Avoiding canopy collisions

[skybytch 259]

Through numerous discussions with a couple of very good canopy pilots, I've recently learned a few things that just may keep me alive. Thought I'd share them, since staying alive is the best way to make skydiving a repeatable activity.

Before you get on the airplane, take a look at the other jumpers on the load. Determine what kind of canopy they fly, at what wingloading (a rough idea) and what type of approach they are likely to do. You can determine these things by a) asking them, b) knowing them and/or c) comparing the size of their container to the size of their body.

Spending some time when you aren't jumping watching loads land is also advisable. Besides gaining valuable insight into flare techniques that work and don't work, you can get to know which jumpers always swoop, which jumpers always fly a traditional pattern and which jumpers fly no pattern at all (hopefully the S&TA will be talking to those jumpers soon...). You can also learn what type of canopy people jump and what colors are on their canopies.

How will this help you avoid a canopy collision? By knowing in advance which jumpers are swoopers and which fly traditional patterns, which jumpers are flying faster canopies and/or heavier wingloadings and which are flying slower canopies and/or lighter wingloadings, and by being able to quickly identify a canopy type and/or a particular skydiver in the air, you are in a better position to "control the pattern" when it's time for you to fly your landing pattern.

By "control the pattern," I mean doing what is needed to assure that you have clean air in which to fly your landing pattern - no matter if it's a 270 riser turn or a traditional pattern flown completely with toggles. You can start controlling the pattern as soon as you are under a good canopy and have taken care of whatever "housekeeping" you normally do after opening (collapsing/bringing down slider, taking off booties, etc).

Start by locating all of the other jumpers who were on the load with you. Look up, look down, look to your left, look to your right, look in front of you, look behind you. As you locate them, make a mental note of the canopy type/wingloading (or if you are at your home dz, as you see each jumper note "There's Bob, he flies a Velocity and always swoops. That's Joe, he flies a big boat and always flies a traditional pattern." etc).

Once you know where everybody is in relation to you, it's time to start creating the vertical and horizontal separation between you and them that you will want as you enter your pattern. Demo jumpers call this "stacking" - at most demos the ideal way for a group to land is one at a time, so they purposely set themselves up so that no more than one canopy will be on a final approach at the same time.

If you fly a canopy that descends relatively quickly, you'll probably want to set yourself up to land in the first wave. If you fly a canopy that descends relatively slowly, you'll probably want to set yourself up to land last or close to last.

How do you create separation? If you want to be below someone who is flying a canopy of similar type and wingloading to you, spiral down. If you want to be above the same person, apply some brakes and float up (same thing if you want to be above someone flying a canopy that descends faster than yours does). It's not a good idea to try to beat a faster descending canopy than yours to the ground - if one is on level with you, apply some brakes to create a bit of additional vertical separation. Likewise, it's better to spiral to create vertical separation if the person on level with you flies a slower canopy or lighter loading than you do.

Once you've entered the pattern you can still use brakes to create vertical separation between you and a canopy in front of you, but be aware of who may be behind you as well. Spiraling is not a good idea once you are in the pattern.

By constantly keeping your head on a swivel, anticipating what other jumpers are likely to do and creating separation as needed from opening through landing, you can create a situation where there are no other canopies on final (or at your setup point, or in the airspace you'll be using during your turn) at the same time you are. You've controlled your pattern and you are likely to land without the inconvenience of having somebody elses' canopy or body impacting yours.

Another important part of avoiding collisions is being consistent and predictable in how you fly your pattern/approach. Don't suddenly decide to do a 270 riser turn if you always fly a traditional pattern with toggles. Don't do S turns on final, especially if there is someone else on final at the same time you are (or even if there are any other canopies in the air, period). If your dz has a specific "swoop lane" and you fly a traditional pattern, don't overfly the swoopers set up area and don't land in the swoop lane (the same applies in reverse - if you're a swooper, set up and land in the swoop area, not in the main landing area).

[Lindsey 0]

Thanks Bytch!

Having made most of my jumps (by FAR) on a big airport from a 182, I'm always nervous about all the canopies in the air when I go to a bigger dz. Traffic's just not an issue in our little spot, and it can feel pretty challenging when I venture out into the wider world.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[NWPoul 1]

Thx for a good post;)
However at allmost all large DZ's here spirals to lost altitude concerned as unsafe and forbidden

Why drink and drive, if you can smoke and fly?

