Setting landing direction (was: Perris double fatality)

[shayelk 0]

I'm new to the sport so I guess I don't know all the variables to that argument (FMD vs pre set patterns).
that being said, i think that FMD is not the right way to go- in my home DZ ground controll set the pattern before bording the plane. if the winds change they tell the pilot about a change of pattern and he then informs everyone onboard. the importent thing is that when you exit you already know your pattern. if the wind changes so drasticlly from the second the first man's out till the second he lands, it can also change while people are still landing. in this case downwind landings are inevitable anyway, so FMD loses it's advantage

if you don't like the pattern, land elsewhere. but then everyone knows where they're going to land soon enough to plan in advance, and no one is surprised.

In AFF I was tought that you need to land in a safe place (no obstacles) land straight (no low turns) and preferably land upwind

[shropshire 0]

individual decision making - is working SO WELL at the moment, isn't it?

WE have a problem and it needs to be sorted... so Doing Nothing doesn't not seem to the the right thing to do, now does it.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kimemerson 7]

When I was S&TA and Club President. I wanted so badly to get a large plywood arrow and place it in one agreed upon landing direction, locked down, unmoving, or anything that left any ambiguity completely out of the picture. I wanted nothing that could vary with the L & V winds. I didn't really want discussions, opinions, or any possibility for individual reading of the winds. But, as with any position of responsibility, I wasn't able to act alone and I was not allowed to follow through. So we still rely on wind socks and PD streamers and wind blades and leaves on the trees and egos and whims and fancies and personal individual training goals and crystal balls and witchcraft and by golly we haven't had a single accident or injury due to mis-reading landings or traffic. We must be on to something but I'll be damned if I can figure it out. Oh, I forgot voodoo. That voodoo that you do, scooby doo. We tried FMD but we have a good assortment of fucking lunatics and a lot of people were just plain scared of how those FMDs got to be FMDs in the first place because a few of them had exited later but landed earlier. And even with talking it up at the boarding area and getting 22 skydivers to agree on one landing direction, we still get the renegade, the wayward soul who gets artistic and creative in thought at about 200' and decides to try something new. Or suddenly realizes they'd committed to a downwind landing (in light & variable winds) at the boarding area and thinks, "what a fool I was. I'll never survive a DW landing in 1- 5 mph winds so I'm not going to try." Not a whole lot pisses me off more. Some things do. Just not a whole lot.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

For example, a/c pilots have radios to communicate in-flight and they have the ability to go around.

Not all aircraft are required to or use radios. Not all aircraft have engines or can go around.

It's ego and denial that have people ignore rules and procedures that have been working for 50+ years. People see a problem and too often want to find a new solution rather than to see the problem it's self is old and has been answered.

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

[ianmdrennan 2]

You keep ignoring that we're really only 20 or so years into anything close to what skydivers jump today. The loadings, the volume in any given landing area of jumpers, the volume of jumps capable in a short space of time, etc.

Neither system is perfect, but FMD is far, far more likely to create confusion. It relies on some fundamentals that are flawed (IMO):

1) Assumes no-one is going to arrive at the 'setting' altitude at the same time.
2) It assumes everyone starts their pattern at a similar altitude. Or at the very least assumes that a jumper who starts their pattern at 1000 ft (which is student pattern altitudes), understands that the same pattern flown on a loaded canopy can start as much as 1000 feet higher.
3) Assumes some jumpers wont race down.

Regardless of your position on FMD (and FWIW it appears to have had zero to do with the incident that raised the question) we can't say "It's been done for 50 years". Times have changed and it's folly not to realize that.

Side Note: We have, to my knowledge, never taught FMD. It's hard to do when we spend so much time with our students in the classroom, pre-jump, discussing their intended landing patterns and positioning.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Deisel 35]

'Nerfing' the sport? What I'm advocating here is having a plan - from start to finish. From the 20 min call to the debrief. Everything determined in advance. Sound familiar?

And I get that everyone should have the ability to adjust in flight. I've landed out enough to understand that its a life saving skill. But at what point (number of jumps) is someone supposed to attain this skill? The ability to both fly a horizontal and vertical pattern, account for obstacles and other jumpers, figure out wind, as well as account for the FMD doing the intentional down winder? We certainly wouldn't expect a student to know how to do this and would be considered advanced piloting by any standard.

D

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

And you guys who are anti FMD don't get it.

Picking the landing direction PRIOR to take off is just "nerfing" the sport one more time.

