Should S-turns and Accuracy mix with Swoopers?

[ematteo 0]

A major concern I have about proposed landing area BSRs is that they seem to push all non-box-pattern approaches into the same place. In other words, if you are not flying a box pattern, go to the "high performance landing" area.

In the proposals that Billvon advanced, "high performance landing" (in all three proposals) is defined to include swoops, but also classic accuracy approaches, S-turns to final, and slow spirals under a canopy loaded at 0.8/1.
http://dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2786877

Mixing slow, unpredictable canopies in with responsible swoopers creates a major hazard to responsible swoopers.

Because of this, I oppose the proposals that have been advanced.

In my opinion, if we believe that adding swoopers to the mix has created problems, we should provide a safe place for swoopers (only swoopers) to do their thing. Everyone else, including those classic accuracy folks and S-turners, should stay in the main landing area, which has been able to (imperfectly) deal with them so far.

My opinion. It's free and worth what you paid for it.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

classic accuracy folks and S-turners

True classic accuracy would involve using S-turns and everyone who has been in the sport appx 10 years or less always want's to claim it is "unpredictable" because it is all you know or your were told that. It is not an unpredictable flight pattern to those who understand what is going on and why the moves are being used in a true traditional or "classic accuracy" approaches. But as soon as the ground hungery pocket rocket pilots showed up on the scene and someone up at USPA decided to make a blanket statement that this was now bad and a big L was better, this became titled "slow, unpredictable canopies".

If students are being trained via the current ISP and under the crrent SIMS, then you should NEVER see a student doing "S" turns these days, now should you, yet we see time and time again "some real pilots" bitchen about stupid students doing it along with the "slow bigass boats".

No the two styles of flight should not be together, we have already changed the sims and training to accommodate for the ground hungery high W/L canopies, that seems to not be enough now, and we yet again need to accommodate for a small minority because those pilots (not all, but a lot of um) can't seem to respect others rights to use airspace over a dropzone. So yes we need totally different LZ's now for the different canopies in todays market place.

We now need,

1. student only LZ's
2. bigass boat LZ's for old fucks
3. High perf LZ's for hotshit pilots
4. free for all LZ's for flying assholes who don't like the rules.

While I know you and many like you will continue to call "classic accuracy approaches,using S-turns" as " unpredictable canopies & major hazard to responsible swoopers". If you guys were so "responsible" then you wouldn't be landing anywhere near the slow canopies in the first place now would you, but everyone knows the hotshots are all about putting on a show and hate to walk any extra & "we" make good pylons for them to dodge around.

Many of us have been using the classic S turn approach for many years, while most of time it was under round parachutes, it did continue when early squares came out. Some of us still find those skills useful still to this day, working a wind line is an art. Hell I might even do a backwards 360 turn(yes fly my canopy backwards and in a turn) to realign on the wind line. And I will still do S- turns when jumping my round canopies and shooting classic A.

But guess what, I will do this on a H&P as we have done for many many years now, so to have the sky to ourselfs or with other clued in pilots who know how to stack up their approaches using this "classic predictable approach".

(attachment info, the S turns will not stray outside the windline cone and will get smaller and smaller as you get closer to the target, till you reach your sink point, with a round canopy it maybe a downwinder)

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[skybytch 273]

Quote

While I know you and many like you will continue to call "classic accuracy approaches,using S-turns" as " unpredictable canopies & major hazard to responsible swoopers".

I fly a big old boat and a traditional pattern. Approaches that use S-turns are hazardous to my health.

For example, one day last year I didn't control my pattern well enough and ended up behind another jumper on base. I turned final early to avoid flying in his burble. He turned final and then ripped off a series of S-turns. I had no idea wtf he was doing, so to avoid a collision I turned off the windline, which caused me to land slightly crosswind. No big deal to me, I fly a canopy that I can safely land crosswind, but it was a big deal to the person on final behind me.

What if I'd been a low experience jumper and my first reaction to someone turning in front of me on final had been a hard toggle turn? What if the person behind me hadn't seen me avoiding the one in front of me?

Can you see the issue now? One person being selfish in the landing area can easily become the first link in a chain - doesn't matter what kind of canopy they fly or how they fly it.

I know I'm wasting my time by typing this yet again, but THIS IS NOT A SWOOPER VS NON-SWOOPER ISSUE!

[stratostar 5]

These approaches I speak of are not to be done in the main LZ when everyone is flying a "L", in other words it is for the peas or tuffet and only one person can be (the low one) shooting their approach, the others behind MUST be staged, this was SOP for many years. If I'm in a normal "L" pattern and going with the flow of traffic you won't see me doing S turns, they don't belong there. However if we are doing H&P's and shooting the peas and you don't stage right and over take the lowman your fuck'n up in your exit, pull and canopy flight.

But to make blanket statements that s-turns are bad or wrong or what ever term you like to use is just wrong.

In your case, I would have pulled the jumper a side and talked about it, there is a time a place for everything, it's knowing the time and the place that is the issue at hand along with giving the needed space to those who are lower and may or may not have their head up their ass, with today canopies having the control that they do you should be able to fly to a landing point that is free of others you deem unpredictable, to many people just don't want to walk these days and have to land within the shortest walk to the hanger/packing area, we see it all the time. I've been jumping for the last 10 years @ a dz with 850 acres of landable area, yet everyone has to try to land in 2AC's, Many of the places I visit have lot of outs that a skilled pilot could land in, yet it's the same everyone trying to land in one spot.

At places that drop more then one load, hey the low pilot has the right of way, if I do a H&P to shoot the peas and you get dropped on top of me, I have the right of way to continue to shoot my approach, S-turns and all, because someone can't control their canopy to a area clear of the approach zone or because they fly an anvil with lines, don't constitute an emergency on my part. (untill Bob & Roger and the rest got taken out from above and behind)

I don't mind walking, I grew up when parahiking was a normal thing if you didn't spot right or misread the windline. If you don't understand my point that is ok, go read again #'s 1,2,3,4 in my other post, also see attachment that clearly show the peas, very, very few people these days are shooting for the peas, hell a lot of places don't even have a pit.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[skybytch 273]

Quote

But to make blanket statements that s-turns are bad or wrong or what ever term you like to use is just wrong.

As is your insistence that swoopers are the bad guys.

Quote

At places that drop more then one load, hey the low pilot has the right of way, if I do a H&P to shoot the peas and you get dropped on top of me, I have the right of way to continue to shoot my approach, S-turns and all, because someone can't control their canopy to a area clear of the approach zone or because they fly an anvil with lines, don't constitute an emergency on my part.

By insisting that you have a "right" to do S-turns on final, you are being just as selfish as those who insist they have a "right" to swoop in traffic.

The only way to keep us all safe in the pattern is for each of us to let go of our perceived "rights" and instead make an effort to fly our canopies so that everybody on the load gets to walk back to the packing area. And that means not flying selfishly.

[stratostar 5]

Hey I don't do the shit I'm talking about in the swoop lanes and I don't think the swooper or others need to be doing their BS in the area of someone who makes the effort to get out low to do what I'm talking about in the area it is to be done in, if you over take me doing that, your at fault not me! The same as if I was doing what I do in the swoop lane, I would be in the wrong.

I have as much right to pratice my skills as do the swoopers, what part of that don't you understand?

Where did I say the swooper don't have a right to do their thing? Other then not in traffic in the main LZ. I'm willing to give them and others the space to do their thing, I expect the same to be given.

Quote

In Reply To

At places that drop more then one load, hey the low pilot has the right of way, if I do a H&P to shoot the peas and you get dropped on top of me, I have the right of way to continue to shoot my approach, S-turns and all, because someone can't control their canopy to a area clear of the approach zone or because they fly an anvil with lines, don't constitute an emergency on my part.

That is no diff then H&P's for the swoop pond/gates. And what part of that don't you seem to understand, WHERE did I say I would be doing this in the normal pattern? Hint for ya, what I'm doing is not a normal pattern by todays standard, there for it calls for a low pass/solo, if you fail to give the room I ask for by getting out on a declaired low pass as to what I'm going to do, your in the WRONG! Control your canopy and stay the fuck away or don't bitch about the low person.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Last summer I did a fair amount of hop n' pops and often I was on the same load as some accuracy jumpers. They gave me shit and often asked the pilot for only 2k when they knew I wanted/needed more. But once in the air, I rarely had issues with these guys. Due to my wing loading I would often exit first and would be down already starting to pack before they all started landing (plus our respective LZs were at least 100 yards away from each other). So all in all besides the crap given to me in the airplane, I had no issues being on the same load as these guys.

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

[riggerrob 643]

No!
Swoopers should only land in the designated swoop lane.
Accuracy competitors should only land in the pea gravel bowl.
Every one else should land out in the big, open, student field.

Those three different landing areas - with three different landing patterns - should be carefully explained to all visiting jumpers. They should also be told - that if they do not want to follow the regular landing pattern - they can land in the alternate landing area, which is forty miles down the road!

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

At Z-hills we have a swoop pond, a swoop lane, a huge "regular" landing area with a pea gravel pit and concentric circles visible from the air, and lastly, an accuracy tuffet on the other side of the hangar.

[billvon 3,116]

> A major concern I have about proposed landing area BSRs is that
>they seem to push all non-box-pattern approaches into the same place.

Not at all. All they do is separate standard pattern traffic from other traffic. There can be as many landing areas as you like, separated however you like. For example:

A DZ that has one landing area that is used on one load by swoopers (who get out low) standard pattern people (who get out high) and accuracy jumpers (who get out low on the next pass.)

A DZ that has four landing areas. One has the peas, one is for HP landings, one is for standard patterns, one is for students.

A DZ that has two landing areas. One is for accuracy (getting out low) and regular patterns (getting out high.) The other is for swooping only (the pond.)

That's why our leading proposal now is the "DZO shall ensure separation between standard and nonstandard patterns" - it lets you come up with anything you want as long as it provides separation.

>if we believe that adding swoopers to the mix has created problems, we
>should provide a safe place for swoopers (only swoopers) to do their thing.

So do that!

>Everyone else, including those classic accuracy folks and S-turners,
>should stay in the main landing area, which has been able to (imperfectly)
>deal with them so far.

Depends on the DZ. If there are two swoopers out of 300 regular jumpers, that would be a waste of space. If half the jumpers are swoopers and half are regular pattern, with the occasional accuracy approach, then that would work well.

[skybytch 273]

We all have a right to practice our skills - up until the point that our rights interfere with the rights of others to walk back to the packing area. Doesn't matter what kind of canopy or pattern we fly. I think we agree on that point though.

I find it very interesting that when I characterized your chosen discipline as unsafe you've reacted just as many swoopers did when you characterized their chosen discipline as unsafe...

[stratostar 5]

Quote

I find it very interesting that when I characterized your chosen discipline as unsafe you've reacted just as many swoopers did when you characterized their chosen discipline as unsafe...

I find it funny that you fail to see the part where I stated more then once that what I'm talking about doing is done on a low pass/solo in order to have clear airspace and I have been doing so for a number of year now, there for I'm trying to be as safe as possible, if you fail to heed that notice, sorry about your luck if my S- turns or backwards canopy flying freaks you out.

I think if you take the time to reread all my posts it is VERY clear I stated what I'm talking about doing is done from a H&P as a solo or with other like minded pilots.

Quote

But guess what, I will do this on a H&P as we have done for many many years now, so to have the sky to ourselfs or with other clued in pilots who know how to stack up their approaches using this "classic predictable approach".

Quote

These approaches I speak of are not to be done in the main LZ when everyone is flying a "L", in other words it is for the peas or tuffet and only one person can be (the low one) shooting their approach, the others behind MUST be staged, this was SOP for many years. If I'm in a normal "L" pattern and going with the flow of traffic you won't see me doing S turns, they don't belong there. However if we are doing H&P's and shooting the peas and you don't stage right and over take the lowman your fuck'n up in your exit, pull and canopy flight. ***

what I'm doing is not a normal pattern by todays standard, there for it calls for a low pass/solo, if you fail to give the room I ask for by getting out on a declaired low pass as to what I'm going to do,***

Yet some how you seem to continue to imply I will be doing this in today standard "L" 90-90-90 traffic pattern or swoop lanes, I have made as clear as one can as to where this style of flying belongs in todays sport!

P.S. The lowman still has and always has had the right of way, and others need to do a better job of respecting that and flying that way to avoid them, this is clear.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[pinkfairy 0]

No, mixing the two sounds like a horribly bad idea, IMHO.

Relax, you can die if you mess up, but it will probably not be by bullet.

I'm a BIG, TOUGH BIGWAY FORMATION SKYDIVER! What are you?

[stitch 0]

Quote

an accuracy tuffet on the other side of the hangar.

I thought that was the spectator area.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

Two quick comments.

Quote

Not at all. All they do is separate standard pattern traffic from other traffic. There can be as many landing areas as you like, separated however you like.

The 3 proposals you posted ALL lump anyone not doing a box pattern approach in the "High Performance Landing" category. I believe this approach is likely to kill more people than it saves.

Quote

>if we believe that adding swoopers to the mix has created problems, we
>should provide a safe place for swoopers (only swoopers) to do their thing.

So do that!

Like you, I care about safety at dropzones around the country. My DZ has a dedicated swoop lane. But the BSR proposal is not about one dropzone. It affects all US member DZs.

Evan

[billvon 3,116]

>The 3 proposals you posted ALL lump anyone not doing a box
>pattern approach in the "High Performance Landing" category. I believe
>this approach is likely to kill more people than it saves.

Yes, that's a terminology problem we've fixed. We've changed it to "nonstandard patterns."

>Like you, I care about safety at dropzones around the country. My DZ
>has a dedicated swoop lane. But the BSR proposal is not about one
>dropzone. It affects all US member DZs.

Yes. And two of the three proposals will give you exactly what you ask for.

[ematteo 0]

Bill,

The terminology is not a problem. The problem is a combining fast and slow approaches into the same area.

None of the three proposals I have seen addresses this conflict.

Can you link to or post the new proposals?

Thanks,
Evan

Quote

>The 3 proposals you posted ALL lump anyone not doing a box
>pattern approach in the "High Performance Landing" category. I believe
>this approach is likely to kill more people than it saves.

Yes, that's a terminology problem we've fixed. We've changed it to "nonstandard patterns."

>Like you, I care about safety at dropzones around the country. My DZ
>has a dedicated swoop lane. But the BSR proposal is not about one
>dropzone. It affects all US member DZs.

Yes. And two of the three proposals will give you exactly what you ask for.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

None of the three proposals I have seen addresses this conflict.

How do you figure that?

Separation by distance - separate landing areas for high performance and normal patterns

Separation by time - high performance jumpers get a low pass, a second run at altitude for the normal pattern jumpers creates a separation in time.

BOTH submission separate HPL jumpers and normal jumpers.

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

[ematteo 0]

Hi Mike,

My issue is with how the groups are defined.

The biggest landing danger we all face as skydivers is in mixing really fast with really slow, and high pattern altitude with low pattern altitudes.

If we divide the groups this way, any form of division (space or time) is probably fine.

But if the groups are divided into box pattern and "other," we haven't solved the problem, and in fact create greater hazard for the swoopers (even the responsible ones) from slow, unpredictable, lower-pattern-altitude canopies that swoopers will be unable to avoid. The proposals include S-turners, Accuracy approaches, and lazy 360s ias HPL landings (or "non-standard" landings in a later version). This is the (literally) fatal flaw of the proposals, in my view.

Regards,
Evan

[mnealtx 0]

If you have the separation by time or by distance, how are the standard and HPL groups getting mixed?

I'm sorry, I'm not able to see how that is happening.

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

[ematteo 0]

Mike,

The definition of the HPL group contains people that should not be mixed. That is the problem.

It is a far greater risk to mix someone doing S-turns down low with a swooper than to mix that same person with a standard box pattern.

I (or you) can see and avoid when flying a box pattern at the same speed and level as the S-turner. We won't like it, but we will see them and can all live. Having been in this situation in a swoop lane, where a low flying slow canopy unexpectedly cut me off with an S-turn, I can say that 1) there was no chance to see and avoid before it was too late and 2) there was a very high chance of not living through the experience.

Evan

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It is a far greater risk to mix someone doing S-turns down low with a swooper than to mix that same person with a standard box pattern.

Point taken - a few thoughts, however.

"Non-HPL jumpers finding themselves in the HPL area will land at the edges of the HPL area if they cannot avoid it."

I would hardly call someone shooting accuracy a "high-performance landing". Also, how many accuracy targets are there in a swoop lane?

Also... just as in normal traffic now... if you have someone BELOW you in the pattern (which that accuracy jumper would be), then THEY have the right of way and YOU don't swoop... all of your arguments seem to be predicated on a "swoop no matter what" situation, which I would sincerely hope isn't the case.

I don't see where this is causing any extra danger to the swoopers over / above what we have now. In fact, I see it as being safer due to the facts stated above - unless you're going to claim that there's as many people shooting accuracy approaches as 'normal' approaches.

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

[ematteo 0]

Mike,

If the belief is that swoopers are doing an inadequate job of seeing and avoiding people below them, why will this change if they land in a different area?

These proposals advocate increased safety for one group (box pattern fliers) at the expense of another group (responsible swoopers).

Telling swoopers to do the same thing that is not working, while introducing even more slow-moving, low-pattern-altitude obstacles (anyone not doing a box pattern) will kill swoopers.

The best alternative to today's situation is to provide a safe place for swoopers to swoop, free from low altitude, unpredictably moving obstacles. This will improve safety for all canopy fliers.

got to go to dinner...

E

[mnealtx 0]

Hi Ernesto... I guess we're the late night debate team!

I understand what you're saying, but you've still not proven that what is being proposed is MORE dangerous that what we have now, in regards to the swoopers. I would think that any reduction of people in the pattern (which the BSR proposal WOULD do, regardless of accuracy jumpers) would make it safer for the swoopers.

I also don't believe that an accuracy jumper is going to be in the swoop lane, regardless of what the BSR proposal says about non-standard patterns.

Enjoy dinner!

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

[popsjumper 2]

I see what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Box pattern by themselves in one LZ and all others somewhere else...which seems to say that swoopers, accuracy and S-turners all get lumped together in one LZ.

That is not the intent of the proposals. Maybe the re-wording will clarify that.

I'm all for swoopers having their own designated area and all others stay away. Mixing straight pattern with accuracy and S-turns is a whole lot less worrisome than mixing them in with swoopers.

Either way, you're not going to get away from unskilled students doing unpredictable things in the pattern and one should ALWAYS be prepared for dodging them.

It makes sense to me that since we overtake on the right, S-turns should be done to the left of the final approach line and not crossing over into the right side of the approach line. But then you get the possibility of too much S-turn taking you into the line of flight of the downwind leg on left-hand patterns.

All in all...it's not really rocket science. Abandon the swoop if you're in traffic.

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