Mixing disciplines in landing areas (was: swoop/accuracy poll)

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

That's exactly what I was asking about... accuracy guys (tuffet thumpers) in the swoop lane.

I don't mind sharing the load with the accuracy guys (seeing as I'm on the ground getting ready to pack before they even land). But it's rather brain dead to be suggesting that we put the accuracy tuffet in the middle of the swoop lanes. You really don't like us do you ... WTF

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,114]

>But it's rather brain dead to be suggesting that we put the accuracy tuffet
>in the middle of the swoop lanes. You really don't like us do you ... WTF

I've been trading some PM's with a swooper who wants it in the middle of the main landing area. Why do you want to see RW jumpers killed? Do you really hate most jumpers that much?

Rhetorical question. The best idea is, of course, to put it in an out of the way corner somewhere, as Eloy did during Nationals, or as Skydive Long Island did. A second-best idea is to put it in the swoop area or the main area and sequence jumpers accordingly. Since the main area is used on every jump, and the swoop area is used less frequently, then it might make sense to put it in the swoop area at moderately sized DZ's. At DZ's with room for only one area, of course, then sequencing becomes a much tougher job - but these are also generally the DZ's with smaller loads, so that makes it easier.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Of course each DZ will have their own real estate and traffic issues (one size does not fit all). If people want to put the accuracy tuffet adjacent to the swoop lanes, then I don't see a huge issue. Obviously the swooping and accuracy hop n' pop jumpers must be sequenced with each other and it appears to make sense to put the swoopers out before the accuracy guys and gals.

Now if I am misunderstanding the stance of some, then I am sorry. But when reading this thread, it appears that some are talking about putting the accuracy tuffet "in" the swoop lanes. I'm sorry but that is just a dumb idea if they are indeed suggesting this. At a large Eloy type DZ, having an accuracy tuffet in the middle of the main landing area is not smart. But at a smaller DZ, what is the huge harm? Are people's canopy control so poor that they can't avoid this 10x10 (or whatever dimesion it actually is) object?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,114]

>At a large Eloy type DZ, having an accuracy tuffet in the middle of the
>main landing area is not smart. But at a smaller DZ, what is the huge harm?

Not much, if sequencing is observed. Putting the tuffet in the middle of the main area _or_ swoop area can work, as long as loads are careful with exit orders/altitudes.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Putting the tuffet in the middle of the main area _or_ swoop area can work

Putting an accuracy tuffet adjacent to the swooping lanes isn't an issue for those who know how to enter the swoop course consistently. But putting an accuracy tuffet in the middle of the swoop course? Why am I the only one to think this is just not smart. Competitive swoopers come into the entry gates at 60+ mph and then they have to pop up or carve away from this 3 foot tall tuffet? Surely people aren't suggesting this are they?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

At Raeford, the tuffet (when it was there all the time) sat right in the middle of the pea gravel pit which in turn is right in the center of the main landing area. At Z-hills, the pea gravel pit is right out in the middle of the main landing area, past the swoop pond and swoop lane. There is also an accuracy tuffet on the other side of the hangar in the alternate landing area which is generally used by the SOCOM parachute team guys.

[billvon 3,114]

>Surely people aren't suggesting this are they?

Putting a tuffet in the middle of a swoop area makes more sense than putting it in the middle of the main area (more traffic.) Putting it off to the side of either one might be a better idea depending on DZ design. If the DZ's landing areas are carved out of forests it's not practical; the tuffet needs to be away from trees. If it DOES end up in the middle of either area, sequencing is essential.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

If the DZ's landing areas are carved out of forests it's not practical; the tuffet needs to be away from trees.

Any LZ regardless if it's used for swooping, accuracy or just normal loads where people can experience rotars from the trees or buildings is not desired. Obviously if the DZ has no other choice, people must be aware of the potential hazards of the possible rotars. This is an issue for all of us ...

Quote

Putting a tuffet in the middle of a swoop area

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by "swoop area". If you're talking about a general piece of LZ real estate away from the main LZs, then yes I have no issues with an accuracy tuffet adjacent to the swoop course. But to suggest putting a tuffet in a swoop course is just baffling beyond belief (unless of course it's the pond swooping nationals at The Ranch).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 3,114]

>But to suggest putting a tuffet in a swoop course is just baffling beyond belief . . .

Why?

We did this at Brown; there was only one area. The 'swoop course' was right across the middle of the DZ; we'd set up flags sometimes. The peas were in the center as well. Swoopers would land first, then most of the rest of the load would land. Students and our one accuracy jumper would land last. Worked fine, but might not work at a busier DZ.

Edited to add - perhaps we could split this off to a new thread and leave this for the poll itself.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

>But to suggest putting a tuffet in a swoop course is just baffling beyond belief . . .

Why?

Because it's a great big obstacle. I don't think you literally mean to put it in the way of the swoopers though.

Our DZ has the tuffet near the edge of the landing area. There are almost never traffic conflics with accuracy jumpers because they almost always get out low and land after anyone else that got out low. During competitions they usually block off a big area around the tuffet to keep other jumpers away.

Some of the accuracy jumpers would prefer to sit the tuffet on the peas (for drainage), but I hate that... takes away the peas as a target to aim for.

Dave

[billvon 3,114]

>Because it's a great big obstacle. I don't think you literally mean to put
>it in the way of the swoopers though.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, we'd have the peas in the middle of the course, but on the rare occasion we'd haul a tuffet out (right before Nationals, so Linda could get some real practice) we'd put it in the corner of the DZ.

[mnealtx 0]

First off, an announcement:

In my poll, I was in *NO WAY* advocating putting the tuffet in the middle of the swoop lane!!

I thought that my explanation further down the thread explained it well enough, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I put the poll up in response to ematteo's suggestion that the BSR proposal would somehow force accuracy jumpers into the swoop lane. While I certainly can't imagine an accuracy jumper going into the swoop lane (how many DZ's have the pea pit in the swoop area?), I wanted to get a feel for how people thought on the subject.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[phoenixlpr 0]

Why is that so hard to believe that swoopers and accuracy jumpers does not have traffic conflicts? Both kind have ( to have) good canopy skills and good judgement. They have completely different canopies. Where is the problem here? I can not see any.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Why is that so hard to believe that swoopers and accuracy jumpers does not have traffic conflicts? Both kind have ( to have) good canopy skills and good judgement. They have completely different canopies. Where is the problem here? I can not see any.

Because the argument was that swoopers would be put in more danger by that. I'm sort of having a problem seeing how swoopers are going to be put in MORE danger by an accuracy person landing on the ouside of the swoop lane, than by swooping through a normal, more crowded pattern.

Maybe you can explain that to me.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

Maybe you can explain that to me.

Explain what?

Quote

I'm sort of having a problem seeing how swoopers are going to be put in MORE danger by an accuracy person landing on the ouside of the swoop lane, than by swooping through a normal, more crowded pattern.

Who is endangering who?

Swoopers vs. accuracy is something like eskimos vs. penguins. You know not even a starving eskimo would ever eat penguin meat.....

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Because the argument was that swoopers would be put in more danger by that.

I don't read every word in every thread ... so I guess I missed that argument. As long as people aren't talking about putting the accuracy tuffet in the middle of the swoop course, I have no issues whatsoever sharing loads and general landing areas with accuracy jumpers. As long as I can agree with the accuracy guys about the proper landing sequence, it shouldn't be an issue.

Of course my experiences from last summer showed that some of these accuracy guys (not all) didn't feel the same way about me and some of them weren't afraid to voice their negative opinions to me about how much they didn't like the swooping community. I tried to tell them that we had more in common than they thought (like when I BASE jump I fly in a similar manner to them). But they wouldn't listen. To them I was just some punk ass swooper not worthy of their respect (although I am a POPS member ... thank you very much Mar).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[ematteo 0]

Canuck wrote:

Quote

As long as people aren't talking about putting the accuracy tuffet in the middle of the swoop course, I have no issues whatsoever sharing loads and general landing areas with accuracy jumpers. As long as I can agree with the accuracy guys about the proper landing sequence, it shouldn't be an issue.

Billvon wrote http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2832433;#2832433
:

Quote

Putting a tuffet in the middle of a swoop area makes more sense than putting it in the middle of the main area (more traffic.)....

And unfortunately, some of the accuracy guys, along with non-tuffet S-turners, and slow 360 spiral guys are blinded by the "low man has the right of way" mantra. They seem to interpret this as "if I am at a lower altitude, I can cross into your airspace and you have to avoid me no matter what."

This is a great reason to geographically protect "high pattern altitude, speed induced approaches" in swoop areas, and keep all "low and slow" patterns / canopies in the main landing area with box pattern fliers.

Billvon argues that low, slow and unpredictable fliers are better mixed in with swoopers (high initiation altitude, speed induced landings) than with similarly low, slow but predictable fliers. I respect billvon on many things, but this approach is dangerous and wrongheaded. I'll still buy him a beer any day, but the BSR, as written, is a step backwards.

[billvon 3,114]

>Putting a tuffet in the middle of a swoop area makes more sense than
>putting it in the middle of the main area (more traffic.)....

Sorry, I misspoke. Putting the PEAS in a swoop area makes more sense than putting it in the middle of the main area at many DZ's.

>Billvon argues that low, slow and unpredictable fliers are better mixed
>in with swoopers (high initiation altitude, speed induced landings) than
>with similarly low, slow but predictable fliers.

1) I suspect you have never jumped with accuracy jumpers if you consider them "unpredictable." They put swoopers to shame in terms of predictability.

2) I argue that it is easier to separate swoopers (high descent rate) and accuracy jumpers (very low descent rate) in one area than it is to separate either from the standard pattern (which has high to low descent rates.) If you all open at the same altitude, and accuracy and swoopers go for the same area, you'll be landed and halfway packed before the accuracy guys land.

3) By all means, if you choose to do so, create a separate accuracy area and swoop area. Problem solved no matter what order they exit in.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

Because the argument was that swoopers would be put in more danger by that.

I don't read every word in every thread ... so I guess I missed that argument. As long as people aren't talking about putting the accuracy tuffet in the middle of the swoop course, I have no issues whatsoever sharing loads and general landing areas with accuracy jumpers. As long as I can agree with the accuracy guys about the proper landing sequence, it shouldn't be an issue.

Of course my experiences from last summer showed that some of these accuracy guys (not all) didn't feel the same way about me and some of them weren't afraid to voice their negative opinions to me about how much they didn't like the swooping community. I tried to tell them that we had more in common than they thought (like when I BASE jump I fly in a similar manner to them). But they wouldn't listen. To them I was just some punk ass swooper not worthy of their respect (although I am a POPS member ... thank you very much Mar).

Casual accuracy jumper here--no tuffet. I have no problem sharing a landing area with swoopers. Swoopers will generally be on the ground way before I even get into the pattern. I don't see a conflict whether it's a hop 'n' pop or a high one. In fact, my guess is that I'd be safer landing in the swoop area except when I'm at a large boogie with multiple large aircraft in the air simultaneously.

Walt

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

I understand the desire to "do something" in the wake of many tragic canopy accidents.

But the conflicts perceived to be killing people are between folks landing at dramatically different speeds (5x), and starting their patterns at dramatically different altitudes (4x). The proposed BSRs maintain / exacerbate this problem for a large subset of jumpers.

If we want to address this safety concern, let's focus on grouping landings of at least similar approach speed (actively speed induced vs. non-speed induced) and initiation altitude for final turn (>500 ft vs <500 ft?).

The benefit is increased safety for everyone. Swoopers don't have to worry about intrusion of a lower, slower, unpredictable jumper into their airspace (even with multiple plane loads). Box pattern and other lower, slower folks won't have to worry about being taken out from above by a swooper.

This leaves a few unpredictable people (and predictable but different accuracy folks) in the main landing area, but they will all be going about the same speed and initiating turns to final at the same height. Inconvenient? Maybe. Deadly? probably not. In any event, those conflicts are not the incidents that sparked this furor in the first place.

Evan

[billvon 3,114]

>It seems that conflicts perceived to be killing people are between
>folks landing at dramatically different speeds (5x), and starting their
>patterns at dramatically different altitudes (4x).

?? How do you get 5X/4X? A 90 degree front riser turn to final is not 5x slower than the same canopy doing a 270 degree turn. I'd buy 2X perhaps.

And are you really starting your pattern at 4000 feet? If so then a lot of the problem goes away - you will be landing after everyone else starts theirs at around 1000.

>If we want to address this safety concern, let's focus on grouping landings
>of at least similar approach speed (actively speed induced vs. non-speed
>induced) and initiation altitude for final turn (>500 ft vs <500 ft?).

No. The problem is not speed, as I've explained before. 400+ people can land safely even with widely varying wing loadings and speeds. The problem is pattern - what direction everyone is flying before they land.

>Swoopers don't have to worry about intrusion of a lower, slower,
>unpredictable jumper into their airspace (even with multiple plane loads).

If you're worried about this, then make a separate area for accuracy. Problem solved.

>Box pattern and other lower, slower folks won't have to worry about being
>taken out from above by a swooper.

Agreed there.

> in the main landing area, but they will all be going about the same
>speed and initiating turns to final at the same height.

Again, I think you have to watch some accuracy jumpers land. I don't know what your mental image of them is, but they do NOT fly normal patterns, they do not have the same approach angle on final, they do not turn onto final at the same height and they do not fly the same speed as other jumpers. Indeed, Bryan Burke has had to yell at quite a few accuracy jumpers (including Lew Sanborn, D-1) who flew such an approach in the main area at Eloy. They are not compatible with standard approaches. Two jumpers flying slow canopies, one on an accuracy approach, collided at Eloy some time back. Both died. It was not their speed difference, or their initiation height, or anything else. It was that they were not flying the pattern.

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

Any solution we come up with has to make both swoopers and non-swoopers safer. There are a lot of swoopers, and if you only focus on non-swooper safety, it harms the sport.

If you put swoopers in a separate landing area, max speed differential in any give area is probably 2x. If you stick slow canopies / patterns into that swooping area, you create a speed differential of maybe 5x. Why would you solve the problem for the main landing area only to sabotage responsible swoopers?

I mis-typed on pattern altitude. I was referring to initiation of the turn to final. At our DZ, we teach students to turn to final at 300 feet. Most experienced box-pattern jumpers turn to final lower (150 feet?). A swooper under a cross-braced canopy will begin his/her turn to final between 600 and 1110 feet. This is a huge difference, and is, I believe the main reason for swooper - non-swooper conflicts.

Quote

>Swoopers don't have to worry about intrusion of a lower, slower,
>unpredictable jumper into their airspace (even with multiple plane loads).

If you're worried about this, then make a separate area for accuracy. Problem solved.

Real estate is precious, and there is not room for 500 different landing areas. If you must separate out areas, do it in a way that keeps both groups as safe as possible. The headline problems today are 1) massive differences in altitude of turn to final and 2) massive differences in speed.

Quote

>It seems that conflicts perceived to be killing people are between
>folks landing at dramatically different speeds (5x), and starting their
>patterns at dramatically different altitudes (4x).

?? How do you get 5X/4X? A 90 degree front riser turn to final is not 5x slower than the same canopy doing a 270 degree turn. I'd buy 2X perhaps.

And are you really starting your pattern at 4000 feet? If so then a lot of the problem goes away - you will be landing after everyone else starts theirs at around 1000.

>If we want to address this safety concern, let's focus on grouping landings
>of at least similar approach speed (actively speed induced vs. non-speed
>induced) and initiation altitude for final turn (>500 ft vs <500 ft?).

No. The problem is not speed, as I've explained before. 400+ people can land safely even with widely varying wing loadings and speeds. The problem is pattern - what direction everyone is flying before they land.

>Swoopers don't have to worry about intrusion of a lower, slower,
>unpredictable jumper into their airspace (even with multiple plane loads).

If you're worried about this, then make a separate area for accuracy. Problem solved.

>Box pattern and other lower, slower folks won't have to worry about being
>taken out from above by a swooper.

Agreed there.

> in the main landing area, but they will all be going about the same
>speed and initiating turns to final at the same height.

Again, I think you have to watch some accuracy jumpers land. I don't know what your mental image of them is, but they do NOT fly normal patterns, they do not have the same approach angle on final, they do not turn onto final at the same height and they do not fly the same speed as other jumpers. Indeed, Bryan Burke has had to yell at quite a few accuracy jumpers (including Lew Sanborn, D-1) who flew such an approach in the main area at Eloy. They are not compatible with standard approaches. Two jumpers flying slow canopies, one on an accuracy approach, collided at Eloy some time back. Both died. It was not their speed difference, or their initiation height, or anything else. It was that they were not flying the pattern.

[billvon 3,114]

>Any solution we come up with has to make both swoopers and non-swoopers safer.

I agree there.

> If you stick slow canopies / patterns into that swooping area, you create
>a speed differential of maybe 5x.

I'll try caps this time:

I AM NOT ADVOCATING HAVING SWOOPERS LAND WITH ACCURACY JUMPERS. All I am advocating is separating standard patterns for nonstandard patterns. This does NOT mean accuracy and swoopers should use the same area at the same time.

Let me ask you a question as way of illustration:

You have a D license, so per the USPA BSR's your minimum pull altitude is 2000 feet. Do you therefore always pull right at 2000 feet? If not, why are you 'violating' the BSR's?

>If you must separate out areas, do it in a way that keeps both groups
>as safe as possible. The headline problems today are 1) massive
>differences in altitude of turn to final and 2) massive differences in speed.

Nope. Again, altitude and speed don't matter nearly as much as pattern. Jumpers aren't running into other jumpers because one is too fast and one is too slow, and they are not running into other jumpers because of the altitude they turn onto final. They are running into each other because they are not flying a pattern that allows other jumpers to predict where clear airspace will be.

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

CAPS or not, the BSR proposals protect one group of jumpers at the expense of another (large) group.

I'm sure this isn't malicious, you just might not have thought it through.

Let's say the current situation is that swoopers are expected to "see and avoid" lower jumpers in the main landing area. I'm hearing that this is unacceptable because "see and avoid" doesn't always work.

The BSR proposal is not to "see and avoid" better. No, it is to move swoopers to a different area to preserve the safety of non-swoopers.

So here is the question: If "see and avoid" doesn't work between swoopers and non-swoopers in the main landing area, why will it work in another location that still mixes swoopers and non-swoopers?

Either there is a problem mixing the two, or there isn't. If there is, then keeping a swoop area free of low and slow traffic, and the low and slow traffic area free of swoop traffic is the most responsible action.

Evan

[billvon 3,114]

Do you always pull at 2000 feet?

Answer my question and I will answer yours.