Do You Want A Predictable Landing Pattern ?

[catfishhunter 1]

Landing pattern and landing direction have gotten confused here. The direction only dictates what pattern, left hand or right hand. I am amazed how many people have these two things mixed up. A pattern is a predictable and set shape. It is repeatable and determined not random.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[Brian425 0]

Plain and simple, we need an agreed upon landing pattern.

I personally don't care which direction you choose, into the wind, cross wind, down wind, any wind. Just agree on it an stick with it. It really makes it much easier and safer for everyone.

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are offering them your hand.

[erdnarob 1]

A predictable landing pattern is needed to prevent that type of accident like collisions and all sort of traffic interference. At some DZ like Parachute Montreal I have seen a board where it is written : TODAY THE LANDING PATTERN IS A LEFT HAND CIRCUIT (for instance) placed right at the loading area and hard to miss. At the Summerfest 2010 at Skydive Chicago, landing pattern were part of the dirt dive and was reminded for every jump by load organizers. I suggested it to my DZ to have such board. The problem arises especially when winds are calm and the wind sock is subject to a little breeze and changing all the time.
Some DZ (Skydive Chicago) have separated the landing area in two parts, one for people having 1000 jumps and more and another one for the other skydivers. Other DZ like Sebastian Florida have a special area reserved for swoopers.

But, as you know, many skydivers are hard to be told some restrictions. Once I talked to a jumper who was spiralling his chute right above the landing area. He told me he was alone and wasn't happy about my reaction. I answered him that few people have done the same kind of thing thinking they were alone when they were not and got a canopy collision.
I think that this type of restriction has to be written on the waiver and enforced by the DZO and his staff. If that can save one life, everybody will be happy.

Learn from others mistakes, you will never live long enough to make them all.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

I voted for a predictable pattern AND "first one down sets the pattern. "

Yes, I'm new. However, I have landed enough times to know that the winds can change dramatically, making it unsafe to land a pattern that's been established.

What about changes in wind direction makes for unsafe landings?

A lot of folks just don't get it yet ... maybe it's down to initial training that states that you land into wind [shakes head]. I don;t remember anyone saying thay you MUST land into wind.

N.B Landing with the wind can smart but landing after a copnopy collision will HURT and HURT a LOT.

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

[burtonjm 0]

Quote

I'm saddened that as of my post, 21 people have elected to chase the windsock.

I chose that as one of my options because that is what determines landing direction at my DZ. You either land "hangars on the left" or "hangars on the right" depending on what the winds are doing at takeoff. Everyone on the load follows the determined pattern regardless of what the winds do while we are in the air. One of my last jumps there the entire load landed downwind because the winds did a 180. Nobody complained and it's a good skill to have.

This shit, right here, is OK

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

Landing pattern and landing direction have gotten confused here. The direction only dictates what pattern, left hand or right hand. I am amazed how many people have these two things mixed up. A pattern is a predictable and set shape. It is repeatable and determined not random.

Good point, Catfish. You may have been refering to my post... or not.
Anyway, I was taking it for granted that everyone knew how to fly a downwind, base and final. I was merely rejecting the idea that everyone's downwind, base and final be from the same direction on every jump regardless of the wind direction. For example; the final always being from north to south relative to the pea gravel. It makes no sense if the winds are consistently out of the north all day.

Of course "chasing the wind sock" is a mistake too. You can't do that on a lot of demo jumps, particularly in a stadium. The winds swirl and you have to be able to land safely and preferably on target regardless of the wind direction.

On a dz you get guys doing low hook turns to try and land up wind. Personally, I think once you're at 500 ft, you're committed to your final. Changing then is gonna cause problems. If someone is cutting someone off below 500 then they're wrong. Not the guy who's getting cut off.

It seems to me that canopy control and the proper way to follow a landing pattern should be a part of any student progression or at least A license certification. And maybe it is, but it certainly isn't thorough enough.

One other little thing. It also seems to me that A license certification should also include some basic 2-way CRW skills. Folks don't need to freak out if someone's canopy bumps into them. Coming in contact with someone else's canopy is not an immediate death sentence. Have 'em learn how to land a bi-plane or a side-by-side. Basic CRW skills would go a long ways toward managing fear and learning to deal with canopy collisions... or landing two parachutes at the same time because someone pulled to low and their AAD fired.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Didn't expect to kill the thread. Sorry 'bout that.

