180 turn to swoop bad?

[TitaniumLegs 8]

S&TA here has decided that 180-degree turns to swoop are more dangerous than 270 and are banned, but anything 270 or more is OK. The swoop lane is separate from the standard pattern area, but not by much - just a line, no actual space/buffer between. (Swoop lane is also where the tandems land, but that's another topic). His position is that 180 has a blind spot. My counter is that:
1. You have a blind spot regardless of what turn you're doing.
2. I don't approach in a long straight line then 180 and land. There are other turns in there to get into position, use up altitude and to look for traffic to clear the blind spot just before lining up for the 180. (Where are the tandems? Where are the other swoopers? Anybody on the swoop side who shouldn't be there? What did I miss?)

By the way, I do 180 front riser, not toggle.

He's also concerned about being "more committed" in a 180 and where you go if/when you bail. I'm not sure how you can be committed and still be able to bail, but I'll let that contradiction slide. I'm not convinced I have to be committed to completing the 180 any more than any other turn. I'm also not convinced that any other turn gives better bail options either.

So, I'd like to hear from people their take on 180 vs. 270 or greater, blind spots, how to avoid/check/clear them. There's some discussion in the Perris dual fatality 3/31/11 thread with a couple guys saying 180 is bad and quoting canopy courses and some people disagreeing. However, most of it seems to be around what's safe in the normal pattern rather than what can be mixed in the swoop zone. While discussion seems to lean towards 180 is safer than 270, I don't see a real definitive consensus. The idea of 3 areas comes up, and has merit. I'd love to hear what you DZ policy is or what your S&TA says.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

S&TA here has decided that 180-degree turns to swoop are more dangerous than 270 and are banned, but anything 270 or more is OK. The swoop lane is separate from the standard pattern area, but not by much - just a line, no actual space/buffer between. (Swoop lane is also where the tandems land, but that's another topic). His position is that 180 has a blind spot. My counter is that:
1. You have a blind spot regardless of what turn you're doing.
2. I don't approach in a long straight line then 180 and land. There are other turns in there to get into position, use up altitude and to look for traffic to clear the blind spot just before lining up for the 180. (Where are the tandems? Where are the other swoopers? Anybody on the swoop side who shouldn't be there? What did I miss?)

By the way, I do 180 front riser, not toggle.

He's also concerned about being "more committed" in a 180 and where you go if/when you bail. I'm not sure how you can be committed and still be able to bail, but I'll let that contradiction slide. I'm not convinced I have to be committed to completing the 180 any more than any other turn. I'm also not convinced that any other turn gives better bail options either.

So, I'd like to hear from people their take on 180 vs. 270 or greater, blind spots, how to avoid/check/clear them. There's some discussion in the Perris dual fatality 3/31/11 thread with a couple guys saying 180 is bad and quoting canopy courses and some people disagreeing. However, most of it seems to be around what's safe in the normal pattern rather than what can be mixed in the swoop zone. While discussion seems to lean towards 180 is safer than 270, I don't see a real definitive consensus. The idea of 3 areas comes up, and has merit. I'd love to hear what you DZ policy is or what your S&TA says.

In my mind it is more about the predictability of your approach to others, than what you are able to see yourself.

If you approach for a 270 it is much the same as approaching for a 90, though you turn the opposite direction.
I would avoid 180's. If you want to swoop you need to get as much speed as you can and a 270 gives you more time to gather momentum.

Sounds like it is time to upgrade to a 270 approach bro...

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

[phoenixlpr 0]

See my awful image:

We got left pattern to land.
colors:

• cyan - the sector you expect traffic.

• red - coming to swoop

• green - target to land

• blue - your sight when you look strait

• grayish blue - your sight when you turn your head

1. You can easier to observe traffic if you come from sideways... 270, 540

2. A setup for landing is _not_ coming in strait.

+ FR 180 is harder to setup if there is a wind, because you get you initiation point with flying downwind vs flying sidewind with 270.

[TitaniumLegs 8]

Quote

In my mind it is more about the predictability of your approach to others, than what you are able to see yourself.

