Patterns (split from Canopy collision - Ohio - Oct 22, 2022)

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 10/30/2022 at 5:22 PM, Bryguy1224 said:

I never post serious stuff on the website, but I will comment on orphanblue……I saw the video. Top jumper didn’t want to give up the swoop….did a big turn into traffic and hit a jumper below him. Ripping the lower jumpers canopy in half and forcing the lower jumper to cutaway at 600ish feet (with a skyhook) and snivel into the hanger. Top jumper was 100% at fault and proceeded to spin into the hanger with the bottom jumpers canopy (what was left of it) wrapped around him until impact with the hanger.

 

ody 

 

 

Let no one claim that unrestricted big turns in the general canopy flight area are dangerous. It's so easy to blame the swooper but why wasn't the lower jumper looking up? This is 2022 and we've evolved beyond old thinking. No longer does the low man have the right of way: modern parachutes have rendered that old thinking obsolete. The reality now is that the low man is in the way and should defend themselves accordingly, pulling at 10 Grand for example. I have no doubt that the honorable DZO at this unfortunate facility can argue that they do a usually great job of separating HP flight from Unfortunate Flight according to USPA Standards. But the sad reality is that our Gods are weak and consequently many bad things happen.

[chuckakers 370]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Let no one claim that unrestricted big turns in the general canopy flight area are dangerous. It's so easy to blame the swooper but why wasn't the lower jumper looking up? This is 2022 and we've evolved beyond old thinking. No longer does the low man have the right of way: modern parachutes have rendered that old thinking obsolete. The reality now is that the low man is in the way and should defend themselves accordingly, pulling at 10 Grand for example. I have no doubt that the honorable DZO at this unfortunate facility can argue that they do a usually great job of separating HP flight from Unfortunate Flight according to USPA Standards. But the sad reality is that our Gods are weak and consequently many bad things happen.

I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation, but I fear you are not....

Yielding to the lower jumper is NOT OBSOLETE!   In fact, your suggestion is dangerous and I encourage jumpers to disregard it.

The reasons we yield to the lower jumpers are simple. First, jumpers in the pattern are (correctly) focused on their landings, which dictates giving primary attention to what is BELOW them. Jumpers are ALWAYS responsible to clear the area in their flight path - like clearing the area to the left or right AND below before making a turn. This includes pattern flight and final approach. Second, it is often impossible to see traffic above us because our canopies block much of the view. Yielding to the higher jumper simply doesn't make sense and much of the time would be impossible because of the blocked view. It also distracts from the mission at hand - clearing the flight path ahead and below, and landing safely.

The "low person has the right of way" is a basic premise in all of aviation. CFR 92.113.g states in part "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way...". Additionally, the USPA Skydiver's Information Manual agrees with this rule. SIM Section 6-1.C.3.c states "the low person has the right-of-way both in freefall and under canopy". Deciding on our own to buck accepted practices leads to confusion, and that leads to problems.

As for high performance canopies and the jumpers who fly them, they are ALWAYS responsible to yield to lower traffic. This makes perfect sense. The higher jumper has the best field of view of the jumpers below them, they can monitor lower traffic without looking away from their flight path, they have more altitude to make an avoidance maneuver if necessary, and it's consistent with aviation and skydiving norms. I am a former high performance canopy jumper (and still have a rate of descent faster than many others) and can say in practice that yielding to the lower jumper works. When I am descending faster than the jumpers below me, I have the best opportunity to observe what they are doing and have the best field of view to decide how to avoid conflict.

There are a lot of great ideas out in the field. Suggesting lower jumpers attempt to yield to traffic above them is a really, REALLY bad idea. My suggestion to other jumpers - no disrespect intended - is to COMPLETELY ignore your advice.

[gowlerk 1,912]

15 minutes ago, chuckakers said:

There are a lot of great ideas out in the field. Suggesting lower jumpers attempt to yield to traffic above them is a really, REALLY bad idea. My suggestion to other jumpers - no disrespect intended - is to COMPLETELY ignore your advice.

I suppose someone had to say this because it is possible that someone else may come along and completely miss the sarcasm in the comment.  Except the part about our gods being weak. I think that Joe really meant that. The rest? A kick in the ass to irresponsible HP pilots and DZOs who tolerate them. They are out there. Everyone needs to come down hard on them. Joe was asking you and USPA in particular to enforce your damned rules on separating landing areas.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I suppose someone had to say this because it is possible that someone else may come along and completely miss the sarcasm in the comment.  Except the part about our gods being weak. I think that Joe really meant that. The rest? A kick in the ass to irresponsible HP pilots and DZOs who tolerate them. They are out there. Everyone needs to come down hard on them. Joe was asking you and USPA in particular to enforce your damned rules on separating landing areas.

There just does not seem to be a way to explain to USPA, in any way comprehensible that is, what a bad idea it is to even start with the idea of separating HP and normal canopy traffic by time. It's just a get out of jail free card for the stupid and irrational not a recommendation likely to be followed as intended. I do believe Chuck and I have sparred over this previously: he believes that descending quickly under his pocket rocket gets the job done in all ways. First he gets to be the responsible high man and then he gets to be the guy in the right. Perfect, I guess.

At least in the twilight of my, to date 34 years counting and not ending anytime soon, time as a USPA Group and Individual member, I had the pleasure of having the President of USPA publish online that my silly self and bad ideas are sufficient to recommend to all skydivers that my advice be ignored. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by JoeWeber

[chuckakers 370]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

There just does not seem to be a way to explain to USPA, in any way comprehensible that is, what a bad idea it is to even start with the idea that separating HP and normal canopy traffic by time. It's just a get out of jail free card for the stupid and irrational not a recommendation likely to be followed as intended. I do believe Chuck and I have sparred over this previously: he believes that descending quickly under his pocket rocket gets the job done in all ways. First he gets to be the responsible high man and then he gets to be the guy in the right. Perfect, I guess.

At least in the twilight of my, to date 34 years counting and not ending anytime soon, time as a USPA Group and Individual member, I had the pleasure of having the President of USPA publish online that my silly self and bad ideas are sufficient to recommend to all skydivers that my advice be ignored. 

Don't put words in my mouth.

I have never staked a claim to being "the guy in the right". Any statements I make are grounded in facts and historical examples. That's where best practices come from.

It isn't my opinion that yielding to the low jumper (aviator) is the best practice. It is the opinion of every aviation expert, the FAA, USPA, AOPA, and on and on. It's also the accepted practice for gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, etc., and for good reason.

I can cite dozens of cases of canopy collisions caused by a higher jumper failing to yield to a lower jumper - often during a performance turn that causes rapid altitude loss and a collision into a lower jumper flying a routine pattern or final approach. It's a scenario that has been repeated so many times that it should be obvious to anyone who studies our history.

I take no pleasure in recommending jumpers ignore someone's advice. My intention is always to educate jumpers - especially young, impressionable jumpers - to help them stay out of the incident reports.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, chuckakers said:

Don't put words in my mouth.

I have never staked a claim to being "the guy in the right". Any statements I make are grounded in facts and historical examples. That's where best practices come from.

It isn't my opinion that yielding to the low jumper (aviator) is the best practice. It is the opinion of every aviation expert, the FAA, USPA, AOPA, and on and on. It's also the accepted practice for gliders, hang gliders, paragliders, etc., and for good reason.

I can cite dozens of cases of canopy collisions caused by a higher jumper failing to yield to a lower jumper - often during a performance turn that causes rapid altitude loss and a collision into a lower jumper flying a routine pattern or final approach. It's a scenario that has been repeated so many times that it should be obvious to anyone who studies our history.

I take no pleasure in recommending jumpers ignore someone's advice. My intention is always to educate jumpers - especially young, impressionable jumpers - to help them stay out of the incident reports.

You are barking up the wrong tree, still. Please read Ken's post.

[dudeman17 270]

Third party observation...

I'm with gowlerk on this one.

6 hours ago, chuckakers said:

I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation, but I fear you are not....

 

 

3 hours ago, chuckakers said:

Don't put words in my mouth.

I have never staked a claim to being "the guy in the right".

 

Chuck, with every authoritative post you make, you are indeed claiming to be the 'guy in the right'. And, with your experience and position, you generally ARE the guy in the right. The points you are making here are correct and valid.

However, in both of Joe's statements, I believe he was using sarcasm in order to make his points. And I think those points are accurate as well.

You two don't really need to be arguing.

[chuckakers 370]

33 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Third party observation...

I'm with gowlerk on this one.

 

 

Chuck, with every authoritative post you make, you are indeed claiming to be the 'guy in the right'. And, with your experience and position, you generally ARE the guy in the right. The points you are making here are correct and valid.

However, in both of Joe's statements, I believe he was using sarcasm in order to make his points. And I think those points are accurate as well.

You two don't really need to be arguing.

The problem with Joe's post is that the very people who need guidance - the young folks - often don't get the sarcasm. Hence I treat posts like his as serious and reply for the sake of clarity.

Given the insane amount of blatantly incorrect and potentially deadly information posted on this website, I prefer to set the record straight if a post even vaguely resembles something a newbie would take seriously.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

18 minutes ago, chuckakers said:

The problem with Joe's post is that the very people who need guidance - the young folks - often don't get the sarcasm. Hence I treat posts like his as serious and reply for the sake of clarity.

Given the insane amount of blatantly incorrect and potentially deadly information posted on this website, I prefer to set the record straight if a post even vaguely resembles something a newbie would take seriously.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Chuck it was absolutely sarcasm. You clearly don’t know the first thing about me or how I operate. In fact, back before it was on USPA’s radar screen we separated Students from Tandems from up jumpers, giving each their own landing area, and created a dedicated HP landing area separated from the others by the runway.

We did it to increase safety. Not only are you in no position to lecture me but you were out of line.

[chuckakers 370]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, Chuck it was absolutely sarcasm. You clearly don’t know the first thing about me or how I operate. In fact, back before it was on USPA’s radar screen we separated Students from Tandems from up jumpers, giving each their own landing area, and created a dedicated HP landing area separated from the others by the runway.

We did it to increase safety. Not only are you in no position to lecture me but you were out of line.

I was not out of line and I was not/am not lecturing you.

There is a revolving door of newbies in skydiving, many of whom would take a post from a guy with 15,000 jumps and 45 years in the sport to heart. There was nothing in your post that would clue a newbie in on your sarcasm and yes, there are well-meaning people who routinely post their own version of best practices that are dangerous. Gowlerk was correct - someone could (and probably would) miss the sarcasm. My post was intended to set the record straight. Nothing more. Nothing less.

When someone posts blatantly incorrect information that could get someone killed I will point it out. That's not lecturing and not out of line. I hope you understand.

[BMAC615 205]

Just so everyone here is clear, there are VERY FEW new jumpers on this dinosaur of a bulletin board. It’s mostly an echo chamber of about a dozen people who all got into skydiving before Bill Clinton met Monica Lewinsky. Most new skydivers are on Reddit Skydiving Forum and Facebook Beginners Skydiving Forum.

As for the topic at hand, it’s an interesting data point that both Roger Nelson and Carl Daugherty, two of the fathers of modern skydiving, were involved in canopy collisions. 

[riggerrob 558]

Perhaps we need to provide junior jumpers with a bit of background theory or history to explain why certain landing patterns are the norm.

For example, the rules of right-of-way in the air are based upon ancient rules of right-of-way for sailors. These rules were written back when all large ships were powered by sails and oars and many centuries before anyone thought to install a steam engine.

We pass on the right because that is where the steering oar was on Viking ships. Right = steering-board = starboard. Since the passing ship is on the same side as the steering board, the helmsman of the leading ship has a better view of the ship overtaking him.

Passing on the right also makes it easier to predict which way another ship will turn when close to you. If both ships are headed straight at each other, it is easy to avoid a collision when both ships turn right. A helmsman is more likely to turn right because it is easier for him because he can see better to clear any other traffic.

The ship closest to the shore had the right of way.

Come the invention of flying and early aviators just followed tried-and-true rights-of-way perfected by sailors.

[riggerrob 558]

USPA's recommendation to establish separate landing areas for high-performance approaches seems to be the only method that has succeeded in reducing collisions.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, chuckakers said:

I was not out of line and I was not/am not lecturing you.

There is a revolving door of newbies in skydiving, many of whom would take a post from a guy with 15,000 jumps and 45 years in the sport to heart. There was nothing in your post that would clue a newbie in on your sarcasm and yes, there are well-meaning people who routinely post their own version of best practices that are dangerous. Gowlerk was correct - someone could (and probably would) miss the sarcasm. My post was intended to set the record straight. Nothing more. Nothing less.

When someone posts blatantly incorrect information that could get someone killed I will point it out. That's not lecturing and not out of line. I hope you understand.

I apologize for making a point using humor and sarcasm that you found confusing to the point of needing to scold me without taking a big, deep breath and asking WTF? Truly if you'd have stopped at "I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation" you'd have learned quickly that you missed the joke. If ever again my sense of humor causes you angst please feel free to PM me for a complete explanation.

[chuckakers 370]

1 minute ago, JoeWeber said:

I apologize for making a point using humor and sarcasm that you found confusing to the point of needing to scold me without taking a big, deep breath and asking WTF? Truly if you'd have stopped at "I hope you are trolling for the sake of spirited conversation" you'd have learned quickly that you missed the joke. If ever again my sense of humor causes you angst please feel free to PM me for a complete explanation.

I didn't scold you. I disagreed with you. If you took it as a scolding that's on you, not me.

As I said before, my intent was and is to set the record straight for those who might take a veteran skydiver's words literally. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I avoided dz.com for a long time because of situations just like this. I guess I'll go back to the many skydiving Facebook groups where people actually try to be productive.

I'm out.

[wmw999 2,121]

5 hours ago, chuckakers said:

the very people who need guidance - the young folks - often don't get the sarcasm. Hence I treat posts like his as serious and reply for the sake of clarity

Those are the people who are least likely to take it when they actually need it; it’s always better to provide information, straight up, when they don’t need it, so it’s part of their knowledge arsenal when they do. Or at least so it sounds familiar when they realize and ask for some guidance. To me, sarcasm generally needs to be in person  

Wendy P. 

[danornan 64]

Sarcasm on DZ.com can get people hurt or killed and it needs to be noted in the comment, not several comments or threads away. MODS - The comment this refers to should be noted and or deleted.

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by danornan
spelling

[Dqisrad 7]

11 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Just so everyone here is clear, there are VERY FEW new jumpers on this dinosaur of a bulletin board. It’s mostly an echo chamber of about a dozen people who all got into skydiving before Bill Clinton met Monica Lewinsky. Most new skydivers are on Reddit Skydiving Forum and Facebook Beginners Skydiving Forum.

As for the topic at hand, it’s an interesting data point that both Roger Nelson and Carl Daugherty, two of the fathers of modern skydiving, were involved in canopy collisions. 

The most accurate post ever made here. It’s crazy that this place still exists. The top ten people who post on here have more post then jumps in the last 5 years. 

[BIGUN 1,053]

15 hours ago, chuckakers said:

I avoided dz.com for a long time because of situations just like this. I guess I'll go back to the many skydiving Facebook groups where people actually try to be productive.

I'm out.

Chuck, I'm going to ask you to reconsider that decision. You've been around too long and have mucho information and experience to communicate. DZ.com is still the single largest repository of skydiving information in the world. Please leave your legacy of information here for future skydivers, not scattered all over the the social media platforms where it will be come diluted in 36 hours. 

Keith

[BIGUN 1,053]

16 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

Just so everyone here is clear, there are VERY FEW new jumpers on this dinosaur of a bulletin board. It’s mostly an echo chamber of about a dozen people who all got into skydiving before Bill Clinton met Monica Lewinsky. Most new skydivers are on Reddit Skydiving Forum and Facebook Beginners Skydiving Forum.

And just so you are clear. The skydivers on here have decades of knowledge and experience and most still jump, albeit not as frequently. One skydiver on here started in the 70's and was making skydives last week. This is still the world's largest database of skydiver information and it's all in one place. 

While many may be posting on rabbit, or fuckbook, or insta, or etc. etc. It doesn't take long for that information to get drowned out by the noise and lost forever. Someone sees information on one of those platforms and wishes to re-review it; good luck trying to find which platform you saw it on. If everyone came back to posting here; it would continue to grow as the single largest repository and historical DB for years to come.

You claim most new skydivers are on X and Y, take a look at the number of views any time a topic pops on here. They may not be engaging on here (only because it's easier to "share" on many different platforms), but they still come here to read.  

 

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

While many may be posting on rabbit, or fuckbook, or insta, or etc. etc. It doesn't take long for that information to get drowned out by the noise and lost forever.

Those are places where people go for instant gratification. When you post here you may get challenged and asked to defend your words. Not all USPA BoD members are willing to stand for that sort of thing.

[nwt 131]

6 hours ago, Dqisrad said:

It’s crazy that this place still exists

The newer platforms are worse, not better. It's unfortunate.

Quote

forcing the lower jumper to cutaway at 600ish feet

The correct EP would be to deploy the reserve without cutting away, no?

[OrphanBlue 39]

9 hours ago, Dqisrad said:

on this dinosaur of a bulletin board

Dinosaurs teach us more about extinction than anything else.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Those are places where people go for instant gratification. When you post here you may get challenged and asked to defend your words. Not all USPA BoD members are willing to stand for that sort of thing.

Surely it’s a limited time in sport defect I’m suffering from, but could you please give a shout out to those officials who did enjoy a little SC reparte?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

10 hours ago, danornan said:

Sarcasm on DZ.com can get people hurt or killed and it needs to be noted in the comment, not several comments or threads away. MODS - The comment this refers to should be noted and or deleted.

 

Any form of Skydiving or crappy advice from an incompetent DZO or USPA can get people hurt or killed, just sayin'. I am in absolute opposition with the idea that separating HP traffic from normal canopy traffic by time is effective. It's just a way to address a real problem with an inferior solution so USPA can claim they are really addressing the problem and continue to give "A" grades to DZ's with small landing areas. They are not addressing the problem; they are causing the problem. Unless my previous conversations with USPA President Chuck Akers are, um, misremembered he supports the idea of separating HP traffic from normal traffic by time. I consider that to be a dangerous philosophy. So, I went to what for me was another way to make a point: sarcasm. Disagree with my method if you desire but I don't think I've harmed anyone in my desire to help everyone.