mirage62 0 #1 March 21, 2007 Would you be willing to sign a petition asking for the USPA to mandate separate landing area’s for high performance landings at USPA drop zones. B.o.B.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #2 March 21, 2007 no, that type of petition I'd only sign on a DZ by DZ basis USPA could put out a 'recommendation' to make this a standard practice, but I wouldn't want to take away ownership of the issue from the DZOs and S&TAs to enforce as they see fit on case by case basis. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,734 #3 March 21, 2007 >USPA could put out a 'recommendation' to make this a standard >practice, but I wouldn't want to take away ownership of the issue from the >DZOs and S&TAs to enforce as they see fit on case by case basis. Pretty much everything USPA does is a recommendation. Their rules do not have the force of law, and are ignored when a DZO feels he has a good reason. USPA rules are sometimes heeded; USPA recommendations almost never are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #4 March 21, 2007 It will not 'fix' the problem. You cannot mandate bad decision making. These efforts, imo, would be far better spent on steadfast education, and enforcement of acceptible landing practices...whatever they are determined to be for the dz/area. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dharma1976 0 #5 March 21, 2007 no I wouldnt but I keep hoping that they come out with their canopy coach rating.... THen we could actually spend more time with students on canopy or even build more canopy flyign into the license reqs I could see a change where people had to do more than just land in a set area a certain amount of times.... Davehttp://www.skyjunky.com CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
druvaughn 0 #6 March 21, 2007 QuoteIt will not 'fix' the problem. You cannot mandate bad decision making.Quote I think that says it all and bears repeating... I did vote for yes. Someone higher up the totem pole than I has to take responsibility and make some hard decisions around the DZ or bad decision makers will be allowed to continue jumping. I wish it weren't so, but if my 300 jumps tells (discusses) a poor choice with someone who has 3000 jumps, I'm not going to be heard, and might even get a good look at them as they walk away wondering how I have the nerve. I'd open my mouth, but have found people don't listen, my girlfriend would be the first on that list. Best, Dru- - "Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jacketsdb23 49 #7 March 21, 2007 unfortunately, most of these recent accidents involve highly skilled pilots who make dumb mistakes. 270's have no place in the traditional landing pattern. A traditional pattern has no place with 270's. Separate the landing area's at each DZ and ENFORCE the landing patterns. IMO, two strikes and you sit until you are educated enough to understand the problem. I don't think education was the problem in the past few accidents. However, education in canopy flying is severely needed. We have just changed the landing set-up at Bryon (separating HP and "traditional" patterns) and you wouldn't believe how many people just don't get it. There is a lack of knowledge at the most basic level. People laughed at the poll that was up some time back about right hand vs. left hand pattern. There is definitely a problem.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #8 March 21, 2007 Quote>Pretty much everything USPA does is a recommendation. Their rules do not have the force of law, and are ignored when a DZO feels he has a good reason. USPA rules are sometimes heeded; USPA recommendations almost never are. that's pretty much the basis for my post - USPA doesn't have a lot of teeth, the DZs have to make it happen, and that will either happen because they believe it's right, or a big enough chunk of their clientel drive the change ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,734 #9 March 21, 2007 >USPA doesn't have a lot of teeth, the DZs have to make it happen, >and that will either happen because they believe it's right, or a big enough >chunk of their clientel drive the change. I agree. USPA DOES have a role in making clear and unambiguous statements on canopy safety, and I think "you have to have separate landing areas" is a good statement to make. They currently make the usual weak recommendation, along the lines of: -------------------- To avoid danger to other jumpers, all practice of high-performance activities should take place in a landing area where other jumpers are not on approach. Advanced maneuvers in a common landing area should be attempted only by highly experienced canopy pilots who must exercise restraint, judgment, and extreme caution. -------------------- As usual, no one even knows that one is there, because no one reads the SIM. We should change that to a BSR that states "high performance landings should never be attempted in a landing area where people are flying standard patterns, and must have a separate landing area" or something along those lines. DZO's will still make up their own minds, but at least they will know that USPA believes that two landing areas are critical for safety. BSR's are written in blood, and there's been more than enough blood to ink this one in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dharma1976 0 #10 March 21, 2007 Quoteunfortunately, most of these recent accidents involve highly skilled pilots who make dumb mistakes. 270's have no place in the traditional landing pattern. A traditional pattern has no place with 270's. Separate the landing area's at each DZ and ENFORCE the landing patterns. IMO, two strikes and you sit until you are educated enough to understand the problem. I don't think education was the problem in the past few accidents. However, education in canopy flying is severely needed. We have just changed the landing set-up at Bryon (separating HP and "traditional" patterns) and you wouldn't believe how many people just don't get it. There is a lack of knowledge at the most basic level. People laughed at the poll that was up some time back about right hand vs. left hand pattern. There is definitely a problem. If education is not the problem why are people swooping in traffic... In heavy traffic I usually swing my turn down to a 180 as the highest degree of turn and sometimes god forbid even abort down to a 90.... I tend to save the bigger turns to the hop and pop/high pulls due to some near misses I had early in my 270 turn days (and had some people yell at me so severely that I took it as a lesson and stopped going big in high traffic) Cheers Davehttp://www.skyjunky.com CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 259 #11 March 21, 2007 QuoteI wish it weren't so, but if my 300 jumps tells (discusses) a poor choice with someone who has 3000 jumps, I'm not going to be heard, and might even get a good look at them as they walk away wondering how I have the nerve. When you see someone doing something stupid, inform the S&TA at the dz and let them do the talking to the other person. That's what they are there for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #12 March 21, 2007 Quote>We should change that to a BSR that states "high performance landings should never be attempted in a landing area where people are flying standard patterns, and must have a separate landing area" or something along those lines. DZO's will still make up their own minds, but at least they will know that USPA believes that two landing areas are critical for safety. BSR's are written in blood, and there's been more than enough blood to ink this one in. If we are just going to agree with each other, then I have nothing left to say to you. Good DAY, sir ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #13 March 21, 2007 There have been some great points made here. I believe they all have relevance. The S&TA who is strong willed could handle a problem, but I believe that there has to be a rule for that person to follow. (a separate landing area). Plus S&TA aren’t always immune to the social pressures of high time jumpers. Changing the issue to a BSR has merit, for sure. Education is always good but the last accident education was not really this issue, other than perhaps the education of arrogance. How many times have you felt bad because someone hooked in? A lot, I bet. And I totally support the right to swoop. But in fact I don’t hook and I do not see the need for myself to have to stop jumping because of the fear that someone will 270 into me. The education that I see here – and I fully believe that Danny would appreciate this – is that we as a group allow the practice to go on. We have to have a firm rule that the WHOLE skydiving community will support. Leaving it up to the Dz is certainly an option, and talking with people I find that many more dz’s have separate landing area’s than I thought – although many are not enforced strongly. As I said I dislike rules in general but I have to wonder when a dz who doesn’t have a separate landing area has an accident like this and if one of the families is not jumper friendly what will be the legal ramifications.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Meux 0 #14 March 21, 2007 It remains to be seen, but one DZO has declared that he is going to forbid more than a 90 degree turn in the pattern if there is more than one canopy there. He will allow hop and pops etc, for the swooper guys. This sounds like a very easy fix. Bob Holler spent his career as a USAF Pararescueman. The motto of that amazing group is "That Others May Live". My hope is that Bob's tragic death will go a long way in educating and keeping this issue at the forefront for a long time, So That Others May Live. It is my good fortune that my home DZ is the same one where the DZO is implementing this policy. I hope to hear others following it. How much does it cost to have a canopy collision on your DZ? (Especially with two fatalities) See you Friday at Deland. MH Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #15 March 21, 2007 Do you also have a petition for common sense and wise decisions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #16 March 21, 2007 No, but it makes more sense to have SOME kind of different rules that may be enforced. The "petition" was just a vechical to get people talkingKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,734 #17 March 21, 2007 > Do you also have a petition for common sense and wise decisions? Nope. Rules and regulations are a poor substitute for common sense, and are implemented only when common sense is clearly failing to keep people from killing other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 26 #18 March 21, 2007 QuoteDo you also have a petition for common sense and wise decisions? That's been working really well lately.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #19 March 22, 2007 Hey some of you "No" voters, I respect your votes but how about some (more) comments on what your suggestion would be.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites D22369 0 #20 March 22, 2007 Hey some of you "No" voters, I respect your votes but how about some (more) comments on what your suggestion would be. *** I voted no for several reasons, 1)uspa has no way of enforcing this rule so it would be merely a waste of their time and 'our' money. 2) common sense cannot be legislated no matter how much we wish it could. 3)The DZ's that are now putting swoopers out on a different pass is a great idea or limiting the amount of turn allowed in the normal pattern - these are both things that I am in favor of - IF... the S&TA will enforce it with groundings if necessary . If ya wanna swoop, get the hell away from everyone else ! I swoop each and every landing that I can, I use a 270-360 degree turn if i am in the clear (ie) alone in the sky or can positively locate each other jumper, if am in traffic or cannot locate everyone I come in straight - I can swoop next time. I really hate when someones bad judgement hurts or kills someone else.... *EDIT to add - I have been to quite a few DZ's, one of the biggest failings that I have seen is the flagrant violators violations being ignored cause he is A) a regular B) an instructor C) a buddy of the S&TA / or dzo RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,734 #21 March 22, 2007 >1)uspa has no way of enforcing this rule so it would be merely a waste of their time and 'our' money. How would it waste our money? >2) common sense cannot be legislated no matter how much we wish it could. I agree. But common sense is not working. And in those circumstances, sometimes rules save lives. >I swoop each and every landing that I can, I use a 270-360 degree turn if >i am in the clear (ie) alone in the sky or can positively locate each other >jumper, if am in traffic or cannot locate everyone I come in straight - I can >swoop next time. I am certain the swoopers who killed themselves and others believed the same thing. Yet still a lot of people are dead. Heck, one managed to kill himself with only ONE other person in the pattern, and that person was flying a larger canopy on a standard pattern. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites D22369 0 #22 March 22, 2007 How would it waste our money? Quote we are uspa is what I keep hearing... paperwork isnt free common sense is not working. And in those circumstances, sometimes rules save lives. I agree with you completely, but its the DZ's that will have to make and enforce the rules, and they will vary from dz to dz, - let the S&TA / owner make thier own intelligent decisions, not the uspa who have nothing beyond the "recommendations" I am certain the swoopers who killed themselves and others believed the same thing. Yet still a lot of people are dead. Quote no way have I ever thought about pulling a hp landing in a crowd, its asinine and isnt gonna impress anyone - at best you will be thought of as a jerk.... at worst.....dead - or even worse yet....kill someone else. Heck, one managed to kill himself with only ONE other person in the pattern pure and simple.... he didnt locate the other person - he did not look... RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stevo 0 #23 March 22, 2007 here's a suggestion. educate/teach people on how to stagger your approach so ONE person is landing/in the pattern at a time. the typical otter i'm on has 20 people, 2 tandems, that leaves 16 people to land together. if everyone focused from the second they open on finding where there spot in the pattern is, instead of waiting til your base leg, then everryone should have a very clean shot at having the landing area all to themselves. modern day canopies have plenty of range in there descent rate to allow this to happen. do the math. and if you can't get into the landing area with no one around you, 540 or straight in approach, you f*cked up, so land off/out and stay alive. separate landing areas are great but you still see people cruising over the pond at 300 ft with no clue that someone is 400 feet right above them about the land in the "separate high performance landing area". -everyone gets into the pattern to land at the same time. WHY?? because there is no one telling them that that's a good way to die! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites polarbear 1 #24 March 22, 2007 This wouldn't be the right choice for a blanket policy. My DZ doesn't have the real estate for multiple landing areas, but we also only operate out of a Cessna with only 4 people in the air at a time. We have other options to manage traffic and they seem to be working fine. I'd prefer this problem be solved at the individual jumper level - but barring that, it has to be solved individually by each DZ. A USPA policy is not the answer. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sergant 0 #25 March 22, 2007 I voted YES FYI Swooping banned at SD Arizona Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 1 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jacketsdb23 49 #7 March 21, 2007 unfortunately, most of these recent accidents involve highly skilled pilots who make dumb mistakes. 270's have no place in the traditional landing pattern. A traditional pattern has no place with 270's. Separate the landing area's at each DZ and ENFORCE the landing patterns. IMO, two strikes and you sit until you are educated enough to understand the problem. I don't think education was the problem in the past few accidents. However, education in canopy flying is severely needed. We have just changed the landing set-up at Bryon (separating HP and "traditional" patterns) and you wouldn't believe how many people just don't get it. There is a lack of knowledge at the most basic level. People laughed at the poll that was up some time back about right hand vs. left hand pattern. There is definitely a problem.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #8 March 21, 2007 Quote>Pretty much everything USPA does is a recommendation. Their rules do not have the force of law, and are ignored when a DZO feels he has a good reason. USPA rules are sometimes heeded; USPA recommendations almost never are. that's pretty much the basis for my post - USPA doesn't have a lot of teeth, the DZs have to make it happen, and that will either happen because they believe it's right, or a big enough chunk of their clientel drive the change ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,734 #9 March 21, 2007 >USPA doesn't have a lot of teeth, the DZs have to make it happen, >and that will either happen because they believe it's right, or a big enough >chunk of their clientel drive the change. I agree. USPA DOES have a role in making clear and unambiguous statements on canopy safety, and I think "you have to have separate landing areas" is a good statement to make. They currently make the usual weak recommendation, along the lines of: -------------------- To avoid danger to other jumpers, all practice of high-performance activities should take place in a landing area where other jumpers are not on approach. Advanced maneuvers in a common landing area should be attempted only by highly experienced canopy pilots who must exercise restraint, judgment, and extreme caution. -------------------- As usual, no one even knows that one is there, because no one reads the SIM. We should change that to a BSR that states "high performance landings should never be attempted in a landing area where people are flying standard patterns, and must have a separate landing area" or something along those lines. DZO's will still make up their own minds, but at least they will know that USPA believes that two landing areas are critical for safety. BSR's are written in blood, and there's been more than enough blood to ink this one in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dharma1976 0 #10 March 21, 2007 Quoteunfortunately, most of these recent accidents involve highly skilled pilots who make dumb mistakes. 270's have no place in the traditional landing pattern. A traditional pattern has no place with 270's. Separate the landing area's at each DZ and ENFORCE the landing patterns. IMO, two strikes and you sit until you are educated enough to understand the problem. I don't think education was the problem in the past few accidents. However, education in canopy flying is severely needed. We have just changed the landing set-up at Bryon (separating HP and "traditional" patterns) and you wouldn't believe how many people just don't get it. There is a lack of knowledge at the most basic level. People laughed at the poll that was up some time back about right hand vs. left hand pattern. There is definitely a problem. If education is not the problem why are people swooping in traffic... In heavy traffic I usually swing my turn down to a 180 as the highest degree of turn and sometimes god forbid even abort down to a 90.... I tend to save the bigger turns to the hop and pop/high pulls due to some near misses I had early in my 270 turn days (and had some people yell at me so severely that I took it as a lesson and stopped going big in high traffic) Cheers Davehttp://www.skyjunky.com CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 259 #11 March 21, 2007 QuoteI wish it weren't so, but if my 300 jumps tells (discusses) a poor choice with someone who has 3000 jumps, I'm not going to be heard, and might even get a good look at them as they walk away wondering how I have the nerve. When you see someone doing something stupid, inform the S&TA at the dz and let them do the talking to the other person. That's what they are there for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #12 March 21, 2007 Quote>We should change that to a BSR that states "high performance landings should never be attempted in a landing area where people are flying standard patterns, and must have a separate landing area" or something along those lines. DZO's will still make up their own minds, but at least they will know that USPA believes that two landing areas are critical for safety. BSR's are written in blood, and there's been more than enough blood to ink this one in. If we are just going to agree with each other, then I have nothing left to say to you. Good DAY, sir ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #13 March 21, 2007 There have been some great points made here. I believe they all have relevance. The S&TA who is strong willed could handle a problem, but I believe that there has to be a rule for that person to follow. (a separate landing area). Plus S&TA aren’t always immune to the social pressures of high time jumpers. Changing the issue to a BSR has merit, for sure. Education is always good but the last accident education was not really this issue, other than perhaps the education of arrogance. How many times have you felt bad because someone hooked in? A lot, I bet. And I totally support the right to swoop. But in fact I don’t hook and I do not see the need for myself to have to stop jumping because of the fear that someone will 270 into me. The education that I see here – and I fully believe that Danny would appreciate this – is that we as a group allow the practice to go on. We have to have a firm rule that the WHOLE skydiving community will support. Leaving it up to the Dz is certainly an option, and talking with people I find that many more dz’s have separate landing area’s than I thought – although many are not enforced strongly. As I said I dislike rules in general but I have to wonder when a dz who doesn’t have a separate landing area has an accident like this and if one of the families is not jumper friendly what will be the legal ramifications.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meux 0 #14 March 21, 2007 It remains to be seen, but one DZO has declared that he is going to forbid more than a 90 degree turn in the pattern if there is more than one canopy there. He will allow hop and pops etc, for the swooper guys. This sounds like a very easy fix. Bob Holler spent his career as a USAF Pararescueman. The motto of that amazing group is "That Others May Live". My hope is that Bob's tragic death will go a long way in educating and keeping this issue at the forefront for a long time, So That Others May Live. It is my good fortune that my home DZ is the same one where the DZO is implementing this policy. I hope to hear others following it. How much does it cost to have a canopy collision on your DZ? (Especially with two fatalities) See you Friday at Deland. MH Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #15 March 21, 2007 Do you also have a petition for common sense and wise decisions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #16 March 21, 2007 No, but it makes more sense to have SOME kind of different rules that may be enforced. The "petition" was just a vechical to get people talkingKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,734 #17 March 21, 2007 > Do you also have a petition for common sense and wise decisions? Nope. Rules and regulations are a poor substitute for common sense, and are implemented only when common sense is clearly failing to keep people from killing other people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 26 #18 March 21, 2007 QuoteDo you also have a petition for common sense and wise decisions? That's been working really well lately.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #19 March 22, 2007 Hey some of you "No" voters, I respect your votes but how about some (more) comments on what your suggestion would be.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #20 March 22, 2007 Hey some of you "No" voters, I respect your votes but how about some (more) comments on what your suggestion would be. *** I voted no for several reasons, 1)uspa has no way of enforcing this rule so it would be merely a waste of their time and 'our' money. 2) common sense cannot be legislated no matter how much we wish it could. 3)The DZ's that are now putting swoopers out on a different pass is a great idea or limiting the amount of turn allowed in the normal pattern - these are both things that I am in favor of - IF... the S&TA will enforce it with groundings if necessary . If ya wanna swoop, get the hell away from everyone else ! I swoop each and every landing that I can, I use a 270-360 degree turn if i am in the clear (ie) alone in the sky or can positively locate each other jumper, if am in traffic or cannot locate everyone I come in straight - I can swoop next time. I really hate when someones bad judgement hurts or kills someone else.... *EDIT to add - I have been to quite a few DZ's, one of the biggest failings that I have seen is the flagrant violators violations being ignored cause he is A) a regular B) an instructor C) a buddy of the S&TA / or dzo RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,734 #21 March 22, 2007 >1)uspa has no way of enforcing this rule so it would be merely a waste of their time and 'our' money. How would it waste our money? >2) common sense cannot be legislated no matter how much we wish it could. I agree. But common sense is not working. And in those circumstances, sometimes rules save lives. >I swoop each and every landing that I can, I use a 270-360 degree turn if >i am in the clear (ie) alone in the sky or can positively locate each other >jumper, if am in traffic or cannot locate everyone I come in straight - I can >swoop next time. I am certain the swoopers who killed themselves and others believed the same thing. Yet still a lot of people are dead. Heck, one managed to kill himself with only ONE other person in the pattern, and that person was flying a larger canopy on a standard pattern. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #22 March 22, 2007 How would it waste our money? Quote we are uspa is what I keep hearing... paperwork isnt free common sense is not working. And in those circumstances, sometimes rules save lives. I agree with you completely, but its the DZ's that will have to make and enforce the rules, and they will vary from dz to dz, - let the S&TA / owner make thier own intelligent decisions, not the uspa who have nothing beyond the "recommendations" I am certain the swoopers who killed themselves and others believed the same thing. Yet still a lot of people are dead. Quote no way have I ever thought about pulling a hp landing in a crowd, its asinine and isnt gonna impress anyone - at best you will be thought of as a jerk.... at worst.....dead - or even worse yet....kill someone else. Heck, one managed to kill himself with only ONE other person in the pattern pure and simple.... he didnt locate the other person - he did not look... RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevo 0 #23 March 22, 2007 here's a suggestion. educate/teach people on how to stagger your approach so ONE person is landing/in the pattern at a time. the typical otter i'm on has 20 people, 2 tandems, that leaves 16 people to land together. if everyone focused from the second they open on finding where there spot in the pattern is, instead of waiting til your base leg, then everryone should have a very clean shot at having the landing area all to themselves. modern day canopies have plenty of range in there descent rate to allow this to happen. do the math. and if you can't get into the landing area with no one around you, 540 or straight in approach, you f*cked up, so land off/out and stay alive. separate landing areas are great but you still see people cruising over the pond at 300 ft with no clue that someone is 400 feet right above them about the land in the "separate high performance landing area". -everyone gets into the pattern to land at the same time. WHY?? because there is no one telling them that that's a good way to die! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
polarbear 1 #24 March 22, 2007 This wouldn't be the right choice for a blanket policy. My DZ doesn't have the real estate for multiple landing areas, but we also only operate out of a Cessna with only 4 people in the air at a time. We have other options to manage traffic and they seem to be working fine. I'd prefer this problem be solved at the individual jumper level - but barring that, it has to be solved individually by each DZ. A USPA policy is not the answer. "Holy s*** that was f***in' cold!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sergant 0 #25 March 22, 2007 I voted YES FYI Swooping banned at SD Arizona Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
