Skydive Arizona Landing Policy

[Amazon 7]

Quote

What do you gain by being in ff below 3.5?

Escaping from the other jumpers who do not know how to track away from the base on a big way

[Feeblemind 1]

So either you skydive or swoop, but you can't have both?

From my brief tenure in sport this is what I have seen:


Vidiots....... Majority swoop (i.e. 180 or greater)

Free flyers ...... Majority swoop (i.e. 180 or greater)

AFFI's..... Majority swoop (i.e. 180 or greater)

Birdman....... Half swoop (i.e. 180 or greater)

RW flyers...... a few swoop (i.e. 180 or greater)


So are the DZO's going to discriminate against a group of the community by only giving them them the option of hop/pops versus an alternate landing area?

Also, are we going to start grounding the idiots that sashay down the center of the landing area with their giant "S" turns because thay can not properly perform a safe landing pattern?

Also, are we going to ground the knucklehead that spirals down over the center of the landing area for whatever reason they decided to do it?

What about the video flyer that cuts the patern to make sure he/she is able to film that tandem landing? (just another exsample, no cheap shot intended)

Also ar we going to ground the individual that ???? or this??? or That???

Unfortunaely many issues arise at a DZ that may be cause for concern, this just seems to me the most recent unpleasant flavor, where are you going to draw the line?

If the DZO's are going to draw this line in the sand in regards to swooping are they willing to support it with their wallet? As an exsample SDAZ (where this post started) is charging $21 for 13K ($1.65 per 1k alt), are they willing to except $4.86 for 3K, $6.48 for 4K Etc???? No insult intended, merely a question.

Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked

[OSOK 0]

Don't DZs have to have a landing area X by X for students to land on, as per USPA? Why doesn't USPA do the same but add swooping to the mix? If the landing area isnt X by X then no swooping is allowed, period.

[Superman32 0]

BRAVO!!
It's a very good step in right direction.

Inveniam Viam aut Faciam
I'm back biatches!

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Outfriginstanding!

What he said. This really shows what a first rate operation SDAZ is.

[ebilling 0]

>" It's entirely possible that others could modify their infrastructure and procedures to separately accomodate both traditional and high-performance patterns"

You might be right.
You could probably have full throttle swooping safely happening at either Perris or Eloy if it was done way out there by the... umm... watchamacallem's... the existing swooping ponds instead of in the main landing areas.

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Does anyone know if SDAZ's new Landing Policy has been enforced yet?

[Remster 30]

Quote

Does anyone know if SDAZ's new Landing Policy has been enforced yet?

Yes it has.

Last weekend, two jumpers did a 270 in the main landing area, and were grounded for 1 day.

Remster

[TAXIWAY 0]

Quote

Quote

Does anyone know if SDAZ's new Landing Policy has been enforced yet?

Yes it has.

Last weekend, two jumpers did a 270 in the main landing area, and were grounded for 1 day.

What I dont get is I can gain as much speed with a 180 as a 270 so how is a 180 making anything safer vrs a 270.
If you dont have clear airspace dont swoop. I dont feel banning anything over a 180 is going to change anything but maybe where you jump.

If I have a dz telling me I cant do a 270 I will simply go to another dz. Thats the good thing about florida I can go in any direction and find another dz. I am all for seperate landing areas but I will fly my canopy how I want when it is safe to do so. I dont mind a short walk or a long on for a good swoop.

[billvon 3,076]

>how is a 180 making anything safer vrs a 270.

You don't look away from the landing area with a 180. The problem isn't that it's a cool manuever; the problem is running into (and killing) people you don't see.

>I dont mind a short walk or a long on for a good swoop.

With that attitude, I doubt you'll have a problem at any DZ you go to. It's the people who refuse to land anywhere but in front of the packing tent that are going to have heartache with new swooping rules.

[TAXIWAY 0]

So you are saying that if I do a 180, I would usually do that at around 500 to 600 feet. I would be flying right at the people flying straight in then turn. How is that any safer than a 270 its not in any way safer.
Its all about have clear airspace is it not. The turn is a small factor with these problems. The real problem is awareness and skill or lack of.
Swoop landing area and conservative landing areas are the answer.
Dont get me wrong I do feel changes need to be made but banning a certain degree of turn is not the answer.

[jacketsdb23 49]

Quote

So you are saying that if I do a 180, I would usually do that at around 500 to 600 feet. I would be flying right at the people flying straight in then turn. How is that any safer than a 270 its not in any way safer.
Its all about have clear airspace is it not. The turn is a small factor with these problems. The real problem is awareness and skill or lack of.
Swoop landing area and conservative landing areas are the answer.
Dont get me wrong I do feel changes need to be made but banning a certain degree of turn is not the answer.

I don't swoop, yet, so I'm just trying to think out loud here. I think the idea is that with a 180 you will be able to see more of the traffic in your area and NOT perform the big turn. I think we've all agreed that turns in traffic are not a good idea. The 180 perhaps gives you a better view to make the call about whether conditions permit a HP landing. A 180 and a 270 are equally dangerous in traffic. The 180 approach helps you make that call.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I don't swoop. The 180 approach helps you make that call.

I do swoop and the approach of the 270 is not what makes it dicey. It's the commitment once the turn starts and having a temporary blind spot while you turn away from the LZ. In fact I will argue that the 270 approach is a lot less instrusive than the 180 where canopies flying on the same level are on potential collision paths flying at each other until the person doing the 180 turns.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,076]

>I would be flying right at the people flying straight in then turn. How is
>that any safer than a 270 . . .

