winsor

I assume you guys jumped at SAZ too... how about separate landing area for HP landings? or maybe low passes for everyone? No... Instead they ban serious swooping I am getting somewhat annoyed at the people who think that "swooping" is much of an issue one way or another. I insist that people quit bitching about how they are subject to discrimination for being swoopers. It is patent nonsense, and gets away from the key point at hand, which is that, if you fly in traffic, you must fly WITH traffic. Right up front: if you want to swoop, knock yourself out. However, if you want to fly so that you are putting people in the pattern at risk of death or serious injury, that is not okay. Pay attention here - it does not matter whether you are coming through the pattern at a significant Mach number after a blind setup or are sashaying your way back and forth across the windline, you cannot fly so as to endanger others. In aviation, you can get away with a lot of questionable procedures, but one transgression that is codified is that it is patently illegal to violate the traffic pattern. For example, if you fly a right hand pattern where a left is published, or vice-versa, you are subject to sanctions. The idea that people feel they have the right to fly their canopies with disregard to the most fundamental principles of aviation safety is mind boggling. Nobody says you can't swoop. Nobody says you can't do 360s. Nobody says you can't sashay. You just can't safely do any of these things in the pattern, and there is nothing personal in that. If you want to do these things, fine. You simply have to do them at some other place or time than people flying a standard pattern. How tough is that to comprehend? The best swoopers I know can also fly in close formation with other canopies without incident. Threading the needle through traffic to effect a swoop is not so much a demonstration of skill as it is bad judgment. The BSR is not about swooping, it's about traffic safety. Blue skies, Winsor

Pictures? I'm waiting for someone to send some to me. As soon as I get some I'll post them

Kallend, as someone who's always interested in proving statistics and trends, I find it interesting that you conveniently ignore the last few years showing over 50% of the fatalities were non-swoopers. Any particular reason for this? Ooh, I can answer this one! Let's see, I see like one swoop out of twenty landings overall. If the 5% of landings that qualify as "swoop" are related to 50% of the collision fatalities, swoopers have an 1,800% greater likelihood of being in a fatal collision on any given jump. 270s or greater have no place in the pattern. End of story. BSBD, Winsor

On any load that we're aboard, Orly King, Scotty Carbone or I will call for a gear check at about 10,000 feet. Each of us has a different briefing announcement, but the end result is the same. Most people do one of their own volition, but enough people have found misrouted chest straps, folded-under cutaway handles or inaccessible hackeys when so reminded that I think it a sound policy. A couple of times someone has found a misrouted chest strap after rolling their eyes and "humoring" me by checking, so I don't mind it so much when people think it uncool. If you're going to come to grief because of something that could easily have been caught before exit, it won't be on my watch. Blue skies, Winsor

I'll never forget Sandy taking a shot with that shotgun and flying 3 feet back right into my arms. I kinda had a feeling that was going to happen! When can we do it again???? Come on down to Houston and we can surely work something out. I have quite a few heavy-hitters that were not out that day (though the .460 and the 10 gauge are a rather good start). Blue skies, winsor

Try adding to your usual separation time, 4 seconds plus 2 seconds for every 10 kts of upperwinds. So if you would leave 8 seconds following a belly flier, and the uppers are at 30 kts, when a belly follows the freeflier he would leave 8 + 4 + ( 3 * 2) = 18 seconds. As you can see, you should be leaving more than a few seconds. I don't follow your algorithm. IIRC, the difference in throw between FF & RW works out to be like 3.5 seconds. This is to say, if a FF group gets out and an RW group gets out 3.5 seconds later, the RW group will be on top of the FF people at opening altitude. Thus, if you wait 4 seconds before beginning your count, you should be good to go. Of course, if you stick to the industry standard exit order (ask B. Burke), you avoid these issues in the first place. Complexity tends to work against safety. Blue skies, Winsor

