Wow, we had a really safe year

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

When someone is landing can you tell they were backsliding while doing a bad sitfly?

When someone is landing can you tell they were swooping/attempting to swoop?

Jeff

If someone backslides into another formation and injures a jumper...can you tell if the landing swoop would have been more dangerous?


Your argument isn't logical....and I don't swoop!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

We are segmenting fatalities out by whether our not an element of additional uncontrolled risk was introduced at some point during the dive.

Who said we're segmenting it like that?

And if we are, what about people who don't leave enough exit separation, pull at an altitude different than the one specified, track poorly, track in the wrong direction, backslide up jump run as they learn to sitfly etc, etc, etc

All of those are situations where "an element of additional uncontrolled risk was introduced at some point during the dive" and you haven't allowed for those. At least the swooper is planning to swoop. Those others are unintentional.

I think it's fair to see if the "classic" list of fatality causes is decreasing.

Intentional Swooping, including traffic collisions related to the activity, are fairly new compared to the rest of the list, and if it's an outlier vs the other activities, then it should be objectively analyzed as special cause warranting specific scrutiny.

Similarly, for example, the advent of new parachute designs and whether we get more or less high speed mals or low openings might also warrant separate scrutiny.

Wanting to just lump a new cause in with the rest is head in sand stats - when it likely does require special scrutiny, is kinda silly.

If it's just another, equal, separate category, then sorting it out would certainly come out in the analysis. But, there is certainly concern, and even a consensus that swooping is new and more of an impact than any other category - else why would be seeing calls for controlled progression, checklists, better training, etc.

why should the proposal bother you? it's not really a witch hunt in any way.

edit: and you make the excellent note - "At least the swooper is planning to swoop. Those others are unintentional."

so if swooping is a high fatality activity (relatively speaking) then your comment is absolutely key in terms of fix effeciveness - hint: it indicates a cultural issue that requires correction, those are tough

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Its not really necessary, is it.?

Nope, skydiving isn't. That said, we all do it because it brings something to our lives. Something we can't explain to others who haven't tried it. Yet, the outside looks at us like a bunch of nut jobs in the "Who would want to do that" category.

It's sad that, even WITHIN the sport we all so dearly love, our own kind display the same types of attitudes to each others respective disciplines - along with the same lack of understanding the outside world gives our community as a whole.

Blues,
Ian

I would agrree 100% if....there weren't any cases of a swooper taking out someone not involved in 'that' discipline.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Divalent 91]

Quote

What's the year by year # if we don't count swoopers.
They could have avoided death by not swooping. Practically speaking -
they create needless uncontrolled risk that distorts the trend.

The answer to your question for 2011 appears to be 18. These are the
6 fatalities that clearly involved HP landings:

Fatality - Perris, California - 27 - December 2011 HP landing
Fatality - Skydive The Farm, GA - 23 July 2011 HP landing
Fatality - Ft Morgan,CO 5/7/11 Landing Incident HP landing
Fatality - Canopy collision - Perris - 4/15/2011 HP landing collision
2 Fatality *2 - Perris, CA - 31 March 2011 HP landing collision *2

So 25% of the fatalities involved HP landings. Whether that "distorts the trend" or not is (I'm sure) a matter of opinion.

One additional fatality (Lake Wales, FL - 12 November 2011)
apparently involved a low turn on a HP canopy flown by a highly
experienced jumper who did not swoop, but who did a low turn that at
least some speculated might have been survivable had he been on a
canopy more appropriate to his normal landing protocol.

And we still don't know the circumstances of the canopy collision
fatality at Cross Keys on 27 May 2011 (despite eye witnesses); that
one may have involved HP maneuvers at altitude.

BTW, one fatality this year was a suicide, (Northumberland NY Fatality
Sept 18th 2011) so if you only count "accidental" fatalities,
it's 23 for the year.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Its not really necessary, is it.?

Nope, skydiving isn't. That said, we all do it because it brings something to our lives. Something we can't explain to others who haven't tried it. Yet, the outside looks at us like a bunch of nut jobs in the "Who would want to do that" category.

It's sad that, even WITHIN the sport we all so dearly love, our own kind display the same types of attitudes to each others respective disciplines - along with the same lack of understanding the outside world gives our community as a whole.

Blues,
Ian

I would agrree 100% if....there weren't any cases of a swooper taking out someone not involved in 'that' discipline.

I don't disagree at all with that. I've never (to my recollection) advocated swooping in traffic. There's a reason my last 1500+ jumps have been hop n pops, landing in the dedicated swooping area. On the rare cases I go to altitude I never enjoy my swoop, even in the designated area, since it's so hard to keep track of everyone (even those that shouldn't be in, or around, the HP landing area). I'll just stick to hop n pops, thanks
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[jrjny 0]

I know we're not focusing on landing fatalities, but given that they make up a large proportion of overall fatalities and given that we're dealing with SMALL odds...it merits segmentation. Think of an investment fund...the utility stocks can't be compared with high tech...one pays dividends and the others (hopefully) grow quickly resulting in rapid price appreciation.

Your avg return will not resemble the individual return of any one category. Need I further the analogy?

Swooping is an obvious thing and one can reach an objective conclusion about whether someone swooped. Less time between exits, sit flying all over the place, not tracking...those are much more subjective and hard to ascertain whether it actually happened. Further, those poor decisions are not intentional whereas I am fairly certain most people doing HP landing intend to do HP landings.

So, for an objective trend analysis - given that the #'s are too low to use basic statistical methods...we need to segment and refine the analysis using pragmatic segmentation. (eg swoops or non swoops).

[jrjny 0]

I'd agree re:opinion since the power of any statistical test will be too low to render a numerical response.

Maybe a better segment is # who die under a fully operational canopy. When we talk to newbies about people dying at least we can say, don't worry...only a few per year actually die the way you'd expect...most actually have a good canopy over their head.

But then you'd pause for thought and realize the absurd nature of the true statement you made?

Jeff

[jrjny 0]

Airtwardo we're not dealing with joint probabilities here

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Its not really necessary, is it.?

Nope, skydiving isn't. That said, we all do it because it brings something to our lives. Something we can't explain to others who haven't tried it. Yet, the outside looks at us like a bunch of nut jobs in the "Who would want to do that" category.

It's sad that, even WITHIN the sport we all so dearly love, our own kind display the same types of attitudes to each others respective disciplines - along with the same lack of understanding the outside world gives our community as a whole.

Blues,
Ian

I would agrree 100% if....there weren't any cases of a swooper taking out someone not involved in 'that' discipline.

I don't disagree at all with that. I've never (to my recollection) advocated swooping in traffic. There's a reason my last 1500+ jumps have been hop n pops, landing in the dedicated swooping area. On the rare cases I go to altitude I never enjoy my swoop, even in the designated area, since it's so hard to keep track of everyone (even those that shouldn't be in, or around, the HP landing area). I'll just stick to hop n pops, thanks
Ian

And that (in part) is all I'm as a non-swooper is asking for...the other part addresses some sort of in-house rules/regulation/peer pressure/culture (whatever it takes) to improve upon the who jumps what when.

It's an issue that does effect all of 'us' in the sport, the less down-time at the DZ due to clean-up...the better.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[nigel99 151]

Quote

Quote

Its not really necessary, is it.?

Nope, skydiving isn't. That said, we all do it because it brings something to our lives. Something we can't explain to others who haven't tried it. Yet, the outside looks at us like a bunch of nut jobs in the "Who would want to do that" category.

It's sad that, even WITHIN the sport we all so dearly love, our own kind display the same types of attitudes to each others respective disciplines - along with the same lack of understanding the outside world gives our community as a whole.

Blues,
Ian

Not a swooper and no intentions, and I completely agree with Ian.

I really hope that modern canopy pilots (all of us) can evolve our training, techniques and tools to the point where the fatalities trend starts to reverse.