[absane 0]

Quote

One other little thing. It also seems to me that A license certification should also include some basic 2-way CRW skills. Folks don't need to freak out if someone's canopy bumps into them. Coming in contact with someone else's canopy is not an immediate death sentence.

An experienced jumper who had thought I had my license actually flew right next to me in a side-by-side configuration. While he probably shouldn't have done it, I'm not one of those to freak out or get irritated over it. I just took it as a learning experience.

I told him on the ground I didn't even have my license yet (that was jump 25). He apologized but I told him it didn't bother me... I thought it was pretty cool. The same day, however, I got my A card stamped.

Don't forget to pull!

[burtonjm 0]

Quote

One other little thing. It also seems to me that A license certification should also include some basic 2-way CRW skills. Folks don't need to freak out if someone's canopy bumps into them. Coming in contact with someone else's canopy is not an immediate death sentence. Have 'em learn how to land a bi-plane or a side-by-side. Basic CRW skills would go a long ways toward managing fear and learning to deal with canopy collisions... or landing two parachutes at the same time because someone pulled to low and their AAD fired.

On my 7th jump my instructor (who also happened to be the DZO and is very experienced at CRW) said he was going to fly close to me under canopy to give me that experience. He didn't end up doing that, but I agree close proximity flying can be very beneficial. I've done several cross countries this summer and every time I do one I learn more about how my canopy flies. I think it is definitely beneficial to be able to experiment with different inputs on your canopy in close proximity to other canopies so you can learn how those inputs affect canopy flight. I don't think this should necessarily be part of the A license canopy drills, but I do think it is very beneficial

This shit, right here, is OK

[Master_Yoda 0]

I don't mean "in close proximity" I mean full contact CRW. Two ways are not hard or particularly dangerous. Do some rotations. Land some bi-planes. Do some side-bys and downplanes.
I think the experience should be a requirement.

[KermieCorleone 0]

I can see the benefit of the first one down changing the pattern according to the wind sock but I prefer to have a pre determined pattern before getting out of the plane. Licensed jumpers should be able to know their wind limits and be able to safely land upwind, downwind, crosswind, w/e to the LZ. if the winds are changing direction and speed that drastically that you will only be able to safely land upwind, then you should probably stay on the ground ...

I might be wrong in this but its much nicer when I know for a fact what the pattern is, cause I can fly with the wind changes and turbulence but its just slightly annoying when I am all set up in the pattern and the first one down changes it up, specially when I am second one down ...

- Neil

Never make assumptions! That harmless rectangle could be two triangles having sex ...

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

I don't mean "in close proximity" I mean full contact CRW. Two ways are not hard or particularly dangerous. Do some rotations. Land some bi-planes. Do some side-bys and downplanes.
I think the experience should be a requirement.

Although I agree that a bit of CRW experience is a huge asset to any canopy pilot, I'd recommend some close proximity flying with a seasoned CRW pilot first. If nothing else, it'll teach you what a canopy burble feels like. Anyone flying in crowded air space needs to know what it is, and what it can do!!

Birdshit & Fools Productions

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

[grimmie 173]

I looked at the votes. I want the FIVE jumpers that voted for "confusion in the LZ is OK" to out themselves.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

I looked at the votes. I want the FIVE jumpers that voted for "confusion in the LZ is OK" to out themselves.

+1

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

I looked at the votes. I want the FIVE jumpers that voted for "confusion in the LZ is OK" to out themselves.

Guess your bound to get a few stupid votes when you put a stupid option on the poll.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[Beachbum 0]

Quote

I don't mean "in close proximity" I mean full contact CRW. Two ways are not hard or particularly dangerous. Do some rotations. Land some bi-planes. Do some side-bys and downplanes.
I think the experience should be a requirement.

You're really proposing that pre-A license students do this??

As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks?

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't mean "in close proximity" I mean full contact CRW. Two ways are not hard or particularly dangerous. Do some rotations. Land some bi-planes. Do some side-bys and downplanes.
I think the experience should be a requirement.

