BrianSGermain 1 #26 February 17, 2004 I'm with you Chuck. There are fewer incidences of canopy/freefall collisions than there are of injuries caused by landing out, especially with the smaller canopies used today. That is evidence enough for me; I'm landing in. I am also talking to the group behind me to increase the chance that they won't come out right on top of me, and canopy tracking as if my life depends on it. My whole purpose of starting this thread was to make people think about the issue. I guess I succeeded!Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murps2000 86 #27 February 18, 2004 Isn't tracking back from a long spot not the best way to cover ground? Shouldn't you just go ahead and dump? I doubt your glide ratio in a track equals or exceeds that of your canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #28 February 18, 2004 QuoteI'm with you Chuck. There are fewer incidences of canopy/freefall collisions than there are of injuries caused by landing out, especially with the smaller canopies used today. Quote There is also a tremendous lack of knowledge about what to do to a canopy configuration to make the most of the altitude between a possible out landing and making it back to the DZ with a thousand feet spare. I've been on plenty of jumps where someone in our group or the group that exited before us not making it back when we did with alti to spare and us on canopys that are smaller and trimmed to fly steeper. Learn to fly for maximum glide! And all that it requires = lossen chest strap, the proper use of rear risers, a good body position that you can comfortably hold but yet reduce drag. And not some silly rule about toggles to X position regardless of how the wind is blowing you from the DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Martini 0 #29 February 18, 2004 Derek, I have to disagree with you on the separation/groundspeed thing. The aircraft and the jumpers aren't influenced by the ground or it's relative speed, the ground doesn't even exist for them (unless ya get too close). Aircraft and it's spawn, that's you and me, only know the air. BTW I am also strongly in favor of dumping high (like 4k not 8k) in lieu of landing out especially at my DZ. 8-9 months of C-182 jumps and some very ugly outs make this a clear choice. Tracking up or down the line of flight is a bad bad thing but pretty tough to avoid on anything larger than a three way. At any rate the incident reports show few freefall/canopy collisions but many off DZ landing injuries. I'm not sure how this translates because a (rare) freefall/canopy collision would seem to have a higher likelihood of a fatality than a (frequent) out landing. Great discussion, I'm learning a lot here.Sometimes you eat the bear.............. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites velo90 0 #30 February 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteHorizontal separation is a function of aircraft airspeed. It is a function of aircraft groundspeed, not airspeed and time betweeen exits. It is a function of aircraft speed relative to the air where you are going to open your canopy. Not ground speed and not aircarft airspeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #31 February 18, 2004 No, its a function of groundspeed. If you need to open at least X feet apart to be safe then the only way to determine that is to know the ground speed of the plane. Think of a helicopter in a near hover, you can give all the delay you want to but there is no horizonatal ground speed but there is airspeed to counter the winds aloft. Another example is if the plane is traveling 90 knots into a 45 knot head wind, that reduces the ground speed of the plane to 45 knots and means it takes longer to get to that X distance.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites velo90 0 #32 February 18, 2004 QuoteNo, its a function of groundspeed Wrong. Think of a balloon drifting with the wind at 25 kts. In fact the wind is 25kts all the way down to the ground. You have a ground speed of 25 kts. How much horizontal seperation do you have with an 8 second delay? KALLEND! This your job! Edited to add: This link might help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites eames 0 #33 February 18, 2004 No, they're [more] right. From exit until opening, separation is a function of "airspeed" (the culmination of the initial horizontal airspeed of the aircraft, velocity of winds aloft, and vertical speed). Your analogies are flawed because you failed to account for freefall drift, the velocity of which is approximately equal to the velocity of the winds aloft. As soon as each canopy is open, the term "separation" begins to take on a different meaning because everyone is headed to the same destination. Assuming the duration of descent time is approximately equal in low and in high winds, and that the majority of the load opens upwind of the landing area, canopy traffic around the landing area will be worse in high winds for a given amount of separation time. -Jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkymonkeyONE 4 #34 February 18, 2004 QuoteThis is highly irresponsible...NEVER NEVER NEVER track towards other groups. You can not guarantee that you will see every one Perhaps you can't, but maybe that is a product of doing a lot of flying on your head (or feet perhaps) and not being in a a position to survey the ground on a regular basis. Once again, perhaps you can't guarantee. I am far from irresponsible. I never indicated that I like to track directly back down the line of flight, nor did I ever indicate that I liked to track directly over the top of people behind me. I did say that I would absolutely make it back to the airport if I noticed