billvon 2,400 #126 March 29, 2007 >This is only a band aid to the problem that needs an amputation. No swooping anywhere, at all? That seems a bit extreme. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #127 March 29, 2007 Quote> The one way to stop this is to, ourselves, stop arrogant swoopers from doing 270's in traffic. But that will never happen. Here, again, you're saying that the ONE way to stop the problem is to stop swoopers from doing 270s in traffic. Again, you're implying that the sole problem is swoopers doing 270s. How would preventing "swoopers" from doing 270s prevented the double fatality involving the student and military jumper? I don't know why you insist at pointing the finger directly at swoopers and not in any other direction.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #128 March 29, 2007 >How would preventing "swoopers" from doing 270s prevented the double >fatality involving the student and military jumper? Sorry, should have said "270's or greater." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #129 March 29, 2007 Quote>How would preventing "swoopers" from doing 270s prevented the double >fatality involving the student and military jumper? Sorry, should have said "270's or greater." My point is you clearly identified "swoopers" doing turns as the ONLY measure we can control. You very clearly indicate that "swoopers" are THE problem. Now that I've called you on it, you seem to be tap dancing around the fact that you said that the ONLY thing we can do to solve the problem is prevent SWOOPERS from doing 270s in traffic.Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #130 March 29, 2007 >Now that I've called you on it, you seem to be tap dancing around the > fact that you said that the ONLY thing we can do to solve the problem is >prevent SWOOPERS from doing 270s in traffic. The only way we can keep SWOOPERS from being banned (which is the title of this thread) is to keep SWOOPERS from killing people by doing irresponsible things. To prevent ALL fatalities, we have to do a lot more (of course.) The incident you listed involved a jumper (not a swooper) doing a 360 in the pattern. Better enforcement of "no more than X degree turns" will help with (but of course never eliminate) this problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #131 March 29, 2007 QuoteMy point is you clearly identified "swoopers" doing turns as the ONLY measure we can control. You very clearly indicate that "swoopers" are THE problem. Now that I've called you on it, you seem to be tap dancing around the fact that you said that the ONLY thing we can do to solve the problem is prevent SWOOPERS from doing 270s in traffic. That is not so simple. Having 270's or greater was a major factor of those deaths, but not the only cause of it. This is just the first step, if it does not cure canopy collisions there should be some more too. This policy still much lighter than the NO HOOK TURNS policy of the Hercules Boogies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #132 March 29, 2007 Ok, then instead of saying QuoteThe one way to stop this is to, ourselves, stop arrogant swoopers from doing 270's in traffic. Perhaps you could say QuoteThe one way to stop this is to, ourselves, stop anyone from turns greater than 180 in traffic. Other threads have already illustrated that not all incidents are caused by swoopers, but it is leading to restrictions on swoopers. People that are implementing or supporting these restrictions are citing all accidents, not just the ones the swoopers are involved in. The argument that the only way to keep swoopers from being banned is to control swoopers, just doesn't hold water with me. At this point, any canopy collision, whether related to swooping or not, will result in even further restrictions for swoopers. For the record, I am neither for nor against SDAs policy. But I clearly don't like the finger pointed at swoopers as the sole problem as your first statement I quoted clearly does. I don't think this is helpful at getting to the root of the problem. I think you know that swoopers aren't the only problem, but your statements say otherwise. Then you continue to defend them instead of "what I really meant was...."Blues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ORANGENBLUE 0 #133 March 29, 2007 QuoteOther threads have already illustrated that not all incidents are caused by swoopers, but it is leading to restrictions on swoopers. People that are implementing or supporting these restrictions are citing all accidents, not just the ones the swoopers are involved in. BINGO! The biggest common denominator here is too many people trying to land in the same area at the same time. Maybe Eloys landing area is too small to handel parallel jump runs. anyone have any thoughts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #134 March 29, 2007 >Maybe Eloys landing area is too small to handel parallel jump runs. >anyone have any thoughts? Eloy's landing area is HUGE! It covers several miles. The problem arises when everyone wants to land on the grass next to the packers. Drop zones can't change that behavior (and Larry can't afford to water square miles of grass.) That's something skydivers have to work on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #135 March 29, 2007 Quote>Maybe Eloys landing area is too small to handel parallel jump runs. >anyone have any thoughts? Eloy's landing area is HUGE! It covers several miles. The problem arises when everyone wants to land on the grass next to the packers. Drop zones can't change that behavior (and Larry can't afford to water square miles of grass.) That's something skydivers have to work on. having a tiny grass landing area surrounded by dessert that gets all over you and inside your canopy and full of obstacles is kinda setting all those people that pay for facilities to skydive at up for disaster. preach all you want about being able to land any where but if you can afford multiple million dollar plus aircraft and jets for toys you should be able to afford a little bit more water. everyone is making apologies and rationalizing SDA's behaviour when they aren't bothering too. they do not want high performance landings at their dropzone. they aren't going to expand facilitites to cater to all types because they simply do not want to. they think their landing area is perfectly acceptable if you do not have high performance turns in the mix. i think they are taking a stand and don't give a shit. i think they are short sighted in their behavious but recognize that they run a dropzone so they can as they see fit. im the customer, i will spend my $$ where i see fit. it all works out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ORANGENBLUE 0 #136 March 29, 2007 QuoteQuote>Maybe Eloys landing area is too small to handel parallel jump runs. >anyone have any thoughts? Eloy's landing area is HUGE! It covers several miles. The problem arises when everyone wants to land on the grass next to the packers. Drop zones can't change that behavior (and Larry can't afford to water square miles of grass.) That's something skydivers have to work on. having a tiny grass landing area surrounded by dessert that gets all over you and inside your canopy and full of obstacles is kinda setting all those people that pay for facilities to skydive at up for disaster. preach all you want about being able to land any where but if you can afford multiple million dollar plus aircraft and jets for toys you should be able to afford a little bit more water. everyone is making apologies and rationalizing SDA's behaviour when they aren't bothering too. they do not want high performance landings at their dropzone. they aren't going to expand facilitites to cater to all types because they simply do not want to. they think their landing area is perfectly acceptable if you do not have high performance turns in the mix. i think they are taking a stand and don't give a shit. i think they are short sighted in their behavious but recognize that they run a dropzone so they can as they see fit. im the customer, i will spend my $$ where i see fit. it all works out. Thank you. My point exactly. I have no problem with them not wanting the swooping clientel. I do, however, have a problem with them saying that they will let you out on a hop n pop to swoop, but then saying that they do not encourage it. Just tell it like it is. you don't want swooping there. cool. no I am serious, I have no proplem with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #137 March 29, 2007 As long as more DZs don’t “economically viable” us, we swoopers still have options. I have had nothing but positive experiences towards swooping in the last couple of years at Mile-Hi in CO, Perris Valley in CA, Skydive Oregon (well their pond could be cleaner), Kapowsin in WA, Snohomish in WA (well not so sure about Tom, Smiley, Todd, Bryon, Kelly and especially Brad … but everyone else was cool) and of course the two local BCs DZs I jumped at last summer and the one Alberta DZ I visited last October were also positive towards me (plus while I’ve never been there, Lodi has inexpensive hop n’ pops right?). So if SDAZ wants to shun us swoopers, let them shun us. Let’s just hope that the buck stops there. PS: We swoopers do need to clean up our act and swoop more responsibly in traffic otherwise it is hard to defend what we do when we take non-swoopers out. Killing ourselves is one can of worms, but killing other people should not be accepted. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #138 March 29, 2007 Quote>Really? I was there for 4 days; I never heard one thing about it. I heard about it when I registered. A lot of people were pretty studiously ignoring the briefing while they were registering; sort of a "yeah yeah where do I sign so I can jump?" sort of thing. (Not just for that issue.) >My comment was meant to be a rhetorical question that would highlight >what I perceive to be the fallacy in SDA's rule and the attitude behind it. If >their new rule was meant to be a quick fix to an immediate problem while >they came up with something better, I wouldn't have a problem. I think their new rule is just the next thing they could think of. If "jumper awareness" and "education" and "common sense" etc etc could solve the problem, then they wouldn't have done anything like this. But there have been too many deaths there, I think, and there are a small subset of skydivers who don't listen to anything other than a grounding threat. >I think they've come up with a lazy solution that will only be partially >effective . . . Any solution to this will only be partially effective. You could require everyone to have 40 hours of canopy flight education before jumping at Eloy and someone will still manage to kill themselves. >and I don't think they have any business pushing it on anyone else. If it works at all, they won't have to "push" it - others will adopt it because they want to avoid the same thing happening to them. The one way to stop this is to, ourselves, stop arrogant swoopers from doing 270's in traffic. But that will never happen. There is nothing "new" about the rule at SDAZ other than the fact it's full time rather than event oriented. But since they had a complete lack of interest in enforcing the rule durring events, I suspect that this too will fail in time. It also doesn't address the real issue. What about the most recent fatalities in Eloy?