It really comes down to all of us to play our parts. Us lower jump number people need to stop rushing lemming like into downsizes and getting out of our depth. The people who really understand how to tread the safest path to HP canopy flight need to figure out ways to minimise the current problems and somehow communicate them.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Airtwardo we're not dealing with joint probabilities here

So YOU say!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[nigel99 151]

Quote

Quote

What's the year by year # if we don't count swoopers.
They could have avoided death by not swooping. Practically speaking -
they create needless uncontrolled risk that distorts the trend.

The answer to your question for 2011 appears to be 18. These are the
6 fatalities that clearly involved HP landings:

So another way of looking at it is swooping is safer than skydiving

[Marisan 0]

Anyone ever heard of the "Peter Principle"?

It states that people are promoted to their level of incompetency and then no further.

How about the same applied to Parachuting?

In my overweening arrogance I shall call it the "Marisan Principle"

People downsize to their level of incompetence and then they either get a severe fright, get hurt or die.

They then downsize no further.

[Divalent 91]

Quote

...Maybe a better segment is # who die under a fully operational canopy...

Here's the 2011 number of fatalities under a good canopy: 13

Fatality - Perris, California - 27 - December 2011 HP landing
Fatality? - Lake Wales, FL - 12 November 2011 Low turn
Fatal - Midair Elsinore - 26 Aug 2011 canopy collision (2 students)
Fatality - Skydive The Farm, GA - 23 July 2011 HP landing
Fatality - Hollister CA - 17 June 2011 Low hook turn
Fatality - Skydive Cross Keys - 27 May 2011 canopy collision
Fatality - Ft Morgan,CO 5/7/11 Landing Incident HP landing
Fatality - Canopy collision - Perris - 4/15/2011 HP landing collision
2 Fatality *2 - Perris, CA - 31 March 2011 HP landing collision *2
Wamego, Kansas fatality - 6th March 2011 hit tree
2 Fatality *2 - Spaceland, TX - Mar. 2, 2011 canopy collision (2 students)

so 13 out of 24 (54%), or 13 of 23 (57%) if you toss out the suicide.

[loch1957 0]

I only have a handful of jumps so pardon my stupidity. Is there any correlation to accidents between experienced jumpers and newbies like me? I mean it seems almost all the accidents that ended in death were very experienced jumpers, or am I missing something.

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.”

[Divalent 91]

Quote

I only have a handful of jumps so pardon my stupidity. Is there any correlation to accidents between experienced jumpers and newbies like me? I mean it seems almost all the accidents that ended in death were very experienced jumpers, or am I missing something.

No, 5 of the 2011 fatalities were students (6 if you count the tandem pax).

Fatal - Midair Elsinore - 26 Aug 2011 canopy collision (2 students)
Fatality - Snohomish WA - 18 AUG 2011 dual mal student
Fatality - Skydive Chicago - 8 May 2011 student main mal no EPs
2 Fatality *2 - Spaceland, TX - Mar. 2, 2011 canopy collision (2 students)

Wanna be safe in skydiving? Don't be a student. And if you are a student, don't jump with other students, keep your head on a swivel, and practice your EPs. And don't swoop. And don't jump with swoopers. And don't turn low near the ground. And don't have a heart attack or take off your rig after your chute opens and your are still 1000's of feet in the air.

[nigel99 151]

Quote

I only have a handful of jumps so pardon my stupidity. Is there any correlation to accidents between experienced jumpers and newbies like me? I mean it seems almost all the accidents that ended in death were very experienced jumpers, or am I missing something.

No it is not only experienced jumpers. One of the things about having such low fatality rates is that it can vary wildly from year to year. Not so long ago there were a couple of canopy collisions involving student jumpers.

More important still - there are a significant number of serious injuries that occur to people with 50-500 jumps that simply don't get reported on dz.com.

The profile of accidents change. As low time jumpers following the rules, accidents are most likely to occur due to inexperience. This may be an unplanned low turn to avoid someone, cutting away to low, trying to long to fix a problem or simply losing track of altitude. As you continue to jump the 'skill' based risks naturally diminish and you can choose to gradually increase the risks involved in your skydives. Those risks may be adding a camera, higher wingloading, any form of relative work etc.

There are lots of skydivers with 1000's of jumps and NO serious injuries. In my opinion they are the ones worth emulating.

[spikes2020 0]

Quote

Fatalities by Category:
Collisions (78) 16%
Landings (154) 32%
No Pulls (42) 9%
Malfunctions (80) 16%
Reserve Problems (23) 5%
Other (72) 15%
Total (488)

http://www.dropzone.com/safety/

That is for the past 8 years...

If you want to go punch the numbers feel free but it does look like the average is going to be more than 25% are due to landings you could go and see how many of those are swooping....

But i agree skydiving is a risk and swooping is just another risk... if you do it, you know what can happen

Edit: Spelling (yeah i suck at it...)

Cheers

Jon W

[cocheese 0]

Stats don't mean much when they can be twisted to say anything we want.

People arguing here about a few numbers means nothing as well.

Your next jump doesn't care if we had 50 or 100 deaths last year.

Your chances of survival don't increase because of perception of a safe year.

We all know how to be safe and why people die in this sport.

Be safe and don't die.

End of thread.

[Martini 0]

Quote

People downsize to their level of incompetence and then they either get a severe fright, get hurt or die.

By your logic everyone who jumps a canopy smaller than their student/training canopy will fall prey to the overwhelmingly arrogant/ridiculous Marisan Priciple.

Sometimes you eat the bear..............

[Martini 0]

Since my response to your post, which was respectful disagreement, was apparently deleted by the censors, I'll try again.

Most people downsize without ever getting a severe fright, getting hurt or getting dead. Your analogy of downsizing and the Peter Principle is indeed arrogant mainly because it's simply untrue.

Sometimes you eat the bear..............

[Marisan 0]

Quote

Since my response to your post, which was respectful disagreement, was apparently deleted by the censors, I'll try again.

Most people downsize without ever getting a severe fright, getting hurt or getting dead. Your analogy of downsizing and the Peter Principle is indeed arrogant mainly because it's simply untrue.

Never ever scared yourself Martini?

I did several times and I've never swooped.

Did watching Sangi's video not send a cold chill down your spine?

I see you use a wingsuit. Did the threads on people that didn't do up their legstraps not send a cold chill down your spine.

Did some of the incident threads not send a cold chill down your spine.

Always remember " There, but for the grace of god go I"

[Martini 0]

I don't scare easily but have scared myself on at least half of the canopies I've owned. You are talking about something completely different. A "severe fright" implies an experience so shocking as to permanenetly repel the recipient.

Wingsuiting is what it is, paying attention to other people's mishaps is simply an education.

Virtually everyone downsizes, some more than others. Some will get hurt, most will not. To each his own. I have friends with small x-braced canopies that don't swoop, others who are awesome swoopers but don't fly x-brace. And I know jumpers with many thousands of jumps who fly lightly loaded canopies and always will.

Self-righteous canopy nazi-ism won't change people's desire to have fun with the toys of their choice, there are more useful approaches to encouraging change.

No matter how you approach skydiving there will be injuries, the only way to end injuries is to end skydiving. The only way to end swooping injuries is to end swooping. Some DZs have done just that. Without a doubt not all DZs will follow suit. I'm truly grateful for the DZs that let me fly a wingsuit with my friends and jump any canopy I like.

BTW I'm an athiest. "God" does not determine my actions.

Sometimes you eat the bear..............

[craigbey 0]

Quote

Did watching Sangi's video not send a cold chill down your spine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF578oSkrKk

Looking at the video again, it is clear that you are seriously out of touch. That should not send a cold chill down anyone's spine. It was a stupid low HP turn that he continued until impact. Sangi has said the same himself.

[captain1976 0]

Quote

Quote

Did watching Sangi's video not send a cold chill down your spine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF578oSkrKk

Looking at the video again, it is clear that you are seriously out of touch. That should not send a cold chill down anyone's spine. It was a stupid low HP turn that he continued until impact. Sangi has said the same himself.

Doesn't look to me like the low turn continued until impact. Its clear the turn was stopped, only it was stopped a little too low.

You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime