Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries

 


in2jumping  (C License)

Apr 17, 2011, 9:49 AM
Post #1 of 153 (3969 views)
Shortcut
A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries Can't Post

1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

This would fill current non-existing canopy training gap and would start new skydivers off with a solid canopy control foundation.

2) Implement Brian Germain's downsizing chart as a BSR.

Would help slow down the existing out of control downsizing trend, would assist in reducing number of jumpers flying around with their heads up their ass because they can barely control their canopy and would reduce number of non CC canopy injuries and deaths.

3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not over take them.

Greatly reduces chances of canopy collisions.

4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

Reduces the chance of canopies overtaking each other, enhances separation and helps with the current problem of wide varying canopy speeds.

5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated pass for any type of HP landing.

This would suck for swoopers but when 62% of the canopy collisions over the last 20 years involved HP landings and with swooping only making up a small portion of the sport, something needs to be done here.


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 17, 2011, 9:58 AM
Post #2 of 153 (3932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Require...Implement...rule...Segregate...Ban

Your solution requires a lot more regulations. I am not sure this is the answer. I would propose more enforcement of existing regulations.

Of course, until Perris release the facts of these last two incidents it is going to be hard to truly know what would have prevented them.


Premier Remster  (C License)

Apr 17, 2011, 11:35 AM
Post #3 of 153 (3883 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I would propose more enforcement of existing regulations.

Enforcement of which regulations exactly?


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 17, 2011, 12:09 PM
Post #4 of 153 (3862 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I would propose more enforcement of existing regulations.

Enforcement of which regulations exactly?


"Don't do nuthin' dumb" Wink


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Apr 17, 2011, 12:16 PM
Post #5 of 153 (3857 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

For #3 to be even sorta kinda achievable, you'd have to significantly narrow the range of wingloadings on a particular load or start doing exit order in order of wingloading. Crazy It's not at all unusual to have wingloadings ranging from 0.8 to over 2.0 on a single load and those jumpers are scattered throughout the exit order.


AggieDave  (D License)

Apr 17, 2011, 6:02 PM
Post #6 of 153 (3758 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

The solution is a fundamental shift in what is considered acceptable by the general jumping public. It takes the long-time jumpers and DZ staff to set the example, though.

For instance, how many people in the sport think it is cool to suck it down for a low pull? How many people widely accept big-low toggle hook turns?

It takes a shift in which people who fly their canopy unsafely are shunned and treated as outcasts.

That isn't just wanna-be swoopers (real swoopers don't swoop in traffic). This is also the old RW-guys on Stilettos flying like crap through a pattern. This is also the low time jumpers who think it is cool to spiral their canopy down. This includes a LOT of people.

Training won't fix attitudes. BSR's won't fix acceptance. FAA can/will fix it all and we won't jump like we do anymore!


Deisel  (D 31661)

Apr 17, 2011, 7:12 PM
Post #7 of 153 (3719 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

So who would enforce any of this? And what happens to someone that violates these or any other rule?


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Apr 17, 2011, 7:38 PM
Post #8 of 153 (3699 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

Some would already argue that there is a fair amount of canopy training required in order to get your a.

In reply to:
2) Implement Brian Germain's downsizing chart as a BSR.

The problem with this is that it's extremely difficult to enforce and some people actually should be allowed to fly at higher loadings with the correct training. Think about this: what happens when you're loaded at 1.3 at 300 jumps and over winter you put on 15 pounds? Who's to know? What about wearing weights? It's just really difficult to enforce.

In reply to:
3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not over take them.

Completely impractical. Even if your previous recommendations were taken into account, you're still going to have people loaded a lot higher coming in behind others and the fact of the matter is that we're flying gravity powered gliders, hanging in brakes won't always work or be any safer.

In reply to:
4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

Pretty much already in place when it comes to swoop landings and may not be having the desired affect. This might be worth pursuing but then you end up with a problem with HP landings and regular landings in the same area again. Just because someone is loading their canopy, does that mean they need to land with swoopers? Maybe 3 landing areas would be in order but where do you go to learn to swoop? There are a lot of competing interests that need to be considered. Some people are going to lose out (maybe me) but that's better than killing someone or being killed.

In reply to:
5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated pass for any type of HP landing.

According to the USPA group member pledge, all DZs must have a separate landing area for swooping, turns greater than X (depends on the DZ) are not permitted in the main area. Problem is that by lack of enforcement, they still happen and even if they weren't what's to stop people colliding when swooping?

We're all people, we make mistakes, I'm not sure there's any way to rule out deaths under canopies no matter how well they're flying at the time. I think that if we take the time to enforce the separate HP landing area and stop people swooping through the regular pattern, that'd go some way to making us safer I think. Who does the enforcement? We do. If you see something shitty going on then call it out. I have and I've been called out when I've made a mistake.

The fact is, like DocPop said, we still don't know what the scenario was in either of the incidents at Perris, until we find out that there was some flagrant abuse of the rules then demanding the rules be changed doesn't make a lot of sense. We need to think about what is going on and make a reasoned effort to resolve issues that we can, not knee-jerk and throw more rules at something that we can't even define.

Obviously this is the opinion of someone with only 400 jumps, who jumps at the Ranch no less (lol) so take it for what it's worth.


Throttlebender  (C 39112)

Apr 17, 2011, 8:23 PM
Post #9 of 153 (3666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Slightly different track on the topic, but what about canopy colors?
I've been thinking about this a bit lately. My wife flies a dark purple(eggplant) canopy and I actually have a difficult time finding her if she is below me. I bought a used canopy that has a black topskin which is also obviously quite difficult to spot against ground clutter.
For those jumping in desert areas this might not be as much of an issue, but here in Ohio, I can state with confidence that these darker colors are challenging to spot against dark green foliage.
I like a sexy custom colored canopy as much as anyone, but perhaps marketing bright, highly visible canopies would aid in the solution.
Do we know what colors the lower jumpers in these recent accidents were flying?


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Apr 17, 2011, 9:00 PM
Post #10 of 153 (3647 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Throttlebender] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I like a sexy custom colored canopy as much as anyone, but perhaps marketing bright, highly visible canopies would aid in the solution.

My first two canopies were bought used. Did about 200 jumps on a Spectre with black/blackberry (purple) and teal. That one wasn't too bad. Then I bought a Pilot that was black with red ribs. Putting 300+ jumps on that convinced me of one thing - I don't ever want to buy another dark canopy. That thing could go into stealth mode.

My current canopy was bought new and I picked orange and yellow so I'd be highly visible. Smile It's not all matchy-matchy with my gear, but those colors might just help keep me alive.


(This post was edited by NWFlyer on Apr 17, 2011, 9:25 PM)


Throttlebender  (C 39112)

Apr 17, 2011, 9:21 PM
Post #11 of 153 (3638 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWFlyer] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

That pretty much my line of thinking. I just bought my canopy and am not willing to part with it quite yet, but I can assure you that my next will be as bright as I can possibly imagine. I'll of course try and design it with as much swagger as I can muster, but am definitely seeing the overall benefits of being HIGHLY visibleWink


Beachbum  (B License)

Apr 17, 2011, 9:37 PM
Post #12 of 153 (3630 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

#3 ... others have mentioned wing loading disparity, but also, some canopies are just flat faster. I fly a 7 cell (Triathlon), and I think that almost any 9 cell at a reasonable loading will overtake me!


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Apr 18, 2011, 1:29 AM
Post #13 of 153 (3591 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

This would fill current non-existing canopy training gap and would start new skydivers off with a solid canopy control foundation.

2) Implement Brian Germain's downsizing chart as a BSR.

Would help slow down the existing out of control downsizing trend, would assist in reducing number of jumpers flying around with their heads up their ass because they can barely control their canopy and would reduce number of non CC canopy injuries and deaths.

3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not over take them.

Greatly reduces chances of canopy collisions.

4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

Reduces the chance of canopies overtaking each other, enhances separation and helps with the current problem of wide varying canopy speeds.

5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated pass for any type of HP landing.

This would suck for swoopers but when 62% of the canopy collisions over the last 20 years involved HP landings and with swooping only making up a small portion of the sport, something needs to be done here.
There is no solution fits all cases.


thrillstalker  (C 40678)

Apr 18, 2011, 7:50 AM
Post #14 of 153 (3483 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

1. i agree, stf now includes a flight one canopy course with the a license package. it is not required, but it's a start.

2. more rules... i think this will just piss a lot of people off. holding everyone's hand who flies a canopy is going to be a lot of time and effort for the person who has to do it.

3. seems like having to fly in brakes to avoid passing someone in the landing pattern might cause more harm than good.

4. if the lz is big enough go for it.

5. this would cost the dz a whole bunch of money. a go around cost around $150 in an otter.

maybe only allow swooping from hop n pops??? this could separate hp from traditional landings without costing the dz any money.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 18, 2011, 8:14 AM
Post #15 of 153 (3469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

Better would be to require that every jumper, regardless of experience, take a basic survival skills course. Personally, I think this could be a B license thing; let's not make the A license even more expensive to get to.

In reply to:
2) Implement Brian Germain's downsizing chart as a BSR.

Some folks have been asking for that for damn near ten years now. Don't hold your breath.

In reply to:
3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not over take them.

What if the lower canopy is very lightly loaded and your canopy is fairly highly loaded? How are you going to keep from overtaking them?

In reply to:
4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

USPA group member dz's have already pledged to do this.

In reply to:
5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated pass for any type of HP landing.

In the past two and a half years, I have personal knowledge of two canopy collisions that occurred shortly after break off from RW jumps; I even got to watch one of them go in. Both collisions occurred on skydives larger than a 4 way.

There have also been fatalities at many recent big way events. While they were "caused" by a variety of things (gear issues, medical problems), they all happened at big way events. It's possible that big ways are too stressful, causing heart attacks and equipment malfunctions.

Should we ban groups larger than a 4 way because 100% of the above incidents occurred on skydives larger than a 4 way?

Us versus them solves nothing - you only have to look at the US government to figure that out. The only solution that is going to work long term is one that is worked out cooperatively, with input from everybody involved.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2011, 8:17 AM
Post #16 of 153 (3467 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

Good idea, although splitting it between A, B and C might allow a more comprehensive course at each level.

>3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not
>over take them.

Can't see how this can work. Let's say you have three groups:

1) 8-way. Camera guy has a 2:1 loaded canopy. Jumpers range from 2:1 to .8:1.

2) 8-way, no camera. 2:1 to .8:1 loadings.

3) Freeflyers. Loadings range from 2.5 to 1 to 1.6 to 1.

How do you put them out safely?

>4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast
>canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

Not a bad idea.

>5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules
>that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated
>pass for any type of HP landing.

Also a good idea. A separate jump run is the only way I can think of to guarantee that a straight-in jumper will not be taken out by a swooper.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 18, 2011, 8:23 AM
Post #17 of 153 (3459 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
A separate jump run is the only way I can think of to guarantee that a straight-in jumper will not be taken out by a swooper.

How can that guarantee that I'm not going to be taken out by some non-swooper spiraling into the pattern? Or by someone turning 90 degrees into me?


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2011, 8:32 AM
Post #18 of 153 (3454 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How can that guarantee that I'm not going to be taken out by some non-swooper spiraling into the pattern? Or by someone turning 90 degrees into me?

You can't, but then again people don't want to hear that. They want to believe they're perfectly safe if they make this "someone else's problem".

Hell, I watched 2 tandems almost have a collision because of poor pattern flight and, on the same day, I watched standard large canopy traffic, all flying patterns, intersect one another at various points on their base and final legs - at least one being within 50 feet of the other, and both oblivious to one another. To top it all off we had two tandems land in the high performance area (for no good reason), right in front of the swoop entry gates.

Ian


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 18, 2011, 9:34 AM
Post #19 of 153 (3411 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You can't, but then again people don't want to hear that. They want to believe they're perfectly safe if they make this "someone else's problem".

Exactly. Banning swooping or limiting it to specific times or passes isn't going to keep me safe while flying my traditional pattern, no matter how much I'd like to put my head back into the sand.

Landing is a team sport. Let's all be on the same team.


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Apr 18, 2011, 10:03 AM
Post #20 of 153 (3393 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
You can't, but then again people don't want to hear that. They want to believe they're perfectly safe if they make this "someone else's problem".

Exactly. Banning swooping or limiting it to specific times or passes isn't going to keep me safe while flying my traditional pattern, no matter how much I'd like to put my head back into the sand.

Landing is a team sport. Let's all be on the same team.

Closest call I've had so far was with someone else doing a traditional pattern. It's not just a high-performance landing problem.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2011, 1:52 PM
Post #21 of 153 (3335 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>How can that guarantee that I'm not going to be taken out by some non-swooper
>spiraling into the pattern?

By enforcing a no-more-than-90-degree turn rule in the pattern (as Perris is now doing.)

>Or by someone turning 90 degrees into me?

Someone turning 90 degrees at a time is not a swooper.

Are you asking "how can I protect myself from being killed by someone trying to kill me under canopy?" If so the answer is "you can't."


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 18, 2011, 2:34 PM
Post #22 of 153 (3315 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Or by someone turning 90 degrees into me?

Someone turning 90 degrees at a time is not a swooper.

Right. But s/he can still kill me.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 18, 2011, 5:47 PM
Post #23 of 153 (3264 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Right. But s/he can still kill me.

Absolutely. And they can do that in freefall, under canopy or after landing. Heck, they don't even have to be skydiving to kill you.

But to get back to the original issue - the only way you can guarantee that you will not be taken out by someone doing a high performance landing is to ensure that the people doing high performance landings are separated in time and distance from you. That's why separate jump runs (and separate landing areas) can reduce collisions.

It's not a complete solution to the problem of people killing you; nothing is. But it will help reduce accidents like the ones we've seen over the past few weeks.


(This post was edited by billvon on Apr 18, 2011, 5:47 PM)


DrewEckhardt  (D 28461)

Apr 18, 2011, 6:39 PM
Post #24 of 153 (3250 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the right of way and you must not over take them.

Are we going to implement this with a ban on canopies loaded over 1.2 pounds per square foot? That's as about as high as you can go and be guaranteed not to over-take some one jumping classic accuracy wing loadings who refrains from braked approaches.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 6:47 AM
Post #25 of 153 (3170 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's not a complete solution to the problem of people killing you; nothing is. But it will help reduce accidents like the ones we've seen over the past few weeks.

Rumor has it that Friday's incident was a 90 degree turn.

The "original issue" is not swoopers killing non-swoopers. The original issue is skydivers dying in canopy collisions. Regardless of how the people involved were landing. A skydiver is a skydiver. A canopy collision is a canopy collision. Dead is dead.

