kallend 1,623
Recommended Posts
Ducky 0
Education is our best bet. Quite frnakly that's the best we can hope for. There are far too may people who enter this sport for the freedom of it and th more we regulate the more the face of our populaion at the DZ will change. Ultimately not a good thing.
Not saying people will leave because of rules meant to save lives, but highly regulated things tend to defer some types of people, many of whom i call friends at the DZ.
kwak
Not saying people will leave because of rules meant to save lives, but highly regulated things tend to defer some types of people, many of whom i call friends at the DZ.
kwak
Sometimes your the bug, sometimes your the windshield. Sometimes your the hammer sometimes your the nail. Question is Hun, Do you wanna get hammered or do you wanna get nailed?????
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> Education is our best bet.
I agree 100%, and that's the primary reasoning behind my proposal. Put a WL regulation into effect, and all you have to do to get around it is take a canopy control class. Then you can jump whatever tiny canopy you want.
>There are far too may people who enter this sport for the freedom of it
> and th more we regulate the more the face of our populaion at the DZ
> will change. Ultimately not a good thing.
Not doing anything will also change the face of the DZ as the people jumping canopies over their head are injured or killed. Also not a good thing. I think we should try to find a balance between those two things.
I agree 100%, and that's the primary reasoning behind my proposal. Put a WL regulation into effect, and all you have to do to get around it is take a canopy control class. Then you can jump whatever tiny canopy you want.
>There are far too may people who enter this sport for the freedom of it
> and th more we regulate the more the face of our populaion at the DZ
> will change. Ultimately not a good thing.
Not doing anything will also change the face of the DZ as the people jumping canopies over their head are injured or killed. Also not a good thing. I think we should try to find a balance between those two things.
Ron 7
Well the thing is out of the people that died last year under a good canopy...over 80% had less than 500 jumps.
Of the people that died last year that were trying to swoop...Only one had more than 500 jumps. Of this group it was a 1.5 WL and around 300umps AVG.
I agree there are people out there with 1000's of jumps that still don't do it right.
But they are not killing themselves.
I think that education is the answer, but with out some regulation most will not get the knowledge.
And then there is the issue that the same level of knowledge is not available everywhere.
Ron
Of the people that died last year that were trying to swoop...Only one had more than 500 jumps. Of this group it was a 1.5 WL and around 300umps AVG.
I agree there are people out there with 1000's of jumps that still don't do it right.
But they are not killing themselves.
I think that education is the answer, but with out some regulation most will not get the knowledge.
And then there is the issue that the same level of knowledge is not available everywhere.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
crazy 0
QuoteWell the thing is out of the people that died last year under a good canopy...over 80% had less than 500 jumps.
According to Michele's numbers, it is exactly 75%. The year before it was 33%. The cumulated value for 2001 and 2002 is 53%. Considering that ~55% of the skydivers have less than 250 jumps (USPA source), there are probably at least 65% of skydivers with less than 500 jumps.
Of course, if you select the appropriate sample, you can prove whatever you want. Can i select 2001 to prove that jumpers with less than 500 jumps are extremely safe?
QuoteI agree there are people out there with 1000's of jumps that still don't do it right.
But they are not killing themselves.
What are the basis for this claim?
My first guesstimate is that skydivers with more than 2000 jumps represent less than 10% of the community but significantly more than 10% of the fatalities. I don't remember the exact value, but i think around 14% over the last 5 years, for the fatalities where the jump number is available. According to Michele's numbers it's more than 12% of the landing fatalities.
Apparently this would be an evidence that more experienced skydivers are less safe than less experienced skydivers.
--
Come
Skydive Asia
Come
Skydive Asia
Ron 7
QuoteAccording to Michele's numbers, it is exactly 75%. The year before it was 33%. The cumulated value for
2001 and 2002 is 53%. Considering that ~55% of the skydivers have less than 250 jumps (USPA source),
there are probably at least 65% of skydivers with less than 500 jumps.
Of course, if you select the appropriate sample, you can prove whatever you want. Can i select 2001 to
prove that jumpers with less than 500 jumps are extremely safe?
This is my point exactly....since the creation of HP canopies they are getting easier for low timers to get...That is why there were less 300 jump wonders hooking in than now..
Now they can get the canopies...then it was much harder.
Thanks for pointing out the trend.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
I see much talk of incident statistical analysis, which is good, people are looking at trends. I use statistical analysis to run quantified risk assessments for petrochemical installations. However for the stats to be meaningful, we need a whole lot more, and a lot more detail on injuries. This sort of accurate data takes years to accumulate, that is time we obviously don't have.
Meanwhile people continue to get hurt 'needlessly'.
Why don't we get off this stats thing and go with what we all feel to be true. That is to accept that HP landings are hurting a higher proportion of our friends than any other cause (eg lo/no pulls, mid air collisions, and equipment failures). If we just accept this, then we can focus on doing something about it.
Meanwhile people continue to get hurt 'needlessly'.
Why don't we get off this stats thing and go with what we all feel to be true. That is to accept that HP landings are hurting a higher proportion of our friends than any other cause (eg lo/no pulls, mid air collisions, and equipment failures). If we just accept this, then we can focus on doing something about it.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
Ron 7
Quote
Replying to:
Re: [Ron] For those against wingload BSRs by nacmacfeegle
Post:
I see much talk of incident statistical analysis, which is good, people are looking at trends. I use statistical
analysis to run quantified risk assessments for petrochemical installations. However for the stats to be
meaningful, we need a whole lot more, and a lot more detail on injuries. This sort of accurate data takes
years to accumulate, that is time we obviously don't have.
