Results of USPA meeting re: pattern separation

[billvon 3,092]

A lot of progress was made at this weekend's USPA meeting in San Francisco on the pattern-incompatibility issue. We got a chance to speak at both the Safety and Training committee meeting and the Group Membership committee.

We presented first to the S+T committee and got strong agreement from the directors there that something needed to be done. It was an unusual meeting in that almost all the directors (national and regional) attended; normally only the S+T committee members and a few other directors attend.

Larry Hill spoke after our presentation, and he talked for a while. He mentioned that the majority of fatalities (90%) at his dropzone were due to jumpers under good canopies. He also mentioned that years ago, many of these were due to collisions between people landing in different directions. SDAZ then made a rule stating "N/S or E/W landings only" depending on which landing area people were using. This worked, and dramatically reduced the number of collisions until people began doing 270's. Then, as people began doing the nonstandard approaches they went up again. That's why he implemented his turn restrictions.

He also mentioned that people are now pushing the 180 rules. He's afraid that he will soon have to go to a 90 degree only rule for most landings.

Larry also mentioned that he has been getting pressure from his local FSDO to take action on canopy fatalities. When he implemented the new rules at his DZ, he brought a copy of the new rules to them for their review. They told him "we needed this."

Ominously, a jumper at Skydance who also works with the FAA said that AC-105 was coming up for review, and said "there was something coming down" due to all the fatalities (and double fatalities) they've seen lately. She made a comment along the lines of "they want to see self policing."

Larry also said that while he thought that education was important, it won't solve the problem. The well educated people are dying. The problem (according to Larry) is that people flying 87 sq ft canopies are mixing with people under 300 sq ft canopies with the mindset "I have the right to do whatever I want." They know it's dangerous, but they rationalize it away. It's not that they are lacking essential knowledge or education. We all think we know what we're doing. (Again, per Larry.)

A few people commented on how getting better S+TA's who would talk to people who fly unsafely can solve the problem. Larry related a story about a jumper who showed up at his DZ, got the standard briefing, and on the very first jump did a 270 and collided with another jumper in the pattern. He died, the jumper who was struck was (fortunately) not injured. Talking to jumpers after the fact, as Larry observed, is sometimes too slow.

He finished by saying that perhaps it doesn't have to be a BSR, but the solution does probably need to be non-optional.

Sherry Butcher spoke a bit and mentioned that "each DZ must have an established published landing pattern as well as a means to separate the landing areas."

Kip said that DZO's and S+TA's must be held accountable, since they are the first line of defense against these problems.

In the end, there was some resistance to the idea of the proposed BSR's, although most seemed to agree that we needed to do something about the problem, and it probably had to be mandatory instead of optional education or guidelines.

The next committee we sat in on was the Group Member Committee, and there Larry Hill had a great idea. Right now all group members sign a pledge to honor the BSR's, make sure all employees hold appropriate ratings, abide by USPA’s Skydiving Service Code of Conduct etc. Larry suggested a change to the group member pledge instead of a BSR change. Since we were proposing a new requirement on DZO's (i.e. to require them to separate landing patterns) in some ways it makes more sense to put it there.

Larry proposed a motion "to amend the group member pledge to require group member DZ's to establish and disseminate landing procedures that will include separation of high speed and normal landings." It passed in committee, then passed the full board 18-1. This accomplishes most of what we set out to do - to make it clear that the patterns have to be separate. And it does so without affecting the BSR's; putting such a statement in a BSR seemed to bother some people.

At the next meeting of the Safety and Training Committee, Jan Meyer proposed an alternative BSR. It was debated and changed several times in the course of the time we were there. The final version that seemed to be under discussion was something along the lines of "No canopy pilot may intentionally fly a canopy in a manner that creates a hazard to persons (in the air or on the ground) or property, or is contrary to established dropzone landing patterns."* That covers the jumper's responsibility.

After about 40 minutes they voted to shelve the proposal for now and revisit it in the future, to give the directors more time to think about the new proposal and to discuss it with their constituents.

All in all we were very pleased with the progress we made at the meeting. USPA has implemented something that will begin to address the problem (the requirement that DZO's separate the landing patterns) without adding a specific BSR - hopefully that will cover the concerns of people who did not want to see that issue addressed in a BSR. We have also begun work on a more general BSR that requires jumpers to fly their canopies in accordance with the rules of each DZ.

I want to specifically thank Frank Casares, Chris Quaintance, Todd Spillers, Scott Smith, Kip Lohmiller and Jan Meyer for their support of our efforts at the meeting. I am hopeful that the changes we made at the meeting, and the changes that are in process, will help make landing patterns safer for all jumpers, from swoopers to standard pattern flyers.

---------

* = some other versions included:

"No canopy pilot may fly a canopy in a manner that creates a hazard to persons (in the air or on the ground) or property. However, this section does not prohibit manuevers if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons (in the air or on the ground) or property." (original)

"No canopy pilot may intentionally fly a canopy in a manner that creates a hazard to persons (in the air or on the ground) or property."

(note - this post was moved from the end of the "petition for BSR" thread due to people not being able to find it)

[tombuch 0]

Awesome work, and terrific solutions!

Quote

Ominously, a jumper at Skydance who also works with the FAA said that AC-105 was coming up for review..."

Gosh, there are tons of things I'd like to see the FAA include in that AC to clarify some of the regulations. Any idea how to get their attention and suggest inclusions?

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

At the next meeting of the Safety and Training Committee, Jan Meyer proposed an alternative BSR. It was debated and changed several times in the course of the time we were there. The final version that seemed to be under discussion was something along the lines of "No canopy pilot may intentionally fly a canopy in a manner that creates a hazard to persons (in the air or on the ground) or property, or is contrary to established dropzone landing patterns."* That covers the jumper's responsibility.

After about 40 minutes they voted to shelve the proposal for now and revisit it in the future, to give the directors more time to think about the new proposal and to discuss it with their constituents.

This is an email I sent to the FB and BillVon's group.

Below is the current version of a proposed BSR for USPA.
I have split it into A and B sections, so that you can respond with reference to a specific section.

A:
No canopy pilot may intentionally fly a canopy in a manner that:
- creates a hazard to persons (in the air or on the ground) or property
or
- is contrary to local rules.

B:
However, this section does not prohibit manuevers if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.


The FAR text that this was adapted from is
Sec. 91.15 Dropping objects

No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.


I'd like to get more feedback on this from you and the jumpers you come in contact with.
Please go out and show people this and get their opinion.
At one time I thought there was no way we could craft a generalized BSR that would create separate landing patterns. I have since changed my mind since Jessie pointed out this FAR.
I specifically want to know the reasons that this would impose liability upon a DZO or USPA.
By all means, be very critical of this proposal. This needs to be iterated and we can find something that will work.

We all have a common goal of reducing or eliminating canopy collisions and canopy related deaths.
Our paths to that solution may be different today, but I believe that a common path can be found.

Let's try really hard to find that common ground and then pave it.

Thank you for your help.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Spizzzarko 0]

Who defines reasonable precautions? If it is the dzo or local sta then it would change from dz to dz, but what is the same from dz to dz anyways?

It is that way even with the faa. One fsdo may interpret the rules one way and another fsdo may interpret it the other way.

If they are hell bent to make a bsr then at least yall are making it fairly nebulous so that it really isn't binding in the fact that it forces one group or another to change their landing methods.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If they are hell bent to make a bsr then at least yall are making it fairly nebulous so that it really isn't binding in the fact that it forces one group or another to change their landing methods.

"nebulous" = ineffective. That's the problem with committees

should be fun when people travel from one dz to another and there is no common expectations

Quote

it really isn't binding

that's a likely result

...
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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I really don't know what to make of all of this. I am happy to see that Todd Spillers (who is a competitive swooper and a DZO) was there and while Frank Casares isn't a swooper, Frank has done a lot for the swooping world these last 2 years. But there doesn't seem to be much of anything other than to say "yes we know fast canopies and slow canopies" are not compatible landing together in the same space at the same time.

