Help Craft The Final Language For BSR Proposal

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Everyone!

As you know, the topic of a BSR for landing patterns is being hotly debated on the forum. I truly believe that your input to USPA is vital as Swoopers have a vested interest in the outcome. I originally posted this as a supporting response to Molly's BSR petition thread. I'm reposting it here for your consideration.

As one of the drafters of the BSR proposal that will be presented to the USPA Board, I thought I would let you know how I came to the conclusion that a national solution to canopy landing mishaps is required.

First off, there are many ways to address what we are asking for. I happen to have my personal preference which I will share in a bit. But let me reassure the membership that we as a group discussed at length how to solve the problem of canopy collisions in the landing pattern. Rather than a knee jerk reaction, this was an attempt at reasonable identification, and resolution.

Now on to my thoughts. All safety programs look to prevent death or injury to participants. They do this by identifying hazards to the participants and then creating ways to avoid those hazards. Safety is about prevention. Prevention always occurs before incidents arise through thoughtful insight, but we learn a lot about prevention after a fatal event.

To have a valid safety program, all mishaps must have a human cause. There can be no such thing as ‘it just happens that way’. That’s not to say that the canopy pilot is always to blame for every mishap. It’s just that you can’t blame non-human factors. For example, it’s a gusty wind day and someone has their canopy collapse and has a mishap. Although the gusty winds may have caused the canopy to become unairworthy, it's the decision to fly in those conditions that the safety program may address.

It could have been canopy pilot error. Or it could be management error, or manufacturing error, or design error or maintenance error. These are the areas that a safety program should look at.

Any number of human beings could be in the chain of events that causes any particular mishap. A good safety program looks to break the chain prior to a mishap occurring.

I think most of us agree that the hazard has been properly identified: landing pattern disfunction. I really liked Mike Johnston’s way of saying it: landing pattern PLAN, or lack thereof.

So the crux of the matter is what to do about it. As a group, our little committee abhors rules. However, we think we know when they are needed. Any drop zone right now is free to create whatever they want to address the problem as they see fit. What we want is a statement made on the national level about what we as an organization (USPA) want for each of our members wherever they happen to jump.

Those who promote education are absolutely right. Education is one of the most important ways to prevent these mishaps. But what do you educate to? It’s not sufficient to say that you should have good Situational Awareness (S.A.) at all times (something you should do) or that you should not endanger others around you by poor airmanship with your canopy(something you should not do). You need a standard, simply laid out so that you have something to create the education program for. Our BSR proposal lays the groundwork for that: a target to educate to.

Those that say if we improve S.A. in everyone, these mishaps will disappear. They are 100% correct. However, we are human beings and human beings are prone to mistakes, lapses in judgement etc. No one has 100% S.A., 100% of the time. If 99% of the jumpers have perfect S.A., but are jumping with the 1% that do not, you have a mishap waiting to happen. And no one wears a sign saying what their S.A. level is on any given jump to let you steer clear. Our BSR proposal addresses this hazard.

For our BSR proposal, we defined the landing patterns so that USPA would have a point to start at for discussion purposes. We know the process that a BSR proposal will go through before it becomes a BSR. This will be sliced and diced to the nth degree before anything gets set in stone. Everyone will have a voice if they choose to get involved so that they can get behind the process. I can agree that a smooth, shallow angle of bank, unaccelerated 180 degree turn to final could fit into what we are trying to get across to the membership. But we did not want to create proposals so bulky that everyone shrugged their shoulders and walked away from the problem. Let’s let the safety committee work out the final language. Our basic idea is that a national standard is needed.

Let me delve into our three options. I’m going to erase the definition paragraphs and just go to the prescriptions to save space and allow you to get through this a little quicker.

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:
OPTION 1

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]

This says what a DZO must do (separate traffic patterns) and what jumpers must do (do not violate landing areas). In the safety world, this covers all bases. If someone is being a moron, but they land in their respective area, they are less likely to cause a mishap with folks landing in the other area. However, it does it without regard to local conditions, DZOs’ world views etc.

If I were king, AND safety were the only issue, I would favor this option. However, safety isn’t the only issue.
----------------------

OPTION 2:

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:

c. Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO
high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. [NW]

This option puts all the responsibility onto the individual jumpers. No requirements are placed on the DZO. IF there was 100% S.A., this would work. But there isn’t so therefore in my mind, for a NATIONAL solution, this doesn’t accomplish anything in the safety world. It’s a worthy goal, and it should be taught, but as a BSR, it falls short of what we need.

