Dying because of low turns

[Michele 1]

There has been a great deal of conversation with everyone about w/l restrictions and low turn fatalities. There have been requests from folks to give a "study" from the available numbers, so I gave it a shot. If you want to flame me, do me a favor and realize how long this has taken for me to do...if you still want to flame me, you produce something which can work. Deal? .

I did a bit of research today, and complied the following information. I did not look at how many died under full canopies from something other than a low turn (i.e. canopy collision, hard landing, etc.) I've spent the day doing this, and am a tad tired at this point. I have no conclusion at this point still about how I feel about the restrictions proposed, but I do think there isn't enough accurate and complete information (at least from where I got it) to accurately determine if w/l is or is not a significant factor (too much missing data).

Low Turn Fatalities including w/l (when given) and jump numbers:
Gender Age: Jump# W/L What Happened:
**Note: unkn=unknown (age, j/n) undscl=undisclosed (used w/ w/l)

2003
(3 total to date)
Male unkn. 1700 undscl. Low turn off dz to avoid obstacle
Unkn unkn 40 undscl. Low turn trying to return from long spot (poss to get into wind)
Male 40 200+, undsicl. Low turn on an out landing, lightly loaded (although undisclosed)

No wingloading given, no conclusion can be drawn.
At least 2 were males

2002
(8 total)
Female 28 135 .09/1:1 Low turn (no further reason)
Male 28 270 1.5:1(+) Low turn
Male 33 521 2.13:1 Small low turn into wind, partial canopy collapse (21 jumps on this canopy)
Male 22 275 1.63:1 Attempt 180 at +/- 150 feet. Recently downsized from "much larger" canopy
Female 24 201 undiscl. Low turn/off dz landing
Male 33 1500 undiscl. Swooped into pond, few outs
Male 45 170 1.4:1 Swoop
Male 24 160 1.3:1 Low turn and no flare.

2 females, 6 males; oldest: 45, youngest: 22
1 wingloading was under 1:1
2 wingloadings were between 1.1:1 and 1.5:1
2 were wingloadings between 1.6:1 and 2:0
1 wingloading was over 2:1
2 were not given
Lowest number of jumps: 135 (also lowest wingloading)
Highest number of jumps: 1500 (undisclosed wingloading)

2001
Male 30 4700 2.0:1 HP landing (poss. rear risers) and no toggles found in hands.
Male 41 920 1.5:1 Low turn
Male 40 4000 undiscl. Low tunr, lost toggle.
Male 52 40 1.1:1 Low turn to avoid power lines
Male 39 600 undiscl. "radical" low turn
Male 30 70 undiscl. Low turn off dz landing. (Canopy was indicated as "expert"...no further)
Male 40 1000 undiscl. Hard turn during demo practice. (Not Pro rated) (level 2 demo into stadium)
Male 63 4000 undiscl. Lowturn during demo, not demo rated (possible turn/wind)(possible spectator strike/avoidance)
Male 23 201 1.4:1 Low deployemnt, off dz Low turn/hit roof of building.

0 females, 9 males; oldest: 63, youngest: 23
3 wingloadings were between 1.1:1 and 1.5:1
1 wingloading was between 1.6:1 and 2:0
5 wingloadings were not given
Lowest number of jumps: 40 (also lowest given wingloading)
Highest number of jumps: 4700 (undisclosed wingloading)

2000
Male 28 178 1.1:1 Low turn in high(ish) winds (20+ mph)
Male unkn, 100 1.3:1 Low turn
Male 31 400 1.2:1 Low turn to get into the wind.
Male unkwn 39 undscl. Low turn.
Male 25 1200 1.3:1(+/-) Low turn, no flare, HP landing on a Stiletto.
Male 43 100 undscl. Low turn
Male Unknwn, 42, undiscl. Struck roof of building. Previous year had struck power lines.
Male 42 98 undiscl. Low turn. First jump under new canopy (unknown kind, downsize, or w/l). It was elliptical.
Male 42 1000 undiscl. Low turn. (stiletto 120, but no w/l given).

