'm refering to is how people think that it'll make everything just go away. It won't, as long as the type of mentality we're referring to exists, it'll be a problem.

Quote

We've just reached a point of velocity under canopies that poor attitudes and training that we got away with your decades are now resulting in fatalities at a regular rate.

IMO, that right there, is the biggest part of the problem. I agree 100% but it all comes back to a mindset and how do we rectify that mindset? Seperate landing areas solves SOME of the problem but does nothing whatsoever to address the root of the problem - peoples mindsets.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Spizzzarko 0]

I do not think that we can point blame at swoopers in general here. Swooping is not the root cause of this. If you get down to it someone fucked up and took another dude out with them. That is theroot cause of this. FUCKING UP. Yes swooping is superfolous but so is jumping in general. There is no other causal factor here than some one fucked up. There are times to swoop and times not to, and deciding that comes down to the individual. So implementing change by adding rules regulations and constrictions is not the answer to the root problem. You need to get to all of the jumpers and remind them that every decision that they make in the sky can have dire consequences not only to themselves but others.

To Makeithappen,

I hope that you are getting the response that you want but I hope that when you take this to USPA they laugh in your face. Your crusade to institute policy is FLAWED at the basic level here. Take a moment and think about what you are doing. Try to seperate your emotion from your decision making process here and ask yourslef if policy is the best answer to this problem. If you honestly believe that then let us know why and we can discuss it in a civilized manner.

[billvon 2,400]

> I do not think that we can point blame at swoopers in general here.
>Swooping is not the root cause of this.

If you're talking about the GA incident, it sure as hell was.

>If you get down to it someone fucked up and took
> another dude out with them.

Yes. Someone fucked up their swoop. Had they not swooped, this would not have happened.

>There are times to swoop and times not to, and deciding that comes down to the individual.

That angle has led to a lot of dead skydivers. It doesn't work. In your own words, they fuck up and kill people. Once it becomes clear that individual judgment doesn't work, it's time to go to a clearer statement on how and when to hook turn.

>You need to get to all of the jumpers and remind them that every
>decision that they make in the sky can have dire consequences not only to
>themselves but others.

I am certain that if you had reminded Danny of that right before this jump, he would have agreed with you, and told you that he understands. Words and attitudes aren't working any more. We can either accept the death toll (including people killed by other people who fucked up) or we can do something about it.

[Spizzzarko 0]

If you're talking about the GA incident, it sure as hell was.

Oh come on Bill... You know just as well as anyone else that any of this could have happened just as fast if they were doing a 90 turn to final. So your argument on that level if flawed.

Yes. Someone fucked up their swoop. Had they not swooped, this would not have happened.

And if some one fucked up their 90 then both people could have been equally as dead. It doesn't freaking matter what turn you do to final there is always a possibility for collision.

"That angle has led to a lot of dead skydivers. It doesn't work. In your own words, they fuck up and kill people. Once it becomes clear that individual judgment doesn't work, it's time to go to a clearer statement on how and when to hook turn."

How? How does that lead to more people being dead than a rule that nobody is going to follow?

"or we can do something about it."

What exactly are you going to do that is going to work? I wasn't there and I havn't talked to Danny in a couple of years, but I'm pretty certain that danny did not consciously make a turn into another dudes canopy just so he could swoop.

What I am getting at is that no matter how much regulation you place on this matter it can still happen. Do not be so quick to blame a whole group of people (swoopers) for the mistakes of the few. That would be like me calling all free flyers pot head hippy's and 4 way people old antiquated gays because they like to hold other mens hands.

[billvon 2,400]

>You know just as well as anyone else that any of this could have
>happened just as fast if they were doing a 90 turn to final

That's a silly argument. Heck, he could have died by getting struck by lightning shortly after exit! So there's nothing anyone could have done. Move along folks, nothing to learn here . . .

Doing a 270 in the pattern led directly to this accident. Had he been doing a 90, then he would have been flying in the pattern with everyone else, turning with them, seeing them (and them seeing him.) That's why we do 90 degree turns in patterns, and that's why USPA recommends doing them. Had be been in the pattern, Bob would have had a chance to see and avoid him, instead of being struck by a non-observable swooper and killed instantly. And if you think that's the same as doing a 90 in the pattern - you're missing the point.

The argument that "well, everything is as dangerous as everything else, so we can't do anything to stop accidents" is a non-starter.

>What I am getting at is that no matter how much regulation you place
>on this matter it can still happen.

I agree. This will not solve the problem completely. What it will do is give DZ's a clear, unambiguous way to reduce the odds of fatalities like this. Heck, the minimum pull altitude BSR did not end low pulls - but it did reduce the number of low-pull deaths.

If a DZO chooses to not heed this rule, that's his prerogative. But at least he knows he is breaking a rule that is there for a reason. That's better than what we have now, which is that no one thinks about it until two people are dead.

>Do not be so quick to blame a whole group of people (swoopers) for the
> mistakes of the few.

I'm not! I'm only blaming the ones that do 270's in main landing areas.

>That would be like me calling all free flyers pot head hippy's and 4 way
>people old antiquated gays because they like to hold other mens hands.

You're getting off topic here. I don't care what anyone calls anyone else; you can call RW types whatever you like. I do care about making sure the people I love in this sport are not killed by yahoos who do 270's in crowded landing areas. If their feelings get hurt in the process, that's sad - but keeping people alive is far more important.