Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Re: [chaoskitty] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8

 


airtwardo  (D License)

Nov 13, 2008, 9:52 AM
Post #1 of 15 (1940 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chaoskitty] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 Can't Post

I've jumped at DZ's that use the low man rule. I hate it.
It's a 'rule' that's been around longer than you or I and it's a good one IMO.

If the 'low man' picks a landing direction you don't like then head for a more open landing area.

The confusion and danger begins when other jumpers in the pattern decide that they don't like the direction set by the low man and alter their patterns.

Landing a parachute is a dynamic enough process as it is without throwing in the criss-cross factor.

With large aircraft in use today and the larger number of jumpers landing at the same time, the necessity for a standard rule of thumb is obvious.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 16, 2008, 3:56 AM
Post #2 of 15 (1439 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's a 'rule' that's been around longer than you or I and it's a good one IMO.

If the 'low man' picks a landing direction you don't like then head for a more open landing area.

This is the part I strongly disagree with. To me it's rather simple.
1. Have a designated landing pattern.
2. If you choose to do something different, YOU land out and leave the rest of the load to follow the designated pattern in the main landing area.

In reply to:
The confusion and danger begins when other jumpers in the pattern decide that they don't like the direction set by the low man and alter their patterns.

Or, when they can't. Or, when they are too low to do it. Or, in the case of young jumpers, they may not have the mental skills as yet.

In reply to:
Landing a parachute is a dynamic enough process as it is without throwing in the criss-cross factor.

As when the FMD creates it from the get-go.

In reply to:
With large aircraft in use today and the larger number of jumpers landing at the same time, the necessity for a standard rule of thumb is obvious.

Yes. One problem is that the "standard" varies from DZ to DZ.


Gary73  (D 21341)

Nov 16, 2008, 8:08 PM
Post #3 of 15 (1308 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

Got to agree with Andy on this one. I've hated the FMD approach since the first time I heard it. It's like saying that the first person on the road each morning gets to decide which side of the road to drive on. I've always felt that DZs that use FMD are mainly just catering to skygods who think they're too special to follow the rules.

It's far better to have the pattern established before takeoff. And better still to have the reminder of a very visible fixed indicator like the yellow arrow at The Farm.

Some dropzones justify FMD by saying that they have strong, changing winds, but a better approach there is to have a really visible wind indicator, like a big tetrahedron, and have everybody fly a left-hand pattern based on that.

Grow up, people. Following the landing pattern doesn't mean that you're a dweeb - it means that you care about your life and everyone else's.


Premier ianmdrennan  (D 25821)
Moderator
Nov 16, 2008, 8:17 PM
Post #4 of 15 (1299 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

I've jumped at a fair amount of dz's over the years, some using the FMD, some using a set direction, and some having no clear rule at all.

Hands down, I believe the set direction is the best way to go in all but the most extreme of environments.

Every single DZ I've ever been to that uses the FMD rule has criss cross issues, particularly on light and variable days.

FMD is also counter productive in encouraging people to plan their landing patterns, and approaches, responsibly and considerately since no-one really knows which way it's going to be.

We plan skydives, why should landings be any different?

Ian


(This post was edited by ianmdrennan on Nov 16, 2008, 8:32 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 16, 2008, 8:27 PM
Post #5 of 15 (1287 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Gary73] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

<announcement>
I am NOT holding a gun to Gary's head forcing him to agree with me.
</announcement>

LaughLaughLaugh


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 16, 2008, 8:52 PM
Post #6 of 15 (1271 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Gary73] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

> It's like saying that the first person on the road each morning gets to decide
>which side of the road to drive on.

Or like pilots at an uncontrolled airfield getting to decide which way they want to land.


The_Don  (B License)

Nov 16, 2008, 8:55 PM
Post #7 of 15 (1269 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

Four posts in a row that I like! ALOT!

Thanks guys.


tetra316  (D 26945)

Nov 17, 2008, 8:57 AM
Post #8 of 15 (1191 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
> It's like saying that the first person on the road each morning gets to decide
>which side of the road to drive on.

Or like pilots at an uncontrolled airfield getting to decide which way they want to land.

In which cases they are often the only aircraft landing at that time. Does not compare to having three, twelve, twenty or more other canopies in the air with you.


phoenixlpr  (D 3049)

Nov 17, 2008, 9:19 AM
Post #9 of 15 (1174 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tetra316] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In which cases they are often the only aircraft landing at that time. Does not compare to having three, twelve, twenty or more other canopies in the air with you.
Well, more of them can be in hold, than others can queue for landing within safely separated.

Thats all we like to have when we are landing. Some should stay up and keep time and separation to others, than take their space in the queue and land using a recognizable pattern mostly in the same direction.