And answer this: how has it been working so far? Essentially, this is the current rule. Another way to say it is low jumper has right of way. Yet, we’ve still had mishaps. Fatal ones.
-----------------------------------

OPTION 3:

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:

c. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures
for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each
other. [NW]

This is my preferred option. The local DZO is tasked with creating a landing plan that works for their particular drop zone. It doesn’t tell them how to do it, but mandates that SLP and HPL traffic not impede each other. By normal rules of conduct, when a DZO establishes procedures at their facility, their customers are bound to follow them. Here again is that joint responsibility for safety, but without the one size fits all methodology that folks are worried about.

To prevent future mishaps in the landing environment, three things are required from/for skydivers: education, compliance and enforcement. Our BSR proposal creates the framework for a healthy education program, a predictable set of flying conditions at any drop zone and something that anyone can enforce.

I ask that you sign Molly’s petition, open ended as it is, since what we are asking for is not a set of rules, but creating a safety culture in the landing pattern on a national basis.

Blue SKies, Flip Colmer
D-6157

[dharma1976 0]

I like option 3

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

As one of the drafters of the BSR proposal that will be presented to the USPA Board, I thought I would let you know how I came to the conclusion that a national solution to canopy landing mishaps is required.

First off, there are many ways to address what we are asking for.

Recently, it has come to my attention that several people think that I support a USPA BSR that mandates canopy traffic patterns. I believe this misunderstanding has arisen from the juxtaposition of my article on 'How to Avoid Canopy Collisions' and the articles from the BSR pundits in the June SNM issue. All the articles present similar ideas of separating different canopy approaches in time or space. The difference is in the implementation. I advocate education with repetition until it sinks in. I do not advocate a BSR to accomplish these goals. There are many flaws in the proposed BSRs that one can drive Mack trucks thru.

I submitted my article to both SNM and Parachutist at the same time. The one that agreed to publish the article first got the article. I withdrew it from Parachutist after SNM said they would publish it. I did ask Lambert to consider republishing it in Parachutist because repetition will help. Both magazines have policies of not publishing something that appears in the other magazine. I think this is a time that that 'status-quo' policy should be bent. The original article has a lot of information that was not in the SNM version.

I suspect that the debate/discussion on this issue at the next BOD meeting will be more about implementation ideas, rather than the exact wording of a BSR. I do not foresee support of a BSR. We have a common goal of making the traffic pattern(s) a safer place. We agree upon ways that can augment safety for all jumpers. We disagree on the ways 'to force' or mandate that to happen. I think that if the BSR pundits understood how USPA functions, they would realize, on their own, that a BSR is not the way to go.

In the meantime, I will continue to write more educational articles and suggest implementation ideas.

Ways to make the canopy pattern safer:

1. Separate areas (in time or space) for conventional patterns, swoop patterns and student landing patterns.

2. Specify no over fly areas.

3. Post aerial photos with areas (and altitudes) denoted. (posted in the boarding area, not just manifest) Sort of like a sectional chart for the jumpers.

4. Provide a DZ briefing to every jumper that comes to the DZ. The briefing should include an aerial photo of the DZ with marked landing and no-fly zones.

5. Same DZ rules for all jumpers. IOW, no one gets to do swoops in the main landing area because they are 'special'.

6. Post an aerial photo in the boarding area. Allow jumpers to tell others where they intend to land, traffic permitting.

7. Have a watch-dog for every load. Allow the watch-dog to suggest better approaches for those that may be creating potential collision problems.

8. Communicate with other jumpers on the ground and in the air. One of the cuts in the SNM version was the scissor kick communication between jumpers in the air.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Jan!

Quote

I do not advocate a BSR to accomplish these goals. There are many flaws in the proposed BSRs that one can drive Mack trucks thru.

Quote

Excellent! Let's further the conversation. Name the flaws so I can address them.

Quote

Both magazines have policies of not publishing something that appears in the other magazine. I think this is a time that that 'status-quo' policy should be bent. The original article has a lot of information that was not in the SNM version.

Quote

I agree with you completly. This hazard is too important not to address in all media vehicles.

Quote

I do not foresee support of a BSR.

Quote

Why? A hazard has been amply identified. Why wouldn't the Board create a safer environment for the membership?

Quote

We have a common goal of making the traffic pattern(s) a safer place.

Quote

Agreed!

Quote

We agree upon ways that can augment safety for all jumpers.

Quote

Agreed!

Quote

We disagree on the ways 'to force' or mandate that to happen. I think that if the BSR pundits understood how USPA functions, they would realize, on their own, that a BSR is not the way to go.

Quote

Okay, I've only been in the sport for 30 years. Tell me why a BSR is not appropriate. Was a BSR appropriate for pull altitudes way back when?

Quote

In the meantime, I will continue to write more educational articles and suggest implementation ideas.

