ematteo

Mike, we are all responsible. Low man has right of way in the moment. But he can still die, even if he is right. Folks are trying to set up a system that eliminates conflicts. If "see and avoid" doesn't always work, let's set up a system that doesn't rely so much on that. Separating jumpers by speed and pattern altitude is such a system. To use a non-skydiving analogy, bicycles have the right of way on a street, vs. a car. But bicycles are not allowed on freeways. If separate landing areas are a goal, we do well to first create one where slow, low canopies don't go. No need to look out for a bicycle on the freeway.

Mike, If the belief is that swoopers are doing an inadequate job of seeing and avoiding people below them, why will this change if they land in a different area? These proposals advocate increased safety for one group (box pattern fliers) at the expense of another group (responsible swoopers). Telling swoopers to do the same thing that is not working, while introducing even more slow-moving, low-pattern-altitude obstacles (anyone not doing a box pattern) will kill swoopers. The best alternative to today's situation is to provide a safe place for swoopers to swoop, free from low altitude, unpredictably moving obstacles. This will improve safety for all canopy fliers. got to go to dinner... E

Mike, The definition of the HPL group contains people that should not be mixed. That is the problem. It is a far greater risk to mix someone doing S-turns down low with a swooper than to mix that same person with a standard box pattern. I (or you) can see and avoid when flying a box pattern at the same speed and level as the S-turner. We won't like it, but we will see them and can all live. Having been in this situation in a swoop lane, where a low flying slow canopy unexpectedly cut me off with an S-turn, I can say that 1) there was no chance to see and avoid before it was too late and 2) there was a very high chance of not living through the experience. Evan

Mike, Many people feel that the current situation is unacceptable. "See and avoid" doesn't work when there are massive differences in speed, and pattern altitude. This is why so many people are agitating for change. The great and unreasonable danger is in creating a swoop zone which is also where you push any "non-standard" slow, low-pattern-altitude flier. Instead of making life safer for this population, you increase the number of potential conflicts. At the risk of sounding dramatic, I think this will unnecessarily kill many people if implemented. Evan

Hi Mike, My issue is with how the groups are defined. The biggest landing danger we all face as skydivers is in mixing really fast with really slow, and high pattern altitude with low pattern altitudes. If we divide the groups this way, any form of division (space or time) is probably fine. But if the groups are divided into box pattern and "other," we haven't solved the problem, and in fact create greater hazard for the swoopers (even the responsible ones) from slow, unpredictable, lower-pattern-altitude canopies that swoopers will be unable to avoid. The proposals include S-turners, Accuracy approaches, and lazy 360s ias HPL landings (or "non-standard" landings in a later version). This is the (literally) fatal flaw of the proposals, in my view. Regards, Evan

These are the proposals I refer to. which I have read several times, carefully: http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2786877 You know I read them, because I asked you detailed questions about them, and this issue, before posting. If there are updated proposals, please provide a link. My challenge with these three proposals, as I read them, is that the all "support the safety of one group to the detriment of the other." Box pattern fliers become safer, but at great and unreasonable danger to responsible swoopers (from slow, "non-standard" canopies with which they are forced to land). That, in my view, would be irresponsible governance of the sport. In contrast, if you separate the groups by speed of approach and pattern altitude, you benefit the entire population of skydivers, not just people flying a box pattern.

Bill, The terminology is not a problem. The problem is a combining fast and slow approaches into the same area. None of the three proposals I have seen addresses this conflict. Can you link to or post the new proposals? Thanks, Evan

Bill, Two quick comments. The 3 proposals you posted ALL lump anyone not doing a box pattern approach in the "High Performance Landing" category. I believe this approach is likely to kill more people than it saves. Like you, I care about safety at dropzones around the country. My DZ has a dedicated swoop lane. But the BSR proposal is not about one dropzone. It affects all US member DZs. Evan