0 females, 9 males; oldest: unknown, youngest: unknown
4 wingloadings were between 1.1:1 and 1.5:1
5 wingloadings were not given
Lowest number of jumps: 39 (undisclosed wingloading)
Highest number of jumps: 1200 (undisclosed wingloading)

1999
Male 26 110 1.35:1 Low turn to get into wind. Not HP, but toggle turned.
Male unkwn 43. Undscl. Low turn, possible dust devil.
Male 39 190 undiscl Good main, out landing, so low turn is suspected. No witnesses. (Indicated moderate high w/l)
Male 29 500 2.0:1 Low turn to avoid downwind. 30 jumps on this canopy, 350-400 in last year.
Male 28 200 undsicl. Low turn, impacted hard, to get into wind.
Male 34 700 1.6:1 Low turn twice, undecided/lost riser? Small landing area.
Male 59 2500 undscl. Landing collision during a demo with a guard wall.

0 females, 7 males; oldest: unknown, youngest: unknown
1 wingloading was between 1.1:1 and 1.5:1
3 wingloadings were between 1.5:1 and 2
4 wingloadings were not given
Lowest number of jumps: 43 (undisclosed wingloading)
Highest number of jumps: 2500 (undisclosed wingloading)

1988
(8 total)
Male 42 1400 undiscl. Low turn (hooked at 30-50 feet). F111 canopy, not a known hook turner.
Male 27 3300 1.85:1 Customary 270 approach to hook turn. Completed too low.
Unknwn, unkn, unkn, undiscl. Low turn
Male unknwn, unkn undscl. Low turn.
Male 19 55 1.25:1 Low turn to get into the wind.
Unknwn 44 400 undscl. Low turn to avoid power lines.
Male 38 350 undscl. Low turn to get into the wind.
Male 54 186 .085:1 Low turn to get back into heavy winds.

unknown females, unknown males; oldest: unknown, youngest: unknown
1 wingloading under 1:1
1 wingloading was between 1.1:1 and 1.5:1
1 wingloadings were between 1.5:1 and 2
5 wingloadings were not given
Lowest number of jumps: 55 (1.25:1 wingloading)
Highest number of jumps: 3300 (1.85:1 wingloading)

These numbers were compiled from skydiving fatalities.com as well as information here. The whole fatality history which I've compiled for the last 5 years is attached (I hope).

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

fatalities.rtf

[andy2 0]

it'd be neat to somehow find the ratio of men:women jumpers, since you even bothered to include sex in this. If you dont have that I see the sex of the person as kind of useless...less women jump compared to men, from my very limited experience. But thanks for the write up.

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[Michele 1]

Hiya, Andy.

I included gender because Kallend insisted it's a point of reference in some analyses. And it is. As with the age (again, a Kallend datapoint).

From what I understand, the percentage of female skydivers is something on the order of 15-18%. I could be wrong, though.

It would seem, if that is a correct percentage, that fewer women are dying because of low turns than the male to female ratio would predict. However, after looking at the stats all day, I think that overall, women die in proportion to the ratio (or somewhat close therein).

Hope that helps answer the question...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[andy2 0]

Sorry to get offtopic there, overall looks like you spent some time getting everything straight. Puts a bit of this stuff in perspective. Thanks again.

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[Hooknswoop 19]

Working from Michele's research:
(If anyone can replace any of the 'Unknowns' with numbers, it would definitely help.)

# Jumps Wing loading Would have been affected by proposed BSR*

2003-

1700 Unknown No
40 Unknown ?
200+ Unknown ?

2002-

135 .09/1:1 No
270 1.5:1(+) Yes
521 2.13:1 No
275 1.63:1 Yes
201 Unknown ?
1500 Unknown No
170 1.4:1 Yes
160 1.3:1 Yes

2001-

4700 2.0:1 No
920 1.5:1 No
4000 Unknown No
40 1.1:1 Yes
600 Unknown No
70 Unknown ?
1000 Unknown No
4000 Unknown No
201 1.4:1 Yes