Landing is a team sport, and swoopers and non-swoopers are not on opposing teams. We are all on the same team. The opponent is the possibility of a collision, not the people who land differently than I do.


nigel99  (D 1)

Apr 19, 2011, 7:26 AM
Post #26 of 153 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's not a complete solution to the problem of people killing you; nothing is. But it will help reduce accidents like the ones we've seen over the past few weeks.

Rumor has it that Friday's incident was a 90 degree turn.

The "original issue" is not swoopers killing non-swoopers. The original issue is skydivers dying in canopy collisions. Regardless of how the people involved were landing. A skydiver is a skydiver. A canopy collision is a canopy collision. Dead is dead.

Landing is a team sport, and swoopers and non-swoopers are not on opposing teams. We are all on the same team. The opponent is the possibility of a collision, not the people who land differently than I do.

With higher wingloading, regardless of approach, closing speeds are much higher. That must have an impact on peoples ability to react appropriately. At a 60MPH closing speed, which is not very fast, it is 88foot per second. That requires a significant amount of forward planning and anticipation. Perhaps a proper review of current procedure is in order? We have detailed analysis of freefall separation and fairly well established rules in place. If you take 3 seconds to scan the 180 degrees in front of you, which seems a reasonable amount of time, then on a "slow" canopy you need to be anticipating collisions nearly 300 feet away - if my maths are right.


(This post was edited by nigel99 on Apr 19, 2011, 7:54 AM)


dninness  (D 19617)

Apr 19, 2011, 8:38 AM
Post #27 of 153 (1053 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Landing is a team sport. Let's all be on the same team.

Y'know, I think I might make a big sign for the hangar/manifest area that says that... Wouldn't hurt..


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 19, 2011, 8:48 AM
Post #28 of 153 (1051 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Landing is a team sport, and swoopers and non-swoopers are not on opposing teams.
>We are all on the same team.

I agree. But unfortunately experience has shown that we can't all be on the same grass at the same time.


shropshire  (C License)

Apr 19, 2011, 9:04 AM
Post #29 of 153 (1043 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dninness] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Landing is a team sport. Let's all be on the same team.

Y'know, I think I might make a big sign for the hangar/manifest area that says that... Wouldn't hurt..

I'm worried about folks Hi-5ing me at 200ftUnsure


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 9:21 AM
Post #30 of 153 (1039 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Landing is a team sport, and swoopers and non-swoopers are not on opposing teams.
>We are all on the same team.

I agree. But unfortunately experience has shown that we can't all be on the same grass at the same time.


...the Icky Shuffle is really a PLF!


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 9:48 AM
Post #31 of 153 (1033 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But unfortunately experience has shown that we can't all be on the same grass at the same time.

That's why we have separate landing areas for swoop and traditional approaches, right? Those doing traditional approaches can all land in the same grass and those doing swoop approaches can all land in their grass, after the same load, if they work together.

But again, that's asking too much. It's easier to demonize one segment of the community than it is to admit that "we" might be as much or more a part of the problem as "they" are.


in2jumping  (C License)

Apr 19, 2011, 11:07 AM
Post #32 of 153 (1012 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DrewEckhardt] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the right of way and you must not over take them.

Are we going to implement this with a ban on canopies loaded over 1.2 pounds per square foot? That's as about as high as you can go and be guaranteed not to over-take some one jumping classic accuracy wing loadings who refrains from braked approaches.

Hence the idea of "4) Segregated canopy landing areas" for faster and slower canopies in an attempt to keep vertical and horizontal separation. Kind of like we do now when exiting the aircraft requiring separation to avoid collisions.
The whole idea is to try and bring some control to the existing chaos in the sky. Though this would not be a perfect solution I think would help.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 19, 2011, 3:35 PM
Post #33 of 153 (969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm only going to comment on 1)...others have covered the other 4.

I personally think more training is key, but it needs to be implemented during the B and C license phase. During the A-license phase we already throw a bunch of canopy exercises at the students. Then we make them do those exercises after they are already overloaded with freefall work, and we give them a huge canopy that doesn't do all of the exercises well anyaway. It is difficult to learn in that environment.

My observation is that by the time folks are ready for a B-license, they are much less overloaded by skydiving plus they usually have their own gear. I think this is the appropriate time to focus on canopy training.

Doing it again at the C or D license level allows enough time to pass for the essential skills to get thoroughly practiced and absorbed, plus a lot of folks are downsizing by this time.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 19, 2011, 3:45 PM
Post #34 of 153 (961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Landing is a team sport. Let's all be on the same team.

I keep seeing you write this. I couldn't agree more; I'm amazed more people aren't hopping on the wagon.

What do all successful teams do? THEY COMMUNICATE. We should too. We already take time to plan our exit orders to minimize freefall collisions. Why are we not taking time to plan for landing? The safest air I fly in (aside from being alone in the sky) is when we've thoroughly planned the landings. Personally I find a single planeload (even an otter) of traffic can be very simple to navigate if folks have planned it out and follow the plan.

It boggles my mind that our community continually overlooks this. It seems so simple and obvious to me but yet it never gets done. As far as I am concerned it should be standard practice.


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 19, 2011, 3:50 PM
Post #35 of 153 (962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I personally think more training is key....

Training in what exactly?

I am not sure it is ignorance or inability that is the issue (the two things that training might address). I think it is more a problem of "it won't happen to me".

Perris accident #1 "involved a jumper with 17,000 jumps and another with 8,000 jumps, both very proficient and with very little other traffic around them." (from the USPA Call To Action). What extra training would have made a difference?

Enforcement of the correct behavior is the solution (as others have mentioned), if you believe, as I do, that people know what is right, they just don't do it.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 19, 2011, 4:06 PM
Post #36 of 153 (953 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I personally agree that the heart of the canopy collision problem lies in complacency and the 'it won't happen to me' attitude. Prior to 2006 canopy collisions happened but with much less frequency. What changed? Several things, in my opinion, but I think as a whole the biggest contributing factor is complacency.

It's just like how otherwise safe drivers sometimes get distracted and run a red light. It happens, purely because someone stops paying attention.

Having said that, I think the skydiving community as a whole lacks knowledge in canopy piloting. Sometimes even the multi-thousand jump folks. Just spend some time watching the landings at any DZ and you'll see all kinds of carnage.

In the specific case of canopy collisions, I think pattern discipline is lacking. I see all kinds of stupid s*** in the pattern; go to any DZ and watch and I think you will see the same. Folks need to learn how to handle themselves in the pattern.

I also think people are not thinking ahead when it comes to traffic. I stated in an earlier post that I think navigating a single planeload of traffic is usually fairly simple; a huge part of that is understanding that negotiating traffic is done in several steps. Most of those steps occurr before entering the pattern, some ocurr before even leaving the airplane. These days I think folks wait until the pattern to start thinking about traffic. By then there are fewer options.

I think teaching folks to think through traffic before and during the skydive will deconflict a lot of situations.


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 4:18 PM
Post #37 of 153 (945 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I also think people are not thinking ahead when it comes to traffic. I stated in an earlier post that I think navigating a single planeload of traffic is usually fairly simple; a huge part of that is understanding that negotiating traffic is done in several steps. Most of those steps occurr before entering the pattern, some ocurr before even leaving the airplane. These days I think folks wait until the pattern to start thinking about traffic. By then there are fewer options.

A lot of what we teach our students, and what is taught in (currently-optional) advanced canopy training classes is focused on improving individual skills. Accuracy, smooth landings, etc. Accuracy of course is a big component of "playing nice in traffic" but it's far from the whole picture. I think you're onto something here - that our canopy training needs to be much more holistic and "team" focused.


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 19, 2011, 4:27 PM
Post #38 of 153 (940 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I think we're agreeing in different ways!

Flying a pattern is not rocket surgery. Plan three points in the air and connect them by smoothly flying your canopy between them. Do this while paying attention to everyone else around you and Bingo! You flew a pattern!

Having said that, I think you are right about the value of educating people about where those points should be and how to connect them smoothly. Anyone with a license should know how to do it, but it certainly can't hurt to spell it out again.

Another question - I fly my turns in the pattern as flat/braked turns for two reasons:

1. It makes them slow and avoidable
2. It means I practice flat turns every jump

These are not done in deep brakes, maybe 1/4-1/2 brakes, but my goal is to keep the wing right above my head. I also fly my pattern with a little bit of brakes applied because this allows me to either speed up (go to full flight) or slow down (use more brakes) according to what is happening around me.

What do you guys think of these as recommendations?


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 19, 2011, 4:53 PM
Post #39 of 153 (932 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Flying a pattern is not rocket surgery. Plan three points in the air and connect them by smoothly flying your canopy between them. Do this while paying attention to everyone else around you and Bingo! You flew a pattern!

No doubt. It is really simple. Yet like I said, go to just about any DZ and watch, and you see all sorts of stuff from all sorts of people. Sometimes even multi-thousand jump jumpers flying conservatively do stupid stuff.

Our skydiving community does not really ever teach or impress pattern flying once the student phase is over. And guess what? People do stupid s*** in the pattern.

Skybytch is fond of saying 'landing is a team sport'. It is, but we don't teach it that way. We don't encourage it. We assume everyone will just do it right becasue we taught it during the A-license. And then we are amazed that so many people don't do it right.


Chiquita  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 5:03 PM
Post #40 of 153 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's some ideas that I have. They are pretty much all things that we can all do a little to help out with, or a person or group can be assigned if so desired. Personally, I think the problem is that we don't seem to talk about what people are going to do under canopy. I know there is no way to dirt dive it exactly, but having at least an idea of what the battle field might look like, makes it a lot easier to get through. When new jumpers show up make sure someone (instructor, coach, or s&ta preferrably) talks to them about what is considered proper canopy flying at that particular drop zone (people seem to think we were all trained the same but we weren’t), don’t expect them to just know or figure it out.

If we would police ourselves, as a group, the way we should be, we will not need new government regulations, laws, bsr's, or anything. We just need to start communicating about what we are planning to do on landing and speaking up about blatant violations. We also should start taking responsibility for ourselves and stop letting those in charge not do something when people do something that could seriously harm themselves or others.

So here are my suggestions:

1. When people manifest have them say what they are planning to do on the jump, what they would LIKE to do on landing and where, and what color(s) their canopy is. (If you know what to look for, you also know what to stay away from)

2. Organize the entire load, including loading the plane and the landings, before people even get near the plane. If things work out right, the people that want to swoop can (if you know someone is swooping and where, they are, it’s much easier to avoid them). If anyone does anything that they did not plan (unless for safety reasons of course) or were told they could not do, ground them for at least the day, no exceptions.

3. If something is not done, don't manifest. If enough people don't manifest, something will have to be done. When they are not turning loads, they would be foolish, imho, to not do something to one person that is keeping potentially 5-10+people plus from jumping (at some places that is enough to slow loads dramatically).

If you don't think your safety is worth standing up for, then how can you expect someone else to care enough to do something about it. If you care more about doing the jump, regardless of who is on it or what they are potentially going to do that could harm someone, why should the people that run the place not care more about something else as well.

Will you miss a jump or two? Maybe. Will a record attempt not be done? Maybe (if people cared more about their safety then the jump), though I think if enough people did it at the same time, something would done. Will a dzo or two tell you to f-off? Probably, but your safety should be worth it (see above).

But honestly, if people would stop screaming and yelling on here about it and actually take some action (and not necessarily just using my suggestions), I personally think things would change. But then again, maybe I'm just a dreamer with my head in the clouds.

So anyway, there you have it. Thoughts?

P.S. (I wrote this yesterday and didn’t have time to post it) I see some people are talking about taking action. But we will have to see how much gets done, especially before it becomes too regulated.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 19, 2011, 5:03 PM
Post #41 of 153 (924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I also want to emphasize two other points:

1) In most of these discussions, we talk about traffic as if it's a black/white, on/off issue. Either there is no traffic (you are the only one in the sky) or there is traffic (at least one other person is out with you). There is a spectrum of traffic, ranging from one person in the air to multiple plane loads. You have to learn to adapt to the traffic at hand.

2)Negotiating traffic starts on the ground, before you even jump. There are things you do on the ground, things you do in the plane, and things you do between opening and the start of the pattern to negotiate traffic. Do those steps right and by the time you get to the pattern traffic is a much smaller issue.

If we ignore those early steps and wait until the pattern to worry about traffic, then we are left with whatever we get and not much time to do anything about it. USPA is harping on 'Seperation in space and time'. I think that's great, but in my view, achieving that seperation is way easier if we deal with it BEFORE getting to the pattern.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 19, 2011, 5:11 PM
Post #42 of 153 (919 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chiquita] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Organize the entire load, including loading the plane and the landings, before people even get near the plane. If things work out right, the people that want to swoop can (if you know someone is swooping and where, they are, it’s much easier to avoid them).

I think having each load organize a plan for the landing is the single most realistic and effective way to reduce the risk of canopy collisions. Come up with a plan and follow it. This wouldn't even require manifest getting involved...jumpers on the load can do this themselves.

Traffic at major airports is handled by ATC telling people what to do and when. ATC provides the plan. We don't have the luxury of ATC, but we DO have the ability to all talk to each other before exit and come up with that plan. This seems so obvious to me it's angering we don't have it ingrained in our culture.


Chiquita  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 6:08 PM
Post #43 of 153 (896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I didn't mean for manifest to do the organizing. I think that if it was on the load sheet for each load, before loading the plane, have someone or everyone look at it and come up with a game plan. Maybe assign a load organizer for each load just to organize the loading and landing of jumpers, that way you have a deciding voice and hopefully less bickering.

I have often wondering why no one ever seemed to talk about their plan for landing, except for some people, like teams and friends that are jumping together.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 19, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #44 of 153 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chiquita] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I have often wondering why no one ever seemed to talk about their plan for landing, except for some people, like teams and friends that are jumping together.

Exactly. It makes no sense, especially in light of the problems we are having.


jsaxton  (D 26818)

Apr 19, 2011, 6:39 PM
Post #45 of 153 (889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am not sure it is ignorance or inability that is the issue (the two things that training might address). I think it is more a problem of "it won't happen to me".

that's called "arrogance"


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Apr 19, 2011, 7:34 PM
Post #46 of 153 (880 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

We talk about landing direction at our DZ and what people are doing. But one of the issues we seem to have is people randomly deciding to land however and people being cocks when you're trying to work out direction. They seem to think it's hilarious to say that they're landing into the wind. I make a point of agreeing the direction when I'm on loads and then we announce and confirm again in the plane. Even before this latest incident I'd been talking to people about landing contrary to the agreed direction.

