0
Marisan

Acceptable Fatalities

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote



Well I've got two solutions for you.

Go away and start a swoop only DZ.



That sounds like you are pointing the finger and also starts with ban them. Go away = ban them.
Quote


Get out by yourself so all those old time instructors (BTW who probably taught you) won't be in your way.

That's two. Where are your solutions?



You didn't address the fact that they need to clean up their patterns.

Your post indicates that you believe one group is the problem and the other can just carry on. Again, this is everyones problem and is bigger than just swoopers.

My solution includes better accountability by DZOs to the USPA for a comprehensive plan. Separation of landing patterns works when enforced and implemented with NO exceptions. If you want to ground the kid with the hot rod who is over his head, you have to ground the instructor doing s turns in the pattern or breaking the pattern because they feel like it. Nobody is immune from dying in this sport.



I actually DO believe that one group is the problem.
Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe.
Why not penalise the jumper that is putting everyone else at risk just so they can get their thrills. How about a bit of accountability from your side. It is the swoopers that are putting people at risk not the conservative jumpers.

If starting your own DZ is too hard how about exiting by yourself. That way you only put yourself at risk. (Oh, I forgot, and the psyches of the people that have to clean up your mess)

Regards

Marisan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote




Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe.



Wow! >:( Maybe in the 80s it was. Today its unacceptable and dangerous in the pattern to do s turns. They are unpredictable and do not fit in the standard pattern.
Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote




Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe.



Wow! >:( Maybe in the 80s it was. Today its unacceptable and dangerous in the pattern to do s turns. They are unpredictable and do not fit in the standard pattern.


Well, maybe that's why the fatality rate under open canopies was MUCH LOWER in the 80'sB|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe. "

This is not safe. Unpredictable patterns are dangerous to all involved. Sounds like you are part of the problem as well.

Seriously though, good pattern flight is important to everyones safety. Attitudes like that are part of the problem. A good pattern is one of the steps in reducing/eliminating canopy collisions.
"Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain."

"In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe. "

This is not safe. Unpredictable patterns are dangerous to all involved. Sounds like you are part of the problem as well.

Seriously though, good pattern flight is important to everyones safety. Attitudes like that are part of the problem. A good pattern is one of the steps in reducing/eliminating canopy collisions.



Back in the eighty's we used to put 45 jumpers out of a DC3. (Twentyfive from an a Twin Otter) Exit separation consisted of the time it took for the next exit to stack and exit. We never had freefall/ canopy collisions. We never had fatalities from 45 jumpers trying to land in the same 200x200 yard area. The reason why you can't do this is because the canopies you jump now won't allow it

Canopy Collisions come from the people jumping HP Canopies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. And you used to walk 5 miles uphill in both directions to school.

Canopy collisions still occurred, but the consequences where generally not as high.

A back in the day comparison is not that relevant to the canopies that jumpers use today. A hot canopy back in the day was an X228. These days an average jumper is probably jumping around a 135 main which has tremendously much more performance than a canopy that we now would regard as suitable for students. Even higher performance mains are more common with experienced jumpers.

It is not just about "high performance canopies", by the old school definition EVERY SINGLE CANOPY on the load IS HIGH PERFORMANCE. Physics has not changed.

Totally agree that the higher the airspeed of modern canopies - the less reaction times. The world has changed, technology and training has evolved, as have people's expectations.

The big thing for us to think about is how we adapt our skydiving approach to this reality. E.g. training, looking at seperation, offset jump runs, etc. A greater emphasis on canopy control and flight plans for all jumpers.

It seems like you are missing out on understanding that we are all skydivers - and this is a common problem for all. Regardless of jumping a 170 or 79, canopy control and traffic is something that all jumpers need to consider and plan for.

How would you feel it we all were forced to go back to jumping rounds now?
"Don't blame malice for what stupidity can explain."

"In our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart and in our despair, against our will comes wisdom" - Aeschylus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Canopy Collisions come from the people jumping HP Canopies


Compared to a round, perhaps a Pulse 190 loaded at a little less than 1.0 is a high performance canopy. But I was involved in a canopy collision, flying my Pulse 190 (I don't know what the other jumper was on, but I don't believe it was heavily loaded).

How did this happen on two relatively docile canopies? The landing pattern was set in a certain direction. Both he and I were flying the final legs of our pattern, in that direction. Then he decided he needed to turn 90 degrees to the established pattern. (His reasons for turning may or may not have been valid -- I don't want to discuss that here.) But his turn caused him to fly under me, and my foot to catch the top of his canopy at about 10 feet off the ground. I fell the rest of the way, and severely sprained a knee. Had we each been 20 feet higher, I wonder if I would be capable of having this conversation at all.

So, some canopy collisions come from people jumping HP canopies. Maybe even most. But some canopy collisions come from people not flying a straight flight path on final.

Unless you're alone in the sky, S-Turns are bad in the landing pattern.

In my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes. And you used to walk 5 miles uphill in both directions to school.

No, That was my father and they used to ride a horse. (Really)

How would you feel it we all were forced to go back to jumping rounds now?



Well the fatalities under an open canopy would certainly be less.
Maybe the lower leg injuries would be more (they were)

My whole point is: Stop killing yourselves (Yes I mean YOU) under a fully open and functioning Canopy>:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nearly every experienced jumper jumps a canopy that goes faster than the ones that were available in the 1980's. It's like looking at a video of traffic in the early 1900's and saying "see, they could do without traffic lights -- why do we need them."

When everything is happening slowly, you don't need as many controls. But while swooping per se might be something that should be isolated from non-swooping jumps, you can't also legislate that everyone jump canopies like they had in the 1980's

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marisan, I respect that you want to have this discussion.

But frankly, your line of thinking is precisely why we have some of the problems we have today. You are not alone in your finger pointing.

Until everyone checks their ego at the door and understands we are all part of the problem, it will continue.
Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote




Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe.



Wow! >:( Maybe in the 80s it was. Today its unacceptable and dangerous in the pattern to do s turns. They are unpredictable and do not fit in the standard pattern.


Marisan: with that one line, I think you lost any support you may have had in this forum.
Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe.



I have had my doubts about the sanity of some of your thoughts but this is just plain wrong.

You are preaching an absolutely incorrect technique. Please do not go around telling people that s-turns are "safe" or even acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 second rotations using up 1400' reaching near freefall speeds into occupied airspace is not safe especially at DZs like Perris that attract many unknown visiting jumpers with varying standards of skill and differing rules and regulations. Add the ego factor of being away at a new DZ and you have a very unsafe situation for eveyone. The 90 rule is necessary at a DZ like that for normal dz traffic, swooping needs to be separated from ordinary dz traffic patterns either by separate landing areas or separate passes. At smaller DZs it may be possible to keep it mixed so long as the swoopers are disciplined about when it's safe to swoop, but that does not seem to work at large busy DZs.
At Eloy I was quite happy to walk back from the tunnel landing area when I wanted to thrown down a huge turn, clear air space for me to swoop and a safer landing area for those that don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Scenario. A non swooper goes too far on their crosswind leg over trees and to adjust back to their landing area now has to make a turn larger than 90. As they've never done this and were NOT even allowed to:
* They make the larger turn and unfamiliar with the added speed ...
* They do a 90 and then do another turn after, possibly too low...
* They do their 90 and crash into trees or panic turn at the last minute to avoid...

It's highly likely that the above jumper even if allowed to make larger turns wouldn't practice or try them but that would be theirt whereas if a DZ bans them it becomes the DZs fault for limiting a jumpers "bag o' tricks" they can practice/use.

I feel that unless they're trained to do flat "braked turns" in a situation like that, they'll burn up their altitude too quickly whether it's 2-90's or one 180. And I really don't want someone that bad at canopy control out there hucking 180's "just to practice".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are Perris and Elsinore allowing turns greater than 90 period such as on a low/separate pass?

Edited to add: Did not know that Eloy allowed turns greater than 90 period, regardless of landing area.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Are Perris and Elsinore allowing turns greater than 90 period such as on a low/separate pass?

Edited to add: Did not know that Eloy allowed turns greater than 90 period, regardless of landing area.



been to all 3 DZs in the past month and these were the rules.
perris - no turns greater than 90. period.
eloy - 180s allowed in main landing area, 90 elsewhere, bigger turns allowed on low pass with proper clearance.
elsinore - big turns still allowed in hi per area(where pond used to be) on all jumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Interesting thinking - follow on from an article you posted in Parachutist Skydiving a few years ago as I recall.



PS. There are some good thoughts in your article but to me, they don't come out as much on your posts.



Welllll, that is why I attached the article. It was carefully researched through multiple conversations with multiple big dogs as well as my own multi-decade experience as an instructor and sometime-swooper.

On the other hand, my posts on this thread are more reactive and by nature fragmentary and as I already said to DSE, I can see where he drew a similar conclusion to yours based only on those posts.

So thanks for reading the article and to sum it up:

Work that larger wing to its limits before you go smaller -- but do the one thing no one seems to be teaching: Make sure while you're doing it that you don't exceed the larger wing's turn-radius limits that I proposed in the article.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote




Why penalise the jumper that is doing S Turns. He/she is only being safe.



Wow! >:( Maybe in the 80s it was. Today its unacceptable and dangerous in the pattern to do s turns. They are unpredictable and do not fit in the standard pattern.


Why are s turns bad, but a 270 ok?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
who said 270's were OK in the pattern? I'm sure everyone here agrees they don't belong.

270's need to be separated from the standard pattern by location or time. It needs to be 100% enforced and exceptions not be made for select sky gods/instructors/insert subgroup here. That means if you are doing a standard pattern, you are doing your part by flight a straight in approach after turning to final (no S Turns).

The bottom line is, if you are in the standard pattern or the high performance pattern, patterns need to be predictable and in their specific location. HP landings in the HP landing area are very predictable. 90 turns in the standard pattern are predictable. S turns in any landing area is highly unpredictable and should not be permitted. EVERYONE needs to take park in cleaning up canopy piloting.

I believe the USPA needs to spearhead an Accountability Program as it relates to Canopy Piloting specifically the requirement that HP landings and standard pattern landings are segregated by time or space.

Now - if a DZO decides that he/she wants to permit HP Landings - (and to be honest a HP landing needs to be defined. A 90º turn by someone loading a Velo at 2.5 loading does not belong in the pattern with someone doing 90º turns on a Navigator 260 at less than 1.0 loading. thats a different discussion) they should be required to have accountability for separation. If they permit HP landings they do so with the understanding that HP pilots may hurt themselves. This would be a risk they (DZO) take in terms of PR management.

DZO's should be required to do the following ( and let me be clear that I believe DZO's are 90% responsible for improving the canopy piloting at their respective DZ's - whether that is authorizing better enforcement, instruction and/or a combination of both)

1. Clearly identify and post landing pattern areas and rules at the DZ, and specifically in the area where skydivers congregate prior to getting on a plane.

2. Submit detailed plans to the USPA for how they plan to adhere to the membership pledge of separation of patterns by space or time. In other words, not just take their word for it. This would be specific to the DZ.

3. There should be a visible program where jumpers who witness habitual patterns of violating this pledge, can anonymously submit their concerns to the USPA. USPA should follow up on this when they witness troubling patterns (no pun intended).

4. Continue to help the USPA in adapting canopy piloting proficiency requirements. This may or may not include wingloading/canopy type regulations (I still don't know how I feel about that)

Its time for DZO's to step up and take charge. You may have been jumping with Billy Bob Joe for 25 years, but if he is doing S turns in the pattern, clean it up! While I don't like the fact that Perris has removed their pond and made a 90º only turn policy, I applaud them for stepping up and doing SOMETHING. I'd like to see the pond there still with ability to do multiple rotation turns on a separate pass. I understand their position from a PR perspective. Swoopers don't pay the bills - its a small group, and they aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt when things start to pile up.

Modern HP canopies, loaded highly, have significant risks. As pertains to the original thread topic, I believe that if a qualified pilot wants to jump a HP canopy and take the risk, they should be allowed to if it falls within the DZOs rulebook. Any death/injury is regrettable, but will happen as long as people are skydiving and pushing the limits. The number one rule should be "Don't take anyone else out".
Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

who said 270's were OK in the pattern? I'm sure everyone here agrees they don't belong.

270's need to be separated from the standard pattern by location or time. It needs to be 100% enforced and exceptions not be made for select sky gods/instructors/insert subgroup here. That means if you are doing a standard pattern, you are doing your part by flight a straight in approach after turning to final (no S Turns).

The bottom line is, if you are in the standard pattern or the high performance pattern, patterns need to be predictable and in their specific location. HP landings in the HP landing area are very predictable. 90 turns in the standard pattern are predictable. S turns in any landing area is highly unpredictable and should not be permitted. EVERYONE needs to take park in cleaning up canopy piloting.

I believe the USPA needs to spearhead an Accountability Program as it relates to Canopy Piloting specifically the requirement that HP landings and standard pattern landings are segregated by time or space.

Now - if a DZO decides that he/she wants to permit HP Landings - (and to be honest a HP landing needs to be defined. A 90º turn by someone loading a Velo at 2.5 loading does not belong in the pattern with someone doing 90º turns on a Navigator 260 at less than 1.0 loading. thats a different discussion) they should be required to have accountability for separation. If they permit HP landings they do so with the understanding that HP pilots may hurt themselves. This would be a risk they (DZO) take in terms of PR management.

DZO's should be required to do the following ( and let me be clear that I believe DZO's are 90% responsible for improving the canopy piloting at their respective DZ's - whether that is authorizing better enforcement, instruction and/or a combination of both)

1. Clearly identify and post landing pattern areas and rules at the DZ, and specifically in the area where skydivers congregate prior to getting on a plane.

2. Submit detailed plans to the USPA for how they plan to adhere to the membership pledge of separation of patterns by space or time. In other words, not just take their word for it. This would be specific to the DZ.

3. There should be a visible program where jumpers who witness habitual patterns of violating this pledge, can anonymously submit their concerns to the USPA. USPA should follow up on this when they witness troubling patterns (no pun intended).

4. Continue to help the USPA in adapting canopy piloting proficiency requirements. This may or may not include wingloading/canopy type regulations (I still don't know how I feel about that)

Its time for DZO's to step up and take charge. You may have been jumping with Billy Bob Joe for 25 years, but if he is doing S turns in the pattern, clean it up! While I don't like the fact that Perris has removed their pond and made a 90º only turn policy, I applaud them for stepping up and doing SOMETHING. I'd like to see the pond there still with ability to do multiple rotation turns on a separate pass. I understand their position from a PR perspective. Swoopers don't pay the bills - its a small group, and they aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt when things start to pile up.

Modern HP canopies, loaded highly, have significant risks. As pertains to the original thread topic, I believe that if a qualified pilot wants to jump a HP canopy and take the risk, they should be allowed to if it falls within the DZOs rulebook. Any death/injury is regrettable, but will happen as long as people are skydiving and pushing the limits. The number one rule should be "Don't take anyone else out".



Thanks for that Marcel. Looks good and practical and more importantly, Doable.

Anyone else have any suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't like the fact that Perris has removed their pond and made a 90º only turn policy



Get used to it. They made the call to try to make the skies a little safer for the rest of us. You don't like it, go somewhere else.

But what are you going to do when the DZO's or safety officers finally decide enough is enough? What will you do when there is finally a ban on the canopies and behaviors that have caused so many injuries and deaths?

Are you going to start your own DZ for swoopers? Better start saving up! If your government gets involved however, it may not matter how much money you have. They might just stop you from flying your tiny canopies anyway.
:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thats a slippery slope (much as I hate that term) - I have already encountered a DZ that banned CRW due to a double fatality a couple of years ago. Where do you draw the line? :|



Blood makes everything slippery.

The line is drawn by the DZO whose legal butt is on that line. S/he may allow/encourage/discourage/prohibit whatever s/he sees fit. That is how private enterprise works.

Perris led the way as one of the early proponents of swooping as organized activity and competition. It is now leading the way away from it. Many DZs followed its initial lead; hopefully at least as many will follow it now.

The owners and managers of Perris are among the world's most experienced and long-running operators, and their decision was not made rashly. That they chose to make the decision they did should serve as a big flashing warning light to everyone else.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Thats a slippery slope (much as I hate that term) - I have already encountered a DZ that banned CRW due to a double fatality a couple of years ago. Where do you draw the line? :|



Blood makes everything slippery.

The line is drawn by the DZO whose legal butt is on that line. S/he may allow/encourage/discourage/prohibit whatever s/he sees fit. That is how private enterprise works.

Perris led the way as one of the early proponents of swooping as organized activity and competition. It is now leading the way away from it. Many DZs followed its initial lead; hopefully at least as many will follow it now.

The owners and managers of Perris are among the world's most experienced and long-running operators, and their decision was not made rashly. That they chose to make the decision they did should serve as a big flashing warning light to everyone else.

44
B|


Yes, but DZO's will never ban tandems, regardless of how many accidents/fatalities there are.

Risk to reward ratio.

top
Jump more, post less!

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