BSR proposal for canopy patterns

Below is a document that several skydivers (including myself) have spent some time working on. We will be discussing it here, via email with other DZO's, and at the upcoming USPA meeting in July. This thread is intended for discussion; I will later post a thread for anyone who wishes to add their name to the petition.
-----------------------------------
Dear Fellow Skydivers,

In the aftermath of many recent canopy related incidents, with the catalyst
being the deaths of Bob Holler and Danny Page, several skydivers got
together and began to discuss how to help prevent incidents like this in the
future. The proposals below are the result of this collaboration. We
present them here to encourage feedback and discussion over the pros and
cons of the various implementations.

Our intent is to propose a new BSR to increase safety under canopy for all
skydivers.

With the advance of the sport over the decades, the BSRs have remained
largely unchanged for experienced skydivers. Today, the largest single
cause of injury and death in our sport is pilot error under an open and
flying canopy. Recently we have seen an alarming increase in one sort of
canopy incident - an incident where one jumper turns into another one.
These collisions rarely have good outcomes.

There are recommendations, suggestions, and guidelines in the SIM regarding
flying parachutes in a pattern but the statistics show that these are not
sufficient to slow down the increase in these injuries.
We therefore see a need for a landing area BSR to help DZO's to keep jumpers
from killing themselves (and more importantly other jumpers.)

Below we present three options for additions to the BSR's:

--------------------
OPTION 1:

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:

a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight
pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will
enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the
landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90)
degrees. [NW]

b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern
will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]

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]

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

OPTION 2:

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:

a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight
pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will
enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the
landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90)
degrees. [NW]

b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern
will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]

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

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

OPTION 3:

H. Drop zone requirements

4. Landing Patterns:

a. The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight
pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will
enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the
landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90)
degrees. [NW]

b. Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern
will be termed a high performance landing (HPL). [NW]

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]

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

Aircraft flight patterns were devised to keep pilots from crashing into each
other while landing on the same runway, even when radio services are not
available. These FAR rules have worked well for a century and been modified
as technology has advanced the capabilities of aircraft.

USPA needs to remain proactive with the need to enforce safety. Canopy
collisions in the landing pattern are the next serious safety issue USPA
needs to address.

The last major threat to the sport was seatbelts. After a series of aircraft
crashes with skydivers on board and the apparent lack of seatbelts being
worn, the FAA wanted this problem fixed, quickly. The FAR requiring seatbelt
usage already existed, it was just overlooked by most people in the sport.
USPA solved the seatbelt issue by adding a BSR to the SIM, and by working
with DZOs, aircraft owners and skydivers via a proactive campaign to educate
all in the sport about seatbelt usage. Currently it is second nature for a
jumper to put on a seatbelt in a jump aircraft. We want this same second
nature attitude for jumpers flying into the landing pattern.

Shiara Holler C-32753
Molly Osborne D-23904
Val Thal-Slocum D-5837
Bill von Novak D-16479
Paul Sitter D-2714
Flip Colmer D-6157
Dan "dob" O'Brien D-5362
Kate Cooper D-7333

Quote

You list 8 people who contributed to drafting this document. What are the stats of these people (number of jumps/years in sport/canopy/disciplines practiced)? Also of these 8 people do any of them routinely perform high performance landings?

Not one on that list are any HP Canopy Pilot that I know of or have met (not to say that means they aren't).

Ian

Quote

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.

Depends on which edge and how they get there.

IMO they should be dealt with as harshly as a pilot doing HP's in a non HP area. For all intents and purposes it should be a no-fly zone.

>IMO they should be dealt with as harshly as a pilot doing HP's in a non HP area.

Any skydiver always has the option of doing a non-HP landing. Most skydivers do not have the option of doing a HP landing.

Quote

Any skydiver always has the option of doing a non-HP landing. Most skydivers do not have the option of doing a HP landing.

Bill, that's not the point. The point is that if they are in, or around, the HP area they are an incredible danger to themselves and those doing HP landings.

Quote

I would just like to know who the people are who are writing this up. I don't think it's a rediculious question to ask. If this is an "issue with everyone under a canopy" situation then I think that every needs to have a say including jumpers who perform high performance landings routinely. I wouldn't want people with solely RW experience to write the rules regarding a VRW competition in the same way I wouldn't want people with 5,000 staight in landings to dictate rules with no input from pilots who perform high performance landings.

I agree that something needs to be done. I don't want to die because of someone elses neglect. I also agree that what Bill posted seems pretty fair to all pilots. But considering I am not a swooper (would like to be one day) I would like to know that the rules to a degree satisfy everyone. Maybe I am playing the devil's advocate (not really trying too) so if I am out of line with these questions then I will stop.

I agree. If someone hasn't dedicated part, if not all, of their skydiving career to learning canopy flight, how are they qualified or equipped to think of all the ways flight around the HP area can effect both the HP and the non-HP pilots?

Ian

> The point is that if they are in, or around, the HP area they are
>an incredible danger to themselves and those doing HP landings.

I agree. Hence the section stating "If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the HPL area."

>What are the stats of these people . . .

My stats:

Jumping since 1991, ~5000 jumps
AFF/Tandem/SL instructor at various times
S+TA for two years
Bigway world records 2002, 2004, 2006
Current discipline is RW; training for 8-way
Last jump was yesterday
Current canopy is a Nitro 108 loaded 1.95 to 1
Most of my landings are 90 degree front riser swoops since I usually land in traffic
When I have the space I do 180-270 degree swoops

I have emailed the other people on the proposal and told them that someone asked this question; they can answer if they choose. I won't try to speak for them.

Quote

I don't think its relevant whether they swoop or not.

I disagree with you. How can you know enough about the dynamics of the environment you're proposing if you don't understand it in the first place?

It isn't only about seperate landing areas, it's about how those areas intersect in patterns, pattern direction, flight paths, and the necessary safety buffers required around those to make it work - and that's just to start with off the top of my head.

Unless you have an obnoxiously large landing area these are some issues you will have to deal with.

Blues,
Ian