Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It sounds as though there are several DZ's which already have plans in place and who take these matters seriously.

Surprise, surprise!

Quote

I am hearing of more and more
DZ's policies which address this issue.

...and why is it only now that the issue is being addressed in any realistic way?

Quote

And, it seems that many of these policies have been in place prior to the spike in incidents.

..and they were strictly enforced, I can tell.

Quote

Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that many DZ's take it seriously and there would be no need for a BSR.

God..it's like talking to a rock. You don't get it, refuse to get it and never will get it.

Quote

BTW - I do not believe it is fair to lump Danny into the unsafe pile. In fact, Danny was a very conscientious skydiver and extremely safe.

Everybody's "safe" until they make the big Boo-Boo, eh?

Quote

He may have made an error in judgement but that does not warrant condemning him. ALL of us WILL make mistakes. Some small, some big. And, your mistakes may very well take someones life. That does not make you unsafe. It means that you made a mistake...nothing more.

...somewhere you missed the part about him making continuous and repeated "mistakes".

Quote

...but it should be up to the DZ's to determine how they plan to handle it.

Whoosh..history is blowing unseen over you head. We're ALL guilty of allowing the "I do what I wanna do" mentality to proliferate. Now it's time to stop it. WE have to do it. DZOs, as a whole, will not. Already, at least two of those DZOs instituting "new policies" have already backed off.

Man, I do not agree with your thinking process but I still hope and pray that you will never, ever be victimized by the "do nothing" approach.

Now I'll go away and beat my head against the wall...it's much less painful than talking to one.

Bill, et. al., I'm sorry for the rant. This thread is getting off-track somewhat and I've contributed to that. No more. Apologies. Your proposal for a BSR calling for separate landing areas in space and/or time has my support. I just don't want to leave it up to those who have historially disregarded the issue 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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

you know what. I have always respected you but your remarks are becoming assanine.

danny was a big way belly flier who half assly knew how to fly a canopy, and was arrogent enough to perform a half ass low turn to final when he shouldn't.

.

Your semantic games do not alter the fact that someone performing a high performance landing killed someone who was in a standard pattern. Bob did not kill Danny.

...

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

How many responsible swoopers have you spoke to besides posting on here kallend?

Hard to say, since you have just re-defined "swooper" to exclude anyone who's ever done anything stupid or irresponsible. I guess the total number of RealSwoopers(tm) in the world has just taken a nosedive.

Regardless, the BSR proposal does not mention swoopers, real or fake. It relates to separation of high performance landings from standard pattern landings, something that will improve the safety of all of us and will only inconvenience the selfish.

...

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

[ematteo 0]

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

Quote

I would think responsible swoopers would be supporting a BSR mandating separate landing areas (time and/or space).
Keeps them away from all the pattern nutjobs doing stupid stuff of any sort and keeps them all together so they could more easily police their own.
If any landing disciplines HAD to be mixed together, I would feel much better sharing with accuracy than swooping.
Oh, and...
All you guys supporting education. Good stuff! That's a given in ANY event. It's NOT a one vs the other situation. It's Education AND separate landing areas (time and/or space).

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Hey there,

A big problem with the BSR proposals, from the POV of responsible swoopers, is that the proposals make swooping LESS safe. The proposal BSRs lump all of the "pattern nutjobs" into the High Performance Landing Area.

I didn't notice "nutjobs" mentioned in any proposal. Is this yet another strawman?

...

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

[pilotdave 0]

I think previously the problem was that accuracy landings would be considered high performance landings and therefore, because we're not allowed to use common sense after a BSR is written, they must be done in the middle of the swoop lane.

Are those the nutjobs you're complaining about?

Dave

[ematteo 0]

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

[waltappel 1]

Quote

BTW - I do not believe it is fair to lump Danny into the unsafe pile. In fact, Danny was a very conscientious skydiver and extremely safe. He may
have made an error in judgement but that does not warrant condemning him. ALL of us WILL make mistakes. Some small, some big. And, your mistakes may very well take someones life. That does not make you unsafe. It means that you made a mistake...nothing more. I do not believe that we can devalue an entire life simply because of one mistake.

That blows my mind that anyone could even think that but I'm glad you outed yourself as a jumper with a really scary attitude toward safety so that the rest of us can stay way the hell out of your way.

Call me a wimp, but I don't want to be the victim of one of your "mistakes".

Walt

[pilotdave 0]

Unpredictable behavior shouldn't be allowed with any traffic in any landing area. A solo accuracy jumper on his own pass can pretty much do whatever he wants in any landing area. But you can't fly like that when there's traffic in a standard pattern or in a swoop pattern. Separating swoopers from the standard pattern doesn't give anyone the right to be an idiot.

Dave

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

I didn't notice "nutjobs" mentioned in any proposal. Is this yet another strawman?

For a supposedly smart man, you sure do intentionally misinterpret and misdirect conversations a fair amount lately.

Carry on....

Performance Designs Factory Team

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Any swooper who values his safety should oppose the BSR proposals. As written, they endanger swoopers by pushing unpredictable canopy behavior into the High Performance (swoop) area. This is harmful to swoopers' health

Agreed. It's just a shifting of the existing problem to another groups airspace.

Seriously folks, we (swoopers) don't want the crazy flyers any more than you do.

IMO, it keeps going back to:
1) Education
2) Peer Pressure

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I didn't notice "nutjobs" mentioned in any proposal. Is this yet another strawman?

For a supposedly smart man, you sure do intentionally misinterpret and misdirect conversations a fair amount lately.

Carry on....

Since some supposedly smart people seem to have forgotten (or never bothered to read in the first place), here is the proposal from the first post in this thread.

Quote

The petition is:

We, the undersigned, support a BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings.

I see nothing there about nutjobs, or swoopers, or RealSwoopers(tm)...

...

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

Some pilots have raised concerns about how the BSR is written to accomplish that.

From what I've seen very, very few people are against making the skies safer - there are just concerns about whether the suggested BSR, as written, really does accomplish it's objective or whether it simply makes people feel better without solving the problem, or if it potentially makes the problem worse.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[winsor 236]

Quote

Quote

Any swooper who values his safety should oppose the BSR proposals. As written, they endanger swoopers by pushing unpredictable canopy behavior into the High Performance (swoop) area. This is harmful to swoopers' health

Agreed. It's just a shifting of the existing problem to another groups airspace.

Seriously folks, we (swoopers) don't want the crazy flyers any more than you do.

IMO, it keeps going back to:
1) Education
2) Peer Pressure

Blues,
Ian

Wrong,

it keeps on getting back to separating totally incompatible flight regimes.

If, for example, you want to do aerobatics, you must be in an area that is dedicated to the purpose at the time.

If you want to fly in the pattern, you must fly the pattern. Period.

Someone shooting an accuracy landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong.

Someone executing a "normal" approach and landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong.

Someone swooping through either the accuracy landing area or through traffic is in the wrong.

A BSR that says that you must separate incompatible landing patterns by either space or time hurts nobody.

Swooping into accuracy jumpers or canopies in the pattern is hazardous to your health. Changing the wording of the BSR proposals to clarify the purpose that nobody should fly in fear of a collision on short final is fine with me, but thinking that education and peer pressure alone will resolve the issue is naive.

If you want to apply peer pressure to Danny Page, you won't have any more luck than you will in trying to educate him.

A BSR is the least onerous means of mandating the separation between incompatible landing patterns. Adding education and peer pressure can make it work.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Some pilots have raised concerns about how the BSR is written to accomplish that.

From what I've seen very, very few people are against making the skies safer - there are just concerns about whether the suggested BSR, as written, really does accomplish it's objective or whether it simply makes people feel better without solving the problem, or if it potentially makes the problem worse.

Blues,
Ian

Well, since a BSR hasn't been written yet, and you claim to be interested in safety, how about you (plural) RealSwoopers making a positive contribution instead of continuous sniping and misrepresentation.

The ONLY petition I've signed is the one referenced in the first post of this thread. I don't know why you think it makes things worse.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Kallend,

I used the phrase from the post I was responding to.

If you are a proposal author, can you give an example of a "pattern nutjob" (popjumper's phrase for unpredictable canopy pilot) who you wouldn't put in the High Performance Landing Area?

Any swooper who values his safety should oppose the BSR proposals. As written, they endanger swoopers by pushing unpredictable canopy behavior into the High Performance (swoop) area. This is harmful to swoopers' health.

E

I (once again) call BULLSHIT.

I think it's already been proven that there's not a huge rash of accuracy jumpers flying around the swoop lanes on landing.

When you can show me that there's MORE accuracy jumpers in the swoop lane than "normal" jumpers in the "normal" pattern, I'll agree with you.

When you can show me a majority of DZ's that have the pea pit or accuracy tuffet in the swoop lane, I'll agree with you.

When you can show me where an accuracy jumper getting out on the same H&P as the swoopers is ANYWHERE near landing by the time the swoopers get down, I'll agree with you.

Give up the damn strawman arguments already - you people keep saying how safe and responsible you are - if you can't clear your airspace in THAT scenario, why are you swooping AT ALL?

Surely none of our "safe and responsible" swoopers would EVER 'swoop at all costs' like the (ridiculous) counter-arguments about accuracy jumpers "floating the swoop lane" make it sound...

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

[skinnyshrek 0]

This was by far not the first time Danny executed a move like this i promise you. Yes, he may of been your friend and many other peoples friend. I have seen him on numerous occasions do this. The fact is he got lucky before.
There are still plenty of people with the same arrogance.

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[ematteo 0]

Mike,

Curse, swear, and kick the dirt all you want.

I have been cut off by a sashay through a designated swoop lane while on final. Avoiding that collision hurt.

Any proposal, much less a BSR, that tells slow, low turning canopies (particularly unpredictable ones) that they _must_ land in a High Performance Landing area, endangers swoopers.

Evan

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Mike,

Curse, swear, and kick the dirt all you want.

I have been cut off by a sashay through a designated swoop lane while on final. Avoiding that collision hurt.

Any proposal, much less a BSR, that tells slow, low turning canopies (particularly unpredictable ones) that they _must_ land in a High Performance Landing area, endangers swoopers.

Evan

Please show us the specific proposal you refer to. A link will suffice.

OR IS THIS ANOTHER STRAWMAN ARGUMENT?

...

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Any swooper who values his safety should oppose the BSR proposals. As written, they endanger swoopers by pushing unpredictable canopy behavior into the High Performance (swoop) area. This is harmful to swoopers' health

Agreed. It's just a shifting of the existing problem to another groups airspace.

Seriously folks, we (swoopers) don't want the crazy flyers any more than you do.

IMO, it keeps going back to:
1) Education
2) Peer Pressure

Blues,
Ian

Wrong,

it keeps on getting back to separating totally incompatible flight regimes.

If, for example, you want to do aerobatics, you must be in an area that is dedicated to the purpose at the time.

If you want to fly in the pattern, you must fly the pattern. Period.

Someone shooting an accuracy landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong.

Someone executing a "normal" approach and landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong.

Someone swooping through either the accuracy landing area or through traffic is in the wrong.

A BSR that says that you must separate incompatible landing patterns by either space or time hurts nobody.

Swooping into accuracy jumpers or canopies in the pattern is hazardous to your health. Changing the wording of the BSR proposals to clarify the purpose that nobody should fly in fear of a collision on short final is fine with me, but thinking that education and peer pressure alone will resolve the issue is naive.

If you want to apply peer pressure to Danny Page, you won't have any more luck than you will in trying to educate him.

A BSR is the least onerous means of mandating the separation between incompatible landing patterns. Adding education and peer pressure can make it work.


Blue skies,

Winsor

I submit that you don't see the issues that I'm concerned about or I've done a poor job vocalizing them.

I have explicitly asked one of the proposed bsr writers about non-hp landings in the hp area. They felt it was ok because 'it was going to happen from time to time as people make mistakes'.

If a BSR says it's OK to land in, or fly patterns through, the HP area while not doing HP approaches, you're not going to get my support on it. Period. Right there it's allowing for the mixing of approaches/patterns.

It amuses me to read the arguments that this is ok, especially when they come from the very people crying out that seperation is necessary.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Spizzzarko 0]

"Any proposal, much less a BSR, that tells slow, low turning canopies (particularly unpredictable ones) that they _must_ land in a High Performance Landing area, endangers swoopers."

x2

You are not going to be able to hold a constructive conversation with this guy Evan. Save your time and let these people just say the same shit over and over again. It is almost like they have their own agenda and now they have to speak as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen. Eventually everyone else will get tired of listenening to them argue with everyone about anything because they are so borred with life that they feel this is the only way to get something accomplished. Sad really.

[skinnyshrek 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Any swooper who values his safety should oppose the BSR proposals. As written, they endanger swoopers by pushing unpredictable canopy behavior into the High Performance (swoop) area. This is harmful to swoopers' health

Agreed. It's just a shifting of the existing problem to another groups airspace.

Seriously folks, we (swoopers) don't want the crazy flyers any more than you do.

IMO, it keeps going back to:
1) Education
2) Peer Pressure

Blues,
Ian

Wrong,

it keeps on getting back to separating totally incompatible flight regimes.

If, for example, you want to do aerobatics, you must be in an area that is dedicated to the purpose at the time.

If you want to fly in the pattern, you must fly the pattern. Period.

Someone shooting an accuracy landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong.

Someone executing a "normal" approach and landing in a dedicated swoop area is in the wrong.

Someone swooping through either the accuracy landing area or through traffic is in the wrong.

A BSR that says that you must separate incompatible landing patterns by either space or time hurts nobody.

Swooping into accuracy jumpers or canopies in the pattern is hazardous to your health. Changing the wording of the BSR proposals to clarify the purpose that nobody should fly in fear of a collision on short final is fine with me, but thinking that education and peer pressure alone will resolve the issue is naive.

If you want to apply peer pressure to Danny Page, you won't have any more luck than you will in trying to educate him.

A BSR is the least onerous means of mandating the separation between incompatible landing patterns. Adding education and peer pressure can make it work.


Blue skies,

Winsor

I submit that you don't see the issues that I'm concerned about or I've done a poor job vocalizing them.

I have explicitly asked one of the proposed bsr writers about non-hp landings in the hp area. They felt it was ok because 'it was going to happen from time to time as people make mistakes'.

If a BSR says it's OK to land in, or fly patterns through, the HP area while not doing HP approaches, you're not going to get my support on it. Period. Right there it's allowing for the mixing of approaches/patterns.

It amuses me to read the arguments that this is ok, especially when they come from the very people crying out that seperation is necessary.

Blues,
Ian

Seperating the landing is the only way. Then again Ian, there are people on here that interpret shit their own way then post.. As for the real swoopers, i would like to call them dedicated swoopers. Thanks kallend for picking out that little error.

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I submit that you don't understand what I'm concerned about.

I have explicitly asked one of the proposed bsr writers about non-hp landings in the hp area. They felt it was ok because 'it was going to happen from time to time as people make mistakes'.

If a BSR says it's OK to land in, or fly patterns through, the HP area not doing HP approaches, you're not going to get my support on it. Period.


Blues,
Ian

Where in any proposal does it state that? That's not in the proposal I signed on to.

And the no-rules situation as we have it right now is better? Anyone at all can land in the swoop lane right now unless the DZ has local rules, and if the DZ already has local rules, that's all the proposal asks for.

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike,

Curse, swear, and kick the dirt all you want.

I have been cut off by a sashay through a designated swoop lane while on final. Avoiding that collision hurt.

Any proposal, much less a BSR, that tells slow, low turning canopies (particularly unpredictable ones) that they _must_ land in a High Performance Landing area, endangers swoopers.

Evan

And again - if you guys are such super safe and super skilled pilots, WHY didn't you see and avoid him?

Tell me again how "separating by time or by space" is forcing accuracy jumpers to use the swoop lane, please? Tell me again how an accuracy jumper getting out on the same load as the swoopers is interfering with their landings?

You're fixating on ONE POSSIBLE OPTION in the proposal (which has since been changed and pretty much abandoned) and using it to say that the whole concept of the BSR won't work.

Come up with a better strawman.

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

"Any proposal, much less a BSR, that tells slow, low turning canopies (particularly unpredictable ones) that they _must_ land in a High Performance Landing area, endangers swoopers."

x2

You are not going to be able to hold a constructive conversation with this guy Evan. Save your time and let these people just say the same shit over and over again. It is almost like they have their own agenda and now they have to speak as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen. Eventually everyone else will get tired of listenening to them argue with everyone about anything because they are so borred with life that they feel this is the only way to get something accomplished. Sad really.

Please provide a link to the proposed BSR that tells "slow, low turning canopies (particularly unpredictable ones) that they _must_ land in a High Performance Landing area". That is NOT the proposal I signed.

...

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