diverds 0 #26 July 30, 2007 QuoteI guess teams will be late making their back to backs, having to run from the student field to the hanger and back to the plane. If your focus is training for 4-way isn't landing close and making your back to back more important than swooping for personal enjoyment? Don't get me wrong, I love 270's, but if my job was to train for competition then that would be my primary focus. It sounds like they're trying to make their landing area safer for everyone and to me thats worth having to choose between landing close or walking back from a swoop. Skydive Radio Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #27 July 30, 2007 QuoteYesterday when I got to the dropzone there was signs all over stating MANDATORY landing rules, same old stuff: land in the same direction as everyone else, land into the wind ect, follow the first person down's direction ect, then the shocker "Turns over 180* are prohibited!" Looks like if I want to make a fun jump I'll have to drive to Zhills. If your idea of fun jumps involves blind high speed descents into congested traffic (a 270 is a blind, descending approach), then I certainly hope you are never jumping where I am. Of course, with your brilliant skills I'm sure you will be okay - I just don't want you to kill me. QuoteThere has been a big push to try and get everyone to land in the same direction at DeLand, many people (Including members of Majik) have suggested following SD Arizona with the landing area runway approach, where the landing area is one direction only, but the "highly experienced" people in charge cant land crosswind so that idea was shot down. Deland and Eloy are different animals; one size does not fit all. QuoteThe letter that was posted at the dz, didnt explain everything, like hop n pops ect. Im curious how they are going to try and talk Shannon Pilcher, Ian Bobo or Jay Moledzki into only doing 180's when they land. Rumor was there is supposed to be a designated area for people doing bigger turns, and since the person in charge of the decision to ban big turns lands in the main landing area I doubt that it will be right in front of the dz. I guess teams will be late making their back to backs, having to run from the student field to the hanger and back to the plane. If you are on a team, I should hope you have the canopy skills necessary to land using whatever pattern is necessary to be close, and thus make back to backs. If you can't land without a doing corkscrew approach, you should get some basic canopy flight instruction. QuoteIm sure a lot of details are left out, but the note was posted without explanation. Banning 270*s I.M.O is a stupid idea, whats next, if a freefly group and a belly group are close on opening are they going to ban freeflying? Or if a wingsuit gets a good spot and flys himself into an off field landing are they going to ban wingsuits. Coming soon, dropzones across the country close down to open much safer golf driving range's. If you think banning blind, descending high-speed approaches to landing in a congested area is a stupid idea, I would love to know what you consider "smart." I am sometimes appalled by the ignorance of fundamental Physics demonstrated by people engaged in aviation-related pursuits; I have found it is usually compensated by a surfeit of arrogance. Pilots and skydivers tend to mistake luck for ability. With the "big sky theory" on your side, you can usually get away with it. When you don't get away with it, you are all too often dead before you can do anything about it. Having watched all too many people get killed or maimed from canopy collisions and botched swoops, I am not at all sympathetic to your having to travel to get your fix of blind approaches. Though a 180 is still a descending high-speed approach into traffic, at least you can maintain eye-contact with your intended direction of flight. I'm with Bob and Mike with this one. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #28 July 30, 2007 QuoteHey guys, I just came back from the Perris boogie and had no problem landing there. Additionally, I don't have a problem with landing at my home DZ or any of the DZ's I visit. The reason is that at 37 jumps I took Scott Miller's canopy course. He instructed my class (all girls by the way) in canopy control, evasive manuvers and landing pattern. Because of that class I put as much attention into my landing pattern as I do my RW freefall. I speak to everyone on my load to find out what they are going to do and I let them know what I am going to do. I do applauded the efforts you have made to become a better skydiver and canopy pilot, I wish more skydivers would put in the same effort. The statement in bold does make me worry and I'd like to point out for those that may read this that every skydiver should be paying the same level of attention and focus to their canopy flight. If instructors out there are not training students to understand that the parachute ride is not just something to do at the end of the skydive, but rather it's the most important portion of the skydive, then they need to reconsider being instructors. QuoteI actually had some freeflyers on one of my loads in Perris complain because our RW 6 way wanted to break and track off at 5,000. They started in on us about not pulling high. There were three of us with 100 or less jumps on this formation. I told them that we were going to track for a count of 10 and clear and pull. Again I got "don't pull above 3,000". I informed them all that we had three low time jumpers and that once we tracked away they would pull. They then said that they would rather us pull higher to have time to react if something happened to our canopy. I am happy to report that my new freeflyer friends were then cooperative, gave us good seperation on jump run and kept an extra eagle eye out for us girls. Thanks to all the guys on our load. I mean really we can not be expected to perform at the same experience level as people with 1500 jumps. We in turn flew in breaks for awhile to let them get to the ground first to do their swooping by the pond and proceeded with the standard landing pattern in the student area. So all that said. Communitcation and education IMO are the key. Pulling high at a major boogie is really a bad idea. Rules of operation and guidelines for safety are different at events like that, and if you're unable to comply, jumping at one might be a bad idea. You should remember that the only danger from pulling high does not come from the group behind you at a multi aircraft even. The aircraft dropping just after yours or perhaps the one that's dropping offset at the same time as yours complicates the situation and a high canopy can create a safety issue for them.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #29 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteI guess teams will be late making their back to backs, having to run from the student field to the hanger and back to the plane. If your focus is training for 4-way isn't landing close and making your back to back more important than swooping for personal enjoyment? Don't get me wrong, I love 270's, but if my job was to train for competition then that would be my primary focus.Quote Right. And CRW would have never been developed if that were the case. It sounds like they're trying to make their landing area safer for everyone and to me thats worth having to choose between landing close or walking back from a swoop. It appears that there has been no effort to allow greater than 180 degree turns ANYWHERE at DeLand. Untill we hear further we don't know. If the effort was to make the landing area safer then nothing better than a 90 would be ther rule. When are the kneejerkers going to realize the have done NOTHING to address the issue brought up but the fatalities earlier this/last year? The problem always has been one of judgement.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #30 July 30, 2007 Clearly I'm missing something here. Why is being on a 4-way team inconsistent with flying a standard landing pattern?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #31 July 30, 2007 QuoteThe problem always has been one of judgement. very very good point. but, many many jumpers do NOT have good judgement...therefore, they must be told how to act (land their canopy) to avoid killing others. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #32 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe problem always has been one of judgement. very very good point. but, many many jumpers do NOT have good judgement...therefore, they must be told how to act (land their canopy) to avoid killing others. And my point would be "WHY ARE THEY JUMPERS?!"---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #33 July 30, 2007 Quote When are the kneejerkers going to realize the have done NOTHING to address the issue brought up but the fatalities earlier this/last year? The problem always has been one of judgement. In this world where people's self-evaluation is viewed as sacrosanct ("I am an excellent driver..."), counting on judgment to address the issue is a bad plan. Often the people who have the worst judgment are those with no clue regarding the pitfalls of their actions. Thus we have the following: 1) Doing 270s on approach to landing in traffic shows Very Bad Judgment. 2) Doing anything greater than a 180 on approach to landing in traffic is henceforth forbidden. You can't ban bad judgment per se, but you can forbid its expression by specific actions. This dictum does just that. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #34 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem always has been one of judgement. very very good point. but, many many jumpers do NOT have good judgement...therefore, they must be told how to act (land their canopy) to avoid killing others. And my point would be "WHY ARE THEY JUMPERS?!" How would you ban people with poor judgement from skydiving?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #35 July 30, 2007 As instructors we have a responsibility to do our best to send that element bowling. There is a trend lately to push the "skydiving is for everyone" ideal. Often this is a DZ's policy, and instructors feel pressure to train people they may not want to to keep their positions on the DZ. There of course are those that make it into the sport anyway and for those I say groundings, repeatedly until they change their habits or quit the sport. This serves two purposes, keeps those in the air safer, and weeds bad judgement out of the sport.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #36 July 30, 2007 That is way too ambiguous. One instructors judgment of some ones ability to make good decisions would not be the same as some one else. Also a history of good judgment doesn't guarantee a future of good judgment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #37 July 30, 2007 QuoteThere is a trend lately to push the "skydiving is for everyone" ideal. Often this is a DZ's policy, and instructors feel pressure to train people they may not want to to keep their positions on the DZ. really? We try to get people to do Tandems if they have interest, but skydiving ISN'T for everyone. I would find a new place to jump if that is really the case. Who's the guy holding a gun to your head? Diablopilot, with all your posts on here, I have a hard time grasping you would and could continue to work for such a place. jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #38 July 30, 2007 Quote Diablopilot, with all your posts on here, I have a hard time grasping you would and could continue to work for such a place. I don't.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #39 July 30, 2007 Quote As instructors we have a responsibility to do our best to send that element bowling. In my limited experience, It has been the "instructors" that are the most likely to be doing hook turns in traffic anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #40 July 30, 2007 Then who is enabling that? Who's not grounding them?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #41 July 30, 2007 QuoteThen who is enabling that? Who's not grounding them? No one. Because there are no rules against it at many DZ`s. That is what people are trying to change. You cant force people to have common sense, but you can put rules in place to try to keep them from hurting others. Sounds like Deland now has a Rule. I hope they enforce it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #42 July 30, 2007 One problem with such ruled is it can give the guilty a defense! Joe jumper starts hucking 180's into trafic in a dangerous manner. Someone comes over to tell him he's unsafe, and he cries "I was ONLY doing a 180". Yet the rule will serve to punish a qualified, and safe jumper who waits and creates a safe window of opportunity to do a 270. Rules exist because instructors, DZO's, S&TA's, and jumpers in general are unwilling to call a spade a spade and adress jumpers who are showing poor judgement.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #43 July 30, 2007 QuoteOne problem with such ruled is it can give the guilty a defense! Joe jumper starts hucking 180's into trafic in a dangerous manner. Someone comes over to tell him he's unsafe, and he cries "I was ONLY doing a 180". Yet the rule will serve to punish a qualified, and safe jumper who waits and creates a safe window of opportunity to do a 270. Rules exist because instructors, DZO's, S&TA's, and jumpers in general are unwilling to call a spade a spade and adress jumpers who are showing poor judgement. Does driving at or below the speed limit remove all further responsibility for good judgment?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #44 July 30, 2007 QuoteYet the rule will serve to punish a qualified, and safe jumper who waits and creates a safe window of opportunity to do a 270. That works great until that one time he doesn’t see a Slower canopy. A simple honest mistake and two more people die. Qualified safe Jumpers are Human too. They can make mistakes. Do you honestly believe that it should be up to the individual Jumper if it is safe for them to do a 270 or not into the main landing area? I dont. They are human and WILL make mistakes. I would much rather they make those mistakes away from the main landing area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #45 July 30, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem always has been one of judgement. very very good point. but, many many jumpers do NOT have good judgement...therefore, they must be told how to act (land their canopy) to avoid killing others. And my point would be "WHY ARE THEY JUMPERS?!" I agree with you. i am also a pilot, and i agree that instructors should weed out more jumpers, that should not be jumping. but then again, many pilots start out conservative...then, somewhere along the way, they get "inspired" to try dangerous or rather, aerobatic manuvers. if they are over non populated ground, and not around other airplanes, then, go for it. same with jumpers, no one on the ground, no one around in the air...then go for it. problem is, many hotshots are too damn lazy to walk back to a DZ area. they feel they are the hotshot, so they should land close, in amonst everyone. if we had "airspace" classifications for jumpers, it would be great. class HP for swooping high perfomance, class S for students, class G for general, no HP allowed. Separation, separation, separation. just like different runways at airports. I would respect a rule like that, just as I respect the different airspace ratings when flying my aircraft. but not all airports are big enough to have multiple runways, and when not allowed to fly there, I dont. simple as that. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #46 July 30, 2007 To make things clear, I am in favor of seperated landing areas.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #47 July 30, 2007 QuoteTo make things clear, I am in favor of seperated landing areas. excellent! I personally feel that until one group or the other steps up a each DZ and says, "Hey, to avoid possible collisions, resulting in accidents, resulting in ban on certain manuvers, we (swoopers or non swoopers) will land over there, free and clear of your group" ...more DZs will ban HP landings, and more accidents will happen. So, to everyone out there, I (non swooper) am willing to (and already do) land further away...anyone else want to step up and get this party started? I love watching swooping, its awsome, and I hope it does not go away. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SKYWHUFFO 1 #48 July 30, 2007 Here is my theory on the whole swooping thing. With lift tickets going sky hi because of Gas prices, I want to keep my big fat @$$ in the air as long as possible to get my moneys worth out of each jump ticket. Heck, with some of these little chutes now a days and quick loads like Mullins, If i open high i could probably do one jump for their two. HA! In seriousness, people have to look at the DZO's side and one word, Liability. Insurance is hard enough for a DZ anyway, why give the insurance companies another reason. If they can control the pattern less people get hurt, less chance for them to get sue'd, less bad publicity his DZ gets. Nobody is banning it to pick on swoopers(at least i don't believe so) they just want a safe place for us all to play. Today it's all about trying to keep some money and protecting your own @$$ from greedy people and famlies looking to sue. Just look at the DZ in Missouri who had a plane go down and the famlies of some of the people on board are suing everyone that ever looked at the plane or walked on the DZ. I would love to See a DZO give their side on here. Blues D Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dharma1976 0 #49 July 30, 2007 most of the die hard swoopers are landing by the pond at the ranch these days with no rule... we all just like the gates that mike set up down there and most of the others like to land by hanger Davehttp://www.skyjunky.com CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #50 July 30, 2007 QuoteIts Mr Johnston who runs the day to day operations. I am fully aware of who is the head ass chewer as a daily routine. However it is Bob Hallet who owns the dz and has the most investment to lose. Quotebut I would imagine he was the driving force. He is always known to police the landing area. That is good he is watching the LZ and I'm sure if he made up a rule that Bob didn't like then there wouldn't be signs posted around the dz.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
