Why parachutes are not required to improve pilot safety. Now scientifically proven.

[ZachariasX]

We all know that parachutes are supposed to improve the health of the pilot, or at least reduce certain adverse aspects inherent to flying combat missions.

 

To assess the efficacy of ANY mean or measure to improve someones health, we use randomized clinical trials (RCT) to find out about the efficacy of the applied method.

 

As some might have wondered about a very British way to leave an aircraft:

there is now a solid answer to this, brough to you by Her Majesty's scientists from the British Medical Journal (thebmj).

 

For Christmas, the boffins proved once and for all that medically speaking, parachutes are not required.

 

For Christmas 2003, they for the first time put the use of parachutes (as commonly practised in lesser parts of the world) under scrutiny and were looking for previously published evidence.

 

This is what they did:

 

Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.

Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.

Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.

Main outcome measure Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15.

Results We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.

Conclusions As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.

 

In sum, they found the alleged benefit of using of that expensive piece of cloth (that could well be used for your mistresses lingerie instead of wasted on oafs that don't know when to leave an aircraft) has not been assessed and any claims for using such is mere speculation.

 

But it didn't stop here. For this Christmas, Her Majesty's boffins again looked at the issue.

 

In a groundbreaking (pun intended) study called:

 

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial

 

they did the following:

 

Objective To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft.

Design Randomized controlled trial.

Setting Private or commercial aircraft between September 2017 and August 2018.

Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were screened for participation. 23 agreed to be enrolled and were randomized.

Intervention Jumping from an aircraft (airplane or helicopter) with a parachute versus an empty backpack (unblinded).

Main outcome measures Composite of death or major traumatic injury (defined by an Injury Severity Score over 15) upon impact with the ground measured immediately after landing.

Results Parachute use did not significantly reduce death or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P>0.9). This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups. Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled, participants included in the study were on aircraft at significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001).

Conclusions Parachute use did 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. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

 

See, even when they had people jumping from actual airplanes with and without parachute, these results were inconclusive enough to put any use of a parachute in doubt, scientifically speaking.

 

I hope people will finally understand why a proper Britsh exit is exactly that way as shown above and any bickering aout that can stop.

 

 

Happy holidays

 

For the more interested, here are the authors comments.

 

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

Test #1 mentions "using" the parachute, but was it ever properly deployed?   Technically, a parachute, still in bag, could be 'used' as an attempted impact cushion. 

Test #2 simply mentions jumping "with" a parachute.  It mentions nothing about "deploying" said 'chute. 

 

I find these tests to be of the "highest" scientific quality, as in, the scientist apparently were also testing the effects of psychotropic compounds for use in intel/counter-intel top-secret operations. 

 

Well Done!

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, =AVG77=Mobile_BBQ said:

Test #1 mentions "using" the parachute, but was it ever properly deployed?  

 

Essentially, the authors of the studies were being good forists. Test 1 was for the situation of finding documented proof of a statement in context of the only mean of absolute truth, the randomized clinical trial. They found no previous trial data, hence conclusions on the usefulness of a parachute cannot be drawn, as all other stories are „anectotal evidence“ (which certainly doesn‘t qualify as mean in medical research).

 

Test 2 they performed by jumping of a stationary plane, with or without deploying the chute upon jumping. As they found no statistically relevant resulting health difference between jumpers with a functioning chute or British chutes, they concluded that just increasing altitude ceteris paribus gives no grounds for further interpretations, meaning anyinthing could happen if you do that. Or nothing at all.

 

Hence, they demonstrated that contolled test show no basis for a parachute being responsible to the well being of a jumper.

 

 

The authors are actually taking a pi** on all those researcher that just conclude something because a certain study layout tells them so. Same with the „allmighty p-value“, where significance of correlation have nothing to say about the meaningfullness of your hypothesis.

 

In other words, scientific methods are easy. Everybody can use them. But it is the good scientist that uses them for a meaningful purpose. There is the difference between science an propaganda. It is not the mean that makes something true (although it gets you into journals), but the soundness of your hypothesis.

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by ZachariasX

[unreasonable]

57 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

In other words, scientific methods are easy. Everybody can use them. But it is the good scientist that uses them for a meaningful purpose. There is the difference between science an propaganda. It is not the mean that makes something true (although it gets you into journals), but the soundness of your hypothesis.

 

 

I take the parody parachute papers to mean that reproducible peer reviewed trials =/= science, indeed are neither necessary nor sufficient for good science.

 

Science is just a tidied up evolution of the age old method of induction.  Observe a regularity (ie correlation), hypothesize a causal linkage, test it to see if it works and is not an accident. See how it fits in your total view of how the universe works. 

 

Simple really.  Reproducible peer reviewed papers are just more "sciency", they are no different in principle.  

 

Where it does get interesting is when phenomena are irreducibly probabilistic, such as the timing of the decay of a single atom of an unstable isotope, where there is no causality. I am not convinced, though,  that this applies to parachutists, even Erwin Schrödinger. 

[ZachariasX]

15 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I take the parody parachute papers to mean that reproducible peer reviewed trials =/= science, indeed are neither necessary nor sufficient for good science.

 

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Science can only exist and avdance though exchange of thoughts and results, in other words communication. Besides that, it also requires an established way of cataloguing findings and methods.

 

Peer revieved papers are maybe not the best was to do that, but by far the most useful and practical.

 

There is a dramatic inflation of such publications as the nubers of people conducting some sort of science and that are seeking publication in that way inflates as well. It doesn not necesarily mean that things get more scientific, but you get more of everything.

 

Peer review is about the only way to ensure a certain quality control. If you are doing top level science, there are very few people on the planet who actually undersatnd what you are doing and that are able to add valuable criticism. This person can only be a peer in your field, as no one else would really be qualified for assessment.

 

Thus peer review as such is sound.

 

The problem arises by putting in false incentives, may it be:

 

- collusion between author and reviewer fueled by mutual interessts

- a desire to increase publication numbers  by the side of the editor, hence lowering review standards

- an utter requirement to publish many articles to ensure the career of the author

- a desire for pseudo-scientists to gain reputation by publishing in peer reviewed publications

 

All these factors actually lead to many "bubble" journals that are less stringent in quality control, especially as long as the findings are consistent with current oppinion. Also it enforces a certain conformism by methods applied, because these are the "tools allowed".

 

Besides the possibility to "gain reputation" to implant any propaganda in any bubble (as long as methods and conclusions are conforming enough), there is also a worse trend. Namely scientists using tools they don't fully understand to assess their experiment. And they use those tools bona fide but in a wrong way. If the peer reviwing that article is following those same traditions, this BS does not get weeded out of journals.

 

Doctors, biologists, psychoanalysts etc. I find are on average terrible with math. (Just IMHO, YMMV. But I'm dealing with this on a daily basis professionally, so I have little illusuons). While most of them will be able to apply a formula, they often enough are not able to fully grasp what their method actualy says. Usually, it is much less than they would like it to be.

 

Just read Nature, Science... or even papers not accepted in Science, and you will hardly ever encounter that kind of BS, as these journals can afford real quality control and they can pick from a flood of submissons.

 

Science itself is sound. Also today. But today, everywhere you go there's just so many morons that have no clue about all the things they don't know, taking this as a sign of competence. On the other hand, in the old das where there were hardly any scientists, you probably found as frequently idiots amongst them as you do today. It's just that they had less impact in general.

[Nocke]

Well if you put the beginning of modern science at 60 years ago, then Newton, Einstein, Schrödinger etc. are ancient stuff, and you should trust them?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Essentially, the authors of the studies were being good forists. Test 1 was for the situation of finding documented proof of a statement in context of the only mean of absolute truth, the randomized clinical trial. They found no previous trial data, hence conclusions on the usefulness of a parachute cannot be drawn, as all other stories are „anectotal evidence“ (which certainly doesn‘t qualify as mean in medical research).

 

Test 2 they performed by jumping of a stationary plane, with or without deploying the chute upon jumping. As they found no statistically relevant resulting health difference between jumpers with a functioning chute or British chutes, they concluded that just increasing altitude ceteris paribus gives no grounds for further interpretations, meaning anyinthing could happen if you do that. Or nothing at all.

 

Hence, they demonstrated that contolled test show no basis for a parachute being responsible to the well being of a jumper.

 

 

The authors are actually taking a pi** on all those researcher that just conclude something because a certain study layout tells them so. Same with the „allmighty p-value“, where significance of correlation have nothing to say about the meaningfullness of your hypothesis.

 

In other words, scientific methods are easy. Everybody can use them. But it is the good scientist that uses them for a meaningful purpose. There is the difference between science an propaganda. It is not the mean that makes something true (although it gets you into journals), but the soundness of your hypothesis.

 

Ummm......   Yeah.....  I did understand it was a satire article when I posted.  Thanks for recognizing this concept was too far beyond my grasp and 'splaining it to me. 

[Ghost666]

1 hour ago, raaaid said:

human nature is uncertainty

OK?  But I am uncertain of what you just said. And that may because I don't see how you can be certain of what you said. The use of these symbols that were taught to you by the brainwashers, do they mean what you are trying to say? The uncertainty of it all.

 

Don't attempt to answer me. For I am uncertain of what you said as you must be of what I ask, as I am.

 

LOL ?

[JtD]

My personal experience is in line with that study. I've exited many aircraft, some of those at several hundred meters above mean sea level, always without a parachute, always without injury.

 

I crashed my bike once and it hurt like hell, though. To this day I keep wondering if cyclists were safer with parachutes. Fare more die not wearing parachutes than wearing them.