jaimechang

Please don't take anything of what I wrote in the message posted to the forum as an argument against your previous comments. The reference to the Russian roulette was intended to be valid only within the context of my message (my bla-bla-bla on probability). I didn't mean to imply anything. You were correct when stating “I can keep my wingloading under 1:1, have taken 3 different canopy control courses, never swoop, fly extremely conservative and reduce my risk at absolutely every turn”… and “but the statistical risk of skydiving is there regardless…” The point that remains implicit (a friend says “implicit is god, explicit is better”) is that in that case the “statistical risk” wouldn’t be applicable to you, because you would be acting more carefully (i.e. “practicing less risky behaviors”) than the hypothetical “average skydiver” for whom the “statistical risk” is applicable. The concept I have been going around is that of -in epidemiology- the “ecological fallacy”. It refers to situations in which a characteristic of the population is wrongly attributed to one individual that is part of that population. True, when we know nothing about a given skydiver (i.e. her/his behavior and other characteristics) what we will do is assume she/he acts/is like the average one, and attribute to her/him the “statistical risk”. It is not bad to provide the skydiver with “generally sound advice” that is good for everyone (e.g. keep aware of altitude). It is also true that when trying to help a specific person prevent health problems (including getting injured while skydiving) we will do a better job if we provide specific advice on how to change the risky behavior she/he is practicing (e.g. I have seen you try to reach the ground with your right foot while flaring… don’t do it because you introduce an additional force that can make the canopy approach the ground uneven, and this can result in a hard less controlled landing). This takes me to one of your first questions: what should I know or what do you feel that I need to know that I don't know? Since you obviously consider safety important, I am sure you are aware of what are –in general- “risky behaviors” and try to avoid practicing them. While continuing yourself doing it, you would benefit of “personalized advice” you can get from instructors, jumpmasters, safety officers, other more experienced skydivers, safety reports, and from your own observations of what can be risky behaviors (as others incur in them or avoid them). I am an instructor and jumpmaster. I feel responsible for helping my students and other less experienced jumpers to practice “safe skydiving” Best wishes* for this New Year for all. *A new gear, lots of good jumps, good jump mates, and no injuries!

I would like to call everyone's attention to an issue that might have contributed to some arguments: Obviuosly, it has to do with statistics and, even more, with epidemiology. Generally, risks we calculate by looking at what happens in a group of people is informative on what happens in the GROUP and should not be directly applied to any given individual, except when ALL the individuals are/behave the same regarding the event we are "studying". Beware also of not using "danger/dangerous" as equivalent to "risk/risky". the first is a matter of yes or no, the second -being probability- is measured between 0 and 1. It is like when we talk about averages. The average income for the mebers of your club is informative about the group, it is probable that no one earns that amount. As in other health issues we need to identify factors (mainly behaviors if talking about skydiving or acquiring HIV/AIDS) associated with a higher risk of injury or death or infection. As someone already said, the russian roulette is not applicable for the case... Note that the 1/6 chance holds true for EACH time (if you play it right). As it is obvious, not all skydivers are/behave the same, and neither every jump is done the same way. Some practice more risky behaviors than others, and most risky behaviors will be risky for any skydiver e.g. pulling low, providing poor maintenace to equipment, not using a hard helmet, doing low hook turns. The level of risk of injury may vary also for different sub-groups. It has been noted that a low turn is more risky if performed by a novice than if performed by an expert, but is more risky than a flat landing for everyone. Another example: It is fair to say that unprotected casual sex is risky for everyone... but the magnitude of the risk is higher if you are having it in a prison in Russia than if in other settings. Sorry for writing so much...

May be it is appropriate to add d) Plan your jump and follow the plan. Though this might deserve being placed as "a" or "b". I think most will agree in that even a 2-way should be built following a plan... that should include what to do if a skydiver doesn't make it to her/his slot. (too low, too high, too far... whatever) as well as break-off altitude, tracking, etc. Even traffic under the canopy should be planned. Don't worry about taking the fun out of it because of being "retentive"... much of the plan will be ensuring that general guidelines will be followed.

"Fly smart and safe" is very good advice, but not always easy to follow if you haave no experience (aaan un-experinceced jumper using a fast canopy is not precisely "flying safe") The Spectre is not a fast canopy for today's standards, but it is not slow. It can turn much faster than "student" or "accuracy" canopies, and un-experienced jumpers are prone to make mistakes (e.g. having hands un-even while flaring, reaching out with one of their feet at landing, turning too low into the wind for final, stalling the canopy high, etc.) Even the Spectre and other similar "mild" canopies won't forgive these mistakes as well as a larger canopy would. Besides, the wingload proposed is in the advanced-expert range as recommended by the manufacturer. I have a 170 and load it at about 1.05 and still have a fun flight performance. The Spectre also takes its time for opening, and that could add some risk for an un-experienced jumper... Jaime Chang