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

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

mjosparky  (D 5476)

Apr 20, 2011, 12:38 AM
Post #51 of 153 (924 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 dont pay attention.

Sparky


shropshire  (C License)

Apr 20, 2011, 2:27 AM
Post #52 of 153 (919 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 (902 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, its 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 (886 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 (881 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 (839 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 (827 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 (815 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 (805 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 (797 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 (799 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 29960)

Apr 20, 2011, 12:44 PM
Post #62 of 153 (789 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 (778 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 (755 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 (753 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 (748 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 (741 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 (736 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 29960)

Apr 20, 2011, 3:11 PM
Post #69 of 153 (735 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 (730 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 (730 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 (724 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 (714 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 (694 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


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)