Dying because of low turns

[Ron 10]

If you REALLY want to get into this you have to ask "who makes more jumps? The more people with 300 jumps, or the less that have over 300 jumps but make 300-500 a year."

So Dr. what % of jumps is done by each group?

Ron

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

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

If you REALLY want to get into this you have to ask "who makes more jumps? The more people with 300 jumps, or the less that have over 300 jumps but make 300-500 a year."

So Dr. what % of jumps is done by each group?

Ron

The fact that you ask questions like this indicates that you have not done your homework before coming up with your proposal.

...

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

[darkwing 5]

It just occurred to me that there is an interesting (to me at least) historical perspective to this discussion. When I started jumping I was required to have 30 jumps before they would let me jump a paracommander, and I think the same before they would let me jump a piggyback rig (that means the main and reserve containers both on your back!).

I tend to be in the camp of having a wing-loading BSR, but then I'm a very conservative jumper. (Not in the political sense)

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[Ron 10]

Or it could be that you have not done yours before you try to shoot my work to pieces.

But since I don't have a PHD...I probley don't know anything right?

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

[billvon 3,110]

>Until you can be SURE that the cause of the fatality increase is what
> most of you seem to assume it is, then IMO any regulation to
> restrict that cause is a wasted effort.

You can never be sure. If we went by that standard, we'd have no laws against driving drunk. You can never be SURE an accident was caused by a drunk driver; the accident may have happened when he was sober as well. A reasonable person, though, can make decisions on what makes sense even in the absence of absolute certainty.

[Ron 10]

Is anyone here smart enough to create an accident reporting website? (I don't have a clue how to do this...I am an idea man). Not fatalities...but accidents.

It could simply have:
Age:
Sex:
Time in sport:
Number of jumps:
Type of accident: Panic turn/flare problem/Landing a Minnor Mal/ Hook ect....
WL:
Location:

You all get the picture this would make it so insted of waiting for the USPA...We could start to track these things with more detail.

It would provide the Data so many people ask for...and it could be used to teach...

Thoughts?

Ron

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

[Clownburner 0]

It's a great idea, but reporting would still be a problem. Many DZ's don't want this kind of data because of potential liability issues. Also, what's an accident? One person might consider a twisted ankle as a serious incident and another might not even think it's worth reporting.

I like the idea, but I don't know you'll ever get more than muddy stats out of it.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[Ron 10]

Well, I would say an injury is something that required medical attn....Putting ice on it is not medical attn.
Say hospital trips only.

As for the DZ not wanting that info out there...It really is not their call...I live on the DZ in Zhills. I see the accidents. It would not be "official" and we could have no names, and only use location to keep from putting the same accident in more than once.

It is really academic for me since I would have no idea how to do this.

Ron

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

[billvon 3,110]

>Is anyone here smart enough to create an accident reporting website?

Take a look at http://www.skydivingfatalities.com/. Not neccessarily what you're asking for, but you might like that format.

>(I don't have a clue how to do this...I am an idea man).

I think that's the oxymoron of the day.

[freakydiver 0]

I thought about it over lunch and I could hack it. I'm a programmer with 8+ years of professional years of experience and 20+ of hobbyist experience. Question is would it pay

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Luminous 0]

There's always going to be the should and shouldn't regulate sides to this issue, as with every other issue. I wanted to bring over a post that Bill posted in the Incidents forum in the thread that initiated this thread.

Quote

Re: [billvon] Elsinore serious injury [In reply to] Edit | Delete | Quote | Reply

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

Can I take it, then, that you would not be opposed to an addition to the BSR's that says "someone with X jumps should not jump a canopy loaded more than X unless they take a canopy control class?" I'd be fine with that. Make it the most lenient of BSR's, waiverable by an S+TA. That way the skydiver has guidance from the BSR's, the DZO has a tool to use to keep someone from jumping a canopy he's not ready for, and the S+TA is essentially "kept in the loop."

I realize that new BSRs are going to be implemented. We are a self regulating body that should adapt to what we learn as time goes on, and the BSR's are a result of that. Do I agree with all of them? No.

Bill's suggestion gives the less experienced a general guide, and should a jumper choose to take a canopy skills class, contributing to the safety of themselves and other jumpers, they are able to get a waiver from the local S+TA who is familair with him/her and their current skill level.

Did I ever take a 'canopy skills class'? No. However, at the 1994 WFFC, you were required to have 500 jumps to demo a batwing, at that time one of the latest and greatest. Now people sell batwings to just off student status jumpers. You can't convice me any student course has improved it's canopy skills teaching that much.

And as I posted in the other thread I think that the ultimate responsiblity is to the person under the canopy, but I know how common it is for a jumper to over estimate their abilities to handle situations to which they have never been exposed.

IMO... Bill's suggestion takes both sides into consideration. I'd be in favor of a BSR phrased in that manner. It'd be a great tool for instructors, jumpers, and the DZO (as mentioned).

BSBD
Larry

'In an insane society a sane person seems insane.' Mr. Spock

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Or it could be that you have not done yours before you try to shoot my work to pieces.

But since I don't have a PHD...I probley don't know anything right?

If you read this and the related threads, it is others, not me, that keep playing the "I am an expert" card.

When your proposal is bullet proof then you won't have to worry if people take pot shots.

...

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I am not quite sure what your experiences at the DZ yesterday had to do with this proposal. It just illustrates that some skydivers are casual about safety. That is not news.

My point, poorly made, was that skydivers that are not safety conscious do not react positively to peer pressure. A BSR would require attention to safety that is not being paid currently.

Quote

I am not against doing something to reduce a surge in fatalities under good canopies.

I didn't really think you were, just trying to understand your reluctance to the BSR & Education proposal.

Quote

I am against doing anything whose outcome cannot be justified from the data available. I know that the data are limited in scope, but what data there are do not indicate that people with low jump numbers under highly loaded canopies are dying at a higher rate than other skydivers in relation to their total numbers in the population. I acknowledge your experience and I enjoy your articles - that does not in any way compensate for the absence of supporting data, however. I think you have fixated on this one aspect without looking at the bigger picture.

***You wish to create a new BSR. The onus is on you to show that it will work as claimed, not on me to prove that it won't or to come up with an alternative. Your proposal doesn't affect me anyway, I am simply trying to ensure that you are tackling the right target.

That is the beauty of the proposal. It isn't limited to a specific target. It is initially, but eventually, as new jumpers come on board, it will affect jumpers at every level. Because it would be unfair not to grandfather in current jumpers it won't affect them. The argument (not your, I think) that this BSR will do nothing for jumpers that are currently in over their heads on their current canopy, is true and is part of the reason for implementing it. The current system has failed those jumpers. The current system has allowed those jumpers to be flying canopies they are not ready for. Skydivers have to have 100 jumps before they have 1000. Having been affected by the proposed BSR, newer jumpers will be safer and better educated at a time in their careers they don't know exactly what they don't know. Once they get to the 500+ jump range these newer jumpers should be less likely to be involved in a landing incident. So even though the proposed BSR only mentions up to 500 jumps, it will eventually affect 500+ jumpers, the bigger picture.

Quote

If my nitpicking forces you and Bill and others to refine your proposal, then I will have done some good here.

I agree that simply passing and enforcing a rough draft BSR & Education program without some refinement is not a good idea, I think you responses would be better received if they were in a 'positive suggestion' format and not in a 'nickpicking' format. Even if your goal is to ensure the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed BSR, it appears as though you are trying to torpedo the idea at every step.

Quote

I don't think you have a chance of getting this past USPA until you have a far stronger case than you have presented so far.

Help us by refining it to a condition that you feel will be accepted and passed. Start with what we have so far or even start over and present a proposal that is better.

Quote

Have any of you folks actually asked USPA for their accident database? It contains more information than is published in Parachutist. If not, why not? If so, why don't you present your analysis instead of claiming "experience" as your justification.

No, I haven't requested USPA database. I will put in a request for it. I am still waiting for a response from the S & TA dept. about some tandem questions I have.