Oh great. "I had to do it that way you should too or else you're "nerfing" the sport."
Great....just great.
People are getting themselves hurt and any attempt at making things safer/better is "nerfing"
Great...just great.

Quote

If jumpers are unable to read a pattern PRIOR to the first man actually touching town then they have not shown the ability to skydive safely by themselves and should not have an A license issued.

I wouldn't argue against that. Training issue. We already teach them to read a pattern prior to FMD.

It's on the A-license progression card.
They set it up before they get on the plane!
Holy pre-determined landing pattern, Batman!

I know what you're trying to get at but it doesn't work.
-Can you be assured that anyone that comes to your DZ has been trained in the manner you're proscribing?

-Is demonstrating that ability a requirement for A-license at YOUR DZ?

-Do most DZ use the FMD rule?

No, no and no.
So why do you feel the need to complicate matters by introducing FMD?
Because it makes one seem "tougher"?
More like rugby than football?
Anything rather than "nerf" it up?


And yes, I agree that people flying parachutes should know how to adjust. It's what we do nearly everytime we land off. Throwing them to the wolves with no training on a FMD rule is not the way to teach that. Yet you do it as a way of doing business. Not good.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'm new to the sport .... in my home DZ ground controll set the pattern before bording the plane.

So, if you happen to visit a DZ that has the FMD rule, please be aware:

-Landing direction could change at the last possible minute.
-It could change even after that last possible minute.
-Be prepared to dodge those last-minute waggers who drive all over the sky chasing the guy that they think is the FMD.
-Keep your head on a swivel and be prepared to dodge the people who are focused on the FMD instead of the airspace around them even if tthey are not wagging.
-Be prepared to do downwinders regardless of windspeed.
-Be prepared to share that way-out-there landing space with the 22 others who don't want to land near that FMD guy either.
-Have 9-1-1 on speed dial.

Good luck.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[billvon 2,384]

>Do a/c pilots watch the previous one landing to set it's landing direction
>or does the pilot DO AS HE's FUCKING TOLD?

At uncontrolled airports, generally they watch the previous one and land the same way. The only time they change direction is when 1) they're the only one in the pattern or 2) the wind has changed so dramatically that it's a problem to land in that direction. When 2) occurs and there are people in the pattern, it takes careful radio work to safely establish a new direction.

>NO - we have a means of setting the landing direction ON THE GROUND, >that can be seen FROM THE AIR -

At uncontrolled airports, such a means is generally called a wind sock, wind tee or a tetrahedron.

[1888 0]

Here's what goes on. All the swoopers want to land 1. Where everyone will see them & go ooohh. 2. DZO's want the same so they can keep their tandem students entertained while waiting. 3. Everyone wants to land close to the hanger where packing is available & they don't have to walk so they can make the next load. 4. Camera flyers & AFF instructors who get out last swoop down thru the belly & freeflyers who have gotten out earlier, so they can capture the landing & get inside to prepare for the next load. 5. S&TA's don't say anything as the DZO sets the rules, despite any agreement he has made with USPA, because he wants things to move fast as fast means more loads & more loads means more money. 6. Regional Directors, when they show up don't want to rock the boat as they want to get elected again.
Anyone who doesn't realize this has his head in his ass. Now thats not to say there are DZ's that are exceptions & try to operate as safely as they can.
From what I know of this incident, it appears that these issues generally didn't apply as I am speaking about swooping in general, however someone flew into someone. My condolences to family & friends.

Quote

• Quote

[billvon 2,384]

To go over your list at Perris, where the incident that spawned this thread occurred:

1) The main landing area is across the runway from the packing area so it's not all that visible. Indeed, the area by the hangar, which has much less traffic, is the closest to the aircraft loading area, and easiest to see (no packing tents/trees in the way.) There is also a swoop pond east of the hangar where many of the serious swoopers land.

2) The school is also pretty far from the runway, and you can't see much of the landing area from the area students get geared up.

3) Everyone has to walk at Perris. Indeed, the people who land further away generally get back soonest (Tim picks them up.)

4) Camera flyers video tandem landings. There is no benefit from them getting down much before the tandems. AFF instructors often have to land their students, and thus can't get back to the school quickly.

5) There are a great many S+TA's at Perris and they're very vocal. Indeed, this is often part of the problem, since when you have six S+TA's saying different things it's a lot harder to enforce a solution (since you have six different ones to choose from.)