Quote

You have always been a key advocate of safety. Do not stop publishing. As they say in academia, 'publish or perish.' Makes sense in our sport.

Quote

Ways to make the canopy pattern safer:

1. Separate areas (in time or space) for conventional patterns, swoop patterns and student landing patterns.

2. Specify no over fly areas.

3. Post aerial photos with areas (and altitudes) denoted. (posted in the boarding area, not just manifest) Sort of like a sectional chart for the jumpers.

4. Provide a DZ briefing to every jumper that comes to the DZ. The briefing should include an aerial photo of the DZ with marked landing and no-fly zones.

5. Same DZ rules for all jumpers. IOW, no one gets to do swoops in the main landing area because they are 'special'.

6. Post an aerial photo in the boarding area. Allow jumpers to tell others where they intend to land, traffic permitting.

7. Have a watch-dog for every load. Allow the watch-dog to suggest better approaches for those that may be creating potential collision problems.

8. Communicate with other jumpers on the ground and in the air. One of the cuts in the SNM version was the scissor kick communication between jumpers in the air.

Quote

All of those are great suggestions and I agree with them. However, what do you say to the widow of a jumper who just got smacked in the landing pattern because skydivers are humans and mistakes will be made? 'Well, it's a steep learning curve.'

It's the hazard that matters and that's why I advocate safe separation parameters.

Now let's go have a beer and talk this over.

Blue SKies, Flip

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Guinness_fr 0]

I think option 1 is not good enough (so that makes option 3 the best, so far).

One thing that annoys me in option 1 is this:

Quote

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]

If a HPL area is defined, a no-fly cone must be defined 1500 feet over this area.
In other words, it is not good enough to say that jumpers not performing HP landings shall not land on the HPL area, they must also stay clear of the area when below 1000ft

Since I believe not all DZs can have the luxury of defining such separate areas (and their associated no fly zones), I think that option 3 is best, leaving to each DZ the responsibility to find what suits them best.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

If a HPL area is defined, a no-fly cone must be defined 1500 feet over this area.
In other words, it is not good enough to say that jumpers not performing HP landings shall not land on the HPL area, they must also stay clear of the area when below 1000ft

Does it mean that high speed landing or in case of emergency only?

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Excellent! Let's further the conversation. Name the flaws so I can address them. ........
Okay, I've only been in the sport for 30 years. Tell me why a BSR is not appropriate. Was a BSR appropriate for pull altitudes way back when?.............
All of those are great suggestions and I agree with them. However, what do you say to the widow of a jumper who just got smacked in the landing pattern because skydivers are humans and mistakes will be made? 'Well, it's a steep learning curve.'

Definitions should not be in the BSRs. The only reason the definition of a skydive is in the BSRs is to exclude BASE jumping. BSRs are performance-based objectives that are measurable, except for the lone definition of 'skydive'.

The definitions you have are incomplete and conflict with the performance-based part of the proposed BSR.
Your definitions are two-dimensional. In real life the canopy traffic pattern is a three dimensional space that should also have altitudes specified.
Your definitions classify someone doing s-turns as high performance.
Your definition of a 'standard' pattern can include this pattern:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

|

|

|

|

- - - - - - -

|

|

|

- - - - - - - - - X

This pattern may be one that someone avoiding traffic may take. I'd hardly call it high performance and I would not call it a conventional pattern either. I'd called it a pattern to avoid traffic and that is the goal afterall.
In the swoop world there are 'standard' swoop patterns. A better name would be 'conventional' pattern that describes the 3 legs of a pattern with 90 degree turns, all turns in the same direction.
Your definitions allow someone to do a conventional pattern (3 legs with 90 degree turns) after some 360s below 1000 feet. IOW, someone can spiral to 500 feet and then do a tight conventional pattern in the last 500 feet. That would be 'ok' with your proposed BSRs. Or someone could ride deep brakes until 500 feet and then do a conventional pattern. Or someone could ride deep brakes to some altitude below 1000 feet and then just do a straight in approach (because that's " enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area")

If a DZ separates landing zones in time how does this apply?
"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." I have a big 'Huh?' about that.

In regards to:
"Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other."
Let's say a DZ has two physically separated landing zones. Some jumper does a 270 approach in the conventional traffic pattern area. Is a proposed BSR violated?
The DZO established separate areas. The DZO fulfilled his obligation. What proposed BSR did the jumper violate?

Let's talk about infractions. Say someone violates one of the proposed BSRs. (Let's pretend that we could write them without loopholes.) What happens next? The only thing an S&TA or RD can do is temporarily suspend ratings if the infraction is in the line of duty of that rating. (IOW, you cannot pull a rating if someone pulls low on a fun jump.) What happens if the jumper does not have any ratings?

