Landing Patterns - altitude to begin each leg

[pchapman 279]

There are some quite different philosophies here on how to gauge your circuit. Part of the issue I think is that if you are experienced, you can have contempt for anyone who insists on gadgetry and exact altitudes and descent rates, since that crap isn't needed at all to land safely and accurately.

On the other hand, using some exact numbers can be helpful to newbies as a starting point to work with, an initial reference for a reasonable pattern. There are no perfect, ideal numbers, but they are a starting point for learning to fly an accurate pattern that somewhat fits in what other skydivers do.

The teaching style may differ depending on the newbie's technology, complicating things. You can teach a little differently to someone with an analog alti like in the old days, vs. someone with a digital alti and audible altitude alerts under canopy.

Newbies still have to know that the numbers can be thrown out the window for safety, e.g., don't wait until you see 600' to turn base if that's going to put you in the trees due to the wind change. And that if you are in a busy traffic pattern, you try to go more with the group, not the numbers.

Just my opinion, but I think it is OK to teach some precise numbers. It is a crutch, and not necessary in the long run, but still useful to someone new.

[JackC1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...then suggest other methods.

I'm always up for learning a new method. What have you got?

The things Andy is suggesting to Vanessa. They are not new though.

Andy is Popsjumper right? Do you mean this: "Get yourself away from that dependence on altitudes and references as quickly as you can. Develop your judgement using your eyes."

How exactly do I do that? Is there a structured method involved or is it just trial and error and a shit load of (potentially dangerous) mistakes?

[DocPop 1]

[reply

Andy is Popsjumper right? Do you mean this: "Get yourself away from that dependence on altitudes and references as quickly as you can. Develop your judgement using your eyes."

How exactly do I do that? Is there a structured method involved or is it just trial and error and a shit load of (potentially dangerous) mistakes?

[craigbey 0]

Quote

Brian Germain even suggested 4 altitude checkpoints instead of the more common three (his article is called the D point, or something similar).

Use your instruments, plan your pattern and then fly the plan.

+1

http://www.bigairsportz.com/pdf/article-d-point.pdf

[peek 21]

"Telling people to just eyeball it...."

You guys are trying to make it a black/white issue!

From what I have read, no one is telling anyone to abandon their flight plan. One needs to develop secondary ways of making decisions in the flight pattern, because flight plans can change due to changing conditions.

Andy was noticing that Vanessa is still having difficulties with canopy control, and she has 120 jumps. At this point maybe incorporating bits of another method will help.

You'll need to ask Andy what he meant.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

From what I have read, no one is telling anyone to abandon their flight plan. Flight plans can change because of changing conditions. One needs to develop secondary ways of making decisions in the flight pattern.

I totally agree that you need to be able to adapt your plan according to conditions/events as they happen - including landing off if necessary, but Andy appeared to me to be advocating not having a plan at all:

Quote

Under canopy, I'm thinking...Hmmmm...OK, the winds are strong because I'm hauling ass going downwind direction so I know that my final approach leg is gonna be shorter so I'll turn a little closer to the target.

Using altitude checkpoint method this analysis would have been done on the ground, and the planned pattern shifted prior to boarding not under canopy.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[BigMark 1]

Was this the two day course because of high winds the first day?

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Was this the two day course because of high winds the first day?

I didn't mention a two day course???

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[BigMark 1]

Was directed at the OP.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I have never seen the "forget references, just eyeball it" method taught on any of the canopy course I've ever been on.

You didn't see it here either..

Quote

In fact, in my experience they teach the exact opposite. Why do you think that is?

Because it helps develop that judgement that will save your butt when you're out and away in unfamiliar territory.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

See, I think that's a load of bollocks. The altitude/reference method does work, plus it is a really good way of giving people a procedure by which they can learn how to eyeball it.

See? You answered your own question.

Quote

By saying forget references and altitudes,..

Nobody said that.


Tell ya what, Jack...use all the reference points you wish and get real goof at it. What are you gonna do when you are in a spot that doesn't include your pre-determined refence points...over that big forest with only one little opening in it?

Quote

you're taking away the best gauge people have to judge their progress

I'm not sure about "best" but using reference points for learning is a using tool....just not one to depend on for the rest of skydiving career.

Replace it good judgement.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

How many dzs teach, fly to the tall tree, turn at the road etc?

Why would they? That isn't the altitude/reference method.

