High WLs, Low Experience.. Where Are the S&TAs?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The other guy was my coach, yes to cypress.. i guess we were both lucky.

If he let you hit him, he's got no business coaching you.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Do you have a reliable source for injury statistics?

Of course he doesn't. Nobody does. There isn't a reliable source for skydiving injury statistics because the majority of them don't get reported to anybody.

[JohnDeere 0]

Sorry but i dont do bounch bingo. I just find hard that you say 100 are the ones to watch. At the same time you are about to hit 100 jumps with a WL of 1.5. That make me wonder what your thinking. I dont wish any harm on you or anyone else that doesnt see things the way i do. I hope you and your WL do just fine, but the odds are further stacked against you.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[JohnDeere 0]

You keep talking about actual data. As others have said, there is no good data to go by. Most canopy accidents are not reported. You know the same ones that you hear people talking about on here that made them up size their canopy. So you go ahead and keep saying the same thing over and over and over (i need more data that dosen't exist..... look i won this argument again) That makes no sense at all to argue just to argue.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[skybytch 273]

Quote

my Alti awerness became shocking(bought a ditter)

Yeah, that whole building visual altimeter checks into the dive flow thing is so '80's.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

You keep talking about actual data. As others have said, there is no good data to go by. Most canopy accidents are not reported. You know the same ones that you hear people talking about on here that made them up size their canopy. So you go ahead and keep saying the same thing over and over and over (i need more data that dosen't exist..... look i won this argument again) That makes no sense at all to argue just to argue.

There are EXCELLENT data on fatalities extending back decades. If there is a real problem it will be apparent there.

...

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

[Orange1 0]

Quote

Quote

You keep talking about actual data....

There are EXCELLENT data on fatalities extending back decades. If there is a real problem it will be apparent there.

Is it not possible.. that the reason there are not hundreds of incidents involving low timers on highly loaded canopies is simply because (as was pointed out in another thread) 9 out of 10 low timers do actually listen to advice to stay conservative?

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep talking about actual data....

There are EXCELLENT data on fatalities extending back decades. If there is a real problem it will be apparent there.

Is it not possible.. that the reason there are not hundreds of incidents involving low timers on highly loaded canopies is simply because (as was pointed out in another thread) 9 out of 10 low timers do actually listen to advice to stay conservative?

That can't possibly be why. There aren't enough statistics, pie charts and graphs to support that statement... oh and slide shows. None of those, either.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep talking about actual data....

There are EXCELLENT data on fatalities extending back decades. If there is a real problem it will be apparent there.

Is it not possible.. that the reason there are not hundreds of incidents involving low timers on highly loaded canopies is simply because (as was pointed out in another thread) 9 out of 10 low timers do actually listen to advice to stay conservative?

That can't possibly be why. There aren't enough statistics, pie charts and graphs to support that statement... oh and slide shows. None of those, either.

If there were a problem you would have no difficulty in proving it from the data that already exist. Denigrating the value of statistics in epidemiology (which is what this is) is the hallmark of someone that doesn't have a valid case. I'm just surprised no-one has come up with "lies, damned lies, and statistics" yet

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep talking about actual data....

There are EXCELLENT data on fatalities extending back decades. If there is a real problem it will be apparent there.

Is it not possible.. that the reason there are not hundreds of incidents involving low timers on highly loaded canopies is simply because (as was pointed out in another thread) 9 out of 10 low timers do actually listen to advice to stay conservative?

I have an alternative hypothesis:

There are ABUNDANT data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the NHTSB, and the various states, as well as from other nations, that males between the ages of 18 and 24 have accidents at a rate and take risks way beyond any other segment of the population. Not only do they injure and kill themselves, they injure and kill others too.

OBVIOUSLY, using COMMON SENSE, such risky behaviors will transfer to skydiving. So if we really want to reduce the skydiving accident rate we should ban males between the ages of 18 and 24. Why are the S&TAs not doing this? No need to collect any data on actual skydiving accident rates of young males, that is unnecessary nit-picking.

...

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

[BillyVance 34]

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but take a look at the back cover of this month's Parachutist.

What's Your Safety Worth?

Cross-braced canopy: $2,400
Lift ticket to altitude: $23
Helicopter ride to the hospital: $7,000
Hospital bill to repair multiple broken bones: $185,000
Loss of income while recovering from injuries: 12,000
Additional medical expenses during recovery: $7,000
Physical therapy: $8,000
Flowers for girlfriend who changed your bedpan every day for two months: $150

Attending Safety Day to learn more about canopy control, canopy-related accidents and how to avoid the pitfalls of rapid downsizing and landing injuries:

PRICELESS

That says it all.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[pilotdave 0]

Got stats to show that calculating a proper time between groups is safer than trying to judge 45 degrees? Clearly if the 45 degree rule was flawed, we'd have ABUNDANT data to show why people must be educated that it doesn't work.

(and for the record, the 45-degree rule doesn't work, even though I haven't seen any statistics to show that deployment collisions have been reduced at dropzones that have switched from the 45-degree method to a proper method as taught by kallend).

Dave

[JohnDeere 0]

You might wont want to read my entire post instead of skanning and replying to only part of it. I find it hard to beleive there is excelent data for such a small sport when alot of accidents dont get reported, like a 200 jump skygod with a 1.6 wingloading, getting hurt and not reporting the incedent. As i said earlier, someone like this may un size canopy and may never become a fatality in your wonderfull world of pie charts and data.
Please answer

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep talking about actual data....

There are EXCELLENT data on fatalities extending back decades. If there is a real problem it will be apparent there.

Is it not possible.. that the reason there are not hundreds of incidents involving low timers on highly loaded canopies is simply because (as was pointed out in another thread) 9 out of 10 low timers do actually listen to advice to stay conservative?

That can't possibly be why. There aren't enough statistics, pie charts and graphs to support that statement... oh and slide shows. None of those, either.

If there were a problem you would have no difficulty in proving it from the data that already exist. Denigrating the value of statistics in epidemiology (which is what this is) is the hallmark of someone that doesn't have a valid case. I'm just surprised no-one has come up with "lies, damned lies, and statistics" yet

I really don't think that you are understanding what I am trying to get across.

There IS data that a smaller canopy goes faster. There IS data that a faster canopy means less room for error. And there IS data that would suggest that less room for error is NOT something that someone new to the sport needs. Do I have the time to compile it all into a nice pie chart for you? No, and I really could care less to do that.

When a jumper is still trying to get over the 'holy shit' factor that jumping out of a plane, in and of itself, gives to them.. the last thing they need is to have that same 'holy shit' factor when they are under their hot rod of a canopy, all while trying to land in the same spot as the 20 other people that are in the air with them.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep talking about actual data....

There are EXCELLENT data on fatalities extending back decades. If there is a real problem it will be apparent there.

Is it not possible.. that the reason there are not hundreds of incidents involving low timers on highly loaded canopies is simply because (as was pointed out in another thread) 9 out of 10 low timers do actually listen to advice to stay conservative?

That can't possibly be why. There aren't enough statistics, pie charts and graphs to support that statement... oh and slide shows. None of those, either.

If there were a problem you would have no difficulty in proving it from the data that already exist. Denigrating the value of statistics in epidemiology (which is what this is) is the hallmark of someone that doesn't have a valid case. I'm just surprised no-one has come up with "lies, damned lies, and statistics" yet

I really don't think that you are understanding what I am trying to get across.

There are data that a smaller canopy goes faster.

AGREED

There are data that a faster canopy means less room for error.

AGREED


And there ARE data that would suggest that less room for error is NOT something that someone new to the sport needs. Do I have the time to compile it all into a nice pie chart for you? No, and I really could care less to do that.

.

Less room for error is not something that ANYONE needs. Choosing it is a jumper's prerogative, and not yours.

Unless and until you can show that this is a unique issue for low time jumpers and that they are disproportionately dying, you are wasting all of our time. So far you have failed to make that case and all you offer is weak and feeble excuses as to why you shouldn't bother to make it.

There are very good data to show that young males have more accidents than others. What is your suggestion to fix THAT problem?

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Got stats to show that calculating a proper time between groups is safer than trying to judge 45 degrees? Clearly if the 45 degree rule was flawed, we'd have ABUNDANT data to show why people must be educated that it doesn't work.

(and for the record, the 45-degree rule doesn't work, even though I haven't seen any statistics to show that deployment collisions have been reduced at dropzones that have switched from the 45-degree method to a proper method as taught by kallend).

