AFFI 0 #126 March 28, 2007 QuoteAre you saying even though I didn't mention guns, and you moved my post, that my post didn't help the discussion? J Oh no! Hope the ACLU don't get wind of this... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #127 March 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteAre you saying even though I didn't mention guns, and you moved my post, that my post didn't help the discussion? J Oh no! Hope the ACLU don't get wind of this... I'm just trying to figure out what "counts" and what doesn't. He wasn't real clear if everything got moved because its too hard or time consuming to pick and choose what is gun related or not. Oh well, I'll go back to watching Africam. jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #128 March 28, 2007 >Are you saying even though I didn't mention guns, and you moved >my post, that my post didn't help the discussion? No. Your post got moved because you replied to a post about guns (or replied to a reply about guns etc.) That's the way this forum software works - you can't just move some of a reply without moving other replies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #129 March 28, 2007 Note: see skydive oregon. blues jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jacketsdb23 45 #130 March 28, 2007 Quote Note: see skydive oregon. blues jerry Jerry, in your opinion does this work up in Oregon? What are the positive and/or negatives of this setup up there? I like this setup in Byron. Its taking some time to get everyone on the same page especially some people that have jumped there for many years. However, I like the idea of having one area designated for swooping. Having the two different patterns starts to separate those wishing to do HP landings and those wishing to 'traditional' landings right from opening. The no fly zone extends upward to 1000'. Its nice to have both patterns looking at each other on base. If a swooper can't make it over to the swooping pattern (bad spot?) that 180º or higher turn is prohibited. One negative of this setup is when winds change. Everyone looks at the marked up aerial photo (dictates HP landing Pattern and Traditional landing Pattern) before loading on the plane. If winds change then people can get confused. The system isn't perfect yet but I believe it will go a long way to put the focus on swoopers vs. non swoopers when landing. This system is much better than putting both swoopers and non swoopers in the same pattern.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
ORANGENBLUE 0 #131 March 28, 2007 Only one direction is allowed pond side @ SD OR regardless of winds. Main landing area, first person down sets direction (into the wind hopefuly) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 261 #132 March 28, 2007 On the topic of finding ways for swoopers and non-swoopers to coexist: What about the idea of trying to separate a landing area into left and right parts, with 270 degree swoop turns "to the outside of the pattern"? That is, the non-swoopers do a standard left pattern for their landing. The swoopers extend their base leg until they're over the far side of the landing area, then can do a 270 right to land. (See attachment.) Why doesn't this get suggested more often? It seems to be a simple but useful modification of what in practice happens at some places already -- the swoopers follow the pattern through the base leg, then crank their 270 the opposite way. While that at least produces standardized procedures, the danger being pointed out lately exists where swoopers dive onto final approach and have to mix with the slower non-swoopers. Non-swoopers can't well watch above and behind them to avoid collisions, and swoopers can get too focused on their approach to see potential conflicts. For the separated landing method, left or right patterns can of course be chosen depending on DZ buildings, prevailing winds, and who should have to walk in further to the packing area! Sure it doesn't achieve the ideal of a private landing field for each person. But it does allow two fundamentally different approaches to exist, with an attempt at keeping fast and slow apart during the critical part of the swooper's approach. It still demands some discipline, but stops short of banning swooping. At busy DZ's, some limitations on swooping may be necessary for it to coexist with other types of jumping. The same applies for other forms of skydiving, like CRW, wingsuits, freefly vs. RW -- or the limitations that one has to accept for the benefits of a big airplane in the first place. I myself only owned an accuracy canopy for 11 years, but now I want to enjoy my swoops too... One counter argument I won't accept, which I sometimes see in these discussions, is that swoopers wouldn't be following a "proper pattern", as if there is only one god-given definition of a pattern. Our skydiving patterns can be whatever we choose and agree them to be, to suit our sport. They don't have to be the same as a pattern as learned by a student airplane pilot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jacketsdb23 45 #133 March 28, 2007 That looks like it would work as well. I think the dividing line would have to be clear that if you aren't past point X, no big turn. Just as with the pattern we're doing at byron it needs to be clear. We use a pump house that we have in the field as a visual. Its not an end all to canopy collisons, that is a risk we all take when getting out of a plane. However, I think both of these methods can decrease the amount of 270º turns coming through slower traffic. Have a specific area set up for the swoopers. If a traditional pattern canopy goes into that area, warning or grounding. If a swooper pulls the big turn in the traditional pattern area same deal.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
squirrel 0 #134 March 29, 2007 Quote>All in all I guess we will not be visiting Eloy any time soon. If by "we" you mean "people who do 270's in the pattern" then the absence of such people will be a big selling point for Eloy. Skydivers who want to survive will see that as a big plus over a DZ that allows dangerous, irresponsible behavior. yep, now i will feel ok to jump there. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #135 March 29, 2007 QuoteQuote>All in all I guess we will not be visiting Eloy any time soon. If by "we" you mean "people who do 270's in the pattern" then the absence of such people will be a big selling point for Eloy. Skydivers who want to survive will see that as a big plus over a DZ that allows dangerous, irresponsible behavior. yep, now i will feel ok to jump there. How do you feel about a canopy flying right at you and then turning at the last possible moment to swoop? Are you okay with this? If yes, then go the Eloy because they seem to feel 180s are safe while they ban 270s? Why? Don't be a sheep ... think ... Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #136 March 29, 2007 >What about the idea of trying to separate a landing area into left and right >parts, with 270 degree swoop turns "to the outside of the pattern"? Yep, that might work well, if you could cleanly separate the airspace above them as well (i.e. the swoopers can't use the airspace over the 90 pattern to set up.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #137 March 29, 2007 >How do you feel about a canopy flying right at you and then turning at the >last possible moment to swoop? Such maneuvers are prohibited in the secondary landing area (finally.) Jumpers now have a choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #138 March 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAll in all I guess we will not be visiting Eloy any time soon. If by "we" you mean "people who do 270's in the pattern" then the absence of such people will be a big selling point for Eloy. yep, now i will feel ok to jump there. How do you feel about a canopy flying right at you and then turning at the last possible moment to swoop? 180s and 270s are both dangerous in a pattern that is "mostly 90s" for different reasons. A 270 setup makes it difficult to see a person below and behind you that you may collide with. However your approach will be easy to recognize and plan around for those roughly on level with you or above you. Your, how shall I say, "courting" of the landing area between opening and landing approach will be similar to the rest of people in the pattern. A 180 setup gives you a better view of people lower than you who are on their base leg and will be landing straight in at about the same time you are, making it easier for you to avoid encountering anyone during the terminal phase of your swoop. But (and this is a huge "but") this kind of approach is extremely difficult to recognize and plan around for those roughly on level with you or above you. It involves flying over the landing area during all or part of your downwind leg and extra turns (usually in the direction opposite the rest of your pattern) to make your downwind leg intersect the base leg directly over where you want you land. To make matters even worse, different canopy designs and wingloadings will have people initiating 90s and 180s from roughly the same height. This is asking for trouble because, and this should be obvious, the root cause of every canopy collision ever is people flying different directions at the same altitude. There seems to be a ridiculous misconception that there's a knob calibrated in both "degrees of turn" and "safety" and that you can turn it one way or the other to get what you want. "180s are okay and 270s aren't" isn't a sensible compromise, it's a misunderstanding of the problem. A rule should not segregate "<180" and ">180", it needs to be "90s" and "everything else." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #139 March 29, 2007 Quoteit needs to be "90s" and "everything else." I agree and that is why some of us just don't understand this rule. Of course I'm concerned about the "low passes are not economically viable" attitude spreading to other DZs, but that is another story. If SDAZ was really serious about this issue, no turns above 90s would be allowed. But even then this wouldn't address all the issues. Under a small sub 100 square foot canopy I can harness turn a 90 from 400-600 feet and still be coming in faster than someone who made a bigger turn under a larger canopy. Fast canopies and slow canopies are not compatible with each other in the same landing area. That is why Cessna type airplanes are discouraged from landing at class Bravo airports. 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 #140 March 29, 2007 you said it yourself. The 20% minority is the most influential, experienced, and most current skydivers on the dz. Do you think giving the boot to all these experienced, brilliant and knowledge filled skydivers would be the right answer. I don't. I have found that swoopers are obviously the best canopy pilots and know the most about patterns, safe swooping, etc. I would say some will stay and make due anyway, but a fair amount may find other dz's. Leaving new jumpers with a ton of questions and the want for this knowledge, lost. There have been many good ideas for a partial and hopefully a permanent solution to all of this. The thing is, is that like the swoopers or not they weren't the only ones caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Sounds to me like swoopers and standard pattern pilots can co-exist as an example of byron, oregon, and many others. I personally don't see the swoopers just going away. This is a skydiving problem. Skydiving is a risky sport we all know that, and no one held a gun to my head and made me jump. Once again I do think there are many safe ways to co-exist as stated before in the thread.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #141 March 29, 2007 >The 20% minority is the most influential, experienced, and most >current skydivers on the dz. Do you think giving the boot to all these >experienced, brilliant and knowledge filled skydivers would be the right >answer. Nope. And no one is talking about "giving them the boot." (Other than a few victim types who want something to complain about.) >I have found that swoopers are obviously the best canopy pilots and >know the most about patterns, safe swooping, etc. I agree. Again, no one is talking about "giving them the boot." All we are talking about is keeping some less-intelligent jumpers from doing dangerous shit that may kill other people. >Once again I do think there are many safe ways to co-exist as stated before in the thread. Absolutely! A separate landing area works well. A "split" landing area may also work, as long as we can really keep airspaces separate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #142 March 29, 2007 SDAZ has effectivly given anyone who wants to practice high perfomance canopy flight the boot. "When can we do a 270?" "On Tuesdays, with full moons, after 6:30, only if there is no one else jumping that day." "Oh wait, it's not economicly viable. Go get in the bus with the Style and Accuracy freaks." Hey it's Larry's DZ, and I actually admire the man for what he's accomplished, but I disagree with him on the handling of this issue.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #143 March 29, 2007 QuoteI have found that swoopers are obviously the best canopy pilots and know the most about patterns, safe swooping, etc. I believe that is true of some, but certainly not all. Otherwise this entire thread wouldn't exist . . . obviously.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #144 March 29, 2007 from what i have read it doesn't sound like sda is interested in other landing areas or split areas, correct me if I am worng. The whole thing about the economics, up jumping isn't economic to a dz at all. So..... I think they could let them slide with some low passes, that is just how I feel about it thoughdon't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #145 March 29, 2007 Quote SDAZ has effectivly given anyone who wants to practice high perfomance canopy flight the boot. So if you don't like to policy just go to some other place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #146 March 29, 2007 Maybe you have missed the number of times I said I would.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #147 March 29, 2007 not all, i could have stated that better. I also know there are a lot of idiot canopy pilots who are not swoopers and I would rather be in the air with a bunch of good swoopers than a few idiot standard pattern flyers any day of the week. Swoopers really tend to know more about canopy piloting in all senses because they need to to be safe. As i said before this is not a swooping prob its a skydiving prob. Someone had posted some stats earlier you should see.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #148 March 29, 2007 Quote>How do you feel about a canopy flying right at you and then turning at the >last possible moment to swoop? Such maneuvers are prohibited in the secondary landing area (finally.) Jumpers now have a choice. Didn't Eloy jumpers always have a choice? Wasn't high performance flight always banned from Eloy's secondary landing area? This whole change on their part reminds me of what a politician would say. A whole lot of hot air promises on something the general public wants to hear but is either ineffective and/or something that was already in place but wasn't known by the masses. Banning 270s while allowing 180s in their main landing area is nothing more than a band-aid knee jerk reaction towards fixing this issue. Fast canopies and slow canopies should not co-exist in the same LZ at the same time. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #149 March 29, 2007 Quote Swoopers really tend to know more about canopy piloting in all senses because they need to to be safe. I also disagree with this statement. Again, while some swoopers may actually have a far higher understanding of canopy flight I have seen a high enough percentage that do not display a very good sense of what is and is not safe at all. If you truely believe that swoopers are somehow a "safer" breed of skydiver, then I suggest you simply look at the fatality statistics.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #150 March 29, 2007 okaydon't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)