Well yes, it's part of it. The part missing was the altitudes.
"At 1000 feet you should be at this point."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Then like was posted above we set our A and B points accordingly, mine worked out to a turn to final at 300ft flying a Saber 170 loaded at 1.3 so my pattern entry was 900ft and B point set ot 600ft. From there you can adjust those points over the ground to dial in your accuracy.

Which is all well and good....if you are landing at the same DZ shooting for the same target repetitively. Now what are you going to do when you out over that forest trying to hit tiny opening?



We were also told to fly in 1/4 brakes on your downwind and crosswind legs so that you have some room to make your altitude points if conditions change.

From there and with lots of practice in different wind conditions you can dial that pattern in by moving those same altitude points over the ground. On no wind days the pattern will get spread out from the target (longer downwind, crosswind and final over the ground) and on high wind days the pattern will tighten right up to the target (shorter downwind, shorter crosswind and shorter final over the ground) but the altitudes for each leg stay the same. In really high winds this can change a little bit as you might want to start your crosswind turn a little bit early and crab to your B point but that is in really strong winds.


Now with all that said I still consider myself a student and without going through that course a few times and getting many more jumps in I am not 100% confident that my advise is correct, might be missing something here but it is what works for me and what I remember.

My accuracy is much much better now in all wind conditions that I jump in and flying in 1/4 breaks through the first two legs of the pattern was a big help as well.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Because it (judgement) is difficult to teach. Specifying altitudes and positions in the pattern is much easier. Formalized instruction (classes) more or less requires specifics.

Quote

I do not think that the references should be abandoned, but instead, augmented by letting the non-verbal brain give you some clues. If the clues work well enough, then you can begin to reduce your dependency of references.

We of course need to teach references/altitudes to skydiving students with very few jumps, and see how they learn from that, then suggest other methods.

Thank you.
Exactly. Reference points are a tool to use for learning. IMO and experience, not something to depend on. Just simply too many variables being applied and static set points is not going to keep you safe in all situations.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

... so that you can adjust accordingly and develop your "sight picture" at those various altitudes so that the time when your landing off in someone's back yard you will have an idea of how far it is from their driveway, or road, or power line to a safe landing spot. I hope that makes sense

Makes perfect sense...you developed you judgment and hit that back yard safely....you did see that clothesline didn't you?

Quote

Just to add there are lots of other tools you can use when landing off like deep brake approches, low flat turns, etc but my post was more in response to the normal pattern with other traffic in the same landing area.

Absolutely! You should be learning and practicing ALL those canopy skills for accuracy. BUT, as AggieDave mentioned earlier, do it on dedicated loads like H&Ps where there are few canopies in the sky with you.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...Newbies still have to know that the numbers can be thrown out the window for safety, e.g., don't wait until you see 600' to turn base if that's going to put you in the trees....

Thank you, sir.
I've seen it happen too many times..depending on numbers for pattern landing. I raised that earlier when I spoke about the effects of wind direction and speed on your landing pattern.

Quote

Just my opinion, but I think it is OK to teach some precise numbers. It is a crutch, and not necessary in the long run, but still useful to someone new.

As many agree, yes.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Telling people to just eyeball it...

Again, nobody said that.

Quote

It essentially means you can't plan your pattern,

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that you can plan you pattern in any situation without the need to depend on numbers and without having to do math adjustments under canopy. Personally, I'd feel much safer\ in the sky with you if I knew that you could adjust quickly and efficiently without having to stop and do some quick calculations.

Quote

That may have been the old school way to fly a canopy, but things have moved on.

And the "new" school only organized the teaching a little better and put it in syllabus form.

Quote

Brian Germain even suggested 4 altitude checkpoints instead of the more common three (his article is called the D point, or something similar).

Well, not to knock Brian. He is well respected in the industry and has made some valuable contributions. But he's not perfect and has been proven, I hesitate to say it "wrong", but there it is.

Quote

Use your instruments, plan your pattern and then fly the plan.

Have you read any of the multitude of threads about device dependency?

Quote

Just eyeball it" it plain bad advice.

Yep....for those who haven't developed that good judgment.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I totally agree that you need to be able to adapt your plan according to conditions/events as they happen - including landing off if necessary, but Andy appeared to me to be advocating not having a plan at all:

Again, never said that.

And the quote you make here neglects the context. The context is ME under canopy and some of the things I think about to demonstrate a point about adjusting for changoing conditions. Please do not misconstrue that.

Quote

Under canopy, I'm thinking...Hmmmm...OK, the winds are strong because I'm hauling ass going downwind direction so I know that my final approach leg is gonna be shorter so I'll turn a little closer to the target.