Formal disciplinary actions generally take up to 6 months to be resolved. Is that a good way to stop someone from causing havoc within a conventional traffic pattern on a boogie weekend?

It is much easier for the DZO to 'refuse service' to customers that jeopardize their business. That is pretty much an instantaneous, on the spot correction.

I think the real problem we face is getting DZs to enforce their already established rules and making rules that apply to all jumpers equally. That will take more feedback from all jumpers and some watchdogs at the landing areas. This is a local solution. Each DZ will have it's set of rules and may be significantly different from another DZ.

The authority to ground someone executing inappropriate maneuvers at inappropriate times already exists. We just have to get the DZO or organizers to exercise that authority.

About the pull altitude BSR. That's a BSR that is not a BSR (in real life). If you are in freefall below a minimum altitude, USPA and everyone else wants you to pull before you reach the ground. That BSR does not say 'You MUST pull above such-n-such altitude.' It says, 'We prefer that you pull above such-n-such altitude.'
I've know many people that have been grounded by a DZO for pulling low, but I've never heard of anyone having formal disciplinary actions taken to suspend or revoke membership for pulling low.

RE the family 'there ought to be a law' perspective.
The steepness of the learning curve is not what precipitated these proposed BSRs.
It was the 'better-than-mere-mortals' attitude that created the situation and lead to deaths. The incident that killed Bob and Danny happened at a non- GM DZ. Any proposed BSR does not necessarily apply. All of us mourn for Bob and Danny. We are pissed at Danny too.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[LoudDan 0]

I'll throw down my two bits for consideration and leave it at that.

If we as skydivers truly want to make things safer, A) The blame game has to cease and B) We should be using solid root cause analysis after each incident. Root cause analysis for those don't know is the reverse engineering of an event. You take the outcome no matter how major or minor and work your way backwards. This will give you defined steps that lead to the incident. I used this technique when I was a safety manager for the airlines and it is very effective when performed correctly. Very rarely does the "fix" include drastic changes as it has been proven time and time again that drastic changes to an already established procedure tend to cause more problems than they fix.

As far as the landing pattern issue goes, (and I doubt many would argue why this is all of a sudden such a high priority) there are some very simple things that should be addressed that were perhaps taken for granted in Dublin.

1. Always review the breakoff procedure (staged altitude break offs for bigger ways, barrel roll before deployment to help ensure clear airspace). The end of the dirt dive should never be "break at 3,500, and we'll see ya on the ground".

2. Always go over the pattern of flight, reenforce the use of the "playground" this should be done regardless of the experience level.

3. If the dive is a larger way enforce the no hook turn law. Always reinterrate to keep the head on a swivel and clear the airspace before making any canopy inputs.

All this stuff seems kinda simple and pedestrian right.....however more times than not the basics of safe skydiving and safe canopy flight are taken for granted. It could harm absolutely no-one to say out loud "Look guys and gals, we're gonna have thirty canopies in the air with varying ranges of vertical and horizontal separation.....follow the lefthand pattern, always insure you've got clean airspace, and lets keep turns in the pattern to 90 degrees, no hook turns".

Personally I think reenforcement of the basics and a willingness to ground those not willing to follow basic safety measures will be far more productive than overhauling a system that would work if it was only enforced.

2.
1. Brea

Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!

[Guinness_fr 0]

Quote

Does it mean that high speed landing or in case of emergency only?

I'm not sure I understand the question but I as not talking about an emergency.
I think it is a good idea to establish "rules" or recommendations in order to separate HP landing from non HP landing. Of course there will always be the case of someone not respecting the recommendation, either because of an emergency or simply by absent-mindedness, this is why swoopers will always have to look for unexpected traffic and abort when necessary, but if the recommendations are repeated often enough, decreasing the number of HP and non HP landings in the same area will have to decrease (not remove totally) the risks of collision between HP and non HP pilots.
I personnaly think it is a good thing for swoopers to have a dedicated zone with a no fly cone as it will allow us to swoop more often.

[FlipColmer 0]

First off any man who advertises himself with a pint of Guinness is one we should listen to. Intently. He obviously is discerning and a great judge of all things that are good.

I agree that option 3 is the most viable for a BSR.

As to why we added what a SLP person would do in the HPL area, it's because sometimes people land where they are not supposed to and we felt a predictable course rule should be created for them in the HPL area. That way they create the least hazard for the swoopers.

A no fly cone is great. But if someone is in it, they need a plan. That why we wrote one.

Blue SKies, Flip

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Jan!

***Definitions should not be in the BSRs. The only reason the definition of a skydive is in the BSRs is to exclude BASE jumping. BSRs are performance-based objectives that are measurable, except for the lone definition of 'skydive'.***

We included the definitions so that there would be an easy place to start the conversation and an easy reference for the discussioin. If we hadn't put the definitons there, we would have to create another document for the discussion. As we've said all along, this is not the final language. We expect USPA through the committee process to create the final language. Put the definitions where they belong in the S.I.M. and put the BSR where it belongs.

***The definitions you have are incomplete and conflict with the performance-based part of the proposed BSR. Your definitions are two-dimensional. In real life the canopy traffic pattern is a three dimensional space that should also have altitudes specified.***

We discussed this too before publishing. If DOB flies a student sized canopy and I fly a mini-something, who lands first? Performance depends on suspended weight, size and design of the canopy and how one flies it. Those three variables create many permutations of perfomance. Yet, irrespective of altitude, we can all fly a 'standard landing pattern'. Rather than get too involved with the altitude dimension we wanted the track over the ground to be predictable.

*** Your definitions classify someone doing s-turns as high performance.***

We discussed this too. I can see shallow 'S' turns being a normal manuever in a standard landing pattern. Doesn't have to be but I can see it. Akin to slipping an airplane in the landing pattern: it's not always done, but it is a normal manuever. Same with a bit of front risering. Not always done but a normal manuever in the landing pattern. What isn't normal would be a 90 degree 'S' turn that cuts across a wide swath of the landing area.

***Your definition of a 'standard' pattern can include this pattern:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

|

|

|

|

- - - - - - -

|

|

|

- - - - - - - - - X


This pattern may be one that someone avoiding traffic may take. I'd hardly call it high performance and I would not call it a conventional pattern either. I'd called it a pattern to avoid traffic and that is the goal afterall.***


A plan is just something to deviate from.  We don't expect skydivers NOT to avoid collisions just because it's not in conformance to the standard pattern.  We expect them to fly and take 'appropriate' actions to avoid collisions.  The idea is that all other things being equal, if you are not avoiding other canopies, you would conform to the standard landing pattern as the DZ has set up.


***If a DZ separates landing zones in time how does this apply?***


If a DZ separates the landing traffic by time, they've separated the landing traffic.  That's okay by us.  It's each DZs option on how to provide a safe landing environment.


***"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." I have a big 'Huh?' about that.***


What's your huh?  We want a predictable landing pattern for all.  IF a dz creates a swoop zone, but a swooper can't get to it, they need to do a standard landing.  IF a standard landing person enters the swoop zone, we made them be predictable too.


Okay, I've run out of time before pick up.  I'll finish this off tonight when I get back to a computer.


Excellent discussions.  Let's keep the momentum and focus on safety going.


Blue SKies, Flip

			
		

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Jan!

Back from dinner.

*** "Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other."
Let's say a DZ has two physically separated landing zones. Some jumper does a 270 approach in the conventional traffic pattern area. Is a proposed BSR violated?***

If this is the wording of the final BSR, then no. No BSR violation. However, the Drop Zone rules about landing patterns would have been violated. The real question is whether or not for this one DZ, would they have established safe landing pattern procedures without the BSR?

***Let's talk about infractions. Say someone violates one of the proposed BSRs. (Let's pretend that we could write them without loopholes.) What happens next? The only thing an S&TA or RD can do is temporarily suspend ratings if the infraction is in the line of duty of that rating. (IOW, you cannot pull a rating if someone pulls low on a fun jump.) What happens if the jumper does not have any ratings?***

You tell me, what does the S&TA do today when someone pulls low? What does the DZO do? Now you have your answer for landing pattern issues.

***It is much easier for the DZO to 'refuse service' to customers that jeopardize their business. That is pretty much an instantaneous, on the spot correction.***

Nothing prevents on the spot corrective action by a DZO because there is or is not a BSR. Having the BSR in place reinforces safe landing practices so the DZO does not have to discipline as much.

***This is a local solution. Each DZ will have it's set of rules and may be significantly different from another DZ.***

Great! We just want them TO have a set of rules so that all USPA jumpers can expect safe landing patterns at all USPA DZs.

***About the pull altitude BSR. That's a BSR that is not a BSR (in real life).***

Stop right there. You can't have it both ways. It either is, or is not a BSR. Don't be a sea lawyer on this.

***It was the 'better-than-mere-mortals' attitude that created the situation and lead to deaths. The incident that killed Bob and Danny happened at a non- GM DZ. Any proposed BSR does not necessarily apply. All of us mourn for Bob and Danny. We are pissed at Danny too.***

If a separate area had been set up for swoopers at this event, which may have happened if a USPA BSR was in place, the odds would have been far greater that both men would still be alive today. As USPA goes, so does the membership.

