0
Chris-Ottawa

Predictability of 270 degree turns: (Was Fatality - Eloy)

Recommended Posts

Not really, by pattern I mean downwind-90-cross-90-final etc... I agree that everyone doing a standard landing should follow the low man. If you have a different pattern, we should be designating alternate pattern areas so we don't have 2 very different patterns crossing paths.

This may not work perfectly in all cases, but from what I've seem, even though it may be limited in comparison, between load separation and canopy sizes, it tends to work out OK. Now, since I jump a small canopy, yes, I can slow down a lot by holding brakes, but I have had t take over a lower position. I do this by going wide on one of the 90's. Making sure I'm never close enough where we would collide and pass them. It's never been a problem because once I pass them, I let up on the brakes and am well out of range by the time I get back into the pattern. Now the speed difference is marginal compared to a swoop. I'm not closing on the lower at 50 MPH. I'm not trying to say everyone needs to be single file and land sequentially, never out of order, obviously that will not work. We still have to pay close attention to everyone else. When someone feels the need to join the slow pattern as they come out of their 360 degree riser turn to finish the swoop...they should be nowhere near me and my standard landing pattern.
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>A 270 degree hook turn can actually fit into the pattern quite nicely.

Depends on what people consider the pattern to be. At an uncontrolled airport it definitely would not, and would endanger people who are assuming that people are flying a standard pattern. At a controlled airport, such manuevers are OK only after ATC approval.

Why? Because if you draw out a pattern, and people stick to it, you know that that plane in front of you is either going to go straight or turn left if he is on downwind for a left base to the runway. Those are the only two options.

In skydiving, we don't have the ability to "add power" to go around or anything. We're all going to land. So if you're overtaking someone who is about to turn left to base leg, you pass him on the right, because that's the one direction he is NOT about to turn if he's following the standard pattern. ("standard" here refers to the pattern taught in the FJC.) If he does a 270, all bets are off. Neither side is safe. You'd have to go below him, which isn't really safe, or land off, which often isn't desireable. (Since we don't have engines, going above him often isn't an option.)

When I jump I can usually tell who is going to do what. Pat's going to do a 360, so I stay above him (easy because he usually wants to get down first.) Amy's going to fly a standard pattern. Terry is going to do a moderate toggle turn to final. I can predict all that.

The problem arises when people who don't know each other get together at a boogie. What's the guy demoing that Velocity going to do? He was on the previous otter and is setting up right in front of me, but I'm overtaking him. Maybe he'll do a 90-90 pattern. Maybe he'll do a 270. Heck, maybe he's going for a different area than I think and is really setting up a 360. No way to know.

So I guess I'm saying that anything at all can fit into a pattern if we define the pattern - sashays, hanging in brakes, 360's, 720's. But I think one thing the recent incidents have shown us is that we need a _more_ predictable pattern when people who don't know each other well jump together; the one we teach in the FJC is a good candidate. And that one does not include 270's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not directed at anyone in particular, but the comment has been made that we need to find some way of keeping everyone as safe as possible (most important), while keeping everyone as happy as possible (somewhat less important).

It has been stated before, and I agree, that given the canopy traffic, doing even a 180° turn from downwind to final, in order to execute a swoop, can be, as one poster put it, tricky. I also understand that at the boogie in question, there were rules laid out that were neither strictly adhered to, nor strictly enforced.

The simplest solution that immediately comes to mind, which will still allow people to swoop, with likely the greatest amount of safety for all parties involved, would be to limit turns "in the pattern" to 90°, and STRICTLY enforce it. You don't want to play by the rules, they send you home, no exceptions, no matter who you are. You are at a boogie, not a swooping competition.

I am only beginning to swoop, but I think almost everyone will agree that you can build PLENTY of speed with a properly executed 90° turn. Enough speed, in fact, that if you aren't in total control of you canopy, you will still be a potentialty fatal hazard. No, you're not going to get the same distance as if you had done a 180 or 270° turn, but you can still have fun. The biggest difference is that with a 90° turn, you only have to clear the airspace in front of you through the 90° flight path of your turn. You don't have to watch the whole flight path of a 270° turn, some of which will be directly against the crosswind traffic flow of a normal pattern.

