DBCOOPER 1 #26 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuote..... is that there's no such thing as 95% dead. ....... By definition my Dublin Boogie Hangover qualifiedReplying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Eule 0 #27 October 19, 2006 "We live in the interface between radioactive molten rock and hard vacuum and we worry about safety." -- Chris Hunt First seen on Usenet 9/2001; attributed 10/2002. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites porterhouse 0 #28 October 19, 2006 "But you can do everything right and still die!"Quote I could not agree more. In everything in life, there is ALWAYS a 'Shit happens' factor. You can drive the safest car, maintain it fully, drive carefully, avoid bad weather, wear your seatbelt, and still slip on wet leaves and slide in front of an 18 wheeler and die. Sometimes you do everything right, and shit just happens. That goes for skydiving too. The key to being as safe as possible, while still pursuing your dreams is: "Control everything but the 'Shit Happens' factor, but don't let the 'Shit Happens' factor control you." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #29 October 19, 2006 Quote*** Every good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve, and by definition 95% or so aren't too far from the average (2 standard deviations, if I remember my math). Nope. Some things have binomial curves, some have Poisson, some have Fermi, some have Bose-Einstein, some have Maxwell-Boltzmann curves, and some have no known curve at all.... 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 squirrel 0 #30 October 19, 2006 This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. Plus, how many people actually do a safety check on thier cars everytime they drive, like we do on skydiving rigs, scuba gear, and flying trike. And, these systems have back up...I dont think cars have a "reserve brake system." Although semi tractors do have a somewhat failsafe brake system if air presure is lost. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #31 October 19, 2006 Quote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #32 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk. your forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #33 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk. your forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. and actually you have to throw in a multiplier for the fact that the average human idiot's eyes and brain are not conditioned enough to actively recongnize the form and shape of a bicycle rider instead of another car with 24" bling bling rims ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #34 October 19, 2006 Quoteyour forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. In that case I will go so far as to say that I think riding my bike on a fairly empty country lane is still far more dangerous than driving on a busy main road.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #35 October 19, 2006 i would have to disagree, and thats that. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Yossarian 0 #36 October 19, 2006 its all 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' you can make alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent. when people say deaths per mile or deaths per jump, why not say 'deaths per times you get behind the wheel' - thats got to raise the odds for driving fatalities and bring them more in line with jumping. but if we have to use miles, why not use miles with jumping as well, say we jump from 3 miles high, that triples something with the jump numbers (dont do maths, but its got to triple something...). it is true to say that in the UK (for one year anyway, dont know which) more people died playing golf than died skydiving. the fact that most of these were heart attacks suffered by some of golfs older players is not important to the person using that statistic to say skydiving is safe. another thing you could say for many fatalities in this sport relating to low turns etc is that skydiving is as safe as the participant. skydiving is safer for me, the conservative pilot who wont turn more than 20degrees under 300ft jumping a canopy loaded under 1, who wont jump in high winds, and packs slowly and carefully, than for the adrenaline junkie 100 jump wonder loaded at 1.8 intent on swooping every landing and trash-packing to make the next load. when all is said and done, for me skydiving is not the riskiest sport out there (although obviously thats subjective). for example, i think skiing and snowboarding are far more dangerous, and i could reel off a fair few reasons why, some people would object to and some you would agree with. and another thing.... i dont like averages, if a man is standing with one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer, on average, hes a comfortable chappy. ok that possibly isnt the most sensible thing to say but i thought it was funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #37 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteyour forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. In that case I will go so far as to say that I think riding my bike on a fairly empty country lane is still far more dangerous than driving on a busy main road. oh Dude! i just noticed that you are in the UK...no wonder riding on a country road is so dangerous...hell, your on the wrong side! ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Armour666 0 #38 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteEvery good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve, and by definition 95% or so aren't too far from the average (2 standard deviations, if I remember my math). The problem with applying that to our situation, is that there's no such thing as 95% dead. Life is binary. You havent dated my EX , One think that differs in numbers is how many skydiving accident are from out side controllable sources: IE: collisions from other jumpers compared to driving: and accidents from other drivers hitting you.SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #39 October 19, 2006 You're assuming danger only means fatality.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jumpah 0 #40 October 19, 2006 Quoteand another thing.... i dont like averages, if a man is standing with one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer, on average, hes a comfortable chappy. ok that possibly isnt the most sensible thing to say but i thought it was funny. Actually I think its right on with the issue here. What would be helpful would be to have more detail on what this "average" skydiver and "average" driver have in common...what age are they, what do they drive/fly, what diciplines are they involved in, is it a coupe or a monster SUV, what kind of traffic are they in and is it a Cessna or T.O. DZ, what are the roads like and what altitude is the landing area, do they drive in the snow or skydiving at night, do they swoop or speed ever, how good are their eyes, do they have medical issues, any physical imparements, mental issues? So...thats hard to put together. But if you knew ALL that, you could take it and apply it to yourself and see where YOU fit in to the grand average risk thing. Insurance risk is based on big averages. The reason your car insurance takes a dive overnight at 25 is because its cheaper for insurance companies to have people who are 25+. Nit pick the "well this is wrong because I do blah blah blah" all you want. On average approximately 1 in 100,000 skydives ends in a fatality. Based on what YOU do in skydiving and how that compares with the AVERAGE skydiver and you can ballpark where you are relative to risk. And every once in a while a big frigging hail storm comes through town and insurance companies fold up like newspaper unless they are reinsured through some Bermuda reinsurance company that employs 20 people and earns a hundred million a year in profit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kkeenan 13 #41 October 19, 2006 A lot of folks quote the "...do everything right and still die" line. Yes, it's true, but it occurs very, very rarely. I think that some people use this fatalistic approach to rationalize their less-than-safe attitudes and practices. Sure, shit can happen to someone who does everything right, but it is damn sure more likely to happen to someone who cuts corners in their procedures, slacks off in their education, fails to maintain their gear, etc. The "fewer parts" analogy is true for the failure of a system, i.e. wing falling off an airplane or wheel coming off a bicycle. Most modern skydiving accidents, however, are not the result of equipment failure, but of human error. I think that, while the relative "safety" of certain activities can be discussed by comparing accident rates, the real measure of safety lies in the individual operator. Some people operate with several layers of plans and ideas so that they are more easily able to deal with changing events. Some don't. Some people are prepared and equipped to handle emergencies. Some aren't. That's the measure of safety. Kevin_____________________________________ Dude, you are so awesome... Can I be on your ash jump ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,409 #42 October 19, 2006 >A lot of folks quote the "...do everything right and still die" line. In addition, they use it incorrectly. Someone who jumps a Velocity 96 loaded at 2.5 to 1 in gusty, turbulent winds, does their regular hook and has a canopy collapse was NOT "doing everything right" even if they've gotten away with it 99 times previously. Nor was someone who hasn't replaced their lineset in 700 jumps and has a toggle "just come off" as they flare. "Doing everything right" starts long before you get on the airplane, and includes gear maintenance, gear selection and good judgement about when/where/how to jump. The part of the skydive that can kill you starts well before freefall does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #43 October 19, 2006 QuoteEvery good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve. And every good mathematician knows this is only true in the case of independent identically distributed random variables with finite variance. more on the central limit theorem QuoteWorth remembering that each jump is a separate throw of the statistical die. The grim reaper doesn't know how many jumps you have done: If you have 99,999 jumps you won't die for sure on the next one. Your odds remain at 1/100,000 of dying on your 100,000th the same as dying on your first jump. This isn't true (and it's also fatalist to a scary degree.) There's no rule anywhere that says, "as a sample set becomes large, the individual trials become independent." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LloydDobbler 2 #44 October 19, 2006 Quoteits all 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' you can make alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent. when people say deaths per mile or deaths per jump, why not say 'deaths per times you get behind the wheel' - thats got to raise the odds for driving fatalities and bring them more in line with jumping. but if we have to use miles, why not use miles with jumping as well, say we jump from 3 miles high, that triples something with the jump numbers (dont do maths, but its got to triple something...). it is true to say that in the UK (for one year anyway, dont know which) more people died playing golf than died skydiving. the fact that most of these were heart attacks suffered by some of golfs older players is not important to the person using that statistic to say skydiving is safe. Though I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, I've gotta contribute here: This last paragraph is a prime example of someone "making alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent." The extent is the relative statistical ignorance of the person reading. In this case, the problem is that the only number we can use to compare the two (golf and skydiving) is a proportion. By that I mean, I imagine there are far more people in the UK playing golf every year than there are people skydiving. I'd also think there are far more games of golf played than there are skydives made, regardless of the number of people who do it. So in this case, saying that more people die playing golf means nothing. I'm sure a lot more people die walking their dogs across the world every day...but there are far more people who walk their dogs. However, this sort of comparison would mean something if I knew that I stood a better or worse chance of dying when I go out to play a round of golf than when I go out to make a single skydive. That's where the percentages come in (which is what the original poster was doing). Calculating a percent is pretty much the only way to equalize the variables (and even then, you can't fully equalize them, since golf has so many different conditions than skydiving, and since everyone's jumping habits are different). And yes, true, percentage-wise, you can't be 95% dead (Schroedinger's cat excluded)...but you can have a 95% chance of something bad happening. Again, doesn't mean it's going to happen every time...that's just the mean. Like the original poster said, you can definitely place yourself on the better side of that bell curve, however. Main thing is, if you collect enough data, you can tell how your chances stack up against the average golfer. If you're into that sort of thing. But ultimately, that's just chance. And obviously, chance is something we all bet against all the time. Like I said, though, I agree with a good deal of the rest of your post. Just hate it when omitted information gives the wrong impression - that's why so many people don't trust statistics, because most people throw numbers around so carelessly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skytash 0 #45 October 19, 2006 QuoteHere is something to think about, actuaries sit around all day and come up with risk factor numbers and things to apply to insurance formulas. If skydiving was really that safe why is it that premiums are sky high for jumpers? In the UK there is no life assurance available to the general public that includes death in the event of a skydiving accident. Working for one of the life assurance providers in the UK I asked one the actuaries about it. Unfortunately part of the reason premiums are either not priced (as in the UK) or really high is that there aren't enough of us around to give a high enough population amongst whom to spread the risk. Axa found this out to their detriment with their travel insurance. It ended up being the provider of choice amongst skydivers and the proportion of people taking it out and paying premiums vs the value of claims was such that it became too expensive to carry on and now it doesn't exist anymore. Wish we had some actuaries who weren't profit motivated tashDon't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DontPanic 0 #46 October 19, 2006 QuoteThe problem with applying that to our situation, is that there's no such thing as 95% dead. Life is binary. Death is binary. I find life to be kind of nuanced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bloody_trauma 2 #47 October 19, 2006 Quoteestimated 1.47 deaths how do you die 1.47 times, is that like worse than dying??Fly it like you stole it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites HydroGuy 0 #48 October 19, 2006 I once heard that you had a 1 in 1 chance of dying....Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #49 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteestimated 1.47 deaths how do you die 1.47 times, is that like worse than dying?? That isn't what he wrote. He wrote: "estimated 1.47 deaths resulted from each 100 million vehicle miles travelled" Maybe you should look up the meaning of "rate".... 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 FrogNog 1 #50 October 19, 2006 If you compare more than two transportation modes, things get really weird. I was shocked when I first learned that walking is hundreds of times more deadly than driving, in terms of deaths per distance. If this was adjusted for deaths-per-time-traveling, I'm sure it would look a lot different. Someone already mentioned this as a potentially valuable comparison adjustment for jumping vs. driving. But with walking they know some of the extra things that go wrong. It's clear that when a car strikes a pedestrian, the pedestrian doesn't have any equivalent protection to the big metal car. And car drivers run over pedestrians with regularity because they can't, or don't, or don't bother, to see them. (I've been hit twice myself on foot, but I escaped injury both times because they were "light" hits and I am moderately bouncy.) In skydiving, and in commercial airline flight, and in bicycling, and in driving a car, there are different things that can and do go wrong and contribute. So this is a field for debate about risk of injury and death based on types and severity of factors. But only numbers are comparable to each other to be able to say something is "more" or "less" than something else, and that's why we try to get the apples-to-apples comparisons of "deaths per distance" or "deaths per time" or whatever. These are all artificial to some degree. I don't care how far I've traveled; I care whether I got to work or the store or to my Aunt's house for Thanksgiving. I don't care how long I was in the plane; I care about how many friends I docked with or tandem pairs I saw smiling in freefall in front of me or students I watched drop off the strut for the first time in their life. But it would be hard to define an objective metric of deaths-per-enjoyment. I'd say skydiving has a lot more enjoyment per fatality than driving my car. (I really only have a great time in my car when it's stopped. ) -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Eule 0 #27 October 19, 2006 "We live in the interface between radioactive molten rock and hard vacuum and we worry about safety." -- Chris Hunt First seen on Usenet 9/2001; attributed 10/2002. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porterhouse 0 #28 October 19, 2006 "But you can do everything right and still die!"Quote I could not agree more. In everything in life, there is ALWAYS a 'Shit happens' factor. You can drive the safest car, maintain it fully, drive carefully, avoid bad weather, wear your seatbelt, and still slip on wet leaves and slide in front of an 18 wheeler and die. Sometimes you do everything right, and shit just happens. That goes for skydiving too. The key to being as safe as possible, while still pursuing your dreams is: "Control everything but the 'Shit Happens' factor, but don't let the 'Shit Happens' factor control you." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #29 October 19, 2006 Quote*** Every good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve, and by definition 95% or so aren't too far from the average (2 standard deviations, if I remember my math). Nope. Some things have binomial curves, some have Poisson, some have Fermi, some have Bose-Einstein, some have Maxwell-Boltzmann curves, and some have no known curve at all.... 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 squirrel 0 #30 October 19, 2006 This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. Plus, how many people actually do a safety check on thier cars everytime they drive, like we do on skydiving rigs, scuba gear, and flying trike. And, these systems have back up...I dont think cars have a "reserve brake system." Although semi tractors do have a somewhat failsafe brake system if air presure is lost. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #31 October 19, 2006 Quote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #32 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk. your forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #33 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk. your forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. and actually you have to throw in a multiplier for the fact that the average human idiot's eyes and brain are not conditioned enough to actively recongnize the form and shape of a bicycle rider instead of another car with 24" bling bling rims ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,257 #34 October 19, 2006 Quoteyour forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. In that case I will go so far as to say that I think riding my bike on a fairly empty country lane is still far more dangerous than driving on a busy main road.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #35 October 19, 2006 i would have to disagree, and thats that. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Yossarian 0 #36 October 19, 2006 its all 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' you can make alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent. when people say deaths per mile or deaths per jump, why not say 'deaths per times you get behind the wheel' - thats got to raise the odds for driving fatalities and bring them more in line with jumping. but if we have to use miles, why not use miles with jumping as well, say we jump from 3 miles high, that triples something with the jump numbers (dont do maths, but its got to triple something...). it is true to say that in the UK (for one year anyway, dont know which) more people died playing golf than died skydiving. the fact that most of these were heart attacks suffered by some of golfs older players is not important to the person using that statistic to say skydiving is safe. another thing you could say for many fatalities in this sport relating to low turns etc is that skydiving is as safe as the participant. skydiving is safer for me, the conservative pilot who wont turn more than 20degrees under 300ft jumping a canopy loaded under 1, who wont jump in high winds, and packs slowly and carefully, than for the adrenaline junkie 100 jump wonder loaded at 1.8 intent on swooping every landing and trash-packing to make the next load. when all is said and done, for me skydiving is not the riskiest sport out there (although obviously thats subjective). for example, i think skiing and snowboarding are far more dangerous, and i could reel off a fair few reasons why, some people would object to and some you would agree with. and another thing.... i dont like averages, if a man is standing with one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer, on average, hes a comfortable chappy. ok that possibly isnt the most sensible thing to say but i thought it was funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites squirrel 0 #37 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteyour forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. In that case I will go so far as to say that I think riding my bike on a fairly empty country lane is still far more dangerous than driving on a busy main road. oh Dude! i just noticed that you are in the UK...no wonder riding on a country road is so dangerous...hell, your on the wrong side! ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Armour666 0 #38 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteEvery good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve, and by definition 95% or so aren't too far from the average (2 standard deviations, if I remember my math). The problem with applying that to our situation, is that there's no such thing as 95% dead. Life is binary. You havent dated my EX , One think that differs in numbers is how many skydiving accident are from out side controllable sources: IE: collisions from other jumpers compared to driving: and accidents from other drivers hitting you.SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #39 October 19, 2006 You're assuming danger only means fatality.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jumpah 0 #40 October 19, 2006 Quoteand another thing.... i dont like averages, if a man is standing with one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer, on average, hes a comfortable chappy. ok that possibly isnt the most sensible thing to say but i thought it was funny. Actually I think its right on with the issue here. What would be helpful would be to have more detail on what this "average" skydiver and "average" driver have in common...what age are they, what do they drive/fly, what diciplines are they involved in, is it a coupe or a monster SUV, what kind of traffic are they in and is it a Cessna or T.O. DZ, what are the roads like and what altitude is the landing area, do they drive in the snow or skydiving at night, do they swoop or speed ever, how good are their eyes, do they have medical issues, any physical imparements, mental issues? So...thats hard to put together. But if you knew ALL that, you could take it and apply it to yourself and see where YOU fit in to the grand average risk thing. Insurance risk is based on big averages. The reason your car insurance takes a dive overnight at 25 is because its cheaper for insurance companies to have people who are 25+. Nit pick the "well this is wrong because I do blah blah blah" all you want. On average approximately 1 in 100,000 skydives ends in a fatality. Based on what YOU do in skydiving and how that compares with the AVERAGE skydiver and you can ballpark where you are relative to risk. And every once in a while a big frigging hail storm comes through town and insurance companies fold up like newspaper unless they are reinsured through some Bermuda reinsurance company that employs 20 people and earns a hundred million a year in profit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kkeenan 13 #41 October 19, 2006 A lot of folks quote the "...do everything right and still die" line. Yes, it's true, but it occurs very, very rarely. I think that some people use this fatalistic approach to rationalize their less-than-safe attitudes and practices. Sure, shit can happen to someone who does everything right, but it is damn sure more likely to happen to someone who cuts corners in their procedures, slacks off in their education, fails to maintain their gear, etc. The "fewer parts" analogy is true for the failure of a system, i.e. wing falling off an airplane or wheel coming off a bicycle. Most modern skydiving accidents, however, are not the result of equipment failure, but of human error. I think that, while the relative "safety" of certain activities can be discussed by comparing accident rates, the real measure of safety lies in the individual operator. Some people