kallend 2,125 #26 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Now there is a exit order theory on seperation, easy fix, more time before exit, Freeflyers fall straight down, belly flyers move more, the answer: more exit time, and im only talking a few more seconds, if a 3 way freefly with sub 100 sqft canopies is exiting before your group of 5 belly flyers with 200sqft canopies, have the belly group give you a few more seconds and exit after, in all reality, the freeflyers will be open already and decended enough to be no problem,and the belly flyers will take more time in the door anyway. OK, how many is "a few more seconds" if the plane is at 14,000ft and the upper winds are 25kt (not unusual at that altitude)? A few more than what?... 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 billvon 3,090 #27 July 20, 2007 >Freeflyers fall straight down, belly flyers move more, the answer: more >exit time, and im only talking a few more seconds . . . In pretty normal cases you're talking 15 seconds. Are you really willing to wait 15 seconds? That's not a few seconds. That's One one thousand Two one thousand Three one thousand Four one thousand Five one thousand Six one thousand Seven one thousand Eight one thousand Nine one thousand Ten one thousand Eleven one thousand Twelve one thousand Then climb out (assuming a 3-4 second climbout) I have rarely seen a planeload of people willing to wait 15 seconds to give adequate separation. Generally by 5-6 seconds people are screaming at you. And if you persist, you get a talking to by the DZO because you're "making people land out." So all in all a bad strategy (IMO.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #28 July 20, 2007 QuoteBut isn't it the guys with 1000's of jumps who are causing these accidents? You really think they are going to sit these guys down in the office and have a "chat" about their canopy behavior? This is all fall out from a problem that was begining 10 years ago. And yeah if DZO's, S&TA's, and Instructors sit people down and refuse to let them get away with this behavior, then there will be a positive effect.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #29 July 20, 2007 >And yeah if DZO's, S&TA's, and Instructors sit people down and refuse >to let them get away with this behavior, then there will be a positive effect. Of course, if the DZO jumps an accuracy canopy (when he jumps at all) and the S+TA is the guy doing 270's through traffic, nothing will happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #30 July 20, 2007 Do you have proof of this?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #31 July 20, 2007 > Do you have proof of this? That it's hard to enforce rules when the S+TA tasked with doing so is the one breaking them? Nope. If you believe that it is easy to enforce DZ rules when the people you hope will enforce them are the ones breaking them - so be it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #32 July 20, 2007 Do you have an example? I do.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #33 July 20, 2007 I do. At a recent boogie, announcements were made daily on landing pattern compliance....with one exception, it was the local AFFIs doing the dirty deeds. None of them were "talked to". My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #34 July 20, 2007 B: However, this section does not prohibit manuevers if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property. _________________________________________________ The problem, as I see it, is that even St. Peter probably hasn't met a dead swooper who didn't say "I looked around like any reasonable person and I didn't see anyone and I was sure I had room...."If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #35 July 20, 2007 Quote>Freeflyers fall straight down, belly flyers move more, the answer: more >exit time, and im only talking a few more seconds . . . So all in all a bad strategy (IMO.) A lousy strategy (people continue to want to sacrifice the danger of freefall collisions), but it has the right idea inside it. Otherwise a great post. A good point to take from it is that canopy descent should be considered "within" a discipline. "Largest to smallest" is dumb: For canopy considerations - I'd rather see the 4 way with sub 100 ft2 canopies get out first before the 16 way with a bunch of boats. I'd rather see the 2way freestyle with 87's out before the 6 way flock of newbies with 170's. (sadly, on a ---standard jump run and wind day---, I'll still rather see that 16way out before the 2 way. I don't want to see freefall collisions of my friends). For separation - why put the two biggest groups out next to each other at the beginning, why not stick a 2 way or two in between to increase separation between the big groups? Forget that most groups have a mix of tiny and big canopies, so it's not as straightforward as most propose It's Nuts to say belly takes longer in the door than Freefly too. I've seen ridiculous examples of both. I've seen many freeflyers sit in the door forever doing breathing drills at each