Re: [skyjuggler] Landing injury.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

To continue this analogy, an experienced rigger who could only examine a few dozen microscopic threads would be no help at all.

Your statement lacks validity. With your experience you have no idea what an experienced rigger can determine by looking at a rig from across the room.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[DBCOOPER 5]

Its a lot like motorcycling.There will always be untrained people with more money than sense driving the latest croch rocket past their ability and right into the rehab or morgue.The difference here is that while you can buy a motorcycle and drive away from the dealership and kill yourself on the first turn,in skydiving you have some limits already in place.You can't jump without a current rig,some form of proof of training and experience,and its pretty hard to do it without an aircraft.Skydiving is a lot like taking your motorcycle to a track,where you start out as a novice and work your way up. They won't let you show up with the latest and greatest bike and go out and hurt yourself or others.There are rules and if you don't follow them you don't get to ride on their track.If you don't progress thru the training you don't get to move up thru the classes and go faster.If you don't play by their rules you don't get to play.Now what the rules for canopy flight should be I'm not sure,but having no rules makes no sense,thats been proven.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

It is a fact that low jump number people under highly loaded canopies kill themselves with some regularity, but SO DO experienced people under moderately loaded canopies. No evidence has been presented that the former group is more at-risk than the latter.

And no evidence has been presented that "former group" is not more at-risk than the latter. In fact, no evidence has been presented that any of the above statement is true.
Do you have any useful suggestions on dealing with the issue at hand or are you content attacking the possible solutions offered by others? If you remember, the issue was low jump numbers on highly loaded canopies. Age, sex, shoe size and experienced jumpers or any other factor you want to throw just muddy the water. If it is a female jumper, 65 years old with 100 jumps and 30 years in the sport, the progression scale presented by Ron would apply. If the jumper was a male 19 years old, 15,000 jumps and 5 years in the sport, it would not apply.

I gave my suggestion in the several threads on the subject last year. (link provided previously). This is just re-hashing a prior discussion with NO new evidence presented.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>In my opinion, a poorly conceived solution based on a knee jerk
> response to an accident is not helpful in the slightest.

However, a reasoned response developed over the course of a year by several instructors, and endorsed by dozens of others, might just save some lives - even if we don't have the hundreds of people dying (of all experience levels, ages and wing loadings) we'd need to make statistical analyses with reasonable confidence.

If your legstraps are worn out, you could do a microscopic analysis of the remaining fiber count, perhaps do an FEA of the fiber strength on a computer. You could test similar rigs and figure out their yield strength, then do stretch tests on your rig vs a new rig and see if there's any correlation between stretch and wear. Or an experienced rigger could just tell you they need to be changed. Often she will be right even if she doesn't know what FEA means.

Specifications used by riggers and in the TSOs are the results of many tests and ACTUAL DATA.

The WL proposal is based on anecdotal evidence and no serious attempt to analyse the data that already exist.

...

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If your legstraps are worn out, you could do a microscopic analysis of the remaining fiber count, perhaps do an FEA of the fiber strength on a computer. You could test similar rigs and figure out their yield strength, then do stretch tests on your rig vs a new rig and see if there's any correlation between stretch and wear. Or an experienced rigger could just tell you they need to be changed. Often she will be right even if she doesn't know what FEA means.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To continue this analogy, an experienced rigger who could only examine a few dozen microscopic threads would be no help at all.

Dude you seem to be a smart guy...but here is where you show that you don't know anything about the "Real" world.

If my rigger says that my legstraps need to be replaced, and your microscope says its good....I'm gonna ignore your microscope and go with the rigger.

You and Kallend should come up with a good idea, or shut up about it.

Both of you seem to want more info...That means you both want more death before you make a choice.

You have all kinds of experienced people telling you about the problem and you just prefer to shoot holes in any solution offored instead of come up with one.

Again you show your lack of understanding of skydiving in the "real" world.

HP canopies with little experience is bad. How hard is that to understand?

Male or female does not matter, age does not matter.

The proposed solution will cover ALL jumpers of every sex and age.

I think that more kids are killed in DUI's than
30 year olds...But its aganst the law for BOTH 18 year olds and 30 year olds.

Welcome to the real world. If you want "perfect"...stay in a lab.

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

First, sorry for my earlier post, I was frustrated.

I missed to link to your solution, could you re-post it?

You are an analysis kind of guy, would you do an analysis of the data available?

Do you feel that someone with 300 jumps should be allowed to fly a Velocity 90 at 2:1?

If yes, why?

If not, how can we prevent that from happening?

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Specifications used by riggers and in the TSOs are the results of many tests and ACTUAL DATA.

As a rigger, I haven't been given or have found specifications for when a leg strap needs to be replaced. I look at them and if too many fibers are broken, they need to be replaced. How many is too many? Do I count them with a microscope? Nope. I have seen straps break which gives a little bit of experience, but no data. I lean towards the side of safety. Really worn? Replace them. Same thing with a suspension line. Really worn? Replace it. It may not have broken on th next jump, but is worn, so it gets replaced.

I don't need hard data to look at a leg strap to see that it is severly worn, it is staring me in the face.

Derek

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

First, sorry for my earlier post, I was frustrated.

I missed to link to your solution, could you re-post it?

You are an analysis kind of guy, would you do an analysis of the data available?

Do you feel that someone with 300 jumps should be allowed to fly a Velocity 90 at 2:1?

If yes, why?

If not, how can we prevent that from happening?

Derek

Step 1 is to get USPA to release the data they have. I got some of it but they seem reluctant for a reason I don't understand.

\However, just a superficial look at what's already out there suggests that the majority of accidents under perfectly good canopies would continue even if the WL restriction were in place for low timers.

The only solution that I see as addressing the issue across the board is more required education in canopy flight skills at all license levels. Maybe canopy flight instructors should be rated just like AFF instructors.

Then get swoop competition organizers to restrict entry based on license level so those who want to do it seriously have to go through the process.

...

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

[billvon 2,991]

>Specifications used by riggers and in the TSOs are the results of many
>tests and ACTUAL DATA.

Uh, no. Amy does quite a few inspections; her decisions on when legstraps are worn out are not based on test results, but rather her experience. When she has a question she asks the manufacturer or another rigger and through discussion they arrive at a conclusion. Were she to follow your standards of proof, she could not say the rig was unairworthy until she had solid data that showed that a rig worn slightly more than the rig she was examining had failed catastrophically. Fortunately, she does not use such standards.

There are experts in any field. Some of them rely on a lifetime of experience on what works and what doesn't, rather than hard data on the underlying statistics. Kate Cooper can make very good decisions on who to allow on bigways and who not to allow despite only seeing them jump a few times, even though she has no hard data she can quote that X people under the age of 25 die every year because they are doing big-ways without enough experience. And even if you performed such an exhaustive analysis, I'd go with Kate's opinion - because she's the expert.

[billvon 2,991]

>Step 1 is to get USPA to release the data they have. I got some of it but
>they seem reluctant for a reason I don't understand.

A lot of it they just don't have. I got two years worth of data from Jim Crouch, but even that had some question marks (and it was fatalities only.)

>The only solution that I see as addressing the issue across the board is
>more required education in canopy flight skills at all license levels.

Why make a jumper who wants to remain on a Spectre 230 (and can land it well) jump a Safire 119 for training purposes? I think only people who want to downsize need that training. Hence a restriction on wingloading unless they get training, in which case there are no restrictions. The restrictions are not intended to "save" people, but rather to get the people who need training into training.

>Maybe canopy flight instructors should be rated just like AFF instructors.

Agreed, good idea. Also have some interim solution (like AFF-I's can sign off canopy control stuff) until we have the CC rating in place.

>Then get swoop competition organizers to restrict entry based on license
>level so those who want to do it seriously have to go through the process.

Many swoopers jump tiny canopies without ever entering the PST.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

>Then get swoop competition organizers to restrict entry based on license
>level so those who want to do it seriously have to go through the process.

Many swoopers jump tiny canopies without ever entering the PST.

True, and the PST does have a requirement (even if it can be waived).

