pchapman 261 #26 March 19, 2012 QuoteQuoteThat leaves 8 that a w/l restriction might have saved. You are dismissing the fact that the ideas put forth by Bill and Lisa have mandatory training He's not necessarily dismissing it; but just looking at one part of the equation. In any case, people may have different thoughts about: a) mandatory wing loading limits, and b) mandatory canopy training. It sure is tough to predict how large effect of changes will be for the the less direct effects. If someone with 2000 jumps dies in a swoop, would he have avoided that had he been more limited in his downsizing progression? We'd have to know his exactly number of jumps and canopies to even decide whether to put him into some category of downsized too fast vs. not too fast. (Other than some sort of tautological "he died swooping... therefore he downsized too fast.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #27 March 19, 2012 Fair enough. You also made a conclusion "This means that most of the 35 incident would have benefited from more training." Neither of us can prove them, so I guess its all moot. Edited to add on second thought, most of these guys would be the ones teaching a canopy course, so I am not sure what good the proposed training would have done them - if you require training for each license and a D is 500 jumps then the majority of these guys were years advanced from the last time they ever would have had "mandatory" training. Not that I am against mandatory training (like I am against mandatory w/l restrictions). As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ozzy13 0 #28 March 19, 2012 QuoteI am dismissing nothing. I just posted the stats. Just for informations sake, here are the total numbers listed for the 23 >500 jump fatalities (in no particular order) - 4000, 4300, 1000+, 1200, 550, 3000+, 1000+, 4000+, 3000+, 1100, 2000, 1100, 2000+, 3500+, 2000+, 665, 1000+, 1000, 5400, 1600, 1100, 500, 617. So out of the 23 19 of them were above 1000 jumps. So all wing loading restrictions would not apply to any of them. With the stats we dont know of those how many took canopy courses. How many were restricted by there instructors ect. The data can only give a small window of the big picture. We would need to know each jumpers history to make numbers give us the whole picture. Im against any restrictions. I think education is a better way. wing loading charts are a good guideline. Just against it being any kind of BSR.Never give the gates up and always trust your rears! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #29 March 20, 2012 QuoteWhy the hell would you want more ratings? I think you replied to the wrong person. I haven't asked for more ratings.... 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
kallend 1,623 #30 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteDo you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules? Nope. All I have is anecdotal evidence. USPA has this information available if you really want it. So you can't actually justify your proposal with data. OK. Quote I don't need it, because for me fatalities are only a small part of the issue. From what I've seen, injuries lead to far more former skydivers than fatalities do. Unfortunately we don't have good data on injuries beyond anecdotal evidence, and we aren't likely to ever have it. This may be a logically valid reason to continue to do nothing, but imho it is not a good reason. The other area that is important to me is keeping swoop specific canopies out of the hands of skydivers until after they have a significant number of jumps and time in sport and have received some training on how to fly those canopies in a reasonably safe manner. Not to keep them from killing or maiming themselves, but to keep them from killing, maiming or scaring others out of the sport. There is no data other than anecdotal evidence of how many people are choosing not to skydive because they are scared to be in the air with a 250 jump mad skiiz wonder under a Velo. I know a few. I'm sure you do too. I would not support ANY new rule that the proposer cares so little about that they can't be bothered to do their homework to justify it. The burden is on YOU to justify why your rule is appropriate.... 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
kallend 1,623 #31 March 20, 2012 Quote Quote Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules? http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ There is your data you are looking for. Have at it No - that raw data does NOT contain the analysis appropriate to justify imposing a new rule on the community.... 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
kallend 1,623 #32 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteThat leaves 8 that a w/l restriction might have saved. You are dismissing the fact that the ideas put forth by Bill and Lisa have mandatory training as part of the progression. This means that most some of the 35 incident would may have benefited from more training. You assume too much.... 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
ozzy13 0 #33 March 20, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Do you have any data on how many accidents (fatalities, since that's what we know about) occurred in the past, say, 3 years in the groups you wish to regulate, and what % or those involved jumpers violating the proposed WL rules? http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ There is your data you are looking for. Have at it No - that raw data does NOT contain the analysis appropriate to justify imposing a new rule on the community. Agreed but you were the one asking for data. That's the only data avalible here.Never give the gates up and always trust your rears! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #34 March 21, 2012 Quote I would not support ANY new rule that the proposer cares so little about that they can't be bothered to do their homework to justify it. The burden is on YOU to justify why your rule is appropriate. You'd not support it regardless of its usefulness. Justify to whom? You? Why?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #35 March 26, 2012 Quote Quote I would not support ANY new rule that the proposer cares so little about that they can't be bothered to do their homework to justify it. The burden is on YOU to justify why your rule is appropriate. You'd not support it regardless of its usefulness. Justify to whom? You? Why? To the BOD, since the BOD makes the rules. I'd support it if the proposer did the homework necessary to justify imposing a new restriction on the community.... 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
popsjumper 2 #36 March 27, 2012 QuoteJustify to whom? You? Why? QuoteTo the BOD, since the BOD makes the rules. I'd support it if the proposer did the homework necessary to justify imposing a new restriction on the community. I can understand that, for sure.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
