Very useful graph

[piisfish 135]

Can actually be used in all disciplins and for all specialities

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[format 0]

I hope am not the only one having "I'm guilty" lough

[Alexg3265 0]

format

I hope am not the only one having "I'm guilty" lough

You're not....

I was that kid jumping out if his tree house with a bed sheet. My dad wouldn't let me use the ladder to try the roof...

[format 0]

The GOOD news is, there are three of us knowing what we don't know!


P.S.: kudos to graph designer not including jump No's in a story

[JeffCa 0]

I know this is a common belief in skydiving, but is there actual evidence to back it up, or is it just a myth/joke? Are intermediate jumpers having proportionately more accidents than beginners and experienced? I've only been following fatality reports for 3 years, but it seems that we've had a whole lot of very experienced jumpers going in.

So are there data to support this?

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[Hellis 0]

JeffCa

I know this is a common belief in skydiving, but is there actual evidence to back it up, or is it just a myth/joke? Are intermediate jumpers having proportionately more accidents than beginners and experienced? I've only been following fatality reports for 3 years, but it seems that we've had a whole lot of very experienced jumpers going in.

So are there data to support this?

I think that is because you are looking at fatalities.
The intermediates misstakes are probably more like "big oops", "that was lucky" and "I had no idea this part was supposed to be connected to this".

[raff 4]

piisfish

Can actually be used in all disciplins and for all specialities

Evidently I have forgotten a lot about skydiving, because when I had 1000 jumps I knew it all.

If you leave the plane without a parachute, you will be fine for the rest of your life.

[JohnMitchell 14]

JeffCa

I know this is a common belief in skydiving, but is there actual evidence to back it up, or is it just a myth/joke?

No joke. And it's not necessarily about jump numbers. It's more about attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I only stumble on this a few years ago, but it explains so much about some of my former coworkers.

[JeffCa 0]

JohnMitchell

***I know this is a common belief in skydiving, but is there actual evidence to back it up, or is it just a myth/joke?

No joke. And it's not necessarily about jump numbers. It's more about attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I only stumble on this a few years ago, but it explains so much about some of my former coworkers.

So do I understand that there are no data suggesting that intermediate jumpers have more accidents? The Wikipedia article about the effect does not translate into real-life accidents without some more evidence.

Do we have any support for the idea that intermediates get into proportionately more accidents or are more hazardous? If not, why not? Shouldn't somebody be keeping track of this if it's truly so dangerous?

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

JeffCa

******I know this is a common belief in skydiving, but is there actual evidence to back it up, or is it just a myth/joke?

No joke. And it's not necessarily about jump numbers. It's more about attitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I only stumble on this a few years ago, but it explains so much about some of my former coworkers.

So do I understand that there are no data suggesting that intermediate jumpers have more accidents? The Wikipedia article about the effect does not translate into real-life accidents without some more evidence.

Do we have any support for the idea that intermediates get into proportionately more accidents or are more hazardous? If not, why not? Shouldn't somebody be keeping track of this if it's truly so dangerous?

The idea of the "100 jump wonder" isn't a myth or a joke. It's a well known phenomenon in a wide variety of activities.
Pilots (100 hour wonder) & motorcycles (Squid) are the two I know of personally.
The "enough knowledge to get into trouble, but not enough to stay out of it" isn't new or unusual.
Remember the line "Your ego is writing checks that your skills can't cash"?

It doesn't affect everyone, but it's definitely out there. And USPA has taken steps to address it. Camera recommendations (C License) Wingsuit rules (200 minimum), canopy card for B license, all of those are in response to incidents or near-incidents caused by confidence exceeding actual skills.

There's a thread in Swooping & Canopy right now about low timers on Stillettos. One guy is posting about a reserve loaded around 1.4 with fairly low jump numbers. He doesn't seem to think it's a bad idea, despite what others are saying.

