DocPop

Thanks for posting this Wendy. It is very high level, but at least we have SOME data here. I hope someone takes you up on the offer of doing some more statistical analysis. Base on this initial information, the USPA might want to look at changing the jump # scoring for their canopy risk quotient quiz (or just taking that scoring point out altogether). I guess the only solid conclusion we can make at this stage is that everyone is at risk. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thank you, Wendy. I started this poll to gauge people's opinion - the results so far are quite interesting. Not the landslide of votes for option 1 that I had expected. This thread might provide some useful basis for a canopy BSR if one were ever seriously considered. With your data I saw an opportunity to get some harder "facts". I am not emotionally tied to any one outcome as long as it is well supported by data. I have been proved wrong before and no doubt will be again. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Do you have a breakdown of the jump numbers of those involved in these 190 landings? That would be some pretty interesting raw data. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Risk is defined as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss" (dictionary.com app for iphone). The guy with 4,000 jumps has been exposed 4 times vs 1 time for the other guy. I changed back to the Sabre2 because I was getting so much shit for the Katana here. I am bored on the Sabre2, but since everyone else here seems to think it is the right thing, I can't ignore that. So yes, risk. Other people's (very experienced people, granted) perceived risk based soley on my jump numbers. My only close call came on the Sabre2 (low turn) and I have not had anything like that on the Katana in 50 jumps. I may change back to the Katana next year in a another 100 jumps or so. I'll see how long I can be bored/frustrated with the Sabre2 for. I now only land the Sabre2 downwind. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I made my first jump in 1990 (90 jumps so far this year). How would you like me to calculate it? Did you also notice the canopy change? Next contestant, please... "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Dude - you can't just add in another word, change the context and then say "Fail". The guy with the higher jump numbers has had 4 incidents. He is therefore 4 times more likely to have appeared in the incident reports. Listen, I know everyone here thinks I am a douchebag and that's cool, but there is so much thread drift because of people trying to score points that a lot of threads become pointless. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

And his number of close calls is 4 times higher, so higher jump numbers in this example equate to higher risk of canopy accidents. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Excellent point! "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Where do I claim that? By that rationale, people learning to swoop should pull their first front riser turn for an actual landing. I don't think you'll get many people to back you on that advice. I'd listen to what he had to say. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Why is this suddenly about me? I intended this thread to be a way of capturing the consensus of opinion of dz.com readers as in the past there has been disagreement on this matter. I would define "natural talent" in this context as the ability to progress faster than the norm in canopy flight related skills. I have seen some people progress to become proficient swoopers incredibly quickly (Velo-before-500-jumps-and-never-been-hurt type of quickly). I have also seen people with well over 1,000 jumps hook in and do other totally avoidable stuff like stalling a canopy at 15 feet. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

You are right. I had not read the most recent posts where this was explained. But the discussion is still relevant. I disagree. If someone has done the some thing wrong or badly over a thousand times without seeking or getting corrected/educated, their "experience" could be less than someone with half their jumps but who has made an effort to learn and adapt. I never said it was common. But you can do many more canopy-learning maneuvers than one per jump if you do high clear and pulls. .... so a guy with 200 jumps and "a dedication to canopy flight" could be way more able and heads-up than the guy with 2k and the attitude of "the skydive is over when you pull". Yep - that makes it dangerous. The right experience is very important to safety. The wrong experience could be very dangerous. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

a) I did not say anything of the sort b) Apparently not "everyone else" is wrong, as only 59% (at the time of writing) believe that jump #'s are a "very good guide to risk". It's not just me all on my lonesome. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

There is a debate on whether jump numbers are really a good predictor of risk under canopy. There are those who believe that low jump numbers correlate well with the risk of death under an open canopy. My own belief is that jump numbers are largely unrelated to risk, and that factors such as natural talent, dedication to canopy piloting, mental state (eg. hangover/drugs/tiredness) and ego/cockiness play a much more important role in determining canopy risk. Edited to remove inaccurate reference to a recent incident. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

OK. So I was right, but omitted the absolute minimum (or absolute maximum if we are talking about the weight) caveat. Fair point. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Would you mind posting your interpretation, please? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

I wonder if they would approve of your situation? Doubt it. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Point taken, Bill. Two tries then go for reserve. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

UPDATE: I have now had my new for a couple of months and I have to say I am really liking the pull-out. It seems extremely secure and I like the fact that there is no velcro or spandex to wear out. It did seem a little odd for the first 4 or 5 jumps, but after that transition phase I am completely comfortable with this deployment method. I deliberately dropped my handle and there was no issue. It just stayed there, tethered by the lanyard. Finally, the rig looks so neat without a BOC pouch. I just wanted to update so that anyone considering a pull-out could read my opinions soon after making the transition. I now believe that the only TRUE downside will be if I ever try to sell this rig. Due to the prejudice against pull-outs I may have more trouble than I would selling a throw-out system. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Dave - we've been through this before. I am aware of my situation and I accept the risk (as you know). I was trying to add something to the thread. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Yes. You are misinterpreting the way the table is supposed to be read. You do not become advanced by being a certain weight, or by having a certain number of jumps (although this constantly gets trolled out on dz.com). PD's definition of Advanced is "The Advanced category is intended for somebody who has thoroughly practiced and refined his or her basic piloting skills. This person should also have practiced more advanced skills under less aggressive canopies and learned how to get the best performance from his or her previous canopy. Experience and practice will have taught him or her how to deal effectively with unexpected situations. A skydiver should also be reasonably current before jumping a canopy in this category, and should continue to jump frequently if he or she intends to use this type of canopy." If you meet the above requirements AND are below the weight in the Advanced box on the label then PD are OK with you jumping that canopy. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Thanks for the update. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Exactly "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

6 years on now. Did he die or get injured? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

Wow, I didn't know they used that method past the 80's anyway. I did 4 in the UK in 1990. "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA

You want to tie a baseball to a brick? "The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls." ~ CanuckInUSA