obelixtim 150 #101 May 8, 2011 Quote people aren't "endangered" just possibly impacted. And you think thats OK??.... QuoteMost whuffos would probably be surprised our number of deaths is so low... I'm surprised you seem to think the low number of deaths we have is OK... QuoteI'm looking at this from all perspectives: from those in our sport in various disciplines, those outside our sport, etc. Looking at all your posts on this matter it seems your major perspective is your self interest. Its not all about you.....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,439 #102 May 8, 2011 Are the possible proposals to turn swooping into a separate activity (i.e. no swooping at the end of a jump with other activities included, like video, AFF, or RW) what's threatening to you, or is it the possibility of swooping entirely disappearing. I have a feeling that the likelihood of swooping disappearing entirely is far less likely to happen if people using very small canopies and swooping them only happens when there is no one else around. Kind of like how you can drive a Lamborghini on the freeway, but if you drive it like it's meant to be driven, you'd better be on a track, or at least an isolated highway with no speed limit. No one has outlawed Lamborghinis, but there are legal limits on how you can drive them with the general public. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #103 May 8, 2011 >That's why banning/restricting swooping/HP canopies is not the solution. Agreed. But banning things is what the FAA does best. Want all swooping banned? Want a 1.2 to 1 loading restriction? Then just keep doing what we do best (nothing) and the FAA will do what it does best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #104 May 8, 2011 Quote I'm looking at this from all perspectives: from those in our sport in various disciplines... Cool, so since you acknowledge it IS a discipline unto itself, lets all agree to treat it that way! To NOT do so makes about as much sense as setting up a classic accuracy pad right in front if a swoop pond. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #105 May 8, 2011 Quote>That's why banning/restricting swooping/HP canopies is not the solution. Agreed. But banning things is what the FAA does best. Want all swooping banned? Want a 1.2 to 1 loading restriction? Then just keep doing what we do best (nothing) and the FAA will do what it does best. Exactly...and in 'our' case, fines and judgements are the least of our concerns! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #106 May 8, 2011 there is "no one" for the FAA to fine. Those that have created the problems the FAA are aware of have essentially paid the ultimate "fine." The best way (from a government perspective) to reduce the perceived risks is to control/restrict activities. I don't think we're going to see swooping, HP canopies, or unsafe behaviors banned. I do feel the FAA is taking a more active role in anything that flies. Looking at some of their actions towards PPG's in Utah as an example... I suspect that we're going to see a stronger trend towards disciplinary and preventive action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lanceav8r 0 #107 May 8, 2011 I don't think anyone needs to read between the lines. There is no shot across the bow needed. Our brothers are dying as a result of canopy collisions. Do we really need to be told to fix this? The FAA does not have the resources or will to intervene. They are asking us to clean up our house. We have to do this ourselves. It won't take the FAA's intervention to kill this sport. We can do it all ourselves. I know of one DZO that is losing their passion due to the shear amount of deaths and injuries at their dropzone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #108 May 8, 2011 Quote failed self-governance This is exactly what I'm referring to. While granted there have been quite a few incidents already this spring, show me the data that shows we've failed as the data I've seen suggests that fatalities have been in steady decline per jumper/jumps made. We can always approve but calling it a failure? +1 People who spout that sort of nonsensee remind me of the pre-Skydive U peeps who always declared how terrible a dive was instead of using the appreciative inquiry-based notion of: what did we do well? what can we do better? To me, this FAA thing is neither a shot across the bow nor evidence of a major change due to our failed self-governance. It is, in fact, a reasonable and intelligent look at a system that's working pretty well -- reinforced by the fact of increasing overall jump numbers and decreasing or steady fatality numbers -- but which of course needs routine and recurring tuneups, stentorian doomsday rhetoric notwithstanding. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #109 May 8, 2011 Steadily rising numbers regarding injury and fatality under open canopies. USPA pens a 'Call To Action' FAA sends a letter suggesting changes. ~Yeah, I'm sure it all coincidence...we're doin' just fine. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #110 May 8, 2011 Quote Steadily rising numbers regarding injury and fatality under open canopies. USPA pens a 'Call To Action' FAA sends a letter suggesting changes. ~Yeah, I'm sure it all coincidence...we're doin' just fine. +1... Yup! No problems here. So, expain to me again, why do my friends keep dying? Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #111 May 8, 2011 Quote Are the possible proposals to turn swooping into a separate activity (i.e. no swooping at the end of a jump with other activities included, like video, AFF, or RW) what's threatening to you, or is it the possibility of swooping entirely disappearing. I have a feeling that the likelihood of swooping disappearing entirely is far less likely to happen if people using very small canopies and swooping them only happens when there is no one else around. Kind of like how you can drive a Lamborghini on the freeway, but if you drive it like it's meant to be driven, you'd better be on a track, or at least an isolated highway with no speed limit. No one has outlawed Lamborghinis, but there are legal limits on how you can drive them with the general public. Wendy P. It's both. I'm of the opinion like the USPA one should be allowed the opportunity to swoop after a skydive provided they have a separate area and/or clear airspace. That's just the opportunity. If while setting up, there's any issues they either hold until clear or land normal. If in their carving turn (not low hook, not spiral) they have any issues, they alter/abort and use their bailout plan that they determined beforehand. If they want a higher likelihood of being able to swoop, then they should get a separate pass. The other side of this is this is the second time all swoopers were blamed and punished for the actions of two people who were not even using modern techniques and practices. In the most recent case a jumper violated an existing rule that may not have been enforced consistently. The DZ has now banned all turns over 90. Are you not seeing a pattern here? A DZ/USPA does not intervene when there's potentially dangerous issues with a persons attitude going on, selectively enforces existing rules, and when something happens all swoopers are the scapegoat and are pushed further away. Additionally, if you want to kill something off, banning isn't the way to do it. Much more effective to make it more and more cumbersome to do. "I can fly with my friends, but if I want to swoop a little I have to go to this other DZ and they only allow swooping on hop and pop loads..." Sure most of the existing people will still put up with it to do it, but many new potential swoopers may not bother. Additionally if you push swoopers off a dropzone there goes about 90% or more of that DZs collective canopy skills. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
polarbear 1 #112 May 8, 2011 QuoteAdditionally if you push swoopers off a dropzone there goes about 90% or more of that DZs collective canopy skills. Yep. Want people to get better at flying parachutes? Then you need people who already know how to do it well. Alienating these people doesn't seem to me to be a helpful move at all, especially when most of them are in fact just as concerned and motivated about this problem as the rest of us. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #113 May 9, 2011 QuoteIf they want a higher likelihood of being able to swoop, then they should get a separate pass. That the problem with your opinion Bolas. Everyone who does a big turn thinks they have cleared their airspace. If you want any likelihood to do a big turn, get your own pass.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #114 May 9, 2011 I'm of the opinion like the USPA one should be allowed the opportunity to swoop after a skydive provided they have a separate area and/or clear airspace. Quote I with ya... I don't think at this juncture anyone believes banning swooping altogether is a viable option. Separate landing areas are a must, I can see separate loads if that doesn't work... that would be farther down the road if a landing area fix has no significant impact. My idea is basically what some have suggested in regard to enhanced training standards...but taking that one step further. How about, like the PRO rating we develop a specific rating card that anyone jumping a canopy loaded at whatever:1 must hold in order to jump that canopy at a GMDZ. Have the Germain and Miller types set up the program requirements, training materials, sign-off score requirements etc. Like a PRO rating it would require some time and dedication in order to hold the card, and also like the PRO Rating, it would insure that at the very least... a defined set of agreed upon skills are necessary to earn it. Call it something like the ACE rating... Advanced Canopy Evaluation Having the ACE says you've done the training, understand the concepts and in order to KEEP the card will follow the procedures and recommendation as set forth in the curriculum. FAILURE to do so means revocation of the rating until you re-qualify. There is your safeguard against unsafe pinheads~ pull the card... "you can still jump, just not THAT canopy ...and NOT having the card follows you from Dz to Dz. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #115 May 9, 2011 Quote Quote If they want a higher likelihood of being able to swoop, then they should get a separate pass. That the problem with your opinion Bolas. Everyone who does a big turn thinks they have cleared their airspace. If you want any likelihood to do a big turn, get your own pass. Some may think it others may just say it. If doing modern carving turns they can alter/abort to their predesignated bailout area or perhaps another alternate. People really need to understand the difference between ols school low toggle/riser hooks/spirals and modern safer adjustable carving turns.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #116 May 9, 2011 Quote I don't think at this juncture anyone believes banning swooping altogether is a viable option. Not yet, but sure seems the way some people are trying to head. 1 dropzone bans turns over 180. USPA sets a separation by time or space requirement. 1 DZ bans turns over 90. Another DZ does it. People are now wanting both time and space separation. Some are even wanting to eliminate all canopies loaded over a certain wingloading, Meanwhile, landing patterns are still a mess with S-turners, sock followers, and outdated systems such as FMD. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #117 May 9, 2011 Quote1 dropzone bans turns over 180. Are you talking about Eloy? You'd be wrong then.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #118 May 9, 2011 QuoteAdditionally if you push swoopers off a dropzone there goes about 90% or more of that DZs collective canopy skills. To be truthful I find that the vast majority of "swoopers" are pretty shite "canopy pilots". It's a rare bunch that really becomes a master parachute pilot. Sure "swoopers" can bust out a fatty beer line swoop, but the will bitch and moan that it's not safe to "straight in" their parachute, they can't manage the C and D license accuracy requirements on their current canopy, and wouldn't have a clue how to safely "sink one in" if their asses depended on it.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #119 May 9, 2011 QuoteQuote1 dropzone bans turns over 180. Are you talking about Eloy? You'd be wrong then. Last I heard if you wanted to do a turn bigger than 180 you had to do it in the desert. Has this changed?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 186 #120 May 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteAdditionally if you push swoopers off a dropzone there goes about 90% or more of that DZs collective canopy skills. To be truthful I find that the vast majority of "swoopers" are pretty shite "canopy pilots". It's a rare bunch that really becomes a master parachute pilot. Sure "swoopers" can bust out a fatty beer line swoop, but the will bitch and moan that it's not safe to "straight in" their parachute, they can't manage the C and D license accuracy requirements on their current canopy, and wouldn't have a clue how to safely "sink one in" if their asses depended on it. +1 And most of today's swooper types you speak of wouldn't know to shit or go blind if they had to sink in and land in a really tight area due to a bad spot or other conditions. There are a great deal of weekend warriors that can't land their own parachutes safely and on target unless there is ample room and a nice breeze, IMHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #121 May 9, 2011 Quote It's both. I'm of the opinion like the USPA one should be allowed the opportunity to swoop after a skydive provided they have a separate area and/or clear airspace. It has already been well established that even the most expert skydivers, a category that excludes just about all amateur swoopers, are unable to establish conclusively that they have clear airspace as long as other jumpers (including those they may not know about) are in the air with them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #122 May 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote1 dropzone bans turns over 180. Are you talking about Eloy? You'd be wrong then. Last I heard if you wanted to do a turn bigger than 180 you had to do it in the desert. Has this changed? You can always get a pass on a hop and pop.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,989 #123 May 9, 2011 >>Everyone who does a big turn thinks they have cleared their airspace. >Some may think it others may just say it. Every swooper thinks they can do it - until they find out the hard way they can't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,989 #124 May 9, 2011 >Want people to get better at flying parachutes? Then you need people >who already know how to do it well. You know, now that drunk driving has been outlawed, we have a LOT fewer people who are skilled at driving drunk. That's not an argument for allowing drunk driving. The argument you have to make is that "swooping can be done safely by following X Y and Z." The argument "if you don't allow swooping no one will be able to fly their canopies well" doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dgermano 0 #125 May 9, 2011 QuoteAnd most of today's swooper types you speak of wouldn't know to shit or go blind if they had to sink in and land in a really tight area due to a bad spot or other conditions. Lets be honest: Most of today's skydiver's couldn't land their preferred canopy 2m from target. And I mean declaring the target, not happening to land at the peas (or wherever), logging the jump as accuracy, and having it signed off. Nothing at all to do with swoopers, just poor canopy piloting all around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Bolas 5 #115 May 9, 2011 Quote Quote If they want a higher likelihood of being able to swoop, then they should get a separate pass. That the problem with your opinion Bolas. Everyone who does a big turn thinks they have cleared their airspace. If you want any likelihood to do a big turn, get your own pass. Some may think it others may just say it. If doing modern carving turns they can alter/abort to their predesignated bailout area or perhaps another alternate. People really need to understand the difference between ols school low toggle/riser hooks/spirals and modern safer adjustable carving turns.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #116 May 9, 2011 Quote I don't think at this juncture anyone believes banning swooping altogether is a viable option. Not yet, but sure seems the way some people are trying to head. 1 dropzone bans turns over 180. USPA sets a separation by time or space requirement. 1 DZ bans turns over 90. Another DZ does it. People are now wanting both time and space separation. Some are even wanting to eliminate all canopies loaded over a certain wingloading, Meanwhile, landing patterns are still a mess with S-turners, sock followers, and outdated systems such as FMD. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #117 May 9, 2011 Quote1 dropzone bans turns over 180. Are you talking about Eloy? You'd be wrong then.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #118 May 9, 2011 QuoteAdditionally if you push swoopers off a dropzone there goes about 90% or more of that DZs collective canopy skills. To be truthful I find that the vast majority of "swoopers" are pretty shite "canopy pilots". It's a rare bunch that really becomes a master parachute pilot. Sure "swoopers" can bust out a fatty beer line swoop, but the will bitch and moan that it's not safe to "straight in" their parachute, they can't manage the C and D license accuracy requirements on their current canopy, and wouldn't have a clue how to safely "sink one in" if their asses depended on it.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #119 May 9, 2011 QuoteQuote1 dropzone bans turns over 180. Are you talking about Eloy? You'd be wrong then. Last I heard if you wanted to do a turn bigger than 180 you had to do it in the desert. Has this changed?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #120 May 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteAdditionally if you push swoopers off a dropzone there goes about 90% or more of that DZs collective canopy skills. To be truthful I find that the vast majority of "swoopers" are pretty shite "canopy pilots". It's a rare bunch that really becomes a master parachute pilot. Sure "swoopers" can bust out a fatty beer line swoop, but the will bitch and moan that it's not safe to "straight in" their parachute, they can't manage the C and D license accuracy requirements on their current canopy, and wouldn't have a clue how to safely "sink one in" if their asses depended on it. +1 And most of today's swooper types you speak of wouldn't know to shit or go blind if they had to sink in and land in a really tight area due to a bad spot or other conditions. There are a great deal of weekend warriors that can't land their own parachutes safely and on target unless there is ample room and a nice breeze, IMHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #121 May 9, 2011 Quote It's both. I'm of the opinion like the USPA one should be allowed the opportunity to swoop after a skydive provided they have a separate area and/or clear airspace. It has already been well established that even the most expert skydivers, a category that excludes just about all amateur swoopers, are unable to establish conclusively that they have clear airspace as long as other jumpers (including those they may not know about) are in the air with them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #122 May 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote1 dropzone bans turns over 180. Are you talking about Eloy? You'd be wrong then. Last I heard if you wanted to do a turn bigger than 180 you had to do it in the desert. Has this changed? You can always get a pass on a hop and pop.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #123 May 9, 2011 >>Everyone who does a big turn thinks they have cleared their airspace. >Some may think it others may just say it. Every swooper thinks they can do it - until they find out the hard way they can't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,989 #124 May 9, 2011 >Want people to get better at flying parachutes? Then you need people >who already know how to do it well. You know, now that drunk driving has been outlawed, we have a LOT fewer people who are skilled at driving drunk. That's not an argument for allowing drunk driving. The argument you have to make is that "swooping can be done safely by following X Y and Z." The argument "if you don't allow swooping no one will be able to fly their canopies well" doesn't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dgermano 0 #125 May 9, 2011 QuoteAnd most of today's swooper types you speak of wouldn't know to shit or go blind if they had to sink in and land in a really tight area due to a bad spot or other conditions. Lets be honest: Most of today's skydiver's couldn't land their preferred canopy 2m from target. And I mean declaring the target, not happening to land at the peas (or wherever), logging the jump as accuracy, and having it signed off. Nothing at all to do with swoopers, just poor canopy piloting all around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