I'm all for people being allowed to swoop, but the events of the past week have shown that we need to learn from the mistakes of others. If this is looked after at the DZ/S&TA level, and ENFORCED, I believe that the rest of the problem will take care of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris,
If I might interject...
Questions are one thing.
Statements are another, especially when you have little grasp of the reality vs the intellectual aspects of the discussion.
Hard as it is, might I suggest that you:
~figure out specific questions as they apply to your current level of skill, ask them.
~sit back, move away from the keyboard.
~let the knowledgeable, experienced people that are very willing and able to answer your questions do so
~Allow the answers to percolate without questioning their answers?
It'll all make more sense if you just step back, listen, and think. I know I've learned a basketful just reading the Incidents thread without comment.
I'm so swoop-ignorant, I don't even know the right questions to ask, and when I do know the right questions, I'll not be asking them here, I'll be asking people who can see my landing skills with their own eyes. Wouldn't that make you feel more safe too?

You'll be able to consider learning swoops in another few hundred jumps. Take a canopy course from a pro like Jon Tagle, Scott Miller, Brian Germain. That alone will help you a LOT, and help you understand how it all fits together. In the meantime, might I suggest that you concern yourself with where YOU are in the pattern?

Cuz if you don't understand it clearly and cleanly, you're as much if not more of a danger to your fellow skydivers than the guy that you're worried about maybe hooking into you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as a swooper who has almost been taken out by someone who "has to swoop" and doesnt care about the low man I see both sides of this...

I think that I personally am going to either...

a. Keep it to 180s max on fun loads
b. ask for 10K passes so I dont have to deal with as much traffic
c. Pull High with my friends (I do this anyway and still have to deal with tandems sometimes)
d. do more hop and pops

and all this so I can do 270s...truthfully I see times I can do them and times I cant...I dont ever try to force things...

New Years Eve I started setting up for a 270...when I got to my second check point I realized I was doing a 90 and that was okay....

shit if I had had to land straight in that would have been fine too...

Dave
http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill,

What do you think of the layout at Skydive San Diego?

When I first got here and didn't know anyone, it was pretty easy to determine that if some flew into the swoop corridor they would perform a hook turn. The degree is predictable by height and direction of flight.

I'm only using this LZ as a model because it's been the most predictable layout I've flown in. That is..... until the winds shift from out of the east. :S

I just like that everyone has the same downwind and crosswind. Swoopers bring it further down to the swoop corridor and straight ins stop short of it.

This only works because prevailing winds and jump run are quite consistant here.

But it's a start. Beacuse I too am sick of having friends die. But it's too easy to just say. They fucked up. Don't fuck up and you won't die. If I'm not part of a solution, then I'm part of the problem. Friends will still die, but I think we all have a responsibility to help the sport grow and change as quickly as technology and pilots are progressing.

This is not directed at Bill, but at everyone reading this thread:

Instead of "Who's next?" I ask, "What are you going to do?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonnie, from my perspective, the layout at SSD rocks. The swoop corridor is in a place that students would never land in anyway.. too close to a structure. It's not too wide which would make experienced straight in pilots feel put out because of a long walk back. The setup point is completely out of the way of a standard left hand pattern. It's absolutely perfect. I never felt more comfortable swooping at a dz I was visiting at than there. Of course it helps that the wind is consistently form one direction..
chopchop
gotta go... Plaything needs a spanking..

Lotsa Pictures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not jumped at SSD, but as a non-swooper, I loved the layout and rules at Skydive Oregon. The swoop pond/lane and the main landing area have completely separate patterns, and (IIRC) swooping is prohibited in the main landing area. Pattern rules are strictly enforced in the main landing area, and you always land with the length of the field. By following the rules, I (as a straight-in lander) was always completely out of the swoopers' airspace. They were out of mine.

Here's a link to a map of the DZ. The green rectangle just to the left of the words "Hutchinson Airfield" is the swoop pond, and the swoop lane runs all along that axis. The main landing area is everything to the other side of the runway. The best part is that the walk back to the hangar can be about equidistant for the swooper or the straight-in lander.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q=skydive+oregon&near=molalla,+or&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=45.145741,-122.618279&spn=0.006387,0.014591&t=h&om=1
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A 270 is a wrong pattern for a normal landing area....An area that BTW during the boogie turns over 180 were not allowed. Just because people were doing it does not make it OK.



