Recommended Posts
Hello Ian!
QuoteQuoteI realize that, but if memory serves me correctly the original BSR discussions were saying that non-HP pilots could land in HP areas.
IMO, this should not be allowed if we're truely interested in keeping our landing areas seperate, and safer.
As one of the writers of the BSR proposal let me correct a mistaken impression many folks have. There is no bias against swoopers or non-swoopers. It is the mixing of the patterns that is the problem.
We wanted to create a set of rules (or a plan if you prefer) that would make the landing pattern safer for all by making it predictable for all.
If you have a separate area for swoopers, then non-swoopers should stay out. However, what if someone does land in the swooping area (bad spot, cutoff, high winds) what would a swooper want them to do to stay predictable? We thought landing on the edges vice the center does that. That doesn't mean the non-swooper has carte blanche to land there.
We also made the swooper predictable in the non-swooping area. Regardless of location, if the swooper is in a non-swooping area, they would fly the tradional landing pattern.
Predictability for both groups. That is of course if the DZ has separate areas or even allows swooping.
Hope that clears it up.
Blue SKies, Flip
Flip,
Thanks for the response. Like you I would like to see an approach to the issue that is grounded in a realistic approach to what really happens at a DZ on any given day/weekend. I do agree that we're all wanting to see the same result (safer airspace) but not necessarily in agreement on the details of how to do that.
IMO they should not be allowed to land in it, or cross over it below 2000 feet PERIOD. Realistically if the jumper can make it to the HP area, they could have made it to a safer spot on the LZ (as the HP area is typically near the regular LZ). For example at The Farm we have 2 landing areas, one for HP and one for 'traditional'. Patterns are switched depending on the landing direction to ensure that traditional and HP patterns and flight paths do not cross or intersect.
I am extremely resistant to the idea that a poorly planned approach from a regular jumper is allowed to come anywhere NEAR the HP zone.
Hell, at the last PST there were tandems floating above the swoop pond, while the Airforce team was spiralling their accuracy canopies through the airspace below 2000 feet, DURING the meet WHILE competitors were in the air - totally unacceptable IMO. If we're going to seperate landing areas then traditional approach jumpers need to plan their descent better (which I believe they should do regardless of the area they land in) to avoid the HP area. Likewise, the HP pilots need to avoid the traditional area. There can't be conditional cases for the seperation to work. I can't go race a honda civic during the indy 500 for good reason - I don't see this as any different.
Ultimately I still believe a large part of this problem is rooted in the mentality of a large segment of the jumping population and directly relates to the minimalistic (if downright lacking) requirements we have regarding canopy flight AND particularly who passes the knowledge on.
Of every dz I've been to, without fail, the majority of the landing 'issues' stem from full time jumpers who don't feel they need any additional education on canopy flight. Some of these jumpers are traditional pilots, some are simply pilots who have access to HP wings but really dont understand the first thing about flying them (of course there are those in this group who DO actively expand their knowledge but my experience indicates they're a minority). These are the people TEACHING our next generation in many cases. I think that is the group we need to focus on.
I still believe education is key.
Hope this helps explain my concerns.
Blues,
Ian
Thanks for the response. Like you I would like to see an approach to the issue that is grounded in a realistic approach to what really happens at a DZ on any given day/weekend. I do agree that we're all wanting to see the same result (safer airspace) but not necessarily in agreement on the details of how to do that.
QuoteIf you have a separate area for swoopers, then non-swoopers should stay out. However, what if someone does land in the swooping area (bad spot, cutoff, high winds) what would a swooper want them to do to stay predictable? We thought landing on the edges vice the center does that. That doesn't mean the non-swooper has carte blanche to land there.
IMO they should not be allowed to land in it, or cross over it below 2000 feet PERIOD. Realistically if the jumper can make it to the HP area, they could have made it to a safer spot on the LZ (as the HP area is typically near the regular LZ). For example at The Farm we have 2 landing areas, one for HP and one for 'traditional'. Patterns are switched depending on the landing direction to ensure that traditional and HP patterns and flight paths do not cross or intersect.
I am extremely resistant to the idea that a poorly planned approach from a regular jumper is allowed to come anywhere NEAR the HP zone.
Hell, at the last PST there were tandems floating above the swoop pond, while the Airforce team was spiralling their accuracy canopies through the airspace below 2000 feet, DURING the meet WHILE competitors were in the air - totally unacceptable IMO. If we're going to seperate landing areas then traditional approach jumpers need to plan their descent better (which I believe they should do regardless of the area they land in) to avoid the HP area. Likewise, the HP pilots need to avoid the traditional area. There can't be conditional cases for the seperation to work. I can't go race a honda civic during the indy 500 for good reason - I don't see this as any different.
Ultimately I still believe a large part of this problem is rooted in the mentality of a large segment of the jumping population and directly relates to the minimalistic (if downright lacking) requirements we have regarding canopy flight AND particularly who passes the knowledge on.
Of every dz I've been to, without fail, the majority of the landing 'issues' stem from full time jumpers who don't feel they need any additional education on canopy flight. Some of these jumpers are traditional pilots, some are simply pilots who have access to HP wings but really dont understand the first thing about flying them (of course there are those in this group who DO actively expand their knowledge but my experience indicates they're a minority). These are the people TEACHING our next generation in many cases. I think that is the group we need to focus on.
I still believe education is key.
Hope this helps explain my concerns.
Blues,
Ian
Performance Designs Factory Team
LoudDan 0
I agree with Ian wholeheartedly. Education is absolutely the key and a necessity to those that have access to high performance wings but lack the motivation to learn to fly them corectly and safely.
I believe a discussion covering the pull altitudes, landing direction and landing pattern is something that should be held on every load. Jump organizers should be aware of the current patterns and reinforce the importance of adhering to them. DZM's and S&TA's should have the balls to deal with violators on a one to one basis and ground them regardless of who they are if the need be. There are jumps (big ways, high newbe loads) where hook turns might just not need to be done, and if you can't land your pocket rocket straight in, you don't need to be under it.
Throwing words down on paper tends to make the authors feel as though they have accomplished something for the greater good......it is however on paper and not in practice.
Educating canopy pilots on better/safer canopy fligth should be an ongoing thing (from jump 1 to jump 1,000,000), the best canopy pilots in the world are constatly feeding off each other to learn to do things better and safer why should any of us be different?? Who among us as skydivers can say that they do not need any more canopy skills??
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
I believe a discussion covering the pull altitudes, landing direction and landing pattern is something that should be held on every load. Jump organizers should be aware of the current patterns and reinforce the importance of adhering to them. DZM's and S&TA's should have the balls to deal with violators on a one to one basis and ground them regardless of who they are if the need be. There are jumps (big ways, high newbe loads) where hook turns might just not need to be done, and if you can't land your pocket rocket straight in, you don't need to be under it.
Throwing words down on paper tends to make the authors feel as though they have accomplished something for the greater good......it is however on paper and not in practice.
Educating canopy pilots on better/safer canopy fligth should be an ongoing thing (from jump 1 to jump 1,000,000), the best canopy pilots in the world are constatly feeding off each other to learn to do things better and safer why should any of us be different?? Who among us as skydivers can say that they do not need any more canopy skills??
Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!
QuoteHello Ian!
QuoteIMO they should not be allowed to land in it, or cross over it below 2000 feet PERIOD. Realistically if the jumper can make it to the HP area, they could have made it to a safer spot on the LZ (as the HP area is typically near the regular LZ).
I am extremely resistant to the idea that a poorly planned approach from a regular jumper is allowed to come anywhere NEAR the HP zone.
You bring up a couple of issues here. Irrespective of what we want, folks will end up in the wrong pattern for landing. The question is what is one to do when a landing will be made in the wrong area? It's really not good enough to say 'well, through education, no one will ever land in the wrong place.'