[skybytch 259]

Quote

However at allmost all large DZ's here spirals to lost altitude concerned as unsafe and forbidden

I probably shouldn't have used the term "spiral" then. I don't mean repeated 360 degree turns. One 360 will create sufficient separation, especially if the other jumper is aware of what you are doing and why and goes into some brakes to float up a bit.

And of course, checking for traffic below you prior to doing a 360 is important, as is checking for traffic above you prior to floating up using brakes.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Thanks Bytch!

Having made most of my jumps (by FAR) on a big airport from a 182, I'm always nervous about all the canopies in the air when I go to a bigger dz. Traffic's just not an issue in our little spot...

You have a false sense of security. We had a double fatality on October 6th, 2001 from a canopy collision when only 11 jumpers were in the air at a DZ with a 200 acre grass landing area. No-one thought traffic was an issue there, either.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

Quote

Thanks Bytch!

Having made most of my jumps (by FAR) on a big airport from a 182, I'm always nervous about all the canopies in the air when I go to a bigger dz. Traffic's just not an issue in our little spot...

You have a false sense of security. We had a double fatality on October 6th, 2001 from a canopy collision when only 11 jumpers were in the air at a DZ with a 200 acre grass landing area. No-one thought traffic was an issue there, either.

Possibly, but 11 jumpers is still 2.25 x as many as 4 (from a 182).

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Possibly, but 11 jumpers is still 2.25 x as many as 4 (from a 182).

But you're not 2.25 times less likely to die if you get into a canopy collision after exiting with three other people than if you exit with 10 other people, are you?

The prof has a very valid point. It doesn't matter how many other people are in the air with you. Controlling your pattern can help you avoid a canopy collision.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

Quote

Possibly, but 11 jumpers is still 2.25 x as many as 4 (from a 182).

But you're not 2.25 times less likely to die if you get into a canopy collision after exiting with three other people than if you exit with 10 other people, are you?

The prof has a very valid point. It doesn't matter how many other people are in the air with you. Controlling your pattern can help you avoid a canopy collision.

I'm not saying otherwise - I'm saying that there are less bodies in the air to worry about and as Lindsey said, a large airport (implying large landing area) as well. Maybe kallend should warned about not being lulled into a false sense of security as opposed to blatantly accusing her.

[skybytch 259]

Wow. From useful information that might save a life to accusing people of accusing people in only 8 posts.

[brabzzz 0]

A couple of years back two good friends had a (low) canopy collision. One fatality and one serious injury. There were perhaps only three other canopies out there, all much higher (as they were students).

I was out at the Espace boogie a fortnight later with 70 other canopies. I was sh*tting myself under canopy as I only had 75 jumps and was all too aware of what can happen with 68 less canopies in the same piece of sky. It was incident free.

The following year one of our organised group hit a deploying canopy as he tracked off. A fatailty. Some would say the with that many people about, the chances are obviously greater. But the same thing happened very recently. Between two jumpers. On a two way!!!

4 canopies or 40. 2 trackers or 20. No difference regarding the lessons to be learnt. I'd almost argue that complaceny is greater with 'only' three other jumpers than on bigways. I catch myself being more complacent on smaller dives...

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Possibly, but 11 jumpers is still 2.25 x as many as 4 (from a 182).

But you're not 2.25 times less likely to die if you get into a canopy collision after exiting with three other people than if you exit with 10 other people, are you?

The prof has a very valid point. It doesn't matter how many other people are in the air with you. Controlling your pattern can help you avoid a canopy collision.

I'm not saying otherwise - I'm saying that there are less bodies in the air to worry about and as Lindsey said, a large airport (implying large landing area) as well. Maybe kallend should warned about not being lulled into a false sense of security as opposed to blatantly accusing her.

How many of your friends have been killed in canopy collisions? I've lost 3, and none of them were in crowded air.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[monkycndo 0]

Lisa, thanks for the reminder. I just recently downsized and have been jumping in larger groups with more people in the air. I have had to adjust how I set up in the pattern. I agree, you can't be complacent no matter how many people are around you. Track, fly and land like your life depends on it. Because it does.

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[Lindsey 0]

Maybe kallend should warned about not being lulled into a false sense of security as opposed to blatantly accusing her.

I don't think kallend was accusing me of anything. Am I wrong, John? A false sense of security? Maybe. I just know that I don't find it difficult to keep up with the three other people who are in the air with me over our HUGE airport.