What a pity! Our world is not ideal.


brucet7  (C 38954)

Nov 17, 2008, 9:22 AM
Post #10 of 15 (1171 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

As a low number jumper, I must say I like knowing the landing before takeoff. It makes setting up my landing pattern easier, as I have enough to think about and watch for without trying to determine the direction of the FMD. I am sure once I have thousands of these thing I could do it differently, but there will always be low jump number among us.


tetra316  (D 26945)

Nov 17, 2008, 9:34 AM
Post #11 of 15 (1162 views)
Shortcut
Re: [phoenixlpr] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In which cases they are often the only aircraft landing at that time. Does not compare to having three, twelve, twenty or more other canopies in the air with you.
Well, more of them can be in hold, than others can queue for landing within safely separated.

Thats all we like to have when we are landing. Some should stay up and keep time and separation to others, than take their space in the queue and land using a recognizable pattern mostly in the same direction.

What a pity! Our world is not ideal.

All the more reason to have a set landing direction. It does more to ensure a set landing pattern and separation of canopies. If you have FMD and the winds are variable and shifting you may not know which direction the FMD chooses until he lands then you have the rest of the load in the pattern and I guarantee you will have people who have already started their pattern having to change their direction because they guessed the FMD would land the other direction. All this does is take away that set landing pattern and separation.

Aircraft can control their descent, flying lower or higher if need and slower and faster in order to achieve a reconizable pattern with perfect separation. Yes we as canopy pilots can do the same to an extent but hardly to the same as an aircraft pilot. That's why you never canopy landing patterns set up as nicely as aircraft landing patterns. Yes we can do a better job however.


kkeenan  (D 22164)

Nov 17, 2008, 11:00 AM
Post #12 of 15 (1141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [brucet7] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
As a low number jumper, I must say I like knowing the landing before takeoff.

Regardless of your number of jumps, the wind may change between the time you board the plane and when you land.

Kevin K.


futuredivot  (Student)

Nov 19, 2008, 5:40 PM
Post #13 of 15 (1011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kkeenan] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

And if you can't land it down/crosswind with a PLF, you shouldn't be jumping it. My problem with LM pattern is that often more than one person is at nearly the same altitude, or someone spirals down in to the pattern and it makes it tough to pick who you need to follow early enough to set a good pattern for yourself. Some jumpers, particularly lower time jumpers can make the bad choice to execute a low turn in order to match direction of someone that they didn't see setting up higher.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 20, 2008, 5:04 AM
Post #14 of 15 (975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kkeenan] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Regardless of your number of jumps, the wind may change between the time you board the plane and when you land.

Obviously. Doesn't negate the pattern landing though.
Heaven forbid I never learn to handle crosswind or downwind.


champu  (D 28302)

Dec 7, 2008, 9:18 AM
Post #15 of 15 (817 views)
Shortcut
Re: [futuredivot] Low Collision, landing confusion Elsinore Nov 8 [In reply to] Can't Post

I have no issue landing downwind or crosswind in any direction personally, but some combinations of fixed patterns and wind changes can have you landing downwind directly at obstacles which, like it or not, is going to cause problems for some people, and I don't think we want to do that.

A partial mitigation to the predictability thing is to have different "handedness" for each of the landing directions. If there's two favored landing directions then when doing one you use a left hand pattern and when doing the other you use a right handed pattern. (or if you're at Perris/Elsinore, this translates simply to, "Don't fly a base leg over the runway!")

This helps in a few ways...

a) it makes the first person down's landing direction easier to distinguish earlier, because you can simply see what direction turns they are making.
b) if you're soon to follow the first man down, the base leg for a landing in either direction can start from roughly the same place, so switching causes less of an altitude problem
c) it keeps main landing area traffic away from the other side of the runway, where you can put a swoop pond and allow people to do turns over 90 deg :)

One issue that can occur at Elsinore is when the first person down lands diagonally in the main landing area, then another person lands 45deg off from that in one direction, and another 45 deg off in the other direction. You now have two people landing orthogonally, both claiming to be following the first person down. The two problems being, 45 degs off a heading is NOT following the first person down, and landing diagonally across a landing area the size of the one at Elsinore is not setting a good direction for the load.

Next time I'm out at the dropzone I'm going to try and work with the S&TA and/or DZO to get a "land parallel with the runway" rule implemented. That (if enforced, and I'll be sure to help, especially at the beginning) should make it even easier to tell which way you're going to land, get rid of the diagonal nonsense, and limit the potential ill-effects of using a completely set pattern at take-off to crosswind landings.

Tandems would be, of course, exempt.



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)