If anything >=270 (270, 360, 450, 540, 378.6, 720) is allowed, how is that predictable?

Quote

Sounds like it is time to upgrade to a 270 approach bro...

I'm OK with what I get from 180, just as people who fly the normal 90 downwide/base/final pattern are happy with what they get.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[TitaniumLegs 8]

Quote

1. You can easier to observe traffic if you come from sideways... 270, 540

You're ignoring something I said:
Before entering the downwind for 180, I'm upwind in the "play area" looking for traffic, while I get into position (this involves turns, which gives lots of opportunity to scan for traffic) and line up for downwind. I'm not simply flying downwind the entire time.
Second, 540 = 360 + 180, which means you're still coming downwind, and now you have more altitude for somebody else to sneak under.

Quote

2. A setup for landing is _not_ coming in strait.

I have not idea what you mean by that, unless you missed the "don't" in my #2 in my original post.

Quote

+ FR 180 is harder to setup if there is a wind, because you get you initiation point with flying downwind vs flying sidewind with 270.

I have no problem doing this. The setup I do earlier puts me in position. I know where I need to be and how high. There are good waypoints/landmarks here.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[mjosparky 3]

But it usually ends up like this.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

If anything >=270 (270, 360, 450, 540, 378.6, 720) is allowed, how is that predictable?

Typically everything higher than a 270 will be performed from 700 feet up.

If your profile is correct you are doing a 180 on a 135 stiletto loaded at 1.5 then you will be flying against the grain only a few hundred feet above the landing area.

If you want to swoop and are competent and confident enough to pull 180's, I would downsize and get a more appropriate canopy for these turns.
Doing 180's on a (relatively) underloaded stiletto seems like quite a commitment to me, you would be much safer downsizing (crossfire119/katana 120 etc..) and starting again... I wouldn't bother learning 270's on a lightly loaded stiletto.

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]

Does he also tell the people doing 90's that they are dangerous and should do a 270?

I fail to see how MORE turn is better for anything but additional speed.

For traffic, all turns are crap and the bigger the degree of turn the worse it is.

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

[TitaniumLegs 8]

90 other than flat/standard pattern are also banned. I should point out again, that there is a separate swoop lane from the standard pattern area, but the separation is only a line, not any distance. Also, tandems land in the same place as the swoop lane.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[DaVinciflies 0]

It all sounds quite odd and not very well thought out.

Are you saying it's "bigger than 270, or no HP turns" - ie. no 90s? What about people wanting to learn - just bust a 270 on your first swoop?

I don't buy into the "180s are more dangerous" thing - it's just a normal pattern with a very short base leg - particularly if it is a carving turn vs a snap.

On the issue of commitment and bailing, the last 2/3 of a 270 is a 180 anyway so I don't understand that at all.

Finally, if you have a swoop lane - why limit the turns people can do there?

IMO either you or the S&TA are confused about something here.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

90 other than flat/standard pattern are also banned. I should point out again, that there is a separate swoop lane from the standard pattern area, but the separation is only a line, not any distance. Also, tandems land in the same place as the swoop lane.

So those learning to do high-performance landings are expected to go straight to a 270? Can't do a 90 and can't do a 180 ... or am I misreading that?

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

... tandems land in the same place as the swoop lane.

Are there any rules about separation by time? If not I think this is a very bad idea.

[TitaniumLegs 8]

Quote

Quote

... tandems land in the same place as the swoop lane.

Are there any rules about separation by time? If not I think this is a very bad idea.

I don't think there's a rule, but it generally works out that way, unless there's a second pass with tandems on the first pass. He says in that situation, he/they don't swoop.

(>o|-<

If you don't believe me, ask me.

[DaVinciflies 0]

It all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.

What if there is one pass with a swooper getting out after the tandems and pulling high to work on some canopy skills? There is a chance that it could cause conflict in the swoop lane.

Sorry to get off the point, but it seems to me like the whole system needs a re-think. Maybe with the input of someone independent like a PDFT member or AggieDave or equivalent (if indeed there is an equivalent ). They could review landing areas, allowable turns and separation and come up with a workable plan.

[TitaniumLegs 8]

Quote

It all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.

What if there is one pass with a swooper getting out after the tandems and pulling high to work on some canopy skills? There is a chance that it could cause conflict in the swoop lane.

Yup.

Quote

Sorry to get off the point, but it seems to me like the whole system needs a re-think. Maybe with the input of someone independent like a PDFT member or AggieDave or equivalent (if indeed there is an equivalent ). They could review landing areas, allowable turns and separation and come up with a workable plan.

No, that's exactly the point. I think they need input from someone more knowledgable than me (21 years, ~2900 jumps, AFF/I, former S&TA) who doesn't have a personal stake in the discussion. They're not listening to me anyway. I'm thinking Bryan Burke, or the S&TAs of Perris, Elsinore and similar.

(>o|-
If you don't believe me, ask me.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

S&TA here has decided that 180-degree turns to swoop are more dangerous than 270 and are banned, but anything 270 or more is OK.

Now there's an S&TA that likes paperwork.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

It all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.

What if there is one pass with a swooper getting out after the tandems and pulling high to work on some canopy skills? There is a chance that it could cause conflict in the swoop lane.

Yup.

Quote

Sorry to get off the point, but it seems to me like the whole system needs a re-think. Maybe with the input of someone independent like a PDFT member or AggieDave or equivalent (if indeed there is an equivalent ). They could review landing areas, allowable turns and separation and come up with a workable plan.

No, that's exactly the point. I think they need input from someone more knowledgable than me (21 years, ~2900 jumps, AFF/I, former S&TA) who doesn't have a personal stake in the discussion. They're not listening to me anyway. I'm thinking Bryan Burke, or the S&TAs of Perris, Elsinore and similar.

I was just listening to the latest Skydive Radio #150 and Burke gives his thoughts there. Worth a listen.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[JumpRu 14]

I did see way more 90 and 180 degree turns that went to shit then badly executed 270’s. Maybe that is the reason?

[kimemerson 7]

I've been doing the 180° snap hook since the days when you needed 500 jumps and to sign a waiver to buy one. Would someone please tell me where this alleged "blind spot" is supposed to be? I have yet to notice there was one all this time. Silly me.

Back when people started 180° snap-hooks (circa Excalibur>Sabre>Stiletto) the mantra was "hook turns kill". When in fact it was a hook turn made too low that could kill. Key in that phrase is the word "too". Low is ok. Too low is bad. Back then they did indeed kill more people. But not due to any blind spot. Because canopy pilots had yet to figure out how to do them safely. People were simply initiating their hooks too low. Hell, done right you can flare too low and die. And true to much in our sport, we are our own test pilots, figuring out the limits of our sport and its equipment and our own skills learning curve. Eventually the 180° became a rather standard maneuver and stopped killing or harming people and now it's considered old school.

The standard student approach with a downwind, base, final is a 180°. It's not a hook and there is a real base leg. But essentially it's just a slower, broader 180° turn. A 180° snap-hook is just faster and has a base leg about the width of the chord of the canopy. Or less. So it can't be that 180° is a dangerous approach. It must be that any maneuver executed poorly is dangerous. And anything we do that is too low to the ground has potential to kill. It often is not the maneuver but its closeness to the unforgiving ground that makes the maneuver dangerous. And how do we avoid poorly executed maneuvers? While no guarantee of a 100% safety rate, the way we avoid poorly executed, deadly maneuvers is not to take the ban route. It is to accept responsibility and teach. To an alarming degree much maneuver banning is initiated by those who can't do the maneuver safely themselves and don't actually have an understanding or knowledge or the skill so banning is the easy way out. I could not in good conscious ban a 180° hook turn when I've been doing them successfully for more than 15 years. If I thought they were dangerous, I'd have a hard time supporting that claim. And If I can do it and many, many others can, then simple logic dictates that they can be taught intelligently with a brilliant success rate. And with the fact that the 180° hook has been done as standard landing for so long, and as they are no longer killing at the rate they used to (through our ignorance and not through their own inherent danger), then anyone wanting to do one will have plenty of evidence to support that they work. And banning them will eventually cause those who want to learn them to simply go somewhere else. If anyone who bans them believes the ban is safety related then there's an element of supporting death by allowing the learner to go somewhere else. You can't prevent suicide by banning suicide. You have to address the issue directly. The only safe route is to educate. And if you can't educate, then buy all means don't resort to banning.

Frankly I think your S&TA has his/her head up his/her ass on this one.

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

Eventually the 180° became a rather standard maneuver and stopped killing or harming people and now it's considered old school...

... and since, safer and more efficient methods have been developed rendering the '180 snaphook' somewhat inefficient.

also flying above the landing area at a couple of hundred feet against the grain is outright dangerous.

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

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

I did see way more 90 and 180 degree turns that went to shit then badly executed 270’s. Maybe that is the reason?

Or maybe its just natural selection. People who would pull off 270's badly never progress to the point where they could try to pull off a 270 because they break themselves with 90's and 180's?

Also mentally its different. In a less then ideal situation a jumper might just go for 90 since 'you know its just a 90 degree turn', whereas 270 requires more commitment to perform.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Abedy 0]

Very interesting thoughts. I second them.
Do 180° frontriser turns as well, but only if the airspaces allows for it. If not, I resort to 90°

The sky is not the limit. The ground is.

The Society of Skydiving Ducks

[champu 1]

Quote

He's also concerned about being "more committed" in a 180 and where you go if/when you bail. I'm not sure how you can be committed and still be able to bail, but I'll let that contradiction slide. I'm not convinced I have to be committed to completing the 180 any more than any other turn. I'm also not convinced that any other turn gives better bail options either.

This depends on the specifics of the designated pattern direction, landing area layout, and any nearby obstacles.

Whether you're doing a 90, 180, 270, or whatever, you don't want to start a turn you "have to finish." So picture whatever pattern you are going to fly to your initiation point, then picture having to stop your turn 45-90 deg early and landing straight in from there. Are you pointed at obstacles?

For example, at Elsinore the swoop area is separated from the 90s only area by a runway which makes for a nice unambiguous barrier. If I set up to do a 180 deg turn landing towards the lake that means I'll be doing a left-hand 180. If I have to abort my turn 45 degrees early I will fly diagonally across the runway and into the aircraft loading area / main landing area (not cool.) If I set up to do a 270 deg turn landing towards the lake that means I'll be doing a right-hand 270. If I have to abort my turn 45 degrees early I have several hundred feet of run-out room to work with.

I don't know if that was his thought process when he brought up levels of commitment to turns, but it's something to think about when choosing a pattern, turn direction, and type of turn.

[Ron 7]

Quote

also flying above the landing area at a couple of hundred feet against the grain is outright dangerous.

And flying ACROSS the line of flight and doing a turn that STARTS BLIND and puts the landing area in your BLIND spot for a 180 is safe?

Never forget that you can only look ONE way and with a 270 the landing area is off your right and the traffic is on your left.

That just makes no sense. If a 180 gives a blind spot and puts you against the grain of others... Then ADDING more degrees of turn makes the situation WORSE, not better.

Never forget that the 270 is a 180 AND a 90.

Safe is:
1. Straight in
2. 45*
3. 90*
etc.

You are trying to claim that a 90 is fine, a 180 is death on a stick, but suddenly a 270 becomes safe???? Again, this makes zero sense.

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

[Frankyspanky 0]

Quote

You are trying to claim that a 90 is fine, a 180 is death on a stick, but suddenly a 270 becomes safe???? Again, this makes zero sense.

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

Doing a 180 on a stiletto loaded at 1.35 will ensure you are going against the traffic at a couple of hundred feet above the landing area...

That is my point, I did a bunch of 180's too, but 270's give you more margin for error and are more predictable to others... you appraoch from the side and basically do the same landing pattern as a 90.

I also said that learning 270's on a stiletto loaded at 1.35 is also dangerous. Not enough margin for error.

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