0
mollyo

Petition to support a BSR change to reduce canopy fatalities

Recommended Posts

Evan's favorite bogeyman, the accuracy jumper, would still fit the standard patter more than the HP pattern - after all, they're more likely to do that sashay *AFTER* doing the 90 to final...

I will admit, I still haven't heard of any DZs with an accuracy tuffet in the swoop lane - I still haven't seen any posts from swoopers talking about how that guy under the Star-Trac beat them to the ground from jump run, either.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I will admit, I still haven't heard of any DZs with an accuracy tuffet in the swoop lane



Here ya go: http://www.skydivingstills.com/gallery/3092175#168974401-L-LB. :)
Never seen a swooper land at the same time as an accuracy jumper. It'd be a pretty neat trick actually. It'd be possible with two planes flying, but swoopers wouldn't land there in that case.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I will admit, I still haven't heard of any DZs with an accuracy tuffet in the swoop lane



Here ya go: http://www.skydivingstills.com/gallery/3092175#168974401-L-LB. :)


Ok...I've seen one - thanks, Dave!! Is that permanently mounted in the swoop lane, or is it a temporary thing (either the tuffet or the lane)?

Quote

Never seen a swooper land at the same time as an accuracy jumper. It'd be a pretty neat trick actually. It'd be possible with two planes flying, but swoopers wouldn't land there in that case.

Dave



That was sort of the point I was making (albeit sarcastically). I'm sort of seeing problems with a Star-Trac at .8:1 beating a Katana at 1.5+:1 down to the landing area and stealing their swoop...and of course, as you said - the swooper wouldn't be ripping a big turn in that case anyway.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hello Aloysius!

Quote

That may well be the reason for the antagonism towards the proposal, in that defining a HP landing as anything not conforming to a standard pattern, you are grouping together things that are themselves quite incompatible. Clearly that needs to be fixed.



You recognized one of our problems right off the bat: definitions. It will be very hard to make a definition of either a SLP or HPL that will work for everyone, everywhere at the same time. But we needed to start the discussion, rather than let the problem drift into the hint and hope category.

As I said in another thread, I can see a smooth, unaccelerated 180 degree turn to final as being in compliance with our basic concept of the SLP. However, we did not want the proposal getting too unwieldy prior to it being presented to the Board. That's why we left it simple.

Since we did not address descent rates etc, an accuracy landing, if done in the standard landing pattern configuration may be in compliance. We stayed away from that too as a Velocity tiny winy and a Manta gigantor can both be flown in the SLP. Granted, the Velocity may get down faster, but you should see DOB fly a Manta! (g)

We recognize that the final language will not be what we have written. Our proposal is the starting point. The USPA committee system will craft the final language.

I hope that gives you some insight into our thinking. That people are talking about all different aspects of the problem is great. The more we talk, the safer our landing patterns will become.

Blue SKies, Flip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We recognize that the final language will not be what we have written. Our proposal is the starting point. The USPA committee system will craft the final language.



This is my only sticking point right now.

If a group of 10 people with comments from what looks like about another 100 people, can't come up with a recommendation for what they think should-be the final language, how do we expect a USPA committee of 3 or 4 people to do a better job?

I'd be much more comfortable with a proposal that recommends the final language for USPA to consider. Then, even if they change it, at least the proposal was submitted as something complete.

The easier we make it on the committee, the better chance it gets put in place without being completely watered down.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If a group of 10 people with comments from what looks like about another
>100 people, can't come up with a recommendation for what they think
>should-be the final language, how do we expect a USPA committee of 3 or
>4 people to do a better job?

We can, and have come up with specific recommendations for that reason. However, we don't expect USPA to just "do what we say." We have tried to be as clear as possible as to what we think would work, hoping that USPA will understand the objective and (likely) make changes to it.

The original definitions were:

------------------------------
The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees.

Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a high performance landing (HPL).
-----------------------------

Someone pointed out that it was silly to define an accuracy approach as a HPL, so the last change we made was:

-----------------------------
The standard landing pattern (SLP) is defined as a rectangular flight pattern with a defined downwind, base and final turn to land. Jumpers will enter a leg of the pattern determined by their position relative to the landing area. Each turn in the pattern will be no more than ninety (90) degrees.

Any landing pattern that does not conform to the standard landing pattern will be termed a nonstandard pattern (NSP.)
----------------------------

This solves that problem. Other people have worried that this somehow "combines" accuracy and HP approaches, but of course it does not - most accuracy approaches follow a standard pattern (albeit steeper) and for those people who do NOT want to fly a standard pattern (whether under a Startrac or Velocity) they still have their choice of landing areas, provided it's not the standard-pattern area.

I think the definition works. Is it ideal? I don't know. That's why we're going to SFO in two weeks to talk to USPA about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Bill!

I agree with Bill Von: while we would like USPA to adopt our language, the reality is that from our proposal will spring the final language after input from the membership is received.

To not act just because we realize how the process works would be abdicating safety for hint and hope.

Blue SKies, Flip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is that permanently mounted in the swoop lane, or is it a temporary thing (either the tuffet or the lane)?



It's an area where a few swoopers like to land, but it's not a designated swoop lane.

Here's a good example of why you don't want a tuffet in a swoop lane: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=5940 :)
Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


That was sort of the point I was making (albeit sarcastically). I'm sort of seeing problems with a Star-Trac at .8:1 beating a Katana at 1.5+:1 down to the landing area and stealing their swoop...and of course, as you said - the swooper wouldn't be ripping a big turn in that case anyway.



Well I've been on a low pass (~4000ft) with some accuracy jumpers (I wanted to swoop) and this definitely is a problem: at 4000ft, some accuracy jumpers will take a 12 second delay and be opened much lower than you (with my velocity I don't like opening below 3500ft) and start spiraling down to 1000ft; you may land before them but they still may represent a problem in your pattern (I like to start my final turn at 1000ft) if you do not have two totally separated (e.g. by the runway) areas to land in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Well I've been on a low pass (~4000ft) with some accuracy jumpers (I wanted to swoop) and this definitely is a problem: at 4000ft, some accuracy jumpers will take a 12 second delay and be opened much lower than you (with my velocity I don't like opening below 3500ft) and start spiraling down to 1000ft; you may land before them but they still may represent a problem in your pattern (I like to start my final turn at 1000ft) if you do not have two totally separated (e.g. by the runway) areas to land in.



Ummm, go first?
Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Well I've been on a low pass (~4000ft) with some accuracy jumpers (I wanted to swoop) and this definitely is a problem: at 4000ft, some accuracy jumpers will take a 12 second delay and be opened much lower than you (with my velocity I don't like opening below 3500ft) and start spiraling down to 1000ft; you may land before them but they still may represent a problem in your pattern (I like to start my final turn at 1000ft) if you do not have two totally separated (e.g. by the runway) areas to land in.



Ummm, go first?



Going first doesn't solve the potential issue if the person leaving after you insists on pulling much lower than you. Last summer I encounter some severe attitudes from a number of accuracy guys I shared the hop n' pop loads with and the total unwillingness to work with me (ie: come to an agreement of who exists first and who pulls at what altitude). In their minds they will always be right and swoopers are just some form of cancer. Of course this does not apply to all accuracy jumpers, just this small set.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Steve!
[reply
Quote

Going first doesn't solve the potential issue if the person leaving after you insists on pulling much lower than you.



You bring up an excellent point. We can have the best plans in the world for both the exit order and pull altitudes. But if there isn't a plan from 1000 feet and below, it will just be chaos. That is why we are making these proposals so that the final part of the skydive isn't completly random.

Yes, things can still go wrong in the landing pattern. As we used to say in the Navy, "a plan is just something to deviate from." But at least everyone will know what the plan is supposed to be at each and every drop zone.

Quote

In their minds they will always be right and swoopers are just some form of cancer.



Ah, self-actualization! (g) Or is there a point to this? Well, actuallly, every drop zone has their too cool for school group. That is the real world. They'll come around, or they won't.

Keep up the discussion. That will keep this fresh in everyone's minds as they enter the landing arena.

Blue SKies, Flip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're going very well. I think we have the beginnings of a solution that will make everyone happy. There are some actions we can take now, and some other actions that will probably be introduced at the next meeting (or the meeting after that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0