DeLand bans turns over 180

[billvon 3,112]

>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.

No more so than it punishes a safe, expert BASE jumper who buys the appropriate gear and waits for a safe window of opportunity to pull at 500 feet. In both cases they can still do whatever they want - they just have to not do it in certain places.

>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.

They also exist because not every DZO is an expert canopy pilot/RW competitor/bigway organizer, and may not know how dangerous something is until he sees a serious injury or fatality from allowing something dangerous. Skilled but irresponsible jumpers will often take advantage of this ignorance to convince the DZO that "their way" is the safest, most prudent, most considered etc method of doing things.

[KathleenL 0]

Thanks for the insite about pulling high. We actually pulled between 3000 and 3500. The guys wanted us to go lower than that but we read the SIM and it said at our level to pull between those levels. Is that too high?

[squirrel 0]

Quote

Thanks for the insite about pulling high. We actually pulled between 3000 and 3500. The guys wanted us to go lower than that but we read the SIM and it said at our level to pull between those levels. Is that too high?

dont be intimidated. we (my wife and I ) actually wrote it into our vows, "not to deploy below 3500" (start of sequence). If there was a major problem, this certainly could be worked out in jump order...not forcing someone to deploy low. We often go out last, and pull higher, like students...just to avoid these poeple. but then again, we dont go to boggies, or large events...the idiot exposure factor is greatly increased at such events.

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Thanks for the insite about pulling high. We actually pulled between 3000 and 3500. The guys wanted us to go lower than that but we read the SIM and it said at our level to pull between those levels. Is that too high?

dont be intimidated. we (my wife and I ) actually wrote it into our vows, "not to deploy below 3500" (start of sequence). If there was a major problem, this certainly could be worked out in jump order...not forcing someone to deploy low. We often go out last, and pull higher, like students...just to avoid these poeple. but then again, we dont go to boggies, or large events...the idiot exposure factor is greatly increased at such events.

An event organizer (or DZ) can add its own rules over and above the FARs and BSRs. The WFFC had a no deployment above 3k rule (some exceptions allowed, like CRW).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LoudDan 0]

So perhaps the USPA BOD should put forth such requirements. To be a member DZ of the USPA the DZO should have sufficient diversified skydiving experience in order to make operational decisions based on experience and good practice. As a profesional organization I'm kinda surprised that almost any shmo can open a DZ and after filing paperwork and sending in MONEY they can be a USPA dropzone.

Coming soon to a bowl of Wheaties near you!!

[KathleenL 0]

There was not any rule in Perris about pulling at 3000 or lower. The only rule posted was to let manifest know so that exit order would be correct. I thought that was a good rule and we did let everyone know.

[KathleenL 0]

Thanks, I am only slightly intimidated. Mostly because I was on the LZ and witnessed the canopy collision between Danny and Bob in Dublin. I was still on student status then and almost never got back into a plane. But my home DZ, skydive the Farm, had a huge contingent there and I did get back in the plane with my coach and one of my AFF instructors. Actually, all of the deaths and injuries that I have witnessed have happened to very experienced, I mean thousands of jumps, jumpers. I am glad that the experienced jumpers at my DZ don't treat us low timers like we are a big pain the the a$$. They take us under their wings and teach us to be safe and have fun. Our DZO is awesome at making sure that all experience levels are well taken care of. And all of the regular jumpers there have no problems getting along. Visitors are astounded at the atmosphere at my home DZ. Hey if ya'll are every on the east coast stop by Skydive the Farm. I am usually there every weekend.

[mirage62 0]

This makes the third or fourth large dz to post new rules about turns in the pattern. It will be interesting to see if any of these dz really face a large push back from jumpers who don't want pattern rules.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

This makes the third or fourth large dz to post new rules about turns in the pattern. It will be interesting to see if any of these dz really face a large push back from jumpers who don't want pattern rules.

I dont think that many of us will push back for no landing pattern rules...

you will find that a lot of us work really hard to make the sky safer for all of us...

we communicate exactly what we do

we communicate where we will be at what altitudes

we communicate where we should be in the loading of the plane and act accordingly for what is happening in front or after us...

we try to separate landing areas as much as possible

we try to work with others to neaten up the patterns/stacking

the thing is that we have had some yahoos make some serious mistakes and not be heads up about doing some seriously dangerous shit I for one have been landing away from the regular pattern almost 100% or making sure that I do lesser turns if I cant make the pond...

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[billvon 3,112]

> So perhaps the USPA BOD should put forth such requirements.

They are now; see the report on the recent USPA meeting. It took some convincing though.

>To be a member DZ of the USPA the DZO should have sufficient diversified
>skydiving experience in order to make operational decisions based on
>experience and good practice.

That's a bit unreasonable. Most DZO's cannot fly a wingsuit, swoop a small canopy, do an accuracy approach or do back to back 4 way training jumps. Indeed, many are too busy running the DZ to do all those things. Many rely on other people/sources for their rules; this is one reason the BSR's are so important. It may seem obvious to you that 270's should not occur in a crowded pattern, or that wingsuiters should not fly back down the jump run, but it may not be obvious to a DZO that does not do any of those things.

[billvon 3,112]

>We actually pulled between 3000 and 3500. . . .Is that too high?

Not at all. You can pull at whatever altitude you like - provided you work it out with manifest/the load. At Perris you can pull at 12500 if you like; they will give you your own pass. At the WFFC, generally you had to take one of the specialty aircraft (like the helicopter) that had its own jump run if you wanted to pull high.

[Rdutch 0]

Quote

Clearly I'm missing something here. Why is being on a 4-way team inconsistent with flying a standard landing pattern?

Where did you get that idea, the 4way teams in Deland do an excellent job of seperating themselves and landing in order, while even doing a high performance landing. Teams make sure they have seperation between each group landing, and land as a team. thus my reason for thinking a general ban on 270's isnt the answer. We govern ourselves to make sure that the teams with the smallest canopies that will land first, exit first. Also mostly when training we get out on our own pass, this is why I think a general ban of a 270 is a bad idea. I pay my money for a jump, that jump not only includes the training dive, it also includes the landing. Now I understand that there is a time and a place for things, like if your on a big way load you would be a complete knucklehead to try and do a big turn landing. Most of the canopy pilots I know are grat at self preservation and work very hard trying to fly safe. Completely banning something is NOT the answer, education, and finding a solution is.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!

[squirrel 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks for the insite about pulling high. We actually pulled between 3000 and 3500. The guys wanted us to go lower than that but we read the SIM and it said at our level to pull between those levels. Is that too high?

dont be intimidated. we (my wife and I ) actually wrote it into our vows, "not to deploy below 3500" (start of sequence). If there was a major problem, this certainly could be worked out in jump order...not forcing someone to deploy low. We often go out last, and pull higher, like students...just to avoid these poeple. but then again, we dont go to boggies, or large events...the idiot exposure factor is greatly increased at such events.

An event organizer (or DZ) can add its own rules over and above the FARs and BSRs. The WFFC had a no deployment above 3k rule (some exceptions allowed, like CRW).

exactly why when i stopped by there a few years ago...i did not jump. pulling at 3500 is my comfortable safe deployment altitude, and i will not go low for an extra 5 to 6 seconds of freefall. deploy at 3500, you have a few crucial extra seconds of decesion time before going ot reserve, which then can be out at a very safe altitude. but, this is just me. anyway, probably should not highjack this thread.

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[popsjumper 2]

I'm on record for supporting Deland's decision and new policy.

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

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Clearly I'm missing something here. Why is being on a 4-way team inconsistent with flying a standard landing pattern?

Where did you get that idea, .

From what you wrote:

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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

An event organizer (or DZ) can add its own rules over and above the FARs and BSRs. The WFFC had a no deployment above 3k rule (some exceptions allowed, like CRW).

I thought the WFFC rule was not to be under an open canopy above 3k, rather than don't initiate deploy over 3k. The latter would contradict the recommended hard deck of 2500 for A licenses.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Who is the person who decided that a 180 is so much safer than a 270? It scared the hell out of me doing 180s in a crowded pattern because at some point in time you are flying straight at people, and if anyone is lower and behind you, theres no chance of seeing them without taking your eyes off the people you are flying directly at.

So, are you saying you should still be allowed to do a 270 in a crowded pattern?

A right (or left) hand pattern where everyone does a 90 or a 270 into a specified landing lane is a little easier to predict that one where people are doing 90s and 180s.

[hukturn 0]

"In my limited experience, It has been the "instructors" that are the most likely to be doing hook turns in traffic anyway"

Then you have an integrity problem at your DZ. Rules apply to everyone on the DZ, regardless of status or position. So, the problem here is not one of decisions on behalf of the jumper. It is the lack of backbone of your S&TA to stand up and enforce the rules.

[hukturn 0]

"Yes", it can. This is why many Interstates post minimum speed limits. More people are involved in rear-end accidents than any other on the highways. So, you could be equally culpable by not maintaining adequate speed.

Just to clarify, though...this is not a discussion about how to drive a car. They share very few similarities.

[hukturn 0]

"To make things clear, I am in favor of seperated landing areas. "

To make things clear on my behalf.
I am in support of seperatied landing areas if the individual DZ can accomodate it and it believes this is the best means of addressing their individual needs.
While I may not like what a DZ decides, I understand that I have the option of skydiving elsewhere.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Thanks for the insite about pulling high. We actually pulled between 3000 and 3500. The guys wanted us to go lower than that but we read the SIM and it said at our level to pull between those levels. Is that too high?

It's not too high provided the dz/event/organizer is informed of what is going to occur and makes adjustments accordingly.

So if in doubt, make sure manifest knows.

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

[faulknerwn 38]

Not to me. Definitely 90's are no problem. But 270's confuse the shit out of me. They're usually on the other side of the field from everyone else, and I know they're going somewhere but I don't have a clue where.

180's are obvious and easy for me to see what's going to happen, but the 270's completely confuse me. I just hit brakes and try and stay above them.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Not to me. Definitely 90's are no problem. But 270's confuse the shit out of me. They're usually on the other side of the field from everyone else, and I know they're going somewhere but I don't have a clue where.

180's are obvious and easy for me to see what's going to happen, but the 270's completely confuse me. I just hit brakes and try and stay above them.

I tend to find the opposite...

It'd be more confusing at an unfamiliar DZ, but at home I can tell who is going to to a 270 and where they're likely going to start their turn. They fly the same sort of pattern as most people, until they reach the point where they start their turn.

The 180s drive me nuts. Only a couple people doing them, so I know who NOT to follow in the pattern. But they start off on a normal downwind. Then they turn around. Then they turn on what seems to be a final approach in the opposite of the agreed upon direction. Then, just before I think they're gonna land, they make their turn and they're going the opposite way again. VERY confusing. They fly their actual downwind leg at maybe 300 feet? I'm on final in the opposite direction at that altitude.

Just a couple days ago I watched one jumper follow someone doing a 180... little did he know that he was about to have to make a really low 180 degree turn right over the DZ, since he thought he was on final for a downwind landing.

I'm not sure I wouldn't rather share the pattern with people doing 270s than 180s, if I had to choose one.

Neither type of turn has ever caused a traffic conflict at our DZ that I know of, but the potential is definitely there. Nobody's doing 270s anywhere near traffic anymore, and 180s are really only done by the first jumpers down, before there's any traffic.

Dave

[dharma1976 0]

Quote

Not to me. Definitely 90's are no problem. But 270's confuse the shit out of me. They're usually on the other side of the field from everyone else, and I know they're going somewhere but I don't have a clue where.

180's are obvious and easy for me to see what's going to happen, but the 270's completely confuse me. I just hit brakes and try and stay above them.

Here is where talking becomes important

as a person who turns left 270s in patterns ( to make sure that I am not turning blindly into pattern) I take the time to tell everyone on the load exactly what I am doing and approximately where I will be.

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[KathleenL 0]

I always let manifest know, and the folks on the load too. I don't think you can go wrong by communicating.