You're really proposing that pre-A license students do this??

How many jumps for an A license these days? 50? 100?

YES. And don't tell me that it's too dangerous because that's nonsense. Hell, they don't even need CRW canopies to do it. Just a compatible canopy with whoever is instructing them. Hell, they don't even need non-cascading lines or collapsible PCs.

[burtonjm 0]

Quote

How many jumps for an A license these days? 50? 100?

It's 25 jumps. I don't think it's a good idea to have students doing full contact CRW

This shit, right here, is OK

[Master_Yoda 0]

That's what it used to be but I thought the jump number requirements went up. I saw somewhere a D was 500 when it used to be 200.

25 ain't bad if the person they're doing CRW with is qualified to teach them. They can start sooner than that. 2 way CRW is simply is not that dangerous.

[ridestrong 1]

Quote

25 ain't bad if the person they're doing CRW with is qualified to teach them. They can start sooner than that. 2 way CRW is simply is not that dangerous.

Yikes... at 25 jumps most of the students I see are still worried about setting up a proper landing pattern.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[brettski74 0]

I think there should be another option - a manual, ground based indicator. This could be as simple as someone holding the tetrahedron or a large movable arrow on the ground. One dropzone I used to jump at had a large canvas triangle on the ground in the main landing area to indicate the landing direction. It was set by the DZSO in accordance with the winds. Sometimes we would end up with a downwind landing direction, but that didn't happen very often and was generally always fixed for the next load. On the upside, there was never any doubt as to which direction your should land in the main landing area. On the downside, it relies on a dedicated person to set the landing direction for every load.

Wind direction can work well when winds are not light/variable and there are adequate wind indicators spread throughout the landing area, although even at it's best it's never ideal.

First man down can also work well, but once confusion begins, it quickly turns into a clusterfuck. Not everyone sees the first man land, so then they have to rely on whoever they do see landing.

The best methods would require everyone to be obtaining their landing direction from the same source.

[danielcroft 2]

I think that setting a landing pattern in the loading area with discussion is the best way as it means everyone heard it (it's repeated on the plane as well) and that people get a chance to understand *why* people are picking that direction.

I fucked up this weekend, I thought we were choosing in the air because the winds had been back and forward and relatively strong. I ended up being first down at about the same time as a very good swooper (and camera flyer) from my DZ. I landed one way, he landed the other (as did everyone else). Man, did I feel like a tool. He saw me and I saw him so nowhere near collision but it wasn't fun knowing that I'd been the one to fuck everything up. Needless to say I went straight to the guy and apologized.

I like the idea of having a marker set on the ground but I wonder if that would put people on autopilot when it comes to understanding wind conditions? You'd also have someone to point the finger at if it was the "wrong" way which could become ugly in the USA.

[jurgencamps 0]

Quote

I think that setting a landing pattern in the loading area with discussion is the best way as it means everyone heard it (it's repeated on the plane as well) and that people get a chance to understand *why* people are picking that direction.

A landingindicator on the ground is very visible to everybody in the air. It also prevents discussions when the wind changes 180° after take off.

[Master_Yoda 0]

I guess all of this talk of canopy collisions has me a bit baffled. I understand that parachutes are a lot faster these days but the fundamentals of flying and landing a parachute haven't changed from when I jumped in the late 80's. In fact they haven't changed... EVER!

Have people just become complacent at how to read a wind sock??? It's not that hard!! And I don't remember any canopy collisions back then. So who is really to blame? Is it students? How about 100 jump wonders experimenting with the joys of swooping?? Experienced hotshot skygods ignoring the winds, then cutting off and screwing everyone else up? I mean... what's the deal here?

Gear has become so good, there really should be less than a dozen fatalities per year, globally! It just doesn't make sense.

[Master_Yoda 0]

Quote

Quote

25 ain't bad if the person they're doing CRW with is qualified to teach them. They can start sooner than that. 2 way CRW is simply is not that dangerous.

Yikes... at 25 jumps most of the students I see are still worried about setting up a proper landing pattern.

Great time to take a student for a "ride" in a bi-plane and actually show 'em how.