hukturn 0 #126 July 15, 2007 "That's right". But don't forget to add that I am in support of DZ's determining how to address at their DZ. This means that they would take a voluntary action. I am not really sure why it is unknown to you. Maybe you could cruise back through the discussions and pull out a half dozen reasons that I have posted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #127 July 15, 2007 Saying "USPA shouldn't be involved" six different ways isn't giving reasons, it's just arguing by repetition and isn't even a valid reason. Nothing you've posted has had any reasons why it shouldn't happen, just a protest that it's even being proposed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,640 #128 July 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote 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. . You described three areas where non-swoopers land, one of which you described: "My home dropzone has a swoop pond". QED. Where is the DZ?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #129 July 15, 2007 Actually, saying it six different ways are representative of reasons. Even if I am opposed to the Big Brother theory, that is alright. But that is not the sole reason for my opposition. My agenda is my own and I do not expect you to accept it blindly. So, here are a few of the highlights (below) of my discussions which present reasons I oppose the BSR. While you may not agree with them does not make them invalid. If you wish, I can copy and paste more. They are all through the threads. Sorry you could not find them. Judging by your past participation in these threads, you don't even understand the BSR. The first thing you should try to do in a debate is to understand your opponent and the topic. At least Kallend and BillVon have done that. Jun 18, 2007, 5:28 AM - So, my biggest concerns is this. Stop making choices for me Jun 18, 2007, 6:05 PM - This is not about Regulations. This is about poor choices which may affect our future. Let the DZ's manage the problem at a local level. We live by too many rules already. Jun 19, 2007, 8:59 AM - I think that DZO's are responsible and should take ownership Jun 19, 2007, 10:39 AM - …the most knowledgeable person becomes the DZO or the S&TA. Jun 19, 2007, 11:13 AM - Now what you have is still a training issue since I have NEVER known Danny to be grounded. Jun 19, 2007, 6:43 PM - Ultimately it is ging to rest on the shoulders of the S&TA or DZO to enforce anyway, no matter whether it is local policy or BSR. Jun 19, 2007, 7:04 PM - My only point of contention in this is that the "teeth" are still going to be at the DZ level. You do not need USPA for that Jun 21, 2007, 3:47 PM - Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. BSR's are violated everyday and S&TA's let it pass everyday. Jun 21, 2007, 4:25 PM - No. People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. Jun 21, 2007, 4:25 PM - People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy collision problems...not USPA and BSR's. Jun 21, 2007, 4:47 PM - If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ. Jun 28, 2007, 6:46 AM - It sounds as though there are several DZ's which already have plans in place and who take these matters seriously. Jun 28, 2007, 8:20 PM - If we impliment a BSR, then you take the ownership of the plan away from the DZ Jun 22, 2007, 6:10 PM - 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 Jun 22, 2007, 6:10 PM - Like I said, a BSR (round peg) may not fit every DZ (square hole). Jun 24, 2007, 6:32 PM - But, the bottom line is that your BSR is too vague in nature. Jun 24, 2007, 6:32 PM - I don't misrepresent your proposal. You have simply failed to present a functional BSR. You are taking the responsibility from the DZ Jun 25, 2007, 6:03 PM - But, your proposal will force DZ's to comply with a practice in spite of their safe record. So, you are misteken, your plan can force actions onto responsible people and safe DZ's. Jun 26, 2007, 7:32 PM - This BSR proposal is not about making things safer. It is about segregating HP canopies from docile. Jun 26, 2007, 7:32 PM - You can generate enough speed from a double front riser on a 7 cell to do grevious harm. But, there is nothing in the proposal to stop that. No, this porposal is simply a means of pointing fingers at those nasty swoopers. How are you going to define "high performance". Wind load? structure of the canopy? The intended manner of flight? There are simply too many variables for a blanket policy. Each DZ can assess their situation and determine policy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #130 July 16, 2007 From a very informative .ppt it has been my honor to share with any skydiver who had issues understanding exit separation.... QuoteWhat We Want to Avoid Freefall collisions Canopy collisions Out-landings in alligator filled swamps and most importantly to this issue.... QuoteEach DZ has unique circumstances. There is no single solution that fits all DZs on all occasions. Entirely accurate... and entirely why the decision on how to deal with Landing separation issues needs to be ENTIRELY in the hands of each individual DZO, who is in the best position develop a plan that will work for their unique circumstances.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #131 July 16, 2007 QuoteFrom a very informative .ppt it has been my honor to share with any skydiver who had issues understanding exit separation.... QuoteWhat We Want to Avoid Freefall collisions Canopy collisions Out-landings in alligator filled swamps and most importantly to this issue.... QuoteEach DZ has unique circumstances. There is no single solution that fits all DZs on all occasions. Entirely accurate... and entirely why the decision on how to deal with Landing separation issues needs to be ENTIRELY in the hands of each individual DZO, who is in the best position develop a plan that will work for their unique circumstances. Which is why the proposal that went forward was for ALL DZs to implement a plan to separate landing areas....not just the ones that felt like it (which is the argument against leaving it up to individual DZs).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
