Bryan Burke - SDAZ 270 Policy notes

[jumper03 0]

I'm guessing that is a rhetorical 'you' as I don't have a dz or have much to do with training students.


However, I strive each weekend to set a good pattern, keep my own head on a swivel, stress keeping situational awareness to newer jumpers, to talk with everyone about the pattern at the mock up and making sure everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

Beyond that - it is in Allah's hands.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I'm guessing that is a rhetorical 'you' as I don't have a dz or have much to do with training students.

Absolutely.

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

[marks 0]

Quote

Bwahahah . . . at least you're starting to admit it!

ok, since you said that I will say this.

if you ban big ways, there WILL be LESS canopy collisions.

if you have big landing area's there WILL be LESS canopy collisions.

If you ban swooping, I seriously doubt there will be less canopy collisions.

and if you didn't ban swooping and DID have a larger landing area, where it can be split. then the result would be the same as if you just had a big landing area.

I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that you can't do aerobatics in a landing pattern, but to be real, there wouldn't be a problem without the traffic. and there wouldnt be the traffic witrh a bigger landing area.

and if you got a small landing area at your DZ, then ban away.

[Spizzzarko 0]

it sounds like the taliban is in power with all this banning talk. Next thing you know all swoopers will have to wear black face scarves and will not be able to show any leg skin with the little fag pant capris that some of them wear.

[ORANGENBLUE 0]

In one breath.

"The sole exception will be for skydivers exiting on low passes to practice for or participate in swoop competitions, and then only after having received approval from the management." -Larry Hill

and in the next

"Low passes are incredibly inefficient. Putting out five passes at 5,000 feet for a swoop meet takes longer than putting out one pass at 13,000, and generates much less revenue because few skydivers are willing to admit that a low pass should cost as much as, if not more, than one at full altitude. In addition, low passes tie up a valuable resource: airspace. An Otter load full of swoopers will monopolize the sky over the DZ for a minimum of 18 minutes, usually about 22. (Yes, I do time these things. Five passes at three minutes each, including the time spent on jump run, plus another three minutes for the last canopies to descend below 1,500 feet.) In that time, we can’t drop anything else because we don’t have a dedicated landing area far enough away for parallel jump runs to work in the swoop context. The only logical time for us to host a meet would be in our off-season.

Even one pass at low altitude becomes a big timing problem if we are flying more than two aircraft, which is why we simply won’t do them much of the time. Low passes are such an incredibly small piece of the market that they aren’t worth doing except when things are relatively quiet and it can easily be fit into the air traffic pattern. It certainly isn’t worth holding an airplane or two, waiting for a clear jump run, when the airplane costs ten bucks a minute to operate and the lift ticket is only fourteen dollars.
Swooping presents other economic problems. The staffing and equipment requirements for a meet are quite high considering the relatively low number of competitors. Then there is the real estate problem. 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.

To conclude this particular line of thought, swooping is exactly like Classic Accuracy: very low revenue, very high in demand on resources. We don’t encourage Accuracy, either, because we simply don’t have the resources for it. Skydive Arizona is too busy trying to keep up with the demands of our mainstream customers to court marginal ones. " -Bryan Burke

And in conclusion if you want to swoop, go pound sand.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Let's call a truce - cease fire for a moment.

I think one of the things that we are all having difficulty in doing is articulating exactly what we mean.

Some terms or phrases mean different things to different people.

Explanations seem to go along these lines too.

What I have heard is that just about everyone agrees that pulling a 270 in a congested airspace is a dumb thing to do.

So take your arrows and fire them on target - not at someone's post that you may interpret differently than the poster's intention, but at something that tries to encompass all of these views.

I have gathered info from many sources and put them into a draft document called
Avoiding Canopy Collisions and a Glossary.

I still have comments from others to add in. There are a bunch of diagrams that I want to add. It's a work in progress.

It is much easier to edit than create. So edit away.

I will add in my usual disclaimer for prototype work. This is not the end all or the final product. It is a work in progress.
Corrections to spelling or grammar are welcome too. Keep in mind I have not gone thru to make sure tenses are consistent.

Just don't stand there bitching - do something!

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

What I have heard is that just about everyone agrees that pulling a 270 in a congested airspace is a dumb thing to do.

Can I ammend this statement by saying:

Doing stupid things under a perfectly functional canopy in any airspace is a dumb thing to do.

Then swoopers won't feel so defensive towards the anti-swooping boogie man.

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

[peckerhead 0]

Quote

All this makes a Cessna DZ not seem so bad.

Amen to that!

I posted a few months ago that I was fed up with boogies and big drop zones. I used to go to Eloy at least once or twice a year and jump for a week or two. I quit going there about 6-7 years ago because of the chaos under canopy.

If they adopt and Enforce this new policy maybe I would start jumping there again. There are a lot of jumpers like me out there who would return in droves. Don't like it? Go jump somewhere else or better yet start your own DZ.

Skydiving is supposed to be fun. The parachute ride should be the safe part. Who the fuck needs the anxiety and the controversy?

[billvon 2,380]

>Disagree with you here bill - It is stupid canopy pilots - swooper and non
>swooper alike that is the problem.

Well, it's stupid canopy pilots who do not fly a pattern. However, a stupid canopy pilot who flies a pattern is (somewhat) less dangerous than an equally-stupid canopy pilot who pulls a 270 right over the LZ.

>Unfortunately you can't institute rules to make people smarter, more aware, etc.

Correct. At best, rules keep people alive until they learn a little more.

[frost 1]

Quote

also, has anyone looked at the type of DZ's these collisions primarily happen at? Eloy is a big DZ, dublin had a boogie with a lot of people attending, collisions on opening becauase there were many other people in the air, all these things have something in common...many many people in the air at the same time and all trying to land or occupy the same spot at the same time.

BINGO! Why doesn't anyone consider the circumstances around these accidents?? Many people in the air at the same time. Boogies. How about controlling the turns during these large jumps? How about whoever is organizing getting it in the heads of all the participants, who are probably large jump number skydivers, that there will be NO high speed landings on these jumps. You break the rule - you're out. Boogie, lots of new people on the DZ? Same thing.

[marks 0]

Quote

Quote

also, has anyone looked at the type of DZ's these collisions primarily happen at? Eloy is a big DZ, dublin had a boogie with a lot of people attending, collisions on opening becauase there were many other people in the air, all these things have something in common...many many people in the air at the same time and all trying to land or occupy the same spot at the same time.

BINGO! Why doesn't anyone consider the circumstances around these accidents?? Many people in the air at the same time. Boogies. How about controlling the turns during these large jumps? How about whoever is organizing getting it in the heads of all the participants, who are probably large jump number skydivers, that there will be NO high speed landings on these jumps. You break the rule - you're out. Boogie, lots of new people on the DZ? Same thing.

I don't jump at the boogies I go to. there is just too much traffic. I go, hang out, drink a few and meet peeps.

• Quote

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

Quote

I’m opened to well reasoned arguments, however. If anyone can give me a convincing explanation of why a 180 is more dangerous than a 270, I’m sure the dz will be willing to ban those as well. 270s are already pretty well proven to be dangerous when done with other traffic around. If a 180 is even worse, we want to do the right thing.

Its not so much the fact that 270s are bad its that the way we have to fly a pattern to fly a "safer" 270 is not left hand (or right hand at SDAZ's outlaying area.)

See I personally fly a right hand pattern to a left hand 270... the reason for this is so that while I am finalizing my setup I am looking at the pattern from multiple views...the second reason for this is so that I dont turn blindly into a lower jumper (see first reason)

Cheers

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

>I think there needs to be a deliniation in this argument on wheather it is
>the pattern or teh turn that is killing people.

I think it's absolutely the pattern! The 270 is just how some jumpers blow the pattern - but a 360, 720 etc would have the same effect. The issue isn't that people are swooping, or that they are landing fast. The issue is that they're not following the same pattern everyone else is.

if the guy made a right hand 270 he probably followed the pattern more than any of the 4 way teams at my home DZ do.

for a right hand 270 you follow a left hand pattern to your initiation point.

shows how much you actually know what you are talking about Bill.

edited to add, I still dont like right hand 270s except for the fact that you are following a left hand pattern...I prefer right hands so I can see wtf is happenign in the pattern and make an informed decision as to what the fuck I am going to do to be safer for every one else around me (and most importantly me cause its all about me dont ya know )

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

""The" pattern starts 800-1000 feet AGL"

I think that you will find many people flying smaller canopies balking at those numbers to start a down wind. That may be cool for your 190, but not for a 96.

I remember some PD guys saying a pattern should start there or even higher for a swooper.

And BTW, I'm not a "dude"

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Spizzzarko

Did you know that wingloading and glide ratio are not linked?

It's true. A canopy loaded at 1.3 and another at 2.3 have the exact same glide ratio.

It's also not relevant. Canopies with higher wing loadings, longer lines, and more agressive trims loose much more altitude in an intentional speed-induced turn onto final than larger and more conservative designs.

When the altitude for the turn onto final goes up, the other altitudes need to increase too.

[billvon 2,380]

>for a right hand 270 you follow a left hand pattern to your initiation point.

If you are doing 270's you're not following the pattern. For more information on what a standard pattern is I recommend the following resources:

AC 90-66a (in the SIM)
Standard pattern diagram, SIM page 53
"Collision free landing approaches" page 52

> . . .and make an informed decision as to what the fuck I am going to
>do to be safer for every one else around me . . .

It is a pretty safe bet that doing a 270 is NEVER safer for the people around you.

[rhys 0]

I can't see many dropzones banning swooping!

Though low passes do reduce profit if your manifest is full for the day. People will always want to further their canopy skills so Free Fall teams will most likely decide not to train there either.

The statement in the Original post is confusing the problem of the deaths with the problem of economics. If the government told the said company to do something about it ‘or else’, then and only then they could have banned swooping to address the problem until they made some sort of accommodation for a separate landing area.

When did the govornment say this to them? was it just now or before the recent fatalities?

The problem with economics is not the problem with the Fatalities and I do also understand it is their own decision and they have airspace issues that are limiting their manifest/profit.

To bring up the fatailies as the reason to ban swooping when clearly the real reason is to make more money, is not only cold but unacceptable.

It is the same as a few years ago when ski fields like Aspen banned snowboarders (minority) because they liked to ‘do jumps’ and use the mountain in a different way to skiers (majority). Snowboarding posed a hazard to the regular users of the area and they were a small minority so their answer was to ban snowboarding. Meanwhile other ski fields (dropzones) saw the future economic potential of snowboarding (swooping) and begin to answer the needs of these interesting new clients and develop Terrain parks and half pipes (swoop ponds and lanes with carve etc.) and make more profit with the essential instruction and coaching that comes part and parcel with such endeavours. In time these particular ski fields (dropzones) get very popular. And then a couple of years later the old snobby ski field finds out that they have to allow snowboarding at their ski field (dropzone) if they want to hold the almighty Olympic games (national and international competitions) because snowboarding (swooping) has become a very popular sport (majority) to take part in and watch on Television! = very big business not from the competitors, but media $$$!

Banning swooping altogether is quite obviously the incorrect way to deal with the problem. It does not teach us the right lesson. People will either break the rule or go away.

Swooping is a very new thing and in time will most likely be the ambassador of our sport because the general public obviously does not appreciate watching free fall disciplines but high performance landings will continue to gain more media exposure (positive and negative), especially now it is not only the skydiving community doing it. Paragliders are only now moving into swooping as we know it. There are now over 5 paraglider companies making swoop specific wings that are looking and performing more and more like high performance parachutes. The pilots of these will most likely end up wanting to practice their skills from jumping out of a plane within the next few years. The paragliding industry is huge compared to the skydiving industry so this will in turn boost number of jumpers. Swoop parks and hop ‘n’ pops will be big business in a few years. This will also drag these potential clients into a free fall addiction that we all know so well. Also with new training programmes and advancemnts in equipment it is no longer only jumpers with more than 1000 jumps swooping.

Education is the key.

To answer both of the problems the said company could have got another small plane and made a swoop park DZ down the road and invested some of their profit into the future but it seems they are only concerned with the short term.

So there is a gap in the market eh!

I hope this is all just a storm in a tea cup.

Blue skies,

Rhys

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

It is a pretty safe bet that doing a 270 is NEVER safer for the people around you.

