Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Predictability of 270 degree turns: (Was Fatality - Eloy)

 

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

Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 1:02 PM
Post #1 of 114 (3836 views)
Shortcut
Predictability of 270 degree turns: (Was Fatality - Eloy) Can't Post

Hey,

I agreed with all the comments posted in relation to my post except a few technicalities,

Skybytch:

Quote:
At most dz's, a 270 riser turn to final is predictable when the person is flying a canopy made for swooping. I expect the guys on Velocitys/Xaos'/Katanas/Crossfires to approach that way. They can expect that I will fly a predictable traditional pattern with my big old boat of a Spectre. These expectations help to keep us from running into each other.

I don't mean to nit pick here, but this seems to be making me responsible to make sure I note the canopies above me, if they are HP or not. It's pretty difficult to see through 135 sq ft of canopy, doesn't seem like much but it blocks a large portion of my view. On another note...you mentioned that a 270 is predictable??? Really, FOR WHO?? The regulars who know the jumper and canopy colours? I would sure as hell not want to be expected to watch for canopies anywhere up to 800 feet "above" me when I visit a DZ. I know this sounds like I'm ragging on you..I'm really not, just that process wouldn't make sense.

In regards to the swoopers ego, you know, maybe I haven't met alot of swoopers and don't know all of their personalities. But, you conveniently left out my 2 other comments that went with that post. First, I said it had nothing to do with this incident, and second, I also mentioned that I don't know alot of swoopers.

Quote:
You could collide with someone in freefall and knock them out. If they don't have an AAD, they'll die. Is that your fault? No, it's not. It's one of the risks we take by jumping with other people.

Depending on the circumstances...yes. I agree we choose to engage in a high risk sport, but I don't choose to have some jackass follow me out the door doing headdown while I'm on my belly at impact me. If we were doing RW and got kicked in the head and passed out, sure, that's an accident. FYI, it's also my choice to jump with an AAD or not.

I know shit happens, and it can happen to anyone at anytime. But my point in this is the same as yours, "WE" need to be part of the solution. ANd there needs to be a solution, we can't simply let something like this pass on as "another swooping casualty". This can and hopefully will be corrected. I mean seriously, 2 collisions in 2 days....That's not Murphy's law.


(This post was edited by PhreeZone on Jan 2, 2007, 6:07 PM)


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jan 2, 2007, 1:43 PM
Post #2 of 114 (3685 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't mean to nit pick here, but this seems to be making me responsible to make sure I note the canopies above me, if they are HP or not.

That is exactly what I'm saying. Read the first post on this thread for an explanation.

You are responsible for your own safety. You can control many of the risks involved in jumping with other people by being aware of them and planning to avoid them long before you enter the pattern.

In reply to:
Depending on the circumstances...yes. I agree we choose to engage in a high risk sport, but I don't choose to have some jackass follow me out the door doing headdown while I'm on my belly at impact me. If we were doing RW and got kicked in the head and passed out, sure, that's an accident.

You are responsible for your own safety. You accepted the risk of said jackass impacting you when you got on the airplane with them.

In reply to:
FYI, it's also my choice to jump with an AAD or not.

I agree. I've done more jumps without an AAD than you've done jumps. They're wonderful little black boxes; I have several friends who might still be with us if they'd had one and several more who are still with us because they had one. But that discussion is a dead horse that doesn't need to be beaten here.


CanuckInUSA  (D 26396)

Jan 2, 2007, 1:51 PM
Post #3 of 114 (3649 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
On another note...you mentioned that a 270 is predictable??? Really, FOR WHO?? The regulars who know the jumper and canopy colours? I would sure as hell not want to be expected to watch for canopies anywhere up to 800 feet "above" me when I visit a DZ.