Okay, someone is waiting for the computer. I've got to go. I know you have strongly held convictions about this. How about a leap of faith here.

You and I want the same thing: safe landing environment. You want the local DZs to have the responsibility to create and enforce. I want USPA to say that they want that too. Is it that bad to create that requirement? Leap and join in for option 3.

Blue SKies, Flip

[hukturn 0]

You have some great plans in there. But, they should not be BSR's. They should be left to the individual DZ to decide what works for them.

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Matt!

***You have some great plans in there. But, they should not be BSR's. They should be left to the individual DZ to decide what works for them.***

You and I are so close to being on the same page it's frightening.

You want everything left to local control. I agree!

I want USPA to tell all the locals to exert that control. You disagree.

If I go your way, we are hinting and hoping that each an every drop zone will establish safe landing procedures.

If you go my way, USPA tells every drop zone to establish safe landing procedures without dictating what those might be.

How about a leap of faith here? Join us for option 3 of our proposal and have USPA say that each and every drop zone create their own set of landing procedures so that all USPA members are safer.

Blue SKies, Flip

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

It was the 'better-than-mere-mortals' attitude that created the situation and lead to deaths. The incident that killed Bob and Danny happened at a non- GM DZ. Any proposed BSR does not necessarily apply. All of us mourn for Bob and Danny. We are pissed at Danny too.

If a separate area had been set up for swoopers at this event, which may have happened if a USPA BSR was in place, the odds would have been far greater that both men would still be alive today. As USPA goes, so does the membership.

There was a separate field for swoopers to use. It was separated by a taxiway.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Bolas!

***There was a separate field for swoopers to use. It was separated by a taxiway.***

Then . No BSR will prevent every mishap. It still boils down to the continuum of Education, Compliance and Enforcement.

IF a BSR HAD been in place for a period of time, then MAYBE this unrestrained skydiver would have complied, or been forced to comply. I'm guessing he wore a seatbelt in the aircraft even if he did not show that level of discipline under canopy. But it's been a while since I jumped with him so I can't say from first hand observation.

I feel that having the BSR in place will increase the chances of my MAYBE above for more people.

Blue SKies, Flip

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Hello Jan!

Back from dinner.

Quote

"Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each other."
Let's say a DZ has two physically separated landing zones. Some jumper does a 270 approach in the conventional traffic pattern area. Is a proposed BSR violated?

If this is the wording of the final BSR, then no. No BSR violation. However, the Drop Zone rules about landing patterns would have been violated. The real question is whether or not for this one DZ, would they have established safe landing pattern procedures without the BSR?

Flip, I have a more optimistic attitude towards DZOs than you.
I think that DZOs can be convinced to implement local rules via conversations from the local jumpers.
I base this on the meeting in 2000 that Elsinore and it's jumpers had after a canopy collision.
Jumpers demanded that the rules be changed and the landing areas be separated.
USPA had nothing to do with the process, although the RD was present at the meeting.

Quote

Quote

Let's talk about infractions. Say someone violates one of the proposed BSRs. (Let's pretend that we could write them without loopholes.) What happens next? The only thing an S&TA or RD can do is temporarily suspend ratings if the infraction is in the line of duty of that rating. (IOW, you cannot pull a rating if someone pulls low on a fun jump.) What happens if the jumper does not have any ratings?

You tell me, what does the S&TA do today when someone pulls low? What does the DZO do? Now you have your answer for landing pattern issues.

The DZO may ground the jumper. This is not a formal disciplinary action taken by USPA.
A DZO has the right to 'refuse service' to customers.
Years ago, in BC days, a bunch of Elsinore jumpers used to come over the hill to Perris for a 'Grand Opening' celebration.
They would do their low pull and promptly get grounded at Perris and Elsinore also recognized the groundings.
USPA was not in the loop. Everything was handled at the local level.

Quote

Quote

It is much easier for the DZO to 'refuse service' to customers that jeopardize their business. That is pretty much an instantaneous, on the spot correction.

Nothing prevents on the spot corrective action by a DZO because there is or is not a BSR. Having the BSR in place reinforces safe landing practices so the DZO does not have to discipline as much.

In the real world, DZOs do the bulk of disciplinary actions. It is rare that USPA gets involved.

Quote

Quote

This is a local solution. Each DZ will have it's set of rules and may be significantly different from another DZ.

Great! We just want them TO have a set of rules so that all USPA jumpers can expect safe landing patterns at all USPA DZs.

What DZ does not have such rules?

Quote

Quote

About the pull altitude BSR. That's a BSR that is not a BSR (in real life).

Stop right there. You can't have it both ways. It either is, or is not a BSR. Don't be a sea lawyer on this.

Sea lawyer???
If I'm at 1999 feet AGL or lower, I know with certainty that the DZO, USPA and you would want me to pull and not 'wait for my AAD to fire' or aliens to pull for me. IOW, I break the 'Thou shall pull above 2000 ft rule' in order to save myself. Been there, done that and no one grounded me.

Quote

Quote

It was the 'better-than-mere-mortals' attitude that created the situation and lead to deaths. The incident that killed Bob and Danny happened at a non- GM DZ. Any proposed BSR does not necessarily apply. All of us mourn for Bob and Danny. We are pissed at Danny too.

If a separate area had been set up for swoopers at this event, which may have happened if a USPA BSR was in place, the odds would have been far greater that both men would still be alive today. As USPA goes, so does the membership.

Several people at the boogie said there were separate areas and that it was announced on the PA system.

Quote

Okay, someone is waiting for the computer. I've got to go. I know you have strongly held convictions about this. How about a leap of faith here.

You and I want the same thing: safe landing environment. You want the local DZs to have the responsibility to create and enforce. I want USPA to say that they want that too. Is it that bad to create that requirement? Leap and join in for option 3.

Blue SKies, Flip

No leaping of faith here.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[FlipColmer 0]

Quote

Hello Jan!

Quote

Flip, I have a more optimistic attitude towards DZOs than you. I think that DZOs can be convinced to implement local rules via conversations from the local jumpers.
I base this on the meeting in 2000 that Elsinore and it's jumpers had after a canopy collision.
Jumpers demanded that the rules be changed and the landing areas be separated.
USPA had nothing to do with the process, although the RD was present at the meeting.

In 2000 one drop zone figured it out that there was a problem. Has every drop zone done the same thing? I just simply don't want to wait for Darwinian Law to be the teaching tool.

Quote

The DZO may ground the jumper. This is not a formal disciplinary action taken by USPA.
A DZO has the right to 'refuse service' to customers.
Years ago, in BC days, a bunch of Elsinore jumpers used to come over the hill to Perris for a 'Grand Opening' celebration. They would do their low pull and promptly get grounded at Perris and Elsinore also recognized the groundings. USPA was not in the loop. Everything was handled at the local level.

Except for that pesky BSR thing about not pulling low. That was a NATIONAL rule that LOCAL DZs could hang their hats on when discipling their jumpers. That Perris and Elsinore cooperated was value added to the jumpers. But the core of it all was that a BSR was in place for this hazard.

Why is pulling low unsafe? I for one was comfortable about being in the saddle below what would be called prudent. I knew my gear, had reasonable altitude awareness and was pretty quick as far as reaction time goes. So for me, should that BSR be waiverable because I am so competent?

The answer is that NATIONALLY, pulling low is a hazard waiting to claim lives. It was recognized as such and addressed by the leadership of USPA years ago. As much as it impeded my fun, I obeyed.

Quote

You said: About the pull altitude BSR. That's a BSR that is not a BSR (in real life).

I said: Stop right there. You can't have it both ways. It either is, or is not a BSR. Don't be a sea lawyer on this.

Sea lawyer???

Sea lawyer= tap dancing to get around something.

Quote

If I'm at 1999 feet AGL or lower, I know with certainty that the DZO, USPA and you would want me to pull and not 'wait for my AAD to fire' or aliens to pull for me. IOW, I break the 'Thou shall pull above 2000 ft rule' in order to save myself. Been there, done that and no one grounded me.

Why do you know that below 2000k everyone wants you to get something out right now? Certainly education at the beginning of your career, your length of time in the sport, your dedication to safety as well as your safe practices while airborne. But the foundation of all of that, at the heart of the start, is a BSR.

Quote

Several people at the boogie said there were separate areas and that it was announced on the PA system.

Yeah, Bolas said the same thing. Nothing is perfect. As I said to him,

Quote

No leaping of faith here.

How about this. I support your education campaign and you support my 'legislation' campaign. If you are successful with yours in the long run, mine becomes moot.

Blue SKies, Flip

PS Better formatting?

.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

How about this. I support your education campaign and you support my 'legislation' campaign. If you are successful with yours in the long run, mine becomes moot.

Blue SKies, Flip

PS Better formatting?

.

How about if I provide you with landing patterns/rules for a sample (large and small DZs) of USPA GMs?
I doubt if I could get 100% participation, but I know I can get some DZOs to submit a plan that includes an aerial photo plus do's and do nots.

