Take Back the Sky

[quade 3]

Quote

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.

Why do I get the feeling that Jan has a pretty good idea for what is and is not acceptable to bring to the attention of the USPA and that you, Spizzzarko, don't have a clue as to who she is?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[winsor 186]

Quote

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.

I call bullshit on this one. With a 270, the canopy with which you are likely to collide is out of view for a large portion of the maneuver. When you can finally see the canopy you are going to hit, hitting is inevitable.

The fact that people cannot distinguish the difference in risk between a 90 and a 270, or between a Parafoil and an Icarus VX, is why I think the benefit of "education" is limited. Too many people hear facts and nonsense and cannot tell the difference.

Quote

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.

Again, I call bullshit. Pointing to one car crash where the driver was sober does not support the contention that the risk was the same as if they were drunk.

The difference between 90 degree turns in the pattern and 270 degree swoops into traffic is the difference between driving in strict accordance with traffic regulations and driving while drunk, going fast enough that you hope to make it home before the quaalude you ate begins to take effect.

Quote

"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.

Just because everyone driving home after drinking all afternoon doesn't smash up their car, I still think it justified to criticize people who drive drunk.

When someone drunk out of their mind has a head-on with a car full of kids, you can't expect a lot of sympathy for drunk drivers who did not happen kill anyone today.

270s in traffic are a recipe for disaster. Period. I don't give a damn who you are, doing them is stupid and an immediate danger to others in the pattern.

I do not advocate rule changes, but submit that a paradigm shift (which I have posted elsewhere) could result in resolution of this issue.

Again - if you missed it - swoopers flying into traffic is the problem we are addressing at present.

Remember - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Spizzzarko 0]

"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"

So you are telling me that everyone who does a 270 does it without looking where they are going and without heed to anyone else in the pattern. Do I have that right? That is what it sounds like you are saying to me. There is a time and a place for doing more turn than a 90 Bill I am quite sure that we both agree upon this. My argument is that this could have happened just the same with a 90 degree turn as it did with a 270. I know that when I am doing a 270 I have a pretty good view of what is going on around me. Just the same view as when I do a 90. Do not blame the turn here Bill you have to blame the person who did it, but that is not important now. What is important is that there be more education instead of regulation.

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

Again, the failure of a person to look where they are going before they go there can be the systemic cause of all of this. The way to fix it is to think about what you are doing before you do it. What rule that you could impose will make people do that Bill? If you can do that then I would be impressed.


"You're getting off topic here."

No I am NOT getting off topic here because you and several others posting in this thread are turning this into a whitch hunt. In my opinion this thread has gone way off topic here and what have we decided was teh root cause to all of our frineds being dead? Sure we have a few ambiguous opinions being thrown around and several people are calling for regulation based on the opinions of others. The fact of the matter is: Some one made a mistake and now they are dead. Going out and issuing blanket policy for all people is not the answer here. I have been saying it from the very beginning, and now I am asking you Bill to think about what you are saying and seperate your emotion from this. You are a smart man Bill and I usually agree with alot of what you have to say, but not on this one brother.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

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.

Your posts are a beacon of rationality in this thread, I'm finding hard not to agree point by point.

It is pointless imo to legislate in response to streaks of incidents. Any worthwhile legislation stands on its own, and does not need a string of incidents to justify it.

I start to wonder when a series of incidents is used for any legislative process whether the rules created in reaction may well be irrelevant in a years' time when probability has given us a new series of incidents to legislate.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Spizzzarko 0]

"Again - if you missed it - swoopers flying into traffic is the problem we are addressing at present"

That is a pretty broad generalization there budy. There were another group of people that made generalizations about other groups of people, and they killed a lot of Jews. And you guys call us swoopers canopy nazi's.

Think about what you are saying.

As far as visibility in the 270 you have just as much visibility in the 270 as you do in the 90. So don't give me that argument. At any point you can also stop your turn and bail out. So again your logic is flawed. According to your bio you fly a swoop canopy at a 2.0 loading so keep in mind "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate"

Best of luck with this one gentlemen. I'm done here it is like beating a dead horse.

[MakeItHappen 15]

read this
and this

Folks like you are the problem. You do not have the right to needlessly endanger the rest of the load.
Your reading comprehension needs improvement.

No one is trying to stop swooping. People are trying to confine swooping to a specific time and place.
That will result in lower risks of being taken out by a swooper. The majority, however silent they may be at this time, will prevail.

