Responding to "Swooping is not a crime"

"A large sector of the skydiving population is currently in danger of extinction. This is because of the widespread proliferation of new DZ rules that prohibit 270 turns for landing or ban high speed approaches entirely."

BS. Widespread proliferation? Hardly.
Sensationalism.
----------------------------------
"We have lost many friends this year due to canopy collisions, and management at several dropzones have responded by adding new rules in an effort to prevent such accidents from happening in the future."

Rightfully so!
----------------------------------
"we willingly gave up many of our rights as free citizens now they are taking nail-clippers away from little old ladies. It is getting ridiculous, as is the policy banning advanced approaches. It is a knee-jerk reaction to fear, and I think we all know where that slippery slope leads.
"My rights end where your rights begin."

Little old ladies with nail clippers are not a problem. Advanced approaches in traffic are. Knee jerk reaction to fear? Damn right! Excuse me but I do have a fear of being slammed by a swooper in traffic. My right to live far outweighs your "right" to swoop. Sorry dude, that's life. Suck it up.
----------------------------------
"if my behavior does not have an effect on anyone else, I should be allowed to continue to do what I am doing, provided I am doing it in a safe manner."

What makes you think your behavior doesn't have an effect on anyone else? Simply because you didn't hit anyone? More to it than that...much more.
----------------------------------
"Thousands of people enjoy the challenge of high speed approaches and define the swoop landing as an essential part of their experience. They wait all week to get a few jumps in over the weekend, and now many of them are unable to get what they came for. To take that away is to cut many people off from the very reason why they skydive in the first place. Is that really where we want to go with this?"

If it's going to help prevent the idiots from killing the innocent, then a resounding YES! If it's going to prevent the idiots from killing themselves and screwing up the entire sport for everyone, then a resounding YES!
----------------------------------
"We must therefore allow all aspects of the sport to continue to proliferate so that our numbers may grow."

Not true. One does not necessarily lead to the other. I would venture to guess that for every testosterone-driven youngster salivating to get into swooping, there is one experienced jumper backing off because of the injuries and deaths it causes.
----------------------------------
"I remember the debate on my dropzone as to whether or not we wanted to let the students jump ram air canopies. Many were concerned that the "squares" were too much responsibility and that students could not be trusted. Are we saying the same thing about ourselves now?"

Of course not. You miss the obvious point that equipment, training and education has improved or, you choose to ignore that in the interest of sensationalism.
----------------------------------
"We need to stop pointing fingers and making over-protective rules,"

Wrong. Dead wrong. Fingers need to be pointed at the idiots doing the bad deeds. Rules need to be made to give some backing and teeth to the DZOs and S&TAs who are trying to stop the carnage. Why rules? Because the idiots, given free range, would do more damage than they are already doing.



DZOs house, DZOs rules. It's really very simple. Don't trash his house. DZOs are here for us...not the other way around. Other than Skyride, I can't think of a DZO that got into to it for any other reason than love of the sport.

How you guys equate swooping in traffic with S-turns on final is beyond me. The one is much more potentially injurous than the other. The avoidance time factor alone demonstrates that.

Holy crap. Do allow me to use my skill in avoiding you rather than ambushing me.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Quote

PLFXpert poses the theory that banning swoopers is bad for business. They bring in business.

Is it true, or just a personal wish?

It's both, though the former can not be said absolutely. I'm not-so-bad at business, and am only giving my professional opinion.

I completely agree with Billvon's most recent two posts.
I think I've made all necessary points. To reiterate:

1. Change is necessary given the evolution of our sport. We need to adapt to both welcome the discipline & not alienate the other disciplines.

Someone asked me via pm if I could name a DZ that banned it. The fact is I can (and have also been to a DZ where turn ratios were restricted to 90)--and I've only jumped in FL. Thank goodness at least one we went to has since reversed their complete ban and instead implemented altitude and landing area restrictions--which I FULLY support. Banning altogether or restricting to turn ratio is not the answer.