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #139 March 29, 2007 >What about the most recent fatalities in Eloy? "No more than 90 degree turns in the south area" would have prevented that one as well, had it been followed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #140 March 29, 2007 Quote>What about the most recent fatalities in Eloy? "No more than 90 degree turns in the south area" would have prevented that one as well, had it been followed. Do you honestly think the student would have followed that or known better?Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #141 March 29, 2007 I don't think so.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ORANGENBLUE 0 #142 March 29, 2007 Correct me if i am wrong, but I thought i read that it had more to do with two jumpers flying their base legs at each other, one flying a canopy that could be difficult to see because of the color, and the other flying towards the setting sun (impairing vision). I thought the early reports of 360s in the pattern were erroneous. "On Saturday at 5 PM in a jumping exercise Ed, nearing the end of the jump, was making a right turn at the same time as another jumper was making a left turn, both turning into the sun which hampered their vision. They collided at about 200 feet." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #143 March 29, 2007 >Do you honestly think the student would have followed that or known better? Had his JM told him about the rule - yes, I think he would have. Given the stink they're making over this now, I think the next canadian JM will ensure their students know about that particular rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
imdskydiver 0 #144 March 30, 2007 Given the stink they're making over this now, I think the next canadian JM will ensure their students know about that particular rule. Quote So now it's time to pick on Canadian JM's , Does it ever stop with you ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Vectracide 0 #145 March 30, 2007 Keep pokin us ya little fucker......we'll have to hand you your ass in Colorado....just like I did....ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL season last year. *cough* under a 9-cell *cough* And by the way....since when did you grow a set? Your quite lippy these days... I didn't know testicles grew in the cold, frozen, unlit barren wasteland that you call home. And you better come packin like Tom does.......try eating a shitload of that Poutaine up there......ya know....the Fries with what looks like Chihuahua puke all over them......of course....you snobs would use French Poodle vomit instead....only the best. Pardon me....would you pass the Grey Poupon? And Goddamit....would you change your name to CanuckNotInUSA already. Or CanuckWishesHeWasInUSA, or CanuckFuckingFrozenAndSurroundedByTheFrench, or.................. ------------------------------ Controlled and Deliberate..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites morris 0 #146 March 30, 2007 BAD NEWS FROM ELOY! Now there´s an open letter from Larry at the Manifest. He (Larry) is saying that the swoopers would be responsible for the large number of canopy collisions and that he´ll contact USPA and other dropzones, trying to have them follow his new rules!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites polarbear 1 #147 March 30, 2007 QuoteI heard about it when I registered. A lot of people were pretty studiously ignoring the briefing while they were registering; sort of a "yeah yeah where do I sign so I can jump?" sort of thing. (Not just for that issue.) Huh...I don't know what to say. I received NO briefing at all, they just signed me up. I was actually very carefully listening becasue I wanted to know if they were limiting turns so I'm pretty sure I would have heard it. I also never saw anything in writing, and I again I was specifically watching for it. Oh well...it doesn't really matter now, I guess. QuoteIf it works at all, they won't have to "push" it - others will adopt it because they want to avoid the same thing happening to them. The one way to stop this is to, ourselves, stop arrogant swoopers from doing 270's in traffic. But that will never happen. I think you're right that the 'best' solution is for all us big turners to start using better judgement again and I think you're right that there will always be someone, who messes up. I also think there are several good ideas out there for addressing this problem, none are perfect but I think all of them can be more effective than SDAs policy. I also think SDA could easily implement a different solution if they wanted to. I do agree that if SDAs policy is right then they won't have to push it. But that's exactly where I'm coming from...SDA shouldn't be 'contacting other DZOs to get them to follow suit' - that's a crusade. If their policy is the best way it will sell itself. Personally, I think it's not the best way - at least not the only way - and that's why I think SDA needs to keep it to themselves. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #148 March 30, 2007 QuoteKeep pokin us ya little fucker......we'll have to hand you your ass in Colorado....just like I did....ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL season last year. I see the trash talking is alive and well in the PAC NW ... BTW check the standings at the end of the season national championships comp in CO when it counted. Maybe if you got off of that 9 cell and maybe if hop along Tom would stop hurting himself during the big comp, you two peeps would have finished ahead of me. But you didn't. QuoteAnd by the way....since when did you grow a set? Your quite lippy these days... I didn't know testicles grew in the cold, frozen, unlit barren wasteland that you call home. Oilberta here in Canuckland maybe a wasteland in the winter, but we have a lot of oil to sell to all of you energy consuming chicken #uckers and the value of my house keeps going up and up as you guys consume more and more. Oh and it wasn't the cold that got me all ornery the other day. It was being called "not economically viable". I think as CJ mentioned in his last post, it's fine and dandy if this is a SDAZ only policy. But to start a crusade for more DZs to adopt their rules is reason for concern and reason for more of us to stand up and offer constructive alternatives to the DZs we jump at that will listen. But we have to admit that there is an issue that does need to be addressed. Brad remember that little altercation you had with a certain visiting show boating videographer at the Pitt boogie last summer and I too had my close call at the same boogie with a slow canopy in the dedicate high performance swoop lane (which while I still say was more the other guys fault, I am not innocent). My close call could have been eliminated with segregated landing areas, but yours was a simple conflict of airspace between two swoopers (which I have on video filmed from above in case you didn't know ... DD from Pitt firewired it). Anyway the time to go big is not when everyone else is in the air. That time should be reserved for competition and/or practice assuming more of us aren't deemed as "not economically viable". Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #149 March 30, 2007 >So now it's time to pick on Canadian JM's , Does it ever stop with you ! Nope. If it had been a Brazilian JM, I'd be using "Brazilian JM's" as examples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Vectracide 0 #150 March 30, 2007 Damn dude......I baited you good....is that all you got? On a serious note......I have been watching this thread with all kinds of emotions.....some points are really accurate, and some people are so F'ing ignorant that I want to rip their tongue out and beat them with it. So, I felt best to let those that express themselves in a constructive, accurate way speak for me as a swooper. My elected voices are Ian Drennan, Stu Schoefeld, Orangeblue (even if he is gay), Chachi and Canuck (yes...even if they are Canadian). Now, in specifics Ian and Stu are pro's...and seriously, someone needs to open up their minds a little and stop being so damn emotional about what is going on here..... What they are saying couldn't be more accurate, please please people...consider what they are stating here. And Steve, in reference to what happened in Pitt last Sept.......well, I can tell you that I have not jumped there since...and don't plan on any time soon. When the DZO tells me to my face that the chaos in her landing area it isn't her problem....then its the last day I jump there. And it was. I packed up my trailer and went home. If you cannot control the idiots in the sky and on the ground....its time to move on to somewhere where people give a shit about staying alive and other peoples safety. This is why I jump at Snohomish. ------------------------------ Controlled and Deliberate..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Vectracide 0 #145 March 30, 2007 Keep pokin us ya little fucker......we'll have to hand you your ass in Colorado....just like I did....ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL season last year. *cough* under a 9-cell *cough* And by the way....since when did you grow a set? Your quite lippy these days... I didn't know testicles grew in the cold, frozen, unlit barren wasteland that you call home. And you better come packin like Tom does.......try eating a shitload of that Poutaine up there......ya know....the Fries with what looks like Chihuahua puke all over them......of course....you snobs would use French Poodle vomit instead....only the best. Pardon me....would you pass the Grey Poupon? And Goddamit....would you change your name to CanuckNotInUSA already. Or CanuckWishesHeWasInUSA, or CanuckFuckingFrozenAndSurroundedByTheFrench, or.................. ------------------------------ Controlled and Deliberate..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morris 0 #146 March 30, 2007 BAD NEWS FROM ELOY! Now there´s an open letter from Larry at the Manifest. He (Larry) is saying that the swoopers would be responsible for the large number of canopy collisions and that he´ll contact USPA and other dropzones, trying to have them follow his new rules!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
polarbear 1 #147 March 30, 2007 QuoteI heard about it when I registered. A lot of people were pretty studiously ignoring the briefing while they were registering; sort of a "yeah yeah where do I sign so I can jump?" sort of thing. (Not just for that issue.) Huh...I don't know what to say. I received NO briefing at all, they just signed me up. I was actually very carefully listening becasue I wanted to know if they were limiting turns so I'm pretty sure I would have heard it. I also never saw anything in writing, and I again I was specifically watching for it. Oh well...it doesn't really matter now, I guess. QuoteIf it works at all, they won't have to "push" it - others will adopt it because they want to avoid the same thing happening to them. The one way to stop this is to, ourselves, stop arrogant swoopers from doing 270's in traffic. But that will never happen. I think you're right that the 'best' solution is for all us big turners to start using better judgement again and I think you're right that there will always be someone, who messes up. I also think there are several good ideas out there for addressing this problem, none are perfect but I think all of them can be more effective than SDAs policy. I also think SDA could easily implement a different solution if they wanted to. I do agree that if SDAs policy is right then they won't have to push it. But that's exactly where I'm coming from...SDA shouldn't be 'contacting other DZOs to get them to follow suit' - that's a crusade. If their policy is the best way it will sell itself. Personally, I think it's not the best way - at least not the only way - and that's why I think SDA needs to keep it to themselves. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #148 March 30, 2007 QuoteKeep pokin us ya little fucker......we'll have to hand you your ass in Colorado....just like I did....ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL season last year. I see the trash talking is alive and well in the PAC NW ... BTW check the standings at the end of the season national championships comp in CO when it counted. Maybe if you got off of that 9 cell and maybe if hop along Tom would stop hurting himself during the big comp, you two peeps would have finished ahead of me. But you didn't. QuoteAnd by the way....since when did you grow a set? Your quite lippy these days... I didn't know testicles grew in the cold, frozen, unlit barren wasteland that you call home. Oilberta here in Canuckland maybe a wasteland in the winter, but we have a lot of oil to sell to all of you energy consuming chicken #uckers and the value of my house keeps going up and up as you guys consume more and more. Oh and it wasn't the cold that got me all ornery the other day. It was being called "not economically viable". I think as CJ mentioned in his last post, it's fine and dandy if this is a SDAZ only policy. But to start a crusade for more DZs to adopt their rules is reason for concern and reason for more of us to stand up and offer constructive alternatives to the DZs we jump at that will listen. But we have to admit that there is an issue that does need to be addressed. Brad remember that little altercation you had with a certain visiting show boating videographer at the Pitt boogie last summer and I too had my close call at the same boogie with a slow canopy in the dedicate high performance swoop lane (which while I still say was more the other guys fault, I am not innocent). My close call could have been eliminated with segregated landing areas, but yours was a simple conflict of airspace between two swoopers (which I have on video filmed from above in case you didn't know ... DD from Pitt firewired it). Anyway the time to go big is not when everyone else is in the air. That time should be reserved for competition and/or practice assuming more of us aren't deemed as "not economically viable". Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #149 March 30, 2007 >So now it's time to pick on Canadian JM's , Does it ever stop with you ! Nope. If it had been a Brazilian JM, I'd be using "Brazilian JM's" as examples. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vectracide 0 #150 March 30, 2007 Damn dude......I baited you good....is that all you got? On a serious note......I have been watching this thread with all kinds of emotions.....some points are really accurate, and some people are so F'ing ignorant that I want to rip their tongue out and beat them with it. So, I felt best to let those that express themselves in a constructive, accurate way speak for me as a swooper. My elected voices are Ian Drennan, Stu Schoefeld, Orangeblue (even if he is gay), Chachi and Canuck (yes...even if they are Canadian). Now, in specifics Ian and Stu are pro's...and seriously, someone needs to open up their minds a little and stop being so damn emotional about what is going on here..... What they are saying couldn't be more accurate, please please people...consider what they are stating here. And Steve, in reference to what happened in Pitt last Sept.......well, I can tell you that I have not jumped there since...and don't plan on any time soon. When the DZO tells me to my face that the chaos in her landing area it isn't her problem....then its the last day I jump there. And it was. I packed up my trailer and went home. If you cannot control the idiots in the sky and on the ground....its time to move on to somewhere where people give a shit about staying alive and other peoples safety. This is why I jump at Snohomish. ------------------------------ Controlled and Deliberate..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
