jacketsdb23 49 #26 April 6, 2012 I take it very seriously. And i've stepped in on numerous occasions at my DZ when it comes to canopy safety and pattern viloaitons, downsizing, etc. I'm not perfect, but I care and do my best to make a difference. I just don't think swooping should be "outlawed". DZO's have the right to do whatever they want. Fill in the pond, fine...its your call. I just think there is a way to have both a "normal" skydiving business and an experienced swooping segment. As an organizer here in CA, it looks like the work we've been putting into this is going downhill quick. Its just frustrating.Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen God is Good Beer is Great Swoopers are crazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 April 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteSwooping is not conservative, its not safe, and if you fuck up you can die. There is a proper progression, a proper way to do it, ways to minimize the calculated risks involved. Would you agree that swooping is similar to putting on a camera or flying in a wingsuit; very few of the "instant gratification" culture follow that line of proper progression? I would not. If you have a problem with a camera or wingsuit, you still have time and altitude to save yourself. Not so with swooping. (This does not mean, however, that I'm in favor of banning swooping.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #28 April 6, 2012 We have about 36,000 USPA members. Out of that number we have maybe 200 or so serious competition swoopers. (My off the cuff estimate, anyone have real numbers?) The skydiving fatalities and serious injuries are increasing due to pond swooping. The bad press is mounting after each incident. As an organization, how do we justify using our resources to keep the FAA, Airport Sponsors and the press off of our asses, and keep telling everyone that skydiving is safer than driving a car. I just had a meeting at the Oceanside Airport to finalize my DZ lease agreement. The latest swooping related fatality at Perris was discussion number one initiated by the airport manager. What happens at drop zones around the nation does not go unnoticed by the public. Maybe it's time for the swooping community to band together, buy a 182 and dig a pond somewhere on private land if you don't like the fact that DZ's are drying up their ponds. As a business model, it makes zero sense to have a pond. High risk, very little reward. I'm not for banning swoop comps, but maybe we need to look at the speed rounds and other issues to make it a bit safer with less pressure for the competitors. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AliMac 0 #29 April 6, 2012 Yup, Perris pond is gone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ufk22 33 #30 April 6, 2012 QuoteI get why people compare low pulls and swooping, but I don't think they are even close when you compare the mechanisms involved. Swooping is not conservative, its not safe, and if you fuck up you can die. There is a proper progression, a proper way to do it, ways to minimize the calculated risks involved. reply] So as long I take my passion for low-pulls and progress slowly down to below 1000' and do it properly, in such a manner as to minimize the calculated risk, low pulls are just as safe as swooping???This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 150 #31 April 6, 2012 QuoteI take it very seriously. And i've stepped in on numerous occasions at my DZ when it comes to canopy safety and pattern viloaitons, downsizing, etc. Glad to hear that, stepping in where necessary should be the norm, not the exception. QuoteI just don't think swooping should be "outlawed". The problem is that it has become unsustainable/incompatible on dropzones that are in business and promote safety as a top priority. Is it any wonder that the unwashed public (and many skydivers) cannot comprehend why people are being maimed and killed under open canopies?. Something was always gonna give. And while there are many expert pilots out there, way to many wannabes are trying to follow their examples with neither the skill, correct equipment, education or experience to do so. It was suggested a while back that swoopers should split off and become a seperate discipline completley, with seperate DZ's, aircraft and operational procedures. As base jumping, parapenting and parasailing have done, all of which evolved from skydiving, but went their own way..... Maybe we are simply seeing evolution in progress again. Looking at it logically, it is easy to draw a conclusion that swooping is not really skydiving in its truest sense. As has been said, the problems could have been solved a long time ago, but I don't think anyone expected that things would get to the stage they have. And the problems were allowed to fester for far too long. We all carry some degree of responsibility for that.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites loch1957 0 #32 April 6, 2012 Is there a rule for swooping? I mean like your supposed to have 200 jumps to wear a camera, is there a set jump number to swoop?Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #33 April 6, 2012 >This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, >expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time >trying to make it safer. That's not a paradox. Most skydivers don't skydive because it's dangerous, they skydive because they like skydiving. It makes sense that skydivers would want to make what they do safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Anvilbrother 0 #34 April 6, 2012 I understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #35 April 7, 2012 Quote As an organization, how do we justify using our resources to keep the FAA, Airport Sponsors and the press off of our asses, and keep telling everyone that skydiving is safer than driving a car. Simple. We shouldn't be telling everyone skydiving is safer than driving a car because it's bullshit. We've done ourselves a great disservice downplaying the risk. Anyone who thinks driving swooping out of the USPA will solve this is deluded. If this happens, a precedent will be set that anything "dangerous" can be driven out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites oldwomanc6 60 #36 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteSwoop the lake. It's common knowledge that Lake Elsinore is filled with brain eating amoebas. I wouldn't recommend that. The Perrisites have infected Lake Elsinore?lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 102 #37 April 7, 2012 Please let non-swoopers know what is so important about having the pond.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #38 April 7, 2012 Quote Please let non-swoopers know what is so important about having the pond. A pond gives swoopers a safety buffer while dialing the approach to 5ft gates. Yes you can still get hurt on the water if you hook it low enough, but if you're screwing up that much, the problem isn't the pond or swooping, it's you! A pond is needed to score in two of the events in competition (dragging water), so you MUST have a pond to train correctly. A pond is needed to make practicing and executing freestyle moves safer. A pond is needed for a great beer-light gathering place and a good place to put the bonfire. A pond is needed for drunk skydivers to drive their rental car into at a boogie. Well, it isn't *needed* for that, but it has happened a few times...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildcard451 0 #39 April 7, 2012 QuoteI understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Ever plane out of a high speed turn at 50 feet? It takes almost as much skill to manage the resulting deceleration and surge on a sub-100 canopy to not smash your ass into the ground as it does to not auger yourself in in the first place. I understand why DZOs don't want people swooping around. It's not worth it to cater to the 1-200 of us that compete regularly. However, taking away the pond and not banning swooping is all but stupid imho. Removing a safety device and still allowing the discipline is contradictory at best, negligent at worst. (Perris went all the way, though I can kill myself on a 90 just as easily, so I am still not sure what they are solving) Limit the canopies people can fly, the wingloadings people can fly until a proper progression/time/experience has occurred. Limit swooping on regular loads. Require dedicated passes for HP canopy work. We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. This is the start to limiting open canopy fatalities. /my $0.02, worth what you paid for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites obelixtim 150 #40 April 7, 2012 QuoteIs there a rule for swooping? I mean like your supposed to have 200 jumps to wear a camera, is there a set jump number to swoop? No, there are no hard and fast rules, and that is the problem. Common sense applies, but unfortunately, common sense ain't that common. Its taken the threat of losing access to light a fire under a few arses, as you can see by a few of the responses on this very forum. If some meaningful solutions come out of it, we should see the incident rate drop markedly which is totally necessary. Then swooping may regain its lost access. An awful lot needs to be done to make that happen, because I see the actions of the big two Socal DZ's setting a precedent that many other DZ's will find difficult to ignore.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites grimmie 186 #41 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteI understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Ever plane out of a high speed turn at 50 feet? It takes almost as much skill to manage the resulting deceleration and surge on a sub-100 canopy to not smash your ass into the ground as it does to not auger yourself in in the first place. I understand why DZOs don't want people swooping around. It's not worth it to cater to the 1-200 of us that compete regularly. However, taking away the pond and not banning swooping is all but stupid imho. Removing a safety device and still allowing the discipline is contradictory at best, negligent at worst. (Perris went all the way, though I can kill myself on a 90 just as easily, so I am still not sure what they are solving) Limit the canopies people can fly, the wingloadings people can fly until a proper progression/time/experience has occurred. Limit swooping on regular loads. Require dedicated passes for HP canopy work. We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. This is the start to limiting open canopy fatalities. /my $0.02, worth what you paid for it. We had a Western Region S&TA meeting at Skydive San Diego. Bryan Burke spoke about Skydive AZ incidents over the last decade. Due to excellent data, it is now known that 90 only patterns lead to fewer incidents. The fewer the turns, the fewer traffic/landing incidents. One of the many reasons Perris went to the 90 only rule, IMHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #42 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSwooping is not conservative, its not safe, and if you fuck up you can die. There is a proper progression, a proper way to do it, ways to minimize the calculated risks involved. Would you agree that swooping is similar to putting on a camera or flying in a wingsuit; very few of the "instant gratification" culture follow that line of proper progression? I would not. If you have a problem with a camera or wingsuit, you still have time and altitude to save yourself. Not so with swooping. (This does not mean, however, that I'm in favor of banning swooping.) Kudos for the shift in context. Many people begin swooping long before it's appropriate for their experience and skill level, much like they do with GoPros and have done in the past regarding putting on a wingsuit. Did you also take my point to suggest I'm in favor of banning swooping? I'm not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #43 April 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote I understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Ever plane out of a high speed turn at 50 feet? It takes almost as much skill to manage the resulting deceleration and surge on a sub-100 canopy to not smash your ass into the ground as it does to not auger yourself in in the first place. I understand why DZOs don't want people swooping around. It's not worth it to cater to the 1-200 of us that compete regularly. However, taking away the pond and not banning swooping is all but stupid imho. Removing a safety device and still allowing the discipline is contradictory at best, negligent at worst. (Perris went all the way, though I can kill myself on a 90 just as easily, so I am still not sure what they are solving) Limit the canopies people can fly, the wingloadings people can fly until a proper progression/time/experience has occurred. Limit swooping on regular loads. Require dedicated passes for HP canopy work. We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. This is the start to limiting open canopy fatalities. /my $0.02, worth what you paid for it. We had a Western Region S&TA meeting at Skydive San Diego. Bryan Burke spoke about Skydive AZ incidents over the last decade. Due to excellent data, it is now known that 90 only patterns lead to fewer incidents. The fewer the turns, the fewer traffic/landing incidents. One of the many reasons Perris went to the 90 only rule, IMHO. Some seriously flawed logic there. Of course if you ban high performance landing turns over 90 degrees, you're going to have fewer high performance landing incidents. Similar logic: A bar decides to only sell 2 drinks to a person per night. Of course they'd see less drunken incidents. Some people would choose to go elsewhere. And Wildcard: Quote We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. It's defeatist attitudes like that that are part of the problem. Education, not regulation is the answer. USPA has made steps to educate on canopy control more, but it's too soon to tell if it's working or not. All that said, while I disagree with the DZ's decisions, their yard, their rules. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #44 April 7, 2012 >Education, not regulation is the answer. We've been saying that for decades. It hasn't done much; fatalities have continued to go up. It looks like the next thing DZ's will try is eradication (unfortunately.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,107 #45 April 7, 2012 >I understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop >farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? You answered your own question - not as much fun. Keep in mind that most swoopers are not competitors. >Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable >paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. You can't design anything that will both withstand wind/gravity and not deflate canopies if you clip them. You COULD do it electronically - use non-contact sensing means (GPS, optical rangefinders, repeaters) to measure someone's performance at 100 feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #46 April 7, 2012 Quote>What Can We Do? Stop the deaths and injuries from swooping. That will go a long way towards convincing DZO's that the pond isn't a liability. I have a feeling it has more to do with a few big names in canopy piloting leaving socal and a lack of interest in attracting anyone to replace them. It takes an extraordinary amount of effort to champion a discipline such that a DZO will actually promote it or spend money on it, and it's not an especially thankful undertaking. When it comes to experienced jumpers at Elsinore the only thing you're going to find natural support for year after year is an FS team because that's the discipline that Hammo has always had a soft spot for. Right now the hot disciplines at Elsinore are wingsuiting and CRW because that's what the jumpers that currently have the energy to promote things are into. A few years ago it was VFS and canopy piloting and a few years before that it was 4-way FS and artistic freeflying. IMO the pond at Elsinore is too small anyway, and it could stand to be drained and enlarged / redesigned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #47 April 7, 2012 QuoteSome seriously flawed logic there. Of course if you ban high performance landing turns over 90 degrees, you're going to have fewer high performance landing incidents. Actually, it's not. His comment that limiting turns to final to 90* would result in fewer canopy fatalities is correct... But not for the reason you thought/responded. Think canopy collisions, not just turning low. Fact is that some people still try to claim that a 270 is a perfectly good landing technique even with traffic.... This has been proven wrong several times. What I thought would happen was this: You doing something in freefall? 90* finals for everyone that does freefall. You want to turn more than 90*? Hop n pop from 5k. I don't want to stop swoopers from swooping, I do want to stop swoopers from swooping near anyone else. Swooping has become like CRW. The advances in equipment and performance has made it so true swooping is no longer compatable with normal jumping. When I started skydiving, it was VERY common to do an RW jump deploy and then do CRW. Then the Canopys and techniques became so advanced that you really could not do that anymore... Swooping needs to evolve in the same way in order to survive. The days of doing an RW/VRW/AFF and getting a swoop are gone. You want swooping to survive? Start only swooping after a hop n pop. The only way I can see swooping survive is if swoopers have their own landing area and they only do hop n pops."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pchapman 279 #48 April 7, 2012 Quote You want swooping to survive? Start only swooping after a hop n pop. The only way I can see swooping survive is if swoopers have their own landing area and they only do hop n pops. Another point of view is that at the same time, swooping survives because so many people like doing it, on every normal jump, just for fun, without having the activity pushed aside as some freak show for specialists... (Maybe not actually on a pond though.) If one had to give that up, it would almost be like doubling jump prices, because you just lost half the fun of the jump. (But yes it is an airspace problem if everyone on the Otter load is swooping...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #49 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuote You want swooping to survive? Start only swooping after a hop n pop. The only way I can see swooping survive is if swoopers have their own landing area and they only do hop n pops. Another point of view is that at the same time, swooping survives because so many people like doing it, on every normal jump, just for fun, without having the activity pushed aside as some freak show for specialists... (Maybe not actually on a pond though.) If one had to give that up, it would almost be like doubling jump prices, because you just lost half the fun of the jump. (But yes it is an airspace problem if everyone on the Otter load is swooping...) This was the exact same logic/argument CRW aficionados made when people started buying Prodegys and Lightnings. And yes, CRW at the end of an RW jump did die. But CRW also got a whole lot better. The difference is that no one was claiming CRW was dangerous to those that didn't do it... The same cant be said for swooping. If we didn't have so many collisions, it might never have been an issue."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,583 #50 April 7, 2012 Thanks for a good list, Dave. Wendy P.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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
obelixtim 150 #31 April 6, 2012 QuoteI take it very seriously. And i've stepped in on numerous occasions at my DZ when it comes to canopy safety and pattern viloaitons, downsizing, etc. Glad to hear that, stepping in where necessary should be the norm, not the exception. QuoteI just don't think swooping should be "outlawed". The problem is that it has become unsustainable/incompatible on dropzones that are in business and promote safety as a top priority. Is it any wonder that the unwashed public (and many skydivers) cannot comprehend why people are being maimed and killed under open canopies?. Something was always gonna give. And while there are many expert pilots out there, way to many wannabes are trying to follow their examples with neither the skill, correct equipment, education or experience to do so. It was suggested a while back that swoopers should split off and become a seperate discipline completley, with seperate DZ's, aircraft and operational procedures. As base jumping, parapenting and parasailing have done, all of which evolved from skydiving, but went their own way..... Maybe we are simply seeing evolution in progress again. Looking at it logically, it is easy to draw a conclusion that swooping is not really skydiving in its truest sense. As has been said, the problems could have been solved a long time ago, but I don't think anyone expected that things would get to the stage they have. And the problems were allowed to fester for far too long. We all carry some degree of responsibility for that.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loch1957 0 #32 April 6, 2012 Is there a rule for swooping? I mean like your supposed to have 200 jumps to wear a camera, is there a set jump number to swoop?Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #33 April 6, 2012 >This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, >expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time >trying to make it safer. That's not a paradox. Most skydivers don't skydive because it's dangerous, they skydive because they like skydiving. It makes sense that skydivers would want to make what they do safer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #34 April 6, 2012 I understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #35 April 7, 2012 Quote As an organization, how do we justify using our resources to keep the FAA, Airport Sponsors and the press off of our asses, and keep telling everyone that skydiving is safer than driving a car. Simple. We shouldn't be telling everyone skydiving is safer than driving a car because it's bullshit. We've done ourselves a great disservice downplaying the risk. Anyone who thinks driving swooping out of the USPA will solve this is deluded. If this happens, a precedent will be set that anything "dangerous" can be driven out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 60 #36 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteSwoop the lake. It's common knowledge that Lake Elsinore is filled with brain eating amoebas. I wouldn't recommend that. The Perrisites have infected Lake Elsinore?lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #37 April 7, 2012 Please let non-swoopers know what is so important about having the pond.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #38 April 7, 2012 Quote Please let non-swoopers know what is so important about having the pond. A pond gives swoopers a safety buffer while dialing the approach to 5ft gates. Yes you can still get hurt on the water if you hook it low enough, but if you're screwing up that much, the problem isn't the pond or swooping, it's you! A pond is needed to score in two of the events in competition (dragging water), so you MUST have a pond to train correctly. A pond is needed to make practicing and executing freestyle moves safer. A pond is needed for a great beer-light gathering place and a good place to put the bonfire. A pond is needed for drunk skydivers to drive their rental car into at a boogie. Well, it isn't *needed* for that, but it has happened a few times...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildcard451 0 #39 April 7, 2012 QuoteI understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Ever plane out of a high speed turn at 50 feet? It takes almost as much skill to manage the resulting deceleration and surge on a sub-100 canopy to not smash your ass into the ground as it does to not auger yourself in in the first place. I understand why DZOs don't want people swooping around. It's not worth it to cater to the 1-200 of us that compete regularly. However, taking away the pond and not banning swooping is all but stupid imho. Removing a safety device and still allowing the discipline is contradictory at best, negligent at worst. (Perris went all the way, though I can kill myself on a 90 just as easily, so I am still not sure what they are solving) Limit the canopies people can fly, the wingloadings people can fly until a proper progression/time/experience has occurred. Limit swooping on regular loads. Require dedicated passes for HP canopy work. We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. This is the start to limiting open canopy fatalities. /my $0.02, worth what you paid for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 150 #40 April 7, 2012 QuoteIs there a rule for swooping? I mean like your supposed to have 200 jumps to wear a camera, is there a set jump number to swoop? No, there are no hard and fast rules, and that is the problem. Common sense applies, but unfortunately, common sense ain't that common. Its taken the threat of losing access to light a fire under a few arses, as you can see by a few of the responses on this very forum. If some meaningful solutions come out of it, we should see the incident rate drop markedly which is totally necessary. Then swooping may regain its lost access. An awful lot needs to be done to make that happen, because I see the actions of the big two Socal DZ's setting a precedent that many other DZ's will find difficult to ignore.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 186 #41 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteI understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Ever plane out of a high speed turn at 50 feet? It takes almost as much skill to manage the resulting deceleration and surge on a sub-100 canopy to not smash your ass into the ground as it does to not auger yourself in in the first place. I understand why DZOs don't want people swooping around. It's not worth it to cater to the 1-200 of us that compete regularly. However, taking away the pond and not banning swooping is all but stupid imho. Removing a safety device and still allowing the discipline is contradictory at best, negligent at worst. (Perris went all the way, though I can kill myself on a 90 just as easily, so I am still not sure what they are solving) Limit the canopies people can fly, the wingloadings people can fly until a proper progression/time/experience has occurred. Limit swooping on regular loads. Require dedicated passes for HP canopy work. We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. This is the start to limiting open canopy fatalities. /my $0.02, worth what you paid for it. We had a Western Region S&TA meeting at Skydive San Diego. Bryan Burke spoke about Skydive AZ incidents over the last decade. Due to excellent data, it is now known that 90 only patterns lead to fewer incidents. The fewer the turns, the fewer traffic/landing incidents. One of the many reasons Perris went to the 90 only rule, IMHO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #42 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSwooping is not conservative, its not safe, and if you fuck up you can die. There is a proper progression, a proper way to do it, ways to minimize the calculated risks involved. Would you agree that swooping is similar to putting on a camera or flying in a wingsuit; very few of the "instant gratification" culture follow that line of proper progression? I would not. If you have a problem with a camera or wingsuit, you still have time and altitude to save yourself. Not so with swooping. (This does not mean, however, that I'm in favor of banning swooping.) Kudos for the shift in context. Many people begin swooping long before it's appropriate for their experience and skill level, much like they do with GoPros and have done in the past regarding putting on a wingsuit. Did you also take my point to suggest I'm in favor of banning swooping? I'm not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #43 April 7, 2012 Quote Quote Quote I understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. That leaves room to dig out of low turns and make a safe landing. Ever plane out of a high speed turn at 50 feet? It takes almost as much skill to manage the resulting deceleration and surge on a sub-100 canopy to not smash your ass into the ground as it does to not auger yourself in in the first place. I understand why DZOs don't want people swooping around. It's not worth it to cater to the 1-200 of us that compete regularly. However, taking away the pond and not banning swooping is all but stupid imho. Removing a safety device and still allowing the discipline is contradictory at best, negligent at worst. (Perris went all the way, though I can kill myself on a 90 just as easily, so I am still not sure what they are solving) Limit the canopies people can fly, the wingloadings people can fly until a proper progression/time/experience has occurred. Limit swooping on regular loads. Require dedicated passes for HP canopy work. We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. This is the start to limiting open canopy fatalities. /my $0.02, worth what you paid for it. We had a Western Region S&TA meeting at Skydive San Diego. Bryan Burke spoke about Skydive AZ incidents over the last decade. Due to excellent data, it is now known that 90 only patterns lead to fewer incidents. The fewer the turns, the fewer traffic/landing incidents. One of the many reasons Perris went to the 90 only rule, IMHO. Some seriously flawed logic there. Of course if you ban high performance landing turns over 90 degrees, you're going to have fewer high performance landing incidents. Similar logic: A bar decides to only sell 2 drinks to a person per night. Of course they'd see less drunken incidents. Some people would choose to go elsewhere. And Wildcard: Quote We obviously cannot regulate ourselves anymore, and it SEVERELY pains me to say that. It's defeatist attitudes like that that are part of the problem. Education, not regulation is the answer. USPA has made steps to educate on canopy control more, but it's too soon to tell if it's working or not. All that said, while I disagree with the DZ's decisions, their yard, their rules. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #44 April 7, 2012 >Education, not regulation is the answer. We've been saying that for decades. It hasn't done much; fatalities have continued to go up. It looks like the next thing DZ's will try is eradication (unfortunately.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #45 April 7, 2012 >I understand ground rush being fun, and ground effect helping you swoop >farther, but why can't we raise the playing field up higher into the air? You answered your own question - not as much fun. Keep in mind that most swoopers are not competitors. >Like the red bull air races, make the gates out of inflatable tearable >paper or something, and have them 50 feet up. You can't design anything that will both withstand wind/gravity and not deflate canopies if you clip them. You COULD do it electronically - use non-contact sensing means (GPS, optical rangefinders, repeaters) to measure someone's performance at 100 feet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #46 April 7, 2012 Quote>What Can We Do? Stop the deaths and injuries from swooping. That will go a long way towards convincing DZO's that the pond isn't a liability. I have a feeling it has more to do with a few big names in canopy piloting leaving socal and a lack of interest in attracting anyone to replace them. It takes an extraordinary amount of effort to champion a discipline such that a DZO will actually promote it or spend money on it, and it's not an especially thankful undertaking. When it comes to experienced jumpers at Elsinore the only thing you're going to find natural support for year after year is an FS team because that's the discipline that Hammo has always had a soft spot for. Right now the hot disciplines at Elsinore are wingsuiting and CRW because that's what the jumpers that currently have the energy to promote things are into. A few years ago it was VFS and canopy piloting and a few years before that it was 4-way FS and artistic freeflying. IMO the pond at Elsinore is too small anyway, and it could stand to be drained and enlarged / redesigned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #47 April 7, 2012 QuoteSome seriously flawed logic there. Of course if you ban high performance landing turns over 90 degrees, you're going to have fewer high performance landing incidents. Actually, it's not. His comment that limiting turns to final to 90* would result in fewer canopy fatalities is correct... But not for the reason you thought/responded. Think canopy collisions, not just turning low. Fact is that some people still try to claim that a 270 is a perfectly good landing technique even with traffic.... This has been proven wrong several times. What I thought would happen was this: You doing something in freefall? 90* finals for everyone that does freefall. You want to turn more than 90*? Hop n pop from 5k. I don't want to stop swoopers from swooping, I do want to stop swoopers from swooping near anyone else. Swooping has become like CRW. The advances in equipment and performance has made it so true swooping is no longer compatable with normal jumping. When I started skydiving, it was VERY common to do an RW jump deploy and then do CRW. Then the Canopys and techniques became so advanced that you really could not do that anymore... Swooping needs to evolve in the same way in order to survive. The days of doing an RW/VRW/AFF and getting a swoop are gone. You want swooping to survive? Start only swooping after a hop n pop. The only way I can see swooping survive is if swoopers have their own landing area and they only do hop n pops."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #48 April 7, 2012 Quote You want swooping to survive? Start only swooping after a hop n pop. The only way I can see swooping survive is if swoopers have their own landing area and they only do hop n pops. Another point of view is that at the same time, swooping survives because so many people like doing it, on every normal jump, just for fun, without having the activity pushed aside as some freak show for specialists... (Maybe not actually on a pond though.) If one had to give that up, it would almost be like doubling jump prices, because you just lost half the fun of the jump. (But yes it is an airspace problem if everyone on the Otter load is swooping...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 April 7, 2012 QuoteQuote You want swooping to survive? Start only swooping after a hop n pop. The only way I can see swooping survive is if swoopers have their own landing area and they only do hop n pops. Another point of view is that at the same time, swooping survives because so many people like doing it, on every normal jump, just for fun, without having the activity pushed aside as some freak show for specialists... (Maybe not actually on a pond though.) If one had to give that up, it would almost be like doubling jump prices, because you just lost half the fun of the jump. (But yes it is an airspace problem if everyone on the Otter load is swooping...) This was the exact same logic/argument CRW aficionados made when people started buying Prodegys and Lightnings. And yes, CRW at the end of an RW jump did die. But CRW also got a whole lot better. The difference is that no one was claiming CRW was dangerous to those that didn't do it... The same cant be said for swooping. If we didn't have so many collisions, it might never have been an issue."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,583 #50 April 7, 2012 Thanks for a good list, Dave. Wendy P.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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