I am a tad concerned to hear that Larry Hill seems to take the stance that swoopers are causing all his canopy related fatalities (which we know is not the case). But if Larry doesn't want us at his DZ, he doesn't want us. What can we do?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Spizzzarko 0]

"But if Larry doesn't want us at his DZ, he doesn't want us. What can we do?"

We can lite a paper sack full of poop on fire, ring his door bell, and run and hide. Then when he steps on it to put itout he will have poop on his foot, and then the swoopers will all have the last laugh!!!! Muahhhh ahahahahahahahahaahaaa That is the best way to resolve conflicts and differences of opinion if you ask me!

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

I really don't know what to make of all of this. I am happy to see that Todd Spillers (who is a competitive swooper and a DZO) was there and while Frank Casares isn't a swooper, Frank has done a lot for the swooping world these last 2 years. But there doesn't seem to be much of anything other than to say "yes we know fast canopies and slow canopies" are not compatible landing together in the same space at the same time.

I am a tad concerned to hear that Larry Hill seems to take the stance that swoopers are causing all his canopy related fatalities (which we know is not the case). But if Larry doesn't want us at his DZ, he doesn't want us. What can we do?

Those who wanted it entirely left up to the DZO shouldn't complain when the DZO does something.

...

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

[billvon 3,092]

> Who defines reasonable precautions?

In most cases, the DZO.

>If they are hell bent to make a bsr . . . .

We weren't. We were hell-bent on improving safety in the landing pattern in a non-optional manner; the BSR change was the most obvious way we saw to accomplish this. One of the reasons so many people showed up to this meeting was to ask USPA for a solution - either one we proposed or one they thought up. And they did indeed find a solution that seems more acceptable to most people.

The change to the group member pledge accomplishes most of what we've asked for. It requires DZO's come up with a plan to separate the patterns. That was our old option (3). This additional BSR says basically "follow the pattern rules at a specific DZ and don't do anything stupid" which I see as a reminder that jumpers must educate themselves as to what the pattern is at any DZ they go to.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

a reminder that jumpers must educate themselves as to what the pattern is at any DZ they go to.

We definitely need to get everyone into the mindset of visualizing the patterns before they get on the airplane ... everytime .... not just when they visit a new DZ. Sure the weather changes and optimal landing directions can change from when an airplane was loaded. But when people have a plan before they even jump, they are less likely to be surprised and more people will be on the same page meaning more people are flying the same predictable pattern.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[marks 0]

Quote

> Who defines reasonable precautions?

In most cases, the DZO.

>If they are hell bent to make a bsr . . . .

We weren't. We were hell-bent on improving safety in the landing pattern in a non-optional manner; the BSR change was the most obvious way we saw to accomplish this. One of the reasons so many people showed up to this meeting was to ask USPA for a solution - either one we proposed or one they thought up. And they did indeed find a solution that seems more acceptable to most people.

The change to the group member pledge accomplishes most of what we've asked for. It requires DZO's come up with a plan to separate the patterns. That was our old option (3). This additional BSR says basically "follow the pattern rules at a specific DZ and don't do anything stupid" which I see as a reminder that jumpers must educate themselves as to what the pattern is at any DZ they go to.

nice job, I think I too am happy with the result..

keep up the work, because now the REAL work of educating jumpers carries on.

I for one am not a very good teacher, so I will look to others who are and thank them.

the education is spreading, I have seen it, It is just a long slow process.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Who defines reasonable precautions? If it is the dzo or local sta then it would change from dz to dz, but what is the same from dz to dz anyways?

It is kind of like 'adequate separation' on opening.
Fifty feet is too close on a 4-way, but on a 300-way it may be all you get.

Quote

It is that way even with the faa. One fsdo may interpret the rules one way and another fsdo may interpret it the other way.

If they are hell bent to make a bsr then at least yall are making it fairly nebulous so that it really isn't binding in the fact that it forces one group or another to change their landing methods.

I wouldn't call the BOD hell bent on anything.
But the FAA has us on their radar now. They are looking for some self-regulation in this area.
If we don't provide it, they will.

Sentence A, cited above, will empower every jumper to say to another jumper that does s-turns, spirals or 270s in a conventional pattern, that he is endangering others.

There was a nearly unanimous consensus for statement A by the BOD. The reason it was not voted on was because it was an 11th hour suggestion. It was written Saturday night and presented to the S&T Comm Sunday morning. Without the Comm voting, it was also presented to the FB in the plenary session to get more opinions on it. The decision was to take it back to the members and get more feedback on it.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[skr 1]

Thanks Bill, and D'OB and all the others.

I think that DZO enforced separation is
the only thing that's going to work.

Education and not being a hazard to others
was supposed to already have been happening,
and it wasn't working.

The DZOs are the only people who can make
stuff like this happen (or not happen).

So thanks.

Skr

[hukturn 0]

Absolutely. I agree. It is the DZ's decision to determine what fits their needs and their rules should be abided. If your (or mine) desires do not fit in at the DZ, we will simply need to shop for another or search out alternate landing areas as approved by the DZ Management.

I still believe that education is the key, Just as many have discussed. It is through education (albeit inaccurate) that many jumpers believe that the lower jumper actually has the right of way. If we continually push for awareness and training, we will continue to evolve multi-disciplines in a safe (realatively speaking) manner.

With all of this said, I still believe that it will take a tough S&TA and DZO to make this work. Rules need to be rules and they apply unilaterally. The AFF/I who breaks the rules should be in the same trouble as the weekend warrior who makes an honest error. The rules need to be decided and applied 100% of the time to 100% of the people.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Thanks Bill, and D'OB and all the others.

I think that DZO enforced separation is
the only thing that's going to work.

Education and not being a hazard to others
was supposed to already have been happening,
and it wasn't working.

I totaly disagree. THis was happening, but because of the insistance of DZO's that there was an instructor shortage, the USPA has allowed the quality of instructors to plumet, thus causing the lack of eduaction and enforcement that is currently being experienced.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diverds 0]

Which USPA changes are you referring to and when did they go into effect? When I got my ratings in the mid 90's there was much less involved than there is today. I'm sure there are some course directors out there who are not the greatest, but the last few courses that I've witnessed were incredibly thorough and in my opinion prepare people to be better instructors than in the past.

Skydive Radio

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It is through education (albeit inaccurate) that many jumpers believe that the lower jumper actually has the right of way.

I'm not sure I'm reading this properly. Are you saying that the lower jumper does NOT have the right-of-way?

Quote

Rules need to be rules and they apply unilaterally. The AFF/I who breaks the rules should be in the same trouble as the weekend warrior who makes an honest error. The rules need to be decided and applied 100% of the time to 100% of the people.

I certainly agree here but...I'll believe it when I see it.

At a recent boogie the announcement was made several times during the day about following established landing patterns. Each announcement (with one exception) was prompted by local DZ AFFIs going against the grain.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

t is through education (albeit inaccurate) that many jumpers believe that the lower jumper actually has the right of way.

You go ahead and swoop right into that student who inadvertantly drifted into the dedicated swoop cone (maybe his radio broke or whatever). But it's ok, you have "right of way", I'm sure he'll yield to you before you fly through his canopy - he'll see you coming at him (from above and behind, just behind his Manta).

Lower jumper has right of way. This is completely different from the point that "right of way" is not carte blanche to fly stupid or in areas they shouldn't be in.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

...I'll believe it when I see it.

you and me both. DZOs are just people and I've yet to see any reinforcement of any rule applied fairly or evenly at any DZ.

...
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

[LoudDan 0]

I agree here whole heartedly. S&TA's along with the DZO/DZM must lead the way. Communication must be clear if there are going to be changes to the landing pattern. Rules should be clearly posted for all to see, not decided on a Sunday night staff meeting and all of a sudden put into practice (because then only the staff knows about them). If you see someone causeing a problem in the traffic pattern man up and say something.

Maybe we should be looking for legitamate qualifications in an S&TA not just been in the sport for 20 years or whatever, how about an actual safety and training backround. Knowledge of human behavior factors and perhaps safety culture implementation, this would go along way to stop many of the knee jerk reactions to issues.

Building a safety based culture is not done by change for the sake of change, it is done by constantly reevaluating the current program and making appropriate changes. Identify your problems, do the best to mitigate them, and if the problem persits reevaluate and try again. Problems just in case anyone was wondering are best solved when they are realized not when they culminate.

Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!

[hukturn 0]

"I'm not sure I'm reading this properly. Are you saying that the lower jumper does NOT have the right-of-way?"
That is right. Lower jumpers having the right of way is an ISP...not a BSR. But, we have inherited this thought process through constant education from peers and instructors over a very long period of time. Thus, we accepted it as policy when it is not. And, it is a fine example of how we can change the way people think even if it is not truly a rule. Education, my friend.

"I certainly agree here but...I'll believe it when I see it"
I agree with your agreement

[hukturn 0]

You have no idea what you are saying and you have taken my statements completely out of context.

[billvon 3,092]

>>Are you saying that the lower jumper does NOT have the right-of-way?"
>That is right.

No, it is wrong. Lower jumper has right of way.

I imagine you know this full well, but are making a point that not all things that you should do are BSR's. This is 100% correct. The only time you need a BSR is when people are dying in significant numbers because of a lack of a common safety standard. "Low jumper has right of way" has been accepted as a standard without a BSR. So has "always turn right to avoid collision." The "time, not 45 degrees, for separation" is starting to get adopted without a BSR as well, although we have a ways to go.

Separated traffic patterns were not being adopted by most DZ's, and a lot of people were dying as a result. Hence - new standard to help ensure that happens.

>Unless we choose to become better pilots, the culture will not change.

Danny was a skilled canopy pilot. It was his judgment, not his skill, that was lacking. You can teach skills, procedures and guidelines - you can't always teach good judgment.

[Rdutch 0]

Quote

Quote

t is through education (albeit inaccurate) that many jumpers believe that the lower jumper actually has the right of way.

You go ahead and swoop right into that student who inadvertantly drifted into the dedicated swoop cone (maybe his radio broke or whatever). But it's ok, you have "right of way", I'm sure he'll yield to you before you fly through his canopy - he'll see you coming at him (from above and behind, just behind his Manta).

Lower jumper has right of way. This is completely different from the point that "right of way" is not carte blanche to fly stupid or in areas they shouldn't be in.

I dont know your point, But if your swooping after a student then either a: your a your very good at flying your sub 100 canopy and actually know that you can get extreme lift from it and know how to fly thermals and took forever to get down, or b: you were on a second pass or different load. But I agree fully on your lower jumper has the right of way, this is a highly forgotten rule. I cant count how many times I heard he was in my way! And the swooper had a close call because he didnt change his approach. A Bad swoop is a lot better than a FATAL swoop!

Difft note: For years I filmed 4way and flew a velo 84. I would always land last (not after students or tandems of course, but last of the fun jumpers/teams in my exit group) just to let everyone land and I would be clear to do whatever landing I chose, usually after exiting first, this shows that the small canopy excuse is a bullshit excuse that people that dont know how to fly their canopy use when they cut someone off.

The thing I think should be addresed is mainly exit order should be a factor in canopy size.

In Deland we have an unnoficial rule that we use. The teams with the smallest canopies get out first, it makes no sence that a team gets out second when they are going to land before the first team (this of course goes down to the people dont know how to fly brakes theory but that is most 4way teams (sorry:)). But always if a group exits before you then you should give them room to land first. Trying to beat the group before you to the ground not only makes it danerous for you, it makes it dangerous for everyone around you, EVERY team I have been on had a designated landing order, open up, find your teammates and set your pattern, teamates with smaller canopies then the larger or just set a team order, then first team to exit lands first, second team exits second, its not hard and it can save your life. This applies to (in theory because it no one but teams thinks about it) freefly teams and even fun jump groups, take a second on the dirt dive to figure out landing order, take a second in the plane and on the ground and figure out who is going to land first. Even on big ways figure out your landing order, (what a concept? you have two sub 100 canopies and a bunch of 170+ canopies, the small canopies should land first in a set order, even turn habits can come into play here: (say I have an 84 and I do a 270 you have a 90 and do a 180, you follow me because I will be turning higher than you and flying into your landing/flight area, so just give me a few seconds to keep us both safe). You know your exit/docking order so why not take a minute and figure out your landing order, its the canopy ride that will kill you. Under canopy its not very hard to find the people that are landing before you and ride above/behind them and follow. If you were in an airplane you would follow a landing pattern why should it be different with a canopy, were not flying rounds anymore, todays canopies have a huge amount of range. People that are supposed to land first dont waste time and get to the ground following your leader (this helps with landing direction also) and people landing last take your time.

Now there is a exit order theory on seperation, easy fix, more time before exit, Freeflyers fall straight down, belly flyers move more, the answer: more exit time, and im only talking a few more seconds, if a 3 way freefly with sub 100 sqft canopies is exiting before your group of 5 belly flyers with 200sqft canopies, have the belly group give you a few more seconds and exit after, in all reality, the freeflyers will be open already and decended enough to be no problem,and the belly flyers will take more time in the door anyway. With the difference in fallrate and the canopy decent the smaller canopies wont be a factor. If you think its a problem break off and pull a little higer (we do still have lower pullers exit first right?). Some dropzones have been exiting freeflyers first for years, whie others (Deland (old school) still insist on exit size exit order. But it has been working both ways for years, and this only matters in high winds with a jump plane moving at 70 mph it would take a very high wind speed to make a difference. The only factor so far is canopy size, and pilot skill (pilot skill fixed with education). Oh yeah and skydiver skill, a freeflyer that cant fly headdown will cover a lot of air in a bad track/headdown, make him give more time before exit.

I have on other occasions let a team with bigger canopies than my team land first when they are complete idiots and land in 5 different directions, and spiral like madmen to the ground, not the solution but it kept me safe!

Overall canopy size should be a consideration for exit order (of course in a big way you dont have a choice, then you do the smart thing and figure out your landing order inside the group). Limiting turns at a dz isnt the answer, make sure the people doing the turns know how to seperate their landing order (and exit order). We can all find a safe way to jump and land TOGETHER it just takes a little education and consideration. Trying to be the first to the ground exiting from the middle of the plane is just a plain old DUMBASS idea! Exit order= Landing order no questions asked. Canopy size doesnt make a difference, if you cant fly your canopy well enough for this to work, land somewhere else/buy a bigger canopy or learn to fly the one your jumping! Just like we expect people that dont "high performance land" to land somewhere else, we all apply! And the canopy size excuse is no excuse learn how to fly your canopy slow, I can beat a heavier person in a slow decent contest with a 150 with my velo 84.
Blue SkiEs
Ray

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[scottjaco 0]

Quote

Quote

Thanks Bill, and D'OB and all the others.

I think that DZO enforced separation is
the only thing that's going to work.

Education and not being a hazard to others
was supposed to already have been happening,
and it wasn't working.

I totaly disagree. THis was happening, but because of the insistance of DZO's that there was an instructor shortage, the USPA has allowed the quality of instructors to plumet, thus causing the lack of eduaction and enforcement that is currently being experienced.

But isn't it the guys with 1000's of jumps who are causing these accidents?

You really think they are going to sit these guys down in the office and have a "chat" about their canopy behavior?