This is not some knee jerk reaction to the events in the past several months. It's a frustration that this same scenario played out at the turn of the century is repeating itself.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 2,396]

>So you are telling me that everyone who does a 270 does it without
>looking where they are going and without heed to anyone else in the
>pattern. Do I have that right?

No. I am certain that most swoopers check the landing area as best they can. I am fairly sure that even Danny did this, since by all accounts he was a competent swooper. But you CANNOT look where you are going the whole time when you do a 270, since you are turning away from your final course. You have to headswitch.

What is pretty clear to me is that the manuevers inherent in a 270 make it harder to clear your airspace adequately. That does not mean they are inherently unsafe; it just means that they present unique hazards to other jumpers. It is OK for you to take those risks if you so choose. It is not OK for you to risk the lives of others on your guess that you will be able to clear the traffic in the landing area.

Danny was not incompetent. He merely rolled the dice on a somewhat-risky maneuver in a crowded pattern one too many times. If he had killed himself, well - that would be sad, but it was his life to risk. When he takes someone else out, then we have to consider rules. Not to protect Danny from Danny, but to protect the next Bob from the next Danny.

>That is what it sounds like you are saying to me. There is a time and a
>place for doing more turn than a 90 Bill I am quite sure that we both
>agree upon this.

Agreed! We now need better rules to give people guidance as to where those times and places are.

>My argument is that this could have happened just the same with a 90 degree turn as it did with a 270.

That is bullshit, plain and simple. It's like saying that you can have an accident with a Pilot 210 just like you can have an accident with a Velo 88, so neither one is any riskier than the other.

>Again, the failure of a person to look where they are going before they
>go there can be the systemic cause of all of this. The way to fix it is
>to think about what you are doing before you do it.

We've tried that. We have advice in the SIM on not doing HP landings in the main area. We have canopy control classes. We have people giving each other advice. We have optional DZ-specific suggestions about not doing HP landings in the main area. It's not working. Time to try something else.

>What rule that you could impose will make people do that Bill? If you
>can do that then I would be impressed.

"No turns more than 90 degrees in the main landing area."

[NWFlyer 2]

Wow, Godwin's law doesn't usually get invoked in the topical forums.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[mirage62 0]

Quote

No I am NOT getting off topic here because you and several others posting in this thread are turning this into a whitch hunt.

You know - and not that it matters- I have disagreed to a large degree with Spizzzarko but there is a point sort of here. For any solution to really work it hase to be bought into by swoopers.

I don't feel like this is a witch hunt but I don't swoop. I have a hard time understand his post because it seems (s-e-e-m-s) that he is suggesting that 270's have a place in the standard pattern with other jumpers. I disagree.

But the fear of a witch hunt can cause this problem to not be openly looked at

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

[billvon 2,396]

>As far as visibility in the 270 you have just as much visibility in the 270 as you do in the 90.

Uh, have you done many 270's? Serious question. If you have, where are you looking right before you initiate?

[winsor 186]

Quote

"Again - if you missed it - swoopers flying into traffic is the problem we are addressing at present"

That is a pretty broad generalization there budy.

Saying that drunk drivers is a problem is a broad generalization. It is also accurate.

Saying that swooers flying into traffic is a problem is also a generalization. It is accurate as well - people (all too many being friends of mine) are dying.

Quote

Think about what you are saying.

As far as visibility in the 270 you have just as much visibility in the 270 as you do in the 90. So don't give me that argument

If you are operating under the illusion that your view of potential collision hazards is equivalent between an 90 degree turn to final and a 270 degree setup to swoop, you are living on borrowed time (assuming you actually do the 270s).

Quote

. At any point you can also stop your turn and bail out. So again your logic is flawed.

That is IF you spot the person you are going to hit in time to do anything about it. During a 270 or better, this is all too often not the case.

Quote

According to your bio you fly a swoop canopy at a 2.0 loading

I do - and I can land it with a controlled stand-up landing from a straight-in approach.

If you need any more speed than the canopy can give you in straight and level flight in order to land it properly, you need a lot more practice, a different canopy, or both.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

My argument is that this could have happened just the same with a 90 degree turn as it did with a 270. I know that when I am doing a 270 I have a pretty good view of what is going on around me.

I'm curious as to how this is possible. Keep in mind I have no swooping experience, so just trying to understand where you're coming from.

With a 270, the turn is started higher than with a 90, due to losing more altitude. This means that any other traffic would be comparitively lower at the start of the turn, and perhaps less likely to be seen? I would also guess that the speed of a 270, would be much greater than the speed of a 90, correct? Wouldn't a slower speed impact be more survivable than a high speed one?

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Spizzzarko 0]

Since you do not accept private messages I am throwing this out there for you to read.

"Folks like you are the problem. You do not have the right to needlessly endanger the rest of the load"

Folks like me? Maybe it is your reading ability that is in need of work. From the very begining of this thread I have agreed that there is a problem but my point of contention with what you are doing is the issuing of blaket policy from USPA.

Folks like me? Am I not the voice of reason in this whitch hunt that you are starting? Have I not said from the beginning that categorizing one group of people as the problem is not the answer?

Folks like me? Look back in your little book of statistics and find for me anywhere where there have been collisions in swoop comps or anything like that. When you do then why don't you create a website telling folks like YOU how folks like me do it so that they can learn how to do it right.

Folks like me... From what I recall I do not believe we have ever met or jumped together so how do you know what Folks like me even are? The cause of this is that certain individuals fucked up royally. They probably should have known better but you know what they still did it anyways. Enforce the rules and regs you have on the books instead of making new ones.

Even in your own web site you are combatative towards those who swoop and I quote:
"Wondering if you are the next target for some swooper dude..." "See the swooper-types feel that they can see all and ALWAYS see conflicting traffic"
Now you are generalizing and lumping everyone who swoops into the negative context. For an elected official to USPA I would hope that you do not allow your discriminatory feelings to get into the way of your decision making process for all of those you serve.

If you want to respond to me then send it on a private message instead of airing your discrimintory views about "Folks like me" in public. If you want this to work you need to be less combatative in your tone and include folks like me in your quest for the answer here. Just like Brian Germain said on your site "If you sound as if you are trying to ban high speed approaches, you will find yourself fighting a loosing battle. Hook turns are here to stay." Good luck.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Quote

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.

Your posts are a beacon of rationality in this thread, I'm finding hard not to agree point by point.

It is pointless imo to legislate in response to streaks of incidents. Any worthwhile legislation stands on its own, and does not need a string of incidents to justify it.

I start to wonder when a series of incidents is used for any legislative process whether the rules created in reaction may well be irrelevant in a years' time when probability has given us a new series of incidents to legislate.

I can't think of one Fedearl Aviation Regulation that wasn't written in blood.

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

[bigbearfng 9]

Quote

Quote

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.

Your posts are a beacon of rationality in this thread, I'm finding hard not to agree point by point.

It is pointless imo to legislate in response to streaks of incidents. Any worthwhile legislation stands on its own, and does not need a string of incidents to justify it.

I start to wonder when a series of incidents is used for any legislative process whether the rules created in reaction may well be irrelevant in a years' time when probability has given us a new series of incidents to legislate.

Did you forget that the BSR's were written in blood? More like from blood?
Ans I realize that I'm just a nobody FNG, but jeez spizzarko, you're even makin my rookie ass BS meter peg with your "logic"

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

you're even makin my rookie ass BS meter peg

Then you've contracted the plague of safety fads endemic in this sport. No worries, the infection may clear up on its own in a few years. Some people develop a chronic case.

I think an elementary course in probability theory should be a prerequisite to be an S&TA, or a RD.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[diverdriver 5]

Once again skydiving is trying to reinvent the aviation wheel. Traffic patterns have been established and rules on traffic pattern behaviours have been put in place. THERE'S A REASON ACROBATICS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN! IT'S F'N DANGEROUS!

A landing pattern is meant to be standard, predictable and repeatable. Yet, skydiving (an aviation activity) insists on rewriting the rules because it is somehow exempt from the laws of physics, human nature, and human limitations.

Folks it's not. And if people can't stop doing 270s in the pattern taking people out as they go then anyone wishing to do them should be grounded or restricted to a 270 only landing pattern away from the general landing area.

I love the people who argue that any rule, guideline or regulation that doesn't 100% fix a problem should never be implemented. Come on people. Fix what you can and work on the rest. If people can't control themselves from killing unsuspecting people then they should be grounded period. You have the right to skydive. You don't have the right to ignore my safety and kill me.

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

[Spizzzarko 0]

I am in no way advocating that everyone should be doing 270's in the landing pattern. What I am trying to say is that making rules about banning swoopers from the main landing area at all times is not the solution to this problem.

