Wall Street Journal Article on Skydiving

[377 20]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-scaredy-cats-guide-to-skydiving-1461256932

Jerry Baumchen posted this in the History and Trivia section. Thought I'd repost it here to get more attention. Please read the article and post your thoughts.

Mine are below:

WSJ article makes skydiving look nearly foolproof.

I like to see more people enter the sport, but they should know what they are getting into risk wise. Not sure this article tells it like it really is. Makes it look like your gadgets will save you without fail if you screw up, so nothing to worry about.

As I recall most injuries and fatalities come from bad landings (which no AAD can prevent). The article makes it sound like a running stumbling landing is the worst case. If only that were true...

I've been jumping since 1968. Jumped last weekend. The surplus gear I started with has been replaced by far better stuff, but gravity hasn't changed one bit. The Grim Reaper still finds plenty to harvest at DZs.

I wish the author had consulted with Bryan Burke for balance.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[jlmiracle 7]

It was better written than many articles over the years, but they down-played the dangers of skydiving too much.

I did find the "membrane" reference kinda funny though. Made me think of alien skin.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[TriGirl 268]

You both make good points, but I'll present the other side of the coin. The point of the article is not to give the reader all they need to know to make an informed decision. The point is to highlight (read: wavetops) the advances in the sport that make it less like it was depicted in "Gypsy Moths."

If we were a sport where anyone could walk in off the street, buy or rent gear, then head straight for the plane, then yes, this article would most definitely be irresponsible. But in our world of trained/accredited/licensed instructors (to include TIs), we can be sure that the details of the risk can be clearly explained face to face with prospective jumpers.

I don't think the article paints too pretty of a picture. That isn't the point anyway. The point is to demystify the sport and get the average person to check it out (I mean, so far no one has a problem with the writer implying that the AAD deploys the main, right?). In that, I think it does a great job.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[377 20]

You raise some good points too. It's not like surfing where any newbie can buy a board and paddle out.

Gypsy Moths... I LOVE that movie. I started jumping in 68 and things weren't all that different than the movie depicted e.g. low pull contests, gutter gear, 10 pound helmet cam setups, beer at DZ lunch, even jumped a Howard DGA like in the movie.

That WSJ photo of the guy in the hammock under canopy is classic. I want the T Shirt.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[JohnnyBoulder 1]

Agreed - downplayed the risks substantially. IMO the sport is inherently dangerous, but with all of our fanatical attention to safety and detail skydivers have done a good job minimizing fatalities and injuries. This guy makes it sound like skydiving is up there with roller coaster rides.

PS Gypsy Moths, great movie!

[aschlicht 0]

Take a look at the authors resume http://topics.wsj.com/person/A/biography/1565

He seems to write about a broad number of subjects and judging from his lack of knowledge with his this last article, he BS's his way thru them. It's all about getting published and making a bit of money.

[cpoxon 0]

Please don't cross-post

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4793423;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live