The111 1 #26 August 3, 2007 QuoteThe intent is, and clearly so, to depict how intrusive the 180 pattern is. Compress the turn and overlay it with ALL the other turn types and you'll see it in no way conforms to the downwind, base and final paradigm. I'm not trying to be difficult here, really, I just am not quite sure what you mean by that. Looking at your illustration nothing strikes me as "intrusive"... it appears to run mostly parallel to the square flight pattern's "normal" legs.www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speedy 0 #27 August 3, 2007 QuoteIf experience was the only yardstick that mattered, a great-grandma who dated Henry Ford would be a better driver than Jeff Gordon. I don't understand this. How would dating Henry Ford give you experience in driving cars? Now if you drive cars a lot, you gain experience on how to avoid crashing a car, even if you never have a crash. Dave Fallschirmsport Marl Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dharma1976 0 #28 August 3, 2007 what seems to be working in situations is separation... regardless of what people are saying... separating landings by time or space (or if any of the physicists have anoth way taht folds time and space let me know we as high performance pilots at the ranch have claimed the area by the pond as a high performance landing area...there is no policy we just worked it out with everyone there...and let people on the loads we are on know where we are landing... so perhaps in the end communication (which is what I have been saying all along) is the key to this problem... not tit for tatting each other to try to force our wills upon each other... but figuring out together how we can keep each other alive... I like a sig line I once read take care of each other.... Cheers 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
ianmdrennan 2 #29 August 3, 2007 QuoteI'm not trying to be difficult here, really, I just am not quite sure what you mean by that. Looking at your illustration nothing strikes me as "intrusive"... it appears to run mostly parallel to the square flight pattern's "normal" legs. No worries, I'm not taking it as being difficult. The difference in the 180 pattern is that is goes right down the center of the landing area. The others all have clear approaches from the side during their downwind legs. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 August 3, 2007 QuoteThe difference in the 180 pattern is that is goes right down the center of the landing area. So a 'snap' 180 rather than a (very) long smooth carve along the inner edges of the landing pattern lanes? Pic the snap 180 would travel up the final and then whip back down, not a great concept really. But the slow could stay on the edge of the lanes. Just like the 270 should stay on the outside edge of the lanes. Still better to take the "or" option - separate areas. I don't like the 180 in any case except the slow carve, which isn't really going to do better than a smoot front riser 90 onto final which is compatible to a standard landing pattern. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeedToJump 0 #31 August 3, 2007 Nice post Ray. I really don't understand why some people are picking apart and attacking this. Ray is not advocating that high performance landings be done in traffic. In fact he said "You need to use your judgment to decide when it is safe to swoop and when it is not. High performance landings can be safe but doing them in a crowd is just a bad idea." One of the things I really like about Ray's post is that it goes into details on many of the OTHER reasons that canopy collisions happen apart from swoopers showing bad judgement and swooping through traffic. Exit order within the same discipline (doesn't always have to be biggest to smallest), landing order within a group. By far, most of the close calls I've seen under canopy occur with people who are NOT attempting high performance landings. Jumpers who get target fixation, jumpers who need to land in the peas, people paying more attention to the wind flag on no wind days than the first person down, people not paying attention to traffic, people racing to be the first person to land, etc. This is not a swooper vs. non-swooper problem; this is something that every single person under a parachute needs to be aware of. One of the ways to avoid canopy collisions is to separate high performance landing from regular landings by time and/or space. I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with that. There is more needed than only that and Ray gives a lot of good insight into some of the other issues as well.Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #32 August 3, 2007 QuotePlease explain to me how this would even remotely apply to say the most recent canopy collision, where someone with more experience than even you hooked into a crowded LZ and killed someone? Seriously, lay out the scenario on that fateful day in Dublin. The bigway, the camera flyers, a solo, some small canopies, some large canopies... What would the order be. A dry run, using your theory, that would have saved a life. Please explain it to me. Because its obvious at least in that scenario, in all probability no hp landings in the main LZ would have saved (most likely) a life, Bobs life. It's rather unfortunate that you did NOT read and remember everything that Ray wrote. Let me help you remember (taken from the 5th paragraph of his original post ... go back and read it if you don't believe me): "Large group formations are another instance of this problem, in this instance I fully agree on a rule on landing. If you do 270-degree turns on a 30 way, into the regular landing area, you’re an idiot." - Ray Dutch Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mixoligist 0 #33 August 3, 2007 Quote By far, most of the close calls I've seen under canopy occur with people who are NOT attempting high performance landings. Jumpers who get target fixation, jumpers who need to land in the peas, people paying more attention to the wind flag on no wind days than the first person down, people not paying attention to traffic, people racing to be the first person to land, etc. I second that...I see it all the time................................... Better you than me .................................. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davadikian 1 #34 August 3, 2007 Pardon, I get a little target fixated sometimes... But I guess ultimately my question is, why is it acceptable to separate landing areas or forbid hp in the main landing area on a bigway but not when it is the same 30 jumpers in separate groups. Why wouldnt it be acceptable to apply that same rule to all times in a busy landing zone? I dont mean any sarcasm it is a genuine question, whats the hang-up? It almost seems like the opposite would be true, if it were a bigway were everyone was dirt diving together you COULD organize the landing order whereas 4 or 5 separate mixed (canopy size) groups would be much more difficult to "organize" the landing order. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #35 August 3, 2007 QuoteBut I guess ultimately my question is Many of the things Ray has mentioned I agree with (like the canopy pilot being proactive in creating their own separation), but some of the things I don't necessarily believe is right. But it is not my thread and I will not even attempt to address your concerns since I do believe some of your concerns are valid (I fully support segregated landing areas based on time or distance). Not sure if Ray will even show up here to answer your questions since he's likely off jumping. Who knows ... I just want to take the stance that it is NOT the turn type that is the crux of our problem. It is the attitude of each and every jumper to be more proactive in being as safe as they can possibly be. Be proactive in communicating before we leave the ground, be proactive in creating separation once in the air and be proactive to not be complacent on landing and get out of that "let's just wing it" mindset. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #36 August 3, 2007 QuoteAgreed on Roger Nelson. However, as usual (lately), your post doesn't seem to offer anything more than a shot at someone. Seems rather usual for someone who has contributed a lot to other subjects (such as freefall drift and exit seperation). Is there any reason you intentionally make quips to posters on this subject. Your intent, for whatever reason, appears to be to discount or discredit Ray's thoughts? Maybe I'm just reading into, or mistaking the meaning behind your post(s), in which case I apologize for misunderstanding them. Ian I thought it so obvious as not to need explanation. However, Winsor has now done a fine job so I won't belabor the point. To summarize, Roger Nelson was highly experienced, skilled, thoughtful, knowledgable, and a pioneer in canopy education in his AFP program, none of which prevented his canopy collision. I think Rdutch's thesis is not only incorrect in parts, but dangerously so.... 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
NeedToJump 0 #37 August 3, 2007 QuoteTo summarize, Roger Nelson was highly experienced, skilled, thoughtful, knowledgable, and a pioneer in canopy education in his AFP program, none of which prevented his canopy collision. I think Rdutch's thesis is not only incorrect in parts, but dangerously so. Since this forum is for discussion and learning, could you please let us know which parts you feel to be dangerously incorrect? I am genuinely interested in learning becomig safer. In rereading all the posts from you and Winsor in this thread, the only points I see Winsor arguing are: * A 180 has the potential to be safer than a 270 in traffic, but neither are safe (I don't think Ray was saying either of these should be done in traffic) * Swoopers and fun jumpers should have clearly defined and separated air spaces (again, I don' think Ray was saying otherwise). Other than those two points, the only thing I got out of either of your posts was that since Ray does not have a degree in physics and has not studied the physics of canopy collisions that his post is completely devoid of merit. I highly respect the knowledge and education you both have and would like to know specifically what is so incorrect and dangerous from Ray's post, and what would you both suggest?Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #38 August 3, 2007 QuoteSwoopers and fun jumpers can share the air together; it just takes a little time, education and willingness. If this means sharing the same landing area at the same time (a reasonabe interpretation of hos words), I believe it to be incorrect and dangerous, for reasons that have already been explained over and over again. Just relying on knowledge, experience and training has also been shown not to prevent collisions.... 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
NeedToJump 0 #39 August 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteSwoopers and fun jumpers can share the air together; it just takes a little time, education and willingness. If this means sharing the same landing area at the same time (a reasonabe interpretation of hos words), I believe it to be incorrect and dangerous, for reasons that have already been explained over and over again. Just relying on knowledge, experience and training has also been shown not to prevent collisions. I agree with you completely on that. Swoopers and fun jumpers sharing the same space at the same time is extremely dangerous. However, I do not believe that Ray was trying to say it is ok. Here are some other quotes from his original post: "The jumpers with the smallest canopies land first, and in return the jumpers with the largest canopies land last", "Proper separation, and finding a slot in the landing pattern can work", "High performance landings can be safe but doing them in a crowd is just a bad idea.", "It’s a trade off for safety, if you have to swoop, then you have to pull higher. Want more freefall, then don’t swoop." I interpret Ray's quote that you mentioned above to mean that swoopers and fun jumpers can share the air together (exit from the same plane load) as long as they separate themselves by distance or time. Ray very specifically talks about avoiding landing in the same "landing window" as someone else so I do not think he was implying that it is ok to share the same landing area at the same time. I obviously could be wrong since it is not my post, but I know Ray and know that he does not advocate sharing the same landing area at the same time. What do you think about the rest of his post? You mentioned that you found his thesis to be incorrect in "parts", which other parts?Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #40 August 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteTo summarize, Roger Nelson was highly experienced, skilled, thoughtful, knowledgable, and a pioneer in canopy education in his AFP program, none of which prevented his canopy collision. I think Rdutch's thesis is not only incorrect in parts, but dangerously so. Since this forum is for discussion and learning, could you please let us know which parts you feel to be dangerously incorrect? I am genuinely interested in learning becomig safer. In rereading all the posts from you and Winsor in this thread, the only points I see Winsor arguing are: * A 180 has the potential to be safer than a 270 in traffic, but neither are safe (I don't think Ray was saying either of these should be done in traffic) * Swoopers and fun jumpers should have clearly defined and separated air spaces (again, I don' think Ray was saying otherwise). Other than those two points, the only thing I got out of either of your posts was that since Ray does not have a degree in physics and has not studied the physics of canopy collisions that his post is completely devoid of merit. I highly respect the knowledge and education you both have and would like to know specifically what is so incorrect and dangerous from Ray's post, and what would you both suggest? Right off the top: "Swoopers and fun jumpers can share the air together; it just takes a little time, education and willingness." Trying to "share the air" is a recipe for disaster. If you are going to swoop, it behooves you to do so where there is precisely zero sharing of the air. I am all for designating airspace where ONLY high-performance flight is allowed, and other airspace where flying the pattern is mandatory. As far as education goes, it overlooks the turnover rate in the sport. You can have 100% comprehension of a concept throughout the sport today and be at 50% in a handful of years due to the change in population. As an educational example, at a University where the graduates are very sharp, the student body is well over half underclassmen. Many Freshmen and Sophomores are clueless and will catch on later, while others are due to drop out because the are doomed to cluelessness. The discussion of 180 vs 270 and which one is more "safe" is nonsense. We lost two jumpers at Cross Keys where the 270 turned into the 90 that was below and behind on setup - what part of dead is "safe?" I applaud those who are pushing the limits of the sport, and am happy to benefit from their hard-won experience. Those who think the "old rules" don't apply to them remind me of the dotcom wizards who claimed that the economic models upon which a smokestack economy was based had no place in the brave new world of electronics. I was not above an "I told you so" or two when that market tanked. In any event, what gives me pause is that much of the back-and-forth on the issue of canopy collisions ranges from ambiguous to poorly conceived. Rdutch's post is both. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeedToJump 0 #41 August 3, 2007 Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I replied to Kallend just above about my interpretation of the "share the air" quote. I agree with you that swoopers and non-swoopers sharing the same time and space is extremely dangerous. If that is what Ray was saying, then I disagree with him. Do you think that the separation can be attained by time only? If the swoopers are the first to land before any non-swoopers enter the pattern, does that adequately result in a lack of shared air? What if the swoopers hold in breaks until the rest of the load has landed? I see your point about education and agree. I do think that better education will help with this and that education for everyone should never stop. Quote The discussion of 180 vs 270 and which one is more "safe" is nonsense. We lost two jumpers at Cross Keys where the 270 turned into the 90 that was below and behind on setup - what part of dead is "safe?" I completely agree with you; I don't think either turn is safe in a standard pattern. I think that a 180 is more dangerous than a 270 in a standard pattern, but neither have a place. I don't think one is "safer" than the other, but I do think one is "more dangerous". Quote Those who think the "old rules" don't apply to them remind me of the dotcom wizards who claimed that the economic models upon which a smokestack economy was based had no place in the brave new world of electronics. I was not above an "I told you so" or two when that market tanked. The dotcom wizards who did well were the ones who convinced everyone else that their new economic model would work and then sold out before the bubble burst. My point here has absolutely no relevance, but I just had to throw it in there Quote In any event, what gives me pause is that much of the back-and-forth on the issue of canopy collisions ranges from ambiguous to poorly conceived. Forgive me if you have already answered this question in a previous post as I do not read everything written on dz.com, but what do you suggest as a solution? Most of what I have read (in general, not specifically from you) seems to only address the issue of separating high performance landings from the standard pattern. That is only one part of the canopy collision issue. I see far more close calls from standard pattern jumpers than I do from swoopers.Wind Tunnel and Skydiving Coach http://www.ariperelman.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rdutch 0 #42 August 3, 2007 "Swoopers and fun jumpers can share the air together; it just takes a little time, education and willingness." Trying to "share the air" is a recipe for disaster. If you are going to swoop, it behooves you to do so where there is precisely zero sharing of the air. So you said you landed an airliner after a cessna 170, isnt that "Sharing the air". Did you and the cessna rush to the ground and fight for a laning space? No you flew a pattern and provided adequate seperation. There is no difference with canopies. The unfortunate attitude with skydivers is: Open up and get to the ground. Ignore the turn debate, this is a dangerous concept, skydivers opening up and blindly spiraling to the ground is dangerous. Open up, find your slot in the landing pattern make sure you have clear air and land in the same direction as everyone else. You as a pilot should understand this. I never siad that doing hook turns in crowds is a good idea, I just provided ways for people to seperate themselves and make the air safer for everyone around them. Hook turn or no hook turn these are valid concepts and would be a good idea for everyone to "think" about. I never said it was a rule but its a good concept. Ray Small and fast what every girl dreams of! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rdutch 0 #43 August 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteSwoopers and fun jumpers can share the air together; it just takes a little time, education and willingness. If this means sharing the same landing area at the same time (a reasonabe interpretation of hos words), I believe it to be incorrect and dangerous, for reasons that have already been explained over and over again. Just relying on knowledge, experience and training has also been shown not to prevent collisions. Actually I went through many reasons why we wont share the same landing area at the same time, and how to make sure we dont share the same landing area at the same time. It obviously wansnt a reasonable interpretation of my words I clearly went through great detail with many ways to provide adequate seperation. Of all the incedents that occured that "I" know of, if they had even thought of "clearing your airspace, seperating your groups, and designating a landing order" they would have been here today. It wasnt the "turn" that killed these people. Turn aside, my point on the post was to encourage people to provide adequate seperation under canopy and not land all at the same time. I still cant figure out why even without swoopers everyone has to land at the same time. The most dangerous time of a skydive "recent events have shown" is under canopy, so how hard it it to take some time and find a way for everyone to land safely. B.T.W. almost every close call I have seen in my life has been with people landing straight in, or 90* turns on big ways and all of them "Highly" experienced pilots. Ray Small and fast what every girl dreams of! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #44 August 4, 2007 Wait a minute...please explain the collision with Roger. Because I believe there are substantial questions on where the cu;pability lies in that collision. I WAS NOT there but I have discussed it with several people who were. I realize that this is not the thread for it, so feel free to PM me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #45 August 4, 2007 Quotemy point on the post was to encourage people to provide adequate seperation under canopy and not land all at the same time. Amen ... there would simple be no canopy collisions if we all as jumpers were more proactive in not trying to land all at the same time. We as competitive swoopers Ray know this is a no no ... time for everyone else to start being more proactive in creating separation up there. It's not that hard when you know how to control your canopy, keep your eyes open and use some common sense based on where you are on exit, what altitude you plan on deploying at and what sort of canopy your fly. And before someone thinks I am talking about swooping in traffic, nothing can be further from the truth. The same principle needs to be applied even if fast and slow canopies were segregated from each other. The slow canopies flying traditional patterns can still collide with each other if you try to land all at the same time. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wrightskyguy 1 #46 August 4, 2007 QuoteWe as competitive swoopers Ray know this is a no no ... time for everyone else to start being more proactive in creating separation up there. ***Yeah, it's not the swoopers problem, it's everyone else. John Wright World's most beloved skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites strop45 0 #47 August 4, 2007 QuoteThe slow canopies flying traditional patterns can still collide with each other if you try to land all at the same time. Agreed, although the higher the closing speed, then the less time for either pilot to avoid a collision. Slower canopies moving at similar speeds and flying the same pattern will have more time to alter course, while canopies flying different patterns or with different speeds will have less time. This is just common sense isn't it?The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #48 August 5, 2007 While these statements are accurate, they are not absolute. Historically, more canopy collisions occur outside of swooping. In most instances, swooping is not the cause for canopy collisions. It is simply the "flavor of the week". A couple of our friends died tragically and now many people believe that swooping causes canopy collisions. And swooping has been identified inaccurately as the primary cause for canopy collisions while non-swoop collisions have generally gone without address. Back to canopy collisions during swooping; higher closing speeds, slower canopies, different patterns can occur in the main traffic or in a segregated swooping area. Thus, you are still faced with similar problems. Who is swooping, how are they performing it, how do we stack the pattern? I am sure that we don't want to believe that all swooping will be consistent even in a swoop area, right?!? Not everyone in the swoop area will be performing a 270deg, not everyone is 21cell cross-braced, and not everyone is 2:1. So, the same inherent difficulties are present in the swooping area as would be in the main drag. So, we are still faced with raising awareness and educating our peers and ourselves. Without evolution in our application of safe trafficking techniques, we would continue to have the same problems so many people are discussing. Even faced with regulations, policies and all of the related, one violation can hurt someone. And, it can occur anywhere…in the swoop lane, over the pit, on the beach, anywhere. Though I am sure I take his statement out of context, like wrightskyguy said “Yeah, it's not the swoopers problem, it's everyone else”. And to some degree he is right. This is not a swoopers problem…this is everyone’s problem. Some of the authors here like Ray, Ian and Brian have offered some really heavy insight. And the most common thing brought to the table is awareness and education. Awareness and education is what helped all other disciplines in this sport evolve. Awareness and education are also what evolved us into much safer skydivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #49 August 5, 2007 Quote Quote We as competitive swoopers Ray know this is a no no ... time for everyone else to start being more proactive in creating separation up there. ***Yeah, it's not the swoopers problem, it's everyone else. Please where did I say that it is "not the swoopers problem"? It's everyone's responsibility to create separation. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #50 August 5, 2007 Quote not everyone is 21cell cross-braced, and not everyone is 2:1 LOL ... that's right I'm 27cell cross-braced and 2.5:1 Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 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
strop45 0 #47 August 4, 2007 QuoteThe slow canopies flying traditional patterns can still collide with each other if you try to land all at the same time. Agreed, although the higher the closing speed, then the less time for either pilot to avoid a collision. Slower canopies moving at similar speeds and flying the same pattern will have more time to alter course, while canopies flying different patterns or with different speeds will have less time. This is just common sense isn't it?The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -- Albert Einstein Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #48 August 5, 2007 While these statements are accurate, they are not absolute. Historically, more canopy collisions occur outside of swooping. In most instances, swooping is not the cause for canopy collisions. It is simply the "flavor of the week". A couple of our friends died tragically and now many people believe that swooping causes canopy collisions. And swooping has been identified inaccurately as the primary cause for canopy collisions while non-swoop collisions have generally gone without address. Back to canopy collisions during swooping; higher closing speeds, slower canopies, different patterns can occur in the main traffic or in a segregated swooping area. Thus, you are still faced with similar problems. Who is swooping, how are they performing it, how do we stack the pattern? I am sure that we don't want to believe that all swooping will be consistent even in a swoop area, right?!? Not everyone in the swoop area will be performing a 270deg, not everyone is 21cell cross-braced, and not everyone is 2:1. So, the same inherent difficulties are present in the swooping area as would be in the main drag. So, we are still faced with raising awareness and educating our peers and ourselves. Without evolution in our application of safe trafficking techniques, we would continue to have the same problems so many people are discussing. Even faced with regulations, policies and all of the related, one violation can hurt someone. And, it can occur anywhere…in the swoop lane, over the pit, on the beach, anywhere. Though I am sure I take his statement out of context, like wrightskyguy said “Yeah, it's not the swoopers problem, it's everyone else”. And to some degree he is right. This is not a swoopers problem…this is everyone’s problem. Some of the authors here like Ray, Ian and Brian have offered some really heavy insight. And the most common thing brought to the table is awareness and education. Awareness and education is what helped all other disciplines in this sport evolve. Awareness and education are also what evolved us into much safer skydivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #49 August 5, 2007 Quote Quote We as competitive swoopers Ray know this is a no no ... time for everyone else to start being more proactive in creating separation up there. ***Yeah, it's not the swoopers problem, it's everyone else. Please where did I say that it is "not the swoopers problem"? It's everyone's responsibility to create separation. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #50 August 5, 2007 Quote not everyone is 21cell cross-braced, and not everyone is 2:1 LOL ... that's right I'm 27cell cross-braced and 2.5:1 Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
