Take Back the Sky

[squirrel 0]

Having a swooper take out me or my wife is my biggest fear in jumping. She has been extremely close to being take out at Perris...we dont jump there anymore. How anyone can argure that swoopers and "standard" canpoy flyers can and should occupy the same airspace is beyond rediculas. I love to watch swoopers, very very cool. But just as I would not stand in the middle of the Daytona speedway lanes, in the path of the cars, I watch the swoopers from a safe area,.. the ground, not the air. Although that is not always safe either. This weekend a swooper nearly crashed into the otter mock up where I was jumping.

I also fly ulralights. I fly with 4 to 5 other aircraft, much less than a full otter load. Even with strobs and marker smoke, it is still easy to loose sight of fellow ultralights, but we (our group) all have radios to inquire the other aircraft location. To bad we cant do that under canopy. So, separation is the most straight forward and basic solution.

In short. I land FAR away from where I know swoopers are going, and have eliminated close calls to date. I feel this self taken action has greatly increased my safety. I get hot and sweaty walking back, but it is worth it. Accidents do happen, but I take action to make them not happen.

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[Spizzzarko 0]

"Are you really arguing that jumpers who do 270's have BETTER visibility of potential conflicting traffic than jumpers who make 90 degree turns in the pattern? I think perhaps getting out there and doing a few of these (after appropriate instruction/experience of course) would give you a clearer view of the issues involved."

Visibility is provided by where you look. All I am saying is that if you are focused at one point throughout a turn then you are only going to see that point weather you are doing a 90 or a 270, and yes Bill I have done plenty of 270's. I actually competed on that turn for awhile.

[winsor 185]

Quote

Quote

What I do recommend is that the waiver clearly indicate what behavior is not covered by the DZs insurance

What types of behaviors do the these insurance polies actually cover?

Generally, they cover "accidents."

Do something that could be construed as an "on purpose," and all bets are off.

Think of life insurance - if you do anything intentional to collect, you can't.

If you get an insurance policy that specifically disallows claims resulting from specific acts, the exemption is typically binding.

I doubt if the verbiage in the policy could include the exception from coverage for any actions preceded by the statement "hey, watch this!," but it could work out to that in practice.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[yardhippie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I do recommend is that the waiver clearly indicate what behavior is not covered by the DZs insurance, and that infractions that nullify insurance coverage will result in immediate grounding.

If the DZ becomes financially liable for the stupidity of jumpers at the DZ, said stupidity will be moved elsewhere.

Nobody is going to cover for someone if doing so will put them out of business in a hurry.

There will still be swooping, but it will be with the understanding and consent of all involved. When flying the pattern, everyone will do so to the best of their ability.

The day the DZ's become liable for the stupidity of jumpers at the DZ, is the day the DZ closes.

Are you guys really getting litigious on us?

How the hell are lawsuits the answer here?

That is by no means the point. Who suggested lawsuits as an answer to anything?

What I am talking about is insurance coverage. Make it clear that particular actions are not covered, and you have a financial incentive for grounding the offender on the spot.

This gives DZs the tool necessary to maintain basic safety standards. You only have to set an example or two, and people tend to get the message.


Blue skies,

Winsor

DZO's dont need anymore tools now than they did a week ago. They need to act. Who cares if there is some underlying "reason" they set policy. Its a business, and as a business they can refuse service as they see fit. If they see someone doing something stupid, and this is the key, do something about it. Im not talking about, swoopers, or that guy thats always doing S-turns on final, Im talking about anybody!

Egos often get in the way, of changing ones habits. The ones that think they're good enough and wont listen to others. Rules and policy do not, and will not affect those people. Action is the only thing that recieves attention. Who gives a rats ass, if the one guy everyone knows continously endangers others gets grounded and/or asked to leave the DZ if we are ALL safer in the end.

IF that requires a DZ to separate their LZs and establish pattern guidelines so be it, but thats only going to work in most situations. The "what if's" are going to be rampant even for the best laid plans. The fact of the matter is we have pilots making poor decisions, if we continue to allow those decisions, well, we know the result.

This is where we educate. I know some have asked "well the what do you teach". Hell some of you folks have more intelligence in you pinkys that I do in my head, but I could easily come up with some basic fundamentals for that training. Diverdriver touched on aircraft landing pattern regs, and this is where I'll admit Im guilty of not reading the SIM, hell when I was working on my private ticket I only read enough of the AIM to pass my written. I think we can learn from how the avaiation industry regulates flight patterns. Doesnt mean its a cookie cutter fix for us, but the idea of having a method to the madness is.

