mjosparky 4 #1 June 22, 2004 Quotewell lets learn from it, and not just flame away. He appeared to follow all the ethics of current education, he did have low jump numbers and there others like him. So lets be positive and discuss this properly. What we can learn from this has been common knowledge for sometime now. 300 jumps, wing loading over 2.0 and swooping the gates. He did not follow "ethics of current education", and he was not well informed. He had been told before to slow down but did not listen. As many before him and I am sure many will follow him, he felt his skills were ahead of the norm. He was on a canopy that only a handful of jumpers can fly to it limits. He got in over his head an fucked up. How would you put a positive twist on it. This shit is really getting old. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #2 June 23, 2004 QuoteQuotewell lets learn from it, and not just flame away. He appeared to follow all the ethics of current education, he did have low jump numbers and there others like him. So lets be positive and discuss this properly. What we can learn from this has been common knowledge for sometime now. 300 jumps, wing loading over 2.0 and swooping the gates. He did not follow "ethics of current education", and he was not well informed. He had been told before to slow down but did not listen. As many before him and I am sure many will follow him, he felt his skills were ahead of the norm. He was on a canopy that only a handful of jumpers can fly to it limits. He got in over his head an fucked up. How would you put a positive twist on it. This shit is really getting old. Sparky Lots of comments on jump numbers and canopy size. How about the jumper's AGE? Hasn't anyone beside me and Michele noticed that there seems a better correlation between accidents and sex/age (male/under 25) than between accidents and jump numbers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #3 June 23, 2004 QuoteMichele noticed that there seems a better correlation between accidents and sex/age (male/under 25) than between accidents and jump numbers. So what do you propse? IS there a similar correlation between female jumpers and twisted ankles? That's not the way to handle this. An experience based regulation is the only thing that will work fairly.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #4 June 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteMichele noticed that there seems a better correlation between accidents and sex/age (male/under 25) than between accidents and jump numbers. So what do you propse? IS there a similar correlation between female jumpers and twisted ankles? That's not the way to handle this. An experience based regulation is the only thing that will work fairly. Well, no one that I'm aware of keeps records on twisted ankles. But the best way to handle any problem is to find out what the actual risk factors are, and fix them. Overlooking gender and age just because it's inconvenient won't address the issue. 19 year old guys are much more ingenious at finding ways of killing themselves than 35 year old women. That's the group that needs to be targeted.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #5 June 23, 2004 Quote19 year old guys are much more ingenious at finding ways of killing themselves than 35 year old women. That's the group that needs to be targeted. Maybe we should tell them they can't skydive till they are 35. Of course we all know that a 35 year old that just got into the sport is much safer than a 25 year old with 1000 jumps.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #6 June 23, 2004 >19 year old guys are much more ingenious at finding ways of killing > themselves than 35 year old women. That's the group that needs to be >targeted. ?? I know some 22 year old women who are _much_ safer than some 40 year old guys. Any crtieria based on age as a representation of good judgement is bound to fail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #7 June 23, 2004 Quote19 year old guys are much more ingenious at finding ways of killing themselves than 35 year old women. That's the group that needs to be targeted. I'm sure we've all seen exceptions to the rule in both directions - young guys with common sense, older females without common sense - but I'd agree that the majority of those jumpers that I've talked to who are aggressive about downsizing/flying higher performance canopies/swooping early in their skydiving careers are young males. How do we target that group without cries of age/sex discrimination? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManBird 0 #8 June 23, 2004 QuoteOf course we all know that a 35 year old that just got into the sport is much safer than a 25 year old with 1000 jumps.Hey! You're being sarcastic! Yeah, the age only applies to a degree. There's maturity in the sport, as well. You could be 40, but after only six months in the sport, make the kind of decisions that someone half your age would be expected to make. I would say that a 20 year old with the same experience as a 40 year old is more likely to make bad decisions. Might not be the case if the younger jumper has much more experience than the older."¯"`-._.-¯) ManBird (¯-._.-´"¯" Click Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #9 June 23, 2004 QuoteHasn't anyone beside me and Michele noticed that there seems a better correlation between accidents and sex/age (male/under 25) than between accidents and jump numbers. Do you have the data to back up this statement? There is nothing that be done about someone being 22 years old. The discussion is about how to prevent a jumper, at any age, from getting in over their head with a HP canopy. Of the 9 landing fatalities list on the DZ.com database, only one was under 25 and 5 were over 30. Which proves what?My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joshjumps 0 #10 June 23, 2004 QuoteQuoteHasn't anyone beside me and Michele noticed that there seems a better correlation between accidents and sex/age (male/under 25) than between accidents and jump numbers. Do you have the data to back up this statement? There is nothing that be done about someone being 22 years old. The discussion is about how to prevent a jumper, at any age, from getting in over their head with a HP canopy. Of the 9 landing fatalities list on the DZ.com database, only one was under 25 and 5 were over 30. Which proves what? You could easily corelate this to driving. Young males are more likely to "hot dog" it hence the higher insurance premiums. I don't think that the young males will suddenly gain insight once they start skydiving. If anything they get more more reckless because the see how awesome swooping looks. Joshua Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakydiver 0 #11 June 23, 2004 "How do we target that group without cries of age/sex discrimination?" Forget about stepping on peoples toes, that's how. Would you rather step on their toes or their busted spines and femurs?? -- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flycurt 0 #12 June 24, 2004 QuoteThe discussion is about how to prevent a jumper, at any age, from getting in over their head with a HP canopy. The injured jumper is also a friend of mine. He’s is a good person, who really doesn’t deserve a “reward” such as this. I’m sorry this happened to him, but not surprised to know he has injured himself; I’m thankful he wasn’t killed, as I’m sure he is as well. Theses preventable misfortunes should suffice to send a clear message to jumpers deciding to pursue HP canopy piloting, but they don’t. He proved to every one who cautioned him, that they were right to do so. Should we have done more? What could we have done? I believe most people can probably handle a ‘little hotter’ canopy in perfect conditions for a few jumps or so, but add extra traffic, a bad spot, dust devils, a low turn that eats up altitude, or anything less than ideal conditions; now 95% of those people won’t be able to safely handle or land, this ‘hotter’ canopy. Not only that, they have become a potential problem to other jumpers as well. So how do we, as a community, control or reduce these types of preventable incidents? I guess we could start by asking the people who survived their moments of poor judgment and/or inexperience, what they think might have kept them out of their accident? We could all come up with 10 different ways to keep everyone from enjoying skydiving and canopy flight, potentially reducing the frequency of these accidents, but for me, it comes down to a simple premise. Once a jumper decides to leave the aircraft, that jumper is responsible for themselves, their gear and their actions in the air, until they are safely on the ground and out of their harness. But before they load that aircraft, they should ask themselves, are they ready to accept these responsibilities? “Old Timer” skydivers are old for a reason. Don’t let a 10-second swoop, turn out to be a lifetime of misery with no skydiving. Education, and a more proactive role by experienced jumpers on the DZ are key to prevention here. Peer pressure can sometimes contribute to these incidents; maybe a different sort of peer pressure might have prevented this one. Where I first learned to skydive, I remember all the experienced jumpers taking active roles with every low timer, making sure they knew what was going on around them, being that low-timer’s good judgment for them. Asking questions, helping them to make good decisions, even being abrasive in front of other jumpers to make their point. But also talking with them, explaining themselves to further educate these newbie’s. That doesn’t happen much anymore, we wouldn’t want to hurt someone’s little feelings, now would we? I hope the best for my friend, along with a quick recovery and rehab. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #13 June 24, 2004 Quote>19 year old guys are much more ingenious at finding ways of killing > themselves than 35 year old women. That's the group that needs to be >targeted. ?? I know some 22 year old women who are _much_ safer than some 40 year old guys. Any crtieria based on age as a representation of good judgement is bound to fail. Anecdotal! I know folks with 200 jumps that are better canopy pilots than some with 6,000 jumps. Any criterion based on jump numbers is, by your logic, bound to fail. In fact, any criterion is bound to fail if it does not address the actualrisk factors. And to the best of my knowledge, being a young male is the biggest risk factor of all.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #14 June 24, 2004 QuoteAny criterion based on jump numbers is, by your logic, bound to fail. Stop seeing it in black and white. The complexity and expense of impimentation of a system as you're beginint to propose is bount to fail. Starting with some stand fast guidelines is a perfect first step. Your suposition about young males being the highest risk factor has already been shown to be incorrect. mojosparky said:QuoteOf the 9 landing fatalities list on the DZ.com database, only one was under 25 and 5 were over 30. Which proves what? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #15 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteAny criterion based on jump numbers is, by your logic, bound to fail. Stop seeing it in black and white. The complexity and expense of impimentation of a system as you're beginint to propose is bount to fail. Starting with some stand fast guidelines is a perfect first step. Your suposition about young males being the highest risk factor has already been shown to be incorrect. mojosparky said:QuoteOf the 9 landing fatalities list on the DZ.com database, only one was under 25 and 5 were over 30. Which proves what? He should have looked at the larger USPA database. 9 is not representative and the DZ.com database is not comprehensive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #16 June 24, 2004 Quotemojosparky said: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of the 9 landing fatalities list on the DZ.com database, only one was under 25 and 5 were over 30. Which proves what? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He should have looked at the larger USPA database. 9 is not representative and the DZ.com database is not comprehensive. No one said it was representative. How many more landing fatalities does the "larger" USPA database list for the year 2004? Since they only list those that occur in the USA, probably fewer. What database did you use making your original statement? Throwing rocks is easy, coming up with possible solutions to a problem can be more difficult.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #17 June 24, 2004 QuoteThrowing rocks is easy, coming up with possible solutions to a problem can be more difficult. And so far, that is all he does about small canopies/low jump number/high wind loading incident rate. He trys to poke holes in our solutions, but doesn't try to present his own solution(s) or 'fixes' to any flaws he sees. YOU ARE EITHER PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION. Either help or STFU! Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #18 June 24, 2004 >Throwing rocks is easy . . . This has started to drift away from discussion of the incident; how about we continue the discussion in safety+training or swooping and canopy control? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteThrowing rocks is easy, coming up with possible solutions to a problem can be more difficult. And so far, that is all he does about small canopies/low jump number/high wind loading incident rate. He trys to poke holes in our solutions, but doesn't try to present his own solution(s) or 'fixes' to any flaws he sees. YOU ARE EITHER PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION. Either help or STFU! As inclined as I am towards a change in this subject, this statement is not helpful. An offered solution must improve the situation without have more negative consequences then gains. If the solution sucks, one doesn't have to offer an alternative to say so. They need only a valid argument. Sometimes there is no solution, unless you buy into "if it will save just one life it will be worth it" mentality. No change is preferable to a badly thought out one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #20 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuotemojosparky said: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of the 9 landing fatalities list on the DZ.com database, only one was under 25 and 5 were over 30. Which proves what? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He should have looked at the larger USPA database. 9 is not representative and the DZ.com database is not comprehensive. No one said it was representative. How many more landing fatalities does the "larger" USPA database list for the year 2004? Since they only list those that occur in the USA, probably fewer. What database did you use making your original statement? Throwing rocks is easy, coming up with possible solutions to a problem can be more difficult. And how many of them were low jump number folks on highly loaded canopies? Coming up with the WRONG solution is also easy, and counterproductive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #21 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteThrowing rocks is easy, coming up with possible solutions to a problem can be more difficult. And so far, that is all he does about small canopies/low jump number/high wind loading incident rate. He trys to poke holes in our solutions, but doesn't try to present his own solution(s) or 'fixes' to any flaws he sees. YOU ARE EITHER PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION. Either help or STFU! As inclined as I am towards a change in this subject, this statement is not helpful. An offered solution must improve the situation without have more negative consequences then gains. If the solution sucks, one doesn't have to offer an alternative to say so. They need only a valid argument. Sometimes there is no solution, unless you buy into "if it will save just one life it will be worth it" mentality. No change is preferable to a badly thought out one. this is just a continuation of this thread from last year: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=515894#515894 triggered by one more piece of anecdotal evidence without any proper analysis of the actual causes of accidents and no attempt to determine the real risk factors. 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.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #22 June 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteThrowing rocks is easy, coming up with possible solutions to a problem can be more difficult. And so far, that is all he does about small canopies/low jump number/high wind loading incident rate. He trys to poke holes in our solutions, but doesn't try to present his own solution(s) or 'fixes' to any flaws he sees. YOU ARE EITHER PART OF THE PROBLEM OR PART OF THE SOLUTION. Either help or STFU! Derek I do not believe that your solution addresses the actual problem. In my opinion, a poorly conceived solution based on a knee jerk response to an accident is not helpful in the slightest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #23 June 25, 2004 QuoteIt 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.My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #24 June 25, 2004 >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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #25 June 25, 2004 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. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
