Anti BSR Swoop discussions

[Pendragon 1]

Quote

You could leave a minute before me and open 1,000' lower than me, but if you're under a Triathlon 170, my Velo will likely get to the ground first.

I was saying the same thing that you just said. By definition, for that to happen, you must have passed the "bigger" canopy at some point. All I'm saying is that, given certain sets of conditions, this is more likely and so more people will be trying to land within a given timeframe. You on a Velo "overtaking" someone on a Triathlon would just illustrate the point.

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

[stevo 0]

rehmwa,
this is the internet but let's try and be as respectful to each other as we would be in person, we're all talking about how to fix a proplem that's killing our fellow jumpers and may kill one of us. refering to someone's ideas as "moronic" and "idiotic", sounds like your trying to start a problem. let's keep this on track.

i do agree with you that trying to explain drift to someone on the plane is rather difficult but i still attempt it and regardless of weather they fully understand it they've been told to give "x" amount of time before they exit, beacause it may save someone's life and on a lot loads where i jump(perris/elsinore) you have slow fallers following freeflyers.
i also agree that group size with in disciplines should be irrelevent.
but regardless, we need to educate people about stacking there approach and flying a propper pattern and about freefall drift.

[rehmwa 2]

"let's try and be as respectful to each other as we would be in person"

Good Idea - here's an example of where a statement might kick off a series of those types of discussions. - "Any solution we come up with absolutely, positively cannot have me sitting uncomfortably in the middle of the plane."

(Slow fallers following fast fallers as a policy can work for those that choose crosswind jumpruns, for example. Just noting a couple big DZs that do it, doesn't explain what it takes to make that thing work. the more traditional jump runs in typical wind conditions - it's just plain dangerous at worst, inefficient at best)

I don't want this to turn into an exit order discussion. It really is about keeping conflicting patterns away from each other. We can 'educate' freefall drift in any of 1000 other threads. Exit order is about 2% of any potential solution that involves landing (and then when done backwards, only concerns the last FF and the first RW and no others). It's about 90% of any solution that involve freefall collisions. I'd suggest we prioritize accordingly.

...
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

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

SInce the low person has ROW, why should he/she have to predict what someone above and behind them is going to do?

why should a swooper have to try and predict which way the "SP" flier will stop their s-turns on landing because their instructor never taught them the correct way to land? why should a swooper have to try and predict if a "SP" flier will be in the HP landing area?

Because right now, operating on the "low man has right of way" theory, the swooper is obliged to yield ROW to the lower slower flyer, not the other way around. It's impossible to do that if you turn your back on the pattern during a 270, as Danny showed us. Which is why separation is a good idea for swoopers.

and this would be why I fly a right hand pattern left handed 270...

that way I see the pattern instead of turning BLINDLY back into the pattern...

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[billvon 2,384]

>so you think it's easier to avoid canopy collisions than it is to count
>before you exit a plane?

No.

>"Any solution we come up with absolutely, positively cannot have me
>sitting uncomfortably in the middle of the plane."

What are you talking about?

[billvon 2,384]

> I agree...most jumpers do not read the ISP's. So, how have we managed
>to ingrain the "low jumper has the right of way" theory? Education, albeit
>propaganda. But, that shows that education works.

Bob is still dead. So it often doesn't work.

> There is simply not a need for a BSR when it can be handled by the DZ's.

I agree. If they were handling it, we would not need a BSR. They're not.

>It takes a strong S&TA and a strong DZO.

"Strong DZO" really doesn't make much sense. You can have a tough-as-nails, take-no-shit DZO who allows 270's in the main landing area because no one has ever died at his DZ by mixing the patterns. If you suggest that he separate them, he might even be strong enough to tell you to get the hell off his DZ. That doesn't solve the problem.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Bob is still dead. So it often doesn't work.

And you'll always have people pulling below 1800 feet even though there's a BSR against it.

People are going to break the rules regardless of what they say. It's still up to the DZO and the community to enforce them.

Quote

I agree. If they were handling it, we would not need a BSR. They're not.

Absolute nonsense. Of the few dz's I've visited this year ALL OF THEM have already made changes without the BSR:
Skydive The Farm
Skydive Atlanta
Skydive Palatka
Skydive Raeford
Atlanta Skydiving Center
Mile Hi Skydiving

Then there's places like:
Skydive Elsinore
Skydive Arizona
etc, etc to name a few

Seems to me like DZO's ARE listening and doing things.

Quote

"Strong DZO" really doesn't make much sense. You can have a tough-as-nails, take-no-shit DZO who allows 270's in the main landing area because no one has ever died at his DZ by mixing the patterns. If you suggest that he separate them, he might even be strong enough to tell you to get the hell off his DZ. That doesn't solve the problem.

Which is ENTIRELY their right to do so. Just like it's the jumpers right to go somewhere else.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mirage62 0]

Quote

And you'll always have people pulling below 1800 feet even though there's a BSR against it.

People are going to break the rules regardless of what they say. It's still up to the DZO and the community to enforce them.

Hey I've GOT it. We repeal the BSR for low pulls. These people only kill themselves and we trade it for a BSR that may ALONG with education help prevent canopy collisions!

We now have the same number of BSR's so that "the man" isn't taking over.

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

I'll restate my point

Quote

It's still up to the DZO and the community to enforce them.

Anyone who thinks for one second that this piece of paper alone will make them safer is kidding themselves IMO. So, if you agree that the DZO's and S&TA's actually need to do something like enforce the rule OR enforce a DZ rule - then we're right back to where we started - with the onus on the community, dzo's and s&ta's to enforce good practices.

I don't believe the BSR is required for us to know what that is at this stage, and if we as a community, need a rule to enforce something we already KNOW then we need to look inwards on what we're becomming.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

And you'll always have people pulling below 1800 feet even though there's a BSR against it.

People are going to break the rules regardless of what they say. It's still up to the DZO and the community to enforce them.

Hey I've GOT it. We repeal the BSR for low pulls. These people only kill themselves and we trade it for a BSR that may ALONG with education help prevent canopy collisions!

We now have the same number of BSR's so that "the man" isn't taking over.

That would work. I'd trade a BSR that just helps prevent you killing yourself for one that helps prevent you killing someone else along with yourself.

...

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

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

Seems to me like DZO's ARE listening and doing things.

My home dropzone has a swoop pond to the north of the main landing area, and also a high performance area in front of the hangar. Unfortunately, many of the people who claim swoopers are trying to kill them, can't seem to land away from these areas... or even away from the runway for that matter.

Should we also create a BSR to force dropzones to plan alternate areas for their planes to land, so that they don't kill someone who decides to land on the runway or tarmac in the loading area?

[Bolas 5]

Skydive Carolina has established a HP landing area as well. They even have a "swoop shuttle" to take the jumpers back to the hanger.

Some other DZ's have had "no hook turn" rules for years.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Of the collision fatalities that have occurred:

How many were long slow carving turns vs. quick snap turns?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Seems to me like DZO's ARE listening and doing things.

My home dropzone has a swoop pond to the north of the main landing area, and also a high performance area in front of the hangar. Unfortunately, many of the people who claim swoopers are trying to kill them, can't seem to land away from these areas... or even away from the runway for that matter.

It would help to know where your home DZ is. It would be neat to watch many non-swoopers landing in the swoop pond and on the runway.

...

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

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

It would help to know where your home DZ is. It would be neat to watch many non-swoopers landing in the swoop pond and on the runway.

Did I say they landed in the pond?

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

It would help to know where your home DZ is. It would be neat to watch many non-swoopers landing in the swoop pond and on the runway.

Did I say they landed in the pond?

Yes. Where is the DZ?

...

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

Guys - please keep it on topic.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It would help to know where your home DZ is. It would be neat to watch many non-swoopers landing in the swoop pond and on the runway.

Did I say they landed in the pond?

Yes. Where is the DZ?

Find the post where I said that, and quote it. When you do that, I'll give you the name of the DZ.

[hukturn 0]

"Bob is still dead"
This is not about Bob...nor any other individual skydiver. You are designing a reg around one incident without regard to how it will impact the sport as a whole. If this were any other two skydivers without the high profile there would not be this push for a BSR. As much as you may miss Bob, the BSR will not bring him back. And, it is no more likely to save someone else as DZ oriented policies. Remember, the DZ's are enforcing, not USPA. So a BSR will not work any more than a policy at the local levels.
"You can have a tough-as-nails, take-no-shit DZO who allows 270's in the main..."
It makes perfect sense. The S&TA and DZO are the enforcers. If you don't have faith that they can apply their own rules, what makes you think that they can enforce a BSR? And, you are somewhat correct in that they could allow 270degs. But, that is their decision and every skydiver has the right to walk off to another DZ for whatever reason. But, I believe that many DZ's have taken this seriously (even prior to the Page/Hollar incident) and have taken steps to avoid collisions.

[hukturn 0]

"I don't believe we have ingrained it AT ALL. If we had, a few people would be alive today who are, unfortunately, now dead."
You could not be more mistaken. In the past million skydives, how many people died as the result of a canopy collision? Just for arguments sake, let's say 10. That is still a thousandth of a percent that you will not be involved in one and die. Those are extremely good odds. Before you ask..."yes" I would take those odds and have apparently been doing to since I started skydiving. And, they are the same odds that Danny took and the same odds that Bob took and the same that everyone else takes. None of us can outrun the Reaper. God will not take you one second before it is your time...with or without a BSR. And when it is yor time, no BSR will stop it.

[hukturn 0]

I want DZ's to run their business as they see fit. I want a safe skydiving experience and I am willing to leave a DZ if necessary. But, I am thankful for a responsble S&TA on my home DZ. DZ Mgmt took action quickly after the Page/Hollar incident. But, we have always had some pretty hard and fast rules. At my DZ, if you screwed up either Tippy grounded you or you got a turquoise ring to the back of the head. Old Raefordites know all about that!

[hukturn 0]

Skydive Carolina is a wonderful example of a DZ that has ample space to seperate landing areas. But, not all DZ's are 800sq acres. Please PM me on the specific on what Danny has classified as an HP landing since I visit Chester about once a month.

I am not opposed to seperating landing areas, seperating time, et cetera. I am simply in opposition to framing it in a BSR format.

Judging by Bolas' post, another DZ has taken action. It looks as though DZ's are more responsive than the BSR committe has given credit. Hmmm....

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Find the post where I said that, and quote it. When you do that, I'll give you the name of the DZ.

You have made a derogatory claim about the flying skills of non-swoopers at your DZ with respect to separate landing areas. It would be nice to know where this place is so that your claims could be verified.

I believe that is on topic.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Yes, we understand that you're against making ALL dz's have a plan to separate traffic, for whatever unknown reason.

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

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

Quote

Find the post where I said that, and quote it. When you do that, I'll give you the name of the DZ.

It would be nice to know where this place is so that your claims could be verified.

You'll have that info, as soon as you verify your claim that I stated people were landing in the swoop pond. Seems fair enough to me, and judging by the number of posts you make here, you have no lack of free time to find the post in which I supposedly stated that.

It's also worth noting that my claim wasn't against "non swoopers at my DZ". There are many non-swoopers at my dropzone who are incredibly skilled under canopy.