Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

Quote

Of course the USPA is a federal agency.

Care to show me their line item in the federal budget, then?

Quote

For the Nth time, the separation can be in TIME, not in space. There is no need to ban anything, anywhere. If a DZ chooses to ban swooping, that is a business decision the DZO makes, nothing that is forced upon the operation.

For the Nth time, maybe you should put that in your BSR petition so that we know what the hell you want us to put our names on.

Separation in time is an idea that works in the form of restricting diving approaches to solo jumps/hop'n pops where the only traffic you have is flying the same approach as you. As a swooper it is always my goal to separate my landing from all of the other landings by as much time as possible but even when am the last one out, pull high and ride in brakes the entire canopy flight I will often still beat other canopy's down. If you have swoopers spread out throughout the load and they can't swoop untill all of the straight in approaches are completed you have basically banned swooping when there is no separate landing area. I'm not going to sign that petition.

Quote

Quote

For the Nth time, the separation can be in TIME, not in space. There is no need to ban anything, anywhere. If a DZ chooses to ban swooping, that is a business decision the DZO makes, nothing that is forced upon the operation.

For the Nth time, maybe you should put that in your BSR petition so that we know what the hell you want us to put our names on.


It's NOT my petition

Separation in time is an idea that works in the form of restricting diving approaches to solo jumps/hop'n pops where the only traffic you have is flying the same approach as you. As a swooper it is always my goal to separate my landing from all of the other landings by as much time as possible but even when am the last one out, pull high and ride in brakes the entire canopy flight I will often still beat other canopy's down. If you have swoopers spread out throughout the load and they can't swoop untill all of the straight in approaches are completed you have basically banned swooping when there is no separate landing area. I'm not going to sign that petition.

You might want to consider your own sig line in the context of recent fatalities:

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."

Quote

Care to show me their line item in the federal budget, then?

What a petty arguement. I think the original point was quite obvious, whether you agree with it or not, and you are all complaining about the fact that he put the word Federal in his post. Your post adds nothing to this conversation, I feel his did.

Joe.

What does my sig line have to do with anything. I am 110% in favor of separate landing areas, I don't swoop in traffic. But I'm not in favor of banning swooping, and (back to my original post) I'm not going to put my name on something that is so vague it could be an across the board USPA Ban on diving approaches. Thats all.

Quote

It isn't even clear what the petition is yet, so why are we "supporting" it?

Write up the final "petition" that is word for word going to be presented to the USPA and if I agree with it, I'll put my name down as a supporter.

Words can too loosely be translated, so that is why I want to know exactly what is going to be said.

Not that I'm too worried about the USPA doing something stupid. I trust them, but still.

Quote

"We, the undersigned, support a proposal that increases the number of S&TA's, their commitment, and effectiveness to do their accepted duties. We also demand higher standards from the instructors in our sport, and expect that they are allowed the authority to moderate skydiver behaviors in regards to safety."

Is this the final "petition"?

Nope, it's my offering to express my distaste for the "solution" proposed.

Quote

Quote

Care to show me their line item in the federal budget, then?

What a petty arguement. I think the original point was quite obvious, whether you agree with it or not, and you are all complaining about the fact that he put the word Federal in his post. Your post adds nothing to this conversation, I feel his did.

Joe.

No, he really didn't add anything to the argument, as his point was incorrect.

Quote

What does my sig line have to do with anything. .

If you don't know, why have it as your sig line?

What IS your solution for a DZ that doesn't have space for separate landing areas, if you dismiss separation in time as impractical?

Quote

Yeah, that's what we need...more regulation. Good answer. It's like wanting the government to raise your kids instead of disciplining them yourselves.

Why don't you collectively bitch slap the idiots at your respective dropzones who act like morons and think they own the place. Grow some stones and take back your sport. That's what we do at mine.

We protect our DZOs as well as respectful jumpers from idiots.

His stance is one against numerous and frivolous rules. As an example, do we really want the gov. to raise our kids. When do the rules stop. If you want to save lives by making rules you will eventually be left with only one rule left to make: For the safety of those who choose to do it Skydiving is no longer permitted.

