Vertical separation

[nigel99 474]

Quote

I was thinking about landing/approach patterns into the 4 boxes could get confusing.

Surely with two landing area's it would halve the traffic? You could have a left hand pattern for the one area and a right hand for the other and a clear "no fly" zone between them. If you then designate one area for wingloadings > x then the speed mismatch should also be reduced?

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[billvon 2,991]

>I was thinking about landing/approach patterns into the 4 boxes could get confusing.

It could if they were close together. To make this work effectively you'd need massive separation. Some examples:

Two landing areas at Eloy - too close together, patterns converge, even more dangerous

Five landing areas during the California state record - good, widely separated

[JackC1 0]

Exit order might play a part here too. Let's take the convention that flat groups go first, with free fliers out last. There's a good reason for that as we all know but...

Slow fallers exit first and to an extent will get caught up by fast fallers in free fall, then they all dump at 3k and fly towards a small landing area in one big herd crashing into each other.

Do it the other way round and free fliers have a bit longer to get into the pattern and land before the flat fliers catch them up. I've been to DZs that do it this way and seen the first group landed before the last group have even opened.

If you organise your exit timing properly, you can still have good separation even with a bass ackwards exit order. The downside is it doesn't have the built in separation safety aspect of slow fallers out first so it requires discipline. But then herding towards a small PLA doesn't have built in safety either.

Might be worth a thought, might not. Just sayin'.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

>I was thinking about landing/approach patterns into the 4 boxes could get confusing.

It could if they were close together. To make this work effectively you'd need massive separation.

That is exactly what I was thinking.....4 landing areas (as per the proposal) all adjacent.

To Nigel:
Yep, two areas are easily managed (when people actually do what is supposed to be done. Technically. that's what we have here at The Farm. What should happen (given winds out of the west) is left hand into the main in the south, right hand into the alternate in the north. Seems simple doesn't it?

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

[nigel99 474]

Quote

Quote

>I was thinking about landing/approach patterns into the 4 boxes could get confusing.

It could if they were close together. To make this work effectively you'd need massive separation.

That is exactly what I was thinking.....4 landing areas (as per the proposal) all adjacent.

To Nigel:
Yep, two areas are easily managed (when people actually do what is supposed to be done. Technically. that's what we have here at The Farm. What should happen (given winds out of the west) is left hand into the main in the south, right hand into the alternate in the north. Seems simple doesn't it?

I thought that was the case at the Farm with the alternative. Although I know it gets hosed when us bozos on 190's are trying to get back from the north and fly back through the alternative/HP airspace

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[DBCOOPER 5]

Quote

in one big herd crashing into each other.

Just sayin'.

Fuck the Herd. Just sayin'...

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[Ron 10]

Quote

That is exactly what I was thinking.....4 landing areas (as per the proposal) all adjacent.

But it STILL separates the people landing unlike right now.

Right now with 60 acres people land in 10 of them. Make them land in all 60, and we separate them and decrease the density.

Fact is that what we are doing now is not working.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[yoink 321]

Part of that is designing the landing area for antisocial human behaviour - landscape architects know this problem all too well and have to factor people being idiots into their designs.

If you can design a landing area that is EQUALLY attractive for all 60 acres, you'll have less problems getting people to use the space as you want, rather than landing n the 10 acres near the packing hangar.


The grass landing strip at Perris is perfect example - not counting students, go out there on a busy day and work out the percentage of people that don't aim for a tiny crowded bit of sky and ground, because it's nicer to land there - albiet a shit load more dangerous.

I reckon it'll be less than 5%.

[Ron 10]

Quote

If you can design a landing area that is EQUALLY attractive for all 60 acres, you'll have less problems getting people to use the space as you want, rather than landing n the 10 acres near the packing hangar

Yes, but I fail to see how to design an area that will entice people to spread out and use all 60 acres.

One way that WILL work is to require it and enforce it.

I am open to other suggestions to encourage folks to land in the less crowded areas.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,991]

>But it STILL separates the people landing unlike right now.

Right. But it also increases the odds of collision, since some people will be turning base over other people's final (which is what sometimes happens at the landing areas at Eloy.) You'd have to put them far enough apart that the patterns, not just the landing areas, were separate.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Right. But it also increases the odds of collision, since some people will be turning base over other people's final (which is what sometimes happens at the landing areas at Eloy.)

How many collisions have you seen from separate landing areas where a guy on final is hit by a guy turning base?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,991]

>How many collisions have you seen from separate landing areas where a guy on final
>is hit by a guy turning base?

Two fatalities in Eloy. About six collisions per Bryan B that fortunately did not result in fatalities. A lot of close calls, one of whom was between me and another jumper.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Two fatalities in Eloy. About six collisions per Bryan B that fortunately did not result in fatalities. A lot of close calls, one of whom was between me and another jumper.

In separate landing areas? Eloy has two major landing areas, the main area and the student area. Where were these separate landing areas?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,991]

>In separate landing areas? Eloy has two major landing areas, the main area and
>the student area. Where were these separate landing areas?

You just listed them. Both are used as "main" landing areas during boogies. (There are actually four - those two, plus the swoop course, plus the landing area by the tunnel. The tunnel area doesn't get much use tho since it's a long walk back and is generally used as a punishment area when someone can't control themselves in the regular pattern.)