0
Treejumps

Swooping banned at SD Arizona

Recommended Posts

Quote

Canopy piloting is part of Nationals now. That means large turns.



They (SD Arizona) don't have a regulation pond for the canopy piloting part anyway. Are the canopy part and all other parts still bid for separately??

Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only rule that can keep people from dying while skydiving is to ban skdiving altogether. And that probably wouldn't end it. Humans weren't meant to fly, god didn't give us wings. But he did give us brains...

So, is the degree of turn the problem in canopy colisions? I doubt it but surely it will will be debated on these forums ad infinitum. But let's use our brains, when it's our own lives on the line, wouldn't we prefer to have more options (any degree of turn available to us as experienced skydivers)? Or would you rather be locked into a couple of scenarios? In the end accidents happen no matter the rule, we've got to be vigiligant in caring for ourselves and our siblings of the sky. Do we accomplish this by blindly following arbitrary rules (180?? why not 90?) or by awareness and thought. Keep your head on a swivel boys. They sometimes call it russian radar. It saves lives. Blue skies and safe, long swoops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was talking with another friend, today, who has spent a good part of the winter in Eloy. He also said, that following the Christmas Boogie fatalities, that for most of January, turns were limited to 180 in the main area, 90 in the alternate. He said that over the last couple months it got stretched back out a bit at a time, and by the beginning of March everyone was back to their regular approaches.

So, the question is, will it stick this time?

Canuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That sucks. I get on a plane in three days to head to Eloy, and have always really enjoyed landings there. Oh well, this trip is all about freeflying anyway.

It's going to be pretty funny watching guys like Fruitcake and Jeffro trying to keep their turns to 180.

Canuck



You could always land -off- the main landing area....:)
ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

WOW, I just got tickets to go down at the end of April to, derust (thats what happens in the nw) and do some trainig for the up coming CPC season. Wish i would have known last week



1) You could always change your tickets and come to Perris where we have a swoop pond. People were practicing their high performance landings out there last weekend. The truck goes out to pick them up and they're back in the packing area before those of us in the main landing area are.

2) a) Go to Eloy and use their hop-n-pop option.
b) Land off the main landing area and be safe and follow their rules.

When Nationals was going on last year they had swoopers in the grass area by the wind tunnel (sport accuracy) while the rest of the jumpers were landing in the other landing areas. I stood there taking pictures (for "Parachutists") and was impressed by the dance of planes flying different patterns in the sky. Some dropping jumpers over the main landing area and another over where we were. Planes taking off every 5 minutes in the background. And to top it off, SDAZ had an airconditioned van taking competitors back and forth from the tunnel to the hanger every load. :)

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>But let's use our brains, when it's our own lives on the line, wouldn't we
>prefer to have more options (any degree of turn available to us as
>experienced skydivers)?

No, actually. It's not safer if people open at any altitude they choose, from 500 feet to 12,500. That makes it harder to not hit people in freefall. It's not safer if people track any direction they want after breakoff, because they may run into someone else who is doing the right thing. It's not safer to wait any amount of time between groups they choose, because then you can cause collisions at pull time.

"Having more options available" will often lead to a much more dangerous sky for all of us. That's why we have basic rules, like minimum separation times, breakoff altitudes, tracking guidelines and rules against 270's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you missed my point... maybe I should have elaborated... Of course rules, or mainly strict recommendations have a place in the sport. Of course some things are hard and fast. It definitely isn't cool or safe to fly up to your buddy in a two way head down and pull his reserve ripcord and I don't believe I seen a written rule addressing the issue. But now I'm just rambling. Yup, there's a place for rules, and a time for them to be broken.

But most of the time experienced canopy pilots should be allowed somewhat of a margin for decision making. That's why many DZs have separate landing areas for low-time jumpers. So the big boys can "have a little fun". The point I think I intend to make is that the degree of turn is not the problem, and restricting it will not solve the problem. I firmly believe swooping can be done with a relative level of safety (it will always however, be inherently dangerous) and it is up to all of us through continued education and awareness to look out for one another. If you're not looking around you from open till landing you're being lax. But it starts before that. Knowing who is on your load, what they're flighing, what kind of jump they're doing, wind conditions etcetera, all are very important. But rambling once again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> But most of the time experienced canopy pilots should be allowed
>somewhat of a margin for decision making.