Quote

Jan.....How about you get the USPA to actually DO SOMETHING?!!?!?!



You say that as though USPA can dictate what every DZ does.

Seriously, there needs to be a fundamental change in jumpers' thinking about compatibility of swoopers (more than 180s) in a conventional pattern.

When I hear Bonnie say that 'Tom flew a proper pattern.' in this accident, it shows what type of adjustment needs to happen. Tom did not fly a proper pattern for the situation he was in any more than Roger Nelson did on his last skydive.

On big-ways, conventional patterns are strictly enforced, not by USPA, but by the jumpers themselves. This also begs the question of "How many people can be in the pattern when a 270 or more approach is acceptable?" The obvious answer is one. In solo swoop competitions, there is one and only one person making an approach at a time. There are times when you have team approaches. These are people that practice simultaneous speed inducing maneuvers together and know where the teammate is at all times. These situations are completely acceptable because there is no additional risk imposed upon other jumpers.

When we address the conditions that happened at Eloy this weekend, we get into the problem of swoopers imposing additional risk upon others. This is where the unacceptability of these maneuvers comes into play.

Several years ago, there was a reckless jumper that crashed into someone at Elsinore. The collidee spent several days in the hospital. A week or two after the accident, a scheduled swoop seminar was turned into a 'Take Back the Sky' night by the local jumpers. The locals DEMANDED that the swoopers land someplace else. Six years later, this has proven to be an effective plan. In fact, Perris also changed some of its rules because of this accident.

I think that what needs to happen, is that each and every jumper must demand that swoopers land someplace else. Do not endanger the lives of others for your kicks. We do not tolerate a zoomie crashing into a freefall formation. We should not tolerate people crashing into us in the pattern.

I know many people that have quit jumping because of the disregard some jumpers have for others under canopy. (Bonnie- find Rand and ask him why he quit jumping)
I even switched to a smaller canopy because people from the next Otter load were nearly taking me out 50 ft off the deck.

USPA has added Sections 6-10 and 6-11 to the SIM in the past two years. People ought to read that new part of the SIM.

I hope that each DZ does not have to have their very own 270 swooper taking out someone else before traffic patterns change and are enforced.

On the local DZ level, jumpers need to 'Take Back the Sky'.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To poke yet another stick in the hornets' nest:

I wonder if many of the people planning to do 270s actually know where to look before they start for the individual doing a standard (90 degree turns) pattern that they will most likely collide with. And if they do know, how many actually look there?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan,

Great post. Thank you.

And you're right. The 270 was not a good choice in turn for that leg of his pattern. A 90 would have been better. But his pattern up until that turn was correct, and that is what I was trying to convey.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>I wonder if many of the people planning to do 270s actually know where to look before they start for the individual doing a standard (90 degree turns) pattern that they will most likely collide with. And if they do know, how many actually look there?
<<

About the same number of jumpers that don't look before they spiral their canopies before they start their approach. About the same number of jumpers that don't look before they do a big phat "S" turn on final.

Not looking before any type of turn is always a bad idea. And we should call each and every jumper out on it. Not just swoopers, not just newbies.... everyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think that what needs to happen, is that each and every jumper must demand that swoopers land someplace else



I totally agree, thats the way to go. And relatively easy for an well established Jumper at his home DZ.
Harder to accomplish on a different DZ, probably impossible on a big Boogie.
Than you would have to choose not to Jump when you see its not safe. Even this is the only right decision, its a tough one if you have been traveling long (often half around the world) to get to this super Boogie of your lifetime.
I know quiet a bit of Skydivers who think twice about attending a Boogie, especially because of some Cool Daddies doing wild manoevers in the pattern. However it doesn't seem to have an effect on the popularity of those Events. Therefore I don't have much hope that rules for safety will be enforced more strictly in the future.

Hope I am not to pessimistic.

Martin

Take care up there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>What do you think of the layout at Skydive San Diego?

I generally like it. But I think SSD has a few things going for it that boogies do not:

1) constant winds (any strong east winds and no jumping)

2) fairly insular community with a core of professional swoopers

3) small loads. Two aircraft is pretty rare and generally happens only when the military school is running - and they coordinate those loads so they're not in the air at the same time.

That being said, the basic idea (separate landing areas) is a good one, I think.

>But it's too easy to just say. They fucked up. Don't fuck up and you won't die.

Yep. I think what this incident demonstrates is that we all need to think about two things:

1) how to not fuck up

2) WHEN (not if) you do fuck up, how to save your life, and turn a fatality into a hard landing or a hard landing into a buttslide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>2) WHEN (not if) you do fuck up, how to save your life, and turn a fatality into a hard landing or a hard landing into a buttslide. <<

True. The sad thing is, I know that Tom had this in his bag of tricks. I've seen him do it before.

I think his hard turn occured because of how late Tom spotted Ilea. Perhaps emotion (Don't hit/hurt her) also caused him to overreact. But that is pure speculation, since nobody knows his very last thought.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, SSD does have a very good system for swoopers, but this example isn't very normal. SSD has the luxury of space to have such different landing areas, seperated by a private runway. It is an ideal area, this is why we hold some of the CPC events there. There is in fact no 270's allowed in the main landing area, but IIRC its only 90's. Do people pay attention to that? Nope. Its mostly the locals that break the rules, as they are the first ones down, from video's and such.

For DZ's like ours, Snohomish, it would be impossible to split our landing area at the airport, as its too damn small to begin with. I could imagine the possiblitiy of having a swoop pond on the other side of the runway, but that would require a shuttle for every load to get back in any decent amount of time.

In Eloy's case....yes, it would be very easy as there is ample space to create another landing area. The issue here is, are they going to be there much longer, and why put cash into another grass area when SDAZ could be a figment of our imagination in the near future..... Now if and when it opens up somewhere else in the country......I would place money on the table that there will be very segregated areas for HP landings, and you could see a potential swooping haven for competitiors. But hey, this is only in my head....

------------------------------

Controlled and Deliberate.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes, SSD does have a very good system for swoopers, but this example isn't very normal. SSD has the luxury of space to have such different landing areas, seperated by a private runway. It is an ideal area, this is why we hold some of the CPC events there. There is in fact no 270's allowed in the main landing area, but IIRC its only 90's. Do people pay attention to that? Nope. Its mostly the locals that break the rules, as they are the first ones down, from video's and such.



I assume you meant SDO in this case. I do realize it's an exception given the size of the landing area, but of the 20 DZs I've visited, it seems to be the one that has dealt with the separation issue most cleanly. I have only jumped there during the boogie weekend, but they seemed to manage the level of traffic an Otter & Caravan generated pretty well.

Quote

For DZ's like ours, Snohomish, it would be impossible to split our landing area at the airport, as its too damn small to begin with. I could imagine the possiblitiy of having a swoop pond on the other side of the runway, but that would require a shuttle for every load to get back in any decent amount of time.



Well, I'm jumping at Mt. Vernon more than Snohomish these days ... talk about landing areas that are pretty impossible to split. :D But there's also never more than 8 canopies in the air and the jumpers are pretty familiar with each others' likely behavior. That helps a lot.

Quote

In Eloy's case....yes, it would be very easy as there is ample space to create another landing area. The issue here is, are they going to be there much longer, and why put cash into another grass area when SDAZ could be a figment of our imagination in the near future..... Now if and when it opens up somewhere else in the country......I would place money on the table that there will be very segregated areas for HP landings, and you could see a potential swooping haven for competitiors. But hey, this is only in my head....



Actually, Eloy's recently added a third grass area out by the tunnel, though my understanding is that it is intended primarily to support military training activities as the military hangar is also moving out that way. It's quite a hike back to the main landing area, but it's a nice alternative to the desert if you find yourself that far out.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For DZ's like ours, Snohomish, it would be impossible to split our landing area at the airport, as its too damn small to begin with. I could imagine the possiblitiy of having a swoop pond on the other side of the runway, but that would require a shuttle for every load to get back in any decent amount of time.



You can split a DZ landing area in time as well as space.
IOW, you have the swoopers get out low, with stacked landing approaches, to go do their thing and then by the time the rest of the load is opening, the very same physical landing area becomes a conventional pattern area.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>>I wonder if many of the people planning to do 270s actually know where to look before they start for the individual doing a standard (90 degree turns) pattern that they will most likely collide with. And if they do know, how many actually look there?
<<

About the same number of jumpers that don't look before they spiral their canopies before they start their approach. About the same number of jumpers that don't look before they do a big phat "S" turn on final.

Not looking before any type of turn is always a bad idea. And we should call each and every jumper out on it. Not just swoopers, not just newbies.... everyone.



My point is - if you are about to do a 270, the person you are likely to collide with is the person behind and below you in the pattern, basically hidden by your own body. You need to make a distinct, deliberate effort to look there, since it's not where you'd instinctively look.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



USPA has added Sections 6-10 and 6-11 to the SIM in the past two years. People ought to read that new part of the SIM.

.




This is the part that relates to landing areas

F. Practice area


1. To avoid danger to other jumpers, all practice performance activities should take place in a landing area where other jumpers are not on approach.


a. Separate by exit altitude.


(1) Canopy pilots exiting and opening high must consider other high-opening jumpers (students, tandems, and others) to avoid descending into their airspace during approach.

(2) Canopy pilots exiting on a lower pass must fly clear of the opening and canopy descent area before other jumpers exit higher.

b. Separate by landing area.


(1) Landing areas must be separated according to wind direction so that no jumper is over the practice approach and landing area below 1,000 feet.

(2) Canopy pilots descending into the practice landing area must be alert for errant jumpers.

2. Advanced maneuvers in a common landing area should be attempted only by highly experienced canopy pilots who must exercise restraint, judgment, and extreme caution.

3. Canopy pilots should be completely familiar with all advanced landing characteristics and techniques in a variety of weather conditions and using a variety of approaches before--


a. attempting flight into a competition-style course

b. landing in the vicinity of any hazard, including water

...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Advanced maneuvers in a common landing area should be attempted only by highly experienced canopy pilots who must exercise restraint, judgment, and extreme caution.



I like that and agree with it...

noticed all that in the new version of the sim and m ost certainly agree with ya on it...

Dave
http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jose,

As you requested via PM, you want me to post in the forum so everyone can see what we're saying.

I'm not going to give you that honor. You are taking my posts as a personal attack on swoopers. I am not doing that. I'm "attacking" common landing areas.

You are the only person getting worked up about this.
You are the only person who doesn't think what I'm saying is logical.

As I said in my PM's to you. I have received PM's from 5 different, HIGHLY experienced jumpers, 4 of them being highly experienced swoopers. Each and every one of them said I was absolutely right. We cannot have 2 different patterns landing together, it's as simple as that.

Now, since I don't want to play your game, I know you're trying to make me say things that you can call me on, but sorry, I'm going to be ignoring you...and your posts. I'm trying to point out "my" non swooper view. Initially everyone lashed out on me because of my low jump numbers, but all it took is one post from Ron to make everyone realize that what I was saying actually made sense. No matter how many jumps I have, I still have a valid opinion and I know what my PIM says too....

Chris
"When once you have tasted flight..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Jan,

Great post. Thank you.

And you're right. The 270 was not a good choice in turn for that leg of his pattern. A 90 would have been better. But his pattern up until that turn was correct, and that is what I was trying to convey.



Well, Bonnie you also said earlier:
Quote

A 270 degree hook turn can actually fit into the pattern quite nicely. The pilot flys a downwind leg, a cross wind leg and arrives at his/her setup point. If it is a left hand pattern, a right 270 is performed. Before it is executed, the pilot MUST ensure clear airspace and allow an "OUT" in case he/she observes traffic as they come arround the turn.

The 270 and the 90 IMHO are the most predictable landings other than a straight in approach.



I *think* that the disparity in our viewpoints comes from you and other swooper types *assuming* that a swooper can see all potential traffic in their about to be executed flight path. Whereas, I, as well as many other of the more conventional pattern fliers, say that you can't or do not always observe potential traffic. Then what about the swoopers' ability to also clear his 'outs' space. If you have to stop the swoop at 180 are you going to hit someone then?

It is clear that swoopers imposing additional risk upon other people that have nothing to do with the swoop is an unacceptable situation.
It is clear that swoopers must have their own airspace to do their thing. It'll be on the far side of the DZ because there are more conventional fliers than swoopers.

Swoopers doing their swooping thing is fine by me as long as you do not jeopardize my life. When swoopers threaten me or those of others that are not involved with the swoop, then it becomes a social problem that has to be dealt with by social means. (new rules or new policies or new landing areas)

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0