Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
In this month's Parachutist

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 9, 2005, 6:47 PM
Post #76 of 110 (1000 views)
Shortcut
Re: [thepollster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

that's true, but doesn't really address the point.

You can't make a sweeping conclusion based on the fact that ultra current jumpers die less often then others without considering how many of them exist. And sadly, we do lose some of them. Currency isn't a bulletproof vest.


Ron

Nov 9, 2005, 6:49 PM
Post #77 of 110 (998 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
of course fewer of them die - how many people are there doing 1000/jumps a year, Ron? Is there one of them for every 100 doing 50-200?

Airspeed had 9 doing 1,000 a year. Thats 9,000

It would take 90 people doing 100 a year to equal that.

Take the top 6 teams at nationals in 4 way and you have 30 jumpers doing lets say the avg is 500 (I think its higher, but lets be nice)

30 X 500 = 15000 jumps with no injuries most years.

And thats just the top 6 teams. I know other teams that did 600 jumps and were not in the top 6.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 10, 2005, 1:59 AM
Post #78 of 110 (978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not sure what you've proved, Ron. A small number of top competitors do a lot of jumps, with fatalities being very rare. Hardly shocking when the overall rate in 1 in 1000/annum. Take 100 guys and you'd still expect to see 1 in about 5 years.

What's the ratio?

Without even looking, I know at least one death this year was to someone with that level of currency. (Gus Wing) So do these people represent more than 4% of the jumping population in the US?


AFFI  (D 25538)

Nov 10, 2005, 6:47 AM
Post #79 of 110 (961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pilotdave] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've seen no evidence that more practice NECESSARILY improves my chances

???
Open your eyes...


AFFI  (D 25538)

Nov 10, 2005, 7:24 AM
Post #80 of 110 (954 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

I’ve been giving this thread of postings a lot of thought, there have been some really good comments made between all the bickering.
From the 100/500 jump wonders to those who have many thousands and many years in the sport many of whom have already forgotten more about skydiving than their 100/500 jump counterparts may have learned yet – ego’s are abound. Everyone has them, some are less in control than others but still, everyone has them and it is potentially beneficial to remember that humility in this sport is an asset. I wonder how many fatalities have occoured over the years in skydiving due to ego’s that result in skydivers no longer being teachable because they have it all figured out. Despite all the internal strife the collective genius really shines through - usually, and makes available a good learning environment.
I am so thankful that DropZone.com exists; much more “good” comes out of it than “bad”.

After reading over the incident reports and this thread of opinions something I noticed is that both jumpers died in similar fashion, for whatever reason they initiated emergency procedures for a partial malfunction with a lack of sufficient altitude for reserve parachute inflation. One jumper had nearly 1,920 skydives and the other had 76 so there was a difference in their level of “experience” yet they both made fatal errors (for whatever reason) that were, similar in nature.
Why?
Was it deficiencies in initial training?
Deficiencies in their continued training after acquisition of a license?
Because they did or didn’t utilize available devices in their gear that may or may not have produced a different outcome?
Lack of altitude awareness?

Although my ego would like to, I am offering no opinions, just questions for us to ponder and maybe we can look at ourselves and ask how we can each make skydiving safer for each of us individually. If we all do this collectively it will have an infectious outcome that will spread throughout our community as we make ourselves safer and lead by example. This months Safety Check on page 11 authored by Jin Crouch offers some good insight for each of us to contemplate and perhaps even consider incorporating this philosophy into our daily lives as skydivers. I personally am making a commitment starting right now to hang my ego at the door and try to be more teachable because as these two incidents have taught me, no matter how “experienced”, gravity is not going to cut any breaks…

Make it a great day!


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 10, 2005, 7:27 AM
Post #81 of 110 (955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

I respect you experience and opinions Remi...

I do believe that the potential value of the RSL outweighs the introduced complexity, though.

Everyone else:
If you so much as think about some device operating properly to save your butt instead of depending on your EPs, IMO, you are asking for trouble.

In spite of all that, shit does sometimes happen either way you go. Nature of the beast and all that. Decide for yourself.


pilotdave  (D License)

Nov 10, 2005, 8:13 AM
Post #82 of 110 (948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AFFI] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I've seen no evidence that more practice NECESSARILY improves my chances

???
Open your eyes...

I was speaking about a particular situation. Do you know how often the two people this thread is particularly about practiced their emergency procedures? How about the girl that had the cypres fire recently or the one that went in without pulling her reserve?

Since I don't know whether or not they were current with their emergency procedures, I can't compare myself to them and assume that I'm better prepared than they were.

I'm not saying practicing emergency procedures isn't a good thing. Of course it is. But does more practice lower my chances of ever being in a situation where an RSL would make the difference between living and dying? It seems that it might, but I've never seen proof.

All I'm saying is I use an RSL and an AAD because I don't assume I'm any different than those that have needed them (or could have used them) in the past. Others assume an RSL is unnecessary because they practice their EPs. I don't make that assumption.

Dave


(This post was edited by pilotdave on Nov 10, 2005, 8:15 AM)


Ron

Nov 10, 2005, 1:28 PM
Post #83 of 110 (923 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm not sure what you've proved, Ron. A small number of top competitors do a lot of jumps, with fatalities being very rare. Hardly shocking when the overall rate in 1 in 1000/annum. Take 100 guys and you'd still expect to see 1 in about 5 years.

The fact is you have a group of people that do tons of jumps a year, and they do that year after year and they don't have accidents nearly as often per jump as occasional fun jumpers.

I am deeply surprised that you even think you can argue that Professionals are not better suited than amatures in a field.

In reply to:
Without even looking, I know at least one death this year was to someone with that level of currency. (Gus Wing) So do these people represent more than 4% of the jumping population in the US?

Gus wings accident had nothing to do with him. He was hit from behind by a plane.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 10, 2005, 3:06 PM
Post #84 of 110 (910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

This was your statement: "Also notice that competitors that make 1,000 jumps a year die less than fun jumpers?"

I have no doubt that on a per jump basis, their safety record is better. But if they jump 10 times more per year to get that better per jump safety, have they actually come out ahead? Or if they use that currency to explore the envelope (Chris Martin)?

Statistically, I don't think your claim would stand up. There are very few people doing 1000 jumps a year, and it takes only one or two accidents to put them in a worse category than the fun jumper population.


Ron

Nov 10, 2005, 4:30 PM
Post #85 of 110 (898 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I have no doubt that on a per jump basis, their safety record is better. But if they jump 10 times more per year to get that better per jump safety, have they actually come out ahead? Or if they use that currency to explore the envelope (Chris Martin)?

Chris died doing a stunt. How much you wanna bet that a fun jumper would have had an even smaller chance of pulling that off?

It is amazing that you argue that currency makes no difference in safety.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 10, 2005, 4:53 PM
Post #86 of 110 (890 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It is amazing that you argue that currency makes no difference in safety.

I haven't argued that, so lose the strawman and try again, Ron.


Ron

Nov 10, 2005, 5:04 PM
Post #87 of 110 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is amazing that you argue that currency makes no difference in safety.

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


I haven't argued that, so lose the strawman and try again, Ron.

Sure ya did, right here. Go fish.

Quote:
Statistically, I don't think your claim would stand up. There are very few people doing 1000 jumps a year, and it takes only one or two accidents to put them in a worse category than the fun jumper population.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 10, 2005, 6:20 PM
Post #88 of 110 (867 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

> This was your statement: "Also notice that competitors that make 1,000 jumps a year die less than fun jumpers?"

You can easily go Clinton on me and squirm on the definitions, but here's what you said. It's not about "safety." It's about how often a very small group of jumpers suffer a death versus how often the very large remainder do. 2 in 1000 is worse than 20 in 20,000.

If you're going to discount Gus and Chris from the last 13 months, then it becomes even sillier.

One of those guys taking on my dive flow is certainly go to be in much safer shape than I will. But...will they choose to take on my dive flow? Unlikely.

ADDED: ultimately we come back to the notion of risk homeostasis. As it becomes safer, jumpers find new ways to increase the risk.


(This post was edited by kelpdiver on Nov 10, 2005, 6:21 PM)


AFFI  (D 25538)

Nov 10, 2005, 6:54 PM
Post #89 of 110 (858 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

somebody get these two some boxing gloves...


murps2000  (D 23114)

Nov 10, 2005, 8:00 PM
Post #90 of 110 (851 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

ADDED: ultimately we come back to the notion of risk homeostasis. As it becomes safer, jumpers find new ways to increase the risk.

Bill Booth, I believe, has occasionally referred to this in these forums, and I think about it every time I read or hear a debate on RSLs. I wonder how many RSL users, particularly skyhookers, make their EP decisions based on their equipment configuration. To decide that cutting away at 500 feet is acceptable because you have a skyhook is total reliance on that backup device, but the damn thing works so well, I wonder if that's not the right thing to do. I would not at all be so quick to trust a conventional RSL that much, but some might. Curious what others might think.


Ron

Nov 10, 2005, 10:44 PM
Post #91 of 110 (829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You can easily go Clinton on me and squirm on the definitions, but here's what you said. It's not about "safety." It's about how often a very small group of jumpers suffer a death versus how often the very large remainder do. 2 in 1000 is worse than 20 in 20,000.

Its amazing that the smaller group make more jumps and therefore MORE chances, but are safer. You claim that they do more dangerous stuff as well, and yet they are still safer.

In reply to:
If you're going to discount Gus and Chris from the last 13 months, then it becomes even sillier.

Gus was discounted since anyone in that positon would have had that happen to them..skill had nothing to do with it. Chris was a stunt...You could count him if you like, but the point I made was COMPETITORS and last I checked he was not one.


Erroll

Nov 10, 2005, 10:59 PM
Post #92 of 110 (828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AFFI] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
somebody get these two some boxing gloves...

Like someone said in another thread: A classical pee-pee competition.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 11, 2005, 12:53 PM
Post #93 of 110 (791 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
You can easily go Clinton on me and squirm on the definitions, but here's what you said. It's not about "safety." It's about how often a very small group of jumpers suffer a death versus how often the very large remainder do. 2 in 1000 is worse than 20 in 20,000.

Its amazing that the smaller group make more jumps and therefore MORE chances, but are safer. You claim that they do more dangerous stuff as well, and yet they are still safer.

Safer by what standard? You've yet to produce one.
Or suggest how many there are in this undefined category, and instead are discounting any incidents as not being valid.

Pointless to continue if you're looking at Florida swamp mud and I'm looking at beach sand.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 11, 2005, 1:03 PM
Post #94 of 110 (788 views)
Shortcut
Re: [] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

On last thought, in the abstract.

This isn't about currency, but about statistically significant groups.

I bet there has never been a fatality to a black lesbian jumper. What is the significance of this (if true)?

Very little. There's probably less than 10 of them in the US. If you ignore set size, you can make a lot of invalid comparisons. And if there was one fatality, suddenly this would be the most dangerous jumper type on the planet. That would be ignoring the issues of significance in such a tiny set.


thepollster  (D 12122)

Nov 11, 2005, 1:44 PM
Post #95 of 110 (780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

 
In reply to:
This isn't about currency, but about statistically significant groups.

I can't understand why you are arguing current jumpers are safer. Seriously, have you ever been to a bigger boogie without seeing/hearing about injuries at that boogie? Now figure more jumps are made at Nationals, and why are there not more injuries?


Ron

Nov 11, 2005, 2:11 PM
Post #96 of 110 (773 views)
Shortcut
Re: [thepollster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I can't understand why you are arguing current jumpers are safer.

Its another part of the low jump number jumpers cry about how jump numbers do not mean anything.

Since they only have a few jumps their egos cannot allow that someone else with more should be better/more current/safer than them.

Ask Tony Hathaway if I listen to him when he talks.

It amazes me how some can claim that experience and currency does not make a safer jumper than a low timer that jumps occasionally.

No point in continuing with someone who refuses to see.


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 11, 2005, 2:18 PM
Post #97 of 110 (769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Its another part of the low jump number jumpers cry about how jump numbers do not mean anything.

nope, it's someone crying out about your lack of knowledge of basic statistics, Ron.

The rest...well, it's good fantasy. But you don't need 3000 jumps to do simple math.


thepollster  (D 12122)

Nov 11, 2005, 5:20 PM
Post #98 of 110 (752 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

On statistics: Numbers, torture them enough, they will tell you anything.

Ignoring statistics, because there isn't a good sample, can you answer my question about nationals vs. boogies? I doubt it.


-----------------------------------------------------------
Ron is right


nate_1979  (B 27889)

Nov 11, 2005, 6:03 PM
Post #99 of 110 (747 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kelpdiver] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Its another part of the low jump number jumpers cry about how jump numbers do not mean anything.

nope, it's someone crying out about your lack of knowledge of basic statistics, Ron.

The rest...well, it's good fantasy. But you don't need 3000 jumps to do simple math.

And most of us dont need statistics to realize that current jumpers probably are a bit safer when compared to those who are less current... It's just the way it is, math is irrelevant in this case, IMO. I also think that math would show the same if given accurate numbers to use. Dont think your going to find those accurate numbers though.


(This post was edited by nate_1979 on Nov 11, 2005, 6:05 PM)


kelpdiver  (B 7)

Nov 14, 2005, 1:32 PM
Post #100 of 110 (685 views)
Shortcut
Re: [thepollster] In this month's Parachutist [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Ignoring statistics, because there isn't a good sample, can you answer my question about nationals vs. boogies? I doubt it.

For starters, competitors are less likely to get drunk the night before. Or stay up till 3, looking to screw anything in sight.

Never been to nationals, so not familiar with how they run the DZ during. Racetracks are much safer racing zones than the streets, due to how they're run. It would seem that pulling crazy stunts in the middle of competition would get your sent off the DZ.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)