Take farmer McNasty for instance. Everyone knows not to land there. But, for whatever reason, if you do find yourself landing there what do you do? Each DZ should have a proscribed procedure ahead of time for just that eventuality in the landing pattern.
The other issue is what altitudes to decide is the landing pattern. I like 1000 feet and below. You like 2000 feet and below. However, your idea is in my opening area. I think we need to discuss this more.QuoteI still believe education is key.
Education, compliance and enforcement. It's a continuum.
Blue SKies, Flip
I am going to have to side with Ian on this issue too. For the seperate landing areas to work then there needs to be seperate flight areas. As a pilot you should know about MOA's (Military Operational Area). You can fly in a MOA but it is not recomended, is it? Think of the High Performance parachute landing area as a MOA and everyone else putzing around in it as a C-152 with a student pilot only looking at his panel.
Your point about landing at farmer McNasty's place doesn't really relate, as all jumpers should know enough to stay away from there. If a jumper cannot avoid landing in a certain area then maybe they need to go back to AFF ground school. Today's canopies are not as affected by the elements as older designs so the argument of the helpless person being blown by the wind into a no fly or landing area is not acceptable in my book and if the winds are that strong you shouldn't be jumping.
Your point about landing at farmer McNasty's place doesn't really relate, as all jumpers should know enough to stay away from there. If a jumper cannot avoid landing in a certain area then maybe they need to go back to AFF ground school. Today's canopies are not as affected by the elements as older designs so the argument of the helpless person being blown by the wind into a no fly or landing area is not acceptable in my book and if the winds are that strong you shouldn't be jumping.
QuoteHello Grant!
QuoteYour point about landing at farmer McNasty's place doesn't really relate, as all jumpers should know enough to stay away from there. If a jumper cannot avoid landing in a certain area then maybe they need to go back to AFF ground school. Today's canopies are not as affected by the elements as older designs so the argument of the helpless person being blown by the wind into a no fly or landing area is not acceptable in my book and if the winds are that strong you shouldn't be jumping.
It doesn't matter whether you are under a cheapo, or the newest and fastest, cool and groovy canopy. People will land where they are not supposed to because, people make mistakes. The question is, what do we expect out of people who make a mistake, realize it and try to minimize the hazard to others? That is what we tried to accomplish with our proposal Option 1. It was an example of what could be laid out.
It has been said since the first skydiver leapt from an airplane: if you can't handle IT (IT being winds, parachute, freefall, landing area rules or whatever else you think anyone should have perfect performance with) then you should not be jumping.
That simply won't work in a proactrive safety culture in an activity that has some inherent risk to it. I can guarantee that there would be no aircraft mishaps if we keep them all in the hangers. Of course there wouldn't be much flying either.
Education is key. Requiring compliance and enforcement of rules is always a local matter. The matter at hand is how to create that environment where all DZs create safer landing patterns. We seem to disagree on how to accomplish that.
Blue SKies, Flip
marks 0
flip, thanks for all your posts lately.
I really appreciate your attitude and your point of view.
Ian, you also...
I like the no B.S. discussion that you two are bringing to the table.
I wish I could add more..
You say:
"The question is, what do we expect out of people who make a mistake, realize it and try to minimize the hazard to others?"
I say:
You are correct. This is why education is the key and possibly making the option of overflying or landing in the HP area so un appealing that people will avoid it like the plague.
You say:
"It has been said since the first skydiver leapt from an airplane: if you can't handle IT then you should not be jumping."
I say:
Well put. I agree with you whole heartedly in this statement. We should hold all jumpers to a higher standard in this day and age because the equipment has progress beyond some peoples capability. You shouldn't jump a 50mph canopy if you have a 5 mph brain.
You say:
"The matter at hand is how to create that environment where all DZs create safer landing patterns. We seem to disagree on how to accomplish that. "
I say:
I agree that we both see this as a problem but if you really want to solve the root of the problem then total isolation of the two seperate patterns and communication between those who are on the same pattern is essential. Total isolation may be a little drastic but comm between everyone and following the plan is not as drastic and can be done by everyone.
Have a good night and I too like teh constructive conversation without those who just type to be heard.
"The question is, what do we expect out of people who make a mistake, realize it and try to minimize the hazard to others?"
I say:
You are correct. This is why education is the key and possibly making the option of overflying or landing in the HP area so un appealing that people will avoid it like the plague.
You say:
"It has been said since the first skydiver leapt from an airplane: if you can't handle IT then you should not be jumping."
I say:
Well put. I agree with you whole heartedly in this statement. We should hold all jumpers to a higher standard in this day and age because the equipment has progress beyond some peoples capability. You shouldn't jump a 50mph canopy if you have a 5 mph brain.
You say:
"The matter at hand is how to create that environment where all DZs create safer landing patterns. We seem to disagree on how to accomplish that. "
I say:
I agree that we both see this as a problem but if you really want to solve the root of the problem then total isolation of the two seperate patterns and communication between those who are on the same pattern is essential. Total isolation may be a little drastic but comm between everyone and following the plan is not as drastic and can be done by everyone.
Have a good night and I too like teh constructive conversation without those who just type to be heard.
hukturn 0
Just curious and truly not picking, but what if an HP pilot enters the HP landing area and determines that they can not perform their intended landing and must take a more "conservative" approach? Haven't they introduced an additional hazard to the HP landing area? What about the mixing of landing types? You are segregating (time or geography) swoopers into a concentrated area. Some swoopers perform 270degs, some do 180degs, some do 90 degs, some double front riser, some simply wingload heavy, some want to swoop the pond, some want to swoop the course, some want to team swwop, some want to bail in the middle of their swoop, et cetera. Now what? I suppose it is okay if swoopers endanger one another, huh? See, just like the docile canopy pilot, I have a right to realative safety also. And, I have a right to swoop in realative safety. So when you concentrate the huge mix of canopy piloting skills, intentions, types, et cetera, you are introducing me to greater harm. How are my rights to realative safety any diffierent than anyone else?
This BSR proposal is not about making things safer. It is about segregating HP canopies from docile. And, they are doing so without respect to the pilot or the manner in which the canopy will be flown. You can generate enough speed from a double front riser on a 7 cell to do grevious harm. But, there is nothing in the proposal to stop that. No, this porposal is simply a means of pointing fingers at those nasty swoopers. How are you going to define "high performance". Wind load? structure of the canopy? The intended manner of flight? There are simply too many variables for a blanket policy. Each DZ can assess their situation and determine policy.
This BSR proposal is not about making things safer. It is about segregating HP canopies from docile. And, they are doing so without respect to the pilot or the manner in which the canopy will be flown. You can generate enough speed from a double front riser on a 7 cell to do grevious harm. But, there is nothing in the proposal to stop that. No, this porposal is simply a means of pointing fingers at those nasty swoopers. How are you going to define "high performance". Wind load? structure of the canopy? The intended manner of flight? There are simply too many variables for a blanket policy. Each DZ can assess their situation and determine policy.
hukturn 0
"It is illogical."
Wake up Kallend, human flight is illogical. Thus, the sport is illogical.
"source of the pressure is to make things safer?"
It doesn't...so why does it need to come from USPA. Let's K.I.S.S. and leave it at the DZ.
"I do not buy into your "adversely affected" claim"
Of course you don't. And I mean no ill will in this statement, but I think you are caught in the moment and have condemned my position simply because you (and Bill) want to "win" rather than explore the possibility that someone else may have a good idea, too. But, to explain the "adversely affected" statement. We have good, solid rules at my DZ. It works. But, it does not segregate HP from standard patterns. So, why would we want to introduce a BSR into a facility that has a proven trrack record. Kinda falls into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" basket.
BTW - I am still awaiting your response to my statement in a previous response to you where I stated "Actually, I was implying that we could chose to land out to swoop. Not so selfish after all, huh?!?". Seems that you are building a false representation of me. I actually am a nice guy who wants to make a positive change.
Honestly, I know you mean well...I really do. But, I do not believe that this is a USPA issue. This is something that should be controlled at the DZ level.
Wake up Kallend, human flight is illogical. Thus, the sport is illogical.
"source of the pressure is to make things safer?"
It doesn't...so why does it need to come from USPA. Let's K.I.S.S. and leave it at the DZ.
"I do not buy into your "adversely affected" claim"
Of course you don't. And I mean no ill will in this statement, but I think you are caught in the moment and have condemned my position simply because you (and Bill) want to "win" rather than explore the possibility that someone else may have a good idea, too. But, to explain the "adversely affected" statement. We have good, solid rules at my DZ. It works. But, it does not segregate HP from standard patterns. So, why would we want to introduce a BSR into a facility that has a proven trrack record. Kinda falls into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" basket.
BTW - I am still awaiting your response to my statement in a previous response to you where I stated "Actually, I was implying that we could chose to land out to swoop. Not so selfish after all, huh?!?". Seems that you are building a false representation of me. I actually am a nice guy who wants to make a positive change.
Honestly, I know you mean well...I really do. But, I do not believe that this is a USPA issue. This is something that should be controlled at the DZ level.
hukturn 0
Y'know what...I've been led astray. That's right, I admit it.
My discussion and my fight is not against seperation of HP landings by any means. My fight is against having it in the form of a BSR. So, I apologize for even discussing the swoop issue. I truly believe that there needs to be something done. I just do nto believe it needs to be in the form of a BSR.
Sorry for the confusion.
My discussion and my fight is not against seperation of HP landings by any means. My fight is against having it in the form of a BSR. So, I apologize for even discussing the swoop issue. I truly believe that there needs to be something done. I just do nto believe it needs to be in the form of a BSR.
Sorry for the confusion.
QuoteOf every dz I've been to, without fail, the majority of the landing 'issues' stem from full time jumpers who don't feel they need any additional education on canopy flight. Some of these jumpers are traditional pilots, some are simply pilots who have access to HP wings but really dont understand the first thing about flying them (of course there are those in this group who DO actively expand their knowledge but my experience indicates they're a minority). These are the people TEACHING our next generation in many cases. I think that is the group we need to focus on.
Oh you are so right. Why do we still have people (the world over) that think they can spiral down and cut others off because they're going to do their usual bloody-minded approach and use all available airspace on their big, "safe" canopy? Of course, they're "more experienced" than me so they know what they're doing. Crap.
It's not about people under HP canopies; it's about people who don't seem to appreciate everyone around them, regardless of what they're flying.
--
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13
BASE #1182
Muff #3573
PFI #52; UK WSI #13
Hello Flipper!
Quote
QuoteIt's not about people under HP canopies; it's about people who don't seem to appreciate everyone around them, regardless of what they're flying.
I concur. Actually, the group that drafted the BSR proposal agrees with you entirely. What we want are traffic patterns not because swoopers are bad, or 'experienced locals' are under slow canopies. We Want predictable traffic patterns so that everyone, regardless of type of landing they do, has a safer landing area.
Blue SKies, Flip
JumpRu 14
In my state 2 out of 4 drop zones already implemented their own policy for high performance landing. So it is not like you have to take risk and jump with people who are trying to “kill you”. Vote with you money and don’t go to places that are not safe from your point of view, just like I will vote with mine and never jump at DZ that discriminate swoopers in any way. Let the DZO to do his job and stop that USPA politics crap. You really sound like a bunch of lowers
kallend 2,026
QuoteYou really sound like a bunch of lowers
Remember - lower jumper has right of way.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
I realize that, but if memory serves me correctly the original BSR discussions were saying that non-HP pilots could land in HP areas.
IMO, this should not be allowed if we're truely interested in keeping our landing areas seperate, and safer.
Blues,
Ian
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites