georgerussia 0 #201 March 30, 2007 Quote ok, since you said that I will say this. if you ban big ways, there WILL be LESS canopy collisions. Are you sure? Could you provide the statistic from last three years, so we see how many canopy collisions happened on big ways? At least the latest one was related to HP turn as well. Quote If you ban swooping, I seriously doubt there will be less canopy collisions. Well, just look on statistics.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #202 March 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteThat's good. I know several people (including myself) who would visit Eloy more often if there is no people doing 270 in pattern. That's bad. If you get rid of the experienced and responsible people, the average experience level will drop - having a zoo...... Irony score 10/10... 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
CanuckInUSA 0 #203 March 30, 2007 QuoteIt is accepted maneuver. You're fooling yourself if you think it is any safer. Not only is it harder for the swooper to be accurate with a 180 over a 270, but it is just as dicey when it comes to potential canopy collisions. Bryan knows this ... any swooper knows this ... it's time that the masses realize that 180s are no safer than the bigger turns. QuoteNot to mention being there on Holiday boogie I've personally seen a lot of examples of such a "responsibility". People were cutting each other, outswooping each other, landing towards, and so on. I wish I had a camera to show you now several examples of such a "responsibility". You don't need a camera, many people have experienced the Holiday boogie and know how chaotic it can be at times. Big boogies and/or big loads are not the time to go big and yes people need to speak to those who think otherwise. Cutting people off is never cool, but I'm confused as to why you say people out swooping other people is irresponsible? The fast canopies (even if the pilot does not induce extra speed on their landings) will always out swoop the slower canopies and the people flying the slower canopies should really be asking themselves why they insist on landing in Eloy north landing field? Any competent canopy pilot flying a highly loaded sub 100 foot x-braced canopy will induce more speed by simply leaning into their harness on a 90 degree turn versus someone who's trying to do a bigger front riser turn on a larger traditional canopy. Base on some of the PMs I have been receiving (some of which I refuse to reply to) I know I am sounding like a broken record here. But the root cause of our collective problem is NOT the turn type but the incompatibility of the speed of our canopies (and yes some canopy pilots need an attitude adjustment). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #204 March 30, 2007 there have been many suggestions that can remedy this problem and has worked at other dz's as said earlier in the thread. This makes me think of people who think motorcycles cause accidents on the road. We might as well ban those why we are at it and lock ourselves in our houses so there is no risk of hurting ourselves or others. Let's not try to fix it lets just totally get rid of swoopers. That is what this whole thing sounds like to me, just stupid.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #205 March 30, 2007 Quote>If you get rid of the experienced and responsible people Apparently they will be getting rid of the people who think it's OK to do 270's in traffic, and keeping the "inexperienced and irresponsible" people like Airspeed. I'm good with that. Of course Airspeed get their own pass when they are training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hookitt 0 #206 March 30, 2007 QuoteBasically a sound plan Mr. C. However, may I suggest that swoopers fly their entire pattern on one side of the DZ? Furthermore, may I suggest that the center-line/wind-line be designated a "no fly zone" for everyone? That's exactly what has been implemented at Bay Area Skydiving. The no fly zone is determined by wind direction. They happen to have a good landmark to use as a convenient split between landing patterns. A pump house that resides in the landing area is the marker for the no fly zone no matter the wind direction. (edit: with attachment this time)My grammar sometimes resembles that of magnetic refrigerator poetry... Ghetto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #207 March 30, 2007 Thanks for the diagram Tim. It’s a totally workable solution and not all that far off from the policy where RiggerRob works except that they had their swoopers coming in from the same direction the other pattern fliers came from (the swoopers just had to fly their base leg patterns a little longer). I like your solution better. In fact I talked to someone at Rob’s DZ last year about getting their swoopers to come in your way. But I got vetoed. Hopefully Rob will show your solution his people. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #208 March 30, 2007 One other comment though. We need to make sure the docile pattern fliers can get to their LZ without crossing the flight line of the high performance area. Those of us who fly x-braced canopies know the incredible range of our beasts and usually have no issues getting back from a long spot. So to offer up an olive branch to the non-swoopers, I propose that the non-swooping LZs be made more accessible to the tradition pattern fliers depending on where the traditional jump run is for each respective DZ. What's the point of segregating ourselves if a bunch of low performance canopies are landing in the high performance areas because they couldn't get back from their spots (of course it couldn't hurt for people to learn how to fly their canopies more efficiently to get back from long spots). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
genoyamamoto 0 #209 March 30, 2007 QuoteThanks for the diagram Tim. It’s a totally workable solution and not all that far off from the policy where RiggerRob works except that they had their swoopers coming in from the same direction the other pattern fliers came from (the swoopers just had to fly their base leg patterns a little longer). I like your solution better. In fact I talked to someone at Rob’s DZ last year about getting their swoopers to come in your way. But I got vetoed. Hopefully Rob will show your solution his people. My problem with the opposing landing patterns is that it only works if the no fly zone is strictly observed. If someone screws up their base leg it's highly probable that they will violate the no fly zone and pose an unexpected hazard. People setting up too high in the pattern could take their base leg long (seen it happen in Eloy with their split landing area), or people setting up low in the right handed pattern could bail on their 270 and opt out for a 90 or 180, which would be ok unless people get their panties in a bunch about 90's and 180's in the high performance area. If all traffic is coming in from the same direction with a split landing area, at least the intentions of the traffic are clear as to what type of turn they are planning. Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me Feel the hate... Photos here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jacketsdb23 45 #210 March 30, 2007 What helps us at Byron is there is a very easily identified No Fly Marker. The only reason that No Fly Zone is violated (and it has) is people have not fully understood the new changes. I think that everyone is getting better at understanding the new patterns.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks 0 #211 March 30, 2007 QuoteQuote ok, since you said that I will say this. if you ban big ways, there WILL be LESS canopy collisions. Are you sure? Could you provide the statistic from last three years, so we see how many canopy collisions happened on big ways? At least the latest one was related to HP turn as well. Quote If you ban swooping, I seriously doubt there will be less canopy collisions. Well, just look on statistics. the recent fatality's that has sparked this discussion were on a big way... there should not have been any swooping involved... It was a big way. QuoteWell, just look on statistics. I have, and every single one shows me two parachutes trying to occupy the same place at the same time. and for the most part, it is because ALOT of people are trying to land in the same spot. what is your observation? If it is swooping, I thing your wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #212 March 31, 2007 QuoteIf you mean that those who do 270 in traffic are "experienced and responsible people", I would strongly disagree with you. I would not agree. Let me help you. experienced - able to execute a high speed landing even with 270 degrees rotation. responsible - able to decide when to say no to a certain type of landing approach. So what that 2 can be combined? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #213 March 31, 2007 Quoteand keeping the "inexperienced and irresponsible" people like Airspeed. Yeah, I'm sure the airspeed guys are absolutely chuffed that thet can't do 270's or more . But who pays the jump tickets? Thier new syncronised 90's will be quite impressive. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #214 March 31, 2007 Quote experienced - able to execute a high speed landing even with 270 degrees rotation. responsible - able to decide when to say no to a certain type of landing approach. Using those definitions probably even I could qualify as experienced swooper - as I am definitely able to execute a high speed landing even with 270 degrees rotation. The problem is that as a result most likely I will went in, and in the worst case, take someone else with me. And obviously I am responsible, as I decide to say no to those approaches every time I jump. But if you add "safely for other jumpers" to your definitions of "responsible/experienced", it makes it useless. For example, it would reveal that everyone deceased during last several months was "experienced and responsible" - till the jump they create a canopy collision. This way your definition would be useless. Well, it is useless anyway.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #215 March 31, 2007 Quote the recent fatality's that has sparked this discussion were on a big way... there should not have been any swooping involved... Yes, it should not happen. But, as we know, it happened. Now, could you please answer the question: who decided to do a 270 approach in traffic - was he a swooper, or maybe an AFF student? Look at his qualifications - could you consider him experienced? Quote I have, and every single one shows me two parachutes trying to occupy the same place at the same time. and for the most part, it is because ALOT of people are trying to land in the same spot. what is your observation? Well, this is a good starting point. Now please _read_ the canopy collision incident reports, and you will see WHO in most cases was responsible for "two parachutes trying to occupy the same place". You will see WHO endangered other people below, who by definition have right of way, and took them out. You can classify them whatever you want, but the most accurate classification looks like "people doing 270 appropach in traffic". QuoteIf it is swooping, I thing your wrong. I don't really care what you think, because it contradicts with what I SEE with my own eyes. The only question I have you is: a lot of people here (including you swoopers) have confirmed that doing 270 in traffic is a bad idea. So why are you mad on SDAZ who banned doing 270 in traffic, which is exactly what you consider a bad idea?