Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

[mnealtx 0]

As you all are saying the same thing over and over again.

Quote

It is almost like they have their own agenda and now they have to speak as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen.

Rather like people saying over and over that "this will force accuracy jumpers into the swoop lanes" ?

Quote

Eventually everyone else will get tired of listenening to them argue with everyone about anything because they are so borred with life that they feel this is the only way to get something accomplished. Sad really.

Rather like people saying over and over that "this will force accuracy jumpers into the swoop lanes" ?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ianmdrennan 2]

Tell ya what.

You guys sit here and argue about this stuff all day. Let me know when it's done, cause in the meantime - I'll be off on the actual 'battlefield' trying to make a difference.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[skinnyshrek 0]

Quote

Tell ya what.

You guys sit here and argue about this stuff all day. Let me know when it's done, cause in the meantime - I'll be off on the actual 'battlefield' trying to make a difference.

Ian

danm ian when r u going to iraq

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

danm ian when r u going to iraq

Screw Iraq ... he needs to go to the White House and/or the Pentagon.

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

[ematteo 0]

Kallend,

The three BSR proposals provide a sanctuary for those flying 90 degree box patterns, and lump everyone else (swoopers, accuracy jumpers, guys spiraling under big canopies, etc) into a "high Performance Landing" area.

The proposals:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2786877;


The problem is the definitions, which protect box pattern fliers at the expense of everyone else.

Swooper? Go to the HPL. Shooting accuracy for your "B" license? Go to the HPL. Like to spiral down from 1000 to 500 feet under your Manta at 0.8:1? Bad boy, but if you do it, go to the HPL.

The result is a congested swoop lane that is also occupied by guys doing random stuff under much slower canopies.

Yikes!

Evan

Quote

Quote

I submit that you don't understand what I'm concerned about.

I have explicitly asked one of the proposed bsr writers about non-hp landings in the hp area. They felt it was ok because 'it was going to happen from time to time as people make mistakes'.

If a BSR says it's OK to land in, or fly patterns through, the HP area not doing HP approaches, you're not going to get my support on it. Period.


Blues,
Ian

Where in any proposal does it state that? That's not in the proposal I signed on to.

And the no-rules situation as we have it right now is better? Anyone at all can land in the swoop lane right now unless the DZ has local rules, and if the DZ already has local rules, that's all the proposal asks for.

[kallend 2,131]

Quote

Kallend,

The three BSR proposals provide a sanctuary for those flying 90 degree box patterns, and lump everyone else (swoopers, accuracy jumpers, guys spiraling under big canopies, etc) into a "high Performance Landing" area.

The proposals:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2786877;


The problem is the definitions, which protect box pattern fliers at the expense of everyone else.

Swooper? Go to the HPL. Shooting accuracy for your "B" license? Go to the HPL. Like to spiral down from 1000 to 500 feet under your Manta at 0.8:1? Bad boy, but if you do it, go to the HPL.

The result is a congested swoop lane that is also occupied by guys doing random stuff under much slower canopies.

Yikes!

Evan

Quote

Quote

I submit that you don't understand what I'm concerned about.

I have explicitly asked one of the proposed bsr writers about non-hp landings in the hp area. They felt it was ok because 'it was going to happen from time to time as people make mistakes'.

If a BSR says it's OK to land in, or fly patterns through, the HP area not doing HP approaches, you're not going to get my support on it. Period.


Blues,
Ian

Where in any proposal does it state that? That's not in the proposal I signed on to.

And the no-rules situation as we have it right now is better? Anyone at all can land in the swoop lane right now unless the DZ has local rules, and if the DZ already has local rules, that's all the proposal asks for.

First, that is NOT the petition being discussed in this thread. Post 1 of this thread is what we're talking about.

However, with respect to that proposal,
My understanding is that only Option 3 (DZO makes rules to suit his/her DZ) was still on the table. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ANYONE is currently supporting anything else. And those Options were just suggestions, open to rewriting.

Instead of knee-jerk negativism, why not try to improve the proposal?

...

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

1) Every DZ needs to evaluate their landing zones. When possible let's segregate HPL canopies from traditional pattern fliers by either time or space.

2) Let's not tolerate yahoos doing stupid shit in the different landing zones.

3) Let's have the people landing in the HPLs communicate which each other to determine the landing order before the airplane takes off.

4) Let's each and every one of us keep our eyes open and be prepared to abort whatever sort of approach we are making if traffic is an issue. A canopy collision can happen to anyone who is complacent either because they were not paying attention or because they thought "they were all that".

Steve can now be seen stepping off of the soap box and he has two cents less in his pocket.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

1) Every DZ needs to evaluate their landing zones. When possible let's segregate HPL canopies from traditional pattern fliers by either time or space.

2) Let's not tolerate yahoos doing stupid shit in the different landing zones.

3) Let's have the people landing in the HPLs communicate which each other to determine the landing order before the airplane takes off.

4) Let's each and every one of us keep our eyes open and be prepared to abort whatever sort of approach we are making if traffic is an issue. A canopy collision can happen to anyone who is complacent either because they were not paying attention or because they thought "they were all that".

Steve can now be seen stepping off of the soap box and he has two cents less in his pocket.

That's the basic suggestion being made, yes.... unfortunately, there's a lot of strawman arguments saying "that'll never work, so let's not do anything"...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Tell ya what.

You guys sit here and argue about this stuff all day. Let me know when it's done, cause in the meantime - I'll be off on the actual 'battlefield' trying to make a difference.

Ian

I expected a bit more maturity from a moderator than "I'm taking my ball and going home" when people argue against your point.

Nice little stealth slam against those of use that can't jump as often as you do, too.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

There are still plenty of people with the same arrogance.

And unless we separate incompatible landing patterns, It is just a matter of time before this happens again and again.

Education is great.. But you can have all the "Education" in the world and some people will still not learn. And even if they do learn.. Humans will always make mistakes. All we can do try to minimize the dangers of those inevitable mistakes. By separating the Landing Areas (Time or Distance) we can make things safer for EVERYONE. Swoopers will not have out Slow ass Boats in their way and we will not have pocket Rockets zipping past us from our blind spots.

Keep in mind that the ones you are talking about educating are some of the most experienced and most talented Jumpers in the sport. Do you really think these guys are going to listen? They already know it all, Just ask them.
What piece of Education could you have given Bob Hollar that he could have used to save his life??

This entire argument comes across as just a bunch of Arrogant skygods that think “We don’t need no stinkin rules”. Comments like “You pay your $20, you take your chances” make me sick. If I am on a Load and some yahoo swooper collapses my canopy while I am on Final (again!!), That is just a risk I should accept?? BULLSHIT.

You want to swoop?? Great, Go for it. Just don’t put me in danger when you do it.

The amazing thing is some of the Jumpers that opposed this are also some of the Jumpers that I respect more than anyone else in this sport.. I just cannot for the life of me see thier logic. "We cant do everything, so we shouldnt do anything??"
"This will only solve some of the Problem and not all the problem.. so forget it??"
"Education will solve this problem"

The problem is a FAST moving object and a SLOW moving object trying to occupy the point in Time and Space. No amount of education in the world will make that outcome any different. But Separating those objects in Time And/Or Space will make a difference.

There ARE other issues that need improvement as well such as idiots Spiraling over the landing area and doing S Turns on Final. We must work on those as well but that doesn’t mean that we should do that Instead of separating landing area. We should do that as well as Separating landing areas.

Keep Accuracy Canopies and other slower Canopies in the main landing area. Anyone Landing in the HP landing area that doesnt belong there should face the same consequence as a Swooper that just used the Big way landing as Gates and Pylons. One is Just as Wrong as the other.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Swooper? Go to the HPL. Shooting accuracy for your "B" license? Go to the HPL. Like to spiral down from 1000 to 500 feet under your Manta at 0.8:1? Bad boy, but if you do it, go to the HPL.

While I don't disagree that the proposals say that, I also don't care. The wording of the BSR needs to be ironed out. NOBODY should spiral from 1000 feet to 500 feet over the DZ when there is anybody else in the sky. I think that goes without saying, but apparently not. The BSR doesn't allow anybody to be stupid.

BTW, I don't support the BSR either, for different reasons (posted in another thread), but it also wouldn't really bother me if there was a BSR.

When there is traffic, traffic patterns are critical. I don't care what shape they are. But swoopers need to follow A pattern and so do non-swoopers. When you're alone in the sky, do what you want. Who cares? When there are other canopies in the air, follow a pattern.

The faster our canopies get, the more important the pattern. You can have a whole load of accuracy canopies sashaying side by side and landing in every direction with no problems... doesn't work so well with everyone jumping fast canopies and even worse when there's a ton of speed difference between all the canopies.

Dave

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

That's the basic suggestion being made, yes.... unfortunately, there's a lot of strawman arguments saying "that'll never work, so let's not do anything"...

I never said "make this a BSR" why? see point #1. What works for one DZ may not work for another DZ. Plus not every dropzone is USPA. The bottom line is that if the DZOs want their DZs to become safer, then they must implement better landing policies.

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

expected a bit more maturity from a moderator than "I'm taking my ball and going home" when people argue against your point.

So far I haven't seen anyone argue against my point. If you actually bothered to read what I was saying I've NEVER, EVER been against seperate landing areas. What I am against is anything that provides an exception clause for non HP pilots to enter the HP pattern - just like it's expected that HP pilots don't enter the standard pattern in an HP manner. What I have seen is lot of baseless name calling and a lot of it from yourself. Really, don't lecture me on maturity.

Quote

Nice little stealth slam against those of use that can't jump as often as you do, too.

Take it that way if you want, it certainly wasn't intended to be that way. It was actually a comment on the fact that I spend my time coaching people, for free (and at my own expense I might add), trying to make a difference with ACTIONS - not useless internet babble.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mirage62 0]

Jeez, I can't even keep up with all this bullshit now.

Did this somehow get turned into the H.P. pilots are worried that non-real HP pilots will want to swoop in the HP area and this will make it dangerous for them??????

So don't have BSR so that the dz can tell a person when they can use the H.P. lanes? Until then they can use the standard approach lanes????? OR what?????

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

That's the basic suggestion being made, yes.... unfortunately, there's a lot of strawman arguments saying "that'll never work, so let's not do anything"...

I never said "make this a BSR" why? see point #1. What works for one DZ may not work for another DZ. Plus not every dropzone is USPA. The bottom line is that if the DZOs want their DZs to become safer, then they must implement better landing policies.

The problem with that is that it equates to "lets not do anything" - as stated in other threads, some places that originally HAD separation plans have now backed off of them.

I think it's a GOOD thing to *make* the dz's come up with a plan to separate traffic THAT WORKS FOR THEM. That *IS* what option 3 (the option now being recommended) said - each dz makes their own plan, not some 'one size fits all' decree sent down from Olympus.

Not doing anything just isn't acceptable anymore.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[wmw999 2,569]

Quote

What I am against is anything that provides an exception clause for non HP pilots to enter the HP pattern - just like it's expected that HP pilots don't enter the standard pattern in an HP manner.

They should catch shit too. You don't drive slow on a race track.

Kind of like flying over the runway. The pilot owns that airspace. The HP pilots own the HP airspace (under X feet -- normally there is a cross-over-the-runway altitude). One difference of course it that usually you can see the airplane coming, but a jumper might not know whether someone off in the distance is going to do an HP landing or follow a pattern to a non-HP landing.

And students should continue to land in the student area until they are capable of landing safely in a non-student area.

There is no perfect solution other than universally intelligent skydivers with good judgment.. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. Any separation of airspace is going to take more education of jumpers regardless, because people are not going to automatically know where it is just because a swooper is there. It should be part of the yearly review with signing your waiver.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mnealtx 0]

Hello Ian...thanks for the explanation.

You, like Evan, are fixating on ONE segment of ONE option - an option that (unless something has changed that I don't know about) is no longer being considered.

I'll ask you what I asked him - show me where "each dz makes a plan to separate HP and LP landings" says that accuracy jumpers have to use the swoop lane?

Quote

I'm separating these off in quotes for the people that are still hung up on the language in the other option.

If you're going to keep insisting on the "tuffet thumpers in the swoop lane" strawman, then please provide the following info:

Show me a list of DZ's that have the pea pit or accuracy tuffet in the middle of the swoop lane, and DZ's that actually have a problem with accuracy guys "floating the swoop lane".

Show me where accuracy jumpers floating around on those 252's are ACTUALLY going to be a landing obstacle to the swooper that's at a 2+ w/l under a sub-150 canopy.

And lastly...show me how swoopers have a RIGHT to swoop if there is ANYONE ELSE IN THEIR AREA OF EFFECT - whether that is a "tuffet thumper floating the swoop lane" (if there is a dedicated swoop lane) (separation in space) or a "super floater" from the previous load in the normal landing area (separation in time)?

I haven't seen ANYONE say that LP jumpers wouldn't be penalized for landing in the HP area - the only thing it says is that *IF* LP jumpers had to use the HP area (for whatever reason), that they have to stay at the EDGES (not "floating down the center" as some are implying) and that HP LANDINGS MUST STOP during that time (which seems to be common sense). (That was in one of the options no longer being considered, IIRC)

Nobody YET has been able to show me how an occasional interloper into a HP pattern is MORE dangerous than what we have now...which is a mix of HP and LP in the SAME pattern.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Not doing anything

What is more productive? Taking the issue to the grass roots where the DZOs are, or babbling on the internet? Go talk to each and every DZO at the various places that you jump. Tell them your concerns, tell them you want to see changes. Not everyone jumps in the USA ... the world does not revolve around the USA or the USPA. To think that you will get rid of canopy collisions by passing a USPA BSR is just naive. Go talk to the various DZOs people.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Not doing anything

What is more productive? Taking the issue to the grass roots where the DZOs are, or babbling on the internet? Go talk to each and every DZO at the various places that you jump. Tell them your concerns, tell them you want to see changes. Not everyone jumps in the USA ... the world does not revolve around the USA or the USPA. To think that you will get rid of canopy collisions by passing a USPA BSR is just naive. Go talk to the various DZOs people.

I have spoken to my DZO (and USPA rep) about this - USPA setting a BSR that tells DZ's to find a way to solve the problem, in effect, carries my voice to the other DZs as well.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

The petition is:

We, the undersigned, support a BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings.

How can anyone NOT support that idea?

The next step of putting the idea into words that will make the most sense is what many are missing.

OK...so it's decided to change the BSRs to separate high performance and standard pattern landings. What now?

How do we make it more specific?
How do we make it fair and reasonable to most?

How about if we turn it around a little?
--------------------------------------------
OPTION 2:

H. Drop zone requirements

3. 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]

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.

SLP 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. The High Performance Landing pattern (HPL) is defined as ..................

HPL jumpers will use the High Performance Landing area.

c. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the High Performance Landing (HPL) or standard landing pattern (SLP) will be deemed a Special Landing (SL)

Special landing jumpers will use landing areas other than the high performance landing areas. [NW]

d. Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper or special landing (SL) jumper enters the High Performance Landing area, NO
high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. [NW]


Give me a break...it's a rough draft.

I'd feel much safer landing around accuracy guys than swoopers. I'm sure swoopers feel the same. Swoopers will have to let go of their feelings of having the "right" to swoop when somebody (think students, youngsters, and just plain dumbasses) wander into the swoop area.

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

[ematteo 0]

The 3 initial proposals, including option 3, share a problem with definitions. Those definitions protect box pattern fliers at the expense of everyone else.

If swoopers are involved in most landing conflicts, give that group the safe place (completely free from lower, slower traffic) to do their thing and you address the problem.

I think a BSR is the wrong way to go on this. But if that's the route USPA chooses, here is a suggestion:

Define a High Performance Landing (HPL) as a "pattern which actively induces speed via a turn to final initiated above 500 feet." And prohibit non HPL patterns from overflying that area below 1000 (1200?, 1500?) feet. Keep everyone else in the main landing area and out of the HPL at all times (they can't see above them), and HPLs (as re-defined) out of the main landing area when there is traffic. Remove the definition of "Standard Landing Pattern."

This addresses the concern of getting "go big" swoopers out of the main landing area, and also keeps the swoopers safer than they were before.

A key element: there should be no expectation of safety for a non HPL flier wandering into the HPL landing area, even if they are "low man." The top guy will do his best (of course), but may not be able to abort and oh crap, you just killed two people. Any non-swooper flying through a designated swoop zone is a major hazard and should be harshly dealt with on the ground. If you are lower, you get right of way, then get harshly dealt with. Hopefully nobody got killed because of your fuck up.

(edited last paragraph to correct reference to right of way)

Quote

My understanding is that only Option 3 (DZO makes rules to suit his/her DZ) was still on the table. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ANYONE is currently supporting anything else. And those Options were just suggestions, open to rewriting.

Instead of knee-jerk negativism, why not try to improve the proposal?

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

A key element: there should be no expectation of right of way for a non HPL flier wandering into the HPL landing area, even if they are the "low man." Other HPL fliers who are lower, sure. But not a random flier wandering into HPL space. That is like skiing under a cliff and expecting the guy who just jumped off to avoid you.

Yeah, no problem there... just swoop around him, right?

Wait, were you serious??? There's a big difference between a swooper landing in the non-swoop area and a non-swooper landing in the swoop area. The swooper can always choose not to swoop.

I agree that it's critical for non-swoopers to stay away from the high performance landing area... but if they are there, swooping has to stop (depending on how big the area is and all that). If a bigway is all landing at once in the high performance area because of a bad spot and no other outs, the swooper doesn't have the right to swoop through the traffic. One guy landing at the far edge, fine, swoop away...

Right of way rules ALWAYS apply. Common sense cannot go out the window just because of a new rule. The "responsible swoopers" here seem to be the only people that have a problem with common sense...

Dave

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

A key element: there should be no expectation of right of way for a non HPL flier wandering into the HPL landing area, even if they are the "low man." Other HPL fliers who are lower, sure. But not a random flier wandering into HPL space. That is like skiing under a cliff and expecting the guy who just jumped off to avoid you.

That blows the "swooping is safe" argument out of the water, and it's a ridiculous suggestion. If that airspace block for 'nobody but us swoopers" is needed for swooping to be safe, then NO swooper should be doing ANYTHING other than dedicated "swooper only" HnP's for safety issues.

It also reinforces the attitude that "it's all about me" for the swoopers and that it doesn't matter how/if non-swoopers are affected by their actions, so long as the swoopers can do their thing.

As a matter of fact, everything in the post except for the sop of "HPLs out of the main landing area when there is traffic" reads like "fuck everyone else as long as we swoopers can get our thing on".

ANY lower jumper, HPL or not, has right of way. The higher jumper has a greater ability to 'see and avoid' and the responsibility to do so, regardless of what pattern they (or the lower person) are flying.

You still haven't shown how the recommended BSR places swoopers in any greater danger than they are in the situation the BSR proposes to address: swooping the pattern in the main landing area.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

You started out faairly well and then hit on this:

Quote

...
A key element: there should be no expectation of right of way for a non HPL flier wandering into the HPL landing area, even if they are the "low man."

Wow.
Man, this is exactly the swoop-god attitude and lack of education that is getting people hurt.

Hopefully that is not the prevalent attitude at Davis.


Think students and youngsters and plain old shit happens people!

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

[ematteo 0]

Dave,
First, I apologize for my misuse of terminology. ROW rules are and should be static.
However, groups can and do put enforcable limits on who can be where.
If you create a zone that is supposed to be safer for swooping, it should be safer for swooping.
It is more dangerous to designate a space as "swoop safe," and then invade that space, than to not designate a swoop zone in the first place.
Yes, a glider has ROW in a military operations area, a windsurfer has right of way when cutting in front of a container ship under the Golden Bridge, and a bicycle has right of way over a car in the fast lane of I-10. If any of the above guys "in the right " expect the other to yield to them, they will probably die. And it will be their own fault, not the guy who "failed to yield."
Unfortunately, in skydiving Mcnealtx will probably take out somebody else if he dies trying to assert his "right" to float in the swoop lane. Which is too bad.
BTW, if anyone has a pool going for contributors to this thread, I've got $100 on a certain prolific poster. Even considering his 4 jumps per year.