Canopy loading (was: accident at Greensburg)

[Ron 7]

And I bet that there are more jumps made by the over 500 than by the under 500 each year.

Since the USPA counts the AFF students that joined, but never finnished the program in the counts.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[craddock 0]

Quote

So it would seem that there are more sydives made by those with over 500 jumps...So they should have more accidents right?

Should they? Are you sure they don't?

I might think that the group with less experience would have more accidents than the group with much more experience and currency. I think you have been trying to convey this yourself only you insist on throwing wingloading in the statement. (Or do you think experienced folks are at a higher risk of getting injured because the do more jumps per year?)

Now factor in that the group with less experience also has the most participants.... Oh -but they don't crank out that many jumps so they should not get hurt as much. I see. (not to be confused with I agree)

Josh

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, that argument doesn't work.
According to the USPA web site, there are a lot more under 500 jump skydivers than over 500 jump
skydivers, so one would expect them to have more accidents even if there is no correlation of accident rate
with jump numbers.

And I would bet that more skydives are made by those with over 500 jumps than those under...Since USPA counts those that only made one, but joined the USPA. I personally know several jumpers that make 1,000 jumps a year. And I know several USPA members that only make 40 a year.

So it would seem that there are more skydives made by those with over 500 jumps...So they should have more accidents right?

Well, in your first paragraph it's an "I bet", but by the second paragraph it has become a fact. That's what I really find disturbing about your arguments. You can't back tham up with anything other than hunches.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Age can equal experience right?

Really? By age 53 I had made <40 jumps.

Age is age, experience is experience. WHy don't the auto insurers ask my son how much driving he's done instead of asking how old he is?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

It is clear kallend does not accept anything that cannot be backed up by statistics and research – a very “academic” view.

I think however that in the "real world" we many times have to take decisions without hard data - we do it based on experience and reasoning. I work in the corporate world at a reasonable senior level - and I can tell you, important decisions are very often made without perfect data. These decisions are based on assumptions based on experience and observation. Perfect data is mostly not available.

It is the same at home, when I teach my 4 year old boy not to do this or that because it is unsafe, it is not because I have statistics I can show him, it is because my live experience has taught me so.

The people who kallend disagrees with have many years in the sport, many work on DZ's and they have thousands of jumps. Don't tell me that this does not count. First hand experience is very important and is often more accurate then statistics. A lot of research based on scientific methods has been shown to be wrong.
In marketing, 9 out of 10 product launches in the consumer market fail and I can tell you that all these new products have been thoroughly researched using scientific methods and statistics. Some of the most successful products ever launched, were based on somebodies conviction that this was the right thing to do based on "gut" and experience and they were not “scientifically researched” at all.

Now, I have been on and off involved in the sport for 25 years. I know jack shit, because I always been a "fun jumper" and had lot of yearlong breaks between jumps. However, the thing I "know" is that when I first started people did not get killed and injured under good canopy in the way they do now. If I correctly remember some available USPA stats that I have seen, the fatality rate today per 100 thousand jumps is about half of what it was 10/20 years ago IF you discount the canopy landing related incidents. The reasons I assume are mainly better equipment (incluing AAD's) and better training. However, due to the landing incidents the total fatality rate has not decreased significantly.

So we are seeing a fatality and serious injury rate that is "unnecessary" because it happens under perfectly working canopies. So what do we do about it? (I assume people want to reduce these incidents – I am however aware that there are proponents of “Darwin”)

On one hand you have many very experienced skydivers that have seen lots of these incidents, who know the people who "went in" and who based on their experience say that IF you want to change this situation you need to introduce some form of regulation and mandatory training.
On the other hand you have people like kallend say we should maintain status quo because we do not have enough stats and scientific research on the matter.

I know where my vote is.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

However we will never get the Data you want.

Ron, have you asked for it?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

It is clear kallend does not accept anything that cannot be backed up by statistics and research – a very “academic” view.

I think however that in the "real world" we many times have to take decisions without hard data - we do it based on experience and reasoning. I work in the corporate world at a reasonable senior level - and I can tell you, important decisions are very often made without perfect data. These decisions are based on assumptions based on experience and observation. Perfect data is mostly not available.

It is the same at home, when I teach my 4 year old boy not to do this or that because it is unsafe, it is not because I have statistics I can show him, it is because my live experience has taught me so.

The people who kallend disagrees with have many years in the sport, many work on DZ's and they have thousands of jumps. Don't tell me that this does not count. First hand experience is very important and is often more accurate then statistics. A lot of research based on scientific methods has been shown to be wrong.
In marketing, 9 out of 10 product launches in the consumer market fail and I can tell you that all these new products have been thoroughly researched using scientific methods and statistics. Some of the most successful products ever launched, were based on somebodies conviction that this was the right thing to do based on "gut" and experience and they were not “scientifically researched” at all.

Now, I have been on and off involved in the sport for 25 years. I know jack shit, because I always been a "fun jumper" and had lot of yearlong breaks between jumps. However, the thing I "know" is that when I first started people did not get killed and injured under good canopy in the way they do now. If I correctly remember some available USPA stats that I have seen, the fatality rate today per 100 thousand jumps is about half of what it was 10/20 years ago IF you discount the canopy landing related incidents. The reasons I assume are mainly better equipment (incluing AAD's) and better training. However, due to the landing incidents the total fatality rate has not decreased significantly.

So we are seeing a fatality and serious injury rate that is "unnecessary" because it happens under perfectly working canopies. So what do we do about it? (I assume people want to reduce these incidents – I am however aware that there are proponents of “Darwin”)

On one hand you have many very experienced skydivers that have seen lots of these incidents, who know the people who "went in" and who based on their experience say that IF you want to change this situation you need to introduce some form of regulation and mandatory training.
On the other hand you have people like kallend say we should maintain status quo because we do not have enough stats and scientific research on the matter.

I know where my vote is.

Tell the USPA Safety and Training Committee, then, because they seem to agree with me.

I don't think you actually read (or thought about ) anything I wrote. It's not about having perfect data, it's about making the RIGHT decision based on what data we have. The data we have does not support your position at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Tell the USPA Safety and Training Committee, then, because they seem to agree with me.

My impression is that they are more worried about problems regarding implementation and enforcement.

Quote

I don't think you actually read (or thought about ) anything I wrote. It's not about having perfect data, it's about making the RIGHT decision based on what data we have. The data we have does not support your position at all.

[irony on] of course I have neither read or thought about your many posts. That is why I posted in the first place... duhhh [irony off]
- You might think that somebody disputing your reasoning must either be totally stupid or has not read what your wrote. I do accept that you have a position and would not tell you that you probably have not read or thought about the many posts Rob, billvon, hook and others have wrote.

You are disputing the suggestions by those "old heads" based on that they in your opinion have not sufficient data to support their case. And you might be right that there is not enough data and there is certainly is NOT enough data to say "The data we have does not support your position at all". My whole post was about what do we do when we don't have enough detailed "data"/research.
And my point is that a) the situation is such that we should not remain status quo and watch people smash into the ground at this rate (and it also happens outside the US) and b) people who are very close to the situation and have a lot of experience are suggesting a way forward that I agree with. And I accept their reasoning more then I accept your arguments for not regulating. But I would not demean your intellect just because I don't agree with you.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 1,683]

If you read what I wrote, why are you misrepresenting it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

If you read what I wrote, why are you misrepresenting it?

You don't take it lightly when somebody disagrees with you, do you?

So tell me how/why have I misrepresented what you wrote? I have a different opinion and I have a different perspective and I have tried to explain that in quite some detail.

Not very nice to accuse somebody of this. Happy to discuss if I got something wrong.

[Edited] to delete the next sentence and add: I think I can't be bothered getting into a mud slinging match with kallend. He can call me what he wants. I have great concerns about what is going on in regard to theses accidents everywhere in the world and looking for some good initiatives/ideas from the community. I will not waste my time on kallend if he reacts the way he has.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

If you read what I wrote, why are you misrepresenting it?

You don't take it lightly when somebody disagrees with you, do you?

So tell me how/why have I misrepresented what you wrote? I have a different opinion and I have a different perspective and I have tried to explain that in quite some detail.

Not very nice to accuse somebody of this. Happy to discuss if I got something wrong.

[Edited] to delete the next sentence and add: I think I can't be bothered getting into a mud slinging match with kallend. He can call me what he wants. I have great concerns about what is going on in regard to theses accidents everywhere in the world and looking for some good initiatives/ideas from the community. I will not waste my time on kallend if he reacts the way he has.

1. I haven't called you any names, why the comment (highlighted) above?.

2. You wrote:
On one hand you have many very experienced skydivers that have seen lots of these incidents, who know the people who "went in" and who based on their experience say that IF you want to change this situation you need to introduce some form of regulation and mandatory training.
On the other hand you have people like kallend say we should maintain status quo because we do not have enough stats and scientific research on the matter.

If you do a little research in this forum over the last 3 months you will find that I am a strong proponent of canopy training linked to license requirements.
For instance, I wrote on June 26 in this forum:

"The proper cure is a thorough revision of the licensing system to include a greater emphasis on canopy skills relevant to today's environment. This will improve the situation regardless of the underlying cause."

You might also look here:
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=536763#536763

That is not maintaining the "status quo". Your statement above is a total misrepresentation of my position.

I have never asked for perfect data (another misprepresentation) - just some data that show that low time students under high WL are more at risk relative to their numbers than other members of the skydiving population from canopy accidents before we rush off and regulate them. I've also asked for a better analysis of the likely outcome of any regulation to make sure that it actually does what it is claimed. I don't see that this is a lot to ask before making new rules.

Finally, the overall fatality rate has decreased significantly despite the contribution from accidents under good canopies, contrary to the statement you made in a previous post. See www.skydivenet.com/fatalities/fatalities_history.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

1. I haven't called you any names, why the comment (highlighted) above?

because accusing somebody to willingly mirepresenting / misleading is to call them a liar in my book. As I mentioned, I am happy to discuss if I misunderstood something, but I will not stand being accused of misrepresenting things - this implies malice.

Quote

If you do a little research in this forum over the last 3 months you will find that I am a strong proponent of canopy training linked to license requirements.
For instance, I wrote on June 26 in this forum: .......

Firstly - OK I did not research all your posts over the last few month (and you do post a lot) before writing my post. And I am happy to clarify that I was more referring to your position on WL BSR's. I give you that. However I was referring to amongst other this:

Quote

In Reply To
Actually, his position (at least as I heard it in another thread) is that since he favors the status quo, the burden of proof is not on him.

I happen to disagree with whether there's a problem, but that is ample justification, with a huge amount of precedent, for his not defending his position.

Wendy W.


That is 100% correct. The burden is on those who wish to make a change to prove that the change is (a) warranted, and (b) will achieve what they claim.

Note I have done the "italic" on your qoute. The above is from THIS thread. You agree 100% with the statement that you prefer the staus quo. So I am misleading? I also refer to your initial post in this thread that gives a clear indication of what you think about regulation (again I did not see your comments regarding license requirements in June):

Quote

Well, it's good that you have over 500 jumps and a WL of less than 1.5, or you would have the additional burden of being the latest to be held up as the poster child for a WL BSR. I see that the proponents of a BSR don't seem to notice accidents that don't fit their hypothesis.

Quote

I have never asked for perfect data (another misprepresentation) - just some data that show that low time students under high WL are more at risk relative to their numbers than other members of the skydiving population from canopy accidents before we rush off and regulate them. I've also asked for a better analysis of the likely outcome of any regulation to make sure that it actually does what it is claimed. I don't see that this is a lot to ask before making new rules.

OK, maybe the word "perfect" is not the best choice, but going back through your posts you come across as very demanding in regard to the data that needs to be produced before any WL restrictions can be accepted, and you have clearly stated that you do not accept peoples personal "experience" (i.e. people who have been in the sport a long time are convinced that low time jumpers under high WL are more at risk) as an argument for change.

Quote

That is not maintaining the "status quo". Your statement above is a total misrepresentation of my position.

I find you are way to aggressive my friend. "Total misrepresentation" - not on - I refer to above where you 100% agree to Wendy saying you are for a status quo. The only thing that needs to be added is that you seem to be happy for some mandatory training in conjunction with licenses and I am in agreement with you. But I am also in favour of clear WL restriction tied to experience level and you are not.

Quote

Finally, the overall fatality rate has decreased significantly despite the contribution from accidents under good canopies, contrary to the statement you made in a previous post.

If you try to rip people apart on detail you should be sure not to be in a glasshouse. I talked about fatalities per 100 thosand jumps in the last 10-20 years. The statistic you refer to 1) only covers up to 1997 that is 6 years ago. 2) I did make it very clear that I was not 100% sure on that one 3) Look at the total number of fatalities. If I read this right then after a "spike" in the mid to late 70's the fatality numbers look quite stable from 1982 onward and seem actually to increase slightly at the end. So if you are so busy slamming people on detail: I can see that the fatalities per member is falling, but this can have other reasons (more AFF students etc.) it does not show fatality rate per 100 thousand jumps which I was talking about (but made a point I was not quite sure if I rembered correctly), number of mebers does NOT equal number of jumps. So before accusing me of gross misrepresentations maybe you should get your own facts right first. No matter how you measure the fatality rate it would be only about half, if it was not for landing incidents (as I stated and that was the important part of my original point). The number for 1996 is 46% fatalities due to landing.

It would make it easier to have a discussion if you could turn down the aggressive and condescending side of things. Also, you have not in any way replied to the main point I made - and that is that sometimes you need to take action without sufficient data, rely on peoples knowledge and expierience and lead from the front. Again lets get away from accusing people of misleading and get back to the issue of saving lives.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I might think that the group with less experience would have more accidents than the group with much
more experience and currency.

So if the group with less experience should have more...Dont you think we should do something to help limit that?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

Really? By age 53 I had made <40 jumps.

Yeah, but how many miles have you driven....I bet more than most 20 year olds.

Quote

Age is age, experience is experience. WHy don't the auto insurers ask my son how much driving he's done
instead of asking how old he is?

We don't record the miles we drive...unlike flying or skydiving.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

However I was referring to amongst other this:

Quote

In Reply To
Actually, his position (at least as I heard it in another thread) is that since he favors the status quo, the burden of proof is not on him.

I happen to disagree with whether there's a problem, but that is ample justification, with a huge amount of precedent, for his not defending his position.

Wendy W.


That is 100% correct. The burden is on those who wish to make a change to prove that the change is (a) warranted, and (b) will achieve what they claim.

Note I have done the "italic" on your qoute. The above is from THIS thread. You agree 100% with the statement that you prefer the staus quo.

My error in not cutting more aggressively. My 100% agreement was with Wendy's last paragraph - the one about the burden of proof being with those wanting to make new rules.

If you read this forum for the last 4 months (you have posted in it but that doesn't mean you read it, I guess) you will see that I have been totally consistent against a new BSR and in favor of more training as part of the licensing requirements. Your post DID misrepresent my position.

You have more faith in experts than I do.
At one time "experts" told us the Earth was flat and was created in 4004BC, that heat was a substance, that "phlogiston" caused things to burn, that light travelled through the "ether", that heavier than air machines could never fly, that the continents couldn't drift, that bacteria couldn't live in the stomach, that learned behavior could be inherited, tha surgeons needn't wash their hands between patients, that bacteria arose spontanously in "bad air", that smoking was good for the health, that thalidomide was OK for pregnant women to take and wasn't the cause of birth defects...

All this was the accepted wisdom until someone went out and actually took a look to see if it were correct.

That's why the FDA doesn't approve drugs until they have been tested and proved effective, regardless of whther experts think they will work.

We shouldn't approve rules without data either, regardless of what the "experts" tell us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mikkey 0]

Whatever.
I wont get drawn further into a pissing contest with you.
I am more interested in how we can prevent people getting hurt or killed then abusing people who have a view that is different from my own.
"you have posted in it but that doesn't mean you read it, I guess" - you can't help yourself can you? Sad...

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Whatever.
I wont get drawn further into a pissing contest with you.
I am more interested in how we can prevent people getting hurt or killed then abusing people who have a view that is different from my own.
"you have posted in it but that doesn't mean you read it, I guess" - you can't help yourself can you? Sad...

Anyone interested in preventing people getting hurt or killed should be prepared to find out the real reason why they are getting hurt or killed and fix it with the right cure. This requires some effort in data collection that has not yet been made.

Whining that the data aren't available is simply a cop-out. Have YOU asked USPA for any data on accidents or skydiver demographics? Have YOU done a poll on DZ.COM to get some kind of sample about jump numbers vs wing loading so you can estimate the size of the supposedly "at-risk" group and compare it with the accident data? What have YOU done?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ianmdrennan 2]

USPA are working on a wingloading BSR. Whether it'll be recomendations or rule I have no idea at this point. Obviously they feel this is a problem too, or else they wouldn't bother.

Blue skies
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[mikkey 0]

Quote

What have YOU done?

You did not read my post? - go away. You are not behaving like a prof - you are behaving like a school yard bully. The data (or lack of data) issue has been discussed dozens of times. So go away - piss up against a different tree.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

What have YOU done?

You did not read my post? - go away. You are not behaving like a prof - you are behaving like a school yard bully. The data (or lack of data) issue has been discussed dozens of times. So go away - piss up against a different tree.

I believe I read all of them but I don't recall seeing one in which you described what you personally had done to improve skydiving safety. Can you provide a link?

The data issue won't go away until someone bothers to get some. It may take a little work.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

USPA are working on a wingloading BSR. Whether it'll be recomendations or rule I have no idea at this point. Obviously they feel this is a problem too, or else they wouldn't bother.

Blue skies
Ian

Can you provide a link or reference to the minutes of the meeting where this was decided?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ianmdrennan 2]

No just my discussion 2 weeks ago at our dz with Marylou Laughlin the northeast regional director.

Blue skies
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team