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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>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.

How much success did you have with the wing loading BSR proposal from a couple of years back? I don't seem to see it in the BSRs.

There are lot of people out there who are more skeptical than me about additional restrictions.

I also disagree about the availability of data. There are plenty of good data on fatalities and their causes, going back 2 decades and more. They do not appear to show that low time jumpers on inappropriate canopies are killing themselves or others at a higher rate than experienced jumpers manage it.

Maybe we ALL need to slow down.

...

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

[crotalus01 0]

First - this is my final post ever on the WL issue (well, unless I drunk post).
Second - here are some quotes from another thread about WL:

With this type of expext advice I don't see how anything could possibly go wrong. People learn a lot in 80 jumps and should feel indignant when people with thousands of jumps disagree with their expert opinion. In my opinion it is always good to have a jumping prodigy contribute thoughts and insights into this forum ESPECIALLY when they are encouraging a jumper to defy conventional wisdom based on their experience and knowledge. Perhaps this will open up a debate where we can all learn why new jumpers should take more risks.

I'm willing to learn. Please explain your thought process crotalus01.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that.








MagicGuy

Jumps
License
In sport
: 375
: C
: 1 years



Mar 2, 2008, 9:26 AM

Post #206 of 208 (258 views)
Copy Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Posts: 868

Re: [JustChuteMeNow] 1.333 Wingloading with 160 jumps.... [In reply to] Quote | Reply

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

Yeah, especially when said person has 80 jumps over the course of 2 years. Shows that their skillset must really be on point with the tremendous amount of currency they have maintained.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, I can't make your wife disappear."





billvon
Moderator
Jumps
License
In sport
: 5500
: D 16479
: 16 years


Mar 2, 2008, 2:21 PM

Post #207 of 208 (217 views)
Copy Shortcut

Registered: Apr 5, 2001
Posts: 36341

Re: [crotalus01] 1.333 Wingloading with 160 jumps.... [In reply to] Quote | Reply

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

>but my bet is on the OP being just fine at 1.3 wl. I have been at 1.26
>since jump #28 with not just S&TA approval but recommendation as well.

Once in college I drove home when I could barely walk. I made it home OK. Therefore I bet that people who are very drunk will be fine if they drive themselves home.

Early on in my climbing career I tried a roped solo of Triple Direct on El Cap. I got about 6 pitches up before I took a pretty bad fall, and I realized how bad it could have been had I been hurt without a partner. So I backed off the climb and was not hurt. Based on that, I bet that anyone with a few seasons of climbing under their belt can solo El Cap and be just fine. As long as they're careful, of course. After all, nothing bad happened to me when I tried it.

The above are examples of the logical fallacy of assuming that whatever you survive is safe to do. History has shown that that is definitely not true.





Mozencrath

Jumps
License
In sport
: 1
: A 40312
: 6 years


Mar 2, 2008, 9:37 PM

Post #208 of 208 (151 views)
Copy Shortcut

Registered: Sep 22, 2005
Posts: 50

Re: [crotalus01] 1.333 Wingloading with 160 jumps.... [In reply to] Quote | Reply

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I will throw some money in, too...but my bet is on the OP being just fine at 1.3 wl. I have been at 1.26 since jump #28 with not just S&TA approval but recommendation as well.
And yes, I have been cut off on final twice. Once around 120' and another around 40'. The first I flat turned away, the second I flare turned (slowish flare transition into a turn - the partial flare slowed me enough to make a slow braked turn).
Flame away, I am used to it.

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


cut off on final TWICE?!?!?! Thats unbelievable. I've never heard of that before...Can you teach me this "slowish-flare-transition-turn-to-partial-flare" that you did at 40ft? Sounds amazing...



You say "flame away, I'm used to it". Do you think there is a reason perhaps why you get flamed when you make posts like this? You sound like a 12 year old. I would love to meet this S&TA that RECOMMENDED you load your canopy @ 1.26 JUST off AFF with 28 jumps. You are out of your mind.


