Re: [skyjuggler] Landing injury.

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Lots of comments on jump numbers and canopy size. How about the jumper's AGE?

Hasn't anyone beside me and Michele noticed that there seems a better correlation between accidents and sex/age (male/under 25) than between accidents and jump numbers.

It may seem that way but the facts don't support it.
Of the 36 landing related fatalities I could locate from the last 5 years, only 4 where under the age of 25, while 21 had less then 500 jumps.

Source:Skydiving Fatalities"

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Ron 10]

Quote

Your recollection of history is incorrect, unless you can present evidence that the Ancient Greeks circumnavigated the Earth. Not that it's relevant at all...the failures of crackpots do not invalidate the scientific method any more than your favorite pocket rocket fatality invalidates all of skydiving.

Gee, you are so smart...and yet still so stupid.

A theory with out experimentation is nothing...EXPERiment ...EXPERience.

You can read all day, but that is not going to make it so you can handle a mal.

Quote

It's exactly the opposite; knowledge and theory is what gives us all (incl less experienced skydivers like me) the ability to tell true statements from conjecture

Then with all your brains...and you must be smart...you use 10 dollar words when 2 dollar ones will do...You like the idea of being smart don't you? You can't accept the fact that in a SPORT it is EXPERIENCE that will let you survive.

Quote

Abnegate it and just about all you'll have left is your experience to work with.

And no amount of knowledge will let you perform or know more than the guy with experience...But of course braniacs lie you with no EXPERIENCE will not admit that they are not as prepared to make a good choice...It would kill you to assume that you don't know enough.

Hey lets say your Mom wanted to do a tandem....Would you rather her go with me, a guy with 3300 jumps and a tandem rating, or would you just strap her on to your 100 jump self?

I mean how hard can a tandem be right? You are smart enough to understand all the complex situations that could happen...And I bet you are smart enough that you could crunch some numbers and tell me what % of each type of mal, and what the ripping point of the reserve canopy will be ona terminal deployment...

All that brains, and still you can't do it.

Quote

What would a pissing contest prove? Certainly not either of our arguments...

It would prove that you don't know squat past theories. And you can't put into action any of your ideas cause you don't have the skills.

I'm done with you...You think that a PhD is better than experience....

Its clear your ego will not let you accept the fact that you don't know it all.

Have fun.

...Anyone know why I bother wasting my time with "know it alls"?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

Lots of comments on jump numbers and canopy size. How about the jumper's AGE?

Hasn't anyone beside me and Michele noticed that there seems a better correlation between accidents and sex/age (male/under 25) than between accidents and jump numbers.

It may seem that way but the facts don't support it.
Of the 36 landing related fatalities I could locate from the last 5 years, only 4 where under the age of 25, while 21 had less then 500 jumps.

Source:Skydiving Fatalities"

You haven't corrected for the at-risk population in each group.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You haven't corrected for the at-risk population in each group.

But you will/have in your analysis?

I am eagerly awaiting your analysis and proposal for a solution to the rate of landing incidents.

Derek

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

You haven't corrected for the at-risk population in each group.

But you will/have in your analysis?

I am eagerly awaiting your analysis and proposal for a solution to the rate of landing incidents.

Derek

It was all discussed AT LENGTH last year.

This thread is just going over ground that has been repeatedly ploughed but still proves barren.

...

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

[billvon 3,111]

>But the way to get education is to require education . . .

That is exactly what the proposal does. It requires education if you want to downsize quickly.

>Not only have you not presented evidence that you have correctly
>identified the primary cause of the landing accident epidemic, you have
>also not presented any evidence that your "cure" will in fact cure it.

I have done both during the first debate on this topic; you have decided it is insufficient. That's fine; that's your opinion. But you are approaching this as a scientist, and I'm approaching it as an instructor and S+TA. And from what I see, the problem is that people who are downsizing quickly are not getting the education they need. And that is EXACTLY what this proposal addresses.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

It was all discussed AT LENGTH last year.

You continue to post your (negative) opinion of others working solutions. You continue to fail to post YOUR solution, same as last year. Again, your input would be a lot more beneficial if you would do an analysis and propose your solution.

You are a smart guy, why don't you do the analysis and come up with an idea? I personnaly would love to hear your (positive) input.

Derek

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

>But the way to get education is to require education . . .

That is exactly what the proposal does. It requires education if you want to downsize quickly.

>Not only have you not presented evidence that you have correctly
>identified the primary cause of the landing accident epidemic, you have
>also not presented any evidence that your "cure" will in fact cure it.

I have done both during the first debate on this topic; you have decided it is insufficient. That's fine; that's your opinion. But you are approaching this as a scientist, and I'm approaching it as an instructor and S+TA. And from what I see, the problem is that people who are downsizing quickly are not getting the education they need. And that is EXACTLY what this proposal addresses.

And it fails to address the many accidents that happen to people who aren't jumping heavily loaded canopies.

I have suggested a required sign-off for canopy training in order to go up every license level. That will still miss a few people who are content with an "A", but it will get a lot who want to progress to higher licenses but not necessarily to jump small canopies.

...

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

It was all discussed AT LENGTH last year.

You continue to post your (negative) opinion of others working solutions. You continue to fail to post YOUR solution, same as last year. Again, your input would be a lot more beneficial if you would do an analysis and propose your solution.

You are a smart guy, why don't you do the analysis and come up with an idea? I personnaly would love to hear your (positive) input.

Derek

I did it last year.

I have suggested a required sign-off for canopy training in order to go up every license level. That will still miss a few people who are content with an "A", but it will get a lot who want to progress to higher licenses but not necessarily to jump small canopies. These are the people your proposal misses.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I have suggested a required sign-off for canopy training in order to go up every license level. That will still miss a few people who are content with an "A", but it will get a lot who want to progress to higher licenses but not necessarily to jump small canopies. These are the people your proposal misses.

Umm. Manadatory canopy control training for each license IS part of the proposal.

"The proposal:

I propose USPA develop a series of canopy skills requirements for the “B”, “C”, and “D” licenses that build upon the initial "A" license canopy skills. These requirements would need to be flexible enough to allow for aggressive canopy pilots and conservative canopy pilots alike. They would include canopy control classroom training, practical exercises, a written and practical test. I also propose USPA implement (grand-fathering in current license holders), canopy type/wing load restrictions based on the “A” through “D” license. As each license is obtained, the skydiver may jump a canopy with a higher wing loading if they choose to. The WL restrictions could be waiver-able to a certain, defined degree to allow a skydiver that wishes to advance more quickly, puts in the effort, and demonstrates the ability. A Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA would be able to waiver a skydiver to a higher wing loading. A skydiver could also earn a canopy restricted "B" through "D" license if they choose not to demonstrate the proficiency required for the next license, in the same manner and similar to those restricted 'D' licenses for those unwilling or unable to perform night jumps. If a skydiver completes the canopy control training requirements for the next license prior to having the jump numbers required and demonstrates the ability, they may be waivered to a higher WL by a Canopy Instructor, AFFI, AFFI/E, or S &TA.

When the USPA implemented the “A” license canopy skills requirements, they correctly determined that Instructors were qualified to teach these basic canopy skills, without the need for further training or certification of the Instructor. As a skydiver progresses through their skydiving careers, their initial Instructor who taught them basic canopy control skills may not be qualified, or have the skills to teach more advance canopy control without further training for the original Instructor.

Therefore, I further propose the creation of the Canopy Instructor (CI) rating. A coach rating would be required to become a CI. Whereas the AFFI/ SLI/Coach rating courses focus on free-fall skills and instruction, the CI rating would focus on canopy skills and instruction. A one or two-day course where a Canopy Instructor Candidate learns how to teach more advanced canopy control. Each candidate will be required to demonstrate the ability to perform and teach advanced canopy control skills. A thought would be to simply add canopy piloting skills and canopy instruction skills to the current I rating courses. This brings up the dilemma of a great free-fall Instructor and flyer that can’t fly a canopy or teach canopy piloting very well not being able to teach free-fall skills, what a waste. Also, a CI would not be working with pre “A” license students, but licensed skydivers, and don’t require the free-fall skills and teaching ability to teach advance canopy skills. So the CI rating would be similar to the Coach rating, except focusing on canopy skills, not free-fall skills.

