DocPop 1 #176 May 10, 2011 Quote Quote Have you asked him if he saw the student prior? Proof positive that if the primary scan is missed/misjudged that an alter/abort in the turn works. Yes, we spoke about it. No, he didn't see the student prior. And the student never saw him. His initial response was "WTF is was that guy doing way over there." Not everyone has nearly 10K jumps. Not everyone has the presence of mind and quick actions that this very experienced, military MFF instructor has. And not every dropzone has the kind of outs that we do. As it was...it was way too close for comfort. Proof-positive that luck plays a big role in our sport at times. Did anyone speak to the student about being in the wrong place?"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #177 May 10, 2011 QuoteYes, we spoke about it. No, he didn't see the student prior. And the student never saw him. His initial response was "WTF is was that guy doing way over there." Was this over the pond? If it was I'm assuming a ground witness, the student, and the student's instructor had a sit down to go over what changes should be made to their holding pattern and landing pattern to be more predictable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 1 #178 May 10, 2011 Quote No, he didn't see the student prior. Then he didn't clear his airspace and is a danger to himself and others. Prior results, military ratings or "He's a helluva guy!" notwithstanding, this guy screwed up. He got lucky - and luck isn't very good or reliable plan. There are two kinds of luck. "Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #179 May 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes, we spoke about it. No, he didn't see the student prior. And the student never saw him. His initial response was "WTF is was that guy doing way over there." Was this over the pond? If it was I'm assuming a ground witness, the student, and the student's instructor had a sit down to go over what changes should be made to their holding pattern and landing pattern to be more predictable. Student was a fair ways north of the pond with winds from the north. Students should not be on the west side of the runway. Yes, the military student, his military instructor, and myself all had a brief convo. The student wasn't where he should have been, but that's not the point. Students happen. A lot. Focusing on the student? No wonder we're having problems with HP landings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #180 May 10, 2011 Quote Students happen. A lot. Focusing on the student? No wonder we're having problems with HP landings. "Students happen." I like that. At Skydance's safety day one of our AFFIs brought up the topic of students and how, as much as we teach students to be predictable and keep their eyes out for other canopies, etc, we can't always count on them to do this, and that it's up to the more experienced jumpers to be heads up and aware of where the students are and what they are doing, and do our part to give them a wide berth. His phrase was "treat them like blue-jumpsuited killing machines." Funny phrase but it gets the point across - we do our best to give them as much space as possible with separate landing areas, etc., but we all still need to do our part to keep an eye out for them as they often get very myopic anyway. Edit to add: for that matter, mistakes happen at all levels. I think one of the experiences I had that has best colored my attitude towards canopy safety was teaching defensive driving courses in college to students who were working part-time for campus transit. Drivers were penalized for accidents if they were preventable. Not just accidents where you were at fault, but accidents that you could have helped prevent. An accident can be the other guy's fault, but if you as a driver didn't do everything within your power to prevent the accident from happening, you would still be penalized. It's easy to be dead right. The better option is to be right and alive to have a discussion about who was right and who was wrong."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,620 #181 May 10, 2011 Quote Students happen. Pretty much sums it up, Spot.... 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
ianmdrennan 2 #182 May 10, 2011 QuoteThe student wasn't where he should have been, but that's not the point I disagree. There's little point to separating landing areas if people are going to say "it's ok,". No, it's not ok. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's not GOING to happen, of course it is, people make mistakes. But it's definitely not ok and should be treated just as seriously as a knuckle head swooping in the regular pattern. If I go blasting down the highway, the wrong way, 1 day after I get my driving permit - the cop's aren't going to say "It's ok, he's just a student". IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #183 May 10, 2011 QuoteThat's a big load of horseshit. That's what I have been fighting against. That exact mindset of "All we have to do is get swoopers away and we'll be safe." I didn't mean all problems would go away, just the swooper hitting a non swooper. We will never be 'safe'. The close calls I have seen have been when someone throws a swoop at the end of a camera or AFF Jump. I suppose that isn't a fair assesment since that is the only time I've seen people swoop at my DZ when there is other traffic in the air. I've never seen a separate pass for swoopers. For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #184 May 10, 2011 Quote The close calls I have seen have been when someone throws a swoop at the end of a camera or AFF Jump. My experiences have been the exact opposite. Almost all the close calls I've seen (particularly in the last 2 months) have involved "docile" canopies in the regular landing area. That is NOT to say Hp doesn't suffer the same problems, it most definitely does. Bottom line - don't be complacent, no matter where you're landing. Quote I've never seen a separate pass for swoopers. That sucks. It reminds me how lucky we are at The Farm. Hop n pops are welcomed, and if someone chooses to go to altitude, there are two VERY large landing areas (one for swoopers, one for standard approaches). Personally, I rarely go to altitude (unless it's a pull from 13,000 ft). I don't like traffic and prefer having my playground as uncluttered as it can possibly be IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DocPop 1 #185 May 10, 2011 Quote The student wasn't where he should have been, but that's not the point. Students happen. A lot. Focusing on the student? No wonder we're having problems with HP landings. If we take that view then even separating HP landings won't work as long as we let students go whereever they want and make them blameless. If the student was in the wrong area then something went wrong and needs addressing, not ignoring. Maybe the student didn't know about an out-of-bounds area, in which case the instruction had failed. Maybe the student couldn't fly his canopy well enough to avoid the OOB area - in which case maybe he should have still been on the radio. Maybe he just didn't give a crap - in which case he should have been on the ground. In any case, "students happen" is not good enough."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #186 May 10, 2011 But it greatly reduces the risks on days with nice weather, little to moderate winds - exactly the circumstances that 'advanterous canopy pilots aspiring to become as good as their mad skilz' might be on the ground first and decide to set a direction (and thereby a pattern) others might not like or have anticipated. I'm pretty sure the tetrahedron at least isn't taking every opportunity to train for the swoop competition. So because of the risk of a system reacting to a very rare meteorological condition during most skydiving operations and the mishap that could create, you are willing to ignore all the benefits. I'd rather command the first man down to land near the tetrahedron and hold it in a firm grip - till all others have landed. But since I'm on the ground, watching everybody land, I might walk up there myself. (First man down can't be trusted to land near the tetrahedron ) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #187 May 10, 2011 >If we take that view then even separating HP landings won't work as long >as we let students go whereever they want and make them blameless. ?? Who said they are blameless? They generally get blamed for tons of stuff (basically everything that goes wrong on their skydive.) That's how they learn. But we also have to realize that they are STUDENTS and thus are going to screw up quite often. Setting up a system that is only safe when students perform perfectly is foolish. >Maybe the student couldn't fly his canopy well enough to avoid the OOB >area - in which case maybe he should have still been on the radio. Or maybe he was on radio and got left and right confused. Or maybe he was on radio and thought the instructor was talking to someone else. Or maybe he was off radio and mistook the glider strip for the runway. How can those things possibly happen? Because they are students, and such things happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,380 #188 May 10, 2011 >So because of the risk of a system reacting to a very rare meteorological condition . . . Like I said, in places where there are nice steady winds almost alll the time, it works great. There have been dozens of FPD-bashing threads here and in S+T. Please continue the FPD discussion in one of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DocPop 1 #189 May 10, 2011 Quote>If we take that view then even separating HP landings won't work as long >as we let students go whereever they want and make them blameless. ?? Who said they are blameless? They generally get blamed for tons of stuff (basically everything that goes wrong on their skydive.) That's how they learn. But we also have to realize that they are STUDENTS and thus are going to screw up quite often. Setting up a system that is only safe when students perform perfectly is foolish. >Maybe the student couldn't fly his canopy well enough to avoid the OOB >area - in which case maybe he should have still been on the radio. Or maybe he was on radio and got left and right confused. Or maybe he was on radio and thought the instructor was talking to someone else. Or maybe he was off radio and mistook the glider strip for the runway. How can those things possibly happen? Because they are students, and such things happen. So, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't? I support separate landing areas but that has to mean that others DO NOT use that airspace."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #190 May 10, 2011 QuoteSo, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't? That's strange. I didn't think having a dedicated swoop pond/student area/experienced jumpers/round/balloon/pink colored canopy landing area superceeded low man right of way. Are you saying that swooper couldnt see perfectly and clear his airspace? Interesting...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #191 May 10, 2011 Quote I'll be on the ground anyway on that occasion. When the winds are gusting in such a way my GOOD tetrahedron swings so dangerously that people risk flying each other out of the sky, the weather is WAY to unstable to safely skydive. I'll sit this one out, if you don't mind. It does not take much to move a tetrahedron. Light and variable can easily move it 90* or more in the middle of a load. Of course you can weight them differently but that is a trade-off. Weight it to not move in light and variable and you will have a number of times the tetrahedron is not showing you the true wind direction. I bet skydivers would look at other wind indicators and follow the wind from that if they thought the tetrahedron was not reliable."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #192 May 10, 2011 Quote >I'll be on the ground anyway on that occasion. When the winds are gusting > in such a way my GOOD tetrahedron swings so dangerously that people >risk flying each other out of the sky, the weather is WAY to unstable to >safely skydive. That sounds like a good decision for you, and for many jumpers. It does, however, highlight the problems of a tetrahedron used on a day with shifting winds. How is it any different (or worse) at that point from DZs that use windsocks, blades and streamers to set the pattern? 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
ianmdrennan 2 #193 May 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't? That's strange. I didn't think having a dedicated swoop pond/student area/experienced jumpers/round/balloon/pink colored canopy landing area superceeded low man right of way. Are you saying that swooper couldnt see perfectly and clear his airspace? Interesting... It's very simple Remi. Hp areas should be treated with the same caution as hazards. They are. Enter at your own risk. IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #194 May 10, 2011 QuoteHowever, by eliminating a blind turn and all that speed in traffic, A modern carve turn is not a blind turn.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
Bolas 5 #195 May 10, 2011 Quote Quote I'll be on the ground anyway on that occasion. When the winds are gusting in such a way my GOOD tetrahedron swings so dangerously that people risk flying each other out of the sky, the weather is WAY to unstable to safely skydive. I'll sit this one out, if you don't mind. It does not take much to move a tetrahedron. Light and variable can easily move it 90* or more in the middle of a load. Of course you can weight them differently but that is a trade-off. Weight it to not move in light and variable and you will have a number of times the tetrahedron is not showing you the true wind direction. I bet skydivers would look at other wind indicators and follow the wind from that if they thought the tetrahedron was not reliable. The sole purpose of a tetrahedron is to not move during light winds. Landing crosswind or even downwind in light winds is not an issue providing the person knows how to land their canopy.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
Remster 24 #196 May 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't? That's strange. I didn't think having a dedicated swoop pond/student area/experienced jumpers/round/balloon/pink colored canopy landing area superceeded low man right of way. Are you saying that swooper couldnt see perfectly and clear his airspace? Interesting... It's very simple Remi. Hp areas should be treated with the same caution as hazards. They are. Enter at your own risk. Ian Ian: have you been involved with students? Not new-out-of-schools juniors, but students? You cannot expect them to be perfect. They mess it up all the time: tree landings, powerlines; flares at 50 feet, etc. You cannot expect that, magically, they wont be in an area they shouldnt be. Are they blameless in this? Of course not. But, IMO, if you don't know that you are the only one in the sky (not that you think you are), don't go big. I don't want to see swooping banned. But it doesn't belong in the same airspace as other traffic, and it's been proven time and time again that it is not possible to visually clear your airspace.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #197 May 10, 2011 The sole purpose of a tetrahedron is to not move during light winds. Landing crosswind or even downwind in light winds is not an issue providing the person knows how to land their canopy. Quote And mid-air collisions are not an issue providing everyone knows how to fly their canopy....but obviously it's not a perfect Nerf world ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DocPop 1 #198 May 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't? That's strange. I didn't think having a dedicated swoop pond/student area/experienced jumpers/round/balloon/pink colored canopy landing area superceeded low man right of way. Are you saying that swooper couldnt see perfectly and clear his airspace? Interesting... Low man always has the right of way - but that does mean he is right to be there. And if he is in the wrong then some action needs to be taken. It is lack of action and enforcement that has lead to some of these terrible incidents we have seen recently. I thought most of us had agreed that swoopers (or indeed anyone) cannot be 100% reliable in clearing air space... ...hence the need for a separate area where non-swoopers don't go. Thankfully in this case the experienced jumper had the skills and awareness to avoid the mobile roadblock in his path."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mjosparky 3 #199 May 10, 2011 Quotenot enough details yet on turn heights for the others including the recon one Austrailia) You seem to only here or see what you want to. In Australia they collided at a reported 30 m or around 300 ft. And the jumper that died was doing a speed inducing turn when they hit. Quotethat they did clear their airspace prior but with the old style of turn they did and the heights it's initiated, (toggle spiral and low riser hook respectively) there was not even an option to alter or abort. How do you know what style of turn they were using unless you were there? They had a lot more time and experience than you do, maybe they had learned some of the same things you are so proud of knowing. QuoteThere is absolutely NO REASON for anyone to do spiral and/or low toggle/riser hooks for landing. Not only are they far more dangerous for themselves and others they are also extremely inefficient as far as swoop distance. These types of landings are the ones that need to be separated far more than someone doing a modern carve turn. This is such a self serving statement that it is almost sounds like a joke. Your arguments are really starting to get old and your refusal to admit when you are wrong says a lot about what kind of person you are. You could be the poster boy for the “entitlement generation”. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #200 May 10, 2011 Quote Quote The student wasn't where he should have been, but that's not the point I disagree. There's little point to separating landing areas if people are going to say "it's ok,". No, it's not ok. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's not GOING to happen, of course it is, people make mistakes. But it's definitely not ok and should be treated just as seriously as a knuckle head swooping in the regular pattern. If I go blasting down the highway, the wrong way, 1 day after I get my driving permit - the cop's aren't going to say "It's ok, he's just a student". Ian +1... ... and Exhibit A for the affirmative that we need to rearrange our training system to teach the survival fundamentals of PARACHUTING before we start with the the freefall fun that has no bearing whatsoever thereon. No sport teaches fun stuff before or even in concert with the survival stuff -- except parachuting. Until the fundamental fact of our misplaced training priorities is acknowledged and then adjusted to reflect the reality that the parachutes are now more dangerous than the freefall, we will continue to have this kind of bloody silliness. Right of way training is a case in point. I went through the SIM/ISP and while right of way is mentioned several times, it's always just a brief variation on "the lower canopy has the right of way." That is NOT an explanation of right of way and its critical importance in the aerial environment, and until we train people at least to the private pilot level in iterms of understanding right of way, we'll continue to have this kind of bloody silliness. Essentially all of these recent fatalities are directly attributable to either not understanding or not observing basic right-of-way, period, yet this point never even seems to enter the discussion, much less be discussed. Instead, we discuss separate landing areas, restrictions on wing loading, etc based on jump numbers -- despite the fact that almost all the canopy fatalities happen to people who by any jump-number measure would be qualified to jump extremely high wing loadings... ooooops. It all goes back to teaching and learning the fundamentals of PILOTING -- not canopy piloting but PILOTING -- because we are now flying non-powered aircraft that have more more in common with airplanes and gliders than they do with "parachutes" yet we keep training people as if everyone in the sport was still jumping rounds. Ian makes a really good point here because that student had no business wandering over into the HP area, but he wasn't trained and apparently didn't learn that when you're slow you stay the heck out of the fast lane. Which is also part of right-of-way. I remember when Mark Hewitt taught me how to surf one day at the Banzai Pipeline on a cloudy, misty-rain Hawaiian day when we couldn't jump. Before we talked about a single thing regarding the board, the water, the waves, the bottom, etc, the first thing out of Mark's mouth was, "Okay, here are the right-of-way rules." That doesn't happen in parachuting training. It is not emphasized by DZOs and/or S&TAs and it certainly hasn't been a topic in this thread or anywhere on this forum. And I'd say it's time to start. 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 Prev 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 8 of 11 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
DocPop 1 #198 May 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo, even with a dedicated swoop pond, you are laying the blame on the swooper who was in the right place vs the non-swooper who wasn't? That's strange. I didn't think having a dedicated swoop pond/student area/experienced jumpers/round/balloon/pink colored canopy landing area superceeded low man right of way. Are you saying that swooper couldnt see perfectly and clear his airspace? Interesting... Low man always has the right of way - but that does mean he is right to be there. And if he is in the wrong then some action needs to be taken. It is lack of action and enforcement that has lead to some of these terrible incidents we have seen recently. I thought most of us had agreed that swoopers (or indeed anyone) cannot be 100% reliable in clearing air space... ...hence the need for a separate area where non-swoopers don't go. Thankfully in this case the experienced jumper had the skills and awareness to avoid the mobile roadblock in his path."The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #199 May 10, 2011 Quotenot enough details yet on turn heights for the others including the recon one Austrailia) You seem to only here or see what you want to. In Australia they collided at a reported 30 m or around 300 ft. And the jumper that died was doing a speed inducing turn when they hit. Quotethat they did clear their airspace prior but with the old style of turn they did and the heights it's initiated, (toggle spiral and low riser hook respectively) there was not even an option to alter or abort. How do you know what style of turn they were using unless you were there? They had a lot more time and experience than you do, maybe they had learned some of the same things you are so proud of knowing. QuoteThere is absolutely NO REASON for anyone to do spiral and/or low toggle/riser hooks for landing. Not only are they far more dangerous for themselves and others they are also extremely inefficient as far as swoop distance. These types of landings are the ones that need to be separated far more than someone doing a modern carve turn. This is such a self serving statement that it is almost sounds like a joke. Your arguments are really starting to get old and your refusal to admit when you are wrong says a lot about what kind of person you are. You could be the poster boy for the “entitlement generation”. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #200 May 10, 2011 Quote Quote The student wasn't where he should have been, but that's not the point I disagree. There's little point to separating landing areas if people are going to say "it's ok,". No, it's not ok. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's not GOING to happen, of course it is, people make mistakes. But it's definitely not ok and should be treated just as seriously as a knuckle head swooping in the regular pattern. If I go blasting down the highway, the wrong way, 1 day after I get my driving permit - the cop's aren't going to say "It's ok, he's just a student". Ian +1... ... and Exhibit A for the affirmative that we need to rearrange our training system to teach the survival fundamentals of PARACHUTING before we start with the the freefall fun that has no bearing whatsoever thereon. No sport teaches fun stuff before or even in concert with the survival stuff -- except parachuting. Until the fundamental fact of our misplaced training priorities is acknowledged and then adjusted to reflect the reality that the parachutes are now more dangerous than the freefall, we will continue to have this kind of bloody silliness. Right of way training is a case in point. I went through the SIM/ISP and while right of way is mentioned several times, it's always just a brief variation on "the lower canopy has the right of way." That is NOT an explanation of right of way and its critical importance in the aerial environment, and until we train people at least to the private pilot level in iterms of understanding right of way, we'll continue to have this kind of bloody silliness. Essentially all of these recent fatalities are directly attributable to either not understanding or not observing basic right-of-way, period, yet this point never even seems to enter the discussion, much less be discussed. Instead, we discuss separate landing areas, restrictions on wing loading, etc based on jump numbers -- despite the fact that almost all the canopy fatalities happen to people who by any jump-number measure would be qualified to jump extremely high wing loadings... ooooops. It all goes back to teaching and learning the fundamentals of PILOTING -- not canopy piloting but PILOTING -- because we are now flying non-powered aircraft that have more more in common with airplanes and gliders than they do with "parachutes" yet we keep training people as if everyone in the sport was still jumping rounds. Ian makes a really good point here because that student had no business wandering over into the HP area, but he wasn't trained and apparently didn't learn that when you're slow you stay the heck out of the fast lane. Which is also part of right-of-way. I remember when Mark Hewitt taught me how to surf one day at the Banzai Pipeline on a cloudy, misty-rain Hawaiian day when we couldn't jump. Before we talked about a single thing regarding the board, the water, the waves, the bottom, etc, the first thing out of Mark's mouth was, "Okay, here are the right-of-way rules." That doesn't happen in parachuting training. It is not emphasized by DZOs and/or S&TAs and it certainly hasn't been a topic in this thread or anywhere on this forum. And I'd say it's time to start. 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
