serzkawpoije

Members
  • Content

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A
  • Country

    United States

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    210

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Mile-Hi
  • License
    A
  • License Number
    A-106796
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA
  • Number of Jumps
    600
  • Tunnel Hours
    1
  • Years in Sport
    2
  • Freefall Photographer
    No

Ratings and Rigging

  • USPA Coach
    No
  • Pro Rating
    No
  • Wingsuit Instructor
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Seems like comparing the rate of USPA membership sign-ups to the rate of A-license numbers assigned would get you a fairly good ratio of at least people that start down the path toward A-license and don't complete it. It wouldn't account for those taking an FJC with no intention of going forward or deciding on their first jump they won't be continuing. But that's probably good and would reflect a more accurate number of people that want their A-license but aren't completing it.
  2. I’m new here and don’t really have a dog in this fight. But the data behind the calculator had me curious. So I scraped the dataset from USPA’s incident reports for canopy related incidents, that the calculator is presumably pulling from. It’s pretty terrible as a dataset to make any sort of reliable assessments of risk from. Of the 164 IRs since 2008 relating to canopy incidents, I had to remove 41 for garbage data. Things like listing 0 total jumps when the description lists the jumper having 1000 plus jumps, or weird discrepancies with more jumps in the last 12 months than they have total jumps. Lots of missing information overall that makes the IR meaningless for wingload vs experience discussions But even once you clean out the egregious stuff I can’t see any statistical significance that shows higher wing loadings are more likely to cause incidents with lower jump numbers. Mostly because there aren’t many incidents of it. I could only find one incident report that you could reliably say the jumper had less than 100 jumps and a wing loading over 1.1. Anecdotally, as a new jumper in the two large DZs I’ve been to that have a significant high performance canopy culture and on the common internet groups I’ve only ever felt pressure to avoid downsizing until I’ve mastered the canopy size I’m on. So overall this feels kind of like a solution without a problem. Almost all high wingload IRs come from jumpers the proposed BSRs would exempt. I've attached the raw data I pulled, cause it's very possible I messed up the scrape or misinterpreted the data. canopy_incidents.csv