FlipColmer

Hello Mike! Since man, or woman, first took to the sky, someone has always tried to impress someone on the ground with their aerial skills. I certainly have and it paid off well the other night: I had a great home cooked meal by the target of my affections. There's no doubt that some of that 'flat hatting' mentality is in play here. And, there is nothing wrong with that. Each DZ will sort it out based on their own locality. When I came screaming out of the sky at my home DZ, I took the long walk to keep out of the area where everyone was trying to land. That was just me. However, for viewing pleasure of those on the ground, I would love to see the swoop course close to the spectator area. Again, that's just me. Each DZO will sort it out. Or they won't. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Steve! [reply You bring up an excellent point. We can have the best plans in the world for both the exit order and pull altitudes. But if there isn't a plan from 1000 feet and below, it will just be chaos. That is why we are making these proposals so that the final part of the skydive isn't completly random. Yes, things can still go wrong in the landing pattern. As we used to say in the Navy, "a plan is just something to deviate from." But at least everyone will know what the plan is supposed to be at each and every drop zone. Ah, self-actualization! (g) Or is there a point to this? Well, actuallly, every drop zone has their too cool for school group. That is the real world. They'll come around, or they won't. Keep up the discussion. That will keep this fresh in everyone's minds as they enter the landing arena. Blue SKies, Flip

DOB! Doh! Flippersan

Hello Matt! So far, I haven't faltered. I haven't started up a DZ or bought an existing one in 15 years. Although I must admit, I've been tempted at times. It's a harsh taskmistress, this monkey on my back! Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Zing! How true. Amazing how skydiving and G.A. share the same physics! Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Rick! Me too! No matter what else is said on this subject, we all still have to keep our senses of humor as we go through life. I just can't get that picture out of my mind though. What kinda cat do you see? Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Ian! I know I'm new to the forum mechanics, but I can only see back to Bill Von's May 30, 2007 start of this thread. What am I doing wrong? Outstanding! Sometimes the only way to get a seagull to fly is to throw rocks at it. Yet, it can fly on its own if it chose to. Motivation from any source is still motivation. Just let me know when to duck. Blue SKies, Flip,

Hello Dave! Why would you not want a tuffet in the swoop lane? Gives the cameraman a comfy place to set up shop and a place to rest your head after the swoop! Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Mykel! [reply You bring up a good point philosphically. Rules that are not enforced; are they beneficial or do they lead to people doing the frowned upon activity because they are not enforced? Sometime these questions seem like the one of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin." Skydiving is an amazingly self-regulated sport. In the big scheme of things, very little goes wrong statistically. When it does though, the consequences are dire. There is very little interference in what we do by the Feds. Think if the FAA wrote our S.I.M. It would be as big as the A.I.M. and just as unwieldy. However, we have a pretty decent relationship with that branch of the government. So for the most part, we are left alone. But being self-regulated doesn't mean we ignore hazards. IF a hazard exists, we need to address it. Whether or not someone obeys rules that are set up, the rules still need to be set up. Without a concrete target to aim at, an education campaign will fall short, compliance will be spotty as folks will not know what to comply with and enforcement will be lax as there is nothing to enforce. Folks are saying that DZOs will make the rules and enforce them. I applaud all who have already. But not everyone will, and some may let their rules lapse. Skydivers can always vote with their wallets and feet. But why have to make that choice when a simple requirement to address the landing zone is so simple to comply with? That's all we are asking. At the National level, make a requirement to 'scrub' and landing arena. Blue SKies, Flip PS I've started using the terms scrub and scrubbed to address the landing arena. Many drop zones have already implemented changes they feel will improve the safety at their DZs. But as someone wrote to me recently, as time goes on, a constant attention to the landing zone will be required as jumpers push the envelope more, and manufacturers create new products. This isn't a one time fix but a safety culture we are trying to instill Nationally towards the landing arena.

Hello Matt! If I were king, option one of our proposal would be my first choice as I would only be considering safety in the decision process. It sets out a course rules structure that will provide the safest landing environment. However, I am not king, nor is safety the only criteria for any rule implementation. Therefore option three is my favored choice, and does exactly what you want: "something that should be handled at the DZ level, not by USPA". Option three just states that DZs will come up with their own course rules. Nothing in our proposals gets away from low person has right of way and that no one should manuever to assert right of way. Those are great rules of the road to live by. However, by separating out different traffic patterns, you give each jumper a better chance of working with the 'low person has right of way concept.' Again, I do not want to usurp any rule making authority from the DZO. I just want the DZO to be required to 'scrub' his or her landing patterns for safety. Blue SKies, Flip PS The best thing in the world I've ever done was start a DZ. The second best thing I've ever done was sell it! (g)

Hello Grant! Nothing in our proposal says everyone has to be single file to land at a DZ. I don't expect the Velocity to stay with the Manta in terms of speed of advance or rate of descent. Unless of course you want to. The analogy is that just like different performing aircraft can share the same landing field, so can differing performing canopy/pilot combinations. In our sport we have an added advantage: we don't have a single landing surface where you do have to follow each other around single file. Yet, in the aircraft example, you have many ways to get yourself aligned with the runway: 45degree entry, crosswind entry, straight in, and even the military overhead entry. All the different aircraft types and pattern entry manuevers are compatible if everyone knows the rules and follows them. That there is a single surface to land on helps everyone sort out the pattern. However, it is much easier to keep the our landing pattern safer if everyone is flying a predictable pattern. For example, if everyone is flying left turns in the pattern, both the high person and the low person, both the slow person and the fast person, both the floater and the anvil descent rate person have a much better chance of flying to a successful landing. A set of rules that promotes predictability, jumpers willing to learn and fly by the rules and a drop zone that fosters all of that makes for a safer landing arena. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Andy! You are absolutely correct. I highly encourage everyone who can attend the Board meeting to do so. I think the discussions at the Group Member committee meeting and the Safety and Training committee meeting will be enlightening. Thank goodness I didn't start with a large one! Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Molly! Thanks for posting the meeting times. I hope all interested parties show up for these committee meetings. The more input, the better the final outcome. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Bill! I agree with Bill Von: while we would like USPA to adopt our language, the reality is that from our proposal will spring the final language after input from the membership is received. To not act just because we realize how the process works would be abdicating safety for hint and hope. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Andy! I think most DZOs are quite busy and do not have time for this Forum. Another possibility is that there is at times, a lack of civility on all webboards/forums. They could be resistant to opening themselves up to become pin cushions. There are two former DZOs that are part of the committee that came up with the BSR proposal. Or as I like to say, "Hi, I'm Flip. I'm a recovering drop zone owner." Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Brian! In my mind, a Tiny Winy Velocity and a Gigantic Manta can fly the SLP together and be safe. That track over the ground keeps them predictable even if the small canopy could fly rings around the large one. It's the same philosophy of why a Cessna 150 and a Citation can operate from the same airport: defined course rules. But you have hit on a problem we had as a group coming up with our proposal. How do you define our terms? We each had a different definition of a HP landing. It could be size of canopy. Wing loading. How it's flown. And many more. Enough to make your head hurt if you're trying to come up with an all encompassing definition. Virtually impossible. But if we don't address the issues, we are just hinting and hoping. We do not feel that is a valid way to address the landing arena anymore. Blue SKies, Flip

Here it is for your reading pleasure. Keep in mind our philosphy of change here. We believe our proposal is a starting point, not the final language if indeed a BSR is adopted by USPA. Below we present three options for additions to the BSR's: -------------------- OPTION 1: H. Drop zone requirements 4. Landing Patterns: a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW] b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW] c. Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in the standard landing pattern area. [FB] d. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed regardless of location. [NW] e. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the center of the area and land on the edges. [NW] ---------------------- OPTION 2: H. Drop zone requirements 4. Landing Patterns: a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW] b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW] c. Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. [NW] -OPTION 3: H. Drop zone requirements 4. Landing Patterns: a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees. [NW] b. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and other types of approaches do not conflict with each other. ---------------------------------- On this most people agree. It's the leap of faith that a BSR is needed vice JUST an education campaign. I personally believe that this DZO is in the minority. DZOs not only have a vested interest in the landing area, but they prefer safe vice unsafe practices. However, every DZO has their world view about how to make their operation safe. A BSR would definitely help this DZO address the issue. The 'line in the sand' just may not have fit this DZO's world view and did not like unilateral action at HIS/HER business. That's understandable. Not addressing the landing pattern isn't. That's what we think. No more hinting and hoping at the National level. Exactly. Some will accuse you of drinking our Kool Aid. It's a great flavor by the way. However, I prefer to say you are about to make a leap of faith about how best to proceed in our landing arena. Blue SKies, Flip

You recognized one of our problems right off the bat: definitions. It will be very hard to make a definition of either a SLP or HPL that will work for everyone, everywhere at the same time. But we needed to start the discussion, rather than let the problem drift into the hint and hope category. As I said in another thread, I can see a smooth, unaccelerated 180 degree turn to final as being in compliance with our basic concept of the SLP. However, we did not want the proposal getting too unwieldy prior to it being presented to the Board. That's why we left it simple. Since we did not address descent rates etc, an accuracy landing, if done in the standard landing pattern configuration may be in compliance. We stayed away from that too as a Velocity tiny winy and a Manta gigantor can both be flown in the SLP. Granted, the Velocity may get down faster, but you should see DOB fly a Manta! (g) We recognize that the final language will not be what we have written. Our proposal is the starting point. The USPA committee system will craft the final language. I hope that gives you some insight into our thinking. That people are talking about all different aspects of the problem is great. The more we talk, the safer our landing patterns will become. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Everyone! It's been great seeing all the discussion in each of the sections of the forum concerning our BSR proposal. Keep up the discussion not only here, but each and every day you are at the DZ. By discussing the problem every day, we are a step closer to safer landing arenas. The reason I titled this thread as I did is because of the perception by some that our BSR proposal would limit or ban swooping. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, in the pure safety realm, banning swooping is A way to make the landing pattern safer, if the Drop Zone Owner feels that way. We believe our proposal would give the DZO the tools to make the landing patterns safer without banning a fun and popular landing manuever. So how can you help you ask? First off, communicate with your Regional Director, your DZO and your S&TA as to how you feel we should progress. That communication should happen soon as the USPA Board meeting is in less than two weeks. The next time you are at the DZ, chat with the same folks and come up with your own local plans. If you believe that USPA should stay out of it, then someone has to get into it. Might as well be you. Come up with a Continuing Education plan to keep everyone focused on landing pattern safety. From the most junior jumper on the DZ, to you, the hottest swooper. If someone isn't willing to dedicate a little time to improve the landing arena, they are part of the problem. Lastly, practice what you preach and use peer pressure to get your friends to do the same. If we don't get the patterns safer, then we will lose some of our friends in the future. I for one don't want to lose you because someone else just didn't care enough. Blue SKies, Flip

I believe the full text of our proposal is posted in a thread in the Safety and Training section. Just remember, we wrote our proposal as a starting point of the discussion within the Board for a BSR addressing landing patterns. We in no way believe any of our currently written options will survive to implementation. Option 3 says exactly that: DZs are REQUIRED to apply safe separation criteria to their LZs, but leaves it up to them as to how to do that. Great, we agree! [but im opposed to banning any hpl in standard traffic all together. (180's or less) Okay, what about 181-269 degrees? Are those compatible with standard traffic? Good thoughts. Keep the discussion going. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Evan! I don't have the exact wording at my fingertips although it is in a thread on the forum somewhere. Please keep in mind that when our committee started talking about this, we had as many definitions of 'high performance landing' as there were members of the group. Rather than attempt to start the discussion within USPA with what is a 'HPL', we all felt we could provide a definition of a 'standard landing pattern' that would be more universal. But even with that we know people will disagree. We said what a SLP was, and for the purposes of the BSR proposal starting point, everything else was a HPL. Although one would not think of an accuracy jump as a HPL, it would not fit the definition of SLP so therefore for discussion purposes it would be a HPL. We could label non-SLP landings many different things to suit the sensibilites of the jumping populace: non-conforming landing, non-standard landing pattern, unconventional landing pattern. However, I think that is best left to the committee process once USPA decides if they want to go ahead with this as a BSR, or an education campaign or both. Hope that answers your question and gives you a little background into our thinking behind the proposal. Blue SKies, Flip

Actually, no. I guess I wasn't clear in my message. When I said the Cessna drop zone could have the 4 way determine the landing order, that would be a DZ's rule. The DZO requires each and every load to set a landing order so as to separate the disparite landing performances. That would be in compliance. Get to a larger DZ, and maybe manifest sets the exit order to ensure separation: swoopers out first mixed groups next and SLPs last. But it was a plan developed by the DZO. Get to a larger DZ that has multiple airplanes and maybe there are separate geographic areas for folks to land in. Again, local creation of the plan. First off, separate the landing patterns. Then enforce the rules. That makes for a safer landing arena. Just enforcing rules doesn't take into account the decent folks out there who just simply make a mistake. Okay, it's way too late for me to keep typing: 0230. More later. Blue SKies, Flip .

I'm glad you get it. We do not want to point the damning elbow and any sub-group of the sport. We just want to make the landing arena safer. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Jan! I was off the forum for a few days so sorry if this is a little tardy. Well, at least it's not 3 months old! Thanks for participating on the forum. When an official of the organization participates, we all benefit. It doesn't matter that you and I disagree. Actually, if we agreed, these threads wouldn't be as long as they are. In my pilots union, our leadership rarely participates on the weboard. It's a shame too as lots of info can be transmitted both ways. I don't feel you need to separate your ND opinion from your skydiver opinion. That you don't speak for USPA is a given. That can only come from the Board as a whole. And after all this bantering is said and done, you need to vote your opinion. I don't expect the Board to approve drinking and jumping even if 100% of the membership wants it. You are our stewards of the sport and should always vote for how you think to best accomplish any given issue/situation etc. So what would it take for you to think a BSR is the way to go? Blue SKies, Flip