You claim that some DZs do not take this issue seriously. I claim that the DZs do take it seriously. Let's find out who the misfits are. How many of them are really 'out there'? IOW, are you on this campaign because at one DZ, one jumper did something really bad and you want all DZs to 'comply' with the decree you set? A systemic problem would occur at all DZs. We don't see a systemic problem. What we do see is a problem at boogies or larger DZs. Those call for isolated cures. Cures that we already know the solution for. Cures that have been implemented already by the DZs that experience these problems.

Formatting is much better. You are a quick study. But we already knew that!

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Jan!

Quote

Quote

How about if I provide you with landing patterns/rules for a sample (large and small DZs) of USPA GMs? I doubt if I could get 100% participation, but I know I can get some DZOs to submit a plan that includes an aerial photo plus do's and do nots.

And here in lies the rub. For a National organization that represents ALL members wherever they jump, a non-mandatory request, will get what you already alluded to above: less than 100% compliance. So some percentage of our USPA membership will be jumping at drop zones that may not have re-evaluated their landing patterns for safety in light of the recent spate of fatalities.

It's not okay to say that Drop Zone 'X' only has one Cessna so therefore they do not need to evaluate and create a better landing plan. All drop zones do. Option 3 makes that a requirement but leaves the details to them.

At that Cessna DZ, those 4 jumpers could simply decide ahead of time a landing order. That would comply with the BSR's intent.

And certainly a Perris or Deland with multiple aircraft and lots of jumpers in the air will have a different method to make the pattern safer. Again, it's up to them.

Quote

You claim that some DZs do not take this issue seriously. I claim that the DZs do take it seriously. Let's find out who the misfits are. How many of them are really 'out there'?

Refer to your quote above and you have your answer: not everyone. The good guys make their patterns safer. Some good people won't do it until there is a rule.

Quote

IOW, are you on this campaign because at one DZ, one jumper did something really bad and you want all DZs to 'comply' with the decree you set? A systemic problem would occur at all DZs. We don't see a systemic problem. What we do see is a problem at boogies or larger DZs. Those call for isolated cures. Cures that we already know the solution for. Cures that have been implemented already by the DZs that experience these problems.

6 fatalities (8 if you include Russia) in the past 8 months. It's not one DZ or one boogie.

Quote

Formatting is much better. You are a quick study. But we already knew that!

You're a good teacher.

Now come on. Isn't it time to make the option 3 leap of faith?

Blue SKies, Flip

.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

How about if I provide you with landing patterns/rules for a sample (large and small DZs) of USPA GMs? I doubt if I could get 100% participation, but I know I can get some DZOs to submit a plan that includes an aerial photo plus do's and do nots.

And here in lies the rub. For a National organization that represents ALL members wherever they jump, a non-mandatory request, will get what you already alluded to above: less than 100% compliance. So some percentage of our USPA membership will be jumping at drop zones that may not have re-evaluated their landing patterns for safety in light of the recent spate of fatalities.

The participation I was refering to was DZOs sending me or giving me urls that explained their plans. It did not refer to whether or not they have a plan. (No one likes surveys.)

Quote

It's not okay to say that Drop Zone 'X' only has one Cessna so therefore they do not need to evaluate and create a better landing plan. All drop zones do. Option 3 makes that a requirement but leaves the details to them.

At that Cessna DZ, those 4 jumpers could simply decide ahead of time a landing order. That would comply with the BSR's intent.

And a plan that said 'let the jumpers figure it out at the loading area' would comply too.
Your BSR proposals do not address the problem.
The problem is correcting the behavior of errant jumpers. Those jumpers could be s-turners, swoopers thru traffic, tunnel vision NG, spiraling NGs etc. We need more eyes out there looking and observing patterns and correcting people that do something that jeapordizes themself and others. We already have the rules. We need uniform and consistent application of the local DZ rules. None of this 'if you have the DZO's permission, you can do 270s in traffic.' (aka No sky-god shit.)

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[FlipColmer 0]

Quote

Hello Jan!

Quote

And a plan that said 'let the jumpers figure it out at the loading area' would comply too.

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.

Quote

Your BSR proposals do not address the problem. The problem is correcting the behavior of errant jumpers. Those jumpers could be s-turners, swoopers thru traffic, tunnel vision NG, spiraling NGs etc.

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

.

[dob 0]

Thanks to everyone who voiced an opinion on this subject. We gave the USPA Board all the comments, pro & con.
Remember that you have to stand up for what you believe and follow thru. You can make a difference. Just talk to jumpers not being safe or showing common sense under canopy.

The chatter is now at General Discussions, "Results of USPA meeting re: pattern separation"- Bill Von

Bluest Skies & Peace, dob