ORANGENBLUE

Eldon is Striker you dipshit cannuk. and by the way it's Shepowsin.

Only one direction is allowed pond side @ SD OR regardless of winds. Main landing area, first person down sets direction (into the wind hopefuly)

Dont' forget big Dan and Striker!

THATS THE FUNNIEST F***ING THING I HAVE HERD ALL DAY!!!!

Why didn't they address the people that were ignoring it? just seems kind of odd that it sounds like they were pretty specific about the rule then yet did nothing about violations. just curious

Ya, but if it's not an economic problem then they wont have any excuses for not allowing low passes

Tom's bitch? I'll slit my wrists!

HA HA HA! You guys are too much fun! No, no, it's pick up your tandem rig so we can make money on your way out.

The biggest common denominator that i see in all of these canopy collisions is not swooping, 270s, patterns. its having too much volume for the given size of landing area. there are other "destination DZs" (Deland, Elsinore, Paris) that don't seem to be having this problem. Hum? Could it be the size of the landing area for the # of jumpers being put out? No.....no. Its the 270s

This is very similar to how it's done @ skydive OR. the runway is the no fly zone. no more that 180 on main landing area, and whatevers clever pond side.

I'll be there for a week at the end of April. i will be asking for a hop n pop of 2. I'll definatly let ya know how it goes.

An aircraft doesn't care how many turns it makes to get to a given altitude. The time that the engine is running is what determines fuel consumption, therefore if you stop the climb and it takes a few extra minutes for the low exiters to get out than it adds time and money. If the aircraft continues to climb while the low exiters get out it should not affect the total time to climb to altitude or fuel consumption.

Screw the cut, just give me the door and a jump light!

reply] Again you are reading into this things that are not there. No one has said there will be no more low passes on regular Eloy jump days; read what Bryan, Betsy and Larry wrote again. Perhaps you should read their posts again. When they say that it isn't economically viable, and that swooping, like classic accuarcy, is not encouraged makes it sound like if you want to ask for a low pass you might as well ask them to cut off their right arm.

In one breath. "The sole exception will be for skydivers exiting on low passes to practice for or participate in swoop competitions, and then only after having received approval from the management." -Larry Hill and in the next "Low passes are incredibly inefficient. Putting out five passes at 5,000 feet for a swoop meet takes longer than putting out one pass at 13,000, and generates much less revenue because few skydivers are willing to admit that a low pass should cost as much as, if not more, than one at full altitude. In addition, low passes tie up a valuable resource: airspace. An Otter load full of swoopers will monopolize the sky over the DZ for a minimum of 18 minutes, usually about 22. (Yes, I do time these things. Five passes at three minutes each, including the time spent on jump run, plus another three minutes for the last canopies to descend below 1,500 feet.) In that time, we can’t drop anything else because we don’t have a dedicated landing area far enough away for parallel jump runs to work in the swoop context. The only logical time for us to host a meet would be in our off-season. Even one pass at low altitude becomes a big timing problem if we are flying more than two aircraft, which is why we simply won’t do them much of the time. Low passes are such an incredibly small piece of the market that they aren’t worth doing except when things are relatively quiet and it can easily be fit into the air traffic pattern. It certainly isn’t worth holding an airplane or two, waiting for a clear jump run, when the airplane costs ten bucks a minute to operate and the lift ticket is only fourteen dollars. Swooping presents other economic problems. The staffing and equipment requirements for a meet are quite high considering the relatively low number of competitors. Then there is the real estate problem. Why would a drop zone flood a significant swath of landing area to create a swoop area? Unless space is of no consideration, the available landing area needs to be dedicated to those who use it most, which is the non-swooping 80% of the customers. Even if space was available, the handful of people using a dedicated swoop park could never begin to pay for the sprinklers and the water bill, seeding and fertilizer, and maintenance. To conclude this particular line of thought, swooping is exactly like Classic Accuracy: very low revenue, very high in demand on resources. We don’t encourage Accuracy, either, because we simply don’t have the resources for it. Skydive Arizona is too busy trying to keep up with the demands of our mainstream customers to court marginal ones. " -Bryan Burke And in conclusion if you want to swoop, go pound sand.

And is just one of the continually smaller boxes we put ourselves into just before the incident occurs. And you will notice that I do use the word incident. We put ourselves into smaller airspace, we put ourselves with more people, we put ourselves with faster canopies... When you investigates an incident how often is there just one issue that lead to the pain at the end. We both know that it is usually more than one thing and that they usually compound themselves. Well I just listed a few above and how about lower experience levels in the same air, multiple aircraft in the same air, and the box gets smaller and soon there is no more room in the box and then comes the pain. We do need to enforce rules but we also as individuals need to think about what environment we are going to be putting ourselves in and make the right decision for ourselves, that being said, I have always known that my life is more in the hands of those around me than in my own up there, and I accept that. I think that as I get older in this sport, I get more scared by that and it's why my skydiving changes to follow suit. It's why I pass on the sometimes zoo loads, and don't attend the boogies. It's why people wonder why I do so many hop and pops, or high altitude deployments. I love skydiving with people, but no one wants to think about the dangerous aspects of it. "Everyone else is out to kill you" is what an instructor told me once. Now I've been chastised by an employer for being too "Sport Death" in what I tell students. word.

By saying that it is not economically viable to allow low passes, you are basiclly saying even if you want to be out of everyone else's way, we won't let you, and with the amount of loads + aricraft, high pulls (10k or more) are out, than you are esentially saying go pound sand. i have yet to hear anyone say if it is ok to do 270s @ the swoop puddles there. I could see with their proximity to the main landing area they could be out too.

I agree 110%. It would be very difficult for me to be accurate if i didn't fly a verry strict pattern as Spizzzarko has stated. i can say that all of the people that i compete with here in the NW fly a far more consistant pattern than the majority of the rest of the skydivers that i encounter.

Incidents at boogies happen most often due to someone doing something silly and/or more risky than they should be in the conditions. Accordingly, the remedy should be to address those behaviours, not try to ban the whole shindig. Ah yes grass hopper, very wise. I fail to see how swooping in traffic is any diffrent/less silly/less risky than the boogie behaviour. however, SDAZ seems to think that to ban is to cure. SDAZ has some amazing swooping talent an I think there are more than a few who would like to tap into it. Perhaps they could work with those pilots to try to acommidate. (a swooping day, one a month, week what ever) I think that there are solutions that would make SDAZ still attractive to swoopers, and safe for others.

Maybe not a 270, but definitely more than a 90. That shit will get you grounded yo! . ouch my side hurts.

+1

replace boogie with swooping in your post and you will see the flawed logic in both situation.

Why? because you like boogies. This is analogous to the swoopng issue for some people. 270s in traffic kill people, boogies with crowded skies kill people no 270s in traffic = not killing people no boogies = not killing people I think some times it's not as easy to play devils advocate.

A little of everything. Feeew, I was afraid I was over doing it with the training last night when I drank light beer. Thats a tremendous weight off my mind.