Bryan Burke - SDAZ 270 Policy notes

"If by "we" you mean "people who do 270's in the pattern" then the absence of such people will be a big selling point for Eloy."

Bill,

When did I mention doing 270's in a pattern full of other jumpers? You are beginning to sound like a broken record. Quit responding just so you can get the last word in and fucking think about what other people are saying before you spout off at the keyboard.

If Eloy was serious about the issue, then no turns over 90s would be allowed. To allow someone to setup flying towards the landing traffic before initiating their 180s just goes to show what a "knee jerk" reaction we have here. Don't be surprised if/when the collisions go up instead of down.

How does not allowing hop and pops make it safer for you?

Quote

If Eloy was serious about the issue, then no turns over 90s would be allowed. To allow someone to setup flying towards the landing traffic before initiating their 180s just goes to show what a "knee jerk" reaction we have here. Don't be surprised if/when the collisions go up instead of down.

well i think they are deadly serious about the issue. i know you, and i know you may not agree with their decisions but i also think that they ahve some level of experience in running a "skydivers" orientated dz than we dont have have sitting behind our keyboards in our chosen professions.

while i dont like 180's they may lessen the potential accidents to an acceptable level for SDA. if it does not reduce i am sure they will make a 90 degree policy.

Quote

How does not allowing hop and pops make it safer for you?

I wasn't talking about hop N pops. I was talking about the high yahoo factor.

J

IMHO, there is no acceptable level of accidents.

You can try to down play this and rationalize it forever.. But Right now, People are scared. With good reason.

Since December, 4 Incidents with 6 Dead (Possibly 5 incidents with 7 dead if you count yesterday at Z-Hills) of these only 1 was not caused by HP landings. I dont see how you cant say that this is not a problem.

DZO`s are going to have to react to this if they dont want see thier planes flying lighter and lighter.

Even if you are doing everything perfect, Exactly as you should, And some yahoo sets up their 270 above you, there is nothing you can do except pray and hope they see you in time. This sport is shrinking fast enough.

"high yahoo factor"

Is that a quatifiable statistic?

What Eloy has done is basicly said no hop and pops because of the cost. I understand that. They have also said no turns over 180. I understand that too. If that works for them then good, and if you feel safer jumping there because of it then good for you too. Personally I want to focus on other things like doing hop and pops and turns bigger than 180. Therefore you probably will not see me at SDA and if you think that me doing a bigger turn on a hop and pop with no other traffic about is a problem, then you really need to re-examin your policy.

Quote

Quote

I was merely using the other side of his statistic regarding the fataities:

"1) 5 of the 12 (41.67%) were NON SWOOPERS."

If this is true, then 7 of 12 WERE swoopers. Do you see it differently?

Chris, closer examination of the facts shows 5 out of 12 were relating to high performance canopy flight. 5 of the 12 were not related to high performance canopy flight and 2 of the 12 there are not enough details to put them into either category. They probally go into the non-HP group but there is not enough facts to back that up so they remain as outliers. Thats 41% HP related, 41 % not HP related and 16% unknown.

Fair enough. I stand corrected.
Just the one line wasn't enough info to base my response on.
I jumped the gun .

Hey Steve is right on this issue. If you want it to be as black and white then SDA needs to ban everything over a 90. If you are going to do then do it all the way. A 180 is just as dangerous as a 270 if not more so.

Quote

I’m opened to well reasoned arguments, however. If anyone can give me a convincing explanation of why a 180 is more dangerous than a 270, I’m sure the dz will be willing to ban those as well. 270s are already pretty well proven to be dangerous when done with other traffic around. If a 180 is even worse, we want to do the right thing.

a 180 is usually done from a lower altitude than a 270. There fore from a 180 degree turn you have less time to bail and seek alternate landing directions. It is just as dangerous as a 270 if you really want to get down to brass tacts here. As a swooper I have pretty much given up on Eloy so why not just help illustrate how their landing policy is still not going to help metters out.

Quote

Let's raise H&P tickets to regular altitude jump prices. Would you go for that?

Yes. Belive it or not some people enjoy the canopy flight as much or more than the freefall (myself included) and would be willing to pay the same price as a regular skydive to do so.
p.s.-when i am in Eloy, if swooping is not an option, I wil not be doing any turns more than 90s. If this is an attempt to improve safety than allowing 180s is RETARDED. I can assure that, if done properly, a 180 can generate just as much speed as a 270, and sitll has pattern conflict issues.
I have done some ripping 90s in my day and don't see the point in potentially pissing off people for a 180.

Quote

Jay,

You are missing my point 100%.

This is a problem, but it's an EVERYONE problem.

OK.. Please tell me what I am Missing??

It used to be "Keep your head on a Swivel, Fly a Predictable Pattern and avoid other canopies".

That doent work when someone above sets up a 270 or 180 above you. I cant avoid those canopies once I turn onto final if they are above and/or behind me and they decide to Swoop anyway.

The proposed solution is to remove those canopies that cannot be avoided to a safer area for the swooper and the regular canopy Pilots.

What am I missing?

I'm sure he thought of it, but my guess is that the business aspect kept the option open for 180's.

Quote

IMHO, there is no acceptable level of accidents.

Then perhaps you should reevaluate your involvement in a high risk sport such as skydiving?
-

i don't even know where to post this cause there's so many damn threads on this but here it goes.

if we brake down why we have collisions to the simplest form you would say that 2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. then we can say that the probability of 2 objects occupying the same space goes up depending on multiple factors: the total amount of space (the actual landing area and the vertical area above that), the AMOUNT of objects in that given space (the more canopies the more likely a collision), reaction times (faster objects have to have faster reactions, or think in advance, to avoid collision).

has anyone looked at opening altitudes?
if someone is loading a canopy at 2.0 opens at 3.5k while someone who loads a canopy at 1.0 opens at 2.5k there's going to be a problem. why? because as the altitude goes down the amount of "working/flying" space also goes downs so now your condensing the same amount of canopies but in a smaller area. now put into the fact that a DZ like eloy or perris for example have little strips of grass that EVERYONE aims for, now you've just condensed your space even more. so why don't we incorporate opening altitudes as well, for example you pull below 3k you're grounded because you're creating a hazard condensing the airspace over the DZ. if 2 people deploy at 3.5k and one is at 2.0 and the othe at 1.0 there will be less of a problem because that person at 2.0 is gonna come down like a rock no matter what and will create that natural seperation. why do you think the organizers of the big RW ways have seperate brake off altitudes? it's not just for opening issues.

also, has anyone looked at the type of DZ's these collisions primarily happen at? Eloy is a big DZ, dublin had a boogie with a lot of people attending, collisions on opening becauase there were many other people in the air, all these things have something in common...many many people in the air at the same time and all trying to land or occupy the same spot at the same time. now you might say that the eloy accident involving the military guy and student didn't have a lot of people in the air, but due to the small condensed landing area that people aim for coupled with the improper landing pattern of one of the individuals shit hit the fan. so really SDAZ is partly to blame because consciously or not they have made people fly closer together because how they set up their landing area with only tiny strips of grass.

it's completely ludicris to say swoopers are the primary cause or that a 270 is the primary cause, because i can generate way more speed and power on a 90 degree than most can on a 270 turn. i do FULLY agree however that there is a time and place for doing a larger degree of turn and when there are a bunch of canopies with pilots of varying skills are that is NOT the best place to do it. i also fully agree that at boogies or large events there should be restrictions. hell, i usually jump at what is considered a small DZ and i still pull either waaaayy higher or do a hop n pop just because i don't want a hazard in my way and i don't want to be a hazard.

Quote

I'm sure he thought of it, but my guess is that the business aspect kept the option open for 180's.

One wonders how many of the Eloy coaches and instructors would hang around if everything above a 90 was banned. But we know that 180s are just as deadly as the 270s (if not more).