180 turn to swoop bad?

[Ron 7]

Quote

No, I clearly said that flyaing against the traffic at a couple of hundred feet is dangerous.

And yet you think that hooking INTO that same traffic is safe?

Quote

That is my point, I did a bunch of 180's too, but 270's give you more margin for error

Yes, they give YOU more margin for error.

Quote

and are more predictable to others... you appraoch from the side and basically do the same landing pattern as a 90.

Nonsense.... A 270 is not more predictable than a 180. A 180 follows the SAME 'lane'. A 270 cuts ACROSS all 'lanes', starts with a blind turn and turns INTO traffic.

Physics does not agree with your opinion.

A 270 is nowhere near the same as a 90....

You are free to have an opinion, but the physics do not agree with you.

There is no way a 270 turn is MORE predictable. Safer for the PERSON doing the turn (if alone in the sky) sure. But as a part of a traffic pattern... No way.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

And yet you think that hooking INTO that same traffic is safe?

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

We will assume everybody knows not to perform a high performance turn into traffic.

Then we can see that the guy the does the 180 at 230 feet is putting himself in the traffic beofre the turn has even started.

Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces.
Ron Paul

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I also said that learning 270's on a stiletto loaded at 1.35 is also dangerous.

Skydiving is dangerous.

I learned 270's on Stilettos. There was nothing else to learn them on at the time. I'm still here.

Dangerous is an attitude and a mindset, not a specific canopy or loading.


BTW you ought to see my 450 on a Stiletto.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Ron 7]

Quote

We will assume everybody knows not to perform a high performance turn into traffic.

Then we can see that the guy the does the 180 at 230 feet is putting himself in the traffic beofre the turn has even started.

So it is better to go into traffic AFTER the turn has been started????

You are trying to claim that a 270 does not put a person into a traffic pattern.... Yet you are also trying to claim that a 180 is so dangerous because it is ALREADY in the traffic pattern?

Again, your physics is off.

All things being equal, you have failed to provide any data why a 270 is safer than a 180 for the OTHERS around the guy doing the turn.

You can LIKE a 270 all you want. But that does not make it SAFER for traffic.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhanold 0]

At our DZ I try to discourage 180s, 360s or anything else that puts you in line with the landing direction before final. It puts that pilot in other's way.

Someone stated that a 180 has a quick base leg the chord of the canopy. This is not true. A leg is a length of straight flight between turns. If you are turning you are not on a leg.

As for training safety the progression from df to 90s to 270s is adequately safe.

90s, 270s and such are more predictable than 180s also. the 90s and 270s will turn at the intersection of their set up and landing direction while 180s could turn anywhere along their set up since they are flying inline with final. The direction of the turn is also unpredictable for 180s. they could turn in either direction essentially blocking twice the landing area during their setup.

I am not sure where physics fits into this discussion but my geometry has always been quite good.

Ryan

[Ron 7]

Quote

As for training safety the progression from df to 90s to 270s is adequately safe.

Go try and tell that to Pilcher, Bobo, etc.

Quote

90s, 270s and such are more predictable than 180s

Nonsense, you start a turn AWAY from the landing area at a much higher altitude, then 90* through your turn you are doing a 180*.

It makes zero logical sense how you can claim a 180 is dangerous, but by ADDING more degrees of turn makes it safer and easier to predict... It is pure fantasy in an attempt to justify what you WANT to do.

You keep forgetting that almost all your complaints about a 180 ALSO apply to a 270.... Simply because a 270 CONTAINS a 180 as part of it.

Seriously, ring up Flight 1 and tell them that you think folks should go from 90's to 270's.... That should be a riot!

Your advice to skip the 180 in a swooping progression is dangerous, and based on terrible logic.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhanold 0]

Quote

Nonsense, you start a turn AWAY from the landing area at a much higher altitude, then 90* through your turn you are doing a 180*.

I am not arguing the turn itself... it is the setup for a 180, 360, ect. that does not fit into patterns nicely with other turns (or with each other for that matter).

Quote

It makes zero logical sense how you can claim a 180 is dangerous, but by ADDING more degrees of turn makes it safer and easier to predict... It is pure fantasy in an attempt to justify what you WANT to do.

I never claimed a 180 turn is more dangerous. My point is the set up for this turn does not fit with other patterns. The set up for a 180 is dangerous when others are doing 90s, 270s, 450s ect. That and the timing and direction of a 180 is less predictable for reasons mentioned in my post above.

Quote

You keep forgetting that almost all your complaints about a 180 ALSO apply to a 270.... Simply because a 270 CONTAINS a 180 as part of it.

Again, the setups for these turns have significant differences.

Quote

Go try and tell that to Pilcher, Bobo, etc.

/~/

Seriously, ring up Flight 1 and tell them that you think folks should go from 90's to 270's.... That should be a riot!

I will talk to anyone who wants to have a conversation on the subject. If you are not the correct person to argue your point let me know who is.

Quote

Your advice to skip the 180 in a swooping progression is dangerous, and based on terrible logic.

I still believe my logic is sound. You really haven't argued anything except 180+90=270 and I can't argue with your math however the conclusions you are drawing from it are false.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

it is the setup for a 180, 360, ect. that does not fit into patterns nicely with other turns (or with each other for that matter).

The set up for a 180 is dangerous when others are doing 90s, 270s, 450s ect.

Again, the setups for these turns have significant differences.

I would say your conclusions are wrong. Nothing in the setup of 270 or any other speed inducing turn makes it safe in the pattern. This has been proven over and over again.

http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[SethInMI 145]

Quote

Seriously, ring up Flight 1 and tell them that you think folks should go from 90's to 270's.... That should be a riot!

Your advice to skip the 180 in a swooping progression is dangerous, and based on terrible logic.

FWIW, When I took Lugi Cani's canopy class a few years ago, the swoopers and us regular folks sat together, so I listened to all his swoop coaching. Lugi specifically told the 180 swoopers to go back to 90's until dialed in using his techniques (deep braked setup, df, turn, df), then move to 270s.

So I don't know about Flight-1, but there is at least one popular swoop coach who is a proponent of that progression.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[rhanold 0]

Quote

Quote

it is the setup for a 180, 360, ect. that does not fit into patterns nicely with other turns (or with each other for that matter).

The set up for a 180 is dangerous when others are doing 90s, 270s, 450s ect.

Again, the setups for these turns have significant differences.

I would say your conclusions are wrong. Nothing in the setup of 270 or any other speed inducing turn makes it safe in the pattern. This has been proven over and over again.

http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/

Sparky

Just to be clear I was talking about how hp patterns fit with other hp patterns. I fully believe in the separation of standard and hp patterns.

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

Just to be clear I was talking about how hp patterns fit with other hp patterns. I fully believe in the separation of standard and hp patterns.

I wouldn't bother, you have explained yourself quite clearly.

I have the same (similar) position as you, and understand entirely what you are saying.

Some do not.

And someone just paid heaps for a coaching clinic and has decided there 'is not' more than one way to skin a cat.

At the end of the day, flying against the grain a couple of hundred feet directly above the landing area is a silly idea.

And nobody should ever do a high performance turn when there is slower traffic (or oncoming traffic in some peoples cases ) in the pattern in front of them.

That stuff should be just common sense but you have to point it out around here....

Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces.
Ron Paul

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Just to be clear I was talking about how hp patterns fit with other hp patterns. I fully believe in the separation of standard and hp patterns.

Understand, thanks for the clarification.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

And nobody should ever do a high performance turn when there is slower traffic (or oncoming traffic in some peoples cases ) in the pattern in front of them.

That stuff should be just common sense but you have to point it out around here....

If it’s just common sense how come some many people have died because of it? Maybe it’s good to point it out at every opportunity.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

And nobody should ever do a high performance turn when there is slower traffic (or oncoming traffic in some peoples cases ) in the pattern in front of them.

That stuff should be just common sense but you have to point it out around here....

If it’s just common sense how come some many people have died because of it? Maybe it’s good to point it out at every opportunity.

Sparky

What percentage of canopy collision victims have actually been killed by swoopers during performance turns?

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And nobody should ever do a high performance turn when there is slower traffic (or oncoming traffic in some peoples cases ) in the pattern in front of them.

That stuff should be just common sense but you have to point it out around here....

If it’s just common sense how come some many people have died because of it? Maybe it’s good to point it out at every opportunity.

Sparky

What percentage of canopy collision victims have actually been killed by swoopers during performance turns?

Since 2004 around 40% of fatalities due to canopy collisions were caused by at least one of the jumpers doing some form of HP maneuver in the pattern. It is my belief that most of them were not “swoopers” but jumpers who thought they knew how to swoop.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

If it’s just common sense how come some many people have died because of it? Maybe it’s good to point it out at every opportunity.

Sparky

Because when a safer opionin is presented, someone usually comes up with, I did XXX and got away with it for XXX so you don't know what you are talking about.

That defeats the purpose of the discussion in the first place by putting worse ideas in readers heads...

Best to just say your own point then try to avoid an argument about it.

Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces.
Ron Paul

[Ron 7]

Quote

Because when a safer opionin is presented, someone usually comes up with, I did XXX and got away with it for XXX so you don't know what you are talking about.

And a lot of people ignore advice they do not want to hear. They use anything to justify their position.

I know jumpers that "shop" for advice. They keep asking till someone gives them the answer they WANT and then use that as justification.

Simple fact is that adding complexity does not make anything easier, safer, or more predictable.... But people will try to debate that since they want to justify a 270.

Safest and easiest landing approach, that has been discussed, to predict in order
1. Straight in.
2. 90*
3. 180*
4. 270*
5. 360*

Any increase in degree of turn creates more blind spots for the jumper performing the turn, creates more possible swoop lanes, and is harder to predict for observers.

None of this should be difficult concepts to grasp. If you were trying to claim that a SOLO jumper doing a 270 has more time to bail than a guy doing a 180... you would be correct. But the assumption that a 270 is safer in regards to traffic has no basis in fact.

I realize that people only hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.... so I am done here.

But I am not some guy under F-111 7cell trying to bitch. I had a Xbraced canopy back in 1997, I have jumps on canopies from a 69sqft to rounds....I have done 16 way CRW diamonds and have a PRO rating. I have done test jumps for two different canopy companies.

I realize that you are not going to listen to anyone that says things you do not want to hear.... But you have not provided any data to back up your opinion.

I have realized that most discussions like this are worthless... So I am done here.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DaVinciflies 0]

Some thoughts on 180s vs 270s:

1. Both turns are potentially lethal in traffic and should not be done. Period.

2. On a dedicated pass, 270s are easier to set up for a specific swoop lane as the setup is cross-wind vs. downwind for a 180 (assuming landing in to the wind.)

3. A well-executed 270 can build more speed than a 180, and is potentially more dangerous if the pilot is in the corner but the larger heading change may allow more time/altitude to adjust for being high or low.

IMO what it probably comes down to is that the safest turn is the one you are most familiar with and the one where there is NO chance of encountering traffic.

[Liemberg 0]

Come to think of it: @ one third of the way the 270 turns into a 180. But you'll arrive there with more speed. If more speed is desirable maybe depends upon the individuals taste in how to spice up his life.

However, in traffic with the added speed you may end with 'spicing up' the life of others. They may hold the opinion that they are perfectly able to hurt or kill themselves skydiving without your help...

(no offence and not directed to anyone in particular, just responding to the last post in the thread)

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[rhanold 0]

Quote

1. Both turns are potentially lethal in traffic and should not be done. Period.

What do you mean by "traffic" in this statement? Are you saying these turns don't fit in with the standard pattern or these turns should not be done even in dedicated HP landing areas if there is someone else in the air?

[rhanold 0]

Ron,
I have no doubt that you have a ton of experience and wisdom that I would be lucky to have. And you are right, some people learning how to swoop will "shop around" and hear what they want to hear. This does not mean we do not re-evaluate how we teach things. When I learned how to swoop some of my mentors told me to do 180s and some told me to skip them. I chose to do them. I did them because I thought it the safe course. Now that I mentor upcoming swoopers I advocate skipping them, mainly because they put you in a dangerous position when people are above you doing 270s.

90+% of my turns today are 450s, so everyone doing 270s along with 180s in the HP area are in my way so if I was just justifying what I want I would discourage 270s also.

As for predictability, when I am holding in breaks at 2000 ft waiting for my pattern to clear I can see people setting up for standard patterns in the standard pattern area, their flight path fairly predictable, I can see people setting up for 270s in the HP area (it looks like a standard pattern only ~800ft higher) and predictably they will start their turn when they reach the their landing vector, then once in a while I will see a person flying right over the landing area opposite landing direction at 300 - 800 ft and you will see all the HP landing people hold in breaks because you don't know where on this line he will turn or in which direction so the whole HP area is an abort until he makes that turn.

It seems very simple to me, you don't track line of flight, you don't open and fly line of flight, and you don't fly through someone else's pattern.

180s (and 360s) don't fit in the standard landing pattern and they don't fit in the HP landing pattern. If you are on a solo pass, have at your 180, otherwise think about how your pattern (setup) fits with those you are jumping with.

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

Quote

1. Both turns are potentially lethal in traffic and should not be done. Period.

What do you mean by "traffic" in this statement? Are you saying these turns don't fit in with the standard pattern or these turns should not be done even in dedicated HP landing areas if there is someone else in the air?

Well, both really.

Never in the the standard pattern (per the USPA member pledge) and not in the dedicated HP area if there is someone in the way (e.g someone below setting up for a 90 when you are setting up for a 270 to swoop the same lane).

Separation is the key. By time or space.

[AdD 1]

Latest couple episodes of Skydive Radio address the 270 vs 180 safety issue. Briand Burke vs Jay Stokes taking different positions. Worth a listen.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[TitaniumLegs 8]

Thanks. NWflyer mentioned it, and I downloaded but haven't listended yet.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[JumpRu 14]

i think your logic makes perfect sense...

they can not ban swooping all together so they are using gradual approach: first 270 becomes unsafe and even selfish, then 180 then we all have to upsize and land strait. what is next? Rounds?