Well many of you may say "how do we evaluate what is stupid?" I say "come one people". Were all grown-ups here, we know right from wrong, we can evaluate risk. If we have someone who for whatever reason cannot, or will not make the proper decisions then...
We all know about the "maybe you should take up bowling" speech. It doesnt just apply to the freefall. If a pilot cannot consistantly, safely enter into a landing pattern with a reasonable amount of VERTICAL and HORIZONTAL separation, evaluate the winds, and pick a clear course for landing, maybe they need to take up bowling.

Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD
"What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me
"Anything you want." ~ female skydiver
Mohoso Rodriguez #865

[Spizzzarko 0]

"Rules and policy do not, and will not affect those people."

Thank you . That is what I have been trying to say from post 1.

[billvon 2,380]

>Visibility is provided by where you look.

When you are about to initiate a 270, where do you look?

[Spizzzarko 0]

Right left up down and then to my risers then back to where I am turning. I also start my turn higher than most from deep brakes and use a slow turn rate. This gives me time throughout the turn to look around. I know other people do not use that method. Where do you look?

[jdfreefly 1]

First of all, the DZs already have the tools to ground offenders. They ground people all the time, and sometimes, even for unsafe patterns under canopy...probably not often enough.

I guess the way I took your comment was that they should be financially liable for something that may happen to a skydiver while skydiving.

The only way I see to enforce such financial liability would be through lawsuits.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[winsor 185]

Quote

First of all, the DZs already have the tools to ground offenders.

Perhaps instead of "tools" I should have said "impetus."


Blue skies,

Winsor

[billvon 2,380]

> Right left up down and then to my risers then back to where I am turning.

Which means you look away from the landing area. (I do too; not a criticism of your technique.)

>Where do you look?

On a 270? I do a scan, look at the landing area, look in the direction I am turning, then go. As the canopy comes around the first 90 degrees I regain a view of the landing area. But that (short) moment I have to look away means that I'm never going to have as good a view of the landing area as someone who is doing only 90's. Which is why I don't do them in traffic.

[Spizzzarko 0]

I'm never going to have as good a view of the landing area as someone who is doing only 90's

I'll give you that. In none of my posts did I ever say that a 270 in traffic was the propper thing to do so for all you people that got feklempt about what I have been saying then go an reread.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

none of my posts did I ever say that a 270 in traffic was the propper thing to do so for all you people that got feklempt about what I have been saying then go an reread.

LOL, we can't man we are ALL on a witch hunt

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Spizzzarko 0]

I'm just callin it like I see it!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Right left up down and then to my risers then back to where I am turning. I also start my turn higher than most from deep brakes and use a slow turn rate. This gives me time throughout the turn to look around. I know other people do not use that method. Where do you look?

Grant ... know that I am not posting this to disagree and fight with you. But there is a brief moment in all big 270s (or greater) where certain portions of the traffic is not visible for a second or two and what looks like a clear swoop can close up real fast while we're blind for those few precious seconds.

I'm tempted to track down the video footage from my helmet cam to show an extremely close call I had in Pitt Meadows BC last September. I still say the other jumper had no business landing in the dedicated high performance swoop lane and I was told by witnesses on the ground that he toggle whipped it just as I ended my turn and smoked in towards the entry gates (you know the part where we've completed the turn and are letting our canopies recover). But with all that said (thinking he did more wrong that I did), I am not innocent. I did see him before I started my turn and from that vantage point before my turn, it appeared that he would not be an issue (people need to see the video of where he was before I started the turn before they judge what I did). But the result was a close call near the ground and if his canopy is big in the video while using a wide angle lens on my helmet cam, you've got to know that we missed each other by or second or less (me going 70+ mph 30-50 feet off of the deck)

If anyone reading this who was at Pitt during this boogie and witnessed this close call, don't be afraid to chime in on it. You may have had a better vantage point than I had. I just know that what looked like a safe swoop from 800 feet turned out to be one of my closest calls in this sport.

I'd hate to see 270s (or greater) banned. But we swoopers (especially the one's learning the big turns) need to be more careful out there. We are rolling the dice when we swoop on regular loads.

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

[billvon 2,380]

>In none of my posts did I ever say that a 270 in traffic was the propper thing to do . . .

OK, fair enough. You kept saying things like "you have a better vantage point" and "you can always bail" so it sounded like you were saying that they were no worse than 90 degree turns. My bad.

It sounds like we both agree they should not be done in a standard traffic pattern, and the issue is how to make that happen. I think a BSR is appropriate, since it will make it VERY clear that 270's in a traffic pattern are not a good idea. DZO's can still choose to allow them, but at least they will know they're making a mistake.

[Spizzzarko 0]

Holy cow man you still jump? I figured you would still be in hibernation waiting for your overwhelming sex drive to wake you up and lead you out into the cold canadian winter! hahahahahaaaaa

Yes I understand that you do turn away from the landing area with a 270, but if you are looking around in your turn then that time is brief. I do see yours and Bills point on it.

I feel that this thread has had really good points on both sides of the argument and the only time I got really pissed was the "people like you" comment and you can tell by my response to that individual.

The one thing that was irking me throughout the entire thread is the repettiveness of the comments such as "I don't swoop, but those people should land out" or I'm more affraid of swoopers that anything else on my dz" by in-experienced people. Sure swooping can be dangerous to multiple parties if done impropperly, but for the most part the experienced swoopers are going to be landing out anyways because they don't want your traffic in their way myself included.

[Spizzzarko 0]

Bill,

What about traffic patterns for swooping only such as that with a hop and pop or that over the swoop pond. That is the problem with the blanket coverage BSR. It doesn't take every situation into account.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Holy cow man you still jump? I figured you would still be in hibernation waiting for your overwhelming sex drive to wake you up and lead you out into the cold canadian winter! hahahahahaaaaa

Us bears are starting to come out of our hibernation and yes we're hungry for some. I'm not sure what sort of skills I may have lost since my lasy jump, but I'm thinking I'll need to bring the Porche out and stretch her legs (that would be the Velo 103) before the Ferrari is uncovered (the JVX 87). Here's hoping I can bring my skills back to a competitive level before the two big comps in the summer. But it's also possible that my real competitive swooping days are done and I'll be nothing more than a has-been. Damn winter ... start driving more gas guzzling cars people ... Global Warming is good for Canada.

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

[Spizzzarko 0]

Cool man I look forward to seeing you down here dude.

[yardhippie 0]

Quote

Bill,

What about traffic patterns for swooping only such as that with a hop and pop or that over the swoop pond. That is the problem with the blanket coverage BSR. It doesn't take every situation into account.

And there's just no way we can come up with every single possible option. The first one that comes to mind is: the spot was long and everyone is trying to get back, just so happens the HP LZ is where everyone is going to land. Does the LZ then become the "main" landing area, and HP pilots should abort their planned landing pattern?

This is why, IMHO, that we have to teach each other to evaluate the current situation, apply the skills and principals that we all need to be safe competent pilots.

Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD
"What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me
"Anything you want." ~ female skydiver
Mohoso Rodriguez #865

[mirage62 0]

Quote

I don't swoop, but those people should land out" or I'm more affraid of swoopers that anything else on my dz" by in-experienced people
***

I've posted that I don't swoop, and I have suggested that seperate landing area's might be an idea............I wouldn't say I'm inexperienced but you have a couple more jumps than me. You have a bunch more swoops than I have but I bet I have a bunch more big ways than you do

And for the record I am more asraid of a low canopy wrap than anyhting...........be it brought on by anyone. Lately it seems a lot of swoopers have been the ptoblem.

done impropperly, but for the most part the experienced swoopers are going to be landing out anyways because they don't want your traffic in their way myself included.
***

I'm sorry I thought Roger and Danny were experienced swoopers

I'm sure your "for the most part" can be used to cover Danny and Roger or mistakes happen, or more education. But how can having seperate landing area's be bad? And to be honest I'm not sure that you aren't for seperate landing area's??

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

As far as visibility in the 270 you have just as much visibility in the 270 as you do in the 90. So don't give me that argument. At any point you can also stop your turn and bail out.

I haven't read the rest of the posts in this thread but a couple of people who saw the accident, commented that they thought Danny was a bit low to be turning a 270 to begin with. I wasn't there so I don't know if he had enough altitude to plane out without hitting anyone. You complete a 270 down low, you have no outs and are therefore committed.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[yardhippie 0]

Quote

Quote

As far as visibility in the 270 you have just as much visibility in the 270 as you do in the 90. So don't give me that argument. At any point you can also stop your turn and bail out.

I haven't read the rest of the posts in this thread but a couple of people who saw the accident, commented that they thought Danny was a bit low to be turning a 270 to begin with. I wasn't there so I don't know if he had enough altitude to plane out without hitting anyone. You complete a 270 down low, you have no outs and are therefore committed.

Therein lise the problem Billy. Not only did his decision to turn too low. A maneuver we all know to be deadly. But he also did it in heavy traffic. Attitude, and arrogance are at the root of this issue.

Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD
"What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me
"Anything you want." ~ female skydiver
Mohoso Rodriguez #865

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...Attitude, and arrogance are at the root of this issue.

Hit the nail on the head and I, for one, totally agree.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[marks2065 0]

the blind spot is below your ass behind you about the same spot you will be after the 270 and at 60-70 mph the poor idiot that was there is now dead - thanx - swooping is by far the major cause of the deaths and injuries in the sport today and if the swoopers don't fix it soon the big guy at the faa will and were will that leave us all