that I was hosed, but had the opportunity to rectify it. As to Alan's comment stating "what about the guy with 100 jumps...." all I have to say is that personal preservation is an individual event. It's my duty to make sure that I land safely. If I am doing AFF, then it's also my duty to make sure that I do what I can to ensure my student makes it back safely. If that means me giving him/her the "pull" signal at seven grand as opposed to them opening at five, then so be it. If that means that I need to find an alternate, safe "out" for both of us right after I dump (always deploy immediately after my students), then I will find that area and then guide him/her in. I clear my airspace prior to pulling, you clear yours. Consider my opinion wreckless if you like, but I instruct skydiving for a living and my experiences tell me that self preservation tactics executed in a perfuctory manner, both in freefall and canopy control, can mean the difference between "oops, bad spot" and "call 911." I challenge you to compare the number of freefall/canopy collision incidents versus catastrophic off-landing incidents. Once again, the majority of such freefall/canopy collisions do not happen as a result of tracking back from long, bad spots; they happen right over the top of the dz. And by the way, my moderator status has nothing to do with anything I post in regards to this subject. My 3800 jumps, lifelong experience and every instructional rating do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Hooknswoop 19 #35 February 18, 2004 QuoteWrong. Think of a balloon drifting with the wind at 25 kts. In fact the wind is 25kts all the way down to the ground. You have a ground speed of 25 kts. How much horizontal seperation do you have with an 8 second delay? Wrong, you have a ground speed of -25 kts. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites velo90 0 #36 February 18, 2004 Quote Wrong, you have a ground speed of -25 kts. That would work great in court.... Sorry judge I was not speeding, you see I was in reverse gear which means I was doing -40mph. BTW If you do a jump run with the wind do you then have a negative ground speed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakydiver 0 #37 February 18, 2004 I've pondered this quite a bit lately and come to the conclusion that with proper spotting prior to leaving the aircraft, I can reduce the times I would need to pull a bit higher. Granted, this works for me at my DZs, but each DZ has their own issues to deal with. My philosophy is now and forever will be, look before you jump and if necessary, don't jump if you are going to be way long. Any reputible pilot will most likely understand as ultimately it is better to be safe then sorry. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #38 February 18, 2004 I wish you guys would actually read what I have been saying. I NEVER said you should never open high on a bad spot. I did say we should re-think the advice that we is just given across the board to open high. I DID say that last out or with tandems and students on an Otter it should be OK. I DID say that some DZs have landing hazards that would outweigh the risks of a high opening and even gave a few examples. I DID give a few examples of when I think it is unsafe to open high on a bad spot and stated my reasons. Most of this was back in the x-braced thread where this all started. Tracking along the line of flight is a bad idea and a poor one to pass on to students. If you and Brian and others want to rationalize this act, go ahead. As has been pointed out, opening just 500' feet higher and flying your canopy efficiently will yield better and safer results than tracking for 10 seconds. If you guys think the reflex reaction to a bad spot is to track along the line of flight, open high, and then fly your canopy back along the line of flight then fine, it is your asses. If you want to pass that along to your students, then fine, it is their asses. If you think that all it takes to get safe exit separation on a bad spot with an Otter full of people you may not even know is to politely remind them, then fine, it is your asses. If you believe that everyone is clearing their airspace before and after opening then fine, but watch a few videos from your DZ and boogies, etc.. Pay attention to the opening shots. Plenty of wave offs but it is damn rare to see anyone check above them. Ya, ya, I know how we all do it all the time. Every time one of us dies, there are endless days of wailing here about how even one death is too many. Calls for mandatory AAD, banning hook turns, new BSRs for wingloading, etc.. All I did was to suggest that we don't make opening high a conditioned response to a bad spot and instead take into consideration the circumstances. I made that suggestion with the hope that it might save that one life you all claim is so precious to all of us. I didn't propose anything new or radical, just a simple reminder of what most of us in the US are taught during our freefall progression as a student based on USPA guidlines in the SIM. Instructors are supposed to teach students to open at their assigned altitude unless there is a freefall emergency that warrants opening higher. Students are to be taught to deal with landing off including hazards and obstacles. I don't recall the SIM defining a bad spot as a freefall emergency that warrants opening high but allowed for the fact that there may be situations that landing off could be more of a risk than not opening at the assigned altitude. I agree that it is our duty to land safely but in order to land safely you must first get under an open parachute safely. So there are more collisions over the DZ than on a bad spot, I guess it is better that we should wait for that one death before it becomes an issue. I agree each of us must do what it takes to land safely, it is akin to the FARs allowing for a PIC to deviate from regulations if not doing so would present a hazard to persons or property. What I proposed was a safer alternative to limiting our advice on dealing with bad spots to "bad spot = open high". And on a more personal comment to Chuck, I think the comment by jdfreefly about taking on a moderator was meant more along the idea that if any one else had posted here that they track back along the line of flight, it would have been met with a flurry of criticisms which probably have included a few from the other moderators. But since you are a moderator, they will most likely either refrain from any public comment or rationalize it as well. I shouldn't suppose to speak for him, so I'll just say that is how I read it.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites alan 1 #39 February 18, 2004 QuoteMy whole purpose of starting this thread was to make people think about the issue. I guess I succeeded! Actually, that is why I made the posts to the comments in the "How to sink in a X-braced wing?" thread about opening high on a bad spot. The discussion was hijacking that thread so I suggested in one of my replies to you that it be moved or given it's own thread. You simply responded to that suggestion with the same purpose in mind.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdfreefly 1 #40 February 19, 2004 QuoteI never indicated that I like to track directly back down the line of flight, nor did I ever indicate that I liked to track directly over the top of people behind me. Perhaps I made a bad assumption. My dz almost always runs jumprun into the wind. Thus, if I were to attempt to track back to the dz in freefall, I would definately be tracking down the line of flight and I would definately be tracking towards other groups. I maintain that this is a terrible idea. No one can say they will definately see every thing, we are human and we make mistakes. On a crosswind or offset jump run, maybe this would be safe, but I think it is a bad habit to get into. Besides, pulling high, checking your airspace and then flying back towards the dz is more efficient anyway. QuoteAs to Alan's comment stating "what about the guy with 100 jumps...." all I have to say is that personal preservation is an individual event. It's my duty to make sure that I land safely. Anyone with experience has a responsibility in this sport to lead by example. There is a lot of "monkey see monkey do" going on out there. If the 100 jump wonder, who missed five loads waiting for a ride back to the dz, hears someone with more experience talking about tracking back at the dz to make it back from a long spot, or reads about it online, they are sure to try it themselves next time they think they are hosed. QuoteOnce again, the majority of such freefall/canopy collisions do not happen as a result of tracking back from long, bad spots; they happen right over the top of the dz. I agree with you. As I said in my post, most of the close calls I have seen came from the inexperience of a jumper. Also, the single canopy collision I witnessed was the direct result of an unattentive canopy pilot. QuoteAnd by the way, my moderator status has nothing to do with anything I post in regards to this subject. My 3800 jumps, lifelong experience and every instructional rating do. Good point...my bad. I have a tendancy to offend. It is purely by accident and poor judgement, I assure you. If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest we start a new thread, this one has deteriorated into a rant about windspeed, aircraftspeed and groundspeed. People, if you have questions about that stuff, go spend an hour playing with Kallend's frefall simulation before you make your next post. Besides, everyone knows the most important factor in separation is the current position of Ursa Minor in the night sky. Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GroundZero 0 #41 February 20, 2004 Bad Spot.... Pull High, pull clear. Get to the ground safely. Period. If you don't understand any part of this, get education, get experience... Thanks Alan, Thanks Chuckie. Chris Edited to add... Thanks Brian... everyone needs to need to think, good job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Martini 0 #42 February 20, 2004 If we have an exit altitude of 25,000 feet and free fall 12,000 feet to deploy at 13,000 feet is the ground still a factor in separation? Or a 12,000 foot freefall from 1,000,000 feet? Don't believe so. Don't believe the "wind" is either since the wind is only ground relevant. Sometimes to hell with math and physics. Please protect yourselves from the inherent dangers of an out landing but kindly consider my ass too.Sometimes you eat the bear.............. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #43 February 20, 2004 I think the thread you are looking for went here. Read bits, pieces or every bit of it, but pay special attention to kallend's last post which may enlighten you. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chachi 0 #44 February 20, 2004 My opinion is this, PLAN the DIVE and DIVE the PLAN. This will keep everyone way more safe. I think if you are a beginner, to advanced, to expert skydiver you should be able to put the canopy that you are flying down into adverse landing, weather, and location differences. If you have a bad spot you should know all of the safe locations around your dropzone to land. Also, you should learn how to fly your canopy at max glide for the entire canopy flight. I have had some pretty brutal spots at my DZ and still manage to get somewhere safe to land. Pullig high sets us up for failure unless everyone on the load knows what is going on. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #45 February 20, 2004 QuotePullig high sets us up for failure unless everyone on the load knows what is going on. How? Seriously, I want to know what you base this theory on. (I am assuming you read and understand both this thread and the other one linked in the post to which you replied.) I think it's quite clear from both threads that the higher you pull within your column of air, the less likely it will be that your airspace will be intersected by another jumper. It may seem counterintuitive, but taking a 5 second delay right out of the plane, no matter where in the exit order you are is about as safe a thing as you could possibly do. In turn, this has made me even more leary about sucking it down to the basement, as my chances of falling through an open canopy by having converging columns of air (granted, I would somehow have to stop looking) are increased with every passing foot. Now that I think about it, I can't remember ever reading about a freefall/canopy hit above 3k. It's usually right down around 2k, where the effects of a slide and/or poor exit separation are the greatest. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites velo90 0 #46 February 20, 2004 Just to add my 2 cents worth (yeah, we have cents in Germany as well now) If am hosed I will pull, I won't track, I will pull. The only concern I have about pulling high is a possible collision with an aircraft. Pilots don't look where they are flying I'll even pull at 7 grand if needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chachi 0 #47 February 20, 2004 Ok, I guess I should dummy down my statement. Pulling high gives a higher chance of something happening then if you were to pull at the correct altitude where everyone expects you to be. It could be a potential collision, a potential hazard for aircraft if you are near a busy airport. I don't mean there would be inherent danger on every jump but in my opinion you should do what you plan to do on the skydive and not make changes mid flight unless of some worse potential danger. This keeps us all in a safer environment. If you don't have prepared safe outs that you can land the canopy you are jumping in you shouldn't be jumping that canopy or you should prepare better. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #48 February 20, 2004 Plain english: The higher you open, the less chance of a canopy collision. (period). The only exceptions to this are a second plane dropping a load within a few minutes of your load or a true down-wind jumprun. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites johnny1488 1 #49 February 20, 2004 QuotePlain english: The higher you open, the less chance of a canopy collision. (period). The only exceptions to this are a second plane dropping a load within a few minutes of your load or a true down-wind jumprun. Assuming everyone gave proper seperation given the winds at altitude and open altitude of the day AAHHHHH run away! Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #50 February 20, 2004 QuoteAssuming everyone gave proper seperation given the winds at altitude and open altitude of the day. I don't even know about that. Ever chase a chunk or a tandem out of a plane? Notice how much separation you get within a second or two? You really gotta track yer ass off to get with whatever you're chasing. I stand by my belief that a slide or a track which alters the gravity-driven (assuming same winddrift between groups) trajectory of the path of the jumper(s) is the only real way to get above a previous group (besides the well-established increase in drift by a slower-falling second group). mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Martini 0 #29 February 18, 2004 Derek, I have to disagree with you on the separation/groundspeed thing. The aircraft and the jumpers aren't influenced by the ground or it's relative speed, the ground doesn't even exist for them (unless ya get too close). Aircraft and it's spawn, that's you and me, only know the air. BTW I am also strongly in favor of dumping high (like 4k not 8k) in lieu of landing out especially at my DZ. 8-9 months of C-182 jumps and some very ugly outs make this a clear choice. Tracking up or down the line of flight is a bad bad thing but pretty tough to avoid on anything larger than a three way. At any rate the incident reports show few freefall/canopy collisions but many off DZ landing injuries. I'm not sure how this translates because a (rare) freefall/canopy collision would seem to have a higher likelihood of a fatality than a (frequent) out landing. Great discussion, I'm learning a lot here.Sometimes you eat the bear.............. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velo90 0 #30 February 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteHorizontal separation is a function of aircraft airspeed. It is a function of aircraft groundspeed, not airspeed and time betweeen exits. It is a function of aircraft speed relative to the air where you are going to open your canopy. Not ground speed and not aircarft airspeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #31 February 18, 2004 No, its a function of groundspeed. If you need to open at least X feet apart to be safe then the only way to determine that is to know the ground speed of the plane. Think of a helicopter in a near hover, you can give all the delay you want to but there is no horizonatal ground speed but there is airspeed to counter the winds aloft. Another example is if the plane is traveling 90 knots into a 45 knot head wind, that reduces the ground speed of the plane to 45 knots and means it takes longer to get to that X distance.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velo90 0 #32 February 18, 2004 QuoteNo, its a function of groundspeed Wrong. Think of a balloon drifting with the wind at 25 kts. In fact the wind is 25kts all the way down to the ground. You have a ground speed of 25 kts. How much horizontal seperation do you have with an 8 second delay? KALLEND! This your job! Edited to add: This link might help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eames 0 #33 February 18, 2004 No, they're [more] right. From exit until opening, separation is a function of "airspeed" (the culmination of the initial horizontal airspeed of the aircraft, velocity of winds aloft, and vertical speed). Your analogies are flawed because you failed to account for freefall drift, the velocity of which is approximately equal to the velocity of the winds aloft. As soon as each canopy is open, the term "separation" begins to take on a different meaning because everyone is headed to the same destination. Assuming the duration of descent time is approximately equal in low and in high winds, and that the majority of the load opens upwind of the landing area, canopy traffic around the landing area will be worse in high winds for a given amount of separation time. -Jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #34 February 18, 2004 QuoteThis is highly irresponsible...NEVER NEVER NEVER track towards other groups. You can not guarantee that you will see every one Perhaps you can't, but maybe that is a product of doing a lot of flying on your head (or feet perhaps) and not being in a a position to survey the ground on a regular basis. Once again, perhaps you can't guarantee. I am far from irresponsible. I never indicated that I like to track directly back down the line of flight, nor did I ever indicate that I liked to track directly over the top of people behind me. I did say that I would absolutely make it back to the airport if I noticed that I was hosed, but had the opportunity to rectify it. As to Alan's comment stating "what about the guy with 100 jumps...." all I have to say is that personal preservation is an individual event. It's my duty to make sure that I land safely. If I am doing AFF, then it's also my duty to make sure that I do what I can to ensure my student makes it back safely. If that means me giving him/her the "pull" signal at seven grand as opposed to them opening at five, then so be it. If that means that I need to find an alternate, safe "out" for both of us right after I dump (always deploy immediately after my students), then I will find that area and then guide him/her in. I clear my airspace prior to pulling, you clear yours. Consider my opinion wreckless if you like, but I instruct skydiving for a living and my experiences tell me that self preservation tactics executed in a perfuctory manner, both in freefall and canopy control, can mean the difference between "oops, bad spot" and "call 911." I challenge you to compare the number of freefall/canopy collision incidents versus catastrophic off-landing incidents. Once again, the majority of such freefall/canopy collisions do not happen as a result of tracking back from long, bad spots; they happen right over the top of the dz. And by the way, my moderator status has nothing to do with anything I post in regards to this subject. My 3800 jumps, lifelong experience and every instructional rating do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #35 February 18, 2004 QuoteWrong. Think of a balloon drifting with the wind at 25 kts. In fact the wind is 25kts all the way down to the ground. You have a ground speed of 25 kts. How much horizontal seperation do you have with an 8 second delay? Wrong, you have a ground speed of -25 kts. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velo90 0 #36 February 18, 2004 Quote Wrong, you have a ground speed of -25 kts. That would work great in court.... Sorry judge I was not speeding, you see I was in reverse gear which means I was doing -40mph. BTW If you do a jump run with the wind do you then have a negative ground speed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #37 February 18, 2004 I've pondered this quite a bit lately and come to the conclusion that with proper spotting prior to leaving the aircraft, I can reduce the times I would need to pull a bit higher. Granted, this works for me at my DZs, but each DZ has their own issues to deal with. My philosophy is now and forever will be, look before you jump and if necessary, don't jump if you are going to be way long. Any reputible pilot will most likely understand as ultimately it is better to be safe then sorry. -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #38 February 18, 2004 I wish you guys would actually read what I have been saying. I NEVER said you should never open high on a bad spot. I did say we should re-think the advice that we is just given across the board to open high. I DID say that last out or with tandems and students on an Otter it should be OK. I DID say that some DZs have landing hazards that would outweigh the risks of a high opening and even gave a few examples. I DID give a few examples of when I think it is unsafe to open high on a bad spot and stated my reasons. Most of this was back in the x-braced thread where this all started. Tracking along the line of flight is a bad idea and a poor one to pass on to students. If you and Brian and others want to rationalize this act, go ahead. As has been pointed out, opening just 500' feet higher and flying your canopy efficiently will yield better and safer results than tracking for 10 seconds. If you guys think the reflex reaction to a bad spot is to track along the line of flight, open high, and then fly your canopy back along the line of flight then fine, it is your asses. If you want to pass that along to your students, then fine, it is their asses. If you think that all it takes to get safe exit separation on a bad spot with an Otter full of people you may not even know is to politely remind them, then fine, it is your asses. If you believe that everyone is clearing their airspace before and after opening then fine, but watch a few videos from your DZ and boogies, etc.. Pay attention to the opening shots. Plenty of wave offs but it is damn rare to see anyone check above them. Ya, ya, I know how we all do it all the time. Every time one of us dies, there are endless days of wailing here about how even one death is too many. Calls for mandatory AAD, banning hook turns, new BSRs for wingloading, etc.. All I did was to suggest that we don't make opening high a conditioned response to a bad spot and instead take into consideration the circumstances. I made that suggestion with the hope that it might save that one life you all claim is so precious to all of us. I didn't propose anything new or radical, just a simple reminder of what most of us in the US are taught during our freefall progression as a student based on USPA guidlines in the SIM. Instructors are supposed to teach students to open at their assigned altitude unless there is a freefall emergency that warrants opening higher. Students are to be taught to deal with landing off including hazards and obstacles. I don't recall the SIM defining a bad spot as a freefall emergency that warrants opening high but allowed for the fact that there may be situations that landing off could be more of a risk than not opening at the assigned altitude. I agree that it is our duty to land safely but in order to land safely you must first get under an open parachute safely. So there are more collisions over the DZ than on a bad spot, I guess it is better that we should wait for that one death before it becomes an issue. I agree each of us must do what it takes to land safely, it is akin to the FARs allowing for a PIC to deviate from regulations if not doing so would present a hazard to persons or property. What I proposed was a safer alternative to limiting our advice on dealing with bad spots to "bad spot = open high". And on a more personal comment to Chuck, I think the comment by jdfreefly about taking on a moderator was meant more along the idea that if any one else had posted here that they track back along the line of flight, it would have been met with a flurry of criticisms which probably have included a few from the other moderators. But since you are a moderator, they will most likely either refrain from any public comment or rationalize it as well. I shouldn't suppose to speak for him, so I'll just say that is how I read it.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alan 1 #39 February 18, 2004 QuoteMy whole purpose of starting this thread was to make people think about the issue. I guess I succeeded! Actually, that is why I made the posts to the comments in the "How to sink in a X-braced wing?" thread about opening high on a bad spot. The discussion was hijacking that thread so I suggested in one of my replies to you that it be moved or given it's own thread. You simply responded to that suggestion with the same purpose in mind.alan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #40 February 19, 2004 QuoteI never indicated that I like to track directly back down the line of flight, nor did I ever indicate that I liked to track directly over the top of people behind me. Perhaps I made a bad assumption. My dz almost always runs jumprun into the wind. Thus, if I were to attempt to track back to the dz in freefall, I would definately be tracking down the line of flight and I would definately be tracking towards other groups. I maintain that this is a terrible idea. No one can say they will definately see every thing, we are human and we make mistakes. On a crosswind or offset jump run, maybe this would be safe, but I think it is a bad habit to get into. Besides, pulling high, checking your airspace and then flying back towards the dz is more efficient anyway. QuoteAs to Alan's comment stating "what about the guy with 100 jumps...." all I have to say is that personal preservation is an individual event. It's my duty to make sure that I land safely. Anyone with experience has a responsibility in this sport to lead by example. There is a lot of "monkey see monkey do" going on out there. If the 100 jump wonder, who missed five loads waiting for a ride back to the dz, hears someone with more experience talking about tracking back at the dz to make it back from a long spot, or reads about it online, they are sure to try it themselves next time they think they are hosed. QuoteOnce again, the majority of such freefall/canopy collisions do not happen as a result of tracking back from long, bad spots; they happen right over the top of the dz. I agree with you. As I said in my post, most of the close calls I have seen came from the inexperience of a jumper. Also, the single canopy collision I witnessed was the direct result of an unattentive canopy pilot. QuoteAnd by the way, my moderator status has nothing to do with anything I post in regards to this subject. My 3800 jumps, lifelong experience and every instructional rating do. Good point...my bad. I have a tendancy to offend. It is purely by accident and poor judgement, I assure you. If you wish to continue this discussion, I suggest we start a new thread, this one has deteriorated into a rant about windspeed, aircraftspeed and groundspeed. People, if you have questions about that stuff, go spend an hour playing with Kallend's frefall simulation before you make your next post. Besides, everyone knows the most important factor in separation is the current position of Ursa Minor in the night sky. Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GroundZero 0 #41 February 20, 2004 Bad Spot.... Pull High, pull clear. Get to the ground safely. Period. If you don't understand any part of this, get education, get experience... Thanks Alan, Thanks Chuckie. Chris Edited to add... Thanks Brian... everyone needs to need to think, good job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Martini 0 #42 February 20, 2004 If we have an exit altitude of 25,000 feet and free fall 12,000 feet to deploy at 13,000 feet is the ground still a factor in separation? Or a 12,000 foot freefall from 1,000,000 feet? Don't believe so. Don't believe the "wind" is either since the wind is only ground relevant. Sometimes to hell with math and physics. Please protect yourselves from the inherent dangers of an out landing but kindly consider my ass too.Sometimes you eat the bear.............. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #43 February 20, 2004 I think the thread you are looking for went here. Read bits, pieces or every bit of it, but pay special attention to kallend's last post which may enlighten you. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #44 February 20, 2004 My opinion is this, PLAN the DIVE and DIVE the PLAN. This will keep everyone way more safe. I think if you are a beginner, to advanced, to expert skydiver you should be able to put the canopy that you are flying down into adverse landing, weather, and location differences. If you have a bad spot you should know all of the safe locations around your dropzone to land. Also, you should learn how to fly your canopy at max glide for the entire canopy flight. I have had some pretty brutal spots at my DZ and still manage to get somewhere safe to land. Pullig high sets us up for failure unless everyone on the load knows what is going on. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #45 February 20, 2004 QuotePullig high sets us up for failure unless everyone on the load knows what is going on. How? Seriously, I want to know what you base this theory on. (I am assuming you read and understand both this thread and the other one linked in the post to which you replied.) I think it's quite clear from both threads that the higher you pull within your column of air, the less likely it will be that your airspace will be intersected by another jumper. It may seem counterintuitive, but taking a 5 second delay right out of the plane, no matter where in the exit order you are is about as safe a thing as you could possibly do. In turn, this has made me even more leary about sucking it down to the basement, as my chances of falling through an open canopy by having converging columns of air (granted, I would somehow have to stop looking) are increased with every passing foot. Now that I think about it, I can't remember ever reading about a freefall/canopy hit above 3k. It's usually right down around 2k, where the effects of a slide and/or poor exit separation are the greatest. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velo90 0 #46 February 20, 2004 Just to add my 2 cents worth (yeah, we have cents in Germany as well now) If am hosed I will pull, I won't track, I will pull. The only concern I have about pulling high is a possible collision with an aircraft. Pilots don't look where they are flying I'll even pull at 7 grand if needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chachi 0 #47 February 20, 2004 Ok, I guess I should dummy down my statement. Pulling high gives a higher chance of something happening then if you were to pull at the correct altitude where everyone expects you to be. It could be a potential collision, a potential hazard for aircraft if you are near a busy airport. I don't mean there would be inherent danger on every jump but in my opinion you should do what you plan to do on the skydive and not make changes mid flight unless of some worse potential danger. This keeps us all in a safer environment. If you don't have prepared safe outs that you can land the canopy you are jumping in you shouldn't be jumping that canopy or you should prepare better. ~Chachi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #48 February 20, 2004 Plain english: The higher you open, the less chance of a canopy collision. (period). The only exceptions to this are a second plane dropping a load within a few minutes of your load or a true down-wind jumprun. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #49 February 20, 2004 QuotePlain english: The higher you open, the less chance of a canopy collision. (period). The only exceptions to this are a second plane dropping a load within a few minutes of your load or a true down-wind jumprun. Assuming everyone gave proper seperation given the winds at altitude and open altitude of the day AAHHHHH run away! Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #50 February 20, 2004 QuoteAssuming everyone gave proper seperation given the winds at altitude and open altitude of the day. I don't even know about that. Ever chase a chunk or a tandem out of a plane? Notice how much separation you get within a second or two? You really gotta track yer ass off to get with whatever you're chasing. I stand by my belief that a slide or a track which alters the gravity-driven (assuming same winddrift between groups) trajectory of the path of the jumper(s) is the only real way to get above a previous group (besides the well-established increase in drift by a slower-falling second group). mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
