Canopy loading (was: accident at Greensburg)

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

I did my 500th jump the day before, which put my accident jump at #503. I was loading my Stiletto 150 at around 1.13. I have done around 50 jumps on that canopy out of my 110 jumps so far this year. Before that I owned a Sabre 170 for around 300 jumps. I have been jumping for over 4 years and I do at least a 90 front riser (consistently way to high) on just about every landing, and I have been for the past 100 jumps. I'm trying to communicate the message that it is always possible to get caught off guard. I didn't realize just how easy that was to get side tracked. The reason why my canopy dove harder than it ever did before is not because I don't know my canopy (i'm not saying that I totally understand it) its because I turned harder than I ever have before. Once again, like I said, I just screwed up. So everyone take it easy. The ground is pretty hard. I learned a lot of lessons. I'd be happy to tell them to you rather than you learn them yourselves.

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.

Hope you have a speedy recovery.

...

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

[billvon 2,400]

>I see that the proponents of a BSR don't seem to notice accidents
>that don't fit their hypothesis.

Do drunk driving fatalities prove that you needn't avoid speeding in your car, since being drunk can kill you too?

Claiming that you can get killed by being outside a USPA recommendation for canopy loading, and therefore any such recommendation is useless, is the lamest reason yet I've heard to stand back and do nothing.

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

>I see that the proponents of a BSR don't seem to notice accidents
>that don't fit their hypothesis.

Do drunk driving fatalities prove that you needn't avoid speeding in your car, since being drunk can kill you too?

Claiming that you can get killed by being outside a USPA recommendation for canopy loading, and therefore any such recommendation is useless, is the lamest reason yet I've heard to stand back and do nothing.

That's not what I did. I pointed out that the proponents of a WL BSR have consistently ignored any and all evidence that their hypothesis may be incomplete or incorrect. This constitutes selective use of data, and is an example of "baloney".

Not implementing a WL BSR is not "doing nothing", it is a wise course of action given that the proponents haven't convinced the majority of jumpers or the USPA BOD that their analysis is correct and their "cure" will achieve anything.

Your analogy with speeding is bogus - lots of data exist about speeding and accidents - a correlation and causation is well established. Doesn't change driver's behavior much, though. Those inclined to take risks will do so despite any regulations.

...

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

That's not what I did. I pointed out that the proponents of a WL BSR have consistently ignored any and all evidence that their hypothesis may be incomplete or incorrect. This constitutes selective use of data, and is an example of "baloney".

John, who said we ignored anything? I read the thread. The person is obviously outside the WL proposals. What else is there to say. This person would obviously not have been effected by the WL proposal. So there's no arguement. The person did not die and that may be in due part that the person was not on a higher wingloading when they made their error. And I think that's what people would like to see with this WL limit proposal. A reduction in fatalities. We know people will get hurt in this sport. Heck, I got hurt running out of the plane. But that doesn't mean we can't direct people towards WL that if/when they make a mistake it is not fatal and they have a chance to come back and learn a lesson. If they're dead, the only lesson learned is by the people left behind. No benefit goes to the jumper themself.

So exactly what do you think we should have been saying in this thread that we supposedly were ignoring (which we weren't)?

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[billvon 2,400]

>I pointed out that the proponents of a WL BSR have consistently ignored
> any and all evidence that their hypothesis may be incomplete or incorrect.

I have listed the total number of canopy related fatalities in 2000-2001 and stated which would have been saved by a BSR restriction (or even a recommendation that was followed) the ones that may have been saved and the ones that would not have been saved. Therefore your statement above is untrue; the evidence of the limitations of such a BSR or recommendation was _incorporated_ into my proposal.

>Not implementing a WL BSR is not "doing nothing", it is a wise course of action . . .

Again, patently untrue. Not taking an action is not a course of action. In fact it's the opposite.

>Your analogy with speeding is bogus - lots of data exist about speeding
> and accidents - a correlation and causation is well established.

Just as the correlation between impact speed and injury is well established, and just as the correlation between canopy speed and impact speed is well established.

Of course, 19 year olds everywhere will point to their pal Joey who got killed doing 20mph in the parking lot as evidence that following the speed limit isn't all that important - just as opponents to canopy training will point out that their pal Joey got killed under a Manta, so canopy size isn't all that important.

[Ron 7]

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.

I also noticed that this guy is not dead....So maybe the 500 jumps of experience helped.

Besides there is always going to be someone out side of the proposal that gets hurt...And you will always throw that out and wave it around like a banner....But like I said...this guy is not dead...He might have been if he had 400 jumps.

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

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

That's not what I did. I pointed out that the proponents of a WL BSR have consistently ignored any and all evidence that their hypothesis may be incomplete or incorrect. This constitutes selective use of data, and is an example of "baloney".

John, who said we ignored anything? I read the thread. The person is obviously outside the WL proposals. What else is there to say. This person would obviously not have been effected by the WL proposal. So there's no arguement. The person did not die and that may be in due part that the person was not on a higher wingloading when they made their error. And I think that's what people would like to see with this WL limit proposal. A reduction in fatalities. We know people will get hurt in this sport. Heck, I got hurt running out of the plane. But that doesn't mean we can't direct people towards WL that if/when they make a mistake it is not fatal and they have a chance to come back and learn a lesson. If they're dead, the only lesson learned is by the people left behind. No benefit goes to the jumper themself.

So exactly what do you think we should have been saying in this thread that we supposedly were ignoring (which we weren't)?

Chris - they ignore evidence that does not support their theory that the disturbing increase in accidents is primarily due to low time jumpers at high WL. Every accident involving a low timer has Ron jumping up and down saying "I told you so". Well, negative evidence is also evidence - landing accidents involving high time jumpers are accidents that will be included in the total tally that ipso-facto did not involve low timers. In scientific research you have to include results which go all ways, not just quote the ones supporting your own theory.

Just looking at low timers' accidents is like just looking at crows to test a theory that all birds are black.

Are low timers femuring in or worse at a rate higher than the general skydiving population? We don't know and will never know unless we look at the entire spectrum.

...

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

[freakydiver 0]

Ron jumping up and down saying "I told you so" --

He doesn't say it everytime. I mean, if you are going to do a broad statisitcal analysis like that, you should at least be correct when talking down to someone such as Ron imho.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[diverdriver 5]

Wait, ignoring evidence that doesn't support the theory? The theory is that low time jumpers have a higher chance of dieing when under a high WL when they screw up. This jumper did not die and he was under a lower wingloading. Ergo the theory works. You are less likely to die under a lighter wingloading than a higher winloading. Doesn't mean you can't have both though. But I think you understand the studies of speed show that when you hit something at a higher speed you are more likely to break. Giving the keys for a ferrari to a 16 year old does seem like a bad idea right? Not because he's 16, but because he has never driven a car up to that point probably. Just because most skydivers are in their 20s and 30s doesn't mean they still aren't newbies in the way of speed while in flight. They need time to get used to this stuff before pushing out the envelope for themselves. That's all we are asking for. Time.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[freakydiver 0]

Very well put - most of the friends I jump with have no desire to downsize anytime soon because at 1.3 - 1.5 they can sufficiently "scare themselves" while still being conservative given their jump numbers and experience levels. IMHO - too many people are jumping on the downsize bandwagon becuase it is the "cool" thing to be doing.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Cacophony 0]

Seeing as how I am the one who had the accident I'm going to throw in a point here. This point is going out to the lesser experienced canopy pilots out there. There is a very good reason as to why I am only jumping a Stiletto 150 loaded at 1.13. I feel that having a great swoop has nothing to do with a higher WL. Sure, in the end, the higher your WL the longer and faster your swoops can be. But I have seen and heard of entirely too many people who feel that they need a higher WL to have cooler swoops. Or they feel that having a higher WL is OK because they DON'T swoop, so therefore they have less potential to hurt themselves with the canopy, just because they don't plan on doing low turns. Well, you are wrong. I've done some sweet landings with my Stiletto 150, and I have seen some very good canopy pilots landing much larger canopies than their swoop speaks for. I just hope that a few people out there can come to realise this so that they don't make the mistake of jumping a canopy that is too small for them reguardless of what they plan to use it for.

WL BSR or not, in some ways it would really help and in others, it would hold some people back. It would keep the people who don't know what the h*ll they are talking about from endangering their lives or others lives, and if all you have to do is get an S&TA recommendation or take a canopy course (my info might be a little out of date, sorry), then I don't see what the big deal would be. Hopefully our S&TAs out there have enough sense and canopy piloting skill to realize the trouble people. Its obviously not an easy solution. I'm just glad that I was taught the right way early on, and thats why I only broke my femur and pelvis. Some people who were there thought I was dead from the impact. I got off very lucky. To all of you out there who are unsure if you can handle your canopy %100 no matter what the circumstances. Are you sure that you will get as lucky as me if your time comes?

[freakydiver 0]

Ummm - I think you are just agreeing with what I said. My only point was that my close jumping friends AND myself are not in any hurry to downsize and you don't sound like you are either which probably saved your ass.

Also, I'm sure of my ass in all circumstances becuase I've been in just about all of them. Too deep in the corner, WAY out with no outs, a few backyard landings, two water landings, a few braked turns necessitated by being cut off, ummmm....

I think the point is, I agree with you, higher WL doesn't mean better swoops. More experience means more efficient use of the wing and better swoops.

Anyhow - here's to a fast recovery and glad you are still with us fo sho!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Wait, ignoring evidence that doesn't support the theory? The theory is that low time jumpers have a higher chance of dieing when under a high WL when they screw up. This jumper did not die and he was under a lower wingloading. Ergo the theory works. You are less likely to die under a lighter wingloading than a higher winloading. Doesn't mean you can't have both though. But I think you understand the studies of speed show that when you hit something at a higher speed you are more likely to break. Giving the keys for a ferrari to a 16 year old does seem like a bad idea right? Not because he's 16, but because he has never driven a car up to that point probably. Just because most skydivers are in their 20s and 30s doesn't mean they still aren't newbies in the way of speed while in flight. They need time to get used to this stuff before pushing out the envelope for themselves. That's all we are asking for. Time.

Chris, that is incorrect logic. If you are asking about "The theory is that low time jumpers have a higher chance of dieing when under a high WL when they screw up." (your words) then you have to ask "Higher than what"? That is where comparitive statistics are required. You cannot conclude that low timers are higher than anything if you don't also look at the other things.

If you have a theory that all birds are black and you steadfastly refuse to look at anything other than crows, you will reach an invalid conclusion.

Are low timers under high WL at risk? Obviously. Are they at higher risk than any other part of the skydiving population? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll not know by ignoring accidents that happen to the rest of the skydiving population.

...

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

Are low timers under high WL at risk? Obviously. Are they at higher risk than any other part of the skydiving
population? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll not know by ignoring accidents that happen to the rest of the
skydiving population.

Whos ingnoring anything? Not me...

But good god man! how could you say

Quote

Are low timers under high WL at risk? Obviously. Are they at higher risk than any other part of the skydiving
population? Maybe, maybe not,

You will admit that they are at risk, but will not admit that a person with experience has a much better chance of being safe????

Thats like saying that a pilot with 50 hrs is as safe as a pilot with 1,000 when given a HP plane....Or that we can't tell because we don't have EVERY accident.

This is just bad logic John....

Ron

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

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

This is just bad logic John...

Uh-oh. ...He's gonna open up a "classical logic" debate with the prof.

One Scrumpot... ducking... bobbing and weaving...
exiting.... stage left! ...Stage right evennnnn

Prof. how come you don't allow PM's my man?

Blues all,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[freakydiver 0]

So what? Whats wrong with questioning someones opinions?

But no doubt TAKE COVER!!!!!!

LOL

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

So what? Whats wrong with questioning someones opinions?

But no doubt TAKE COVER!!!!!!

LOL

You should know yourself by now Beav, that I've never been one to shy away from a good debate. However, I will choose my terminology when drawing sabers very carefully. Accusing the prof of "bad logic"? ...That just aint a phrase you'll ever see me use in that exchange scenario, that's for sure

Watching now from the sidelines....
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[freakydiver 0]

-- Accusing the prof of "bad logic"? ...That just aint a phrase you'll ever see me use in that exchange scenario, that's for sure --

Yah I learned that one early on. Once a prof always a prof. Hah!

-- Watching now from the sidelines.... --

Here here!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

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.

I also noticed that this guy is not dead....So maybe the 500 jumps of experience helped.

Besides there is always going to be someone out side of the proposal that gets hurt...And you will always throw that out and wave it around like a banner....But like I said...this guy is not dead...He might have been if he had 400 jumps.

What if, what if...

You cannot draw any conclusion like that. What if he had been jumping a smaller canopy? Maybe he would have made a more conservative approach, maybe the canopy would have had the extra performance to dig him out, maybe he wouldn't have been in that position in the first place...

Speculating on what didn't happen is a complete waste of time.

...

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

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

Are low timers under high WL at risk? Obviously. Are they at higher risk than any other part of the skydiving
population? Maybe, maybe not, but we'll not know by ignoring accidents that happen to the rest of the
skydiving population.

Whos ingnoring anything? Not me...

But good god man! how could you say

Quote

Are low timers under high WL at risk? Obviously. Are they at higher risk than any other part of the skydiving
population? Maybe, maybe not,

You will admit that they are at risk, but will not admit that a person with experience has a much better chance of being safe????

Thats like saying that a pilot with 50 hrs is as safe as a pilot with 1,000 when given a HP plane....Or that we can't tell because we don't have EVERY accident.

This is just bad logic John....

Ron

No Ron, it is bad reading on your part. I didn't write that experience is bad, I said that you cannot have any evidence that low timers at high WL are any more at risk than any other segment of the skydiving population unless you collect evidence on accident rates other than those involving low timers at high WL. You have to have some basis for comparison.

Fact is, your proposal may or may not have merit, but it's impossible to tell from the data you've presented. Maybe that's why USPA decided they needed more information and declined to act on it.

I have to say that I'm not at all sure you've correctly identified the most at-risk group. I'd suggest looking at males under the age of 28 regardless of jump numbers. (No, I haven't done an analysis, neither would I jump the gun with a proposal until I had done an analysis)

...

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

[CanEHdian 0]

Quote

I have to say that I'm not at all sure you've correctly identified the most at-risk group. I'd suggest looking at males under the age of 28 regardless of jump numbers. (No, I haven't done an analysis, neither would I jump the gun with a proposal until I had done an analysis)

So then why don't you do the analysis and contribute man?? Seems like nobody else could be more qualified...

...or are you only interested in knocking everybody else's 'incompetent' efforts by tuting your own scientific horn?

CanEHdian

Time's flying, and so am I...
(69-way, 108-way and 138/142-way Freefly World Records)

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

So then why don't you do the analysis and contribute man?? Seems like nobody else could be more qualified...

...or are you only interested in knocking everybody else's 'incompetent' efforts by tuting your own scientific horn?

Best post so far! I think we are in for a "paralysis by analysis" methodology.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[wmw999 2,123]

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.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mikkey 0]

Reading many of kallend's post I conclude that he is both knowledgeable and an experienced skydiver.

But when he gets involved in the WL debate he reminds me of this bright communist Polish exchange student I was taking care of in the 70's - every time we had a political debate it ended up with that she called my arguments and facts "bloody western propaganda" and that was it...

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

[nathaniel 0]

and so the ad homiem arguments resume...

how would his points be any more or less valid if they had been submitted anonymously?

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?