Petition for seperate landing area's

[mirage62 0]

NOPE, not at all. I can count on one hand the swoopers that have really stood up and said "don't point the......" There's Absolutely no ground swell of swoopers standing there ground BECAUSE there is not a herd of people who want to ban swooping, or anything. It seems like a very few, and I mean very few swoopers are arguing the point. Most from my reading seem to understand that there is a problem that must be addressed. They don’t seem to be taking it as personally as some. It’s not that the majority want to stop anyone from swooping but it does seem that the majority want something done to prevent these accidents………..and it doesn’t seem to be just educate others.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[grimmie 186]

Stevo...very good points!

One thing many jumpers don't get is what pattern to fly to a safe landing due to their opening position over the DZ.

At the Nationals last year in Eloy our 4 way team was on the same load as the USAF team. They had big slow canopies. No big deal, except they were to ALWAYS land in the alternate LZ. They exited first, north of the DZ and we were second, on top and the next team to the south. Their canopies were always heading to the alternate area, flying down jump run as our team and the other team were flying to the main DZ. It created some mayhem and we would sort out the exit order before we loaded each jump so we wouldn't be flying into each others airspace in opposite directions. And yes, we did land in the alternate LZ on a few jumps to avoid the problem.

So separate LZ's without jumper COMMON SENSE doesn't always work.

In Belize we have an LZ 300' wide and 1,000' long. It doesn't have many outs except for the sea. I stand in the landing area the first couple of days and watch all of the landing patterns and spots. No one does more than a 90 unless they are clearly down first, or last with the tandems shooting video. I hold a very strict safety meeting before the boogie starts. We make evryone walk the LZ before they jump there. We discuss all of the landing patterns and what to do depending on where you open. My staff consists of some of the best jumpers in the business. They answer any and all questions by the jumpers. I brief every load on the good points and bad of that loads landings. Everyone is very receptive to the input and some jumpers didn't realize how they were affecting the pattern. Each year someone finds a way to screw up.

Here is my opinion on skydiving safety...

The low timers usually listen better than the 1,000+ jumpers.

Common sense goes a long way towards safety.

Some jumpers could wreck themselves in a 1,000,000,000 square foot open mowed soft grass field.

"It won't happen to me" is very prevalent.

Flying a downwind, base and STRAIGHT in final works well.

The bigger the landing area and the flatter the surrounding area is, more sense of false security is instilled and less attention is given to the landing area. (Big sky, Big LZ theory)

The jumpers that set up their landing just after opening and sort out the picture up high are usually landing in the clear.

Ripping up jump tickets and sending unsafe rule breakers home sends a strong message.

Zero tolerance works. What ever happened to the "GROUNDED BOARD" at most DZ's? everyone could see who the bad boy or girl was and who was banished for 30 days or so. USPA and DZ's don't banish as many jumpers to the penalty box these days.

Skydivers seem to find amazing new ways to screw up.

Many jumpers have never seen the after effects of a hook gone bad or heard the agonizing sound of a canopy collision. Those that have get a serious wake up call to the dangers of this sport.

A DZO can only do so much...USPA can only do so much...it's up to YOU to open safe, fly safe, land safe.

One last 2 cents worth.
It's not a coincidence that aerobatic planes fly in separate areas while doing their thing...but they come to the same airport to land as the slow planes and airliners. And they fly a downwind, base and final.

Stay safe everyone and see you guys at Lost Prairie!

[ScarpuT 0]

I have read all of the postings. There are several things I kbnow for sure. They are:

My niece Shiara will never see her dad, Bob, again.
My parents, Jerry and Betty, will never see their son, Bob, again.
My other niece, Juliane and her daughter Ciara, will never see their Uncle Bobby again.
My sister Carol and I, will never see our Brother Bob again.

You are all talking regulations, rules, etc. The only way I see to make DZ's enforce any rules has to be done by all of you divers. You need to put your money where your mouth is. let your actions speak louder than your words.

All of you say that Bob was the safest guy out there. Then don't let his death be in vein, for nothing. let the B.O.B. (Because of Bob) rule be his legacy. Each DZ needs to adopt a B.O.B. rule. If they don't, then all of you need to take your money and your gear and walk away.

I know all of you loved him and will miss him. But so will we. Please help us make this happen.

terri

[FlipColmer 0]

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

[FlipColmer 0]

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

.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

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

.

[billvon 3,058]

>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?

