billvon 2,421 #26 October 2, 2006 >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. Right. But the people who do those things make the majority of jumps at most DZ's. They're the ones on serious teams - and thus need two rigs to make back-to-backs. They're the ones who make 300-500 jumps a year and remain current enough to do the tougher bigways. And in the air they're generally the more predictable jumpers. On any given load, I am far more worried about the guy from France who isn't wearing shoes, who at first wanted to do a hop and pop (then changed his mind and wanted to go all the way up) and said he wanted to do "whatever, like belly and sit and stuff" than I am about Fury, Perris's leading four-way team. I know what Uli is going to do under canopy - but that french guy? I just have no idea. That's why I am sometimes more worried about smaller loads of disparate jumpers than I am about bigger loads at competitions, bigways and specific events. At many DZ's there's a time aspect too. The only people there at 7:30am on a sunday are the more serious teams, and they're the more predictable ones. By 10am you start to see more erratic canopy flight, less separation between groups, more spiraling over the final approach etc. What I'm saying is that while more people in the air tends to be safer for me, the number of people alone isn't what's making it safer. It's the sort of people in the air, the gear they are using and their currency that make the difference. (And if 400 people can land as safely as a load of 10, I think the influence of the # of jumpers on safety is small indeed.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
el_chester 4 #27 October 2, 2006 I completely agree. During the World Team 06, traffic was very orderly. And when one attends bigways this is generally the case. However, in my (somewhat limited) experience, the smaller the DZ, the more people get a feeling that the likeliness of a canopy collision is less, and the less clean patterns are enforced (if they are even assigned patterns in the first place!). I can't understand why some DZ don't have fixed rules as to landing direction (such as "always land in the direction that the wind indicator is pointing", or "always land in the direction that the first parachute did" or "for this load, everybody land facing north") and pattern. I might be a bit on the intolerant side, but if someone with over 200 jumps can't make a left or right hand pattern, and have to sashay to make their intended landing area and don't understand that this is dangerous, well, I don't want to be anywhere near them. -- Be careful giving advice. Wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #28 October 2, 2006 Oh my. You're gonna drive me to drink....lol. Well, I disagree with you. But I'd still be interested in how many canopy collisions there have been at single-Cessna DZs in the last year...or ten years. In my own experience, in '94 with a load of us all with less than 100 jumps and worse-than-poor tracking skills, a friend and I both opened off-heading, and I had to lift my legs to avoid my buddy Jack's canopy. That, obviously, was an issue of poor tracking skills and poor canopy control on opening. The same year, I was wrapped up in another jumper's canopy from about 1500' to 500'. That was my first attempt at CRW, though I was not a willing participant with about 50 jumps. This fella, Dane, decided that I should do CRW (without my knowledge that he was gonna tag me) at 1500', and he wrapped me up in his canopy.... That, also, was a little different issue than lack of awareness of canopy traffic, but it happened nonetheless. While I still say that 4 people, who know each other's skydiving habits very well, landing in a 100-acre landing area don't have THAT much to worry about in terms of canopy collisions, I think it's an issue that those same people need to think about....because you're (hopefully) not always jumping in the comfort of you little home dz, and there's more to avoiding canopy collisions than awareness of traffic. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #29 October 2, 2006 BS!!!! not personal lindseyProf. and Bill V are on the spot. I used to think as most do about small cessna DZ's/ landing areas. But, Anytime there are canopy pilots in the air there is a good potential for a collision. Avioding a collision takes skill and discipline by all pilots. Plan the pattern; Fly the pattern. You are more likely to have a canopy collision because you, and others, deviated from the landing pattern than because you choose to jump at a small/ big DZ."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #30 October 2, 2006 Well...I don't think it's BS at all. I agree that you should plan and fly a pattern. No doubt about that. But I still am interested in knowing how frequent canopy collisions are at single-Cessna dz's. When I look at the fatality pages, specifically the fatalities caused by canopy collisions, I'm not seeing single-Cessna dz's listed. Some AREN'T listed at all. Some...like the dz in Paraguay...I'd not have a clue what kind of dz that is. I think it's easy to try to flame me because it's always better to err on the side of caution. I don't disagree with that. And, as I've said all along, I think the post is very helpful. But since folks DO want to try to nail me to the wall (lol...j/k) it'd be interesting to see something to back it up! That's all. I would be interested to know just HOW deluded I've been these years... AND, my statement (which wasn't even the point to begin with) is about 4 people who have been jumping together for years (and the only people in the sky at any given time) and the relative unlikelihood of being involved in a canopy collision under those circumstances. It would be a freak occurrence, imho.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,640 #31 October 3, 2006 QuoteWell...I don't think it's BS at all. I agree that you should plan and fly a pattern. No doubt about that. But I still am interested in knowing how frequent canopy collisions are at single-Cessna dz's. When I look at the fatality pages, specifically the fatalities caused by canopy collisions, I'm not seeing single-Cessna dz's listed. Some AREN'T listed at all. Some...like the dz in Paraguay...I'd not have a clue what kind of dz that is. I think it's easy to try to flame me because it's always better to err on the side of caution. I don't disagree with that. And, as I've said all along, I think the post is very helpful. But since folks DO want to try to nail me to the wall (lol...j/k) it'd be interesting to see something to back it up! That's all. I would be interested to know just HOW deluded I've been these years... AND, my statement (which wasn't even the point to begin with) is about 4 people who have been jumping together for years (and the only people in the sky at any given time) and the relative unlikelihood of being involved in a canopy collision under those circumstances. It would be a freak occurrence, imho. I watched two friends die at a "humongous" airport on 10/6/2001. They were on a team practice jump before Nationals and had been jumping together all year. The size of the airport was quite irrelevant. All that mattered was that they didn't see each other. So it was a "freak occurrence" but they're still quite dead.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #32 October 3, 2006 Give it up Linz...they are NOT going to acknowledge your point and further, they ARE going to continue to put words in your mouth and they ARE going to continue inserting issues into your statement that weren't there in the first place... guess what guys...people do stupid shit at all sizes of DZs. People do stupid shit all the time and everywhere under all conditions...if you still believe that it's easier to keep track of 399 canopies than 3, have at it. Your message about the type of flyers, canopies and organization of the jump was received. Thank you.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #33 October 3, 2006 QuoteGive it up Linz...they are NOT going to acknowledge your point and further, they ARE going to continue to put words in your mouth and they ARE going to continue inserting issues into your statement that weren't there in the first place... guess what guys...people do stupid shit at all sizes of DZs. People do stupid shit all the time and everywhere under all conditions...if you still believe that it's easier to keep track of 399 canopies than 3, have at it. Your message about the type of flyers, canopies and organization of the jump was received. Thank you. thanks....-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itllclear 1 #34 October 3, 2006 QuoteIt's the sort of people in the air, the gear they are using and their currency that make the difference. And then a couple of months ago there was a collision over the grass at Perris between two very experienced and current big way jumpers. By some miracle, no injuries. Bottom line -- when you are more concerned about where you're going to land than where the other canopies are, you're increasing the chances of a problem. When the place at which you want to land also happens to be where others want to land, the chances multiply. "Harry -- why did you land all the way over there? Hardly anyone else did." "Your second sentence answered your question." BSBD Harry"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
el_chester 4 #35 October 3, 2006 Hi Popsjumper. I find your post funny... first you say: (emphasis mine) QuoteGive it up Linz...they are NOT going to acknowledge your point and further, they ARE going to continue to put words in your mouth and they ARE going to continue inserting issues into your statement that weren't there in the first place... but immediately afterwards, you do exactly that: Quoteguess what guys...people do stupid shit at all sizes of DZs. People do stupid shit all the time and everywhere under all conditions...if you still believe that it's easier to keep track of 399 canopies than 3, have at it. Neither Bill nor I said it was easier to keep track of 410+ canopies (cameramen included!), but rather, that we feel safer because there is a lot more order. Here's snips from our posts: billvon in post #23 Quote4) 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. billvon in post #26 QuoteWhat I'm saying is that while more people in the air tends to be safer for me, the number of people alone isn't what's making it safer. It's the sort of people in the air, the gear they are using and their currency that make the difference. (And if 400 people can land as safely as a load of 10, I think the influence of the # of jumpers on safety is small indeed.) my post #27 QuoteI completely agree. During the World Team 06, traffic was very orderly. And when one attends bigways this is generally the case. However, in my (somewhat limited) experience, the smaller the DZ, the more people get a feeling that the likeliness of a canopy collision is less, and the less clean patterns are enforced (if they are even assigned patterns in the first place!). -- Be careful giving advice. Wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #36 October 3, 2006 Good on you...you see the irony of it all. BTW, those guys are highly respected in the skydiving community and their expertise and knowledge is appreciated by seemingly 99% of us out here. It's inestimable how many incidents have been avoided by people reading and heeding their postings. Great sum-ups. Now...can we go back to learning about avoiding canopy collisions? Skybytch made a great post and it has gotten lost in the shuffle.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pash 0 #37 October 4, 2006 Thanks for taking the time to make this post. I LOVE reading stuff like this from people that have been around long enough to get something and teach it / pass it on. I'm sorry it turned into a pissing contest on how many canopies are safe in the air and whether or not you can die with 2 or 200 in the air at once. Seems like a great write-up for any size DZ. Being complacent at any DZ seems like a recipe for disaster. It seems equally dangerous to be complacent just because you know everyone on the load and make assumptions, or you don't know anyone on the otter and make assumptions, or just because your 3 best friends are on the 182 and make assumptions. Being complacent in any of those environments still makes you guilty of the c-word. I knew 2 very experienced jumpers that probably *knew* what the other was going to do. Unfortunately they were both wrong. I'm not saying this just to point out that I know people that have died, I'm saying it because the OP was good advice for everyone on any DZ whether you are just starting, or a skygod, whether you've buried friends, or have yet to do so. Thanks again Lisa, jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #38 October 4, 2006 Quote... Seems like a great write-up for any size DZ. Being complacent at any DZ seems like a recipe for disaster. It seems equally dangerous to be complacent just because you know everyone on the load and make assumptions, or you don't know anyone on the otter and make assumptions, or just because your 3 best friends are on the 182 and make assumptions. Being complacent in any of those environments still makes you guilty of the c-word. WoooHoooo! You do have a way with words. Thanks for simplifying the whole thing, Jason My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,640 #40 January 2, 2007 Anyone who still thinks they are immune on account of only two or three canopies in the air should read This account.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
