ianmdrennan

Sorry Chris but I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I don't want anyone to hit me anymore than I want to hit them. Shifting a problem to the swoop lane isn't any more acceptable than a 'swooper' hitting another jumper who isn't swooping. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Hey guys, banter is fun and all but please remember this is a pretty serious topic that affects us all we're discussing so lets try keep it somewhat on track, k?

This was all brought up by MM in Fahrenheit 911 - and trust me I hate to use the word MM as because he's pretty scewed in how he presents things. Still, this was addressed then..... Performance Designs Factory Team

You are totally missing point of his post. The problem will not go away with seperate landing areas....collisions will still happen. There's no fix for bad judgement. Performance Designs Factory Team

Judy, Fortunately, we've met so I know you won't think this is coming across in the wrong way

As I said, call his actions into question all you want - they deserve it. But his character....no chance in hell. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

No, a skydiver and a good man made a mistake and used bad judgement - that's undeniable. I'd venture a guess though that Danny (and Bob for that matter) accomplished more in their lives than most of us could ever dream. For the sport, for others and for their own personal goals. While his mistakes were undeniable (and I call him out on it daily), your comment attempts to gloss over a great man who offered everyone who'd let him everything he had. Your comment's reflection on what exactly you have to offer though.....that I'm not so sure about. Feel free to call his actions into question, but to call his character into question will meet with the highest resistance from me. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

My post in another thread http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2725102;#2725102 Performance Designs Factory Team

That moving them only solves SOME of the problem. Referencing the stats I posted previously: 7 of the 12 collisions would not have been prevented by seperate landing areas. That's over 50% of the total! If you count the 16% unknown but apparently non-swooping incidents that raises it to 9 out of 12 - a whopping 75%! 3 (including the non-collision) of the 12 deaths most likely would have been prevented from seperate landing areas. And that is 3 we definitely should not discount and we should implement seperate landing areas, make no mistake - that's 3 of our brothers and sisters....but when we look at the cold hard numbers, the root problem lies elsewhere IMO. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Jay, You are missing my point 100%. This is a problem, but it's an EVERYONE problem. No-one is trying to downplay anything. Quite the contrary, I want to be sure the issues are actually being addressed, not just some false sense of security. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Hey guys, It's ok to keep this going here but lets try and make sure we don't have too much overlap with this thread There are good points being raised by most people, regardless of stance, on the issue. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Of skydivers, possibly. Of number of jumps per year, I'd say much higher. In fact, I can't think of a single aff or instructor at our (or any dz's I frequent) who don't swoop. Considering they do on average 20+ jumps a weekend and the 'average' skydiver does what, 10 a month? We cannot ignore that either. I'm not a statistician so I don't know how it would all work out, but I know there are plenty of smart folks here who could probably come up with some interesting numbers....either way. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Feel free to try and avoid the points I raised or twist what I'm trying to say. However, if you read my response you see that I mention 3 being unacceptable and avoidable. It still ignores the big picture though IMO and too many skydivers are reading this as a swooper problem. Because of that, they'll never do what THEY need to do to help reduce these fatalities. If you can't see that this is a problem across the board from that post, then I'm not sure what else I can do to help you with that. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Depends on the above. However, even if the percentage you quote is correct when you look at the breakdown there's a strong indication that seperate landing areas won't fix as many of the problems as people seem to be thinking. Of course if it'll remove the 25% from the list then that's a great start but it's not the only part of the solution. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Ok, I'm sorry Bill but this statement just doesn't ring true. It is absolutely, positively NOT just swoopers or HP pilots. From the fatalities database (worldwide): A collision summary over the last few years (freefall collisions, crew, obstacles, etc excluded) 2004-03-10 Thailand. 2 Regular jumpers flying regular patterns. Both experienced 200+ way event 2004-07-04 Germany. 2 Regular jumpers flying regular patterns. Both inexperienced 2004-09-17 Australia. No swooping involved. Jumper spiralled down to try and get down first. After levelling out it's guessed that, with the sun in their eyes they didn't see an oncoming canopy 2005-07-04 USA (Cross Keys). 2 swoopers. Seperate landing areas wouldn't help as they would have both been there anyway 2005-10-11 Australia. Unknown, details are vague but at least one of the jumpers was inexperienced. 2005-12-02 Paraguay. Both jumpers were making left hand turns to final. No swooping mentioned. Details vague 2006-05-07 Germany. Details vague but no indication that either were swooping 2006-05-07 USA(Greene County). 2 swoopers (1 died), again Seperate landing areas wouldn't help as they would have both been there anyway. 2006-12-30 USA(Eloy). 1 swooper hit another (apparently non swooper) after the jumper did a 270 and the low man did a 180 (not sure why the 180 was done if they weren't swooping). 2006-12-31 USA(Eloy). 1 swooper avoided another jumper (non swooper) and impacted the ground. Even though it's not a collision I thought it should be included in this list 2007-03-09 USA(Eloy). 2 NON SWOOPERS. An AFF student turn 360 degrees into another jumper at 500 feet. 2007-03-19 USA(Dublin). Experienced pilot did a 270 into the low man. So there we have it. Of the 12 (since 04) listed we have the following info: 1) 5 of the 12 (41.67%) were NON SWOOPERS. 2) 2 of the 12 (16.67%) were swoopers that would have (most likely) collided in seperate landing areas anyway. 3) 3 of the 12 (25%) were a result of swoopers that collided with another pilot who was not swooping. Seperate landing areas would, most likely, have made a difference here. This INCLUDES the jumper who did not have a collision. 4) 2 of the 12 (16.67%) appear, from reports, to be non-swoopers colliding but cannot be confirmed due to lack of information. So....how exactly is this a 'swooper' problem again? No matter how I read it, it seems like it's a problem across the board. 25% is too high for sure for swoop related accidents that should have been avoidable. Of course, you could make a strong argument that the 41.67% (58.3% if you count the vague entries that appear to be non-swoop related) are from NON-SWOOPERS and should have been equally avoidable. IMO it is a SKYDIVER problem and no amount of regulation will make this one go away. Now, to be clear (again), I am very much in favor of seperate landing areas. Just like everyone else I don't want to be hit by anyone, or worse HIT anyone. But I can't help but feel we're missing the boat here...... Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Glad it helped If a Hippy says I smell then I'm in real trouble Performance Designs Factory Team

