Swooping banned at SD Arizona

[ORANGENBLUE 0]

Quote

Orangeblue (even if he is gay)

only on Tuesdays

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

If you cannot control the idiots in the sky and on the ground....its time to move on to somewhere where people give a shit about staying alive and other peoples safety

I don't agree with all of Pitt's policies (I've tried talking to Andreas about it ... and you know Andreas is a reasonable guy ... but he feels he's got it right). Anyway, you may be directing your anger in the wrong direction as in some respects the DZO of Pitt wasn't 100% incorrect and I disagree with your assessment where you think they don't care. I have seen this show boat visiting videographer do things at the other DZ that just made me shake my head. Multiple rotations (in traffic) and then carving his turn on the deck. Sure it would be a cool swoop under controlled conditions. But the way he does them in traffic, it's just an accident waiting to happen. The other DZ's management should be the one dealing with their videographer. But it appears that they let him run free. He is an example of the person that needs to have an attitude change in regards to swooping ... but I don't know him very well and I no longer live in the area.

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

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

BAD NEWS FROM ELOY!
Now there´s an open letter from Larry at the Manifest.
He (Larry) is saying that the swoopers would be responsible for the large number of canopy collisions and that he´ll contact USPA and other dropzones, trying to have them follow his new rules!!!

I am so glad that the Ranch is my home drop zone right now

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.

[dlee 0]

only the colision that resulted in the fatality. I hadn't ealized the dude had died.

My feelings go out to his family and friends.

I think the piont is the landing area was really crowded and that is probably the cause in most of these collisions.

would you drive a car at 50 mph through a crowded, busy parking lot? no you wait until all the cars are gone, then you do burnouts and doughnuts.

[Vectracide 0]

Quote

Anyway, you may be directing your anger in the wrong direction as in some respects the DZO of Pitt wasn't 100% incorrect and I disagree with your assessment where you think they don't care.

If you knew what I know about this DZ, you wouldn't be saying that. There are several other issues that helped me make my decision to not jump there anymore, not just the Cowboy. Unfortunately, to air these in a public forum would be just bad form. If you want to know what I'm talking about, give me a call.

------------------------------

Controlled and Deliberate.....

[skyedivr 0]

I would like to add another view to this thread.

Many times have I sat in brakes waiting for my "slot" to land, and while scouting the sky for other canopies, I see a "pilot" spiraling down under their 135, or 150.
IMO I think this is a problem. Mainly because they cannot be seeing any other canopies in the sky while they are spinning around toward the ground. They cannot look around, see what traffic they are dealing with, and figure out where their "slot" is for landing.
This was typically on a jump with 14 other people in the sky.
Most of your "swoopers" fly a fixed pattern EVERY time. It is EASY to tell what a swooper is going to do, because you can look at him in his pattern, and he/she will turn about the same place every time.

IMO if everyone followed the same pattern, and treated the parachute ride like a freeway instead of a derby course things would be easier for landings.

I hope this helps.

my power is beyond your understanding.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I would like to add another view to this thread.

Many times have I sat in brakes waiting for my "slot" to land, and while scouting the sky for other canopies, I see a "pilot" spiraling down under their 135, or 150.

IMO I think this is a problem. Mainly because they cannot be seeing any other canopies in the sky while they are spinning around toward the ground.

Given a sufficient disparity in wingloading, the more highly loaded canopy is going to land first regardless of exit order. When the larger canopy pilot spirals this is much more likely to happen at pattern altitudes.

[Pendragon 1]

Your point made me think of something.

Let's go through the exit order thing again. Freeflyers are the ones most likely to have the smaller, swooping canopies (I'm talking statistics here). By putting freeflyers out 2nd, which seems to be policy in the US but opposite of what is generally done in the UK, 2 things happen:

1) Faster-falling freeflyers exiting shortly after the belly-flying groups "catch-up" with the flat flyers, putting many more people on the same level independent of their wingloadings, and
2) You have smaller, "faster-falling" canopies opening after bigger ones, giving another chance for the airspace to become even more conjested

Talk is always about horizontal separation and freefall drift. Absolute codswallop/claptrap/baloney! For sure, freefall drift does exist - I'm not denying that. It's just that it has limited impact (providing exit separations are adequate - my impression is that people frequently take too long in the door anyway!). For it to become an issue, you need 30+ knot uppers... and many skydivers are not jumping in those conditions.

I'm sorry, but I do believe that the policies of certain DZs with regard to exit order have created serious issues with canopy traffic in order to avert a theoretical risk, and that canopy traffic is a contributing factor in all this.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[PhreeZone 15]

Theoritical risk of freefall drift? The physics of freefall drift are just that, simple physics. Today the winds aloft were 44-55 mph, thats 40-50 knots and if not for the field having water in it we'd be jumping. In fact when I was making calls for winds aloft last summer they were almost always 20+ knots at 12000 even if there was no wind on the ground. Finding days with lower winds in the midwest is pretty uncommon.

Freefliers are no more likely to have fast canopies as belly flyers are. Its typically higher experienced jumpers are more likly to have faster canopies, at some DZ's this might mean freefliers but at others its RW.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Pendragon 1]

Didn't say it doesn't happen. Here we go...

Let's just take 1 freeflyer and 1 flat flyer. First spends 45s in freefall from 13k ft; the flat flyer 1 min. So, an additional 15s is spent in the moving airmass by the flat flyer.

Let's say the airmass is moving at 45 knots. Now, it's highly unlikely that the winds aloft (i.e. for jump run) are going either at the same rate or even in the same direction all the way down... but let's assume that for now as a worst case.

So, aircraft runs in at 90 knots (for arguments sake) - which is pretty slow. BTW - ground speed is irrelevant.

So in 7s, the equivalent distance would have been covered in the aircraft that would, at most, ever get covered by the freefall drift. If you were in an aircraft that was that slow, you'd notice, and probably not get out too soon - and likely leave 10s anyway. Also, if you've got a 4-way getting out after a freeflyer, I doubt they could do it too quickly anyway, preferring to get ready.

So, why is it then in all the time I've got out before 4-ways I've never seen anyone remotely close to me in the sky, yet going out after them I've seen big ways pull after me, lower than me and fly their canopies in my pattern?

I should add that of course no-one spends that amount of time in strong upper winds. If people ever look at a meterological forecast they'd see how there can be several layers, with the wind blowing at different strengths and in different directions, so it's always going to be less than the extreme case.

Lastly, maybe because we have a more traditional way of doing this this side of the pond, but you are more likely to find smaller canopies on the backs of freeflyers over here - maybe because to become one, you have to be a flat flyer first. We all speak from our own experiences.

Funnily enough, when dropping to do hop-n-pops, most wouldn't dream of putting the light-loaded canopies out before the highly loaded ones. So why do we do it so often and cause congestion at other times?

So back to the issue at hand - why don't we think more about canopy congestion in the determination of exit order?

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[Samurai136 0]

Perhaps this will help.

http://www.omniskore.com/freefall_drift2.html
http://www.omniskore.com/freefall_drift3.html

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[faulknerwn 36]

Horizontal drift is a huge issue. But at my dz, most of the freeflyers are the lower experienced jumpers jumping bigger canopies, while the RW people are more experienced and much more likely to jump smaller/faster stuff. It really depends on the dropzone. And the canopy ride doesn't matter as much if you have collisions on opening.

[PhreeZone 15]

Its all dropzone specific. If there are serious 4 way teams they tend to have more experience and jump smaller canopies then your wekend freeflier that only shows up every few weekends and flys a 190 or larger. To say freefliers always jump smaller canopies is a widely inaccurate statement and if you use that as the corner stone of an arguement then your logic has an issue.

Exit times depend on the groups. A serious 4 way or freefly team takes their time in the door. A casual group might not even set up and might just dive the door and build the first point after exit. In this case there might be no seperation built in that a more serious group would have. Seperation is also busted by tracking. More experienced jumpers tend to track further.

Zhills used to do freefliers first, they changed their policy the other year, you might want to ask them why.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[KidWicked 0]

Quote

Freeflyers are the ones most likely to have the smaller, swooping canopies (I'm talking statistics here)

Total nonsense.

Quote

For sure, freefall drift does exist - I'm not denying that. It's just that it has limited impact. For it to become an issue, you need 30+ knot uppers...

Utter rubbish.

Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."

[D22369 0]

Perhaps this will help.

http://www.omniskore.com/freefall_drift2.html
http://www.omniskore.com/freefall_drift3.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




this is a theory that kallend has come up with and everyone has agreed that its correct, however... it remains a theory, to prove scientific fact you test over and over in a series of controlled tests. There isnt any way to make each test jump exactly the same as the winds will change, a computer model is not admisible as fact.

personally I dont care who goes out first -freeflyers or relative workers as long as sufficient exit separation is maintained.

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[speedy 0]

Quote

personally I dont care who goes out first -freeflyers or relative workers as long as sufficient exit separation is maintained.

I agree with you totally on that one.
So, how are you going to make sure sufficient separation is maintained?
I use Kallends "theory" as you put it, because it is based on sound scientific fact.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Pendragon 1]

Quote

Zhills used to do freefliers first, they changed their policy the other year, you might want to ask them why.

I know about that too. If you ask, you'll find out there wasn't exactly huge agreement.

I never put forth that freeflyers always jump smaller canopies as a cornerstone of my argument, just that it can be a factor. The cornerstone of my arguement is that, by putting freeflyers out after flat flyers, you have many more people opening at the same time on a level.

Other issue; you've got inexperienced freeflyers on a load. Drift arguement only works with more experienced groups that can actually fall down the tube. Since when were groups of inexperienced freeflyers capable of that? Consider this then: don't you think that its equally dangerous passing someone in freefall, especially when one group isn't exactly still?

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[Pendragon 1]

Also, once under canopy, people fly away from their opening point. Hopefully not along the line of flight, but people get disorientated. Not good if you're out after a flat flying group but opening just before them.

The time elapsed between a freeflyer and a flat flyer group opening, if the former gets out first, is easily enough to ensure horizontal separation, with the freeflyer's canopy well out of the way.

--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13

[D22369 0]

I use Kallends "theory" as you put it, because it is based on sound scientific fact.

***

I dont dispute that it works, I was merely pointing out that it isnt a proven fact, it is merely an accepted theory. a computer model can be used to support a hypothosis but cannot be used as evidence that it is fact.

two of the dz's I used to work at put freeflyers out first for several years, never once was their a conflict with the RW guys, so my theory is that the exit seperation is much more important than the exit order.

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[hparrish 0]

We do three things at Carolina Sky Sports that seems to work well and has worked well for many years.

1.) We put Freeflyers our first.
2.) We run a 45 degree offset jumprun.
3.) We determine exit order by discipline, group size, and wing loading.


1 - Freeflyers out first - We have had very few conflicts with Freeflyers exiting first. We do modify this exit approach if there is a Big Way RW Group. And yes at CSS the Freeflyers predominately are the HP Canopy Pilots. When I travel to other DZ's that put freeflyers out last I see significant problems with groups opening on top of each other or at the same level. I have seen instances where my freefly group has caught and opened on level with the an RW group that exiting 2 groups in front of us. Freeflyers are falling on average between 145 - 160 mph. We do catch groups that are falling at 105 - 115 mph.

2 - Offset Jump run provides more than just horizontal and vertical separation. It prevents groups from drifting over previous groups. Yes it consumes more fuel, but it avoids allot of headaches.

3 - loading the plane. The bigger the group the more likely you are to exit first. But not always. Freeflyers usually exit first but not always. We also take into acocunt opeing altitude and wing loading at CSS. We used to have an RW Team (The Angry Beez), who used to always exit first on every load, even though Freeflyers typically exit first at CSS. We put them out first because they all opened at 2K and all had very high wing loadings. Then went the Freeflyers because of our fall rates and wing loadings. Etc...... so there really is no one answer here. Each DZ needs to be open minded and try different exit orders that work. They are highly customized and all these factors should be considered.

CSS has been around for 32 Years. We have not had many landing pattern issues. We have experienced staff and canopy pilots, who are not afraid to change things that are not working. We also have a community of jumpers who are not afraid to talk to each other about problems with landings, patterns, exit orders, separation problems.

It's been working for us for a long time.

It's disappointing to see Larry take such an unflexible stance, on something that has many alternative solutions. Perhaps seeing the 300+ responses and posts to his new policy would enlighten his mindset. I hope so. Canopy Piloting is an important disciplin to the sport. And most serious canopy pilots are responsible canopy pilots.

[billvon 2,394]

>I was merely pointing out that it isnt a proven fact . . .

It is a proven fact that under certain conditions (jump run into the wind, winds stronger at altitude than near the ground, roughly same direction of wind from surface to altitude) that putting a freefly group out last will result in more separation at opening time than putting them out first. It's easily shown with some basic math.

However, that does NOT equal "putting freeflyers out last will prevent all collisions." You can safely put freeflyers out first if you allow a lot of separation between the last freeflyer and the first RW group; you can still have collisions if you put RW out first on light wind days and don't allow enough time between RW and freefallers.

Putting RWers out first just increases your safety margins under most conditions.

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

2.) We run a 45 degree offset jumprun

There in lies the reason that it works for THAT DZ. Every time I have jumped at CSS they have flown what can be considered a crosswind jumprun. Most DZ's don't fly a crosswind jumprun which is why RW(biggest to smallest), FF(biggest to smallest), etc as outlined in Kallends program works and is used by pretty much every DZ. As for it being "proven" in a real world setting, it has been and is still being proven daily at DZs to be an effective method to achieve horizontal seperation between groups when applied correctly. The thought process of changing the way we exit the aircraft based on canopy type to fix a problem we are having under canopy and relative to the ground(HP landing accidents) is fundamentally flawed and I'd say impossible to impliment succesfully.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[hparrish 0]

Quote

Quote

2.) We run a 45 degree offset jumprun

There in lies the reason that it works for THAT DZ.

Agreed and it doesn't work everywhere, but it is an alternative that does not BAN swooping. There are many other alternatives. This is just one of them.

[billvon 2,394]

>but it is an alternative that does not BAN swooping. There are many
>other alternatives. This is just one of them.

I agree. None of the proposals discussed here BAN swooping; that's just a meaningless sound bite. The separate/segregated landing areas proposal allows swoopers to swoop to their heart's content, and still allows a safe area for people to land flying a pattern.

[raymond_jones 0]

Quote

>but it is an alternative that does not BAN swooping. There are many
>other alternatives. This is just one of them.

I agree. None of the proposals discussed here BAN swooping; that's just a meaningless sound bite. The separate/segregated landing areas proposal allows swoopers to swoop to their heart's content, and still allows a safe area for people to land flying a pattern.

The proposals don't ban swooping but they ban certain ppl from swooping. It is a great idea for ppl starting out, limiting what they can do and should be doing (90's & 180's). which quite possibly save some broken bones if not lives, but it does ban more experienced swoopers. (some of the staff) from furthering their education & experience in the areas of canopy piloting. obviously if these ppl are pulling 270's+ on every jump, have a pro rating, and land where they want to, they are proficent at 90's and 180's, and it is banning them from being current and could possibly injure them at a later date at a different DZ or competition. now another question is: is it fair to hold back "dedicated swoopers" from going further in the sport or hurting chances from them participating in competition events and sponserships which may take away from putting food on their plates?
reguardless, i think an area could be designated to allow qualified "swoopers" to continue to train. it may take awhile to implement, but according to recent posts quick actions have put a bad taste in a lot of ppls mouths which haven't helped our sport as a whole.

"your the shit till you eat it !!!!!!!! damn that wall hurts..."