Discounting the value of experience is a mistake. I don't think any BSR was based on a comprehensive analysis of a complete database and/or research project. What was the raising of the "A" license minimum pull altitude based on? Do you think that was a good idea?

Hook

[RevJim 0]

Quote

Is anyone here smart enough to create an accident reporting website? (I don't have a clue how to do this...I am an idea man). Not fatalities...but accidents.

It could simply have:
Age:
Sex:
Time in sport:
Number of jumps:
Type of accident: Panic turn/flare problem/Landing a Minnor Mal/ Hook ect....
WL:
Location:

You all get the picture this would make it so insted of waiting for the USPA...We could start to track these things with more detail.

It would provide the Data so many people ask for...and it could be used to teach...

Thoughts?

Ron

If you people are really going to pick this all apart, get all the facts.

Add these to the list:
1. Landing area elevation.
2. Jumpers home dz elevation (if different).
3. Wind conditions.
4. Currency (jumps in the last 30 days).

These are all big contributing factors to accidents, but are rarely mentioned.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[Michele 1]

Quote

These are all big contributing factors to accidents, but are rarely mentioned.

That indeed would be important factors to get.

In my original report, I "sanitized" it - deliberately leaving out the DZ information. Why? Because the argument is about W/L, not what would be good at Denver for a 60 jump wonder as opposed to Otay with a 101 jump wonder. That sort of restriction would increase the unwieldy-ness (is that even a word??) which is already there in the proposals, and would strengthen the fight the DZO's may mount in being against this - if there are any.

I honestly think that there needs to be more complete reporting in simply the W/L aspect before anyone can announce, with anything resembling authority, that X means Y, and A is not equal to B. There simply isn't enough data to demonstrate what people are saying is happening.

(and lest anyone actually think I am for or against any particular proposal, let me restate herein that I do not know....I had hoped discovering the numbers would show me something, but it only showed me a sad lack of complete information is out there...)

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[RevJim 0]

My point is that a person with, say, 400 jumps and a 1.4 wingload jumps only at, hmmm, say, Deland. Nice, low, thick air. Consistent winds. Extremely proficient canopy pilot.

This jumper gets on a plane and goes to, say, Colorado for a boogie. This jumper encounters a low/no wind condition, and doesn't realize what his canopy is about to do to him/her in the thin air. Said jumper crashes and burns. Why? Conditions other than wingloading factor in here greatly, but the report would just say "400 jumps, low turn (which may not have seemed low in FL), 1.4 WL.

Get my meaning?

No matter how much people try and regulate, sometimes shit happens.

It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

[Michele 1]

I totally understand what you meant Jim. Totally. Which is a flaw in the proposals. What would work with someone in Deland may not work with someone in Denver. If there is no understanding or education but simply a restriction, then the person in question may encounter some serious issues...and not know what to do.

And yes, shit happens, despite regulations. Education provides a good response, and education with experience provides even better ones...

A genuine concern of mine is that most people will not, for whatever reason, seek out a canopy control class, or get mentoring from those more experienced. With w/l BSRs in place, the person may be further lulled into a false sense of security by thinking "well, this is a "safe" canopy, I'll just wait until later to get formal education, when I'm ready to swoop... After all, I'm only loading 1:1, and can do all the manovers and get my license..."...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[JDBoston 0]

Yeah, but if they don't know that thinner air affects their canopy flight, then perhaps again their knowledge/skill has not yet caught up with their choice of canopy. So it's actually kind of similar to someone who's simply out of their depth wingloading-wise, no?

Joe

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Because the argument is about W/L, not what would be good at Denver for a 60 jump wonder as opposed to Otay with a 101 jump wonder.

Which is exactly why a restriction based on wingloading wouldn't work. The key is education, not arbitrary (yes, without every piece of data included it's arbitrary) statistics and numbers to determine someone's ability.