So far I haven't heard anyone complain about seperate landing areas. In fact, from what I can tell it's one of the few things we ALL agree on. What I do see a lot of discussion on (bar the what is a swooper definition) is exactly what the ROOT of the problem is. So far I think we're making progress. The emotions are dying down and the rational thought process is kicking in. I expect to see some good suggestions (above the obvious landing areas) to come forward. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

I thought the Eloy double fatal was 2 NON swoopers? Far as I know neither was attempting a HP landing. Both were swoopers (if you're referring to the 05 collision)? Seperate landing areas wouldnt have changed this, they'd both be landing in the same area. edited to add the standard: 'I am not supporting erratic piloting in the pattern, regardless of turn Since you seem to have gathered a lot of info though, I'm still waiting to see how many of these happen at boogies/events vs regular DZ weekends? If for no other reason than to satisfy my curiousity, I'd be interesting IMO (or irrelevant but I can't determine that yet). Blues. Performance Designs Factory Team

It was a beautiful day today, with beautiful words. Danny's life was so more diverse than I ever could have imagined. He was an amazing person who touched many in many different ways. It was great to hear the memories, both old and new, and celebrate the man for who he really was for those who took the time to get to know him. I'll miss you my friend. To infinity and beyond........ Blues Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

I disagree. I think neither is safe in traffic. Honestly, my personal opinion is that 180's are worse but it's semantics. We both agree neither is safe in traffic. I think the FOCUS on swoopers/swooping is a foolish one. I strongly believe the FOCUS should be on good. responsible piloting, by EVERYONE, period. I believe the true lesson(s) are getting lost in the focus on swooping/hooking. How, pray tell, does moving a canopy pilot that performs aggressive, erratic, low turns into the swoop lane do anything other than increase HP pilots chance of gettin hit? Also, how do JUST seperate landing areas fix the collision in Eloy where it was between two inexperienced jumpers NEITHER of whom trying to swoop? I stand by my stance that seperating landing areas in a good place to start BUT without changing and focusing on the mindset of ALL jumpers, we're just going to see collisions in both the HP and the non-HP areas. DBattman's post about looking in the mirror was a good one IMO. It is ALL of our responsibility. Now I'm not naive enough to believe that education will stop all collisions, it's like saying if everyone took drivers ed we'd never have car accidents, do I believe it'll go a long way to help. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

You're arguing that flying a leg towards another patterns 'final' is a safer thing? Considering how many pilots only look down at where they want to go, how exactly will that prevent a collision? Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

A 90 on the canopy Danny was jumping would have hit someone if he didn't see them and most likely had the same results. Now, I'm not saying don't seperate areas, I'm not saying this doesn't warrent discussion, but a AM saying that anyone, on any canopy, can do it to another skydiver. IMO, the REAL lessons are getting lost in the noise. Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Danny Cary is the most amazing drummer ever IMO. And yes, I plan on going (if I can get tickets). Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

Actually I think that is one of the most UNSAFE practices. 180's require a pilot to FACE oncoming final traffic normally for a much more significant period of time than a higher rotation. How exactly is that safer? Sorry, but the 180's are WAY WAY WAY worse IMO. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team

2 things: 1) A 90 degree turn on a canopy loaded at 2.5 (hell even 1.8 on a velo does) still generates a LOT of speed and loses a lot of altitude. So vertical and horizontal closing speeds will still be an issue. 2) Just cause you're looking where you going, doesn't mean you see what you need to see. I support seperate landing areas BUT I still think we're going to see these things happen, both in the 'regular' area and the HP area. I stand by the fact that I believe education is the most important part of any decision we make here. Take Danny, I don't believe he had EVER taken a canopy class. If members of the PD Factory Team can take them, then anyone can. I know of DZ's that offered Scotts class for FREE to instructors but instructors didn't take them because 'they didn't need them'. I've seen 'experienced' skydivers say the same thing. To me, it's pretty clear where a LARGE part of the problem lies, and it's those (regardless of what wings they jump), that don't dedicate time to learning the one part of the skydive that we ALL share, regardless of discipline. Blues, Ian Performance Designs Factory Team