Update from B Burke re: SDAZ landing policy

[billvon 2,400]

Posted by request.
-----------------------
Re: Skydive AZ Landing Policy
From: Bryan Burke

Mulling over the posts from the last couple of weeks and having heard countless opinions around the drop zone and via e-mail, I see some good points and some misconceptions that I would like to address. Before I get into details, I would like to emphasize one thing that makes our situation a little different than some drop zones.

Although our locals are highly skilled, on any given day most of the jumpers at Skydive Arizona are visitors. They come from all over the world and have very different backgrounds. Statistically the visitors are more than eight times as likely to die on any given jump as our locals, even though they probably only make about four times as many total jumps. (The latter number is a guess, the former a fact.) Injury rates are in proportion. Given language barriers, individual styles, short visits, etc. it isn’t possible to teach them all to behave “local style.” Canopy technique is where this problem really shows. Collisions are a huge part of our safety problems.

Swoopers are feeling singled out. There are two types of swoopers: those who want to get out low and practice for CP events, and those that want to swoop after a regular skydive from full altitude. Skydive Arizona doesn’t have any problem with the former, but realistically they are a very small aspect of our business so we accommodate them if we can, but don’t bend over backward for them. We handle Accuracy, Style, and CRW in the same way. They are not told no, but they are told that conditions in which they may jump are limited. The second group is the one that triggered our landing restrictions, which are simply an attempt to increase safety for everyone.

Now, about those points made in the forum discussion of our landing policies.

Swoopers are not the only problem; low time jumpers and/or low wing loading pilots cause many collisions. Very true. We are not just cracking down on the swoopers, and that has always been the case. I’ve had the privilege of busting D license # 1 himself for pattern problems. His infraction? Deep brake accuracy in a very crowded sky. He took it well; it had just never dawned on him that he was essentially backing up through traffic. I talk to people all the time about not doing S turns or 360s. Any time, not just in the pattern. A lot of skydivers with hundreds of jumps don’t give traffic a single thought until they are about to turn final and realize there is a problem. In short, far more of our landing area safety discussions are about these issues than are about swoop style.

Swoopers aren’t being singled out, except in one respect. As expert skydivers, they really ought to know better and back off more often. Average jumpers flying dangerously are usually just plain ignorant. Swoopers don’t have that excuse.

The pattern is the problem, and the solution. True. Even with various wing loadings and different forward speeds and descent rates, it is easier to pick a safe line if everyone is flying roughly the same pattern. The whole sport is guilty of this, not just swoopers. We’re trying hard to change that here at Skydive AZ, but realistically, almost all of our safety problems come from out of town. DZs everywhere, no matter how large or small, should put more emphasis on predictability in the pattern because we have no way of screening visiting skydivers on flying skills until they are in the air. Please, train everyone at your drop zone as though they are going to eventually jump at a really busy boogie.

180s are dangerous. Yep. But the arguments that 270s are “safer” are completely unconvincing. Give up on that one! We are experimenting with the idea that a carving 180 (in an area that people expect it) that bears some semblance to “downwind, crosswind, final” can work. If there are too many close calls, the 180s will probably go too, and we will insist on a discernable crosswind leg. I fully agree that Euro-style 180s (straight down the center of the landing area, followed by a very sharp 180) really suck, but it will take a while to educate them away. Meanwhile the more open, carving 180 offers locals at least some fun, and they are much easier for others in the pattern to read.

Skydive Arizona won’t allow low passes. That was never said. Not only that, you can go big and bust out your 720s on a low pass, right in the main landing area, as long as it is worked out with anyone else on that low pass. My point in the earlier post was that low passes are not an economic boon to the drop zone, so we don’t go out of our way to make them happen. Here’s why. Our Otters burn 26 to 30 gallons per load, averaging closer to the high figure. Even four people getting out low only reduces the overall fuel burn for the load by at best two gallons, or about five bucks worth of fuel in the current market. A single person is a negligible reduction in fuel burn. If, however, that low pass involves a delay in dropping due to other jump traffic, the holding time adds up fast. Figure $10 a minute to operate an Otter at break even, no profit whatsoever.

So: one person getting out low saves us less than a buck worth of fuel, and four save us at best five bucks total, yet they expect a reduced rate and may add a couple minutes to the load, or delay another jump aircraft. That means the rest of the jumpers are subsidizing the low pass. It’s even worse (financially speaking) if those slots could have been filled with full price tickets. And if we do low passes at a boogie, we could have a couple of airplanes going in circles for a few minutes so that one person can get out low. Last but not least, if multiple aircraft are operating there is always the risk that a communications error could put skydivers into the path of the low plane. From both economic and safety positions it simply doesn’t make any sense to do low passes when we are busy.

Most of the ticket price covers fixed costs: staff, insurance, financing, facilities, etc., which low pass people use equally with high pass people. I’ve tried to eliminate the inequity by getting our low pass rate increased, and I expect it will happen soon. Our latest canopy event, a classic accuracy meet, operated at below break-even. That was my mistake; even with my past experience with accuracy, they were far less efficient than I had imagined they could be. That’s why I took detailed notes and clocked every load – so I could make an informed decision, not an emotional one. Operating about 40% worse efficiency than a regular load, they were paying a 4,000 foot rate. I take notes on the CP meets too. We’re willing to do such events in the future, but at a reasonable cost. I’ll probably give future canopy event organizers an hourly rate for the plane and let them figure out how to plan the loads and entry fees around that. My best guess is they will need to charge around $25 a jump, not counting costs for course equipment and judges.

I’m aware that there are some out there who are appalled by the idea that skydiving centers might actually have to consider financial bottom lines and single out some activities as impractical. All I can say is this: show up with at least $12 million in cash, and I’ll bet Larry Hill will sign the DZ and wind tunnel over to you. Then you can run it your own way. You don’t build and keep a thriving business without constantly worrying about the bottom line. Larry started with a Cessna and a gravel strip. He has always gone out of his way to accommodate customers, but let’s face it: what the customer wants and what the drop zone can economically deliver are not always going to be the same thing.

Canopy piloting is a rapidly growing element of the sport. Drop zones need to support it. Maybe. I doubt it, though. When a new technology comes along that allows for a big gain in speed, everyone at the elite level who can actually afford and apply the technology wants it, creating a booming market for the technology until that niche is filled. Then it will be a steady market at replacement level for that niche. The vast majority of participants in skydiving will never be at the elite level and know they don’t need the technological enhancement, especially at a disproportionately high cost in dollars and risk. I predict that sales of cross braced canopies will never be more than 25% of the market, just as sports cars are a small fraction of the auto market.

I’ll go even further: the high performance saturation point is already close, and will be reached within two years if it hasn’t been reached already. Meanwhile, the majority of the skydiving population that only jumps on weekends (and pays full price for their jumps, as opposed to being paid to jump) has a very real concern for their own safety, and their perception (true or not) is that canopies at high wing loadings, flown aggressively, are the sport’s single biggest safety problem.

Whuffos don’t even come into the equation. Spectators are a liability, not a benefit, to a drop zone. They might buy a soft drink, they take up a lot of room, and in our case, don’t even live in the area year round, which is about the only way they could be of use to us - in the form of support at city council meetings. Even if demos and competitions attracted people to skydiving (something I see zero evidence for in 25 years in the sport) it can be argued that they are more impressed by a slow, soft landing than a swoop. Otherwise, why do the whuffos who hire demonstration teams pick the ones they do? There are some high performance demo teams, but not many. Also, note that overall participation and recruitment to the sport is shrinking, not growing, in spite of the advent of cross-braced canopies.

Last but not least, if you review the economics noted earlier, the last thing a drop zone wants is more people engaging in the most economically marginal activity in the sport.

Maybe I’m wrong. A business has to gamble on probabilities that are a year or two away. If I’m right, we made a good call. If I’m wrong, it is easy and cheap to remedy.

Building more landing areas will solve the problem. It could, if it were affordable. Some drop zones may be able to do that. Some won’t. Fast canopies take up a lot of airspace and landing area, again for a minority who are often paying less than full price for jumps and/or representing the dz. Think “diminishing returns” again. Another way to look at it is this: the problem can be solved by a hardware solution, or a software solution. Software is cheaper and more flexible.

Banning 270s is a knee jerk reaction. All of the jerking knees that I see belong to swoopers. We actually thought about it for a long time, and apparently put it off a little too long. Skydive Arizona just happened to be one of the first big drop zones to realize two things. One, more customers fear swooping than admire it - big image problem. Two, it is an economically marginal activity, with ever increasing potential to bring expensive litigation to the drop zone while at the same time driving off valued customers who fear for their safety.

On the subject of litigation, I’m surprised it hasn’t come up earlier. I could easily go before a jury and tell them that some ignorant 20-jump wonder knew better than to do a turn in the landing area, and it was just bad luck that he broke the rule and someone died. We (the DZ) might get away clean. That same jury might not be sympathetic if I said, “yeah, several people have been killed by expert skydivers intentionally doing 270s in the traffic pattern, but we let it slide.”

Conclusions. We all need to work to minimize collisions by getting everyone, at every level, at every drop zone, to settle down and fly a pattern. That’s the main issue – fly a pattern everyone in the air can make sense of.

Finally, swoopers need to revise their worldview. Guys – you just aren’t that special. I don’t hate you, and I don’t think anyone else does either. I agree that 270s are not inherently dangerous, in limited contexts. We are limiting the context because here are a lot of other people in the sport, just as important to their families and to drop zone operators, as you are. It’s the high risk/low benefit problems in a mainstream landing area that brought the change, nothing more and nothing less.
----------------

[marks2065 0]

thanx for this response - as always sdaz has again adressed an issue with profesionalism and style

[itllclear 1]

Quote

it is an economically marginal activity, with ever increasing potential to bring expensive litigation to the drop zone while at the same time driving off valued customers who fear for their safety

As I've posted a few times before, the only thing that will reduce the problem is DZO's deciding that it is more profitable to regulate the landing pattern than not to.

It looks like that is finally happening. Too late for some, unfortunately.

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your second sentence answered your question."

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

One, more customers fear swooping than admire it - big image problem. Two, it is an economically marginal activity, with ever increasing potential to bring expensive litigation to the drop zone while at the same time driving off valued customers who fear for their safety.

At last, a voice of reason!


Bryan Burke put it out here, who will be next to understand and apply the logic!

Hopefully this (or something like it) will be submitted to Parachutist and Skydiving.

IMO all dzo's should at least review these changes with some serious and thoughtful consideration.

Has anyone else noticed how in the past year, problems with both proper usage and /or design of certain skydiving equipment was addressed literally within hours of the problem coming to light. ~

~ Yet many that have the 'authority' to put a stop to, or at least greatly minimise, the very reason most skydiving injuries and deaths occur, have been dragging their feet...

Mr. Burke, I applaud you...and thank you!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[tdog 0]

Quote

Quote

One, more customers fear swooping than admire it - big image problem. Two, it is an economically marginal activity, with ever increasing potential to bring expensive litigation to the drop zone while at the same time driving off valued customers who fear for their safety.

At last, a voice of reason!

At first I wanted to disagree with you... But now I agree with you.

At "home" we have a full otter load of jumpers landing, and often there are high performance landings. They don't run me off or scare me, because they are my friends, I know their canopies by color, I know what they are going to do, and they often are the people I fear the least. The student with the 260 foot canopy is the one that is going to be the most unpredictable, followed by a bunch of A licence jumpers... (I have 700 or so jumps in the last two years with statistics to prove how many plan B landings I have made because of swoopers [1] and because of students [so many I can't count].)

But at Eloy at the holiday boogie this year - it was the exact opposite. I feared everyone and often landed off because people were cutting me off left and right. It was not the swoopers, but everyone... Those Cessna DZs are great places to jump, but with 4 canopies in the sky, traffic management is something that is not practiced until the boogie. Either that, or everyone just changes the rules when they leave home.

So I agree - in a mixed boogie crowd, I am thankful I don't have to manage the added risk of swoopers I can't trust because I don't know them.

The point... I think Mr. Burke's perspective is from the perspective of a DZ that has many, many visitors and low quantity of locals - and he says that.

I don't think every DZ has to follow his model, even large ones - but they need to know the risks and study ways to address their local risks.

It is all about perspective.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Bill,

Thanks for posting that... and please pass on our thanks to Brian.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

It is all about perspective.

It is tdog, and I understand the point you're making.

That's why I was careful not to suggest every dz adopt SDAZ's approach. I do think every dzo should review it and possibly consider it as a guide and make adjustments as necessary.

Even THAT new policy will likely need some additional revision
as time goes on and the 'gray' areas come to light.

But everyone has been saying SOMEONE needs to do SOMETHING...Brian Burke has.

And hopefully, other DZO's can read between the lines regarding the part mentioning litigation.

This sets a precedence, a benchmark if you will, in addressing a serious safety issues that's been plaguing the sport for several years.

Some where down the road, I wouldn't want to be a DZO on the stand trying to explain why drop-zones X,Y & Z made policy changes to increase safety, but I had not.

I agree tdog, this may not be the 'fix-all' that ends this trend of people dying under open parachutes...but it's the first real, and serious attempt in doing so.

For that, SDAZ is to be applauded!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[riggerrob 558]

... the only thing that will reduce the problem is DZO's deciding that it is more profitable to regulate the landing pattern than not to.

It looks like that is finally happening. Too late for some, unfortunately.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

At Pitt Meadows, swoopers are taking the lead in refining patterns in our swoop lane.
At Saturday's Safety Day, swoopers plan to tell the DZO where he can and cannot land!
That will be amusing!
Hee!
Hee!

[Elisha 1]

Quote

...but with 4 canopies in the sky, traffic management is something that is not practiced until the boogie. Either that, or everyone just changes the rules when they leave home.

Yup.

Worrying about the other two canopies on my second H&P load on Saturday (me at about 1.3, Roy at 2+ and the other guy at 1) was pretty easier. Even though I was fighting wind and couldn't setup for the normal LH pattern, I didn't feel too guilty about my RF pattern since Roy had landed before I really got into my downwind and the other guy was way above and behind me. A full King air load? more difficult. Big boogie traffic? a lot to think about and consider.

[champu 1]

Quote

DZs everywhere, no matter how large or small, should put more emphasis on predictability in the pattern because we have no way of screening visiting skydivers on flying skills until they are in the air. Please, train everyone at your drop zone as though they are going to eventually jump at a really busy boogie.

I agree here wholeheartedly, predictability was the focus of my talk on safety day. The thought I asked people to leave with was, "After getting down from any given jump, think about what your entire canopy flight, from opening to packing area, would have looked like from someone trying to follow you. Would that person have any idea what you were going to do next?"

Quote

We are experimenting with the idea that a carving 180 (in an area that people expect it) that bears some semblance to “downwind, crosswind, final” can work. If there are too many close calls, the 180s will probably go too, and we will insist on a discernable crosswind leg. I fully agree that Euro-style 180s (straight down the center of the landing area, followed by a very sharp 180) really suck, but it will take a while to educate them away. Meanwhile the more open, carving 180 offers locals at least some fun, and they are much easier for others in the pattern to read.

And this was really my only concern with the new policy at SDAZ. I think a discernable crosswind leg, combined with the idea of "sticking to your lane throughout final," is important for predictability when you have more than one canopy landing at roughly the same time. What rules need to aim for (besides the obvious, "not hitting each other") is for people to, "Not end up in final appraches that conflict with one another." A base leg that you can see terminate with a turn to final is very helpful to those around you in their effort to land near you safely.

I imagine Mr. Burke will find the carving 180 to have the same problems that the SDAZ landing rules have had all along: Works great for the locals, but the tourists, "just don't get it."

[SwampThing 0]

Quote

Works great for the locals, but the tourists, "just don't get it."

Maybe because they've never been told before that they HAVE to get it.

Ripcord stops and blast handles didn't go away until it was 'set in stone' so to speak.

Low pulls were tolerated more than they are now, the frequency went way down following new 'rules' and banishment's.

Big difference between ~

"We'd like you to try not to do that."

&

"Do that again and you're history."

The Pessimist says: "It can't possibly get any worse!"
The Optimist says: "Sure it can!"

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

For that, SDAZ is to be applauded!

I disagree. I think SDAZ has created a problem by inviting 300+ less than current jumpers of various skill levels, to attend a 3 week boogie, land in two soccer fields, without conflict.

I agree that a problem exists and SDAZ has found a workable solution to it.

However they have managed to re-direct the blame for the problem on people who conduct high performance landings.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,400]

>However they have managed to re-direct the blame for the problem
>on people who conduct high performance landings.

If this reduces the number of collisions (and I suspect it will) it will also reduce the amount of blame that needs to be apportioned - and that's a good thing. Canopy collision accidents are somewhat unique in that two people are involved, and thus determining who was "at fault" is more of an issue than during a simple no-pull or botched low turn.

[diablopilot 2]

Will the holliday boogie still have 300+ people who are uncurrent, insufficently skilled, and untrained to land in demo conditions next year?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[GrabGrass 0]

Quote

Will the holliday boogie still have 300+ people who are uncurrent, insufficently skilled, and untrained to land in demo conditions next year?

Are they all jumping at once, or a plane load at a time?

~ "Pack Fast, Pull Low... and Date Your Riggers WIFE!" ~

[diablopilot 2]

I haven't been to the Holiday Boogie in 3 years but I have personaly witnessed 4 A/C in the air and droping in the same 6 minutes at once there.

That's as many as 90 people in the air at once.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,400]

> Will the holliday boogie still have 300+ people who are uncurrent,
>insufficently skilled, and untrained to land in demo conditions next year?

I doubt it, although I am sure that some of those people will meet your conditions. From my experience there, the number of uncurrent/unskilled people there during that boogie is relatively low. (Not sure what the 'demo' comment has to do with anything, since demos have very different requirements.)

[Remster 24]

Quote

Will the holliday boogie still have 300+ people who are uncurrent, insufficently skilled, and untrained to land in demo conditions next year?

Yes. The desert has been closed off for landings.



Come on JP...

Remster

[diablopilot 2]

Based on my previous experience, many of the attendees of the Holiday boogie come from areas of the country that have little to no jumping durring the winter months.

5 or 6 skydives in 4 to 6 weeks is NOT sufficient preparation for an event where there are 40 to 50 canopies in the air in the area at the same time.

People need training to learn how to handle high volume landing areas, and the landing areas at SDAZ are not big enough for that sort of volume with inexperienced jumpers.

Even the zoo that WFFC is/was has more landing area.

The desert is an option, but too few use it as it's not enforced.

On bigway record attempts landing areas are frequently designated and violations of the rules are responded to with cuts and groundings.

I forsee continued incidents.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

And yet jumpers continue to crowd the landing areas.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,400]

>5 or 6 skydives in 4 to 6 weeks is NOT sufficient preparation for an
>event where there are 40 to 50 canopies in the air in the area at the same time.

Would depend on the jumper. Someone with 4000 jumps over 10 years is probably going to be fine, even if he slows down over the fall/winter. Someone with 70 jumps over a year is probably going to have trouble.

That's the bad news. The good news is that the pattern just got simpler. Newer jumpers can stick to the alternate area and have reasonable assurances that everyone will be flying a similar pattern.

>Even the zoo that WFFC is/was has more landing area.

?? The desert in Eloy is far larger than the landing-out options at Rantoul. The "main" areas are about the same size.

>On bigway record attempts landing areas are frequently designated and
>violations of the rules are responded to with cuts and groundings.

Yep, and that's going to be happening more often at boogies as well.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Yep, and that's going to be happening more often at boogies as well.

I am very happy to hear that.


As I'm sure you've gathered, my beef is with the dangerous situation thats been created by SDZA's "Holliday Boogie" and the lack of responsibility that SDAZ seems to be willing to admit to.

Of course with the way the legal system is in this country, I can't say I don't understand them.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

The student with the 260 foot canopy is the one that is going to be the most unpredictable, followed by a bunch of A licence jumpers... (I have 700 or so jumps in the last two years with statistics to prove how many plan B landings I have made because of swoopers [1] and because of students [so many I can't count].)

tdog,

You make an interesting comment there.

I haven't heard it in a long time, so maybe its time it comes back, but it used to be where I jump, if you're experienced and setting up to land at the student area for what ever reason AND there was also a student (or students) under canopy at the same time, you'd get "a talking to" if you didn't give the students a VERY wide berth, because "you should know better."

So, if anyone going to "landing plan B" more often then not because of students in the pattern, I'd humbly submit that y'all ought to re-think "plan A" to just keep yourself well away from them under canopy for both your sakes.

[tdog 0]

Quote

So, if anyone going to "landing plan B" more often then not because of students in the pattern, I'd humbly submit that y'all ought to re-think "plan A" to just keep yourself well away from them under canopy for both your sakes.

You are right in many ways... I don't want to go into the politics of what is a student landing area at any specific DZ, because each plot of land is managed differently based upon many factors... Eloy has two areas, we have one large one...

I was not talking about the 7 jump AFF students when I made my comment, but more of the 15-100 jump jumper who starts landing not only at the same time as the guys with smaller parachutes because their pull altitude is lower and their canopies are becoming smaller, but are also moving towards landing "where the big kids do" and are not restricted just to the student area. Heck, their skills sometimes cause them to land in the experienced area because they missed the student area.

my point was not DZ specific or limited to a jump number, but instead that at some DZs, the swoopers are skilled self regulated pilots who fly predictably that don't scare away others, as the first post suggested they might be doing at a boogie/visiting jumper DZs where they are not "known" and "predictable" and "trusted". Each DZ has a fish to fry to become safer, and it is not always the swooper... (P.S., I am not a swooper)

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

...that at some DZs, the swoopers are skilled self regulated pilots who fly predictably that don't scare away others...

Dunno tdog... while I'm not "scared" of swoopers or "scared off by swoopers" per-say, in the past, when going to big DZs (Perris, Elsinore, Eloy) with more rather then less high performance canopy pilots, my tendancy has been to just land away from them rather then in the same landing area since I was uncomfortable flying what some would call a conservative or straight in apporach / pattern when they were entering the pattern / landing area "vertically" by executing a 180 or 270 onto final so they could "swoop"; keeps me happy, keeps others happy and we're all drinkin' beers together at the end of the day.