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #216 March 31, 2007 So why are you mad on SDAZ who banned doing 270 in traffic, which is exactly what you consider a bad idea? *** cause unless i have missed something, there wont be any 270's performed as the hop n pop loads are not econonically viable. there will only be 180's in one field till someone gets taken out, and only 90s in the other (which in traffic makes a whole lot more sense than bigger turns of any kind) so since you cannot do them in traffic (which anyone with a brain will say is a bad idea) and cannot get a hop n pop swoop load.... there just wont be any swooping done there. there are too many threads on this subject, and my head is spinning keeping up on them, if i have misinterpreted something on the no swooping policy then someone please enlighten me.... cuz it sounds like its done there, which I really dont give a shit cause there is always another dz.... unless it spreads like a case of herpes in a whorehouse...and that will piss me off. RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #217 March 31, 2007 Quote cause unless i have missed something, there wont be any 270's performed as the hop n pop loads are not econonically viable. They might not be economically viable at current price, so one of the solutions would be to raise the price. If hop-and-pop tickets cost the same amount as standard tickets, I fail to see how they couldn'y be economically liable. Not to mention I haven't seen any confirmation from SDAZ stuff that hop-and-pops will not be done there. And I really doubt it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #218 March 31, 2007 Quote You're fooling yourself if you think it is any safer. Not only is it harder for the swooper to be accurate with a 180 over a 270, but it is just as dicey when it comes to potential canopy collisions. Bryan knows this ... any swooper knows this ... it's time that the masses realize that 180s are no safer than the bigger turns. Their goal seems to be not to eliminate canopy collisions completely, but to reduce their number, and/or cosequences for other jumpers who do not swoop. The goal is to eliminate cases when swoopers take out other people, who fly straight pattern, and do not swoop. Quote You don't need a camera, many people have experienced the Holiday boogie and know how chaotic it can be at times. Big boogies and/or big loads are not the time to go big and yes people need to speak to those who think otherwise. That's typical attitude I often see. It is always unknown "those who think otherwise", and nobody knows who he is. So far reading the board it looks like every swooper consider themselves as an experienced, safe and responsible swooper. It is always someone else, who is an asshole doing stupid things and endangering our fellow jumpers. I wonder whether any of those deceased swoopers consider themselves as a safe and experienced swooper as well - who would obviously never take out anyone. Quote But the root cause of our collective problem is NOT the turn type but the incompatibility of the speed of our canopies (and yes some canopy pilots need an attitude adjustment). So far the current problem seems to come exactly from the turn type.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #219 March 31, 2007 Quote Let's not try to fix it lets just totally get rid of swoopers. One of the points raised by Brian (I'm sure you've read it too) was exactly the explanation why having a separate swooping area in SDAZ is not economically viable: Quote Why would a drop zone flood a significant swath of landing area to create a swoop area? Unless space is of no consideration, the available landing area needs to be dedicated to those who use it most, which is the non-swooping 80% of the customers. Even if space was available, the handful of people using a dedicated swoop park could never begin to pay for the sprinklers and the water bill, seeding and fertilizer, and maintenance. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #220 March 31, 2007 Quotecause unless i have missed something, there wont be any 270's performed as the hop n pop loads are not econonically viable. You are adding 1 and 1 and coming up with 4. Larry Hill's policy states that no 270s will be done unless on a seperate pass and with management approval. What in that makes you think that there will not be any seperate passes? Brian Burke commented that seperate passes are not economically viable in his opinion. He's not the DZO, so its not really his call is it.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #221 March 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteand keeping the "inexperienced and irresponsible" people like Airspeed. Yeah, I'm sure the airspeed guys are absolutely chuffed that thet can't do 270's or more . But who pays the jump tickets? Thier new syncronised 90's will be quite impressive. Airspeed always get their own pass when training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #222 March 31, 2007 QuoteAirspeed always get their own pass when training They must be economically viable. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #223 April 1, 2007 They must be economically viable. *** well at least we are getting a smiley now..... RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #224 April 1, 2007 Brian Burke commented that seperate passes are not economically viable in his opinion. He's not the DZO, so its not really his call is it. *** you really think he stated this publicly without prior permission? 1+1=2They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #225 April 1, 2007 Quoteyou really think he stated this publicly without prior permission? You're right. He probably had it edidted by the SDA Public Relations Commitee, after applying 30 days in advance in triplicate forms...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites