Supporting data

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

While we have had several accidents at the DZ since this concept has been in place, not one of them involved a situation of a student or low time jumper at high WL. Not one.

This might come off as a dz bashing thing, but it's not. It's more of a "even with the best training in the world, stuff can still happen" thing. While your dz may not have incurred incidents as such, skydivers trained at your dz have had accidents involving too high of wingloading elsewhere. I understand that the canopy training at sdc is superb, but "education" often times isn't enough for those slow to learn (I think this is where the experience factor comes into play.)

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Zenister 0]

Quote

There are numbers...they show a problem.
If a buisness spends all its time trying to get the whole picture..many times they go out of buisness waiting.

are there? where? do they REALLY show a PROBLEM??

see the issue is you havent even defined your problem very well yet and your already at the "this is the solution" stage..

i think we can all agree about the GOAL, reduction of injuries/fatalities under highly loaded wings (or any wings at all really)

now define reduction? how many is an acceptable number? We have to know how many total jumps are being made to determine that..

we also should find out how many people are/have been successfully flying highly loaded canopies "in violation" of the proposed BSR. This determines IF there is an EXCESSIVE number of injuries in comparison with the number of jumps being made..

until you have a baseline to compare to you have no frame of reference to tell if 10 per 1000 is to many or if 10 per 10,000 is excessively low.

the number of injuries/fatalities should increase as a proportion of the number of jumps being made. This is expected. People make mistakes and hurt themselves when they do, barring the total banning of the sport people will still die while skydiving, no matter how much experience and training they have..

what it is essential to determine is are they being injured at a rate out of proportion to the increase in total jumps and the increase in jumps of HP canopies? Also (roughly) how many lives could conceivably be saved in relation to the number of jumpers who would be unnecessarily (because they have been successfully flying wings the proposed BSR says they shouldnt) restricted in their progression

the option to test out is a must, but you have to weigh the time and expense to do so as well against the possible reduction of injuries to determine how involved and at what levels it would best be applied. I think we are getting closer to workable, realistic guidelines but asking 100 people to jump thru hoops to prove they can do something that 2 cannot is regulatory overkill, and we don’t have the data yet to determine where we are…

so yes it is necessary to gather more information before making any hasty regulations, only by accurately defining the problem can you find the best solution and we should always strive for the best solution even if that means pausing to collect data at the cost of a few lives, lives that have freely chosen to take the risks they do…

how many injuries per year is acceptable?
How many per license group? (if that is how we define who needs what training)
What % of HP canopy jumps currently end in injury? How many of that % (more important than just straight numbers) could have been prevented by the proposed reg? (and equally important) what % of those successful HP canopy jumps would have been prevented (been illegal) by the reg?

I am certainly not against any regulation, but we need to take the time necessary to ensure we enact the best, most effective, and most flexible regulation that accomplishes that goal..

And of course we must accurately define the goal in order to do so.. even if that means collecting more data first..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

One collision fatality had 9000 jumps (and the other jumper had 2200). The other collision double fatality
involved someone with >900 jumps hitting someone with about 200, and both were on lightly loaded
canopies. Only one of the four was trained at SDC. Care to explain how your proposed BSR would affect
these?

And one was the guy that WROTE the rules at that DZ.

So if your canopy control teaching is so great (which I think it is better than most..maybe the best) then why did both accidents have a guy that had or created your training programs?

It takes two to collide...One to avoid.

And my point was simply that even with the best instruction...still it is often not enough.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

what it is essential to determine is are they being injured at a rate out of proportion to the increase in
total jumps and the increase in jumps of HP canopies? Also (roughly) how many lives could conceivably
be saved in relation to the number of jumpers who would be unnecessarily (because they have been
successfully flying wings the proposed BSR says they shouldnt) restricted in their progression

How about looking at the fact that the average jump number of the dead people is lower this year than the prior year..and it is lower than the one before that...ect?

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

[Zenister 0]

well that certainly a factor, but its misguided to hold it up as the only factor without looking at what else may affect the injury rates..

how many jumps were made in each of those years by jumpers in the lower catagories? does the ratio remain consistant?

thats exactly why we need better information to make effective regulation

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

thats exactly why we need better information to make effective regulation

The problem is that this info does not exist...And I don't think we should wait 5 years to try and get it.

There is proof that this is an issue..plus to be honest common sense tells us that you should not be doing anything that can kill you without training...The more chances it will kill you the more training you should get.

And I still fail to see how this could be a bad thing.

The ones that want to do 100 mph with their hair on fire still can...as soon as they can PROVE they can handle it

Ron

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

[Zenister 0]

i agree, but it shouldnt take 5 years to collect it.. we have some info now, once we decide what other pieces of information are really nessesary for a complete picture we can develop a plan to collect it. A organized 2 year study would give us much better data than we have now, and give us a better idea of how the historical data fits into the large picture. Such a delay is unlikely to affect the fatality/injury rates significantly since most of the 'at risk' jumpers would still be grand fathered during that time period, even if regulation were put in place next week...

there are steps we can take right now to encourage more canopy education all around..will everyone get it?? no of course not, but any increase will make some difference and increased visibility of the issue (by an ongoing study) would also encourage others to seek it..

yes you will always have the few potential divots who dont think they need it and would NEVER take any classes unless they were mandatory, but placing possibly unnecessary requirements on thousands for the sake a a hand full who will not listen is unwarranted without more information that clearly shows the majority of jumpers need (vs 'would be beneficial to have' which is always true) further training

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

I don't see the need for more info.

I see the problem. Others see the problem.

The only issue is what and how to do something about it.

I have given ideas..I have seen others.

I don't care if mine is the "one"..I just care that the USPA does something more than just vote to build a museum, and try to collect proxies. And quit ingnoring the membership and the issues that modern skydiving has.

Ron

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

[Zenister 0]

ok lets hear your specific definition of the problem then?
and be ready for questions to clarify)

until you define it (and the majority can agree on the definition) you cant begin to figure out how to solve it effectively..

i agree on the museum and the USPA's role..however what if the majority of the membership decided that increased mandatory canopy control classes were unnessesary?

until you can cleary define the problem and the issues that affect it, you'll have a very hard time getting most people to agree about what needs to be done to resolve it..

data lets you do that.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[JamesNahikian 0]

Vallerina, the only casualty I'm aware of who fits your description had plenty of experience, and he could have qualified easily on paper as a canopy "expert" under the BSR and license proposals being floated around here. His misfortune (our misfortune, since he's a great guy) resulted from exhuberant poor judgment and lack of currency. None of the proferred rule changes would have affected the outcome you cite in support of your claims.

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO

[billvon 2,990]

>A organized 2 year study would give us much better data than we
> have now . . . .

How do you figure? Would you institute an optional reporting program? We have that now; no one uses it. Would you make reporting mandatory? Seems silly to make a mandatory rule that directly helps no one so we can see if we put in place a rule that _can_ help people. Would you pay a USPA representative to camp at each DZ and get incident reports, or call all over the US each Monday to get injury stats? That would be expensive. Would you lobby the NTSB to make reporting mandatory, with omissions punishable by government action? Seems like a bad idea.

So how do you propose to get that data?

>Such a delay is unlikely to affect the fatality/injury rates significantly
> since most of the 'at risk' jumpers would still be grand fathered
> during that time period, even if regulation were put in place next
> week...

With a two year delay, using my numbers, 13 people would die who would otherwise survive - if trends don't change at all. Doesn't seem that insignificant.

[Zenister 0]

actually i think reporting should be mandatory for any injury requiring serious medical attention. We wouldnt be arguing over such vague and fuzzy numbers if it was, this would also help detect and resolve any training shortfalls that might occur the next time technology changes..collecting non personal data to better define and understand the risks in any activity is always a good idea, getting it implemented a more troublesome one..

this may seem callous to many but 13 lives over two years IS pretty insignificant out of what 30,000 active jumpers??

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,990]

>collecting non personal data to better define and understand the
> risks in any activity is always a good idea, getting it implemented a
> more troublesome one..

Well, right. So how do you do it?

>this may seem callous to many but 13 lives over two years IS pretty
> insignificant out of what 30,000 active jumpers??

If 13 fatalities over two years is not worth avoiding, then I guess the discussion is over. You're OK with the fatality rates. I'm not, which is the big difference, I guess.

[Zenister 0]

any fatality is worth avoiding, however you have to accept that there will ALWAYS be a increase numbers of deaths as participation rates increase, both from simple number accumulation and from the fact that with a broad participation base your more likely to get people who might not be best suited to skydiving in the first place..

this is exactly why i've been asking: what is an acceptable fatality/injury rate?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,990]

>this is exactly why i've been asking: what is an acceptable
>fatality/injury rate?

Low. Want a hard number? It doesn't exist. If we had a hard number, and had a statistical fluke of a year where there were 70 fatalities, we'd fall all over ourselves passing questionable regulations over this and that. Then if we had another fluke of a year where there were only 10 fatalities, we'd rescind them all and pat ourselves on the back. And nothing would be different either year, it would just be a series of statistical flukes. We don't have enough fatalities every year to get a good confidence level that we're seeing real risks as opposed to flukes. To figure that out, you have to use that once-accepted, now all too rare facility called common sense, the common sense of people who have been in this sport for years and can see trends even in the absence of peer-reviewed research papers. In other words, the same way we passed every other BSR.

[Zenister 0]

so as a % of participants (or of jumps) what is 'Low'?

one of the things to be wary of with 'common sense' intuition is, as more attention is payed to an issue, (and information is more easily obtained than before) it is very easy to percieve an increase in frequency when in fact the ratio may not have changed, but the attention you pay them and the drive with which you seek them out has increased your awareness..

thats how accurate tracking of this kind of data would prevent over (or under) reaction to any statistical spike or perceived trend not backed up by substantive data.

we know how many fatalities happen for most years, what we need (at the most basic level) is an idea of how many jumps were made in each year and where in the W/L to experiece/currency level each fatality falls..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,990]

>one of the things to be wary of with 'common sense' intuition is, as
> more attention is payed to an issue, (and information is more easily
> obtained than before) it is very easy to percieve an increase in frequency when in fact the
> ratio may not have changed, but the attention you pay them and
> the drive with which you seek them out has increased your awareness..

Hmm. So if we got more data on current fatalities, that would fall under "oh, you're just paying more attention to them because information is more easily available on them?" By that reasoning, we better not get any more info on fatalities or there will be another reason to avoid taking any action.

>we know how many fatalities happen for most years, what we need
> (at the most basic level) is an idea of how many jumps were made
>in each year and where in the W/L to experiece/currency level each
> fatality falls..

Before 2000 that information simply does not exist. All we have are the data from 2001 and 2002 (and soon 2003.)

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Before 2000 that information simply does not exist. All we have are the data from 2001 and 2002 (and soon 2003.)

And it ain't pretty to some of us. Hence our call to action for making a WL BSR with an opt out option.

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

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

so as a % of participants (or of jumps) what is 'Low'?

one of the things to be wary of with 'common sense' intuition is, as more attention is payed to an issue, (and information is more easily obtained than before) it is very easy to percieve an increase in frequency when in fact the ratio may not have changed, but the attention you pay them and the drive with which you seek them out has increased your awareness..

thats how accurate tracking of this kind of data would prevent over (or under) reaction to any statistical spike or perceived trend not backed up by substantive data.

we know how many fatalities happen for most years, what we need (at the most basic level) is an idea of how many jumps were made in each year and where in the W/L to experiece/currency level each fatality falls..

This is called "Observational Selection".
From Carl Sagan's Balony Detection Kit:

(See how many others of these have been committed in this discussion)
__________________
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

...

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

[Ron 10]

The problem is that lower time jumpers are getting canopies that before they were unable to get. These jumpers lack of education and experience is resulting on many of them piloting open canopies in a manner that results in death and injuries at a greater rate than this group has ever seen before.

This trend will continue until the education is available to EVERY jumper at EVERY DZ, and until this edcation is MANDITORY. Or until these jumpers are not allowed to pilot such extreme canopies until they gain the experience to handle them.

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

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

The problem is that lower time jumpers are getting canopies that before they were unable to get. .

Really? I got my Stiletto some years ago when I had 40 jumps and PD was restricting sales. I got it new from one of the country's largest mail order gear stores by the simple strategy that the owner sold it to himself for the purposes of PD's records.

I bet any number "escaped" this way.

...

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Really? I got my Stiletto some years ago when I had 40 jumps and PD was restricting sales.

Again John...Think about the WHOLE US, not just your back yard.

And you had to be tricky to get it didn't you? Do young jumpers still have to?

Nope...So they ARE easier to get today.

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

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Really? I got my Stiletto some years ago when I had 40 jumps and PD was restricting sales.

Again John...Think about the WHOLE US, not just your back yard.

And you had to be tricky to get it didn't you? Do young jumpers still have to?

Nope...So they ARE easier to get today.

It wasn't in my back yard, the dealer was/is in California - also has branches in AZ and in the east.

I didn't have to be tricky - I just sent money. The dealer handled everything else and it wasn't until later that I found out why.

...

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

[Ron 10]

OK John..

Lets get simple.

Dod yo think that it is easier to get HP canopies now (For EVERYONE) than it was a few years ago?

Take into account you have Dan P saying that a Cobalt is good for students.

Ron

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

[JamesNahikian 0]

"Dod yo think that it is easier to get HP canopies now (For EVERYONE) than it was a few years ago?"

[It has _always_ been easy to obtain a desired canopy if you have cash, "friends" and a 70 IQ.]

"Take into account you have Dan P saying that a Cobalt is good for students."

[The Cobalt can be a good canopy for students who are trained on the Cobalt or a similar design at a committed and progressive dz.]
___________________________________________________________________
[The critical elements in this discussion are age, gender, enforcement, demonstrated ability, currency and requalification. In sum, we as parachutists need to maintain _awareness_ and _judgment_ on the part of all jumpers. To paper over these established concerns is unlikely to reduce fatalities in a meaningful way.]

D. James Nahikian
CHICAGO
Booth's Law #2