And then there's Sangi. He wanted to downsize & swoop. Despite being told he wasn't ready, he was pushing too hard too fast, he refused to listen. He came up with all sorts of rationalizations why he was different. He was better. The ground didn't recognize his extraordinary abilities and he's now in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. He at least had the courage to come back and admit that he was wrong and should have listened (and I give him a huge amount of respect for that).
A good friend of mine was similar. He wanted to swoop. He wanted the "rush." He got a Xfire loaded at about 1.4 and started pushing it. He was told to dial it back some. He didn't. So he spent an entire summer watching from the sidelines as his bones healed.

I've read your posts before, and in the past you have expressed doubt or disbelief that someone "could be that stupid."
Yet they are.
I've reached the point in life that I'm no longer surprised by the stupid things I see people do, but I'll never cease to be amazed.

I drive truck for a living, and volunteer as a safety officer at my local shooting range.
I see amazingly stupid things on a regular basis.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JeffCa 0]

I'm familiar with Sangi, and with the low-jump highly-loaded reserve dude. Scary stuff. I'm also familiar with super-experienced jumpers who think they don't have to pull their cutaway handle, because they can fix it. Seems the more experienced you are, the more likely you are to go in by not cutting away, but I have no data for this.

Why doesn't somebody just write, "No, we have no data to support this"? The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", and I just get anecdote after anecdote whenever I ask this question. Nobody has written, "No", yet nobody has provided the data, either.

If this myth is not true, it wouldn't be the first thing that "everybody knew" that wasn't true. Everybody knows that cold weather causes colds, yet it doesn't seem to hold up when tested. Everybody knows that sugar causes kids to get hyper, yet that also doesn't hold up when tested, etc.

How hard is it for the USPA to compare fatalities (I know data for non-fatal accidents are not necessarily kept) among the various experience levels and compare it with the number of licences in the various categories? It's not perfect, because you can have 1,000 jumps and an A-licence, but it would be a good start.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[yoink 321]

JeffCa

Why doesn't somebody just write, "No, we have no data to support this"? The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", and I just get anecdote after anecdote whenever I ask this question. Nobody has written, "No", yet nobody has provided the data, either.

Because 100 jump wonders will equate 'no data' with 'no correlation'.

Just because we haven't been collecting numbers to the n'th degree on something for the last 60 years doesn't invalidate the conclusions which are ingrained into the sport.

There's also the slight snag that each of your 'data points' is someone who is dead. How many points of reference would you like before you're happy about the factor of error in your data, how long do you think it would take to gather and do you think your conscience can live with that number?

Deploying at 50ft will result in death. Should we test that one too, just to confirm that data matches what is intrinsically known? To how many degrees of certainty?


Personally, I don't like the graph. It's too easily seen as snide and condescending from a low jumpers point of view. That doesn't make it incorrect, just a piss-poor way of communicating - you'll notice that no-one with thousands of jumps is posting here, laughing along.


Some things don't need to be proven mathematically. The application of Dunning-Kruger to skydiving is one of them. Give it 10 years to see what you know then and I'm prepared to bet you a bottle of liquor you'll agree with me.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

JeffCa

...Why doesn't somebody just write, "No, we have no data to support this"? The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", and I just get anecdote after anecdote whenever I ask this question. Nobody has written, "No", yet nobody has provided the data, either.

If this myth is not true, it wouldn't be the first thing that "everybody knew" that wasn't true. Everybody knows that cold weather causes colds, yet it doesn't seem to hold up when tested. Everybody knows that sugar causes kids to get hyper, yet that also doesn't hold up when tested, etc.

How hard is it for the USPA to compare fatalities (I know data for non-fatal accidents are not necessarily kept) among the various experience levels and compare it with the number of licences in the various categories? It's not perfect, because you can have 1,000 jumps and an A-licence, but it would be a good start.

There is data to demonstrate it. At least there is for pilots. I just can't find it (forgot to put that in the last post).

I don't know why USPA doesn't correlate accidents that way. I'm not in charge of that.

It may be that it's not that big of an issue.
Not everyone falls into the trap. Not everyone who does suffer from "100 jump wonder" syndrome needs to get hurt or killed to learn their lesson. Some learn it from a close call. No stats on those.
I know I didn't suffer from it (too much anyway) in skydiving, because I did fall into it earlier in life. Personally, I got lucky and learned without serious consequences.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[feuergnom 22]

Quote

you'll notice that no-one with thousands of jumps is posting here, laughing along.

so johnmitchell, raf and piis are no-one


apart from that: maybe it's fun to be snide and condescending from time to time. no Need to get your Pants all wet over that

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[yoink 321]

feuergnom

Quote

you'll notice that no-one with thousands of jumps is posting here, laughing along.

so johnmitchell, raf and piis are no-one


apart from that: maybe it's fun to be snide and condescending from time to time. no Need to get your Pants all wet over that

Noone with thousands of jumps (apart from the originator) is posting and saying 'yeah! That's hilarious and true. Every newbie should be shown it!' because most know that a there are better ways to get the message across.


Being snide and condescending just for fun simply results in exactly what you see here - pushback from those who really need to listen to the message. And THEN we need to spend needless time defending / arguing about the validity of it.

Like I said, I don't think it's a good method of communication, but feel free to add it to FJC slides at your DZ if you disagree.

[raff 4]

Quote

I only stumble on this a few years ago, but it explains so much about some of my former coworkers.

..but not, of course, about yourself (See Dunning-Kruger effect)

If you leave the plane without a parachute, you will be fine for the rest of your life.

[format 0]

JeffCa

I know this is a common belief in skydiving

and I can't agree on this one.
Common belief is: More jumpos - more knowledge
Which is, I believe proper to say: utter BS (with an exception of me and sush)

[JohnMitchell 14]

raff

Quote

I only stumble on this a few years ago, but it explains so much about some of my former coworkers.

..but not, of course, about yourself (See Dunning-Kruger effect)

Very good point. To see ourselves as others see us.

I've never worked harder at anything than becoming an air traffic controller. Several years of training, washout rates as high as 2/3rds in just the first 3 months, cramming more info in my brain than I thought it could ever hold.

The glorious day finally arrived when I made Certified Professional Controller, or CPC. I was all checked out and on my own, no more instructor breathing down my neck. I spent the next five years questioning every clearance I gave, every move I made. Could I have done better? Was there a better way of doing it? Where was I wasting time? Wasting moves?

After years of this I started to feel a little better about my control ability. I still spent a lot of time in the books, reviewing procedures, researching new ones, and keeping abreast of the changes in our system. I sought out critiques from controllers I considered better than me. I was the first in our control room to research and adopt advanced procedures at a busy airport we worked, in order to expedite traffic during bad weather. About half of my area followed my lead. The other half were too scared to try something new.

Ten years down the road I found myself being used as a resource for management and procedures offices on air traffic matters. Fifteen years into my career found me receiving a several national awards for air traffic control. My proudest memento is still a small stack of thank you notes I received from pilots over the years.

Yet I still found every day a challenge to improve, to do a better job. I was never completely satisfied with any control session, even up to the day I retired. You can find a few former coworkers that would call me a hard nosed prick, but I do take pride in the work I did. I gave it 100% of my ability.
Hope I didn't ramble on too long. But I am proud of my former career.

[JohnMitchell 14]

format

***I know this is a common belief in skydiving

and I can't agree on this one.
Common belief is: More jumpos - more knowledge
Which is, I believe proper to say: utter BS (with an exception of me and sush)

It's not a jump numbers thing. It's an attitude thing.

There are plenty of safe jumpers with low numbers. There are plenty of dangerous jumpers with high numbers.

[Pat007 0]

From what I've seen of you at the DZ, John, you have the right attitude. You're one of the ones I always pay attention to! I'm guessing you were a great CPC.

My Dad used to ask me if someone jumped off a bridge would I do that too? No, but if they jumped out of an airplane, that's a different question...

[JohnMitchell 14]

Aww, thanks, Pat. I love the sport, I love the people in it.

[JeffCa 0]

yoink

Some things don't need to be proven mathematically. The application of Dunning-Kruger to skydiving is one of them. Give it 10 years to see what you know then and I'm prepared to bet you a bottle of liquor you'll agree with me.

I can't agree with this. If the graph calls intermediates a "hazard", I want to see the data. If nobody can supply it, then I have to conclude that it possibly is not true. To be clear, this isn't about what people know, it's about whether or not they are more hazardous than other jumpers, and that requires more accidents to be taking place. So here is the question, as I wasn't properly represented in the other thread you made:

"Does overconfidence in one's own intermediate abilities in skydiving actually lead to more accidents than having more or less knowledge and not being overconfident?"

I know the graph was just a stupid tease, and I did smile at first, but it raises an important point that would be really great and useful if it could be backed up with anything other than anecdotes.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[yoink 321]

JeffCa

"Does overconfidence in one's own intermediate abilities in skydiving actually lead to more accidents than having more or less knowledge and not being overconfident?"

and how do you intend to prove that? The only way is with hindsight - maybe you could ask people who HAD an accident 'do you think it was because of your own overconfidence at that level', but you're reliant on personal integrity.
Even then you can't compare different people and come up with a conclusion - you have no way of knowing if people simply don't recognize their own overconfidence, got away with it due to luck, simply didn't realize how close to accidents they were or whether they were very skilled or cautious.

Lets try this another way - instead of simply beating your drum and making an ultimatum
'show me the data or I'll have to conclude that it might not be true'
YOU come up with a way to generate that data which doesn't involve anecdotal evidence from observers. (which is a legitimate source of evidence in academia, by the way).

A better way of doing it would be to ask a specific group of people who have had lots of exposure to the sport about their anecdotal evidence, and then performing a statistical analysis on those answers to see which is 'typical'.


A simple comparison of number of accidents per x/hundred jumps is not going to give you an accurate picture of the reasons for those accidents. Lack of knowledge / overconfidence or anything else. It's not that simple, unfortunately.

[JeffCa 0]

Look up "burden of proof". It is not my obligation to prove anything, as I am not the one making the claim. It's your obligation. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." The "cold causes colds" thing seemed obvious too, until it was put to the test. Millions of parents knew that sugar made their kids hyper, but it failed under testing. Your example of opening the canopy of 50 feet is silly, because it can be shown with basic math that it's more dangerous. And no, anecdotes from individuals is not evidence. If it was, I could conclude that somewhere between intermediate and advanced levels, jumpers forget what the cutaway handle is for.

Correlation does not equal causation. Not only can you not demonstrate the causation, you have failed to even provide data that there is a correlation at all. If you could just show the correlation, I might give you the causation for free.

Therefore, I'm putting this in the "potential myth" category.

Edit: I simply asked if there was data to back it up. Just write, "No", and move on.

"So many fatalities and injuries are caused by decisions jumpers make before even getting into the aircraft. Skydiving can be safe AND fun at the same time...Honest." - Bill Booth

[gunver79 0]

BTW: I don't know about the US, but the German parachuting federation indeed provides data in the way that you might have in mind: Severe incidents and deaths broken down by jump numbers (see attached file).
BUT: While useful, this doesn't proof anything about what was discussed here. The only valid comparison would be between risk/jump not risk/year with widely varying jump numbers/year*. To gather the required data, all jumps would have to be logged with the related jump number of the jumper and then transmitted to your respective national federation.
Conclusion: The way you demand it to be done is not going to be done anytime soon. The only way we have to produce sound data is the one described by yoink.

*[Edit to clarify: My assumption is that people with high jump numbers jump a lot more than people with low jump numbers (hence their high jump number and because all the professionals are among them). Thus they expose themselves to/create a much greater risk per year than a typical low timer, even if their created/taken risk per jump may be much much lower. There also seem to be a lot more active jumpers in the more than 200 jumps range than below that. This maybe true or not, fact is that it can't be proven right or wrong with the data we have]