0
piisfish

180's are bad

Recommended Posts

Quote

I'm a Kiwi but haven't lived in NZ for 13 years or so. Started (with a partner) and ran NZ's first commercial tandem DZ as CSO from 1987. Been around the block a few times.



So you are old school, it shows.

Professionalism is the ability to conduct ones self consistently and safely. Doing a 180 is not unsafe if it is done correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahaha,

Tell that to the hundreds of TM's that do 180's over 1000 times a year.

Heck I have worked at DZ's that will not put you on the roster if you are unable to fly their pattern which is in fact a 180 turn into a very small area. Kooks need not apply.

Lets just stick to our own places eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coozer

Quote

I'm a Kiwi but haven't lived in NZ for 13 years or so. Started (with a partner) and ran NZ's first commercial tandem DZ as CSO from 1987. Been around the block a few times.



So you are old school, it shows.

Professionalism is the ability to conduct ones self consistently and safely. Doing a 180 is not unsafe if it is done correctly.



Your point?.

And a 180 done incorrectly?.

Do you understand the terms "margin for error", "the unexpected" and "maximising your options"?
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary your last sentence in your post IS spot on.
THAT is what we should all have in mind.
They should always be considered students.


Whatever anyone's views are on tandem hook turns, they should know the manufacturers will pull your ticket.
I've seen TI's fired and had ratings yanked for doing 180's.
They have no place in tandems IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A perfect 180 has quite some room for error and it need not be a radical toggle whip. I in fact do not really approve of radical toggle whips on any canopy, it is a commitment that once performed must be carried out. A nice carved 180 is best, give you time to see where you are going and gives you an option to deviate from your course if something that was not planned were to come into your flight path, as in something like this particular incident.

One thing of which I am reasonably certain, Pacific skydiving will not be telling all their instructors to do only braked approaches as it gets quite windy there and contrary to what some in here think, it is better, more accurate and often (competent staff) more safe to do a 180 into 25+ knots than it is to do a braked approach. If they had to do braked approaches you can guarantee their numbers for the year would be slashed.

Once again though, we are deviating from the cause of the incident and this is a subject that should be installed into every skydivers mind from the offset like it was with me.

GENERAL AWARENESS.

Know who you are in the sky with, look around under canopy, and on approach make sure your path is clear. This is first jump course stuff.

Pretty darned simple.

Those that want to preach the manufacturers recommendations had better start lobbying the manufacturers to stop selling containers to those companies that they know for sure are not using their recommended Main 'and' Reserve canopies in them.

In a couple of cases companies that I have worked for have over 100 sigma containers are using both main and reserve canopies that are not recommended by the said manufacturer, but UPT continue selling them the containers and spare parts knowing this is the case.

Do you really think UPT (or Strong or that matter) don't know that they are using precision reserves and Hop or Icarus canopies in their gear. If they were so adamant that people follow their recommendations then they would stop selling gear to them, but that would not be good for the bottom line now, would it.

Some of you need to keep it real and come back down to earth.

Once again, it was not the 180 that caused this accident.

It was the TM's not looking where he was going and not being aware of his surroundings, not following what he was or should have been taught in his first jump course.

That is it, simple.

Should his rating be pulled? Maybe.

Suspended for a bit at the minimum to give him time to reflect his actions. But that is just my opinion that I am entitled to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stayhigh


2. What is the UPT's stance on the subject? and other tandem manufacturer.





According to all three manufacturers.....

Quote

Last February at the Parachute Industry Association Symposium, representatives from all three U.S. tandem manufacturers (Nancy LaRiviere of Jump Shack, Bill Morrissey of Strong Enterprises and Mark Procos from United Parachute Technologies) and Frank Carreras from Germany (a tandem examiner who is rated for all U.S. and European tandem systems) joined together to give a presentation entitled, “The 19 Commandments of Tandem Parachute Operations.” The group had developed a common list of rules and presented them to a crowd of nearly 200 tandem instructors, instructor examiners and drop zone owners at the Symposium.



Quote

11. No hook turns. (No turns greater than 90 degrees under 500 feet AGL.)



http://parachutistonline.com/safety_training/the_rating_corner/tandem-commandments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is UPT's stance on using Precision reserves and Hop or Icarus mains in their gear?

Why do you think they continue to sell their containers to companies/people that they know do not use the recommended parachutes?

one needs to be consistent if one wants to be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coozer

The people focusing on the 180 turn and not the fact that they were obviously not aware of what was going on around them are only adding to the problem.

Canopy collisions have killed and injured many people, they are a result of poor awareness and this incident is not different to any of them.



You're looking at doing a low 180 hook-turn to final, and the safety aspects thereof, from only the perspective of the person doing the 180. Other jumpers in the sky are not just pylons you have to avoid on your way down. Operating successfully in a landing pattern and avoiding canopy collisions can't be achieved with the attitude of "do whatever you want, just make sure there's no other canopy in the way of your next turn."

If you asked me to share the sky with another jumper and I could choose a) a jumper that is going to land in any of four possible directions but I knew that he is going to fly downwind, base, and final spending at least several seconds on each or b) a jumper that is going to land into the wind, but with absolutely no information about how they were going to end up into the wind I would happily choose a).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You're looking at doing a low 180 hook-turn to final, and the safety aspects thereof, from only the perspective of the person doing the 180. Other jumpers in the sky are not just pylons you have to avoid on your way down. Operating successfully in a landing pattern and avoiding canopy collisions can't be achieved with the attitude of "do whatever you want, just make sure there's no other canopy in the way of your next turn."



And if tandems doing a 180 for landing is the norm like it is in many places?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coozer



Once again, it was not the 180 that caused this accident.

It was the TM's not looking where he was going and not being aware of his surroundings, not following what he was or should have been taught in his first jump course.



Really? You mean to tell us that the TI's planned landing which consisted of a deep input, quick 180, which left him completely blind to the student who was predictably fucking up like students often do was not the problem. Instead it was his failure to clear his airspace.

Fuck me! 6 in one, half a dozen in the other.

Show me the most perfect high visibility carving 180, and we can show you a conservative pattern with a 90 on to final that has more visibility, and way more margin to react to the student who is being a student.

You can also take the conversation about high winds off the table. The video and the fact that student jumps were occurring show that winds were low, but Mr. Toggle Happy was still ripping his 180's.
"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, what I do and what this TM did are separate things.

the tun he did was more aggressive than what I would do and in turn not as efficient, but it was done at a reasonable height, they even came out a bit high.

You can always be safer, heck why not just stay at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coozer

Quote

You're looking at doing a low 180 hook-turn to final, and the safety aspects thereof, from only the perspective of the person doing the 180. Other jumpers in the sky are not just pylons you have to avoid on your way down. Operating successfully in a landing pattern and avoiding canopy collisions can't be achieved with the attitude of "do whatever you want, just make sure there's no other canopy in the way of your next turn."



And if tandems doing a 180 for landing is the norm like it is in many places?



When though? When does the 180 happen? At what altitude does there become a cone of airspace extending from the tandem to the ground at an angle equal to their max glide path where you're not allowed to fly because they reserve the right to turn at any moment?

Forget that the other canopy in this incident was going downwind. Imagine he was trying to land into the wind and the tandem was performing the same approach. What do you think that would have looked like?

/edited: of/or typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coozer

Quote

Houston, there could be a problem.




You were a CSO in NZ, tell me the wind limit for tandems at NZ DZ's.

Surely you remember.



Actually, my alz...alz.....alz..(damn, can't remember) has kicked in, I'm so old.

But.

Different DZ's would have an upper limit depending on their location. At my DZ, a smooth 20 knot westerly wind coming off the lake was OK. A 5 knot wind coming from the east kept everyone on the ground because of the turbulence it brought.

But at 25+ knots only the irresponsible would take off, and I don't know a DZO at the time who would have condoned that.

How about updating your profile so we can get an idea of your experience and time in the sport?
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Forget that the other canopy in this incident was going downwind. Imagine he was trying to land into the wind and the tandem was performing the same approach. What do you think that would have looked like?



Probably would have landed fine probably even came out a little bit high as they did even with an additional turn in the opposite direction as shown in the video.

But the point of my entering this discussion was to point out that the tandem did not look, if they did they would have easily seen the oncoming canopy.

It is clear as day that the student canopy was to the Tandems left and not directly behind them. T do 180 safely requires that you must look over your shoulder to see where you are going. This did not happen obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Different DZ's would have an upper limit depending on their location. At my DZ, a smooth 20 knot westerly wind coming off the lake was OK. A 5 knot wind coming from the east kept everyone on the ground because of the turbulence it brought.

But at 25+ knots only the irresponsible would take off, and I don't know a DZO at the time who would have condoned that.



Well I can tell you that they do and have done so for at least a decade.

The rule at NZPIA DZ's is that the CSO has the say in what the wind limit is and a couple of places will jump up to and in excess of 27 knots.

I have been in the sport for 12 years and have circa 10k jumps. Half of which are tandems and I have worked in many places and in 8 countries. 180's and 25 knots is the norm.

In over 20 years (well over a million tandems ) of tandem skydiving in NZ there has only ever been one tandem fatality (2 if you count a drowning) and that one fatality was due to equipment failure. I do not recall an event of someone hooking themselves in under canopy on a tandem. Though it may well have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, manufacturer and USPA's fault for not policing its policy.

Enforce the rule or don't have to rules at all in the first place.

Should be one standard everywhere. It is either you can hook it or not.

UPT and USPA knew about tandem hooks at Hawaii for years and they looked away. That's the main cause of the problem. It became the norm.

No one is going to police themselves to a safety. Manufacturer needs to step up and draw the line.

If the manufacturer knows that people aren't following their rules, just like it says on the manual they should take it back.
But they will never do that since that will put them out of money right?

USPA will never enforce since if the dz simply opts out of membership they don't get jack shit.

Very simple, hook it or don't hook it. If you are going to let someone do a 90, than open it up to 270. Since it is just another 90 followed by big 180. I see no big deal about doing 270s. Hell if one wants to do 450, do so. It is only big 360 to bring you back to initiation point for the last 90.

As we are arguing over dorkzone.com, they are still hooking em in as we argue.
Bernie Sanders for President 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

UPT and USPA knew about tandem hooks at Hawaii for years and they looked away. That's the main cause of the problem. It became the norm.

No one is going to police themselves to a safety. Manufacturer needs to step up and draw the line.

If the manufacturer knows that people aren't following their rules, just like it says on the manual they should take it back.
But they will never do that since that will put them out of money right?



Precisely.

This is what troubles me about those that quote the 'recommendations', you cannot have it both ways.

If doing 180's was that bad or putting other manufacturers canopies in was that bad that it was inevitable that someone would die, they would do something about it.

The statistics say otherwise and I believe that they simply need to be 'seen' to be doing the right thing to appease the minions like we see here in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All the other stuff aside that has been said about whose fault it is... here's a lil curve ball I'm kinda concerned no one has pointed out.

I watched the video, saw the collision, cringed, and immediately worried what happened to the second canopy that impacted hard. Amazingly, there is someone in the video going 'Oh yeah... Oh yeah...' while watching the carnage. As if they are enjoying the view... What the hell man. Go get therapy if you get your jollies from watching someone's pain.
Woot Woot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coozer

Quote

Forget that the other canopy in this incident was going downwind. Imagine he was trying to land into the wind and the tandem was performing the same approach. What do you think that would have looked like?



Probably would have landed fine probably even came out a little bit high as they did even with an additional turn in the opposite direction as shown in the video.



When I asked, "What would that have looked like?" I was referring to the big picture of everyone's pattern and landing, not just how the tandem would have touched down. I think, once again, you appear to be too focused on this.

/edited for a typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When I asked, "What would that have looked like?" I was referring to the big picture of everyone's pattern and landing, not just how the tandem would have touched down. I think, once again, you appear to be too focused on this.



Lol, you ask an ambiguous question and expect a specific answer.

Well considering I have seen various places where tandems do 180's while other canopies do various other approaches I would not really find anything peculiar about it at all.

Separating landing areas is a great idea and not only high performance, regular sport canopies and tandem landing areas, student areas should be separate from tandem as they tend to land at a similar time due to similar opening heights and wing loading's.

As we see here they tend to land at similar times with vastly different landing patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.

0