I think that was his point. I think it is a good point, and I agree with it. I read what you posted earlier (before you edited it) about how swoopers weren't killing people 3 years ago. Roger Nelson comes to mind, along with a collision at the record attempts in Chicago. This problem isn't new, we've had a rash of them in the last year, but its been around ever since people could steer parachutes, and disobey flight patterns. Everybody (S&TA's, DZO's, Instructors, and Experienced jumpers) need to get serious about addressing the issue with the people who are the problems, that is the way I would like to see this problem solved before resorting to our governing body to fix it.

Quote

His stance is one against numerous and frivolous rules.

How is a rule that, if had existed and been enforced, would result in several people being alive now instead of DEAD, in any way "frivolous"? Why is it any more frivolous than the rules on pull altitudes?

Quote

How is a rule that, if had existed and been enforced, would result in several people being alive now instead of DEAD, in any way "frivolous"? Why is it any more frivolous than the rules on pull altitudes?

Because anything that might interfere with anyone's God-given right to swoop and wow the crowd is frivolous. Geez, do you not realize that a few deaths is a small price to pay for the opportunity for a handful of people to boost their egos?

If we allow a bullshit rule like this to pass then these rule freaks will probably start telling us that we can't put students out on cross-braced HP mains loaded at 4:1 so they can jump in hurricane-force winds.

Get with the program!

Walt

Quote

His stance is one against numerous and frivolous rules. As an example, do we really want the gov. to raise our kids. When do the rules stop. If you want to save lives by making rules you will eventually be left with only one rule left to make: For the safety of those who choose to do it Skydiving is no longer permitted.

As the others so "pettily" pointed out, the USPA is not the government. It's not raising your kids. Might make the argument for the FAA, but that would be irrelevent to the discussion.

I feel like I'm coming under attack. I think my posts are coming off in a way different than I intend. I will try to clarify.

Kallend - Your original reply to me insinuated that I should support the petition becuase it could mean a separation in time. The reason I don't support it is becuase it COULD mean lots of things and I don't want to put my name on something that I may not agree with.

Mnealtx - I believe that the original poster did have a point. Many may not agree with it. Thats fine, unfortunately I felt the need to point out that we were bickering over words he used and claiming that he had no point. I feel that he did have a point and one that we should take into consideration before adding BSR's to the books.

Walt - Flame all you want. As I've already stated, I agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not swoop in traffic! I in no way implied that it was my "right" to do whatever I want. I don't appreciate your comments making me out to be something I'm not.

In the end, I am not opposed to regulations regarding this subject. My personal stance is that the community IS and will continue to address this problem and a workable solution will arise. I haven't seen any "rules" that are going to stop people from making poor/stupid decisions. If the rule works it will only work because of people taking action on something that they should be taking action with anyway.

I'm not trying to argue with anybody, I hope that we can discuss this in a decent manner and find a solution.

Quote

Walt - Flame all you want. As I've already stated, I agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I do not swoop in traffic! I in no way implied that it was my "right" to do whatever I want. I don't appreciate your comments making me out to be something I'm not.

As explained in more detail in a PM I sent you a few moments ago my comments were not directed at you.

Walt

Hi All

Many of you have brought up some good points - "this is too vague", "what am I really signing?" I
will try to explain our objective. The reason the petition is not concrete is that we want USPA to
fill in the details; they are better at that than we are. The specific language is up to our elected
regional and national directors and the committees they are on.

We have posted 3 examples on how the USPA could write a BSR to acheive our intent- to separate high
performance landings from standard landing patterns. We will be presenting all 3 options in July to
the safety & training committee & the group membership committee. We posted it here and have emailed it to the full board to get as much feedback as we can...to get people talking on how to make our skies safer through new rules and additional education.

If you prefer one option over another, or prefer an entirely different approach, I encourage you to
contact your regional and national directors to express your opinion to them. They will be the ones
deciding how best to deal with this problem and they need to hear what your opinion is. I also
encourage you to come to the July BOD meeting and present your views on this proposal directly.

This is the post with all 3 options to review:
/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2786877;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

edited to add clicky. everyone loves the clicky.

Can't we all just get a clicky?

Clicky

Quote

I've come really close to being taken out more than once..

Thats because "Leprechauns" are invisible.

Hello Molly!

I support the petition as written.

Big, long-winded paper coming after I'm done doing Dad relative work in Florida.

Blue SKies, Flip

As for the proposal that started this thread, I'm not sure what exactly they're talking about. Is it just a generic plea for the BOD to "please make a rule"? Or is it in support of a specific but unmentioned BSR that's already been crafted, such as the one I and all the other S&TAs got by email a month or so ago?

Personally, I like the idea of modifying the BSRs to address this issue, but I've yet to see a proposal drawn up well enough to garner my support.

Blues,
Dave

Quote

I agree with what you are saying about the bitch slapping, but most jumpers are simply unwilling to do that.

Walt

Walt

PM me I am a freelance bitch slapper ...and I am not afraid to get thrown off the bigways...

Dave

Hello Molly!

Now that the dust has settled down in Florida with my family, I can add my reasons for supporting the petition, open ended as it is. I hope everyone paying attention to the landing pattern issue will read on.

As one of the drafters of the BSR proposal that will be presented to the USPA Board, I thought I would let you know how I came to the conclusion that a national solution to canopy landing mishaps is required.

First off, there are many ways to address what we are asking for. I happen to have my personal preference which I will share in a bit. But let me reassure the membership that we as a group discussed at length how to solve the problem of canopy collisions in the landing pattern. Rather than a knee jerk reaction, this was an attempt at reasonable identification, and resolution.

Now on to my thoughts. All safety programs look to prevent death or injury to participants. They do this by identifying hazards to the participants and then creating ways to avoid those hazards. Safety is about prevention. Prevention always occurs before incidents arise through thoughtful insight, but we learn a lot about prevention after a fatal event.

To have a valid safety program, all mishaps must have a human cause. There can be no such thing as ‘it just happens that way’. That’s not to say that the canopy pilot is always to blame for every mishap. It’s just that you can’t blame a non-human factors. For example, it’s a gusty wind day and someone has their canopy collapse and has a mishap. Although the gusty winds may have caused the canopy to become unairworthy, it's the decision to fly in those conditions that the safety program may addresse.

It could have been canopy pilot error. Or it could be management error, or manufacturing error, or design error or maintenance error. These are the areas that a safety program should look at.

Any number of human beings could be in the chain of events that causes any particular mishap. A good safety program looks to break the chain prior to a mishap occurring.

I think most of us agree that the hazard has been properly identified: landing pattern disfunction. I really liked Mike Johnston’s way of saying it: landing pattern PLAN, or lack thereof.

So the crux of the matter is what to do about it. As a group, our little committee abhors rules. However, we think we know when they are needed. Any drop zone right now is free to create whatever they want to address the problem as they see fit. What we want is a statement made on the national level about what we as an organization (USPA) want for each of our members wherever they happen to jump.

Those who promote education are absolutely right. Education is one of the most important ways to prevent these mishaps. But what do you educate to? It’s not sufficient to say that you should have good Situational Awareness (S.A.) at all times (something you should do) or that you should not endanger others around you by poor airmanship with your canopy(something you should not do). You need a standard, simply laid out so that you have something to create the education program for. Our BSR proposal lays the groundwork for that: a target to educate to.

Those that say if we improve S.A. in everyone, these mishaps will disappear. They are 100% correct. However, we are human beings and human beings are prone to mistakes, lapses in judgement etc. No one has 100% S.A., 100% of the time. If 99% of the jumpers have perfect S.A., but are jumping with the 1% that do not, you have a mishap waiting to happen. And no one wears a sign saying what their S.A. level is on any given jump to let you steer clear. Our BSR proposal addresses this hazard.

For our BSR proposal, we defined the landing patterns so that USPA would have a point to start at for discussion purposes. We know the process that a BSR proposal will go through before it becomes a BSR. This will be sliced and diced to the nth degree before anything gets set in stone. Everyone will have a voice if they choose to get involved so that they can get behind the process. I can agree that a smooth, shallow angle of bank, unaccelerated 180 degree turn to final could fit into what we are trying to get across to the membership. But we did not want to create proposals so bulky that everyone shrugged their shoulders and walked away from the problem. Let’s let the safety committee work out the final language. Our basic idea is that a national standard is needed.

Let me delve into our three options. I’m going to erase the definition paragraphs and just go to the prescriptions to save space and allow you to get through this a little quicker.

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:
OPTION 1

c. Every drop zone, where high performance landings are permitted, will
separate the landing traffic geographically, or by time, so that no one in
the high performance landing pattern area can interfere with a landing in
the standard landing pattern area. [FB]

d. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to
the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed regardless
of location. [NW]

e. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the
HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the
center of the area and land on the edges. [NW]

This says what a DZO must do (separate traffic patterns) and what jumpers must do (do not violate landing areas). In the safety world, this covers all bases. If someone is being a moron, but they land in their respective area, they are less likely to cause a mishap with folks landing in the other area. However, it does it without regard to local conditions, DZOs’ world views etc.

If I were king, AND safety were the only issue, I would favor this option. However, safety isn’t the only issue.
----------------------

OPTION 2:

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:

c. Once a standard landing pattern (SLP) jumper enters the pattern area, NO
high performance landings (HPL) can be made in that area. [NW]

This option puts all the responsibility onto the individual jumpers. No requirements are placed on the DZO. IF there was 100% S.A., this would work. But there isn’t so therefore in my mind, for a NATIONAL solution, this doesn’t accomplish anything in the safety world. It’s a worthy goal, and it should be taught, but as a BSR, it falls short of what we need.

And answer this, how has it been working so far? Essentially, this is the current rule. Another way to say it is low jumper has right of way. Yet, we’ve still had mishaps. Fatal ones.
-----------------------------------

OPTION 3:

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:

c. Drop zone operators are required to establish safe separation procedures
for landing traffic to ensure SLP and HPL traffic do not conflict with each
other. [NW]

This is my preferred option. The local DZO is tasked with creating a landing plan that works for their particular drop zone. It doesn’t tell them how to do it, but mandates that SLP and HPL traffic not impede each other. By normal rules of conduct, when a DZO establishes procedures at their facility, their customers are bound to follow them. Here again is that joint responsibility for safety, but without the one size fits all methodology that folks are worried about.

To prevent future mishaps in the landing environment, three things are required from/for skydivers: education, compliance and enforcement. Our BSR proposal creates the framework for a healthy education program, a predictable set of flying conditions at any drop zone and something that anyone can enforce.

I ask that you sign Molly’s petition, open ended as it is, since what we are asking for is not a set of rules, but creating a safety culture in the landing pattern on a national basis.

Blue SKies, Flip Colmer
D-6157

Thank you flip for explaining even more!

Many of you have PM'd me signing the petition that way- thats totally cool. So, if folks feel better PM'ing me instead of signing the post thats fine.

Or if you want to email me directly: [email protected] that works too.

safeskies everyone, molly

Flip and Molly,

Please consider modifying your definition paragraphs to better identify the groups that need to be separated. In my view, it is height difference in turn to final, more than anything else, that is causing conflicts. If you want a single criterion for dividing landing areas, that should be it.

Define "high performance landings" as patterns with a turn to final initiated above a certain point (500 feet?). Define a "standard landing pattern" as patterns with a turn to final initiated below a certain altitude (again, proposing 500 feet).

If everyone is on level, "see and avoid" has been proven to work pretty well.

This could take the SLP area back 10 years to the time before super-big front riser turns, when, presumably there were fewer of the kind of conflict that killed Bob Holler. It could also make swoopers safer, recognizing that once someone has started their big turn to final, a canopy turning into their path 500 feet below them creates a big hazard.

With this kind of separation, both Cliff and Tommy (responsible, heads-up pilots who each thought they had clear airspace) might still be alive. At least Cliff would still be dead with a BSR using the existing definitions.

If you do go the BSR route, please re-think the definitions.

Thanks,
Evan

Quote

Let me delve into our three options. I’m going to erase the definition paragraphs and just go to the prescriptions to save space and allow you to get through this a little quicker.