ufk22 32 #51 April 8, 2012 Quote>This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, >expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time >trying to make it safer. That's not a paradox. Most skydivers don't skydive because it's dangerous, they skydive because they like skydiving. It makes sense that skydivers would want to make what they do safer. But it is a paradox.... From Webster Paradox a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true.This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #52 April 9, 2012 It is amazing how many people seem surprised that some DZO’s are putting the brakes on swooping. A blind person could see it coming. With the continued rise in fatalities under a good canopy I suspect you will see more of the same. Hate to say I told you so…………………… SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lvintw 0 #53 April 9, 2012 Quote It is amazing how many people seem surprised that some DZO’s are putting the brakes on swooping. A blind person could see it coming. With the continued rise in fatalities under a good canopy I suspect you will see more of the same. Various DZO's have banned hook turns for a long time. That helps to reduce the deaths and injuries at those DZ's. Kudos to the DZO's for laying down the law!!!!! Some keep talking about more education, but how long will that take and how will you know for sure that it is actually making a difference when so many serious injuries are not reported? A more complete answer to the problem is to reduce or eliminate access to 'high performance' canopies. Call it naive if you wish, but it WILL work. Put that together with a ban on hook turns and the pile of bodies will get smaller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #54 April 9, 2012 Quote A more complete answer to the problem is to reduce or eliminate access to 'high performance' canopies. Call it naive if you wish, but it WILL work. Put that together with a ban on hook turns and the pile of bodies will get smaller. I lost two good friends, one that was very special to me, in high performance landings in the last two years... I say this so you understand that I take this seriously and am not blowing off the need for safety. That being said, I don't know if I agree with you... Because, by your own process of delivering safety, we will eventually be eliminating wingsuiting, freeflying, more than one person out on a pass, high pulls, low pulls, cameras, groups larger than 2, etc... Also, this is going to get me flamed... But swooping and/or smaller canopies on experienced jumpers does have an advantage. It gets a group of skydivers down first giving vertical separation between groups. If everyone had 1.1 to 1 WL canopies, you will have 23 people at an Otter DZ landing at about the same time... Those of us who fly smaller canopies (I am closer to 2 to 1 WL, but don't go big on swoops, I just like a sporty canopy), get down first and are out of the sky when others are setting up their landings... Also, I use the speed of my canopy to help. I know I can get in front of a bigger canopy in the landing pattern (with a lot of exta room) by entering the pattern in front of them and quickly get out of their way because I will be going much faster than them. In other words, I know I will not be rear-ended by another canopy. If you force everyone to fly a 1.1 to 1 WL canopy, the pattern will be more busy, and there will be a higher chance of collisions between skydivers. (Since I talk students down on radio on AFF, I tend to look up a lot to see how the 1.1 WL canopies all land at the same time and there is a moment of real busy airspace.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #55 April 9, 2012 >But swooping and/or smaller canopies on experienced jumpers does have >an advantage. It gets a group of skydivers down first giving vertical >separation between groups. The problem there is that often they are not ordered in a way that works. Often at Perris, for example, the video flyers for the 4 and 8 way teams have the highest loadings - so they pass everyone as they come in to land, which is not all that safe a scenario. Then you have the lower experienced 4 and 8 ways that open lower due to their more conservative canopies, with the high experienced 4 way teams pulling at 3500 so they have plenty of time if their Velos spin up. Thus you have the teams passing each other. If your scheme is to work you'd want all smaller/swooping canopies pulling at 2500 and all larger canopies pulling at 3500 or so. That could be a hard sell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ufk22 32 #56 April 9, 2012 QuoteQuote A more complete answer to the problem is to reduce or eliminate access to 'high performance' canopies. Call it naive if you wish, but it WILL work. Put that together with a ban on hook turns and the pile of bodies will get smaller. I lost two good friends, one that was very special to me, in high performance landings in the last two years... I say this so you understand that I take this seriously and am not blowing off the need for safety. That being said, I don't know if I agree with you... Because, by your own process of delivering safety, we will eventually be eliminating wingsuiting, freeflying, more than one person out on a pass, high pulls, low pulls, cameras, groups larger than 2, etc... Quote How many deaths were caused by these (and intentional low pulls have pretty much been eliminated) and is that number rising? Also, this is going to get me flamed... But swooping and/or smaller canopies on experienced jumpers does have an advantage. It gets a group of skydivers down first giving vertical separation between groups. If everyone had 1.1 to 1 WL canopies, you will have 23 people at an Otter DZ landing at about the same time... Those of us who fly smaller canopies (I am closer to 2 to 1 WL, but don't go big on swoops, I just like a sporty canopy), get down first and are out of the sky when others are setting up their landings... Also, I use the speed of my canopy to help. I know I can get in front of a bigger canopy in the landing pattern (with a lot of exta room) by entering the pattern in front of them and quickly get out of their way because I will be going much faster than them. In other words, I know I will not be rear-ended by another canopy. If you force everyone to fly a 1.1 to 1 WL canopy, the pattern will be more busy, and there will be a higher chance of collisions between skydivers. (Since I talk students down on radio on AFF, I tend to look up a lot to see how the 1.1 WL canopies all land at the same time and there is a moment of real busy airspace.) Having been at Quincey for the convention back in 93 when most people were jumping lightly loaded canopies, I can say that the pattern was no more "busy" then, and with the reduced speed, it was probably safer. If what you're saying is true, we would be seeing less canopy collisions now.This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tdog 0 #57 April 9, 2012 First, my post was not to proclaim fact, but instead to say, "if you change this variable, you cannot assume all other variables will remain the same." Quote If what you're saying is true, we would be seeing less canopy collisions now. And, who is to say we are not? More and more DZs got twin ottters and other large planes in the last 20 or so years. Our sport has gone from a Cessna club environment to a highly commercialized industry, thanks to the Tandem. So you have to take into that consideration. Statistically, we may have a lot LESS collisions considering a lot of other things have changed. Also, you have to take into consideration who is involved in the collisions... The two I saw first hand, it was the lightly loaded canopy of a 200 jump wonder. But our sport lost a highly experienced coach, who was my first 4way coach, at Perris, so I know not all collisions are low experience/big canopies. Anyway, Bill had some good points, I am sure you do to. However, I am "just sayn'" that everyone jumping the same canopy size could increase traffic, and with increased traffic, I strongly believe there will be more accidents due to canopies colliding on final. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,434 #58 April 9, 2012 >However, I am "just sayn'" that everyone jumping the same canopy size >could increase traffic . . . . I think that in the (impossible) case that everyone was jumping the same canopy at the same loading, collisions would be significantly reduced. By having a canopy that is the same speed and descent rate as anyone else you have eliminated one of the causes of collisions - a faster canopy overtaking a slower one or descending into the top of a floatier one. Flying in a large group of similar canopies, all flying the same pattern, is not all that risky. Indeed we all have a lot of experience doing that in a 2D world when we drive. Flying in a large group with significantly different speeds, descent rates or patterns is very risky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #59 April 9, 2012 Quote>However, I am "just sayn'" that everyone jumping the same canopy size >could increase traffic . . . . I think that in the (impossible) case that everyone was jumping the same canopy at the same loading, collisions would be significantly reduced. By having a canopy that is the same speed and descent rate as anyone else you have eliminated one of the causes of collisions - a faster canopy overtaking a slower one or descending into the top of a floatier one. Flying in a large group of similar canopies, all flying the same pattern, is not all that risky. Indeed we all have a lot of experience doing that in a 2D world when we drive. Flying in a large group with significantly different speeds, descent rates or patterns is very risky. Even if all on the same wingloading, people fly their canopies differently so speeds would still be different. That is unless we somehow disabled front and rear risers, harness input, and limited toggle turning ability. At that point, might as well go back to rounds.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 100 #60 April 9, 2012 QuoteIf you force everyone to fly a 1.1 to 1 WL canopy, the pattern will be more busy, and there will be a higher chance of collisions between skydivers. (Since I talk students down on radio on AFF, I tend to look up a lot to see how the 1.1 WL canopies all land at the same time and there is a moment of real busy airspace.) History would say otherwise. There was a time where everyone jumped similar wingloaded canopies. Anyone would think big aircraft, big formations and loads have only just been invented. I was on a load with over 500 canopies in the sky at the same time, from the same altitude (3500 ft), with everyone landing on the same beach within a minute. Wingloadings would have been the same. 2 weeks of jumping with 3 C130 Hercules in action, 800 skydivers, at a busy international airport. No issues with canopy collisions I've been on many big loads where the wingloadings have been the same and I've never seen a canopy collision. In 36 years of jumping, at venues and meets all over the world, I've never even seen a canopy collision. Canopy collisions between canopies have only become "common" in recent years. Used to be, canopy collisions were events where someone in FF took out an opening canopy after RW...even then, extremely rare. You can twist it any way you like, but open canopy fatalities have largely coincided with the advent of highly loaded canopies. FACT!!.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,434 #61 April 9, 2012 >Even if all on the same wingloading, people fly their canopies differently >so speeds would still be different. Sure, you could MAKE them fly differently. But it's a lot easier to fly your canopy in traffic and land safely if the default is same speed and same descent rate. We've demonstrated that with 400 people in the air. Those weren't even all the same loadings, although the organizers were trying hard to get loadings within a set range (1.2 to 1.6 IIRC.) It was one of the safer jumps I've been on because everyone was doing exactly the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #62 April 11, 2012 Quote >But swooping and/or smaller canopies on experienced jumpers does have >an advantage. It gets a group of skydivers down first giving vertical >separation between groups. The problem there is that often they are not ordered in a way that works. Often at Perris, for example, the video flyers for the 4 and 8 way teams have the highest loadings - so they pass everyone as they come in to land, which is not all that safe a scenario. Then you have the lower experienced 4 and 8 ways that open lower due to their more conservative canopies, with the high experienced 4 way teams pulling at 3500 so they have plenty of time if their Velos spin up. Thus you have the teams passing each other. If your scheme is to work you'd want all smaller/swooping canopies pulling at 2500 and all larger canopies pulling at 3500 or so. That could be a hard sell. It would be especially hard because making the hi-per canopy flyers pull lower increases their risk because everything happens faster whether there's a problem or not and I for one always pull higher on my small canopy than I do on my bigger one. That said, the mix-and-match issue you outlined is in fact a primary challenge at big-turbine DZs -- and a challenge that, once again, could be more easily met if there was a more solid academic foundation laid during basic parachute training, which should be separate from and prior to freefall training. Jumpers who know basic aerodynamics and the way wings actually fly are better able to meet the mix-and-match challenge because that knowledge allows them to better adjust their flight path to achieve vertical as well as horizontal separation from other canopies in the air. 44 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." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skydive2 1 #63 April 11, 2012 Its amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #64 April 11, 2012 QuoteIts amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Good observation. As swoop ponds proliferated, pea gravel pits vanished. Now that swoop ponds are being filled-in, bring back the pea gravel! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #65 April 11, 2012 QuoteIf everyone had 1.1 to 1 WL canopies, you will have 23 people at an Otter DZ landing at about the same time... Yeah, I mean that's SOOOOO dangerous. It's way MORE dangerous than when they used to have 35+ jumpers landing at the same time fromt hose DC-3 loads back int he 70's and 80's..... You can't get the guys loading at 2.5 to pull lower than 3,500 these days and those that load at 1.0 are comfortable pulling at 2 so there's the beginnings of your problems. I'm not saying its a realistic solution but everyone loaded at 1.0 would sure do a bunch to improve safety around this sport.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #66 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteIts amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Good observation. As swoop ponds proliferated, pea gravel pits vanished. Now that swoop ponds are being filled-in, bring back the pea gravel! Hey, I know a DZ somewhere in the Houston area that turns into a giant swoop pond when it rains Texas style.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marisan 0 #67 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf everyone had 1.1 to 1 WL canopies, you will have 23 people at an Otter DZ landing at about the same time... Yeah, I mean that's SOOOOO dangerous. It's way MORE dangerous than when they used to have 35+ jumpers landing at the same time fromt hose DC-3 loads back int he 70's and 80's..... You can't get the guys loading at 2.5 to pull lower than 3,500 these days and those that load at 1.0 are comfortable pulling at 2 so there's the beginnings of your problems. I'm not saying its a realistic solution but everyone loaded at 1.0 would sure do a bunch to improve safety around this sport. 45 jumpers in Oz all trying to land in a 200 x 200 yard area. Never saw anyone die or get injured. Exit separation was the time it took the next group to stack after you left. Never saw anyone die or get injured. We broke off at 3.5, dumped at 2 to 2.5 and built a 4 stack if possible. Never saw anyone die! What changed?????????????????????????????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Marisan 0 #68 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteIts amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Good observation. As swoop ponds proliferated, pea gravel pits vanished. Now that swoop ponds are being filled-in, bring back the pea gravel! But then you'll have to teach them classic accuracy. A discipline that requires patience and skill. Good luck with that!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites browny05 0 #69 April 12, 2012 paracaommanders were considered 'high performance' back in the day, woooo. Lets go back to un-modified Roundies. get rid of ponds and swooping, ok, people will just find another way to bounce, history shows they have and will continue to do so. the only injury at this years Aus nationals was by an accuracy jumper. dam those high performance parafoils. Though If there was a pond around the tuffet he would have been ok. ahh the internets and ramblings of keyboard warriors, get out there and jump...remember to take it easy.....and if its easy take it home.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stayhigh 2 #70 April 12, 2012 Zone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #71 April 12, 2012 QuoteZone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy. And how many DC's have you scored?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites browny05 0 #72 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteZone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy. And how many DC's have you scored? and and how many 100s have you scored? (current FAI CP rules)...remember to take it easy.....and if its easy take it home.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #73 April 12, 2012 Quote Zone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy. Next time you land in somebody's small back yard, make sure they have it marked off in zones between the trees, the fences, the power lines, the swing set and the dog house. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #74 April 12, 2012 I quit competition before the new FAI CP rules. Under the 2005 rules I scored 2 that season in competition. I have yet to hit a DC. Since you're throwing it out there, can you do both? The comparison is like saying freeflying is harder than 4 way.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 100 #75 April 12, 2012 Quotethe only injury at this years Aus nationals was by an accuracy jumper. dam those high performance parafoils. Its a given that at almost every accuracy competition, at least one competitor will injure themselves. However I can't ever recall anyone dying, in competition OR in practise for competition....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
tdog 0 #57 April 9, 2012 First, my post was not to proclaim fact, but instead to say, "if you change this variable, you cannot assume all other variables will remain the same." Quote If what you're saying is true, we would be seeing less canopy collisions now. And, who is to say we are not? More and more DZs got twin ottters and other large planes in the last 20 or so years. Our sport has gone from a Cessna club environment to a highly commercialized industry, thanks to the Tandem. So you have to take into that consideration. Statistically, we may have a lot LESS collisions considering a lot of other things have changed. Also, you have to take into consideration who is involved in the collisions... The two I saw first hand, it was the lightly loaded canopy of a 200 jump wonder. But our sport lost a highly experienced coach, who was my first 4way coach, at Perris, so I know not all collisions are low experience/big canopies. Anyway, Bill had some good points, I am sure you do to. However, I am "just sayn'" that everyone jumping the same canopy size could increase traffic, and with increased traffic, I strongly believe there will be more accidents due to canopies colliding on final. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #58 April 9, 2012 >However, I am "just sayn'" that everyone jumping the same canopy size >could increase traffic . . . . I think that in the (impossible) case that everyone was jumping the same canopy at the same loading, collisions would be significantly reduced. By having a canopy that is the same speed and descent rate as anyone else you have eliminated one of the causes of collisions - a faster canopy overtaking a slower one or descending into the top of a floatier one. Flying in a large group of similar canopies, all flying the same pattern, is not all that risky. Indeed we all have a lot of experience doing that in a 2D world when we drive. Flying in a large group with significantly different speeds, descent rates or patterns is very risky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #59 April 9, 2012 Quote>However, I am "just sayn'" that everyone jumping the same canopy size >could increase traffic . . . . I think that in the (impossible) case that everyone was jumping the same canopy at the same loading, collisions would be significantly reduced. By having a canopy that is the same speed and descent rate as anyone else you have eliminated one of the causes of collisions - a faster canopy overtaking a slower one or descending into the top of a floatier one. Flying in a large group of similar canopies, all flying the same pattern, is not all that risky. Indeed we all have a lot of experience doing that in a 2D world when we drive. Flying in a large group with significantly different speeds, descent rates or patterns is very risky. Even if all on the same wingloading, people fly their canopies differently so speeds would still be different. That is unless we somehow disabled front and rear risers, harness input, and limited toggle turning ability. At that point, might as well go back to rounds.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #60 April 9, 2012 QuoteIf you force everyone to fly a 1.1 to 1 WL canopy, the pattern will be more busy, and there will be a higher chance of collisions between skydivers. (Since I talk students down on radio on AFF, I tend to look up a lot to see how the 1.1 WL canopies all land at the same time and there is a moment of real busy airspace.) History would say otherwise. There was a time where everyone jumped similar wingloaded canopies. Anyone would think big aircraft, big formations and loads have only just been invented. I was on a load with over 500 canopies in the sky at the same time, from the same altitude (3500 ft), with everyone landing on the same beach within a minute. Wingloadings would have been the same. 2 weeks of jumping with 3 C130 Hercules in action, 800 skydivers, at a busy international airport. No issues with canopy collisions I've been on many big loads where the wingloadings have been the same and I've never seen a canopy collision. In 36 years of jumping, at venues and meets all over the world, I've never even seen a canopy collision. Canopy collisions between canopies have only become "common" in recent years. Used to be, canopy collisions were events where someone in FF took out an opening canopy after RW...even then, extremely rare. You can twist it any way you like, but open canopy fatalities have largely coincided with the advent of highly loaded canopies. FACT!!.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #61 April 9, 2012 >Even if all on the same wingloading, people fly their canopies differently >so speeds would still be different. Sure, you could MAKE them fly differently. But it's a lot easier to fly your canopy in traffic and land safely if the default is same speed and same descent rate. We've demonstrated that with 400 people in the air. Those weren't even all the same loadings, although the organizers were trying hard to get loadings within a set range (1.2 to 1.6 IIRC.) It was one of the safer jumps I've been on because everyone was doing exactly the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #62 April 11, 2012 Quote >But swooping and/or smaller canopies on experienced jumpers does have >an advantage. It gets a group of skydivers down first giving vertical >separation between groups. The problem there is that often they are not ordered in a way that works. Often at Perris, for example, the video flyers for the 4 and 8 way teams have the highest loadings - so they pass everyone as they come in to land, which is not all that safe a scenario. Then you have the lower experienced 4 and 8 ways that open lower due to their more conservative canopies, with the high experienced 4 way teams pulling at 3500 so they have plenty of time if their Velos spin up. Thus you have the teams passing each other. If your scheme is to work you'd want all smaller/swooping canopies pulling at 2500 and all larger canopies pulling at 3500 or so. That could be a hard sell. It would be especially hard because making the hi-per canopy flyers pull lower increases their risk because everything happens faster whether there's a problem or not and I for one always pull higher on my small canopy than I do on my bigger one. That said, the mix-and-match issue you outlined is in fact a primary challenge at big-turbine DZs -- and a challenge that, once again, could be more easily met if there was a more solid academic foundation laid during basic parachute training, which should be separate from and prior to freefall training. Jumpers who know basic aerodynamics and the way wings actually fly are better able to meet the mix-and-match challenge because that knowledge allows them to better adjust their flight path to achieve vertical as well as horizontal separation from other canopies in the air. 44 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." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skydive2 1 #63 April 11, 2012 Its amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #64 April 11, 2012 QuoteIts amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Good observation. As swoop ponds proliferated, pea gravel pits vanished. Now that swoop ponds are being filled-in, bring back the pea gravel! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #65 April 11, 2012 QuoteIf everyone had 1.1 to 1 WL canopies, you will have 23 people at an Otter DZ landing at about the same time... Yeah, I mean that's SOOOOO dangerous. It's way MORE dangerous than when they used to have 35+ jumpers landing at the same time fromt hose DC-3 loads back int he 70's and 80's..... You can't get the guys loading at 2.5 to pull lower than 3,500 these days and those that load at 1.0 are comfortable pulling at 2 so there's the beginnings of your problems. I'm not saying its a realistic solution but everyone loaded at 1.0 would sure do a bunch to improve safety around this sport.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #66 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteIts amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Good observation. As swoop ponds proliferated, pea gravel pits vanished. Now that swoop ponds are being filled-in, bring back the pea gravel! Hey, I know a DZ somewhere in the Houston area that turns into a giant swoop pond when it rains Texas style.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marisan 0 #67 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf everyone had 1.1 to 1 WL canopies, you will have 23 people at an Otter DZ landing at about the same time... Yeah, I mean that's SOOOOO dangerous. It's way MORE dangerous than when they used to have 35+ jumpers landing at the same time fromt hose DC-3 loads back int he 70's and 80's..... You can't get the guys loading at 2.5 to pull lower than 3,500 these days and those that load at 1.0 are comfortable pulling at 2 so there's the beginnings of your problems. I'm not saying its a realistic solution but everyone loaded at 1.0 would sure do a bunch to improve safety around this sport. 45 jumpers in Oz all trying to land in a 200 x 200 yard area. Never saw anyone die or get injured. Exit separation was the time it took the next group to stack after you left. Never saw anyone die or get injured. We broke off at 3.5, dumped at 2 to 2.5 and built a 4 stack if possible. Never saw anyone die! What changed?????????????????????????????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marisan 0 #68 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteIts amazing how quickly times change. In the late 90's-mid 2000's, in order to be considered a "progressive" large DZ you HAD to install a $$10,000 plus "pond". Now a few short years later, to be a "progressive" DZ you need to fill in that pond.... Good observation. As swoop ponds proliferated, pea gravel pits vanished. Now that swoop ponds are being filled-in, bring back the pea gravel! But then you'll have to teach them classic accuracy. A discipline that requires patience and skill. Good luck with that!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
browny05 0 #69 April 12, 2012 paracaommanders were considered 'high performance' back in the day, woooo. Lets go back to un-modified Roundies. get rid of ponds and swooping, ok, people will just find another way to bounce, history shows they have and will continue to do so. the only injury at this years Aus nationals was by an accuracy jumper. dam those high performance parafoils. Though If there was a pond around the tuffet he would have been ok. ahh the internets and ramblings of keyboard warriors, get out there and jump...remember to take it easy.....and if its easy take it home.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stayhigh 2 #70 April 12, 2012 Zone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy.Bernie Sanders for President 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #71 April 12, 2012 QuoteZone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy. And how many DC's have you scored?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
browny05 0 #72 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteZone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy. And how many DC's have you scored? and and how many 100s have you scored? (current FAI CP rules)...remember to take it easy.....and if its easy take it home.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #73 April 12, 2012 Quote Zone accuracy requires much more skill than classic accuracy. Next time you land in somebody's small back yard, make sure they have it marked off in zones between the trees, the fences, the power lines, the swing set and the dog house. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #74 April 12, 2012 I quit competition before the new FAI CP rules. Under the 2005 rules I scored 2 that season in competition. I have yet to hit a DC. Since you're throwing it out there, can you do both? The comparison is like saying freeflying is harder than 4 way.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #75 April 12, 2012 Quotethe only injury at this years Aus nationals was by an accuracy jumper. dam those high performance parafoils. Its a given that at almost every accuracy competition, at least one competitor will injure themselves. However I can't ever recall anyone dying, in competition OR in practise for competition....My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
