Jump numbers and canopy accident risk

[DocPop 1]

There is a debate on whether jump numbers are really a good predictor of risk under canopy.

There are those who believe that low jump numbers correlate well with the risk of death under an open canopy.

My own belief is that jump numbers are largely unrelated to risk, and that factors such as natural talent, dedication to canopy piloting, mental state (eg. hangover/drugs/tiredness) and ego/cockiness play a much more important role in determining canopy risk.






Edited to remove inaccurate reference to a recent incident.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[Hvance 0]

Absolutely. Experience has nothing to do with safety.

I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

I'm not that experienced but here's my thoughts: jump numbers are related to TYPE of risk more that just saying (all) canopy risk. For example
<100 jumps: more likely to miss-time a flare and break an ankle
101- 500: more likely to make a cocky/ ego/ "mad skillz" related mistake
500- 2000: more likely to make a "swooping error" (i.e. missed the pond and smack the ground)
2000+: relatively low risk level at this experience.

Just my thoughts. Of course the above doesn't apply to everyone.

[pilotdave 0]

Attitude is a much better predictor of risk than jump numbers. People with low jump numbers that follow recommendations of people with high jump numbers are at less risk than those that don't. A hypothetical person with 200 jumps jumping a small katana is at much higher risk than someone with 2000 jumps and the same canopy. But a person with 100 jumps on a Spectre 170 is probably at lower risk than either of them, depending a great deal on his or her attitude.\

The Australian accident hardly falls into the canopy accident category. Don't let it make you feel more comfortable with your own risk level that it can happen to someone with so much more experience. Canopy choice and flying style dictates canopy risk. This accident had nothing to do with those things.

Dave

[mik 2]

Quote

Quote

The tragic accident in Australia again opens the debate on whether jump numbers are really a good predictor of risk under canopy.

No it doesn't in my opinion,and based on what I have read about this incident. Someone snivelling into another canopy is hardly the same as a canopy collision where two people are flying fully functional canopies. There appears to have been mistakes related to tracking and possibly exist separation. Not the same as "risk under canopy" in my view

There are those who believe that low jump numbers correlate well with the risk of death under an open canopy.


Yep - The canopy collisions I have seen have involved low jump number people. I have read of others (eg involving someone 'swooping' into other canopies, but from memory this has involved fairly inexperienced jumpers. I have also seen incidents reported on this site resulting from inadequate separation and high jump number people eg recent fatality at Langar, UK. But generally I believe that higher jump numbers equates to better awareness under canopy and therefore less risk of collision).

My own belief is that jump numbers are largely unrelated to risk, and that factors such as natural talent, dedication to canopy piloting, mental state (eg. hangover/drugs/tiredness) and ego/cockiness play a much more important role in determining canopy risk.

Mad skilz???

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

• Quote

[jrjny 0]

if canopy collisions occur primarily due to pilot inattentiveness, should the USPA mandate or at least recommend audible altimeters that shout, 'look the fuck around dumb-ass' every 200 feet from 1500 down to landing?

Should training require the trainee to write 500 times on paper, I will keep my head on a swivel at ALL TIMES or I will not make low turns? Habits form through repetition...

I don't know who has evidence that up-jumpers are more heads up under canopy. We all get distracted -- but we don't 'plan' to be in that state. Self hynosis leading to more awareness and technology can hedge against this.

Then again, let's not ignore the 'silent evidence' of everyone who lands safely and flies a conservative pattern, etc... -- we could be observing noise/randomness that can't be controlled in any serious way. How many attacks never happen in war?

Jeff

[NWFlyer 2]

You're right. Everyone else is wrong. Mad skillz trump experience every time.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Ron 10]

Quote

The tragic accident in Australia again opens the debate on whether jump numbers are really a good predictor of risk under canopy.

Not really.. More a case of line of flight tracking and exit separation. One canopy was open, the other was *Opening*.... Type of canopy in regards to high or low performance after it was open has very little to do with that accident.

This is an example of you taking a data point and trying to make it fit where it does not in the hopes that it will make your argument sound better.... All you have really done is shown that you didn't really understand the Australian accident at all.

Quote

There are those who believe that low jump numbers correlate well with the risk of death under an open canopy.

More correctly, low *experience*.... Jump numbers is a pretty good average indicator of experience in most cases since you can only have an equal number of landings as jumps.

Quote

My own belief is that jump numbers are largely unrelated to risk, and that factors such as natural talent, dedication to canopy piloting, mental state (eg. hangover/drugs/tiredness) and ego/cockiness play a much more important role in determining canopy risk.

Natural talent... Is something that many like to claim they have, but few actually do.

Dedication to canopy piloting can help, but the number of landings can only equal the number of jumps you have.... so a guy with 200 jumps and "a dedication to canopy flight" is not as qualified as the guy with 2k and "a dedication to canopy flight".

Mental state can play a roll. And still is a situation where experience can be a factor. Two guys facing the same distraction... I'd bet on the more exp guy doing a better job than the lower exp guy.

Ego/cockyness.... A trait you seldom are able to self-diagnose if you are afflicted with it.

One way of looking at this might be that for 42 years, I've been making small, regular deposits in this bank of experience: education and training. And on January 15 the balance was sufficient so that I could make a very large withdrawal." -- Chesley Burnett "Sully" Sullenberger III

I dare you to argue that experience is NOT important to safety.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[phoenixlpr 0]

Quote

The tragic accident in Australia again opens the debate on whether jump numbers are really a good predictor of risk under canopy.

There are those who believe that low jump numbers correlate well with the risk of death under an open canopy.

My own belief is that jump numbers are largely unrelated to risk, and that factors such as natural talent, dedication to canopy piloting, mental state (eg. hangover/drugs/tiredness) and ego/cockiness play a much more important role in determining canopy risk.

Anyone can break his or herself on the next jump. Can you see the connection?

[DocPop 1]

Quote

You're right. Everyone else is wrong. Mad skillz trump experience every time.

a) I did not say anything of the sort

b) Apparently not "everyone else" is wrong, as only 59% (at the time of writing) believe that jump #'s are a "very good guide to risk". It's not just me all on my lonesome.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Not really.. More a case of line of flight tracking and exit separation. One canopy was open, the other was *Opening*.... Type of canopy in regards to high or low performance after it was open has very little to do with that accident.

You are right. I had not read the most recent posts where this was explained. But the discussion is still relevant.

Quote

More correctly, low *experience*.... Jump numbers is a pretty good average indicator of experience in most cases since you can only have an equal number of landings as jumps.

I disagree. If someone has done the some thing wrong or badly over a thousand times without seeking or getting corrected/educated, their "experience" could be less than someone with half their jumps but who has made an effort to learn and adapt.

Quote

Natural talent... Is something that many like to claim they have, but few actually do.

I never said it was common.

Quote

Dedication to canopy piloting can help, but the number of landings can only equal the number of jumps you have.... so a guy with 200 jumps and "a dedication to canopy flight" is not as qualified as the guy with 2k and "a dedication to canopy flight".

But you can do many more canopy-learning maneuvers than one per jump if you do high clear and pulls. .... so a guy with 200 jumps and "a dedication to canopy flight" could be way more able and heads-up than the guy with 2k and the attitude of "the skydive is over when you pull".

Quote

Ego/cockyness.... A trait you seldom are able to self-diagnose if you are afflicted with it.

Yep - that makes it dangerous.

Quote

I dare you to argue that experience is NOT important to safety.

The right experience is very important to safety. The wrong experience could be very dangerous.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[obelixtim 150]

I think if you look at overall fatality statistics, you will find that inexperienced jumpers probably feature heavily compared to experienced jumpers.

I think time in the sport is prolly as important, if not more important than jump numbers alone. But time in the sport generally equates to high jump numbers.

Experienced jumpers generally have higher awareness levels simply from having been involved in the sport longer. You get to see, hear and discuss skydiving in more detail over a longer period of time. A lot of learning and experience is accumulated on the ground.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[airtwardo 7]

My own belief is that jump numbers are largely unrelated to risk, and that factors such as natural talent, dedication to canopy piloting, mental state (eg. hangover/drugs/tiredness) and ego/cockiness play a much more important role in determining canopy risk.

[wmw999 2,452]

If DocPop is focusing entirely on canopy skills, he'll improve faster in a lot of canopy stuff than someone who just lands their parachute.

But you still only get one actual landing per jump.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Can you clarify what you mean by 'natural talent'?

~I know of people that are naturally athletic and or learn at a faster rate than others, but in 35 years in the sport I've never seen someone that 'naturally' knew how to skydive...

It takes ability and experience to become proficient in the sport, experience comes from jump numbers and as someone said above, time in the sport.

Yes, you at 200 jumps are at a higher risk overall than I am because in most cases...I know what to look for, know what I'm looking at, know WHAT to do when I see it, know more ways to avoid it.

Experience IS the best teacher, when you have enough time in the sport and thousands of jumps...you've gotten to SEE first hand experience...both yours and others.

Why is this suddenly about me? I intended this thread to be a way of capturing the consensus of opinion of dz.com readers as in the past there has been disagreement on this matter.

I would define "natural talent" in this context as the ability to progress faster than the norm in canopy flight related skills.

I have seen some people progress to become proficient swoopers incredibly quickly (Velo-before-500-jumps-and-never-been-hurt type of quickly). I have also seen people with well over 1,000 jumps hook in and do other totally avoidable stuff like stalling a canopy at 15 feet.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

If DocPop is focusing entirely on canopy skills, he'll improve faster in a lot of canopy stuff than someone who just lands their parachute.

But you still only get one actual landing per jump.

Wendy P.

Agreed, but sheer numbers allow more exposure to learning 1st hand about the multitude of possible variables that go into making up the 'risk factor', and developing 'skill' to reduce it.

IMO he's referring to canopy collision risk for the most part here, being able to 'read' a possible hazardous situation developing and taking measures to avoid it, is something 'natural talent' can't really help ya with.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

Can you clarify what you mean by 'natural talent'?

~I know of people that are naturally athletic and or learn at a faster rate than others, but in 35 years in the sport I've never seen someone that 'naturally' knew how to skydive...

It takes ability and experience to become proficient in the sport, experience comes from jump numbers and as someone said above, time in the sport.

Yes, you at 200 jumps are at a higher risk overall than I am because in most cases...I know what to look for, know what I'm looking at, know WHAT to do when I see it, know more ways to avoid it.

Experience IS the best teacher, when you have enough time in the sport and thousands of jumps...you've gotten to SEE first hand experience...both yours and others.

Why is this suddenly about me? I intended this thread to be a way of capturing the consensus of opinion of dz.com readers as in the past there has been disagreement on this matter.

I would define "natural talent" in this context as the ability to progress faster than the norm in canopy flight related skills.

I have seen some people progress to become proficient swoopers incredibly quickly (Velo-before-500-jumps-and-never-been-hurt type of quickly). I have also seen people with well over 1,000 jumps hook in and do other totally avoidable stuff like stalling a canopy at 15 feet.

Because in your initial post you said you think 'natural talent' supersedes experience that jump numbers allow....I disagree.

Yes there are the occasional junior sky-gods that develop well above the bell curve, but it's been my experience that it's the exception not the rule...I do believe that overall and for the most part experience as in both numbers and time in the sport most definitely lower the risk factor regarding canopy collisions...and the like.

Not tryin' to argue with ya, just disagreeing...and wondering what ya mean by 'natural talent'...you've defined what it means to you, doesn't change my opinion.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I have seen some people progress to become proficient swoopers incredibly quickly (Velo-before-500-jumps-and-never-been-hurt type of quickly). I have also seen people with well over 1,000 jumps hook in and do other totally avoidable stuff like stalling a canopy at 15 feet.

The person with 1000 jumps has had 500 more chances to get hurt than the person with 500 jumps. Statistically speaking, it's dangerous to skydive!
Dave

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

I have seen some people progress to become proficient swoopers incredibly quickly (Velo-before-500-jumps-and-never-been-hurt type of quickly). I have also seen people with well over 1,000 jumps hook in and do other totally avoidable stuff like stalling a canopy at 15 feet.

The Velo guy might also be lucky. Don't overrate the importance of luck in making someone look good skydiving . I hate putting too much faith into luck -- and talent goes into the luck bucket, because you didn't earn it as a rule. You have to develop it.

And don't assume that because someone experienced did something stupid that you never will, or that they're unskilled. Luck enters there, too. There is no one too skilled to make a mistake that looks dumb in retrospect.

Skill is knowing what to do when you get thrown into a situation you haven't actually dealt with already. You can prevent some of them, but if you never get into one it's not just your awesomeness and planning -- luck enters into it.

I prefer to trust my future to luck as little as possible. I'll take what I can get, but I really hate depending on it. And I'll reiterate that natural talent is luck, until you fill it with practice and development.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,998]

>apparently not "everyone else" is wrong, as only 59% (at the time of writing)
>believe that jump #'s are a "very good guide to risk".

And 72% think that experience is indeed related to risk.

It would be interesting indeed to see what the demographics of the remaining 28% were.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I disagree. If someone has done the some thing wrong or badly over a thousand times without seeking or getting corrected/educated, their "experience" could be less than someone with half their jumps but who has made an effort to learn and adapt.

Ah, but you just said, "could be less than someone with half their jumps"... So even you admit jumps is a metric. And you just assume that a person did the same thing over and over badly...... And that that exp does not apply to anything, unless it is the exp you want to count.

Quote

I never said it was common.

But you claim to have it.

Quote

But you can do many more canopy-learning maneuvers than one per jump if you do high clear and pulls. .... so a guy with 200 jumps and "a dedication to canopy flight" could be way more able and heads-up than the guy with 2k and the attitude of "the skydive is over when you pull".

The guy with 2k jumps is likely more aware than the guy with 200 in almost every case. He has experience that the 200 jump guy does not.

Plus, the guy with 2k jumps has LANDED 2k times. And no amount of high turns really prep you for landing.

Quote

The right experience is very important to safety. The wrong experience could be very dangerous.

And the people with more experience are better able to judge what is and what is not the *right* experience.

In the 200 vs 2k jump guy.... The 2k jump guy has deployed and landed 10 times more than the guy with 200 jumps and in that 1800 extra jumps has learned a ton of different things and had a ton of extra situations.

In the end, think of it this way... What would you say to a guy with 20 jumps that claims he is a "natural" and knows better than you?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DocPop 1]

Quote

But you claim to have it.

Where do I claim that?

Quote

And no amount of high turns really prep you for landing.

By that rationale, people learning to swoop should pull their first front riser turn for an actual landing. I don't think you'll get many people to back you on that advice.

Quote

In the end, think of it this way... What would you say to a guy with 20 jumps that claims he is a "natural" and knows better than you?

I'd listen to what he had to say.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

The person with 1000 jumps has had 500 more chances to get hurt than the person with 500 jumps. Statistically speaking, it's dangerous to skydive!
Dave

Excellent point!

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

In the end, think of it this way... What would you say to a guy with 20 jumps that claims he is a "natural" and knows better than you?

I'd listen to what he had to say.






With a little more experience...you'll know better than to do that!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[billvon 2,998]

>I have seen some people progress to become proficient swoopers
>incredibly quickly (Velo-before-500-jumps-and-never-been-hurt type of
>quickly). I have also seen people with well over 1,000 jumps hook in and
>do other totally avoidable stuff like stalling a canopy at 15 feet.

As have I.

But if you have a jumper with 4000 jumps who has hurt himself 4 times over the course of his career, and a newer jumper with 500 jumps who has only hurt himself once - the guy with 4000 jumps is still the safer jumper overall. His injury per jump rate is a lot lower.