FlipColmer

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

Hello Terri! As you know, a BSR change proposal is being made to the USPA board this July. I was one of the drafters of that proposal. In another thread, Molly asked skydivers to sign a petition encouraging USPA to make a BSR for landing patterns. Here is my explanation in that thread. Hello Molly! Now that the dust has settled down in Florida with my family, I can add my reasons for supporting the petition, open ended as it is. I hope everyone paying attention to the landing pattern issue will read on. 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 a 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 addresse. 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

Hello Molly! Now that the dust has settled down in Florida with my family, I can add my reasons for supporting the petition, open ended as it is. I hope everyone paying attention to the landing pattern issue will read on. 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 a 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 addresse. 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

Hello Molly! I support the petition as written. Big, long-winded paper coming after I'm done doing Dad relative work in Florida. Blue SKies, Flip

Hello RkyMtnHigh! I severed my ACL about 25 years ago without knowing it and jumped without any problems except for an occasional tweak through the knee. 17 years ago the severed ACL was discovered but not repaired and I got a Townsend Brace. I jumped with it for Tandem and AFF jumps but was hit or miss with it for RW jumps. I never had a tweak while skydiving when I was wearing the brace. Last year I had the ACL fixed and got an updated double hinged knee brace. Can't remember the manufacturer. And if I were still jumping, the brace would be used for all jumps. It was that much better than the Townsend. That's my brace story. Hope it helps. Blue SKies, Flip

You're right about that. We just opened lower back then. (g) Blue SKies, Flip

Bio for Flip Colmer Skydiving Experience 3683 Skydives. 70+ Hours of FreeFall. First Jump: October 1976. Last Jump: February 2006. Retired successfully alive. Have held Static Line I/JM, AFF I/JM/Evaluator and Tandem Master ratings. Started and operated Napoleon Skydiving Center, Napoleon, MI from 1991 to 1992. Participated in 357, 300, 246, 200, 120 and 100 person world records. Got hurt two days prior to the 400 way. Missed that one. Last parachute flown was a Stiletto 135 and I always wore a Cypres. Max wing loading was 210 pounds under a Stiletto 120. Preferred not to ever land via a ‘standard’ landing pattern, but did when I was told to. I’m including my aviation experience as there is much to be learned from the airplane world. I was able to bring to the discussion knowledge and experience that normally would not get to the table. Aviation Experience Total Flying Time: 14,000+ hours. First Flight: October 1975. Employed by Northwest Airlines, Inc. since April 1989. Currently flying as Airbus 319/320 Captain. Have flown DC-9, Boeing 727 and Airbus 320 at NWA. From August 1978 until December 1998, United States Naval Aviator having flown F/A18 Hornet and A-7E Corsair in aircraft carrier operations. 360 Aircraft Carrier arrested landings. Flew T-34C Mentor, T-2C Buckeye and TA-4J Skyhawk in training operations including 1000 hours as instructor pilot in Formation Flying, Departure and Spin Training, Air to Air Gunnery, Low Level Flying and Instrument Flying. Have flown in skydiving formation flights C-182, C-206, Queen Air, King Air, Twin Otter, Skyvan, DC-3 and Caribou. Helped coordinate aircraft for many skydiving world record attempts involving 12-14 aircraft, as well as liaison with Royal Thai Air Force for World Team. Largest Formation Flight to date: 30 aircraft.