jheadley 0 #26 March 23, 2006 One thing I've noticed... An inexperienced skydiver thinks that skydiving is safe, and tells other people it's safe, trying to get them to jump too. An experienced skydiver knows that it's not safe, because he's seen his friends get hurt and killed, and may have even gotten hurt or almost killed himself, but a lot of time he still tells people it's safe, because he wants them to jump. The inexperienced skydiver just doesn't know any better, but is it irresponsible of the experienced skydiver to tell a whuffo that skydiving is safe if he's trying to convince him to jump? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
staysafe 0 #27 March 23, 2006 You bring up an interesting point. I also come from a rock climbing background and used to do alot of guiding. The one main difference I have found between the two sports, however, is that in climbing, wit he exception of aid, the gear is generally there as a backup. It is meant to keep you safe if you fail. In skydiving the gear is primary. If it fails, you have a second set (reserve). This is just an observation, but has been very different for me mentally than climbing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bergen 0 #28 March 23, 2006 Perhaps your first mistake is trying to pursuade someone your theory is true before the theory has been properly tested. Calling a sport safe or unsafe represents a misunderstanding of the concept of safetry. Safety is a usable concept when describing a set of operating practices and determining whether they are designed to minimize injury, damage, or risk. Perhaps a better thesis for your paper is that most skydiving mishaps are avoidable and are the result of human error. While this is true for most high demand endeavors (60-80%,) the perception out there may be that most skydiving injuries are the reult of catastrophic equipment failure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #29 March 23, 2006 Quote The one main difference I have found between the two sports, however, is that in climbing, wit he exception of aid, the gear is generally there as a backup. It is meant to keep you safe if you fail. In skydiving the gear is primary. If it fails, you have a second set (reserve). Another way to look at it is that your hands and feet in climbing are your main, and the gear and rope are your reserve. I do get your point though. I would say that rappelling is a slightly better metaphor. When you lean back over the edge you are completely and totally reliant on your gear and your ability to use it correctly. If the gear fails on rappel, you die. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kevinwhelan 0 #30 March 23, 2006 QuoteI am writing a persuasive pap for English311 and the point is to persuade people that skydiving is actually quite safe. If you have ANY info on this subject I'd be glad to have it. Thanks! Tawnya This can very easily be done The problem with the word 'safe' is in its definition from the dictionary Safe... free from harm or risk Nothing in life is free from risk, so the word safe then has to take on a more personal meaning. ie. is it safe enough that the risk is worth the benefit. Much like driving a motorcycle. So if we use this meaning, yes it is safe, to the people who skydive . To persuade people who don't skydive that it is safe, you need to get the point across that skydiving is not a sport only for the top 1% loony daredevils, and all skydivers don't have a death wish. You must show them that all the things done to reduce risk in the sport, brings this risk to an acceptable level. So it is by the above (second definition) it is safe. Is it as safe as xxxxx? well that is a different question. Dose it add a lot of risk to the average life? Hell yes. "be honest with yourself. Why do I want to go smaller? It is not going to make my penis longer." ~Brian Germain, on downsizing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #31 March 24, 2006 Interesting observation. One needs to be trained for something to be "relatively safe" compared to no training. If you just deathcamp someone (give them a parachute and push them out of a plane with NO instruction), it is definitely extremely dangerous. Instant death easily possible too. The AAD and reserve won't always help. Same goes if you put a first-time-driver teenager in the driver's seat of SUV and put him on the 8-lane freeway with NO driver's education at all, it is definitely also extremely dangerous too. Instant death easily possible too. The airbag and seatbelt won't always help. But to a properly trained skydiver or to a properly trained driver, they are "relatively" safe, in a "manner" of speaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #32 March 24, 2006 Could you give us a hand here and let us know if this is simply for a debate style class where you are simply trying to win the argument for the sake of learning how to debate or are you actually trying to convince people that skydiving really is actually safe in real life? If the former, we may be willing (and probably perfectly able) to help you. Learning to debate a position which is apparently untenable is a valuable skill... I still remember my first - I successfully argued that cutting down the rainforest was a good thing and necessary for the preservation of the world's climate. Trying to convince people that skydiving is actually safe is probably a good test of that skill... because it definitely isn't safe. If the latter however... you probably realize already from the posts above mine that skydivers aren’t going to help you lie to people about this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StearmanR985 0 #33 March 24, 2006 Don't let all these "up jumpers" fool you when they try to tell you skydiving isn't safe. They just don't want the public knowing just how safe it really is 'cause then it wouldn't be cool to be a skydiver anymore! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #34 March 25, 2006 How are we defining "safe?" If by "safe" we mean the absence of any risk, then, no, it's not safe. If we mean a high probability of success, and a low probability of failure (provided the participants follow proper procedures and make few errors) then we can state with some credibility that the sport is safe. Fine. So why am I still scared? Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sixtysevengt5oo 0 #35 March 27, 2006 What you need is a little coaching on how to lie with statistics. A true persuasve paper looks at the arguments against your position, and give evidence to counter each of them very methodicly. If you want to convince someone that skydiving is safe you dont want to tell them that the reserve is there just incase the main fails. A simple argument blows that out of the water, the truth is that any given main can and will fail eventually and every precausion is taken to increase the probability that the reserve opens afterwards. You can just give statements that dont address the counter -argument. Lies are the easiest thing to counter, when you say that you are more likely to die playing a round fo golf, i would simply ask if those deaths are realated to the game itself, and you'd be sunk. If instead i said that while skydiving you are more likely do die of natural causes in the plain, or on the ground waiting to go up, or even in the air, than you are from a direct realation to skydiving, you wouldnt have a le to stand on. If you are able to preempt the most common arguments as to why skydiving isnt safe in the paper the less amunition someone has afterwards to still claim it is unsafe. Also blatantly lying leads to mistrust and a higher likelyhood that whatever you say subsequently would be less persuasive. Good ideas for Skydive = Safe paper: -Noting that skydiving, like every action in life is a risk calculation -Noting that most "dangerous" activities that we participate in we do without ever assesing those risks (i.e. driving a car, eating canned food or raw oysters) -Throughly explaining the extensive measures to reduce risks -explaining the cause of most injuries and deaths -then using some real would comparissons to other "dangerous activities" (i.e. scuba) this allows people to compare their own lifestyle to one that includes skydiving -a cool manipulation of statistics, even though true, just a little contorted is that there are approx. 30 deaths in the US per year recorded due to skydiving, there are approx. 3 million skydives recorded each year in the US, do the math, approx, 1 per 100,000, the avg. lifespan is approx. 70 years X 365 days = 25,550 days in a life, meaning that if you made one skydive every day of your life, you would only have a 1/4 chance of being killed by it. Yeah this doesnt take into account other serious injuries, but that is another topic of safety. -And finely for some irrefutable "logic" talk about how the real safety of a skydiver depends on how safe the skydiver carries himself, that the mitigated risks of skydiving can be further mitigated by a skydiver that always acts with descresion. you do all those things and there isnt much someone can say that would make skydivng sound "unsafe" aside from agreeing with you that safety is a risk assesment term. p.s. I am not saying that skydiving is "safe," do i think it is safe enough to take the risk and be able to know what it feels like to fly, hell yeah else i wouldnt be doing it, but by damn it could be a lot more dangerous than it is and id still be in the air. Big thanks to all of those that have worked to make it as safe as it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
