Minimum Opening Altitudes

[wmw999 2,123]

58 minutes ago, bdb2004 said:

These may or may not be statistically significant, and even if they are, they may or may not be meaningful.  Low base rate comparisons are challenging in the best of circumstances, which these are not. Ultimately I would guess we would need a lot more data to really make any solid comparisons. 

This is the part that matters. The number of fatalities and jumps in the Netherlands (see Baksteen — I am educable ;-) ) is what’s not large enough. The number of fatalities in the US in any one year is probably not large enough — it varies from year to year, and there are a lot of confounding factors.

Im not a statistician, but I’ve been known to operate Minitab . That’s one step above sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Wendy P. 

[nwt 131]

8 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

if they refuse, they are not a safety organization.  no other conclusion can be made.

"This is my opinion and even though I haven't made a case for it, no other opinions are valid".

[riggerrob 558]

9 hours ago, wmw999 said:

The problem with the number of fatalities is that the number of jumpers overall in Holland is probably small enough that there isn’t a valid statistical comparison. But it’s still an interesting thought. I think the real thing is that the US is so focused on their internal view of profit and personal freedom that giving the chief instructor that much power is unlikely — if nothing else, a few DZOs will just overrule them because they’re pissing the customers off with all those rules

Wendy P. 

Wendy makes a good point. If we compare the rate American Second Amendment, rates of gun ownership in the USA and the number of people suffering gunshot wounds in the USA ... the rest of the world shakes our collective heads and asks WHY?

Something like 15 years ago, CSPA briefly considered implementing a similar set of canopy experience restrictions, but the problem was that too many young jumpers were already on the wrong side of the red-line and would whine that they could not afford to buy a larger canopy this season.

[riggerrob 558]

Returning to the original question: minimum opening altitudes are more about old jumpers telling young jumpers "Death lurks in that corner."

Old jumpers learned those lessons - the bloody way - 50 years ago, so there is nothing to be gained by repeating mistakes made by long-dead skydivers.

I respect the Canadian Air regulations and CSPA's BSRs because I have read hundreds of accident reports and know that those rules were written in blood.

Edited October 14, 2022 by riggerrob

[sfzombie13 307]

4 hours ago, nwt said:

"This is my opinion and even though I haven't made a case for it, no other opinions are valid".

except that is not an opinion, it's a fact.  if, and it is a huge if because i think my math is wrong, the numbers show that one country can lower fatalities by instituting a control and the us does not even attempt to look at that control because "we're adults" and we "don't want a nanny state", then not only do they not care about safety, or more precisely lowering fatalities, but we deserve every last one that could have been prevented.  my opinion is that there will always be fatalities and more regulation would do nothing.  we need less opinions and more facts. 

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

This is the part that matters. The number of fatalities and jumps in the Netherlands (see Baksteen — I am educable ;-) ) is what’s not large enough. The number of fatalities in the US in any one year is probably not large enough — it varies from year to year, and there are a lot of confounding factors.

Im not a statistician, but I’ve been known to operate Minitab . That’s one step above sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Wendy P. 

you may not be able to compare them directly, but since the uspa has it broken down to fatalities per 100k jumps, we can extrapolate the 2 per 86.5k to 2.3 per 100k approximately.  i did the math for the 2 for 86.5 and it worked out to .0023, and i think i need to make it say .23 for a percentage (but i forgot and am too lazy to look it up) which is very close to the uspa rate of .28, but i don't have the numbers to check.  if it is that close then it means we don't need to change anything since their rules had the same effect as our none.

[BMAC615 205]

On 10/13/2022 at 12:27 AM, BMAC615 said:

How many people with under 200 jumps died flying wingsuits before the BSR was put in place?

No one has answered this question. Does anyone have an answer?

[sfzombie13 307]

8 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

No one has answered this question. Does anyone have an answer?

that's a great question and brings up a grate point.  uspa needs to put the fatalities into a searchable database so that you can answer it yourself. 

[gowlerk 1,914]

10 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

No one has answered this question. Does anyone have an answer?

No. I I don't believe anyone can tell you how many people have died on wingsuit jumps either. They are clearly more dangerous than your average skydive. There is nothing magical about the 200 jump floor. It is merely a consensus number generally agreed upon. It is also generally agreed that a good case can be made that it should be higher. But at least by the time someone has 200 jumps they usually have the experience to appreciate that there is an extra risk.

[BMAC615 205]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

No. I I don't believe anyone can tell you how many people have died on wingsuit jumps either. They are clearly more dangerous than your average skydive. There is nothing magical about the 200 jump floor. It is merely a consensus number generally agreed upon. It is also generally agreed that a good case can be made that it should be higher. But at least by the time someone has 200 jumps they usually have the experience to appreciate that there is an extra risk.

It’s not a consensus number, it is a BSR outlined in 2-1, L-6. It has been written several times that “BSRs are written in blood.”

@skypilotA1 or @chuckakers: How many people died during wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on and passed by USPA Safety & Training Committee?

[skypilotA1 67]

2 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

It’s not a consensus number, it is a BSR outlined in 2-1, L-6. It has been written several times that “BSRs are written in blood.”

@skypilotA1 or @chuckakers: How many people died during wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on and passed by USPA Safety & Training Committee?

 

2 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

It’s not a consensus number, it is a BSR outlined in 2-1, L-6. It has been written several times that “BSRs are written in blood.”

@skypilotA1 or @chuckakers: How many people died during wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on and passed by USPA Safety & Training Committee?

The question of “How many people died in wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on or passed by USPA S&T Committee” would best be asked of the USPA S&T Department at USPA Headquarters. I would just ask them directly.  If I needed to know, that is who I would ask. You can contact them directly at [email protected]

Edited October 16, 2022 by skypilotA1

[BMAC615 205]

41 minutes ago, skypilotA1 said:

 

The question of “How many people died in wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on or passed by USPA S&T Committee” would best be asked of the USPA S&T Department at USPA Headquarters. I would just ask them directly.  If I needed to know, that is who I would ask. You can contact them directly at [email protected]

Thanks!

[riggerrob 558]

The 200 jump minimum was written by wingsuit manufacturers about 20 years ago, back when wingsuits were rare, few second-hand wingsuits were available, manufacturers certified all the wingsuit instructors and manufacturers had some some say in who could buy wingsuits.

[BMAC615 205]

10 hours ago, riggerrob said:

The 200 jump minimum was written by wingsuit manufacturers about 20 years ago, back when wingsuits were rare, few second-hand wingsuits were available, manufacturers certified all the wingsuit instructors and manufacturers had some some say in who could buy wingsuits.

So then why did USPA need to make a BSR for it? 

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

On 10/16/2022 at 2:00 PM, BMAC615 said:

It’s not a consensus number, it is a BSR outlined in 2-1, L-6. It has been written several times that “BSRs are written in blood.”

@skypilotA1 or @chuckakers: How many people died during wingsuit skydives before the BSR was voted on and passed by USPA Safety & Training Committee?

 

18 hours ago, riggerrob said:

The 200 jump minimum was written by wingsuit manufacturers about 20 years ago, back when wingsuits were rare, few second-hand wingsuits were available, manufacturers certified all the wingsuit instructors and manufacturers had some some say in who could buy wingsuits.

The 200 jump number is a fairly common one. C license, wingsuit, camera, also lots of boogies require it (either the number or a C) for specialty aircraft. Most BASE FJCs require 200 jumps too.

While it is a 'consensus number', it's not just one pulled out of thin air. It's been a fairly common standard for a while. The general idea it that with that level of experience, the skills are developed enough to try extra stuff.

And there have been a couple deaths in wingsuits with less than 200 jumps. One guy opened up on exit and was put into the tail (I don't remember any other details on it).
Another had a bit over 100 jumps and went 'instructor shopping' to find someone who'd give him a FFC. He got turned down a few times, but found someone at the Sebastian Invasion. He neglected to route his legstraps properly and fell out of the harness on opening. His name was Dan. It was discussed in depth on here. 

[BMAC615 205]

Here’s what I’ve learned:

BSR for minimum opening altitude? Yep, some people died and USPA responded.

BSR for wingsuit jumps? Yep, some people died and USPA responded.

BSR for water training? Yep. ONE person died and USPA responded.

Written recommendation for camera flying? Yep, some people died and USPA responded.

BSR or written recommendation for maximum WL for A, B & C-license holders? Nope - even though it has been the cause of more injuries and deaths than all those mentioned above combined. USPA’s stance on WL regulation is “we’re all adults and can make our own decisions. USPA prefers education over regulation.“

[gowlerk 1,914]

12 hours ago, BMAC615 said:

So then why did USPA need to make a BSR for it? 

Good question. USPA has so many BSRs now that the meaning of the word "basic" has been lost. The only reason I can see is so that DZOs and instructors have something to point at when they disallow low experienced jumpers from wingsuiting. Which they would almost certainly do as it is a de facto standard. 

[gowlerk 1,914]

2 minutes ago, BMAC615 said:

BSR or written recommendation for maximum WL for A, B & C-license holders? Nope - even though it has been the cause of more injuries and deaths than all those mentioned above combined. USPA’s stance on WL regulation is “we’re all adults and can make our own decisions. USPA prefers education over regulation.“

Because there is no consensus on what those numbers should be. Therefore the idea lacks support. Regulations that lack support within the sport are not enforceable except in nanny states.

[riggerrob 558]

40 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Good question. USPA has so many BSRs now that the meaning of the word "basic" has been lost. The only reason I can see is so that DZOs and instructors have something to point at when they disallow low experienced jumpers from wingsuiting. Which they would almost certainly do as it is a de facto standard. 

Hah!

Hah!

That reminds me of a conversation with a junior jumper as to why it was unwise for him to do "X" with less than 200 jumps.

Me: "Would you like to hear the half-hour explanation?"

Junior jumper: "No, never mind, I'll just wait a few more jumps.
 

[BMAC615 205]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Because there is no consensus on what those numbers should be. Therefore the idea lacks support. Regulations that lack support within the sport are not enforceable except in nanny states.

Based on what you are saying, USPA knows there’s a problem. USPA has tried to resolve it and the problem persists. USPA Safety & Training Committee can’t agree on a remedy, so they do nothing. Got it.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Because there is no consensus on what those numbers should be. Therefore the idea lacks support. Regulations that lack support within the sport are not enforceable except in nanny states.

Hi Ken,

IMO your references to 'nanny states' is a low blow.

One could just as easily use the term for the USA because USPA actually does have BSR's.

People in other countries see things differently than how the people in the USA see things.  They are not wrong, they are different.

I mean, who eats with a fork in their left hand?  

Jerry Baumchen

 

[sfzombie13 307]

not to mention the "not enforceable" part is bullshit.  implement the license endorsements, set the limits, and require proof of it when purchasing a canopy.  sure it won;t stop all of them, and some will fake it.  what it will do is set the standard for a safety culture and in a few years it will be a non issue. 

[gowlerk 1,914]

39 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

One could just as easily use the term for the USA because USPA actually does have BSR's.

By "nanny state" I mean where the local association has been given the power of the law. In nanny states you must belong to and abide by the association's rules or the government will not allow you to operate a DZ. Both Canada and the USA do not give that kind of power to either CSPA or USPA. If either of those organizations had that sort of power that the BPA for instance has, they would certainly have tighter rules and paid bureaucrats to enforce then. Meaning Big Brother would "nanny" you. 

[gowlerk 1,914]

25 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

not to mention the "not enforceable" part is bullshit. 

Those kind of rules would lead to people leaving USPA. Therefore enforcement is not possible.

[BMAC615 205]

45 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Those kind of rules would lead to people leaving USPA. Therefore enforcement is not possible.

Who would leave USPA if a max WL restriction was implemented for A, B, & C license holders?

[gowlerk 1,914]

1 hour ago, BMAC615 said:

Who would leave USPA if a max WL restriction was implemented for A, B, & C license holders?

What would be the point of that? Leaving D license holders out of the rules would make them meaningless. It's not like D licences are hard to get.