BSR proposal for canopy patterns

[billvon 2,396]

> I wonder where DZ will get money for those separate landing areas?

Options 2 and 3 do not require separate landing areas.

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

I really enjoy how landing into the wind isn't the proper landing direction any more.

It isn't when the winds shift while a load is in the air and a different landing direction was agreed upon at the time the plane took off.

[JumpRu 14]

Quote

> I wonder where DZ will get money for those separate landing areas?

Options 2 and 3 do not require separate landing areas.

You right the essence of your BSR is separation by time or space: lets take a look at separation by time:

Best thing would be to have separate passes or separate loads for conservative and HP pilots. Unfortunately separate passes takes extra gas so we will end up with 30$ jump tickets.
Separate loads are even worse idea if you try it for reality test. Lets say you have 15 jumpers at drop zone so they can all get on Twin Otter and jump all day long. Lets say 10 of them are conservative pilots and 5 would like to do HP landings. My numbers are approximate but it is easy to see that there is not enough people to take up conservative or HP load (10 people is not enough to take up TO). End result – everyone sitting on the ground or 30$ jump tickets.
Not to mention that we are about to put a huge gap between experienced and new jumpers. Experienced people prefer HP landings and new jumpers obviously don’t. How we suppose to teach them? If we won’t be able to jump together on the same load or on the same pass? I’m not talking about students, I’m talking about people with 1-200 jumps who has license but still needs to learn a lot. Personally I’m happy to teach new jumpers for free but only if I can safely practice my swoops.

[billvon 2,396]

>Best thing would be to have separate passes or separate loads
>for conservative and HP pilots. Unfortunately separate passes takes extra
>gas so we will end up with 30$ jump tickets.

We already have separate passes (up to 5 on one load) and our jump tickets aren't $30.

> Lets say you have 15 jumpers at drop zone so they can all get on
>Twin Otter and jump all day long.

If you have 15 jumpers, it's going to be awful hard on the plane. That's one shutdown/restart for each load. On days like that, smaller aircraft (which most DZ's have) are going to be more economical.

But in any case, in your scenario, let's look at the options:

1) They let the swoopers out at 5K and let the freefallers out at 12K. Separation by time.

2) They let the swoopers out at 12K, do another pass, and let everyone else out. Separation by time.

3) Swoopers land by the swoop pond/swoop area, standard pattern people land in the main area. Separation by distance.

All three of these would be completely practical in the three DZ's I frequent (Otay, Perris, Elsinore) and none of them have $30 jump tickets. You are worried about things that might happen to make your jump ticket price go up, but all those things have already happened at various DZ's - and ticket prices didn't go up to $30.

[JumpRu 14]

Quote

>Best thing would be to have separate passes or separate loads
>for conservative and HP pilots. Unfortunately separate passes takes extra
>gas so we will end up with 30$ jump tickets.

We already have separate passes (up to 5 on one load) and our jump tickets aren't $30.

> Lets say you have 15 jumpers at drop zone so they can all get on
>Twin Otter and jump all day long.

If you have 15 jumpers, it's going to be awful hard on the plane. That's one shutdown/restart for each load. On days like that, smaller aircraft (which most DZ's have) are going to be more economical.

But in any case, in your scenario, let's look at the options:

1) They let the swoopers out at 5K and let the freefallers out at 12K. Separation by time.

2) They let the swoopers out at 12K, do another pass, and let everyone else out. Separation by time.

3) Swoopers land by the swoop pond/swoop area, standard pattern people land in the main area. Separation by distance.

All three of these would be completely practical in the three DZ's I frequent (Otay, Perris, Elsinore) and none of them have $30 jump tickets. You are worried about things that might happen to make your jump ticket price go up, but all those things have already happened at various DZ's - and ticket prices didn't go up to $30.

I guess things look different from East Cost: at most DZ where I had a chance to jump there is one landing area, one airplane sometimes Twin Otter, some times Cassa and it is hard to fill them if it is not big boogie or something. Some places do multiple passes some places don’t. That is how I see things. Yes some DZ use smaller airplane PAC or KA and that eliminate most of traffic issues. I think you need to evaluate situation with landing areas and airplanes at more them 3 drop zones before proposing something for entire country.

[billvon 2,396]

>I think you need to evaluate situation with landing areas and airplanes
>at more them 3 drop zones before proposing something for entire country.

We (as in the authors of this proposal) have jumped at just about every DZ in the country. Personally I've jumped at 29 DZ's from Pepperell to Brown Field. That's not a lot, but it has given me a view of drop zones from the tiny (Skydive Long Island at Spadaro's) to the huge (Eloy.)

Each DZO is going to have their own slightly different solution, which is why one of our suggestions is simply that each DZO come up with their own method of separating standard pattern traffic and nonstandard pattern traffic.

[JumpRu 14]

Quote

We (as in the authors of this proposal) have jumped at just about every DZ in the country.

I assume you guys jumped at SAZ too...

how about separate landing area for HP landings?
or maybe low passes for everyone?

No... Instead they ban serious swooping

[billvon 2,396]

>how about separate landing area for HP landings?
>or maybe low passes for everyone?

>No...

It's too bad that SDAZ did not leave one of the main landing areas open for nonstandard patterns (although swooping has certainly not been banned.) A BSR might have given them something less disagreeable to enforce.

So the choice you will be presented with will be - a BSR that calls out how to separate traffic? Or more Skydive Arizonas and Crosskeys?

[JumpRu 14]

Nice, we finally agreed on something! I also think that wrong approach was taken at SAZ, but this is their decision...

I also think that proposed BSR will eventually turn many more places into “none swooping facilities”. Just like it happened at SAZ.

[billvon 2,396]

>I also think that proposed BSR will eventually turn many more places
>into “none swooping facilities”. Just like it happened at SAZ.

I think that, by defining how to manage the two disciplines safely, this will tend to _prevent_ SDAZ type rules.

But in any case, I would invite you (and anyone else who wishes to talk about it) to the USPA BOD meeting in July. We'll talk about it further then.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Nice, we finally agreed on something! I also think that wrong approach was taken at SAZ, but this is their decision...

I also think that proposed BSR will eventually turn many more places into “none swooping facilities”. Just like it happened at SAZ.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

We (as in the authors of this proposal) have jumped at just about every DZ in the country.

I assume you guys jumped at SAZ too...

how about separate landing area for HP landings?
or maybe low passes for everyone?

No... Instead they ban serious swooping

I am getting somewhat annoyed at the people who think that "swooping" is much of an issue one way or another.

I insist that people quit bitching about how they are subject to discrimination for being swoopers. It is patent nonsense, and gets away from the key point at hand, which is that, if you fly in traffic, you must fly WITH traffic.

Right up front: if you want to swoop, knock yourself out.

However, if you want to fly so that you are putting people in the pattern at risk of death or serious injury, that is not okay.

Pay attention here - it does not matter whether you are coming through the pattern at a significant Mach number after a blind setup or are sashaying your way back and forth across the windline, you cannot fly so as to endanger others.

In aviation, you can get away with a lot of questionable procedures, but one transgression that is codified is that it is patently illegal to violate the traffic pattern. For example, if you fly a right hand pattern where a left is published, or vice-versa, you are subject to sanctions.

The idea that people feel they have the right to fly their canopies with disregard to the most fundamental principles of aviation safety is mind boggling.

Nobody says you can't swoop. Nobody says you can't do 360s. Nobody says you can't sashay. You just can't safely do any of these things in the pattern, and there is nothing personal in that.

If you want to do these things, fine. You simply have to do them at some other place or time than people flying a standard pattern. How tough is that to comprehend?

The best swoopers I know can also fly in close formation with other canopies without incident. Threading the needle through traffic to effect a swoop is not so much a demonstration of skill as it is bad judgment.

The BSR is not about swooping, it's about traffic safety.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[grimmie 173]

This has been a very interesting thread to follow. Resumes have been posted, opinions given and some scary points of view also discussed.

One thing that gets lost in the swooper vs, non-swooper debate is one simple point...people are trying to impiment some things that may save a life or two. But all rules, regulations and advice in skydiving come down to one simple thing...YOU...the individual.

I have read about the Canopy Control Course. If that is implimented then every single jumper on the face of the planet needs to take it, from AFF student to AFF instructor, and evryone in between...even the hot shot pilots.
I witnessed a canopy collision between a Golden Knight and a French 8way team member once. Damn it was ugly and loud, but they both lived. You think those two guys would know how to fly canopies...