It is also my argument that with a 270 turn if done properly you should be able to stop your turn and bail out if people or objects get in the way. Yes the 270 is started higher and you are away from other people but that should give you a vantage point that many of the other people only doing 90's from a lower altitude do not have.

Winsor. You are correct that you should be able to land your wing of choice straight in and stand up all the time. I am not arguing th efact of the matter.

What I am arguing is do you honestly think that making more rules and regulations instead of educating the public is going to fix the problem? I for one do not feel that banning swoopers to a different landing are is the be all to end all solution here. Like I have said... There is no easy solution to this. Best of luck.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Winsor. You are correct that you should be able to land your wing of choice straight in and stand up all the time. I am not arguing th efact of the matter.

What I am arguing is do you honestly think that making more rules and regulations instead of educating the public is going to fix the problem? I for one do not feel that banning swoopers to a different landing are is the be all to end all solution here. Like I have said... There is no easy solution to this. Best of luck.

I'm not Winsor but I'll argue this... Show me how you are going to educate everyone on this subject effectively so they will never make this mistake again? What form will your education take so it is clear and unambiguous located in a central place for all to see and know? You can't without putting something in writing in a place that all are required to read and know.

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

[billvon 2,396]

>Yes the 270 is started higher and you are away from other people but
>that should give you a vantage point that many of the other people only
>doing 90's from a lower altitude do not have.

Are you really arguing that jumpers who do 270's have BETTER visibility of potential conflicting traffic than jumpers who make 90 degree turns in the pattern? I think perhaps getting out there and doing a few of these (after appropriate instruction/experience of course) would give you a clearer view of the issues involved.

[winsor 186]

Quote

I am in no way advocating that everyone should be doing 270's in the landing pattern.

I AM saying that NOBODY should be doing 270s in the pattern.

Though using a traffic pattern is a fundamental part of aviation safety, I do not suggest a new rule.

What I do recommend is that the waiver clearly indicate what behavior is not covered by the DZs insurance, and that infractions that nullify insurance coverage will result in immediate grounding.

If the DZ becomes financially liable for the stupidity of jumpers at the DZ, said stupidity will be moved elsewhere.

Nobody is going to cover for someone if doing so will put them out of business in a hurry.

There will still be swooping, but it will be with the understanding and consent of all involved. When flying the pattern, everyone will do so to the best of their ability.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[78RATS 0]

Quote

Yes the 270 is started higher and you are away from other people but
that should give you a vantage point that many of the other people only
doing 90's from a lower altitude do not have.

and 720's...well, they are the shit.

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

What I do recommend is that the waiver clearly indicate what behavior is not covered by the DZs insurance, and that infractions that nullify insurance coverage will result in immediate grounding.

If the DZ becomes financially liable for the stupidity of jumpers at the DZ, said stupidity will be moved elsewhere.

Nobody is going to cover for someone if doing so will put them out of business in a hurry.

There will still be swooping, but it will be with the understanding and consent of all involved. When flying the pattern, everyone will do so to the best of their ability.

The day the DZ's become liable for the stupidity of jumpers at the DZ, is the day the DZ closes.

Are you guys really getting litigious on us?

How the hell are lawsuits the answer here?

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

What I do recommend is that the waiver clearly indicate what behavior is not covered by the DZs insurance, and that infractions that nullify insurance coverage will result in immediate grounding.

If the DZ becomes financially liable for the stupidity of jumpers at the DZ, said stupidity will be moved elsewhere.

Nobody is going to cover for someone if doing so will put them out of business in a hurry.

There will still be swooping, but it will be with the understanding and consent of all involved. When flying the pattern, everyone will do so to the best of their ability.

The day the DZ's become liable for the stupidity of jumpers at the DZ, is the day the DZ closes.

Are you guys really getting litigious on us?

How the hell are lawsuits the answer here?

That is by no means the point. Who suggested lawsuits as an answer to anything?

What I am talking about is insurance coverage. Make it clear that particular actions are not covered, and you have a financial incentive for grounding the offender on the spot.

This gives DZs the tool necessary to maintain basic safety standards. You only have to set an example or two, and people tend to get the message.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[labrys 0]

Quote

What I do recommend is that the waiver clearly indicate what behavior is not covered by the DZs insurance

What types of behaviors do the these insurance polies actually cover?

Owned by Remi #?