Time... actually, I'm lucky in a way. I got tinnitus just by shoving those tiny little Walkman earphones into my ears and blasting away with hardrock music at full volume. Mind you I was already deaf. I was also using my hearing aids at a higher volume level than really needed. Once the tinnitus hit, I had to take the hearing aids out and set them down. For damn close to a year. I have permanent damage in my left ear from the tinnitus and cannot wear a hearing aid in it again, but the right ear is touchy and I have to go easy on it. In noisy places, I turn it off. Do a search on Tinnitus Cures... there's bound to be some kind of treatment that'll help. Also check with your ENT doctor. I hope it now makes sense why I made you and your SO wear ear protection when firing the .460 Weatherby. Being deaf does not make one immune to permanent inner-ear injury. The shoulder protection was mandatory, as well.... Blue skies, Winsor (50 years with tinnitus & counting)

Social and economic changes over the decades are reflected in a manner peculiar to the sport. This is to say that, though we represent a somewhat unusual cross-section, the society of which we are a subset is greatly different now that we are bringing Peace, Justice and the American Way to Mesopotamia than it was, say, during the Southeast Asian War Games. Howards, Norsemen, Beech 18s and DC-3s have been supplanted by TwOtters, KingAirs and other turbine platforms. Sex & Drugs & Rock and Roll have been trumped by AIDS (wrap that rascal!), the War on Drugs (just say no, kids) and Hip Hop (barf). The days of a hot-knifed cheapo in a B-12 rig with a borrowed chest-mount twill 24' being beginner gear are long gone. So, too, is the static line jump at a club after a morning's instruction, all for the price of a bag of pot (Columbian Gold, pricey at $40 - not skunk weed sold by the gram). Now you have the tandem jumps underwriting million dollar jump ships, and AFF courses at thousands of dollars that turns out Instant Skygods who drop six or eight gees on color coordinated gear. AFF, of course, focuses on the important part of the skydive and treats as an afterthought the part of the jump that involves saving your life. The parachute end of things is addressed by premium canopy coaching, where people learn to do CRW with the planet. Femur is now a verb. Most of us who could tuck our hair into our belts have gone low-key (sort of). There are quite a few of us who understand what is viewed as "hippie" by those who don't know better (hippie != freak). I suppose we have become a fringe-element subculture of a fringe-element subculture, which is itself marvelously ironic. Compared to the well-heeled sheep out there, being a "nobody" is good fun. Blue skies & purple haze, Winsor

I have known all too many prodigies who came to grief when they counted on their "natural talent" one time too often. Some died, some just got pulverized. The Darwinian nature of the sport cuts nobody any slack. Arrogance is as great a risk as ineptitude - either one can make you a crater waiting for grid coordinates. Most of us who have been around for a while can hang out for hours swapping stories of personal close calls. Most of us both recognize that we simply got lucky on the day in question, and would not take the same risk again - there's no saying that we would be dealt the same hand the next time. I will go ahead and talk to someone if I see them coming too close to disaster too often. Usually I tell them something to the effect that I miss the friend that died doing what they just did, and that I have been on too many ash dives already. It gets through often enough that I think it is worth the trouble. You might as well get used to the fact that not everyone survives. Some people leave the sport because they scare themselves, some get hurt, and some go out feet first. If, however, you focus on survival skills, you can stay in the sport to a ripe, old age. Blue skies, Winsor

Oh, I'd call it a true leap of faith. I am aware of an instance around 1990 where (so I was told) someone donned a rig in freefall that was handed to him by another jumper that carried it out of the airplane. After taking a great deal of grief about it, the two people involved denied it. Given their denial, I will keep their identities to myself - though the Statute of Limitations has certainly expired by now. However, judging by how pissed off was the pilot and by the reactions of others that claimed to be witnesses - and knowing the culprits - I am convinced that it happened. Wesley Snipes I am not. If I don't have a parachute on, I'm staying with the airplane. Blue skies, Winsor

I here by make the motion that we change the requirments to "5" night-jumps, "2" of which have to be made under a Para-Comander or similar round. That should bring out the studs. All in favor?? Responses: A) You bet! B) been there, done that.... I definitely favor adding CRW to the requirements for a D. Doing stacks at night under ParaCommanders just makes the process that much more fun. Moonlit skies, Winsor

I am not sure what is your point in this thread, since "dime a dozen" pretty much covers the airplane-driver career path. I am not too impressed with any job that has one wearing polyester, and most airlines mandate bus-driver attire. The pay generally blows, as well. I agree that it is nice to have someone up front that can bring the aircraft down in one piece if something breaks, but pay scale and skill set are not terribly well linked in the aviation business. The best pilots I know are often DZOs. If you think you can outfly Mike Mullins or Paul Fayard, you are welcome to try. In any event, it sounds like the old "I don't get no respect" monologue. Blue skies, Winsor (have flown an airplane or two...)

Perhaps instead of "tools" I should have said "impetus." Blue skies, Winsor

What types of behaviors do the these insurance polies actually cover? Generally, they cover "accidents." Do something that could be construed as an "on purpose," and all bets are off. Think of life insurance - if you do anything intentional to collect, you can't. If you get an insurance policy that specifically disallows claims resulting from specific acts, the exemption is typically binding. I doubt if the verbiage in the policy could include the exception from coverage for any actions preceded by the statement "hey, watch this!," but it could work out to that in practice. Blue skies, Winsor

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

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

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. 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). 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. 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

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. 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. 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

N/A

'Nanny government' tells you what to do March 22, 2007 ASSOCIATED PRESS You're not eating that! Put the phone down! Pull those earbuds out! And put down that bat; you'll hurt someone! Lawmakers around the country are passing or proposing laws to regulate the grease your doughnuts are fried in, the calls you make from the road, what you listen to when you cross the street, even the bat your child hits a baseball with. The ideas are offered with the best intentions -- usually to minimize a newly recognized danger or to encourage healthy behavior. Lawmakers worry, for example, that text-messaging while driving can be deadly, and that foods fried in trans fats promote heart disease. Critics counter that regulating french fries and BlackBerries infringes on personal liberties. "Nanny government" some critics call it, and they point to a playpen full of behavior-related bills before city councils and state legislatures. "If we were really at war, if we were in a depression, people wouldn't be wasting their time with this stuff," said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, "but because we're not, you know, it's easy to look at every little thing that bothers you." Attempts by the government to modify public behavior have a long history, from Prohibition in the '20s to safety-belt laws in the '80s and smoking bans in the '90s. In recent years, lawmakers have increasingly focused on food. The big action this year involves trans fats, or partially hydrogenated vegetable oils used for deep frying and baking. In December, New York City imposed the nation's first ban on the use of trans fats in restaurants. The idea has spread like greased lightning since then, with bans or warnings introduced in at least 18 states. Philadelphia recently approved a ban, and one was even discussed in Buffalo, N.Y., birthplace of the chicken wing. New York's City Council recently called on residents to voluntarily stop using the n-word and approved a ban on metal baseball bats in high school games, because of fears that youngsters will get killed by balls rocketing off the bats. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has yet to take action on the bat ban. New York in 2001 became the first state to make it illegal for drivers to talk on cell phones unless they have a hands-free set. And last month a state legislator proposed $100 fines for people who listen to IPods, talk on cell phones or text-message in New York City crosswalks. Connecticut, New Jersey and the District, also have hand-held-while-driving bans. And 35 states have before them "distracted driver" bills aimed at activities like cell-phone use, text-messaging, DVD watching, reading, writing, grooming, even playing a musical instrument, said Matt Sundeen of the National Conference of State Legislatures. California's cell-phone driving ban goes into effect next year. In the meantime, lawmakers there are being asked to consider a ban on smoking in cars if there are children in the vehicle. A bill that would make spanking a crime was withdrawn. Two states, Arkansas and Louisiana, already ban smoking in cars if there is a passenger in a child seat, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. That is in addition to 21 states that ban smoking in bars or restaurants or workplaces or all three, according to the advocacy group.

Quit fighting the laws of probability. Streaks happen, deal with it. 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. If you find yourself playing Russian Roulette, dud ammunition or a broken firing pin can improve your odds. Using an automatic is not advised. I am not against high performance landings per se. I do, however, consider them to be in a whole different category from the standpoint of risk. Though your likelihood of pounding a landing is nonzero if you jump at all, the frequency and severity of bad landings are orders of magnitude greater when swooping than when executing a conservative approach. There are ways to "deal with it" that are a bit more effective than sitting back and saying "insh'allah." I also do not think a flurry of rulemaking is the hot tip, either. I know DZOs that will throw a jumper off the DZ IMMEDIATELY for specific infractions, regardless of who that jumper is. If our culture changes such that you know for certain that you will be on the road with an unpacked chute if you do thing x, y or z - and will be blackballed by any DZ within driving distance - I submit that this streak will come to an end in short order. Blue skies, Winsor