I think that there are two sides to this "team sport" called landing. One is communicating what we're doing and the other is calling people out who don't do what's agreed. That doesn't mean storming up and calling them an asshole (although, that might work for some, it's generally accepted to not be the best method). That means calling *everyone* out, including me.




airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 19, 2011, 8:20 PM
Post #48 of 153 (860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Practical, positive and simple...I like your ideas!


obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 19, 2011, 10:21 PM
Post #49 of 153 (836 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

About further training at the B and C licence stage.

There's an old saying "Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks."

This applies very much to skydivers who have reached the "bulletproof" stage, and don't take kindly to advice from someone else. We all know them....

Basic canopy flying skills need to be hammered in at the earliest possible stage, even if at that point, they are not flying HP canopies. Good flying habits are easier to instill because a novice is more receptive to advice.

Another point about DZ landing officers....how about a card system like in many sports, where an infraction under canopy results in a yellow card, another earns a red...resulting in grounding. Of course the DZ rules(and sanctioning system) have to be clearly pointed out to everyone, prior to jumping.

Infractions can be recorded, and individuals who accumulate a series of cards over time could be identified, and dealt with. (baseball bat behind the hangars perhaps???Cool)

Then a blacklist which can go on the internet and be accessed by every DZSO on the planet could be introduced.

This might weed out a few idiots, and at least reduce the bad example they set which some low timers decide they want to emulate.

In the good old days dickhead skydivers gained a reputation that followed them around, and most switched on people knew to stay away from them.

Some of the problems are there, because on big DZ's with lots of action, people can screw up and still remain relatively anonymous, simply due to the sheer volume of jumps done. When nothing actually happens, people quickly forget near misses.

Violaters of good practice need to be named and shamed.....knock on effect, is it encourages others to behave.

My 2 cents.....


(This post was edited by obelixtim on Apr 19, 2011, 10:31 PM)


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 19, 2011, 11:29 PM
Post #50 of 153 (824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AggieDave] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The solution is a fundamental shift in what is considered acceptable by the general jumping public. It takes the long-time jumpers and DZ staff to set the example, though.

For instance, how many people in the sport think it is cool to suck it down for a low pull? How many people widely accept big-low toggle hook turns?

It takes a shift in which people who fly their canopy unsafely are shunned and treated as outcasts.

That isn't just wanna-be swoopers (real swoopers don't swoop in traffic). This is also the old RW-guys on Stilettos flying like crap through a pattern. This is also the low time jumpers who think it is cool to spiral their canopy down. This includes a LOT of people.

Training won't fix attitudes. BSR's won't fix acceptance. FAA can/will fix it all and we won't jump like we do anymore!

This needs to be repeated. Dave is a hard core “swooper” and he understands it is not a “swooper” problem. Part of the CC problem, not the only part, is dip shits swooping in traffic. It’s like some kid trying to run the Indy 500 on the freeway. His car can go that fast but his brain can’t. Education may help but you have to change the attitude first. This had been building for years but needed a couple of high profile incidents to get peoples attention. Everyone not living under a rock has been aware of the problem but some still think a 270 in traffic is cool if you clear your air space. Like Dave said this has nothing to do with education it has to do with attitude and maturity.
The only way to change attitude is with hard reality. This can only come from the DZO’s. Post a short list of realistic canopy rules where is will be seen by everyone that jumps at the DZ. Have manifest announce it every 15 minutes and point it out to all that manifest. At the bottom of the list in big bold letters announce “One strike and you are Out”. Let it be known that in one week or two weeks this will go into effect. And then stand by it with NO exceptions. That will go a long way in dealing with over 60% of CC fatalities.

Let the flames begin.

Sparky


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 20, 2011, 12:38 AM
Post #51 of 153 (938 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWFlyer] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My current canopy was bought new and I picked orange and yellow so I'd be highly visible. It's not all matchy-matchy with my gear, but those colors might just help keep me alive.

Hi Krisanne,

You have been in the air with me, you know how bright it is. For those that are wondering.

Jumpsuit
http://i397.photobucket.com/...ydiving/Jumpsuit.jpg

Canopy
http://i397.photobucket.com/...Skydiving/Canopy.jpg

And I still felt like I was dodging bullets. Some people just don’t pay attention.

Sparky


shropshire  (C License)

Apr 20, 2011, 2:27 AM
Post #52 of 153 (933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Tis true - people just plain don't look !!

How many POV videos have we seen on here where the 'pilot' NEVER once looks over their shoulder before they turn? - "I was one only one in the air, I don't need toCrazy" - Well GET INTO THE FUCKING HABIT OF ALWAYS LOOKING - TW@ - It's like practicing your EPs - Make it 2nd nature.

How many folks have been knocked off their motor bikes (even though the Head lights are on and wearing a DayGlo-Derek vest) only to hear - "sorry, didn't see you mate"?


The problem is (seems to be to me) that these folks are getting away with it more often than not. It's not that they are reckless more like they are COMPLACENT.

We all make mistakes - that's life. but mistakes are like one offs - What we need to address is the Culture of Complacency - the habitual offenders - and come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[/sermon]


(This post was edited by shropshire on Apr 20, 2011, 2:30 AM)


virgin-burner

Apr 20, 2011, 4:15 AM
Post #53 of 153 (916 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Organize the entire load, including loading the plane and the landings, before people even get near the plane. If things work out right, the people that want to swoop can (if you know someone is swooping and where, they are, it’s much easier to avoid them).

I think having each load organize a plan for the landing is the single most realistic and effective way to reduce the risk of canopy collisions. Come up with a plan and follow it. This wouldn't even require manifest getting involved...jumpers on the load can do this themselves.

Traffic at major airports is handled by ATC telling people what to do and when. ATC provides the plan. We don't have the luxury of ATC, but we DO have the ability to all talk to each other before exit and come up with that plan. This seems so obvious to me it's angering we don't have it ingrained in our culture.

and what if a guy has a reserve? or is stupid and forgets to pull on time and is kinda lowish? plan is fucked up.

not to mention the guy that always ends up doing something different than what was agreed on.

isnt landing an ongoing, active process that needs continuous adaption? dont winds vary?


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 20, 2011, 6:03 AM
Post #54 of 153 (900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Sure all of those things can happen. Yes, adaptability is neccessary. If you have a plan, even if something happens, you STILL know what everyone else said they were going to do and still have way more information to fly on. Just knowing that somebody did something they said they wouldn't do is helpful, cause it tells you to watch out. It's like encountering a car on the road with the hazard lights on.


90% of a plan is better than 0%, which I think is what we operate on now.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 20, 2011, 6:14 AM
Post #55 of 153 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [virgin-burner] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
and what if a guy has a reserve? or is stupid and forgets to pull on time and is kinda lowish? plan is fucked up

Well shoot. Nobody thought about that. Crazy

Does every skydive you do go exactly like it was dirt dived? No? Why bother dirt diving then if it's just going to get fucked up?

In reply to:
isnt landing an ongoing, active process that needs continuous adaption?

Sure. Just like driving a car. The framework for adaptation is provided for us on the road - we call them lanes and center dividers and stop signs and speed limits. Within those limits, we adapt our speed and direction, and most of the time, despite those who insist of working outside the framework, we make it to our destination alive.

What about airplanes? Pilots also work (continuous adaptation) within a framework. That framework is, surprisingly enough, called a pattern. Together, pilots have a plan to land individually, even if they don't talk about it before they take off for that flight (they have radios).

In life, failure is very possible when you plan what you are going to do. But failure is almost guaranteed if you don't plan. The same applies to team situations - like landing a parachute amongst your friends should be.


virgin-burner

Apr 20, 2011, 10:02 AM
Post #56 of 153 (853 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
..to team situations - like landing a parachute amongst your friends should be.

this is kinda the point i'm trying to make..


-ftp-

Apr 20, 2011, 10:29 AM
Post #57 of 153 (841 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

This was touched on briefly by me in another thread, but how about organizing the loads with WL in mind. Higest (groups) to the lowest exit order. This would help solve the problem of faster canopies catching up to slower ones in the pattern and in general.

Seems like a decent sacrafice to make in the name of safety if you ask me.

As far as HP landings go, I feel if you want to do that then you should do it from a low H&P only. Get out of everyones way, and nobody will be in your way either.


Inspired  (B 35971)

Apr 20, 2011, 11:31 AM
Post #58 of 153 (829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This was touched on briefly by me in another thread, but how about organizing the loads with WL in mind. Higest (groups) to the lowest exit order. This would help solve the problem of faster canopies catching up to slower ones in the pattern and in general.

I don't understand how this could be accomplished. I have a wing loading of just over 1.1, but I routinely jump with people with wing loads of 2.0+. Where would we fit in? And what about tandem camera guys? They tend to be highly loaded, but they jump with lightly loaded tandems. Where do they fit in?

I just don't see any way to make it work.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 20, 2011, 11:57 AM
Post #59 of 153 (819 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This was touched on briefly by me in another thread, but how about organizing the loads with WL in mind. Higest (groups) to the lowest exit order. This would help solve the problem of faster canopies catching up to slower ones in the pattern and in general.

No need to do that if <broken record>everybody works together.</broken record> Those jumping higher wingloadings make an effort to be the first ones landing. Those jumping lower wingloadings make an effort to be the last ones landing. This effort starts as soon as they open their parachutes (ideally, even before that, in the loading area) and it doesn't stop until they are safely on the ground. Exit order doesn't matter as long as everybody knows the plan.

In reply to:
As far as HP landings go, I feel if you want to do that then you should do it from a low H&P only

As far as 90 degree turns go, I feel if you want to do that then you should do it from a low H&P only. After all, 90 degree turns kill people too.

And no more big groups in freefall. Too many people have died from collisions in freefall and after breakoff, and at least one dies every year at big RW events. It's time to make that stop. No groups larger than a two way.

If safety is so important that we must essentially ban an entire discipline (interesting that it's only those who don't swoop calling for it, but anyway), isn't it worth the sacrifice to only do two ways and long straight in approaches to prevent some of the other ways we kill each other?


-ftp-

Apr 20, 2011, 12:22 PM
Post #60 of 153 (811 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Inspired] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't understand how this could be accomplished. I have a wing loading of just over 1.1, but I routinely jump with people with wing loads of 2.0+. Where would we fit in? And what about tandem camera guys? They tend to be highly loaded, but they jump with lightly loaded tandems. Where do they fit in?

I just don't see any way to make it work.

Its really not that hard to figure out, no offense. The bottom line is you wouldnt be able to jump with them, or they would need a more conservative WL. Not to mention similar WL's tend to jump together by nature/experience. Plus you are taking 2 complete ends of the spectrum and comparing them.

Tandems, big ways, other unconventional jumps that are not fun jumps this would not be for.

is this convenient? Well its kinda subjective but I guess we could say "no its not." But guess what? Its a hell of a lot more convenient than having a cluster fuck of a landing area and people dodging canopies and dying.


-ftp-

Apr 20, 2011, 12:27 PM
Post #61 of 153 (813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Those jumping higher wingloadings make an effort to be the first ones landing. Those jumping lower wingloadings make an effort to be the last ones landing.

This is exaclty how people are dying, higher WL's overtaking people, spiraling from 800' not seeing people. ITS NOT WORKING! (not yelling at you just saying

In reply to:
After all, 90 degree turns kill people too.

So do no pulls, but they are quite rare

In reply to:
If safety is so important that we must essentially ban an entire discipline (interesting that it's only those who don't swoop calling for it, but anyway), isn't it worth the sacrifice to only do two ways and long straight in approaches to prevent some of the other ways we kill each other?

Nobody is calling for the ban of swooping, just the ban of mixing HP landings with conservative ones. I could care less if people swoop, I actually like watching it quite a bit, but for christ's sake do it safely. Safely is NOT in the middle of the common LZ with other canopies in the air.


(This post was edited by -ftp- on Apr 20, 2011, 12:28 PM)


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Apr 20, 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #62 of 153 (803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Not to mention similar WL's tend to jump together by nature/experience.

Really? I don't think you get out much, then.

My 8-way team had WLs from about 1.0 to 2.0 and we did over 100 jumps together last year with only one injury (an individual jumper who had a bad landing).

I might add that I've never been as comfortable in the air as when I was jumping with that group because I got to know everyone and their "pattern patterns." I knew who would be down way before me and I knew who was more likely to be getting to the pattern at around the same time I did if neither of us slowed things down. I knew who liked to do wide patterns with long finals and I knew who liked to do tighter patterns. I knew who would hang in brakes and do a high-performance landing once everyone else was down (and I also knew that if conditions weren't 100% clear, she would abandon her high-performance landing and do a straight in approach like everyone else, because Shocked she was a responsible canopy pilot in traffic).

But you'd prefer that all 9 of us have the same wingloading (which, ironically, would make it more likely that all 9 of us would converge at the same time instead of our varying wingloadings naturally spreading us out). Doesn't fix the problem. It's not about wingloading. It's about behavior in the pattern, no matter the wingloading.


(This post was edited by NWFlyer on Apr 20, 2011, 12:48 PM)


Halfpastniner  (D 30747)

Apr 20, 2011, 1:03 PM
Post #63 of 153 (792 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

How much experience in this sport do you have? I am going to assume (because you have no profile) that it is not very much. That would explain this asinine idea you are pushing. It would be a complete logistical nightmare, inconvenient as hell, and most importantly would not improve safety. The 2 low timers at Spaceland both had similarly (and lightly) loaded canopies and that didnt help them.

Difference of wingloading has nothing to do with these fatalities. Bad piloting in the pattern does.

Quote:
After all, 90 degree turns kill people too.

Quote:
So do no pulls, but they are quite rare

I would assume that the low timers at Spaceland were doing nothing bigger than 90 degree turns. Must not be that rare.


-ftp-

Apr 20, 2011, 2:32 PM
Post #64 of 153 (769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Halfpastniner] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
... inconvenient as hell, and most importantly would not improve safety.

inconvenient? thats a joke of an excuse if you ask me. You tell me how it would not improve safety to have similar loaded canopies, gliding at similar speeds, all performing a conservative, PLANNED, approach?

You say it wont improve safety, tell me how?

In reply to:
The 2 low timers at Spaceland both had similarly (and lightly) loaded canopies and that didnt help them.

are you really trying to compare that incident to the most recent? You have 2 canopies in the air and who the hell knows what happened, no explanation really besides a)inexperience b) didn't see c) object fixation. You're going to compare that to some idiot buzzing through the LZ with 10-15 other canopies in the air? Get real with yourself.

In reply to:
Difference of wingloading has nothing to do with these fatalities. Bad piloting in the pattern does.

either that, or someone didn't look, we will never know. One thing I do know, if they had a pre-determined landing order, and knew where everyone was SUPPOSE to be, then it most likely would have never happened.


In reply to:
I would assume that the low timers at Spaceland were doing nothing bigger than 90 degree turns. Must not be that rare.

Its been shown that incidents like that (non-hp) account for about 40% of the collisions. You wouldn't like to see 60% of the problem fixed?

We all have to agree on something; first man down, into the wind, people diving in on the patter, fuck it just do what you want SYSTEM is FUCKING KILLING PEOPLE!!!!!!!


-ftp-

Apr 20, 2011, 2:36 PM
Post #65 of 153 (767 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWFlyer] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Not to mention similar WL's tend to jump together by nature/experience.

Really? I don't think you get out much, then.

My 8-way team had WLs from about 1.0 to 2.0 and we did over 100 jumps together last year with only one injury (an individual jumper who had a bad landing).

I might add that I've never been as comfortable in the air as when I was jumping with that group because I got to know everyone and their "pattern patterns." I knew who would be down way before me and I knew who was more likely to be getting to the pattern at around the same time I did if neither of us slowed things down. I knew who liked to do wide patterns with long finals and I knew who liked to do tighter patterns. I knew who would hang in brakes and do a high-performance landing once everyone else was down (and I also knew that if conditions weren't 100% clear, she would abandon her high-performance landing and do a straight in approach like everyone else, because Shocked she was a responsible canopy pilot in traffic).

But you'd prefer that all 9 of us have the same wingloading (which, ironically, would make it more likely that all 9 of us would converge at the same time instead of our varying wingloadings naturally spreading us out). Doesn't fix the problem. It's not about wingloading. It's about behavior in the pattern, no matter the wingloading.

Yup, it must mean I "don't get out much" Silly me to not compare a normal everyday DZ operation to your 8-way TEAM. Plus that is not really a good example of what I am talking about. I assume you were all on your own pass? Maybe not, but if so, the high WL pilots would most likely be first down, followed by the next lowest etc.

What would you say the average WL is? Id say close to 70% of jumpers have about the same WL. (No stats just a guess). It really is not that far fetched to organize such an arrangement. Especially when high WL canopies start getting banned at busy DZ's, don't think that can't happen either.


(This post was edited by -ftp- on Apr 20, 2011, 2:39 PM)


labrys  (D 29848)

Apr 20, 2011, 2:52 PM
Post #66 of 153 (762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Yup, it must mean I "don't get out much" Silly me to not compare a normal everyday DZ operation to your 8-way TEAM.

It's far more common at my DZ for groups to have a very wide range of WLs. Small groups of newer jumpers are usually the only ones that have similar WL


-ftp-

Apr 20, 2011, 2:59 PM
Post #67 of 153 (755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Yup, it must mean I "don't get out much" Silly me to not compare a normal everyday DZ operation to your 8-way TEAM.

It's far more common at my DZ for groups to have a very wide range of WLs. Small groups of newer jumpers are usually the only ones that have similar WL

Im not disagreeing, but what is a wide range?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 20, 2011, 3:10 PM
Post #68 of 153 (750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>If safety is so important that we must essentially ban an entire discipline

Who said anything about a ban?

There's a law called Godwin's Law that often applies to discussions in Speaker's Corner. Overemotional people often invoke Hitler to try to inflame the discussion - "vegetarians suck! Did you know Hitler was a vegetarian?" - and things along that line. It generally indicates the end of rational discussion and the beginning of a flame war.

Thus, Godwin's Law was created, which states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." The corollary to that is that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

The equivalent here is the "ban" argument. It begins like this:

"We should try to separate swoopers and non-swoopers."
"Why do you want to BAN swooping? Why don't you just BAN skydiving while you're at it?"

"DZ's should make it clear that wingsuiters cannot swoop tandems."
"Why do you want to BAN wingsuiting? Let me guess - you don't wingsuit, so you don't understand!"

Perhaps we need a law here - Briggs Law? - that states something similar. Once someone asks "why do you want to BAN XXX?" the discussion is over, the thread is locked and a new one is started when people cool down.

This problem is not going to be solved by angry arguments on the Internet. We will all benefit by toning down the inflammatory rhetoric and being a little more realistic and constructive.


(This post was edited by billvon on Apr 20, 2011, 4:31 PM)


Premier NWFlyer  (D License)

Apr 20, 2011, 3:11 PM
Post #69 of 153 (749 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Yup, it must mean I "don't get out much" Silly me to not compare a normal everyday DZ operation to your 8-way TEAM. Plus that is not really a good example of what I am talking about. I assume you were all on your own pass?


What would you say the average WL is? Id say close to 70% of jumpers have about the same WL. (No stats just a guess). It really is not that far fetched to organize such an arrangement. Especially when high WL canopies start getting banned at busy DZ's, don't think that can't happen either.

I used my team as an example, but I would say that the same mix of wingloadings is not at all uncommon for me on random fun jumps or organized non-team jumps.

Sometimes we were on our own pass, sometimes we were on the same pass with another 8-way team, sometimes on the same pass with non-team jumpers.

In reply to:
Maybe not, but if so, the high WL pilots would most likely be first down, followed by the next lowest etc.

Yes, and that would be part of my point. Having that range of wingloadings naturally spread the members of my team out in the landing pattern. Having us spread out made it less likely that all of us were in the landing pattern at the same time. (Coincidentally, this tends to happen for any group of jumpers that have a mix of wingloadings ... go figure).


(This post was edited by NWFlyer on Apr 20, 2011, 3:22 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 20, 2011, 3:21 PM
Post #70 of 153 (744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Silly me to not compare a normal everyday DZ operation to your 8-way TEAM.

It's even harder at an everyday DZ. On a team, everyone knows everyone else, and can plan things like canopy selection. Some teams even get discounts or sponsorships that make that easier.

However, most skydivers do not have the option to change their canopy to fit the group they are jumping with. In addition, most skydivers cannot decide at the loading area that they want to change from their 8-way to another 8-way.

>What would you say the average WL is? Id say close to 70% of jumpers have about
>the same WL.

The 70% range at Perris would fall between 1:1 and 2:1 in terms of loading.

At Eloy, during holiday events, generally you have no more than 20 canopies in the air at one time. It is often terrifying, because you have no idea what people are going to do. Is that guy going long? Or is he going to do a 180? Is that guy setting up a standard pattern or is he going to 270 into the ditch next to the grass? And per Bryan's reports, that confusion results in close calls, injuries and deaths.

Let's compare that to the 400-way, where 410 canopies or so all had to land in tight areas (on the apron, on the driving range, on the parade ground etc.) There were no canopy collision issues in the pattern, because everyone was doing the exact same thing. What's that guy in front of me about to do? Well, if he's on base, he's about to make a right turn onto final. Turn or go straight for a little longer; those are the only two things we had to worry about. We knew that he wasn't going to crank a 270, or start doing S-turns, because if he did that, he'd get cut from the dive - and he didn't want to get cut. We had canopy loadings from about 1.2 to about 2 on that load, and it just wasn't an issue, because everyone was on the same page.


Throttlebender  (C 39112)

Apr 20, 2011, 3:32 PM
Post #71 of 153 (744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Quote:
Yup, it must mean I "don't get out much" Silly me to not compare a normal everyday DZ operation to your 8-way TEAM.

It's far more common at my DZ for groups to have a very wide range of WLs. Small groups of newer jumpers are usually the only ones that have similar WL

Im not disagreeing, but what is a wide range?

A wide range is barely 1:1 up to 2.2:1 in the group I jump with. You have to remember that with tunnels becoming popular you are getting a mix of really good "new" jumpers doing jumps with really good "seasoned" jumpers who have the time in sport to have gone significantly higher in WL.
It's unrealistic to think that those jumpers are no longer going to jump together because of a range in WL.


labrys  (D 29848)

Apr 20, 2011, 3:40 PM
Post #72 of 153 (738 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Throttlebender] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A wide range is barely 1:1 up to 2.2:1 in the group I jump with. You have to remember that with tunnels becoming popular you are getting a mix of really good "new" jumpers doing jumps with really good "seasoned" jumpers who have the time in sport to have gone significantly higher in WL.
It's unrealistic to think that those jumpers are no longer going to jump together because of a range in WL.

That's about the same range I was thinking about.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 20, 2011, 3:54 PM
Post #73 of 153 (728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

As far as 90 degree turns go, I feel if you want to do that then you should do it from a low H&P only. After all, 90 degree turns kill people too.

In reply to:

But where is the cut-off for doing a 90, how do you get from base to final?




popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 20, 2011, 4:24 PM
Post #75 of 153 (708 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But where is the cut-off for doing a 90, how do you get from base to final?

Same way you got from downwind to base, silly.
Even I know that!
Tongue


sandi

Apr 20, 2011, 5:33 PM
Post #76 of 153 (905 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Its really not that hard to figure out, no offense. The bottom line is you wouldnt be able to jump with them, or they would need a more conservative WL. Not to mention similar WL's tend to jump together by nature/experience. Plus you are taking 2 complete ends of the spectrum and comparing them.

I think it's pretty common to have a range of wingloadings even within groups of similar experience. Some people want a fast canopy and others prefer something more docile. I have about a 1.12 loading on a 120. Since I'm never going to have a 1.4 or 1.5 loading I'd be eternally limited to jumping with newbies or trying to find other small women to jump with.

Anyway, I agree with others who stated that having a range within a group allows for natural separation of canopies. Groups at all the same loading seems like it would be more problematic.


airtwardo  (D License)

Apr 20, 2011, 5:43 PM
Post #77 of 153 (896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
But where is the cut-off for doing a 90, how do you get from base to final?

Same way you got from downwind to base, silly.
Even I know that!
Tongue


~three 30's? Angelic


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Apr 20, 2011, 7:41 PM
Post #78 of 153 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

It was an interesting idea and it's great that you are trying to think of solutions. I think that in this case it won't work for the reasons stated above. For me, the primary one is that everyone in the same group would end up on the same level. In that instance, you potentially have a bigger issue that we do now. Not to mention that you're then arbitrarily controlling who jumps with who. I think it'd be a terrible shame to see experienced jumpers avoid jumping with newer jumpers because they couldn't work out the wingloading without spending money.


In reply to:
~three 30's? Angelic
I'm doing 2 45s because I'm hardcore! Laugh


(This post was edited by danielcroft on Apr 20, 2011, 7:43 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Apr 20, 2011, 10:05 PM
Post #79 of 153 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
But where is the cut-off for doing a 90, how do you get from base to final?

Same way you got from downwind to base, silly.
Even I know that!
Tongue


~three 30's? Angelic

How 'bout ten 42's?


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Apr 20, 2011, 10:08 PM)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 21, 2011, 3:37 AM
Post #80 of 153 (831 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is exaclty how people are dying, higher WL's overtaking people, spiraling from 800' not seeing people.

Let's say you and I are doing a two way. You load your canopy at 1.4, I load mine at 1.0. When we open, we do our housekeeping stuff and then we begin to create horizontal separation. There is some natural separation because you descend faster than I do, but if you do a 360 and I go into some brakes we can increase it.

We work to maintain (or increase) that separation throughout our canopy flight. If we do this, there's no way that you can spiral into me at 800 feet.. I could spiral into you, though.

It can work just as well with a load of 20. If everyone talks about it beforehand.

In reply to:
just the ban of mixing HP landings with conservative ones.

That's already been accomplished, if the dz is a group member and is following the pledge they signed. Requiring that HP landings be done on a separate low pass into a separate landing area is punishing some of the best skydivers in the sport to "fix" something that isn't their fault.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Apr 21, 2011, 3:46 AM
Post #81 of 153 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But where is the cut-off for doing a 90, how do you get from base to final?

Long straight in approaches from 1000 feet. That's the pattern. No turns allowed.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Apr 21, 2011, 6:44 AM
Post #82 of 153 (824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Requiring that HP landings be done on a separate low pass into a separate landing area is punishing some of the best skydivers in the sport to "fix" something that isn't their fault(quote]

Some people are losing their lives through no fault of their own....I think the concept of "punishment" needs to be kept in perspective.

Some people are going to have to swallow some lumps, like it or not.

The ongoing carnage shows that whatever systems used to ensure life and limb on out DZs just aren't working.

Pocket rocket pilots have proven that generally, these canopies are too hot to handle.

Change isn't an option, its a necessity. Enough is enough.


-ftp-

Apr 21, 2011, 7:10 AM
Post #83 of 153 (815 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
This is exaclty how people are dying, higher WL's overtaking people, spiraling from 800' not seeing people.

Let's say you and I are doing a two way. You load your canopy at 1.4, I load mine at 1.0. When we open, we do our housekeeping stuff and then we begin to create horizontal separation. There is some natural separation because you descend faster than I do, but if you do a 360 and I go into some brakes we can increase it.

We work to maintain (or increase) that separation throughout our canopy flight. If we do this, there's no way that you can spiral into me at 800 feet.. I could spiral into you, though.

It can work just as well with a load of 20. If everyone talks about it beforehand.

In your 2-way example, yes I agree. The problem is ther could be a goup below, and that is where the problem lies. If there was a way to organiize the whole load that faster canopies either exited first, or found another way to get down first, then we would not have to worry nearly as much. Thats all im saying.


Southern_Man  (C License)

Apr 21, 2011, 8:06 AM
Post #84 of 153 (802 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
That's already been accomplished, if the dz is a group member and is following the pledge they signed. Requiring that HP landings be done on a separate low pass into a separate landing area is punishing some of the best skydivers in the sport to "fix" something that isn't their fault.

All this talk really makes me wonder how many DZs are actually doing this? It is apparently not all of them, even though they have pledged to do it.

My home DZ does have a separate landing area of high performance landings, that's the only one I can speak to.

Edited to add: I realize this is only a USPA standard, I don't know what standards/expectations are other places.


(This post was edited by Southern_Man on Apr 21, 2011, 8:23 AM)


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 21, 2011, 8:21 AM
Post #85 of 153 (797 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
This is exaclty how people are dying, higher WL's overtaking people, spiraling from 800' not seeing people.

Let's say you and I are doing a two way. You load your canopy at 1.4, I load mine at 1.0. When we open, we do our housekeeping stuff and then we begin to create horizontal separation. There is some natural separation because you descend faster than I do, but if you do a 360 and I go into some brakes we can increase it.

We work to maintain (or increase) that separation throughout our canopy flight. If we do this, there's no way that you can spiral into me at 800 feet.. I could spiral into you, though.

It can work just as well with a load of 20. If everyone talks about it beforehand.

In your 2-way example, yes I agree. The problem is ther could be a goup below, and that is where the problem lies. If there was a way to organiize the whole load that faster canopies either exited first, or found another way to get down first, then we would not have to worry nearly as much. Thats all im saying.

Exit order is currently (usually) decided by freefall drift with the goal being to maximize horizontal separation at opening altitude.

I can't see how we can keep that safety margin AND implement your proposal as the two are often mutually exclusive.

I think a better solution is to think about (and actively plan) the jump in two stages:

1. Exit in the order which allows maximum separation in freefall

2. Immediately after opening, start flying your canopy to fit into the landing order. Logically this could be organized as high WL to low WL. It would not even have to be perfect. Just dividing the load into high, medium and low WL and applying that to the landing order would help things a lot.

This approach would take some education though. For example, a jumper with a Stiletto @ 1.8 and a guy with a Katana @ 1.8 are on a level - who let's who goes first?


-ftp-

Apr 21, 2011, 8:38 AM
Post #86 of 153 (789 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
This is exaclty how people are dying, higher WL's overtaking people, spiraling from 800' not seeing people.

Let's say you and I are doing a two way. You load your canopy at 1.4, I load mine at 1.0. When we open, we do our housekeeping stuff and then we begin to create horizontal separation. There is some natural separation because you descend faster than I do, but if you do a 360 and I go into some brakes we can increase it.

We work to maintain (or increase) that separation throughout our canopy flight. If we do this, there's no way that you can spiral into me at 800 feet.. I could spiral into you, though.

It can work just as well with a load of 20. If everyone talks about it beforehand.

In your 2-way example, yes I agree. The problem is ther could be a goup below, and that is where the problem lies. If there was a way to organiize the whole load that faster canopies either exited first, or found another way to get down first, then we would not have to worry nearly as much. Thats all im saying.

Exit order is currently (usually) decided by freefall drift with the goal being to maximize horizontal separation at opening altitude.

I can't see how we can keep that safety margin AND implement your proposal as the two are often mutually exclusive.

I think a better solution is to think about (and actively plan) the jump in two stages:

1. Exit in the order which allows maximum separation in freefall

2. Immediately after opening, start flying your canopy to fit into the landing order. Logically this could be organized as high WL to low WL. It would not even have to be perfect. Just dividing the load into high, medium and low WL and applying that to the landing order would help things a lot.

This approach would take some education though. For example, a jumper with a Stiletto @ 1.8 and a guy with a Katana @ 1.8 are on a level - who let's who goes first?

I like this.

In regards to the 2 jumpers with the same loaded canopies, they could just defer to whomever is lower/closer to the LZ.

I know my idea seems like a little much, but besides having seperate passes for each jumper, it seems like the next best thing.

We concentrate so much on separation during freefall, which obviously is very important, but why do we not cocentrate on landings as much? It just seems so contradictory.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 8:41 AM
Post #87 of 153 (785 views)
Shortcut
Re: [-ftp-] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>>For example, a jumper with a Stiletto @ 1.8 and a guy with a Katana @ 1.8 are on a
>>level - who let's who goes first?

>In regards to the 2 jumpers with the same loaded canopies, they could just defer to
>whomever is lower/closer to the LZ.

I think the point of his question was that you have to let the Katana land first. A Katana at 1.8 will land much, much sooner than a Stiletto at 1.8. Heck, the Katana at 1.8 will land sooner than a Stiletto at 2.2. Wing loading isn't the whole story.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

Apr 21, 2011, 8:49 AM
Post #88 of 153 (782 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Not to mention that then you have to remember what everyone's canopies look like. Not easy at a larger dropzone, or one with a lot of visitors, or when you're the visitor.

Wendy P.


Fast  (D 28237)

Apr 21, 2011, 9:16 AM
Post #89 of 153 (774 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>>For example, a jumper with a Stiletto @ 1.8 and a guy with a Katana @ 1.8 are on a
>>level - who let's who goes first?

>In regards to the 2 jumpers with the same loaded canopies, they could just defer to
>whomever is lower/closer to the LZ.

I think the point of his question was that you have to let the Katana land first. A Katana at 1.8 will land much, much sooner than a Stiletto at 1.8. Heck, the Katana at 1.8 will land sooner than a Stiletto at 2.2. Wing loading isn't the whole story.

Yep.

My problem with all the forum jockeying (and this isn't directed at bill) is that these issues aren't as cut and dry / simple as people want to make them out to be. Every DZ has a different layout, every canopy / jumper pair is a bit different, everyone's skill set is a bit different.

There isn't one right answer to solve this problem. I think what's going on here is pretty reactionary and not super tuned into what an educated response is. I mean, we have people blaming swoopers, people saying "fuck you it's not swoopers" and it's all just blather.

The reality of things is that sometimes people make mistakes, that's problem number one. In our sport a mistake can kill you pretty quick. We can't stop people from making mistakes, only educate them to help prevent mistakes. The second problem is that we have a whole generation of people who want what they want right now no matter what the consequences and regardless of anything. That's not a skydiving problem, that's a problem in general with society and it's only gonna get worse.

Couple those things with the fact that people are incapable of determining the level of their own skill and we start to see the issue.

The only time I know for sure that things are gonna work out for me and be 99% safe is on 4 person cessna loads where we exit one at a time, from highest to lowest wingloading and have explicit landing order set. Does that mean I think we should ban all other types of jumping cause there is risk associated with it, no it doesn't. Exiting a turbine in wingload order for "everyday" skydiving isn't even remotely feasible, for such a long list of reasons that it's not even worth talking about anymore, and I don't know why anyone is.

The reality of these problems is that the answers you all want, aren't gonna happen, at least not easily. I say this from the standpoint of having run a dropzone.

Banning swooping isn't gonna work, unless USPA came out and said "no more hook turns" which isn't gonna happen, a DZO isn't gonna do it. I mean sure Lodi did it and I know there are other DZ's out there that are isolated enough that they don't have to worry about it, but for a lot of us, there is another turbine right down the road. That's the problem with rules in general, skydivers don't like them from a practical standpoint. "Rules are ok, till they affect me, then fuck you I'm going somewhere else." That's the attitude a lot of people have in this sport.

Unless rules are going to be top down, sport wide and actually enforced by the USPA, people aren't going to follow them.

We need to not be reactionary and move forward with the solution of educating people. It's like the concept of teaching someone to fish, rather than just giving him some fish. We need the skydivers in the sport to want to not do that hook turn through traffic, now how to set up a landing stack, get better at predictable pattern flying, know how to look around under canopy, know why things shouldn't be done. Just making a rule that you can't do it isn't going to accomplish anything. It will only serve to limit the "fun" and be another way that "the man is keepin me down" and then you have to enforce the rule, well that's just a terrible way to look at a problem.

We already break people out of their mold when they come into this sport, it changes their life, now we just need to work on changing the part of it that causes them to throw all caution to the wind in the search of instant gratification. I feel that's gonna be our hardest challenge


(This post was edited by Fast on Apr 21, 2011, 9:19 AM)


sacex250

Apr 21, 2011, 4:32 PM
Post #90 of 153 (737 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

Someone who doesn't have an A license isn't the problem. A student on a lightly loaded canopy is going to be flying, or trying to fly, a slow, normal basic pattern anyway. That's what they should be trying to learn, and if they can't do that then more advanced canopy training becomes irrelevant.

2) Implement Brian Germain's downsizing chart as a BSR.

While Brian Germain's chart is useful as a reference, it has some serious shortcomings that make it unrealistic to use as an enforced rule.

The chart only combines three factors: exit weight, canopy size, and number of jumps. It doesn't take into account the design and performance differences between canopy models, it doesn't differentiate between how the canopy is intended to be used, and it doesn't account for a skydiver's skills, training, and attitude.

Compare this to paragliders, where wings are uniformly rated according to skill level and safety.

3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not over take them.

This isn't realistic. In every other facet of aviation, there are right-of-way rules for converging, overtaking, and sequencing to a landing area. How do you outlaw overtaking or "over-descending"? It doesn't matter if one canopy is faster than another if they're both flying a logical pattern and the faster canopy is practicing "see-and-avoid" which a no-passing rule would require anyway. It's the lack of "see-and-avoid" and therefore yielding to another canopy that's the problem. Not to mention, a traffic jam behind a slow canopy doesn't work in the air anymore than it works behind a slow car on the road.

4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

Again, one canopy overtaking another canopy isn't the problem; it's people not seeing each other and failing to properly yield to each other. "Circle of Awareness" is such a big deal during freefall training, but it needs to be an even bigger deal under canopy. Having a "head-on-a-swivel" looking for traffic and not just focusing on the landing area is what's going to make "see-and-avoid" work. I've seen very view videos of camera flyers thoroughly looking all-around them while under canopy.

5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated pass for any type of HP landing.

Separate landing areas, sure, like DZO's are supposed to be doing all ready, but removing traffic and giving individual swoopers priority use of airspace, as restrictive as it seems, only builds bad habits by taking away the reason to be looking for traffic in the first place. It's not the airspace environment that's causing collisions, it's pilots not proactively trying to see-and-avoid other jumpers. Allowing swoopers to become complacent in their own protected airspace bubble isn't going to make them any safer when they do end up having to play nice with others.

Recommendations:

1) Better analysis of what exactly causes a collision or near-miss.

2) Having an observer on the ground, or video equipment, that monitors landing traffic looking for situations that could lead to conflicts and immediately providing feedback to a jumper who did something that encroached on another canopy. Or, bringing a dangerous situation to the attention of a jumper who may not have been aware of it.

3) Creating an affirmative way for jumpers to bring their concerns about specific actions or behavior from certain jumpers to the attention of the DZO.

-


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 4:41 PM
Post #91 of 153 (734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>It's not the airspace environment that's causing collisions, it's pilots not proactively
>trying to see-and-avoid other jumpers.

Experience over the past decade has demonstrated that people are not capable of reliably seeing-and-avoiding other jumpers when making larger (>90 degree) turns.

>Allowing swoopers to become complacent in their own protected airspace bubble isn't
>going to make them any safer when they do end up having to play nice with others.

Right. But it will keep them from killing those others.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 5:21 PM
Post #92 of 153 (721 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Experience over the past decade has demonstrated that people are not capable of reliably seeing-and-avoiding other jumpers.

Fixed it for you Wink

Group members have already pledged to have separate landing areas (as ours does).

This obsession with turn degrees is supposed to be a moot point. If DZ's are not implementing the separation policies, then the effort should be focused on fixing that first. If they are, and aren't been followed, then that next. Degrees of turn, for the purpose of the discussion, should be irrelevant.

As long as people keep focusing on the wrong area, these incidents will continue to happen. I said it years ago after Danny and Bob's accident, and I'll say it again. People, across the board, need to seriously reevaluate how they approach canopy flight. Until every skydiver treats it seriously and approaches it with discipline, this will continue to happen. Even then, there will STILL be accidents - hopefully they'll be so infrequent though that they'll rarely need to be discussed.

There's so much misdirection it's laughable.

Ian


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Apr 21, 2011, 5:28 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 5:48 PM
Post #93 of 153 (709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Degrees of turn, for the purpose of the discussion, should be irrelevant.

To Bryan Burke, who has direct experience with this than almost anyone on the planet, it is most definitely not irrelevant. Turn more and your risk goes up, period.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 5:58 PM
Post #94 of 153 (702 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Degrees of turn, for the purpose of the discussion, should be irrelevant.

To Bryan Burke, who has direct experience with this than almost anyone on the planet, it is most definitely not irrelevant. Turn more and your risk goes up, period.

Again, misdirection. I'm starting to think it's intentional, Bill.

Pilots in the standard pattern (90 degrees or less) are going to make turns - and people are still going to collide with the current mindset.

Pilots in the HP pattern (>90 degrees) are going to make turns - and people are still going to collide with the current mindset.

I don't know Bill, maybe in the end we really are saying the same thing, and I'm just misunderstanding you.

I found this post by Nathan, and I thought it pretty much summed up the problem, and my concern with the current mindset. http://www.dropzone.com/...ost=4103094;#4103094


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Apr 21, 2011, 6:03 PM)


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 21, 2011, 7:58 PM
Post #95 of 153 (680 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Turn more and your risk goes up, period.

The way I read that in the original document, I took it to mean the number of turns, not the degrees of heading change in each turn.

That's just my interpretation of "the more you turn, the less you learn".


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 8:01 PM
Post #96 of 153 (678 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Pilots in the standard pattern (90 degrees or less) are going to make turns - and
>people are still going to collide with the current mindset.

>Pilots in the HP pattern (>90 degrees) are going to make turns - and people are still >going to collide with the current mindset.

Yes. And that's true for many things. People who pull at 3000 feet sometimes have problems and don't have time to deal with them before impact. People who pull at 800 feet sometimes have problems and don't have time to deal with them before impact.

That doesn't mean that pulling at 800 feet is no different than pulling at 3000 feet, and that doesn't mean that pull altitude minimums make no difference.

The statistics show that 68% of canopy collisions involve people making big turns (>90.) Stop the big turns in the main landing area, and limit turns to those needed to fly a standard pattern, and you've eliminated over half the problems there. Are there still problems? Will people still collide if they do no more than 90 degree turns? Yes; and we should deal with them as well. But eliminating over half the fatalities out there is a good start.


(This post was edited by billvon on Apr 21, 2011, 8:04 PM)


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 21, 2011, 8:04 PM
Post #97 of 153 (677 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Experience over the past decade has demonstrated that people are not capable of reliably seeing-and-avoiding other jumpers when making larger (>90 degree) turns.

I've seen quite a few statements like that lately. I'd like to ask for a little more explanation; it does not seem intuitive to me.

Granted, we have seen several dramatic and horrific examples of what happens when skydivers do not see each other and turn anyway. But if skydivers cannot see each other when making turns larger than 90 degrees, how can any pilot under any wing ever make a turn greater than 90 degrees? Why do we even have it on our ISP that students must make turns of 180 and 360 degrees under canopy? If it's impossible to see past a 90, why teach it?

How many times in the last decade has a skydiver made a turn larger than 90 degrees under a ram air canopy? tens of millions? hundreds of millions? billions?

Even if you ignore regular skydivers and just focus on swoopers making a turn to landing that is larger than a 90, how many times has that happened? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? millions?

It seems that statements like the one you made focus on the dramatic examples of NOT seeing each other, but does not satisfactorily explain the 10-to-the-x-power number of times skydivers have made turns greater than a 90 and have been able to see each other just fine.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 21, 2011, 8:14 PM
Post #98 of 153 (672 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Pilots in the standard pattern (90 degrees or less) are going to make turns - and people are still going to collide with the current mindset.

Pilots in the HP pattern (>90 degrees) are going to make turns - and people are still going to collide with the current mindset.

I tend to agree. I've been trying to figure out the change in mindset that has ocurred over the past 5 years or so. The best I can come up with is that too many people seem to take the attitude:

'This is my sky, you shouldn't be here, you better get the f*** out'

rather than

'Hey man, what are you doing on this load? Cool, I'll try to stay out of your way'

Note that I'm not just talking about HP jumpers. Regular pattern jumpers seem to be getting plenty stingy, too. This whole canopy collision problem seems to be acting to divide us, when cooperation is the spirit that is needed to solve it.

It seems like in the past folks seemed to be more interested in sharing the sky. Now it seems like folks want to own it.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 21, 2011, 9:07 PM
Post #99 of 153 (655 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I found this post by Nathan, and I thought it pretty much summed up the problem, and my concern with the current mindset. http://www.dropzone.com/...ost=4103094;#4103094
Now That I actually bothered to read the post you mentioned, I really agree with it. It seems like to avoid a canopy collision, it takes a minimum of

- Communication with the rest of load
- Planning
- Managing traffic beginning the instant you open
- Cooperation with the other jumpers
- Constant Vigilance
- A bit of luck

The regulations lots of folks are preaching seem mostly to be aimed at increasing the odds in the 'luck' department but completely ignore the rest of it.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 21, 2011, 10:59 PM
Post #100 of 153 (647 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It seems that statements like the one you made focus on the dramatic examples of NOT seeing each other, but does not satisfactorily explain the 10-to-the-x-power number of times skydivers have made turns greater than a 90 and have been able to see each other just fine.

And how would you go about determining how many of thos times were just dumb luck. winsor said it best and I paraphrase, if someone gets away with something enough times they tend to mistake luck for skill. Just a thought.

Sparky


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 21, 2011, 11:27 PM
Post #101 of 153 (1615 views)
Shortcut
Re: [polarbear] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>But if skydivers cannot see each other when making turns larger than 90 degrees,
> how can any pilot under any wing ever make a turn greater than 90 degrees?

Assuming the givens in your question, the answer is easy - do them only when you are alone in the sky. Then you are guaranteed to not run into anyone in the air.

>It seems that statements like the one you made focus on the dramatic examples of
>NOT seeing each other, but does not satisfactorily explain the 10-to-the-x-power
>number of times skydivers have made turns greater than a 90 and have been able to
>see each other just fine.

I don't think we see each other just fine. I've made 5000 jumps; had maybe 100 close calls (i.e. jumps where someone came close enough to me to really get my attention.) In many of those the other jumper just plain never saw me. When I was jumping a Pursuit 215 and my friends were jumping PD190's it wasn't as big a deal, because you had a LOT more time to deal with the problem - and people were, in general, coming at you from on level. And if both of you didn't see each other? The sky is very big, and chance kept you safe most of the time.

We've changed that formula a lot in the intervening years. Canopies, on average, have gotten much smaller and much faster. This reduces our time to react. People do more high performance landings, and thus fewer people are on level on final. Canopies descend incredibly quickly in turns, which means even a regular turn will cause you to come at someone from a much steeper angle than in years past - which means the bottom person has a harder time seeing the approaching person. Loads have gotten bigger as more and more DZ's use turbines.

All of this means that the big sky theory is no longer working as well. We're seeing as well (or as poorly) as we ever did, but the margins for error are decreasing, and random chance isn't keeping us as safe as it once did.


Fast  (D 28237)

Apr 22, 2011, 7:43 AM
Post #102 of 153 (1590 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The statistics show that 68% of canopy collisions involve people making big turns (>90.) Stop the big turns in the main landing area, and limit turns to those needed to fly a standard pattern, and you've eliminated over half the problems there. Are there still problems? Will people still collide if they do no more than 90 degree turns? Yes; and we should deal with them as well. But eliminating over half the fatalities out there is a good start.

That is a logical fallacy. While it's true that ~68% of collisions were involving turns over 90, it's not true that it was the only cause. In fact, it's hard to know if those people would have not also collided if they weren't making the turns. The people in question may have lacked (clearly) the skill to perceive other traffic. Maybe the big turn made it harder, but the skill level that they had was also presumably greater because they had spent time working on canopy flight.

That's kinda that point that I was making with my last post. We need better ways of educating people and determining skill level. We need people to want to stay within their own skill set. I don't discount that there may be procedural / operational changes that can be made in some instances to help this situation, but it's not the problem.


polarbear  (D 25673)

Apr 22, 2011, 7:43 AM
Post #103 of 153 (1589 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Bill/Sparky -

More or less I agree with most of the points you brought up. Luck does play a part in this equation, heavier traffic and faster canopies do reduce the odds on safety.

I think I come to a different conclusion, though.

It seems to me that attributing this phenomenon to luck is dangerous, simply because I don't find it to be a complete solution. I don't even think it's a majority solution. Remember, if we are talking about 'x' number of hits/close calls and 'y' number of turns without an issue, it seems to me that y is a lot bigger than x, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude. That's one hell of a statistical anomaly if the dominant factor here is luck.

If we want to address this problem then we have a responsibility to understand it. By attributing this to luck, it seems that we are sidestepping that responsibility and just saying 'There is nothing I can do except implement regulation X and hope it improves the odds to an acceptable level'.

Respectfully, I think there is more to this. I think skydivers DO have the ability to plan for, see, and negotiate traffic. We've done it successfully too many times for me to think otherwise. I think there are other factors than just luck. Attributing it to luck and random chance completely ignores any other factors, and in my opinion these other factors are the dominant ones.


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 22, 2011, 8:46 AM
Post #104 of 153 (1574 views)
Shortcut
Re: A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I realize it's only semantics, but it occurred to me that canopies do not just have collisions; pilots have collisions. The canopies just do what they are told - rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps if we started referring to these incidents as pilot collisions it might lead to a culture where people take more responsibility for them, rather than blaming bad luck, circumstances etc

Acknowledging responsibility for causing these incidents seems to me to be an important step towards a solution.

So, pilot collisions - who's with me on that?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Apr 22, 2011, 9:27 AM
Post #105 of 153 (1562 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fast] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>While it's true that ~68% of collisions were involving turns over 90, it's not true that it
>was the only cause.

Agreed. Many things might contribute to it - poor choice of canopy colors, poor situational awareness, bad choice of area to turn in. However, since the turn culminated in the collision, it was the most proximate cause. In all cases had the jumper not made the turn the collision would most likely not have occurred.

>The people in question may have lacked (clearly) the skill to perceive other traffic.

Or the task (clear your airspace visually) may simply not be possible.

>We need better ways of educating people and determining skill level.

Why is determining skill level the issue?


sacex250

Apr 22, 2011, 1:30 PM
Post #106 of 153 (1544 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
So, pilot collisions - who's with me on that?
How about Blind Pilot Collisions?

For example:

"Did you hear there was another BPC at Perris? I guess they never saw it coming!"

-


Fast  (D 28237)

Apr 22, 2011, 1:35 PM
Post #107 of 153 (1539 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>While it's true that ~68% of collisions were involving turns over 90, it's not true that it
>was the only cause.

Agreed. Many things might contribute to it - poor choice of canopy colors, poor situational awareness, bad choice of area to turn in. However, since the turn culminated in the collision, it was the most proximate cause. In all cases had the jumper not made the turn the collision would most likely not have occurred.

>The people in question may have lacked (clearly) the skill to perceive other traffic.

Or the task (clear your airspace visually) may simply not be possible.

>We need better ways of educating people and determining skill level.

Why is determining skill level the issue?

I think it's an issue because short of banning small parachutes, there needs to be a way to figure out who can actually keep up with what's going on when flying one. I absolutely agree that risk factors increase the smaller the parachute I also agree that the greater the disparity between parachutes in the air at one time the more risk. I don't think small parachutes are going away.

If people are more able to determine where they are at skill wise and we educate properly it will cause people to want to fly a parachute that they are qualified for. I also am not suggesting that we directly regulate who jumps what, I think people need to want to be reasonable. If we can change that mentality it will takes us quite a few steps in the right direction towards lowering the risk of canopy collisions. Also, I don't make these statements in reference to any one particular incident.

It's something akin to my understanding of a process that was once used to train air force pilots. You start out with the slower stuff and they were moving people up till they couldn't keep up with what the plane was doing. Some people just don't have the skill to think about the turn they have to make for something that is still 6 miles in front of them, those people don't belong in an F16. The same can be said about canopy piloting. There are a lot of people who can get by on luck, but truly lack the skill to know what's going on and stay ahead of the parachute. They need to be flying something that they can learn on, still have fun and actually want to be flying, not resenting someone telling them screw you, you can't jump xyz parachute.


(This post was edited by Fast on Apr 22, 2011, 1:40 PM)


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Apr 22, 2011, 3:53 PM
Post #108 of 153 (1515 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Fast] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's something akin to my understanding of a process that was once used to train air force pilots. You start out with the slower stuff and they were moving people up till they couldn't keep up with what the plane was doing. Some people just don't have the skill to think about the turn they have to make for something that is still 6 miles in front of them, those people don't belong in an F16. The same can be said about canopy piloting. There are a lot of people who can get by on luck, but truly lack the skill to know what's going on and stay ahead of the parachute. They need to be flying something that they can learn on, still have fun and actually want to be flying, not resenting someone telling them screw you, you can't jump xyz parachute.
I like this idea but how do you think we could implement this? (not a rhetorical question Smile )


kallend  (D 23151)

Apr 22, 2011, 8:07 PM
Post #109 of 153 (1489 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Let's compare that to the 400-way, ...

What's that guy in front of me about to do? Well, if he's on base, he's about to make a right turn onto final. Turn or go straight for a little longer; those are the only two things we had to worry about. We knew that he wasn't going to crank a 270, or start doing S-turns, because if he did that, he'd get cut from the dive - and he didn't want to get cut. .

Isn't it strange that fear of getting cut works, and fear of death or serious injury doesn't.


in2jumping  (C License)

Apr 22, 2011, 9:35 PM
Post #110 of 153 (1485 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sacex250] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1) Require a fairly extensive canopy training course for the A license.

Someone who doesn't have an A license isn't the problem. A student on a lightly loaded canopy is going to be flying, or trying to fly, a slow, normal basic pattern anyway. That's what they should be trying to learn, and if they can't do that then more advanced canopy training becomes irrelevant. -

They grow up to become problems because they do not receive ANY real canopy training early on, training has not kept up with canopy evolution. Also there has been a number of CCs involving low time jumpers over the years.


In reply to:
[ 2) Implement Brian Germain's downsizing chart as a BSR.

While Brian Germain's chart is useful as a reference, it has some serious shortcomings that make it unrealistic to use as an enforced rule.

The chart only combines three factors: exit weight, canopy size, and number of jumps. It doesn't take into account the design and performance differences between canopy models, it doesn't differentiate between how the canopy is intended to be used, and it doesn't account for a skydiver's skills, training, and attitude.

Compare this to paragliders, where wings are uniformly rated according to skill level and safety. -

Re-read Brian Germains chart it does take into account some design factors and I think is a great basic chart to form a BSR around. Some sort of BSR needs to be implemented to regulate canopy progression to cut down on the number of canopy related injuries and deaths.


In reply to:
[ 3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not over take them.

This isn't realistic. In every other facet of aviation, there are right-of-way rules for converging, overtaking, and sequencing to a landing area. How do you outlaw overtaking or "over-descending"? It doesn't matter if one canopy is faster than another if they're both flying a logical pattern and the faster canopy is practicing "see-and-avoid" which a no-passing rule would require anyway. It's the lack of "see-and-avoid" and therefore yielding to another canopy that's the problem. Not to mention, a traffic jam behind a slow canopy doesn't work in the air anymore than it works behind a slow car on the road.

Think if you segregate and split up the main landing area this could be doable. Would not be perfect but better than our current solution of doing nothing Crazy.

In reply to:
4) Segregate canopy landing areas by wing loading. Split landing areas into two, fast canopies land over here slower canopies land over here.

Again, one canopy overtaking another canopy isn't the problem; it's people not seeing each other and failing to properly yield to each other. "Circle of Awareness" is such a big deal during freefall training, but it needs to be an even bigger deal under canopy. Having a "head-on-a-swivel" looking for traffic and not just focusing on the landing area is what's going to make "see-and-avoid" work. I've seen very view videos of camera flyers thoroughly looking all-around them while under canopy.

Canopies over taking each other is a HUGE factor in CCs, keeping horizontal separation would dramatically reduce the chances of CCs.

In reply to:
5) Ban all HP landings (AKA swooping) on normal skydives and put into place rules that minimize any turns (must fly a standard pattern). Require a separate isolated pass for any type of HP landing.

Separate landing areas, sure, like DZO's are supposed to be doing all ready, but removing traffic and giving individual swoopers priority use of airspace, as restrictive as it seems, only builds bad habits by taking away the reason to be looking for traffic in the first place. It's not the airspace environment that's causing collisions, it's pilots not proactively trying to see-and-avoid other jumpers. Allowing swoopers to become complacent in their own protected airspace bubble isn't going to make them any safer when they do end up having to play nice with others.

What? This makes no sense saying that requiring HP landings be done on separate passes is going to make HP pilots complacent.

In reply to:
Recommendations:

1) Better analysis of what exactly causes a collision or near-miss.

Who?
HP landings
Students and low time jumpers
Rapid down sizers
Small canopies over taking large canopies
Other

Why?
Turns or big turns (swoops) in traffic
Lack of training and experience
Down sized to a canopy that they cannot stay ahead of
Canopies over taking each other in traffic (wide varying canopy speeds)
Erratic unpredictable canopy piloting

What can be done?
HP landings done on isolated separate pass
Mandatory canopy training
Regulate canopy progression
Do everything possible to create environment of horizontal and vertical canopy separation
Do everything possible to create predictable canopy behavior in traffic (predictable patterns with minimal turns).

I personally don't think that anything is going to be done to address this issue by USPA and major DZs any time soon. Canopy collisions and canopy related deaths have been a major issue in this sport for a long time and nothing has or is being done to address the issue.

It would mean putting in rules and regulations which would mean limiting fun under canopy and god forbid we throw a monkey wrench in anyone's fun in the name of safetyCrazy.

The current CCs deaths will be forgotten and swept under the rug here in a few months and it will be business as usual Smile.


(This post was edited by in2jumping on Apr 22, 2011, 10:10 PM)


DocPop  (C License)

Apr 28, 2011, 4:05 PM
Post #111 of 153 (1415 views)
Shortcut
Re: A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

There is very little factual data in these discussions, because it is not reported or DZs are reluctant to release actual details. The problem with this situation is that everyone is making assumptions about the causes of collisions.

I just checked and there are 803 responses in the two Perris incident threads, and over 100 here and most of them are people arguing about semantics, causal factors and what to do.

In the meantime nothing gets done.

I really don't have an answer but as a community, all this arguing amongst ourselves is not doing us any good. If we wait until the perfect solution presents itself we may never do anything.

There are a few things most people can agree on - maybe that's a starting point. If every DZ in the country pledged to put up a canopy safety poster sized at some minimum dimensions (say, 36" x 24") in hi-vis colors and posted in a visible place for all to see that might be a start that hopefully would up set a minimal number of people.

The poster could include and aerial photo of the DZ marking out HP, student and main landing areas, mandate landing pattern directions and rules for each and the consequences for breaches.

This is just an idea as I didn't want to post my observations of in-fighting without at least offering a solution.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Apr 28, 2011, 10:19 PM
Post #112 of 153 (1391 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DocPop] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just checked and there are 803 responses in the two Perris incident threads, and over 100 here and most of them are people arguing about semantics, causal factors and what to do.

In the meantime nothing gets done.

I watched a highly skilled CRW Dawg swoop a lightly loaded (1.3:1) PD Lightning and carve it skillfully around a tree. It was incredible. My point here is that any canopy can perform high speed maneuvers. The canopies are not the issue here. Or, maybe stated better, the canopies are not the biggest issue here.

The decision making process of the canopy pilots (that's each and every one us) is the issue we need to address. More stringent guidelines for "ME" to consider when "I" make decisions regarding things like canopy size, wing loading, landing patterns, when and when not to perform HP landings, low turns, hard turns, training, etc. would be helpful. Enforcement of these guidelines will likely be the key to success.

What we’re talking about here people is a paradigm change. Shocked And, I think we’re seeing the first steps in changing that paradigm. Cool This will not be easy, and it will not happen over night! Unsure
So, DocPop, these discussions are not in vein.


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 7:26 AM
Post #113 of 153 (1236 views)
Shortcut
Re: [in2jumping] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

If an Otter held 35 people or even 45 people the pilot would still make only one pass at jump run.

5 pages of discussion about canopies and wingloadings and the simple fact is there is to much congestion in the pattern.

Are these canopy collisions happening more often when there are 3 planes flying and dropping multiple loads as compared to a single caravan letting out one load at a time?

Statistically has anyone looked into how many jumpers on average where dropped in a day at a dz when these canopy collisions occur?

Boogies are great fun and busy dz's are exciting places but the airspace surrounding the landing areas are complete clusterf..ks with jumpers of varying degrees of skill levels.

I've heard many experienced jumpers at boogies say aloud I'm not jumping in that mess.

The PAC750 can do 5/loads an hour, and with one or two Otters flying, throw in a skyvan, and what do you end up with? multiple planes flying and all of these jumpers dropping into a very small area of land.

That you will never change, even with all of the rule changes proposed in this thread.

With the planes flying now it is all about putting up as many loads as fast as possible.

Do the math, how many jumpers are descending into a landing area in 1 hour?

Picture in your mind aircraft attempting to land at JFK or O'hare without air traffic control.

Quote:
3) Implement a NO passing rule, lower canopy has the “right of way” and you must not over take them.

That is like banning gravity from the dropzone. Everyone wants to get up and out in 10 to 12 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes to altitude is too long. Jump, Land, Pack, do it again, 100 ways, big ways, more ways, more jumpers in the sky and more planes flying. When these accidents happen there was no way to predict the who it wil be and when, and the how.

I suspect most long time jumpers and posters to this thread would privately admit to having said something along the lines of; attending boogies are great, they just don't want to jump at them. Tongue


sundevil777  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 7:53 AM
Post #114 of 153 (1221 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The PAC750 can do 5/loads an hour,

Are you sure that isn't a bit optimistic?


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

May 28, 2012, 10:02 AM
Post #115 of 153 (1189 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed, way optimistic. Smile


virgin-burner

May 28, 2012, 10:05 AM
Post #116 of 153 (1186 views)
Shortcut
Re: [sundevil777] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The PAC750 can do 5/loads an hour,

Are you sure that isn't a bit optimistic?

thay can if they only fly hop n'pops! Wink


Joellercoaster  (D 105792)

May 28, 2012, 10:25 AM
Post #117 of 153 (1179 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

You have a point, in that more planes make for crowded airspace at boogies and big dropzones, and it can get congested. It's not a place to let your guard down too much.

But every canopy collision I can think of (and I've only been skydiving a limited time so this is admittedly only a fraction, but there have been a few now and it's still a strong feeling) has been between people who both got out of the same plane.

Whatever it is that needs fixing, it doesn't just apply to boogies.


ufk22  (D 16168)

May 28, 2012, 10:54 AM
Post #118 of 153 (1171 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Do the math, how many jumpers are descending into a landing area in 1 hour?
In reply to:
If this was true, we should have had tons of canopy collisions back at the WFFC. We didn't.
Why?
No sub-100' canopies and no swooping (as it is currently done).


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 11:42 AM
Post #119 of 153 (1150 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Agreed, way optimistic. Smile

http://www.skydivecsc.com/dropzone/aircraft/

Sure, but the point I made remains.

I'll trade you a Casa for a Skyvan, lets get rid of the PAC750 and use a Caravan instead. it's a bit roomier anyway. But we can lease a 3rd Otter for the weekend on standby if the weather is good.

And as was mentioned above.

In reply to:
There is very little factual data in these discussions, because it is not reported or DZs are reluctant to release actual details. The problem with this situation is that everyone is making assumptions about the causes of collisions.

I just checked and there are 803 responses in the two Perris incident threads, and over 100 here and most of them are people arguing about semantics, causal factors and what to do.

In the meantime nothing gets done.

However you nailed me on the semantics. Wink


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

May 28, 2012, 12:49 PM
Post #120 of 153 (1123 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Joellercoaster] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But every canopy collision I can think of (and I've only been skydiving a limited time so this is admittedly only a fraction, but there have been a few now and it's still a strong feeling) has been between people who both got out of the same plane.

Whatever it is that needs fixing, it doesn't just apply to boogies.
Absolutely. Some fatal collisions have even been at Cessna DZ's with only 4 jumpers in the air. It's all about pattern discipline, learning to scan properly for traffic and knowing where the most dangerous areas are. It's also about keeping people from swooping in traffic.


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 12:59 PM
Post #121 of 153 (1132 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Joellercoaster] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You have a point, in that more planes make for crowded airspace at boogies and big dropzones, and it can get congested. It's not a place to let your guard down too much.

But every canopy collision I can think of (and I've only been skydiving a limited time so this is admittedly only a fraction, but there have been a few now and it's still a strong feeling) has been between people who both got out of the same plane.

Whatever it is that needs fixing, it doesn't just apply to boogies.

I am not saying jumpers from different loads are colliding.

To make a point PD, has increased it's production facilities, so has UPT. Yet they have not allowed their quality controls to slip. Nor have any of the other manufactures that I am aware of. These standards are regulated by much more important governing bodies than USPA.

These products are then being sold at DZ's worldwide, through a network of retailers and that is where the quality control stops., with these jumpers signing their waivers to jump. All liability is now borne by the jumper who may kill himself and somebody else... and that somebody else has also signed a waiver allowing themselves to be taken out.

And from an economical standpoint , so be it, jumpers sign their waivers and the heightened adrenaline fueled atmosphere at the larger DZ's allows this because it is all about getting loads up in the air as quickly as possible with as many jumpers released as possible. And jumpers like it this way.

Who hasn't seen an S&TA working as a Tandem Master running to the packers, shuffling the passengers as quickly as possible to make a 5 minute call and putting on tandem rigs while walking, if not fast walking to make the load.

Everyone is currently caught up in this culture of non-normalcy that without stepping far back from the situation and evaluating the statistics, the industry, and the culture that is pervasive and promoted by the manufacturing industry. A clear view is impossible.

I'd briefly read a post and I do not know which longtime jumper it was but a container manufactories promised her that one day soon she too could jump a micro rig and she has been a long standing well know jumper for many years of experience. Her response was NO, thank you, I might just upsize instead. That was received with shock as the thread explained by the canopy/container retailer/dealer rep.

In another thread a 400-500 jumper wonder is stepping down two HP canopy sizes, and with an additional 400 jumps on that set-up wants a JVX.... is that not insane?

There are jumpers with 5000+ jump that wouldn't do that.

And without a hard statistical analysis it is all simply speculation time and time again. Yet Bill Booth said the gear is so safe, no one should be dying under perfectly flying canopies. Yet a perfectly fly paper napkin is not a perfectly flying canopy. It is an experimental wing 2 or 4 years out of production and people are drying under them and killing innocent others also.

Yet the attrition rate isn't that severe for loads flown. Fatalities have not exceeded 100 jumpers in a year in the US as of yet. So all is good right? and it's an industry that a great many regulars earn their livelihood from.

As a self policing body. USPA and USPA members can not influence the manufactures of these products. Or the drop-zones they jump their gear at. So if all your left with is squabbling over rules to make the sport safer. Seems it's gotten worse and not better in the last 10 years of squabbling.

Take with a grain of salt what I've said, disregard any semantic inaccuracies. I'm only looking at it from the outside looking in. And how can a person with 30 years experience see from a perspective of what a jumper with 2 years in the sport is seeing. Huge difference in the perceived reality I think between the two.

I knew when we stared to see the proximity flying of wing-suit base jumps there would be in increase in wing-suit base fatalities.

What is being promoted really shouldn't be and is being promoted from the manufacturing industry.

Disregard everything I've added, I doubt my opinion will change anything anyway. I simply think the rules proposed will not change a thing.


Marisan  (E 123)

May 28, 2012, 1:09 PM
Post #122 of 153 (1126 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

God Jinlee, that was well saidSmile


jinlee  (D License)

May 28, 2012, 1:28 PM
Post #123 of 153 (1119 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Marisan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank You.

As a further point I've thought about.

Not to be confrontational or a smart-ass.

I simply wanted to add a different perspective into a discussion with the small hope it might contribute to the discussion.

Not that I am aware of the technical aspect of canopy design, but I believe gear manufactures would profit from a greater sizing scheme than currently used

Why not make the downsizing a lesser degree, it's proactive, it address the downsizing issues, it would generate more canopy sales, and instead of going down 2 canopy sizes as I mentioned it could be 4 sizes where the sizing scheme is simply changed to a lesser degree of downsizing progression with the smaller sized micro canopies.

It wouldn't effect container manufactures, and the canopy industry would be proactive in resolving a problem and increasing sales at the same time.

As Bill Booth mentioned, not much can be changed with he gear, but perhaps the downsizing of sizes could address this problem from a positive perspective if it's is technically possible.


lvintw

May 28, 2012, 1:50 PM
Post #124 of 153 (1111 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Bill Booth said the gear is so safe, no one should be dying under perfectly flying canopies. Yet a perfectly fly paper napkin is not a perfectly flying canopy. It is an experimental wing 2 or 4 years out of production and people are drying under them and killing innocent others also.

Ban the high performance canopies -- and swooping -- and you will save lives. It's simply not part of skydiving and has no place in our sport.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
May 28, 2012, 7:26 PM
Post #125 of 153 (1058 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
t's simply not part of skydiving and has no place in our sport.

So Crew isn't part of skydiving either? How about accuracy? Wingsuiting, Xrw?

Ban skydiving too, and it'll save lives. After all if people were meant to fly, we'd have wings.

Silly argument isn't it?


DaVinciflies

May 29, 2012, 2:24 AM
Post #126 of 153 (931 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Ban the high performance canopies -- and swooping -- and you will save lives. It's simply not part of skydiving and has no place in our sport.

What is "skydiving" in your opinion?
What disciplines are in, and what are out?

For some of us, canopy flight and piloting is the primary reason for being in the sport. Are we not skydivers?


Marisan  (E 123)

May 29, 2012, 2:04 PM
Post #127 of 153 (896 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jinlee] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thank You.

As a further point I've thought about.

Not to be confrontational or a smart-ass.

I simply wanted to add a different perspective into a discussion with the small hope it might contribute to the discussion.

Not that I am aware of the technical aspect of canopy design, but I believe gear manufactures would profit from a greater sizing scheme than currently used

Why not make the downsizing a lesser degree, it's proactive, it address the downsizing issues, it would generate more canopy sales, and instead of going down 2 canopy sizes as I mentioned it could be 4 sizes where the sizing scheme is simply changed to a lesser degree of downsizing progression with the smaller sized micro canopies.

It wouldn't effect container manufactures, and the canopy industry would be proactive in resolving a problem and increasing sales at the same time.

As Bill Booth mentioned, not much can be changed with he gear, but perhaps the downsizing of sizes could address this problem from a positive perspective if it's is technically possible.

Can we stop the squabbling and, at least have a discussion about what jinlee has said.

It seems to make more sense than almost anything else said about HP Canopies on the multiple threads on this subject (And yes I include myself in that)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 29, 2012, 2:48 PM
Post #128 of 153 (886 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Marisan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Can we stop the squabbling and, at least have a discussion about what
>jinlee has said.

A few points:

1) Some manufacturers already do this. They will build any size you like. Didn't seem to make much of a difference.

2) If people were downsizing one size at a time, and each jump was too much of a jump in performance, then such a scheme might make sense. However, that's not the big problem IMO. Jinlee himself referred to the problem cases where people go down two sizes at a time. Whether they jump from 150 to a 120 by making two size jumps or four wouldn't seem to make a bit of difference.


Marisan  (E 123)

May 29, 2012, 3:19 PM
Post #129 of 153 (879 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Can we stop the squabbling and, at least have a discussion about what
>jinlee has said.

A few points:

1) Some manufacturers already do this. They will build any size you like. Didn't seem to make much of a difference.

2) If people were downsizing one size at a time, and each jump was too much of a jump in performance, then such a scheme might make sense. However, that's not the big problem IMO. Jinlee himself referred to the problem cases where people go down two sizes at a time. Whether they jump from 150 to a 120 by making two size jumps or four wouldn't seem to make a bit of difference.

So Bill, where do we go now?

Common sense doesn't work (Highly loaded reserves anyone?)

Training doesn't work Not enough trainers and not mandated (I'm talking about across all DZ's and not the people like you Bill that are doing their best)

Internal regulation doesn't work as there seems to be no will to implement it.

So, as I said, where do we go now?


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 29, 2012, 3:36 PM
Post #130 of 153 (871 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Marisan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>So, as I said, where do we go now?

Well:

1) Additional requirements are starting to appear. The B license canopy proficiency card is the latest addition in terms of canopy training requirements, and I have a feeling there is more to come as the bodies pile up.

2) DZ's are starting to ban swooping, which will solve part of the problem - it will reduce fatalities from intentional swoops. If the fatalities continue at this rate expect this to expand.

3) DZ's are also starting to pay more attention to canopy flight, and are being more proactive about separating landing areas and getting on people who swoop in the main area.

But in the end nothing we can do (short of banning small canopies) will stop it - and even that wouldn't be a 100% solution, since you can kill yourself under a Navigator.


Joellercoaster  (D 105792)

May 30, 2012, 2:54 AM
Post #131 of 153 (809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Right. I disagree strongly that nothing is being done, or that nothing that is being done, is working.

Change is afoot. We can't fix everything straight away, we have cultural issues, but we might well look back on this as a kind of high-water mark one day.


(This post was edited by Joellercoaster on May 30, 2012, 2:55 AM)


lvintw

May 30, 2012, 3:41 AM
Post #132 of 153 (800 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
DZ's are starting to ban swooping, which will solve part of the problem - it will reduce fatalities from intentional swoops. If the fatalities continue at this rate expect this to expand.

Quote:
But in the end nothing we can do (short of banning small canopies) will stop it

Both of those solutions will make a huge difference ... and they're going to happen!


DaVinciflies

May 30, 2012, 5:14 AM
Post #133 of 153 (788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
DZ's are starting to ban swooping, which will solve part of the problem - it will reduce fatalities from intentional swoops. If the fatalities continue at this rate expect this to expand.

Quote:
But in the end nothing we can do (short of banning small canopies) will stop it

Both of those solutions will make a huge difference ... and they're going to happen!

What on earth makes you think there will be a ban on small canopies?
What constitutes "small"?

Edited to add: You keep trotting out these wild statements and you still have not answered my questions at the top of this page. At the moment your posts are just noise.


(This post was edited by DaVinciflies on May 30, 2012, 5:15 AM)


obelixtim  (D 84)

May 30, 2012, 6:28 AM
Post #134 of 153 (771 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

  

Quote:
What on earth makes you think there will be a ban on small canopies?
What constitutes "small"?

I think perhaps he means on a local level....and DZO's have the power to ban anything they like.

They can also decide on a definition of "small" to be whatever suits them.

The swooping pond closure is an illustration of this point, and will prolly be followed by others. Its not a huge step to see other bans coming into effect if the rate of death and injury under open canopies doesn't show a decrease.

After 20 years of inaction, though, things are slowly starting to be put into practice reduce the toll.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 30, 2012, 10:20 AM
Post #135 of 153 (750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Both of those solutions will make a huge difference ... and they're going to happen!

Banning swooping will happen until the problem declines. No one will ever ban small canopies. Just won't work logistically.


lvintw

May 31, 2012, 5:39 PM
Post #136 of 153 (666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I think perhaps he means on a local level....and DZO's have the power to ban anything they like.

They can also decide on a definition of "small" to be whatever suits them.

The swooping pond closure is an illustration of this point, and will prolly be followed by others. Its not a huge step to see other bans coming into effect if the rate of death and injury under open canopies doesn't show a decrease.

After 20 years of inaction, though, things are slowly starting to be put into practice reduce the toll.

Thanks Tim. Well said.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of some wise people here and at many DZ's, things ARE changing. The people who are causing the carnage will soon be pushed out of most DZ's, making the skies safer for the rest of us.

Why do people call swooping a 'discipline' when the kids continue to kill and injure themselves under perfectly functioning main canopies? That's not 'discipline'.
Crazy

Swooping is not part of the sport and needs to be eliminated at DZ's where people are trying to land safely after making a skydive.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
May 31, 2012, 6:24 PM
Post #137 of 153 (651 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
...where people are trying to land safely after making a skydive.

They shouldn't be mixed. It's pretty well accepted that people need to separate landing areas, and/or hop n pop loads for Canopy Piloting. If that isn't happening you have a cultural and/or DZ issue. You can fix that by being proactive at your dz, or choosing one that advocates safer practices.

You still haven't answered my question from earlier (crew, xrw, etc).

Ian


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on May 31, 2012, 6:26 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 31, 2012, 6:28 PM
Post #138 of 153 (644 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Why do people call swooping a 'discipline' when the kids continue to kill and injure
>themselves under perfectly functioning main canopies? That's not 'discipline'.

Same reason we call RW a discipline despite the deaths due to freefall collisions. Being especially dangerous does not make something less a discipline.


lvintw

Jun 2, 2012, 7:32 AM
Post #139 of 153 (585 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ianmdrennan] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
You still haven't answered my question from earlier (crew, xrw, etc).

There is a big difference between these things. CRW, XRW, wingsuiting are all about flying. Swooping seems to be more and more about crashing.

Although, Gary's wingsuit box landing WAS a little bit of a crash!
Cool

Reduce the death and injuries and some of us may be more willing to accept swooping. Do you have any fresh ideas that will actually make a difference?

You already know what I recommend. It's not popular, but I'm not alone. People are tired of the carnage and they're demanding change. Not just 'Hope'.
Wink


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Jun 2, 2012, 1:21 PM
Post #140 of 153 (555 views)
Shortcut
Re: [lvintw] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
CRW, XRW, wingsuiting are all about flying

As is Canopy Piloting.

Quote:
Swooping seems to be more and more about crashing.

How many serious swoop comps have you been to in the last 3 years? Crashes are rare to say the least. Of course they do happen from time to time. Very rarely are they anything more than a bruised ego.

Quote:
Do you have any fresh ideas that will actually make a difference?

Educate yourself on what canopy piloting really is? And no, I don't mean go and watch a few beer line swoops. Actually go and educate yourself on the competitive side of the discipline. Talk to the seasoned pilots and you'll find there's an incredible amount of science, and technique to the discipline (as with any skydiving discipline). You'd probably be surprised how much thought, planning, and practice goes into becoming a good competitive pilot.

Quote:
You already know what I recommend.

Not sure how you're qualified to recommend anything. You clearly haven't educated yourself on the Canopy Piloting side of the sport. That statement is about as absurd as me making Crew recommendations. I've never been anything more than a distant spectator.

Ian


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Jun 2, 2012, 1:24 PM)


fly67  (C License)

Jun 6, 2012, 7:54 PM
Post #141 of 153 (485 views)
Shortcut
Re: A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

If we equated canopies to motorcycles, we'd have scooters going 20 mph with crotch rockets going 80 mph all on the same race course. Or another analogy, slow Cessnas and F-15s landing together. (And yes two of these slow Cessnas can also collide.)

This seems to have come from the complex evolution of parachutes first being a way to drop to the ground, next evolving to become an actual flying wing, then eventually pushing the limits and performance of this wing. Combine this with the culture of "personal flying" and the freedom of skydiving, and we have no regulation of these types of canopies -- or ways of flying them. So we have "slipped through the cracks" somehow avoiding regulation and oversight that accompanies using vehicles that can go fast and can kill.

To me (as a relatively new jumper) it seems somewhat insane that we have no well-established universal training and rules for flying in common airspace (not yet in landing pattern), for landing patterns, and for flying smaller/faster canopies. Would any airplane pilot be allowed to spiral down near the airport? Would the pilot try to see what the first plane did to decide what direction to land? Would multiple planes be coming down together with the pilot having to "keep his head on a swivel" to avoid a collision? Would we let a single engine Cessna pilot fly an F-15 just because he/she could afford it? (Yes I know parachute does not equal airplane and we are not limited to a runway.)

But maybe (maybe) we can agree that the "causes" are a complex combination of:
- Culture
- Few established/enforced rules (NEVER do X, ALWAYS do Y or ELSE consequence Z)
- Complex flying vehicles with a wide range of velocities and rapid ability to change direction
- High density traffic with no "air traffic control"
- Downsizing
- Pushing beyond skill level
- Lack of sufficient training
- Lack of sufficient awareness
- Blind spots (also no instrumentation)
- Hard to see canopies
- Others? (tired, hungover, high...)

Why wouldn't we work on EACH ONE, bit by bit, whether through advocacy, training, self-restraint, rules, awareness, vigilance, ...?


(This post was edited by fly67 on Jun 6, 2012, 8:19 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 6, 2012, 9:34 PM
Post #142 of 153 (460 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fly67] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>Would any airplane pilot be allowed to spiral down near the airport?

Yes. Flying VFR in class E/F/G, a pilot can spiral down if he wants.

>Would the pilot try to see what the first plane did to decide what direction to land?

At uncontrolled airports, yes. Or he might listen to the radio chatter and realize they were landing to the north, or he might call for information on what people were doing.

But if he was first to land - he'd just pick a direction, and anyone following him would have to either land in the same direction or wait long enough for him to clear the runway. A wise pilot will self-announce on CTAF to notify other pilots of what he's doing.

>Would multiple planes be coming down together with the pilot having to "keep his
>head on a swivel" to avoid a collision?

Yes. Quite often there is a lot of traffic at uncontrolled airports and there is a LOT of both "head on a swivel" action and "46 lima, are you the twin with the blue wings on extended final?" chatter. Even at controlled airports you'll often hear controllers say "you're following the Beech turning base now, report when you have him in sight" - and then they expect _you_ to keep him in sight and avoid him.

>Would we let a single engine Cessna pilot fly an F-15 just because he/she could afford it?

Well, no, because only the military operates F-15's. But a C152 pilot could by a Bonanza and go kill himself with it. (Which is why they're called doctor killers.)

That's not to say that's a good idea, of course. But we're dealing with many of the same problems that general aviation faces, and even general aviation, with over a century of experience, doesn't always get it right.


fly67  (C License)

Jun 6, 2012, 9:54 PM
Post #143 of 153 (459 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Shows how little I know Blush. But I hope you get the point, at least at airports with lots of traffic (and lot's of passengers) - they put in various rules and controls. Not that that is THE solution, just something to consider as part of a broad spectrum approach.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Jun 7, 2012, 2:00 AM
Post #144 of 153 (433 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fly67] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

 Even though Bill shot a few holes in what you said, I thought it was a good post.....


nigel99  (D 1)

Jun 7, 2012, 2:43 AM
Post #145 of 153 (429 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fly67] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

I sometimes wonder if providing 2 way radio o all jumped on a load would help. The problem is that our wings have become maneuverable enough that it would help. But I don't see skydivers being disciplined enough to make it work. First thing that would happen in the US is most jumpers screaming about their liberties being taken away.

There simply isn't the desire to mitigate the risk of collision by all reasonable means.


fly67  (C License)

Jun 7, 2012, 8:02 PM
Post #146 of 153 (374 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There simply isn't the desire to mitigate the risk of collision by all reasonable means.

And that is the crux of the matter.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jun 8, 2012, 12:20 AM
Post #147 of 153 (354 views)
Shortcut
Re: [nigel99] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I sometimes wonder if providing 2 way radio o all jumped on a load would help.

Just one more electronic gadget to distract and confuse. Jumpers need to develop the skills to jump, deploy and land on their own.

Sparky


peek  (D 8884)

Jun 8, 2012, 5:03 AM
Post #148 of 153 (338 views)
Shortcut
Re: [fly67] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
To me (as a relatively new jumper) it seems somewhat insane that we have no well-established universal training and rules for flying in common airspace (not yet in landing pattern), for landing patterns, and for flying smaller/faster canopies.

If we would simply better follow some established rules it would help. Read the following and think about how these rules would read when applied to canopy flight. They really match up quite well, plus, they have been in existance for many years. http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/...Name=navRulesContent

Search for FAR 91.113. (Part of it is in the Appendix of the USPA SIM).

Skydivers are simply ignoring these very well thought out and beneficial rules.


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 11, 2012, 7:45 AM
Post #149 of 153 (264 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>Would any airplane pilot be allowed to spiral down near the airport?

Yes. Flying VFR in class E/F/G, a pilot can spiral down if he wants.

But even there, all turns in the pattern must be made in a specified direction (generally left, unless otherwise indicated in the AFD or by NOTAM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jun 11, 2012, 9:02 AM
Post #150 of 153 (247 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

>ut even there, all turns in the pattern must be made in a specified direction (generally
>left, unless otherwise indicated in the AFD or by NOTAM)

In the pattern - agreed. We get away with a lot when we are farther from the LZ (or the airport) just because everyone hasn't condensed into that smaller space above the LZ yet.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Jun 11, 2012, 9:17 AM
Post #151 of 153 (232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Yes. Quite often there is a lot of traffic at uncontrolled airports and there is a LOT of both "head on a swivel" action
Unfortunately not as much as needed. There are around 2 dozen+ midair collisions in this country every year, many of them around these uncontrolled airports.

In reply to:
Even at controlled airports you'll often hear controllers say "you're following the Beech turning base now, report when you have him in sight" - and then they expect _you_ to keep him in sight and avoid him.
That's pretty much their job at towered (controlled) airports. That and to coordinate with radar facilities on the release of IFR aircraft.


In reply to:
But a C152 pilot could buy a Bonanza and go kill himself with it. (Which is why they're called doctor killers.)
Umm, he'd have to be signed off to fly complex aircraft at a minimum, right?

Hey, more expensive than the Bonanza is the Piper Malibu. That's why they're called "Plastic Surgeon Killers."Crazy


In reply to:
That's not to say that's a good idea, of course. But we're dealing with many of the same problems that general aviation faces, and even general aviation, with over a century of experience, doesn't always get it right.
Agreed. And it's many of the same attitudes that kill pilots that kill jumpers. Unsure


(This post was edited by JohnMitchell on Jun 11, 2012, 9:18 AM)


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 11, 2012, 11:13 AM
Post #152 of 153 (214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Yes. Quite often there is a lot of traffic at uncontrolled airports and there is a LOT of both "head on a swivel" action
Unfortunately not as much as needed. There are around 2 dozen+ midair collisions in this country every year, many of them around these uncontrolled airports.

In reply to:
Even at controlled airports you'll often hear controllers say "you're following the Beech turning base now, report when you have him in sight" - and then they expect _you_ to keep him in sight and avoid him.
That's pretty much their job at towered (controlled) airports. That and to coordinate with radar facilities on the release of IFR aircraft.


In reply to:
But a C152 pilot could buy a Bonanza and go kill himself with it. (Which is why they're called doctor killers.)
Umm, he'd have to be signed off to fly complex aircraft at a minimum, right?

Hey, more expensive than the Bonanza is the Piper Malibu. That's why they're called "Plastic Surgeon Killers."Crazy

Need "high performance" and complex endorsements for a Bo.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

Jun 11, 2012, 2:50 PM
Post #153 of 153 (193 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] A Solution for Current Canopy Collisions and Canopy Related Deaths/Injuries [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks, Kallend. I forgot "high performance."Cool

Hey, where were you when that "can jumpers create lift" thread was going last week? There were a lot of physics misconceptions floating around (as alwaysCrazy).Laugh



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)