Dave

There are ample data to verify that Newton's laws work. That is all that is needed

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

You might wont want to read my entire post instead of skanning and replying to only part of it. I find it hard to beleive there is excelent data for such a small sport when alot of accidents dont get reported, like a 200 jump skygod with a 1.6 wingloading, getting hurt and not reporting the incedent. As i said earlier, someone like this may un size canopy and may never become a fatality in your wonderfull world of pie charts and data.
Please answer

Do you believe the CDC is wasting its time collecting data on diseases, because they use statistics and "pie charts"?

Do you think new pharmaceuticals should be approved just because someone thinks they work and are not harmful, or do you prefer that they be tested first?

It would be far easier to do your homework to make a case instead of making excuse after excuse for why you shouldn't bother.

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but take a look at the back cover of this month's Parachutist.

What's Your Safety Worth?

Cross-braced canopy: $2,400
Lift ticket to altitude: $23
Helicopter ride to the hospital: $7,000
Hospital bill to repair multiple broken bones: $185,000
Loss of income while recovering from injuries: 12,000
Additional medical expenses during recovery: $7,000
Physical therapy: $8,000
Flowers for girlfriend who changed your bedpan every day for two months: $150

Attending Safety Day to learn more about canopy control, canopy-related accidents and how to avoid the pitfalls of rapid downsizing and landing injuries:

PRICELESS

That says it all.

Yes. And it applies to everyone whether they have 50, 500 or 5,000 jumps.

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

General comment to everyone.

If you want action, griping on dz.com is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever. If you want the FAA, USPA, your DZO or S&TA to implement new restrictions you will HAVE to make a case based on firm data. A handful of anecdotes and general whining will not influence anyone.

If you want to make your case, FIRST do your homework.

...

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

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

There are very good data to show that young males have more accidents than others. What is your suggestion to fix THAT problem?

Well, I fall into that bracket. I guess I should stop skydiving.

It's each person's decision to take as much risk as they want. However, it is my opinion that there should be some guidelines, or prerequisites when it comes to canopy size. Jump numbers, as well as currency, should be taken into effect. Again, IMO.

I'm not trying to change your mind about anything. I do, however, stand my ground that wingloadings need to be carefully observed, especially when it comes to new skydivers. They simply do not need the added stress and complications on top of what they are already dealing with. Common sense takes over any 'necessary' data when it comes to drawing that conclusion.

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

General comment to everyone.

If you want action, griping on dz.com is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever. If you want the FAA, USPA, your DZO or S&TA to implement new restrictions you will HAVE to make a case based on firm data. A handful of anecdotes and general whining will not influence anyone.

If you want to make your case, FIRST do your homework.

But where's the fun in that? We won't get to listen to the newbies who admittingly call themselves risky and gloating about it, and the occasional experienced jumper with the same skewed opinions on the subject.

I'd rather gripe for now.

[JohnDeere 0]

Wow you still cant answer one damn question. But then agian i noticed you are a (liberal) proffesor, so it makes so much since now. You arent about to answer any question that dosent suport your opinion. So now you going to try and indoctornate us on the computer.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[billvon 3,085]

>If you want the FAA, USPA, your DZO or S&TA to implement new
>restrictions you will HAVE to make a case based on firm data.

Just about every BSR was based on a "handful of anecdotes." The water jump requirement? The Lake Erie fatalities. Pull altitudes? A rash of low-pull-contest fatalities.

No one has the data you seem stuck on. No one ever will. We (fortunately) do not have enough fatality data to get firm statistically valid data. Instead, we often have to rely on common sense.

Do we have any data that shows that students will do worse if we don't give them rigs? Nope. They might arch better. Heck, for last year alone, the number of students injured while wearing rigs FAR exceeded the number of students injured who jumped without rigs. Fortunately, we use common sense in that case, and do not perform the experiment - even though we lack hard data to prove that students need rigs.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

General comment to everyone.

If you want action, griping on dz.com is unlikely to have any effect whatsoever. If you want the FAA, USPA, your DZO or S&TA to implement new restrictions you will HAVE to make a case based on firm data. A handful of anecdotes and general whining will not influence anyone.

If you want to make your case, FIRST do your homework.

Some of us are.

And if you'd like to have a hand in guiding novices in this sport, get a rating.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 3,085]

Your one warning. Take the Speaker's Corner stuff to Speaker's Corner.