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

[Vectracide 0]

I'd like to chime in here for a sec.

I believe that there are some important things that are going overlooked here when it comes to some of your examples and ideas, even though I respect your thought process and it makes sense on paper, but in real world, not so much.

For example......In big-ways, there is absolutely no reason, or excuse to be swooping. I believe that there are some cases where this rule has to be applied, and this is one of them. Therefore, if it is applied and heeded by all, there is no issue here. I have not been on a RW big-way, but unless you have people slotted for the breakoff based on their loading, you still stand a chance of higher loaded folks opening a couple grand above the 1:1 people.

As for the swooping load configuration.....it makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why would the person with the lightest loading get out first....just to have the higher loaded pilots catch up with them near the ground? Now I understand that you would like to see the lighter loaded pilot take it down much lower than the others....but this still doesn't fix the issue. Most swoop loads that I have been on, don't go much lower than 4.5k. Sometimes to 5k. This allows the highest loaded pilot to pull at around 4k and have his shit stowed and ready to go at no lower than 3k or so. All this time, there is natural separation between all pilots based on how fast their canopies sink, due to the highest loaded getting out first and the lightest getting out last. This is how it is done at every DZ I have done swoop loads at. It is the safest way to do it, hence why it is practiced at swoop comps.

When it comes to your idea of having the higher loaded pilots grabbing a front riser and rushing it down to land first is just not how I see it fixing anything. In fact, it does the opposite in my opinion. I don't know what the highest loaded crossbraced canopy you have ever flown is, but I suspect that you do not fly a Velo or JVX loaded at 2.2 or higher. When you grab a riser full of these canopies, they absolutely fall out of the sky and eat almost 1k per slow 360 riser turn. With that comes massive bone crushing speed that would kill another person on impact if a mid air collision were to occur. Now I know that you don't mean to grab the riser and pull on it as hard and you can, but even small inputs to these canopies creates great speed and huge alti loss. So, I just don't understand how having the high loaded swoopers spiral thru traffic just to land first makes any sense at all. Yeah, you get to the ground first, and have no one in your way on the deck, but what about all the other people you had to fly past just to get there. It's not much of a tradeoff. Finding a solution to this problem should involve a slower, safer flying configuration......not adding a faster, hurrying type attitude that leaves no margin for error.

I agree wholeheartedly with Chachi when he says that every load is different in its makeup and how it should addressed. Creating a general mindset that swoopers should hurry up and get down first is foolish and not a solution to the problem. In fact, I personally do not believe there to be a in-air solution to the problem that exists, when it comes to canopy collisions of swoopers and non swoopers. I stand by my statement that the only way this problem will get better, is to have separate landing areas entirely. There is no excuse for swooping in the same landing areas as 1:1'ers during boogies, such as the Xmas boogie at Eloy, or any other boogie for that matter. We as a sport have come to a crossroads where there is a dangerous mix of piloting, each with thier own right to exist, that will only become more dangerous as long as swooping continues to become a mainstream discipline. If we continue on this road without making some rules, you can bet that we will see this again, very very soon.

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

Controlled and Deliberate.....

[PhreeZone 15]

Lets not forget the other canopy collision that occured last year in KY, two swoopers hooked into each other and collided at about 100 feet due to intersecting patterns. This is an issue that goes beyond just getting a seperate landing areas for swoopers, this is an issue that all pilots need to consider and work on towards a solution.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,400]

>Why would the person with the lightest loading get out first....

?? Why wouldn't they? Exit order is determined by separation at opening time, not by landing order. Which is how it should be. As Bryan Burke among others have pointed out, relying on opening altitude for _any_ sort of separation just doesn't work.

So it comes down to the 8-way getting out first for freefall separation issues. They may have big canopies, they may have small canopies. You don't put a 2 way freefly out first just because of their canopy sizes.

>Now I understand that you would like to see the lighter loaded pilot
>take it down much lower than the others....

You misunderstand. I don't want anyone "taking it lower." Relying on opening altitude for separation doesn't work.

>All this time, there is natural separation between all pilots based on
>how fast their canopies sink, due to the highest loaded getting out first
>and the lightest getting out last. This is how it is done at every DZ
>I have done swoop loads at. It is the safest way to do it, hence why it
>is practiced at swoop comps.

Right, and that's an excellent way to set up swoop-specific loads. The heavier loadings sink faster - so even if everyone opens at about the same altitude (which happens; snivels are unpredictable) you still have separation at landing time. The additional separation you might get from high openers helps even more. This is why I suggest that heavier loadings should land first even on regular loads.

>So, I just don't understand how having the high loaded swoopers
>spiral thru traffic just to land first makes any sense at all.

I did not suggest that. I suggested that, if everyone opens at the same altitude, that the higher performance canopies land first because that's what will happen anyway. If you need _more_ separation, then the higher performance canopies get down sooner. Since they are below the traffic due to their naturally faster descent rate to begin with, there is no "spiraling through traffic." In the same way, having the largest canopies float a bit gives you more separation.

>Finding a solution to this problem should involve a slower, safer flying configuration . . .

That can be accomplished by having the larger canopies fly with a bit of brakes.

[likearock 1]

Quote

Lets not forget the other canopy collision that occured last year in KY, two swoopers hooked into each other and collided at about 100 feet due to intersecting patterns. This is an issue that goes beyond just getting a seperate landing areas for swoopers, this is an issue that all pilots need to consider and work on towards a solution.

True, but as has been said before, those who choose to swoop voluntarily take on that added risk. A conservative lander shouldn't have to take on that risk just because the only available landing area also has swoopers.

[Vectracide 0]

>>?? Why wouldn't they? Exit order is determined by separation at opening time, not by landing order. Which is how it should be. As Bryan Burke among others have pointed out, relying on opening altitude for _any_ sort of separation just doesn't work.

When you are conducting a swooping only load, which is what I was clearly talking about when using the above plan, the highest loaded pilot leaves first....every time. We are not talking about exit order for an otter full of multi-disciplined jumpers.

>>So it comes down to the 8-way getting out first for freefall separation issues. They may have big canopies, they may have small canopies. You don't put a 2 way freefly out first just because of their canopy sizes.

Correct. I do not argue this point at all. Lets keep the point on topic. I am have not confused swoop loads with otter loads.

>>You misunderstand. I don't want anyone "taking it lower." Relying on opening altitude for separation doesn't work.

***Swooping load. If there's a jump run set up specifically for swooping, it might well make sense to have the larger canopies pull low and the smaller canopies to pull _very_ high, say at 5000.***

You did say have the larger canopies pull low. In swoop loads, there is no pulling low. You are already low. Getting out at 5k is low. Due to opening characteristics of some of these canopies, regardless of what was said earlier by a non-swooper, there is a necessary precaution to be taken when considering opening altitude. Swoopers with comp. canopies and comp. RDS sliders, do not like to pull lower than 4k. I know, as I am one of them. It takes time to stow your stuff. I don't want to be worrying about a large canopy that is below me, as my canopy plummets twice as fast, while I am doing this. Regardless of how it plays out on paper, Bill, the techinque you promote does_not_work with swoop loads.


>All this time, there is natural separation between all pilots based on
how fast their canopies sink, due to the highest loaded getting out first and the lightest getting out last. This is how it is done at every DZ
I have done swoop loads at. It is the safest way to do it, hence why it
is practiced at swoop comps.

>>Right, and that's an excellent way to set up swoop-specific loads. The heavier loadings sink faster - so even if everyone opens at about the same altitude (which happens; snivels are unpredictable) you still have separation at landing time. The additional separation you might get from high openers helps even more. This is why I suggest that heavier loadings should land first even on regular loads.

During swoop loads, even with uneve opening altitudes due to snivel, the pilots are expected to keep the landing order the same as the exit order. If this is a big concern to pilots, then allow more seperation between exits. More often than not, the swoop load will be out of a Cessna and no more than 4 people. Even in Co. CPC Championships there was 4 passes of 4 people out of an Otter. The first pilot of each pass will take it to lowest he feels comfortable, such as 4k, and the other pilots will not take it below that mark....and ususally stack it higher. This works perfectly, and there is no need to change it.

>Finding a solution to this problem should involve a slower, safer flying configuration . . .

>>That can be accomplished by having the larger canopies fly with a bit of brakes.

Now this is where I lose you completely Bill. How, in one hand can you suggest that larger canopies get out first followed by higher loaded canopies....then in the other hand agree with me on slower traffic by suggesting that the first out larger canopy hang out in slight brakes? They are already going quite slow comparatively, so why for the sake of Pete would you want them to slow up even more....allowing the possiblity of the higher loaded faster canopy to catch them?

Once again...the only possible solution to the problem is a totally separate landing area for swoopers. And to be specific, one who's pattern is not converging. That is a bad idea, which leads to exactly what Preezone talked about. On normal jump days, pick a right or left pattern....and stay with it. Competitions, on the other hand, are totally different and controlled. There can be 4 guys in the sky, setting up for 4 different degree's of turn....and we will not have a problem. It's all about being heads up, taking others into consideration, giving them space and not boning the pilots above you. We can do this, as we know what to expect from the other pilots during swoop loads and swoop comps. When you put the 1:1 and the 2:5 in the same landing area.....its a crap shoot, no matter what you plan for at exit time, or deployment time, or group size, or freefall disicipline. There are way too many variables to create an effective algorithm for this.

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

Controlled and Deliberate.....

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

True, but as has been said before, those who choose to swoop voluntarily take on that added risk. A conservative lander shouldn't have to take on that risk just because the only available landing area also has swoopers.

Agreed. However 'conventional' pilots thinking this is a swooper only problem are horribly mistaken. I see a LOT of closer than necessary calls every weekend.

What concerns me about this mindset is that be villifying a particular group we are missing the bigger picture. Collisions can happen to anyone....the best prevention is having EVERYONE pay attention to vertical and horizontal seperation under canopy, even with seperate landing areas. That means that the person on the 135 ST should exercise good judgement on when and how to spiral around the sky just as the swooper should exercise good judgement on when and how to do their HP landings. If we start thinking it's only 1 groups responsibililty we are setting ourselves up for failure.

IMO anyone not thinking this is EVERYONE's responsibility is one of those people to watch out for under canopy.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[billvon 2,400]

> Regardless of how it plays out on paper, Bill, the techinque you
> promote does_not_work with swoop loads.

I agree. I was referring to your average mixed load, such as you would see at a boogie or during an average weekend at a DZ.

>Once again...the only possible solution to the problem is a totally
>separate landing area for swoopers.

This will also work - but it is a solution that I fear will not be implemented at most DZ's due to lack of available area/inconvenience. A 'hybrid' approach if you will is to allow swooping in the main area but only during specific passes (i.e. hop and pops.)

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

Quote

True, but as has been said before, those who choose to swoop voluntarily take on that added risk. A conservative lander shouldn't have to take on that risk just because the only available landing area also has swoopers.

Agreed. However 'conventional' pilots thinking this is a swooper only problem are horribly mistaken. I see a LOT of closer than necessary calls every weekend.

What concerns me about this mindset is that be villifying a particular group we are missing the bigger picture. Collisions can happen to anyone....the best prevention is having EVERYONE pay attention to vertical and horizontal seperation under canopy, even with seperate landing areas. That means that the person on the 135 ST should exercise good judgement on when and how to spiral around the sky just as the swooper should exercise good judgement on when and how to do their HP landings. If we start thinking it's only 1 groups responsibililty we are setting ourselves up for failure.

IMO anyone not thinking this is EVERYONE's responsibility is one of those people to watch out for under canopy.

Blues,
Ian

thanks ian for elloquently saying what I could only say sarcaustically

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.

[Vectracide 0]

>>This will also work - but it is a solution that I fear will not be implemented at most DZ's due to lack of available area/inconvenience. A 'hybrid' approach if you will is to allow swooping in the main area but only during specific passes (i.e. hop and pops.)

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I also would like to see some in air changes in addition to a separate landing area as well. At this point in time, I see there a need for the USPA to step up and use the money we pay them to research the issue and find a solution that will be part of their regulations. I am tired of seeing the same issue happen over and over again, and to the normal every day paying member, it appears that the USPA does not care what happens at DZ's as long as they get their membership money.

It took Nascar one definitive crash/death (Dale Earnhart), to implement a mandatory Hanns device. Now the logistics of cost being shared by each racing team is much easier than forcing the cost of a seperate landing area by a DZ. I understand that there are some huge hurdles here to alleviate the situation.....but my question is.....does or will the USPA ever care enough to do something about it?

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

Controlled and Deliberate.....

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

At this point in time, I see there a need for the USPA to step up and use the money we pay them to research the issue and find a solution that will be part of their regulations.

IMO I don't see this as a USPA issue. I see it as a jumper awareness issue. I believe we should be focusing our efforts on educating our upcoming, and existing jumpers, as well as DZO's on safer practices for canopy traffic.

While I know it's not the intent, passing the buck to USPA take the onus off of the jumpers to implement a solution and thus, IMO, makes it 'someone elses problem'

In short, I'd rather see jumpers of all disciplines doing their part to help alleviate the problem. I don't see USPA getting involved making that happen, nor do I really think they should.

Just my thoughts
Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Vectracide 0]

Ian,

I agree and disagree at the same time. I agree in the respect that this IS a jumper awareness issue, totally. We have been policing ourselves since the beginning of skydiving when it comes to our safety. This idea should continue and never leave the minds of every single skydiver. "I am responsible for myself, and the safety of others around me with my actions" I tend to believe that most would agree.

Now for the unfortunate negative part......where has the above gotten us? Has this attitude improved our safety as a whole, or at a couple sole DZ's where EVERYONE is on board, including the DZO. I have to tell you, I for one have not seen this anywhere I have ever jumped. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it. I have seen it to be as close as it's going to get at a couple DZ's, but there is always those couple of individuals that seem to think that they reserve the right to put everyone else at risk. Call them locals, or staff, or the know-it-all. I just don't see the fix coming from self-regulation, because we (skydivers) have talked about this being the solution to our problems every time this happens. Unfortunately, it isn't ever really successful. Of course, we can't expect a 100% success rate, but there hasn't really been any appreciable improvement on the matter either.

I agree that passing the buck is not the right way to deal with the issue. The responsibility for safety, no matter how you look at it, is in our hands as individuals. Some take this matter seriously, and some think that the bad stuff they read on Dropzone.com will never happen to them. As I don't advocate a governing body telling us what we can and cant do, I would like to see something come from the USPA. Albeit a BSR, or perhaps even another rating covering canopy progession and individual canopy piloting ability. Now I know that this would not have prevented what happened in regards to Tom, but its a start.

There will always be tragic events within this sport, no matter what rules, precautions, or steps we take. Its just how it is. But at the same time, in light of that, it should not preclude us from doing everything we can to give each individual the ability and options to make it to the ground alive.

Respectfully.......

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

Controlled and Deliberate.....

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

True, but as has been said before, those who choose to swoop voluntarily take on that added risk. A conservative lander shouldn't have to take on that risk just because the only available landing area also has swoopers.

Agreed. However 'conventional' pilots thinking this is a swooper only problem are horribly mistaken. I see a LOT of closer than necessary calls every weekend.

What concerns me about this mindset is that be villifying a particular group we are missing the bigger picture. Collisions can happen to anyone....the best prevention is having EVERYONE pay attention to vertical and horizontal seperation under canopy, even with seperate landing areas. That means that the person on the 135 ST should exercise good judgement on when and how to spiral around the sky just as the swooper should exercise good judgement on when and how to do their HP landings. If we start thinking it's only 1 groups responsibililty we are setting ourselves up for failure.

IMO anyone not thinking this is EVERYONE's responsibility is one of those people to watch out for under canopy.

You have no argument from me in that respect. It's primarily about being predictable in the landing pattern so that others can anticipate your moves and get out of the way if needs be. For example, two pilots coming in a traditional downwind/base/final approach can watch each other and see if they're in danger of colliding. In that case, it only requires one of them to be vigilant to avoid a collision.

That changes completely when a swooper is one (or both) of the two. Even on a simple 90 degree approach, it's very difficult if not impossible to tell where the swooper will be when he ultimately planes out. You can't tell until it's too late whether it's best to just keep going the way you were or to make some kind of avoidance maneuver. It pretty much falls completely on the high performance pilot to avoid the collision up front.

I'm sorry if you feel that statements like that "vilify" swoopers. I certainly don't feel that way. But it's a fact of life that the presence of swooping injects so much unpredictability into the landing pattern that the traditional mindset of "I'm safe as long as I keep my head on a swivel" just doesn't provide the security it should.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

At this point in time, I see there a need for the USPA to step up and use the money we pay them to research the issue and find a solution that will be part of their regulations.

IMO I don't see this as a USPA issue. I see it as a jumper awareness issue. I believe we should be focusing our efforts on educating our upcoming, and existing jumpers, as well as DZO's on safer practices for canopy traffic.

While I know it's not the intent, passing the buck to USPA take the onus off of the jumpers to implement a solution and thus, IMO, makes it 'someone elses problem'

In short, I'd rather see jumpers of all disciplines doing their part to help alleviate the problem. I don't see USPA getting involved making that happen, nor do I really think they should.

Just my thoughts
Blues,
Ian

But isn't USPA the right organization for raising jumper, S&TA and DZO awareness? How many DZOs will have followed the discussion here (ok, TK has, any others)? How many would read a safety bulletin from USPA?

...

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

[dharma1976 0]

this is why I always swoop the now defunct fenceline at the ranch and always carve around the packing mat at sussex :-P

It makes me predictable

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.