hukturn

No. Your theory of low license numbers is irrelevant. There are dumb skydivers with alot of experience or who have simply been around for a long time. In fact, Danny (described as the catalyst of all of this) would have fallen right into the middle of their experience level based upon licensure. Danny Page; USPA A-9184, B-13153, C-18550, and D-11162 Licenses http://www.parachutehistory.com/skydive/uspa/elections/page.html

The bottom line is that You were the pilot and YOU assessed the situation and YOU determined that you could fly and land it. Ultimately, everyone has to accept responsibility for their actions. And, nobody anywhere can tell you that you did the right or wrong thing. Because you assessed the problem and took action. And guess what...you flew it and landed it and you are alive and uninjured. So, one must believe thatr you made the correct decision. Now, with that all said, I support your landing it. My position is that if you can lad your canopy without serious injury then you are probably better off than going to reserve. But, that is my decison and I would no expect anyone to take similar actions. To me the reserve is what saves your life. But, there could be a problem with your reserve. What if you chopped a main that you may have been able to land, only to find that you are unable to land your reserve? It sounds like you made a good decision.

What is the difference between a Sugar Glider and a Flying Squirrel?

Work for her dad?!? Hmmmm...I don't know you and I am not familiar with your relationship. But, if I were in a similar situation, I would hear the velcro pulling.

Now, I have never scratched due to a safety issue related to an individual. But, if the need arised I believe that I would. I know it must suck, but missing out on one load just might make a difference in whether or not you can make your next load. I feel ya...too bad you couldn't reach them. I believe it was the Refreshments who sang..."Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people". I believe it.

Actually, I think this is less about venting and more about legitimate concerns. If you believe someone is unsafe, c"all them out". Absolutely, step off of the load. It just might save your life. And, unsafe acts are not restricted to swooping. From the time you step onto the airplane to the time you are at the bonfire at night, you are subject to someone elses mistakes.

So then it is agreed. The BSR in it's entirity should read; "The lower jumper has the right of way". Oh, but we already have that one. So another BSR is needed to make a pre-existing BSR work? That's silly.

That is too much!

Yes and no. I look at the Boogies I want to attend and then look at organizing. If there are going to be plenty of people there that I know, I would still attend without regard to the organizer. But, if I am going to a Boogie where I may not know many people, I will look more closely at who is organizing. Plenty of organizers work with mixed levels of proficiency. Last week @ Raeford I was on a couple of 20 ways with Kirk Verner and the experience ranged from 50 - 1000+ jumps. I also saw him do 4 way with a guy who had 65 jumps. Same with 4 - 8 ways with Joe Trinko at the same boogie. A couple of weeks prior, I was in Chester, SC jumping qwith Chris Wagner and he was organizing people onto 3 - 10 ways with 30 - 1000+ jumps. If the DZ is providing organizing, particularly at a Boogie, I believe that you have a right to be included. The way I see it, you paid your registration just like anyone else.

"A blanket rule that says that you can not drive at unlimited speeds in residential areas does not infringe on much of anyone's rights" This is not about speed, it is about traffic. So a better analogy would be with regard to weaving through traffic in your car. But, weaving through traffic is interpretable. So is safe swooping with regard to proximity, et cetera. That is why it is impoarant for the DZ to interpret what they need on their DZ. "I knew Danny before you made your first jump." I am sorry to have infringed on you, Mr. big bad skydiver. Because you knew Danny before me must have made you the authority on Danny. I look forward to the unauthorized biography. "...he made an active decision to push his luck one time too many and got himself and an innocent killed." He made a decision to perform the same maneuver he did many times over. It may have been inappropriate at the time buit that does not make him unsafe. It means that he performed an unsafe act but that does not define his entire life. Wait a minute, I am getting side-tracked again. This is not a forum about Danny or Bob. This is about the proposed BSR. And I really believe the only way we can gain positive change is at the DZ...not through USPA.