operate with several layers of plans and ideas so that they are more easily able to deal with changing events. Some don't. Some people are prepared and equipped to handle emergencies. Some aren't. That's the measure of safety. Kevin_____________________________________ Dude, you are so awesome... Can I be on your ash jump ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,409 #42 October 19, 2006 >A lot of folks quote the "...do everything right and still die" line. In addition, they use it incorrectly. Someone who jumps a Velocity 96 loaded at 2.5 to 1 in gusty, turbulent winds, does their regular hook and has a canopy collapse was NOT "doing everything right" even if they've gotten away with it 99 times previously. Nor was someone who hasn't replaced their lineset in 700 jumps and has a toggle "just come off" as they flare. "Doing everything right" starts long before you get on the airplane, and includes gear maintenance, gear selection and good judgement about when/where/how to jump. The part of the skydive that can kill you starts well before freefall does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #43 October 19, 2006 QuoteEvery good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve. And every good mathematician knows this is only true in the case of independent identically distributed random variables with finite variance. more on the central limit theorem QuoteWorth remembering that each jump is a separate throw of the statistical die. The grim reaper doesn't know how many jumps you have done: If you have 99,999 jumps you won't die for sure on the next one. Your odds remain at 1/100,000 of dying on your 100,000th the same as dying on your first jump. This isn't true (and it's also fatalist to a scary degree.) There's no rule anywhere that says, "as a sample set becomes large, the individual trials become independent." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LloydDobbler 2 #44 October 19, 2006 Quoteits all 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' you can make alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent. when people say deaths per mile or deaths per jump, why not say 'deaths per times you get behind the wheel' - thats got to raise the odds for driving fatalities and bring them more in line with jumping. but if we have to use miles, why not use miles with jumping as well, say we jump from 3 miles high, that triples something with the jump numbers (dont do maths, but its got to triple something...). it is true to say that in the UK (for one year anyway, dont know which) more people died playing golf than died skydiving. the fact that most of these were heart attacks suffered by some of golfs older players is not important to the person using that statistic to say skydiving is safe. Though I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, I've gotta contribute here: This last paragraph is a prime example of someone "making alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent." The extent is the relative statistical ignorance of the person reading. In this case, the problem is that the only number we can use to compare the two (golf and skydiving) is a proportion. By that I mean, I imagine there are far more people in the UK playing golf every year than there are people skydiving. I'd also think there are far more games of golf played than there are skydives made, regardless of the number of people who do it. So in this case, saying that more people die playing golf means nothing. I'm sure a lot more people die walking their dogs across the world every day...but there are far more people who walk their dogs. However, this sort of comparison would mean something if I knew that I stood a better or worse chance of dying when I go out to play a round of golf than when I go out to make a single skydive. That's where the percentages come in (which is what the original poster was doing). Calculating a percent is pretty much the only way to equalize the variables (and even then, you can't fully equalize them, since golf has so many different conditions than skydiving, and since everyone's jumping habits are different). And yes, true, percentage-wise, you can't be 95% dead (Schroedinger's cat excluded)...but you can have a 95% chance of something bad happening. Again, doesn't mean it's going to happen every time...that's just the mean. Like the original poster said, you can definitely place yourself on the better side of that bell curve, however. Main thing is, if you collect enough data, you can tell how your chances stack up against the average golfer. If you're into that sort of thing. But ultimately, that's just chance. And obviously, chance is something we all bet against all the time. Like I said, though, I agree with a good deal of the rest of your post. Just hate it when omitted information gives the wrong impression - that's why so many people don't trust statistics, because most people throw numbers around so carelessly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skytash 0 #45 October 19, 2006 QuoteHere is something to think about, actuaries sit around all day and come up with risk factor numbers and things to apply to insurance formulas. If skydiving was really that safe why is it that premiums are sky high for jumpers? In the UK there is no life assurance available to the general public that includes death in the event of a skydiving accident. Working for one of the life assurance providers in the UK I asked one the actuaries about it. Unfortunately part of the reason premiums are either not priced (as in the UK) or really high is that there aren't enough of us around to give a high enough population amongst whom to spread the risk. Axa found this out to their detriment with their travel insurance. It ended up being the provider of choice amongst skydivers and the proportion of people taking it out and paying premiums vs the value of claims was such that it became too expensive to carry on and now it doesn't exist anymore. Wish we had some actuaries who weren't profit motivated tashDon't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DontPanic 0 #46 October 19, 2006 QuoteThe problem with applying that to our situation, is that there's no such thing as 95% dead. Life is binary. Death is binary. I find life to be kind of nuanced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bloody_trauma 2 #47 October 19, 2006 Quoteestimated 1.47 deaths how do you die 1.47 times, is that like worse than dying??Fly it like you stole it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites HydroGuy 0 #48 October 19, 2006 I once heard that you had a 1 in 1 chance of dying....Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,635 #49 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteestimated 1.47 deaths how do you die 1.47 times, is that like worse than dying?? That isn't what he wrote. He wrote: "estimated 1.47 deaths resulted from each 100 million vehicle miles travelled" Maybe you should look up the meaning of "rate".... 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 FrogNog 1 #50 October 19, 2006 If you compare more than two transportation modes, things get really weird. I was shocked when I first learned that walking is hundreds of times more deadly than driving, in terms of deaths per distance. If this was adjusted for deaths-per-time-traveling, I'm sure it would look a lot different. Someone already mentioned this as a potentially valuable comparison adjustment for jumping vs. driving. But with walking they know some of the extra things that go wrong. It's clear that when a car strikes a pedestrian, the pedestrian doesn't have any equivalent protection to the big metal car. And car drivers run over pedestrians with regularity because they can't, or don't, or don't bother, to see them. (I've been hit twice myself on foot, but I escaped injury both times because they were "light" hits and I am moderately bouncy.) In skydiving, and in commercial airline flight, and in bicycling, and in driving a car, there are different things that can and do go wrong and contribute. So this is a field for debate about risk of injury and death based on types and severity of factors. But only numbers are comparable to each other to be able to say something is "more" or "less" than something else, and that's why we try to get the apples-to-apples comparisons of "deaths per distance" or "deaths per time" or whatever. These are all artificial to some degree. I don't care how far I've traveled; I care whether I got to work or the store or to my Aunt's house for Thanksgiving. I don't care how long I was in the plane; I care about how many friends I docked with or tandem pairs I saw smiling in freefall in front of me or students I watched drop off the strut for the first time in their life. But it would be hard to define an objective metric of deaths-per-enjoyment. I'd say skydiving has a lot more enjoyment per fatality than driving my car. (I really only have a great time in my car when it's stopped. ) -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 1,635 #29 October 19, 2006 Quote*** Every good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve, and by definition 95% or so aren't too far from the average (2 standard deviations, if I remember my math). Nope. Some things have binomial curves, some have Poisson, some have Fermi, some have Bose-Einstein, some have Maxwell-Boltzmann curves, and some have no known curve at all.... 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
squirrel 0 #30 October 19, 2006 This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. Plus, how many people actually do a safety check on thier cars everytime they drive, like we do on skydiving rigs, scuba gear, and flying trike. And, these systems have back up...I dont think cars have a "reserve brake system." Although semi tractors do have a somewhat failsafe brake system if air presure is lost. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #31 October 19, 2006 Quote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #32 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk. your forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #33 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote This might be a simplistic way to look at risk, but I factor in how many individual parts are involved in an activity...the more parts, the more people (idiots) touched those parts, thus an increase to my personal safety. Thus, comercial jet airplane with lots of parts = risk. And, my trike with few parts, and ballistic reserve = lower risk. ok...go ahead, blast away at this post. Uh, ok. Me driving my car on the road - lots of parts - some risk. Me cycling on the road - way less parts - way more risk. your forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. and actually you have to throw in a multiplier for the fact that the average human idiot's eyes and brain are not conditioned enough to actively recongnize the form and shape of a bicycle rider instead of another car with 24" bling bling rims ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #34 October 19, 2006 Quoteyour forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. In that case I will go so far as to say that I think riding my bike on a fairly empty country lane is still far more dangerous than driving on a busy main road.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #35 October 19, 2006 i would have to disagree, and thats that. ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yossarian 0 #36 October 19, 2006 its all 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' you can make alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent. when people say deaths per mile or deaths per jump, why not say 'deaths per times you get behind the wheel' - thats got to raise the odds for driving fatalities and bring them more in line with jumping. but if we have to use miles, why not use miles with jumping as well, say we jump from 3 miles high, that triples something with the jump numbers (dont do maths, but its got to triple something...). it is true to say that in the UK (for one year anyway, dont know which) more people died playing golf than died skydiving. the fact that most of these were heart attacks suffered by some of golfs older players is not important to the person using that statistic to say skydiving is safe. another thing you could say for many fatalities in this sport relating to low turns etc is that skydiving is as safe as the participant. skydiving is safer for me, the conservative pilot who wont turn more than 20degrees under 300ft jumping a canopy loaded under 1, who wont jump in high winds, and packs slowly and carefully, than for the adrenaline junkie 100 jump wonder loaded at 1.8 intent on swooping every landing and trash-packing to make the next load. when all is said and done, for me skydiving is not the riskiest sport out there (although obviously thats subjective). for example, i think skiing and snowboarding are far more dangerous, and i could reel off a fair few reasons why, some people would object to and some you would agree with. and another thing.... i dont like averages, if a man is standing with one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer, on average, hes a comfortable chappy. ok that possibly isnt the most sensible thing to say but i thought it was funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squirrel 0 #37 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteyour forgot to carry your units, like in math class. riding your bike on the road, and driving your car, the number of idiots is constant. In that case I will go so far as to say that I think riding my bike on a fairly empty country lane is still far more dangerous than driving on a busy main road. oh Dude! i just noticed that you are in the UK...no wonder riding on a country road is so dangerous...hell, your on the wrong side! ________________________________ Where is Darwin when you need him? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armour666 0 #38 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteEvery good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve, and by definition 95% or so aren't too far from the average (2 standard deviations, if I remember my math). The problem with applying that to our situation, is that there's no such thing as 95% dead. Life is binary. You havent dated my EX , One think that differs in numbers is how many skydiving accident are from out side controllable sources: IE: collisions from other jumpers compared to driving: and accidents from other drivers hitting you.SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #39 October 19, 2006 You're assuming danger only means fatality.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpah 0 #40 October 19, 2006 Quoteand another thing.... i dont like averages, if a man is standing with one foot in the oven and the other in the freezer, on average, hes a comfortable chappy. ok that possibly isnt the most sensible thing to say but i thought it was funny. Actually I think its right on with the issue here. What would be helpful would be to have more detail on what this "average" skydiver and "average" driver have in common...what age are they, what do they drive/fly, what diciplines are they involved in, is it a coupe or a monster SUV, what kind of traffic are they in and is it a Cessna or T.O. DZ, what are the roads like and what altitude is the landing area, do they drive in the snow or skydiving at night, do they swoop or speed ever, how good are their eyes, do they have medical issues, any physical imparements, mental issues? So...thats hard to put together. But if you knew ALL that, you could take it and apply it to yourself and see where YOU fit in to the grand average risk thing. Insurance risk is based on big averages. The reason your car insurance takes a dive overnight at 25 is because its cheaper for insurance companies to have people who are 25+. Nit pick the "well this is wrong because I do blah blah blah" all you want. On average approximately 1 in 100,000 skydives ends in a fatality. Based on what YOU do in skydiving and how that compares with the AVERAGE skydiver and you can ballpark where you are relative to risk. And every once in a while a big frigging hail storm comes through town and insurance companies fold up like newspaper unless they are reinsured through some Bermuda reinsurance company that employs 20 people and earns a hundred million a year in profit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkeenan 13 #41 October 19, 2006 A lot of folks quote the "...do everything right and still die" line. Yes, it's true, but it occurs very, very rarely. I think that some people use this fatalistic approach to rationalize their less-than-safe attitudes and practices. Sure, shit can happen to someone who does everything right, but it is damn sure more likely to happen to someone who cuts corners in their procedures, slacks off in their education, fails to maintain their gear, etc. The "fewer parts" analogy is true for the failure of a system, i.e. wing falling off an airplane or wheel coming off a bicycle. Most modern skydiving accidents, however, are not the result of equipment failure, but of human error. I think that, while the relative "safety" of certain activities can be discussed by comparing accident rates, the real measure of safety lies in the individual operator. Some people operate with several layers of plans and ideas so that they are more easily able to deal with changing events. Some don't. Some people are prepared and equipped to handle emergencies. Some aren't. That's the measure of safety. Kevin_____________________________________ Dude, you are so awesome... Can I be on your ash jump ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,409 #42 October 19, 2006 >A lot of folks quote the "...do everything right and still die" line. In addition, they use it incorrectly. Someone who jumps a Velocity 96 loaded at 2.5 to 1 in gusty, turbulent winds, does their regular hook and has a canopy collapse was NOT "doing everything right" even if they've gotten away with it 99 times previously. Nor was someone who hasn't replaced their lineset in 700 jumps and has a toggle "just come off" as they flare. "Doing everything right" starts long before you get on the airplane, and includes gear maintenance, gear selection and good judgement about when/where/how to jump. The part of the skydive that can kill you starts well before freefall does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #43 October 19, 2006 QuoteEvery good statistician knows that everything has a bell curve. And every good mathematician knows this is only true in the case of independent identically distributed random variables with finite variance. more on the central limit theorem QuoteWorth remembering that each jump is a separate throw of the statistical die. The grim reaper doesn't know how many jumps you have done: If you have 99,999 jumps you won't die for sure on the next one. Your odds remain at 1/100,000 of dying on your 100,000th the same as dying on your first jump. This isn't true (and it's also fatalist to a scary degree.) There's no rule anywhere that says, "as a sample set becomes large, the individual trials become independent." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LloydDobbler 2 #44 October 19, 2006 Quoteits all 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' you can make alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent. when people say deaths per mile or deaths per jump, why not say 'deaths per times you get behind the wheel' - thats got to raise the odds for driving fatalities and bring them more in line with jumping. but if we have to use miles, why not use miles with jumping as well, say we jump from 3 miles high, that triples something with the jump numbers (dont do maths, but its got to triple something...). it is true to say that in the UK (for one year anyway, dont know which) more people died playing golf than died skydiving. the fact that most of these were heart attacks suffered by some of golfs older players is not important to the person using that statistic to say skydiving is safe. Though I agree with a lot of the rest of your post, I've gotta contribute here: This last paragraph is a prime example of someone "making alot of statistics say exactly what you want them to say to an extent." The extent is the relative statistical ignorance of the person reading. In this case, the problem is that the only number we can use to compare the two (golf and skydiving) is a proportion. By that I mean, I imagine there are far more people in the UK playing golf every year than there are people skydiving. I'd also think there are far more games of golf played than there are skydives made, regardless of the number of people who do it. So in this case, saying that more people die playing golf means nothing. I'm sure a lot more people die walking their dogs across the world every day...but there are far more people who walk their dogs. However, this sort of comparison would mean something if I knew that I stood a better or worse chance of dying when I go out to play a round of golf than when I go out to make a single skydive. That's where the percentages come in (which is what the original poster was doing). Calculating a percent is pretty much the only way to equalize the variables (and even then, you can't fully equalize them, since golf has so many different conditions than skydiving, and since everyone's jumping habits are different). And yes, true, percentage-wise, you can't be 95% dead (Schroedinger's cat excluded)...but you can have a 95% chance of something bad happening. Again, doesn't mean it's going to happen every time...that's just the mean. Like the original poster said, you can definitely place yourself on the better side of that bell curve, however. Main thing is, if you collect enough data, you can tell how your chances stack up against the average golfer. If you're into that sort of thing. But ultimately, that's just chance. And obviously, chance is something we all bet against all the time. Like I said, though, I agree with a good deal of the rest of your post. Just hate it when omitted information gives the wrong impression - that's why so many people don't trust statistics, because most people throw numbers around so carelessly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skytash 0 #45 October 19, 2006 QuoteHere is something to think about, actuaries sit around all day and come up with risk factor numbers and things to apply to insurance formulas. If skydiving was really that safe why is it that premiums are sky high for jumpers? In the UK there is no life assurance available to the general public that includes death in the event of a skydiving accident. Working for one of the life assurance providers in the UK I asked one the actuaries about it. Unfortunately part of the reason premiums are either not priced (as in the UK) or really high is that there aren't enough of us around to give a high enough population amongst whom to spread the risk. Axa found this out to their detriment with their travel insurance. It ended up being the provider of choice amongst skydivers and the proportion of people taking it out and paying premiums vs the value of claims was such that it became too expensive to carry on and now it doesn't exist anymore. Wish we had some actuaries who weren't profit motivated tashDon't ever save anything for a special occasion. Being alive is a special occasion. Avril Sloe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DontPanic 0 #46 October 19, 2006 QuoteThe problem with applying that to our situation, is that there's no such thing as 95% dead. Life is binary. Death is binary. I find life to be kind of nuanced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bloody_trauma 2 #47 October 19, 2006 Quoteestimated 1.47 deaths how do you die 1.47 times, is that like worse than dying??Fly it like you stole it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HydroGuy 0 #48 October 19, 2006 I once heard that you had a 1 in 1 chance of dying....Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #49 October 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteestimated 1.47 deaths how do you die 1.47 times, is that like worse than dying?? That isn't what he wrote. He wrote: "estimated 1.47 deaths resulted from each 100 million vehicle miles travelled" Maybe you should look up the meaning of "rate".... 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
FrogNog 1 #50 October 19, 2006 If you compare more than two transportation modes, things get really weird. I was shocked when I first learned that walking is hundreds of times more deadly than driving, in terms of deaths per distance. If this was adjusted for deaths-per-time-traveling, I'm sure it would look a lot different. Someone already mentioned this as a potentially valuable comparison adjustment for jumping vs. driving. But with walking they know some of the extra things that go wrong. It's clear that when a car strikes a pedestrian, the pedestrian doesn't have any equivalent protection to the big metal car. And car drivers run over pedestrians with regularity because they can't, or don't, or don't bother, to see them. (I've been hit twice myself on foot, but I escaped injury both times because they were "light" hits and I am moderately bouncy.) In skydiving, and in commercial airline flight, and in bicycling, and in driving a car, there are different things that can and do go wrong and contribute. So this is a field for debate about risk of injury and death based on types and severity of factors. But only numbers are comparable to each other to be able to say something is "more" or "less" than something else, and that's why we try to get the apples-to-apples comparisons of "deaths per distance" or "deaths per time" or whatever. These are all artificial to some degree. I don't care how far I've traveled; I care whether I got to work or the store or to my Aunt's house for Thanksgiving. I don't care how long I was in the plane; I care about how many friends I docked with or tandem pairs I saw smiling in freefall in front of me or students I watched drop off the strut for the first time in their life. But it would be hard to define an objective metric of deaths-per-enjoyment. I'd say skydiving has a lot more enjoyment per fatality than driving my car. (I really only have a great time in my car when it's stopped. ) -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
