jumpwally 0 #226 April 1, 2007 I would imagine Bryan and Larry talk quite a bit and have very similar idea's,,,is anyone dumb enough to think Bryans comments came out his ass just for the fuck of it ? smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #227 April 1, 2007 Up jumping is NOT economical either, so that is a moot point. If you want to be economial about it everyone would be paying about 40 dollars per slot. That won't happen. If it does I will move somewhere else. What happened to people jumping because they love the sport. Sadly, it is already, and sadly more and more always about the money. There are dz's around the country that do great financially and have swoopers and seperate landing areas, etc. So once again that is a cop out in my opinion.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #228 April 1, 2007 Quote Greed is all i see. Up jumping is NOT economical either, so that is a moot point. SD AZ is a business - so I would not talk about "greed" here. Quote If you want to be economial about it everyone would be paying about 40 dollars per slot. That won't happen. Could you please show us the information you based your calculation on? I don't know any dropzone in US which charges $40/slot, and they still seem to be viable. And this means that something is wrong with your calculation. Quote There are dz's around the country that do financially great and have swoopers and seperate landing areas. Every dropzone has its own priorities. Obviously swooping is not in the top priority list on SD AZ. Bryan explained why, and his explanation seems to be reasonable.* 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
2shay 0 #229 April 1, 2007 Economics? Having just up jumpers will break a dz's bank account. I would say, go ask a dzo if up jumpers are economical, and they will more than likely say no. If for some reason they did say yes than why are student and tandem jumps so much more expensive then. If they are making good money off up jumpers(WHICH THEY ARE NOT) then shouldn't a 170 dollar tandem be about 60 or 70 dollars. 21 for the TI's slot 21 for the student slot and 20-30 dollars profit for the TI, since he's doing the work. Wher is the dz's cut? its in the slots (DON'T THINK SO) So are hop and pops uneconomical? YES. Will it kill the business to let people do hop and pops? NO. If your answer is yes, then why is this issue just now coming up. Why haven't they caught it, after all these years? Businesses tend to catch on to financial deficiencies like that. Tandems and students priced the way they are now, makes up jumping and hop and pops and everything else we love to do POSSIBLE. That is what fills the economic hole.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #230 April 2, 2007 Quote Economics? Having just up jumpers will break a dz's bank account. I would say, go ask a dzo if up jumpers are economical, and they will more than likely say no. That's why all DZs I've seen have also students and tandems. However it also depends on the aircraft type, and number of jumpers. If DZ lost money on regular up jumper lift tickets, there would be no reason for boogies - as the boogies attract a lot of up jumpers, while the number of students/tandems stays the same. So, according to your logic, boogie lift tickets should cost more, as there is more up jumpers for the same number of tandems/students. In reality, however, for most boogies jump tickets cost less. For me this means that DZ still could make money on up jumpers. Just not a lot of money. Quote If for some reason they did say yes than why are student and tandem jumps so much more expensive then. For several reasons. First, it costs more. AFF students need one or two instructors, a longer ground training, and student gear. For tandem instructor you missed the tandem gear usage and repack costs, which could easily add extra $50, as it is more expensive. Which makes $120 per tandem. Second, it is open market. There is no reason to sell something much cheaper than your competitors do. Also, comparing to up jumpers, tandem students treat it as a significant event, and usually just do it once. This explains why the price inflation does not really hurt the business, and allows DZ to make good money. Still some DZs do $100 tandems from 13K - like Parachute Center in Lodi, CA. Quote So are hop and pops uneconomical? YES. Will it kill the business to let people do hop and pops? NO. Most likely it will not kill the business. The question is whether it is good for business or not. And this question obviously depends on h-p price. Quote If your answer is yes, then why is this issue just now coming up. Why haven't they caught it, after all these years? Because the business has grown up. There should be no problem doing h-p if you have only one aircraft running. However when you have three or more aircrafts running, it requires very careful planning, as you cannot run low altitude pass while other aircrafts are on jump run and people are jumping. This is extra hassle for pilots, who have to deviate from standard flying patterns (I think it should be obvious why your standard flying pattern cannot cross jump run in 4K with multiple aircraft). It requires extra effort from the ground crew to ensure there is nobody in the sky, either in freefall or under canopy. That's why Bryan pointed out that with current setup on SD AZ hop-and-pops should cost the same price as full-altitude jumps, or even more. And he mentioned the reason for having current setup, which is not hop-and-pop friendly: because the number of customers using it is very low. Things might be different if SD AZ had different configuration (like a separate swooper landing area far away of a regular jump run), but again it was mentioned that the number of customers definitely would not offset the setup and maintenance costs for a good separate swoop landing area. Remember this is desert, and watering a big grass area is much more expensive there than, for example, in humid areas like Florida.* 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
billvon 2,394 #231 April 2, 2007 >Is anyone dumb enough to think Bryans comments came out his ass just for the fuck of it ? Anyone who knows Bryan knows that his comments do not "come out of his ass" nor do they come from (or are 'approved by') anyone else. Since he often runs events for SDAZ, his comments on whether or not he feels H+P's are economical during boogies carry some weight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #232 April 2, 2007 I am going to agree to disagree with you man. Be Safe, Joeldon't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #233 April 2, 2007 QuoteI am going to agree to disagree with you man. Understand, this is much easier to ignore the facts which could hurt your ego :)* 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
2shay 0 #234 April 2, 2007 man you are maturedon't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #235 April 2, 2007 > man you are mature Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #236 April 2, 2007 QuoteIf DZ lost money on regular up jumper lift tickets, there would be no reason for boogies - as the boogies attract a lot of up jumpers, while the number of students/tandems stays the same. So, according to your logic, boogie lift tickets should cost more, as there is more up jumpers for the same number of tandems/students. In reality, however, for most boogies jump tickets cost less. For me this means that DZ still could make money on up jumpers. Just not a lot of money. The lower cost jump ticket is off-set by the registration fee. Most jumpers will never make any where near enough jumps in a boogie to average out to the "normal" lift ticket price."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #237 April 2, 2007 Bill, I've often heard that about him,so i'm in agreement with you,,I can't belive all the dumb comments aimed at his opinions....smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #238 April 3, 2007 <-------------- One of the 80% breathing a deep sigh of relief. Thank you Larry and Bryan. And let me add that I am not at all opposed to swoopers. I think it's neat to watch, I think it's great for spectators, and I think it should be encouraged, as long as it's a contained area away from conservative landers. SDA has made a statement that they do not want to support anyone doing more than 180 degrees, as they do not think the space required is economically viable. That's their choice, and it doesn't mean all other DZs will do the same. One last question - and forgive me, but I do not swoop, so I don't know these things - if a swooper is doing more than 180, can't she/he get a smaller canopy and do the same thing with 180?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #239 April 3, 2007 "One last question - and forgive me, but I do not swoop, so I don't know these things - if a swooper is doing more than 180, can't she/he get a smaller canopy and do the same thing with 180?" no Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpjunkie 0 #240 April 3, 2007 Quote"One last question - and forgive me, but I do not swoop, so I don't know these things - if a swooper is doing more than 180, can't she/he get a smaller canopy and do the same thing with 180?"[/relpy] Quoteno Beautifully stated. Tubing, so easy a caveman can do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RB_Hammer 0 #241 April 3, 2007 QuoteQuote"One last question - and forgive me, but I do not swoop, so I don't know these things - if a swooper is doing more than 180, can't she/he get a smaller canopy and do the same thing with 180?"[/relpy] Quoteno [sarcasm]Beautifully stated.[/sarcasm] Fixed it for you..."I'm not lost. I don't know where I'm going, but there's no sense in being late." Mathew Quigley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites oosskis 0 #242 April 3, 2007 Not sure if this has been said as I just can't be bothered to look through all this BS... For the record, I agree that the main landing area is not a place for swooping. Straight in, 90's, 180's whatever the rules are, fine. Swooping should have a separate landing area and, ideally, separate hop & pop loads (Cessna?). It is clear to me that SDAZ has taken a stand and has cited economic reasons to not build a separate landing area, do hop & pop loads or support swooping in any way. I cannot blame them for that as they are in a desert environment where it is hard to keep things green and ponds full. They obviously think that it is not in their best interest to cater to swoopers as they have enough money coming in from the rest of the skydiving population. They also seem to think that the adverse effect of having less current and less experienced flyers come there seems to be justified. So, kudos to them for cleaning up the landing area, boo to them for not supporting swooping (although understandable) and yay to those DZ's who think that swooping is a worthwile investment eg. Skydive Colorado."Bodygolfing" isn't as much fun as it sounds. People get pissed when you don't replace your divets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skykittykat 0 #243 April 5, 2007 (not a reply to Billvon, but a general reply) My 2 cents worth! Having lived and jumped at Eloy for 3 years, this is my take on the landing situation there is.... There is actually a small core of regular jumpers and jumping staff there. All of the non-swooper regulars landed on the side furthest away from the hangar (in the main landing area) between the peas and the swoop ponds, or in the alternate landing area. The area between the beer line and the peas closest to the hangar was regarded as the area for high performance landings. Most of the working and sponsored peeps were very experienced canopy pilots and were all of the same thought that if they did not have a clear run to do a high performance landing then they would not do one. The problems mainly came during very busy times, eg boogies, where you have a lot of "wannabees". From my personal experience, I was very glad to have met and been taught canopy skills (not swooping as I am a big girl's blouse!!) by some of the top canopy pilots in the world who were at Eloy working and also training for world swoop comps, pusingh their limits in their landings whilst being safe to others in the air. Eloy has always has been seen as the pinnacle in all areas of skydiving - 4-way, 8-way, Freefly, Freestyle, Big Ways, Birdman, CRW, Swooping and canopy piloting - that is why people go there. To limit the boundaries is actually bad for business as these highly skilled people will move on (a lot of them are also coaches in the wind tunnel so there will be a dearth of excellent coaches). Basically, what I am trying to say is that certain landing rules should come into place during boogies and other event days. That way, everyone will be kept happy and Eloy will still maintain it's safety record. The last fatal incident there was a canopy collision between a student and a military skydiver who was on an exercise. I would summise (I could be totally off track here) that both of these canopy pilots were not doing high performance landings and had "tunnel vision" and "landing target fixation" along with the fact that they personally thought that they were the only ones in the air. That is conjecture, however... I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. Liz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #244 April 5, 2007 Hey Liz, I'm not trying to start something here but would you estimate just how long before most of the staff will be gone because of these changes? This point has been made several times and I'd like to personally check this out AFTER some reasonable time. I realize it won't be perfect just your guess based on the staff and people you know. Thanks FortsonKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #245 April 5, 2007 Quote I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. Liz If they are as good as you claim, then why would those people have any trouble getting approved by the management to make high performance landings in accordance with the policy?... 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 billvon 2,394 #246 April 5, 2007 >I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if >all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a >mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a > wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel >coaches. I think Eloy may well lose a few instructors/coaches, but others will take their place. They always have. I know primarily RW coaches out there, and I don't think any of them think their ability to do 270's in the main area is more important than being at Eloy. But I suppose some coaches may leave. Which is fine. I'd expect Eloy to adjust itself after this. Some may leave. Some who have left due to the danger involved in landing there may return. I think it will all work out. I first jumped in Eloy in 1994. Back then it was about 1/4 the size it is now. We'd park right next to the grass and camp right there on the grass by the pool. The Bent Prop was a trailer. The school was a few Conexx containers. They'd fly the DC-3 every weekend and put up the C-123 on occasion for fun. It's changed pretty drastically since then, but it's survived and indeed done quite well. I'd expect that trend to continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brianfry713 0 #247 April 5, 2007 What helps to split up the landing areas with the example of places like Byron, Elsinore, and Skydive Oregon is that there is something dividing the HP and regular canopy traffic that no one wants to land on. If there is something like a pump-house, lake, road, or runway dividing the LZ people are way more likely to stay away from the middle of the two landing areas. I think several of the Eloy collisions were caused by the merging of a left and right pattern in the middle at the no fly zones. If the no fly zone, if there is a no fly zone, is just a grassy area, it would be a lot more tempting for someone who botched the approach to cross into it or land there, eliminating the separation between the split LZ and causing a potential collision hazard between the different patterns. George, there are DZs that don't allow fun jumpers. The money is in the tandems and students. It is a business, and the treatment of fun jumpers and policies will vary among dropzones and events. Some boogies raise jump ticket prices and charge registration to pay for the planes, food, beer, organizers, and the rest of the event. Some DZ's don't really have any events or boogies, and just focus on money doing tandems and student jumps. Lodi's prices are great, but they have to do a lot more jumps for the DZ to make as much money as most other DZs. Despite the significantly lower prices people still chose to jump at the nearby DZs for whatever reasons. Bryan's explanation of how H&P's and swoopers are not economical for SDAZ made a lot of sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wrightskyguy 1 #248 April 5, 2007 QuoteI think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. *** Do you really believe the staff is gonna split? And just where exactly are they going to go? What about the tunnel coaches? Oh yeah, they'll go down the street to "tunnels are us", or any of the other wind tunnel complexes springing up all over the Southwest where they are allowed to do anything they want and get huge pay raises. People that work at DZ's go where the jumpers are, period. For any one staffer that does leave, I guarantee you that there are 100 waiting to take thier place who are just as qualified. John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouDiamond 1 #249 April 5, 2007 QuoteI think several of the Eloy collisions were caused by the merging of a left and right pattern in the middle at the no fly zones. I was present for 2 of the 3 incidents and your statement is incorrect. Both of the incidents were the result of one pilot conducting a HP landing while another was landing straight in. In one incident, the deceased executed a HP landing and collided with the lower jumper. In the second incident, the deceased would have collided with the lower jumper had he not toggle whipped himself into the ground to avoid it. In both incidents all 4 involved had entered the pattern from the same direction. Neither accident occured in a no fly zone, the higher jumper simply ran into the lower jumper from behind due to the natue of the HP landings they were attempting. Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. Despite what some are saying, swooping is not dead at SDA, a Swoop event was held there just the other day. The policy mentioned in this thread and the other threads,is in effect for the main,alternate and tunnel landing areas respectively as described. However, expect further details on conducting HP landings at SDA in the future."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MakeItHappen 15 #250 April 6, 2007 Quote...... Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. ..... ???? huh??? what??? oxymoron??? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 10 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
RB_Hammer 0 #241 April 3, 2007 QuoteQuote"One last question - and forgive me, but I do not swoop, so I don't know these things - if a swooper is doing more than 180, can't she/he get a smaller canopy and do the same thing with 180?"[/relpy] Quoteno [sarcasm]Beautifully stated.[/sarcasm] Fixed it for you..."I'm not lost. I don't know where I'm going, but there's no sense in being late." Mathew Quigley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites oosskis 0 #242 April 3, 2007 Not sure if this has been said as I just can't be bothered to look through all this BS... For the record, I agree that the main landing area is not a place for swooping. Straight in, 90's, 180's whatever the rules are, fine. Swooping should have a separate landing area and, ideally, separate hop & pop loads (Cessna?). It is clear to me that SDAZ has taken a stand and has cited economic reasons to not build a separate landing area, do hop & pop loads or support swooping in any way. I cannot blame them for that as they are in a desert environment where it is hard to keep things green and ponds full. They obviously think that it is not in their best interest to cater to swoopers as they have enough money coming in from the rest of the skydiving population. They also seem to think that the adverse effect of having less current and less experienced flyers come there seems to be justified. So, kudos to them for cleaning up the landing area, boo to them for not supporting swooping (although understandable) and yay to those DZ's who think that swooping is a worthwile investment eg. Skydive Colorado."Bodygolfing" isn't as much fun as it sounds. People get pissed when you don't replace your divets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skykittykat 0 #243 April 5, 2007 (not a reply to Billvon, but a general reply) My 2 cents worth! Having lived and jumped at Eloy for 3 years, this is my take on the landing situation there is.... There is actually a small core of regular jumpers and jumping staff there. All of the non-swooper regulars landed on the side furthest away from the hangar (in the main landing area) between the peas and the swoop ponds, or in the alternate landing area. The area between the beer line and the peas closest to the hangar was regarded as the area for high performance landings. Most of the working and sponsored peeps were very experienced canopy pilots and were all of the same thought that if they did not have a clear run to do a high performance landing then they would not do one. The problems mainly came during very busy times, eg boogies, where you have a lot of "wannabees". From my personal experience, I was very glad to have met and been taught canopy skills (not swooping as I am a big girl's blouse!!) by some of the top canopy pilots in the world who were at Eloy working and also training for world swoop comps, pusingh their limits in their landings whilst being safe to others in the air. Eloy has always has been seen as the pinnacle in all areas of skydiving - 4-way, 8-way, Freefly, Freestyle, Big Ways, Birdman, CRW, Swooping and canopy piloting - that is why people go there. To limit the boundaries is actually bad for business as these highly skilled people will move on (a lot of them are also coaches in the wind tunnel so there will be a dearth of excellent coaches). Basically, what I am trying to say is that certain landing rules should come into place during boogies and other event days. That way, everyone will be kept happy and Eloy will still maintain it's safety record. The last fatal incident there was a canopy collision between a student and a military skydiver who was on an exercise. I would summise (I could be totally off track here) that both of these canopy pilots were not doing high performance landings and had "tunnel vision" and "landing target fixation" along with the fact that they personally thought that they were the only ones in the air. That is conjecture, however... I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. Liz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mirage62 0 #244 April 5, 2007 Hey Liz, I'm not trying to start something here but would you estimate just how long before most of the staff will be gone because of these changes? This point has been made several times and I'd like to personally check this out AFTER some reasonable time. I realize it won't be perfect just your guess based on the staff and people you know. Thanks FortsonKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #245 April 5, 2007 Quote I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. Liz If they are as good as you claim, then why would those people have any trouble getting approved by the management to make high performance landings in accordance with the policy?... 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 billvon 2,394 #246 April 5, 2007 >I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if >all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a >mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a > wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel >coaches. I think Eloy may well lose a few instructors/coaches, but others will take their place. They always have. I know primarily RW coaches out there, and I don't think any of them think their ability to do 270's in the main area is more important than being at Eloy. But I suppose some coaches may leave. Which is fine. I'd expect Eloy to adjust itself after this. Some may leave. Some who have left due to the danger involved in landing there may return. I think it will all work out. I first jumped in Eloy in 1994. Back then it was about 1/4 the size it is now. We'd park right next to the grass and camp right there on the grass by the pool. The Bent Prop was a trailer. The school was a few Conexx containers. They'd fly the DC-3 every weekend and put up the C-123 on occasion for fun. It's changed pretty drastically since then, but it's survived and indeed done quite well. I'd expect that trend to continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brianfry713 0 #247 April 5, 2007 What helps to split up the landing areas with the example of places like Byron, Elsinore, and Skydive Oregon is that there is something dividing the HP and regular canopy traffic that no one wants to land on. If there is something like a pump-house, lake, road, or runway dividing the LZ people are way more likely to stay away from the middle of the two landing areas. I think several of the Eloy collisions were caused by the merging of a left and right pattern in the middle at the no fly zones. If the no fly zone, if there is a no fly zone, is just a grassy area, it would be a lot more tempting for someone who botched the approach to cross into it or land there, eliminating the separation between the split LZ and causing a potential collision hazard between the different patterns. George, there are DZs that don't allow fun jumpers. The money is in the tandems and students. It is a business, and the treatment of fun jumpers and policies will vary among dropzones and events. Some boogies raise jump ticket prices and charge registration to pay for the planes, food, beer, organizers, and the rest of the event. Some DZ's don't really have any events or boogies, and just focus on money doing tandems and student jumps. Lodi's prices are great, but they have to do a lot more jumps for the DZ to make as much money as most other DZs. Despite the significantly lower prices people still chose to jump at the nearby DZs for whatever reasons. Bryan's explanation of how H&P's and swoopers are not economical for SDAZ made a lot of sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wrightskyguy 1 #248 April 5, 2007 QuoteI think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. *** Do you really believe the staff is gonna split? And just where exactly are they going to go? What about the tunnel coaches? Oh yeah, they'll go down the street to "tunnels are us", or any of the other wind tunnel complexes springing up all over the Southwest where they are allowed to do anything they want and get huge pay raises. People that work at DZ's go where the jumpers are, period. For any one staffer that does leave, I guarantee you that there are 100 waiting to take thier place who are just as qualified. John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouDiamond 1 #249 April 5, 2007 QuoteI think several of the Eloy collisions were caused by the merging of a left and right pattern in the middle at the no fly zones. I was present for 2 of the 3 incidents and your statement is incorrect. Both of the incidents were the result of one pilot conducting a HP landing while another was landing straight in. In one incident, the deceased executed a HP landing and collided with the lower jumper. In the second incident, the deceased would have collided with the lower jumper had he not toggle whipped himself into the ground to avoid it. In both incidents all 4 involved had entered the pattern from the same direction. Neither accident occured in a no fly zone, the higher jumper simply ran into the lower jumper from behind due to the natue of the HP landings they were attempting. Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. Despite what some are saying, swooping is not dead at SDA, a Swoop event was held there just the other day. The policy mentioned in this thread and the other threads,is in effect for the main,alternate and tunnel landing areas respectively as described. However, expect further details on conducting HP landings at SDA in the future."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MakeItHappen 15 #250 April 6, 2007 Quote...... Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. ..... ???? huh??? what??? oxymoron??? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 10 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
oosskis 0 #242 April 3, 2007 Not sure if this has been said as I just can't be bothered to look through all this BS... For the record, I agree that the main landing area is not a place for swooping. Straight in, 90's, 180's whatever the rules are, fine. Swooping should have a separate landing area and, ideally, separate hop & pop loads (Cessna?). It is clear to me that SDAZ has taken a stand and has cited economic reasons to not build a separate landing area, do hop & pop loads or support swooping in any way. I cannot blame them for that as they are in a desert environment where it is hard to keep things green and ponds full. They obviously think that it is not in their best interest to cater to swoopers as they have enough money coming in from the rest of the skydiving population. They also seem to think that the adverse effect of having less current and less experienced flyers come there seems to be justified. So, kudos to them for cleaning up the landing area, boo to them for not supporting swooping (although understandable) and yay to those DZ's who think that swooping is a worthwile investment eg. Skydive Colorado."Bodygolfing" isn't as much fun as it sounds. People get pissed when you don't replace your divets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skykittykat 0 #243 April 5, 2007 (not a reply to Billvon, but a general reply) My 2 cents worth! Having lived and jumped at Eloy for 3 years, this is my take on the landing situation there is.... There is actually a small core of regular jumpers and jumping staff there. All of the non-swooper regulars landed on the side furthest away from the hangar (in the main landing area) between the peas and the swoop ponds, or in the alternate landing area. The area between the beer line and the peas closest to the hangar was regarded as the area for high performance landings. Most of the working and sponsored peeps were very experienced canopy pilots and were all of the same thought that if they did not have a clear run to do a high performance landing then they would not do one. The problems mainly came during very busy times, eg boogies, where you have a lot of "wannabees". From my personal experience, I was very glad to have met and been taught canopy skills (not swooping as I am a big girl's blouse!!) by some of the top canopy pilots in the world who were at Eloy working and also training for world swoop comps, pusingh their limits in their landings whilst being safe to others in the air. Eloy has always has been seen as the pinnacle in all areas of skydiving - 4-way, 8-way, Freefly, Freestyle, Big Ways, Birdman, CRW, Swooping and canopy piloting - that is why people go there. To limit the boundaries is actually bad for business as these highly skilled people will move on (a lot of them are also coaches in the wind tunnel so there will be a dearth of excellent coaches). Basically, what I am trying to say is that certain landing rules should come into place during boogies and other event days. That way, everyone will be kept happy and Eloy will still maintain it's safety record. The last fatal incident there was a canopy collision between a student and a military skydiver who was on an exercise. I would summise (I could be totally off track here) that both of these canopy pilots were not doing high performance landings and had "tunnel vision" and "landing target fixation" along with the fact that they personally thought that they were the only ones in the air. That is conjecture, however... I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. Liz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #244 April 5, 2007 Hey Liz, I'm not trying to start something here but would you estimate just how long before most of the staff will be gone because of these changes? This point has been made several times and I'd like to personally check this out AFTER some reasonable time. I realize it won't be perfect just your guess based on the staff and people you know. Thanks FortsonKevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #245 April 5, 2007 Quote I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. Liz If they are as good as you claim, then why would those people have any trouble getting approved by the management to make high performance landings in accordance with the policy?... 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
billvon 2,394 #246 April 5, 2007 >I think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if >all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a >mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a > wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel >coaches. I think Eloy may well lose a few instructors/coaches, but others will take their place. They always have. I know primarily RW coaches out there, and I don't think any of them think their ability to do 270's in the main area is more important than being at Eloy. But I suppose some coaches may leave. Which is fine. I'd expect Eloy to adjust itself after this. Some may leave. Some who have left due to the danger involved in landing there may return. I think it will all work out. I first jumped in Eloy in 1994. Back then it was about 1/4 the size it is now. We'd park right next to the grass and camp right there on the grass by the pool. The Bent Prop was a trailer. The school was a few Conexx containers. They'd fly the DC-3 every weekend and put up the C-123 on occasion for fun. It's changed pretty drastically since then, but it's survived and indeed done quite well. I'd expect that trend to continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brianfry713 0 #247 April 5, 2007 What helps to split up the landing areas with the example of places like Byron, Elsinore, and Skydive Oregon is that there is something dividing the HP and regular canopy traffic that no one wants to land on. If there is something like a pump-house, lake, road, or runway dividing the LZ people are way more likely to stay away from the middle of the two landing areas. I think several of the Eloy collisions were caused by the merging of a left and right pattern in the middle at the no fly zones. If the no fly zone, if there is a no fly zone, is just a grassy area, it would be a lot more tempting for someone who botched the approach to cross into it or land there, eliminating the separation between the split LZ and causing a potential collision hazard between the different patterns. George, there are DZs that don't allow fun jumpers. The money is in the tandems and students. It is a business, and the treatment of fun jumpers and policies will vary among dropzones and events. Some boogies raise jump ticket prices and charge registration to pay for the planes, food, beer, organizers, and the rest of the event. Some DZ's don't really have any events or boogies, and just focus on money doing tandems and student jumps. Lodi's prices are great, but they have to do a lot more jumps for the DZ to make as much money as most other DZs. Despite the significantly lower prices people still chose to jump at the nearby DZs for whatever reasons. Bryan's explanation of how H&P's and swoopers are not economical for SDAZ made a lot of sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrightskyguy 1 #248 April 5, 2007 QuoteI think Eloy will lose a lot of excellent staff because of the rules and if all those staff/teams move onto other dzs then Eloy will become a mediocre dz that only offers good weather, an Otter to jump out, plus a wind tunnel, but with no "top level" load organisers, skydiving and tunnel coaches. *** Do you really believe the staff is gonna split? And just where exactly are they going to go? What about the tunnel coaches? Oh yeah, they'll go down the street to "tunnels are us", or any of the other wind tunnel complexes springing up all over the Southwest where they are allowed to do anything they want and get huge pay raises. People that work at DZ's go where the jumpers are, period. For any one staffer that does leave, I guarantee you that there are 100 waiting to take thier place who are just as qualified. John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LouDiamond 1 #249 April 5, 2007 QuoteI think several of the Eloy collisions were caused by the merging of a left and right pattern in the middle at the no fly zones. I was present for 2 of the 3 incidents and your statement is incorrect. Both of the incidents were the result of one pilot conducting a HP landing while another was landing straight in. In one incident, the deceased executed a HP landing and collided with the lower jumper. In the second incident, the deceased would have collided with the lower jumper had he not toggle whipped himself into the ground to avoid it. In both incidents all 4 involved had entered the pattern from the same direction. Neither accident occured in a no fly zone, the higher jumper simply ran into the lower jumper from behind due to the natue of the HP landings they were attempting. Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. Despite what some are saying, swooping is not dead at SDA, a Swoop event was held there just the other day. The policy mentioned in this thread and the other threads,is in effect for the main,alternate and tunnel landing areas respectively as described. However, expect further details on conducting HP landings at SDA in the future."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MakeItHappen 15 #250 April 6, 2007 Quote...... Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. ..... ???? huh??? what??? oxymoron??? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 10 of 11 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
LouDiamond 1 #249 April 5, 2007 QuoteI think several of the Eloy collisions were caused by the merging of a left and right pattern in the middle at the no fly zones. I was present for 2 of the 3 incidents and your statement is incorrect. Both of the incidents were the result of one pilot conducting a HP landing while another was landing straight in. In one incident, the deceased executed a HP landing and collided with the lower jumper. In the second incident, the deceased would have collided with the lower jumper had he not toggle whipped himself into the ground to avoid it. In both incidents all 4 involved had entered the pattern from the same direction. Neither accident occured in a no fly zone, the higher jumper simply ran into the lower jumper from behind due to the natue of the HP landings they were attempting. Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. Despite what some are saying, swooping is not dead at SDA, a Swoop event was held there just the other day. The policy mentioned in this thread and the other threads,is in effect for the main,alternate and tunnel landing areas respectively as described. However, expect further details on conducting HP landings at SDA in the future."It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required" Some people dream about flying, I live my dream SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #250 April 6, 2007 Quote...... Again, traffic was not an issue as those involved were the only two people attempting to land at that moment in time. ..... ???? huh??? what??? oxymoron??? .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)