And then I read all of the folks posting that CRW training will save everyone. I witnessed CRW teamates collide violently right next to the peas at about 3 feet off of the ground after a training jump at the CRW Nationals years ago. It was horrendous, but they both lived. I guess not wrapping during roatations wasn't exciting enough for those Crew Dogs...

And I read all about the pattern work. Downwind, base and final. I witnessed a gut wrenching canopy collision at a Christmas Boogie once. Luckily they both survived, barely. The guilty party was an AIRLINE PILOT. And a world renowned balloon world record pilot. You would think he could fly a pattern...

Which leads me to another thought. Those collisions where back when a Sabre 150 was hot stuff. And now we have some real rocketships in the air.

A few points to ponder.
1. Have canopies have passed average jumpers abilities.
2. Many high time jumpers still have a hard time standing a landing, but they usually don't fly an eratic pattern.
3. Are tunnels creating amazing flying skills until the parachute pops out, and then confidence overtakes ability under nylon.
4. Are parallel jump runs putting way too many race cars and station wagons in the sky together?
5. Until someone witnesses a collision, does it really sink in what can actually happen to you?
6. Is the skydive over for too many jumpers once the toggles are in their hands?
7. You can always tell a skydiver, but you can't tell them much...

I run a boogie once a year for 10 days. I stress the landing pattern and make everyone look at the LZ before they jump. I stand in the LZ for a few days "guiding" certain jumpers. I have seen two bad accidents happen right in front of me in three years. Both powerline strikes. Both jumpers admit to careless mistakes on their part. I sent one jumper home that travelled the farthest to attend the boogie because of severe safety violations once.

So when all is said and done, courses are held, patterns are laid out and BSR's instituted it comes down to one simple thing...YOU, the jumper.

Let's all get our heads outta you know where and fly safe. If you can't land straight in, you're on the wrong canopy. If you can't fly a pattern buy golf clubs. This isn't an "us vs. them" issue, it's a staying alive issue.

Be safe everyone and see you guys in Lost Prairie!

[ematteo 0]

Winsor,

Is a box pattern the only "right" kind of parachute landing pattern?

Can you conceive that there might be a place where it is standard to approach from one direction, perform a 270 turn, then land in a common direction? Where a box pattern would be inappropriate and dangerous?

It is a major flaw of this proposal that there are no swoopers represented on the committee. The committee seems not to know (or care) what it doesn't know.

Skilled swoopers are highly experienced, current, and generally very concerned about safety. They also tend to be role models for up and coming jumpers. Why go out of your way to alienate this group by drafting old-school-biased rules and excluding swoopers from the table?

Evan

[mnealtx 0]

Sure... you find me a place where you'd HAVE to do, say, a 270 left instead of a 90 right to final due to safety reasons and I'll agree with you.

Can't see THAT dz getting much repeat business, since I'm not sure how well an AFF 1 would do on that 270 left for landing...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

How much ARE you willing to pay to avoid canopy collision fatalities?

Maybe when YOU have been hit from behind at 100' agl you will think the marginal extra cost of safety is worth it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ematteo 0]

If you fly a box pattern into the designated swoop lane at my DZ, you are likely to get someone hurt. Box patterns are appropriate in the main landing field, and the student field.

Why are there no swoopers on the BSR committee? Swooping has become a significant part of our sport.

Quote

Sure... you find me a place where you'd HAVE to do, say, a 270 left instead of a 90 right to final due to safety reasons and I'll agree with you.

Can't see THAT dz getting much repeat business, since I'm not sure how well an AFF 1 would do on that 270 left for landing...

[billvon 2,396]

>It is a major flaw of this proposal that there are no swoopers represented
>on the committee.

I think Dan might take exception to that!

>Can you conceive that there might be a place where it is standard to
>approach from one direction, perform a 270 turn, then land in a common
>direction?

Absolutely! The problem is not a steep approach, nor is it a 180/270/360 approach or an approach full of S-turns. The problem is trying to cram all those different approaches in with a busy standard pattern. (We call it a "standard" pattern because aircraft have been using it for nearly 100 years with good success - so we have a track record.)

>Why go out of your way to alienate this group by drafting
>old-school-biased rules and excluding swoopers from the table?

You are more than welcome at the table! We'll be meeting in San Francisco in July for the USPA BOD meeting. The more viewpoints the better.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why are there no swoopers on the BSR committee? Swooping has become a significant part of our sport.

I wouldn't call it a committee, just a group of skydivers looking to make a change. From the sound of this discussion, which swoopers are welcome to, they don't want change. The problem with the status quo, is that people are dieing. I have been reading a lot of swoopers getting defensive, but none offering a solution to seperate standard traffic pattern flyers from non-standard traffic flyers. That is what the people offering up this BSR as an idea are trying to do. They are not out to get swoopers.

Do have a solution to the problem identified by the recent fatalities between people flying standard and non-standard patterns?

Seems to me that swoopers and other non-standard pattern flyers should take the lead with this sort of thing and come together and develop a solution that will fix the issue with the minimum inconvience for all involved.

Fighting against change in order to keep the status quo doesn't seem like a good use of time or resources. A better use of time and energy would be to solve the issue in a way that makes everyone happy and keeps them alive.

Take some time and watch the canopy traffic at your DZ. Identify where similar collisions could happen and develope one or more concepts that would reduce the chances of a collision happening. Kick those concepts around, at the DZ, with as many jumpers as possible and even here for even more input. Then impliment the concept that pisses of the least amount of people. If you don't, and there is another double fatality, who is responsible?

Derek

[winsor 186]

Quote

Winsor,

Is a box pattern the only "right" kind of parachute landing pattern?

No, not at all. The Airborne uses a standard landing pattern that involves coming straight down, and it works pretty well.

They do, of course, use rounds, but you did not get overly specific.

With ram-airs straight-ins work, and there are other approaches that can be used without getting maimed or killed, but the basic aircraft traffic pattern is the gold standard because it works.

Quote

Can you conceive that there might be a place where it is standard to approach from one direction, perform a 270 turn, then land in a common direction? Where a box pattern would be inappropriate and dangerous?

Okay, I will dignify this with a response. A 270 into traffic is dangerous, and I do not care a whit who is doing it.

Even if you had eyes in the back of your head, the likelihood that you would put together the four-dimensional analysis of collision parameters in real time and keep it safe is nil.

If you can even formulate such a question in all seriousness, I strongly recommend a few years of intense study of the physics involved ("can you concieve...?" Jesus.)

Quote

It is a major flaw of this proposal that there are no swoopers represented on the committee. The committee seems not to know (or care) what it doesn't know.

Again, I am floored by presumptions inherent in your statement. What special knowledge of the physics involved is possessed by people you deem to be "swoopers?"

If you think a "swooper solution" would be an improvement, let's hear it.

Be advised, however, that your implication that a blind approach can improve safety tends to discredit much you might have to add.

Quote

Skilled swoopers are highly experienced, current, and generally very concerned about safety. They also tend to be role models for up and coming jumpers. Why go out of your way to alienate this group by drafting old-school-biased rules and excluding swoopers from the table?

Evan

By golly, you're right. We old farts are too hung up on old-school considerations. All the people we've watched get maimed and killed could have been spared by the input by Skilled Swoopers.

Boy, you sure could tell us a thing or two about how it should be done. Yup, the place to dial in blind turns and commit to highway speeds is where the outs are the fewest, the population density is the highest and everbody is moving. What could be more obvious?

I can't wait for your explantaion that shows why everyghing I know is wrong.

You are, of course, going to upset the Medical Lobby. When Skilled Swoopers show us the way, the amount of work we send to the Orthopedic wards will dwindle to just about nothing.

When the Skilled Swoopers hold a seminar on how to achieve perfect safety without resorting to old-fashioned traffic patterns, I want to be there, taking copious notes.

The old ways are gone! A new era is here!

Just tell us the true way and we will pay heed!

Anytime you're ready, C.B..


Blue skies,

Winsor

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

Thanks for the response.

And thanks for the invitation to join you guys in July. Can you post details of the meeting? If you are doing outreach, there are more skilled and experienced swoopers than me who may want to get involved. Would you be open to including pro swoopers in your proposals?

The main issue I take with these 3 proposals is that they lump everything that is not a box pattern into an "other" bucket. There is a very large and growing percentage of experienced skydivers who swoop on every jump (when it seems safe). The industry can either adapt, as it did when people transitioned from rounds to squares, and again when freeflying emerged, or resist change and risk alienated the new guard.

In this case, change might mean equal or near equal priority for a high performance landing area vs. a box pattern landing area. Without advocates for a place to swoop safely on a BSR committee, it is hard to see the large percentage of the experienced jumper population getting representation.

There should definitely be separation of landing areas.

If there is only room for a small landing area, perhaps everyone should fly a box pattern. But I take great issue with the idea that S-turns and lazy 360s have any place remotely near a "high performance" landing area. An alternate way to define the problem might be to separate areas for high performance landings (intentionally induced speed with a minimum wing loading?) and all other landings. That way each area at least has people going the same speed.

Like the other impassioned posters on this board, I have recently, and tragically, lost friends to canopy collisions. There needs to be change, and it needs to recognize that swooping is a valid and growing component of our sport.

E

[billvon 2,396]

>Can you post details of the meeting?

Check here:

http://www.uspa.org/news/index.htm#041707

I don't know when this particular issue will be discussed. But part of the idea of the meeting is to just get everyone in one room.

>Would you be open to including pro swoopers in your proposals?

Sure. One of the reasons I posted this was to try to "draw in" some swoopers into the process.

>If there is only room for a small landing area, perhaps everyone should
>fly a box pattern. But I take great issue with the idea that S-turns and lazy
>360s have any place remotely near a "high performance" landing area.

I agree. In most cases I think you still have a student area (where 360's and steep approaches are OK) and at least one or two other areas. For DZ's with limited space, it might make more sense to separate them in time instead of distance, which would suggest options 2 or 3.

[ematteo 0]

Derek,

Swoopers will welcome change that makes everyone (including them) safer and lets them safely and consistently advance their discipline.

My issue with these 3 proposals is that they reduce safety for swoopers by inviting slow speed maneuvers (S-turns and lazy 360s) in a high speed, "high performance" landing area. I doubt the committee members thought of it that way, but that could be because the committee members are generally not swoopers.

Far from fighting change, swoopers are the major change in the sport. The challenge now is how the sport will accommodate this change with the fewest people dying.

A start could be to designate landing areas by speed of approach (induced speed with high wingloading vs. traditional).

Evan

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

Thanks for the meeting details. If you or someone else coming in for the meeting needs a place to crash, I have a guest room and space in the garage (central SF).

Regarding your proposals,

I would like to see the Standard Landing Area (SLA) and High Performance Landing Area (HPLA) defined by whether or not there is induced speed immediately prior to landing. In the Standard Landing Area, things would be as they were before those darned swoopers started killing everyone (:P). A box pattern would prevail and there would be a few "individuals" doing sashays and spirals over loud protests from the S&TA.

A High Performance Landing Area would be reserved for induced-speed landings, perhaps with a wing loading in excess of some amount (1.2? 1.3?).

Anyone not inducing speed for landing should land in the Standard Landing Area and avoid the HPL below 1000 feet. If they cannot otherwise avoid the HPL, they should land out. Anyone inducing speed (above a 90 or 180 degree turn, whatever is deemed appropriate) should land in the High Performance Landing Area and not the Standard Landing Area.

If there is not room for two landing areas, the DZO decides the rules based on their unique situation.

Thoughts?

E

[billvon 2,396]

>I would like to see the Standard Landing Area (SLA) and High Performance
>Landing Area (HPLA) defined by whether or not there is induced speed
>immediately prior to landing.

I think you'd want to distinguish them by type of pattern flown, not speed on landing. I think the problems you're seeing now are based on people not being able to clear their airspace and/or predicting where people are going. If you know for sure that everyone is going to make two right turns and land, then clearing airspace becomes a LOT easier. Likewise, if you know that the swoop area is going to have people doing 270's, it's a lot easier to predict what's going to happen.

A 360 in a standard pattern isn't OK even if he lands going slowly, and a wide standard pattern in the HP area isn't ideal if the guy just wants to double front a landing.

>Anyone inducing speed (above a 90 or 180 degree turn, whatever is deemed appropriate) . . .

I think that's the key. Set the limit to say 90 degrees and make that the "hard line." Easier to judge, easier to enforce, and it solves the problem.

>If there is not room for two landing areas, the DZO decides the
>rules based on their unique situation.

Yep, that's basically option 3.

I should also mention that there's an option 4, which is just "do what the SIM says to do." There's already an entire section on HP landing pattern behavior (6-1 and 6-2) but since no one reads the SIM it's not often used.