High performance landings do indeed pose a pretty significant hazards, and egos are definitely involved. But the causes (and solutions) are not nearly as simple as listed above, and vary greatly from DZ to DZ.

[FB1609 0]

Quote

egos are definitely involved.

This to me sums up pretty much every HP landing/collision fatality.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

egos are definitely involved.

This to me sums up pretty much every HP landing/collision fatality.

Then you haven't done your homework.

As Professor Kallend likes to say, it takes two to collide but only one to avoid.

Or as my father said to me when he was teaching me how to drive: There are no "accidents."

We have all been in this spot, whether under canopy, in freefall, on the highway or the bike path: Sometimes we avoid a collision because we're looking out when someone else isn't. Sometimes a collision is avoided because the other guy was was looking when we weren't.

Collisions happen on those rare occasions when both parties aren't looking.

"Ego" is is certainly a component on some landing and/or collision fatalities, but you need to get out from behind your keyboard a little more before making such a summary declaration.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[Bolas 5]

One additional issue with the FMD rule I've seen is while some race down to set the pattern, others will hold in brakes so they don't have to be the one that sets the pattern.

I think a landing crosswind and downwind on a L&V day should be a part of the student progression.

Maybe make it a safety day thing too and bring in larger mains for people to use if they're not comfortable doing it on their current one.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[FB1609 0]

Well what I was saying is that at least 1 pilot is usually at fault, likely trying to impress. In collisions there is often 1 totally innocent victim, which is why I find these kind of fatalities so disturbing. Just because you have a car that can go 170 mph, should you be allowed to dirve like a madman and possibly kill some innocent person? Sure, on a race track maybe. Just like if you take your own pass you can do whatever you want under canopy.

I'm all for getting a rush, just think it is messed up when you can be at 200 ft on a straight approach and still be in danger from above from some persons ego.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

You keep ignoring that we're really only 20 or so years into anything close to what skydivers jump today. The loadings, the volume in any given landing area of jumpers, the volume of jumps capable in a short space of time, etc.

Neither system is perfect, but FMD is far, far more likely to create confusion. It relies on some fundamentals that are flawed (IMO):

1) Assumes no-one is going to arrive at the 'setting' altitude at the same time.
2) It assumes everyone starts their pattern at a similar altitude. Or at the very least assumes that a jumper who starts their pattern at 1000 ft (which is student pattern altitudes), understands that the same pattern flown on a loaded canopy can start as much as 1000 feet higher.
3) Assumes some jumpers wont race down.

Regardless of your position on FMD (and FWIW it appears to have had zero to do with the incident that raised the question) we can't say "It's been done for 50 years". Times have changed and it's folly not to realize that.

Side Note: We have, to my knowledge, never taught FMD. It's hard to do when we spend so much time with our students in the classroom, pre-jump, discussing their intended landing patterns and positioning.

Ian

You apparently haven't jumped much at Perris, where windsocks on opposite ends of the 100-yard grass landing area can point opposite directions -- and the ones in the middle point somewhere else.

FMD works at Perris because there is a large off-grass landing area for everyone who doesn't want to comply with FMD. I've done it myself: FMD goes one way and either the wind changes or the FMD choice doesn't match my own, so I land the way I want out where that it permissible.

It's true that FMD does not necessarily work everywhere, but it's the best solution at Perris with its routinely high-variability wind directions and enormous secondary and tertiary landing areas.

On the other hand, the "flaws" you list are not legitimate; they are straw men in the vernacular of propaganda arguments and, your canopygod obfuscation aside, share the same, ahem, flaw:

They are irrelevant.

FMD = FMD regardless of how s/he gets there.

Next!

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Well what I was saying is that at least 1 pilot is usually at fault, likely trying to impress. In collisions there is often 1 totally innocent victim, which is why I find these kind of fatalities so disturbing. Just because you have a car that can go 170 mph, should you be allowed to dirve like a madman and possibly kill some innocent person? Sure, on a race track maybe. Just like if you take your own pass you can do whatever you want under canopy.

I'm all for getting a rush, just think it is messed up when you can be at 200 ft on a straight approach and still be in danger from above from some persons ego.

Your assumptions are unwarranted and intensely disrespectful of Chris.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe he just didn't see Pat either -- that he did, in fact, carefully check his airspace before doing his entry turn and just missed the little canopy below him?

What I find intriguing here is why you are so compelled to attribute essentially all landing/collision fatalties to moral failure instead of human error.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[ianmdrennan 2]

Robin,

In your usual condescending way, you miss the point.

FMD creates confusion at, easily, the majority of Dropzones. There are, and will always be, exceptions. Perris (and a few others) are some of them. They are not the norm. Even then, just cause it's the 'best' choice for the given environment, doesn't mean it's something we should be advocating as a good option outside of those environments.

One day, when you get a grip on your overwhelming ego - you may actually have something useful to offer the community.

When that happens, I'll be more than glad to have a useful discussion with you.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

at Perris, where windsocks on opposite ends of the 100-yard grass landing area can point opposite directions -- and the ones in the middle point somewhere else.

Those conditions do not support the use of FMD. With windsocks that disagree, you are more likely to suffer from all of the problems of FMD because the first person down is more likely to adjust their final direction unpredictably.

There are so many reasons that FMD is very bad. What is the advantage?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

FMD creates confusion at, easily, the majority of Dropzones. There are, and will always be, exceptions. Perris (and a few others) are some of them

Why would Perris be an exception, why would they not suffer from the confusion of FMD?

Quote

just cause it's the 'best' choice for the given environment

What environment would cause it to be the best choice?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[quade 3]

Quote

"Ego" is is certainly a component on some landing and/or collision fatalities, but . . .

Robin, when I read that I didn't think he meant the individuals involved in particular, but the systemic way the sport lightly tap dances around exceptions based on what some of the highest level people in the sport do. This is not to denigrate anybody's ability or humility. The specific individuals are pretty much beyond reproach.

That said . . . the CHP doesn't let Jimmie Johnson drive down the 405 at 200 mph just because he's an exceptional driver.

One week ago I can pretty much guarantee any one of our most famous and photogenic skydivers could have easily performed a 270 hook at just about any landing area (main or not) at just about any dz and gotten away with it. Oh, the S&TA or DZO might have walked over and said "geebus, stop that will ya?", but nobody would have been grounded and no further action would have been taken -- and pretty much everyone knows this.

I think that's what he meant.

Again, not the individuals or individual dz, but a nation-wide systemic issue.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[danielcroft 2]

Why are we talking about FMD again?

FMD Pros:
1. In the even of a large change in wind direction combined with speed, we can all land safely

FMD Cons:
1. Pattern not set until X time (who knows when and by whom)
2. No one in the air knows how they're going to be landing until X time
3. Relies on one person making a good judgement call
4. The people who need the most help (students/newbs) get the least
5. The first person down has the least motivation to make a good call
6. People in the air are focussed on the ground and not the air
7. more?

If we're going to discuss patterns then let's talk about the real issue which is enforcement. You can set whatever you want but someone will decide they don't want to for whatever reason (valid or otherwise) and do whatever. If we're not prepared to enforce the rules as a community, there's little chance we're going to solve the issue of random landing directions IMO.

Anyone care to comment on the statistic that 83% of skydivers who died last year were D license holder?

[quade 3]

Quote

Anyone care to comment on the statistic that 83% of skydivers who died last year were D license holder?

The statistic, by itself, is near meaningless.
D License holders are generally the ones making more jumps.

Take a deck of cards. Shuffle it. Pick a card at random.

Every single time you pick a card, you have a 1 in 52 chance of picking the Ace of Spades. Every single time.

However, while it's possible that you could go hundreds of rounds and never pick the Ace of Spades, it's far more likely that eventually you will, regardless of what you may have been taught about "Gambler's Paradox." The ratio stays approximately the same averaged out over every round. Eventually you will almost certainly pick the Ace of Spades.

People with A licenses generally don't stay that way for very long. People with D license tend to stay that way for a very long time and accumulate far more jumps than they did as A licensed skydivers.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

FMD creates confusion at, easily, the majority of Dropzones. There are, and will always be, exceptions. Perris (and a few others) are some of them

Why would Perris be an exception, why would they not suffer from the confusion of FMD?

Quote

just cause it's the 'best' choice for the given environment

What environment would cause it to be the best choice?

Point taken
You're right though - it certainly doesn't alleviate the potential for confusion.

To answer your second question: I can't think of one reason it's a better idea than setting the pattern prior to take-off. Still, I'm definitely willing to admit there's something I haven't thought of.

Peace.
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[FB1609 0]

Quote

I think that's what he meant.

Yes, thanks. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

I wasn't referring to this incident specifically and should have made that clearer, I meant no disrespect.