------------------------------------------
2. QUALIFICATIONS, POINTS, RANKING


2.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Participants must have at least 300 high performance landings and a minimum of 100 high performance landings within the previous twelve months prior to any PST competition or event. This prerequisite may be waived at the discretion of the PST.
------------------------------------------

I do think though that ALL swoop meets should have minimum requirements similar or the same to this. I think there are some swoop meets out there that anyone can enter.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Step 1 is to get USPA to release the data they have. I got some of it but they seem reluctant for a reason I don't understand.

So nothing should be done until that data is released and if it is never released, nothing should ever be done?

Quote

\However, just a superficial look at what's already out there suggests that the majority of accidents under perfectly good canopies would continue even if the WL restriction were in place for low timers.

The only solution that I see as addressing the issue across the board is more required education in canopy flight skills at all license levels. Maybe canopy flight instructors should be rated just like AFF instructors.

Now we a re getting somewhere. How do you suggest further canopy control training be implimented so that it affects everyone across the board. We have already proposed a canopy control instructor rating.

Quote

Then get swoop competition organizers to restrict entry based on license level so those who want to do it seriously have to go through the process.

But shouldn't the training be for eveyone, not just those that want to compete?

Derek

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you feel that someone with 300 jumps should be allowed to fly a Velocity 90 at 2:1?

If yes, why?
If not, how can we prevent that from happening?

How many people in the population should be "allowed" to do 2+? I think the question should be focused more on a 160lb-er (no lead) with 300 jumps on a 105 (1.5:1) That's a more typical scenario, no?

Kallend asks if any gain will be achieved and it's a fair question. I'm a bit taken with the fact that the annual death count has been pretty flat for a long time, though the AAD and the HP canopies lead to a redistribution by cause. Do jumpers tend to dial back their risk exposure after seeing/hearing about a fatality? Do they get more lax if there hasn't been one in a long time? Or is it just coincidental and the risk reduction given by the AAD was closely matched by the increase with the fast chutes?

The gain of such changes may be in reducing the severe injuries rather than the loss of life.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Do you feel that someone with 300 jumps should be allowed to fly a Velocity 90 at 2:1?

If yes, why?
If not, how can we prevent that from happening?

How many people in the population should be "allowed" to do 2+? I think the question should be focused more on a 160lb-er (no lead) with 300 jumps on a 105 (1.5:1) That's a more typical scenario, no?

Kallend asks if any gain will be achieved and it's a fair question. I'm a bit taken with the fact that the annual death count has been pretty flat for a long time, though the AAD and the HP canopies lead to a redistribution by cause. Do jumpers tend to dial back their risk exposure after seeing/hearing about a fatality? Do they get more lax if there hasn't been one in a long time? Or is it just coincidental and the risk reduction given by the AAD was closely matched by the increase with the fast chutes?

The gain of such changes may be in reducing the severe injuries rather than the loss of life.

Like this?

pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/about.html

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Step 1 is to get USPA to release the data they have. I got some of it but they seem reluctant for a reason I don't understand.

So nothing should be done until that data is released and if it is never released, nothing should ever be done?

Quote

\However, just a superficial look at what's already out there suggests that the majority of accidents under perfectly good canopies would continue even if the WL restriction were in place for low timers.

The only solution that I see as addressing the issue across the board is more required education in canopy flight skills at all license levels. Maybe canopy flight instructors should be rated just like AFF instructors.

Now we a re getting somewhere. How do you suggest further canopy control training be implimented so that it affects everyone across the board. We have already proposed a canopy control instructor rating.

Quote

Then get swoop competition organizers to restrict entry based on license level so those who want to do it seriously have to go through the process.

But shouldn't the training be for eveyone, not just those that want to compete?

Derek

Yes. You do it through the normal USPA method of license requirements. Must have X number of jumps with a rated canopy coach signed off to get your "B", Y number for a "C".

I knew 5 people killed in accidents that had perfectly good canopies over their heads. Not ONE of them would have been affected under thr proposed WL restriction rule. That's what bothers me most about the proposal. You makje the assumption that the landing accident epidemic is primarily due to inexperienced jumpers on HP canopies, but it isn't, and you seem determined to ignore the other cases..

...

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

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

With your experience you have no idea what an experienced rigger can determine by looking at a rig from across the room.

Conceded. But the assertion I made is not about a rigger inspecting gear across a room; it is based on probability theory.

Am I expected to learn in the next few years that probability theory does not apply to skydiving?

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Dude you seem to be a smart guy...but here is where you show that you don't know anything about the "Real" world.

Perhaps in time you will build enough experience to empirically validate the value of theory. It took thousands of years for humans to figure this out the first time; modern humanity doesn't have to wait that long.

Quote

You have all kinds of experienced people telling you about the problem and you just prefer to shoot holes in any solution offored instead of come up with one.

True statements do not know of the experience of their speakers. The properties of a statement and the properties of its orator are disjoint. A knowledgeable person is better equipped to make true statements but at no point is his ability to make false statements diminished.

Quote

HP canopies with little experience is bad. How hard is that to understand?

How hard is it to prove?

Quote

Male or female does not matter, age does not matter.

The standards of proof are the same for jumpers of every age, sex, and level of experience--this is a bit of a tortured way to put it b/c proofs are conducted for statements, not speakers.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,991]

>I knew 5 people killed in accidents that had perfectly good canopies
> over their heads. Not ONE of them would have been affected under >thr proposed WL restriction rule.

You are certain that none of them would have benefited from canopy control education? The purpose of this proposal is not to keep people on "safe" canopies; you can easily kill yourself under almost any canopy. The purpose of such a regulation is to direct people who want to jump small canopies to canopy control courses.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

With your experience you have no idea what an experienced rigger can determine by looking at a rig from across the room.

Conceded. But the assertion I made is not about a rigger inspecting gear across a room; it is based on probability theory.

Am I expected to learn in the next few years that probability theory does not apply to skydiving?

nathaniel

"Based on the probability theory". The probability of what. Are you sure you are keeping up with what is being discussed? By the its very name, "theory" it just that, a theory. It is not fact, it has not been proven. It is someones SWAG running around dressed up as a fact. When has been proven, its not called a theory, it is in fact called a fact.
(you must take the medication everyday for it to work) Fact or theory.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>I knew 5 people killed in accidents that had perfectly good canopies
> over their heads. Not ONE of them would have been affected under >thr proposed WL restriction rule.

You are certain that none of them would have benefited from canopy control education? The purpose of this proposal is not to keep people on "safe" canopies; you can easily kill yourself under almost any canopy. The purpose of such a regulation is to direct people who want to jump small canopies to canopy control courses.

Maybe they would. But the way to get education is to require education, not to implement a different mandate altogether and hope without any evidence or research into the matter that education will be the result.

Here's another case of an experienced (1100 jumps) guy killing himself:
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1132112#1132112 He certainly wasn't killed by having fewer than 500 jumps combined with a highly loaded canopy.

Not only have you not presented evidence that you have correctly identified the primary cause of the landing accident epidemic, you have also not presented any evidence that your "cure" will in fact cure it.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Maybe they would. But the way to get education is to require education

Sounds like the beginnings of a solution. So do you have a complete solution?

Quote

Not only have you not presented evidence that you have correctly identified the primary cause of the landing accident epidemic, you have also not presented any evidence that your "cure" will in fact cure it.

It's common sense. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist. Some very experienced skydivers do see the problem and are working on the cure.

Quit focusing on what you think is wrong with our cure (negative input) and focus on what you think is the cure (positive input).

Are you working on the research and analysis to base your solution to reduce the rate of landing injury incidents?

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

Perhaps in time you will build enough experience to empirically validate the value of theory. It took thousands of years for humans to figure this out the first time; modern humanity doesn't have to wait that long.

Perhaps you will realize that lab tests don't always work ihn the real world....

I hope you live long enough to learn from the people with experience...so you don't have to experience it all yourself...chances are you will not live long enough if you want to experience it all yourself.


BTW I value theory....But I TRUST experience....Remember you braniacs swore the earth was flat...It too a guy actually sailing around to prove it was not.

Quote

True statements do not know of the experience of their speakers. The properties of a statement and the properties of its orator are disjoint. A knowledgeable person is better equipped to make true statements but at no point is his ability to make false statements diminished.

I guess since you are smarter than me then you should be able to skydive better than me huh?

Anytime, anyplace you want to compete your "knowledge" vs my "experience" bring it on.

If you are so smart I suspect you will beat me at the nationals this year?

Quote

How hard is it to prove?

Its not hard...But you need to open your eyes to the problem, not hide and just keep asking for more "data"...Cause "data" in this case is broken and killed people.

Quote

The standards of proof are the same for jumpers of every age, sex, and level of experience--this is a bit of a tortured way to put it b/c proofs are conducted for statements, not speakers.

Yes, and so far you have proven NOTHING.

I tel ya what, you compete against me in a skydiving event and beat me....Then I trust brains over experince...Until then you are just another smart guy that thinks he knows it all.

If you are so smart, and experience does not matter...then why do you have to have EXPERIENCE to get an AFF rating, and not just a high IQ?

Why is it that the tandem course has practical tests, and not just a written test?

Its cause experience will kick the shit out of a low time smart ass every time.....

You are the low time smart ass.

Any questions?

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

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Remember you braniacs swore the earth was flat...It too a guy actually sailing around to prove it was not.

Your recollection of history is incorrect, unless you can present evidence that the Ancient Greeks circumnavigated the Earth. Not that it's relevant at all...the failures of crackpots do not invalidate the scientific method any more than your favorite pocket rocket fatality invalidates all of skydiving.

Quote

I guess since you are smarter than me then you should be able to skydive better than me huh?

It's exactly the opposite; knowledge and theory is what gives us all (incl less experienced skydivers like me) the ability to tell true statements from conjecture. Abnegate it and just about all you'll have left is your experience to work with.

Quote

I tel ya what, you compete against me in a skydiving event and beat me....Then I trust brains over experince...

What would a pissing contest prove? Certainly not either of our arguments...

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

By the its very name, "theory" it just that, a theory. It is not fact, it has not been proven.

You're exhibiting a different meaning to the term theory. I've been using the definition in the first sense described in AHD and M-W and dictionary.com; in the sense described here. This kind of theory is as close to fact as humans can get--mathematical theory is about as pure as fact comes. While mathematical purity is not possible in the "Real world" we belong to, and while there have been notable screwups in the application of reason, it's not a reason to give up on theory altogether. Having your ducks in a row actually helps when we realize there's a bad premise tucked in or when there's been a lapse of reason.

While using the word theory to mean conjecture is not incorrect (it's listed in the dictionaries as an additional meaning) I think it may be part of the confusion between us. Unfortunately it's one of those funky words like "cleave" that can mean one thing and the opposite depending on how you use it.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Quote

By the its very name, "theory" it just that, a theory. It is not fact, it has not been proven.

You're exhibiting a different meaning to the term theory. I've been using the definition in the first sense described in AHD and M-W and dictionary.com; in the sense described here. This kind of theory is as close to fact as humans can get--mathematical theory is about as pure as fact comes. While mathematical purity is not possible in the "Real world" we belong to, and while there have been notable screwups in the application of reason, it's not a reason to give up on theory altogether. Having your ducks in a row actually helps when we realize there's a bad premise tucked in or when there's been a lapse of reason.

While using the word theory to mean conjecture is not incorrect (it's listed in the dictionaries as an additional meaning) I think it may be part of the confusion between us. Unfortunately it's one of those funky words like "cleave" that can mean one thing and the opposite depending on how you use it.

nathaniel

I live in the "real world" you speak of and have for some time now. As a firefighter and a rigger doing investigations, you are forced to see things in a "real world" context.
And I have lived in this "real world" long enough to know that you can apply all the "reason" in the world and end up dead if you can't apply common sense to a given situation. In skydiving, applying common sense during a high speed, high stress situation is essential. There in lies the problem, common sense is innate and cannot be taught. So you can use all the reason, logic and premise you want, if you do not have the common sense to get your head out of your ass in a hurry, you will die.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals