Petition for seperate landing area's

[popsjumper 2]

So....correct me where I'm wrong...

Do the BODs vote according to their own wants and needs or do they vote according to the wants and needs of USPA members?

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

[popsjumper 2]

I'm dissapointed. I see a National Director arguing and pushing her opinion instead of gathering information about the will of the membership.

I'm seeing pro-DZO, anti-membership.

I can tell which way one vote is going to go.


Support the BSR, Jan. DZOs will do nothing otherwise. With it, worst case, at least some will abide by it. My life may depend on it some day.

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

I'm dissapointed. I see a National Director arguing and pushing her opinion instead of gathering information about the will of the membership.

I'm seeing pro-DZO, anti-membership.

I can tell which way one vote is going to go.


Support the BSR, Jan. DZOs will do nothing otherwise. With it, worst case, at least some will abide by it. My life may depend on it some day.

You are so wrong on that account. I do not post here as a BOD member. My posts do not in any way represent USPA positions. I post here as a regular jumper. In fact, you have to look long and hard to realize that I'm a BOD member. I don't even own one of those USPA polo shirts that say "National Director" with your name embroidered beneath the logo.

I am not pushing my opinion. I am discussing a very important issue with other jumpers, just like I do at the DZ.
You may not realize this, but there are other BOD members that have 'decided' what to do about this long ago and have no desire to even talk with others about it. I asked someone to put something on a committee agenda about this issue and was summarily refused. Not all is lost, because it will come up anyway.

Politics is a really strange place. People bitch about not being able to converse with their representatives. Then when the representatives do exchange ideas, they get lambasted for 'pushing their opinion' upon others. You can't have it both ways. Posts like yours that have invalid accusations are the number one reason most BOD members do not post here or on any other forum.

Maybe you didn't 'get' the discourse between Flip and me. That may be because we've know each other for ~15 years or more and we probably put in subtext that others would not 'get' without even noticing it.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 3,058]

>I do not post here as a BOD member.

So your posts here do not represent what you are actually thinking, or how you will actually vote? Odd.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>I do not post here as a BOD member.

So your posts here do not represent what you are actually thinking, or how you will actually vote? Odd.

Very odd.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...You are so wrong on that account. I do not post here as a BOD member. My posts do not in any way represent USPA positions.

You should post here as a BOD member. You represent us as a National Director. You have stated your opinion on this issue and apparently will stick to that regardless of how many want/need otherwise.

I do not care for this type of representation.

Quote

I post here as a regular jumper. In fact, you have to look long and hard to realize that I'm a BOD member. I don't even own one of those USPA polo shirts that say "National Director" with your name embroidered beneath the logo.

I don't know where you get "long and hard" from.
???? As far as the polo shirt...give me yours I will wear it with pride.

Quote

I am not pushing my opinion. I am discussing a very important issue with other jumpers, just like I do at the DZ.

Well, it (pushing) appears so to more than one of us.

Quote

You may not realize this, but there are other BOD members that have 'decided' what to do about this long ago and have no desire to even talk with others about it.

Of course we realize that...and more. Surely you don't think we're all stupid out here?

Quote

I asked someone to put something on a committee agenda about this issue and was summarily refused. Not all is lost, because it will come up anyway.

And so well it should!

Quote

Politics is a really strange place.

I'm not good at politics. I lean toward "do the right thing". Playing politics with potential life-saving issues is not a good idea, Jan. By you nor anyone else.

Quote

People bitch about not being able to converse with their representatives. Then when the representatives do exchange ideas, they get lambasted for 'pushing their opinion' upon others. You can't have it both ways.

Not being able to converse with them is bad enough. Trying to make your wants/needs known and being flatly rejected is something else entirely. What you are calling "exchanging ideas" is a long way from really exchanging ideas.

Have it both ways? Sure you can. All you have to do is really, truly exchange ideas. I see no exchange going on except those who are making these proposals. You naysayers are talking with closed ears.

Quote

Posts like yours that have invalid accusations are the number one reason most BOD members do not post here or on any other forum.

Post like mine questioning positions, stances and yes, even motives are valid. It's sad that BODs don't take more interest in what us members want and need. Don't make me think you are sitting on a white pedestal looking down at the serfs and peons.

Correct me if I'm wrong here...you and the other Directors were elected to represent us, not dictate to us. Correct?

Quote

Maybe you didn't 'get' the discourse between Flip and me. That may be because we've know each other for ~15 years or more and we probably put in subtext that others would not 'get' without even noticing it.

It was obvious that you two knew each other. Some of the responses were either very mean-spirited or all in fun. Because of Flip's responses to you, I took them as all in fun.

So again, Jan...support the BSR, Jan. DZOs will do nothing otherwise. With it, worst case, at least some will abide by it. My life may depend on it some day.

I don't understand why you continue to support DZOs on this type of issue when, as I've said before, history has got us to where we are now and they have not (with exceptions) done the job. There's a hole that needs to be plugged...now.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

[faulknerwn 38]

So Jan - I understand that your personal view is against it, but if a lage majority of jumpers (as appear to be true by polls on here) want one - would you vote for it because that's what your constituents want?

There are a lot of people out there who are tired of being scared of swoopers under canopy - someone else mentioned polling a 60-way group and it was unanimous. It seems clear that many/most dzs are not stepping up to the plate. I can easily avoid a novice s-turner or people doing deep brakes - but I can't avoid someone diving at me from above and behind.

So my question is - what percentage of your constituents would have to be for this proposal for you to vote against your personal opinion and vote for what jumpers want? (And yes, I did vote for you :-)

Wendy

[pilotdave 0]

I personally think it would be a very bad idea for a USPA national director (or any other "officials") to make decisions based on opinions shared on this website. I don't believe the few vocal people here represent the average skydiver. Arguments here also tend to be completely one-sided because anyone with a different opinion just gets bashed.

Personally, I don't have strong feelings on the BSR issue, but generally I oppose it. I think it's unnecessary and opens a can of worms that doesn't need opening. I think it has some major liability implications.

Dave

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I think it has some major liability implications.

I think that in the near future, doing nothing will be more of a liability. DZ's will have to implement some sort of separation plan to protect themselves from possible litigation over future events.

Prosecuting attorney: "Mr DZO, it was a well known fact that mixing high performance landings and normal landings had caused several deaths, and yet you did NOTHING to prevent the same occurence at your drop zone?"

Jury: "Your Honor, we find in favor of the plaintiff."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I personally think it would be a very bad idea for a USPA national director (or any other "officials") to make decisions based on opinions shared on this website.

I like the idea of public forum discussion. Out in the open and all. No monkeying around behind the scenes. No political maneuvering. This thread provides information and good food for thought.

Quote

I don't believe the few vocal people here represent the average skydiver. Arguments here also tend to be completely one-sided because anyone with a different opinion just gets bashed.

Sorry. I haven't seen a lot bashing going on in this thread. Some, maybe, but a lot less than some other forums dealing with less important issues. As far as I can tell, the statements saying "do nothing" are the ones getting the worst of it and, IMHO, rightfully so.

One-sided? Several different options have been discussed and several suggestions for improvement have been made.

Quote

Personally, I don't have strong feelings on the BSR issue, but generally I oppose it.

Cool. Nothing wrong with that.

Quote

I think it's unnecessary and opens a can of worms that doesn't need opening. I think it has some major liability implications

Please explain, or did I miss a previous explanation?
Apologies if I did and could you direct me to it?

Thanks in advance,
Andy

PS: Doing nothing is the worst of all possible worlds. It's what got us to this point in the first place.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So Jan - I understand that your personal view is against it, but if a lage majority of jumpers (as appear to be true by polls on here) want one - would you vote for it because that's what your constituents want?

that's the only question that matters - let me counter, how many jumpers in her region have taken the time let her know their position? Usually not many communicate with their reps and they have to do what's right on their own.

I think I'll let Goz know what I think though, he deserves to not have his region leave him alone on this (though I trust his judgment if he ends up on that committee). I think some type of guidance is needed, and it has to have teeth. USPA should work the issue.

Jan has good sense and is courteous and clear. She has just as much right to join this discourse as anyone. And, by virtue of her reasonable discussion (not the crap that's been thrown out like - "this BSR bans swooping") we get good insight. Also, her region can see her position clearly and if they disagree, they can contact her. Who else has done that?

I wouldn't restrict anyone from having an opinion.

Another thing, in a representative type structure (USPA, US Gov), we really elect the person and the person does what they think is right. They aren't elected to just follow the polls. If that were the case, then it should be left to a membership vote.

I'd have no problem with a membership vote on this either.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

So Jan - I understand that your personal view is against it, but if a lage majority of jumpers (as appear to be true by polls on here) want one - would you vote for it because that's what your constituents want?

There are a lot of people out there who are tired of being scared of swoopers under canopy - someone else mentioned polling a 60-way group and it was unanimous. It seems clear that many/most dzs are not stepping up to the plate. I can easily avoid a novice s-turner or people doing deep brakes - but I can't avoid someone diving at me from above and behind.

So my question is - what percentage of your constituents would have to be for this proposal for you to vote against your personal opinion and vote for what jumpers want? (And yes, I did vote for you :-)

Wendy

You know the polls here are skewed and do not necessarily represent what 'most' jumpers want. At the DZ, in real life, I get the exact opposite opinion. Everyone says to me 'no BSR', please 'no BSR'.

In fact there is still another objection that a USPA member told me that has not appeared on any of these threads. He claims that DZOs could sue USPA for restriction of trade. There is some merit to this view too. USPA really cannot demand that DZOs offer swooping and non-swooping sections at their DZ any more than PIA can tell retailers that they have to sell classic accuracy canopies as well as pocket rockets.

I agree that under canopy is a time when most jumpers are in fear of being taken out. I know that feeling and have it myself. I downsized because people on the following load were strafing me 50 ft off the deck.

I do not agree that 'many/most dzs are not stepping up to the plate'. In fact, I see the opposite. Many/most DZs do have plans in place and reprimand accordingly. There have been jumpers from The Farm, SDC, CrossKeys, Perris, Elsinore, San Diego, Byron, Lodi, Wissota, even Dublin and a few other places that have specifically mentioned rules at their DZ and how the rules get enforced. There's one guy, from who knows where, that claims an instructor cut off some people and landed cross wind. That guy should seek help from his RD, if the DZO or S&TA will not address the situation.

As to your last question, I'll give you a comparison that hopefully will shed some light on this. About two years ago, Lou Douva started a 'save skysurfing' campaign. In about 24-36 hours the USPA/BOD received almost 100 emails about why skysurfing should be saved. It all happened a day or 2 before the summer mtg.
In this particular situation, the full BOD has not received emails about this issue except for the original email from Molly with the original BSR proposals. I answered that email and asked that it be forwarded to her group because I did not have emails for everyone. Molly and I passed a few emails back-n-forth, but I never heard from anyone else in that group. And I know all those people, except Bob's relative. Anyone can use uspabod_AT_skydivehard.com (_AT_ = @) to contact the BOD members or they can use direct emails available on the USPA web site and in Parachutist.

I was also moved to 'do something' about the canopy collision issue. I wrote an article that appeared in the June SNM issue. This article, in one form or another is also slated to be published in the APF and BPA mags sometime this summer. What other BOD member has actually done something? Ok Larry changed his acceptable landing patterns at his DZ, but does that help jumpers everywhere? I spent hours upon hours writing and emailing people across the world to create a comprehensive educational article. I would have done that whether or not I was on the BOD.

Thank you for voting for me.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[pilotdave 0]

Well, to begin, we know there's a problem and we know how to fix it. We don't need a BSR to do that.

A BSR does not force a DZO to do anything. The USPA doesn't have enforcement officers like the FAA does. BSR or not, it still comes down to the DZO, staff, and jumpers setting and following the rules.

There's a BSR (and FAR) against jumping through clouds. Many DZOs allow it to happen regularly (more than just by accident every once in a while). "We have GPS." It's still up to the individual jumpers to look out the door and decide if they want to jump or not. If they don't like being put out over the clouds, they need to speak up or go somewhere else.

This BSR will be the same. But this one doesn't seem to be focused on the jumper, it's focused on the DZO. I think it will unfairly (is that a word?) put the blame for someone elses mistake on the DZO. BSRs ARE law in some areas, and probably very close to law everywhere else(in the US). These are not just internal guidelines that have no legal implications.

I'd rather see the USPA come up with guidelines and advice that dropzones can follow that make sense. Let's not have completely different rules at every dropzone. Let's get the right minds together, look at some real world situations, and figure out real world solutions that actually increase safety. While I agree that every DZ is different and one single set of rules won't apply to everybody, I think we need a set of guidelines to start with.

Anyway, I'm not a swooper, never been in any close calls with swoopers, and shared the pattern many times with swoopers. I don't particularly care one way or another about a BSR for DZOs. But I'm all for rules at dropzones to prevent swoopers from occupying the same space as non-swoopers at the same time. I'm just not convinced that a BSR is the right way or the only way to do it.

Dave

[FlipColmer 0]

Hello Jan!

I was off the forum for a few days so sorry if this is a little tardy. Well, at least it's not 3 months old!

Thanks for participating on the forum. When an official of the organization participates, we all benefit. It doesn't matter that you and I disagree. Actually, if we agreed, these threads wouldn't be as long as they are.

In my pilots union, our leadership rarely participates on the weboard. It's a shame too as lots of info can be transmitted both ways.

I don't feel you need to separate your ND opinion from your skydiver opinion. That you don't speak for USPA is a given. That can only come from the Board as a whole.

And after all this bantering is said and done, you need to vote your opinion. I don't expect the Board to approve drinking and jumping even if 100% of the membership wants it. You are our stewards of the sport and should always vote for how you think to best accomplish any given issue/situation etc.

So what would it take for you to think a BSR is the way to go?

Blue SKies, Flip

[billvon 3,058]

> Well, to begin, we know there's a problem and we know how to fix it.

This, I think, is one of the central problems. You and I know how to fix it, and perhaps 75% of the people on DZ.com agree how to fix it (separate the patterns.) The problems are:

- it only takes one person out of that 25% to kill the next skydiver

- we represent a small percentage of skydiving. Most skydivers do not read DZ.com and have no idea about what we're discussing.

>We don't need a BSR to do that.

So how do we do it? We already have long sections in the SIM that tell you "fly the pattern or land out" (in much more detail than that of course, along with tons of other HP canopy stuff.) We already have the dead skydivers to serve as well known examples. We already have great canopy control courses. And we still see this problem. How do we stop it?

>A BSR does not force a DZO to do anything.

Correct. But most USPA DZ's follow most BSR's.

>There's a BSR (and FAR) against jumping through clouds. Many DZOs
> allow it to happen regularly (more than just by accident every once in a
>while). "We have GPS."


There is no BSR against jumping through clouds. (Other than the "obey the FAR's" statement.)

>This BSR will be the same.

Again, there is no BSR that says anything about cloud clearance, so it's not a very good comparison. A better comparison would be the pull altitude BSR. It doesn't force people to open by 2000 feet, and the USPA police will not come and arrest you if you pull too low.

But the pull altitude BSR is an extremely useful tool to the DZO. He can use that as a guideline to tell people "you can't pull lower than that" and not get a lot of lip from jumpers telling them "you don't understand my mad skillz, and Joe DZO lets me open at 1000 feet!" It serves as a country-wide rule that helps standardize minimum opening altitudes, and we all benefit as a result.

>But this one doesn't seem to be focused on the jumper, it's focused on
>the DZO. I think it will unfairly (is that a word?) put the blame for
>someone elses mistake on the DZO.

No more so than the pull altitude one does.

>I'd rather see the USPA come up with guidelines and advice that
>dropzones can follow that make sense.

We already have those guidelines. The SIM says very clearly "fly the pattern or land out." No one reads it. Heck, most of the people posting in this thread didn't even read it! What hope do we have that Joe Skydiver will? Few skydivers read ~250 page documents for fun (or even education.)

We need one simple rule that will save lives and that all DZO's implement - in other words, a BSR. "DZO's will implement procedures to separate landing patterns" is about as general as you can get and still solve the problem. If there was another way to do it, I'd be all for it. But I don't see another way.

[pilotdave 0]

The pull altitude BSR is written for jumpers. We're told that we have to pull by certain altitudes.

This landing area BSR is for DZOs. It's not "thou shalt not swoop through traffic," it's "your DZO must do SOMETHING... anything will do as long as it's something."

So the DZO makes a policy that no turns over 269 degrees are allowed over the west 12 feet of the landing area. BSR complied with.

Another DZ might come up with a great plan to separate traffic. But nobody follows the rule. BSR complied with.

What it will take to fix this problem is to get all those people at real live DZs PISSED OFF about people doing dangerous stuff under canopy. A BSR that tells dropzones to do anything they want to fix the problem just isn't the answer, in my opinion.

Education is the answer. Don't know how that should be done, but we all know that femur is not a verb, right? Maybe we just need a slogan...

I understand that the BSR is the first step, not the answer, but I just don't think it's necessary.

Dave

[kallend 2,103]

Quote

The pull altitude BSR is written for jumpers. We're told that we have to pull by certain altitudes.

This landing area BSR is for DZOs. It's not "thou shalt not swoop through traffic," it's "your DZO must do SOMETHING... anything will do as long as it's something."

So the DZO makes a policy that no turns over 269 degrees are allowed over the west 12 feet of the landing area. BSR complied with.

Another DZ might come up with a great plan to separate traffic. But nobody follows the rule. BSR complied with.

What it will take to fix this problem is to get all those people at real live DZs PISSED OFF about people doing dangerous stuff under canopy. A BSR that tells dropzones to do anything they want to fix the problem just isn't the answer, in my opinion.

Education is the answer. Don't know how that should be done, but we all know that femur is not a verb, right? Maybe we just need a slogan...

I understand that the BSR is the first step, not the answer, but I just don't think it's necessary.

Dave

We already have education. Bob is still dead. We discuss it ad nauseam. People still swoop through the pattern.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

We discuss it ad nauseam.

We discuss it on dropzone.com now, after the accident, ad nauseam. We used to talk about wingloading. Back when I started skydiving, the discussions on rec.skydiving were about skyballs. People talk about the last accident, not the next.

We need education at an entirely different level. The BSR alone won't prevent accidents. In the end, it has to come down to education.

Dave

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

..We need education at an entirely different level. The BSR alone won't prevent accidents. In the end, it has to come down to education.

All true. As far as I can tell, there is no one who advocates BSR only...just those who advocate BSR+education and those who advocate Do Nothing.

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

[billvon 3,058]

> The pull altitude BSR is written for jumpers.

I don't think so. The pull altitude BSR is really written for S+TA's and DZO's. They are the only ones who have any power whatsoever to force people to pull by 2000 feet, and they are the only ones who have any real power to enforce traffic separation rules.

>What it will take to fix this problem is to get all those people at real live
>DZs PISSED OFF about people doing dangerous stuff under canopy.

In my experience, this happens when a friend of theirs dies at a DZ they frequent. Before that, the excuses ("I saw you, man, don't worry" "I jump a Velocity 79 and jump in the PST, and you're telling ME about canopy patterns?") work. That approach (waiting for the friend to die) can work, but I'd hate to have to have one person at each DZ (or in each area) die before a change is made.

>Education is the answer.

I don't think so. Education would not have worked for Danny. He knew what he was doing.

>Don't know how that should be done, but we all know that femur is not a verb, right?

Well, right - but did that really work?

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

***Education is the answer.

I don't think so. Education would not have worked for Danny. He knew what he was doing.

I disagree with you Bill. Considering the number of 'Danny' type incidents vs the number of 'Just didn't know better' I believe you're way off base.

Education is NEVER not, at least part, of the solution.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[billvon 3,058]

>Considering the number of 'Danny' type incidents vs the number of 'Just
>didn't know better' I believe you're way off base.

Right. Education might have prevented SOME of those accidents, but not Danny and Bob's.

>Education is NEVER not, at least part, of the solution.

I agree, but most people choose to not avail themselves of it, and I don't see that changing any time soon unless we do something about it.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I don't think so. The pull altitude BSR is really written for S+TA's and DZO's...

Ok, let me give an example. An imaginary DZ follows every BSR. They follow the new "option 3" landing area BSR as well. A jumper pulls at 1800 feet and swoops through traffic in the main landing area. He only violated the pull altitude BSR. A jumper CAN'T violate the proposed BSR. Only a DZO can.

What happens to the guy that violates the DZ's rule against swooping in the main landing area? Whatever the DZO wants. Maybe make him buy beer.

Quote

>What it will take to fix this problem is to get all those people at real live
>DZs PISSED OFF about people doing dangerous stuff under canopy.

In my experience, this happens when a friend of theirs dies at a DZ they frequent. Before that, the excuses ("I saw you, man, don't worry"...

That's the point of education. Get people pissed off and thinking about this issue BEFORE their friend gets killed. Like someone joked in another thread... maybe USPA should send big wooden baseball bats to every dropzone with "traffic pattern education tool" written on them. Maybe S&TAs need to carry tasers. I don't know... but I don't think this proposed BSR will help. Will it hurt? I don't know. But I do think it's a knee jerk reaction. Dropzones need guidance to make rules and procedures that make sense. I think this BSR would force dropzones to make rules that might not increase safety, and could possibly decrease safety.

Dave

[billvon 3,058]

>Ok, let me give an example. An imaginary DZ follows every BSR. They
>follow the new "option 3" landing area BSR as well. A jumper pulls at 1800
>feet and swoops through traffic in the main landing area. He only violated
>the pull altitude BSR. A jumper CAN'T violate the proposed BSR. Only a
>DZO can.

The BSR proposal we're talking about says "DZO's must implement procedures to separate traffic." (paraphrased.) Once the DZO does that he has complied with the BSR, regardless of whether jumpers follow the rules or not.

Now that swooper comes along and pulls at 1800 feet. What happens to him? Does an FAA rigger come along and ground his rig, making it illegal for him to jump? Nope. Does USPA revoke his membership, making it more difficult to skydive? Nope. The DZO/S+TA comes over and says something like "do that again and you're grounded. It's a USPA rule, and it's not amenable to discussion."

Same swooper then swoops through the main landing area and almost takes someone out. Does USPA yank his membership? Nope. Does USPA yank the DZO's group membership? Nope. Again, what happens is that the DZO/S+TA comes over and says something like "do that again and you're grounded. We have to keep the patterns separate per USPA, and it's not amenable to discussion."

In neither case does USPA get involved directly. In neither case is the DZO violating any rules. In both cases it is up to the DZO/S+TA to enforce the rules at that DZ, and in both cases the BSR (at best) provides guidance to the DZO. Without DZO enforcement any BSR is useless.

>What happens to the guy that violates the DZ's rule against swooping
>in the main landing area? Whatever the DZO wants. Maybe make him
>buy beer.

Same with the low puller. DZO could make him buy beer too.

>That's the point of education. Get people pissed off and thinking about
>this issue BEFORE their friend gets killed.

You can make them think about it. Indeed, I have talked to such people, and I have done everything possible to "educate" them. They just plain don't give a fuck.

You may not be able to understand this until you've met someone like this and pounded your head against a wall trying to get through to them. They really don't care that they're swooping in a landing area; they are sure they will always be able to dodge people, because they're good canopy pilots - and they are not going to listen to you tell them they're not as good as they think they are.

They're unreachable. The ONLY thing that works with these people is the threat of grounding.

> Like someone joked in
>another thread... maybe USPA should send big wooden baseball bats to
>every dropzone with "traffic pattern education tool" written on them.

Right. And someone would see Luigi swoop in the main area during a boogie. Someone with 500 jumps would see that, grab the bat, and go to town on Luigi. (He's small; he'd probably go down easy.) Then the rest of the swoopers find the 500 jump chick and pound the crap out of her. Then her boyfriend and the rest of her friends take on the swoopers . . .

Any solution that involves threatening people, or beating people up, is doomed to failure at the get-go. Skydivers don't respond well to such threats.

>Dropzones need guidance to make rules and procedures that make
>sense.

They have that already; it's in the SIM. They don't read it. Almost no one does.

[ematteo 0]

Quote

>Education is the answer.

I don't think so. Education would not have worked for Danny. He knew what he was doing.

Rules (local or BSRs) work for the majority that follow the rules, not the corner cases. Banning / grounding works for the corner cases.

If the guys you want to "fix" are renegades, no BSR will fix that. Only someone with direct power over a person ("you can't get on my plane" or "you can't get on my skydive") will make a difference.

For the majority of jumpers, education and well-thought-out local rules tend to work. And yes, there is a lag while the education standards and local rules catch up to advances in the sport. Then we catch up and mostly solve a problem and wait for the next one to emerge...