Maybe he said it right?....

[Mike111 0]

Just read the new article on the homepage, ok am only a newbie but maybe what Brian Germain said is totally correct; JUST my IMHO.

1. If skydiving population is in decline, why alienate and ban more?
2. Swooping is a great publicity tool to attract new people.
3. Experienced jumpers bring in tandems with them etc etc.
4. Personal choice.

Agreed it is trajic when innocent people are killed, adn maybe economic/ location reasons prevent the creation of separate landing areas at some DZ's/ but surely why are we shooting ourself in the foot?

Long live swooping, maybe they might ban skydiving all together!!!!

Is this wrong?

[airtwardo 7]

1. If skydiving population is in decline, why alienate and ban more?

>>>I wonder how many MORE people might consider the sport if our Fatality rate were 1/2 of what it currently is...didn't 1/2 of our losses last year occur under open parachutes?


2. Swooping is a great publicity tool to attract new people.

>>>So is jumping without a parachute, or landing in a shark cage....as far as a publicity tool, movies like Dropzone bring in significantly more people that any swoop competition.


3. Experienced jumpers bring in tandems with them etc etc.

>>>Think I'm missing your point here, I know more experienced jumpers that don't swoop than do.



4. Personal choice.

>>>Roger & Bob might argue that point with you.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Mike111 0]

Yet skydiving has less accidents than skyiing and scuba yet there are more participants in those sports?

I can only speak from what ive seen but I can think of several experienced jumpers who ahve encouraged friends to doa tandem.

[NWFlyer 2]

Brian says:

Quote

widespread proliferation of new DZ rules that prohibit 270 turns

Widespread proliferation? I haven't heard of anyone other than Eloy doing it, and that's only in the main landing areas. Just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean that other DZs aren't banning 270s, of course, but I don't think we can call it widespread. Brian's lost credibility already with that statement... at least without providing evidence.

I give Brian credit for at least adding a possible solution at the bottom, but he almost lost me with the hyperbolic "the sky is falling" rhetoric of the article itself. I'd rather skip all that and read some details about his proposed solution.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Mike111 0]

Fair point, and maybe being a swooper he is biased, i do not know, i do not swoop myself, especially with my very low jumpers, but, if what he says is true, if, then heaven knows what will happen to our sport.

I mean whats next after that? Big assumtion but a possibility IMHO.

[airtwardo 7]

Yet skydiving has less accidents than skyiing and scuba yet there are more participants in those sports?


>>>Lost me again...more participants usually means more injuries.

I can only speak from what ive seen but I can think of several experienced jumpers who ahve encouraged friends to doa tandem.


>>>As do I...and most of the experienced jumpers I know, what's that got to do with swooping?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Mike111 0]

Well if you discourage those experienced jumpers to leave the sport because they can't do the thing they do ti for then thats less jumpers to bring tandems with them

[Gawain 0]

As someone who does not swoop, I have no issues with anyone that wishes to do so.

Brian's article has some good ideas in, worth discussing anyway. I love seeing people swoop in on landing.

We've all heard the sayings about keeping one's head on a swivel. Well, in addition to that, people need to take a real note about landing patterns. I was at a drop zone recently where the landing direction was whatever direction the tetrahedron was pointing, regardless of the direction the first man down flew. Convenient to ensure a soft landing into the wind, but dangerous in my opinion if turning more than one load every twenty minutes. In fact, dangerous regardless of the number of people in the air.

Rules and guidelines I think help, but outright bans won't accomplish it. If dropzones don't first instill a real meaning about how they want basic landing patterns handled in given areas, then putting bans on the experienced jumpers leaves a lot of novices to start bumping into things.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Airtwardo,

I've seen a lot of your posts, and you usually have good points, but I have to disagree with your comments on this thread.

You've been around long enough to know that if even one person was killed skydiving in a year, it would be big news... a reduction in fatalities is always a good thing, but it will have little effect on the interest in the sport. Perception of danger overpowers reality.

Movies like Dropzone, Cutaway, and Point Break do probably bring people in, and that's good... but they also proliferate the myth that skydivers are all crazy drug-dealers with a death wish, and personally I could do without that.

I also know more people that do not swoop than do. But I could say the same about freefliers, skyboarders, mega big-way jumpers, CReW dogs, wingsuit fliers, BASE jumpers, Demo jumpers, and more. All of those genres are more dangerous in some way or another than normal belly-flying, yet each brings unique aspects to the sport, and keeps people of differing interest all jumping. This is a good thing, and should always be supported... in a safe and logical manner, of course.

Freeflying went through growing pains, and required significant updates to our equipment, and all have benefitted. Other genre's have helped the sport in ways I know less about. Swooping is no different Brian has proposed a logical beginning to a solution, and I for one am happy to finally see a swooper take the initiative.

The idea of simply banning swooping is every bit as arrogant, short-sighted, and selfish as the all-too-common swooper response of "fuck off, I'll do what I want" after they almost take out a student in the landing area.

For the record, I am a beginning swooper, but it is not my passion... were it banned, I would continue jumping because my thing is 4-way. However, that is not a good solution. Eloy has made their decision, as is their right, and I respect that, but I hope other large DZ's will find a more balanced approach.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[skybytch 273]

Yeah, in my also-newbie opinion, he's right. Banning swooping is not the answer. All skydivers working together to create safer landing patterns and landing areas is an answer.

They're implementing a similar solution to what Brian proposes at Skydance, except "The Great Wall" is called "The Line of Death."

[billvon 3,070]

>1. If skydiving population is in decline, why alienate and ban more?

I don't know of anyone who is "banning" swooping. That's a strawman.

>2. Swooping is a great publicity tool to attract new people.

I'd tend to disagree there. Most whuffos are more impressed by someone hitting an accuracy target than by swooping. They just don't get it yet.

>Agreed it is trajic when innocent people are killed, adn maybe
>economic/ location reasons prevent the creation of separate landing areas
>at some DZ's/ but surely why are we shooting ourself in the foot?

By doing what? Forcing swoopers to land on one side of a fence/in an adjacent field? I don't think that's "shooting ourselves in the foot."

[kschilk 0]

Maybe I'm wrong here...but wouldn't the simpler solution be to just stagger the landings? Even on big loads, it shouldn't be so difficult to set the exit order and opening altitudes so that the swoopers are already in, before the conventionals (especially students and tandems) even start their downwinds. It might be slightly inconvenient at times but it beats a ban.

[billvon 3,070]

>but wouldn't the simpler solution be to just stagger the landings?

Yes, that's one good idea. The ideal stagger is to have the swoopers exit at 5000, land, and then clear the area by the time the rest of the load exits. If you want to mix swoopers and standard patterns on the same jump run it gets a little tougher since everyone (including visiting jumpers, local AFF JM's who want to get down fast, people on tiny canopies flying standard patterns) have to all follow the plan. That's easier at DZ's where everyone knows everyone else, not so easy where there are a lot of visitors.

>Even on big loads, it shouldn't be so difficult to set the exit order and
>opening altitudes so that the swoopers are already in, before the
>conventionals (especially students and tandems) even start their
>downwinds.

It can get tricky when the RWers are opening at 2200 feet (and flying 2:1 loaded canopies) and the swoopers want to open at 3500 because their canopies need more time to open/need more attention on opening. But again, it's doable provided everyone follows the same plan. I think you'd have to experiment with it to see if jumpers were capable of that.

>It might be slightly inconvenient at times but it beats a ban.

No one is suggesting a ban.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yet skydiving has less accidents than skyiing and scuba yet there are more participants in those sports?

Because the death rates are substantially lower. There's probably over a million (not terribly active) divers and millions of skiers. They just don't die that often. Skiers do blow out a lot of knees, but don't have verbs like 'femur' in the sport.

[Mike111 0]

Quote

>1. If skydiving population is in decline, why alienate and ban more?

I don't know of anyone who is "banning" swooping. That's a strawman.

>2. Swooping is a great publicity tool to attract new people.

I'd tend to disagree there. Most whuffos are more impressed by someone hitting an accuracy target than by swooping. They just don't get it yet.

>Agreed it is trajic when innocent people are killed, adn maybe
>economic/ location reasons prevent the creation of separate landing areas
>at some DZ's/ but surely why are we shooting ourself in the foot?

By doing what? Forcing swoopers to land on one side of a fence/in an adjacent field? I don't think that's "shooting ourselves in the foot."

In reply to the last one, i meant bannnig swooping as shooting ourselves in the foot, i think the separation idea is great.

[Mike111 0]

Quote

Airtwardo,

I've seen a lot of your posts, and you usually have good points, but I have to disagree with your comments on this thread.

You've been around long enough to know that if even one person was killed skydiving in a year, it would be big news... a reduction in fatalities is always a good thing, but it will have little effect on the interest in the sport. Perception of danger overpowers reality.

Movies like Dropzone, Cutaway, and Point Break do probably bring people in, and that's good... but they also proliferate the myth that skydivers are all crazy drug-dealers with a death wish, and personally I could do without that.

I also know more people that do not swoop than do. But I could say the same about freefliers, skyboarders, mega big-way jumpers, CReW dogs, wingsuit fliers, BASE jumpers, Demo jumpers, and more. All of those genres are more dangerous in some way or another than normal belly-flying, yet each brings unique aspects to the sport, and keeps people of differing interest all jumping. This is a good thing, and should always be supported... in a safe and logical manner, of course.

Freeflying went through growing pains, and required significant updates to our equipment, and all have benefitted. Other genre's have helped the sport in ways I know less about. Swooping is no different Brian has proposed a logical beginning to a solution, and I for one am happy to finally see a swooper take the initiative.

The idea of simply banning swooping is every bit as arrogant, short-sighted, and selfish as the all-too-common swooper response of "fuck off, I'll do what I want" after they almost take out a student in the landing area.

For the record, I am a beginning swooper, but it is not my passion... were it banned, I would continue jumping because my thing is 4-way. However, that is not a good solution. Eloy has made their decision, as is their right, and I respect that, but I hope other large DZ's will find a more balanced approach.

Too add to our point, a widespread ban would just be stupid since many DZ's use small aircraft with possibly only a swooper or two on each lift - say one tandem and two way. At our DZ with a 15 seater aircraft all swoopers are down first so it never is an issue.

I guess its just huge DZ's that need to lead the way rather than ban

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

It can get tricky when the RWers are opening at 2200 feet (and flying 2:1 loaded canopies) and the swoopers want to open at 3500 because their canopies need more time to open/need more attention on opening. But again, it's doable provided everyone follows the same plan. I think you'd have to experiment with it to see if jumpers were capable of that.

So it may get tricky.

It's still better than attending a funeral.

...

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

[billvon 3,070]

>So it may get tricky.
>It's still better than attending a funeral.

Difficult-to-implement separation plans may _cause_ those funerals.

Take a 100-way. The organizer could just say "break off at 5000 feet - and everyone, make sure you are clear when you are open!" That plan would surely prevent any collisions on opening, but getting clear of 99 other people is difficult - sometimes it's not so easy to just "get clear." So people come up with other tricks, like separating breakoff waves by time and separating pull altitudes. Likewise, we may need a better plan than "swoopers land first and everyone else land later."

[JumpRu 14]

That is a good article and I agree with everything said there. Nobody is arguing with idea of separate landing areas, low passes and other safety things we all can do to make our life better. But some people use recent tragic events to limit in every possible way swooping and label it as unsafe activity.

Instead of educating new jumpers on what is right and wrong, instead of promoting safety where they jump, they try to pass new BSR that will make swooping illegal at every DZ that does not comply with this BSR because of logistic and economic reasons. We already know examples of DZ that refuses to do low passes and reserves all their landing areas for other activities.

Well too bad. Next time it will be free fliers, or big way jumpers or CRW – who knows. It is easy to find a scapegoat and blame everything on them. All I know is that conservative jumpers still can not agree what direction to land on those light and variable wind days and until that issue is resolved there is nothing that can help safety in their own landing area.

[Mike111 0]

Another thing i guess, if it was banned at some place - wouldn';t that cause more danger cso people would lose currency and the knack and instinct required to survive.

And then boom more fatalities and more regs

[billvon 3,070]

>Instead of educating new jumpers on what is right and wrong, instead
>of promoting safety where they jump, they try to pass new BSR that will
>make swooping illegal at every DZ . . .

No one is suggesting this. It's a straw man argument.

>All I know is that conservative jumpers still can not agree what direction
>to land on those light and variable wind days and until that issue is
>resolved there is nothing that can help safety in their own landing area.

Right. And what's the solution? Is it to say "we just need education" and walk away? Is it to hope that "safety things we all can do to make our life better" will come along somehow?

Or is it to come up with a rule that says "Land following the tetrahedron or else?"

It's all well and good to make a thousand posts on DZ.com and talk about how we need education, quite another thing to get out there and make them happen. A few DZ's are trying to do that now. Eloy is one; no one seems to like how they did it. Otay is another; they have separate landing areas and no one minds much.

Brian Germain has taken a swing at it. So has our group. We'll be talking about this issue at the USPA meeting in July. If you have a better idea, come by and present it.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

>So it may get tricky.
>It's still better than attending a funeral.

Difficult-to-implement separation plans may _cause_ those funerals.

Take a 100-way. The organizer could just say "break off at 5000 feet - and everyone, make sure you are clear when you are open!" That plan would surely prevent any collisions on opening, but getting clear of 99 other people is difficult - sometimes it's not so easy to just "get clear." So people come up with other tricks, like separating breakoff waves by time and separating pull altitudes. Likewise, we may need a better plan than "swoopers land first and everyone else land later."

Well, I was attempting to suggest that just because it's "tricky" is not an excuse for doing nothing.

...

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

But some people use recent tragic events to limit in every possible way swooping and label it as unsafe activity.

Is any aspect of skydiving safe?

Statistics suggest that swooping is riskier than flying a standard pattern.

I have no problem at all with people exposing themselves to risk. I have a big problem with behavior that kills other people.

...

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

[billvon 3,070]

>Well, I was attempting to suggest that just because it's "tricky" is not an
>excuse for doing nothing.

I agree. But any solution we come up with has to work not just with the experts, but with everyone who shares the sky at a drop zone.

[JumpRu 14]

sure, but this BSR is not about safety. Ok, lets assume for a second that they won and we have long set of BSR about:

How swoopers must land in separate landing area that we don’t have. (small landing area, not enougth to separate)

How swoopers must exit on a separate low pass we don’t do. (big airplane consumes a lot of gas on those separate passes so they are not practical)

And any other bright ideas that are great if only we have money to implement them.

Do you think we will stop jumping and swooping because of that?

My point is that separate landing areas increases safety, multiple passes increases safety. BSR that you must have all that to land – don’t, they are useless and gives us nothing but bunch of legal issues.