Bob_Church

I think technology will catch up in the near future. Right now we have very fast, very good scanner. My HP Scanjet 8300 along with Vuescan can capture an entire issue of Parachutist in something like 20 minutes and most of that is me feeding the pages in. The problem of course is that OCR isn't there yet, at least not in the un-classified versions we have access to but they're working on it. It won't be long, I believe, before you'll have a device sitting on your desk that you can put a stack of your forms in and not only have them scanned but the information massaged into the correct format and placed into whatever database or other software you're using. One piece of technology that I don't believe will exist is a time machine. If we don't gather the information then it's lost. Not having the information because we didn't think to collect it is unfortunate. Not having it because we deliberately avoided collecting it is downright disturbing.

"I have the data to determine what the main, reserve, and container distribution of Skydive Arizona's boogie population is, over many years. I have their jump numbers, preferred discipline in the sport, gender, and age. I have the accident reports and reserve ride reports. What I don't have is the time to put it altogether, and we can't afford to hire someone to do it. It might never be put to use because of that. But I keep it anyway, in the hope that someday I'll be able to use it, or find an eager student wanting to do a dissertation on skydiving accidents. " I keep kicking myself about the timing. Now that I'm retired I have more time for coming up with these projects but now I don't have the dozens of work study students I had at Ohio University's photo art labs. Most of these students worked about 12 hours a week sitting at the checkout/checkin window. It was expensive equipment so someone had to be there but sometimes they'd go hours with nothing to do and would love to have some info to type into the computer just to kill the time. At least my typing is getting better.

Not getting the kid real help isn't a problem?

y And risk tearing it up?

If I'm at my tower I'm fine but I can't select text well enough on this touch screen. It's screwed up or more likely my fingers are just too fat.

Observe where the engine is located. Now observe which window was knocked out. Well damn. That's what I get for ignoring air resistance in my detailed trajectory calculations. :). The REAL takeaway from this incident is "don't worry about it. The odds of getting sucked out of a plane to your death are still lower than, well, most other forms of death you don't worry about either" I see it more as "the only safe place to be sitting as an airplane takes off is in the coffee shop." As long as you don't choke on a pastry. Or the prices.

Observe where the engine is located. Now observe which window was knocked out. Well damn. That's what I get for ignoring air resistance in my detailed trajectory calculations. :). The REAL takeaway from this incident is "don't worry about it. The odds of getting sucked out of a plane to your death are still lower than, well, most other forms of death you don't worry about either" I see it more as "the only safe place to be sitting as an airplane takes off is in the coffee shop."

Observe where the engine is located. Now observe which window was knocked out. I read an article awhile back after one of those crashes where some people survived because of there they'd been sitting. The author went on to show that wherever you sit on a plane your survival would depend on the type of crash. The first thing I saw about this was a ten second clip of a guy's face. I thought "could anyone be a big enough loser to want a selfie now?" And it turns out he had company.

If that plane had completely decompressed for any length of time most of those passengers would have been in trouble. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southwest-emergency-landing-prompts-conversation-about-in-flight-safety-demos/ "PEOPLE: Listen to your flight attendants! ALMOST EVERYONE in this photo from @SouthwestAir #SWA1380 today is wearing their mask WRONG. Put down the phone, stop with the selfies.. and LISTEN. "

Let's not feed the troll.

Should we write that down or something?

Using your reasoning, it's safer for wingsuiters to jump without a helmet (since there are no or very few wingsuit fatalities involving no-helmet jumpers), than it is to jump with a helmet (since nearly every wingsuit fatalitiy involves a jumper wearing a helmet). -Mark If wingsuiters jump without helmets and 'None' keeps showing up in fatalities it would show that wingsuiters really should think about getting a helmet. I'm not even suggesting something new. We've been collecting gear information after fatalities for decades. The gear has changed and I think the information we collect should reflect that. We've always asked "helmet?" Now, with the profusion of different types I think we should add "which one". And how there can be any question about asking wingsuit type. Personally I don't see how much of any of the info we gather helps, but I don't mind. I consider it my part to collect the information not work out how it gets used. But I don't think we should avoid information based on "but someone might take it wrong"

And everyone keeps saying "it will just be G3" But what if it isn't? What if some odd rarely used helmet keeps showing up? If you look at the number of blast handle fatalities in ten years is that number statistically significant? It didn't have to be. We're humans and looked at what was going on and changed what we were doing. I just think we should collect the data. Not statistics terms. Data. Get the information. People can use it for whatever it turns out to be useful for, if it does.

It's like everyone got a day at a time calendar of statistics terms so now everything is an excuse to use them. Should we consider pin checks to be statistically insignificant and stop doing them? Or recognize the fact that not everything has to fit the model you've decided that it isn't good for?

If I had any outrage it's over a four year old with problems being treated by an idiot. It's like everyone got a day at a time calendar of statistics terms so now everything is an excuse to use them.

This is one of the best articles I've read in a long time. Short version, we're screwed. http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/an-apology-for-the-internet-from-the-people-who-built-it.html ( would someone make that clickable for me? I can't do it from this tablet's keyboard. Thanks )

This is actually allowed in Canada. A homeopathic practitioner has given a four year old saliva from a rabid dog to treat the four year old's "behavior problems." She reports remarkable success. No idea how she determined that but hey, that would be too much like oppressive traditional medicine. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/homeopath-treated-4-yr-old-boys-behavior-problems-with-saliva-from-rabid-dog/

No. I don't see any real problem gathering as much info as possible, other than making the form longer by asking for more detailed info may result in fewer people willing to fill out the forms. I just don't see any real benefit to it. I don't think we can know if information will have benefits or not unless we gather it.

Now you've added that I'm taking it personally. I don't know where that's coming from. Yes, I believe in gathering as much information about a fatality as possible. That's must my opinion. Some people seem to think that gathering this information isn't a good idea. Ok. I disagree. I disagree a lot, but it's not like it's some kind of problem.

Ok, so this comes down to yet another area of "don't ask don't tell" about skydiving equipment. Personally I feel that we should gather information then see what, if anything, it tells us. But I've noticed the growing opinion of best left unasked and unanswered. It's a matter of opinion I guess.

Every year on OU's campus first year language students go around writing graffiti on the walls saying "Carpe Diem, that's latin for seize the day for those of you who aren't multi-lingual."

And that's different from the information we gather now in what way? If we can't punch it into SPSS then just let it go?

***the n number would be impossibly small making the sample irrelevant. ^^^^ These comments. Jerry Baumchen Is any of the gear information gathered after a fatality statistically significant? Should we just skip the whole thing?

Thank you! Someone that understands statistical analysis! Also the n number would be impossibly small making the sample irrelevant. And ham is saltier than turkey.

Getting someone to gather the information can be difficult, but once someone is filling out the form this is just a couple more boxes to fill in. As to benefit, how can we know if it's helpful or not if we don't gather the information? I know that one reason for collisions is just people who aren't watching, I jump with one guy that you just know not to get in front of. Unless you're wearing a jumpsuit with a design that looks like pea gravel he'll never see you. But I've also seen near collisions and videos of actual canopy collisions that seem to me can only be caused by blind spots. Or maybe not. It would be nice to know.