CDRINF 1 #26 September 20, 2009 The five people I have known personally in this sport who died skydiving were all highly experienced jumpers who had been jumping for many years. The risk is always there. The perception of risk, however, probably does change over time. These are broad generalizations, but as a new student you are nervous and worried that any of a thousands things could conspire to kill you. After a while you get over the lump in your throat nervousness, get cocky and think that the risk is no big deal. The most dangerous thing out there, in my opinion, is a skydiver with 200-600 jumps who is over the initial fear and thinks he's invinceable. Then after you have been around long enough to see several very experienced friends get seriously hurt or killed, the reality that the risk is always present sinks in. At this point you either accept the ever present risk as part of the sport, or you hang it up as not worth it. As others have said: don't ever get complacent. CDR Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #27 September 20, 2009 The friends I've lost to this sport are a cross section of the fatality reports, from a few dozen jumps to a few thousand jumps. Always remember that there is not a jump you can make that can't kill you. I try to minimize my risks by staying on the middle path in our sport. I still can't say I won't be next. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulknerwn 36 #28 September 20, 2009 When I was at 0-100 jumps, I thought the sport was dangerous. Between 100-500 jumps or so I thought it wasn't nearly as dangerous as people said. Since then, I KNOW how frigging dangerous it is. I mean - I've traveled a lot - met skydivers from all over the country - but typically I know 2-3 people most years who die from this sport, That drives the danger home. Its easy if you jump at a Cessna dz and never travel to go years without seeing serious injury or death.. That's just statistics though.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 September 20, 2009 QuoteLook at the jump number/incident ratios. They bear out what I've suggested. I've not seen evidence that they do (or do not). How are jump numbers distributed among actively jumping USPA members compared to how they are distributed among skydiving fatalities? Also, how are jump numbers distributed among total skydives made by USPA members compared to how they are distributed among skydiving fatalities? Are highly experienced jumpers actually more likely to die on any given jump or do they just jump more?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #30 September 20, 2009 Funny how some people like to quote "statisics" not knowing what they are talking about. You're right. There's a lot more to the story than mere averages. "10-way average = 890 jumps!" [The rest of the story: Nine 100-jump wonders, One 8K jumper]My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #31 September 20, 2009 I went my first 100 jumps without seeing as much as a scratch on anyone and then I sat next to two fatalities within fifty jumps. That changed my outlook just a bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
swoopfly 5 #32 September 20, 2009 notice the posting title, perceived little risk? We all know the risk is the same no matter whos jumping, it has never changed (only maybe less risk with the invention of better gear). But how has your view of skydiving changed with experience? maybe thats why such high number jumpers are dieing, and pushing the limit. the regular skydiving world has became easy and they push the limits even more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,062 #33 September 20, 2009 QuoteAre highly experienced jumpers actually more likely to die on any given jump or do they just jump more? It doesn't matter. 1 jump or 10,000 jumps - the "likely" is the same.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #34 September 20, 2009 my point is before I had witnessed any fatalities I had very little percieved risk. Even reading the incidents on DZ gave me the feeling that shit only happens to other people but not to me. Sitting and talking to someone minutes before they die tends to make you realize that this shit could happen to any one at any time and it has made me a bit mose conservative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #35 September 20, 2009 Quote notice the posting title, perceived little risk? We all know the risk is the same no matter whos jumping, it has never changed (only maybe less risk with the invention of better gear). But how has your view of skydiving changed with experience? maybe thats why such high number jumpers are dieing, and pushing the limit. the regular skydiving world has became easy and they push the limits even more. The 'perceived' risk is different for everyone in my opinion. It has as much to do with personality, life experience, maturity etc. as it does with jump numbers and years in the sport. I started jumping at 18, the main was older than me and the reserve didn't have a pilot-chute...but at 18 you're bulletproof so what could possibly go wrong. In my early 20's I started doing a lot of demos on a professional basis, many - many jumps into tight areas carrying a lotta extra junk...but I was smarter and better than the guys getting hurt or killed doing the same stuff. ~Not until my 30's did I finally figure that maybe luck had more to do with it that I was admitting. In my 40's, bought a house and some kids...priorities and perception changed. Lot more to 'lose' than ever before and the conservative factor went up accordingly. Now in my 50's...I've lost some friends, seen better skydivers than me die for stupid reasons many times not of their own doing. I think I better understand the risks I take, and measure the consequences entirely different than I did years ago. The risk is there and it's significant, how we perceive it is wholly dependent on the individual...we all do an internal 'cost / benefit analysis' regarding what we do and how we do it. The variable that changes the perception is US! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteAre highly experienced jumpers actually more likely to die on any given jump or do they just jump more? It doesn't matter. 1 jump or 10,000 jumps - the "likely" is the same. Are you suggesting that the probability of a single skydive resulting in death does not change as a jumper's experience and knowledge changes? I'm not sure I agree. While it's possible everything balances out, experience, judgement and equipment could all possibly affect the probability of any single jump for a particular skydiver resulting in a fatality. If you are just saying that the gambler's fallacy isn't accurate in skydiving, then I agree, but that's not what my post was getting at. The outcome of the previous jump doesn't affect the outcome of a particular jump, but something that was learned on previous jumps might affect the survival probability.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #37 September 20, 2009 Quote The outcome of the previous jump doesn't affect the outcome of a particular jump, but something that was learned on previous jumps might affect the survival probability. In which is the same point I'm making. The more comfortable (complacent) one is with the repetitive task, the potential rises for greater challenge when a new action is factored in. Argue it all you want, the statistics show that the greatest number of jumpers with incidents are "reasonably" to "very" experienced. A student with 10 jumps is a generally more attentive, has gear that is looked atby others, gear that is more prone to safety, the skydives are simple. The potential for incident is no different than the potential for the guy with 10,000 skydives. But the guy with 10,000 skydives generally has a different attitude, different gear, and is performing more complex skydive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #38 September 20, 2009 QuoteArgue it all you want, the statistics show that the greatest number of jumpers with incidents are "reasonably" to "very" experienced. There is a HUGE difference between saying that a fatality is more likely to involve a "reasonably" to "very" experienced jumper than a low experience jumper and saying that "reasonably" to "very" experienced jumpers are more likely to be involved in fatalities than low experienced jumpers. USPA's statistics bear out the former claim. They do not provide sufficient data to conclude the latter claim is true. From what data do you draw your previous conclusion that "the longer you're in the sport (more jumps), that risk increases?"Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #39 September 20, 2009 The more "independent exits" you enjoy, the more opportunities to have an incident. Stop exiting, stop the opportunity. Continue exiting, continue the opportunity. Pretty simple. So....apparently we read the data differently. The greatest number of incidents occur with those that have more than 300 jumps. I don't believe it's appropriate to merely extract a median number from the USPA statistics, because for example, the one person that was in the sport for one day with one jump tremendously offsets the guy that's been in the sport for 30 years and has 12,000 jumps. Either way, the data supports that the majority of the incidents occur with very experienced skydivers. It seems that we don't agree on how that data is interpreted. I feel it's related to combinations of complacency and complexity, with a small dose of opportunity tossed in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #40 September 20, 2009 I believe that skydiving is very dangerous, and it is only with constant vigilance, focus to the task at hand, and preparation that I keep the risk manageable.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 September 20, 2009 QuoteThe more "independent exits" you enjoy, the more opportunities to have an incident. Stop exiting, stop the opportunity. Continue exiting, continue the opportunity. No one had asserted anything differently. QuoteSo....apparently we read the data differently. The greatest number of incidents occur with those that have more than 300 jumps. Right, but without knowing what proportion of skydives are made by people with more than 300 jumps, we cannot conclude that jumpers with more than 300 jumps are at a greater risk per jump than jumpers with fewer than 300 jumps. QuoteEither way, the data supports that the majority of the incidents occur with very experienced skydivers. Agreed, but it does not logically follow that experienced jumpers are therefore at greater risk of a fatality on any given jump. QuoteIt seems that we don't agree on how that data is interpreted. I feel it's related to combinations of complacency and complexity, with a small dose of opportunity tossed in. That may or not be true, but the data you have provided do not justify that conclusion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #42 September 20, 2009 Quote That may or not be true, but the data you have provided do not justify that conclusion. Mathematically, perhaps not. Conceptually, I'm quite satisfied with how it reads to me and (probably) the average person. I'm not a numbers guy, and not a philosopher. Debating the existence of randomness and directed existence aren't part of my repertiore. I don't believe that any one skydive influences the probability of incident (or not) but the fact remains, evidence proves that the more often you do something, the greater the possibility for error based on the human factor. Read the USPA or APF reports, all point out that incidents occur at higher, not lower jump numbers. If you read that different than "the more you jump, the greater the possiblity of an incident" then we have to agree to disagree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #43 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuote That may or not be true, but the data you have provided do not justify that conclusion. Mathematically, perhaps not. Conceptually, I'm quite satisfied with how it reads to me and (probably) the average person. And that's how common misconceptions are established. Quotethe fact remains, evidence proves that the more often you do something, the greater the possibility for error based on the human factor. No, the evidence does not prove that to be true. A skydive, like a coin, has no memory of previous events. QuoteRead the USPA or APF reports, all point out that incidents occur at higher, not lower jump numbers. If you read that different than "the more you jump, the greater the possiblity of an incident" then we have to agree to disagree. I read it differently because the data do not support that conclusion. Here's an illustrative example that highlights the faulty logic: Imagine a city in which there are 100,000 cars. All of the cars are one of two colors, red or black. Furthermore, all car accidents involve exactly two cars each. In that city, 90.25% of car accidents involve two black cars. 9.5% of accidents involve one black car and one red car. 0.25% of accidents involve two red cars. From the given information, can we conclude that a randomly selected black car is more likely than a randomly selected red car to be in an accident over the course of a day or the course of a year?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #44 September 20, 2009 IMO a prudent jumper could easily remove the landing crashes risk. That changes things quite dramatically, for the better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #45 September 20, 2009 QuoteIMO a prudent jumper could easily remove the landing crashes risk. That changes things quite dramatically, for the better. Roger Nelson was rather 'prudent'. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #46 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteIMO a prudent jumper could easily remove the landing crashes risk. That changes things quite dramatically, for the better. Roger Nelson was rather 'prudent'. As was Bob Holler.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #47 September 20, 2009 Quote From the given information, can we conclude that a randomly selected black car is more likely than a randomly selected red car to be in an accident over the course of a day or the course of a year? Perhaps not. At the same time, you could maybe explain why red cars prove to have higher accident rates, and drivers of red cars receive more tickets. Insurance and car rental companies readily bear this out. Roger Nelson and Bob Hollar were both prudent skydivers. I imagine one could say Danny was prudent for at least X thousands of jumps. Or perhaps he wasn't prudent during those thousands of jumps but kept getting lucky? Oops, there's that damn concept of gambling again, so it couldn't be luck. Overall, it's an absurd argument. The longer you continue in the sport, the more random events can possibly occur of which you have no control. Additionally, while repetition generally generates competence, it also can generate complacency. Ergo, if you continue to jump, you continue and potentially increase the risk with ever increasing competence and confidence. If you quit jumping, the likelihood of those random events occurring during a skydive is exactly zero. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
format 0 #48 September 20, 2009 QuoteIn my 40's, bought a house and some kids...priorities and perception changed. How much did you pay for the kids?What goes around, comes later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #49 September 20, 2009 QuoteQuote From the given information, can we conclude that a randomly selected black car is more likely than a randomly selected red car to be in an accident over the course of a day or the course of a year? Perhaps not. Correct. We cannot logically conclude that a particular black car is more likely to be in an accident than a particular red car, even though over 99% of the accidents involve at least one black car, and over 90% of accidents involve black cars exclusively. We have to know what proportion of the cars in the city are black and what proportion are red before we can draw any valid conclusions about the relative safety. If black cars comprise more than 95% of the cars in the city, then it is statistically less likely that a particular black car will be involved in an accident, compared to a particular red car. If black cars comprise significantly less than 95% of the cars in the city, then it is statistically more likely that a particular black car will be involved in an accident, compared to a particular red car. If black cars comprise approximately 95% of the cars in the city, then the color of a particular car has no significant effect on the probability that it is involved in an accident. Skydiving fatalities are the same. Just because the majority of fatalities involve skydivers with more than 300 jumps does not imply that a randomly selected jumper with over 300 jumps is more likely than a randomly selected jumper with less than 300 jumps to die on any particular skydive. We must first know what proportion of skydives are made by jumpers with over 300 jumps, and what proportion are made by jumpers with less than 300 jumps. QuoteAt the same time, you could maybe explain why red cars prove to have higher accident rates, and drivers of red cars receive more tickets. Insurance and car rental companies readily bear this out. Irrelevant, but did you Snopes that? QuoteOverall, it's an absurd argument. The longer you continue in the sport, the more random events can possibly occur of which you have no control. You're back to the gambler's fallacy. QuoteAdditionally, while repetition generally generates competence, it also can generate complacency. True. And, with sufficient data, we could determine which aspect is statistically dominant. Having only the fatality data provided by USPA is not sufficient data. QuoteErgo, if you continue to jump, you continue and potentially increase the risk with ever increasing competence and confidence. Possibly. Or, you might potentially decrease the risk. It all depends on whether the effects of competence or complacency increases faster. USPA don't provide sufficient data on their Web site to make that determination.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 September 20, 2009 Quotei was just curious if after some of you have been in this sport for many years like me... Your profile says you've been skydiving for 3 years. I wouldn't characterize your experience as "many years". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
