Setting landing direction #2 (was: Perris double fatality)

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

I disagree. There is nothing 'skydiver proof' except staying on the ground.

I'm not sure even that's not going to do it anymore!

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[danielcroft 2]

I think that an arrow as described only mitigates the landing direction issue a little. You're just delaying the decision point and handing it to something that's impartial. It's a step in the right direction IMO but every time I think through this scenario (I sure don't have all the answers mind you) I keep finding it wanting. You're still open to collisions caused after the arrow moves and the people behind then having to change direction.

Personally I think that landing direction should be set on the ground. People should stick to that landing direction and land somewhere else if they're not comfortable. All the guess work goes out the window at that point and anyone landing in the main landing area contrary to the agreed direction is clearly in the wrong. People landing elsewhere can do whatever they want.

Another alternative for places like Perris would be to agree a direction on the ground and have one person designated as the FMD. If that person sees that the winds have switched they MUST land a STANDARD pattern into the new direction and then it's set from there on in.

Key difference from standard FMD is that there's a designated FMD and that that person must land a standard pattern.

[billvon 2,400]

>You're still open to collisions caused after the arrow moves and the people behind then
>having to change direction.

So have a rule. "No arrow direction changes when anyone is in the air unless it's more than 10 knots difference."

>Key difference from standard FMD is that there's a designated FMD and that that
>person must land a standard pattern.

On most loads we have that; there are a handful of people (often Fury) who land first and set the direction. For example, on Moxie loads, Christy lands first due to her loading and her pull altitude. Doing it on every load would be tough because it's often hard to determine who will land first, and how they will get there.

"Who's going to land first?"
"I will, I have a Velocity 95."
"OK, well, you have to fly a standard pattern."
"I never fly a standard pattern!"
"You gotta!"
"Well, OK. I'm going to pull at 4500 though. Where's everyone else pulling?"
"Our 12 way is pulling at 2500."
"Whoah! You want me to spiral down through you guys?"
"No, just pull at 2500."
"No fucking way! I'm not pulling at 2500!"

etc etc.

I suppose you could designate one guy who always gets out first, has a small canopy and pulls low, but it might be hard to do that in practice.

[danielcroft 2]

>> So have a rule. "No arrow direction changes when anyone is in the air unless it's more than 10 knots difference."
That still presents the issue of wind changes part way through a load.

Ok, taking a step back here; if you have separate landing areas for swooping and standard patterns, why would a swooper be setting a landing direction anyway? If they land down wind in the swoop area, why do non-swoopers need to land down wind?

I don't know Perris but I know that you guys are super busy, based on that, I'm not sure how you'd decide who would be the first person down but we do work out exit orders and if we're expecting people to be this disciplined then I don't know if it would be too much to ask to have the first person down into the standard/main landing area make a decision *only* if the wind had changed. The choice to actually call that into action could also be made based on information from the pilot as radioed form the ground.

All of this is just closing the gaps a little, I think the reality is that if we want to have a flexible landing direction then we need to accept that some people will get the short end of the stick. Either having to land out (will they have time to do that once the FMD had made the choice?) or collisions (worst case) or down wind landings resulting in injuries.

No solution will be perfect, we're human we excel at being imperfect.

[billvon 2,400]

>That still presents the issue of wind changes part way through a load.

Why is that an issue? The risk of a collision is greater than the risk of landing downwind - so the arrow stays put until the last person is down. Then it's moved for the next load.

If you want a system where you can change direction to match the wind when it changes, but also have everyone in the air land in the same direction to minimize collisions - the only way to do THAT is to have a single person per pass.

If you just want to be able to land into the wind, then put up a lot of wind indicators and have everyone land into the wind. Obviously there are problems with that.

>Ok, taking a step back here; if you have separate landing areas for swooping
>and standard patterns, why would a swooper be setting a landing direction anyway?

?? They don't; they'd land near the pond. In my Moxie example, Christy flies a standard pattern. In the second example, the guy with the tiny Velo wouldn't swoop; he would be the "designated lander" and fly a standard pattern, doing at most a 90 to final.

>I don't know if it would be too much to ask to have the first person down into
>the standard/main landing area make a decision *only* if the wind had changed.

That's basically what happens. Everyone assumes that the landing direction doesn't change; that's the default. In no wind it's to the north. If the first person down sees a significant change _then_ they change their pattern.

The arrow gets a similar result, except 1) you can see it a lot higher and 2) it can be moved by someone with a _very_ good idea of wind.

