hukturn

I do not support your BSR proposal. I agree to disagree. You take your road and I will take mine.

"DZ has to devise a way to safely accomodate HP and standard landing approaches." Then let the DZ's do it without USPA intervention. "It does this by separating landing areas." posted by billvon Jun 19, 2007, 10:54 AM "...one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate." posted by billvon Jun 22, 2007, 1:03 PM Quotes...not assumptions "USPA cannot (I have been told) take action against an individual jumper - it *CAN*, however, take action against rated individuals and group member DZs for failure to follow safety regulations." Then let the DZ's do it without USPA intervention. Anyone; And, just curious, because I do not know...when was the last time that the USPA "took action" against a DZ representatives rating for being unsafe or failing to apply BSR's? When was the last time a Group Membership was revoked? A DZ fined? I just can not recall many. So, wht would you nee dthe BSR...safety violations and BSR non-compliance occurs everyday on the DZ's.

If anyone would like a sample letter to copy and paste into an e-mail to submit to their Regional Director, please contact me.

If anyone would like a sample letter to copy and paste into an e-mail to submit to their Regional Director, please contact me.

You have some great plans in there. But, they should not be BSR's. They should be left to the individual DZ to decide what works for them.

You do not know me so please do not attempt to imply that I would benefit from any of this either way. The truth be told, I swoop with double front risers, 90degs and 180 degs. Most often, I take a much more reserved final these days. So, I would not benefit from most of this anyway. Thus, your attempt to make this appear to be a campaign for my personal gain is proven invalid. It appears that you are the one who has failed to keep track of this thread. The main proponent of this BSR has stated twice in this thread that this is a BSR to seperate landing areas. Now, he has alsy indicated that a seperation in time "might" be adequate. But, let'snot mince words...this is about seperated landing areas and you are being sold on the premise that it may mean "other" forms of seperation. I have given many reasons why the BSR fails. Please review my arguements and you will see them very clearly. My primary point of contention is that the DZ's need to impliment local policies to address the issues, not be force fed by USPA.

Actually, I ws implying that we could chose to land out to swoop. Not so selfish after all, huh?!?

"It does this by separating landing areas." posted by billvon Jun 19, 2007, 10:54 AM "...one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate." posted by billvon Jun 22, 2007, 1:03 PM These are bothe responses from Bill indicating seperated landing areas. Your arguement is proven inaccurate. "The petition is: We, the undersigned, support a BSR change to reduce landing fatalities by separating high performance and standard pattern landings." If this is your proposal in it's entirity, it lacks meat. There is no mention how to address, to include seperatioon by time. Thus, you leave it to USPA to intrepret this to mean seperated landing areas. In any event, the real issue at hand is that thi is not a USPA issue This is a DZ issue. Somehow, thera are alot of DZ's who have managed to kleep themselves alive and manage their patrons. And, all the while do so while having a little fun. A change is needed but not in the form of a BSR.

In response, please reference my response to Kallend. I believe it addresses your post, also.

"Only if every skydiver reads dz.com" No, dz.com represents a cross sectioon of the overall skydiving demographic. I believe the participants here are proportionate to the others who do not post. Just as on the DZ, people from all walks of life participate on dz.com. "So you want a rule that meek S&TAs be fired. (How else would your suggestion be implemented?)" Yes and no. I want people who are paid to to a job to do it. If you don't have the balls, don't take the job. What it means is that the S&TA's must stringently apply the rules to everyone. You can not make an exception for the AFF-I just because he works for the DZ. The rules are for everyone and if the S&TA can not apply them then you need another S&TA. "And who gets to fire DZOs?" More illustrative. It would really require a seperation of the skydiver from the DZ if they did not believe that the rules were fair and consistent. "Have you been reading the discussion at all?" Absolutely. Which is part of why I understand the need for someone to represent the greater good rather than allowing the introduction of needless legislation without rebuttal. The idea of seperated landing areas may work in some areas...but not all. Which is why the BSR does not work.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from seperating themselves from the normal landing area at any time. You certainly don't believe that you need a BSR to decide to land out, do you?!?

No, Bill, it does not. You seem to have forgotten your BSR proposal in all of the heat.. Your "plan" dictates that a DZ must have seperate landing areas and it is up to the DZ to figure out how to do it. So, don't post that " FYI the BSR proposal is to do just that" in response to "I vote leave it up to the individual DZ's with their individual circumstances". To compare, my proposal that you rebut indicates that the DZ has full control over their DZ and should impliment polices to address a growing problem. But, that may not be seperate landing areas, it may mean seperate passes, it may meas seperate landing areas, it may mean stopping turns over a certain degree on final, it may mean anything. But, at least the DZ's can determine how to address the problem at a local level. Like I said, a BSR (round peg) may not fit every DZ (square hole). There are many DZ's which may not be able to accomodate seperate LZ's. There are simpluy too many issues involved to have a blanket policy dictated by USPA.

I agree with Tom. If there were no USPA, you would have strong FAA involvement. And with the FAA comes even greater bureaucracy than USPA pushes. Don't get me wrong, I believe that much of what USPA has done is for the greater good of the sport. But, too much involvement can be just as bad as too little.

Way too cool! I used to know a guy in Chester, SC in the 90's who made a harness and jumped his English Spaniel. The dog thought he was swimming while in freefall.

Rock on...congrats!

Cool...I guess. I am really too old to know if it is cool or not. Question, though. What, exactly, is the design or purpose of the Wii? I mean, I am familiar with pong (the original) an dNintendo (Marion Brothers in the 1990's). But, what is the diffenrnce?

Y'kow what...good for her. Man, she is 92. My Grand Aunt (not the right title, I know) lived to be 95 and she still lived alone in her 2 story turn of the century home until th last 6 months. I am sorry she is ill but to be 92 and only now going into a Hospice or other facility...that is great. I wish her (and you) the bestest!

Nobody here has said that there is not a problem. In fact, I think that is widely recognized that there is a valid concern. Given the magnitude of the discussion and the severity of the possible outcomes, hasn't the general skydiving population spoken? Doesn't this thread indicate that skydivers take this seriously? Why deal with cranky jumpers? By far, skydivers avoid contact with cranky S&TA's moreso. If the S&TA or DZO is too weak to do their job, fire them. It takes tough people to make tough decisions. This is not a sport for the meek and at the S&TA level even less so. The only remaiing arguements are; 1) We don't need a BSR 2) A single rule (square peg) may not fit every DZ (round hole). What I am saying is that each DZ should measure the problem and institute functional rules. Those rules may include seperate LZ's...but maybe not. It is dependent upon the needs and abilities of the DZ.

No. People invest greater interest when they develop the plan. Thus if the DZ develops the policy instead of being force fed by USPA, they are more likely to take action against infractions. I've no idea of your experiences in the Corporate world. I wish mine were a little less. But, it is a common fact that employees are more productive and take a proactive approach to leading their peers. Guess what...this idea is not restricted to the Corporate world. When toddlers are allowed to make decisions in the family setting, they are generally better behaved. Why? Because they recognize their involvement in the decision making process. People (including DZ's) will enforce their own policies if they create them. Let the DZ's make their own decisions on how to handle the canopy collision problems...not USPA and BSR's.

As I am sure many of you are aware, there are several heated discussions on the USPA BSR issue concerning seperated landing areas. I oppose the BSR...not necessarily because of the seperated landing areas, but because I am opposed to USPA intervention in this issue. Anyway, I am cross-posting the below discussion for a friend. There was some fear of retribution so I am posting for him. But I feel that the possible retribution is outweighed by the need for realistic intervention...not BSR's. So, please take a moment to read and if you feel inclined you are invited to sign the petiotion linked at the bottom. -Matthew " I just sent this out on myspace: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- High Perfomance Canopy Flight is at risk for coming under unnessecary regulations from USPA, in an attempt to solve a problem that is better solved by the individual members. I feel that this will be bad for the overall skydiving community in the long run. The birth of RW was met with skeptisim by the Style and Accuracy competitors. It was viewed as reckless and dangerous to be in freefall alongside other people. Freefall collisions occured then and now but with proper education they can be avoided. There was a time when square canopy's were considered to risky for unexperienced people, dangerous even. As our knowledge grew so did our ability to teach and today first timers are jumping ramair canopy's and jumping the rounds would be considered more dangerous. Many can probably remember when freeflying was new. Back then lots of people frowned upon it as dangerous. I remember a few DZ's that did not permit it, for reasons that we would find humorous today. None of these aspects of the sport were penalized with legalities. Today we all enjoy a sport that is reaping the benifits of those who pioneered before us, and learned the hard way the things that we now consider basic knowledge. Already, it is apparent that the most docile of canopies is benifiting from the research that comes from the most aggressive of canopy's. The leading pilots gain information flying the fastest canopies and share that knowledge with the rest of us allowing us to learn things about canopy flight without having to go throught the process that they have. Swooping is valuable, and the future of this sport will be restrained if we restrict progress. Imagine where this sport would be today if the Style and Accuracy crowd had created a rule that didn't allow people to be in freefall together becuase of a the collisions they had suffered. We've had a rash of canopy collisions in the last year but they are not new to this sport, and definitely not contained to the high performance canopy's. I believe that the community will address (and already has) this problem with better enforced landing patterns and more importantly better education for everybody on canopy flight. Please visit the site below and sign the petition asking USPA to leave the rule making up to the individule DZ's as each one will have thier own issues to work out. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?bluesky Please forward this bulletin to reach as many as possilble. Thank you! "

2nd.

Wake up...even a BSR will not GUARANTEE DZ compliance. BSR's are violated everyday and S&TA's let it pass everyday. USPA does not know what is good for every DZ. common boanket policy will not change anything. DZ's don't take ownership, it fades and before long you are right back to point A. But, if you let the DZ's decide what s best at their operation, they are much more inclined to take ownership. "Yes", I am opposed to seperated landing areas. But, I am not arguing this point because I know it may work at some DZ's. It may even be very necessaru at some DZ's. What I am arguing is that it is not a USPA / BSR issue. It is a DZ issue that DZ's need to solve at a local level.

Did someone say spam and crackers? mmmm...mmmm! Sure sounds better than dick and mayonaise!

http://www.petitiononline.com/bluesky/petition.html I respect everone's opinion, even if things have gotten "heated". "Yes" I am passionate about this, just as some are passionate about the opposing arguement. Without this type of forum, we would not be able to extend our position to others. It seems that this discussion has taken several turns. So, I am not even sure where people stand on the issue. Here is a link to a petition to allow the DZ to handle the issue at a local level rather than implimenting a BSR. http://www.petitiononline.com/bluesky/petition.html

I agree. My wife rides a Buell which has a similar body/foot position as the sportster. I ronde a 955 Triumph Sprint. I just have alot more control with my feet beneath me.