freefliers out first??

[MikeBIBOM 0]

Clearly I'm sure, that's why I said shouldn't instead of isn't!

[excaza 1]

It's incorrect either way.

While tracking up or down jump run is the easiest way to get into someone's canopy, it's not unheard of to have people sliding (particularly backsliding) close to the next group. You can get backsliding pretty quickly, especially if it's a less experienced jumper(s) who may not necessarily have the best awareness of where they're at in the sky.

I'm sure it's a similar case for folks learning to freefly, which is why they'll usually be advised to face perpendicular to jump run when trying out something new.

[base698 1]

Collision is the 30 column. I left unlabeled ones in of which there are three. After 2004 the total fatals go down but collisions go up. I wish the data went back further.

Changed the alignment so that is clearer.

[Remster 24]

MikeBIBOM

Clearly I'm sure, that's why I said shouldn't instead of isn't!

So you don't think backsliding for 60 seconds could moved you 1000 feet?

Remster

[excaza 1]

In order to responsibly use this data to draw conclusions we really should qualify whether the collision occurred between members of the same group or between members of separate groups.

ETA: Also, are those canopy collisions, freefall collisions, or both?

[JohnMitchell 14]

MikeBIBOM

Clearly I'm sure, that's why I said shouldn't instead of isn't!

Hate to tell you this, but you're wrong on this one. I've seen it happen. . . right under me.

Never underestimate the backsliding abilities of a noob learning to sit fly. That's why I brief them to practice their sit flying facing perpendicular to jump run, same as practicing tracking. Considering your posted jump numbers and the picture of you sit flying, have you considered that?

[Baksteen 84]

base698

I did most of my jumping at a drop zone with free fliers out first, and I never saw a problem either. I think this was a solution in search of a problem and more importantly I believe it to be such a gross oversimplification as to be useless at best. Most importantly I think it congests the landing area by causing the transition groups to open at the same time. If freefliers are out first then they have the exit separation + the extra time created by moving at a higher speed to move out of the way of the next group both vertically and horizontally.

I've had a belief for some time that the increase in canopy collisions incidents are at least in part due to mass adoption of free fliers out last. It congests the landing area by having the transition groups in both belly and freefly opening at almost exactly the same time.

Too bad you can't tag posts as controversial :)

There are other reasons I believed it to be silly, but they dwarf the main reason.

Vertical separation is no separation at all. All it takes is a mal in the second group out, and you have someone cutting away above the first group.

Additionally, the higher vertical speed of the freeflyers does not compensate for the higher drag that RW-groups experience. Soon after exit the forward speed of the plane bleeds off and the RW-group starts to drift down jumprun due to the winds at altitude. The freeflyers fall much faster, giving the formation less time to be blown off course.

Before you know it, the eight-way RW is opening directly above the freefly head down two-way.

Reverse this, and the freeflyers will be opening further away than just éxit separation'.

As to the landing area:
The RW group could lose some altitude, being relatively close to the dropzone. The freeflyers could hang out in brakes a little, letting the first group land first. Problem solved, no congested landing area.

Also, if you do not like all that traffic setting up for the peas / swoop pond, you're more than welcome to land in the student area or some other less busy area.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[base698 1]

Quote

Vertical separation is no separation at all. All it takes is a mal in the second group out, and you have someone cutting away above the first group. Additionally, the higher vertical speed of the freeflyers does not compensate for the higher drag that RW-groups experience. Soon after exit the forward speed of the plane bleeds off and the RW-group starts to drift down jumprun due to the winds at altitude. The freeflyers fall much faster, giving the formation less time to be blown off course.

Quote

Before you know it, the eight-way RW is opening directly above the freefly head down two-way.

Reverse this, and the freeflyers will be opening further away than just éxit separation'.

Ok, so you didn't read anything else I said, but I'll address this first. You're essentially saying that vertical separation is meaningless and then attributing horizontal separation to a single variable of which there are at least a dozen: Upper wind speed, how much movement the group makes, the direction of tracking the groups pick, how long they track, how much time they give between groups, time under canopy before the next group opens. Everything has to go completely wrong for there to be even a chance of collision. My fear is that this was adopted with little actual reason and caused a much larger risk in it's place.

Quote

As to the landing area:
The RW group could lose some altitude, being relatively close to the dropzone. The freeflyers could hang out in brakes a little, letting the first group land first. Problem solved, no congested landing area.

Also, if you do not like all that traffic setting up for the peas / swoop pond, you're more than welcome to land in the student area or some other less busy area.

Yes and instead of using AADs people could just open higher. I frequently land out and doing it every jump when I was on a highly loaded canopy sucked. I am in the process of upsizing because of it, but tell that to the new swooper with 500 jumps while he takes out a canopy he didn't see due to high congestion.

[MikeBIBOM 0]

Actually, yes I have (although that picture is just me exiting from a helicopter, not actually sit-flying, I've done 5 vertical jumps, and none in lederhosen!).

I've been reading up and paying attention to the guys at the DZ who do it, and the fact that you can quickly fly backwards without realizing it is one of the things they harp on for vertical flying. The few times I've done anything vertical, I've made a point to go perpendicular to the run.

My point of using shouldn't instead of isn't was meant to underline that I'm not actually sure, but irony doesn't translate well in text. I was only thinking in terms of belly flyers backsliding, not sitflyers.

Remster

So you don't think backsliding for 60 seconds could moved you 1000 feet?

Well, in terms of slipping backwards because your legs are bent too much during belly-flight, I didn't.

[FataMorgana 0]

I am confused. It seems that the numbers that you are using to support your observation are very different from the skydiving fatalities reported by USPA. Starting with the data set that is off makes discussions about validity of your theory rather impossible. So, would you care to clarify the source of your data.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.

Stephen Hawking

[rehmwa 2]

base698

tell that to the new swooper with 500 jumps while he takes out a canopy he didn't see due to high congestion.

delete the words "due to" and replace with "while flying in" you got your REAL problem.

1 - idiot newbie thinking he should swoop at only 500 jumps
2 - trying to swoop in congested traffic
3 - 2ndary - why did the traffic allow itself to congest in the first place?

- congestion is caused by dumb choices under canopy, NOT good choices in exit order. Don't crowd the pattern if you are high, don't hang in brakes if you are low. Both of these issues seem to be major disconnects, especially with new jumpers. Especially with self entitled attitudes that a swoop MUST happen regardless of the traffic. Fix how pilots make choices, don't remotely infer something not related to the basic problem is causing it. The direct problem is right in front, not subtle at all.

- People of all disciplines jump hot and not-so-hot canopies. Only idiots just assume freeflying=HP canopies - especially when you note such small jump numbers, then at least we understand where the idiots are that are jumping too early to both HP canopies and FF. I only assume that tandems canopies are BIG, student canopies are slow, and wingsuiters fly more docile mounts (out of necessity). the rest, I do NOT assume a mount just because of freefall body positions.

- Most FF'ers I know are responsible canopy pilots under all types of canopies. But that goes for wingsuiters and RW, and even those that seem to magically be able to do multiple disciplines. But it only takes a few entitled idiots to kill someone before they kill themselves.

I get the vertical separation argument - I really do. But trading an emergency that is completely avoidable and has MINUTES of time to make the right decision (collisions can be avoided by maintaining the pattern) is a crappy trade off with creating more opportunity for freefall collisions that have essentially zero seconds to fix.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[base698 1]

I'm using the data from the fatality database for United States. Would like to have all the data further back, if you have a link let me know.

[base698 1]

It's really not an absolute trade as you claim. You can force a single group to take longer in the door, which fixes both issues--you get two distinct landing groups and have extra horizontal separation.

People are going to continue to make bad decisions under canopy. If you can solve both problems that seems best.

All this is even sillier when considering the winds have to be just right for it to even be an issue.