Absolutely, all rules should apply to everyone unilaterally. But...always a but, right?!? If we impliment a BSR, then you take the ownership of the plan away from the DZ. How often have you or someone you know broken the rules? Exceeded speed limits? Kept the overage of change that the cashier gave you? Pulled low? Gotten out too cloe to clouds? The bottom line is that people break rules. Unless people decide tha tthey want to do the right thing, there is no rule in the world that will work. Really, do you think that the S&TA is going to ground his AFF/I if he cuts someone off? The S&TA will give the benefit of doubt to the AFF/I but he MIGHT ground him. Now, same scenario but the AFF/I has a class to handle and he os the only one available to do it. Now, do you think he will be grounded? Then, this has opened the window for continued non-compliance. Why? Because it was another rule shoved into the face of the S&TA. It is viewed as just something else he is supposed to do. Whereas, if the S&TA had designed the policy, he owns it. He is more apt to apply it equally. If it is not force fed to him, he will actually take pride in applying the policies. I know that the arguement becomes "but under the BSR, the DZ will develop their plan". But, that is not ownership. That is simply making up another rule to satify USPA. I just do not buy into the idea that we need a BSR. I truly believe that this can be handled locally. I believe in skydivers and I believe in educating. There is a time to swoop and a time to bail. I, too, am infavor of some of the ideas in these rules. Not all of them, but some. But, most importantly, the DZ needs to determine what works best for their DZ and they need to do so to make their operations better, not to satisfy USPA.

It sounds as though there are several DZ's which already have plans in place and who take these matters seriously. I am hearing of more and more DZ's policies which address this issue. And, it seems that many of these policies have been in place prior to the spike in incidents. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that many DZ's take it seriously and there would be no need for a BSR. 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. I am sorry that this accident happened and I miss my friend. But, this is a hesteful reaction to a spike in incidents of this type. I agree that something needs to be done...but it should be up to the DZ's to determine how they plan to handle it.

Y'know what...I've been led astray. That's right, I admit it. My discussion and my fight is not against seperation of HP landings by any means. My fight is against having it in the form of a BSR. So, I apologize for even discussing the swoop issue. I truly believe that there needs to be something done. I just do nto believe it needs to be in the form of a BSR. Sorry for the confusion.

Oooohhhh! Yeah, you would have to have the flight physical. The silver bullet...just bend over and take it like a man. All very good points, Kallend. I wa sthginking that the regs would be stiffer under a direct FAA management. But, I had not thought of just how strict. You're right...who would want to?

"It is illogical." Wake up Kallend, human flight is illogical. Thus, the sport is illogical. "source of the pressure is to make things safer?" It doesn't...so why does it need to come from USPA. Let's K.I.S.S. and leave it at the DZ. "I do not buy into your "adversely affected" claim" Of course you don't. And I mean no ill will in this statement, but I think you are caught in the moment and have condemned my position simply because you (and Bill) want to "win" rather than explore the possibility that someone else may have a good idea, too. But, to explain the "adversely affected" statement. We have good, solid rules at my DZ. It works. But, it does not segregate HP from standard patterns. So, why would we want to introduce a BSR into a facility that has a proven trrack record. Kinda falls into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" basket. BTW - I am still awaiting your response to my statement in a previous response to you where I stated "Actually, I was implying that we could chose to land out to swoop. Not so selfish after all, huh?!?". Seems that you are building a false representation of me. I actually am a nice guy who wants to make a positive change. Honestly, I know you mean well...I really do. But, I do not believe that this is a USPA issue. This is something that should be controlled at the DZ level.

Just curious and truly not picking, but what if an HP pilot enters the HP landing area and determines that they can not perform their intended landing and must take a more "conservative" approach? Haven't they introduced an additional hazard to the HP landing area? What about the mixing of landing types? You are segregating (time or geography) swoopers into a concentrated area. Some swoopers perform 270degs, some do 180degs, some do 90 degs, some double front riser, some simply wingload heavy, some want to swoop the pond, some want to swoop the course, some want to team swwop, some want to bail in the middle of their swoop, et cetera. Now what? I suppose it is okay if swoopers endanger one another, huh? See, just like the docile canopy pilot, I have a right to realative safety also. And, I have a right to swoop in realative safety. So when you concentrate the huge mix of canopy piloting skills, intentions, types, et cetera, you are introducing me to greater harm. How are my rights to realative safety any diffierent than anyone else? This BSR proposal is not about making things safer. It is about segregating HP canopies from docile. And, they are doing so without respect to the pilot or the manner in which the canopy will be flown. You can generate enough speed from a double front riser on a 7 cell to do grevious harm. But, there is nothing in the proposal to stop that. No, this porposal is simply a means of pointing fingers at those nasty swoopers. How are you going to define "high performance". Wind load? structure of the canopy? The intended manner of flight? There are simply too many variables for a blanket policy. Each DZ can assess their situation and determine policy.

Of course, that is only the percentage of people who participated in the poll. But, as Bill stated, DZ.com is not representative of the skydiving public. Of course, I tried to state that DZ.com would represent a cross section of the skydiving population but he does not believe that either. So, it appears that the poll is for naught. "The people who post here are actually a small but vocal minorty. The majority of skydivers do not post here." Posted by Billvon, Jun 23, 2007, 8:43 PM Oops...sorry, I am involved again. Will try harder.

I got the Garmin Nuvi for Fathers Day/Birthday. I love it. Extremely easy to use, great reception, blah, blah, blah. I liked it because it is thin which means that I can also use it on my motorcycle.

Cool gear is fun but do you really need booties so early? I know...too late, you already have 'em. But, it used to be commmon practice to introduce new things one at a time to see how they worked. Just slow down. There are alot of us (particularly static line progression) who had very similar circumstances. Not me, but I have heard of those guys Rellly thoug, early in skydiving, a friend taught me to fall straight down. Simple in design difficult in practice. Then a few years ago another friend taught me to breathe in freefall. Something you don't think about but very important. It allows you to relax. I recommend starting with these. And be sure to have fun...on your back, on your head, under canopy, on yoru belly...it does not matter. Have fun!

Glad you are okay. But, equally, congratulations! I found it increadible relief to have my first cutaway. In many ways it solidified my taining and my ability to react appropriately. So, congratulations! a few more and I am going to submit to USPA for my A(r)...an A license under resevres!

Hmmm..interesting perspective. I tend to believe that the FAA would heighten their involvement because there would be no USPA buffer between us and the FAA. I am not so sure that they would absolutely ban skydiving. But, I think that it would be much, muc more difficult. I believe that there would be extremely sparse dropzones and we wold have to travel long distances to jump. You do introduce a different problem. I am going to have to think on that one a little longer.

If they have a plan they may still be adversely affected by the proposed BSR. See, the local policies may not include seperation. They may allow swooping in the pattern. There may be alternative devices in place. But, your proposal will force DZ's to comply with a practice in spite of their safe record. So, you are misteken, your plan can force actions onto responsible people and safe DZ's. If they don't have a plan, then maybe they do need a little pressure. From their customers...not USPA.

Alot of fun. Oranized well. The videos were all exceptional. Nothing funner than skdiving together all day then going to the movies with ALL of your friends. Already looking forward to next year! "Thanks" for all of the effort. BSBD, Matthew

Sorry guys...once again, if you would like to oppose the BSR proposal and allow your DZ to make decisions without USPA dictating it, you may find such a petition at; http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?bluesky&1 I am not a moderator using my position to influence anyone. I really can not even call myself a hardcore swooper. I am just a skydiver who believes in his DZ's ability to make good decisions.

Sorry, but the quotes are quotes. I mean, he typed it...All I did was copy and paste. I did not make it up, they are real quotes. But, it seems that there was a real defensive response to the quotes. Is there something "hidden" in the BSR? "...BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings" strongly implies seperation of LZ's. You are right, he has written seperation by timing. In fact, he has stated many things which do not match your proposal. But, the bottom line is that your BSR is too vague in nature. This is an issue better handled by the DZ's than USPA. "Yes", I do believe that swoopping into a pattern can be executed safely. I do not know that any high degree of turn is safe in a pattern. But, all swooping does not require turns greater than 180degs. Swooping does not require a cross braced caopy. Swoopping does not require 2:1+ wing loading. In fact, I used to swoop (though not as high a degree) by old Raven III. I swoop without even turning into final. I swoop safely and so do many other people. And I understand that I can not always swoop on landing. I don't misrepresent your proposal. You have simply failed to present a functional BSR. You are taking the responsibility from the DZ. This is a DZ issue...let them handle it in accordance with what fits the individual DZ. There is no need for a BSR. This is not a selfish desire to swoop. This is a selfish desire to allow the DZ's to impliment policies at the local level and to take ownership of what happens on their DZ's. I already know your response..."but the BSR does that...it makes the DZ devise a plan". Many DZ's have a plan, many DZ's have strong S&TA's, many DZ's really care about the welfare of it's clients. Those DZ's do not need USPA intervention. Address thereal issues. Devising a plan that is functional for the DZ does not require USPA to tell them to do so. Making the plan work does not require USPA to make them do so.