[danielcroft 2]

>> Why is that an issue? The risk of a collision is greater than the risk of landing downwind - so the arrow stays put until the last person is down. Then it's moved for the next load.

That works for me but that's practically the same as just agreeing the direction in advance for the whole load isn't it?

>> The arrow gets a similar result, except 1) you can see it a lot higher and 2) it can be moved by someone with a _very_ good idea of wind.

I think the limited arrow (moves at 10mph or whatever smart people say) is a better solution than FMD if it's locked once the first person lands. The contentions raised are around planning (agreeing beforehand in either case resolves this) and adjustment during the load (locking it would resolve this).

The third issue is overlapping loads, a limited arrow resolves this where FMD doesn't.

Anyway, I feel like I'm becoming the "noise" part of this equation so I'll stop now.

[billvon 2,400]

>That works for me but that's practically the same as just agreeing the direction in
>advance for the whole load isn't it?

Yes, with the caveats that:

1) you can change the direction if the wind does for the next 20 minutes
2) it's a lot harder to 'forget' the direction the arrow is pointing.

[almeister112 0]

Keep in mind that I've only jumped at Skydive Arizona, where we also follow a FMD rule.

The first person sets the pattern, with the understanding that the FMD has the responsibility for setting the pattern for the whole load and should therefore follow the direction the tetrahedron is pointing. The other critical point is that HP landings are done into the wind.

Assuming the first man down follows the direction of the tetrahedron (which happens almost all of the time, since it's almost always the tandem videographers or another local swooper landing first), then everything works perfectly.

Suppose the tetrahedron is ambiguous or the FMD decides today's a beautiful day for a downwinder, though. I don't see how you can safely have any system that DOESN'T have the rest of the load landing the same direction as the first guy. There have been times when half the load does what they're supposed to and follows the first guy down anyway, but the rest want to land into the wind. That gives you people landing right at each other, which is a recipe for a canopy collision if ever I've seen one.

Say what you will about setting a landing direction before going up. I don't really have a problem with that. But I DO have a problem with people deciding to land in opposite directions in the same landing area on the same load. That's where things get bad quickly, and if the first guy lands downwind and half the load decides not to follow, I'm heading to the desert to avoid the mess that follows.

So assuming we're all following what the first guy does anyway if we want to land in the grass with him, he may as well read the tetrahedron and get the most updated wind information available. If he screws it up, the whole load either lands with him or somewhere else.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Say what you will about setting a landing direction before going up. I don't really have a problem with that. But I DO have a problem with people deciding to land in opposite directions in the same landing area on the same load. That's where things get bad quickly, and if the first guy lands downwind and half the load decides not to follow, I'm heading to the desert to avoid the mess that follows.

I am not advocating landing in opposing directions but can you document one fatality caused by this?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[quade 3]

Quote

I am not advocating landing in opposing directions but can you document one fatality caused by this?

Sparky

Document? No, but I've heard the thump and turned my head to see the result a few times -- more than I care to.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

I am not advocating landing in opposing directions but can you document one fatality caused by this?

Sparky

Document? No, but I've heard the thump and turned my head to see the result a few times -- more than I care to.

Same here Paul. But not one fatality that I have been able to find.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[danielcroft 2]

One point here on the swooper setting the pattern: if you're jumping at a USPA Group Member DZ then the swooper should be landing into a different area (or on their own pass) and therefore, the direction they land should be irrelevant to the rest of the (non-swooping) load.

What am I missing here guys?

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

One point here on the swooper setting the pattern: if you're jumping at a USPA Group Member DZ then the swooper should be landing into a different area (or on their own pass) and therefore, the direction they land should be irrelevant to the rest of the (non-swooping) load.

What am I missing here guys?

"Should be" is not the same as "will be".

...

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

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

"Should be" is not the same as "will be".

Isn't that a bit of a problem?

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

"Should be" is not the same as "will be".

Isn't that a bit of a problem?

It seems like lots of these discussions come back to the fact that we have some (if not all) the answers, but enforcement is the missing link.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[jacketsdb23 45]

Quote

but enforcement is the missing link.

Bingo.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[jacketsdb23 45]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

I believe that we, in general, have yet to accept the fact that we have a MAJOR problem. Until we do, most of us are banging our heads against the wall. People will get passes, no one will be held accountable, some people will qualify to land somewhere else, the skygods can still do what they want, newbies won't have incentive to learn proper landing pattern & vertical/horizontal separation...and we'll continue to do what we've been doing.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.