JumpRu

sure, but this BSR is not about safety. Ok, lets assume for a second that they won and we have long set of BSR about: How swoopers must land in separate landing area that we don’t have. (small landing area, not enougth to separate) How swoopers must exit on a separate low pass we don’t do. (big airplane consumes a lot of gas on those separate passes so they are not practical) And any other bright ideas that are great if only we have money to implement them. Do you think we will stop jumping and swooping because of that? My point is that separate landing areas increases safety, multiple passes increases safety. BSR that you must have all that to land – don’t, they are useless and gives us nothing but bunch of legal issues.

That is a good article and I agree with everything said there. Nobody is arguing with idea of separate landing areas, low passes and other safety things we all can do to make our life better. But some people use recent tragic events to limit in every possible way swooping and label it as unsafe activity. Instead of educating new jumpers on what is right and wrong, instead of promoting safety where they jump, they try to pass new BSR that will make swooping illegal at every DZ that does not comply with this BSR because of logistic and economic reasons. We already know examples of DZ that refuses to do low passes and reserves all their landing areas for other activities. Well too bad. Next time it will be free fliers, or big way jumpers or CRW – who knows. It is easy to find a scapegoat and blame everything on them. All I know is that conservative jumpers still can not agree what direction to land on those light and variable wind days and until that issue is resolved there is nothing that can help safety in their own landing area.

One vote per DZ would give more accurate information on the subject

I think several valid questions need to be answered before approaching USPA with those new BSRs: 1.That would be interesting to see real data on how many DZ have separate landing areas for conventional and swoop landings? 2. Second question that should be answered is how many DZ willing to introduce those landing areas? Finally we need to look at results: lets say 10 percent of drop zones have separated landing areas and 90 percent willing to introduce them – then we clearly on the right track. On the other hand if only 30 percent drop zones are willing to introduce those separate landing areas then our BSRs will do more harm then good. Other possible scenario is that lets say 90 percent drop zones already have separate landing areas then clearly we don’t need no new BSR we just need to enforce proper usage of what we already have. I think we need accurate data not speculation to justify introduction of those BSRs. Same approach should be taken on time separation of traffic. 1.How many DZ provide low passes? 2.How many DZ will do multiple passes at altitude? I think that is not that many drop zones in US so it should be easy to collect this data.

That is exactly the same argument you were making about WL BSR couple years ago. Back then you were telling us that if we won’t go with WL BSR for everyone then every drop zone will implement wing loading restriction themselves. I guess you tried to position WL BSR like a good thing. Now couple years later I know about only one DZ that has some sort of WL restrictions and they had it before your WL BSR was even proposed. So it does not look that many DZ went this way and implemented WL restrictions. Why do you think it will happen this time?

Nice, we finally agreed on something! I also think that wrong approach was taken at SAZ, but this is their decision... I also think that proposed BSR will eventually turn many more places into “none swooping facilities”. Just like it happened at SAZ.

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 guess things look different from East Cost: at most DZ where I had a chance to jump there is one landing area, one airplane sometimes Twin Otter, some times Cassa and it is hard to fill them if it is not big boogie or something. Some places do multiple passes some places don’t. That is how I see things. Yes some DZ use smaller airplane PAC or KA and that eliminate most of traffic issues. I think you need to evaluate situation with landing areas and airplanes at more them 3 drop zones before proposing something for entire country.

You right the essence of your BSR is separation by time or space: lets take a look at separation by time: Best thing would be to have separate passes or separate loads for conservative and HP pilots. Unfortunately separate passes takes extra gas so we will end up with 30$ jump tickets. Separate loads are even worse idea if you try it for reality test. Lets say you have 15 jumpers at drop zone so they can all get on Twin Otter and jump all day long. Lets say 10 of them are conservative pilots and 5 would like to do HP landings. My numbers are approximate but it is easy to see that there is not enough people to take up conservative or HP load (10 people is not enough to take up TO). End result – everyone sitting on the ground or 30$ jump tickets. Not to mention that we are about to put a huge gap between experienced and new jumpers. Experienced people prefer HP landings and new jumpers obviously don’t. How we suppose to teach them? If we won’t be able to jump together on the same load or on the same pass? I’m not talking about students, I’m talking about people with 1-200 jumps who has license but still needs to learn a lot. Personally I’m happy to teach new jumpers for free but only if I can safely practice my swoops.

I wonder where DZ will get money for those separate landing areas? Something tells me that will be my jump ticket. Want to pay $30 for a jump? Sign this BSR and you will get it. I doubt they will put additional costs in tandem price.

I think we should ban Boogies untill USPA print us some new Boogie BSR :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drop zone operators are required... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- last time i checked USPA is organization of jumpers, not Drop zone operators -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well it's whole different can o' worms but, you sure about that? Know much about the GM program? -------------------- Well I was thinking that it is not USPA job to tell DZO how to do business... and proposed BSR’s kind of doing just that. That is one of my reasons against them. I think those BSR's are not productive and in general won’t do us any good.

I agree with this 100 percent.

Really?

last time i checked USPA is organization of jumpers, not Drop zone operators

Please don't mix recommendations with BSR. I’m good with recommendations but I’m against BSR. BSR will not encourage they will dictate

This is very emotional, but does not explain why we need to make BSR out of this? Low pull BSR was put in place because people were doing intentional low pulls. I'm sure no one were intentionally involved in those canopy collisions. Make a recommendation and i'll sing this with you. There are many things that make a lot of sense: Gear checks, proper separation, looking down before exit and etc why don't we make BSR out of this too? I think BSR is not replacement for common sense.

Now days BSR seems to be an answer to everything. I’m all for separate landing areas, low passes and etc. But lets face it BSR has nothing to do with economic efficiency of “hop and pop” passes and they won’t enlarge landing area too

To BSR writers: What is wrong with you guys? Last year you were pushing WL BSR. Now you suggest CP BRR. I understand you like BSR and want to write many more good BSR for us, but maybe you should focus on your own jumping instead? Less politics more jumping!

Saber 150 - damn thing tried to kill me several times!

I have a jedei 105 made in 98 with about 2500 jumps on it, i put about 500 myself It had new line set installed about 500 jumps ago and now its really out of trim, also has couple really big patches too. I load it about 1.7-1.8 and this damn thing is still flying, in fact if everything is done right it takes me almost as far as brand new katana. My point is that age and number of jumps doesn’t mean much if canopy has been properly maintained. On the other hand usually its hard to tell how many times canopy has been jumped, I suspect that with 450 jumps it should still be slippery.

Take canopy control course from Scott Miller, he will show you several ways to make flat turns from normal flight and how to abort low hook turn. Technique is a little different. I don't want to give instructions on-line, but you have to practice flat turns, flare turns, high-speed flat turns and some other stuff to be safe. Take canopy control course and you will have very different perspective about canopy flight in general and high speed landings. Instead of been just scared of low turns (not so good when you ARE going in the barbwire fence) you will have knowledge to land your canopy in any situation.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone! It's been only a week and i already miss you all :o)

Pro-track and Pro-Dytter same saize, Solo and Optima just a bit smaller. you can put them inside or outside of your helmet, i preffer to have audible inside so if you buy helmet make sure it has pockets for audible just to have that option.

You can buy any of L&B products: Optima, ProTreck, Solo, ProDytter. I jumped with Dytter and switched to Optima for canopy mode signals. Really like them both.