0
Whamie

Fatality Database

Recommended Posts

Good afternoon all!

I was looking at the fatalities database on http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ and noticed the graph from "Total Fatalities since January 1, 2004". From what it shows it seems like there is a steady rise in fatalities.

With new technology, refined teaching, and regulations is there a reason why there is a steady rise? Please note that the graph ends at 2010. However, the trend suggests it is still rising at a steady pace. Can you please give your insist as to why this is so?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The graph is a total fatality graph, so it's not showing that there's a rise in the number of fatalities/year, but that the total number of fatalities continues to increase. So long as there are fatalities each year that graph will continue to trend upwards.

Year over year, it varies, but tends to stay roughlyconstant (though it's hard to derive any statistical significance from a relatively small set of data). What you'll notice is that it's not that the number of fatalities changes, it's the type of fatality. Years ago, it used to be no pull fatalities and gear malfunctions that cause most of the deaths. Now it's low turns and canopy collisions. Gear-related malfunctions tend to be more related to improper maintenance/use or improper execution of emergency procedures, not true failures of the gear.

Just goes to show that skydivers are creative and will figure out new ways to kill themselves.:|

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

With new technology, refined teaching, and regulations is there a reason why there is a steady rise?



I call it the Nerfing of the sport, Bill Booth would call it his third law of skydiving.

Essentially the more accesible and "safer" the sport becomes, the lower the skill, judgement, and intelligence levels required to participate are, and when subsequently the safety net breaks down, the result is people who can't handle dynamic situations.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

With new technology, refined teaching, and regulations is there a reason why there is a steady rise?



I call it the Nerfing of the sport, Bill Booth would call it his third law of skydiving.

Essentially the more accesible and "safer" the sport becomes, the lower the skill, judgement, and intelligence levels required to participate are, and when subsequently the safety net breaks down, the result is people who can't handle dynamic situations.


____________________________________________________________HERE HERE +1
Experience is a difficult teacher, she gives you the test first and the lesson afterward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

OP needs to learn calculus.



OP needs to learn how to read:

Above the total fatalities graph is a section that lists "Fatalities by Year." (See attachment)

It clearly shows that known worldwide fatalities declined approximately 21 percent from 71 in 2004 to 56 in 2011, and just 25 so far in 2012.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

OP needs to learn calculus.



OP needs to learn how to read:

Above the total fatalities graph is a section that lists "Fatalities by Year." (See attachment)

It clearly shows that known worldwide fatalities declined approximately 21 percent from 71 in 2004 to 56 in 2011, and just 25 so far in 2012.

44
B|


How many are poorly trained wingsuiters?
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know where you stand on the issue but I have a thought as I read your post. Interested in your response.

Do we have to wait until the number of WS fatlaities reach a suitable number to do soemthing. If I use the canopy issue as an example. Imagine if someone tried to do something about canopy before the stats started to spike. It would have been fought saying the stats do not warrant it. I have heard that USPA was late to the party with canopy education and I agree But:

If we had a crystal ball and see that maybe (speculation) maybe WS fatalities will rise in the future, wouldnt it be great to do something before that happens. Although, if done correctly the WS stats will stay very low, causing those to say we didnt need it to argue. It seems like a big catch 22.

There is no way to prove something worked. The B license prof card is an example. Who knows maybe canopy fatlaities will stay the same, but without it there might have been a rise. We will never know if we saved lives.

Am I analyzing it to closely? Sorry just trying to get a grip on the bigger picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know where you stand on the issue but I have a thought as I read your post. Interested in your response.

Do we have to wait until the number of WS fatlaities reach a suitable number to do soemthing. If I use the canopy issue as an example. Imagine if someone tried to do something about canopy before the stats started to spike. It would have been fought saying the stats do not warrant it. I have heard that USPA was late to the party with canopy education and I agree But:

If we had a crystal ball and see that maybe (speculation) maybe WS fatalities will rise in the future, wouldnt it be great to do something before that happens. Although, if done correctly the WS stats will stay very low, causing those to say we didnt need it to argue. It seems like a big catch 22.

There is no way to prove something worked. The B license prof card is an example. Who knows maybe canopy fatlaities will stay the same, but without it there might have been a rise. We will never know if we saved lives.

Am I analyzing it to closely? Sorry just trying to get a grip on the bigger picture.



What a pile of puppy poop.

The bigger picture is first getting a handle on our fundamentally piss-poor basic parachute pilot training because of our psychotic insistence on maintaining a training system that focuses on freefall FUN skills instead of parachutist SURVIVAL skills.

Hassling a small subset of the sport parachuting community while ignoring this massive, fundamental failure is idiotic on its face:

Let's ignore the severed femoral artery of our fundamentally flawed basic training paradigm and put a bandaid on the skinned knee of a few fools who need to be reminded in the door not to open their wings until they clear the tail.

Brilliant
big picture thinking, old chap.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

OP needs to learn calculus.



OP needs to learn how to read:

Above the total fatalities graph is a section that lists "Fatalities by Year." (See attachment)

It clearly shows that known worldwide fatalities declined approximately 21 percent from 71 in 2004 to 56 in 2011, and just 25 so far in 2012.

44
B|


How many are poorly trained wingsuiters?


LOL...

How many were wingsuiters, period?

In the "other" category (78 total fatalities), there are two wingsuit fatalities: Eli's 2009 too-low-to-make-it-over-a-ridge and a 2012 Croatian low-pull in a wingsuit.

Dunno about the Croat but Eli had 15,000 jumps and several hundred wingsuit jumps.

Two wingsuit fatalities out of 750+.... Yeah, we really need to take care of this crisis by creating a whole new bureaucracy.

Funny thing is, there are three tails strike/aircraft collision fatalities in the "other" category -- none of which involved the heinous horrendous hideous wingsuit.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know where you stand on the issue but I have a thought as I read your post. Interested in your response.

Do we have to wait until the number of WS fatlaities reach a suitable number to do soemthing.



I can think of a whole lot of things we could regulate on the basis of "what possibly might be at some indeterminate time in the future". On the whole I think that is a poor basis for imposing regulations.

The data we have do not suggest that wingsuit flying by poorly trained newbies is a serious safety issue except in the minds of a few prophets of doom. There are other safety concerns in skydiving that have a lot of real data indicating a problem.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?", Luke 6:41
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, there was a wingsuit tail strike every 29 days last year.:|



And on its face that is a legitimate concern, which can be easily and simply addressed by making sure everyone is really really REALLY clear on keeping their wings closed until one second after exit and leave it at that. On the USPA BOD thread on this subject I proposed a solution set for this issue, to wit:

a separate wingsuit waiver that says "I understand how critically important it is to not open my wings until one second after exit, and I hereby promise and contractually agree as a condition of being able to wingsuit at this DZ that I or my heirs will pay for any damage to the aircraft if I violate this promise."

And put a sign next to the Pavlov Light that says "Wingsuiters: Do NOT open wings until one second after exit."

Heck, since at most places the wingsuiters sit near the pilot and are last out, you could even give each one a ticket on each load with the same words as the sign -- and right before they exit, they give the ticket to the pilot so they're less likely to forget -- and any excuse that they did forget is met with derision.

No bureaucracy needed.

Moreover, you say about one tail strike a month.

What's your sample? One year doesn't mean ****.

Two or three years in a row of increasing frequency culminating in the one-a-month stat, then maybe you're on to something.

But let's stipulate that your one-a-month figure is a valid read on what's going on. The next part of the statistical analysis has to include:

Did these tailstrikes happen at 12 different DZs -- or were there multiple strikes at a few?

On what aircraft did these tailstrikes occur? Multiple types or a predominant type?

What kindof DZ -- large or small?

Of these tailstrikes, how many happened to low-time wingsuiters versus experienced wingsuiters? As with swooping and other open-canopy fatalities, it may be that the mad skillz set is hitting tails with equal or greater frequency than the low-timers.

Finally, how many of these tailstrikes have happened at DWE's DZ? A raft of them there would certainly help explain several things about that "proposal" of his.

As far as I know, none of the above questions are part of the debate at the moment. This information may already exist, but it's sure not showing up in the discussion (especially that last part) -- and until it does, the whole debate is an attempt to create a political reality, not deal with a physical reality.

Regardless of the answers or sample size, the solution is the same: Educate wingsuiters -- and every other jumper too -- that no wingsuiter opens his wings until s/he's one second out of the plane, period.

No bureaucracy needed.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

nstead of posting like an ignorant ass... Thanks cup cake.



That's funny, coming from someone with one year in the sport, calling another with 37 years of experience "ignorant". But hey, with these new-fangled teaching methods these days, maybe you really do already know it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

nstead of posting like an ignorant ass... Thanks cup cake.



That's funny, coming from someone with one year in the sport, calling another with 37 years of experience "ignorant". But hey, with these new-fangled teaching methods these days, maybe you really do already know it all.



You're right. I forgot that critical thinking skills are related to the years I've been skydiving. I don't care if the proposal passes as stands or nothing happens. I think that a response in the middle could be in order. The information he was asking about is in the proposal he's slamming. It seems clear that he didn't read it.

It's funny that someone who is likely half your age has to explain this to you. (see I can be an asshole too!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


How many were wingsuiters, period?

In the "other" category (78 total fatalities), there are two wingsuit fatalities: Eli's 2009 too-low-to-make-it-over-a-ridge and a 2012 Croatian low-pull in a wingsuit.



I've not read the source, but there has been more than those two. At least one person fell out of the gear at pull time and another inexperienced WS didn't pull. This is just from the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

nstead of posting like an ignorant ass... Thanks cup cake.



That's funny, coming from someone with one year in the sport, calling another with 37 years of experience "ignorant". But hey, with these new-fangled teaching methods these days, maybe you really do already know it all.



You're right. I forgot that critical thinking skills are related to the years I've been skydiving. I don't care if the proposal passes as stands or nothing happens. I think that a response in the middle could be in order. The information he was asking about is in the proposal he's slamming. It seems clear that he didn't read it.

It's funny that someone who is likely half your age has to explain this to you. (see I can be an asshole too!)



Thank you for setting me straight, young fellar. When I need advice on skydiving, now I know that you're the go-to guy to get the right answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

nstead of posting like an ignorant ass... Thanks cup cake.



That's funny, coming from someone with one year in the sport, calling another with 37 years of experience "ignorant". But hey, with these new-fangled teaching methods these days, maybe you really do already know it all.



You're right. I forgot that critical thinking skills are related to the years I've been skydiving. I don't care if the proposal passes as stands or nothing happens. I think that a response in the middle could be in order. The information he was asking about is in the proposal he's slamming. It seems clear that he didn't read it.

It's funny that someone who is likely half your age has to explain this to you. (see I can be an asshole too!)



Thank you for setting me straight, young fellar. When I need advice on skydiving, now I know that you're the go-to guy to get the right answers.



Happy to help. Though if you notice my post revolved around reading more than anything specifically skydiving related. Feel free to be all butt hurt though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Page 10 of the presentation that you are raging against shows that tail strikes have been on the rise for the last 12 years.

Instead of posting like an ignorant ass, why don't you do some research and present some actual arguments.

Thanks cup cake.



LOL... if you would actually read instead of just gobbling, you would notice that I said this:

"As far as I know, none of the above questions are part of the debate at the moment. This information may already exist, but it's sure not showing up in the discussion (especially that last part) -- and until it does, the whole debate is an attempt to create a political reality, not deal with a physical reality."

So maybe instead of posting, ahem, the way you did, why don't you post the details to that and the other questions I posed and thereby enter them into the discussion?

44
B|

P.S. A word from the wise: I've been to almost as many funerals as you have jumps, and you remind me of a bunch of those decedents. Just sayin...
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Page 10 of the presentation that you are raging against shows that tail strikes have been on the rise for the last 12 years.

Instead of posting like an ignorant ass, why don't you do some research and present some actual arguments.

Thanks cup cake.



LOL... if you would actually read instead of just gobbling, you would notice that I said this:

"As far as I know, none of the above questions are part of the debate at the moment. This information may already exist, but it's sure not showing up in the discussion (especially that last part) -- and until it does, the whole debate is an attempt to create a political reality, not deal with a physical reality."

So maybe instead of posting, ahem, the way you did, why don't you post the details to that and the other questions I posed and thereby enter them into the discussion?

44
B|

P.S. A word from the wise: I've been to almost as many funerals as you have jumps, and you remind me of a bunch of those decedents. Just sayin...


And the window into your soul from your postings would tell me anything different?

If it's in the presentation then wouldn't it mean that it is part of the discussion? Or at the very least has been offered up? I'd think it would. The breakdowns you asked for in your much longer follow up post are not included. My understanding is that most of the DZOs were willing to talk about the issues but didn't want it out there in the general community. There isn't a hell of a lot anyone can do about that. Short of violating their trust, that is. In any event it shows a pretty steady increase in tailstrikes over an 11.5 year period. Since you mention it, yet failed to notice it in the presentation I have a hard time believing you've actually read it.

I didn't realize you and a few others here had the monopoly on being an asshole. Sorry to step on your toes. In the event that I do bounce I'll make sure you're invited to the funeral so you can say "From three posts on DZ.com I just knew this was coming" to my friends and family. I'm serious, PM me a mailing address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


How many were wingsuiters, period?

In the "other" category (78 total fatalities), there are two wingsuit fatalities: Eli's 2009 too-low-to-make-it-over-a-ridge and a 2012 Croatian low-pull in a wingsuit.



I've not read the source, but there has been more than those two. At least one person fell out of the gear at pull time and another inexperienced WS didn't pull. This is just from the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.


Concur, but even if we quadruple the listed number to 8, we're still looking at an extremely small fatality subset in the overall fatality picture, and neither of the ones you mentioned involved a tail strike, which is the only wingsuit-related safety & training issue that is statistically and operationally significant, and thus deserving of some problem-solving attention.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I know where you stand on the issue but I have a thought as I read your post. Interested in your response.

Do we have to wait until the number of WS fatlaities reach a suitable number to do soemthing. If I use the canopy issue as an example. Imagine if someone tried to do something about canopy before the stats started to spike. It would have been fought saying the stats do not warrant it. I have heard that USPA was late to the party with canopy education and I agree But:

If we had a crystal ball and see that maybe (speculation) maybe WS fatalities will rise in the future, wouldnt it be great to do something before that happens. Although, if done correctly the WS stats will stay very low, causing those to say we didnt need it to argue. It seems like a big catch 22.

There is no way to prove something worked. The B license prof card is an example. Who knows maybe canopy fatlaities will stay the same, but without it there might have been a rise. We will never know if we saved lives.

Am I analyzing it to closely? Sorry just trying to get a grip on the bigger picture.



What a pile of puppy poop.

The bigger picture is first getting a handle on our fundamentally piss-poor basic parachute pilot training because of our psychotic insistence on maintaining a training system that focuses on freefall FUN skills instead of parachutist SURVIVAL skills.

Hassling a small subset of the sport parachuting community while ignoring this massive, fundamental failure is idiotic on its face:

Let's ignore the severed femoral artery of our fundamentally flawed basic training paradigm and put a bandaid on the skinned knee of a few fools who need to be reminded in the door not to open their wings until they clear the tail.

Brilliant
big picture thinking, old chap.

44
B|


Apology from me is in order here... I brainlocked on who Para-5 is. If I had remembered, I would have approached my answer differently because, unlike my assumption, he is not coming late to the party -- he's done more than 20 ordinary people in pursuit of a solution. Kudos to him for his efforts, regardless of where we are respectively on the issue.

44
B|
SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0