2. It is absolutely the DZO's call either way.

3. Spectators can be sitting at home on their couches. There has been tons of press, television spots & features dedicated to swooping & the like. This coverage has shown skydiving in a positive way. I.e. Not reporting on deaths, injuries & skydiving plane crashes.

4. These spectators bring more tandems. More people making tandems makes the DZ more money. The original poster was speaking from a business standpoint, not referring to the decrease in # of licensed skydivers. "Interest" in our sport and "decrease in # of licensed skydivers" are not mutually exclusive.

5. If you truly care about the # of deaths--the fact swoopers will find other means & places, will not lessen the # of fatatlities. I specifically said I would rather see them at an already well-established, respected & regulated DZ. Regulation is the answer, NOT banning or restricting to turn ratio.

6. I've repeatedly validated points made by those wanting change. I've repeatedly stated change is necessary. What I am against is a ban or more commonly seen, a restriction on turn ratio.

Again, two opposing sides with the same goal--just different ideas of how to accomplish it.

Billvon is on the right track, imo.
P.S. What I do find offensive (but I'll get over it) is the assumption that swoopers or those in favor of the discipline have less or no care or respect for their own life or the lives of others. Such false assumptions are disappointing.

Why do we have laws making it compulsory for cyclists to wear helmets?

Quote

Why pass a law to protect a head who's judgement is so poor it doesn't even try to prevent the cracking of the skull that it is in?
-Jerry Seinfeld

We have these laws to protect us from ourselves. We have drink driving laws to prevent us from hurting ourselves and others.

But have these stopped cyclists getting killed from not wearing helmets or kept people from drink driving?

I think by far the best thing that can be done is education. I have done Brian Germain and Scott Miller's canopy courses and they were both terrific.

I jump at the busiest dropzone in Australia. We have a swoop pond, some of Australia's best canopy pilots and many many swoopers not to mention, tandems, students, beginners, inters and the old guys doing big ways. Yet we don't get people pounding in or wrapping each other up in canopies.

Our top swoopers are very approachable and provide great advice, they will pull up people that they see doing stupid stuff and sometimes hold canopy seminars reminding everyone to be safe.

I believe education is the key, get Brian out to do a seminar.

Quote

I believe education is the key,

Absolutely and excellent point!

I said it before: Why is it some of the best canopy-control instructors are swoopers? Why is their advice & instruction so sought after by both newbies and more experienced jumpers for their own safety? Why have I never heard anyone complaining about not getting much out of the two fore-mentioned canopy instructor's courses?

It takes a lot more teaching than is given on student status to really understand how a canopy works, its possibilities, its limitations, how to control it, how/where to land in a landing pattern.

I almost think it should be a requirement to take a canopy course before graduating student status. I certainly would have benefited greatly from one early on.

I've said it before, as I listened to many skydivers give me canopy advice early on due to my lack of ever being able to land in the peas, let alone land on my feet. Billy, and the other local swoopers offered much more than advice--explaining how the canopy works and why doing various things controlled it better than others. I'm not saying it takes a swooper to teach canopy-control; only they seem to be more passionate about it, willing & capable.

Regardless, education is definitely important.

Quote

the problem HAS to be dealt with at the DZO and S&TA level. if you write a BSR it is the same thing. so why write a BSR?

the only reason I see is, if the DZO does NOT follow the proposed BSR, there is a possible lawsuit.

I'm ok with that. A BSR creates a standard that, if followed, helps create a safe environment for all. I've been in the sport for a while and have reached the conclusion that if you follow the BSRs, the chances of hurting yourself or others is very minimal.

A shitload of swoopers have hurt or killed themselves and/or others. It's time to do something different and I think the proposed BSR is a step in the right direction.

Walt

Quote

Age has absoulutely nothing to do with knowledge, learning, respect, attitude, or personality.
__________________________________________________

That's just a dumb statement.