License # Jumps Maximum Wing loading

A license 25 1 psf max
B license 100 1.1 psf max
C license 200 1.3 psf max
D license 500 no limit


Skills covered for each license:

High performance malfunctions
Flat/Flared turns
Collision avoidance/flying in traffic
Sliders (Kill line, stowage, etc)
Accuracy skills
Basic Principles of Flight
Recovery Arc
Effects of wing loading
Canopy Maintenance
Adjusting Steering Line Length
Preventing and Curing Line Twists
Canopy Piloting Skills
Long Spot Techniques
Flying in Turbulence
Dealing with Traffic
Approach and Landing
Accuracy
Off DZ landings
Crosswind/downwind landings.

For each license, each topic will be covered more in-depth, building upon prior teaching and experience."

So who are we missing?

Derek

[billvon 3,111]

>And it fails to address the many accidents that happen to people who
> aren't jumping heavily loaded canopies.

The thrust of this proposal is to prevent injuries and fatalities on low-jump-number people jumping heavily loaded canopies; it is the fastest growing sector of deaths in skydiving today.

In 2001, 35 people died; 14 of those were under a good canopy. The proposed regulation could have saved 7 of those.

In 2002, 33 people died; 13 were under a good canopy. The proposal could have saved 6. See here for the details.

I agree that the proposal will not save everyone; by the numbers I have crunched it could have saved perhaps half of the jumpers who have died under a good canopy over those two years. It's not going to save the people who jump while on drugs, or who do demos without being ready for them (although the canopy control training part of the proposal may well help prevent such accidents.)

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

You haven't corrected for the at-risk population in each group.

The at-risk population is jumpers with low jump numbers flying canopies they can't land. You need to get out more.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

In 2001, 35 people died; 14 of those were under a good canopy. The proposed regulation could have saved 7 of those.

In 2002, 33 people died; 13 were under a good canopy. The proposal could have saved 6. See here for the details.

So umm, invert the conditions and you're "saving" more people?

no limit < 25
1.3 > 50
1.1 > 200
1.0 > 500

Jockeying with numbers is an easy way to come up with all kinds of absurd proposals, what reason makes your proposal different? I know I know, you mean well and that should be enough. But it's not, not on its own.

edit:

likewise, my old proposal would have "saved' them all
1.0 < 10000 jumps
1.1 < 20000 jumps
1.2 < 30000 jumps
1.3 < 40000 jumps
1.4 < 50000 jumps

Absurd, yes, but can we at least try to reason about why it's absurd?

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Hooknswoop 19]

You also seem to simply want to attack other people's proposals for increasing safety.

I would like to see your analysis and your proposal to decrease the rate of landing incidents.

You have an opinion and that is great, but try to focus on solutions and not just try to trash other's solutions without offering a 'fix' to any problems you may see.

Derek

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

You have an opinion and that is great, but try to focus on solutions and not just try to trash other's solutions without offering a 'fix' to any problems you may see.

Why? That would require him to put his own ideas out there for critique. I'm not sure his ego could handle it.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

A theory with out experimentation is nothing...EXPERiment

Experiments and theory go hand in hand, amen. But they are not separable. As unvalidated theory (aka conjecture) is useless, so too experiments mean nothing without the context of well-derived theory. All this crooked talk about jump numbers and restrictions is specious in large part because there's been no theory shown to back it up. Present some theory and we'll start getting places.

Quote

Hey lets say your Mom wanted to do a tandem....Would you rather her go with me, a guy with 3300 jumps and a tandem rating, or would you just strap her on to your 100 jump self?

Let me reiterate, pissing contests prove nothing. I don't dispute you've got more skydiving mojo than me, so whatever's got your goose you can let it go.

A good driver doesn't need to know about angular momentum or the particulars of braking systems. You, good sir, are undoubtedly a good canopy/freefall driver. But the people who make rules about road grading, surface materials, speed limits and the like are useless without sound appreciation of the theory of those domains. The rules may have started with what seemed to work well for the cars of the time, but right around the time that the business matured is around the time that people started deriving the theory seriously. One does not need to be a NASCAR victor in order to derive sound rules for driving.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I would like to see your analysis and your proposal to decrease the rate of landing incidents.

I feel no shame in saying I do not have one. It's a non sequitur for that to validate someone else's proposal--it's precisely the assumption that good intentions produce good results that I'm afraid of.

