hukturn

How much is the lift ticket? Hell, who cares...sign me up. But, I thing RW would be tough with the thinner air.

Just because yoru DZ is closed during the winter does not mean that you can not skydive. Head South, young Jedei! Of course, this comes from someone who does nto skydive very much when temps are over 90deg. I hate hot weather. I can skydive all winter but hate the suummer heat.

"How should I handle this? " I am not really sure how some people on this thread are gathering that anything was the video guys fault. I mean, there really is no fault in this. Sometimes, he can not get to the ground before the tandem because there may be other canopies in the way. He must insure the safety of himself and others before getting the "perfect" footage. So, how do you handle it? It is a skydive...anything can happen. So, I recommend doing nothing. You could raise a stink about his attitude or for walking on the canopy. But, that would really get you nowhere. He shoots video at the DZ and is probably in "good grace" with the staff and clients. So, fly under the radar on this one. When possible, avoid S-turns on final. Also, with 25 jumps, you are probably wing loading low. You should be very wary of spiraling down into traffic. I am sure you can read several discussions on the propoed BSR's on seperated HP landings in other forums on this site.

Skydive Carolina is a wonderful example of a DZ that has ample space to seperate landing areas. But, not all DZ's are 800sq acres. Please PM me on the specific on what Danny has classified as an HP landing since I visit Chester about once a month. I am not opposed to seperating landing areas, seperating time, et cetera. I am simply in opposition to framing it in a BSR format. Judging by Bolas' post, another DZ has taken action. It looks as though DZ's are more responsive than the BSR committe has given credit. Hmmm....

I want DZ's to run their business as they see fit. I want a safe skydiving experience and I am willing to leave a DZ if necessary. But, I am thankful for a responsble S&TA on my home DZ. DZ Mgmt took action quickly after the Page/Hollar incident. But, we have always had some pretty hard and fast rules. At my DZ, if you screwed up either Tippy grounded you or you got a turquoise ring to the back of the head. Old Raefordites know all about that!

"I don't believe we have ingrained it AT ALL. If we had, a few people would be alive today who are, unfortunately, now dead." You could not be more mistaken. In the past million skydives, how many people died as the result of a canopy collision? Just for arguments sake, let's say 10. That is still a thousandth of a percent that you will not be involved in one and die. Those are extremely good odds. Before you ask..."yes" I would take those odds and have apparently been doing to since I started skydiving. And, they are the same odds that Danny took and the same odds that Bob took and the same that everyone else takes. None of us can outrun the Reaper. God will not take you one second before it is your time...with or without a BSR. And when it is yor time, no BSR will stop it.

"Bob is still dead" This is not about Bob...nor any other individual skydiver. You are designing a reg around one incident without regard to how it will impact the sport as a whole. If this were any other two skydivers without the high profile there would not be this push for a BSR. As much as you may miss Bob, the BSR will not bring him back. And, it is no more likely to save someone else as DZ oriented policies. Remember, the DZ's are enforcing, not USPA. So a BSR will not work any more than a policy at the local levels. "You can have a tough-as-nails, take-no-shit DZO who allows 270's in the main..." It makes perfect sense. The S&TA and DZO are the enforcers. If you don't have faith that they can apply their own rules, what makes you think that they can enforce a BSR? And, you are somewhat correct in that they could allow 270degs. But, that is their decision and every skydiver has the right to walk off to another DZ for whatever reason. But, I believe that many DZ's have taken this seriously (even prior to the Page/Hollar incident) and have taken steps to avoid collisions.

They were talking aboput this on th radio in Charlotte last week. How was it? I bet that would be a great time. Is it the same date every year?

I think that it should be dictated by the DZ. I mean, they know what will work locally. Only they know if they are flying loads cointaining more RW, Freefly, et cetera. In addition, it may be a scenario where it should be changed, based upon load content. So, to set a hard and fast rule may cause more problems that it fixes.

Now THAT I may support, with minor exception. I do not believe that there is a need for more S&TA's. I just we need S&TA's who are more responsible & responsive. I believe that this is really where the meat is on this subject. My primary arguements in rebuttal to the BSR proposal have been; 1) Let the DZ's institute measures at the local levels. 2) Hold DZ Management more accountable. I believe that the S&TA role has been taken much too lightly over the past few years.

Bill, I am sure you saw this coming a mile away... "...have two teammates that do 270's on every single jump, no matter what..." Now, this is not a personal attack, so please do not take it as such. But, if you have teammates who perform 270's no matter what, then how can you support this BSR? I mean it seems that even you do not have the heart to make a safety correction...and to a teammate who you should hold dear. If you can not take action then you can not believe that anyone else will. This is a tough topic and it requires tough action. It seems that the BSR is taking the easy way out by pushing the problem off to legislation. Sure, it is harder to raise awareness through education but it has a much more lasting effect. Accidents will happen. But, they will happen less frequently when people "want to do the right thing" instead of just falling in line with the other lambs. A BSR will not force correction. Let the DZ's take action without shoving another rule down their throat. They will be much more receptive and much more proactive. And, probably much more creative.

I agree...most jumpers do not read the ISP's. So, how have we managed to ingrain the "low jumper has the right of way" theory? Education, albeit propaganda. But, that shows that education works. Swoopers could/would just as easily NOT perform any HP landing (as described by DZ) with the institution of DZ policies. There is simply not a need for a BSR when it can be handled by the DZ's. It does not take a BSR to ban/ground an unsafe skydiver. It takes a strong S&TA and a strong DZO.

"...arguing FOR the BSR is saying that continuing to education people ISN'T needed... " Actually, there have been pretty substantial implications on behalf of the BSR supporters that education will not improve the topic at hand. And, there have been many statements that you need a BSR to "put some teeth into it". But, you do not need a BSR, you just need DZO's and S&TA's who are willing to establish rules and apply the rules to everyone equally. Thus, you are really dealing with a people issue, not a rules issue. You need tough people to make tough decisions. There are some good S&TA's out there but there are also some who are weak, bullied, tired or uncaring. Tha is where your problem lies. Not in the rules. I believe what Ian is stating is that education will improve canopy skills unilaterally. And, no BSR anyplace in the world will replace competence. And, I believe he is correct. People can live by rules. But, don't you want people who live by rules because they want to instead of because they have to? I and an old Style and Acc (and only moderate at that)jumper and I have made it 16 years without a formal canopy course. But, I recognize it's value and I plan to take one very soon (anything coming up, in the MA, Ian?). But, I am doing so to improve my abilities...not because I have to take one. A BSR will only be another piece of forced legialation. And, how is it going to be applied? Believe me or not, but a DZO or S&TA will not ground an AFF/I, DZO, S&TA, Tandem, JM, I, etc. in many instances. They will simply turn their back and say to themselves "I know he knows what he is doing". Now, you have a BSR that does not work and will not be applied equally. Please do not misunderstand. I believe that there need to be measures in place. In fact, I believe that most people in opposition to the BSR believe so. But, this is not a BSR issue...it should be solely at the discretion of the DZ to determine what will best suit their needs and the needs of their clients. And, actually, the "death tolls" are not restricted to HP canopy collisions. There are several other categories which yield higher "tolls" which are going unaddressed. We have managed to make several hundreds of thousands of skydives with minimal incident. This is only being addressed because of the high profile of the incident and the people involved. Geez...I apologize for being so long-winded.

I'm sorry, holleresque. I did not post this as a personal attack but I can see how it appears so, in retrospect. My thought process was that if the information is available and you fail to explore it then that is where the fault lies. I have never considered the term "ignorance" a dirty word. Sorry for being educated and I am sorry for posting in a manner which could be conceived as insulting.

"Hi Flip". Remember, acceptance is the first step to recovery. Keep coming back!

section B 6-c “The lower canopy has the right of way, but one jumper should not maneuver to assert right of way over another.” http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2007SIM/Section4CatE.htm Hmmmm....let me give that some thought. Because this is not a BSR, it is a ISP. Now, if your proposed BSR stated “The lower canopy has the right of way, but one jumper should not maneuver to assert right of way over another.” and there were no other stipulations, I might be more interested. My concern is that this is still something that should be handled at the DZ level, not by USPA. DZ's have integrated ISP's into their normal operations as policy even with advanced jumpers. Therefore, the "lower canopy has the right of way" ISP has seemd to work with advanced jumpers for a very long time. To be fair, I will give it more thought but I still just don't see this as a BSR issue.

This hsould not be an emotional debate. This is about policy, not feelings. To respond in kind; I hope that your ignorance oes not kill the sport. If you reference the SIM, there are plenty of pre-existing BSR's to address this issue. Not ot mention the creativity of the Drop Zones. With there being rules in place, and information available, where does the ignorance really fall...you?

Nope...I thought that for a very long time, too. A BSR is a Requirement, not a recommendation. Have a look at the title on this USPA web page... http://www.uspa.org/Publications/SIM/2007SIM/section2.htm

Wow!! And you did it without a BSR. Honestly, great work. You are taking a positive step. Unfortunately for many, this is also an indication that there is no need for another BSR. It indicates that DZ's are capable of determing what they need to create a safe (realatively) skydiving experience. Great job!!

Well, then let's back this all the way up to the manufacturers. Do we Really need high performance canopies? Since we are human and we can make mistakes maybe we should not have the tools which allow us to make those mistakes? You can have rules without BSR's. Have you read he SIM? Ther is already a rule for anythig you might encounter in the sportr. It just needs to be applied. So, we don't need a BSR to enforce BSR's. This BSR is a proposal in redundancy.

"No-one's desire to swoop..." But this is not about swooping and/or swoopers. Right?!? It seems that there are some underlying issues which are not being discussed. It seems like you (not you specifically Kallend)) are building a BSR against swoopers and labelling it something else. How many skydives last year in the US? How many swooping related canopy collisions? What is the percentage? Just curious.

Rock on! I second that proposal!

Buit you do not need a new BSR to start that. There are enough rules currently on the books to effectively address ANY problem which arises. And, whatever rules are not on the books can be determined by the DZO & S&TA without another BSR.

Like it or not, Bill, but at 1.95:1 on front risers, you are performing an HP landing. You are just setting a BSR around what you like to do. HP is HP, no matter the turn. Clarify the language of the BSR.

Hmmm...I dunno. If you look at history, we have allowed the mixing of landings. Some DZ's have imnplimented landing rules which have worked really well. And, when you review the number of incidents related to canopy collisions involving HP landings -vs- any other type of incident you will find that the incident rate is much lower. While the incidents at hand are regrettable, the fight for a new BSR has only arisen for one reason. The high profile of the persons involved. If it had been you and I who had collided and died on March 17th, there would be no push for a BSR.