Why thank you. Im glad you have set me straight.

Quote

When I went to Teachers' College we spent a long time learning JUST HOW age effects knowledge, learning, attitude and personality.

Well since you took ONE LINE out of a series of posts, the context I was speaking of no longer applies. Im glad you went to college to learn just how it affects people. Of course it affects people. Its age, but in the context of my conversation it does not. Why? Because I see the same arrogant, self-centered, un-compromising personalities in young and old. Exactly the same. Thats why I say age has no bearing. Understanding how age affects us is great, understanding how to teach to different age groups, thats a differrent ball of wax.
Oh, and my job is to teach people who have been in our industry for only a few months up to and beyond 3 decades how to sell our products. Adult education.

Quote

That evolution doesn't stop just because someone reaches the'age of majority'. Just ask the companies that provide automobile insurance about the effect of age on knowledge, learning, attitude and personality.

Young guys behind the wheel have been endangering themselves and others since junior league chariot-racing in the Circus Maximus.... (said tongue-in-cheek, to be sure).

Certainly age may not be the only factor, but it can be an issue. And it's the guy under a small, fast canopy who's more likely to cause someone else danger then the one under a slow accuracy canopy trying to get set up on the bowl, who at least everyone can keep an eye on.

Now youre talking statistics. Auto insurance companies use actuaries, expensive modeling software, and a little common sense. Problem is, they can only catch an average, and in a world of billions the anomolies can number in the millions. Those companies dont care about age, or knowledge, or learning. The care about $$! So, they look at their models, determine the age bracket that costs them the most and charges them more. Theres no progression there. Thats not helping anyone but themselves.

So to bring it all back to the topic on hand. Financials drive this sport, lets face it, fast planes and nice facilities cost $$$. DZs are looking at their bottom line and making decisions based on that, NOT the progression of the sport. But, in their defense, theyre just like that insurance company, they're a business, they're not busting their ass because it's happy-go-lucky-fun-time. So, eliminating that portion of the sport reduces their liability, BUT it does nothing but hurt the sport because we still have not fixed the problem. They just sent it elsewhere. It's up to us, you and I, to fix this.

If you(I'm not directing this at anyone) think "I'll be fine", "Ive been this sport long enought to...", "that guy hosed my swoop...", "those old timers dont know what theyre talking about", and many more weve all heard, you need to seriously consider attending a training course. If you think you're too good, good enough, not good enough, you need to seriously consider a training course.

Safe landings.

It's getting off the point.

Swooping is not a crime.

Swooping into traffic is culpable negligence at best.

Last time I checked, low man (or woman) STILL had right of way, but being right doesn't help if you are dead.

Put your own life at risk all you want, BUT if people won't voluntarily refrain from endangering others, then rules are needed. The evidence suggests that rules are needed.

Quote

We've all run across people that just won't listen to anything that other people tell them - they're too arrogant, or just plain think they aren't doing anything wrong.

Now...the S&TA can talk to them and ground them... the DZO can ground them or kick them out... then they go down the road and do the same thing at the next DZ, griping about how persecuted they were at the last place. *IF* word gets passed around, the other local DZ *may* not let them jump there...but then again, they might.

Having it as a BSR puts teeth into the punishment. Example: look at the statement from the DZO in the BSR thread, when Danny Page came up - he didn't want to be too harsh for fear of alienating people and being a dick. With the BSR, he could've put the blame on the big bad USPA. For that matter, USPA could have pulled his license and any certs until he straightened out.

Which do you think would make some cock-strong idiot come around... 15 warnings from the DZO and S&TA to "quit doing that" or a couple warnings followed by a license pull?

If the BSR proposal doesn't get voted in, then we're down to what we have now... talking to them and possibly grounding and/or kicking them off some local DZs. I'd say that the fact that a BSR is even being proposed suggest that the 'talking to' option isn't working well.

I think you do not understand how discipline in skydiving works.

I get the feeling that you and others think that the 'USPA Cops' would suddenly appear and yank memberships on the spot to 'control' reckless behavior or suddenly educate all about proper procedures. It does not work that way.

The process that every DZ and every jumper has right now is to exercise peer pressure to get the 'flagrant violators' to conform to acceptable practices.

For example, say there is some big-way thing going on at a temporary DZ and some yahoo does 270 approaches in the middle of traffic. He gets away with it two times because either no one saw him or no one told the organizers or DZO that it happened. On his 3rd swoop in the middle of traffic, he hits someone and kills both himself and an innocent jumper.

Who is to blame for that?
Certainly the yahoo doing a maneuver that endangered others.
Anyone that saw this and did nothing to prevent it from happening again tacitly condones the action. In this situation, the organizers have the authority and responsibility to cut someone off a load if someone endangers others. The DZO can ground someone on the spot.
USPA, even armed with a big, bad BSR, could not do anything on the spot.
Only the DZO or organizers could have instantly grounded the jumper or got him to change his behavior.

The reason 'talking to' is not working today is because not enough jumpers are getting involved and doing the 'talking to'. Jumpers tend to think 'oh the DZO or S&TA will take care of it'. The problem is that the DZO or S&TA might not have seen the infraction or was not informed about it. All it takes to fix, is someone telling the DZO, S&TA or organizers that so-n-so did such-n-such and they 'need improvement' in their behavior and the DZO or organizers enforcing proper safety policies specific to the circumstance.

The fallacy of thinking that some USPA mandated rule can eliminate reckless behavior is absurd.

Quote

Age has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge, learning, respect, attitude, or personality.
__________________________________________________

That's just a dumb statement. When I went to Teachers' College we spent a long time learning JUST HOW age effects knowledge, learning, attitude and personality.

That evolution doesn't stop just because someone reaches the'age of majority'. Just ask the companies that provide automobile insurance about the effect of age on knowledge, learning, attitude and personality.

Young guys behind the wheel have been endangering themselves and others since junior league chariot-racing in the Circus Maxi mus.... (said tongue-in-cheek, to be sure).

Certainly age may not be the only factor, but it can be an issue. And it's the guy under a small, fast canopy who's more likely to cause someone else danger then the one under a slow accuracy canopy trying to get set up on the bowl, who at least everyone can keep an eye on.

I couldn't agree with you more skypuppy!

I finally figured out why us old guys start to put on weight...
Don't get as much exercise when ya quit PULLING dumb shit and PUSHING the limits.

Swooping is not a crime - correct.

It's not a right either. The DZO has no obligation to lose money on low passes, and risk the extra liability to their business and income from potentially reckless behavior.

Some DZ's have a separate area for swoopers. If this is the case, there's no problem. If swoopers have to mingle with other traffic, then they don't get to do 270's.

Despite the rhetoric, this isn't exactly on a par with Rosa Parks sitting up front on the bus. Just expect not to be able to do a 270 on every load if you didn't get out on your own low.

Lastly, get over yourselves. The average whuffo seems way more impressed by nice soft stand up landings than by aggresive swooping. It's not really attracting new jumpers into the sport, rather just giving them an option once they've been in it for a while.

Lastly, get over yourselves. The average whuffo seems way more impressed by nice soft stand up landings than by aggresive swooping.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Similarly, most pre-tandem student is scared by fast landing canopies.
Usually, I teach tandem students the basics of exits - at our mock-up overlooking the swoop lane.

I have had to reassure hundreds of students that tandems land half that fast.

"It's getting off the point."

I fail to see how:
pushing for those who are arrogant, and unsafe should not be tolerated.
insisting that EVERYONE take some canopy training.
figting to get EVERYONE to follow the current rules.
Claiming that is up to each and every one of us...
is off the point. But so be it if you feel that way.

"Swooping is not a crime."
Nope, sure aint.

"Swooping into traffic is culpable negligence at best."
NEVER have I ever clamied that "swooping into traffic" is safe. EVER.
Negligence? Could be, so is running a yellow light, not de-icing your steps, and other careless activities. But culpable negligence is off the point. It's a result of those that know, FAILING to act.
It takes DZOs, S&TAs, staff, and the skydiving coumminty acting on those who would be "negligible". That is prevention.

'Last time I checked, low man (or woman) STILL had right of way, but being right doesn't help if you are dead."
You bet, never have I once EVER suggested different. EVER. If you're below me, its your right, but dont hold in brakes and make 'S' turns on final and screw the canopies stacked up behind you. Mutual understanding and respect, it will take us a long way.


"Put your own life at risk all you want, BUT if people won't voluntarily refrain from endangering others, then rules are needed. The evidence suggests that rules are needed."

We put our lives at risk every time be get on that plane, every time we exit. We assess the risk, and we decide. Should you have to assess the risk of someone flying their canopy into you? Nope. Even if all HP landings stopped would you STILL have to assess that risk? You bet.
There are rules in place, enforcement of the current rules will go a long way. How many people fly the prescribed patteren for your DZ every time? How many chase the wind indicator? How many use brakes or 'S' turns on final?
Education will take you the rest of the way. You couldnt calculate the movement of a body around another until someone showed you the way. How can we fly safely unless there is someone to show us how varied our canopies fly and what are accepted as safe techniques?

You dont want me killing you, and I dont want you killing me. We have that in common.

Quote

I think you do not understand how discipline in skydiving works.

I get the feeling that you and others think that the 'USPA Cops' would suddenly appear and yank memberships on the spot to 'control' reckless behavior or suddenly educate all about proper procedures. It does not work that way.

I *am* aware of that fact, thank you. I seem to recall something in the SIM about the Board of Directors being involved in a license revocation.

Where in my post is the sentence saying that I expect the BOD to magically appear out of nowhere and "yank memberships on the spot"?

I *do* see where I mentioned the S&TA / DZO grounding or kicking out jumpers for flagrant violations...did you actually READ what I wrote?

What do YOU feel the next step should be after they (S&TA/DZO) do that? You seem to be advocating more talking...which doesn't seem to be working for the worst offenders.

I don't know I had a real nice swoop that a whuffo watched whom I did not even know, and he came up to me with his eyes round as silver dollars and said, "that was Fu$%#ng awesome" I think they all bring the jumpers in just depends what type of possible canidate you are talking to.

Quote

Quote

I think you do not understand how discipline in skydiving works.

I get the feeling that you and others think that the 'USPA Cops' would suddenly appear and yank memberships on the spot to 'control' reckless behavior or suddenly educate all about proper procedures. It does not work that way.

I *am* aware of that fact, thank you. I seem to recall something in the SIM about the Board of Directors being involved in a license revocation.

Licenses to my knowledge, have never been suspended. What would that mean anyway? But that's beside the point.
Membership and/or rating(s) are the privileges taken away.

The procedural details are in the Governance Manual Section 1-6, available online.
Some salient points are:
S&TA's and RDs cannot suspend individual memberships.
S&TA's can temporarily, pending formal disciplinary actions, suspend ratings for persons that do something dangerous while exercising the right of the rating.
Regional Directors can temporarily, pending formal disciplinary actions, suspend ratings for persons that do something dangerous while exercising the right of the rating.
Regional Directors can temporarily, pending formal disciplinary actions, suspend group memberships.
The USPA Executive Committee can suspend membership or ratings in-between meetings. That action has to be approved by the full board at the next meeting.
It is the full board that actually has the final authority to suspend membership and ratings. This is done after formal disciplinary actions have been followed, usually several months later.

Quote

Where in my post is the sentence saying that I expect the BOD to magically appear out of nowhere and "yank memberships on the spot"?

You said "Having it as a BSR puts teeth into the punishment. ... With the BSR, he could've put the blame on the big bad USPA. For that matter, USPA could have pulled his license and any certs until he straightened out. "

USPA is not a collection of safety cops. Whether you like it or not or even agree, USPA does NOT have the force of law to force anything, including BSRs upon anyone. USPA and its individual and group members pledge to abide by the BSRs.
When they don't, it is up to the locals to stand up and say that ain't right and do something about it. The only entities that have the legal right to demand a certain behavior are the DZO or an organizer, restricted to the jumps they organize.

Quote

I *do* see where I mentioned the S&TA / DZO grounding or kicking out jumpers for flagrant violations...did you actually READ what I wrote?

Yes, I did, several times. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote several times.

Quote

What do YOU feel the next step should be after they (S&TA/DZO) do that? You seem to be advocating more talking...which doesn't seem to be working for the worst offenders.

More talking can go a long way. As I said already, that is one place that needs improvement by all jumpers. DZO/organizer enforcement of their local policies for each specific situation is where the rubber meets the road.

.

Yes, I see where you advocate talking to them... I've also read posts about people talking to Danny about his swooping, which he didn't listen to.

We're right back around to my original point. If you have a jumper that HAS been talked to and HAS been grounded or booted off a DZ... what's to keep him from going to the next place down the road and doing the same stuff? HOW do we put teeth into the punishment so that it's not WORTH being zapped on it?

Quote

"It's getting off the point."

I fail to see how:
pushing for those who are arrogant, and unsafe should not be tolerated.
insisting that EVERYONE take some canopy training.
figting to get EVERYONE to follow the current rules.
Claiming that is up to each and every one of us...
is off the point. But so be it if you feel that way.

.

The post to which this was addressed was yours concerning college, age, statistics etc. Please try to pay attention.

Swooping is not a crime. IT IS NOT A RIGHT EITHER. Low person STILL has right of way.

Why do we have BSRs at all, if rules do not make a difference to people's behavior?

I don't know I had a real nice swoop that a whuffo watched whom I did not even know, and he came up to me with his eyes round as silver dollars and said, "that was Fu$%#ng awesome" I think they all bring the jumpers in just depends what type of possible canidate you are talking to.
------------------------------------------------------------

Of the students I see, at least 10 are scared of the speed of our video-guys' and others' swoop approaches for every 1 that thinks it's neat....

And I would say that the ratio is actually much higher than that, maybe 20-25 to one.

I kinda see your point, but I guess I just don't really care for swoop bashers. I don't bash on other disciplines wether I activley participate in those or not. Everything is cool with me so long as everyone is jumping a lot and havin fun.

Quote

We all know swooping is the leading cause of death....

this misstatement discredits your entire post

Quote

No, I'm not saying that I'm lumping all swoopers into one category. But, I am saying that when you fly a conservative pattern, you're low in the pattern and you almost get taken out by someone that refuses to do anything but hook every time, it truly sucks. Respect is necessary for your fellow jumper in the landing pattern and knowing when to abort the option of a hook turn so that you're not invading someone elses personal space is vital. Over the past few years, it's become an epidemic of new jumpers that insist on making a hook turn, even if they're going through the pattern. Many of those individuals are under 25 yrs. old (and have been in the sport short term) and have the attitude that they have a right to do hook turns, no matter who the cut off.

how about the 'slow and low accuracy relic' (see i can throw just as many 'push button phrases' as you without adding anything useful to the discussion) does multiple S turns to hit the peas EVERY TIME, thereby consuming and cutting off 4x the area he/she should to land??

that sucks too.. and happens JUST AS OFTEN, by those who think THEY 'own' the sky.

Swooping isnt the problem, lack of awareness and consideration for others IS the problem.. and it is NOTHING NEW. Get off the 'old' vs 'young' horse. It only impedes discussion