Anti BSR Swoop discussions

[hukturn 0]

As I am sure many of you are aware, there are several heated discussions on the USPA BSR issue concerning seperated landing areas. I oppose the BSR...not necessarily because of the seperated landing areas, but because I am opposed to USPA intervention in this issue. Anyway, I am cross-posting the below discussion for a friend. There was some fear of retribution so I am posting for him. But I feel that the possible retribution is outweighed by the need for realistic intervention...not BSR's. So, please take a moment to read and if you feel inclined you are invited to sign the petiotion linked at the bottom.

-Matthew


" I just sent this out on myspace:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Perfomance Canopy Flight is at risk for coming under unnessecary regulations from USPA, in an attempt to solve a problem that is better solved by the individual members. I feel that this will be bad for the overall skydiving community in the long run.

The birth of RW was met with skeptisim by the Style and Accuracy competitors. It was viewed as reckless and dangerous to be in freefall alongside other people. Freefall collisions occured then and now but with proper education they can be avoided.

There was a time when square canopy's were considered to risky for unexperienced people, dangerous even. As our knowledge grew so did our ability to teach and today first timers are jumping ramair canopy's and jumping the rounds would be considered more dangerous.

Many can probably remember when freeflying was new. Back then lots of people frowned upon it as dangerous. I remember a few DZ's that did not permit it, for reasons that we would find humorous today.

None of these aspects of the sport were penalized with legalities. Today we all enjoy a sport that is reaping the benifits of those who pioneered before us, and learned the hard way the things that we now consider basic knowledge. Already, it is apparent that the most docile of canopies is benifiting from the research that comes from the most aggressive of canopy's. The leading pilots gain information flying the fastest canopies and share that knowledge with the rest of us allowing us to learn things about canopy flight without having to go throught the process that they have. Swooping is valuable, and the future of this sport will be restrained if we restrict progress. Imagine where this sport would be today if the Style and Accuracy crowd had created a rule that didn't allow people to be in freefall together becuase of a the collisions they had suffered.

We've had a rash of canopy collisions in the last year but they are not new to this sport, and definitely not contained to the high performance canopy's. I believe that the community will address (and already has) this problem with better enforced landing patterns and more importantly better education for everybody on canopy flight. Please visit the site below and sign the petition asking USPA to leave the rule making up to the individule DZ's as each one will have thier own issues to work out.


http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?bluesky

Please forward this bulletin to reach as many as possilble.
Thank you! "

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

None of these aspects of the sport were penalized with legalities. "

Who exactly is being penalized by separating swooping from standard landing patterns?

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

None of these aspects of the sport were penalized with legalities. "

Who exactly is being penalized by separating swooping from standard landing patterns?

The children, John, the children.. and the elderly. Why do you hate the children and the elderly so much?

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

[skybytch 259]

Regardless of how you feel on this issue - signing a petition is great, but an even better way to influence the USPA decision making process would be to make sure that the regional director from your region knows your opinion. Talk to him/her at the dz, call, email... Also, send e-mails to the members of the S&T committee, since they'll probably be the ones addressing the issue.

Quite a few people plan to attend the next USPA board meeting. If you can make it, show up. Several of us will be there wearing the t-shirt that is in the link in my sig line...

The more people that voice their opinions on this issue to BOD members, the more likely it is that the BOD will do what the majority of skydivers would like to see.

[freeflyimpaired 0]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?bluesky

I signed it. The DZ that I like to frequent has separated areas and I love that. It is the best option for everybody. But not every DZ has that option and I don't want to see a BSR added that would put some DZ's in a difficult position of having to ban hook turns to follow the rules. I vote leave it up to the individual DZ's with their individual circumstances.

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

[billvon 2,400]

>I vote leave it up to the individual DZ's with their individual circumstances.

FYI the BSR proposal is to do just that.

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

Who exactly is being penalized by separating swooping from standard landing patterns?

Nobody is. The problem is that many of the standard landing pattern types still insist on landing in the high performance areas, sometimes having close calls of their own with other standard landing pattern types along the way.

[billvon 2,400]

>The problem is that many of the standard landing pattern types still
>insist on landing in the high performance areas . . .

That is indeed a problem, which is one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate. Note that in places like Eloy, it would tend to bring back swooping by requiring the DZO to designate a time/place for high performance landings.

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

That is indeed a problem, which is one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate. Note that in places like Eloy, it would tend to bring back swooping by requiring the DZO to designate a time/place for high performance landings.

I personally don't see how a BSR will stop what I mentioned from happening, though. My home dropzone has a high performance landing area, which is a very small part of a GIGANTIC grass landing area. I have personally watched at least one of the people here who supposedly supports separate areas for swoopers land in that high performance area... and it wasn't because they were trying to get back from a bad spot, or any other reason out of their control. They also happened to come very, very close to kicking the top skin of the canopy of a jumper landing immediately before them.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?bluesky

I signed it. The DZ that I like to frequent has separated areas and I love that. It is the best option for everybody. But not every DZ has that option and I don't want to see a BSR added that would put some DZ's in a difficult position of having to ban hook turns to follow the rules. I vote leave it up to the individual DZ's with their individual circumstances.

So if the DZ doesn't have the option of separate areas, is it JUST POSSIBLE that the separation could be in time?

Or do you just want business as usual and just hope there are no more collision induced fatalities?

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Who exactly is being penalized by separating swooping from standard landing patterns?

Nobody is. The problem is that many of the standard landing pattern types still insist on landing in the high performance areas, sometimes having close calls of their own with other standard landing pattern types along the way.

So the "standard pattern types" who do this get disciplined. What problem do you have with that?

...

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

[hukturn 0]

No, Bill, it does not. You seem to have forgotten your BSR proposal in all of the heat.. Your "plan" dictates that a DZ must have seperate landing areas and it is up to the DZ to figure out how to do it. So, don't post that " FYI the BSR proposal is to do just that" in response to "I vote leave it up to the individual DZ's with their individual circumstances". To compare, my proposal that you rebut indicates that the DZ has full control over their DZ and should impliment polices to address a growing problem. But, that may not be seperate landing areas, it may mean seperate passes, it may meas seperate landing areas, it may mean stopping turns over a certain degree on final, it may mean anything. But, at least the DZ's can determine how to address the problem at a local level.
Like I said, a BSR (round peg) may not fit every DZ (square hole). There are many DZ's which may not be able to accomodate seperate LZ's. There are simpluy too many issues involved to have a blanket policy dictated by USPA.

[hukturn 0]

There is nothing to prevent anyone from seperating themselves from the normal landing area at any time. You certainly don't believe that you need a BSR to decide to land out, do you?!?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

There is nothing to prevent anyone from seperating themselves from the normal landing area at any time. You certainly don't believe that you need a BSR to decide to land out, do you?!?

So your solution is for people flying a standard pattern to land out if you want to swoop. Seems a bit selfish of you, don't you think?

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

No, Bill, it does not. You seem to have forgotten your BSR proposal in all of the heat.. Your "plan" dictates that a DZ must have seperate landing areas and it is up to the DZ to figure out how to do it. .

WRONG WRONG WRONG!

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2826693#2826693

Nothing in there about separate landing AREAS.

A bunch of you (and that includes hukturn) CONSISTENTLY misrepresent the proposal, and then attack their own strawman.

...

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

[hukturn 0]

"It does this by separating landing areas." posted by billvon Jun 19, 2007, 10:54 AM

"...one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate." posted by billvon Jun 22, 2007, 1:03 PM

These are bothe responses from Bill indicating seperated landing areas. Your arguement is proven inaccurate.



"The petition is:
We, the undersigned, support a BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings."
If this is your proposal in it's entirity, it lacks meat. There is no mention how to address, to include seperatioon by time. Thus, you leave it to USPA to intrepret this to mean seperated landing areas.

In any event, the real issue at hand is that thi is not a USPA issue This is a DZ issue. Somehow, thera are alot of DZ's who have managed to kleep themselves alive and manage their patrons. And, all the while do so while having a little fun. A change is needed but not in the form of a BSR.

[hukturn 0]

Actually, I ws implying that we could chose to land out to swoop. Not so selfish after all, huh?!?

[hukturn 0]

If anyone would like a sample letter to copy and paste into an e-mail to submit to their Regional Director, please contact me.

[kallend 1,623]

"It does this by separating landing areas." posted by billvon Jun 19, 2007, 10:54 AM

"...one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate." posted by billvon Jun 22, 2007, 1:03 PM

These are bothe responses from Bill indicating seperated landing areas. Your arguement is proven inaccurate.

Quote

Those are selective quotes and NOT part of the proposal. A very weak and ineffective debating tactic.

See your following paragraph where the ACTUAL proposal is written out.

Quote

"The petition is:
We, the undersigned, support a BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings."

Where does it mention anything about areas? NOWHERE.

Quote

If this is your proposal in it's entirity, it lacks meat. There is no mention how to address, to include seperatioon by time. Thus, you leave it to USPA to intrepret this to mean seperated landing areas.
.

NOT AT ALL. From the beginning separation in time has been suggested as a possibility.

Your selective quoting of Bill does not help you make your case, he has also written that separation in time is acceptable.

Leaving the details to the individual DZ is the smart thing to do, and is in accordance with suggestions from most swoopers. The BSR proposal simply states that the DZ must come up with a separation plan.

You consistently misrepresent the proposal for a reason that I can only assume is a selfish desire to swoop whenever and wherever you want.

Do you really think allowing swooping and standard patterns in the same place at the same time is safe? That's how you are coming across.

...

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

• Quote

[raymod2 1]

Kallend, you accuse hukturn of using weak and ineffective debating techniques yet you are the one who is attacking the person and not the idea. Do you think that by calling him selfish and unsafe you will bully him into silence?

[Pendragon 1]

Quote

Do you really think allowing swooping and standard patterns in the same place at the same time is safe?

