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

[ematteo 0]

Not sure what your point is, but here goes:

The minimum container opening BSR requires an open container above 2000 feet. I comply with this BSR, and it doesn't compromise anyone's safety.

The proposed landing area BSR allows all manner of slow, low canopy approaches in a "High Performance Landing" area, which would also include swoopers. When I am swooping in the designated "High Performance Landing" area, and there is a jumper doing S-turns to final loaded at 0.8:1, the BSR proposals prohibit that jumper from landing in a big main area with similarly loaded canopies, and force him into the swoop lane.

This is bad, and more likely to create death than having him land in the main area.

[billvon 3,116]

>The minimum container opening BSR requires an open container above
>2000 feet. I comply with this BSR, and it doesn't compromise anyone's
>safety.

That's great, but I didn't ask that.

Do you open your parachute at 2000 feet? Or do you open it higher?

[ematteo 0]

Feel free to start a "where do you pull" thread if you want to revisit that BSR.

A new BSR should first "do no harm." The landing BSR proposals violate this precept. They reduce the area where responsible swoopers can land. At the same time they shut slow, low, unpredictable canopies out of the main area and invite them to land in the "HPL" which is the last refuge of the swoopers. So you have swoopers in a smaller area, dodging random, slow-moving canopies with mis-matched pattern altitudes.

That would be bad.

E

[marks 0]

I open higher.

[pilotdave 0]

I really think you're reading into this way too much. The BSR obviously needs to be worded carefully to avoid stupid loopholes like requiring accuracy jumpers to land in the same place at the same time as the swoopers. But I don't think a BSR allows us to throw common sense out the window. I doubt there are many dropzones that have classic accuracy jumpers landing at the same time as swoopers very often. Those dropzones can (and must) deal with the issue appropriately.

Every dropzone is different. Any BSR has to be broad enough to let it work everywhere. I personally don't think a BSR is required anymore. It was last year... but we've learned a lot of lessons since then, and we've learned them the hard way. In the end it will be up to the dropzones and the jumpers to solve this problem. I think it makes more sense to spend the time and money to educate, not regulate. The USPA doesn't have enforcement officers... it will be up to the DZOs, S&TAs, and all jumpers to enforce the rules whether it's a BSR or just best safety practices/local procedures.

Dave

[mnealtx 0]

You're still not explaining how landing in a LESS CONGESTED area is more dangerous for the swoopers.

You are also advocating a "swoop at all costs" mindset - if you saw a slow canopy intruding into the swoop area (for whatever reason), WHY THE HELL would you still swoop??????

You're also ignoring the 'separation in time' inherent in the two disciplines, unless you've got swoopers using Star-Tracs or Parafoil 252s.

Your arguments are, of course, null and void unless the DZ has (for whatever reason) placed an accuracy tuffet or the pea pit in the middle of the swoop lane.

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

[ematteo 0]

I don't mind a BSR.

But the definition of the groups that are being separated is really important, and I think the current drafts have got it wrong.

If you believe that one group 1) is large and 2) doesn't fit well with others, then separate it and make it the focus of the BSR.

Ask most jumpers what that group is and they will probably (rightly or wrongly) say "swoopers."

So separate out the landing areas into swoop and non swoop. Maybe a "swoop" is defined as a final turn initiated above 500 feet for the purpose of inducing speed at landing. Then that perceived hazard is out of the main landing area, and the swoopers have a benefit of no low, slow traffic, so they are safer too.

But it is really important to define the groups based on what you perceive to be the big hazard. In this case, most non-swoopers seem to be most concerned about swoopers, and most swoopers are concerned about non-swoopers. So don't mix the groups, and don't arbitrarily create a division on some other basis.

Before you say "but a box pattern is the standard, it's not arbitrary," consider this: the motivation for a BSR is the recent rash of canopy collisions between swoopers and non-swoopers. There was no broad motivation for such a BSR before this, and people have been doing goofy things in the main landing area for a long time.

E

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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?

Evan - it seems like you're siezing on the lamest of reasons to dismiss the entire conversation as null and void. How many accuracy jumpers are there at Davis? Is there even a tuffet? It's not even a small portion of the landing traffic, and by the nature of the canopies, a really small conflict potential. At worst you would ask accuracy jumpers to exit last.

This isn't a legal battle where you try to score points at every juncture - this is a discussion seeking the best compromise. Offer up something already, even a defense for the status quo. For all the hand wringing on wingloading BSRs, nothing changed at the USPA level.

[billvon 3,116]

> I open higher.

Thank you Mark.

Evan, you refused to answer my question, so I will assume that you, like Mark, open higher than 2000 feet. Yet the BSR says 2000 feet, and surely opening at 2000 feet with a heavily loaded high performance canopy is not the safest thing to do. Does that mean the BSR encourages unsafe behavior?

I think not, and you apparently agree. Why? Because it is a MINIMUM. You are free to open higher than 2000 feet. And even though this pushes everyone's opening altitudes up, and makes the skies above 2000 feet more crowded than they would otherwise be at deployment time, the end result is a safer skydiving environment.

Similarly, our proposals call out a MINIMUM requirement for separation - and that is that standard patterns are separate from nonstandard patterns. That alone will make the skies safer, and, if followed, would have prevented the four recent deaths at Eloy.

Many DZ's may choose to separate the patterns even more, just as you yourself choose to open higher than 2000 feet. You may choose to have the accuracy area in the main landing area and separate the accuracy jumpers from the regular jumpers by time. You may choose to have three completely separate areas. Indeed, that may be the best option for safety at your DZ. All we are doing is stating the minimum that must happen to reduce the odds that someone flying a pattern gets taken out by someone flying a nonstandard pattern or vice versa.

If you want to do more, by all means, propose your own BSR. We will stick to what we feel is a minimum amount of regulation to ensure a safer skydiving environment for swoopers, pattern fliers AND accuracy jumpers.

[ematteo 0]

I trust Ray to exercise common sense at Davis. And perhaps that (DZO discretion) is a better general approach than a BSR. No BSR is required for DZOs to learn from last year and exercise their judgement.

In any event, at Skydance we have a narrow swoop lane, and a very large main landing area, plus a separate student area. The peas are in the main landing area, but not far from the swoop zone. They are mostly used for tandems.

I have been cut off (and had to bail hard onto the concrete) by a low and slow jumper doing S-turns to land in the peas. He overflew the swoop area at about 200 feet, once I was already in my dive. Avoiding him hurt, a lot.

If we want to separate landing areas, it needs to work both ways. Kick the fast, high turn altitude swoopers out of the main area if you must, but leave them a place free from low and slow traffic to do their thing.

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

Your "minimum" standard decreases the available landing area, by a lot, for swoopers, and others who should not for safety reasons be mixed with swoopers. That is dangerous, and a step backwards.

It is not OK to protect one group of jumpers at the expense of another, large, group.

Evan

PS going to the gym. Please forgive if I don't reply quickly...

[billvon 3,116]

>Your "minimum" standard decreases the available landing area, by a lot,
>for swoopers, and others who should not for safety reasons be mixed with
>swoopers. That is dangerous, and a step backwards.

No it doesn't, any more than the 2000 foot pull altitude decreases clear air to open in. That's another strawman.

I think by this time you have decided that you will disagree with anything I say, so I'll say good night. I'll see you in July if you choose to come to the USPA meeting.

[ianmdrennan 2]

I received a PM asking that this information be shared in this forum since not everyone visits the canopy piloting section.

I'd like to point jumpers to this post for some explanations of traffic patterns for differing approaches.

While not directly related to this discussion it may help pilots envision some approaches that are being discussed.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[wmw999 2,588]

That whole thread is good.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In any event, at Skydance we have a narrow swoop lane, and a very large main landing area, plus a separate student area. The peas are in the main landing area, but not far from the swoop zone. They are mostly used for tandems.

I have been cut off (and had to bail hard onto the concrete) by a low and slow jumper doing S-turns to land in the peas. He overflew the swoop area at about 200 feet, once I was already in my dive. Avoiding him hurt, a lot.

I wouldn't oppose Ray moving the regular traffic to South Field as a solution. The combination a pattern landing to the south and the tall trees (and guns) just north means it's pretty easy for a low timer to overshoot. They should just keep going straight, but certainly there's too many that don't choose to.

Is South Field now the student LZ? - I thought I heard the Barn wasn't being used. That's a big ass landing zone. Only when you get on final do you see how big that structure is.

[ematteo 0]

The South field is the student landing area. It is OK to land there if you like.