I have a problem with people legislating safety, so when people ask me what the regulation should look like, my response is "other." When I was a youngster in Germany, I once got into a car and was digging around for something while the driver patiently waited. When I said to go ahead, she told me she would when I put on my seat belt. I said I was going to, and she said fine, she would go then. Once belted in and underway, I asked if there was a law mandating seat belt use. She said there was not. She did contend, however, that, if someone in the front seat was unbelted, she was officially uninsured and otherwise without rights. According to her, if she got broadsided by a drunk before I got my seatbelt fastened, she had no claim against the drunk and her insurance company would write her off. Thus, I support the idea of a YOYO (You're On Your Own) clause regarding "Watch This!" landings. USPA, and any insurer, washes its hands of any incident involving an intentional turn beyond 90 degrees in the pattern. Thus, a DZO can tell someone that they are free to execute high-performance landings at the DZ only if they have on file an insurance policy for, say, a million dollars that specifically covers hook turns. This provides a solution and gets away from the regulatory process. Once a DZO realizes that someone - anyone - who botches a 270 can put them out of business immediately, they are more likely to proscribe such activity in very strong terms. If it gets down to raw economics, there is no value judgment involved - "What you just did cancels my insurance. I can't afford that. You're grounded, and every DZO within 250 miles will be advised that you are a threat to their insurance as well." In addition, our culture has to change whereby people doing things that endanger others is simply not acceptable. I have told a World Champion that swooping over the heads of whuffos was not acceptable. It did not happen again at that boogie. If I know someone is likely to do a 270 in traffic, I'll scratch from the load without a second thought. Education is not going to work. Some people could live to be 100, with the physics explained to them daily, and never have a clear picture of the collision scenario they risk. Rules are likely to be treated with "smoking in the boys' room" contempt, like in the case of the JFTC people sneaking in the odd hook. We have to quit thinking about how to regulate safety and think more in terms of a culture of safety. When there is a knee-jerk bout of rulemaking, I am reminded of the adage that, when a man's only tool is a hammer, he tends to see every problem as a nail. Blue skies, Winsor

In aviation-relation endeavors we tend confuse luck with ability. The requisite level of ego necessary to participate in this sport makes it easy for us to get complacent when our actions have yet to bite us. Most of us benefit from the "big sky" theory, where, even if we can't see the area where someone likely to collide with us might be, there is no one there anyway. If you figure out a collision scenario in four dimensions, it becomes apparent that, during radical maneuvers it is not possible to see the jumper you are going to hit. Also, when setting up for said radical maneuver, the canopy into which you are destined to fly may not appear to be a likely threat. If you put together a jumper on a tiny canopy doing, say, a 270 and a jumper on a tiny canopy doing a straight-in, they can be far enough apart during the setup that the higher jumper may have a poor chance of spotting the lower jumper in the first place. When flying airplanes, it can be surprising how hard it is to spot other traffic when everyone is flying straight and level at the same altitude. It can take some time to pick out traffic identified by Flight Control, even when you know where to look. I have been very lucky (so far). I have had a knife-edge head-on near-miss with a Cessna 310/320, I have bounced off the lines of another canopy and had mine reinflate when clear, I have had people throw pilot chutes in my face and so forth. I am still arrogant, but I try to temper that with knowledge that I am here today only because the dice have come up in my favor at a few key junctures. Regardless of who we are and how much experience we might have, life is still a crapshoot and it behooves us to load the dice in our favor. Let's be careful out there. Blue skies, Winsor

Your poll overlooks the distinction between "height" and "altitude." Skydiving is about altitude. BASE is about height. Stepping out the door of an aircraft at 800 feet is nothing like stepping off an object at 800 feet. Blue skies, Winsor

I just received word that Richard Hutchinson succumbed to cancer yesterday. He was the prime mover of the Skydog Skydiving Club, which is dedicated to having safe, fun skydives with jumpers of all experience levels. The club had gone dormant as his health took priority. I am honored to have known him as a friend, and feel lucky to have spent such time with him as I could. He was one of the good guys, and he will be missed. BSBD, Winsor