Swooping is not a crime

[billvon 2,400]

> Wouldn't a good rule be to make each DZO and safety officer carry out
>a risk assessment at each DZ, and then depending on its size make
>recommendations??

Yes, that was one of our suggestions. A BSR that states "each DZO shall implement a plan to separate high performance patterns and standard patterns." Could be time, could be distance, could be Brian's "no mans land" in the center of the landing area.

[Mike111 0]

Sorry Bill, must have misread that in the article, (not attempting to undermine the credit you deserve in anyway
Just out of interest Bill, how woudl this be enforced though, cos just say in fake world, there must be one DZO on this earth who rather not spend money on a new area landing or whatever the requirment was - just out of interest how would this be enforced?

[Cashmanimal 0]

Quote

after hearing this, I of course assumed that there would be no hook turns or swooping, and was therefore did not have my awareness tuned in for that.

To respond to myself, this is a direct reflection of low jump numbers and inexperience. I am fully aware of the hazards involved with assuming, and it is a clear mistake on my part to ever have assumed anything.

It's all fun and until someone loses an eye... then it's just a game to find the eye

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But it is the fear of the new swoopers riding their high-horse that scare me the most.

It should be known that if someone wants to progress as a canopy pilot, then they need to dedicate time to the discipline in the form of hop n' pops, high pulls and COACHING. I agree that there is a problem with some people wanting their cake (freefall) and eating it all at the same time (swooping). Seperate landing areas help ... but until more aspiring swoopers realize that they are only hurting their progression as canopy pilots, we'll always have this issue of hot dogs in the pattern.

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

[chrismgtis 0]

Quote

Interesting, most of the people i have to sit down and talk with aren't swoopers at all. Usually i'm talking to jumpers that fly a "standard" pattern that just cut off half the load because they decided to do s-turns on final, or came in the opposite direction then everyone else, or they spiraled down to 800' then sat in brakes taking up the whole flight pattern.

That is because anyone not flying the same pattern is the problem. It's not swoopers. It's not students. It is any jumper deciding to do something differently.

It may or may not be the case that students tend to fly a different pattern because they simple don't know any better and are learning, but as far as I'm concerned experience is not some criteria that should be used for decision of who will and will not make mistakes.

There is no such thing as a "real swooper", so don't be concerned that you may or may not be one. That is just ideology such as "I'm a real driver, I don't cause accidents".

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[Mike111 0]

Maybe the biggest factor in resolving this would be education - more emphasis on prevention - i.e. teaching people who cant land very well (myself included) to follow patterns, and a more proactive way of calmnig down the hotheads.

Then, at least, everyone is doing their bit instead of blaming each other.?

[stratostar 5]

Well I would like to see ya bust a big phat 270 on a T-10, then you'll really be a big bad ass canopy pilot.....

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Stu said it all here:

Quote

by the way there is no such thing as a 'real' swooper and a 'fake' swooper, only a responsible canopy pilot and a not responsible canopy pilot. (i hope you noticed i used canopy pilot and not swooper, a canopy pilot is anyone who flies a parachute).

It's all about communication up front before loading the aircraft and then being a responsible canopy pilot sticking to the plan after opening and aborting the approach if someone else causes traffic if/when they fail to stick to the plan.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Just out of interest Bill, how woudl this be enforced though, cos just say in
>fake world, there must be one DZO on this earth who rather not spend
>money on a new area landing or whatever the requirment was - just out of
>interest how would this be enforced?

Well:

1) if he didn't want to spend the money on a new landing area he could separate by "no mans land" or by time

2) no one enforces the SIMs. If a DZO wants to put students up in 20kt winds he can - and if he wants to let people pull at 1000 feet he can. Most _do_ follow the SIM since they are a short list of rules that help keep him from getting sued, and that most jumpers follow.

[Mike111 0]

Fair point indeed.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Wouldn't a good rule be to make each DZO and safety officer carry out a risk assessment at each DZ, and then depending on its size make recommendations??

After all a Cesna DZ has less risk of collisions like this than sya Deland Langar or Eloy.

That way each individal circumsatnce is considered.?

Where have I heard that before?

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Sorry Bill, must have misread that in the article, (not attempting to undermine the credit you deserve in anyway
Just out of interest Bill, how woudl this be enforced though, cos just say in fake world, there must be one DZO on this earth who rather not spend money on a new area landing or whatever the requirment was - just out of interest how would this be enforced?

Waivers only go so far. Ignoring industry safety standards wouldn't go over very well in court and would likely get the waiver thrown out.

...

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

[Mike111 0]

Are you implying a indirect hint that it is impossible to get it done?

I mean i see your point if thats it - easy to talk on paper, hard to accomplish.

Yet however so it is played or by whom, even if only a few DZ's adopt it, surely it is a step in the right direction?

IMHO, its certainly a far better step than bannnig it like Eloy, regardless of the goo dintention behind it or the economic factors behind it. Of course eahc DZO should be allowed his personal chocie whether to permit such activities, after all it is his/her DZ.

Yet aren't we supposed to be developing and continuing with innovation?

[champu 1]

Quote

Ok - he's talking about separating the swoopers from the 'normal pattern' - the same as the proposed BSR that Billvon and the others said.

The difference is pretty subtle but it is there, and I think I can sum it up pretty well. I see Brian's recommended patterns as a pact that the entire population of a dropzone can agree to, and use to ensure everyone can land how the wish in as safe a manner as possible. The BSRs propsed in Bill's thread were, I feel, carefully constructed such that it was essentially impossible for someone flying a standard pattern to ever be in the wrong.

The attitude I get from reading the proposed BSRs, and from a large number of responses in the thread concerning those proposals was the attitude of, "Get rid of anything over 90s in the main landing area so people can expect a standard pattern, and land safely," which I'm fine with, but then it goes on to add, "btw, we can land in your high performance area if we have a long spot, or it's crowded in the main area, or if we misjudge our pattern, or if we just plain feel like it, and if we do, tough cookies, no swoop for you."

The low man has the right of way, I absolutely believe that, but that's how you deal with conflicting patterns, it's not how you prevent them. Swoopers being made to deal with all pattern conflicts is a crummy solution, we all need to work together to prevent pattern conflicts,

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Are you implying a indirect hint that it is impossible to get it done?

I mean i see your point if thats it - easy to talk on paper, hard to accomplish.

?

NO - the link from 5 months ago suggested getting DZs to come up with a plan taylored to their DZ. I didn't suggest it was impossible at all.

I have not advocated a ban on anything. In that post from January I advocated that all DZs prepare a plan that provides spatial or temporal separation between those flying standard patterns and those flying non standard patterns.

Unfortunately the busy boogie season is upon us and nothing has been done.

...

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

[Mike111 0]

Fair point, but at least wouldn't you agree that at least people are more aware given the list of tragic accidents and threads like these which might help to a certain extent?

[billvon 2,400]

>The BSRs propsed in Bill's thread were, I feel, carefully constructed such
>that it was essentially impossible for someone flying a standard pattern to
>ever be in the wrong.

Nope. We had several proposals, ranging from physically separate landing areas to "let the DZO make the call." In the physically separate landing area one, either jumper could use either field in an emergency (i.e. a bad spot) but swoopers had to fly standard patterns in the regular area and regular pattern jumpers had to land on the fringes of the swoop area. If either sort of jumper just used the other area without changing their approach, they would be "in the wrong."

A few posters felt a need to claim I wanted to "ban swooping" to gain support for their position, and thus there's been a lot more drama than was warranted. I am glad Brian G posted a similar proposal; he will be harder to pin the same sort of nonsense on.

>Swoopers being made to deal with all pattern conflicts is a crummy
>solution, we all need to work together to prevent pattern conflicts.

Definitely. But any swooper can abort to a standard pattern; most non-swoopers cannot "abort" to a 270. Which is why the safer default is a standard pattern rather than 270's.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

regular pattern jumpers had to land on the fringes of the swoop area

Not sure if we can ever fix this, but there is a certain percentage of jumpers out there with such poor canopy control that they just land wherever their canopy takes them. You don't actually believe that all tradition pattern fliers when finding themselves in the high performance area will be able to stay out of the swoop lanes do you?

But not to sound like a broken record, I AM NOT AGAINST the BSR yourself and others have proposed. I am just against people thinking the root cause of the problem is the turn type. The turn type is only one of several aspects of high performance landings.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>but there is a certain percentage of jumpers out there with such poor
>canopy control that they just land wherever their canopy takes them.

Definitely! Students are a good example. Most DZ's have separate areas for them as well, and most DZ's have distinctive canopies they give students to identify them as a potential hazard. The requirements for student landing areas are called out in the SIM.

Some DZ's even have a student and A-license area (or A and B or whatever.) This can work out since demonstrating accuracy is a requirement to get the higher licenses.

[Spizzzarko 0]

Hi Steve,

Yawn...

This debate in it's 4th or 5th iteration is still producing no results that will prevent anyone from getting killed.

Brian put in some thought and effort which is a little more than I can say about MNealTX and kallend and many of the other people here that are good at typing on DZ.com. Those are the ones who are so blinded by a death that they will never be able to get over it and thank rationally about the situation so they choose to yell and scream on dropzone.com and clump all swoopers into one group.