In a 270 you turn and face people landing, and you have to look away from your course/landing area to do it.

In a 180 you turn and face people landing, but you do not have to look away from your course/landing to do it.

Since people are dying because swoopers can't see them, the loss of visibility in a 270 is a very big deal - and is the reason that 270's are less safe than 180's. That does not mean in any way that 180's are safe, of course - just that they have fewer visibility problems than 270's.

>Dont get me wrong I do feel changes need to be made but banning
>a certain degree of turn is not the answer.

What are those changes? If you answer "education" or "more awareness" or "we all have to look out for our brothers" then the real answer is "nothing" - because we have said those things over and over and over again. There have been some good suggestions in this thread and others concerning separate landing areas and split landing areas, but of course that's also "banning 270's" from certain areas.

[jacketsdb23 49]

I understand your point.

I think everyone is satisfied with the idea of having a strictly HP landing area. Lets as a community bring ideas to our home DZ's this weekend and see when/how/why this can or can't be instituted as a START. This will take commitments from individual fun jumpers, DZO's, S&TA's, and instructors. Then we can all swoop or not, while still jumping at altitude.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[marks 0]

Quote

>I would be flying right at the people flying straight in then turn. How is
>that any safer than a 270 . . .

In a 270 you turn and face people landing, and you have to look away from your course/landing area to do it.

In a 180 you turn and face people landing, but you do not have to look away from your course/landing to do it.

Since people are dying because swoopers can't see them, the loss of visibility in a 270 is a very big deal - and is the reason that 270's are less safe than 180's. That does not mean in any way that 180's are safe, of course - just that they have fewer visibility problems than 270's.

>Dont get me wrong I do feel changes need to be made but banning
>a certain degree of turn is not the answer.

What are those changes? If you answer "education" or "more awareness" or "we all have to look out for our brothers" then the real answer is "nothing" - because we have said those things over and over and over again. There have been some good suggestions in this thread and others concerning separate landing areas and split landing areas, but of course that's also "banning 270's" from certain areas.

if you face people when doing a 180, that means there is traffic and you shouldn't do it.. so what are your outs now?

limiting the turn to 180's will not solve the problem.. you can mark my word on that..

if your going to limit it, it needs to be limited to 90's.

[billvon 3,076]

>if you face people when doing a 180, that means there is traffic and
>you shouldn't do it.. so what are your outs now?

Let's try this again, in bigger type.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT 180'S ARE SAFE. They just have fewer visibility problems than 270's.

[marks 0]

Quote

I AM NOT SAYING THAT 180'S ARE SAFE. They just have fewer visibility problems than 270's.

ok.

I don't buy that.

[marks 0]

doing a 270 in traffic is stupid. I think everyone can agree on that.

but doing a 180 in traffic is even more stupid.

you will get away with it as many times you do a 270. but that one time you decide there is too much traffic and you want to abort, it is quite possible your fucked.

[greybeard 0]

You'all might stop and listen to your own self. Of course we are not talking about YOU, because you are still alive.

Hope to keep it that way, oh, and keep me alive too, is, what the collective must consider. Give an inch, gain an inch.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

>how is a 180 making anything safer vrs a 270.

You don't look away from the landing area with a 180. The problem isn't that it's a cool manuever; the problem is running into (and killing) people you don't see.

Bill, that's the exact problem with a 180. People focus on the landing area instead of checking the airspace about them. If they would check they would see trafic. Get it?

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

[billvon 3,076]

>People focus on the landing area instead of checking the airspace about them.

Students often focus on things, like obstacles. They COULD see a wider picture, but they do not. Some skydivers have a similar issue. They COULD see traffic (i.e. are physically capable) but are focusing on something else.

However, when someone does a 270, they CANNOT see the whole picture. It is physically impossible. It's like backing up in a car and claiming that you have exactly the same amount of visibility out the front that you always do. People who do that may even believe it, but they are fooling themselves.

180 - people CAN see where they are going but focus on the landing area
270 - people CANNOT see where they are going (for at least part of the manuever) no matter what they try

Get it yet?

[diablopilot 2]

Bill how often do you do 270 or greater degree turns?

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

[billvon 3,076]

> Bill how often do you do 270 or greater degree turns?

While training? Rarely. There are often people in the pattern, and during most training weekends, I am not the first one down, nor do we have the landing area to ourselves.

When working? Often. Otay especially is a good place, since I'm almost always the first one down, and they segregate their landing area.

When fun jumping? Rarely. Generally I fun jump on weekends when traffic is heavier (and somewhat unpredictable.)

Needless to say, I am certain I am not as accomplished at them as you are.

[marks2065 0]

recently some swoopers have proven that they can't handle a 270 in traffic - the people that like to do a 270 have not gotten together to fix this problem so somebody did it for them simple as that - no a 270 is not the only problem causing collisions but hopefully it is one problem that will go away - landing around swoopers scares the hell out of me and i'm tired of reading incedent reports of deaths caused by hp landings - the only reason these landings have been accepted for this long is that mostly they only took out the person doing the hp landing now inocent people are getting hurt/killed and for that people have spoken up and some dzo's are listening - i completely back SDA and hope other dz's follow with their own ideas or copy SDA'S policy - maybe if enough things are implemented some really good ideas will be found to work that will help solve the problem of the long list of deaths caused by hp landings and maybe we can see the death toll in the sport drop below 10 or 15 deaths per year - we have lost to many people in our sport for many reasons i would like to keep my freinds jumping for a long time and see the sport grow again