Anti BSR Swoop discussions

[marks 0]

Quote

No, we're not. That's as misleading as saying that swoopers want to be able to swoop through crowded traffic patterns with impunity. It might get people on 'your side' to say "go Ian!" but it does not get us any closer to solving this problem.

I have the pleasure of seeing Ian's ACTIONS on a week by week basis, I see him MAKING a difference..

you go Ian!...

Bill, I think you could learn a thing or two from Ian's approach.

he already IS making a difference.

[LoudDan 0]

Stu my brotha I do believe you've nailed it. Education is the key. Making change for the sake of change is a legal maneuver designed to show that "SOMETHING" was done. Taking the time to teach less experienced jumpers will go much further than standing up on a pedestal waving the BSR. Get out there and help a fellow skydiver, and if you do not feel confident PM me, or Ian, I'll bet Stu wouldn't mind and I'm sure we can help you find someone around your area that can help. Get involved and save our sport from over-regulation.

DAMN THE MAN.....SAVE THE SPORT!!!!

Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Bill, I think you could learn a thing or two from Ian's approach.

he already IS making a difference.

Mark, I believe Bill (and others) ARE making a difference. I don't believe for one second that we have opposite goals - just different approaches. Regardless whether or not I support the BSR approach, I believe we all want the same thing. If the BSR proposal does nothing more than inspire people into action it's been a good thing.

Personally I commend Bill, Flip, Molly and the others for at least trying to get the ball rolling.

Now lets keep the momentum going

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[marks 0]

my point being,

YOU are ALREADY making a difference on the education side, and I am 100% with that.

I do not believe in any way this BSR will work WITHOUT it. but I am confident that the education WILL work without the BSR...

[diablopilot 2]

Sure the the spot light on the subject is great, but as I mentioned before, the wording needs to be changed......

Quote

"We, the undersigned, support a proposal that increases the number of S&TA's, their commitment, and effectiveness to do their accepted duties. We also demand higher standards from the instructors in our sport, and expect that they are allowed the authority to moderate skydiver behaviors in regards to safety."

from:http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2827721#2827721

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,406]

>Fine, but please stop being on that side of the fence that includes all
>those that don't swoop . . .

That's my point! There is no fence! We are all in this together. I swoop when I can, and I fly 90 degree patterns when I can't. I have two teammates that do 270's on every single jump, no matter what, and three others that always fly standard patterns. Danny did a 270 and died in a collision. Bob flew a standard pattern and died in a collision. There was no "fence" there, no one side that's immune from these problems - and no one side that can solve it. We all have to.

>Yes, the low man has right of way... but not the right to fly an upredictable
>pattern either (somthing that I've seen WAY too much of!) A 270 swoop
>isn't necessarily much of a non-standard pattern as it is predictable; when
>we're talking about the "low man" we're also referring to the point that by
>swooping you increase your descent speed and potentially
>catch-up/overtake someone below you - certainly landing before them.
>You don't have to be swooping to do that; somoeone on any
>highly-loaded canopy can do that.

All very true! Stacking, landing sequencing and standard patterns will all contribute to a safer landing environment.

>We should also be thinking about exit order in terms of canopy size a little
> more... and yes I still vehemently hate the fact that many places put
>freeflyers out after flat flyers even when the uppers aren't strong which
>only serves to have more groups open on the same level, increase canopy
>congestion and eliminate a non-existent risk.

Not a nonexistent risk at all. I (and several of my friends) have had close calls caused by insufficient separation; you will probably experience the same thing in time. Putting freeflyers out first makes that much worse unless headwinds are zero (which is quite rare.)

Any solution we come up with absolutely, positively cannot sacrifice freefall safety for landing safety.

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

Bill, I think you could learn a thing or two from Ian's approach.

he already IS making a difference.

They may have slightly different approaches, but to say Bill's not making a difference is a little unfair.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Yes, the low man has right of way... but not the right to fly an upredictable pattern either (somthing that I've seen WAY too much of!) A 270 swoop isn't necessarily much of a non-standard pattern as it is predictable; .

No, it's not standard by any definition of "standard traffic pattern". And how predictable is it to the low person in front of the guy doing the 270? SInce the low person has ROW, why should he/she have to predict what someone above and behind them is going to do?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,130]

Any traffic pattern that requires you to know individuals (e.g. "Herbert always does a 270 because he's a swooper and everyone knows it") is unacceptable. That goes for the slow guys, too. The only ones who get a pass on this are students, because they don't know any better. And that's a consideration for having student canopies all be some distinctive color so that you can know to expect unpredictable flying from them, and beware.

So no, I agree that a 270 in a world where "standard" means a 90 is not predictable.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[superstu 0]

Quote

SInce the low person has ROW, why should he/she have to predict what someone above and behind them is going to do?

why should a swooper have to try and predict which way the "SP" flier will stop their s-turns on landing because their instructor never taught them the correct way to land? why should a swooper have to try and predict if a "SP" flier will be in the HP landing area?

Slip Stream Air Sports
Do not go softly, do not go quietly, never back down

[el_chester 4]

Quote

Quote

SInce the low person has ROW, why should he/she have to predict what someone above and behind them is going to do?

why should a swooper have to try and predict which way the "SP" flier will stop their s-turns on landing because their instructor never taught them the correct way to land? why should a swooper have to try and predict if a "SP" flier will be in the HP landing area?

From what you wrote it sounds like if every slow canopy guy out there did a very predictable pattern, you'd be ready to land in the same area as them. I do not doubt that you have the skill to share the landing area with them, and even avoid them 99% of the times when they deviate from what you expected them to do, but isn't that exactly the way it's been done for years in many places? Isn't also this "sharing the space" the situation that led to the Danny-Bob incident?

Stu, I agree that such an s-turn "Standard Pattern" guy like you describe is a hazard to anyone coming in faster than him who needs to overtake him. This hypothetical s-turn "SP" guy is in the wrong and if he is not a student, he should be talked to (well, also if he is a student, of course).

However, I believe this is besides the point of this thread... the point is: we should try to figure out a way to avoid -as much as possible- people with different speeds converging into the same place at the same time. If we manage to figure out a way to do this, then there is less guessing needed, and the risks of at least this kind of canopy collision (fast canopy taking out slow one) are lowered. This is good for swoopers and non-swoopers alike!

The way I see it is everybody has a right to land at whatever speed they like, as long as this is always done in an area where the speed differential with other people landing at the same time in the same area is not too big. The less speed differential, the safer canopies can fly close to each other (same as cars on the road). This whole thread is not about banning swooping, but about organising landing patterns.

Having done many jumps at a DZ where it has been in practise for some years, I am an advocate of Brian Germain's "great wall" as described in this article, and particularly on the first option. I particularly like that people coming in "fast" with a 90º turn are not in the same area as straight-in, pattern flyers. They will still be way slower than the guy doing a 270, but at least, a 90º swooper using the swoop area should be in the "very predictable" category, or not be there. I do not like Brian's second option as much because it means that the slower canopies (and hence probably more inexperienced people in this group) are the ones who have to respect and pay attention to the "great wall" on their downwind leg.

Of course Brian's diagram cannot be put in practise at each and every DZ, but then, one could argue that on those DZs where the landing area layout does not allow for a safe solution, simultaneous fast and slow landings are not all that compatible there.

Brian's solution also involves more walking for part of the people involved, and that translates to time, translates to other problems, I know... but seriously, would you just leave things the way they are if you were confident that lower, slower guys would never ever turn or deviate once they turned to final?

--
Be careful giving advice. Wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it.

[billvon 2,406]

>why should a swooper have to try and predict which way the "SP" flier will
>stop their s-turns on landing because their instructor never taught them
>the correct way to land?

They shouldn't, and won't have to. S-turns are not part of a standard pattern - and if they do that in the pattern, they should get warned/grounded like anyone else who can't fly a standard 90-pattern.

>why should a swooper have to try and predict if a "SP" flier will be in the HP landing area?

Again, they should not. Hence the separation thing.

[stevo 0]

Quote

>We should also be thinking about exit order in terms of canopy size a little
> more... and yes I still vehemently hate the fact that many places put
>freeflyers out after flat flyers even when the uppers aren't strong which
>only serves to have more groups open on the same level, increase canopy
>congestion and eliminate a non-existent risk.

Not a nonexistent risk at all. I (and several of my friends) have had close calls caused by insufficient separation; you will probably experience the same thing in time. Putting freeflyers out first makes that much worse unless headwinds are zero (which is quite rare.)

Any solution we come up with absolutely, positively cannot sacrifice freefall safety for landing safety.

so you think it's easier to avoid canopy collisions than it is to count before you exit a plane? statistics show otherwise.
fixed it for you. "Any solution we come up with absolutely, positively cannot have me sitting uncomfortably in the middle of the plane."

[dploi 0]

Quote

>The problem is that many of the standard landing pattern types still
>insist on landing in the high performance areas . . .

That is indeed a problem, which is one reason we're supporting a BSR requiring those areas to be separate. Note that in places like Eloy, it would tend to bring back swooping by requiring the DZO to designate a time/place for high performance landings.

Amen. I jump at a drop zone where the HP landing area and the main landing area are separated by a runway. No crossing the runway below 1,000' (normal anywhere). The HP/pond side is anything goes, the main area is no greater than 180°. You must be approved by the S&TA to land pond side, and there's only one direction in which you may land. If it gets too downwindy pond side, people just go to main area and play by the rules.

I've seen this and similar at a few drop zones, and think it's the best way to go for any DZ that is putting up more than a single 182. It puts traffic in all the right places. Everyone is happy and safe.

I for one have never understood why Eloy hasn't taken advantage of its massive surroundings to do something akin to this. That pond is pretty, but I say put it at least another 200' away from the grass.

I'm all for putting a "fence" between those who swoop and those who don't.

[hukturn 0]

I agree...most jumpers do not read the ISP's. So, how have we managed to ingrain the "low jumper has the right of way" theory? Education, albeit propaganda. But, that shows that education works. Swoopers could/would just as easily NOT perform any HP landing (as described by DZ) with the institution of DZ policies. There is simply not a need for a BSR when it can be handled by the DZ's. It does not take a BSR to ban/ground an unsafe skydiver. It takes a strong S&TA and a strong DZO.

[hukturn 0]

Bill, I am sure you saw this coming a mile away...
"...have two teammates that do 270's on every single jump, no matter what..."
Now, this is not a personal attack, so please do not take it as such. But, if you have teammates who perform 270's no matter what, then how can you support this BSR? I mean it seems that even you do not have the heart to make a safety correction...and to a teammate who you should hold dear. If you can not take action then you can not believe that anyone else will. This is a tough topic and it requires tough action.
It seems that the BSR is taking the easy way out by pushing the problem off to legislation. Sure, it is harder to raise awareness through education but it has a much more lasting effect. Accidents will happen. But, they will happen less frequently when people "want to do the right thing" instead of just falling in line with the other lambs. A BSR will not force correction. Let the DZ's take action without shoving another rule down their throat. They will be much more receptive and much more proactive. And, probably much more creative.

[hukturn 0]

Now THAT I may support, with minor exception. I do not believe that there is a need for more S&TA's. I just we need S&TA's who are more responsible & responsive. I believe that this is really where the meat is on this subject. My primary arguements in rebuttal to the BSR proposal have been;
1) Let the DZ's institute measures at the local levels.
2) Hold DZ Management more accountable.
I believe that the S&TA role has been taken much too lightly over the past few years.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

I agree...most jumpers do not read the ISP's. So, how have we managed to ingrain the "low jumper has the right of way" theory? Education, albeit propaganda. .

I don't believe we have ingrained it AT ALL. If we had, a few people would be alive today who are, unfortunately, now dead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Let the DZ's take action without shoving another rule down their throat. They will be much more receptive and much more proactive. And, probably much more creative.

I am really confused. You want the DZs to take action, but you are adamantly opposed to telling them to take action.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

SInce the low person has ROW, why should he/she have to predict what someone above and behind them is going to do?

why should a swooper have to try and predict which way the "SP" flier will stop their s-turns on landing because their instructor never taught them the correct way to land? why should a swooper have to try and predict if a "SP" flier will be in the HP landing area?

Because right now, operating on the "low man has right of way" theory, the swooper is obliged to yield ROW to the lower slower flyer, not the other way around. It's impossible to do that if you turn your back on the pattern during a 270, as Danny showed us. Which is why separation is a good idea for swoopers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

so you think it's easier to avoid canopy collisions than it is to count before you exit a plane? statistics show otherwise.
fixed it for you. "Any solution we come up with absolutely, positively cannot have me sitting uncomfortably in the middle of the plane."

The answer is yes, how much luck have you had teaching everyone on every load about relative freefall drift?