Meanwhile people continue to get hurt 'needlessly'.
Why don't we get off this stats thing and go with what we all feel to be true. That is to accept that HP
landings are hurting a higher proportion of our friends than any other cause (eg lo/no pulls, mid air collisions,
and equipment failures). If we just accept this, then we can focus on doing something about it.
--------------------
I track trends for FedEx since I do this for a living trends just start to jump out at me when I look at data.
I only point out the trends because a lot of people claim that "flying by the seat of your pants" is wrong to do.
The fact is, as you pointed out, that there is not enough raw data to be 100% about any trends....However if you wait till all the info is in, you have wasted a lot of time, sometimes forever.
Sometimes you have to take what data you have and run with it.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"Sometimes you have to take what data you have and run with it."
Yep this is what I'm saying Ron, take the data we have, and the gut feeling, and the strength of conviction to do something about it. Don't get all hung up on stats in isolation, or anomalies in reporting of the incidents.
Yep this is what I'm saying Ron, take the data we have, and the gut feeling, and the strength of conviction to do something about it. Don't get all hung up on stats in isolation, or anomalies in reporting of the incidents.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
Ron 7
I am running with it..I started this whole BSR WL thing.
But there are people out there that think that without EVERY piece of info, the data pool is screwed.
I know they are wrong, but some people just look for excuses to do what they want...
I just responded to this:
Which show that some people don't listen. This guy has less than 200 jumps, and will not listen to people with 1,000's that have been in the sport for several years...In some cases here decades.
But if people DID listen to what the more experienced jumpers told them...This whole issue would not exist. They would not try to get the 97 with 100 jumps.
Ron
But there are people out there that think that without EVERY piece of info, the data pool is screwed.
I know they are wrong, but some people just look for excuses to do what they want...
I just responded to this:
Quote
Which is exactly why a restriction based on wingloading wouldn't work. The key is education, not arbitrary
(yes, without every piece of data included it's arbitrary) statistics and numbers to determine someone's
ability.
Which show that some people don't listen. This guy has less than 200 jumps, and will not listen to people with 1,000's that have been in the sport for several years...In some cases here decades.
But if people DID listen to what the more experienced jumpers told them...This whole issue would not exist. They would not try to get the 97 with 100 jumps.
Ron
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
QuoteWhich show that some people don't listen. This guy has less than 200 jumps, and will not listen to people with 1,000's that have been in the sport for several years...In some cases here decades.
Ron, I am listening to you. I'm also listening to others with just as many jumps who don't agree with you. And no offense meant, you are obviously intelligent, but I haven't necessarily seen a direct correlation between jump numbers and intelligence. I take in as much info and knowledge from everyone that I can. But guess what, it's often contradictory. It's up to me to decide which advice and knowledge I'm going to follow. I'm sure there are a million things that you could tell me that I would take to heart, but I just happen to agree with others, with as much experience as you on this issue.
JFC3 0
Three pages of posts and I haven't read any but the first. So if I may reply to that (and this may have been stated time and time again).
I have not been in the sport as long as some, but in that time I have seen first hand (disregarding what I've read) more people paralyzed, seriously injured and killed under canopies they were 1:1 on or in that neighborhood than under the more "extreme" canopies. Due to poor judgement, bad last minute decisions and no flares.
I don't think taking the choice out of the individuals hand and into a regulatory body's would improve the safety of our sport. It's inherently dangerous and those who manage to go through a life in the sport uninjured have taken the precautions on their own and have been handed a little bit of luck too.
I would refuse to jump at a DZ that had restrictions on wing loading even if I passed their standards because I feel my purest draw to skydiving is its freedom. The sensation and the intangible knowlege of it. It's what brings me back when I get frustrated and cheers me up when I'm down. I'm willing to celebrate that with all my breatheren but don't stifle that with more rules.
Maybe I'm a Darwinist. Maybe I'm a realist. Maybe I don't know my ass from my elbow. But I'm always in favor of less restrictions.
I hope this gets read all the way down here.
"Five days? But I'm angry now!"
I have not been in the sport as long as some, but in that time I have seen first hand (disregarding what I've read) more people paralyzed, seriously injured and killed under canopies they were 1:1 on or in that neighborhood than under the more "extreme" canopies. Due to poor judgement, bad last minute decisions and no flares.
I don't think taking the choice out of the individuals hand and into a regulatory body's would improve the safety of our sport. It's inherently dangerous and those who manage to go through a life in the sport uninjured have taken the precautions on their own and have been handed a little bit of luck too.
I would refuse to jump at a DZ that had restrictions on wing loading even if I passed their standards because I feel my purest draw to skydiving is its freedom. The sensation and the intangible knowlege of it. It's what brings me back when I get frustrated and cheers me up when I'm down. I'm willing to celebrate that with all my breatheren but don't stifle that with more rules.
Maybe I'm a Darwinist. Maybe I'm a realist. Maybe I don't know my ass from my elbow. But I'm always in favor of less restrictions.
I hope this gets read all the way down here.
"Five days? But I'm angry now!"
I don't think that is an accurate inference from Michele' s data if you account for the demographics of the skydiver population (>50% of skydivers have < 300 jumps according to USPA. So even if fatality risk were completely unrelated to jump numbers, you would still expect a greater % of deaths to jumpers with <300 jumps than Michele reported, simply because there are more of them in the population.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites