Landing/hook turn fatalities

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I fear it would be yet another waste of bandwidth the me, me, crowd wanting more data and more studies and the crowd trying to make things safer forced to defend common sense. A lost cause on both side.

Sparky

I think that is a rather offensive way of characterizing the debate.

Wanting some data before taking action is not a "me me me" response. How would you like it if the FDA took the approach to approving new drugs that no analysis or testing was necessary?

"Common sense" has proven to be incorrect on countless occasions.

The difference in that argument is that the FDA errs on the side of saftey. At least in most cases.

Without some study, how do you know which side safety is on? The experts thought Thalidomide was safe and that HRT was good for women.

How many women taking Thalidomide were jumping a canopy loaded at 1.6/1 with less than 500 jumps and had red hair.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billvon 3,006]

>How many women taking Thalidomide were jumping a canopy loaded
> at 1.6/1 with less than 500 jumps and had red hair.

Exactly! Unless you can tell me that the women taking thalidomide all jumped large canopies and did NOT work in uranium refinement plants, there's nowhere near enough data to claim that thalidomide is dangerous to babies! Years of study are required before you can make such a statement; we must exhaust all possible studies before we suggest that something like thalidomide is dangerous. Wouldn't want to ban something that people like without all the data!

Seriously, we do often err on the side of caution. Sometimes that means not prescribing a potentially dangerous drug to pregnant women even if we are not 100% sure why the birth defects happen, or even if they will happen at all to a given woman (birth defects only happened in about 15% of the cases.) We do this even though we don't have all the data, because it saves lives (and prevents birth defects) - and that's more important than having all the data.

Likewise, we could crunch the data forever. We could come up with the same sort of statistics that football announcers spew during games - "this will be Johnson's first extra point in a playoff since he came back! No one's ever made an extra point in the last three seconds of the second quarter before when it was snowing." Or we could be out there educating people. And even though we don't know 100% how many people that will save from serious injury or death, the smart money is on the education saving more than the statistics will.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Exactly! Unless you can tell me that the women taking thalidomide all jumped large canopies and did NOT work in uranium refinement plants, there's nowhere near enough data to claim that thalidomide is dangerous to babies! Years of study are required before you can make such a statement; we must exhaust all possible studies before we suggest that something like thalidomide is dangerous. Wouldn't want to ban something that people like without all the data!

Don't forget the "red hair".

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Likewise, we could crunch the data forever.

Without dividing by jumpers or jumps you have no useful data.

It's not about crunching that data forever it's about applying a simple divide by the most accurate number you can lay your hands on to get closer to the real risk jumpers are taking either per jump or per year in the sport (on average) by category.

That's just a generic observation, you don't have to be a subject matter expert to know this. You may not like that message but it's a simple fact. Do the divide, do the work, it's not enough to total deaths by category and match it to anecdotes from your experience, that's just not doing the job that needs to be done. That's not an observation that takes sides in this debate it's just a simple completely obvious fact about statistics.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In the UK this is also the case with older bikers becoming a dangerous group.

Still a tangent, but I wanted to say that you may have missed the point I was making. Deaths of older riders in the US are going up in large part because the average rider age has been going up. Many are retreads buying 700lb Harleys and riding from bars on Sundays, but that's not a new development.

If one only saw the numbers growing without paying attention to the population size, unfounded conclusions result.

[mr2mk1g 10]

The conclusion CornisChris describes is the correct one for the UK biker population... not that I think any of it has a lot to do with the skydivers killing themselves.

As he said it would be analogous to someone trained 20 years ago coming back and jumping a sub 100 VX on his first jumps... in general, that's simply not happening. So it must be a different factor in skydiving.

Perhaps a better analogy would be if young kids on new bike licenses were allowed to buy bikes not fitted with limiters. They'd be going out and killing themselves all over the place on Honda Fireblades. Just like in skydiving where there's nothing stopping a newbie going out on a stiletto 120 if they choose to (assuming they can get away with it at the DZ of course). Under the circumstances, both rider and jumper are just as likely to pound in.

