goose491

wow My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Aw! This one is blocked by my work!!! That first one was funny shit though! My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I was just wondering how you could be pretentious enough to comment on both my ego and my financial situation. I wonder. I see how you blame this on my ego, my money, my continued desire to educate myself on these boards... maybe it's just because I fail to take Bills words as gospel but rather ask him to explain himself and continue to do so when it's still not clear to me. Maybe I'm too aggressive. Maybe I should just stop asking... be a sheep. But in my oppinion, that's how people die. This thread is about 'responsibility in the landing pattern'. I don't even need you to try and explain how your shitty comments relate. ...troll. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Very well put Rob. I don't know you, but I've read along and feel as though I've followed you through some of your ordeals to be a father to that boy. So much effort. So many times you could have just given up. It's so very obvious how much you care for him. Thanks for this post, it made me smile

Riiiiiiiiiiight. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Whom are you refering to when you say ego and money? This was not a very well thought out post greenlight. ....Troll. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I once said: "Just say it so I can wind down and go home!" after a terrible turn of events. ... does that count? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Soon, very soon, you will not be able to play coy. Boys are catching on that girls... are not oblivious. "It starts here!" Says Molson Canadian... lol and they are talking about such things. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Voted Luv It. Man there are a lot of sushi lovers on here! My favorite is the salmon... so nice and it seems to melt in ya mouth. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Given my avatar, is it weird that I posted whilst you were posting this and. ...got in between you and the one you were replying too? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I had a girl once insist on using the word "MORE!" as a safe word... I went along but warned her she was asking for it. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I didn't... but have always thought everyone should. lol. Don't have a safety word. You need to use a different one every time That's hotter. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Especially when you pull the wrong points and misconstrue. Nor did I. But this is actually what he said... I have a hard time believing that having to accpet that your group will leave mine no separation at exit, is comparable to having to accept that 270s can be performed safely and without conflict. I don't know what your take on this exit seperation thing is... but that's why it was brought up. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Thank you Bill. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Oh I got it. Thanks Dave. In my opinion, the reason behind having to do 90s only in the pattern for the 300 way was more so because you have 300 people all deploying at about the same time, at about the same place. Now the entire mess of people have to co-ordinate together and the pattern is admitedly tighter. It is less because other landing techniques are unpredictable and more because there is no room for sudden changes in speed with someone right in front and someone right behind. I'd say the line is drawn against radical landings when we know there to be a horde of people arriving pretty much at the same time. On any other given day, jumpers exit in smaller groups, giving eachother separation at the door, having different freefall speeds between disciplines and deploying at different heights. Coming in to land, we all converge at trying to join the pattern but I don't remember the last time I saw the last jumper joining the pattern before the first guy got down. Bill says he had no problem flying the pattern of the guy in front of him and the guy behind him had no problem following him. I'm glad because all three arrived together with some other 287ish people. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Wendy, without offending, do you know what you are responding to? -No freefall separation was not presented by Bill in an "each jumper is aware of the others and clears their air" scenario. It was presented in a "You may already have a dive planned with your group, we are not going to give you any separation so now you also have lurkers" type of scenario. It is meant to parallel not being able to warn other canopies of "sudden" unpredictable behaviour. -I make no reservations about the rectagular pattern. I don't know exactly what the second part of your post is refering to with landing outs and 3s, 20s, 100s (??). But I am still talking about a very real, very rectangular pattern, over the real landing area. The only thing I challenge is that all turns have to be 90 or you are being unsafe/irresponsible. -I said nothing of canopy pilots needing LESS discipline. Only that the pattern is a very different animal for powered crafts as it is for us. We are not lining 'em up and landing single file on one single length of runway, we have the entire field and can set up our final approach anywhere latterally along our base legs. And a good thing because despite what Bill says, it is impossible to expect any canopy pilot to follow any other canopy pilots pattern exactly with all the different canopies and loadings. If it were possible, you'd never see canopies landing more than one... at... a... time... And then some stuff comparing risk in the sport to risk on the road... I don't hear anyone saying "it's the natural consequence" to canopy conflicts and collisions and it's certainly not my statement. I have to repeat: do you know what you were responding to? At least include your point of view. Are you agreeing that all turn have to be 90 degrees in order for us all to be safe and considered responsible? Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

Not the same. No freefall separation is a safety issue. 180s and 270s on the same landing area as a perfecly rectangular pattern consisting of only 90s... that's an awareness issue. This statment is outright false. Predictable does not mean 90s only unless you are unable to cope with canopy flying as an evolving sport. I mean I realise you've made jumps with some 300 people landing all together using this method. And to be honnest, that type of number requires such a thing. But it is NOT irresponsible to perform 180s and 270s. You are failing to even consider that the landing area can be shared safely... time will prove you wrong and I'm trying real hard not to sound pompus. I'm no pro-swooper... and you truly did have me questioning the safety of my landings... but in the end, you have said nothing of substance other that we all have to fly a rectagle with nothing more than 90 degree turns. I don't know what to say other than... outdated. I am a pilot. Airplanes have the ability to alter their speeds and maintain given altitudes. They appoach the field from all directions but have the ability to communicate with eachother. A single file pattern is easily maintained and thusly expected for planes. Neither of those are present under canopy. It's not that we are more lax... it's that we cannot expect the same performance. Ever hear of a tear-drop? You are just about to finish your downwid leg and turn final when you see/hear/are told of another plane coming straight in on final? They are fast enough to cause you conflict, maybe they are burning quite a bit more fuel so they are cleared before you? You are then asked what? Either 1) to extend your downwind leg or 2) to perform a 270 in the opposite direction. lol. That was just for fun. But bill, the issue was not how sudden or how wide. The issue was the initiation point... X and Y on the pictures that were drawn specifically so that you couldn't say "What are you talking about?" A 180 performed mid-field is irresponsible whether it be snapped OR gradual... but if initiated at point Y... there is no cause for confusion... who's confused? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

No Bill, you will have to come to grips with it. What other choice do you have? 180s and 270s are not simply going to go away. There are more people that maintain they can be perfomed safely than you, who seem think they cannot. I know I'm going to get flammed for that one because, well, How dare I? but your responses to me are borderline childish. You might as well have typed "You're not the boss of me!" Now!... Look up at your post, what part are you disagreeing with? The fact that not everyone is doing 90s, or that everyone in the air has a responsibility to be safe? p.s. I'll take your lack of response to our prior discussion to mean you have changed your mind? Realised that if jumper can follow me down my downwind leg and expect me to be turning a base leg, that it would be funny to think when my plans are to do a 180 instead, his expectations would then be different? (Now he'd following me expecting me to land in the downwind direction, off the field?) My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

In another particular case, (turning 270's in the far 'base-final' corner of the landing area) the lightly loaded canopies which take their base leg too far, putting themselves right in the middle of a fast final are by far the biggest problems. In another particular case, (turning 180's in the far 'downwind-base' corner of the landing area) monkeys flying behind you who think you aren't going to turn around at all - let alone turn a standard base- and are quite content to follow you off the landing area downwind until you confuse them by turning around and landing safely into wind, are by far the biggest problems. We are talking about "responsibility in the landing pattern", where "pattern" refers to the rectanglular shape made by crosswind, downwind, base and final legs (not by the 90 degree turns) and "responsibility" belongs to all involved (not just the ones who use landing techniques that differ from yours) Okay, some will just have to come to grips with the fact that there is more going on in a pattern than just 90's and accept that everyone in the air has a responsibility to get to where they are going safely. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[mouth moves out of sink with words] "Your kung-fu is strong... but not strong enough for my flying upsidedown scissor-kick! Let us jump to impossible heights and remain airborn for an unthinkable amount of time whilst exchanging flurries of lightning-fast kicks, punches and chops which will cut throught the air making crazie 'woosh' and 'pshhh' sounds." ... ...[/mouth moves out of sink with words] My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

You are paraphrasing very very very poorly Bill and you won't convince anyone that the proper thing to do is follow somone blindly into a situation you cannot manage. Go to my diagrams. At point Y I AM NOT ON FINAL AND I AM NOT PLANNING ON LANDING DOWNWIND. YOU HAVE STATED THAT IF I LAND WITH A 180, YOU WILL BE CONFUSED AT POINT Y BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT I WAS LANDING DOWNWIND (and OFF) AND THEN DIDN'T. Now if you would simply address the ONE concern I have I would really appreciate it. I have repeated several times now what my landing pattern is and asked you to tell me how it would confuse another jumper. I'm not using some strange dialect here am I? Stop messing around with what it is I have described, I drew a nice picture so nobody is being fooled when you use words like "if you turn onto final and then snap a 180" Go to the diagrams and tell me specifically what differs from POINT X TO POINT Y and why you think you would be confused if you were following a jumper to Point Y when he/she initiated a turn. Because this is the question I have asked you to help me be a safer canopy pilot!! It is not a non-issue, it is exactly the results YOU yourself have described to my landing technique confusing a jumper behind me. Personally, I think jumper B in this scenario is a MONKEY and I don't think anyone in the pattern is going to chose to follow him... after all, he followed me all the way along my downwind leg thinking I was on final. Bwahahaa! Now because you have modified my question so many times so as not to answer it properly. I will have to wait until monday to see your response. I hope I don't hose anyone at Point Y this weekend. Have a great, safe weekend everyone!!! Nick My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[just for fun] Paraphrasing the above: "You don't have the skill to make a 87 velocity act like a manta 289 or vice versa. I do." [/just for fun] My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I see the problem very much likened to the time when snowboards first started becoming popular. At first, snowboarders were wild and crazy grunge punks with no respect for your lines and no regard for safety on the slopes. Ski resorts disallowed the use of a snowboard on their hills. Their explanation was that the turns that a skier makes going down a hill make a tighter and shorter wave. That the pattern the Snowboarders made conflicted directly with skiers making collisions nearly impossible to avoid. It was also "common knowledge" that snowboards went quite a bit faster than a pair of skis. (complete hogwash btw, a set of skis is absolutely faster for all intents and purposes.) Boarders slowly gained access to ski resorts but were met with attitude by skiers who just... didn't get it. Today you will find a great mix of skiers and snoboarders (even snow-blades) on every ski hill. The designated areas for snowboards only have absolutely nothing to do with conflicts, rather, a set of skis will ruin the finish of a half-pipe... that sort of thing. In the futur, we will see everyone using the same landing area, relatively safely. NOTE: we draw a rectangle to show the "pattern" but we understand that "final" does not have to beee all the way over on the one side of the field right? In fact, "final" can be anywhere laterally along it so as to avoid conflicts right?... and to have good outs? Lightly loaded wings coming in on a very distignguished and predictable pattern will understand not to take their base legs ALL the fucking way over to the other side of the field before turning final because there are people making 270s in that corner and coming onto final much faster then they are... and from a little higher. To add to that, it is already NOT a good idea to take your base leg all the fucking way over to the other side of the field because it leaves you no outs should you find yourself too low to complete your turn to final someday. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

This is why you should not just follow the guy in front of you blindly. Nevermind the fact that you CANNOT safely switch directions when he does, the real problem in the above-scenario is that you didn't anticipate, about a half a minute ago, that you are on a heading and at an altitude which would have you landing downwind and off the landing area (to the North). Valid reason not to follow him blindly. Without consideration for wind direction and placement on the field. Your arguments are more valid if the Swooper is initiating the snap at like mid-field or on the upwind end - stupid move though. You know the wind direction. Set up to land into it and to not hit anyone. if you follow a jumper to the downwind end of the field and think the idea is that you are going to land this way, than you have put yourself in a bad position. You could not blame the jumper in front of you for not checking the wind direction or considering your placement relative the field. He snaps a 180 to land into wind and with some actual room on the field and you are left unable to get turned around... You land downwind and off the landing area. People come out to collect you and you say: "I thought the guy in front of me was going to land off and downwind and I was following him!" ? My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

I cheated on the diagrams. The radius of my turn was exagerated and I guarantee it takes less than 20 seconds. I just don't need to be flamed about it on here because of my jump numbers and it's not relevant to the discussion you and I are having. The purpose of the diagram was to compare the initiation points of the two techniques (relative the winds and landing area) and have you explain to me how one is more confusing to a following jumper in terms of the intended landing direction. I don't want to be causing confusion in the pattern with my flying. Follow me to point X and you should anticipate that I'm about to turn to Base. Follow me to point Y and at worst, you might be thinking: "Why hasn't he turned base yet?" for about a second when... there I go! Wether it be a continous carve or a snappy toggle hook (blech! )... You said that if you were above and behind me, you would think I was landing North and I didn't understand.... I still don't really. My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!