FWIW, I think it can be. A correctly executed high performance landing - with people stacking correctly and being disciplined - is perfectly safe in a designated landing pattern where others choose to do straight-in approaches. Other than educating jumpers on how (and when) to correctly execute a high-performance landing, the issue is congestion, which can be exasperated in a number of ways:

1. People spiraling through the stack (this has nothing to do with HP landings)
2. Freeflyers out 2nd making more people open on the same level (again, nothing to do with HP landings)
3. Plane size and group size (you don't tend to get canopy collisions at Cessna DZs!)
4. LZ size and usable area


Not everyone executes a HP landing with the same rotation
Sometimes everyone has to bail, whether the plan was straight in or HP

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you really think allowing swooping and standard patterns in the same place at the same time is safe?

FWIW, I think it can be. A correctly executed high performance landing - with people stacking correctly and being disciplined - is perfectly safe in a designated landing pattern where others choose to do straight-in approaches. Other than educating jumpers on how (and when) to correctly execute a high-performance landing, the issue is congestion, which can be exasperated in a number of ways:

1. People spiraling through the stack (this has nothing to do with HP landings)
2. Freeflyers out 2nd making more people open on the same level (again, nothing to do with HP landings)
3. Plane size and group size (you don't tend to get canopy collisions at Cessna DZs!)
4. LZ size and usable area


Not everyone executes a HP landing with the same rotation
Sometimes everyone has to bail, whether the plan was straight in or HP

How will you guarantee that correct execution? How will you guarantee the proper education? I believe that a couple of the swoopers involved in recent fatalities were considered highly skilled and experienced.

What of the individual who thinks he is a skilled swooper, but really isn't.

Edited to add - although it wasn't a Cessna DZ, I also believe that a recent collision at Eloy happened when only 2 or 3 people were in the air. And the LZ size has little to do with it if all are trying to land close to the packing tent.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Kallend, you accuse hukturn of using weak and ineffective debating techniques yet you are the one who is attacking the person and not the idea. Do you think that by calling him selfish and unsafe you will bully him into silence?

Do you think it safe to allow swooping and standard patterns in the same place at the same time? Just curious. (It seems swoopers are divided on this, but I have yet to talk to any non-swooper who thinks it is safe.)

[billvon 2,400]

>Your "plan" dictates that a DZ must have seperate landing areas . . .

Nope. Again, I support a BSR that allows DZ's to separate them any way they like. They can be separate in space, or they can be the same landing area separated by time. The only thing you _can't_ have is people doing 270's through a crowded standard pattern. (Surely you would not lament the loss of that!)

>To compare, my proposal that you rebut indicates that the DZ has full
>control over their DZ and should impliment polices to address a growing
>problem. But, that may not be seperate landing areas, it may mean
>seperate passes, it may meas seperate landing areas, it may mean
>stopping turns over a certain degree on final, it may mean anything.

Then we are in agreement.

> But, at least the DZ's can determine how to address the problem at a local level.

Agreed.

>Like I said, a BSR (round peg) may not fit every DZ (square hole).

I don't want a shape at all. I want the DZ to decide the shape of that peg. But I do want there to be a peg. "Just do whatever you want in any pattern you want" doesn't work, and is allowing irresponsible jumpers to kill safe jumpers.

>There are many DZ's which may not be able to accomodate seperate LZ's.

I agree. Some DZ's may wish to separate them by time (separate passes) as you list above. Hence the BSR proposal.

>There are simpluy too many issues involved to have a blanket policy dictated by USPA.

Again, I agree. Which is why I support a BSR that leaves it up to the DZ.

[hukturn 0]

Sorry, but the quotes are quotes. I mean, he typed it...All I did was copy and paste. I did not make it up, they are real quotes. But, it seems that there was a real defensive response to the quotes. Is there something "hidden" in the BSR? "...BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings" strongly implies seperation of LZ's.
You are right, he has written seperation by timing. In fact, he has stated many things which do not match your proposal. But, the bottom line is that your BSR is too vague in nature. This is an issue better handled by the DZ's than USPA.
"Yes", I do believe that swoopping into a pattern can be executed safely. I do not know that any high degree of turn is safe in a pattern. But, all swooping does not require turns greater than 180degs. Swooping does not require a cross braced caopy. Swoopping does not require 2:1+ wing loading. In fact, I used to swoop (though not as high a degree) by old Raven III. I swoop without even turning into final. I swoop safely and so do many other people. And I understand that I can not always swoop on landing.
I don't misrepresent your proposal. You have simply failed to present a functional BSR. You are taking the responsibility from the DZ. This is a DZ issue...let them handle it in accordance with what fits the individual DZ. There is no need for a BSR. This is not a selfish desire to swoop. This is a selfish desire to allow the DZ's to impliment policies at the local level and to take ownership of what happens on their DZ's.
I already know your response..."but the BSR does that...it makes the DZ devise a plan". Many DZ's have a plan, many DZ's have strong S&TA's, many DZ's really care about the welfare of it's clients. Those DZ's do not need USPA intervention. Address thereal issues. Devising a plan that is functional for the DZ does not require USPA to tell them to do so. Making the plan work does not require USPA to make them do so.