We limit bike engines till the rider demonstrates proficiency on less powerful bikes. Only then does our national licensing agency allow them to ride more powerful bikes. We’re on the verge of having limits on the type of canopy people can jump till they demonstrate proficiency on less aggressive designs. If jumpers themselves don’t do something about it their national licensing agency will. I think that’s the analogy we ought to be looking at.

[chrisgr 0]

Quote

that's just not doing the job that needs to be done

Congratulations, you missed the point … again. The job that needs to be done is to provide better canopy control training. Go play with your numbers and move on.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

that's just not doing the job that needs to be done

Congratulations, you missed the point … again. The job that needs to be done is to provide better canopy control training. Go play with your numbers and move on.

Sigh, very clever.

This thread started by using numbers to make a case, if you don't want to use numbers fine, if you do then it's incumbent upon you to use them correctly.

The best way to ensure the right action is to process the data, not the opposite.

[chrisgr 0]

I believe that the numbers that were originally provided 'make the case'.

I am using them correctly ... for the purpose of justifying the argument for mandatory canopy control training as an integral part of all student training.

If you haven't figured out what the right action is by now, you never will.

[billvon 3,006]

>Without dividing by jumpers or jumps you have no useful data.

To any serious actuary or statistician we have no useful data, period. We have no incident reporting system and we have a barely-useful fatality reporting system (wing loading was only recently added.) A dozen fatalities a year is not enough to be statistically significant, especially when you divide them into six categories. "No one died last year under wing loadings of 2.0-2.2! Therefore those wing loadings are perfectly safe."

Some of us are more interested in getting training to people than getting accurate statistics. The best statistics in the world won't do a damn thing. Educating people will.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I believe that the numbers that were originally provided 'make the case'.

I am using them correctly ... for the purpose of justifying the argument for mandatory canopy control training as an integral part of all student training.

If you haven't figured out what the right action is by now, you never will.

The right action? I've seen several proposals including regulations using numbers someone just guessed(or even just question marks for numbers). Proper analysis might actually produce useable data and numbers.

Pretending someone advocating proper analysis of the data just doesn't get it is ridiculous. I'd expect better than appeals to emotion in any rational discussion.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>Without dividing by jumpers or jumps you have no useful data.

To any serious actuary or statistician we have no useful data, period. We have no incident reporting system and we have a barely-useful fatality reporting system (wing loading was only recently added.) A dozen fatalities a year is not enough to be statistically significant, especially when you divide them into six categories. "No one died last year under wing loadings of 2.0-2.2! Therefore those wing loadings are perfectly safe."

Some of us are more interested in getting training to people than getting accurate statistics. The best statistics in the world won't do a damn thing. Educating people will.

This just isn't a fair representation of the information we have or the tools at our disposal. The data produced for example covers several years. There are also some more sophisticated subsetting techniques (not even going to get into it here) to guage the significance or randomness of the information we do have.

The sparsity of data does not justify making no attempt to quantify it accurately instead of using it as an emotional stick to beat people with.

You use numbers when it suits you then accuse anyone who neutrally points to the flaws as not getting it or being irresponsible. You're not taking the moral high ground claiming to advocate training, I advocate training, but not the same way you do. I don't claim to have numbers to justify my position without doing the proper analysis.

[chrisgr 0]

Quote

I advocate training, but not the same way you do.

Tell everyone about the training that you advocate.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

This thread started by using numbers to make a case, if you don't want to use numbers fine, if you do then it's incumbent upon you to use them correctly.

No, you missed the point again. This tread was not started using numbers to "make a case". Go back and read the first post. For information only, not for debate.

Quote

It's not about crunching that data forever it's about applying a simple divide by the most accurate number you can lay your hands on

And that my friend is the most accurate figures I can lay my hands on. If you can do better, do it. If not you are just making noise. So far you have failed to contribute one useful thought to this discussion. Move on.

Sparky

Lock it up Bill, its done.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[dorbie 0]

Your response after my simple observation make it clear you were advocating a position, the followups certainly did. In this thread you wrote this:

Quote

But there continues to be resistance to any form of W/L restriction. Go figure.

You ignoring my contribution does not mean I haven't made one, thanks.

I'm not missing your point, you're ignoring mine. I will never understand why you've repeatedly attacked me for offering a means to produce data to arrive at fact base WL limits..

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No, you missed the point again. This tread was not started using numbers to "make a case". Go back and read the first post. For information only, not for debate.

umm, yeah, whatev....HEY, NICE BEAR!

That aside, were you basing your summary off skydivingfatalities.info, or somewhere else?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

I'm not missing your point, you're ignoring mine. I will never understand why you've repeatedly attacked me for offering a means to produce data to arrive at fact base WL limits..

Because you have not offered a means to produce data. You have just criticized the lack of it. Like I said, if you can come up with more information, do it. If not, you are just making noise.

I am done with you.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not missing your point, you're ignoring mine. I will never understand why you've repeatedly attacked me for offering a means to produce data to arrive at fact base WL limits..

Because you have not offered a means to produce data. You have just criticized the lack of it. Like I said, if you can come up with more information, do it. If not, you are just making noise.

I am done with you.

Knowing use of this raw data is flawed is in itself useful IMHO. Quit shooting the messenger. Without factoring it's a bit unreasonable for you to claim I'm the only one making noise.

I don't have the data, the best source would be USPA records, they keep track information like numbers of jumpers and jumps per year with membership renewal. I have absolutely zero access to that data and don't know what the quality is.

[billvon 3,006]

>This just isn't a fair representation of the information we have or the
> tools at our disposal.

About a year ago I tried my level best to get the data for two years of canopy fatalities. I got the old issues of parachutist, cross referenced with incident reports here and on rec, and called Glenn Bangs to get everything he had. I posted a long post on the data I got. Much of it was incomplete. Their wing loadings were approximate, their level of training was unknown, the reason for the incident were guesses. The data simply isn't there. There are great tools out there, but they don't work without data.

And every time someone proposes a new requirement to report incidents (or even fatalities more accurately) there is a great hue and cry about big brother, or higher dues, or whatever - so I don't see it getting much better.

>The sparsity of data does not justify making no attempt to quantify it
>accurately instead of using it as an emotional stick to beat people with.

Beat whatever you want. The primary reason I believe that we need more training is that I have seen the injuries and fatalities that occur when people jump highly loaded canopies without the training and experience to handle them. I have seem them hook, seen them hit, and seen them die. The numbers I've seen are not what made me believe this; they merely confirm that what I have seen happens other places as well. That's what I base my desire for canopy training on - the people I have seen injured and killed.

The "emotional stick" you refer to will strike you in time, as well. After you have a bit more experience, have watched some friends of your die, have seen others relegated to a wheelchair for life - you'll feel that stick. And if some newbie comes up to you and tells you "you don't know what you're talking about! Data analysis is not yet complete" you will likely discount his opinion as not that informed.

[kallend 2,027]

There is no doubt that better canopy training will reduce the number of canopy related accidents.

Having said that, there is room for disagreement about the best way to achieve this with the resources available (The resources being primarily the goodwill and willingness of the community to accept additional regulations).

I dislike being accused of a "me me" attitude just because I would like to be sure that the solution implemented is the right one for the problem. We need a properly structured debate around one or more specific proposals, not a lot of name calling.

Last time we tried to have a debate it was never altogether clear what proposal was on the table at any given time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dorbie 0]

Kallend, you're right again. It seems difficult in this forum though. Any hint at opposition even a call for data is misinterpreted & greeted with hostility. It wins few allies to a worthy cause.

Bill, I never said subject matter experts here don't know what they're talking about. I have only accurately pointed out issues with interpreting these data.

This isn't about some newbie disagreeing with experts. If every expert agreed with your opinion on restricting the actions of the 32,000 USPA members this would be a regulation and not a debate.

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

We need a properly structured debate around one or more specific proposals

Yet before you can move there, it may be better to first draw the 'final conclusion' about a generic proposal which could be formulated as:

1. Mandatory wing load restrictions relating to jump numbers should be incorporated in the USPA BSR's, just as they are in the BSR's of several other countries.
2. They should constitute a bare minimum - later in the discussion to be formulated.
3. Formulating this bare minimum should be done by a 'group of peers' who have in common that they both have extensive experience in training / educating skydivers in handling their canopies AND bearing the end responsibility for the safe conduct of a skydiving operation.
4. Once this bare minimum has been established it can only be waived through an educational program specifically directed towards canopy control.
5. Such a canopy control program ("Landing-survival after the skydive university"? tm) should also incorporate specific TASKS a candidate must perform in order to have the waiver signed.
6. For practical reasons skydivers with canopies exceeding the 'to be formulated minimum' can have them 'grandfathered' IF they owned AND jumped the canopy before the date this motion is passed.
7. The board will appoint a committee to work out the specifics of this proposal. The committee will report back to the board within three months with a specific proposal that sees upon:
A. Canopy classes / wing loadings and required minimum experience level
B. The aforementioned specific TASKS a candidate must perform to get this rule waived.

Now if you guys could get your board to pass such a motion and appoint a committee you are moving beyond making remarks in cyberspace and discussing the ins and outs of statistics with Dorkie and Kelpdiver ...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

We need a properly structured debate around one or more specific proposals

Yet before you can move there, it may be better to first draw the 'final conclusion' about a generic proposal which could be formulated as:

1. Mandatory wing load restrictions relating to jump numbers should be incorporated in the USPA BSR's, just as they are in the BSR's of several other countries.
...

Well, bone of contention right there. The best proposal (IMO) that I have seen ties WL to license level, not to raw jump numbers.

As Dorbie and I and others have pointed out, the data do not conclusively show that low jump number individuals under highly loaded canopies are the primary problem area. Therefore simply targeting jump numbers may not be the right solution.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[IvanPeters 0]

Well, this year the BPA are planning to introduce a canopy handling training and rating system. I haven't seen any details yet so I don't know if any wing loading limits will be enforced based on rating but it wouldn't surprise me. There will certainly be rating requirements for entry into swoop competitions.

So, once the details are out, you'll have some specific proposals to have a properly structured debate around. And, maybe in a few years, there'll be some useful numbers to base some conclusions on.

Ivan

[Liemberg 0]

Quote

Well, bone of contention right there. The best proposal (IMO) that I have seen ties WL to license level, not to raw jump numbers.

But (AFAIK) jump numbers are incorporated in license levels. Anyone out there who has an A license without making 25(?) jumps. B-licence without 100(?) jumps (sorry - not that familiar with the USPA system - but in Holland for a license, among other things you have to have a certain number of jumps and a certain level of accuracy when landing...)

With these things (IMO) its a bit "you have got to start somewhere" with refinment comming into place once good data becomes available - if ever. However a license could be part of the proposal also...
If I were to make a wild guess - the number of times you landed successfully under different circumstances should count for something.
The (scarse) data in Holland (& for myself what I have seen happen at my own place) seems to point out in the direction of a relationship between jumpnumbers and screwing yourself when landing.

(Some people are pretty sharp in freefall, others show superior control under canopy...)

Now there's not enough data to let good old Poisson do his magic, so the next best thing would be "What do the guys who have watched all these landings think?" "What is the paradigma - what is the concensus?"

I'm afraid you'll find most of them thinking in the direction I pointed out.

We maybe wrong.

But WE are gambling with our livelyhood - others are gambling with their hobby and the freedom they find in it...

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...