I get nervous when I jump with 15+ people in the air. That might very well be because I feel pretty secure and capable of NOT flying into another canopy with the same 3 other canopies in the air with me that are almost always in the air with me. I know them. They know me. We all have a pretty good idea what each other is doing. Our "pattern" isn't a strict pattern, but usually just a suggestion....lol

When I go to, say, Skydive Dallas, I have a sense of sense of insecurity since I'm out of my comfort zone, and haven't thought about those things in the bytch's post nearly as much as I prob'ly should have. WHICH is why I said, "Thanks, bytch."

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Elisha 1]

OK. From the beginning, GREAT ARTICLE!
Now....again, we are on the internet, and words are easily misinterpreted, but I saw this:

Quote

You have a false sense of security...

and thought kallend seems to be able to judge the previous posters actions and know their mind just a bit too presumptuously. Again, it's a lot easier to keep track of 3 other canopies than 10.

[Lindsey 0]

I think it's a REALLY good point that this "sense of security" can be dangerous. I wouldn't begin to argue that. In my mind, not SO dangerous during routine jumps with my friends, but risky in terms of the confidence one builds over time. I'd bet there are quite a few people in a situation like mine: you gain aptitude with experience and confidence in your abilities, and you learn to trust in yourself as a safe, heads-up skydiver.

But getting away from the small dz, to the Convention or other dz with congested skies, you have to have different skills. If ya' hadn't concentrated on those skills when you really didn't need 'em as much, those canopy skills will not have developed magically along with your other abilities. You're not much more capable than any 100-jump wonder at this point. AND I betcha you're not jumping that big 200-some-odd square foot Maverone anymore either.

Anyway....I see no reason at all to argue with either kallend or Bytch on these points. Even if you don't think they all necessarily apply to you or me, it's damn good stuff to think about, imho.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

OK. From the beginning, GREAT ARTICLE!
Now....again, we are on the internet, and words are easily misinterpreted, but I saw this:

Quote

You have a false sense of security...

and thought kallend seems to be able to judge the previous posters actions and know their mind just a bit too presumptuously. Again, it's a lot easier to keep track of 3 other canopies than 10.

How many of your friends have been killed in canopy collisions? I've lost 3, and none of them were in crowded air.

You might want to spend some time reviewing the fatalities in Parachutist (or on here). We've had fatalities from collisions on 3-ways at big airports.

Assuming the risk is minimal just because the operation is small and the airport is large is VERY unwise, IMO.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

You might want to spend some time reviewing the fatalities in Parachutist (or on here). We've had fatalities from collisions on 3-ways at big airports.

Assuming the risk is minimal just because the operation is small and the airport is large is VERY unwise, IMO.

1. Not knowing someone who has died from a canopy collision does not mean me or any others are necessarily complacent or unaware...but as everyone else, should not be lulled into a false sense of security either.

2. I DO review the list of fatalities in Parachutist everymonth and sometimes on here as well.

3. So are you saying then that having more canopies in the air is the exact same risk? Sorry, but I don't buy it. It is simple probability that an accident is more likely to happen on a bigger DZ due to more traffic. Again though, see 1 above.

But, I think we are possibly talking past each other, so I will leave it at that.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...You have a false sense of security. We had a double fatality on October 6th, 2001 from a canopy collision when only 11 jumpers were in the air at a DZ with a 200 acre grass landing area. No-one thought traffic was an issue there, either.

Geez, John. Look here. We all know you to be very experienced and very safety concious and you provide us with good information and insight to skydiving realities.

However, when you quite commonly go off on tangents by reading more into many posts than what was intended, you severly detract from your message.

False sense of Security? C'mon. Where did you get that. He makes a simple stement that he's more comfortable dealing with 3 canopies in the sky than many canopies in the sky. Even after he replied favorably to your tangent, you still plug away at him.

Now the message is getting lost in a discussion that has become more about "assumptions" than safety.

We're not all killers out here just looking for a way to kill ourselves and others. Can you simply relay your good messages without the sniping? The message would get across much better that way.

Even Ron has toned it down and his input is being much better received, understood and, I'm sure, applied.

(Ok...I "assumed" the last part of that last paragraph. Sheesh.)

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

[kkeenan 13]

Quote

But, I think we are possibly talking past each other, so I will leave it at that.

That's a good idea, because, Elisha, you are coming off as just wanting to start a bunch of crap. You have muddied and derailed the thread just so that you can engage in some nit-picking. So, let's get over that and on to constructive stuff.

This is a very valuable discussion, and we must keep in mind the higher objectives of keeping each other alive and away from canopy collisions. I do some CRW, and wraps can be exciting (in a perverse sort of way ) but a wrap at 100' will just plain kill you.

