Re: [DrewEckhardt] Bryan Burke - SDAZ 270 Policy notes

[grimmie 173]

In the early days of skydiving the canopy was round, the LZ was large and the number of jumpers in the air was small.

As ram air canopies developed the jump ships also got bigger and the LZ's got smaller due to the manueverability of the canopies.

Then we progressed to the big DZ and boogie concept. Students, RW groups, Freeflyers and Swoopers...all using the same airspace and LZ. Add in parallel jump runs and now we have up to 46 or so people in the air flying many different size wings, all taught different landing techniques from various DZ's around the world.

Canopy collisions aren't anything new. The first one I ever witnessed was in "92 at Eloy. A jumper on a straight in final was hit by a jumper coming out of a sort of 120 degree turn. He was an airline pilot. go figure! They both lived but had some serious effects of that incident.

I also watched a Golden Knight and a French 8 Way team member collide in about '95. They both lived, but were pretty damaged. Two highly experienced canopy pilots...go figure.

At the CRW Nationals around '95 or '96 I watched two teamates collide violently right over the peas 2 feet off of the ground. CRW teamates! They both lived, but were pretty messed up. Teamates...go figure!

I watched two AFF students off radio fly into each other at about 1,500ft once. That was really dramatic! One cut away and they both landed unscathed! Go figure!

I was nearly clipped twice. Once after a big way at Eloy and once at Perris on a normal load. Both times were close to the ground. Both times my canopy lost pressure and dropped. PLF's saved me. Both times the other jumper stated "I didn't see you". Pink and light blue stillettos are hard to see I suppose. Go figure.

All of this canopy collision talk doesn't have much to do with 270, 180 or canopy sizes. It all comes down to good judgement...

..by the individual jumper and

..the DZ's.

Maybe with the different size wings we need to rethink putting 46 people in the air at the same time. Or we need to have better canopy skills taught during AFF. Or better landing pattern ideas.

And as far as the older guys passing on knowledge to the younger guys, it happens. But the younger guys sometimes look at us like we don't know what we're talking about. Like most of you that have been around a while I have seen friends kill themselves in some really unique ways. We begged a good friend of ours to slow down his landings, but he just wouldn't listen. His ash dive was really nice over the Lang Brewery.

And as far as SDA or any other DZ implimenting new rules...it's their business, deal with it. Losing a few twin otters in a law suit would really suck.

It's only a matter of time until someone wins a negligent homicide case against a jumper that kills someone else, or a huge financial judgement. Litigation has already been done jumper vs. jumper for a huge sum.

We all need to just take a "Chill Pill", fly safe and heads up and re evaluate our own skills and habits.

Be safe out there kids!

[Vallerina 2]

First of all, before I go off into a tangent (yes, I know better....oopsy), I just want to say that I am all for what SDAZ is doing (seeing as I don't do 270s, I'm unaffected by their policy from a "fun" stance.)

Quote

also canopy instruction, what canopy instruction, the students are cut loose as soon as the money stops - instructors move on to the next guy with money - 15 years ago we got info from the old guys for free (pay it forward learning) now there is very little of that going on because it has become pay it now. some drop zones don't even offer canopy classes -

I take offense to that post since apparently, I'm one of those new instructors just out there for the big bucks! You know me....I won't even talk to newbies unless they pay me. Give me a break. It's easy to generalize all problems in the sport as that crazy, young crowd who breaks down the community built up by so many.....it's much more difficult to see that with the progression of the sport, new problems never seen before are going to happen, and it's better to combine brains (not mine...I have no clue how to solve these issues) think of solutions....instead of grasping for the past.

Just when I feared thread drift...the greenies clean it all up! I feel like I spilt my milk and they come running after it with napkins!

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[skyninja 0]

I took fuck bag to indicate the "Mr. Moneybags" who primarily is concerned with the bottom line (less risk of litigation, etc.), using the guise of concern for people's welfare as the publicly declared reason for tightening down rules. Concern for "safety" may play a part, but it seems a secondary motive - or even just a convenient excuse to act on the primary motivation.

I have no stake in the business, so the owners are free to do as they please with their endeavor. If they find it financially sound to restrict their services, that is their perogative. Their decisions (and people's percieved motivations behind them) may or may not lead people to believe that they are a fuck bag.

Bitching and moaning about their decision being detrimental for swoopers is pointless. It is not a DZ's responsibility to cater to any particular sect of jumper. They have a business to run, and will do so as they see fit. Swoopers have no right to demand service, nor does anyone else. A DZ offers their service for a price, and if that is not agreeable to the jumper, then don't make the purchase. Go somewhere else that offers what you want. Problem solved.

Why don't you just play 'chicken' on the railroad tracks? It would be a cheaper way to toy with death, I'm sure.

CWR #2 - "You SAID collision!"

[mirage62 0]

Okay, I’m sure this idea has tons of problems but just fur balling here.

Why not but the H.P. jumpers out FIRST at altitude? They pull at 2,500 (if your really doing H.P. turns you ought to be able to handle pulling at 2,500) they are all on the ground before the rest of us get down to pattern altitude.

Think about it, let the idea “breath”

1.) If you don’t declare an HP landing and you do one with the “later” groups it’s obvious to everyone and corrective action can be taken.
2.) The DZ makes the same amount of money.
3.) Other than the swoop lane possibly getting clogged up with swoopers separation isn’t the problem

Soooo they wouldn’t be above us they would be below us

I know that the deloyment height might be a problem for some people (low timers) but really they don't need to be doing HP turns. WHen they are ready - after education - they s/b ready for 2,500 or lower

Okay now kill the idea.

Fortson

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[ianmdrennan 2]

Judy,

Fortunately, we've met so I know you won't think this is coming across in the wrong way

Quote

You keep mentioning canopy classes. I have managed to make it over 10 years in the sport without injuring myself or anyone else and I have never taken a canopy class.

Danny never took a class either and he made it quite a number of years too. I FIRMLY believe that as an instructor it is your obligation to educate yourself on canopy flight (not swooping). Many old school myths are busted in Scott Millers classes - both the essentials and the advanced class. Not a single one of us is above taking a course like that. At least once, if not regularly to keep up with the latest developments.

Quote

I'm in it for the freefall. I know how to fly a pattern. The same pattern I was taught in my first jump course. And so far have managed to land safely. What's wrong with the canopy skills/pattern we are taught during our student training?

There is so much more to it than simply flying a pattern. It's far to long and detailed to go into here, but trust me when I say it's not just about being able to land safely. Not to mention it continues to grind good practices home.

Quote

I don't know how many times I've heard from swoopers "I can't land my canopy without hooking it"? I stare at them in disbelief that they are that bad of a canopy pilot they can't land straight in safely.

I agree. I land my 84 straight in no problem. Hooking is absolutely not a requirement for landing softly.

Quote

So you think everyone wants to learn to swoop? Well, they don't. I can guarantee it 100%.

Canopy classes ARE NOT about learning to swoop. Sure if you get Jay out to teach you HP landings, that what you'll get but the majority of Canopy Control classes are not geared around swooping in any way.

Judy, I love you guys, but I think you're off the mark on this one.

See you out there soon!

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Fortunately, we've met so I know you won't think this is coming across in the wrong way

You've never come across the wrong way. You have always answered any questions I've asked you very respectfully and intelligently.

Quote

Many old school myths are busted in Scott Millers classes - both the essentials and the advanced class.

Is what Scott Miller teaches a secret? Why can't it be shared for free with the rest of the community without having to pay to take a canopy class, if, in fact, it is a better way to teach basic canopy skills and will keep people safe(r).

I understand having to pay for advanced coaching, but if we are teaching old school myths, and they are wrong, or there is a better way, why isn't the "better way" public knowledge.

Quote

Canopy classes ARE NOT about learning to swoop. Sure if you get Jay out to teach you HP landings, that what you'll get but the majority of Canopy Control classes are not geared around swooping in any way

That's good to know. I guess I assumed that the majority of the canopy classes/coaching is geared to swooping because its alway brought up when there is a hookturn/swooping incident.

and on a side note, neither you, I or Marks mention anything about guns and 270's being related (at least not in our conversations) so I don't know why we got put in SC.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I know that the deloyment height might be a problem for some people (low timers) but really they don't need to be doing HP turns. WHen they are ready - after education - they s/b ready for 2,500 or lower

Have you ever jumped a ultra high performance canopy? If yes then you would know that one 360 degree turn (lets' say in a spinning malfunction on your back) can lose close to 1k of altitude in seconds. Having a bunch of high performance canopies opening up in the basement (with higher malfunction rates than let's say a Triathlon 175) is not such a smart idea. No thank you ... you may consider me to be a low-timer since I've only been in the sport 1/2 as long as you have (I am definitely not a seasoned skydiver who's seen it and done it all) but I'm not that dumb to be thinking your suggestions are workable.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[diablopilot 2]

No, and high perfomance landings in traffic at big events is definately not the time.

Was anyone kicking people off the DZ durring this time for said behavior? Or in AZ?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why not but the H.P. jumpers out FIRST at altitude? They pull at 2,500 (if your really doing H.P. turns you ought to be able to handle pulling at 2,500) they are all on the ground before the rest of us get down to pattern altitude

Because most pull above 3500 to get set up.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Just to be clear; I don't care what side of this issue you're on, but if a person believes in something they should have the balls to stand behind their opinions with their own name.

Yea, what he said......

Quote

Skydive Arizona did by posting their policy statement and they have a hell of a lot more at risk than most people responding to this thread.

Just curious, what is the new policy?

[Royd 0]

Quote

Danny never took a class either and he made it quite a number of years too. I FIRMLY believe that as an instructor it is your obligation to educate yourself on canopy flight (not swooping). Many old school myths are busted in Scott Millers classes - both the essentials and the advanced class. Not a single one of us is above taking a course like that. At least once, if not regularly to keep up with the latest developments.

On my 84th jump, another jumper, slightly ahead of me and above me, wanted to land in a predetermined spot and sashayed into me at 120 ft. off the ground. We both walked away with a good lesson. I took Scott Miller's course shortly afterward. I'm sure some of the things were taught in my initial AFF, but concentrating on awareness, flat turns, and half brake approaches has increased the knowledge of my canopy greatly.

If we never realize the full capacity of our canopy, we tend to just hope to get to the ground safely.

[marks2065 0]

this is a problem all over not intended to bad mouth a dz or an instructer - and yes i do know you and i have seen you work with students after a lic - but you also get paid for coach jumps were 10 years ago this training was free to the noobie - if a student needs to pay for training maybe it should be canopy training not belly or freefly until after thay arewell informed and proficient and canopy control

[marks2065 0]

first of all i don't swoop - don't think swooping is a good thing to do with a good canopy - there are things i talk to students about that they are never told in any training to get the a lic - like how to judge were to land when you have 2 or more canopies in the pattern (near, far, or center of landing area - set up on windy days - set ups without have to do a 360 or 180 to land) years ago the static line program addressed canopy control and landing and focused on being safe from opening to landing now traing is more focused on freefall

[marks2065 0]

i can cross wind a landing no problem but before you make younger jumpers have to do it they need to be trained or given the opertunity to learn before being made to do it on aff levels 1-5 - this is not the time to have a student crosswind landings

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'm sorry but being a big-way belly flier doesn't interest me.

Swooping has nothing to do with your freefall discipline. One of the latest fatalities was on a big-way belly jump.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

don't think swooping is a good thing to do with a good canopy -

Do you mean big hook (360, 540) turns? Because you can "swoop" by inducing speed other ways - dive on risers, nice smooth front riser 90's, etc.

And inducing speed will increase airflow around the canopy allowing it to cut through turbulence better, etc.

It's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a manuver that needs to be done (or aborted) with good judgement based on each jump's conditions.

It's not the manuver that is the problem, it's the lack of judgment by a few that's caused an issue. I don't fault SDAZ for their choice. Hopefully the awareness generated will create some thoughtful training and awareness in all jumpers. I know I need to recognize the needs of all jumpers around me and fly in the pattern better.

...
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

[marks2065 0]

i mean i don't think swooping is a good thing - i was always taught and still pratice that if i have a good canopy over my head don't do anything stupid or radical close to the ground - if someone else wants to and accepts the risks that is their choice - this choice to do stupid and/or radical things close to the ground does not give anyone the right to do it in or around people trying to land safely - i guess i am just a fuckbag like dse and chrisl

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

but you also get paid for coach jumps were 10 years ago this training was free to the noobie

I have gotten paid for ONE coach jump ever....and I jumped with many newbies last season. I participated in the Scrambles, did two-way drills, gave people their first kiss-passes....although, it really is selfish of me....I don't look at my jumping with newbies as "paying it forward." I don't look at it like work/chore or anything of the sort. I look at jumping with newbies just as skydiving with friends....it's fun to be around people so eager to jump. Plus, I prefer to jump in smaller groups of people.

No, I don't think it's a problem "all over." I've gone freeflying with really good people for free, and I've paid for coach jumps. There is a huge difference between jumping with someone and being coached by someone. You can learn a lot for free at a dropzone. You can learn a lot more by paying, though, which is a much fairer way of deciding who gets the most coaching (otherwise, I'm sure someone would complain of favoritism...and not getting coaching because no one likes them, or their too ugly, or their boobs aren't big enough.)

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

i can cross wind a landing no problem but before you make younger jumpers have to do it they need to be trained or given the opertunity to learn before being made to do it on aff levels 1-5 - this is not the time to have a student crosswind landings

Student aviation pilots do not have the luxury of always landing into the wind. Yes it can be argued that while they are students, these pilots are accompanied by a qualified instructors in the cockpit and it is up to the instructors disgression as to when and where the student can attempt their landings. But once released as solo's the student is still limited as to when and where they may fly based on crosswind calculations.

While training to become pilots, there is a huge emphasis on landing training. Why is it that we in the skydiving world can not do the same. We do things backwards in skydiving (at least for AFF training). We emphasis freefall training and speak very little about canopy control. Why? In these bi-directional landing lanes I speak of where all jumpers must learn to crosswind their landings (just like a runway), we need to emphasis to all jumpers that if the WX exceeds their limitations, then people need to follow that "It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground" saying.

I was a pilot before I started skydiving so I knew about all these things ahead of time. But I'm sorry the longer I stay in this sport, the more flaws I see in AFF and how we train new people. We really need to be training people canopy control from the get go and introduce freefall skills to them later on in the training. Why aren't we doing this? Money? That's my guess ... AFF is all about taking people's money it seems ...

PS: my first solo flying airplanes in the pattern wasn't nearly as much of a monumental accomplishment compared my first solo cross-country flight. The solo cross-country flight was a sureal experience.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[marks2065 0]

i was thinking a 2 tandem - 2 static line - then 6-8 jump aff course should be thought of - the tandems could get the initial canopy training with a hands on learn as you jump - full static line course - then freefall training - this could be the answer to emphasizing canopy training and possibly get alot more info in the students head before he gets out into the mainstream to help prepare them for some of the stupid shit they will see and be involved in

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

While training to become pilots, there is a huge emphasis on landing training. Why is it that we in the skydiving world can not do the same.

Not at first. In fact most of the first lessons they do not take off or land the plane. There is a big difference in that with flying a plane an instructor is there and can take off and let the student fly till the landing. In skydiving the student must do the entire process each time (unless it is a tandem jump).

Quote

We emphasis freefall training and speak very little about canopy control

You must be talking about YOUR AFF class. The ones I teach have a great deal of focus on canopy control, as do most AFF classes I have seen. Simple fact is that *students* focus on the FF portion thinking the canopy control is not as important.

Quote

We really need to be training people canopy control from the get go and introduce freefall skills to them later on in the training.

You can't do that unless you plan on making them do static lines only; and even then they should learn how to arch.

You have a valid concern about canopy flight being important. However, you need to realize that before a person can be under canopy, they must leave a plane. And in skydiving we need to teach a student ALL of the skydive, not just one part.

As for SDA and not allowing 270's in the main landing area. I think it is a great idea and I support it. You are correct that it is not the turn that is killing skydivers but the lack of awareness. However, the 270 degree turn is harder to pull off in traffic and know where it is going to be done than a 180, 90 or straight in.

I am sorry you feel that your aspect of the sport is getting shit on. But the simple fact is that this 270 ban will prevent accidents like we have seen. And if 180s become the problem, I fully expect them to get banned as well... And I would have no issue with it.

As for swooping dying...It will not. You will instead go to a small Cessna DZ and help keep them alive. I would rather to hop n pops out of a Cessna than an otter anyway.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

But the simple fact is that this 270 ban will prevent accidents like we have seen.

Prevent some yes, but not the majority. Check out the statistics 75% would not have been solved by seperate landing areas or turn restrictions....

Of course you'll get zero argument from me that some is better than many, but look at the figures - they're not quite where a lot of people would like to present them as.

And for the record, I am very much FOR seperate landing areas.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[ORANGENBLUE 0]

Ian, thanks for being the voice of reason.

• Quote

[B.A.D.D. 0]

Quote

My, my . . .

How "brave" the words of the anonymous.

Just to be clear; I don't care what side of this issue you're on, but if a person believes in something they should have the balls to stand behind their opinions with their own name.

Skydive Arizona did by posting their policy statement and they have a hell of a lot more at risk than most people responding to this thread.

1st of all mr quode, SDAZ did not announce their policy on here, one of the moderators did. there was no post by Larry Hill on here, he had his chods do it. 2nd of all if you want to know my name then you can pm me and ill be more than happy two let you know. (AS IF YOU CAN'T READ MY PROFILE AND SEE WHAT MY NAME IS)
and 3rd, i quit spending my money down there. it took me about 3 visits to see how the place is. if ppl's attitudes would change maybe ill go back, but if they act like you id rather stay away,

<> if you jump naked, can you use your penis as a rudder?<>

[livendive 8]

Quote

i was thinking a 2 tandem - 2 static line - then 6-8 jump aff course should be thought of - the tandems could get the initial canopy training with a hands on learn as you jump - full static line course - then freefall training

How about 1 tandem encouraged but not required, 6 required IAD jumps, then 4 required AFF jumps?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)