C'mon bill there is no truth to that comment.

You are saying every 270 degree apporoach in history where there was somebody else in the area put that particular 2nd person in danger every time!

keep it real please

this is a serious issue and we need to be reasonable about it.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Quote

It is a pretty safe bet that doing a 270 is NEVER safer for the people around you.

C'mon bill there is no truth to that comment.

You are saying every 270 degree apporoach in history where there was somebody else in the area put that particular 2nd person in danger every time!

No, he didn't say that at all.

He said that doing a 270 never made anyone safer.

"Never safer" does not equal "always more dangerous"

__

My mighty steed

[billvon 2,380]

>You are saying every 270 degree apporoach in history where there
>was somebody else in the area put that particular 2nd person in danger
>every time!

No, I am saying that when there is traffic, 270's are never safer for the people around you.

If there's no one at all around you, no problem.

If you are doing it in an area with other swoopers all doing 270's, well - it's still more risky, but everyone in the swooping area has signed up for the additional risk (and is likely flying a similar approach.)

>this is a serious issue and we need to be reasonable about it.

I agree. 270's _can_ be done safely under certain circumstances, but to claim they are as safe as 90's is a non-starter.

[brenthutch 383]

I fear the law of unintended consequences.

The 270 turn, HP landing developed as a SAFER alternative to lover degree turns done at LOWER altitudes.
I am afraid that in an attempt to develop the same speed as a slow carving 270 people will start doing quick snap turns at lower altitudes, and take us back to the "Whippy the Toggle Monkey" days of the 90s. (make that 1990s)

I don't have an issue with restricting HP landings, regardless of the size of the turn, when landing with traffic. But if a swooper(s) wants to get out last, open high, and land last or have a low pass (on the way to altitude), I just cant see why anyone would have an problem with that.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Yes, there is an issue with high performance turns in the pattern,

I think this is where the gut reaction from the swoopers comes in to defend themselves. If the terms were broader to include all jumpers (who are all at fault in this), it may go over better. It's a semantic issue, but saying that "aggressive and unpredictable turns, patterns and maneuvers in trafic" are the issue, more people may spend their time listening instead of defending their style of flying. The sad thing is that none of this information is new to anyone that has ever attended at least one first jump class.

As far as no hop-n-pops at Eloy? I don't think he said that, he said it won't happen that often nor would they be a priority. Since they know what it takes to pay the bills for that playground, they get to make the rules. If that means you choose to go to a DZ that has less traffic or enough real estate to allow for low passes, so be it. It most likely would be better off for everyone. The economics will play out in the long run. Will losing the small amount of swoopers that traditionally make more jumps a month than non-swoopers be an impact? Will the lack of spectators that come out to watch them have an impact on first-jumps, less/more casual jumpers and additional spending done around the DZ? Guess we will find out.

Bottom line: It's better to have pissed-off skydivers than dead skydivers.

Raise your hand if you would prefer to still have a friend around bitching every weekend about what DZ he can't go to instead of sharing memories of his/her life around the bonfire because they died in a canopy collision.

**Raises Hand**

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 2,380]

The discussion of guns vs swooping has been moved to SC. Please do not use this forum for discussion of religion, guns or politics; a lot of non-gun replies to that post got moved as well, and that doesn't help the discussion.

[jacketsdb23 45]

I have replaced my post because it was taken off with the guns discussion. This is the landing pattern we have started using at Byron. Does anyone see a reason this (the attached sketch) can't be a basis for change at other DZ's? If we allow swooping in one 'area' only, everyone can avoid that area. Keep the swooping area as a separate 'pattern'. If the swoopers can't get into 'the swoopers pattern' all HP landings are aborted and traditional, predictable, 90º approaches are used.

In the attached sketch (modified from SIM Section 4, Cat. C), you could designate a point in the landing field and rotate the no fly zone according to wind direction. Or as others have pointed out the bigger DZ's only have two directions to land anyway, which would make it even easier.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

The discussion of guns vs swooping has been moved to SC. Please do not use this forum for discussion of religion, guns or politics; a lot of non-gun replies to that post got moved as well, and that doesn't help the discussion.

Are you saying even though I didn't mention guns, and you moved my post, that my post didn't help the discussion?

J

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