other pretending they are 'zenlike' before tumbling within the first 3 seconds. I've seen 4-way teams with idiotic 12 step counts, and I've seen big groups of all disciplines do the stupidist and longest climbouts in history. Big groups take longer (always). Serious competitors take longer (sometimes). Slow people take longer. I've also seen efficient belly 4-way teams and 3way FF teams get out and off very fast. (And, instead of proposing people take extra time to justify inefficient and potentially dangerous exit order, why not simply push for cross wind jumpruns to allow more flexibility between fallrate groups. We could emphasiz canopy descent more that way at least. Then, they just need to get out and get their swoop and stop sitting in brakes stacking up the 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 rehmwa 2 #36 July 20, 2007 QuoteYou have no idea what you are saying and you have taken my statements completely out of context. Your call, hukaboo. I did take your comment out of context, because that position will lead to some really gross abuses of the point that you choose to ignore. What's so hard about this: "Lower jumper has right of way. This is completely different from the point that "right of way" is not carte blanche to fly stupid or in areas they shouldn't be in." You are concerned about the Lower Jumper feeling justified to do unsafe things (like a public bus pulling out in front of traffic and forcing them to clear the way - because the local 'law' says 'buses have the right of way'). Say it that way and enforce that people need to fly smart rather than putting out a falsehood that defies common sense. (because if the low guy will do it just because, so will the high guy if you switch the rule - and that's more dangerous, not equal or less, to take the right of way misperception away from the guy with the blind spot. I also wish we could 'educate' away the misuse, but for each guy you train, another is graduating and has an attitude, or is learning a neat new discipline and has an attitude.....) (and just because you don't see it, doesn't mean I don't 'know') ... 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 ZigZagMarquis 9 #37 July 20, 2007 Quote Sentence A, cited above, will empower every jumper to say to another jumper that does s-turns, spirals or 270s in a conventional pattern, that he is endangering others. Jan, et all, We've never needed a BSR or big USPA meeting to do that. The fact that DZOs, S&TAs, JMs, Instructors and us other up-jumpers, etc., haven't been doing that with those that do so (kindly at first with increasing sternness with the "problem children") is part of the reason why we are where we are. Squashing the attitude that the landing are is a "free for all" would be a step in the right direction... whether your jumping a Widow-maker 57 or a Nylon Overcast 380, pilot your canopy responsibly in the landing pattern or you're gonna get a talkin' to, chewed out or your ass kicked (depending on how badly you fuck-up), BSR or no BSRs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #38 July 20, 2007 Quote whether your jumping a Widow-maker 57 or a Nylon Overcast 380, pilot your canopy responsibly in the landing pattern or you're gonna get a talkin' to, chewed out or your ass kicked (depending on how badly you fuck-up), BSR or no BSRs. You mean a RULE that says you can NOT do whatever you want, when ever you want?? That might hurt someone’s feelings. Dont you know that we are going to Educate everyone and this problem is just going to go away? You know how well those skydivers take advice and listen to others. They always make the right decision and never make mistakes. And with all this "Education", they are going to be even more perfect.In the mean time, Keep a baseball bat in the landing area and use it when needed. Maybe when busting a 270 or 180 through Slow traffic ALWAYS equals a femur whether they pull it off or not, Then maybe we will get somewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 16 #39 July 20, 2007 Quote For years I filmed 4way and flew a velo 84. I would always land last (not after students or tandems of course, but last of the fun jumpers/teams in my exit group) this shows that the small canopy excuse is a bullshit excuse that people that dont know how to fly their canopy use when they cut someone off. Were you pulling in the center at breakoff? That would give you lots of altitude to land last. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #40 July 20, 2007 >For canopy considerations - I'd rather see the 4 way with sub 100 ft2 >canopies get out first before the 16 way with a bunch of boats. I don't think that's important for two reasons. One, the first group out (at most DZ's) will have an OK spot, but it will be sorta short. That means the sub-100 foot canopy guys will have to work a bit at getting back - which means they lose some of their ability to get higher/lower compared to other canopies. Two, putting that 4 way out first will give them about 10-15 seconds of separation, which translates to a few hundred feet of vertical separation. That will be completely wiped out if that 4 way pulls 1000 feet higher because they have canopies that NEED to open higher. Most people under Velocity 87's pull higher than people under Pilot 150's. In many ways the ideal situation with different sized canopies is to have everyone open at exactly the same time, at exactly the same altitude, but with decent horizontal separation. That way they naturally space themselves, and like canopies are landing together. That won't happen unless people do bizarre things like have the first group be wingsuits but fall straight down, and the last be a speed skydiving competition. >For separation - why put the two biggest groups out next to each other >at the beginning, why not stick a 2 way or two in between to increase >separation between the big groups? That's fine - provided that the 2 way has the discipline to wait much longer than they ordinarily would, to take into account the wider "track area" around the 16-way. Often this isn't done because it can mean fewer groups out per pass. >Forget that most groups have a mix of tiny and big canopies, so it's not >as straightforward as most propose Exactly. You add in that, and the usual bad spots, confused jumpers, changing breakoff altitudes, and you're generally left with people open at somewhat random altitudes and a wide mix of canopy sizes. Keeping freefall separation will always be the #1 worry when talking about exit order, with canopy separation in the pattern coming in a distant second. It's a great thing to talk about in the airplane, but certainly not worth sacrificing exit separation by (for example) putting the high-pulling, small-canopy-jumping 2 way freefly out before the 16-way belly. You do that, you might just end up with a 16-way whistling by two high small canopies. And even if that happens and there's no collision, you now have your two high pullers with small canopies directly above 16 slower canopies. >It's Nuts to say belly takes longer in the door than Freefly too. I've >seen ridiculous examples of both. Definitely true! I've also seen examples of two or three freeflyers getting in the door then planning the dive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #41 July 20, 2007 Yup, yup, uh huh, yes, yup. i agree Sometimes we even put the specks out second so they (we) open up directly over the top and can get out and down and out of the way immediately while the first group has to hold in order to work their way back. The point is, I have no issue taking in consideration canopy work within a freefall grouping. Just not between. ... 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 hukturn 0 #42 July 20, 2007 BillVon and Remwha; It looks like Bill understands what I am saying. But, he can not cite any non-student USPA reg which states that the lower jumper has the right of way...it just does not exist. Unfortunately, Bill, because the term "significant" is interpretable, it is debatable that there are "significant numbers" of deaths in this category. But, I would have to agree with your statement indicating that judgement and skill may equally help to avoid this type of incident incident. But, what about the others? This is not still just your personal quest against the Page/Hollar incident, is it?!? Just to clarify; The statement is with regard to how we adopt "rules" as policy. The lower jumper does nto have the right of way by and USPA policy other than in the ISP's which do not govern non-students. But still, our forefathers thought this was a great idea so they adopted it as standard practice. I like it...it works...it is a great idea...but it is not a USPA policy. Now, our forefathers taught (told, actually) us and taught us that the lower jumper has the right of way. So, we accepted it and propagated the belief. And, thus...education. So, we accepted a non-policy as gospel and it has probably saved alot of people. But this is a clear example that we do not need USPA policy to be safe and to do the right thing. We just need to make people believe that it is the right thing to do. Now, DZ policy is a different story. There may be a rule at the DZ which states that the lower jumper has the right of way. So, your assumption that I hook past students is debunked. In fact, I believe I am just about one of the safest skydivers you may ever meet. So, perhaps you should stop by my DZ and meet me before you assume that I put others at risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #43 July 20, 2007 They should "sit them down". And if they don't, then you should sit them down. You reap what you sow. If you want to jump at an unsafe DZ with unsafe people, let unsafe acts go unaddressed. Accidents, of any type, are not restricted to any particular experience level. So, while your statement is true, it is not the sole cause for accidents. I am sure there are many other commonalities if we investigate further. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #44 July 20, 2007 >But, he can not cite any non-student USPA reg which states that the >lower jumper has the right of way... Section 6.1, Group freefall C 3 c: "The low person has the right-of-way, both in freefall and under canopy." >The lower jumper does nto have the right of way by and USPA >policy other than in the ISP's . . . See above. That wasn't from the ISP section. >So, your assumption that I hook past students is debunked. Sounds like you DO believe that low jumpers have the right of way! Cool. I think your statement that you didn't think that was the case was getting people worried. Edited to add - I think the point of your post is that BSR's (or SIM recommendations, or ISP teaching points) do no good without education that gets them out there, and implementation that gets them to happen, and I definitely agree with that. Getting anything on paper, whether it's in a BSR, or in the SIM, or in the group member pledge, is just the first step. All it does is establish a standard that we can point to. Now the hard work of actually implementing these changes starts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites hukturn 0 #45 July 21, 2007 Section 6.1C3c is a a continuation (or building block) from the recommendations of Section 5. Therefore, it is a "Recommendation", not a "requirement" or "regulation". Thus making it a commonly accepted safety procedure but not a USPA directed policy. In fact, Ection 6 Summary states "Information in this section provide _guidance_ for...". It does not state "provide _requirements_ for..." and thus indicating that it is not policy. I made the statement with the intention of using it as an illustration that we can self-educate without USPA intervention. I did not realize that it would introduce a shift in the discussion of the thread. I believe that Bill and I see eye to eye in that nothing will work without education and application from DZ Management. I simply believe that it can be done at a local level without a USPA policy. I absolutely provide right of way for lower jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #46 July 23, 2007 You are really making this complicated. I don't think USPA has the level of power or authority that you seem to believe it has. BSRs are really just a place to codify a lot of good practices and then they still need to be cut in at the local level until they become culture. Now if you read the results from this last meeting, they left it off really excited about a diluted down statement that doesn't have any teeth anyway other than to encourage people figure it out and make it happen locally. This isn't "law", it's club policy. Big difference. But, the "CLUB" (club = USPA) might pull your membership and then DZOs might decide you can't play with them anymore if one does stupid things. Edit: I bet you are very safe. Thoughtful people on this subject usually are. ... 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 Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 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 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,090 #27 July 20, 2007 >Freeflyers fall straight down, belly flyers move more, the answer: more >exit time, and im only talking a few more seconds . . . In pretty normal cases you're talking 15 seconds. Are you really willing to wait 15 seconds? That's not a few seconds. That's One one thousand Two one thousand Three one thousand Four one thousand Five one thousand Six one thousand Seven one thousand Eight one thousand Nine one thousand Ten one thousand Eleven one thousand Twelve one thousand Then climb out (assuming a 3-4 second climbout) I have rarely seen a planeload of people willing to wait 15 seconds to give adequate separation. Generally by 5-6 seconds people are screaming at you. And if you persist, you get a talking to by the DZO because you're "making people land out." So all in all a bad strategy (IMO.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #28 July 20, 2007 QuoteBut isn't it the guys with 1000's of jumps who are causing these accidents? You really think they are going to sit these guys down in the office and have a "chat" about their canopy behavior? This is all fall out from a problem that was begining 10 years ago. And yeah if DZO's, S&TA's, and Instructors sit people down and refuse to let them get away with this behavior, then there will be a positive effect.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #29 July 20, 2007 >And yeah if DZO's, S&TA's, and Instructors sit people down and refuse >to let them get away with this behavior, then there will be a positive effect. Of course, if the DZO jumps an accuracy canopy (when he jumps at all) and the S+TA is the guy doing 270's through traffic, nothing will happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #30 July 20, 2007 Do you have proof of this?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #31 July 20, 2007 > Do you have proof of this? That it's hard to enforce rules when the S+TA tasked with doing so is the one breaking them? Nope. If you believe that it is easy to enforce DZ rules when the people you hope will enforce them are the ones breaking them - so be it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #32 July 20, 2007 Do you have an example? I do.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #33 July 20, 2007 I do. At a recent boogie, announcements were made daily on landing pattern compliance....with one exception, it was the local AFFIs doing the dirty deeds. None of them were "talked to". My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #34 July 20, 2007 B: However, this section does not prohibit manuevers if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property. _________________________________________________ The problem, as I see it, is that even St. Peter probably hasn't met a dead swooper who didn't say "I looked around like any reasonable person and I didn't see anyone and I was sure I had room...."If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 July 20, 2007 Quote>Freeflyers fall straight down, belly flyers move more, the answer: more >exit time, and im only talking a few more seconds . . . So all in all a bad strategy (IMO.) A lousy strategy (people continue to want to sacrifice the danger of freefall collisions), but it has the right idea inside it. Otherwise a great post. A good point to take from it is that canopy descent should be considered "within" a discipline. "Largest to smallest" is dumb: For canopy considerations - I'd rather see the 4 way with sub 100 ft2 canopies get out first before the 16 way with a bunch of boats. I'd rather see the 2way freestyle with 87's out before the 6 way flock of newbies with 170's. (sadly, on a ---standard jump run and wind day---, I'll still rather see that 16way out before the 2 way. I don't want to see freefall collisions of my friends). For separation - why put the two biggest groups out next to each other at the beginning, why not stick a 2 way or two in between to increase separation between the big groups? Forget that most groups have a mix of tiny and big canopies, so it's not as straightforward as most propose It's Nuts to say belly takes longer in the door than Freefly too. I've seen ridiculous examples of both. I've seen many freeflyers sit in the door forever doing breathing drills at each other pretending they are 'zenlike' before tumbling within the first 3 seconds. I've seen 4-way teams with idiotic 12 step counts, and I've seen big groups of all disciplines do the stupidist and longest climbouts in history. Big groups take longer (always). Serious competitors take longer (sometimes). Slow people take longer. I've also seen efficient belly 4-way teams and 3way FF teams get out and off very fast. (And, instead of proposing people take extra time to justify inefficient and potentially dangerous exit order, why not simply push for cross wind jumpruns to allow more flexibility between fallrate groups. We could emphasiz canopy descent more that way at least. Then, they just need to get out and get their swoop and stop sitting in brakes stacking up the 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
rehmwa 2 #36 July 20, 2007 QuoteYou have no idea what you are saying and you have taken my statements completely out of context. Your call, hukaboo. I did take your comment out of context, because that position will lead to some really gross abuses of the point that you choose to ignore. What's so hard about this: "Lower jumper has right of way. This is completely different from the point that "right of way" is not carte blanche to fly stupid or in areas they shouldn't be in." You are concerned about the Lower Jumper feeling justified to do unsafe things (like a public bus pulling out in front of traffic and forcing them to clear the way - because the local 'law' says 'buses have the right of way'). Say it that way and enforce that people need to fly smart rather than putting out a falsehood that defies common sense. (because if the low guy will do it just because, so will the high guy if you switch the rule - and that's more dangerous, not equal or less, to take the right of way misperception away from the guy with the blind spot. I also wish we could 'educate' away the misuse, but for each guy you train, another is graduating and has an attitude, or is learning a neat new discipline and has an attitude.....) (and just because you don't see it, doesn't mean I don't 'know') ... 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
ZigZagMarquis 9 #37 July 20, 2007 Quote Sentence A, cited above, will empower every jumper to say to another jumper that does s-turns, spirals or 270s in a conventional pattern, that he is endangering others. Jan, et all, We've never needed a BSR or big USPA meeting to do that. The fact that DZOs, S&TAs, JMs, Instructors and us other up-jumpers, etc., haven't been doing that with those that do so (kindly at first with increasing sternness with the "problem children") is part of the reason why we are where we are. Squashing the attitude that the landing are is a "free for all" would be a step in the right direction... whether your jumping a Widow-maker 57 or a Nylon Overcast 380, pilot your canopy responsibly in the landing pattern or you're gonna get a talkin' to, chewed out or your ass kicked (depending on how badly you fuck-up), BSR or no BSRs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #38 July 20, 2007 Quote whether your jumping a Widow-maker 57 or a Nylon Overcast 380, pilot your canopy responsibly in the landing pattern or you're gonna get a talkin' to, chewed out or your ass kicked (depending on how badly you fuck-up), BSR or no BSRs. You mean a RULE that says you can NOT do whatever you want, when ever you want?? That might hurt someone’s feelings. Dont you know that we are going to Educate everyone and this problem is just going to go away? You know how well those skydivers take advice and listen to others. They always make the right decision and never make mistakes. And with all this "Education", they are going to be even more perfect.In the mean time, Keep a baseball bat in the landing area and use it when needed. Maybe when busting a 270 or 180 through Slow traffic ALWAYS equals a femur whether they pull it off or not, Then maybe we will get somewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #39 July 20, 2007 Quote For years I filmed 4way and flew a velo 84. I would always land last (not after students or tandems of course, but last of the fun jumpers/teams in my exit group) this shows that the small canopy excuse is a bullshit excuse that people that dont know how to fly their canopy use when they cut someone off. Were you pulling in the center at breakoff? That would give you lots of altitude to land last. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #40 July 20, 2007 >For canopy considerations - I'd rather see the 4 way with sub 100 ft2 >canopies get out first before the 16 way with a bunch of boats. I don't think that's important for two reasons. One, the first group out (at most DZ's) will have an OK spot, but it will be sorta short. That means the sub-100 foot canopy guys will have to work a bit at getting back - which means they lose some of their ability to get higher/lower compared to other canopies. Two, putting that 4 way out first will give them about 10-15 seconds of separation, which translates to a few hundred feet of vertical separation. That will be completely wiped out if that 4 way pulls 1000 feet higher because they have canopies that NEED to open higher. Most people under Velocity 87's pull higher than people under Pilot 150's. In many ways the ideal situation with different sized canopies is to have everyone open at exactly the same time, at exactly the same altitude, but with decent horizontal separation. That way they naturally space themselves, and like canopies are landing together. That won't happen unless people do bizarre things like have the first group be wingsuits but fall straight down, and the last be a speed skydiving competition. >For separation - why put the two biggest groups out next to each other >at the beginning, why not stick a 2 way or two in between to increase >separation between the big groups? That's fine - provided that the 2 way has the discipline to wait much longer than they ordinarily would, to take into account the wider "track area" around the 16-way. Often this isn't done because it can mean fewer groups out per pass. >Forget that most groups have a mix of tiny and big canopies, so it's not >as straightforward as most propose Exactly. You add in that, and the usual bad spots, confused jumpers, changing breakoff altitudes, and you're generally left with people open at somewhat random altitudes and a wide mix of canopy sizes. Keeping freefall separation will always be the #1 worry when talking about exit order, with canopy separation in the pattern coming in a distant second. It's a great thing to talk about in the airplane, but certainly not worth sacrificing exit separation by (for example) putting the high-pulling, small-canopy-jumping 2 way freefly out before the 16-way belly. You do that, you might just end up with a 16-way whistling by two high small canopies. And even if that happens and there's no collision, you now have your two high pullers with small canopies directly above 16 slower canopies. >It's Nuts to say belly takes longer in the door than Freefly too. I've >seen ridiculous examples of both. Definitely true! I've also seen examples of two or three freeflyers getting in the door then planning the dive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 July 20, 2007 Yup, yup, uh huh, yes, yup. i agree Sometimes we even put the specks out second so they (we) open up directly over the top and can get out and down and out of the way immediately while the first group has to hold in order to work their way back. The point is, I have no issue taking in consideration canopy work within a freefall grouping. Just not between. ... 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
hukturn 0 #42 July 20, 2007 BillVon and Remwha; It looks like Bill understands what I am saying. But, he can not cite any non-student USPA reg which states that the lower jumper has the right of way...it just does not exist. Unfortunately, Bill, because the term "significant" is interpretable, it is debatable that there are "significant numbers" of deaths in this category. But, I would have to agree with your statement indicating that judgement and skill may equally help to avoid this type of incident incident. But, what about the others? This is not still just your personal quest against the Page/Hollar incident, is it?!? Just to clarify; The statement is with regard to how we adopt "rules" as policy. The lower jumper does nto have the right of way by and USPA policy other than in the ISP's which do not govern non-students. But still, our forefathers thought this was a great idea so they adopted it as standard practice. I like it...it works...it is a great idea...but it is not a USPA policy. Now, our forefathers taught (told, actually) us and taught us that the lower jumper has the right of way. So, we accepted it and propagated the belief. And, thus...education. So, we accepted a non-policy as gospel and it has probably saved alot of people. But this is a clear example that we do not need USPA policy to be safe and to do the right thing. We just need to make people believe that it is the right thing to do. Now, DZ policy is a different story. There may be a rule at the DZ which states that the lower jumper has the right of way. So, your assumption that I hook past students is debunked. In fact, I believe I am just about one of the safest skydivers you may ever meet. So, perhaps you should stop by my DZ and meet me before you assume that I put others at risk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #43 July 20, 2007 They should "sit them down". And if they don't, then you should sit them down. You reap what you sow. If you want to jump at an unsafe DZ with unsafe people, let unsafe acts go unaddressed. Accidents, of any type, are not restricted to any particular experience level. So, while your statement is true, it is not the sole cause for accidents. I am sure there are many other commonalities if we investigate further. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #44 July 20, 2007 >But, he can not cite any non-student USPA reg which states that the >lower jumper has the right of way... Section 6.1, Group freefall C 3 c: "The low person has the right-of-way, both in freefall and under canopy." >The lower jumper does nto have the right of way by and USPA >policy other than in the ISP's . . . See above. That wasn't from the ISP section. >So, your assumption that I hook past students is debunked. Sounds like you DO believe that low jumpers have the right of way! Cool. I think your statement that you didn't think that was the case was getting people worried. Edited to add - I think the point of your post is that BSR's (or SIM recommendations, or ISP teaching points) do no good without education that gets them out there, and implementation that gets them to happen, and I definitely agree with that. Getting anything on paper, whether it's in a BSR, or in the SIM, or in the group member pledge, is just the first step. All it does is establish a standard that we can point to. Now the hard work of actually implementing these changes starts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hukturn 0 #45 July 21, 2007 Section 6.1C3c is a a continuation (or building block) from the recommendations of Section 5. Therefore, it is a "Recommendation", not a "requirement" or "regulation". Thus making it a commonly accepted safety procedure but not a USPA directed policy. In fact, Ection 6 Summary states "Information in this section provide _guidance_ for...". It does not state "provide _requirements_ for..." and thus indicating that it is not policy. I made the statement with the intention of using it as an illustration that we can self-educate without USPA intervention. I did not realize that it would introduce a shift in the discussion of the thread. I believe that Bill and I see eye to eye in that nothing will work without education and application from DZ Management. I simply believe that it can be done at a local level without a USPA policy. I absolutely provide right of way for lower jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 July 23, 2007 You are really making this complicated. I don't think USPA has the level of power or authority that you seem to believe it has. BSRs are really just a place to codify a lot of good practices and then they still need to be cut in at the local level until they become culture. Now if you read the results from this last meeting, they left it off really excited about a diluted down statement that doesn't have any teeth anyway other than to encourage people figure it out and make it happen locally. This isn't "law", it's club policy. Big difference. But, the "CLUB" (club = USPA) might pull your membership and then DZOs might decide you can't play with them anymore if one does stupid things. Edit: I bet you are very safe. Thoughtful people on this subject usually are. ... 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
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)