Swooping is not a crime

Quote

Quote

That is exactly what I meant about the "big name swooper"... Brian didn't suggest or say anything different than Bill or the others...but since he's a "big name" his idea is INSTANTLY better.

Go back and check the archives and see that even a low life nobody like myself was saying these things here before Bill or Brian. But I'm not about to claim credit for nothing. The difference is that a respected canopy pilot, parachute designer and canopy control instructor has decided to add his two cents to the topic.

I think his point was that you supported it when Brian Germain said it, but treated Billvon like a villain for suggesting the same basic thing.

Quote

swoopers are very conscious about what is going on around them, under canopy, separating landings, separating wing loadings, and also exiting at a lower altitude to separate them selves from "whuffo" traffic.

it is the jackass canopy pilots that swoop in your pattern that are the problem.

The jackass canopy pilots that swoop in the pattern ARE true swoopers, a 270 is a 270 is a 270, they just aren't very good ones.

If the jackasses make up more of the swooping population than the committed, careful, CPC type swoopers out there then it would be fair to say that the local low hookturner is more representative of swoopers as a whole than you are.

Quote

Quote

swoopers are very conscious about what is going on around them, under canopy, separating landings, separating wing loadings, and also exiting at a lower altitude to separate them selves from "whuffo" traffic.

it is the jackass canopy pilots that swoop in your pattern that are the problem.

Is this like the difference between a 'carving turn' and a 'hook turn?' The issue can't be defined away by saying 'swoopers' never screw up. It's a nice tautology, but not helpful, unless the conclusion is that this spring was nothing more than bad luck.

And yeah, Brian and Bill said the same thing. Separation is much better than bans. Bill's group tried to put out as many solutions as possible short of banning.

Right - if they make a 270, screw up and kill someone then they do not fit the definition of "swooper".


People making turns of >90 degrees to build speed for high performance landings must be separated in time or space from people flying standard patterns. How that is achieved is for the DZ management to decide. That is all.

Quote

Quote

in my opinion, swoopers are the most aware canopy pilots on the planet. the problem is not swoopers...

And that statement just told me that they are!!!

Quote

it is the jackass canopy pilots that swoop in your pattern that are the problem.

You are right, it was that jackass Bob Holler who caused the last double fatality.......NOT!!!! Any hope of credibility that swoopers ever had just went down the toilet!

BoB Holler is living proof that they're total idiots out there that will swoop no matter what. As Danny proved. I think there is 2 types of swoopers.
1. The smart sensible ones that know when to bail and execute a swoop.
2. The swoopers that will swoop no matter what the pattern is to higher their EGO. These are the ones killing people as you can all see.

Quote

Quote

So how do we separate the real swoopers from the non-real swoopers?

And how do we define a "real" swooper as compared to a "non-real" swooper? Is a real swooper only someone who competes? With the egos in skydiving, I can only imagine the discussions that might come about from telling certain guys that they are not real swoopers.

Apparently Real Swoopers(TM) don't do things that might kill other people.

Quote

Quote

Quote

So how do we separate the real swoopers from the non-real swoopers?

And how do we define a "real" swooper as compared to a "non-real" swooper? Is a real swooper only someone who competes? With the egos in skydiving, I can only imagine the discussions that might come about from telling certain guys that they are not real swoopers.

Apparently Real Swoopers(TM) don't do things that might kill other people.

this thread is growing ALMOST faster than I can read, so now we have 2 kinds of swoopers - "real" and "think they are real", which one was D. Page?, physically separating the landing areas seems to be what works - at least for now, our DZ has done that and it seems to be working

It is nice to see this smacked on the FRONT PAGE (homepage) of DZ.com. Swooping is going to save this sport.
Peace
"You can't swoop in the tunnel."

Quote

Quote

it is the jackass canopy pilots that swoop in your pattern that are the problem.

Like the street racers who think they're like real car racers, the jackass canopy pilots think they're emulating the "real" swoopers.

Wendy W.

Good analogy, Wendy. The 'professionals' use a closed course & a controlled environment. Same should be done with swooping. Even amateurs can take a track-day.

Quote

swoopers "true swoopers" are not the problem.

I hate to break it to you - those wannabe skydivers that "call themselves" swoopers - with the bad attitudes and careless decision making skills......

Well, they are lumped in with your idealized picture of what a swooper should be also.

(I'm not a big fan of people that flail about in their first 400 jumps calling themselves "freeflyers" or RWer's either, but they are, and my denying it won't change things)

Maybe we can call the serious ones that get training and make better decisions "swoopyrs" and then entire group of them "swoopers" as the general category. The crappy wannabes we'll call "zwoopers".

Problem is, all the zwoopers think they are really swoopyrs - just ask them

Quote

Quote

it is the jackass canopy pilots that swoop in your pattern that are the problem.

Like the street racers who think they're like real car racers, the jackass canopy pilots think they're emulating the "real" swoopers.

Maybe they're not the same animal, but they seem to want to be, and they're emulating the behavior. So how do we separate the real swoopers from the non-real swoopers? And, more importantly, how do we end up with a general-use sky that's reasonably safe?

Wendy W.

Bravo, Wendy and Bill!

Quote

the one's with humility, are swoopers. the one's that want to "get their swoop on" are generally not,

Maybe all the "real" swoopers should have a little sit down/smack down with the "non-real" swoopers to stop giving the "real" swoopers a bad name.

Personally, that's kind of what I'm looking for from the the "real" swoopers that claim that their "real" swooper group is not the problem. IMO a little more self-policing from the swooping community is needed. Banning swooping and/or certain wingloadings is a quick fix that, if enforced, should show a huge decrease in injuries and fatilities, but I don't think even the swooper haters even want that.

J

Quote

It is because brian is saying that swoopers are NOT the problem.

He is right. Swoopers are not the problem. Anyone deviating from the agreed upon pattern in the same general area as other traffic that is following the correct pattern, is the problem.

Quote

in my opinion, swoopers are the most aware canopy pilots on the planet.

I'm not really sure where you intend to go with this, but just in case you believe that swoopers have superior ability because they are swoopers, you would be incorrect. Assuming anything such as this could be dangerous.

We could say "well this jumper is a great swooper, let him swoop in with the other jumpers, it'll be ok" and that may be the day he makes the mistake and kills someone.

Quote

it is the jackass canopy pilots that swoop in your pattern that are the problem.

I'm not one hundred percent sure what you meant here. Are you saying that swoopers that swoop into non-swooper's patterns are the problem? If so I agree, they are one of the problems.

Quote

swoopers "true swoopers" are not the problem.

No offence, but I hate this "true swooper" ideology that some of you have. It's a bit ridiculous. There is no such thing as a true or false swooper. There are just swoopers. Anyone that attempts to or participates in the action of "swooping" is a swooper. You just can't separate them.

Quote

Banning swooping and/or certain wingloadings is a quick fix that, if enforced, should show a huge decrease in injuries and fatilities, but I don't think even the swooper haters even want that.

Definitely not. I don't think that is needed at all. There are too many ways to separate swooping from non-swooping with altitude, landing zones and other methods.

I may not be near as experienced as the rest of you, but I had to put my two cents in this conversation. I am a big supporter of safety. I don't believe that it takes much time in the sport to begin to see how not to get killed.

Quote

but I don't think even the swooper haters even want that.

I do, I think we should just ban all square canopies and put and end to the issue all together once and for all.....

Quote

I do, I think we should just ban all square canopies and put and end to the issue all together once and for all.....

Why stop there? Seems to me people are dying in all sorts of ways in this sport. Ban skydiving altogether and that will solve 100% all the skydiving related fatalities right?

SWOOPING IS NOT A CRIME!!!

Quote

Quote

I do, I think we should just ban all square canopies and put and end to the issue all together once and for all.....

Why stop there? Seems to me people are dying in all sorts of ways in this sport. Ban skydiving altogether and that will solve 100% all the skydiving related fatalities right?

SWOOPING IS NOT A CRIME!!!

There is a BIG difference between killing yourself and killing other people. The suggested new rules are to prevent the latter.

Quote

There is a BIG difference between killing yourself and killing other people. The suggested new rules are to prevent the latter.

AFAIK not all canopy collisions were swooping related this year. Why do you want to simplify the case? There is no BSR for common sense.

Check the archives of all the posts related to this topic and you will see that I have always stated that I thought fast canopies and slow ones do NOT mix in the same landing pattern. I am NOT against these proposed changes. But some people equate turn type to canopy speed. But the knowledgable know that speed can be generated without the big turn. Take a highly loaded x-braced canopy and lean into it on a 90 degree turn and you will be coming in faster than someone doing a 270 on a larger canopy.

SWOOPING IS NOT A CRIME!!!

Spin it anyway you want ... but go back and read what I've said in the past and what Brian has written (mainly the part about communicating in the loading areas). It's not the turn type which is the biggest problem. It's people just winging it after they open. Have a plan, stick to the plan.

SWOOPING IS NOT A CRIME!!!

Quote

Maybe all the "real" swoopers should have a little sit down/smack down with the "non-real" swoopers to stop giving the "real" swoopers a bad name.

Personally, that's kind of what I'm looking for from the the "real" swoopers that claim that their "real" swooper group is not the problem. IMO a little more self-policing from the swooping community is needed. Banning swooping and/or certain wingloadings is a quick fix that, if enforced, should show a huge decrease in injuries and fatilities, but I don't think even the swooper haters even want that..

Interesting, most of the people i have to sit down and talk with aren't swoopers at all. Usually i'm talking to jumpers that fly a "standard" pattern that just cut off half the load because they decided to do s-turns on final, or came in the opposite direction then everyone else, or they spiraled down to 800' then sat in brakes taking up the whole flight pattern. but hey if you need me to talk to that swooper that just spent the last 1500' nearly stalling their parachute as to at least try and fit into the pattern, who took into account other people, that had their head on a swivel, that watched all the other "non-swoopers" nearly kill themselves and others but didn't even realize it because they were too focused on what they were doing, then i can do that for you. but then again i'm not sure if i'm a "real" swooper or not.

to me your post implies that the swoopers are the one to fix this problem, because you think swoopers are the problem. however, this effects everyone and so everyone should be part of the solution.

by the way there is no such thing as a 'real' swooper and a 'fake' swooper, only a responsible canopy pilot and a not responsible canopy pilot. (i hope you noticed i used canopy pilot and not swooper, a canopy pilot is anyone who flies a parachute).

I thoroughly enjoy watching swooping. It scares the crap out of me in an exhilarating way just as a skydive does. However, I agree that there needs to be SOMETHING done.

I spent this weekend out at Lodi, my first time visiting. I found that on every single load, I was extremely nervous about the canopy traffic. The best way for me to describe it would be the seagulls from Finding Nemo ("mine! mine!"). Every single person insisted on landing in the relatively small grassy area. While it is long enough to accomodate everybody wanting to do this, I feel it is not wide enough to create a 'safe' environment for everybody there.

Everything always turned out fine. On most loads, the swoopers hung out up top until all the conservative pilots landed, then made their swoops at reasonable times. However, many problems came up when only one plane was fling, for myself at least. With Lodi doing so many tandems, each Beech load was about 3/4 tandems/video, and 1/4 fun-jumpers. The fun jumpers got out first, which created some stressful traffic. Most of the swoopers there were also the video guys for the tandems. After filming the tandems, they would pull a tad lower than we had, then try to beat everybody to the ground to film the landings. But many times, this put me turning on my final approach just as I would pick up a high performance canopy hauling ass about 100 feet above me. I was terrified every time, knowing exactly what he was setting himself up for and that I very well could be in his way. But it is my right as the skydiver who got there first, to be where I am, so I continued my pattern and let them work around me so as to avoid throwing off the rest of the load which was setting up their approach.

I know the swoopYrs know what they are doing, and that they are magnificent canopy pilots, and i envy them. But it is the fear of the new swoopers riding their high-horse that scare me the most. because as far as I was concerned, all I saw was a human body dangling from a handkerchief of a canopy who was 100 feet above me, and had full intentions of beating me to the ground. All that seems to be to me is a recipe for repeating what I unfortunately had to watch at Eloy.

I agree that swooping needs to be celebrated and fueled in a safe manner. I love swooping, and want to see it flourish. I just don't want it happening around me while I am trying to do nothing more than land my canopy safely. I refused all weekend to bail out into the field, as that was not only unfair, but extremely dangerous considering the traffic. With divided landing areas, this problem would be diminished. Then, conservative pilots would just have to worry about shitty conservative pilots, and swoopers can deal with shitty swoopers.

Of course, to point out that many camera fliers are swoopers creates a new problem, in that they will want to swoop of course, but the tandem will not land in the swoopers course. So do we ban vidiots from swooping when filming tandems? A tough issue, as many swoopers find their primary source of skydiving filming tandems. Banning swoops after filming tandems may completely extinguish swooping for a good portion of swoopers.

I guess I honestly have no better solution to offer than anyone else. It's just a shame that such an exciting element of the sport could.... and should.... be divided from everything else as far as landing zones go, in my opinion. For myself right now, I want to glide in on my Spectre 150, with the peace of mind that i won't get overtaken by the one jackass who didn't pay enough attention on his swoop approach. Or the day that a seasoned swooper doesn't see me, because everybody makes mistakes, even canopy gods.

I think both sides just need to compromise, reasonably. and if I may point out the most frustrating thing about my Lodi visit, is as I was standing in line to manifest for my first load, I was talking to one of the local jumpers. I specifically asked if swooping and hook-turns were banned, to which she replid: "Yes. and if Bill (Dauss) sees you doing it, he will ground you and ask you to leave."

A well thought-out response, as that would prevent any visiting jumper from creating a completely retarded situation. But, a response that was potentially hazardous, as after hearing this, I of course assumed that there would be no hook turns or swooping, and was therefore did not have my awareness tuned in for that. The first time I was passed by a HP canopy, I wasn't sure what to think; a guy that just doesn't care about the rules? I came to the conclusion that if you live at Lodi, you can do what you want. Which is the mentality that is going to cause many accidents if we don't find a safer way to do it.

Okay, my term paper is complete.

Wouldn't a good rule be to make each DZO and safety officer carry out a risk assessment at each DZ, and then depending on its size make recommendations??

After all a Cesna DZ has less risk of collisions like this than sya Deland Langar or Eloy.

That way each individal circumsatnce is considered.?