Responsibility in the landing pattern

[billvon 3,075]

>No Bill, you will have to come to grips with it.

I could as easily say - you WILL have to come to grips with having no freefall separation. People won't leave you enough exit separation. You'll just have to learn to deal with it, and plan YOUR skydive so there are no collisions. It's a fact of life. I won't give you more time just because you can't deal with the facts.

Would that fly? Would you be OK with a group exiting after you giving you one second of separation because they don't want to land off, and that's just how it is?

The reason skydiving has remained as unregulated as it is is that most people, when told "you have to give us safe separation" or "you have to fly a standard pattern" or "you have to pull below 4000 and above 2000 feet" have no problem with it. They realize that it's for their good as well as everyone else's. Some people don't see that. Often, they just don't have enough time in the sport to have seen what _not_ doing those things can result in.

>Look up at your post, what part are you disagreeing with? The fact
> that not everyone is doing 90s, or that everyone in the air has a
> responsibility to be safe?

Everyone has a responsibility to fly a predictable pattern, and that means making 90 degree turns. If you were a pilot, and you decided to do 270's in busy, uncontrolled patterns "as long as you were safe" and "as long as it's clear" you would eventually lose your license. We're a lot more lax here. We rely on individuals being responsible enough, rather than having enough FAA inspectors to enforce rules. Most of the time, people are able to show such responsibility. Some are not. These are the people who will cause more draconian rules to come into effect, like "no loadings over 1.5" (which is a rule at at least one DZ.)

>p.s. I'll take your lack of response to our prior discussion to mean
> you have changed your mind? Realised that if jumper can follow me
> down my downwind leg and expect me to be turning a base leg, that
> it would be funny to think when my plans are to do a 180 instead,
> his expectations would then be different?

What are you talking about? If you do a sudden 180 you are screwing the people above you who were using your direction to set up their landings. If you do a wide, gentle 180, in about the same distance you would do a downwind-base-final, then no problem at all - you are flying predictably, and others can follow you safely.

[goose491 0]

Quote

>No Bill, you will have to come to grips with it.

I could as easily say - you WILL have to come to grips with having no freefall separation.

Not the same. No freefall separation is a safety issue. 180s and 270s on the same landing area as a perfecly rectangular pattern consisting of only 90s... that's an awareness issue.

Quote

Everyone has a responsibility to fly a predictable pattern, and that means making 90 degree turns.

This statment is outright false. Predictable does not mean 90s only unless you are unable to cope with canopy flying as an evolving sport. I mean I realise you've made jumps with some 300 people landing all together using this method. And to be honnest, that type of number requires such a thing. But it is NOT irresponsible to perform 180s and 270s. You are failing to even consider that the landing area can be shared safely... time will prove you wrong and I'm trying real hard not to sound pompus. I'm no pro-swooper... and you truly did have me questioning the safety of my landings... but in the end, you have said nothing of substance other that we all have to fly a rectagle with nothing more than 90 degree turns. I don't know what to say other than... outdated.

Quote

If you were a pilot, and you decided to do 270's in busy, uncontrolled patterns "as long as you were safe" and "as long as it's clear" you would eventually lose your license.

I am a pilot. Airplanes have the ability to alter their speeds and maintain given altitudes. They appoach the field from all directions but have the ability to communicate with eachother. A single file pattern is easily maintained and thusly expected for planes. Neither of those are present under canopy. It's not that we are more lax... it's that we cannot expect the same performance.

Ever hear of a tear-drop? You are just about to finish your downwid leg and turn final when you see/hear/are told of another plane coming straight in on final? They are fast enough to cause you conflict, maybe they are burning quite a bit more fuel so they are cleared before you? You are then asked what? Either 1) to extend your downwind leg or 2) to perform a 270 in the opposite direction. lol.

That was just for fun.

Quote

What are you talking about? If you do a sudden 180 you are screwing the people above you who were using your direction to set up their landings. If you do a wide, gentle 180, in about the same distance you would do a downwind-base-final, then no problem at all - you are flying predictably, and others can follow you safely.

But bill, the issue was not how sudden or how wide. The issue was the initiation point... X and Y on the pictures that were drawn specifically so that you couldn't say "What are you talking about?" A 180 performed mid-field is irresponsible whether it be snapped OR gradual... but if initiated at point Y... there is no cause for confusion... who's confused?

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[wmw999 2,544]

Quote

No freefall separation is a safety issue

Not if each jumper is aware of the others and clears their air.

Quote

we all have to fly a rectagle with nothing more than 90 degree turns. I don't know what to say other than... outdated.

I believe that is said to be the case for congested air. If you're landing alone because you got out low, or you're one of 4 people and you can see the other three, then no problem. What do you think the cutoff would be for being predictable in a particular way (i.e. straight in approaches, no 270's, etc)? 3? 20? 100? It was decreed on the 40+ ways I was on last weekend.

Quote

Airplanes have the ability to alter their speeds and maintain given altitudes. They appoach the field from all directions but have the ability to communicate with eachother. A single file pattern is easily maintained and thusly expected for planes.

So you're saying that because parachutes don't have the same advantages that airplanes have we should expect LESS discipline?

In good times, there's no issue. The reason for safety rules is that times aren't always good. And sometimes the consequences are severe enough, or public enough, that the rules limit what people can do safely some (but not all) of the time.

Most people can drive safely at faster than 20 in a school zone. But, ya know, kids are unpredictable. Just as skydivers can be. And saying "it's the natural consequence" doesn't work when accidents happen again and again.

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)

[goose491 0]

Wendy, without offending, do you know what you are responding to?

-No freefall separation was not presented by Bill in an "each jumper is aware of the others and clears their air" scenario. It was presented in a "You may already have a dive planned with your group, we are not going to give you any separation so now you also have lurkers" type of scenario. It is meant to parallel not being able to warn other canopies of "sudden" unpredictable behaviour.

-I make no reservations about the rectagular pattern. I don't know exactly what the second part of your post is refering to with landing outs and 3s, 20s, 100s (??). But I am still talking about a very real, very rectangular pattern, over the real landing area. The only thing I challenge is that all turns have to be 90 or you are being unsafe/irresponsible.

-I said nothing of canopy pilots needing LESS discipline. Only that the pattern is a very different animal for powered crafts as it is for us. We are not lining 'em up and landing single file on one single length of runway, we have the entire field and can set up our final approach anywhere latterally along our base legs. And a good thing because despite what Bill says, it is impossible to expect any canopy pilot to follow any other canopy pilots pattern exactly with all the different canopies and loadings. If it were possible, you'd never see canopies landing more than one... at... a... time...

And then some stuff comparing risk in the sport to risk on the road... I don't hear anyone saying "it's the natural consequence" to canopy conflicts and collisions and it's certainly not my statement.

I have to repeat: do you know what you were responding to? At least include your point of view. Are you agreeing that all turn have to be 90 degrees in order for us all to be safe and considered responsible?

Nick

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[pilotdave 0]

She was asking you a question. You said that with 300 canopies in the air, it's probably necessary to limit the pattern to 90 degree turns only. She was asking how many canopies need to be in the air, in your opinion, to justify requiring a "standard" pattern with only 90 degree turns.

One otter load, 270s are ok. 300 way, 270s are not ok. Where's the line (in your opinion)?

Dave

[billvon 3,075]

>No freefall separation is a safety issue.

Not flying a safe pattern is a safety issue.

>180s and 270s on the same landing area as a perfecly rectangular
>pattern consisting of only 90s... that's an awareness issue.

Not seeing a group 30 feet above you in freefall is an awareness issue, too - but I still think you would consider it a safety issue.

>time will prove you wrong and I'm trying real hard not to sound
> pompus. I'm no pro-swooper... and you truly did have me
>questioning the safety of my landings... but in the end, you have
> said nothing of substance other that we all have to fly a rectagle
> with nothing more than 90 degree turns. I don't know what to say
> other than... outdated.

So be it. There are plenty of people who think "old fashioned" exit separation requirements, pull altitudes, water training etc are outdated too. They figure they are in the new wave of skydiving, one that will cast aside the old limitations holding skydivers back and enter a new age of performance and fun, their superior awareness skills making up for those ancient procedural crutches.

People die every year re-learning lessons that have been learned over the past 50 years of sport parachuting. Read the Incidents forum. People are dying right now re-learning that the big-sky theory doesn't hold when everyone is trying to land in the same area. They are dying because people are doing 180's, 270's and 360's and colliding with people they didn't see. Let's hope no more skydivers die learning that the pattern is there for a reason.

So I'm done with this. If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, you never will. People have died because they approach canopy control in patterns the way you seem to; I hope you avoid such a fate.

[goose491 0]

Quote

She was asking you a question. You said that with 300 canopies in the air, it's probably necessary to limit the pattern to 90 degree turns only. She was asking how many canopies need to be in the air, in your opinion, to justify requiring a "standard" pattern with only 90 degree turns.

One otter load, 270s are ok. 300 way, 270s are not ok. Where's the line (in your opinion)?

Dave

Oh I got it. Thanks Dave.

In my opinion, the reason behind having to do 90s only in the pattern for the 300 way was more so because you have 300 people all deploying at about the same time, at about the same place. Now the entire mess of people have to co-ordinate together and the pattern is admitedly tighter. It is less because other landing techniques are unpredictable and more because there is no room for sudden changes in speed with someone right in front and someone right behind.

I'd say the line is drawn against radical landings when we know there to be a horde of people arriving pretty much at the same time. On any other given day, jumpers exit in smaller groups, giving eachother separation at the door, having different freefall speeds between disciplines and deploying at different heights. Coming in to land, we all converge at trying to join the pattern but I don't remember the last time I saw the last jumper joining the pattern before the first guy got down.

Bill says he had no problem flying the pattern of the guy in front of him and the guy behind him had no problem following him. I'm glad because all three arrived together with some other 287ish people.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[wmw999 2,544]

Going point by point is pointless (bada-bing!). Because, just like flaring or almost anything in skydiving, there really isn't a single point at which the rules change. But there have to be some rules.

What is a good pull altitude? Why can't people who are used to dumping at 1000' and pack for it continue to do so without getting grounded? Heck, they're not even endangering anyone else?

And Bill didn't say anything at all about not clearing airspace -- he just said what if people exited right after. They can still look and clear airspace.

I think that crowded air space (and "crowded" is subjective) should have more controlled and predictable patterns. Not because you can't clear your air space, but because chances are that someone out there won't clear theirs.

Usually the result is a scare. Sometimes it's an injury, and sometimes it's a fatality. It's extremely unlikely to be intentional or careless, just "bad luck." But sometimes you can build rules to make "bad luck" less likely, and organizations have to decide when that's appropriate.

The decision won't always be the right one.

My suggestion for rules?

When it's a boogie (lots of strange canopies, people don't know each others' flying patterns, new newbies), landing patterns have to be MORE, not less, strongly enforced.

Bigger-ways than are common at the DZ demand more discipline in the landing pattern (which means rules).

Multiple loads in the same air space.

And multiple experience levels.

I'd like to see swooping stay out of the main area. And I'd like to see more attention paid to this kind of thing with experienced non-swoopers, too. Remind them "that's where the swoopers set up, it's not a good place to be" or "aircraft landing pattern puts you here today" etc. Because some people are helped by the reminders, and that's very cheap insurance.

I'm not saying that no-one can clear their air well enough. I'm saying that some people can't, and some non-swoopers aren't aware enough of the difference. And the penalty for mistakes is great enough to make some rules a good idea.

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)

[goose491 0]

Quote

So I'm done with this. If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, you never will. People have died because they approach canopy control in patterns the way you seem to; I hope you avoid such a fate.

Thank you Bill.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[riggerrob 643]

Re-fuelling flame-thrower ....

If you refuse to approach the swoop lane - in a pattern that a junior jumper can predict - take it well off to the side of the regular landing field or take it to another DZ!

[goose491 0]

Quote

Going point by point is pointless (bada-bing!).

Especially when you pull the wrong points and misconstrue.

Quote

And Bill didn't say anything at all about not clearing airspace -- he just said what if people exited right after. They can still look and clear airspace.

Nor did I. But this is actually what he said...

Quote

I could as easily say - you WILL have to come to grips with having no freefall separation. People won't leave you enough exit separation. You'll just have to learn to deal with it, and plan YOUR skydive so there are no collisions.

I have a hard time believing that having to accpet that your group will leave mine no separation at exit, is comparable to having to accept that 270s can be performed safely and without conflict. I don't know what your take on this exit seperation thing is... but that's why it was brought up.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[pilotdave 0]

Exit separation has little to do with pattern separation. I often get passed by people in later groups. If I pull a little high (3,500), I can easily be passed by tandem video guys.

Swoopers don't bother me much. Where I jump, there'll be maybe 3-5 people doing real swoops on any given load, not 10 or 15 or more like I'm sure it is at a lot of dropzones. They're easy to pick out from far away, I know about where they're headed to make their turns, and once they make their turns, they drop right out of the sky. As long as I'm on level or above them when they start the turn, I couldn't hit them if I tried. And everybody's good about not doing anything crazy when there's a lot of traffic below. I just don't fly my final where I know they set up if I can avoid it.

Dave

[Orange1 0]

As a newbie who has jumped only 2 DZs (one low traffic and one even lower traffic) I would just like to say that I have found this thread very useful, with lots of stuff I hadn't even thought about before , even though I'm probably hundreds of jumps away from even thinking about swooping, as it has raised a number of other issues too. For example, where I've jumped it's never been a problem for me to use an accuracy-type approach to get where I wanted to in the DZ (partly because I have a light WL and am usually last down), but I now see the real importance of setting up properly earlier on to get where I want - as well as what I should watch out for if I find myself following a swooper down, and what to be aware of when I get to jump busier DZs.

Thanks for starting it.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[mdrejhon 8]

I'm usually the only person left in the air at my dropzone. (Except on boogie weekends) I still pull fairly high (between 3K and 5K, depending on type of jump). Usually, it has been 4.5K with my new rig and Sabre 170. At least when there are no tandems on my load.

When I see all canopies below me and in the middle of their swoop landings and the only guy above, 3000 feet above them, I can be kind of an airspace pig if I want to be, enjoying a beautiful partly-cloudy sky at 3000 feet familiarizing myself with my new rig. I had one of my best canopy flights last weekend, skimming the edge of a cloud at something like 4000ft after a 5K pull. (Not to worry, I had a perfectly clear view of the dropzone and avoided the ends of the runways.)

I'm back to my normal 3K pulls now when doing 2-ways or 3-ways, but I've been frequently requesting 4K and 5K pulls whenever they allow me to.

But I particularly enjoy the canopy flight. (And also throwing in some pratice canopy flight... test flares/stalls... rear riser control... flare turns... braked/flat turns... Etc. And of course, fun spirals and pretend swoops at play altitude)

[GreenLight 8]

Quote

So I'm done with this. If you don't understand what I'm saying by now, you never will. People have died because they approach canopy control in patterns the way you seem to; I hope you avoid such a fate.

Bill,,,, This is beyond anything that has come along in progressive skydiving before. They do have the ego to support their ideas and the money too. This thing is not going to go away by just talking about it. People are going to have to die in record numbers to get the point across and these idiots will defend it to the death... It will take some heavy lawsuits to change things if the sport doesn't change it's own way of thinking. Just sit back and watch it happen...

Green Light
"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."
"Your statement answered your question."

[goose491 0]

Quote

Bill,,,, This is beyond anything that has come along in progressive skydiving before. They do have the ego to support their ideas and the money too. This thing is not going to go away by just talking about it. People are going to have to die in record numbers to get the point across and these idiots will defend it to the death... It will take some heavy lawsuits to change things if the sport doesn't change it's own way of thinking. Just sit back and watch it happen...

Whom are you refering to when you say ego and money?

This was not a very well thought out post greenlight.


....Troll.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[GreenLight 8]

I too am done with it in this thread. That was supposed to be my last post on the subject but I'll make this the last one. This is one that can't be talked away. Why just as we were discussing it 2 people screwed themselves into the ground over the weekend at our DZ alone.

Ego.... You refuse to see that there is a problem...

Money... The DZOs will continue to ignore it as long as you give him your money...

Green Light
"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."
"Your statement answered your question."

[goose491 0]

I was just wondering how you could be pretentious enough to comment on both my ego and my financial situation.

Quote

I too am done with it in this thread. That was supposed to be my last post on the subject but I'll make this the last one.

I wonder.

Quote

Why just as we were discussing it 2 people screwed themselves into the ground over the weekend at our DZ alone.

I see how you blame this on my ego, my money, my continued desire to educate myself on these boards... maybe it's just because I fail to take Bills words as gospel but rather ask him to explain himself and continue to do so when it's still not clear to me. Maybe I'm too aggressive. Maybe I should just stop asking... be a sheep. But in my oppinion, that's how people die.

This thread is about 'responsibility in the landing pattern'. I don't even need you to try and explain how your shitty comments relate.


...troll.

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[damion75 0]

hey Goose!

Just to satisfy my curiosity, are you really doing 180s and 270s on your Sam136 at 240 jumps? Or is it just an out of date profile?

Sorry if you already covered this one but I can't be bothered to read the preceeding 142 posts!

Frank.

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[chachi 0]

wow, another thread completely ruined by people picking apart posts, having no interest in sharing and also changing personal views, and no real path for learning. amazing how nothing intelligent gets through when you hold fast your point and refuse to bend.

to greenlight especially. i have a couple of your type on my dz. blaming everything on the "idiodic swooper" - how about you grow past your own experiences and realize that your way is not the only way. grow, educate, learn, change, evolve are all words that come to mind when thinking of the attitude change you need. read my post please on page two. so much of it probably pertains to you.

[goose491 0]

Quote

hey Goose!

Just to satisfy my curiosity, are you really doing 180s and 270s on your Sam136 at 240 jumps? Or is it just an out of date profile?

Sorry if you already covered this one but I can't be bothered to read the preceeding 142 posts!

Frank.

Hey Frank,

I now have just under 300 jumps, the canopy is still a Sam 136 loaded at 1.2.

What I'm doing today is complete my downwind leg at about 480 feet, usually in some breaks. I then lay off the breaks and get on both fronts. Then I lift my outside leg and offset the risers to start the turn. The turn itself is not 'snapped' but a continuous carve through 180 degrees. I'm thinking one can truly generate nearly as much speed with this as they can with 'hucking' themselves out from under the fabric, initiating the dive/turn and then swinging back under it. The lines are always loaded and I can adjust the steepness of the dive or the radius of the turn throughout it by changing the pull on, or the the offset of the risers.

To keep in the spirit of this thread, I chose the most downwind-base corner of the field because it gives me the field downwind of us and our entire field laterally from me as outs. Also, because where it is initiated is just about where you would expect me to turn a base leg if flying behind me. If I am approaching my corner and see someone coming straight in for some reason, I am still able to complete two 90s -possibly flat if need be- to accommodate.

I did do a 270 once last year with some advice but it was a big big deal for me. I'll be sticking with these 180s and this canopy for a while.

Any advice you may be able to provide would be well-received
Nick

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[chachi 0]

^ you should also read my post on page two. your 180 setup is definately not a cool way to setup. it causes confusion, and if you are doing it in the main landing area especially can help to have a bunch of people setup on the wrong side.

if you change your setup to the cross wind way i explain your accuracy will improve along with being a help to the others flying around with you.

[goose491 0]

Quote

^ you should also read my post on page two. your 180 setup is definately not a cool way to setup.

I've read every post in this thread. Okay Chachi, but I do have a few questions. If you don't mind, let's go through what you had said in that post.

Quote

most people do a 180 by coming flying down the flight line and performing the turn.... (and also): ...you mow down the middle of the landing area and you are very unpredictable

(ephasis mine)

Okay so right off the bat, let's eliminated this cause of conflict and confusion because your downwind leg really shouldn't be down the middle of the field right? I mean, lets not add stuff to the mix. My setup, for example, has the same downwind leg as any other in a proper pattern... not right up the middle. If the wind is such that my downwind leg is furthest from the packing area, I do my walking.

Quote

if you do 180's you should be coming at a crosswind the same as a 270 approach and turning a 90 downwind right before you perform your 180. this will make your pattern more predictable,

Okay, so here's my issue with this. In my setup, I am comming up to the end of my downwind leg, you are directly behind me. I turn through 180 degrees to face/land the other way. As per you, this causes you confusion because you thought I was landing downwind and off the landing area when I 'suddenly' changed directions.

Now going by your suggestion, I actually turn to base and complete the base leg. If you are still following me, what you have seen is a normal 90 pattern until a time where you are expecting me to turn final... But I turn downwind... and then all the way around again into wind? And this is less confusing to you in terms of which direction we are landing?

From completion of the downwind leg, isn't a 180 to the left where two left 90s might be expected of me more predictable then a 90 left, a 90 right and then a 180 left where two left 90 are expected of me? Especially at the time we are to be turning final?

please explain.

Nick

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[chachi 0]

if your doing a 180 in your main landing area you are potentially flying at people that are already on final. bigger canopies, people not doing turns and such because you can't possibly do that wide of a 180.

if your coming to setup for a swoop lane then you are runnning down the middle because everyone setting up 90/270 are coming crosswind. read the rest of what i wrote as well. it doesn't only have to do with pattern. it is a way better setup to put you at your appropriate turning altitude because as your approaching you can cut the corner, or lengthen it out if you are low or high. it will dramatically improve your accuracy, help you not do dumb shit if your high/low and it is a better pattern example.

all you do is come across like every other 90/270 patten and do a 90 right before your 180, almost like a 270 but with a small turn to start it off. trust me, i know all of this becuase i did the exact thing you do and changing my setup was probably one of the single most important things that i ever did.

follow the advice or don't but i learned the shit i spout from the pro's. you can try and figure it out on your own if you want, or take the easy route as i have.

[pilotdave 0]

The PD factory team 180 front riser turn training video: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=2386. THAT's how the pros teach it.

Dave