mjosparky 3 #1 February 17, 2005 I am posting this for information only, not for debate. From 12/14/1995 to present: 300 fatalities (in the US) 112 or 37% from landing/low turn/hook turn 68 or 61% of those had fewer than 500 jumps 73 or 65% of those were under 40 yrs. 47 or 42% were under 40 yrs. & had fewer than 500 jumps. 32 or 29% were under 30 yrs. & had fewer than 500 jumps. 20 or 18% were under 25 yrs. 49 or 43% had fewer than 250 jumps. 22 or 19% were under 30 yrs. & had fewer than 250 jumps. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #3 February 17, 2005 I would like to know if there are other major contributors to the fatality rate. It would help me as a newbie to know how people get stupid, so I could make G*d d**m certain I don't f**k up in the same way. I know. I know. If I just train to be perfect, I have done my part. You don't need to tell me HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #4 February 17, 2005 Quote 73 or 65% of those were under 40 yrs. Thanks. To make much sense of data like this we really also need the population of skydivers in each category. FOR EXAMPLE, USPA shows 53% of its members are under 40 yrs. Your data show 65% of landing fatalities in this age group. This indicates that being under 40 is a risk factor for landing fatalities. Over 50% of USPA members have fewer than 250 jumps. Yet only 43% of landing fatalities are in this group. So what are we to conclude from that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #5 February 17, 2005 Quote I am posting this for information only, not for debate. Quote And... the 300 of those surveyed are 100% dead! Read my tag line! ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LawnDart21 0 #6 February 17, 2005 I conclude that younger skydivers (under 40) are more apt to hook themselves in. Older jumpers (over 40) "typically" don't have any desire to swoop, so are therefore less likely to hook themselves in. (You can attribute many reasonable reasons for this). Most jumpers with under 250 jumps arent on highly loaded elliptical canopies. The trend is simple and easily identifiable. At this point in our sport, someone is most apt to kill themselves swooping. Younger jumpers still believe they are immortal (not a diss, just an agreed upon psychological mentality of youth), so they take on higher risks than older, more prudent skydivers. Secondly, the speed and force that the smaller HP canopies generate is enough to kill when handled incorrectly. One poin I wish every swooper would instill in every aspiring swooper is that no matter how good you are, how good you get, every single swooper out there hooks themselves in at some point in their career. Some walk away with dirt stains, others bruises, ohers with injuries and still others are buried. It is a not so recognized fact with many aspiring swoopers that regardless of how good they perceive themselves to be, they cannot escape the inevitable, we all pound in at some point, and its only a swoopers' respect for that danger and the inevitability of the outcome that lead most swoopers to take "baby steps" and proper training to lessen the blow when it happens, so that we increase our chances of walking away from it. -- My other ride is a RESERVE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityGirl 0 #7 February 17, 2005 You don't have to get stupid to get dead. There is no such thing as perfect. Learn the difference between confident and over-confident. Stay confident in yourself and your gear. Never become over-confident in either. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace and Blue Skies! Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 February 17, 2005 QuoteFOR EXAMPLE, USPA shows 53% of its members are under 40 yrs. Your data show 65% of landing fatalities in this age group. This indicates that being under 40 is a risk factor for landing fatalities. Anyone else have a hard time believing that only half the jumpers are under 40? In another thread someone mentioned the USPA ranks being inflated by inactive jumpers from the past with a lifetime membership. No DZ I've been at have that sort of age distribution. I'd venture the 50% point is much closer to 30. That said, I'm sure there is a age-fatality relationship not too different from that of drivers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #10 February 17, 2005 QuoteNo DZ I've been at have that sort of age distribution. I'd venture the 50% point is much closer to 30. And how many DZ's have you been to? It that fact or just what you think? I seem to remember a call for hard data. Guessing doesn't count. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #11 February 17, 2005 QuoteI would like to know if there are other major contributors to the fatality rate. It would help me as a newbie to know how people get stupid, so I could make G*d d**m certain I don't f**k up in the same way. I know. I know. If I just train to be perfect, I have done my part. You don't need to tell me At 25 jumps, you haven't done shit and never get to the point where you think you are perfect. No one in this sport is as good as they think they are and it is just a matter of time until they prove it. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #12 February 17, 2005 QuoteQuote 73 or 65% of those were under 40 yrs. Thanks. To make much sense of data like this we really also need the population of skydivers in each category. FOR EXAMPLE, USPA shows 53% of its members are under 40 yrs. Your data show 65% of landing fatalities in this age group. This indicates that being under 40 is a risk factor for landing fatalities. Over 50% of USPA members have fewer than 250 jumps. Yet only 43% of landing fatalities are in this group. So what are we to conclude from that? Exactly, I was going to post the same thing. The data are meaningless w.r.t. analysis without this information. Even with it it's dodgy drawing conclusions but for all we know this could mean younger low jump skydivers are safer (not taking that position just illustrating the possibility). The explanation may come when you factor in jumps per skydiver which is a very reasonable thing to do. Many high jump skydivers jump a *lot*, so fatalities per skydiver per jump would be a true measure of safety w.r.t. how we intuitively perceive it. (there are different ways of looking at this). It also shows how you can sometimes use statistics to pull out a metric that supports any position you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #13 February 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteFOR EXAMPLE, USPA shows 53% of its members are under 40 yrs. Your data show 65% of landing fatalities in this age group. This indicates that being under 40 is a risk factor for landing fatalities. Anyone else have a hard time believing that only half the jumpers are under 40? In another thread someone mentioned the USPA ranks being inflated by inactive jumpers from the past with a lifetime membership. No DZ I've been at have that sort of age distribution. I'd venture the 50% point is much closer to 30. That said, I'm sure there is a age-fatality relationship not too different from that of drivers. Again jump numbers, people not showing up as often could easily explain any discrepancy, but folks also keep their memberships when they're not current, this could skew with age for obvious reasons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #14 February 17, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo DZ I've been at have that sort of age distribution. I'd venture the 50% point is much closer to 30. And how many DZ's have you been to? It that fact or just what you think? I seem to remember a call for hard data. Guessing doesn't count. From http://www.uspa.org/publications/index.htm QuoteSkydivers span the age range with a high concentration in the 25-45 range. That would seem to indicate that the majority of skydivers are below age 40. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 February 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteNo DZ I've been at have that sort of age distribution. I'd venture the 50% point is much closer to 30. And how many DZ's have you been to? It that fact or just what you think? I seem to remember a call for hard data. Guessing doesn't count. I've been to 7 DZs, 4 of them for more than a single visit. Virtually all in California. It doesn't seem like much of a reach to state that most active jumpers are under 40. It's pretty much what you'd expect given the nature of the sport. Phree told me of the large number of legacy USPA members. It's simple math to realize that subtracting them will lower the average age of the USPA membership. That's not guessing. Don't infer a suggestion that this can't be an old man sport. Just what's happening. Scuba, otoh, is definitely a greying sport, and so is motorcycling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sd-slider 0 #16 February 18, 2005 QuoteAt 25 (or 11) jumps, you haven't done shit........ Somebody call me? Great info regardless of skill level!Anvil Brother #69 Sidelined with a 5mm C5-C6 herniated disk... Back2Back slammers and 40yr old fat guys don't mix! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #17 February 18, 2005 QuoteIt also shows how you can sometimes use statistics to pull out a metric that supports any position you like. What this shows is that since 12/14/1995, 112 people died under good canopies in the US. That statistic supports one thing, that is way to many people dead. Now pull a "metric" out of that and support any damn thing you want. 112 PEOPLE DEAD UNDER A GOOD CANOPY. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DancingFlame 0 #18 February 18, 2005 Would you be so kind to post 'number of jumps per year' distribution? I guess that would be something like: 16-24 yrs: 30% 24-30 yrs: 30% 30-99 yrs: 40% Younger jumpers make 60% of total quantity. Only those who do nothing do not make mistakes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #19 February 18, 2005 I'm actually surprised the % of "landing under a good canopy" fatalities is so "low". Do you have a link to the data? I'd love to know how the other 63% is split. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #20 February 18, 2005 Out of 112 fatalities. Fewer than 500 jumps 17 yrs. – 25 yrs. = 15 or 13% 26 yrs. – 30 yrs. = 21 or 19% 31 yrs. – 35 yrs. = 10 or 9% 36 yrs. – 40 yrs. = 13 or 11% 41 yrs. – 45 yrs. = 16 or 14% 46 yrs. – 50 yrs. = 8 or 7% 50 yrs. – 99 yrs. = 11or 10% Total – 94 or 84% Fewer than 250 jumps 17 yrs. – 25 yrs. = 11 or 10% 26 yrs. – 30 yrs. = 13 or 11% 31 yrs. – 35 yrs. = 5 or 4% 36 yrs. – 40 yrs. = 10 or 9% 41 yrs. – 45 yrs. = 11 or 10% 46 yrs. – 50 yrs. = 8 or 7% 50 yrs. – 99 yrs. = 8 or 7% Total – 66 or 59% Source http://www.skydivingfatalities.info/ SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #21 February 18, 2005 QuoteOut of 112 fatalities. Fewer than 500 jumps ... Total – 94 or 84% Fewer than 250 jumps .... Total – 66 or 59% Source http://www.skydivingfatalities.info/ Sparky Your original post stated: Quote 68 or 61% of those had fewer than 500 jumps .... 49 or 43% had fewer than 250 jumps. There seems to be a fairly large discrepancy between these figures.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #22 February 18, 2005 Let me double check, shouldn't work with numbers when I am that tired. I will get back to you. Sparky I failed to notice that the search query defaults included "unknowns" in both jump number and age. Thank you for catching it. Corrected numbers. Out of 112 fatalities. Fewer than 500 jumps 17 yrs. – 25 yrs. = 11 or 12% 26 yrs. – 30 yrs. = 16 or 14% 31 yrs. – 35 yrs. = 5 or 4% 36 yrs. – 40 yrs. = 6 or 5% 41 yrs. – 45 yrs. = 9 or 8% 46 yrs. – 50 yrs. = 3 or 2% 50 yrs. – 99 yrs. = 6 or 5% Total – 56 or 50% Fewer than 250 jumps 17 yrs. – 25 yrs. = 9 or 8% 26 yrs. – 30 yrs. = 10 or 9% 31 yrs. – 35 yrs. = 2 or 1% 36 yrs. – 40 yrs. = 5 or 4% 41 yrs. – 45 yrs. = 6 or 5% 46 yrs. – 50 yrs. = 2 or 1% 50 yrs. – 99 yrs. = 5 or 4% Total – 39 or 35% SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
katiebear21 0 #23 February 18, 2005 Oh, that makes my head hurt taking me back to my statistical analysis days... that was before I got this easy job in the army, you know! Bottom line is, there's truly something to be learned by the figures. All you really have to do is go back and read one years' worth of injury/incident reports and you can see that young, low-timers, doing stupid things with their canopies are a high risk. Sad, but true. I'm sure the analysis is done somewhere and although the numbers might be a bit off I think they still tell a story. Katie Get your PMS glass necklace here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #24 February 18, 2005 QuoteOh, that makes my head hurt taking me back to my statistical analysis days... that was before I got this easy job in the army, you know! Bottom line is, there's truly something to be learned by the figures. All you really have to do is go back and read one years' worth of injury/incident reports and you can see that young, low-timers, doing stupid things with their canopies are a high risk. Sad, but true. I'm sure the analysis is done somewhere and although the numbers might be a bit off I think they still tell a story. Katie, I thing your assessment is correct even if my original numbers were not. But there continues to be resistance to any form of W/L restriction. Go figure. Sparky SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #25 February 18, 2005 John I don't think anyone disagrees that young males are more likley to get hurt over a 60 year old. But can you at least admit that young males WITH HP canopies are the largest segment at risk? A young male with a Raven III is not that likley to be in the incident reports. There are four things that are factors in this: 1. Age....Can't control that unless you rasie the age to skydive to 40. And there are plenty of factors in this as well. Most of the jumps in the US I would bet are made by 30-45 year olds, so it makes sense that they will have the most accidents...The group that jumps more has a higher exposure and therefore a greater chance of injury. 2. Experience...People with less are more likley to get hurt. 3. Sex...Males seem to hamer more than females. Again you can't control this, other than some stupid rule that only females can jump till 40. 4. Canopy type/wingload. 1 and 3 you can't control. 2 and 4 you can, and they are directly related...If you don't have the experience, then you should not be allowed a canopy that is higher than your experience. The FAA already does this for planes. A guy that just got his private can't fly your Mooney solo without additional instruction NO MATTER what."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
