FlipColmer

HEllo jp! How was the landing area at Skydance during the 50 ways? Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Jan! 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. 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. 6 fatalities (8 if you include Russia) in the past 8 months. It's not one DZ or one boogie. You're a good teacher. Now come on. Isn't it time to make the option 3 leap of faith? Blue SKies, Flip .

Hello Flipper! I concur. Actually, the group that drafted the BSR proposal agrees with you entirely. What we want are traffic patterns not because swoopers are bad, or 'experienced locals' are under slow canopies. We Want predictable traffic patterns so that everyone, regardless of type of landing they do, has a safer landing area. Blue SKies, Flip

It's all about cat skinning. There is more than one way to address this issue. Reducing mishaps in the landing pattern is something we all can get our hands around. Most certainly I agree with you on that. Jan, of all the asses I've seen on a drop zone, yours is certainly one of them! (g) I like this idea tremendously! How can we go about it? Do you want to take it for action or would you like me to investigate it? I think an ad campaign on peoples chests and backs is an excellent idea. You and I have the same lesson learned from BOD operations. In a phone call I had with someone who was doing 50 ways last weekend, they asked their jump group "who was scared in the landing pattern at their home DZ?" All hands shot up. This was unscripted. The fear out there is palpable. And it isn't any one group. All jumpers are realiziing that the landing pattern is a huge hazard waiting to claim another life. USPA, regardless of Board votes, really needs to 'lean forward in the straps' on this one. Blue SKies, Flip .

It doesn't matter whether you are under a cheapo, or the newest and fastest, cool and groovy canopy. People will land where they are not supposed to because, people make mistakes. The question is, what do we expect out of people who make a mistake, realize it and try to minimize the hazard to others? That is what we tried to accomplish with our proposal Option 1. It was an example of what could be laid out. It has been said since the first skydiver leapt from an airplane: if you can't handle IT (IT being winds, parachute, freefall, landing area rules or whatever else you think anyone should have perfect performance with) then you should not be jumping. That simply won't work in a proactrive safety culture in an activity that has some inherent risk to it. I can guarantee that there would be no aircraft mishaps if we keep them all in the hangers. Of course there wouldn't be much flying either. Education is key. Requiring compliance and enforcement of rules is always a local matter. The matter at hand is how to create that environment where all DZs create safer landing patterns. We seem to disagree on how to accomplish that. Blue SKies, Flip

See, by analogy, we are all trainable. I just needed to know the rules. I am. How do you type? I'm always down with safety. Why, you're just not listening to my wavelength? But that is okay. The 'group' has actually thought this through. One outcome is having the Board say that a BSR is not the way to address this. Then it will be up to the Board to address it in the way that best serves the membership at large. Ah, but the last to leave the field of battle sees the backside of those that depart first. I hope you stay on here and let's banter back and forth. Keeping landing patterns in the 'front and center' is what we want. We happen to think having a BSR will do that. But if witty reparte between you and me ACCOMPLISHES the same thing, who am I to argue. Well, we certainly will find out as I think this will come to a vote in July. Just like every DZO has their own world view and what they see as tolerable risk, each Board member will look at this issue the same way. I think that a Board member first and foremost represents the members at large. So the real question is what do we want for each and every individual member when they are jumping at USPA drop zones? The Board will answer this in July. Blue SKies, Flip Arf! .

You bring up a couple of issues here. Irrespective of what we want, folks will end up in the wrong pattern for landing. The question is what is one to do when a landing will be made in the wrong area? It's really not good enough to say 'well, through education, no one will ever land in the wrong place.' Take farmer McNasty for instance. Everyone knows not to land there. But, for whatever reason, if you do find yourself landing there what do you do? Each DZ should have a proscribed procedure ahead of time for just that eventuality in the landing pattern. The other issue is what altitudes to decide is the landing pattern. I like 1000 feet and below. You like 2000 feet and below. However, your idea is in my opening area. I think we need to discuss this more. Education, compliance and enforcement. It's a continuum. Blue SKies, Flip

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. 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. Sea lawyer= tap dancing to get around something. 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. Yeah, Bolas said the same thing. Nothing is perfect. As I said to him, 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? .

Hello Ian! As one of the writers of the BSR proposal let me correct a mistaken impression many folks have. There is no bias against swoopers or non-swoopers. It is the mixing of the patterns that is the problem. We wanted to create a set of rules (or a plan if you prefer) that would make the landing pattern safer for all by making it predictable for all. If you have a separate area for swoopers, then non-swoopers should stay out. However, what if someone does land in the swooping area (bad spot, cutoff, high winds) what would a swooper want them to do to stay predictable? We thought landing on the edges vice the center does that. That doesn't mean the non-swooper has carte blanche to land there. We also made the swooper predictable in the non-swooping area. Regardless of location, if the swooper is in a non-swooping area, they would fly the tradional landing pattern. Predictability for both groups. That is of course if the DZ has separate areas or even allows swooping. Hope that clears it up. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Jan! Am I trainable? If a rule is not in the book, how does someone know to follow it? It's the safe thing to do because without the rule, there would be chaos. Long ago our populace figured out that rules promote safety. The way to get people to enforce rules is to have them in the first place. I agree that drunk and reckless drivers should be slapped up the side of the head, just like folks who fly their canopies willy nilly through the crowd. But that is another layer on top of the red light issue. If there were no red lights, or rules to make them important to us, then all we have out there is a drunk driver. But most drivers are not drunk and they need to follow the red light rule too. And I agree with you about enforcement. IF a DZO or S&TA won't enforce the BSRs, well then all bets are off. However, as much as I don't mind opening around 1000 feet, I have had my share of counceling and it was effective in changing my behavior. Well, except when I'm around DOB! (g) How has that worked so far in the history of skydiving? Student wind limits? Pack opening altitudes? Seat belt usage? They all have BSRs associated with them. Why? So if someone pulls low, has a mishap because of that, USPA and the DZO are more legally responsible since there is a BSR saying don't open low? First off, lawyers will, and can argue either side of the case. IF there is, or is not a BSR, and someone sees a pay day from it, they will go mining. But this isn't a discussion of legal ethics etc. It's about what we want for each member, regardless of where they jump. That is if they have them. What if DZ 'X' decides that the best course of action is no landing pattern plan or rule: caveat jumptor? Is our membership well served by a National organization that did not address this? Yes, they could vote with their feet or wallets. But lots of times jumpers don't recognize that. Just like sometime in the landing pattern jumpers don't recognize everyone around them and what they are doing. Hint and hope is not the solution in the minds of the small group that crafted the BSR proposal. So, at least I may be learning about BBcode. Practice makes perfect. Is this any better? The good news is we both want the same thing. If we could tatoo MORON onto the foreheads of those who are going to be a hazard in the landing pattern then I could live with hint and hope. But then everyone at one time or another would have an ugly tatoo on their head and then what would we do? Sit out the day until no one does? Blue SKies, Flip .

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

Hello Matt! Just in case you did not see my reply in the other forum area: ***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 and 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

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

Hello Jan! ***Duh, Bill, the environment to create separate landing areas in time or space already exists and it is already on the shoulders of the DZO (or organizers) as you have just verified. Why do you need a BSR?*** Hello Jan! Because there is NO requirement right now for any DZ to take any action to make the landing patterns any safer than they are currently. Which means we are back to hinting and hoping that the DSOs and S&TAs will do something, anything to create a safer landing environment. By having a BSR that says they must create landing pattern plans/rules/patterns/separations we are more likely to have each and every DZ do exactly that. Blue SKies, Flip

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

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

Hello Jan! ***So nice of you to reply to a 3 month old post. Better late than never.*** The dog ate my homework. I had to reconstitute it! ***What I am saying is that the environment to create separate landing areas in time or space already exists and it is already on the shoulders of the DZO (or organizers).*** It is in a perfect world, but how is it working in this one? IF it were working well, I'm not sure we'd have as many mishaps and fatalities. ***Here's a for instance. At Perris, there are big-way weekends (camps or invitationals) with slightly different rules than the regular load. Are you suggesting that USPA say to Perris that they need such-n-such for bigways and such-n-such weekends and such-n-such for fun load on the same weekends? Then what happens when Perris anchors the tetrahedron (and forgets to release it after the bigway) and then a fun load lands downwind because the first swooper down looked only at the tet and set his pattern from the tet?*** We're not asking for USPA to write the SOP of each DZ. We're asking USPA to require each drop zone to have a landing pattern plan. ***I think the implementation of landing patterns belongs to the DZO, not USPA. There are so many what ifs, that there is no way USPA can say or not say such-n-such was within a generalized rule or not. Specific rules, set by a DZO and enforced by a DZO is the solution.*** I agree 100% with you!!!!! We just want the BSR to require each and every USPA drop zone address the hazard that everyone admits exists, with a specific rule set that they create on their own. ***Hey can you reply to a more recent post of mine in the Swoop forum?*** Like a fine wine, some things improve with age! But I'll get right on it. Blue SKies, Flip .

Hello ParaFrog ***Bryan Burke once enforced a low-pull no-no on yours truly - in 1993. What made it stick was that good ol' "I oughta beat you." I was a punk kid and had no idea what a BSR was.*** However, Bryan did because USPA instituted the opening altitude BSR as the foundation for altitude safety. By having the BSR, there is something to educate to. Then when an old hand comes to some "punk kid" they have something to hang their hat on other than 'because I told you so.' That's why we want a landing pattern BSR. It will focus the DZs attention on the problem and therefore each individual jumper will have their attention shifted to the problem. Blue SKies, Flip PS Having had my share of altitude lectures from the safety folks over the years, some of us need the BSR more than others! (g)

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

Hello Jan! ***I vote no. The solution is very simple. In the main landing area you can only do conventional approaches (90 degree turns) Another area is set up for the HP and greater than 90 approaches. The only way to stop the likes of him are for the DZ to mandate separate landing areas or the organizer to mandate a conventionl pattern only. Canopy collisions are a global problem, but they need a local solution.*** Let me get this straight. You say the only solution is to seperate the landing areas (a simple solution you say), yet you won't create the environment that makes the DZs do just that. In the world of safety and crew resource management, that's called hinting and hoping. If you demand DZs mandate this for safety, why not put it in writing that USPA mandates landing plans be created at every drop zone? Blue SKies, Flip .

Hello jp! ***No it wouldn't have. They were not jumping at a USPA DZ.*** I think you are making a bad assumption. USPA BSRs seem to be followed by the majority of USPA members irrespective of where they are jumping. Just because I am at a boogie. at a non-USPA dz doesn't mean I pull at 1000 feet every jump just 'cause I can'. After a bit of time, even non-USPA dzs and events will probably create their own landing plan or patterns. So given time, yes, this BSR would have prevented what happened with Bob and Danny. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Matt! ***Seperate landing patterns are not an answer to the problem. The problem is in the decision making process. Unfortunately, you may never change this.*** Quote You are absolutely correct! We will never prevent all mishaps because human beings make mistakes. However, by creating a better landing plan at all drop zones across the planet (I was about to say the country, but there was a recent landing pattern fatality in Russia. Hopefully a USPA BSR would lead the way worldwide.), some of the mishaps will be prevented. If even one mishap is prevented, the BSR change served its purpose.Quote ***But, there are too many other variables to make such a broad spectrum BSR. Too many "what ifs", too many different sized dropzones, too many levels of experience, there are just too many variables to impliment a new policy higher than at the DZ level.*** Quote Again, absolutely correct. We want the drop zone owner to create a better landing plan. The BSR would make that a requirement, but without forcing any particular model onto the DZO. But without the BSR, nothing forces the change in behavior to happen.Quote ***So, my biggest concerns is this. Stop making choices for me. I do 90's and 180's. But, if someone wants to do more, have at it.*** QuoteNothing in our BSR proposal limits any skydiver from doing any kind of turn. Look at the drafters of the proposal. We don't want to be limited either. What we want is to address a hazard and modify how differing landing patterns CAN work at the same DZ. ***Do it responsibly.*** Quote And here is the whole enchilada. You cannot make someone be responsible 100% of the time. As I said in an earlier reply, no skydiver has 100% situational awareness (S.A.) 100% of the time. By making a better landing plan at every drop zone, we can eliminate the future fatalities of some of our friends.Quote Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Evan! ***Please consider modifying your definition paragraphs to better identify the groups that need to be separated. In my view, it is height difference in turn to final, more than anything else, that is causing conflicts. If you want a single criterion for dividing landing areas, that should be it. Define "high performance landings" as patterns with a turn to final initiated above a certain point (500 feet?). Define a "standard landing pattern" as patterns with a turn to final initiated below a certain altitude (again, proposing 500 feet).*** Quote You've just eloquently touched on the problem of making any kind of a rule or recommenation: defining a problem, parameters or basic components of the problem. If we were to start a thread and ask 'how do you define a high performance landing', how many different answers would we get? Some will look at wing loading, others the maneuver itself, others equipment. Yet, we as a committee (small that we are) had to come up with something that we could get behind to start this process. Notice we did not define what a high performance landing (or non-standard landing) is. We essentially left that to the rule making body, USPA, and the implementors and enforcers of any and all rules: the drop zone owner. What we did define is something we all can agree to: what a standard landing pattern could be. As I said in an earlier post, I could see a shallow angle of bank, unaccellerated, smooth continuous 180 degree turn to final as fitting into what we are trying to accomplish. But our initial proposal gets very unwieldly if we try to write what we want as FINAL language. Especially as we'd have to outlaw all of DOB's landing manuevers! I think the best person/s to address this is the drop zone owner. But without a BSR, there is no requirement to. That is why we are pushing for a change. Not so you, Evan, have to obey any particular rule, but so the membership at large is better served NATIONALLY. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello Jan! QuoteI 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. QuoteI 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? QuoteWe have a common goal of making the traffic pattern(s) a safer place.Quote Agreed! QuoteWe agree upon ways that can augment safety for all jumpers.Quote Agreed! QuoteWe 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? QuoteIn 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. QuoteWays 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