Were all in this together (swoopers and non-swoopers) and each and everyone of us needs to do our part to ensure that something bad doesnt happen to us (of course sometimes you can do everything right in this sport and still die). Of course its much easier to predict what another canopy pilot will do when youre jumping at your own DZ. When you go to a big DZ like Eloy (especially during one of their boogies) there are still many wild cards in play. But try and do this (no matter where you jump). Observe who is on the load with you. Try and figure out what kind of jump they are doing (RW, Freeflying, AFF, Tandem Camera, Tandem, Wingsuit, high pullers, etc, etc, etc). Try if possible to look at their demeanor and gear (there is no guarantee here that your observations will be correct - seeing someone with a small rig tells you theyll have a small canopy, but it wont tell you how they will be flying that canopy) and ultimately try to determine where you will fit into the landing pattern. Sometimes it makes sense to try and be first down, sometimes it makes sense to try and hang in brakes and be last down and often it makes sense just to try and sequence yourself into the traffic pattern. Obviously what I am telling you is not a science (multiple aircraft on multiple jump runs doesnt help). There will always be wildcards. But if you have an idea of where you should be fitting into the landing pattern before you even leave the ground, then youre a step ahead of the game and at least you have some sort of plan versus just winging it.

PS: In reference to trying to sequence yourself in the pattern, know this. You can leave the airplane before someone else, yet they still may be landing before you. A lot has to depend on what kind of jump they made, how high or low they pulled, what their wingloading is and how they flew their canopy. I guess Im telling you this so that youre not trying to be the first one down at this early stage of your jumping career.


(This post was edited by CanuckInUSA on Jan 2, 2007, 2:00 PM)


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 2:28 PM
Post #4 of 114 (3532 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Skybytch,

I'm really not trying to fight you on this, we are both working towards the same goal, we simply have slightly different approaches.

I can obviously tell that you are coming from the swooping side of things, and I'm coming from the, predictable pattern side. I know you've been where I am being that I'm a relatively new jumper, and tend to think that most people on here don't lie about their numbers. I appreciate that you are not simply lashing out at me for defending my position. I'm doing the same, I respect your view, but I also want to show the other side of it as I can see that not alot of low time jumpers will/are posting on a topic like this.

I've got another scenario because I can see that you don't really see a problem with swoopers and non swoopers landing together. I agree we ALL have to cover our own asses, and I do...to a certain extent. When I enter the pattern, I know where the other canopies are around me, and I expect them all to follow the pattern and land in succession. How could I prevent someone above me, even If I did see them, from swooping and hitting me? THEY broke the pattern which is put in place to prevent such useless wastes of life that we've seen last weekend. And maybe my canopy is out of date, but last time I checked, it was pretty opaque. They can see easily below, I can't see up that easily.

Consider this..I'm at my local shooting range standing in my "booth" shooting at targets. Some jackass comes up behind me, in lets say the loading area and starts firing downrange from where he's standing and kills me. Yes, it's my choice to be there and I assume the risk, and yes I have to accept whatever happens BUT!!! That person standing behind me was out of place...he was out of the pattern. If he followed the pattern, he would be in his booth firing downrange and I wouldn't be dead.

I would love to hear from anyone who disagrees with me and my above scenario, why the hell do we have landing patterns in the first place if it doesn't matter for swoopers to "go out of place". I'm following the rules being safe...THEY are endangering me, by my choice or not.

Skydiving is risky, I'm not going to deny that. But there is a difference between risk and unnecessary risk! This incident is also 50% the fault of the DZ. If there was a no swooping rule, obviously it was not being enforced. Again, BOTH of these incidents would have never happened.

And in response to another post which I can't find quickly here, someone said that everyone was doing it so he just followed suit... Come on people, DO NOT try to use that as an excuse. Because everyone else was doing it makes it ok? NO! (I would use the example your parents always used about jumping off a bridge...but I know I'll get some smart ass replies to that. hehe).

Consider this as well... Next time you're flying to the next big boogie, or to visit your aunt and uncle in whereeverland, you might want to watch your own ass for the other airplanes, that "might" be in the pattern. Based on the logic being seen here, that would be acceptable for a plane to "choose" not to fly the pattern, and still fly through it. Oh but wait, that wouldn't happen because there's a governing body, the FAA. I think USPA, CSPA, BPA etc should step up to the plate here. I know no skydiver wants to follow strict rules, but I really hope we can all agree on something that will stop these nonsense deaths, while still allowing us some flexibility on the rule.

Does anyone have any statistics made up on how many injuries out of the last few years were preventable. If no one has this completed already, I'll gladly go through the Fatality list and find out how many hook turns, pilot responsible canopy collisions, swoops gone bad have occurred in since the list since it started. I know this number is not going to look pretty to all the swoopers out there because you and I both know ALOT of the fatalities are going to be in this area. (at least in the last 5 or so years anyways)


(This post was edited by Chris-Ottawa on Jan 2, 2007, 2:29 PM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jan 2, 2007, 2:37 PM
Post #5 of 114 (3496 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know if there's a win-win scenario here.

If your swooper first clears the area below him, he has to hold brakes hard and thus 'crunches' up the stack above him - many times such that some canopies can't stay in the 'queue' above him. This really sucks for anyone above him. It's also confusing to see the landing stackup with a big 1000 foot hole in the lineup and about 5 canopies just sitting there and not descending like 'normal'.

If you swooper goes a bit early to keep the lineup from crunching up, then he may just overtake and pass or impact the canopies below him.

I have a lot of respect for those swoopers that get out on their own pass or open high and land last. Especially for those that will pass up that swoop at the end of their fun jump if it isn't perfect.

It's easy to fix anyway. Tongue Restrict swooping only to qualified 4-way RW teams. They normally get out first or second, open fairly close to the low deck, so they typically land first, anyway before traffic builds. Normally also have more experience/jumps compared to 1 and 2 way freefliers or "just for fun" RW groups....

note - - - > WinkTongueTongueTongueTongueLaughSly

Edit: That satire means I don't know of a solution other than swooping needs to open high, have a different landing and staging zone over the DZ, or be willing to abort MUCH more often than we see today. I don't see much that 'safer' canopy pilots can do to help other than be aware of traffic and have their heads on swivels - which I think applies to everybody anyway.


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jan 2, 2007, 2:39 PM)


vdschoor  (D 27300)

Jan 2, 2007, 2:52 PM
Post #6 of 114 (3443 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've got another scenario because I can see that you don't really see a problem with swoopers and non swoopers landing together. I agree we ALL have to cover our own asses, and I do...to a certain extent. When I enter the pattern, I know where the other canopies are around me, and I expect them all to follow the pattern and land in succession. How could I prevent someone above me, even If I did see them, from swooping and hitting me? THEY broke the pattern which is put in place to prevent such useless wastes of life that we've seen last weekend. And maybe my canopy is out of date, but last time I checked, it was pretty opaque. They can see easily below, I can't see up that easily.

Chris, I disagree with you, and I think I can make you agree with me (or at least understand) after you read my post.. (and if this makes sense to you)

Swoopers still fly a pattern, even when they do a 270 turn on final.

Your pattern probably looks like this:

1000ft, setup downwind of your target and fly downwind to 600ft
At 600ft, make a 90 degree turn onto your crosswind leg and fly to 300ft
At 300ft make a left hand 90 degree turn onto final, and fly straight till landing

A swooper, flies the exact same pattern:
1500ft, setup downwind of your target and fly to 1000ft.
at 1000ft turn 90 degrees left and fly to 600ft.
at 600ft make a 270 degree right hand turn onto final and land.

Draw this out, and you will notice at no time is any of the two "breaking the pattern"
The one huge thing is though, the swooper needs to look out for the people that are flying a normal pattern, and make his decision based on that.. can I safely make the swoop or not?
The swooper is the higher canopy, and therefore has to give right of way to the lower canopy at any given time.. so if anyone is flying the "normal pattern" below him (or her) he needs to let that person land and cancel his decision to make the swoop landing.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jan 2, 2007, 2:55 PM
Post #7 of 114 (3424 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Preapologies to all who don't want to follow this way off topic, but here I go...

In reply to:
I can obviously tell that you are coming from the swooping side of things, and I'm coming from the, predictable pattern side.

You'd be wrong on that. Check my profile. Swooping is not and will never be something that I do.

And 5 years ago I'd have been one of those pointing fingers at the swoopers - how dare they endanger my life with their antics? After some long discussions with some really good canopy pilots in the past few years my opinion has changed.

Swooping isn't going to go away. I hope there will always be a place in the sport for those of us who don't want to go that fast. We have to share the air if we all want to continue jumping. The only way that is going to happen is if we stop pointing fingers at each other and start working together.

In reply to:
How could I prevent someone above me, even If I did see them, from swooping and hitting me? THEY broke the pattern which is put in place to prevent such useless wastes of life that we've seen last weekend.

You can go a long way toward preventing it by planning your landing pattern and purposely putting yourself above and away from the swoopers long before you enter the pattern. Again, refer to the post in S&T for details on how to do that.

That said, we can't eliminate every risk that comes with jumping with other people. Other people make mistakes, just like we do. Those risks that we can't eliminate we have to accept.

That's my opinion anyway. Worth what you paid for it.

Again, my apologies to all who think this is way off topic for this thread.


Premier GravityGirl  (D 18897)

Jan 2, 2007, 2:58 PM
Post #8 of 114 (3414 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

>>
I would love to hear from anyone who disagrees with me and my above scenario, why the hell do we have landing patterns in the first place if it doesn't matter for swoopers to "go out of place". I'm following the rules being safe...THEY are endangering me, by my choice or not.
<<

Your wish is my command.

Do you believe that a hook turn is not or cannot be part of the pattern? If so, I suggest you sit down with an instructor and discuss the bigger picture of the landing pattern.

A 90 degree hook turn is very much part of the pattern. Easy to see.

A 180 degree hook turn is a little more tricky. You would have to fly up the middle of traffic to execute the turn UNLESS you choose an edge of the pattern to perform this maneuver. This is my least favorite

A 270 degree hook turn can actually fit into the pattern quite nicely. The pilot flys a downwind leg, a cross wind leg and arrives at his/her setup point. If it is a left hand pattern, a right 270 is performed. Before it is executed, the pilot MUST ensure clear airspace and allow an "OUT" in case he/she observes traffic as they come arround the turn.

The 270 and the 90 IMHO are the most predictable landings other than a straight in approach.

If you take the opportunity to spend an afternoon observing the landing pattern and ALL of the parachutes in it, you will see how this can work quite harmoniously.

One of my biggest lectures I give to customers who want to downsize is about the pattern. Anyone can land a smaller parachute. But can you adequately assess and reassess throughout the duration of your flight, not only your landing pattern, but the pattern, descent rate and landing style of the canopies in the air with you? If the answer is no, then stay on a bigger canopy for a while until you develope this skill.

Before I ever enter the pattern, I assess the canopies above me to see who will need to overtake me. Then I rally for my "slot". Where do I fit into the big picture? I assume that slot and THEN enter the pattern. Keep in mind that new variables will be thrown in the whole way, so you have to leave outs and have plans A, B and C.

Each canopy pilot regardless of skill level is part of a bigger picture. If you picture includes a mixuture of high performance canopies and more docile parachutes, then educate yourself and learn how to be a safe part of that picture. We are all in this together.


(This post was edited by GravityGirl on Jan 2, 2007, 3:06 PM)


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 3:08 PM
Post #9 of 114 (3381 views)
Shortcut
Re: [vdschoor] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey,

I totally see where you're coming from but unfortunately I still don't see it the same as you. I stick to my shooting theory. The swooper was flying his pattern which conflicted with the "standard" pattern. I did however say that the swooper broke the pattern and intersected the other pattern. It's the same scenario exactly, you can't just choose to run your own pattern and expect everyone else to know what you're doing.

On another note, I'm really happy to see some very experienced jumpers and swoopers alike, posting and agreeing that something has to change and it seems like separate areas is the best option. I don't think the governing bodies will step up as much as WE as skydivers can make an impact. The more and more swoopers that are coming up makes this sport seem more like running through a minefield on landing than a way of getting to earth.


Premier GravityGirl  (D 18897)

Jan 2, 2007, 3:12 PM
Post #10 of 114 (3360 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Chris,

I'm sorry, but you are out of line. Iwan is one of the ONLY eye witnesses to the entire event.

Tom flew a proper pattern. Ilea flew a proper pattern. The mistake was TOM DID NOT SEE ILEA. Well. He saw her when it was too late for him, but he made sure it wasn't too late for her.

Don't confuse his mistake with him not flying a proper pattern.

Perhaps you feel that Tom should not have done a 270. Respect. Got it. But that does not mean he did not fly a pattern. You dig?


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 3:21 PM
Post #11 of 114 (3311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

 

Hey Skybytch,

Sorry to keep posting in here, but I felt that it was pretty on topic. If you would prefer, I would love to discuss this further with you via PM. So I'll say no further until you reply.

Gravity girl,
Please read my post previous to this one. I spoke about the same thing. If I'm the lowest canopy, and I fly a downwind-90-crosswind-90-final approach...you are above me in the pattern which means I just set the pattern. So whether or not your swoop pattern starts at 10,000ft, involves 65 x 360's and a backloop, if there is a canopy lower than you...YOU BROKE THE PATTERN!

I understand that not all canopies fly the same speed or sink the same, that's ok. I know exactly where you're coming from. I fly a Spectre 135, it can go down VERY quick, but I also have brakes and can slow it down to follow a slower canopy in the pattern. Point being, lowest canopy sets the pattern, anyone above who lands before them has broken the pattern. That was my point and as stated in my previous post...you're not flying "A" pattern, you're flying "THE" pattern.

Either way, I think I'm going to stop posting in this thread but would be more than happy to continue with anyone via PM. I don't want to upset anyone or get the thread off topic as it is starting to get heated. I'm sorry if I've upset anyone up to this point, I'm just trying to state my thoughts from a noob's perspective.

Thanks


(This post was edited by Chris-Ottawa on Jan 2, 2007, 3:25 PM)


chaoskitty  (B 26574)

Jan 2, 2007, 3:27 PM
Post #12 of 114 (3291 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GravityGirl] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

I saw the entire event. What you just said is true. Thats all I really want to say about it... except blue skies, Tom.


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 3:39 PM
Post #13 of 114 (3248 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chaoskitty] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok, I wasn't going to post this in here as I just sent a PM to GravityGirl, but you're welcome to think as you want. If you happened to read my first post, I made mention to note that I was not discussing this specific incident, but these types of incidents in general. I never made any mention of Tom or what Tom did right or wrong. Feel free to PM Bonnie, as I told her my opinion via PM because I felt it was inappropriate to post on the forums. It's nothing evil, I simply didn't feel right about posting how I feel about someone I never knew without seeing it first hand, hence why I'm discussing these incident in general.

Last post...I will not be replying again as I don't want to start a feud. Sorry.

Hope that clears things up.

Chris


(This post was edited by Chris-Ottawa on Jan 2, 2007, 3:40 PM)


Premier GravityGirl  (D 18897)

Jan 2, 2007, 4:02 PM
Post #14 of 114 (3277 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

The pattern does not dictate that one canopy land at a time. A faster canopy will always overtake a slower one on landing. That is not braking the pattern. They should each secure their own landing strip, but a fast canopy can overtake a slow one without braking the pattern.

Unlike airplanes, we don't all land on a single runway one at a time. Unlike airplanes, we don't have the ability to do a go around or increase and decrease speed as readily.

Do you really think that you could hold brakes long enough to allow a Manta 288 to land first from a 300 foot final? It's not feasable, nor is it the safest choice for that matter.

You would choose a final landing strip that is paralell to his. You would overtake him, and that would be fine.

I guess I'm confused as to what you think "The Pattern" is.


Rainbo  (D 9054)

Jan 2, 2007, 4:23 PM
Post #15 of 114 (3214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GravityGirl] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

From everything described both jumpers were in a "proper" pattern. The issue truly seems to be that a dear old friend made a mistake and did not properly clear his air before initiating his turn. It has always been low "man" has the right of way. Not bigger/smaller, faster/slower, but lower. Like it or not it is one of the "rules of the road" that we live by.

He did do something that Henry and I told him some time ago "if you do fuck up just don't take anyone with you." He did that and nothing more.

I'll miss him.


jose  (D License)

Jan 2, 2007, 5:47 PM
Post #16 of 114 (3026 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Dude,

Yeah, you should have not even said anything to begin with. I am going to state the obvious here, but you do NOT have even remotely enough experience to comment on right and wrong here. For someone with your experience, you should really know that you don't have enough of a foundation for skydiving, or swooping for that matter to make the statements you have made.

I cannot believe that you are going to argue with Iwan, the deceased's friend, an accomplished skydiver and a first hand witness. Take a step back and realize how ludicrous that is. Now I dont know you personally, but I know several new jumpers that have the same kind of demeanor, and their future as a skydiver will not be what it could if they just talked less and listened more.

You in fact DID state that Tom flew some kind of wrong pattern, so don't even try to back out of that one dude. Have you even been to Eloy at a boogie? Have you ever even been at a boogie that required a planned landing pattern due to a high load of jumper traffic? Have you ever been to a boogie at all? I understand that you are trying to do damage control, but man up and admit that you have said things which you have ABSOLUTELY no business doing.

I have been following this thread since the incident, and reserving any kind of disagreeable comment for anyone. There are a couple posters here that have made some insensitive comments, but unfortunately, their comments are for the most part, ring true. Who am I to argue with a person that has thousands more jumps of experience and 3 times the years in the sport if what they are saying is for the most part correct? I called a buddy that jumps at your DZ just to make sure about some things. You have NO swooping background at all. You cant honestly believe even what you are saying.....you have no foundation for you comments, and you are embarrassing yourself.


The only thing I would like to ask here, is, was there a division of the main landing area for straight in, and HP landings like there has been at the boogies I have attended there in the past? Usually the peas split the landing area with HP landings going on towards the beer line side of the landing area. Was this the case at this last boogie as well? What I have been able to gather from all the accounts is that the near collision happened pretty much right down the middle, where the 2 area's would be invisibly split. Am I right in this, or was the near miss on one side or the other. Couple years ago, at the Holiday Boogie, I was standing at the fence, beer line side, and witnessed a straight in pilot come right down the beer line side and be overtaken by a swooper that flew underneath him and gift wrapped him. This left straight in dude with compound fracture of his ankle, as I his primary health care provider until the medics got there. I never understood why pilots go to the wrong side of the landing area for their particular style. And this goes both ways, HP pilots on the north side as well.


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 6:09 PM
Post #17 of 114 (2978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jose] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey,

You know, for following this thread from the beginning, you must have missed my comment about me not directly speaking about this specific incident.

I didn't say anything that pointed blame, I may have used the scenario as an example, but I never said "Tom was not in a pattern". I stated that Tom apparently intersected another pattern. I never once said anything to the other person involved in the incident about who's wrong or right. If you missed my first post, I can see why you're thinking the way you are.

As for my background in swooping...considering I have 55 jumps, do you honestly think I've even thought about swooping yet? I hope whoever you called told you that I am a conservative pilot and do as I'm told. I made no claims to my experience, and I even said a couple time that I'm a noob. Please avoid putting personal attacks in the thread, you can just as easily PM me.

I'm not going any further on this.

Chris


jedeisurf  (D 19679)

Jan 2, 2007, 6:11 PM
Post #18 of 114 (2975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jose] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Dude this whole thread is out of hand, yes we lost someone that a lot of people cared about, but he was in the wrong as learned in fjc low man has the rightaway. It don't matter. I swoop myself, alaways look out for the other person....
David


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 6:26 PM
Post #19 of 114 (2957 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jedeisurf] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey,

Yes this thread did get out of hand. I'm posting again because it was moved to this new thread. I can't find where I said that Tom wasn't flying a pattern but I do see this quote from me:

Quote:
The swooper was flying his pattern which conflicted with the "standard" pattern. I did however say that the swooper broke the pattern and intersected the other pattern.

Maybe if you understood that by breaking the pattern I meant his pattern, that's incorrect. I meant that he's breaking into the "slower" pattern.

I just want everyone to understand from my first post that I'm not talking about "this" specific incident. I'm upset that this happened in the first place as the 2 patterns should never come close to intersecting each other.


labrys  (D 29848)

Jan 2, 2007, 6:28 PM
Post #20 of 114 (2954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I didn't say anything that pointed blame, I may have used the scenario as an example, but I never said "Tom was not in a pattern". I stated that Tom apparently intersected another pattern.

First you say the low canopy sets the pattern, then you dance off into the idea that there are multiple patterns.

C'mon, man. Grab the beverage of your choice and listen to the people here who have the experience to comment.

I'm not one of the people with the experience, but I'll offer my own advice as a "grasshopper" here:

Stop trying to figure out how to pick apart / avoid individual mistakes and let these guys share and teach the big picture about staying safe.


Ron

Jan 2, 2007, 6:41 PM
Post #21 of 114 (2944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jose] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Who am I to argue with a person that has thousands more jumps of experience and 3 times the years in the sport if what they are saying is for the most part correct?

Well, then please hear this from me:

In reply to:
You in fact DID state that Tom flew some kind of wrong pattern, so don't even try to back out of that one dude

A 270 is a wrong pattern for a normal landing area....An area that BTW during the boogie turns over 180 were not allowed. Just because people were doing it does not make it OK.

In reply to:
Have you ever even been at a boogie that required a planned landing pattern due to a high load of jumper traffic?

Yes, plenty. A traffic pattern was in place, Tom ignored it. Luckily the other jumper did not die due to his mistake. Ron and Sara were not that lucky. Roger Nelson was not that lucky, Kallend got really lucky.

Anyone that thinks a 270 is a "proper" pattern is ignoring 100 years worth of aviation's lessons. A 180, 270, 360 or 540 hook turn to final is nothing but disruptive to *any* attempt at a normal landing pattern. The more the degrees of turn the more dangerous it is in a pattern.

A 180, 270 360....ect degree turn is very hard for anyone else in a pattern to judge. And in every case the LOWER person has the right of way....Ever wonder why? They CAN'T SEE above and behind them which is where this jumper and others in the same situation came from.

270's even 180's have NO place in a "pattern". Wanna do cool 540 degree hook turns?...Have fun with my blessing, but do a hop n' pop while I grab a camera.

Some are defending their friend. Normal and expected. But most will admit he made a mistake. The best make mistakes, best friends make mistakes. This does not mean he was stupid, ugly, unskilled, or an ass. It just means he made a mistake. If he were a world class jumper maybe he would not have made that mistake, or maybe the recovery would not have killed him...But he like MOST of us are just not that good. So that just goes to show that if this guy who is better than many can make this mistake, then maybe 270's have no place in a proper pattern.

Swooping is not going to go away, so how do we prevent this (Or reduce it)?

1. Follow the rules. The main landing are was off limits for this kind of landing. ENFORCE IT!

2. Follow one of the "Golden Rules"....LOW MAN HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY.

3. Follow the "Swoopers Rule". Know when NOT to swoop.

4. Establish "High Performance" landing areas. Say turns over 180 degrees and ground anyone that does not follow that rule.

I have been avoid posting anything, and this is the first and last I am going to say about this.

I feel the loss. Hell I knew Cliff, knew Ron, Knew Roger...Glad I still get to still know Kallend...Sorry I will never get to know Tom.

Lets do something about it instead of ignoring the issue.

Jan.....How about you get the USPA to actually DO SOMETHING?!!?!?!


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 6:42 PM
Post #22 of 114 (2942 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jose] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Jose,

I'm sorry that you were forced to write a post like that, but I think you've misunderstood my posts. I'm trying to figure out how the 2 patterns can meet up. I had no intentions of pointing blame and didn't want to come across that way.

Honestly, if you spoke to someone at my DZ, they likely told you my personality. I'm not against swooping or anything like that. To be completely honest, I would have never posted in that thread if this had been one incident. The only reason why I posted is because 2 exactly same situations occurred at the exact same DZ just one day apart. I mean honestly, I don't know the exact details of either incident, but it seems like day 1 had a swoop resulting in a collision, and day 2 had a swoop resulting in a near miss and a hard landing. The reason I'm upset is because I can't possibly understand how the same thing can happen twice in the same weekend. Did the DZ not make strict rules to no swooping which was apparently the rule during the boogie.

Honestly, I truly do apologize if my posts came off the wrong way as that is not at all what I wanted. I knew full well that posting in a sensitive thread like that could provoke someone. I don't feel that I've embarrassed myself. I'm trying to understand what happened and what can be done about it. I don't ever want to see this happen again and both incidents were unnecessary.

Hope this helps,

Chris


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 6:46 PM
Post #23 of 114 (2931 views)
Shortcut
Re: [labrys] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey,

Actually, I knew full well that there were multiple patterns. Depending on which side you're approaching from. And as I've been told by the experienced jumpers, there is a pattern for the swoopers and the standard landers.

This is exactly how words get warped, I never said there was only one pattern, I never said Tom wasn't in a pattern. from the beginning, i said tom's pattern intersected the other one. I am posting based on the fact that these 2 paths crossed, mistake or not, how did this happen.


Chris-Ottawa  (A License)

Jan 2, 2007, 7:17 PM
Post #24 of 114 (2904 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

Ron,

Thank you for understanding my viewpoint. (PM Sent)

To anyone else who reads this, I will be the one who will be below you, probably as far off to one side as I can be, flying a "predictable" 90 degree pattern. I'll be the one following the other canopies unless I'm the low man, in which I hope to hell you're following my pattern.

This is just common sense. I simply can't understand how people can think it's OK to mix landing patterns, especially coming from people with so much experience.

My intentions in posting from the beginning were to get people motivated to do something about this. We cannot pass it off as "another fatality". That's just going to make us wait until next time, and next time and next time etc... The skydivers are the only ones who can make a change easily. The DZ will get flak for enforcing landing zones, but I think this needs to be done. I know this would never happen, but say everyone got together on Saturday after the first incident and said we refuse to jump if the DZ won't enforce the no swooping rule during the boogie. I guarantee if everyone stuck together the DZ would have no choice. Obviously nothing was done as it happened again, mistake or not. Someone was still swooping when they weren't supposed to. I hope the DZ is making changes, and I hope other DZ's that require it, follow suit.

Rest assured, I will be on the ground an any DZ if I don't feel safe. If I see canopies screaming by other canopies doing a "standard" approach, that's my right not to jump and I reserve that right. If you choose to jump, I'm not going to hold you back, but when something happens...

Anyways, I'm just so upset that these events occurred in the first place. I am very passionate about skydiving and hope it never gets taken away from us. We may not like rules, that restrict what we do, but it's only going to take a few move incidents like these 2, for the FAA to say, can it, it's just too risky. If you enjoy the sport and want it to stay around, "WE" need to do something.

Chris


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Jan 2, 2007, 8:00 PM
Post #25 of 114 (2867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris-Ottawa] Fatality - Eloy - 31 December 2006 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'll be the one following the other canopies unless I'm the low man, in which I hope to hell you're following my pattern.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. From what you say here, it appears that you think "pattern" means which direction people should land - ie north, south, east, west. I agree, if you're the first one down everyone should land in the same direction that you did (unless of course you did a downwind, in which case I'll be landing way the fuck out there but into the wind).

Either that or you mean that if you land first, everyone else on the load should do the same traditional "pattern" that you did. I don't agree with that.

Am I close to what you are thinking or are the pain pills working better than I think they are?


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

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)