Bill, You might have more success, both in saving lives, and with adoption, if you focus on enabling safe swoops, vs trying to preserve the old ways. Sorry if that sounds harsh. If you believe that swoopers are the problem, then decide if it is a growing or shrinking issue. If swooping is a flash in the pan, banishing swoopers and all other undesirables to the outskirts of the main landing area might work. If, on the other hand, you believe swooping to be evolution of the sport, like the transition from round to square parachutes, we are better served by creating safe places to swoop. In my view, as both a swooper and a regular pattern flier (mostly with tandems), a dedicated swoop / high speed area will save the most lives. Far more so than creating a box pattern area and an "other" area. Note that this is different from your proposals, in that focuses on keeping the swoopers safe, and thus safely out of range of all others. The 3 proposals you advanced endanger swoopers by encouraging slow, unpredictable canopies to join their airspace. This is the order in which I would add landing areas, if I were king: One Area: everyone in the same space. Try to separate by time and be as safe and aware as possible. Two Areas: students in one area. All others in the second area. Three Areas: students in one area. swoopers only in another area. all others in the third area. Here is my reasoning: Speed differences, and different pattern altitudes, are the biggest new risk factors on the scene. Eliminate these difference by providing a safe place for swoopers to land, and the new risks decrease dramatically. Unpredictability of slow canopies in the main landing area is not new. It may be unpleasant, but is not nearly the magnitude of risk of mixing fast & slow canopies, and 1000' & 200' turns to final. If you revise your BSR proposals to focus on swooper safety, you will save more lives and have a better chance of adoption. Evan

A major concern I have about proposed landing area BSRs is that they seem to push all non-box-pattern approaches into the same place. In other words, if you are not flying a box pattern, go to the "high performance landing" area. In the proposals that Billvon advanced, "high performance landing" (in all three proposals) is defined to include swoops, but also classic accuracy approaches, S-turns to final, and slow spirals under a canopy loaded at 0.8/1. http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2786877 Mixing slow, unpredictable canopies in with responsible swoopers creates a major hazard to responsible swoopers. Because of this, I oppose the proposals that have been advanced. In my opinion, if we believe that adding swoopers to the mix has created problems, we should provide a safe place for swoopers (only swoopers) to do their thing. Everyone else, including those classic accuracy folks and S-turners, should stay in the main landing area, which has been able to (imperfectly) deal with them so far. My opinion. It's free and worth what you paid for it.

Bye, JP. Blue Skies.

Dan, What's up. How do you see most dropzones accommodating a "non-standard landing area?" Does the "non-standard landing area" merge into the student area, or take over the swooping area? I say "take over" because it becomes unsafe to swoop when we push slow, erratic canopies into an area. If a major problem is collisions between swoopers and standard pattern folks, let's advocate giving swoopers a safe place to land. I am suggesting that any BSR define a High Performance Landing area as a protected space. Specifically that anyone not inducing speed to land fast under a highly-loaded canopy be barred from landing in this area, or overflying it below 1000 feet. This includes slow canopies doing lazy spirals and guys shooting accuracy. Given the choice between slow, erratic folks in either a standard (up jumper) landing area, or a swoop landing area, why on earth would you put them with the swoopers? Evan

Sure, you abort. Then you have to land in unpredictable traffic, which is a hazard. If the BOD approves a new BSR, it should make landing safer for both non-swoopers and swoopers. The most effective thing we can do to reduce conflicts with swoopers is to have a designated high-speed landing area that is not used by slow canopies (whatever pattern they are following).

The major issue I see with traffic doing a swoop landing is unpredictable folks below me. If they are fast, I can wait them out and stage my landing, no matter what bizarre thing they do. But if there is a floaty guy down there, the swoop pattern stacks up and eventually I (and everyone above me) has to go. I think this is a fundamental difference between swoop landings and traditional landings. The issue really is the speed of descent, more than the particular pattern for swoop safety.

Bill, Thanks for the meeting details. If you or someone else coming in for the meeting needs a place to crash, I have a guest room and space in the garage (central SF). Regarding your proposals, I would like to see the Standard Landing Area (SLA) and High Performance Landing Area (HPLA) defined by whether or not there is induced speed immediately prior to landing. In the Standard Landing Area, things would be as they were before those darned swoopers started killing everyone (:P). A box pattern would prevail and there would be a few "individuals" doing sashays and spirals over loud protests from the S&TA. A High Performance Landing Area would be reserved for induced-speed landings, perhaps with a wing loading in excess of some amount (1.2? 1.3?). Anyone not inducing speed for landing should land in the Standard Landing Area and avoid the HPL below 1000 feet. If they cannot otherwise avoid the HPL, they should land out. Anyone inducing speed (above a 90 or 180 degree turn, whatever is deemed appropriate) should land in the High Performance Landing Area and not the Standard Landing Area. If there is not room for two landing areas, the DZO decides the rules based on their unique situation. Thoughts? E

Derek, Swoopers will welcome change that makes everyone (including them) safer and lets them safely and consistently advance their discipline. My issue with these 3 proposals is that they reduce safety for swoopers by inviting slow speed maneuvers (S-turns and lazy 360s) in a high speed, "high performance" landing area. I doubt the committee members thought of it that way, but that could be because the committee members are generally not swoopers. Far from fighting change, swoopers are the major change in the sport. The challenge now is how the sport will accommodate this change with the fewest people dying. A start could be to designate landing areas by speed of approach (induced speed with high wingloading vs. traditional). Evan

Bill, Thanks for the response. And thanks for the invitation to join you guys in July. Can you post details of the meeting? If you are doing outreach, there are more skilled and experienced swoopers than me who may want to get involved. Would you be open to including pro swoopers in your proposals? The main issue I take with these 3 proposals is that they lump everything that is not a box pattern into an "other" bucket. There is a very large and growing percentage of experienced skydivers who swoop on every jump (when it seems safe). The industry can either adapt, as it did when people transitioned from rounds to squares, and again when freeflying emerged, or resist change and risk alienated the new guard. In this case, change might mean equal or near equal priority for a high performance landing area vs. a box pattern landing area. Without advocates for a place to swoop safely on a BSR committee, it is hard to see the large percentage of the experienced jumper population getting representation. There should definitely be separation of landing areas. If there is only room for a small landing area, perhaps everyone should fly a box pattern. But I take great issue with the idea that S-turns and lazy 360s have any place remotely near a "high performance" landing area. An alternate way to define the problem might be to separate areas for high performance landings (intentionally induced speed with a minimum wing loading?) and all other landings. That way each area at least has people going the same speed. Like the other impassioned posters on this board, I have recently, and tragically, lost friends to canopy collisions. There needs to be change, and it needs to recognize that swooping is a valid and growing component of our sport. E

If you fly a box pattern into the designated swoop lane at my DZ, you are likely to get someone hurt. Box patterns are appropriate in the main landing field, and the student field. Why are there no swoopers on the BSR committee? Swooping has become a significant part of our sport.

Winsor, Is a box pattern the only "right" kind of parachute landing pattern? Can you conceive that there might be a place where it is standard to approach from one direction, perform a 270 turn, then land in a common direction? Where a box pattern would be inappropriate and dangerous? It is a major flaw of this proposal that there are no swoopers represented on the committee. The committee seems not to know (or care) what it doesn't know. Skilled swoopers are highly experienced, current, and generally very concerned about safety. They also tend to be role models for up and coming jumpers. Why go out of your way to alienate this group by drafting old-school-biased rules and excluding swoopers from the table? Evan

Bill, You are a well-known poster, and your comments carry a lot of weight. I am concerned about this comment, which separates the world into people flying a non-swoop landing pattern and 'everyone else who is dangerous.' As a swooper, I value a place to safely do my standard, predictable 270 turns, free from the hazards of an S-turn across my final approach. Given today's demographics, it might make sense to set up separate "high performance" and "box pattern" landing areas. There is strong demand for both. But someone doing S-turns or slow 360-s has no place in either pattern (unless last down). FWIW, I knew Cliff. And Tommy. I miss them both and want us to find a solution to this issue. Pushing dangerous (unpredictable) fliers into their landing area would not have helped either of them. Evan

It used to be that the standard drop (difference between chest size and waist size) was 6", and the athletic cut drop was 8". If you buy nicer suits, most have a 6" drop (e.g. 44 jacket -> 38 waist). If you are athletic, this may require a re-build to the pants. This means opening the side seams, as well as the rear seam, to remove material. Otherwise the pockets get too close together. Key is to find a good tailor. Decent stores have them on staff. Otherwise, an independent tailor can set you up. Custom suits cost more but should fit perfectly. In CA, there are Hong Kong tailors who come to town to take orders. Also, many business schools do a deal with Hickey Freeman for 1/2 off custom suits. The student rep could care less who you are as long as they get their commission.

Check out stubhub.com They are one of the biggest clearinghouses for sport tickets. Have stadium maps that show you where the tickets are, etc. Everyone I know who buy/sells sports tix goes there. Good luck. Evan

Try Russell (owner) at: freeflyer@preyorpins.com

Congrats Paul, nice job. --Evan

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072826/ of course, since it's French, they have to sleep together.