Reginald

Quote

Quote

6. Overconfidence – People uniformly tend to overestimate their abilities and knowledge. A simple example is to ask 100 people if they think they are above, at, or below average intelligence. The VAST majority will reply that they are above average intelligence. Clearly only 50% can be.

.

Wrong, you are caught in a trap of your own making.

If I ask the first 100 people I meet after typing this, I can pretty much guarantee they are all above average intelligence, because my sample is not random (I'm sitting in an engineering department at a university). Additionally, a sample size of 100 is not nearly enough to guarantee an exact 50% result even if the sample is truly taken at random from the population; the margin of error would be nearly 10% (95% confidence limit).

No I'm not wrong you're introducing a new issue called sample bias. Of course a proper random sample should be used. It's a separate and very real issue.

Beyond that I'm trying to make a general point and 100 was an easy number for people to visualize. If you like we can just add a "0" to it. For illustrative purposes for a general audience it doesn't change the point. And of course referencing statistical tables for proper samples sizes given confidence intervals etc is part of good analysis, it's just beyond the scope of this conversation beyond my commenting to be ware of small sample sizes.

The point still stands that it is a known and testable fact that people are overconfident in their abilities and decision making and is a bias that one needs to be careful about when using opinion to argue a point vs testable data.

Your nit picking aside I would think we would both agree that the issue of quality of instruction and changes over time can be resolved better with verifiable data properly analyzed as opposed to opinion and shouting that is the norm on the board.

Quote

Quote

I am going to ask for more information.... I believe it is important to look at PROBLEMS and find SOLUTIONS - not to just make policies that make people "Feel good". Can you tell me examples of how this piss-poor job is a real problem (I know of problems at my home DZ working with students, but the AFFIs I don't think are on the top of the list).

I can honestly say that the AFFIs I work with are great. Each has a personality, and flaws, but they all do a good job. Some are younger, some are older. Some have tons of tandems, some are weekend fun jumpers.

So lets look at fatalities, per USPA:

1998 - 44
1999 - 27
2000 - 32
2001 - 35
2002 - 33
2003 - 25
2004 - 21
2005 - 27
2006 - 21
2007 - 18
2008 - 30
2009 - 16

HOW MANY OF THESE WERE STUDENTS (AFF STUDENTS, NOT TANDEM)???

I went to this site:http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx and noticed the fatalities for people with less than 100 jumps are few and far between. I read each one... I see no smoking gun that the system is all that broken other than CANOPY CONTROL - which is not an instructor shortcoming but system shortcoming in AFF... (No dedicated canopy control jumps, no dedicated canopy control lesson plans... Just something that the instructor/student do post freefall).

This tells me things/instructors are no better or worse then they ever have been... Maybe slightly better since membership/jump numbers have gone up most years other than the last few... And this is coupled with the fact aggressive skydiving canopies for people well past their AFF has become a leading cause to offset better gear.

Can you point to an increase in incidents with jumpers with under 25 jumps where the AFFIs have control, or incidents post 25 jumps where AFFIs have clearly been negligent in teaching something (as opposed to the student trying to continue to learn, you can lead a horse to water, but drinking is.....)

Ok, so give me details to support your claim. (I may or may not dispute them, but I will learn from them).

Now you are just using facts and logic. Psst. You are gonna lose your argument with that kind of attitude. You need emotion, not facts.

The next items needed in Tdogs excellent post is the number of total jumps, number of AFF jumps and preferably the experience and training method of the AFFI, etc. This would allow us to make fact based decisions instead of emotional ones. Estimating that they have not changed materially than one would conclude that AFF training is safer than ever or at minimum not statistically significantly different than in the past.

On the topic of emotional arguments here are a few fallacies in logic I've seen on this extended discussion over the years.

1. Starting with a conclusion and then seeking only evidence that supports the predetermined position while mitigating all information that contradicts the predetermined position. BTW: this is actually how the human mind tends to work and it requires effort to train it to work in a more reasonable and logical manor.

2. Stating that lack of evidence is in fact evidence to support a particular position. The clearly self contradictory nature of this argument should be obvious to all.

3. Using small sample sizes to draw conclusions sometimes intertwined with an “Availability Heuristic”. An example of which is, “if it happened here (easily available and recallable) it must be happening everywhere, therefore it is a big problem!” A sample of 1, 2, 3 or more is not one that conclusions can be drawn from. It is however, enough to draw up a hypothesis and take a larger sample to make a more accurate assessment, which is what Tdog is trying to do. People tend not to want to take the second step of seeking out more information and simply stop too early and draw a biased conclusion. Using only readily available information, specifically combined with small sample sizes will always lead to a cognitive bias.

4. Escalation of commitment (Also known as the “Never admit you’re wrong, even when it is clear you are” fallacy) – even when evidence is subsequently presented that someone had not considered in their prior decision making process that refutes their position, they refuse to admit they are wrong and escalate their commitment to the now defunct position. This typically involves a spiraling array of increasingly flimsily logic and distortions of facts. It also tends to have a flavor of continuing to comment, louder and louder on an issue until others walk away. It leaves the person in the wrong feeling like they won because they got the last word, when in fact everyone else just gave up arguing.

5. Over Focusing – in which people place too much emphasis on one variable in drawing a conclusion. This variable may or may not have predictive power and may or may not require other variables be included to achieve a reasonable degree of predictive power. However, the person believes it is all important.

6. Overconfidence – People uniformly tend to overestimate their abilities and knowledge. A simple example is to ask 100 people if they think they are above, at, or below average intelligence. The VAST majority will reply that they are above average intelligence. Clearly only 50% can be.

The above are just a few ways people can draw biased conclusions and they are part and parcel of normal human cognition. I actually give Tdog great props for trying to frame the problem based on convincing evidence.

My main comment on this issue is that it is in fact subject to a more rigorous debate and testing than it has in this and other threads. I for one would be willing to accept whatever the outcome is based on actual investigation of evidence. Hopefully this is the sort of thing the USPA does as it investigates policy changes.

To throw in my own antidote I will say that the ONLY AFF student deaths that I know of the last ten years (and I am only familiar with two) were both involving instructors with substantial experience and likely would not be questioned in any way for their competence or training method. Sometimes shit just happens no matter how good the instruction or instructor is, we are after all jumping out of planes.

Hopefully this discussion, if here or at the USPA, will be based as best as is possible on supportable facts. But likely it will just be a continuation of a shouting match.

PS: none of the opinions presented in this post represent real DZ.com members actual or fictional, batteries not included, your millage may vary, etc.

Quote

When folks wonder what USPA does for the membership, we should all remember the inclusion of drop zones in navigation databases as one of those small things that can make a huge safety difference. It takes a ton of time and effort, and efforts like these are rarely recognized, but without the staff and support of USPA, these changes couldn't happen.

Just thought it should be repeated.

Quote

How about someone who say has done:

25 years in sport, 1500 jumps and spent most every weekend on the dz wearing every hat.

vs

500 jump wonder with one year in the sport spending most weekends on the dz and wearing only the basic hats, packer, jumper.

Interesting point. In my example I intentionally chooses a neutral example not one biased to an extreme. The flip side of your example is:

A: Old timer that has been jumping for 25 years and has 1500 jumps. He shows up to the DZ a few times a year, flying some old school box man in his Wonderhog rig with an F111 canopy and flat packs.

B: A newer jumper that has been at the DZ every weekend for 5 year has 1500 jumps, has 15 hours in the tunnel with Airspeed, has a Sr. riggers ticket, 750 4 way jumps has been to nationals several times, has been to big way camps and been on multiple 100+ ways, can fly a solid mantis plus and boxman and is a respectable free flyer.

Pointing to extremes speaks little to the bulk of the population we're discussing.

Quote

In the last five years I've seen a number of flash in the pans who thought they were the hot shit on the dz, racked up jump numbers and collected ratings in a very short time, some of those retards were kept out of the tandem or aff business because they didn't meet the time requirements and that was a good thing because their actions proved they were not ready, sure they might have been able to pass the course, but that don't mean they have any business teaching or working with students.

Well this brings up another interesting point and that is competence. I’ll point it directly at TI and AFFI’s. I’ve seen plenty of instructors with a rating, which means they’ve passed some minimal proficiency level, that if I owned a DZ I would not hire to work with students. Some of these are “less experienced” but many of them are “old timers” too. Just because someone posses a rating does not mean they automatically get work. A rating is one of many factors that a DZO should and likely does consider when looking at hiring people to work with students.


In the context of the conversation about AFFI requirements I personally think a 3 year in sport requirement is fine which synchs it up with the TI rating. Likely this will affect very few people anyway. I also think that a minimum number of coach jumps is better than "time since coach rating" as this speaks more directly to working with students as opposed to watching some period of time go by on a calender.

Okay the time in sport issue keeps coming up. This post is not directed ant anyone specifically but the "time in sport" discussion generally. I'm literally taking an old post of mine and re-posting it.

--------------------------------------------------

So which is better?

A. 500 jumps and 2 years and 6 months in the sport but at DZ 52 weekends a year
B. 500 jumps and 5 years in the sport but at DZ every OTHER weekend (26 weekends a year)

The problem with time “in sport” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s time applied TO the sport. In the example above both A and B have the exact equal amount of time applied TO the sport, assuming they only time they apply to the sport is while at the DZ (which is probably a reasonable assumption for everyone but the handful of DZ.com fanatics).

Does one gain knowledge by osmosis if they are at a day job, home with the kids, or focusing on something else? Does this knowledge only come from being at the DZ? Likely it is neither extreme.

Probably the reason for jump numbers or freefall time being the primary method of measuring experience is because they are the most reliable measure of time actually applied TO the sport. Is this the perfect system, of course not. Would adding time in sport be beneficial? Possibly but likely the collinearity with jump numbers is such that it makes it appropriate to use only jump numbers instead.

Personally, for USPA - AFFI’s I’d rather see a requirement for “X” number of coached jumps than I would time in sport. It’s more likely to be beneficial than number of years since a person’s first jump, or time since receiving a coaches rating.

Of course opinions vary…

Quote

You can say "fix your body position and learn to fly without weights" all you want, but if your body position is correct and you still can't fall fast enough, you simply need weights.

One I started wearing enough weight, I was actually able to start fixing my body position. When you're our size (I'm 5' 6" 120lbs), flying without weight is going to get you to start bad habits.

Exactly. Light jumpers not wearing the right amount of weight build in terrible habits in terms of their body position.

Quote

Thank you very much =) Didn't found that yet.
But as it looks, I have to return my altitrack, it does not functionate the way it should =(

So what makes you think it's the firmware? Is it maybe an old batter causing it to behave strangely? L&B has great customer service contact them directly and I guarantee they will fix whatever the issue is.

Quote

http://names.whitepages.com/Colorado/Bill/Overmyer

Gee thanks for the smart a** response John. BTW none of those are Williams they are Bills. Also, which of them skydives? And there are 75+ Overmyers in the state and it's possible he might not be listed. I'd prefer not to randomly call through the phone book until I get to the end. I'd bet that there is only one that skydives though so I thought a CO jumper might know him.

I'm looking for a skydiver William Overmyer in Colorado, who I believe is a distant relative. Does anyone in CO know him and can they help get me in contact. Please PM.

Thanks.

Quote

4.74 lbs/sqft

clicky

Anyone know what luigi loaded his 37 at?

Ah the Bruno video! Yep he downsized from his 55 to this 50. If I recall he managed two jumps successfully and then broke his arm when he stalled it on landing on the third jump. I don't know if he's jumped it since then or not. It always scared the hell out of me just watching him land either of those canopies; I like Bruno and would prefer to keep him around. But I'll give it to him he lands those things repeatedly and walks away.

While I don't know what Luigi's WL is on the 37 but I'm guessing it's not anywhere near 4.75.

Great Stadium pics! That's how it's done.

Wow, some nice shots! Very cool!

I think I miss everything about it when I can't jump. But the one on your list that I have missed most when I've been unable to jump for any extended period of time is the camaraderie on the plane.

There's just something about that knowing look in a friends eyes and the secret skydivers handshake before we all step out into the wild blue yonder. Will it be another successful jump or will it be the last interaction I'll ever have with that person? Usually it is the former but it has been the latter before.

That last moment before we all do what we do knowing the risks and the rewards is one of the few truly honest human interactions I have in life.

That or it's the beer. Actually, it's probably the beer...

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have found some laminated and ready for FJC but the cost is ridiculous.

How much?

Here is website: http://skyhivisuals.tripod.com/malfunctions.htm

$195.00

Here are 4 that I have gathered from various pictures off the internet.

Well I guess it is all relative. My DZ uses the skyhi pictures and video. It is a very nice set and the fact that the pictures and video show the same mals both in still and video format is nice. I teach a couple of FJC's a month and very much like them. In my opinion it's worth the $195, of course the DZ paid for it not me!

Quote

I have found some laminated and ready for FJC but the cost is ridiculous.

How much?

Okay how about NOW?

So any word on how the event is going? Any friendly competition between groups?

I'll give the kid some credit. Regardless of how the problem started he did a few things right.

1. He said he recognized at 1,500 feet he wasn't going to make it back to the airport and identified a "large" alternate landing area. At 26 jumps he didn't have the skill to land in it but good effort for trying to find an out. Sure he might have done it higher but 1,500 is better than 150 feet.

2. He followed appropriate "tree landing" procedures by protecting himself and holding onto a branch and waiting for help.

All in all pretty good from someone with 26 jumps. I wonder if this was his first jump as an A license holder? If so what a memorable one!

I've switched to brass grommets on both of my rigs. I have a fused neck and like every opening to be as slow as possible. Doing 10 jumps a day even a small reduction in opening force can make a big difference on Sunday night.

It is amazing the difference the brass grommets make even given no other changes to the rig's configuration. My rigger tells me that in addition to being lighter they also don't slide down the lines as well as there is a little bit more friction, which also slows the openings down a tad.

I don't have any empirical evidence as to exactly how much difference there is but I can tell you I NOTICE the openings being slower and softer with brass grommets.

Quote

-- To Ron for giving me great skydiving “career” guidance.

Ah, thanks. Now I feel bad for talking to Larry Henderson about you behind your back this weekend.

Or did you mean Ron Hill? People get us confused you know. But I'm the taller one and dress better.

Seriously, you've done well and progressed nicely. It's a good start. Keep it up.

Quote

FYI, my comfortable deployment altitude is 3500 and my decision altitude is 1500.

Rethink that decision altitude. The SIM recommends no lower than 1800 for D licensed jumpers.

Quote

Quote

What? A 1.45 on a medium performance canopy for a guy that jumps every week (is current) and has 700+ jumps? Oh, come on, those are not unreasonable numbers.

I think it is for someone taking "almost every precaution I can to make sure I make the safest jump". He would be much safer under a 210 and a PDR218, if he was truly trying too "make the safest jump".

LOL. You can choose to parse his statements as much as you like to support your opinion but why stop at a 210? Why not put him under a NAV 260 instead of a 210, where does it stop? How about a Manta? He is a current skydiver under a medium performance canopy at a moderate WL for his experience. There is nothing unreasonably unsafe about it. (did I just put a triple negative in a sentence?)

And personally, I'm back to my position that he should stay home with his family to keep him from depleting the Dropzone resources; specifically beer. He drinks too much on a Friday night. And FYI he doesn't jump on Saturday.

Quote

Quote

Thats not an option I will jump, but will take almost every precaution I can to make sure I make the safest jump I can.

Sabre2 150 ft² (1.45 lbs/ft²)
PD Reserve 160 ft² (1.36 lbs/ft²)

Well those are not the safest of wing loading. Have a hell of a higher chance of mangling or killing your self under canopy than ever using your AAD.

What? A 1.45 on a medium performance canopy for a guy that jumps every week (is current) and has 700+ jumps? Oh, come on, those are not unreasonable numbers.

And to a prior poster, he has family, so what? Are we now going to start requiring that only people without any family can skydive?

I do think that JohnDeer should stop jumping for an important reason though. He drinks more than his fair share of beer on Friday nights! If he quits there will be more for me!

Quote

Here's a dry run on the ground
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5979072227420503131#


See also
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6075652443880467365#

Interesting video but CLEARLY that is not a properly fitting harness. The shoulders are FAR too wide and the back of the yoke hangs half way down his back.

*** Yea i know you think im a little bitch that needs to be coddled

If you say so.