You, I, and the other swoop pureists out there know how that the solution to this problem is education and not knee jerk reactions but as long as there are those who will yell and scream just so they can hear themselves talk, we will never come to a rational conclusion to this issue.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Usually i'm talking to jumpers that fly a "standard" pattern that just cut off half the load because they decided to do s-turns on final, or came in the opposite direction then everyone else, or they spiraled down to 800' then sat in brakes taking up the whole flight pattern.

I talk to them too. I explain what they are doing is unsafe, but then again most that are doing it don't have that many jumps and was either not told or forgot this information.

Quote

to me your post implies that the swoopers are the one to fix this problem, because you think swoopers are the problem.

I was just trying to understand marks posts about its not the "real" swoopers that are causing problems. Again, you want a quick fix - ban swooping and stupidly small canopies. There is your fix even though I know it won't save everyone since I've seen someone die under a 200+ canopy. Again, I don't think most want banning this and that. I don't hate swoopers, some are actually nice safe people and I hope they live a long time.

Quote

by the way there is no such thing as a 'real' swooper and a 'fake' swooper, only a responsible canopy pilot and a not responsible canopy pilot. (i hope you noticed i used canopy pilot and not swooper, a canopy pilot is anyone who flies a parachute).

I didn't start the "real" swooper "fake" swooper thing. A fast flying canopy pilot started that.


j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[champu 1]

Quote

>The BSRs propsed in Bill's thread were, I feel, carefully constructed such
>that it was essentially impossible for someone flying a standard pattern to
>ever be in the wrong.

Nope. We had several proposals, ranging from physically separate landing areas to "let the DZO make the call." In the physically separate landing area one, either jumper could use either field in an emergency (i.e. a bad spot) but swoopers had to fly standard patterns in the regular area and regular pattern jumpers had to land on the fringes of the swoop area. If either sort of jumper just used the other area without changing their approach, they would be "in the wrong."

Your explaination here resonates better with me than the specific language in the propsed BSRs. Again it's subtle, but I feel it's there.

Quote

d. If a jumper intends to make a high performance landing, but cannot get to
the HPL area, then a standard landing pattern will be performed regardless
of location. [NW]

e. If a jumper intends to make a standard landing, they will avoid using the
HPL area. If they find themselves in the HPL area, they will avoid the
center of the area and land on the edges. [NW]

...and if they find themselves in the middle of the HPL area... ...and so forth...

Violations of [d] are always going to be obvious, but I see violations of [e] turning readily into "he said, she said" arguments with the S+TA. If you land on the runway at Elsinore or Perris, you better have a damn good reason to have done so (and preferrably witnesses to back up your story) if you don't want to sit on the ground, in the corner, with a dunce cap on the rest of the weekend. If seperate areas are going to be successful, I honestly believe that's the same kind of enforcement that will be needed.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hi Steve,

Yawn...

This debate in it's 4th or 5th iteration is still producing no results that will prevent anyone from getting killed.

Brian put in some thought and effort which is a little more than I can say about MNealTX and kallend and many of the other people here that are good at typing on DZ.com. Those are the ones who are so blinded by a death that they will never be able to get over it and thank rationally about the situation so they choose to yell and scream on dropzone.com and clump all swoopers into one group.

You, I, and the other swoop pureists out there know how that the solution to this problem is education and not knee jerk reactions but as long as there are those who will yell and scream just so they can hear themselves talk, we will never come to a rational conclusion to this issue.

Speaking of knee-jerk... again, your prejudice is showing. You claim that we're trying to lump all the swoopers into a group...when that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

Your arguments make the point of safety only in regards to when you're inconvenienced in your swoop.

You keep saying that education, not rules, is the answer. So...when are y'all going to start DOING something about it??? The education and peer pressure you advocate worked really well with Danny Page, didn't it? Based on the attitudes I see in this thread and the others, I don't expect it to work any better for the future.

Education is good... having a rule that enforces that education is good as well, and gives the DZO some teeth to enforce it. Hopefully it won't take many more deaths to convince you all of that.

But, who cares about that guy flying the square 90 pattern, anyway? He's not a CANOPY PILOT, after all...

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Violations of [d] are always going to be obvious, but I see violations of
>[e] turning readily into "he said, she said" arguments with the S+TA.

I think you may be right. From discussions on here (and at the two DZ's I jump at) I'm starting to think that the "DZO shall come up with a plan to separate landing areas" option is the way to go, along with some suggestions for how to do that (like Brian's.)

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

But, who cares about that guy flying the square 90 pattern, anyway? He's not a CANOPY PILOT, after all...

Your words ... not Grant's.

Go refresh yourself as to what Stu said about responsible canopy pilots versus the irresponsible ones. We're all canopy pilots out there. It's just that some of us are under race cars while others use minivans.

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