2000-

178 1.1:1 No
100 1.3:1 Yes
400 1.2:1 No
39 Unknown ?
1200 1.3:1(+/-) No
100 Unknown ?
42 Unknown ?
98 Unknown ?
1000 Unknown No

1999-

110 1.35:1 Yes
43 Unknown ?
190 Unknown ?
500 2.0:1 No (Assuming the jumper had 500 and not 499)
200 Unknown ?
700 1.6:1 No
2500 Unknown No

1998-

1400 Unknown No
3300 1.85:1 No
Unknown Unknown ?
Unknown Unknown ?
55 1.25:1 Yes
400 Unknown ?
350 Unknown ?
186 .085:1 No

No = the jumper had more than 500 jumps.
Yes = the jumper exceeded the wing loading than the above chart above.
? = wing loading was not disclosed


Totals: (for a 4 1/2 year time period)
Yes: 9 (The jumper would not have been allowed to jump at their wing loading without canopy training or 'testing out')
No: 20 (The training and requirements may have prevented these "D" license holder fatalities.)
?: 15 (Possibly affected)

So 9 of the fatalities would have been affected by the proposed BSR. The 15 "?'s" could have been affected or could have not been affected at all. At least some of the 20 "No's" might have been prevented had the proposed BSR been in place when they learned to skydive because of the further canopy training they would have received. But the BSR would not have prevented the "No's" from jumping at their wing loading.

* Proposed BSR in a nutshell;

A license - 1 psf max
B license - 1.1 psf max
C license - 1.3 psf max
D license - no limit

With the option to 'test out' or use canopy training to exceed the table.
Mandatory canopy training and demonstration of canopy control skills for each license.

Hook

[diverdriver 6]

How about all the injured jumpers that could have been effected by this. Sometimes its a fine line between a fatal landing accident and a busted ankle. We won't get those numbers really but I'm pretty sure it would have an effect though.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[skybytch 273]

Quote

We won't get those numbers really but I'm pretty sure it would have an effect though.

For me the injury rate is far more important than the fatality rate. Seems like we hear about someone else somewhere being injured in a landing accident after every weekend.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

We won't get those numbers really but I'm pretty sure it would have an effect though.

I agree. I think the injury rate is where the larger problem lies, and also where the proposed BSR will have the greatest impact.

Hook

[Michele 1]

If there is no database, all we will ever have is hearsay and inaccuracies...And there is no database, and it's not a required reporting to the USPA, right? Therefore, we will not be able to access that data.

So we look at what we have....which is the fatalities reports.

And just really curious, hasn't the rallying cry been "dying under fully operational canopies"? I thought so, or I wouldn't have bothered with 8-9 hours worth of typing, researching, and compilation of data....

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[QuickDraw 0]

How about starting our own database ?

We have options in our profiles for gear and ratings, would it be difficult to add an option with canopy training, or current wingloading statistics ?

And remind eveyone say ...once a month to update their profiles.

Just a thought.

-- Hope you don't die. --

I'm fucking winning

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Working from Michele's research:
(If anyone can replace any of the 'Unknowns' with numbers, it would definitely help.)

# Jumps Wing loading Would have been affected by proposed BSR*

2003-

1700 Unknown No
40 Unknown ?
200+ Unknown ?

2002-

135 .09/1:1 No
270 1.5:1(+) Yes
521 2.13:1 No
275 1.63:1 Yes
201 Unknown ?
1500 Unknown No
170 1.4:1 Yes
160 1.3:1 Yes

2001-

4700 2.0:1 No
920 1.5:1 No
4000 Unknown No
40 1.1:1 Yes
600 Unknown No
70 Unknown ?
1000 Unknown No
4000 Unknown No
201 1.4:1 Yes

2000-

178 1.1:1 No
100 1.3:1 Yes
400 1.2:1 No
39 Unknown ?
1200 1.3:1(+/-) No
100 Unknown ?
42 Unknown ?
98 Unknown ?
1000 Unknown No

1999-

110 1.35:1 Yes
43 Unknown ?
190 Unknown ?
500 2.0:1 No (Assuming the jumper had 500 and not 499)
200 Unknown ?
700 1.6:1 No
2500 Unknown No

1998-

1400 Unknown No
3300 1.85:1 No
Unknown Unknown ?
Unknown Unknown ?
55 1.25:1 Yes
400 Unknown ?
350 Unknown ?
186 .085:1 No

No = the jumper had more than 500 jumps.
Yes = the jumper exceeded the wing loading than the above chart above.
? = wing loading was not disclosed


Totals: (for a 4 1/2 year time period)
Yes: 9 (The jumper would not have been allowed to jump at their wing loading without canopy training or 'testing out')
No: 20 (The training and requirements may have prevented these "D" license holder fatalities.)
?: 15 (Possibly affected)

So 9 of the fatalities would have been affected by the proposed BSR. The 15 "?'s" could have been affected or could have not been affected at all. At least some of the 20 "No's" might have been prevented had the proposed BSR been in place when they learned to skydive because of the further canopy training they would have received. But the BSR would not have prevented the "No's" from jumping at their wing loading.

* Proposed BSR in a nutshell;

A license - 1 psf max
B license - 1.1 psf max
C license - 1.3 psf max
D license - no limit

With the option to 'test out' or use canopy training to exceed the table.
Mandatory canopy training and demonstration of canopy control skills for each license.

Hook

It is true the WL would have been affected where you indicate, but there is no way to know if the outcome would have been affected. Many of these may well have died under a 1:1 loaded canopy. The numbers actually represent an upper bound to the effectiveness of the proposal.

And still you are only looking at one parameter of many possibilities.

...

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

If there is no database, all we will ever have is hearsay and inaccuracies...And there is no database, and it's not a required reporting to the USPA, right? Therefore, we will not be able to access that data.

So we look at what we have....which is the fatalities reports.

And just really curious, hasn't the rallying cry been "dying under fully operational canopies"? I thought so, or I wouldn't have bothered with 8-9 hours worth of typing, researching, and compilation of data....

Ciels-
Michele

In the NPRM for the revision of FAR Part 105 a few years ago, injury reporting was a requirement proposed by the FAA. It was taken out of the final rule because of objections from the skydiving community. If we have poor data, it's our own fault!

...

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

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

It is true the WL would have been affected where you indicate, but there is no way to know if the outcome would have been affected. Many of these may well have died under a 1:1 loaded canopy.

Should we do some sort of controlled experiment involving people volunteering to slam themselves into the ground under various wingloadings?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

It is true the WL would have been affected where you indicate, but there is no way to know if the outcome would have been affected. Many of these may well have died under a 1:1 loaded canopy.

Should we do some sort of controlled experiment involving people volunteering to slam themselves into the ground under various wingloadings?

-
Jim

Unhelpful.

All the way through this debate there has been an unwillingness to separate a known, real problem, the increase in fatalities under good open canopies, from an assumed and unproven hypothesis, that the cause is low time jumpers under hightly loaded canopies.

As I look at Michele's data combined with the USPA skydiver demographics at www.uspa.org, it is far from clear to me that low timers are the primary cause of the problem. Looks to me as if young males are the real cause of the problem. Maybe we should restrict males under 30 to 1:1 WL.

Until you can be SURE that the cause of the fatality increase is what most of you seem to assume it is, then IMO any regulation to restrict that cause is a wasted effort. You might as well restrict kids' model rockets to protect us against terrorist attack (oh - they already did that!)

...

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

[riggerrob 643]

It would be nice if everyone reported their injuries, then we would have much larger and more accurate data base, but we know that is not going to happen.
A large part of the problem is that the few DZOs who report accurately end up looking like the least safe on the planet.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

It is true the WL would have been affected where you indicate, but there is no way to know if the outcome would have been affected. Many of these may well have died under a 1:1 loaded canopy. The numbers actually represent an upper bound to the effectiveness of the proposal.

And still you are only looking at one parameter of many possibilities.

You asked for an analysis. Michele took the time and effort to do the best she could with the information available.

No amount of statistics will prove that this BSR is necessary or unnecessary. If someone hooks in an elliptical canopy loaded at 2.0:1 at 75 jumps, you can argue that they could have hooked in a square loaded at 1.0:1 at 75 jumps and the proposed BSR would have done nothing. We do know that a loading of 2.0:1 at 75 jumps is extreme and dangerous, with a high likelihood of injury or death. We also know limiting the wing loading of lower experienced jumpers and giving them more canopy training will reduce injuries and fatalities.

Your main objection seems to be that those that are proposing this BSR cannot offer proof that it will reduce injuries and fatalities under functional canopies and you are worried about an unnecessary BSR. That is true, we cannot. Here is what we can offer; I have 3304 skydives over 8 years (in 3 days). I have flown 68 different canopies, almost half of my jumps have been on canopies under 100 square feet. I have 14 cutaways and another 44 intentional cutaways. I have 898 tandem jumps, have JM'd 333 static line students and 521 AFF students. I have 627 jumps on a VX-60 at 3.1:1. I hold S/L I/E, AFFI I/E, TDM I/E, PRO, Senior Rigger (Back and Chest), and PPSEL ratings. I was an S & TA. I have written and taught a Canopy Control Course (a tremendous amount of work by the way). I have been a first responder (I took the Combat Life Saver course in the U.S. Army after witnessing a downwind landing with no flare resulting in a broken neck) at numerous landing incidents, including 2 broken necks, numerous femurs, lots of crying and screaming and blood. I have never been injured skydiving. Based upon my experience, I believe the proposed BSR will reduce the number of injuries and fatalities under fully functional canopies. It is flexible, allowing a skydiver to progress as quickly as they want, as long as they are either signed off or receive additional canopy training over what would be required for the next license. The proposal mandates more canopy training (this is itself will reduce injuries and fatalities) and limits the wing loadings of inexperienced jumpers. Someone said that the no one in favor of the BSR will be affected by it. First, no on currently opposed to the BSR would be affected by it either, as they wold be grand fathered. Second, without the time in sport and my experience, I wouldn't have the basis to see that this BSR is a good thing. If this BSR had been proposed when I had 200 jumps, I would have been opposed to it, I am sure of that. Looking back, I didn't know what I didn't know until I had much more experience and time in the sport.

On jump number 163 I jumped a Stiletto 120 loaded at 1.6:1. I was thoroughly briefed on the canopy, given the restriction of no 360 degree turns below 1,000 feet and a straight in approach to a huge landing area from 200 feet. The owner and another Instructor would both be watching from the ground. I had to prove myself under the canopy if I was going to be allowed to jump it again. They continued to 'mentor' me and watch me under canopy and my landings for many jumps after that. I was only allowed to jump the canopy under controlled conditions. I wasn't allowed to jump it in high winds or on larger skydives, or if there was a chance for a bad spot, etc. I jumped a Stiletto 107 loaded at 1.8:1 on jump number 376, again under direct supervision and with restrictions of what I could do under it. This worked, but there is more information out there now that could have reduced my risk level under that canopy that wasn't available to me then. I had over 500 jumps before I ever heard the term 'flat turn'.

Arming S & TA's, I/E's and DZO's with a BSR and guidelines for 'testing out' of a wing loading restriction would take some effort to produce, but would not be difficult to put into use. Training Canopy Instructors wold also be difficult at first (same as the BIC was), but CI's would be an invaluable resource.

Is there a problem (with landing injuries and fatalities)? Yes.
Is too high of a wing loading without enough experience the primary cause for landing injuries and fatalities? Yes.
Is the BSR perfect? No.
Will the proposed BSR stop all landing injuries and fatalities? No.
Will it take work and effort to implement? Yes.
Will it be worth it? Yes.
Is wing loading a good point of measure? Yes.
Is jump numbers a good point of measure? Yes.

The BSR is a trade-off between restriction and freedom. I am against restriction unless absolutely necessary. It wold be possible to make the BSR more restrictive and further reduce the number of injuries and fatalities, but past the current proposal we would see diminishing returns. It would require a very restrictive BSR to almost completely stop the landing injuries and fatalities. I think the current proposal is a good 'happy medium', not too restrictive, but will make a significant impact on the problem.

If you are opposed to this BSR, then I ask you, "What is an alternative solution to the problem of the trend in landing inures and fatalities?" At some point an imperfect solution is better than no solution at all. I believe we have reached that point. Will the proposed BSR affect me? No. Nor will it affect the 4 or 5 people designing and pitching it, by virtue that the experience required to recognize the need for the BSR and design one puts us outside of the 500 jump window that is affected by the proposed BSR. It will affect those that don't have the experience to recognize the need for it. No one freaked out when the "A" license minimum pull altitude was increased to 3,500 feet AGL or the minimum tandem pull altitude was increased to 4,500 feet.

Things are getting worse, not better.

To sit back and do nothing on the podium of freedom of choice is easy. To take the stance of letting Darwinism rule the landing area is simple and suggests the owner of the attitude resides in the deep end of the gene pool. "I don't need this regulation", fine, test out and/or get the training, along with the license canopy training and you'll be better off for it and no harm done.

When you say the "skydiving community" was opposed the incident reporting, who, exactly, do you mean by "skydiving community"? I don't believe the average jumper was opposed to the proposed FAR. Ask yourself who would be negatively affected by such a FAR and therefore opposed to it?

Hook

[Michele 1]

Quote

Looks to me as if young males are the real cause of the problem. Maybe we should restrict males under 30 to 1:1 WL.

It's not them being "young" male which is a "cause" of the problem, I don't think. There's something else....just what, I am not sure.

The numbers would indicated the following (keep in mind I've had a single cuppa coffee this morning...)

Male:female:unknown
38:2:4 (total 44)

Age ranges for all males:
18-24: 5
25-30: 10
31-35: 4
35-40: 4
41-54: 4
45+= 5
Unknown:10
Females: 2
Total 44

15 happened between 18-30 years of age
17 happened over the age of 31.
2 others were female
10 others are unknown
Total: 44

If you arbitrarily restrict w/l based on age, nearly 1/2 of the past few years' deaths *may* not have happened...but more than half *may* still have occurred.

With +/- 25% of the data incomplete, no solid and significant conclusion can be drawn. 25% added to any particular "group" would change the numbers determinately one way or another...

While I will concur that it does look like males are more prone to dying under a full canopy in a low turn situation, I cannot agree that the majority sits with "young" males under the age of 30...the numbers are too incomplete to support a solid conclusion that way.

I also agree with your point that with a significant amount of people who skydive have UNDER 300 jumps.

Interesting discussion so far.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Until you can be SURE that the cause of the fatality increase is what most of you seem to assume it is, then IMO any regulation to restrict that cause is a wasted effort.

Ok, let us waste the effort. Skydivers get more training and no harm done. We can't prove the BSR will fix the problem, nor can you prove it won't. So where does that leave us? I know there is a problem and I believe the proposed BSR will largely fix it, as do others with tons of experience. That is the best we are going to get. The raising of the "A" license minimum pull altitude from 3,000 feet AGL to 3,500 feet AGL wasn't based upon an exhaustive study of "A" license skydivers. Some experienced skydivers recognized that, given the advancing canopy technology and changing characteristics, raising "A" licensed jumpers minimum pull altitude is a good idea. Do you feel that change was in error because there isn't a report concluding, with data to back it up, that there was a problem and the fix was to raise the pull altitude 500 feet?

Quote

Looks to me as if young males are the real cause of the problem.

You said that 50% (according to USPA) of jumpers have less than 300 jumps. You checked because you wanted to show that having the largest number of fatalities under open canopies with skydivers that have under 500 jumps is to be expected because most skydivers have less than 300 jumps. Therefore there isn't a problem. This was your point, correct?

Now you say young males is the problem. How many skydivers are young males, by percentage? Most, yes? So by regulating wing loadings for jumpers under 500 jumps we would be hitting mostly young males, "the real cause of the problem".

Hook

[wmw999 2,534]

That's thorough, and I can't really find anything to disagree with. If you wait until everything is perfect, you never do anything. And if education is the key, then ensuring people have it is probably a good thing.

Hook -- did you think the folks enforcing the watching under canopy when you were inexperienced were being overcautious?

Wendy W.

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)

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

***

Is there a problem (with landing injuries and fatalities)? Yes.

Agreed

Quote

Is too high of a wing loading without enough experience the primary cause for landing injuries and fatalities? Yes.

Sorry, but the data simply don't show that. The inexperienced (i.e. low jump number folks) appear to turn up pretty much in proportion to their numbers in the population of skydivers.

Quote

Is the BSR perfect? No.

Bill von's version is a distinct improvement IMO.

Quote

Will the proposed BSR stop all landing injuries and fatalities? No.
Will it take work and effort to implement? Yes.
Will it be worth it? Yes.
Is wing loading a good point of measure? Yes.
Is jump numbers a good point of measure? Yes.

Quote

You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things). Sorry, but playing the "I am an expert" card is one of the items in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. As I already pointed out, when you look at actual fatality data, being a young male is a better indicator of risk of a good canopy fatality than is having a low number of jumps.

The BSR is a trade-off between restriction and freedom. I am against restriction unless absolutely necessary. It wold be possible to make the BSR more restrictive and further reduce the number of injuries and fatalities, but past the current proposal we would see diminishing returns. It would require a very restrictive BSR to almost completely stop the landing injuries and fatalities. I think the current proposal is a good 'happy medium', not too restrictive, but will make a significant impact on the problem.

If you are opposed to this BSR, then I ask you, "What is an alternative solution to the problem of the trend in landing inures and fatalities?"

Education. Make canopy control (over and above the current accuracy requirement) a license requirement for B, C and D.

Quote

When you say the "skydiving community" was opposed the incident reporting, who, exactly, do you mean by "skydiving community"? I don't believe the average jumper was opposed to the proposed FAR. Ask yourself who would be negatively affected by such a FAR and therefore opposed to it?

Hook

Go back and read the response from USPA to the Part 105 NPRM, and ones from individuals that they copied to rec.skydiving.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

did you think the folks enforcing the watching under canopy when you were inexperienced were being overcautious?

No. If anything I needed better training than I recieved, i.e. flat turns.

Hook

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Is too high of a wing loading without enough experience the primary cause for landing injuries and fatalities? Yes.

Sorry, but the data simply don't show that. The inexperienced (i.e. low jump number folks) appear to turn up pretty much in proportion to their numbers in the population of skydivers.

What data? There isn't any data for landing injuries and the data for landing fatalities is poor at best. Are you suggesting that we should conduct a thorough collection of landing incident data over a long time period, analyze it, then determine if there is a need for a BSR and more education and if so, exactly how to go about it? This isn't NASA. We will never be able to do that, but that doesn't mean that people are exceeding their abilities and getting hurt and killed.

[Quote]Bill von's version is a distinct improvement IMO.

I agree, Bill's proposal is excellent.

[Quote]You assume so based on your "experience". Experienced folks once clained the Earth was flat, that heavier than air machines would never fly, and that no use would ever be found for the study of radioactivity (among other things). Sorry, but playing the "I am an expert" card is one of the items in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. As I already pointed out, when you look at actual fatality data, being a young male is a better indicator of risk of a good canopy fatality than is having a low number of jumps.

I am not assuming. Experience (and not just mine) is all we have to base this on. Look through the incidents forum didn't say that I am an expert, only that I have been doing this for a while, been pushing the edge myself, and feel I am qualified to make a educated judgement on this topic. Comparing my opinion that too little experience combined with too high of a wing loading is on the rise, causing an increasing trend in landing incidents to someone claiming the Earth was flat isn't fair. Are you suggesting that my opinion is akin to claiming the Earth is flat? Do you feel I am not qualified to suggest that the wing loading + experience is an increasing problem? What data do you have to show that there isn't a problem with the experience + wing loading combination?

It is so easy to sit back and poke holes in the proposal and our arguments, not so easy to try and propose and defend a change. Why are you so against the BSR? Let's assume that we are completely wrong and the BSR wouldn't make a difference. What will we have lost? Is directing people's attention on canopy control and educating them so bad? The only people that would actually not be allowed to downsize would be someone that wanted to downsize faster than the given chart and was unable to demonstrate the ability to handle the smaller canopy. Is that so bad?

What if we do nothing? What would happen? Will the trend continue to increase? I think it will. There is no reason for it to not. At want point will you agree that a BSR is needed?

Quote

Education. Make canopy control (over and above the current accuracy requirement) a license requirement for B, C and D.

That is in the proposal.

Quote

Go back and read the response from USPA to the Part 105 NPRM

I did, basically the FAA decided they had underestimated the number of injuries each year and they didn't have the infrastructure to handle all the paperwork from all the injuries. Too many injuries for them to handle.

I overheard two interesting things at the DZ today. A jumper had to pull low on a jump because of another jumper above him. The higher jumper said he didn't see him and that he had done two barrel rolls and the sun was in his eyes.

The second was after landing down wind, passing end cell to end cell with another jumper, he said he landed downwind because he didn't want to walk as far.

I was on a tracking dive today. The plan was for the close in people to wait until the farther jumpers left, then track. Since I was close in, I stayed through the wave-off. I was brushed (almost hit) at high speed by another jumper (200+ lbs.) at break off. On the ground (this jumper had given another jumper a bloody nose on exit) I mentioned to him that he should be more careful with his approach. All I got was attitude, "Keep walking" he told me. Another of his friends tells me to STFU. They couldn't have cared less about safety and sure didn't want to hear it from someone else.

Hook

[Luminous 0]

Quote

All I got was attitude, "Keep walking" he told me. Another of his friends tells me to STFU. They couldn't have cared less about safety and sure didn't want to hear it from someone else.

Time to take it to the S&TA.

It constantly amazes me how people will pull stunts like this and then get angry when it's brought to their attention. I have absolutly zero authority at my home dz, but I am also not known to be hesitient to talk to someone landing opposite all other canopies, our carving through the landing area while others are still on approach.

The majority of the time they know they screwed up so enough said, let's be more careful in the future. In those rare instances when the jumper in question won't listen, or gets angry. I just tell em "OK, we'll see what the S&TA thinks about it, fair?". Response to that is either 'OK' or "F*&^ you", and then I tallk to the S&TA, and let him decide if he needs to speak with that person.

Hopefully this option is available to you.

'In an insane society a sane person seems insane.' Mr. Spock

[kallend 2,106]

Derek,

I am not quite sure what your experiences at the DZ yesterday had to do with this proposal. It just illustrates that some skydivers are casual about safety. That is not news.

I am not against doing something to reduce a surge in fatalities under good canopies.

I am against doing anything whose outcome cannot be justified from the data available. I know that the data are limited in scope, but what data there are do not indicate that people with low jump numbers under highly loaded canopies are dying at a higher rate than other skydivers in relation to their total numbers in the population. I acknowledge your experience and I enjoy your articles - that does not in any way compensate for the absence of supporting data, however. I think you have fixated on this one aspect without looking at the bigger picture.

You wish to create a new BSR. The onus is on you to show that it will work as claimed, not on me to prove that it won't or to come up with an alternative. Your proposal doesn't affect me anyway, I am simply trying to ensure that you are tackling the right target.

If my nitpicking forces you and Bill and others to refine your proposal, then I will have done some good here.

I don't think you have a chance of getting this past USPA until you have a far stronger case than you have presented so far.

Have any of you folks actually asked USPA for their accident database? It contains more information than is published in Parachutist. If not, why not? If so, why don't you present your analysis instead of claiming "experience" as your justification.

...

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

[Ron 10]

Good work.

Did you see the trend of Jump #'s going down, and WL going up in the last years?

This is the trend I would like to stop,slow.

A guy with 300 jumps 5 years ago would have a very hard time getting a 1.5 loaded canopy.

It is MUCH simpler now...And since they can get them, they are.

Unless we do something, this trend will continue.

Ron

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