ematteo

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

The 3 initial proposals, including option 3, share a problem with definitions. Those definitions protect box pattern fliers at the expense of everyone else. If swoopers are involved in most landing conflicts, give that group the safe place (completely free from lower, slower traffic) to do their thing and you address the problem. I think a BSR is the wrong way to go on this. But if that's the route USPA chooses, here is a suggestion: Define a High Performance Landing (HPL) as a "pattern which actively induces speed via a turn to final initiated above 500 feet." And prohibit non HPL patterns from overflying that area below 1000 (1200?, 1500?) feet. Keep everyone else in the main landing area and out of the HPL at all times (they can't see above them), and HPLs (as re-defined) out of the main landing area when there is traffic. Remove the definition of "Standard Landing Pattern." This addresses the concern of getting "go big" swoopers out of the main landing area, and also keeps the swoopers safer than they were before. A key element: there should be no expectation of safety for a non HPL flier wandering into the HPL landing area, even if they are "low man." The top guy will do his best (of course), but may not be able to abort and oh crap, you just killed two people. Any non-swooper flying through a designated swoop zone is a major hazard and should be harshly dealt with on the ground. If you are lower, you get right of way, then get harshly dealt with. Hopefully nobody got killed because of your fuck up. (edited last paragraph to correct reference to right of way)

Kallend, The three BSR proposals provide a sanctuary for those flying 90 degree box patterns, and lump everyone else (swoopers, accuracy jumpers, guys spiraling under big canopies, etc) into a "high Performance Landing" area. The proposals: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2786877; The problem is the definitions, which protect box pattern fliers at the expense of everyone else. Swooper? Go to the HPL. Shooting accuracy for your "B" license? Go to the HPL. Like to spiral down from 1000 to 500 feet under your Manta at 0.8:1? Bad boy, but if you do it, go to the HPL. The result is a congested swoop lane that is also occupied by guys doing random stuff under much slower canopies. Yikes! Evan Where in any proposal does it state that? That's not in the proposal I signed on to. And the no-rules situation as we have it right now is better? Anyone at all can land in the swoop lane right now unless the DZ has local rules, and if the DZ already has local rules, that's all the proposal asks for.

Mike, Curse, swear, and kick the dirt all you want. I have been cut off by a sashay through a designated swoop lane while on final. Avoiding that collision hurt. Any proposal, much less a BSR, that tells slow, low turning canopies (particularly unpredictable ones) that they _must_ land in a High Performance Landing area, endangers swoopers. Evan

Kallend, I used the phrase from the post I was responding to. If you are a proposal author, can you give an example of a "pattern nutjob" (popjumper's phrase for unpredictable canopy pilot) who you wouldn't put in the High Performance Landing Area? Any swooper who values his safety should oppose the BSR proposals. As written, they endanger swoopers by pushing unpredictable canopy behavior into the High Performance (swoop) area. This is harmful to swoopers' health. E

Hey there, A big problem with the BSR proposals, from the POV of responsible swoopers, is that the proposals make swooping LESS safe. The proposal BSRs lump all of the "pattern nutjobs" into the High Performance Landing Area. Please, use you influence to change that, and keep the slow pattern nutjobs in the main landing area where they can be avoided (vs. the swoop lane). Not much worse for safe swooping than some guy turning into your designated swoop lane at 50 ft, when you have already committed to your dive.

Congratulations on a safe landing. One thing to know is that it is easier to stall your canopy using rear risers, than with toggles. And it can happen when you are still going pretty fast. Landing on rears is a life-saving skill. But like everything else, it is smart to play around up high to understand the limits of the maneuver. Good job saving your skin! Evan

OK, thanks. I thought there might have been a real-world survey. There were a lot of "none-of-the-above" responses to that poll. One I saw a lot was "mandatory education at a national level, but no BSR."

Bill, what is the source for your 71% number? Thanks, E

Based on a recent survey on this site asking how many people would avoid a DZ that banned turns over 90 degrees. http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2843046;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread 38% said "I wouldn't visit a dz that put limits on hp landings." A pretty good sample size for a dz.com poll (319 votes so far). Regards, E

Bill, You and I have gone 'round and 'round on this. For some reason we seem to be talking past each other. On this, I agree: But this is, as you say, a"straw man argument:" I would much rather deal with my DZO's current, non-BSR-mandated solution than try to swoop around the motley crew you lump into the "HPL" landing area. This is the issue: perfect conditions for one group at the expense of everyone else. That is not a workable solution. Evan PS Bill, I am happy to keep going back and forth with you, but I really feel like you are willfully trying to misunderstand what I write. Perhaps we should each let the other's comments be so other readers don't get frustrated?

Bill, With all due respect, it is much safer to have a mixed pattern at the same altitude than to have a mixed pattern separated by 7-800 vertical feet (as would happen in your definition of an HPL area). It is irresponsible to ignore what happens in the "other" zone you seek to create, outside of your "safe" 90 degree landing area. Nearly 40% of skydivers swoop. Unless you also provide for their safety, your proposal will be (and should be) a really hard sell. Evan

Flip and Molly, 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). If everyone is on level, "see and avoid" has been proven to work pretty well. This could take the SLP area back 10 years to the time before super-big front riser turns, when, presumably there were fewer of the kind of conflict that killed Bob Holler. It could also make swoopers safer, recognizing that once someone has started their big turn to final, a canopy turning into their path 500 feet below them creates a big hazard. With this kind of separation, both Cliff and Tommy (responsible, heads-up pilots who each thought they had clear airspace) might still be alive. At least Cliff would still be dead with a BSR using the existing definitions. If you do go the BSR route, please re-think the definitions. Thanks, Evan

Nina, Please consider changing out those locks. It is incredibly dangerous to live in a place where you need a key to leave in an emergency. Double cylinder locks kill in a fire. http://www.locksmithcharley.com/firesafety.html Evan

The South field is the student landing area. It is OK to land there if you like.

Bill, Your "minimum" standard decreases the available landing area, by a lot, for swoopers, and others who should not for safety reasons be mixed with swoopers. That is dangerous, and a step backwards. It is not OK to protect one group of jumpers at the expense of another, large, group. Evan PS going to the gym. Please forgive if I don't reply quickly...

I trust Ray to exercise common sense at Davis. And perhaps that (DZO discretion) is a better general approach than a BSR. No BSR is required for DZOs to learn from last year and exercise their judgement. In any event, at Skydance we have a narrow swoop lane, and a very large main landing area, plus a separate student area. The peas are in the main landing area, but not far from the swoop zone. They are mostly used for tandems. I have been cut off (and had to bail hard onto the concrete) by a low and slow jumper doing S-turns to land in the peas. He overflew the swoop area at about 200 feet, once I was already in my dive. Avoiding him hurt, a lot. If we want to separate landing areas, it needs to work both ways. Kick the fast, high turn altitude swoopers out of the main area if you must, but leave them a place free from low and slow traffic to do their thing.

I don't mind a BSR. But the definition of the groups that are being separated is really important, and I think the current drafts have got it wrong. If you believe that one group 1) is large and 2) doesn't fit well with others, then separate it and make it the focus of the BSR. Ask most jumpers what that group is and they will probably (rightly or wrongly) say "swoopers." So separate out the landing areas into swoop and non swoop. Maybe a "swoop" is defined as a final turn initiated above 500 feet for the purpose of inducing speed at landing. Then that perceived hazard is out of the main landing area, and the swoopers have a benefit of no low, slow traffic, so they are safer too. But it is really important to define the groups based on what you perceive to be the big hazard. In this case, most non-swoopers seem to be most concerned about swoopers, and most swoopers are concerned about non-swoopers. So don't mix the groups, and don't arbitrarily create a division on some other basis. Before you say "but a box pattern is the standard, it's not arbitrary," consider this: the motivation for a BSR is the recent rash of canopy collisions between swoopers and non-swoopers. There was no broad motivation for such a BSR before this, and people have been doing goofy things in the main landing area for a long time. E

Feel free to start a "where do you pull" thread if you want to revisit that BSR. A new BSR should first "do no harm." The landing BSR proposals violate this precept. They reduce the area where responsible swoopers can land. At the same time they shut slow, low, unpredictable canopies out of the main area and invite them to land in the "HPL" which is the last refuge of the swoopers. So you have swoopers in a smaller area, dodging random, slow-moving canopies with mis-matched pattern altitudes. That would be bad. E

Not sure what your point is, but here goes: The minimum container opening BSR requires an open container above 2000 feet. I comply with this BSR, and it doesn't compromise anyone's safety. The proposed landing area BSR allows all manner of slow, low canopy approaches in a "High Performance Landing" area, which would also include swoopers. When I am swooping in the designated "High Performance Landing" area, and there is a jumper doing S-turns to final loaded at 0.8:1, the BSR proposals prohibit that jumper from landing in a big main area with similarly loaded canopies, and force him into the swoop lane. This is bad, and more likely to create death than having him land in the main area.

Bill, CAPS or not, the BSR proposals protect one group of jumpers at the expense of another (large) group. I'm sure this isn't malicious, you just might not have thought it through. Let's say the current situation is that swoopers are expected to "see and avoid" lower jumpers in the main landing area. I'm hearing that this is unacceptable because "see and avoid" doesn't always work. The BSR proposal is not to "see and avoid" better. No, it is to move swoopers to a different area to preserve the safety of non-swoopers. So here is the question: If "see and avoid" doesn't work between swoopers and non-swoopers in the main landing area, why will it work in another location that still mixes swoopers and non-swoopers? Either there is a problem mixing the two, or there isn't. If there is, then keeping a swoop area free of low and slow traffic, and the low and slow traffic area free of swoop traffic is the most responsible action. Evan

Bill, Any solution we come up with has to make both swoopers and non-swoopers safer. There are a lot of swoopers, and if you only focus on non-swooper safety, it harms the sport. If you put swoopers in a separate landing area, max speed differential in any give area is probably 2x. If you stick slow canopies / patterns into that swooping area, you create a speed differential of maybe 5x. Why would you solve the problem for the main landing area only to sabotage responsible swoopers? I mis-typed on pattern altitude. I was referring to initiation of the turn to final. At our DZ, we teach students to turn to final at 300 feet. Most experienced box-pattern jumpers turn to final lower (150 feet?). A swooper under a cross-braced canopy will begin his/her turn to final between 600 and 1110 feet. This is a huge difference, and is, I believe the main reason for swooper - non-swooper conflicts. Real estate is precious, and there is not room for 500 different landing areas. If you must separate out areas, do it in a way that keeps both groups as safe as possible. The headline problems today are 1) massive differences in altitude of turn to final and 2) massive differences in speed.

Bill, I understand the desire to "do something" in the wake of many tragic canopy accidents. But the conflicts perceived to be killing people are between folks landing at dramatically different speeds (5x), and starting their patterns at dramatically different altitudes (4x). The proposed BSRs maintain / exacerbate this problem for a large subset of jumpers. If we want to address this safety concern, let's focus on grouping landings of at least similar approach speed (actively speed induced vs. non-speed induced) and initiation altitude for final turn (>500 ft vs

Canuck wrote: Billvon wrote http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2832433;#2832433 : And unfortunately, some of the accuracy guys, along with non-tuffet S-turners, and slow 360 spiral guys are blinded by the "low man has the right of way" mantra. They seem to interpret this as "if I am at a lower altitude, I can cross into your airspace and you have to avoid me no matter what." This is a great reason to geographically protect "high pattern altitude, speed induced approaches" in swoop areas, and keep all "low and slow" patterns / canopies in the main landing area with box pattern fliers. Billvon argues that low, slow and unpredictable fliers are better mixed in with swoopers (high initiation altitude, speed induced landings) than with similarly low, slow but predictable fliers. I respect billvon on many things, but this approach is dangerous and wrongheaded. I'll still buy him a beer any day, but the BSR, as written, is a step backwards.

This would be great if the proposals defined HPLs as something like: "high initiation altitude, speed-induced landings," and "standard landings" as "turns to final below 500 feet." Unfortunately, as written (in all 3 proposals), "HPLs" include S-turners, folks shooting classic accuracy and people loading at 0.8:1 doing slow 360s to lose altitude. These are "slow, low" approaches and any division of the landing area should segregate them from the "high initiation-altitude, speed-induced landings." Fix the definitions, and you probably will increase safety.