Quote

Using altitude checkpoint method this analysis would have been done on the ground, and the planned pattern shifted prior to boarding not under canopy.

And pray to the Gods that the conditions are the same and for landing the spot is good.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Sorry guys for the multiple responses..I was away for while today. I felt it was important to respond to each poster individually since there was so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Just to double check myself for clarity, I printed my post that got twisted and gave to to three different people to read. I asked them if they understood what I was saying.
Well, the did.

I dunno, maybe I could have made myself more clear for you guys but there you have it.

A last word. If you doubt the importance of developing good judgment, talk any accuracy competitor and ask them if they use ground and altitude reference points.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DocPop 1]

Quote

A last word. If you doubt the importance of developing good judgment, talk any accuracy competitor and ask them if they use ground and altitude reference points.

I still don't think I am clear on your method (although I am fairly clear that I must have misunderstood it!).

Are you saying DO have checkpoints, but don't worry about what altitude you hit them at?

All I will say is that your reference to accuracy competitors goes against Germain, Flight-1 and other canopy control courses, and those accuracy folks are using some fairly atypical canopies for the average jumper these days.

Pro-swoopers use (and teach) altitude checkpoints for accuracy and that's good enough for me.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I still don't think I am clear on your method (although I am fairly clear that I must have misunderstood it!).

Well first off, it's not MY method. It's really not a "method" at all. You can't teach good judgement. What you can do is teach techniques that will help you develop good judgment. All I'm saying is that having good judgement is a skill that one needs to keep himself as safe as he can. How you get there is irrelevant except that some teaching methods are more efficient than others. You can't develop that judgment skill if you are dependent on devices places and things.

Quote

Are you saying DO have checkpoints, but don't worry about what altitude you hit them at?

No, I am saying that if you have set altitudes you will not hit them every time and you'll need to adjust. I'm saying using your judgement skills is better than re-calculating references under canopy...possibly several times in that one pattern.

I am also saying it's fine to use whatever tools you can get to help you develop good judgment so that you will have that skill when, not if, you'll need it. The sooner you can develop that good judgment the better. The sooner you can wean yourself of those crutches, the better.

What the heck...we give students radios (the crutch) and such to help them develop judgement. They are not in a canopy control class the second they get released for self-supervision. What are they doing once the radio comes off? They are using judgement skills. And yes, it can be a trial and error thing just like anything else. Even you guys using the references are using trial and error, "Oops that didn't work. Let's shorten it up some."

Just FYI, many of us do teach reference points during early canopy flight - "You want to be here at 1000 ft" etc etc. We, as quickly as possible, start helping with the judgement skills, too.

When you see a student drive themselves off into the trees you'll understand when they say, "Well I was told to turn at 600 ft."

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to give up that skill for the sake of having specific points to meet.

Quote

All I will say is that your reference to accuracy competitors goes against Germain, Flight-1 and other canopy control courses,

Well now he's not teaching classic accuracy. He's also using a tool for teaching. A tool that is useful for developing a method that will work for you regardless of the situation you get into. Simple as that. Specific altitudes and specific ground reference points will be useful only in rather tame situations. One of these days you are going to have to adjust without having those points....now what.

Quote

...and those accuracy folks are using some fairly atypical canopies for the average jumper these days.

Are you saying that if I use one type of canopy of should use the references and if I use another type I shouldn't?

Quote

Pro-swoopers use (and teach) altitude checkpoints for accuracy and that's good enough for me.

If you are swooping I would hope you are using something very accurate in addtion to your eyeballs.
Swoopers are special. You'll see them at comps figuring out distances from the gates (setting up a ground reference point). When they hit point at the altitude that suits them for the type of turn they are ding, then it's balls to the wall. When they miss the reference point at the planned altitude, they adjust using an awareness of altitude and good judgement.

I hope that clarifies a little. Having said all that, please feel free to continue whatever suits you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything...simply pointing a more tried-and-true method that works for all situations for giving yourself the best opportunity for getting yourself down in one piece. YMMV.

Maybe an analogy would help?
Let see now...hmmmmm....

You're a kid learning baseball playing left field. The coach tells you to, "Stand right here". You grow older, play more. You start to develop judgment that tells you, "Hmmmm....Standing right there is not the best place to be in this situation." So, you adjust. Not because the coach tells you where to play every day, but because you are learning the game.


Oh, BTW, to all you guys..it has been a pleasure discussing instead of arguing. Thanks.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Oh, BTW, to all you guys..it has been a pleasure discussing instead of arguing. Thanks.

I agree. It's a refreshing change.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I now have a better understanding of what you meant.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[JackC1 0]

Quote

Tell ya what, Jack...use all the reference points you wish and get real goof at it. What are you gonna do when you are in a spot that doesn't include your pre-determined refence points...over that big forest with only one little opening in it?

I think you misunderstand what the method is. Fixed reference points are not useful so you don't use them. It doesn't matter whether I'm trying to land in a forest clearing, or a desert the method still works.

Lets take a nil wind day for simplicity. Suppose my canopy has a 3:1 glide ratio and I want to land in the peas. There is a circle at lets say 200ft altitude and 600ft radius (that's 600ft projected onto the ground) and if I fly through a point on that circle headed directly at the peas and nothing changes, I will land exactly where I wanted to. If my landing direction is set for some reason to be directly north, then I need to be 200ft altitude, 600ft due south of the peas and if I fly north and nothing changes, I'll land in the peas.

A decent digital altimeter will do a good job of telling me what altitude I'm at. Now I could walk the landing area and mark out 600ft due south of the peas or find some other suitable ground reference point the first few times. But that reference point needs to be determined each time depending on the conditions. If the conditions change, so will your reference point. That is why a fixed reference point is not a useful part of the method.

If you find you got it wrong on the first jump, you know you flew a predetermined path so you also now know exactly how far and in what direction you need to move your turn point over the ground to get it right the next time. So rather than just using the spray and pray technique in the hope that you'll train your good judgement by pumping more shots down the range, we have a method by which you can fly a pattern, see what the results are and correct it accurately on the very next jump.

Now the ground marker serves one purpose and on purpose only. That is to provide a way for you to estimate 600ft from the peas when you're 200 ft up. But now that I've seen what 600ft along and 200ft up looks like from my previous jumps and I've got some practice flying a pattern that will get me close to 600ft along and 200ft up, maybe I can do without an actual ground reference and just judge the distance directly. It doesn't matter where in the world I'm doing this, or which direction the wind is coming from because the distances I need to estimate are the same everywhere.

The end result (good judgement) is the same as your "no method" method, except that this way there you are cutting the trial and error down from god knows how many for the spray and pray technique to one jump if you're good at flying a pattern.

If you took someone that had never fired a gun to a shooting range with the intention of making them an accurate marksman, would you give them a gun and say "have at it son, just eyeball it" or would you teach them about windage and elevation? It's the same thing.

[pchapman 279]

A couple odds and ends comments:

-- While classic accuracy folks generally do things by eye and don't need, say, audio alerts while in their little pattern, I have seen one competitor pace out each new contest site to get a better feel for the dimensions.

-- If one is learning to do a normal straight in landing, then what pro swoopers do with altitude alarms is largely irrelevant, whether or not one thinks they are godlike. They are doing a dynamic turning maneuver from their setup point to landing. For a 'normal' landing, the final approach is more of a straight line. So it doesn't matter if you've turned in on final at 250 ft or 400 ft -- that has little effect on your straight in approach and ability to hit your target. What matters is the angle you pick.

-- Being able to judge angles, estimate angles of flight in different wind conditions, and judge the winds from one's drift or wind checks, is more important than hitting exact altitudes. "Angles are more important than altitudes."

Still, having altitudes as targets can be useful for newbies to get an idea of what a typical circuit can be like, and to reduce the uncertainty they can have about the invisible 3-D paths that can be followed.

[vanessalh 0]

Thanks for all your replies folks, a few things I took away from this thread:
+ Predetermined patterns with set altitudes and ground markers are useful for learning good judgment, but should be adjusted based on conditions (winds, other canopies in the air, etc.)
+ There is no real standard altitude points for the landing pattern, though some use 900/600/300
+ It's important to give your canopy time to recover from last turn (~5-10s) regardless of altitude
+ Some good advice on how to calculate landing pattern in the air using a digital altimeter + time to see how quickly I sink

I'm not sure I agree with doing pattern in 1/4 brakes, leaves less forward motion to turn into lift when flaring. But if I'm aiming for a tiny clearing in a forest I reserve the right to muck with my canopy all the way in and PLF if necessary :).

Perhaps I could ask my original intended question more clearly:
Is it okay to lower landing pattern altitudes (say to 650/400/200) in order to shorten landing pattern?
Are there downsides to using a smaller landing pattern?
Are there downsides to starting pattern at lower altitude? (assuming final gives canopy chance to recover)

With the intention that a smaller landing pattern makes it easier to keep the entire pattern over landable area,so if winds shift I'm not left 100 feet into the trees with a 15mph headwind.