billvon 2,991 #51 March 23, 2007 >Unless DZOs and the USPA steps in and declairs that NO landing shall >be made in the main landing area with a turn to final of greater than 90 >degress AND ENFORCES IT BY GROUNDING A FEW ASSES, this will continue . >. . year after year . . . death after death. Agreed 100%. Lots of people here are saying "regulation isn't the answer - education is!" as if their statement, and the clear need for change shown by the incident, will set off a wave of swooper education that will change the environment around drop zones completely. Just check these out: "The most obvious lesson in all of this is that anything can happen to anyone, and all must exercise extreme diligence under canopy." "I hope that people can be reminded of the responsibility we have while under canopy. It is up to each individual to be aware of the canopies around them. It is important that we follow the right-of-way rules. And it is important to not create a hazard to other skydivers by flying against any designated landing pattern unless there is absolutely no alternative for a safe landing." "Swoop courses should be set up away from main landing area." "Let's all keep our eyes open. Let's look around and anticipate the movements of the people flying near us. Let's be friendly in the sky and yield whenever we think a collision hazard may develop." All good advice - and all from three years ago, after Roger Nelson died in a very similar accident. And while we remember the incident, we've clearly forgotten the lessons. The sad fact in skydiving is that 95% of the people in the sport will forget about this in a few months. They won't leave a DZ that has swooping and regular patterns in the main area. They won't talk to the guy who comes screaming through the slower canopies. They won't pressure their DZO to separate the landing areas. They won't get canopy education. They won't scratch off loads that has the dropzone swoopers on it. Nothing will change. Skydivers will go back to what they normally do - skydiving, drinking beer, telling jokes, showing people their videos. As far as I can tell, the only way this _will_ change is if it has to. Another ten deaths won't change it; another fifty deaths won't change it. "It won't happen to me" is an incredibly persuasive argument, one that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens. But a BSR just might. Many DZO's may decide to ignore the new BSR. But at least we will have DZO's making a conscious decision on the subject, instead of just letting it fade away as the hoo-ha over all other incidents eventually does. Almost no one remembers Lake Erie any more. But there's that USPA rule about water training that's still keeping people alive, 40 years later. That's a better monument to the sixteen people who died in that frigid lake than any statue could ever be. I hope we can honor Bob and Danny's lives the same way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yardhippie 0 #52 March 23, 2007 Quote>But what are YOU and an individual going to do about it? The question >is not just posed to you but each and EVERY skydiver out there. I wear a lot of hats so I'll try to answer for each one. As a skydiver? I'm not turning more than 90 in the pattern when there is even one other person in the air, and making it clear to people who do 270's and come near people under canopy that that's not OK. I just see the logic of never doing more than a 90 if there is even one person in the air as flawed. Even if you were on a H-n-P load structured for swoopers? Its a rehtorical question, just doing the best I can to convey my point. People who do 270s near others = BAD. Im right there with ya, but again what is "near"? I belive that even though you and I have never met in person, we could easily come to a plan that at a given DZ, would make us both safe and comfortable. Quote As a member of an 8-way team? I'm talking to our captain and try to get the 8-way teams to all fly standard patterns. If we can get the 8-way teams to agree, that's at least 30% of the loads on training weekends - and closer to 75% of the traffic on training weekdays. Why do you have to try? I've not been on an 8-way time, but Ive been around a few of them over my short career as a jumper. But if you believe that your teammates are part of the problem (you must if youre asking them to change their habits), and they refuse how does one address that? Please realize im not pointing figers, just pointing out the complexities in laying down generic policy. Quote As a jumper at Perris? I'm going to talk to the DZ about 'rules' for 270's. I doubt that we could say "90's only in the main area" (that would probably take a BSR) but we could do better job of making it clear when it's OK to do 270's and when it isn't. If thats what you and the majority of your fellow jumpers at Perris, why couldnt it be implemented. Ecomies are driven by demand. If the demand is for a policy that the majority of a partiular group of consumers want, pool your resources, and make it happen? I just can fathom a DZO and/or S&TA standing alone in front of a group of jumpers saying we want "this" and it being denied if its within reason. If is is denied b/c of worry of loosing certain jumper b/c of policy, then we havent addressed the root cause: arrogance and attitude. Quote As a moderator? I'm going to encourage people to talk about this issue here on the forum and with the people at their home DZ's. The more awareness the better. Amen brother. I swear I'll be doing the same, and I also hope we cross paths sometime in the future and look at what is happening then, and pat each other and our friends on the back for making it better.Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD "What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me "Anything you want." ~ female skydiver Mohoso Rodriguez #865 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #53 March 23, 2007 >Even if you were on a H-n-P load structured for swoopers? No. If I were on a H+P load landing near the pond it would not apply. I was hoping to not have to "lawyer" this one to death. >Why do you have to try? I don't have to try, but I will. >If thats what you and the majority of your fellow jumpers at Perris, >why couldnt it be implemented. Because drop zones are not democracies. Most DZO's are very reluctant to make new rules that will piss 25% of their customers off if they do not see it as a big problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites yardhippie 0 #54 March 23, 2007 Quote>Even if you were on a H-n-P load structured for swoopers? No. If I were on a H+P load landing near the pond it would not apply. I was hoping to not have to "lawyer" this one to death. >Why do you have to try? I don't have to try, but I will. >If thats what you and the majority of your fellow jumpers at Perris, >why couldnt it be implemented. Because drop zones are not democracies. Most DZO's are very reluctant to make new rules that will piss 25% of their customers off if they do not see it as a big problem. sorry for "lawyering" this on to death. i was just trying to show that generic rulings COULD just cause other questions to rise. I do believe that caught your meaning, which is why I posted the response at the end of my last post. Again, I struggle to relay what im trying to say accross the internet. You said you dont have to try. In fact, non of us have to try, but to quote a little green jedi "do or do not, there is no try'. Maybe im just too optimistic on what we can accomplish? Maybe im just still hoping that our community has the ablility and power to come together and fix the problem.Yes, but they are businesses, the do whats good for business, and if 75% of their customer are making the demands. its an easy decision which group your going to follow. maybe Im getting a bit preacy here, or maybe it is the damn hippie thats coming out in me, but I do believe that as a community we have the potential to pool our resources, come together and solve the problem. and I realize this is a whole other thread in itself: or has the charachter of the people who make up this sport, gone so far to down, that we cant recover? Thus requiring written policy. Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD "What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me "Anything you want." ~ female skydiver Mohoso Rodriguez #865 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #55 March 23, 2007 QuoteMany DZO's may decide to ignore the new BSR. Hopefully, only the non-Group Member DZs.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Orange1 0 #56 March 23, 2007 Quote Another ten deaths won't change it; another fifty deaths won't change it. "It won't happen to me" is an incredibly persuasive argument, one that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens. But a BSR just might. We hear a lot of "the BSRs were written in blood". How much more blood is needed to write this one with?? Maybe there is an attitude that we already have all the BSRs we need, but imo it's becoming increasingly clear that as the sport evolves, the BSRs need to evolve with it.Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #57 March 23, 2007 >but I do believe that as a community we have the potential to pool >our resources, come together and solve the problem. We definitely do. We have the power to come together, make as binding a statement as we can, and enforce it as best we can. The best tool we have to do that in our community is USPA. This is one reason that organization was created. At most DZ's, most people land conservatively, or are willing to do so in traffic. Some do not. These are generally the people who jump 30 times a week, and who are so current that they can swoop on every load during the week when there's almost no traffic. Since they are used to it, they do it on weekends as well. And since they are the most experienced jumpers who are paid by the school to jump, who are sponsored by gear companies so they can train, and who appear on TV shows/skydiving videos, they generally a) have a lot of clout and b) don't feel they are bound by 'regular' rules. They will never, ever listen to consensus, because they are better than everyone else. They may not even listen to the DZO, who can't effectively ground them all since he would have to close his school if he did. And they'd just all pack up and head to the DZ down the road anyway; there will always be one DZ who doesn't care. So I see two solutions: 1) Talk about it. In a few years this incident will be forgotten as they all are. 2) Do something about it via USPA. I am glad to see some DZ's taking this seriously. If we think these DZ's are doing a good job, then we should support efforts to commonize their approach at other DZ's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 2shay 0 #58 March 23, 2007 I agree with the need for seperate lz's, but I think it should be done by the dropzone owners. USPA does not need to be involved we can bind together and do it ourselves.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #59 March 23, 2007 >but I think it should be done by the dropzone owners. USPA does not >need to be involved we can bind together and do it ourselves. That would be great. But what will happen is exactly what happened after this happened three years ago after Roger Nelson's death - absolutely nothing. Most skydivers simply don't care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stevo 0 #60 March 23, 2007 separate landing areas is just another big sky theory, still doesn't fix the problem. people need to be taught how, when, where and why to fly thier canopies. otherwise people are still going to collide with each other trying to land in the same place at the same time. every load i'm on i see at least one person: -land the wrong direction -sashay on there base/final -spiral into the pattern or while in the pattern -fly the wrong direction pattern -fly over the runway -fly over/thru "designated swooping area" -overshoot/fly over the entire landing area -hook it right thru traffic -fly right in on top of each other -race down into a conjested pattern 270's into traffic are in the spotlight because of rescent events, why not work at getting everyone propery educated on how to avoid collisions by properly staging our landings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 2shay 0 #61 March 23, 2007 I know there are some not so good dzo's out there along with skydivers who don't give a damn, but the uspa reminds me of the national govt. While they are good, they are involved with way too much. If we get them involved that will just be the start of it, to where in the end the rules/recommendations will be so tight we won't even be able to have a good time. Once again not arguing that there is a problem. That is just how I see it. I agree we should be educated on how, why, when, where, etc on flying our canopies along with the dz's setting up seperate lz's. Skydive dallas has 180 degree turns and below in one and everything higher in another. I think this is a good base for safe landing along with educating skydivers. I just really think we should let uspa be our last option.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ianmdrennan 2 #62 March 23, 2007 QuoteSkydive dallas has 180 degree turns and below in one and everything higher in another. I think this is a good base for safe landing along with educating skydivers. Actually I think that is one of the most UNSAFE practices. 180's require a pilot to FACE oncoming final traffic normally for a much more significant period of time than a higher rotation. How exactly is that safer? Sorry, but the 180's are WAY WAY WAY worse IMO. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #63 March 24, 2007 Quote As far as I can tell, the only way this _will_ change is if it has to. Agreed 100%. But a BSR won't make it change either. Much as it pains me to say so, the only thing that will change this is a big fat lawsuit from one of these completely avoidable incidents. Put the fear of God in the DZOs that they could lose everything unless they get responsible and you'll begin to see results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PeterB 0 #64 March 24, 2007 QuoteI just really think we should let uspa be our last option. From reading BillVon's post on the top of the page, it might very well be our last option. I agree it's using the big sledge as opposed to the small hammer but it seems that things just don't change unless solid measures are taken. I don't have an answer though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #65 March 24, 2007 [ Because drop zones are not democracies. Most DZO's are very reluctant to make new rules that will piss 25% of their customers off if they do not see it as a big problem. Yes, but they are businesses, the do whats good for business, and if 75% of their customer are making the demands. its an easy decision which group your going to follow. _________________________________________________ They may only be 25 % or less of the customers, but as Bill was pointing out, because of the number of jumps they make, and the number and caliber of the people that come out to jump with them because they're so 'good' they may very well be responsible for closer to 50 % of the airlifts at the dz. And they may be responsible for well over 50 % of the instructional activities going on at the dz. It's unfortunate that some of them may be responsible for a higher incidence of deaths and injuries than necessary as well.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #53 March 23, 2007 >Even if you were on a H-n-P load structured for swoopers? No. If I were on a H+P load landing near the pond it would not apply. I was hoping to not have to "lawyer" this one to death. >Why do you have to try? I don't have to try, but I will. >If thats what you and the majority of your fellow jumpers at Perris, >why couldnt it be implemented. Because drop zones are not democracies. Most DZO's are very reluctant to make new rules that will piss 25% of their customers off if they do not see it as a big problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yardhippie 0 #54 March 23, 2007 Quote>Even if you were on a H-n-P load structured for swoopers? No. If I were on a H+P load landing near the pond it would not apply. I was hoping to not have to "lawyer" this one to death. >Why do you have to try? I don't have to try, but I will. >If thats what you and the majority of your fellow jumpers at Perris, >why couldnt it be implemented. Because drop zones are not democracies. Most DZO's are very reluctant to make new rules that will piss 25% of their customers off if they do not see it as a big problem. sorry for "lawyering" this on to death. i was just trying to show that generic rulings COULD just cause other questions to rise. I do believe that caught your meaning, which is why I posted the response at the end of my last post. Again, I struggle to relay what im trying to say accross the internet. You said you dont have to try. In fact, non of us have to try, but to quote a little green jedi "do or do not, there is no try'. Maybe im just too optimistic on what we can accomplish? Maybe im just still hoping that our community has the ablility and power to come together and fix the problem.Yes, but they are businesses, the do whats good for business, and if 75% of their customer are making the demands. its an easy decision which group your going to follow. maybe Im getting a bit preacy here, or maybe it is the damn hippie thats coming out in me, but I do believe that as a community we have the potential to pool our resources, come together and solve the problem. and I realize this is a whole other thread in itself: or has the charachter of the people who make up this sport, gone so far to down, that we cant recover? Thus requiring written policy. Goddam dirty hippies piss me off! ~GFD "What do I get for closing your rig?" ~ me "Anything you want." ~ female skydiver Mohoso Rodriguez #865 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #55 March 23, 2007 QuoteMany DZO's may decide to ignore the new BSR. Hopefully, only the non-Group Member DZs.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orange1 0 #56 March 23, 2007 Quote Another ten deaths won't change it; another fifty deaths won't change it. "It won't happen to me" is an incredibly persuasive argument, one that gets trotted out whenever something like this happens. But a BSR just might. We hear a lot of "the BSRs were written in blood". How much more blood is needed to write this one with?? Maybe there is an attitude that we already have all the BSRs we need, but imo it's becoming increasingly clear that as the sport evolves, the BSRs need to evolve with it.Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #57 March 23, 2007 >but I do believe that as a community we have the potential to pool >our resources, come together and solve the problem. We definitely do. We have the power to come together, make as binding a statement as we can, and enforce it as best we can. The best tool we have to do that in our community is USPA. This is one reason that organization was created. At most DZ's, most people land conservatively, or are willing to do so in traffic. Some do not. These are generally the people who jump 30 times a week, and who are so current that they can swoop on every load during the week when there's almost no traffic. Since they are used to it, they do it on weekends as well. And since they are the most experienced jumpers who are paid by the school to jump, who are sponsored by gear companies so they can train, and who appear on TV shows/skydiving videos, they generally a) have a lot of clout and b) don't feel they are bound by 'regular' rules. They will never, ever listen to consensus, because they are better than everyone else. They may not even listen to the DZO, who can't effectively ground them all since he would have to close his school if he did. And they'd just all pack up and head to the DZ down the road anyway; there will always be one DZ who doesn't care. So I see two solutions: 1) Talk about it. In a few years this incident will be forgotten as they all are. 2) Do something about it via USPA. I am glad to see some DZ's taking this seriously. If we think these DZ's are doing a good job, then we should support efforts to commonize their approach at other DZ's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #58 March 23, 2007 I agree with the need for seperate lz's, but I think it should be done by the dropzone owners. USPA does not need to be involved we can bind together and do it ourselves.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #59 March 23, 2007 >but I think it should be done by the dropzone owners. USPA does not >need to be involved we can bind together and do it ourselves. That would be great. But what will happen is exactly what happened after this happened three years ago after Roger Nelson's death - absolutely nothing. Most skydivers simply don't care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevo 0 #60 March 23, 2007 separate landing areas is just another big sky theory, still doesn't fix the problem. people need to be taught how, when, where and why to fly thier canopies. otherwise people are still going to collide with each other trying to land in the same place at the same time. every load i'm on i see at least one person: -land the wrong direction -sashay on there base/final -spiral into the pattern or while in the pattern -fly the wrong direction pattern -fly over the runway -fly over/thru "designated swooping area" -overshoot/fly over the entire landing area -hook it right thru traffic -fly right in on top of each other -race down into a conjested pattern 270's into traffic are in the spotlight because of rescent events, why not work at getting everyone propery educated on how to avoid collisions by properly staging our landings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #61 March 23, 2007 I know there are some not so good dzo's out there along with skydivers who don't give a damn, but the uspa reminds me of the national govt. While they are good, they are involved with way too much. If we get them involved that will just be the start of it, to where in the end the rules/recommendations will be so tight we won't even be able to have a good time. Once again not arguing that there is a problem. That is just how I see it. I agree we should be educated on how, why, when, where, etc on flying our canopies along with the dz's setting up seperate lz's. Skydive dallas has 180 degree turns and below in one and everything higher in another. I think this is a good base for safe landing along with educating skydivers. I just really think we should let uspa be our last option.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #62 March 23, 2007 QuoteSkydive dallas has 180 degree turns and below in one and everything higher in another. I think this is a good base for safe landing along with educating skydivers. Actually I think that is one of the most UNSAFE practices. 180's require a pilot to FACE oncoming final traffic normally for a much more significant period of time than a higher rotation. How exactly is that safer? Sorry, but the 180's are WAY WAY WAY worse IMO. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #63 March 24, 2007 Quote As far as I can tell, the only way this _will_ change is if it has to. Agreed 100%. But a BSR won't make it change either. Much as it pains me to say so, the only thing that will change this is a big fat lawsuit from one of these completely avoidable incidents. Put the fear of God in the DZOs that they could lose everything unless they get responsible and you'll begin to see results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeterB 0 #64 March 24, 2007 QuoteI just really think we should let uspa be our last option. From reading BillVon's post on the top of the page, it might very well be our last option. I agree it's using the big sledge as opposed to the small hammer but it seems that things just don't change unless solid measures are taken. I don't have an answer though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #65 March 24, 2007 [ Because drop zones are not democracies. Most DZO's are very reluctant to make new rules that will piss 25% of their customers off if they do not see it as a big problem. Yes, but they are businesses, the do whats good for business, and if 75% of their customer are making the demands. its an easy decision which group your going to follow. _________________________________________________ They may only be 25 % or less of the customers, but as Bill was pointing out, because of the number of jumps they make, and the number and caliber of the people that come out to jump with them because they're so 'good' they may very well be responsible for closer to 50 % of the airlifts at the dz. And they may be responsible for well over 50 % of the instructional activities going on at the dz. It's unfortunate that some of them may be responsible for a higher incidence of deaths and injuries than necessary as well.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2shay 0 #66 March 24, 2007 you maybe right, I just want the sport to eliminate all avenues before doing so.don't try your bullshit with me!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #67 March 24, 2007 >Sorry, but the 180's are WAY WAY WAY worse IMO. While I do not agree that 180's are way worse (since you never look away from your course) I agree they have their own problems. Hence a rule along the lines of "no turns more than 90 in the main landing area." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyshrek 0 #68 March 25, 2007 Quote>Sorry, but the 180's are WAY WAY WAY worse IMO. While I do not agree that 180's are way worse (since you never look away from your course) I agree they have their own problems. Hence a rule along the lines of "no turns more than 90 in the main landing area." EXACTLY, to debate what hook turns are safer in traffic is STUPID. Who knows Danny may have only done a 230 who knows. What i do know is hooking in traffic will kill people.http://www.skydivethefarm.com do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #69 March 25, 2007 A 90 on the canopy Danny was jumping would have hit someone if he didn't see them and most likely had the same results. Now, I'm not saying don't seperate areas, I'm not saying this doesn't warrent discussion, but a AM saying that anyone, on any canopy, can do it to another skydiver. IMO, the REAL lessons are getting lost in the noise. IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #70 March 25, 2007 Quote>Sorry, but the 180's are WAY WAY WAY worse IMO. While I do not agree that 180's are way worse (since you never look away from your course) I agree they have their own problems. Hence a rule along the lines of "no turns more than 90 in the main landing area." You're arguing that flying a leg towards another patterns 'final' is a safer thing? Considering how many pilots only look down at where they want to go, how exactly will that prevent a collision? Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #71 March 25, 2007 >You're arguing that flying a leg towards another patterns 'final' is a safer thing? It is safer than doing a 270, which requires flying towards other canopies AND looking away from where you are going. It is not as safe as a 90. > A 90 on the canopy Danny was jumping would have hit someone if he >didn't see them and most likely had the same results. And if a jumper who kills himself on a Xaos-27 88 hits the ground at the same speed under a Pilot 210 it would have the same results. The conclusion "therefore you're no safer jumping a Pilot 210 than a Xaos-27 88" is a foolish one. Similarly, the statement "if he hit someone the results would have been the same, so there's no reason to do 90's instead of 270's" is a foolish one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #72 March 25, 2007 QuoteIt is safer than doing a 270, which requires flying towards other canopies AND looking away from where you are going. I disagree. I think neither is safe in traffic. Honestly, my personal opinion is that 180's are worse but it's semantics. We both agree neither is safe in traffic. QuoteAnd if a jumper who kills himself on a Xaos-27 88 hits the ground at the same speed under a Pilot 210 it would have the same results. The conclusion "therefore you're no safer jumping a Pilot 210 than a Xaos-27 88" is a foolish one. I think the FOCUS on swoopers/swooping is a foolish one. I strongly believe the FOCUS should be on good. responsible piloting, by EVERYONE, period. I believe the true lesson(s) are getting lost in the focus on swooping/hooking. How, pray tell, does moving a canopy pilot that performs aggressive, erratic, low turns into the swoop lane do anything other than increase HP pilots chance of gettin hit? Also, how do JUST seperate landing areas fix the collision in Eloy where it was between two inexperienced jumpers NEITHER of whom trying to swoop? I stand by my stance that seperating landing areas in a good place to start BUT without changing and focusing on the mindset of ALL jumpers, we're just going to see collisions in both the HP and the non-HP areas. DBattman's post about looking in the mirror was a good one IMO. It is ALL of our responsibility. Now I'm not naive enough to believe that education will stop all collisions, it's like saying if everyone took drivers ed we'd never have car accidents, do I believe it'll go a long way to help. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #73 March 25, 2007 >I think the FOCUS on swoopers/swooping is a foolish one. I don't think anyone is focusing on swoopers. I think most people are focusing on the incompatibility of some maneuvers (i.e. 270's) with a standard landing pattern. A swooper who clears his airspace and does a 90 degree front riser turn to final is not the problem; a jumper who does a 270 near other traffic is the problem, 'swooper' or not. >How, pray tell, does moving a canopy pilot that performs aggressive, >erratic, low turns into the swoop lane do anything other than increase HP >pilots chance of gettin hit? ?? It doesn't. However, most jumpers do not land in the swoop lane, so it makes _most_ jumpers safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parachutist 2 #74 March 25, 2007 Quote How, pray tell, does moving a canopy pilot that performs aggressive, erratic, low turns into the swoop lane do anything other than increase HP pilots chance of gettin hit? Also, how do JUST seperate landing areas fix the collision in Eloy where it was between two inexperienced jumpers NEITHER of whom trying to swoop? Moving the swoopers all into a swoop zone would help students learn a safe left hand landing pattern without being intimidated by swoopers, without being misled by downwinders, and without beig confused by seeing carving turns at low altitudes. If we can have a uniform style of landing in one area, then I can tell the FJC students to watch people in this area "This is the pattern we were just discussing in classroom. Those people in that other area are among the most likely to get hauled off in a meat wagon.. I recommend not doing what they're doing." Also if we have a standard landing pattern mandated in one area, it will help us to bring uniformity. We can pull someone aside and say... "Look, your're the only one who's coming in from that side.. this is a left hand pattern, so just watch what everyone else is doing and follow the same pattern in the future". I can't suggest that right now because they'll be looking at many different landing styles, including 450's.. all in the same landing pattern. Separate landing areas would be like having a bunny slope on a ski resort: providing a safe zone and a good learning foundation for upcoming jumpers, or for those who just want to have a fun jump without a high speed pass at the end. Separate landing areas wouln't fix all the issues suddenly, but it would give us a great tool to work with. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks 0 #75 March 25, 2007 QuoteI don't think anyone is focusing on swoopers. I think most people are focusing on the incompatibility of some maneuvers (i.e. 270's) with a standard landing pattern. It has now kind of backed off to that due to the voice of swoopers standing up and saying "don't point the finger at us". but it wasn't like that less than a week ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