Nope. USPA should say to Perris "separate swoop patterns from standard patterns. Do it however you like." And on those big-way weekends, Tony says "90 degree turns only." Problem solved. During a normal weekend, Dan BC says "swooping at the swoop pond; standard patterns in the grass." Problem solved.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

>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?

Nope. USPA should say to Perris "separate swoop patterns from standard patterns. Do it however you like." And on those big-way weekends, Tony says "90 degree turns only." Problem solved. During a normal weekend, Dan BC says "swooping at the swoop pond; standard patterns in the grass." Problem solved.

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?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 3,058]

>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.

Right . . .

>Why do you need a BSR?

To get them to do it. At Perris, for example, we have proven that we can easily create a situation that allows for more safety under canopy. A BSR would get that sort of separation to happen every day, not just for bigway camps or special events.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

>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.

Right . . .

Well, I am glad to see that you agree 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).

Quote

>Why do you need a BSR?

To get them to do it. At Perris, for example, we have proven that we can easily create a situation that allows for more safety under canopy. A BSR would get that sort of separation to happen every day, not just for bigway camps or special events.

Just for clarification, who do you mean by 'them'? Perris management or DZOs in general or DZOs that 'allowed' a canopy collision or ???

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[flyinchicken 0]

I think that if you have aquired enough knowledge to swoop, then you should know the dangers associated with it. If you do, than you would WANT a seperate landing area. I would prefer to have where not to be spelled out clearly.

"Diligent observation leads to pure abstraction". Lari Pittman

[billvon 3,058]

>Well, I am glad to see that you agree 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).

I agree. A BSR would not change this, but would make it more difficult for them to shirk that responsibility.

>Just for clarification, who do you mean by 'them'?

DZO's who are not yet providing for separation between standard and nonstandard patterns.

[FlipColmer 0]

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

.

[FlipColmer 0]

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

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

Flip, you really need to learn how these BBCode tags work. They are containers with an opening and closing tag.

First off, I want to make clear that we agree that patterns should be separated in time or space.

Secondly, we disagree upon the methodology used to accomplish this goal.

You say, " 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." I agree that there is no requirement to do this.
But that does not mean that DZs do not implement their rules as needed.
In fact, the opposite is true. Most DZs add in 'rules' to fit the situation.
Most DZs addin what you call the 'hinting and hoping' rules all the time.
Exactly when and how did a DZO NOT implement 'additional' rules that did the same thing of separating patterns?

This issue that you have put forth is because - excuse my candid remarks - 'some asshole thought he was better than the rest of us and could get away with such-n-such maneuver - even when the DZ said that patterns shall be separated.'

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[popsjumper 2]

Holy bejeezus and pass the peas…you guys and ladies saying, and I paraphrase, “Leave it to the DZOs.”

Granted, there are a few DZOs actually concerned and doing something about this mess. However, as an industry, complacency and leaving things to the DZO is what has gotten us to point we are at today. History has shown that DZOs are reluctant to make and enforce rules and apply them to everybody jumping at their place. Even now, I have visited two DZs that implemented post Holler-Page rules for landing areas and have already backed off on enforcement almost to the point of landing being every-man-for-himself. Even instructors swooping the pattern area…cross pattern, no less.

Apparently, the S&TA is only a “looks good on the resume” title. It has become little more that being the bad guy for the DZO. And it sucks that when push comes to shove the DZO caves and renders the S&TA function meaningless. No S&TA can do a damn thing until the DZO backs him up.

Not a damn thing will change unless DZOs get on board and stop the carnage.

A BSR stating a requirement for separate landing areas is a good place to start. Put some more meat into them. However, IMHO, it won’t mean a damn thing because DZOs will ignore it just like they ignore many of the already-existing BSRs. Hell, we’ve got DZOs out there who blow off FAA rules. What’s a measly USPA BSR?

There seems to me to be only two real solutions:

1. Smarten up the jumpers:
Education and more education for individual jumpers, regardless of landing type and skill, is necessary to the point of drilling it into their heads that mixing pattern and swoop landing is not a good idea.
2. Hit the DZOs in the wallet where it will get their attention:
Jumpers voting with their feet. Unfortunately, it will probably be only one group of landers or the other doing the voting.

I feel like shit for the swoopers who got pinned at the DZ that banned swooping. But for me, being a pattern lander, that DZ is at the top of my list of places to jump in that area…driving distance be damned. Would I have been a swooper, then voting with my feet is what I would do.

The foremost excuse for swooping the pattern area I’ve heard is:
I saw them and I wasn’t close (there was nobody near me).
They just don’t get it that it’s not the ones you see that you hurt.

Bottom line:
-Implement or re-write a BSR.
-Educate and re-educate jumpers
-Vote with your feet.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[FlipColmer 0]

Quote

Hello Jan!

Quote

***Flip, you really need to learn how these BBCode tags work. They are containers with an opening and closing tag.***

Quote

So quit pontificating and start teaching me. I'm always willing to learn and adapt.

Quote

***First off, I want to make clear that we agree that patterns should be separated in time or space.***

Quote

I've always known that.

Quote

***Secondly, we disagree upon the methodology used to accomplish this goal.***

Quote

I know that too.***

***You say, " 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." I agree that there is no requirement to do this.
But that does not mean that DZs do not implement their rules as needed. In fact, the opposite is true. Most DZs add in 'rules' to fit the situation.***

Quote

As you say, most, but not all. Here's a big difference in our positions. You seem to be looking at each DZ and what they do. I am looking at the membership as a whole, and what do we want for them. While I do not want to force any DZO into any one course of action, I do want the membership to always have safe landing patterns. By instituting the BSR, USPA creates the requirment for DZOs to address this issue. Without that, it is hit or miss whether or not a USPA individual member will be landing at a DZ where safe separation parameters have been applied.

Quote

***Most DZs addin what you call the 'hinting and hoping' rules all the time.***

Quote

By strict definition, if you've added a rule in, then you are not hinting and hoping. You've identified a hazard and taken steps to avoid it. By not creating a rule to address a hazard (such as, 'there is a problem with the landing pattern, but let's just see if things work out') then you are hinting and hoping.

Nothing stops a DZO from addressing any hazard whether there is a BSR or not. I applaud all DZOs who have taken a proactive stance on this issue. Would you applaud a DZO who did not put seat belts in their aircraft, or did not enforce that obvious safety rule?

Quote

***Exactly when and how did a DZO NOT implement 'additional' rules that did the same thing of separating patterns?***

Quote

For the life of me I have no idea what you are trying to convey with that last sentence.

Quote

***This issue that you have put forth is because - excuse my candid remarks - 'some asshole thought he was better than the rest of us and could get away with such-n-such maneuver - even when the DZ said that patterns shall be separated.'***

Quote

Jan, this is so frightening. We are so close to being on the same page. However, Danny isn't the only jumper out there with the atitude that killed both himself and Bob. By focusing the entire skydiving community with a requirement, rather than a suggestion, we are more likely to prevent this double fatality from happening again.

Okay, I tried using the reply tags a little more consistently. How did I do coach?

Blue SKies, Flip

Quote

.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

Hello Jan!

Quote

Quote

Flip, you really need to learn how these BBCode tags work. They are containers with an opening and closing tag.

Quote

So quit pontificating and start teaching me. I'm always willing to learn and adapt.

Quote

First off, I want to make clear that we agree that patterns should be separated in time or space.

Quote

I've always known that.

Quote

Secondly, we disagree upon the methodology used to accomplish this goal.

Quote

I know that too.

Quote

You say, " 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." I agree that there is no requirement to do this.
But that does not mean that DZs do not implement their rules as needed. In fact, the opposite is true. Most DZs add in 'rules' to fit the situation.

Quote

As you say, most, but not all. Here's a big difference in our positions. You seem to be looking at each DZ and what they do. I am looking at the membership as a whole, and what do we want for them. While I do not want to force any DZO into any one course of action, I do want the membership to always have safe landing patterns. By instituting the BSR, USPA creates the requirment for DZOs to address this issue. Without that, it is hit or miss whether or not a USPA individual member will be landing at a DZ where safe separation parameters have been applied.

Quote

Most DZs addin what you call the 'hinting and hoping' rules all the time.

Quote

By strict definition, if you've added a rule in, then you are not hinting and hoping. You've identified a hazard and taken steps to avoid it. By not creating a rule to address a hazard (such as, 'there is a problem with the landing pattern, but let's just see if things work out') then you are hinting and hoping.

Nothing stops a DZO from addressing any hazard whether there is a BSR or not. I applaud all DZOs who have taken a proactive stance on this issue. Would you applaud a DZO who did not put seat belts in their aircraft, or did not enforce that obvious safety rule?

Quote

Exactly when and how did a DZO NOT implement 'additional' rules that did the same thing of separating patterns?

Quote

For the life of me I have no idea what you are trying to convey with that last sentence.

Quote

This issue that you have put forth is because - excuse my candid remarks - 'some asshole thought he was better than the rest of us and could get away with such-n-such maneuver - even when the DZ said that patterns shall be separated.'

Quote

Jan, this is so frightening. We are so close to being on the same page. However, Danny isn't the only jumper out there with the atitude that killed both himself and Bob. By focusing the entire skydiving community with a requirement, rather than a suggestion, we are more likely to prevent this double fatality from happening again.

Okay, I tried using the reply tags a little more consistently. How did I do coach?

Blue SKies, Flip

.

Flip, you almost have it mastered.
You need to close the tags with either [/ reply] or [/ quote]. (There is an extra space in there so it will show up in this reply, but in your replies there should be no space. Hope that made sense.)
Use the close tag that matches the open tag.
What you did was use the opening tags as close tags.
Also you do not need to put tags around your response.
I changed the tags in your reply so that it displays better, but it is confusing with quote tags around your reply.

Anyway, back to the mission....
It's not a rule in the books that people follow. It's rules that keep them safe.
We stop at red lights because that's the safe thing to do, not because we'd get ticketed if we ran them.
Drunk or reckless drivers that blow thru red lights are taken aside and slapped up-side of the head.
As Pops mentions, the rules are only as good as the DZO that enforces them.
It is up to jumpers to DEMAND that local rules are in place and are enforced.

Why do I say that and still do not want a BSR?
A BSR that says something to the effect 'DZOs shall do blah, blah,blah....' is not USPA's mission.
USPA does not run DZs. DZOs run DZs.
Such a BSR would also open up liability paths for the DZO and USPA.
IOW, when the next Danny takes out someone, the victim will have clear legal paths to sue the DZO and USPA.
A BSR could place legal responsibility upon the DZO and USPA for the reckless behavior of a jumper.

Also we don't need another rule to fix this problem. We need DZOs to implement and enforce their local rules.
This is in place at many DZs. A few DZs may need some additional coaxing.
USPA can run articles in Parachutist and DZO Incoming.
Jumpers can talk to their DZO.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

• Quote

[billvon 3,058]

>We stop at red lights because that's the safe thing to do, not because
>we'd get ticketed if we ran them.

Actually, no. In a lot of areas, people run red lights regularly; there are towns where it's common practice to stop at green lights to see if someone is going to run the red. Nationwide, 20% of traffic accidents happen when one driver disregards a traffic signal. Once they put up traffic cameras the incidence of running reds drops drastically. Not because they want to be safe - because they know they will get a ticket if they run them.

Skydivers aren't much different. If they can do a cool 270 to impress their friends (or land their new cool canopy straight in by the swoop course while other people are swooping) they will. If they know they will get in trouble for it - perhaps even grounded - they will not. I know of several people whose dangerous behavior cannot be stopped without grounding them (or at least threatening to ground them.)

>Drunk or reckless drivers that blow thru red lights are taken aside and
>slapped up-side of the head.

No they're not. Either they are ticketed and/or arrested (because they are breaking a law) or they are not bothered. If you did see someone who blew a red light, and you stopped at the next light, pulled them out of the car, and beat the crap out of them, you'd end up in jail - and the red light runner would probably get a lot of money out of you.

>As Pops mentions, the rules are only as good as the DZO that enforces
>them.

That's exactly right. Let's give them some to enforce.

>Such a BSR would also open up liability paths for the DZO and USPA.

Nope.

You are quite familiar with USPA. Can you name a lawsuit that has been brought against USPA (or any DZ) for the pull-altitude BSR? Even one?

>IOW, when the next Danny takes out someone, the victim will have
>clear legal paths to sue the DZO and USPA.

Well:

1) It wouldn't, as I've described above.

2) Want to avoid lawsuits? Keep skydivers from killing other skydivers. Want more lawsuits? Do nothing as the fatalities mount. That's a pretty good definition of negligence. "They knew how to solve the problem and they did nothing."

>Also we don't need another rule to fix this problem. We need DZOs to
>implement and enforce their local rules.

And what if their local rules are "anyone can land any way they like?" Would you recommend to a jumper who wants a separate landing area that he "obey the DZO rules?" What would you tell a swooper who wants to do 270's at a busy DZ, whose rules are "land in the grass following the direction of the first person down?"

>This is in place at many DZs. A few DZs may need some additional coaxing.

Why should they implement any separation at all? After all, perhaps there's an experienced instructor/S+TA at that DZ who likes to swoop through the main area, and is so good (in his mind) that he will never hit anyone. When it comes to listening to this experienced S+TA or a visiting jumper, who will the DZO listen to?

Education and optional compliance have been tried. They don't work. Fatalities are going up. We need to find another solution.

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Jan!

Quote

Flip, you almost have it mastered.
You need to close the tags with either [/ reply] or [/ quote]. (There is an extra space in there so it will show up in this reply, but in your replies there should be no space. Hope that made sense.)
Use the close tag that matches the open tag.
What you did was use the opening tags as close tags.

Am I trainable?

Quote

Anyway, back to the mission....
It's not a rule in the books that people follow. It's rules that keep them safe.

If a rule is not in the book, how does someone know to follow it?

Quote

We stop at red lights because that's the safe thing to do, not because we'd get ticketed if we ran them.

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.

Quote

Drunk or reckless drivers that blow thru red lights are taken aside and slapped up-side of the head. As Pops mentions, the rules are only as good as the DZO that enforces them.

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)

Quote

It is up to jumpers to DEMAND that local rules are in place and are enforced.

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?

Quote

Such a BSR would also open up liability paths for the DZO and USPA.
IOW, when the next Danny takes out someone, the victim will have clear legal paths to sue the DZO and USPA.

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.

Quote

Also we don't need another rule to fix this problem. We need DZOs to implement and enforce their local rules.

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.

Quote

This is in place at many DZs. A few DZs may need some additional coaxing.
USPA can run articles in Parachutist and DZO Incoming.
Jumpers can talk to their DZO.

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


.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Am I trainable?

Excellent, Flip! You are now the 5 Gold-star DZ.com Most Improved Poster for June 2007!
Now,
Flip, Sit!
Flip, Down!
Flip, Speak!
;)
(That might come in handy at the BOD mtg.)

I could repeat my position over and over again, but that gets tedious.
The last poster does not always 'win' the argument.

I am curious about how many BOD members support your BSR, in one form or another.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[MakeItHappen 15]

Bill, you need to go read 'Jumping Through Clouds' by Jane Seymore and see the similarities between what you are asking and what is reality. You can get the book, pretty cheap on Amazon.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[FlipColmer 0]

Quote

Hello Jan!

Quote

Excellent, Flip! You are now the 5 Gold-star DZ.com Most Improved Poster for June 2007!

See, by analogy, we are all trainable. I just needed to know the rules.

Quote

Now,
Flip, Sit!

I am. How do you type?

Quote

Flip, Down!

I'm always down with safety.

Quote

Flip, Speak! ;)

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.

Quote

I could repeat my position over and over again, but that gets tedious. The last poster does not always 'win' the argument.

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.

Quote

I am curious about how many BOD members support your BSR, in one form or another.

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!

.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

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.

We are talking on the same wavelength. We just disagree on how to frequency shift.
[nerd]
With semi-conductor lasers you can shift by temperature changes.
With IR lasers you can change the absorption by the atmosphere.
A message will get across when the recipient can read it and understand it.
[/nerd]
As for your group, I know everyone, most for many years, except Bob's relative. I know you have thought about this. I know you have jumpers' interests at heart. And so do I.

Quote

Quote

I could repeat my position over and over again, but that gets tedious. The last poster does not always 'win' the argument.

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.

I KNEW it, you just wanted to check out my ass!
A resurrection of those 'Don't be a Dick' tshirts might be something that would work.

Quote

Quote

I am curious about how many BOD members support your BSR, in one form or another.

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.

Well, as someone (a former BOD member) told me years ago, don't put up a motion to the BOD until you know you have the votes.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[FlipColmer 0]

Quote

Hello Jan!

Quote

I know you have jumpers' interests at heart. And so do I.

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.

Quote

I KNEW it, you just wanted to check out my ass!

Jan, of all the asses I've seen on a drop zone, yours is certainly one of them! (g)

Quote

A resurrection of those 'Don't be a Dick' tshirts might be something that would work.

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.

Quote

Well, as someone (a former BOD member) told me years ago, don't put up a motion to the BOD until you know you have the votes.

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

.