kelpdiver 2 #1 February 23, 2005 Skydivingfatalities.info was primary source, dropzone.com used to fill in details and 2 more fatalities in 2004-2005. Data not complete in 1995, so dataset is 1996 to current. I included all incidents involving a good and open parachute. I excluded suicides and events where one jumper freefell into a deploying jumper. Also excluded were events caused by a bad opening (slammer) or bad gear (adjustable harness). Included were canopy collisions after opening, even if primary cause was likely bad separation before deployment. When a collision killed only one member, the data was for the person that died, not the person who may have caused the event. Jump numbers were reported for 126 of the 141 in the data set. For 3 of them I assumed "many" and used 1000 for sorting and averages, as they were members of "professional teams." Age was reported for 131 of the 141. Wingloading, or a guess at, was only available on 55 cases. Weight was sometimes given - not always clear if body or exit weight. Some description of the canopy was only available for 63 cases, plus a few where it was only stated that a recent downsize had taken place. BSR columns indicated if the jumper's parachute would be permissible under proposed BSRs. DZ = Brian Germain's never exceed chart (1.0 + .1/hundred jumps up to 1000, subtract .2 for < 150). My variant adds .2. Summary/Analysis 300 fatalities. 141 (47%) involved a successfully deployed parachute. Of that 141: By Year: 1996 - 20 (of 37 - 54%) 1997 - 14 (of 32 - 44%) 1998 - 21 (of 47 - 45%) 1999 - 10 (of 30 - 33%) 2000 - 13 (of 32 - 41%) 2001 - 15 (of 36 - 42%) 2002 - 17 (of 33 - 52%) 2003 - 13 (of 24 - 54%) 2004 - 15 (of 23 - 65%) 2005 - 3 40% happened within the first 3 years, which might suggest matters are improving. But looking at the individual events, there were a lot of demos gone bad in those years, done by people that now would not be PRO rated or even have a D. Did demo requirements change? I also suspect that good injury reporting would better show the trend - I've read and been near several incidents in my 1.5 years in the sport that aren't here because the person survived, if barely. 2002 in particular showed a rash of low timers on small chutes. By Age: Under 25 - 10 (7%) Under 30 - 30 (21%) Under 40 - 37 (26%) Over 40 - 54 (38%) Unknown - 10 (7) Average = 36.8. Would be more useful to know jumper distribution, but older distribution then I would have expected. These numbers suggest that the issue is not driven by youngsters incapable of making an informed decision. It would be most helpful to know years in sport. Are slower reflexes an issue? Better planning aided by wisdom ought to trump it, but ?? By Jump Totals: Under 100 - 16 (11%) Under 250 - 30 (21%) Under 500 - 16 (11%) Under 1000 - 27 (19%) Over 1000 - 40 (28%) Unknown - 12 (9%) Average = 1125. Removing the top 5 most experienced jumpers, that drops to 895. For those under 40, it is 859, not terribly different. The median was 500, and maybe that's a more relevent average to use than the mean. A bivariate matrix with jumps and age as the axis would be useful too. By Primary Cause: These are best guesses to fit each to one category. Low Turns - 67 HP (17) (intentional turn indicated) Panic (14) (last second obstacle or downwind avoidance indicated) Canopy Collision 27 (some crew, but mostly collisions on final approach) Ground Collision 6 Hard Landing 13 Canopy Mals 22 (some caused by turbulence, but most by user input leading to twists, or collapse) Other/Unknown 6 Off landing is indicated in 16 of the jumps. This doesn't include hitting obstacles adjoining the LZ. Demos are indicated in 14, many by jumpers with low jump counts or not PRO rated. The canopy collisions really stand out as a place for improvement, and underscore the importance of having a consistent and known pattern for a popular LZ. Separating HP landers away would be beneficial, as requiring a given skill level to do HP approaches with others around. In the incidents, sometimes the 'offending' person paid the price, sometimes the other person did. A lot of last second maneuvers and under canopies that are not particularly aggressive. The faster speed definitely increases the risk, but poor flight planning and/or tunnel vision seems the main culprit. Any curriculum for a new canopy class should consider how to teach students how to see several moves ahead rather than a) get to field, b) figure out wind, c) turn into wind) type thinking. Dealing with outs/bad spotting is also important in this flight planning. The DZs I've visited have given me very good briefings on hazards and good outs, but only less so on spotting (maybe not realistic given changing winds). It's hard to make a fair conclusion with the limited relevent data, but it doesn't appear that proposed W/L BSRs would have been applicable to the majority of the incidents reported. Probably less than 20%. That's not to say it wouldn't have benefits, both in reducing the uncounted injuries and in slowing the downsizing progression rate. But training improvements should yield a better return. Data would probably be more useful in a mysql type format, but I can't do that at this time. Excel does allow sorting on up to 3 fields at a time. No, it's not a macro virus attack from me. -kelpdiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #2 February 23, 2005 Nice data, but there are far more accidents that don't result in fatalaties that I wish were reported. Fatals are kinda hard to miss, but there are a LOT of near misses going on every weekend. I wish people reported those so we had the data. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 February 24, 2005 QuoteNice data, but there are far more accidents that don't result in fatalaties that I wish were reported. Fatals are kinda hard to miss, but there are a LOT of near misses going on every weekend. I wish people reported those so we had the data. I agree with you fully. One can't look at this partial data in a vacuum, or make too many final conclusions from it. The injuries are the big unknown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DancingFlame 0 #4 February 24, 2005 QuoteProbably less than 20%. 15% of 300 is 45 people. Still big number. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #5 February 24, 2005 QuoteQuoteProbably less than 20%. 15% of 300 is 45 people. Still big number. That would be 15% of 141. 20ish. Still a decent number. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lynxie 0 #6 February 25, 2005 QuoteNice data, but there are far more accidents that don't result in fatalaties that I wish were reported. Fatals are kinda hard to miss, but there are a LOT of near misses going on every weekend. I wish people reported those so we had the data. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with you fully. One can't look at this partial data in a vacuum, or make too many final conclusions from it. The injuries are the big unknown. do american jumpers not have to report injuries to the uspa? -- "If you can dream it, you can DO IT!" -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattjw916 2 #7 February 25, 2005 No they don't.NSCR-2376, SCR-15080 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 February 25, 2005 the annual renewal form asks if you had any malfunctions or medical trips, but that's the extent of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