That would make sense at a theoretical level. But they keep killing people, so I think we've demonstrated that that doesn't work.

>If you're not looking around you from open till landing you're being lax.

I knew Bob pretty well, and he did that on every jump. But he's still dead. So unless it's OK for conscientious skydivers to occasionally be killed by other conscientious skydivers, we have to do something to avoid deaths like his in the future. Saying things like "we should all just be - gosh - better!" won't make that happen. If skydivers have to be much more skilled/experienced/careful than Bob to survive in this sport, then we're destined for a pretty ugly future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on that point should we ban tandems? How many innocent ppl have been killed or severly injured this past year? How about AFF? How mant students have died or gotten hurt? Maybe we should ban alcohol at DZ's too. im all for seperate landing areas, but to "ban" something is going just a tad overboard. How can anyone progress if not given the chance? personally id much rather jump on a load of 18 ppl with 6 of them swooping it in, than say a 400 way attempt. (but that's safe huh?) i think it's more of a let's kiss so and so's ass so they will let us have a boogie here next x-mas than anything else. there are lot's of places around the world that would love to have professional skydivers and the best of the sport go and work, compete, and teach. move on to someplace better, where ppl jump for the love of the sport not to make a buck.
<> if you jump naked, can you use your penis as a rudder?<>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> on that point should we ban tandems?

No. But we should ban untrained people from doing tandems until they have the appropriate training/experience.

>Maybe we should ban alcohol at DZ's too.

No. But we should ban drinking during the day for skydivers.

>How can anyone progress if not given the chance?

?? Swoop all you like in the swooping area. They still have that opportunity.

>I personally id much rather jump on a load of 18 ppl with 6 of them
>swooping it in, than say a 400 way attempt.

I think that's because you've never been on a 400 way. Even with 400 canopies in the air, the landing patterns were incredibly safe; I felt safer on the record attempts with 300/357/400 people in the air than I ever felt at the WFFC with 20 people in the air. Why? Because everyone was flying a pattern, and you knew exactly what everyone else was going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
now this is getting kind of ridiculous. ppl that do tandems have been trained and have experience.Otherwise the USPA and manifacturers wouldn't recognizes them as tandem instructors. (unless the people that taught them skimped on the training, and if so then they are just as at fault as the instructor)yet they still make mistakes.

most ppl that swoop have taught themselves because canopy piloting courses have just came around the last couple of years. at SDAZ they have a crappy little swoop lane and open desert. either/or could conflict with a landing pattern in the main landing area depending on direction of approaches.

im sure the majority of the people woiuldn't mind landing away from the less experienced canopy pilots, if they had grass out there. instead of banning this or that spend some of the dz money to lay some sod. you really can't expect someone with a $2500 canopy to want to go fuck it up in the desert. (it's not like they use much money on basic upkeep like paint for the buildings.)

and yes i have jumped at with way more than 400 ppl
in the sky under rounds, at night, with about 80 lbs of crap strapped to me. i have seen more canopy collisions in one night than most people do in 5 years. not every one results in a fatality, but usually most result in broken bones or other serious injuries.

so with that, for you to state that an area with 400 ppl it is safer than and area with 18 ppl in it is just ridiculious. one is a very congested area and one isn't even in the same ball park. don't forget the ppl making the deadly mistakes are older, more experienced jumpers. many of which probablly attended the 300 & 400 way. Obviously the mentality to do the "huge turn" was there, it either didn't happen on that date or nobody is saying anything because no one got hurt. but the same persons on those "safe bigways" are doing them still.

i think a lot of ppl who are now complaining, need to do a lot of looking in the mirror. It's time for the pot to stop calling the kettle black.
<> if you jump naked, can you use your penis as a rudder?<>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

> on that point should we ban tandems?

No. But we should ban untrained people from doing tandems until they have the appropriate training/experience.



As far as I know, the recent tandem deaths had experienced people at the helm, not only as skydivers but as instructors as well. So, maybe that not the issue with the deaths there either... Of course it is still a good idea to require experience in our instructors. But, does 500 jumps even make a skydiver an expert anymore?? Definitely not in canopy piloting. But then again, you have to get experience somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> ppl that do tandems have been trained and have experience.

Right. There are USPA and manufacturer rules that restrict how a DZ can do tandems (exit altitudes, instructor ratings etc.) That's one of the things that make tandems acceptably safe. "Just do whatever you want" would not work well.

For a long time the rules for landing areas have been "do whatever you want." That's not working, so we have to consider alternatives.

>im sure the majority of the people woiuldn't mind landing away from
>the less experienced canopy pilots, if they had grass out there.

No one's talking about a less experienced/more experienced area. We're talking about a standard pattern for the main area, and an "anything goes" area over the swoop pond (or the swoop area.)

>you really can't expect someone with a $2500 canopy to want to go fuck it
>up in the desert.

I don't really care whether someone has a $250 canopy or a $2500 canopy. I do care whether or not a jumper does a 270 and kills someone else due to their stupidity. Cost of gear has zero, nada, zip to do with it.

>and yes i have jumped at with way more than 400 ppl
>in the sky under rounds, at night, with about 80 lbs of crap strapped to me.

That's great - but it has nothing to do with safely landing ram-air canopies. You can land 400 ram-airs very safely if everyone follows the pattern. As we have seen, you can't even land 20 canopies safely if people do not follow the pattern. That's the bottom line.

>for you to state that an area with 400 ppl it is safer than and area
>with 18 ppl in it is just ridiculious.

It has been proven to be safer. There were no fatal (or even serious!) canopy collisions in the pattern during the 300, 357 and 400 ways. That's approximately 15,000 jumps with no problems.

Why? Was it that everyone had plenty of room? No. The airspace was quite crowded.

Did everyone have the same loading? Nope. In our sector alone wingloadings ranged from 1.2 to over 2.

Were the landings separated by altitude? Not really. There was no effort to make sure the lower pullers had the highest wing loading.

What DID make the difference is that landing patterns were defined and enforced. Do a 270 in the main areas, lose your slot. It's that simple. It worked in Thailand and Eloy with 300+ people per load; it can definitely work at DZ's that have 23 people per load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im all for seperate landing areas, but unfortunitly i cant make them, only owners can. (maybe we should be talking to them instead of babbling the subject to death here.)
here are somethings i think may help things:
1.) seperate landing areas that are of the same quality.
2.) strict rules for ALL jumpers that violate the rules.
3.) ppl taking responsibility for their actions while under canopy.
4.) specialized loads

im in total agreence with you about traffic patterns, landing areas ect. however i don't agree with some measures that have or may be taken. more viable and productive ideas can be found if given the chance to discuss them with ppl knowledgeable about the subject.
some problems i have seen during my skydiving carreer are:
1.) sky god mentalities (ppl thinking they cant do wrong.)
2.) owners more concerned about money than safety.
3.) instructers/S&TAs that seem to have gotten ratings out of cracker jack boxes.
4.) ppl not using common sense or having any regard for other jumpers.
if you can get rid of 3 out of 4 we wouldn't be having the problems we are. unfortuinitly it seems to be who you know not what you know. so we rely on attrition. it's sad but true. And I think jumpers like Jim Slation, shannon pilcher, J.C., etc have done a pretty damn good job trying to educate ppl about canopy flight. unfortuinity as with any learning environment, some ppl just won't or can't learn.
<> if you jump naked, can you use your penis as a rudder?<>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The point I would make is that Danny was not being conscientious on that landing.

He was being as conscientious as any other swooper is. I am sure that had he survived, he would have claimed that he had checked his area and had thought he could pull off the manuever safely. Every single skydiver who has been involved in a canopy incident at Perris has said that; Jack Gramley got very sick of hearing it before he moved to Arizona.

Unfortunately, in this case, we can't ask him. But history shows that he was not being unusually careless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't even know where to post this cause there's so many damn threads on this but here it goes.

if we brake down why we have collisions to the simplest form you would say that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. then we can say that the probability of 2 objects occupying the same space goes up depending on multiple factors: the total amount of space (the actual landing area and the vertical area above that), the AMOUNT of objects in that given space (the more canopies the more likely a collision), reaction times (faster objects have to have faster reactions, or think in advance, to avoid collision).

has anyone looked at opening altitudes?
if someone is loading a canopy at 2.0 opens at 3.5k while someone who loads a canopy at 1.0 opens at 2.5k there's going to be a problem. why? because as the altitude goes down the amount of "working/flying" space also goes downs so now your condensing the same amount of canopies but in a smaller area. now put into the fact that a DZ like eloy or perris for example have little strips of grass that EVERYONE aims for, now you've just condensed your space even more. so why don't we incorporate opening altitudes as well, for example you pull below 3k you're grounded because you're creating a hazard condensing the airspace over the DZ. if 2 people deploy at 3.5k and one is at 2.0 and the othe at 1.0 there will be less of a problem because that person at 2.0 is gonna come down like a rock no matter what and will create that natural seperation. why do you think the organizers of the big RW ways have seperate brake off altitudes? it's not just for opening issues.

also, has anyone looked at the type of DZ's these collisions primarily happen at? Eloy is a big DZ, dublin had a boogie with a lot of people attending, collisions on opening becauase there were many other people in the air, all these things have something in common...many many people in the air at the same time and all trying to land or occupy the same spot at the same time. now you might say that the eloy accident involving the military guy and student didn't have a lot of people in the air, but due to the small condensed landing area that people aim for coupled with the improper landing pattern of one of the individuals shit hit the fan. so really SDAZ is partly to blame because consciously or not they have made people fly closer together because how they set up their landing area with only tiny strips of grass.

it's completely ludicris to say swoopers are the primary cause or that a 270 is the primary cause, because i can generate way more speed and power on a 90 degree than most can on a 270 turn. i do FULLY agree however that there is a time and place for doing a larger degree of turn and when there are a bunch of canopies with pilots of varying skills are that is NOT the best place to do it. i also fully agree that at boogies or large events there should be restrictions. hell, i usually jump at what is considered a small DZ and i still pull either waaaayy higher or do a hop n pop just because i don't want a hazard in my way and i don't want to be a hazard.
Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

also, has anyone looked at the type of DZ's these collisions primarily happen at? Eloy is a big DZ, dublin had a boogie with a lot of people attending



what do you think of that mr moderator von boy....or will you continue to villify the swooper and not the event....

Dave
http://www.skyjunky.com

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The point I would make is that Danny was not being conscientious on that landing.

He was being as conscientious as any other swooper is. I am sure that had he survived, he would have claimed that he had checked his area and had thought he could pull off the maneuver safely
__________________________________________________

As one who knew Danny for many years and observed his flying/landing style many, many times, Danny routinely went big in traffic and let his desire to impress the crowd get in the way of using good judgement. RIP, Danny, but you had a huge ego. To me the "watch this" mentality continues to be an enormous factor in many, many canopy collisions and other swoop-related incidents. So point is, he was absolutely NOT being as conscientious as any other swooper is. At The Farm I am very impressed with the degree of safety that is practiced among those that make the big turns. I very often hear canopy swoopers saying they aborted because of not knowing exactly what another canopy in the air might do or not do. No attitude, no scolding others for botching their swoop, just the attitude that unless ALL lights are green, you land without swooping. If the sport could just get this through everyone's head these incidents would probably disappear.
__________________________________________________

I don't exactly know where my opinions fit into the debate about the policy at Eloy. But as I see it, when you do a 270 you are much more likely to fly your canopy right into your blind spot, whereas with a 180 or less you never have to do that. Even if you make a clearing turn just before initiating the 270, you still must fly into what is behind you and out of your peripheral vision. With a 180, however, you don't have that in the equation. And in my mind, at least, a 180 to double fronts can generate plenty of speed for recreational swooping. I don't know the answer, but I can see the argument for the restriction. However, we all know that no USPA bsr or drop zone rule can make people behave safely.

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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