I can assure you I'm not trolling; if I had confidence in the definition of the problem espoused by you and others here, and if I saw an easy answer I would propose/endorse/defend it.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I feel no shame in saying I do not have one.

Then quit helping, because you are not helping.

Quote

It's a non sequitur for that to validate someone else's proposal--it's precisely the assumption that good intentions produce good results that I'm afraid of.

My, and other's proposal(s) are not based on good intentions, but experience and common sense.

Quote

I can assure you I'm not trolling; if I had confidence in the definition of the problem espoused by you and others here, and if I saw an easy answer I would propose/endorse/defend it.

So you are saying your only input is and is going to be negative input? You aren't going to add anything useful? Thanks for helping, but don't. Again, you are not helping.

Want to help? Apply some of that education and dive into whatever data you can get and post your results. Surely you are capable of going to the next step after analysis and creating a solution?

Bottom line; If you have something useful to add to the discussion, please do. If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, don't add to the discussion.

Derek

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

So you are saying your only input is and is going to be negative input? You aren't going to add anything useful? Thanks for helping, but don't. Again, you are not helping.

Come on, are these proposals really not worth defending? If they are valid then they will stand much worse than I can deliver. Though I concede I can get impatient with illogic, I believe that criticism can only strengthen good ideas. Hiding the mysticism will only perpetuate fallacy, and hurt more people than benefit.

Quote

Want to help? Apply some of that education and dive into whatever data you can get and post your results. Surely you are capable of going to the next step after analysis and creating a solution?

We haven't got to the analysis stage yet, we are still waiting for data. Just about any idea that's proposed could be shot down for this reason. Had I the means to obtain the data I would deliver (edit: I would deliver the data, no promises about solutions). Like I said, it's a non-sequitur to get from this to endorsing any position.

Quote

Bottom line; If you have something useful to add to the discussion, please do. If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, don't add to the discussion.

Let's turn that back on the people proposing all kinds of regulatory innovation. Share your knowledge with us. Show us what you know; you too might learn something from yourself in the process.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Come on, are these proposals really not worth defending?

You miss the point. The concept is we work together to come up with the best solution possible, not I come up with a solution and you take shots at it at your leisure.

If you think our idea sucks, that’s OK, but immediately after saying that, you should follow it up with “, and here is how I think you can change it to make it better and this is why.”

It may not seem like a big difference to you, but trust me, it is a significant difference.

Quote

We haven't got to the analysis stage yet, we are still waiting for data.

Ahh, see, you are confused, so far this hasn't been a 'we' effort. You haven't helped at all. Do want to be on the team that is trying to fix the problem? If so, PM me and I’ll tell you how you can help.

Quote

Let's turn that back on the people proposing all kinds of regulatory innovation.

"all kinds of regulatory innovation"? Have you read the proposal(s)?

Does the BSR that establishes minimum container opening altitudes make sense to you? Or do you have all sorts of theories and experiments on rats to prove that the BSR is flawed/worthless?

Derek

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

You miss the point. The concept is we work together to come up with the best solution possible,

I didn't miss that point, I reject it. The best solution possible is not good enough if it doesn't pass the test of reason, if it doesn't work at all.

Quote

Ahh, see, you are confused, so far this hasn't been a 'we' effort. You haven't helped at all.

Nobody has "helped at all" by any measure, we haven't got off the ground yet. We've seen nothing but specious conjectures lacking data. (Edit to make clear: they are specious before they lack data, not just because.) I contend it is productive to dismiss the bad ideas as soon as possible.

Quote

Does the BSR that establishes minimum container opening altitudes make sense to you? Or do you have all sorts of theories and experiments on rats to prove that the BSR is flawed/worthless?

There's a good reason to think the advent of the reliable AAD makes the question irrelevant. But I think you are familiar with the whole debate already, if not the article explains it better than I can, I have a plane to catch in 4 hours.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,111]

>Jockeying with numbers is an easy way to come up with all kinds of
> absurd proposals, what reason makes your proposal different?

Six months of work on it, soliciting opinions from people from Brian Germain to Bryan Burke to Scott Smith to Jim Crouch. The statistics to back it up. Experience that indicates that such a program would address deficiencies in the current training program (the ISP.)

>Absurd, yes, but can we at least try to reason about why it's absurd?

No. We could also discuss whether to require everyone to jump T-10's for the first 1000 jumps or wear funny hats with lots of drag. You can waste your time doing stuff like that; we are trying to come up with a proposal that works in the real world of skydiving that both allows people to jump what they want and prevents people from dying. You may find it funny; I suspect your attitude will change once you know enough people who will never walk again (or worse.) Trust me - it loses much of its humor at that point.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I didn't miss that point, I reject it.

So you don't want to help, you just want to be the self-appointed judge of ideas. You want to argue, not help. No, not helpful at all.

Quote

Nobody has "helped at all" by any measure, we haven't got off the ground yet.

There you go with the 'we' word again. So far you are not part of the 'we' that is coming up with a solution. Just because you haven't been around long enough to see the rpoblem and see that the solution will make a positive difference, doesn't mean it isn't so.

Quote

Does the BSR that establishes minimum container opening altitudes make sense to you? Or do you have all sorts of theories and experiments on rats to prove that the BSR is flawed/worthless?

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

There's a good reason to think the advent of the reliable AAD makes the question irrelevant. But I think you are familiar with the whole debate already, if not the article explains it better than I can, I have a plane to catch in 4 hours.

You didn't answer the question. Afraid to express an opinon that YOU might have to defend?

It is easier to sit back and judge than to present your own work.

Quit being lazy. Put forth the effort if you want to participate and work towards safety. Put your idea(s) out there. Make a difference. Don't just sit back and try to torpedo other's efforts. You are quickly reaching the point of not even being worth responding to. This isn't a class room excercise, this is an honest effort to improve safety. Get off the sidelines and get into the game.

Derek

[Ron 10]

Quote

Experiments and theory go hand in hand, amen. But they are not separable. As unvalidated theory (aka conjecture) is useless, so too experiments mean nothing without the context of well-derived theory

We all have our theory...You CHOOSE not to accept it based on what? Your experience? Your study?

You have said you have neither the experience I do, and you have admitted you have not done any study....So YOUR opinion is dust in the desert....Worthless.

Quote

All this crooked talk about jump numbers and restrictions is specious in large part because there's been no theory shown to back it up. Present some theory and we'll start getting places.

We have show it about 1,000 times you have decided not to see it.

Edison took 1,000 tries to get the light bulb...If he had listened to you we would be sitting in the dark.

Quote

Let me reiterate, pissing contests prove nothing. I don't dispute you've got more skydiving mojo than me, so whatever's got your goose you can let it go.

Whats got my goose is a 100 jump wonder with a PhD thinking that he knows more about a subject I have been doing 11 years and 3300 times. All the while he just snipes at my and others ideas with stupid retoric that solves nothing....Devils advocate is great, but you are just being dense and trying to hurt the cause.

How can you be so smart and NOT see how low time jumpers under high performance canopies is bad?

If I tried to start a flight school with Pitts Specials or Extra 330's I would NOT be very successful...There is a reason that most places will not let you solo a HP complex aircraft without EXPERIENCE...Same thing applies to skydiving.

Quote

A good driver doesn't need to know about angular momentum or the particulars of braking systems. You, good sir, are undoubtedly a good canopy/freefall driver. But the people who make rules about road grading, surface materials, speed limits and the like are useless without sound appreciation of the theory of those domains. The rules may have started with what seemed to work well for the cars of the time, but right around the time that the business matured is around the time that people started deriving the theory seriously. One does not need to be a NASCAR victor in order to derive sound rules for driving.

You seem to think this is a big sport with tons of research money...nope. There ARE no studies...There WILL BE no studies that will match your requirements...

In the absence of quantifiable data...sometimes you have to go with educated observations from the experts in the field.

If you want to start that study...go head, hell I'll help. But I bet you have not done ONE thing about this other than slam everyone's ideas....Several of us have been working on this problem for 10+ years....We got you beat.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[trigger 0]

Nathan i'm not about to dis your opinions,you're obviously v.intelligent..i mean you use words that i can't spell let alone understand...but i.5oe jumps or whatever definately means jack to me so i'm going to break my golden rule and ASS-U-ME that you

A. Arn't/Ain't[for peoples like me''pun''] v.experienced..

B. Though obliviously are intelligent...lack common sense..something which isn't at all common..

C.Take up politics.

.CHOP WOOD COLLECT WATER.