Personal responsibility built upon solid knowledge and education is the only way to actually change circumstances. Rules and restrictions may reduce injuries to an extent, but that's not evolution of the sport, it's degradation.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Which is exactly why a restriction based on wingloading wouldn't work. The key is education, not arbitrary
(yes, without every piece of data included it's arbitrary) statistics and numbers to determine someone's
ability.

We have done this before the Pull minumums were not looked at to the nth degree...It does not take a genius to see the issue.

WL regulation will work.

Why is it that people with a few hundered jumps don't listen to the people with a few thousand?...Oh yeah, if they did listen then a large number of 300 jump people would not get to fly the cool pocket sized canopy they want.

Ron

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why is it that people with a few hundered jumps don't listen to the people with a few thousand?...Oh yeah, if they did listen then a large number of 300 jump people would not get to fly the cool pocket sized canopy they want.

I just happen to be listening to other people with a few thousand jumps that disagree with you. Your jump numbers, while impressive, don't automatically make you the be all end all authority on all things skydiving.

And for the record I have 140 jumps on my Saber2 190 at a 1.18 wing loading, and have no plans to go any smaller any time in the near future. I've even had more experienced jumpers tell me that I should get a smaller canopy, but I don't want to.

Why? Because I've taught myself everything I can. I listen to those with thousands of jumps when they give advice (not edicts), and I've had canopy training with Jim Slaton. I know that there's a lot more I can do with my current canopy and until I wring every last bit of performance out of it, there's no reason to go smaller.

If I didn't have that education and knowledge, I may be one of the people that wants a smaller canopy. I had one guy who's landings aren't the best in the world tell me that he wants to get a smaller canopy so he can get down faster and make more loads. Will some arbitrary number keeping him from downsizing make him safer? No, because he doesn't understand the fundamentals. He's not educated on the subject of canopy performance.

Believe me, I want everyone to be safer, too. But I think this proposal is just going to sweep it under the rug, make those of you with thousands of jumps feel like you made a difference, and not one person will be a better canopy pilot because of it.

Let's make people better canopy pilots, not protect them from themselves.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I just happen to be listening to other people with a few thousand jumps that disagree with you. Your jump
numbers, while impressive, don't automatically make you the be all end all authority on all things skydiving.

True..but I would say that a guy with 10,000 jumps knows more than me. And I would listen to him. So why won't a guy with 200-300 jumps listen to a guy with 3,000?

This is the real issue.

Quote

And for the record I have 140 jumps on my Saber2 190 at a 1.18 wing loading, and have no plans to go any
smaller any time in the near future. I've even had more experienced jumpers tell me that I should get a
smaller canopy, but I don't want to.

And you are not the guy I am worried about. It's they guy that listens to his buddies when they tell him to downsize or worse they guy that wants to do it even against everyones warnings.

Quote

Why? Because I've taught myself everything I can. I listen to those with thousands of jumps when they
give advice (not edicts), and I've had canopy training with Jim Slaton. I know that there's a lot more I can
do with my current canopy and until I wring every last bit of performance out of it, there's no reason to go
smaller.

Again you are not the one I am worried about.

Quote

If I didn't have that education and knowledge, I may be one of the people that wants a smaller canopy. I
had one guy who's landings aren't the best in the world tell me that he wants to get a smaller canopy so he
can get down faster and make more loads. Will some arbitrary number keeping him from downsizing make him
safer? No, because he doesn't understand the fundamentals. He's not educated on the subject of canopy
performance.

And with this BSR, he can either:

A) get the education and prove he can handle it.
B) wait till he has more experience.

Quote

Believe me, I want everyone to be safer, too. But I think this proposal is just going to sweep it under the
rug, make those of you with thousands of jumps feel like you made a difference, and not one person will be
a better canopy pilot because of it.

Yes, they will be better. They will either have to take a class to fly what they want, or they will have to wait and get more experience before they can do what they want.

Quote

Let's make people better canopy pilots, not protect them from themselves.

How about we protect them (and us) AND make them better canopy pilots?

Ron

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So why won't a guy with 200-300 jumps listen to a guy with 3,000?

I do, it's just not you.

Quote

And with this BSR, he can either:

A) get the education and prove he can handle it.
B) wait till he has more experience.

Why not get rid of the whole jump number part of it? I would be in favor of a license based restriction on wing loading that required demonstrated proficiency. That would actually be even safer because then it's not either education/skill or jump numbers, it's now based purely on education/skill.

I just think you're putting too much emphasis on jump numbers. You use your own as evidence of your authority on this matter, and want to use them to determine skill of newer jumpers. Sure, the more jumps the better, but there's a lot more to being a good/safe skydiver:

1-currency
2-ability
3-intelligence
4-cool under pressure
5-education
6-jump numbers
7-types of jumps
8-experience in different disciplines

There's a way to make newer jumpers like myself safer without unnecessarily restricting super stars who actually can jump the pocket rockets safely sooner, from living up to their potential.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Why not get rid of the whole jump number part of it? I would be in favor of a license based restriction on
wing loading that required demonstrated proficiency. That would actually be even safer because then it's
not either education/skill or jump numbers, it's now based purely on education/skill.

It would be almost impossible to write a program to do this.
Also it would be almost impossible to look at every jumper at every DZ in the US and treat them all as individuals.

There is not enough money in it to make it like the
AFF program where you get (at some DZ's) close supervision.
Remember S&TA's don't get paid and put up with A LOT of grief.

Quote

I just think you're putting too much emphasis on jump numbers. You use your own as evidence of your
authority on this matter, and want to use them to determine skill of newer jumpers. Sure, the more jumps
the better, but there's a lot more to being a good/safe skydiver:

1-currency
2-ability
3-intelligence
4-cool under pressure
5-education
6-jump numbers
7-types of jumps
8-experience in different disciplines

If you can show me a *Better* and *Workable* plan please do so.

Like it or not while jump numbers don't equal skill, they do equal experience.

And I use the fact I have jumped canopies from a T-10 to a xbraced 69. Done test jumps for several different canopy companies. I have done 16 way CRW diamonds, was on a 4way rotation team. Have a PRO rating and jumped into stadiums at night in the middle of a city. I have called off demos when I was ordered to do them (Army) but they were unsafe. And have over 2,000 hook turns as "evidence of your authority on this matter" not raw jump #'s.

Quote

There's a way to make newer jumpers like myself safer without unnecessarily restricting super stars who
actually can jump the pocket rockets safely sooner, from living up to their potential.

and under the proposed BSR they CAN progress faster..But ONLY if they can PROVE they can do it.

Ron

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

and under the proposed BSR they CAN progress faster..But ONLY if they can PROVE they can do it

I'm not completely disagreeing with you at all. You said it would put too much work on S&TAs but you still have that "prove it" aspect in there. Who would they prove it to? I'm guessing it would be the S&TA. So you already have that option there. Why not make it the only one. If the other option is just going by jump numbers, I have the feeling a lot of overworked S&TAs will eschew judging skills and tell people to just go by their jump numbers. That would stifle the more talented pilots. And it's just as easy to have bad habits ingrained in your skill set by repeating them over a lot of jumps as it is to learn good habits.

For example, for a long time I was flaring way too late. I was punching my flare at the last second on every jump. I got to the point where I did it well and had some nice little, modest surfs doing that. But every nth jump I wouldn't punch it fast enough, or punch it too hard and have a nasty landing. If I hadn't received training, I never would have broken that habit, or at least not for a while. So I would have even more jumps practicing a dangerous maneuver. Then when I downsized the problem would be exacerbated. How many people do you see with a few hundred jumps that don't stand up the majority of their landings? I see a lot of them.

I think the results you want are justified and good. I just think the method needs to be reworked a little. No, I don't have a better proposal that would be easier to implement. But nothing worth doing should be done half way. I don't have the knowledge or experience regarding dz operations or USPA procedures to propose a good solution. You and others do. I just hope that the solution will be one that actually has a beneficial impact. I don't think requiring a certain number of jumps, or to put it another way, allowing downsizing because of a certain number of jumps, will make that much difference.