Do parachutes prevents death when jumping from an aircraft?

[GreatLakesFlying]

Believe it or not, this is the topic of a study led by a Harvard medical school team that just published its results in the BMJ (formerly known, as the British Medical Journal).

The paper, titled "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" concludes that parachute use:

"[does] not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. [...]"​

The paper, of course, is a good humor satirical take on the significance of randomized control trials. A scientist's way of being funny and making a point at the same time. And it's fun to read.

In an accompanying blog post the authors explain their motivation as follows:

"In 2003, Smith and Pell published a tongue-in-cheek systematic review which concluded that there were no randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of parachutes in preventing major trauma related to “gravitational challenge.” They argued that the “most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine” should volunteer to participate in a randomised, double blind trial of the parachute. In the two decades since the appearance of this seminal work in The BMJ Christmas issue, the parachute has been the paragon of biological plausibility. The saviour of anecdote. The arch-nemesis of evidence based medicine. There isn’t a week that goes by without a head shaking colleague reminding us that the parachute hasn’t been tested in an RCT."​

 

[James331]

I got quite a few jumps and I’m more of less alive

 

[JCranford]

After 3600 jumps I can reliably conclude that parachutes do indeed reduce death or serious bodily injury after jumping from a plane.

 

[asicer]

Sounds like an article from The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

 

[Wheels]

After 3600 jumps I can reliably conclude that parachutes do indeed reduce death or serious bodily injury after jumping from a plane.

I believe that the whole point is that without making an equal number of jumps without a parachute there is no proof that the parachute kept you from being injured. You now need to make 3600 jumps without a parachute and report whether there was an increase in the number of deaths or serious bodily injuries suffered.

 

[FlySince9]

And then the old adage ..."No use in Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane"
1st Retort: "If there were such things as perfectly good airplanes, there wouldn't be parachutes"
2nd Retort: "But now the airplane has its own Parachute, so it must be perfect!"

 

[James331]

And then the old adage ..."No use in Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane"
1st Retort: "If there were such things as perfectly good airplanes, there wouldn't be parachutes"
2nd Retort: "But now the airplane has its own Parachute, so it must be perfect!"

Plus DZ culture is quite fun

 

[NoHeat]

Reading this paper, I can see the humor because I’ve actually read medical research papers. It’s a well done spoof.

However, the authors did not disclose whether they took payments, for example from students, so I think am going to report them to whatever agency is their counterpart to the FSDO.

 

[weilke]

After 3600 jumps I can reliably conclude that parachutes do indeed reduce death or serious bodily injury after jumping from a plane.

Thats nothing but an anecdote.






(I loathe MPHs)

 

[-KLB-]

Pulling the chute on a cirrus doesn't really do much for anyone jumping out of it.

 

[SkyDog58]

After 3600 jumps I can reliably conclude that parachutes do indeed reduce death or serious bodily injury after jumping from a plane.

But you also need to test the alternate outcome by jumping from a plane without a parachute. Until you do that, all you have is a theory based on correlation and not causation.

 

[asicer]

But you also need to test the alternate outcome by jumping from a plane without a parachute. Until you do that, all you have is a theory based on correlation and not causation.

Shouldn't it be a double blind test? Perhaps the next few jumps with the parachute surreptitiously replaced with a backpack full of bed sheets?

 

[weilke]

Shouldn't it be a double blind test? Perhaps the next few jumps with the parachute surreptitiously replaced with a backpack full of bed sheets?

Correct. Neither the jumpmaster nor the jumper are allowed to know whether the bag contains a parachute or a bundle of newspapers.

Btw. You don't need 3600 unsuccessful jumps. You just need enough to hit the cutoff criterion for the study.

 

[SkyDog58]

Shouldn't it be a double blind test? Perhaps the next few jumps with the parachute surreptitiously replaced with a backpack full of bed sheets?

And he will be screaming "sheet, sheet, sheet" all the way down.

 

[Anymouse]

After 3600 jumps I can reliably conclude that parachutes do indeed reduce death or serious bodily injury after jumping from a plane.

But you also need to test the alternate outcome by jumping from a plane without a parachute. Until you do that, all you have is a theory based on correlation and not causation.

The few instances I'm aware of people jumping without a parachute are skewed in that no one actually interviewed the subjects after the jump to get reliable data.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The few instances I'm aware of people jumping without a parachute are skewed in that no one actually interviewed the subjects after the jump to get reliable data.

Actually, someone did get interviewed.

 

[Sac Arrow]

And this is a bizarre story. I have a friend that worked for HP that knew a couple people on the plane. Not the lady that jumped though.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

And then the old adage ..."No use in Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane"

Most jump pilots will tell you those planes are far from being perfectly good. Airworthiness often seems to be more of a suggestion than a standard in that game.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The few instances I'm aware of people jumping without a parachute are skewed in that no one actually interviewed the subjects after the jump to get reliable data.

I recall reading about a tail gunner that jumped from a bomber over Germany at xx thousand feet - the Germans thought he was a spy because he had no 'chute but ended up putting him in a POW camp.

 

[Anymouse]

Actually, someone did get interviewed.

Technically, she didn't jump.

I recall reading about a tail gunner that jumped from a bomber over Germany at xx thousand feet - the Germans thought he was a spy because he had no 'chute but ended up putting him in a POW camp.

This guy apparently DID jump.


But let's not muddy my humorous post with facts!!

 

[Shawn]

Studies are useful:

 

[benyflyguy]

Believe it or not, this is the topic of a study led by a Harvard medical school team that just published its results in the BMJ (formerly known, as the British Medical Journal).

The paper, titled "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" concludes that parachute use:

"[does] not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. [...]"​

The paper, of course, is a good humor satirical take on the significance of randomized control trials. A scientist's way of being funny and making a point at the same time. And it's fun to read.

In an accompanying blog post the authors explain their motivation as follows:

"In 2003, Smith and Pell published a tongue-in-cheek systematic review which concluded that there were no randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of parachutes in preventing major trauma related to “gravitational challenge.” They argued that the “most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine” should volunteer to participate in a randomised, double blind trial of the parachute. In the two decades since the appearance of this seminal work in The BMJ Christmas issue, the parachute has been the paragon of biological plausibility. The saviour of anecdote. The arch-nemesis of evidence based medicine. There isn’t a week that goes by without a head shaking colleague reminding us that the parachute hasn’t been tested in an RCT."​

Unless it’s double blinded and randomized I’m not believing it.

 

[Shepherd]

I have a healthy distrust of parachutes dating back to my Air Force days.
I went in to pick up my 'chute one day before a flight, and found out it had been packed by an airman last class who had just come off a week of KP because some brand new 2nd LT didn't like the way the kid saluted him.
I never bothered to check, but I'm still willing to bet that the pack was either full of old blankets and sheets, or the chute was totally shredded.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And then the old adage ..."No use in Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane"
1st Retort: "If there were such things as perfectly good airplanes, there wouldn't be parachutes"
2nd Retort: "But now the airplane has its own Parachute, so it must be perfect!"

Attention to detail is one reason I really like Disney/Pixar movies... And there's humor for the adults in 'em too:

 

[Ghery]

And then the old adage ..."No use in Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane"
1st Retort: "If there were such things as perfectly good airplanes, there wouldn't be parachutes"
2nd Retort: "But now the airplane has its own Parachute, so it must be perfect!"

Most jump pilots will tell you those planes are far from being perfectly good. Airworthiness often seems to be more of a suggestion than a standard in that game.

I had a co-worker years ago who was into skydiving. He was in the camp who said there was no such thing as a perfectly good airplane. Having seen what they jumped out of, I can see where they got that opinion. They beat the heck out of those things.

Now, we had a Sgt Major in ROTC who was fond of saying, "Two things fall from the sky. Birds^&t and fools!" He, obviously, didn't think highly of Airborne folks.