OKAY....to address some of the quotes.
1) Most of you (NOT all) come across as sarcastic assholes. I understand why, but please consider your tone, if it is les assholish you may get listened to more often.
2) I never intended to come across as, nor felt indignant.
3) I never claimed to be ANY kind of prodigy, nor did I offer any advice of any kind. I simply provided an answer to the OPs question which was, "what do you think?". As far as I can tell from the OPs post I replied to, there were no jump #s involved, only opinions. My opinion was that he will likely be fine. Yours may differ and thats fine, no need to flame me for answering an opinion question. Funny how jump #s don't figure in when all these low jumpers tell folks they are DGITs...
4) You people are almost to the man hypocrites. The MOST common piece of advice on this forum is: LISTEN TO YOUR INSTRUCTORS. How many times have all of you seen/given that bit of advice? OKAY, I listened to my instructors. And guess what? I am flying a Sabre 190 w/l at 1.26 or so with 90 jumps, and have been since 28 jumps or so. But suddenly my instructors, S&TA, and DZO are full of shit because they recommend something you don't agree with.
The second most given piece of advice I have seen here is to not ask for advice on the internet but ask the people who know you and have flown with you. Noone at my DZ has a problem with what I am flying, actually my S&TA has approved me downsizing to a (gasp) 170, a downsize I am not going for right now because I want to fly the piss out of my 190, NOT because the DZ.com gurus (who have never seen me freefall much less fly) think I am already fucked flying a horribly small Sabre 190 loaded at the ridiculousw/l of 1.26...
Sorry for the long post, I am done with the w/l debate here.
Billvon you are the exception to this post for the most part, not because you are a mod but because you didn't come across as a complete asshole.

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[davelepka 4]

Quote

There are lot of people out there who are more skeptical than me about additional restrictions.

I also disagree about the availability of data. There are plenty of good data on fatalities and their causes, going back 2 decades and more. They do not appear to show that low time jumpers on inappropriate canopies are killing themselves or others at a higher rate than experienced jumpers manage it.

This may be true, however non-fatal incidents are not always reported, and for many years there was not even a system in place to make such a report.

Severe, life changing injuries may occur, but we will never know how often, and to whom they happen. Even injuries less severe could cause a person to quit skydiving all together.

Why not give the WL proposal a chance? Institute it for five years, and see what things look like then? What would the harm be in that?

It's not as if this is some radical proposal we're talking about. It's a concept that's easy to accept as plausable, and one that's been in place in other countries for many years. If anything, we can be assured there is very little to lose in persuing this.

[billvon 3,080]

>How much success did you have with the wing loading BSR proposal from a
>couple of years back? I don't seem to see it in the BSRs.

Not too much luck. Graduate education and landing pattern separation requirement worked out pretty well though. (And I didn't even have any stats!)

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>How much success did you have with the wing loading BSR proposal from a
>couple of years back? I don't seem to see it in the BSRs.

Not too much luck. Graduate education and landing pattern separation requirement worked out pretty well though. (And I didn't even have any stats!)

Maybe some good data would have done the trick.

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

There are lot of people out there who are more skeptical than me about additional restrictions.

I also disagree about the availability of data. There are plenty of good data on fatalities and their causes, going back 2 decades and more. They do not appear to show that low time jumpers on inappropriate canopies are killing themselves or others at a higher rate than experienced jumpers manage it.

This may be true, however non-fatal incidents are not always reported, and for many years there was not even a system in place to make such a report.

Severe, life changing injuries may occur, but we will never know how often, and to whom they happen. Even injuries less severe could cause a person to quit skydiving all together.

Why not give the WL proposal a chance? Institute it for five years, and see what things look like then? What would the harm be in that?

It's not as if this is some radical proposal we're talking about. It's a concept that's easy to accept as plausable, and one that's been in place in other countries for many years. If anything, we can be assured there is very little to lose in persuing this.

Well, Dave, people were talking about this issue when I started skydiving 11 years ago. Wreck Skydiving had thread after thread on it. If anyone was REALLY serious (instead of just wanting to rant on the internet) maybe they could have started to collect said data so that by now we would have built up a profile of the alleged problem.

...

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

[hackish 8]

Quote

OKAY....to address some of the quotes.
1) Most of you (NOT all) come across as sarcastic assholes. I understand why, but please consider your tone, if it is les assholish you may get listened to more often.
2) I never intended to come across as, nor felt indignant.
3) I never claimed to be ANY kind of prodigy, nor did I offer any advice of any kind. I simply provided an answer to the OPs question which was, "what do you think?". As far as I can tell from the OPs post I replied to, there were no jump #s involved, only opinions. My opinion was that he will likely be fine. Yours may differ and thats fine, no need to flame me for answering an opinion question. Funny how jump #s don't figure in when all these low jumpers tell folks they are DGITs...
4) You people are almost to the man hypocrites. The MOST common piece of advice on this forum is: LISTEN TO YOUR INSTRUCTORS. How many times have all of you seen/given that bit of advice? OKAY, I listened to my instructors. And guess what? I am flying a Sabre 190 w/l at 1.26 or so with 90 jumps, and have been since 28 jumps or so. But suddenly my instructors, S&TA, and DZO are full of shit because they recommend something you don't agree with.
The second most given piece of advice I have seen here is to not ask for advice on the internet but ask the people who know you and have flown with you. Noone at my DZ has a problem with what I am flying, actually my S&TA has approved me downsizing to a (gasp) 170, a downsize I am not going for right now because I want to fly the piss out of my 190, NOT because the DZ.com gurus (who have never seen me freefall much less fly) think I am already fucked flying a horribly small Sabre 190 loaded at the ridiculousw/l of 1.26...
Sorry for the long post, I am done with the w/l debate here.
Billvon you are the exception to this post for the most part, not because you are a mod but because you didn't come across as a complete asshole.