But it doesn't matter. This is such an idiotic tangent to the real discussion. It assumes freeflyers swoop more than other disciplines. Moronic. Freeflying is popular enough now that most newbies are also doing it right off. I see a good 10% in each discipline that "really" swoop (and they don't have any issues, they take another pass or stage away from the main groups), and maybe an extra 15% that are working on it.

With that logic, we should actually put out AFF first, since instructors are most likely to swoop since they usually have more experience.

When I freefly, NO WAY do I want a group of belly flying exiting too early behind me. When I do RW, I don't want to waste the load by spreading it out for unnecessary EXTRA jump run just to stay safe to satisfy someone's ego.

I don't care about the exit order when there is no wind from ground to top. But try and train people on that and let me know how that works. Sometimes explaining drift to newbies (or old timers) is just too painful. I just heard one old timer claim he used the 45 degree rule to follow our group, and that's why it wasn't his fault he and his jump partner opened on either side of my wife. Still this shit keeps happening. You let that guy exit after your freefly on a typical day and see how that works.

I see great reason to stage exit order "within" a discipline's run out (i.e., let landing determine if the 4way RW gets out before the 10way, INSTEAD of group size. let landing determine if the 4way VRW exits before the 2 way newbie head down INSTEAD of group size....) the biggest to smallest thing is pointless, but fall rate is more important than you and pendragon complaining about getting a bit hot because they won't open the door until 1500 ft instead of 500 feet.

...
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

[Pendragon 1]

Rubbish!

My inital point does not assume that freeflyers swoop more than any other discipline. It merely points out that, if freeflyers exit after belly flyers, then more people open at the same time on the same level, increasing canopy congestion. So, if you stick freeflyers out second, you will have more people under canopy at the same time at the same altitude.

It's not idiotic at all, it's a factual consequence of the decisions being made about the exit order.

There is a second point, which is around which exit order is best; I think there's a bunch of misguided people around but that's not the point of this thread.

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

[rehmwa 2]

OK, I reread your your post without the other two intermediate responses coloring my read. I understand your two points (exit order considers canopy descent rates, on no wind days we can neglect relative freefall drift) and have no issue with them. They are good to do, but super hard to get 'others' to do them.

So then comment only my last two points

1 - next to impossible to train people to understand something like the changing mechanics of drift
2 - as a minimum, canopy descent rate is a better way to sort exit order 'within' groups of the same discipline, than just group size.

so it begs the questions:

How do you get the groups to do different things during the special weather condition of no winds?

We've been fighting the '45 degree' myth for decades. This requires more intelligence to get 'joe jumper' to understand

1 - How do we get everyone to understand freefall drift and apply it correctly in exit order?

2 - When the 'rare' wind conditions (or good application of cross wind jumpruns, etc) allow it. How do we get people to completely switch the exit order around from what they are used to? (and then to convince them to switch back when the winds pickup halfway through the day.)

(on these no wind to altitude type days, I've asked the swooping tiny canopy 2 way freeflyers to go early, but it's just not worth hearing the disagreement from the rest of those that 'kinda' get drift but not really. It takes more time to educate than we have prepping a load. And changing it up will eventually result in them doing it on a high wind-delta day and I don't want to give opportunity to see someone hit another in freefall)

3 - How do you draw the line when various freefall groups have mixtures of small and big canopies? We were doing groups where the canopy sizes ranged from 87 to 220 sq ft in about each group. Who goes first on a zero wind day (uppers and lowers)?

It's a dead end discussion.


edit: I have the same issue you do but concerning group size and canopy descent rate. No freeflying this weekend, we were training 4-way. What a pain to have all 5 of us with WL from 1.8 minimum, and the 8 way wanting out first because they are "bigger", even though they were 1.2 max in the group. Then, trying to explain how it would reduce traffic to switch and getting confused looks and ego instead of a clear discussion. So we either get down and out of the way, or open high and hold and wait and clutter the pattern even more......

...
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

[dploi 0]

Exit/freefall/opening separation doesn't address the issue. You could leave a minute before me and open 1,000' lower than me, but if you're under a Triathlon 170, my Velo will likely get to the ground first. Separate landing areas with separate air space below n feet is the best fix for this problem, IMO.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Exit/freefall/opening separation doesn't address the issue.

exactly, exit order should primarily concern freefall collision avoidance and only consider other factors when it doesn't impact the primary in any way

Quote

separate air space below n feet

the 'cone' of isolation comment is the most constructive recommendation to the original BSR proposal I've seen yet (separate landing volumes, not 'areas' )

...
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