Sad day for the responsible swoopers of this world

[ScottGray 0]

Suggestion --- As swoopers assemble a responsible group and come up with a safe workable solution.

I was a first responder to the incident in Dublin, GA that was perhaps the last straw in prompting DZOs to take strict actions.

I am also a wing suit pilot and there are specific measures taken to ensure safety on such jumps, the same can be said for freeflying and exit orders.

This is a self governing sport, take the lead !!! DZOs and USPA are looking for viable solutions to this problem.

Bottom line is that even the best pilot and heads up person can be taken out by the actions of another. This is what happen at Dublin, two people died and it was totally avoidable.

WSI-5 / PFI-51 / EGI-112 / S-Fly
The Brothers Gray Wing Suit Academy
Contact us for first flight and basic flocking courses at your DZ or boogie.
www.thebrothersgray.com

[TaylorC 0]

This is just like gun safety no matter how many rules you put in people are still gonna fuck up and someone is still gonna get hurt

[billvon 3,058]

> This is just like gun safety no matter how many rules you put in people
>are still gonna fuck up and someone is still gonna get hurt

I hope for the sake of everyone involved we do not polarize as a community as much as the gun nuts and the ban-guns groups have. We can come up with a workable solution if everyone treats this as a problem that all skydivers need to deal with. If the argument really devolves to "you want to ban swooping!" "Yeah, well you're OK with killing people like Bob!" then we've already lost. Fortunately, most people I have spoken to so far in person (not on the net) are taking a much more reasonable approach.

[hparrish 0]

My response to SDAZ will be that I won't jump there. I will boycott any DZ that has this knee jerk reaction.

If others follow suit then they will see that it hits them more than they thought it would. Economics speaks volumes and we are the ones paying for slots. I'm sure that would be much greater than a 20% hit to their bottom line.

I also don't see how they will ever get to host Nationals again, if swooping is combined with the other events. You can't win bids to host part of an event.

I also think that the massive response to this policy should open thier eyes. If not then they are truely closed minded.

We'll have to wait and see.

[billvon 3,058]

>I will boycott any DZ that has this knee jerk reaction.

Excellent knee jerk reaction to their new rules! But I am afraid it may be doomed to fail; a recent swoop competition at SDAZ was not boycotted. And from what I have heard so far, this new set of rules will make SDAZ a more attractive destination for most skydivers, giving them a competitive advantage.

Swoopers who wish to do 270's in the main landing areas have a few choices.

One, pitch a fit. Boycott any DZ that "bans" swooping whether they ban it or not. Ignore any attempt to make landing patterns safer. Call DZ owners bad names and regular jumpers unskilled losers. Find another DZ where you can do whatever you want and stay there.

Two, work with drop zones to establish new rules/guidelines/patterns (call them whatever you choose) that allows both swoopers and pattern flyers to land safely. The two-area division might work for some DZ's, the "split area" proposed by a few people may also work. Then follow the new guidelines you helped set up. That way you will be able to continue to do what you like and not pose a hazard to anyone else (although you may sometimes have to walk a bit farther.)

Up to you.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

I also don't see how they will ever get to host Nationals again, if swooping is combined with the other events. You can't win bids to host part of an event.

That's never been an issue in the past. There is nothing anywhere stating that every event must be hosted at the same venue.

[hparrish 0]

Perhaps you should re-read your own original Post from Bryan Burke. Which has spawned all these discussions. Sounded to me like they were banning all Swooping. Separate passes, Separate Landing areas etc.....To me that is a Knee Jerk Reaction.

You know nothing about me, so please don't make assumptions about my approach to HP landings. Read through these posts and you will see I endorse the following.

1.) No HP Landings at Large Events.
2.) Separate Landing Areas for Swoopers.
3.) Exit Order based on Wing Loading as well as disciplin and group size.
4.) Offset Jump Runs.
5.) Low Pass for Swoopers.
6.) Canopy Instruction.

You are obviously biased in your own views. I certainly am not in agreeance with you or SDAZ's new policies. I am entitled to respond and react with my opinions as well. That does not make me reckless, ignorant, or someone who is pitching a fit. Nor am I calling anyone a bad name.

Is anyone allowed to disagree with you? Or are your opinions the only opinions that matter?

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

1.) No HP Landings at Large Events.

Well SDAZ on a normal day is the same as some other places with a large event.... So essentially what you are saying is no HP landings in traffic?

Quote

2.) Separate Landing Areas for Swoopers.

No argument if its feasible - i don't think anyone does. And can't swoopers swoop at SDAZ as long as its not into the main landing areas? - therefore there is a separate landing area, the whole desert.

Quote

3.) Exit Order based on Wing Loading as well as disciplin and group size.

Interesting - how would that work?

Quote

4.) Offset Jump Runs.

Sorry - don't understand how this works - my ignorance, i'll read through some of the other stuff and work it out. again - if it works and is feasible, sure why not.

Quote

5.) Low Pass for Swoopers.

Fair play - SDAZ still seem to be doing low passes despite it being economically not great

Quote

6.) Canopy Instruction.

No argument here - but are you going to make it compulsory? And presumably all existing swoopers would be made to complete a course as as well?

The original post didn't sound to me like they were banning all swooping, it sounded like they were banning swooping in traffic. And as far as i know, no-one has come up with a convincing argument against.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 3,058]

>Sounded to me like they were banning all Swooping.

If you read it again you will note the following:

1) Swooping is NOT BANNED.
2) Up to 180 degree swoops are allowed in the main area.
3) Any degree of swoop is allowed off the main landing areas.

Claiming that "SWOOPING IS BANNED!" is about as accurate as claiming wingsuits are banned at Perris, since we are not allowed to fly back down line of flight and buzz the tandems. But it does have a ring to it, which is why it's been repeated ad nauseam. It lets people see themselves as victims, which is important to some people for some reason.

>1.) No HP Landings at Large Events.
>2.) Separate Landing Areas for Swoopers.
>3.) Exit Order based on Wing Loading as well as disciplin and group size.
>4.) Offset Jump Runs.
>5.) Low Pass for Swoopers.
>6.) Canopy Instruction

Those all sound like good suggestions (with perhaps the exception of 3; don't know that I'd want to trade off exit separation for wing loading separation.) Indeed, if someone such as yourself had implemented such policies at SDAZ, they likely would not now have such restrictions.

And therein lies my point. If you can get the above guidelines implemented at your DZ (AND get swoopers to follow them) you won't see other dropzones following in SDAZ's footsteps. If you try to do that, good for you. Expect to be called a "canopy nazi", a "clueless newbie", have your skill be questioned, be told "I clear my airspace; too bad you're not capable of doing that" etc. Some skydivers can be hard to reach. But if you can do it, then you stand a good chance of heading off SDAZ style restrictions.

For the above to work, you really need the whole swooping community to get together and agree that such guidelines are worth following. It only takes one Danny to undo the work of a dozen Scott Millers. Which is why it might require making at least some of your suggestions into rules, so that you don't get the inevitable big-ego jumpers who tell you "I can handle it; I don't need to land over there."

As Scott Gray said above - "As swoopers assemble a responsible group and come up with a safe workable solution." And then enforce it.

>Nor am I calling anyone a bad name.

Your post came off like that. Claiming people are "closed minded" unless they come around to your way of thinking seems a bit inflexible.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Claiming people are "closed minded" unless they come around to your way of thinking seems a bit inflexible.

Bill, so does the continual use of the word 'swooper' when statistics clearly show over 50% of the collisions being between 2 non swoopers. IMO it's misleading and intentionally so.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[billvon 3,058]

>Bill, so does the continual use of the word 'swooper' when statistics
>clearly show over 50% of the collisions being between 2 non swoopers.

Which is why I use the term "jumper" or "skydiver" when referring to pattern work and "swooper" when talking about people who do (or would like to do) HP approaches over 180 degrees.

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Bill, so does the continual use of the word 'swooper' when statistics clearly show over 50% of the collisions being between 2 non swoopers. IMO it's misleading and intentionally so.

So, this way at least the 50% of the problem is treated.

It might be easier to convince or force a significant amount of experienced to fly proper pattern in the traffic, than doing something about the random pattern of the newbies and novices. They might be threatened with mandatory radio control if they don't behave and fly a predictable pattern.

[dharma1976 0]

I am so over the bickering...I want to see bill von novak take on all the pro swoopers in the ring one by one...

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[hparrish 0]

Quote

>
If you read it again you will note the following:

1) Swooping is NOT BANNED.
2) Up to 180 degree swoops are allowed in the main area.
3) Any degree of swoop is allowed off the main landing areas.

------------------------------------------------------------
You know I have read it again and several times for that matter......I could not find anywhere in Bryan's message that swooping was allowed anywhere. While the BAN did specifically mention two main landing areas it certainly does NOT, communicate that it is acceptable anywhere else.

1.) That Certainly sounds like a Swooping BAN to me. Bryan even uses these words himself.

2.) the way I read it is that if folks can prove 180's are more dangerous than 270's (which they are), that SDAZ would consider banning them as well.

3.) Where does Bryan say this?

------------------------------------------------------------

Claiming that "SWOOPING IS BANNED!" is about as accurate as claiming wingsuits are banned at Perris.

------------------------------------------------------------

Most CPC Pilots and PST Pilots I know avoid 180's and are safely performing 270's and 450's in clear airspace. Implementing a 90 or 180 degree restriction is in fact banning competative swooping. Albeit not in normal traffic patterns, That's not a point I am arguing though.

You are playing with words to prove your point.

------------------------------------------------------------

It lets people see themselves as victims, which is important to some people for some reason.

>1.) No HP Landings at Large Events.
>2.) Separate Landing Areas for Swoopers.
>3.) Exit Order based on Wing Loading as well as disciplin and group size.
>4.) Offset Jump Runs.
>5.) Low Pass for Swoopers.
>6.) Canopy Instruction

------------------------------------------------------------

Oh......I don't feel like a victim. These policies have been alive and well at my DZ for several years. And they are all working quite well. In fact when I go to DZ's that deviate from these, that's when I see problems.

------------------------------------------------------------

Those all sound like good suggestions (with perhaps the exception of 3; don't know that I'd want to trade off exit separation for wing loading separation.) Indeed, if someone such as yourself had implemented such policies at SDAZ, they likely would not now have such restrictions.

------------------------------------------------------------

The Offset Jump run compliments #3, we run a 45 degree offset on jumprun. Exit order is a floating target. We organize using all factors: Discipline, Group Size, Opening altitudes, and Wing Loadings. Not just Discipline and Group sizes which I see at allot of DZ's.

I doubt that SDAZ would take my advice. There are some highly experienced Canopy Pilots that they are not listening to on these threads.

------------------------------------------------------------

And therein lies my point. If you can get the above guidelines implemented at your DZ (AND get swoopers to follow them) you won't see other dropzones following in SDAZ's footsteps. If you try to do that, good for you. Expect to be called a "canopy nazi", a "clueless newbie", have your skill be questioned, be told "I clear my airspace; too bad you're not capable of doing that" etc. Some skydivers can be hard to reach. But if you can do it, then you stand a good chance of heading off SDAZ style restrictions.

For the above to work, you really need the whole swooping community to get together and agree that such guidelines are worth following. It only takes one Danny to undo the work of a dozen Scott Millers. Which is why it might require making at least some of your suggestions into rules, so that you don't get the inevitable big-ego jumpers who tell you "I can handle it; I don't need to land over there."

------------------------------------------------------------

Well then I guess we are years ahead of everyone else. Since both the Swoopers and Non-Swoopers embrace these policies.

------------------------------------------------------------

>Nor am I calling anyone a bad name.

Your post came off like that. Claiming people are "closed minded" unless they come around to your way of thinking seems a bit inflexible.

Well I guess this is just interpretation. I consider calling someone an asshole or other derogetory comment, as calling someone a bad name. I don't think I've done that.

Closed minded seems accurate for anyone who wont take the advice or input of MANY qualified canopy pilots. These are not my singualr opinions. Many Canopy pilots who are allot more qualified than me, agree with me. Maybe not on all my points but probably allot of them.

I actually think you are the one that thinks everyone should take your viewpoint on all this, based on your numerous posts.

I don't care if Bryan Burke or Larry Hill ever agree with me. They are entitled to their opinions and I am enttitled to mine. They are the DZO and DZM of SDAZ and they can set whatever Policies they want to. And I can decide not to jump where there are policies I disagree with.

If that makes me ignorant in your eyes.......well......I can live with that.

Harry P

[billvon 3,058]

>I consider calling someone an asshole or other derogetory comment,
>as calling someone a bad name. I don't think I've done that.

I think someone called you biased and closed-minded you'd take it as a derogatory comment.

>1.) That Certainly sounds like a Swooping BAN to me. Bryan even uses
>these words himself.

If a jumper cannot swoop unless he turns more than 180 degrees - he needs more canopy control training. CERTAIN KINDS of swoops are banned in CERTAIN areas of SDAZ. That's what's changed.

>3.) Where does Bryan say this?

He doesn't. If something is not banned it is still allowed. (Note that flying heavily loaded canopies is still allowed as well, even though he didn't say they weren't banned.)

>Most CPC Pilots and PST Pilots I know avoid 180's and are
>safely performing 270's and 450's in clear airspace.

That's great! And I am all for them safely performing 270's and 450's in clear airspace. I am NOT in favor of them doing that in landing patterns.

>There are some highly experienced Canopy Pilots that they are
>not listening to on these threads.

And there are some even more experienced canopy pilots/managers/organizers/skydivers they ARE listening to. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is not the only opinion out there. Someone who disregards your opinion for another experienced opinion is not closed minded; they may just be making an informed decision.

>And I can decide not to jump where there are policies I disagree with.

Absolutely. And I prefer to jump at DZ's that follow the SIM. (The most pertinent section that comes to mind is "Fly the landing pattern or land elsewhere.") Makes everyone safer IMO. Doesn't mean you're wrong, or stupid - just that you make different decisions that I do.

[Guinness_fr 0]

Quote

.. And can't swoopers swoop at SDAZ as long as its not into the main landing areas? - therefore there is a separate landing area, the whole desert.

Swooping in the desert does not guarantee that you will have a traffic-free area. The idea behind a swooping-only area is that it shall be strongly discouraged to fly over that zone under 1000ft. When swooping in the desert, you have to be at least as much if not more focused about where everyone is...
Also the desert is not always quite as friendly as the grass when you want to drag your feet on the ground...

[Stumpy 284]

Fair enough - but there will be less traffic in the desert than the main landing areas - or are you suggesting that everyone else lands elsewhere?

Quote

Also the desert is not always quite as friendly as the grass when you want to drag your feet on the ground...

Then keep your feet off the ground Kidding in this case.
For the record i want to learn to swoop when i have a little more currency, but it seems people are getting over upset about something with no real argument against.
At risk of getting flamed - i see a lot of people who want to swoop into the main landing areas on regular loads becausie it makes them look cool, and thes are the people that are causing the problems and have led to the current controversy. you guys on this thread who only swoop on hnp's etc are not the problem but have ended up being short changed. unfortunately - most DZ's I have been to, you are also the minority. When i was at perris for example, there were maybe 1 or 2 people hop and popping and using the pond, but there were 6 or 8 people throwing 270s in the main landing area on regular altitude loads through traffic

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[chachi 0]

are you an employee of SDA? because you're the only one trying to use words to defend them. in fact; they aren't even defending themselves.

if SDA really wanted someone on these message boards defending their stance or words like a lawyer they would probably have betsy doing so.

the best pilots and organizers will tell you that their reaction is the wrong one if they want to actually progress safety and the sport. it is crystal clear that their motives are ONLY driven by revenue. while i believe they are also making decisions they think are for safety; they are going about it the wrong way.

billvon this especially sticks out for me

:Absolutely. And I prefer to jump at DZ's that follow the SIM. (The most pertinent section that comes to mind is "Fly the landing pattern or land elsewhere.") Makes everyone safer IMO. Doesn't mean you're wrong, or stupid - just that you make different decisions that I do. "

you are dead wrong if you think they have made their DZ safer. a 180 in traffic is significantly more stupid than a properly setup 270 and you are buying what they are telling you. the only reason they think it is safer is that AIRSPEED does them. of cource a team doing the same thing every single day makes it look safe and easy. random 180 setups all over are ridiculous and will be the next cause of an accident. why? because the ones doing 180's are mostly inexperienced pilots making bad decisions. the same people causing most of the accident.

fuck; wake up.

[billvon 3,058]

>while i believe they are also making decisions they think are for
>safety; they are going about it the wrong way.

That may well be true. But I am glad they are trying. Perhaps other DZ's will take other approaches, and we'll be able to see which approach is the best overall. I encourage swoopers to lobby their DZ's to make the changes they would prefer, so that they don't get stuck with something they don't like. (As we've seen, the one thing that _doesn't_ work is "do nothing and hope nothing changes.")

>you are dead wrong if you think they have made their DZ safer. a 180 in
> traffic is significantly more stupid than a properly setup 270 and you are
>buying what they are telling you.

Ah, but a 90 in traffic IS safer - and one landing area is now 90 degrees only. At least that one area at SDAZ is now safer than it was before, and people now have a choice as to where they want to land.

You may well be right about the 180's. If you feel you are, email Bryan - he said he would be open to learning about that.

[chachi 0]

Quote

You may well be right about the 180's. If you feel you are, email Bryan - he said he would be open to learning about that.

if they were interested in listening to anyone other than themselves they would probably be listening to omar, steve, jeffro, fruitcake, tj or any of the other 20 professional skydiver / swoopers in the area.

[billvon 3,058]

>if they were interested in listening to anyone other than themselves
>they would probably be listening to omar, steve, jeffro, fruitcake, tj or any
>of the other 20 professional skydiver / swoopers in the area.

Unless they all have your attitude.

Drop him a line. What's the worst that can happen? If they ignore you, at least you tried. If you do nothing (or in this case just post on DZ.com) then you can't really complain when they make decisions you don't like.

[chachi 0]

Quote

>if they were interested in listening to anyone other than themselves
>they would probably be listening to omar, steve, jeffro, fruitcake, tj or any
>of the other 20 professional skydiver / swoopers in the area.

Unless they all have your attitude.

Drop him a line. What's the worst that can happen? If they ignore you, at least you tried. If you do nothing (or in this case just post on DZ.com) then you can't really complain when they make decisions you don't like.

they have gone so far past stupid i would prefer to just jump else where but i wanted to chime in and find out why YOU are so interested in defending them when they could care less.

they are not listening to the local professionals with experience in the 3-10k for each of lets say 15 ppl?, how about a guy like jim slaton that has created professional associations to help educate and teach saftey, uhhh, nope.

im sure betsy has read the words on here and see's how many swoopers this has disappointed between the lack of interest in their sport and their stupidity in thinking 180's will make the difference. they do not listen to logic that suggests trying to cram all those people into little tiny strips of grass may acutally perpetuate the issue. as possibly the most profitable dropzone on the planet they can't be bothered to have facilities for all disciplines. personally i think they are happy they have an excuse to simply focus on freefall business. in fact; diverting attention away from the real problem and blaming it on swoopers is really what they have done.

"THEY ARE LULLING SKYDIVERS INTO A FALSE SENSE OF SAFTEY FOR PROFIT"

no i think i will save my creative energy to continue trying to make my little corner safer. we have 1/1000th of the space Eloy has and we have managed to have completely separate landing area's for the past 2 seasons! we have a dropzone that has given us 1 pass rate so that hop 'n pop loads remain cheap and available to progress canopy piloting. we have a dz owner that while stubborn at times actually gives a shit about the sport and safety and takes the advice of people that know more than he about things.

so really that is why i couldn't be bothered.

[chachi 0]

ps. if you spent half the time listening to the smart guys on here and then regurgitating that information instead of the BS about SDA being right and awesome you would actually be doing some good.

[LoudDan 0]

I probably missed this somewhere, but I believe someone accused swoopers of accepting the fact that they were going to get hurt or something to that affect. To clarify: Swoopers.....true swoopers or high perf canopy pilots take the time and spend the money to learn to mitigate risks, learn and accept their limitations and excell safely. There is a world a diference between a skydiver under a high performance wing and a true Swooper. What sucks is that it seems anyone who does a hook turn or flies a high wing loaded canopy gets grouped in and labeled as a swooper.
A true swooper is a student of canopy flight, more accurately safe canopy flight. A swooper knows and understands the risks involved and more importantly how to mitigate them by knowing their own limitations as well as those of the equipment being employed.

The most dangerous thing in the air is the skydiver who has enough jumps that they are allowed to fly whatever they want, who has never taken the time to explore the above limitations, and as such does not have the tools to mitigate risks or avoid bad situations.

Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!

[marks 0]

Quote

A true swooper is a student of canopy flight, more accurately safe canopy flight. A swooper knows and understands the risks involved and more importantly how to mitigate them by knowing their own limitations as well as those of the equipment being employed.

The most dangerous thing in the air is the skydiver who has enough jumps that they are allowed to fly whatever they want, who has never taken the time to explore the above limitations, and as such does not have the tools to mitigate risks or avoid bad situations.

Dan, that has to be the best thing I have read on here yet. nice job.