I don't think I could have summed it up better. How could anyone over the interweb who has never seen anyone fly claim that they're a DGIT? When I bought my rig I understood it was a sabre2 190 but found out that it was instead a 170. I asked the advice of every experienced instructor and coach as well as the DZO and they all felt I'd be just fine on it so I moved ahead.

Conversely I know of someone with 200ish jumps flying something close to a 100. Although he's light and seems to land it OK he also had to get a friend to buy it for him because the owner wasn't comfortable selling it to someone with his jump numbers. That one person may be deserving of harsh criticism but many here, myself included are flying what they have under the blessing of instructors and the safety people.

-Michael

[ROK 0]

Maybe some good data would have done the trick.

Question...

In order to get an accurate representation, wouldn't we need to know how many people in each group are flying "highly" loaded canopies, as well as the number of people in each group damaged under highly loaded canopies?

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Maybe some good data would have done the trick.

Question...

In order to get an accurate representation, wouldn't we need to know how many people in each group are flying "highly" loaded canopies, as well as the number of people in each group damaged under highly loaded canopies?



If as much effort had gone into gathering information as has gone into internet rants on the subject, it would be done by now.

...

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

[davelepka 4]

You would need to have information on all jumps being made, the experince of the jumper, and the type and WL of the canopy used.

Knowing the experince, canopy and WL of jumpers who were injured or killed would not be enough. You also need to know what percentage of overall jumpers that group represents, and what percentage their jumps make up of the overall jumps made.

Only with both sets of data (jumps related to incidents and overall jumps) can you conclude if newer jumpers make up a proportionate or disproportionate number of those incidents.

I don't think it's even possible to gather that data.

Given that the data is not available, I ask again, what is the possible harm to introducing a WL BSR?

The very concept of the WL BSR is to err on the side of caution. As previously stated, this type of restriction has been in place for many years in other countries, and while (again) we don't have the data to prove any positive effects, I cannot see any negative effects it may have had.

Is the concept that newer jumpers should be jumping conservative canopies at conservative WLs, with changes comensurate with jump numbers really that outlandish that you don't think it's worth a shot? With no real negatives connected with giving it a shot?

The data needed to draw a scientific conclusion will never exist. There's no funding for such a study, and you'll never find anyone willing to do the job for free. Let's get past the data issue, and use the judgement and expereince we do have to make a conclusion.

[kallend 2,113]

I disagree, I think you can get something quite valid by mining the existing databases.

Of course, not trying, and making excuses as to why not, is far easier.

And notwithstanding that, I still believe it is the right of an individual to decide his or her own level of informed, acceptable risk, provided they are not endangering others. Skydiving is NOT a risk-free activity.

...

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

[Orange1 0]

Kallend, I still stand by that post that got lost somewhere in the tussle between you and magicguy.
There are no statistics for example that show the number of sprained ankles for lowtimers under lightly loaded canopies, that could easily have been broken bones under more highly loaded ones. We could look at the statistics a different way: we could for example see how many of the canopy-related incidents happened to people loaded less than 1:1?

On your other point -- it would be interesting to see an age & gender distribution of fatalities. I agree it happens across the skydiver spectrum but let's see if more young males do kill themselves or others than the rest. In my recollection, the last few threads that have included the "this is what the guy posted when he was alive" stuff were all young males.

I'm happy to do these analyses if someone has all the data in excel to send me! (and yes i do know how to work with statistics.)

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Jumpah 0]

This is a global sport with local management. Forget all the ruling and governing bodies for a second. Just worry about your current airspace and the people you are with, and whether you are comfortable with what is going on. WL is a guide, a good one, and thats all. Its risky to downsize, but it can be so much more fun that its "worth" the risk to you. The difficulty is that new jumpers often don't really know the extent of the risk, and many haven't experienced first hand what can really go wrong. They just have great experiences. How can a new jumper really appreciate how dangerous it can really be until they see their first break, their first pond crash, or a fatality? The reality is that if you stay in this sport, someone you know is going to get really hurt or die.

I ask myself internally on every jump if I would be comfortable explaining what we were trying to do to the authorities and family and friends of the victim, should something go terribly wrong. In my short skydiving career I've seen more breaks and fatalities than in the rest of my life. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I wasn't sheltered in my upbringing, and I feel I've been taught by excellent and caring people. If you stay in the sport, eventually you'll be around when something terrible happens. Back to my original statement: this is a global sport with local management: manage yourself as best you can and you will influence others.

All types jump...some you can never save. Just don't be a part of their demise and do what you can to discourage dangerous behavior.

All types post here. Ignore most, take in some, vet the rest with people local to you who know their stuff. Over time you'll gain experience. Over time you'll understand more and more. Over time you may become the person that others go to just as you did when you were new.

Just my opinion.
Jumpah

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

And notwithstanding that, I still believe it is the right of an individual to decide his or her own level of informed, acceptable risk, provided they are not endangering others. Skydiving is NOT a risk-free activity.

It's sort of amazing how people can get different perspectives in this little sport. I believe someone that has done most of their jumping at big dropzones has a different perspective than someone that jumps at a little dropzone. And there are other reasons why we end up with different perspectives. Like here in CT, we have to file incident reports with the state DOT for every injury, dropped object, and even off landing. The town reviews our incident reports every so often. Every safe off landing in a back yard or huge farm field is an incident that will bring negative attention to the DZ. We don't have many injuries at our DZ, but every one of em gives the town more ammo against us. So maybe some skydiver are more sensitive when it comes to "everyone should be allowed to take any risk they want."

Dave

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

And notwithstanding that, I still believe it is the right of an individual to decide his or her own level of informed, acceptable risk, provided they are not endangering others. Skydiving is NOT a risk-free activity.

It's sort of amazing how people can get different perspectives in this little sport. I believe someone that has done most of their jumping at big dropzones has a different perspective than someone that jumps at a little dropzone. And there are other reasons why we end up with different perspectives. Like here in CT, we have to file incident reports with the state DOT for every injury, dropped object, and even off landing. The town reviews our incident reports every so often. Every safe off landing in a back yard or huge farm field is an incident that will bring negative attention to the DZ. We don't have many injuries at our DZ, but every one of em gives the town more ammo against us. So maybe some skydiver are more sensitive when it comes to "everyone should be allowed to take any risk they want."

Dave

Which is why, on post #172 of this very thread I wrote:

"Yes. And it is fairly independent of jump numbers. However, if they are informed of the risks to themselves and are not a risk to other people, it's really their (and the DZO's) decision to make. If they are a hazard to others the DZO should ground them, like he or she would ground any dangerous individuals regardless of experience level."


I suspect you'd have a bigger reduction in accident rates by not allowing 18-24 year old males on the DZ. Do you also have plans to ban them?

...

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

[pilotdave 0]

I won't bother looking up the post # where I said we should work to reduce accidents without banning skydiving, since we're skydivers. The rest of the world would probably be fine with banning all age groups, but we have a different goal here.

I'm also not suggesting banning anything. While I have nothing against a wingloading BSR (because I don't see a downside), I'm also not suggesting it. I'm just agreeing with the original poster that those with authority (which really isn't the S&TAs) should be stepping up to keep jumpers on appropriately sized canopies.

If a wingloading BSR came along, what do you see as the downside? Xtreme risk takers would be oppressed?

Dave

[Jumpah 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And notwithstanding that, I still believe it is the right of an individual to decide his or her own level of informed, acceptable risk, provided they are not endangering others. Skydiving is NOT a risk-free activity.

It's sort of amazing how people can get different perspectives in this little sport. I believe someone that has done most of their jumping at big dropzones has a different perspective than someone that jumps at a little dropzone. And there are other reasons why we end up with different perspectives. Like here in CT, we have to file incident reports with the state DOT for every injury, dropped object, and even off landing. The town reviews our incident reports every so often. Every safe off landing in a back yard or huge farm field is an incident that will bring negative attention to the DZ. We don't have many injuries at our DZ, but every one of em gives the town more ammo against us. So maybe some skydiver are more sensitive when it comes to "everyone should be allowed to take any risk they want."

Dave

Which is why, on post #172 of this very thread I wrote:

"Yes. And it is fairly independent of jump numbers. However, if they are informed of the risks to themselves and are not a risk to other people, it's really their (and the DZO's) decision to make. If they are a hazard to others the DZO should ground them, like he or she would ground any dangerous individuals regardless of experience level."


I suspect you'd have a bigger reduction in accident rates by not allowing 18-24 year old males on the DZ. Do you also have plans to ban them?

JUST the ones who spot with the "45 degree rule".

[billvon 3,080]

>JUST the ones who spot with the "45 degree rule".

I used to be against the 45 degree rule, but then I realized - there is no data to support the idea that it doesn't work!

[Jumpah 0]

Quote

>JUST the ones who spot with the "45 degree rule".

I used to be against the 45 degree rule, but then I realized - there is no data to support the idea that it doesn't work!

Not blowing smoke up your butt, but I read the ppt and the info because I read a post that you supported it. I think the presentation makes sense and it taught me some stuff I didn't know.

I thought it was a good joke to place there, too.

I suspect that finding a way to easily apply the techniques suggested in the presentation is a large barrier towards adoption. It may be that hearing a presentation about it live makes it all click, but I had to read it several times to put it together, and I'm still fuzzy on it. Too much math. I'm college educated, just not much math in my background.

Perhaps there is no easy way to apply the new data and make an easy way to "do" it, but that is one thing that could help.

Edited to add: I misread your original post and didn't realize it until Diablopilot posted. Definitely interested in hearing more.

[MagicGuy 0]

Quote

If a wingloading BSR came along, what do you see as the downside? Xtreme risk takers would be oppressed?

No downside at all. Like a previous poster (davelepka maybe?) said.. if anything, we have nothing to lose by giving it a try.

And besides, every single one of us is an extreme risk taker. We throw ourselves out of planes, only to be (hopefully) saved by a bunch of lines and nylon. How much more extreme do you want?

There's gotta be a line drawn somewhere. Am I against taking things on a more personal level? Absolutely not. Individual progression is fine. But there is a fine line that lies there, or that needs to be lying there I guess I should say.

[daremrc 0]

How about individual progression applied towards other things than skydiving?

I mean, I'm sure there's some kids out there driving on permits that could handle a high-displacement motorcycle. Who are we to hold them back from developing their skills at a younger age?Or how about doctors? There's some great minds in medical school today, let's let them skip the hoops and show the world their real, true potential.

My point is: Why do we need numbers and injuries/deaths to prove something is a bad idea? When you take a concept that has a potential, unproven upside but no downside, why not? Isn't that what things like helmets and seatbelts are about?


my questions aren't directly aimed at the last poster, that was just the closest 'reply' button...

Good judgement comes from experience, and most of that comes from bad judgement.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

>JUST the ones who spot with the "45 degree rule".

I used to be against the 45 degree rule, but then I realized - there is no data to support the idea that it doesn't work!

Ouch.....I think that one was under the belt.

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

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Kallend, I still stand by that post that got lost somewhere in the tussle between you and magicguy.
There are no statistics for example that show the number of sprained ankles for lowtimers under lightly loaded canopies, that could easily have been broken bones under more highly loaded ones. We could look at the statistics a different way: we could for example see how many of the canopy-related incidents happened to people loaded less than 1:1?.)

that staticically would not work unless you make specifc assumptions about "all things being exactly the same" only on a smaller canopy.
Just because someone srains an ankle on a big boat does not mean in anyway that the injury would have been worse on a smaller canopy. The canopies fly very differently, and the sprained ankle could well have been avoided on a smaller canopy

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

>JUST the ones who spot with the "45 degree rule".

I used to be against the 45 degree rule, but then I realized - there is no data to support the idea that it doesn't work!

Really? You don't believe Newton's laws? Nor that cool video with the 45 degree line marked?

...

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

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

If a wingloading BSR came along, what do you see as the downside? Xtreme risk takers would be oppressed?

No downside at all. Like a previous poster (davelepka maybe?) said.. if anything, we have nothing to lose by giving it a try.

And besides, every single one of us is an extreme risk taker. We throw ourselves out of planes, only to be (hopefully) saved by a bunch of lines and nylon. How much more extreme do you want?

There's gotta be a line drawn somewhere.

Why? Would you ban wingsuits? (how many wingsuit jumpers died from 1930 - 1990?). Want to ban 18-24 year old males with proven high accident rates? Want to ban hook turns? Want to ban anything bigger than a 4-way? How about we ban all skydiving, that would save a bunch of injuries and deaths.