It almost doesn't matter what the size of the DZ is. Most collisions occur because all of the jumpers are headed to the same general landing area. Sure, some land farther away intentionally, for safety, but let's face it, most don't. As they get closer, all are converging and things get more crowded. Additionally, as people get closer to landing, they are focused more on the target area when, in fact, they should be looking around more as the cone of seperation tightens.

It's easy to understand Mr. Kallend's zeal for landing seperation. I saw him get clipped from behind on final by a fast-moving video dude, and only luck and good flying allowed him to walk away.

Kevin K.

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

...

False sense of Security? C'mon. Where did you get that. He makes a simple stement that he's more comfortable dealing with 3 canopies in the sky than many canopies in the sky. Even after he replied favorably to your tangent, you still plug away at him.

Easy - I got it from the statement "Traffic's just not an issue in our little spot" (Post #2 of THIS thread). Nothing there about "more comfortable", but the absolute statement "not an issue".

THAT looks like a false sense of security to me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Elisha 1]

Good morning folks. I hope you're doing well too.

• Quote

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...

False sense of Security? C'mon. Where did you get that. He makes a simple stement that he's more comfortable dealing with 3 canopies in the sky than many canopies in the sky. Even after he replied favorably to your tangent, you still plug away at him.

Easy - I got it from the statement "Traffic's just not an issue in our little spot" (Post #2 of THIS thread). Nothing there about "more comfortable", but the absolute statement "not an issue".

THAT looks like a false sense of security to me.

JEEZ John. . Let me rephrase then...Traffic is just not so much an issue at our HUMONGOUS airport. I'll try to be more accurate in my expressions in the future....well, prob'ly not, but hey.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

• Quote

[billvon 2,478]

>So are you saying then that having more canopies in the air is the exact same risk?

It has been my experience that the more people in the air, the LESS the risk. The safest I've been in traffic have been at the world record attempts I've been on - the 300, 357 and 400 ways. The most worried I've been have been during 'normal' traffic patterns at Perris with a regular otter load of people.

The reason, however, is not due to the lack of canopies to run into (or vice versa.) The reasons I seem to be safer in those larger groups are:

1) I choose my gear to match conditions. On bigways I jump larger more reliable canopies to reduce my speed after opening and help ensure an on-heading opening; this increases the time available to me to react.

2) On record attempts (and even most bigways) the people on the jump have a lot of experience landing in large groups. They can fly a pattern, stick to one landing area, fly in formation with other jumpers etc.

3) On larger dives I spend 99% of my time under canopy looking for other jumpers. On smaller dives I spend more time looking for specific jumpers/things - making sure everyone in my team is going to make it back, making sure the next group is going to clear us, seeing where that cutaway main lands, trying to figure out if the wind is more northish or westish.

4) On larger dives, often the landing areas are assigned beforehand, and there's more predictability as to where people are going to go. You don't have someone crossing the pattern to get to the swoop pond, or a student coming from the west side of the runway trying to make the student area.

5) On larger dives canopies tend to be more compatible. You don't get Luigi on a 58 square foot canopy, and you don't get a passel of tandems from the last load just turning final when you're setting up to land. You get hundreds of 1.2 to 1.8 to 1 loaded canopies, all open at somewhat similar altitudes.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

>So are you saying then that having more canopies in the air is the exact same risk?

It has been my experience that the more people in the air, the LESS the risk. The safest I've been in traffic have been at the world record attempts I've been on - the 300, 357 and 400 ways. The most worried I've been have been during 'normal' traffic patterns at Perris with a regular otter load of people.

Interesting.

Although I am sure that most of us do not have multiple rigs, jump on bigways/WR attempts or DZs as large a Perris regularly. Maybe someone can get the USPA to add a "How many rigs do you currently own?" to the annual renewal survey.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

...

False sense of Security? C'mon. Where did you get that. He makes a simple stement that he's more comfortable dealing with 3 canopies in the sky than many canopies in the sky. Even after he replied favorably to your tangent, you still plug away at him.

Easy - I got it from the statement "Traffic's just not an issue in our little spot" (Post #2 of THIS thread). Nothing there about "more comfortable", but the absolute statement "not an issue".

THAT looks like a false sense of security to me.

JEEZ John. . Let me rephrase then...Traffic is just not so much an issue at our HUMONGOUS airport. I'll try to be more accurate in my expressions in the future....well, prob'ly not, but hey.

linz

I watched two friends die at a "humongous" airport. Size of the airport is not really relevant if two people are trying to land in the same place.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote