Basejumper.com - archive

Which do you feel is more dangerous? Swooping or base jumping?

When I first started BASE jumping, I asked the same question of one of the camera men at the DZ. He had around 10,000 skydives, and about 400 BASE jumps. His answer:

"Well, I'm still swooping."

but did he stop BASE...

What if you still do both?

I think it depends on the skills of the person. Some are just naturally good swoopers but would not have an easy of a time BASE jumping. The reverse is also true.

I personally think swooping is more dangerous. My roomate, who does competetive swooping, thinks BASE is more dangerous.

Having zero BASE jumps under my belt, I'm obviously not very qualified to talk about this sport. But BASE seems to have many more unknown variables to each jump that swooping doesn't have. So in that respect I do believe that BASE may be more dangerous. But the margin for error in both disciplines is small, and they are obviously both dangerous (but fun).

so..why do it?

.....and having zero swoops under a highly loaded canopy I'd not be qualified to talk about that sport either. Well, unless you consider .73 to be highly loaded.

In response to the original post, I would say swooping a highly loaded canopy is more dangerous. The timing of the whole swoop has to be dead on or you are toast. It's fun to watch though.

I would imagine making your first BASE jump would be similar to making your first swoop under a high performance canopy. You are just not sure how it's gonna turn out, and if it goes bad, you will know it real quick.

I need a beer.

cya
Rod

"BASE seems to have many more unknown variables to each jump that swooping doesn't have."

Really? Jumping out of a Twin Otter, you've got maybe 23 other "unknown variables" flying around you doing their own thing, while you're trying to do your swoop. A well-known DZO recently died that way.
Swooping is not isolated, BASE (usually) is, and in BASE, most of our variables ARE known, not UNKNOWN. Sure, stuff can go wrong, but I'm more worried about the "variables" that can affect a swoop... other canopies, dust-devils, rotors, not to mention lack of ability and poor judgement, lost toggles, etc etc. Every month femurs snap, people die or become paralyzed. Like a very good friend of mine recently.
(And yet, "Parachutist" magazine actively encourages people to swoop, by promoting the swoop competitions around the globe. And they censor BASE!!?? Whatup with that sh-t?)
I'm not saying people shouldn't swoop, but I do think it's WAY more dangerous than BASE.

Comparing apples and oranges, dude.

Either one will kill you if you don't give it the respect it deserves...

Hell, either one may kill you anyway.

BASE is a choice that few people make because the possibility of serious injury or death is greatly increased. I'm an Avid swooper and have enough jumps from Fixed objects to realize this. Not all, but many BASE jumpers will jump from Any thing high enough to allow a parachute to inflate. Therefore the limits are pushed on a much grander scale than a swoop. There is SO-MUCH-MORE to becoming a skilled BASE jumper than just leaping off an object and tossing a pilot chute.

Now after 1000's of swoop landings, Only a few of them truly put me in serious danger. BASE jumping on the other hand... (now open for flames)

These sports are very different, and require different mindsets and skills. There is no way for me or any one to explain this affectively to a skydiver, and I'm an avid skydiver.

By the way Canuck, good question, Talk about it all you want.

Tom A pointed out a jumper who is still swooping... that truly sums it up.

Rfarris is right about wing loading. It's all relative. As inexperienced as I am, I would do a BASE jump with my normal rig from a 4000 ft cliff (if one exists). But I wouldn't try to swoop even an 0.5 loaded canopy.

Each sport is made more dangerous by how far you push the limits (height of BASE jump or wing loading of canopy).

[BASE Nazi Rant]This kind of thing is the height of foolishness. It sounds like the skydiver who told me "well, I'd jump from a plane at that height."

Sure, but would you jump from a plane at that height, then track for 18 seconds, then dump next to a wall?

Making a BASE jump from a 4000' cliff might be safer than some other BASE jumps. But doing it on a skydiving rig would be significantly more dangerous than making a standard BASE jump from 400' with a BASE rig.

Personally, I'd be willing to freefall a 200' building on proper gear long before I'd take any skydiving rig off any object, under any conditions.

It's a cliff, not an airplane. That means there are a lot more things to worry about, that you never have to think about on a skydive. Unlike skydiving, danger in BASE is far more dependent on other factors than on altitude.[/BASE Nazi Rant]

Sorry to rant, but thinking that altitude necessarily equates to safety is a good way to become a statistic in a hurry.

I got into it once in a different forum about this. It still frustrates me.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Why does everyone think the higher the safer?!?!?!?!

thats a false security.................

be safe!

I've had tandem passengers tell me they wanted to go jump themselves, but they'd prefer BASE to skydiving, cause, well, ya know, that's closer to the ground, so that's definitely way safer!!

Thanks for the reply Tom, believe it or not I had already thought about the proximity of the vertical wall, and I did exaggerate a bit when I said I would gladly do such a thing in my normal rig. I would never really do something like that without asking experts first. What exactly makes a BASE rig different though, out of curiosity? To me a 200 ft jump sounds insane, but again I'm pretty ignorant on this stuff.

I didn't mean to imply that altitude is the only danger in BASE, but I know it is a significant one. In my ignorant mind, the main risk being a malfunction of your main (do BASE rigs have reserves?), in which case you're definitely screwed, right? Correct me if I'm wrong... I often make conjectures which occur as statements of fact... I've never claimed to know anything and I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong. :)

Actually, the proximity of that wall is your primary risk. It's also the leading cause of BASE jumping fatalities. Very few fatalities (on BASE specific gear) are caused by malfunctioning canopies. On a BASE jump, there are so many dangers that the possibility of your parachute, "not opening," is completely overshadowed.

There is one BASE rig available with a reserve (the Sorcerer) but for most jumps and most BASE jumpers, a reserve would serve no purpose. This is because on a BASE jump you will usually delay your deployment to maximize freefall time.

Since you are intentionally using up your available altitude, a conservative delay will put you in a proximity to the ground where you will probably not have enough time to attempt a reserve deployment. There simply isn't enough time to try to get a reserve out at less than 100 feet.

Since a reserve isn't really practical to use in BASE it has become accepted to simply get rid of the reserve and focus all attention to getting the main out right the first time. If you ever get a chance to watch a BASE packjob, you'll see an amazing attention to detail. There are also several modifications that are specific to BASE rigs that increase the odds of a successful deployment.

A BASE rig is extremely simple. You basically have a harness, a container to hold the canopy, risers, special toggles, a canopy, a bridle, and a pilot chute.

There's very few parts that can malfunction, since there aren't that many parts to begin with.

As far as risks... they're really endless. Where you can use the same equipment configuration for practically every skydive you do, in BASE you will often need to reconfigure your entire setup for each jump. Any slight rigging error will probably kill you. Once you're in a position to jump, there are many more factors that must be evaluated than on a skydive.

You're playing for all the marbles, you have no second chances, and the ground is hard and unforgiving of ignorance.

When you're at the exit point, you could very well be inside the last 10 seconds of your life. Suddenly skydiving seems like a better idea huh?

Overshadowed, but still a risk, no? I do understand your point though.


Again, my ignorance reigns supreme, but does it make sense that if you configure your rig for the lowest possible jump, you could use that same configuration for all other (higher) jumps? Correct me if I'm wrong...

Again, I have no experience in the area, but I still feel like the low altitude is a significant risk. You even mention how any minor rigging error can kill you... as far as I know, the reason for these rigging procedures is DUE to the low altitude. I'd be curious to find a BASE fatality statistics page, but somehow I doubt there is one. You repeatedly mention that there are "many" risks besides low altitude, but all I can really think about are vertical walls or bad landing areas, which could be avoided by selecting good locations. I've only heard of a few BASE fatalities that I've read about in mainstream publications, but all of them seemed to be in open areas, death from impact against a horizontal ground, and nothing else. I can only assume that if the ground had been 2500 ft lower and the jumper had a reserve, he would not have gone in.

There's an interesting link in this discussion:
http://www.dropzone.com/...i?post=556771#556771

How's this?:

http://juliabell.home.att.net/

Hook

Beat yah

Yeh, I just found that on my own through Google. And as I had guessed, a noticeable majority of them were from failed or malfunctioned deployments. True, these failures may have been due to BASE specific packing requirements, but these requirements are due to.... low altitude!

Another large proportion was due to impacting vertical walls as said earlier. Still not sure what all the "so many dangers" are that overshadow the risk of gear failure at low altitude (which as I pointed out seemed pretty significant according to the fatality page). I didn't see any that were not either:
a) Gear malfunction, death on horizontal surface
or
b) Off heading opening, death on vertical surface

Again, I'm not claiming to know a thing about BASE jumping personally, but I'm making observations based on what I currently know...

reply]

Again, my ignorance reigns supreme, but does it make sense that if you configure your rig for the lowest possible jump, you could use that same configuration for all other (higher) jumps? Correct me if I'm wrong...
Not necessarily, it depends on your delay off that particular object...and we don't do too many hop-n-pops from 2000'. If you were to remove your slider, and go to terminal, the resulting opening would be disastrous for you and your equipment. In addition, if you were to take a slider up rig off a 200' object, you would likely open extremely low, or worse, snivel into the ground.
These are very basic ideas, trying to keep it simple for you, but there is MUCH more to gear setup for different altitudes than just slider up or slider off/down....things like, brake settings, PC size, reefing methods.....the list goes on.
Hope that helps.
Blair

Thank you Blair, obviously I didn't take into account the fact the different deployment delays will create different deployment speeds. I still feel like all this attention to gear though, simply reinforces the fact the low altitude jumps are dangerous.

I see the logic behind your conclusions, unfortunately non of them apply accurately to BASE.


This is wrong. I think it's beyond the scope of this thread to elaborate, but basically, the parachute must be configured to open at a rate compatible with your freefall speed. Failure to do so will result in an extremely hard opening, damage to the equipment, damage to the jumper, or all three.


The application for some of these procedures is for low altitude jumps, yes. But this has nothing to do with why the errors occur. I'm not sure what you're getting at.


Not a statistics page, but enough to get you started. The List


Read the above list and tell me if you still think that. Then re-read my first reply, particularly the part referring to intentionally using available altitude.

My advice to you is to read all you can about BASE jumping. After you have more knowledge of the sport, you'll be able to ask more accurate questions.

I suggest you read better... #8 ,#9 and #28 for instance were freefall object strikes...

Other things to consider are landing area or lack of one, winds (so much more important then in skydiving), guide wires on A's, security on B's, probible river currents on S's, object strikes on all of them, the list goes on and on.... Remember most BASE is in the middle of the night and things look different then.

Interesting is to hear how many jumpers take wire rides or break legs on rough terrian, take a swim with their rigs or have to freefall extra low to avoid being blown back into an object.

You're right about the other dangers, but in my mind, and based on the portion of the BASE deaths page I read (I didn't read the whole list), it doesn't seem like they significantly overshadow the risk of gear failure. I still noticed MANY incidents due to gear failure at a few hundred feet. Had that been 3000 feet with a reserve canopy, the jumper would have presumably been fine. The ONLY point I'm trying to make is that low altitude is a significant risk, and much more unforgiving of rigging errors. You could then blame those deaths on "rigging error", but the rigging error is so much more dangerous at low altitudes! Someone made a statement that low altitude was not significant compared to the other risks, but in the portion of the list I read it accounted for 30-40%.

If normal skydivers had no reserves, packed BASE rigs, and always opened low, the fatality rate would go up exponentially, regardless of how much care is put into packing mains, because malfunctions are bound to happen, and a double canopy system can increase your chances of survival exponentially (excluding entanglement issues, etc).

Sounds to me like you're comfort level lies closer to the skydiving arena. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm still not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

I'm trying to accomplish understanding. I stumbled across a BASE msg board this morning, read a post saying that risk of gear failing was "completely overshadowed" by other dangers in BASE jumping. I found that hard to believe, so I asked why. After finding a fatalities page in which a huge portion of the incidents are due to gear failure, I feel I can slightly more informedly maintain my opinion that gear failure is a significant risk that is not completely overshadowed by anything, though there may very well be many more risks in parallel.

I think it's becoming obvious that I'm feeding a troll, so I'll stop posting to this thread.

The111, I think the explanation I offered was sufficient and you misread that statement.

Maybe I misread it a little, and maybe you misworded it a little. I'm honestly not trying to troll, and maybe it is due to my skydiving background as you pointed out, but I really did feel like you put too little importance on the danger of gear failure in any freefall activity, specifically at low altitudes or with no reserve. Let's just agree to agree that gear failure may not be the most dangerous part of BASE jumping, but compared to normal skydiving, BASE jumping is significantly more dangerous even if you consider ONLY gear issues (and being a skydiver, these are the issues I would think of first). The other non-gear issues stacked on top of that only make it doubly more dangerous.

Admit it, you'd freefall that building in any case! I seem to remember a 210 foot building in A'dam and lots of tram wires in all directions. . .

Peace,

D-d0g

Define what "gear failure" is in your mind.

What you may consider to be a gear failure may not be in the eyes of others.

Hmm, not many fatalities in the past 5 years due to canopy "gear failure." A few PC problems (one a packing issue, one potentially a gear choice issue), and several instances of over-delaying while camera flying on one's back.

Lots and lots of object strike under canopy.

The statistics speak for themselves, really.

Peace,

D-d0g

Are you a jounalist ?


If you had read some more would that figure have changed ?


It would double them.

Sorry, but this is one area where I can respond confidently. I'm not a journalist but I do understand basic probability. If one canopy has a 1/500 chance of failing (this is a dummy value, we could spend forever arguing what the real values of real canopies are), two canopies have a 1/250000 chance of both failing in the same jump. 1/500 * 1/500 OR (1/500)^2. NOT 1/500 + 1/500.



I read the whole list. There are 72 numbered fatalities. As far as I can tell, 23 of them had nothing to do with the "BASE-nature" of the jump (i.e. cliffs, winds, wires, rivers, etc). These 23 incidents would have turned out exactly the same had the jumper exited an airplane over an open field at the altitude of his base jump. Their cause is primarily his low altitude and lack of reserve (and lack of time to open one!). They are listed on the page as 2, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 67, 69, 71. Some of these may be open for debate, but it is my opinion based on my limited skydiving knowledge that had these jumpers been placed 3000 feet higher with a reserve canopy when their incident occured, they would have been able to escape alive with proper emergency procedures.

I'm ready and waiting to be accused again of trolling, but all I've done is attempted to back up my previous opinions (that altitude, or lack thereof, is a significant BASE risk) with numbers.

From my point of view, ie a low jump skydiver with no BASE jumps or experience,
and the only technical knowledge being what i've read or asked,
i see BASE as a discipline that is almost a form of art,
the dynamics involved are obviously more critical, and the gear to some extent is low tech,
and is kept that way because it means less can go wrong.

The whole point (from my perspective) is about assessing an object,
working out the maths, the approach, the landing, access, the equipment and the excitement of getting away with it,
the fact that its low altitude is not really a valid parameter, as you work out your delay to your object and your abilities,
and the jump itself is the middle of a complicated series of events.

As for gear failure i think BASE jumpers are far more anal about their gear than skydivers,
but as you rightly say its a one shot affair and to that extent skydiving maybe a safer option,
but even so, it still has its own unique risks.

At the top right of the BASE forum page Tom has put a link called "Getting into BASE" read it a few times.

Btw.. why did you start skydiving ? because it was totally safe ?

Obviously not. I think skydiving and BASE jumping both have attractive elements, probably for the same reasons you or anyone else on this board do. I haven't tried BASE jumping yet and don't plan on it anytime soon, but it certainly does look attractive and maybe one day I will. I'm *not* trying to say "BASE jumpers are teh suck becuz they risk their lives", I'm just saying that the low altitude is a significant risk in the sport, or as you put it (maybe more accurately), it's a "one shot affair", where as with skydiving you get a second shot sometimes. Probably that's actually much more significant, as the 23 events I listed would have been prevented by a reserve AND higher altitude, not just higher altitude.

So what is your suggestion ? this ?


I guess people should stop BASE jumping then.

Although i'm sure the families of #'s 2, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 67, 69, 71, are probebly talking to their solicitors right now after reading this bombshell.

2 - Rigging error
10 - Inexperience/Poor Equipment Choice
15 - Poor equipment choice
17 - Excessive Delay
21 - Equipment problem
22 - Equipment problem/Poor Equipment Choice
30 - Inexperience/Poor Equipment Choice
31 - Rigging error
33 - Excessive Delay
36 - Excessive Delay/Inexperience
37 - Excessive Delay/Inexperience
48 - Excessive Delay
49 - Unknown (note parachute was deployed)
51 - Inexperience/Poor Equipment Choice
52 - Poor Equipment Choice
53 - Pilot Error
56 - Excessive Delay
57 - Equipment Problem (possibly)
60 - Excessive Delay
61 - Equipment Problem (possible rigging error)
67 - Equipment Problem
69 - Equipment Problem
71 - Rigging Error

I only count 6 that could arguably be due strictly to a malfunction of some sort (i.e. no rigging errors and proper gear selection). That's 1/12 of the incidents.

Of the ones you listed, 7 were excessive delays, which have nothing to do with equipment failure. Another 6 were caused by inexperience or selection of equipment totally inappropriate for the jump. I wouldn't classify those as malfuctions or failures.

Rfarris is right about wing loading.

A death caused by rigging error is related to the low altitude single-canopy (one chance only) nature of the BASE jump. Rigging errors are inevitable, no one is perfect. With a chance to pull a second canopy though, you have increased your safety a lot. Poor equipment choice is also related to low altitude... I understand your point that had they chosen better equipment their incident would not have happened... but in that specific case, I see the ultimate killer as low altitude, because with low altitude comes the requirement of more stringent gear selection (hence risk). As far as excessive delay... this is the most obviously related to low altitude... a delay that is 5 seconds too long in a BASE jump can be certain death, a delay that is 5 seconds too long in a skydive is a low deployment probably.

I didn't say all my selected cases were definitely malfunctions, I chose them because they were not related to non-altitude variables (cliffs, winds, rivers, etc). All of them would have probably turned out exactly the same from a low plane, but possibly turned out much better from a high plane. Looking at those conditions the deciding factor in my mind is altitude... BUT I can see how it is actually possible to see this issue from two sides. If you take the low altitude as a given, then the gear selection is the deciding factor, which is your perspective. But since I was originally debating whether or not low altitude is a risk, I cannot take that as a given.

I already said the point of my post was NOT to say that BASE jumping = bad...

In BASE low altitude is a given.

>In BASE low altitude is a given.

And in many instances desired...

Yeh, but we were comparing BASE to general skydiving, where altitude varies. The original point was whether or not the low altitude of BASE makes it much more dangerous than regular skydiving. I still think it does (not so much the altitude, but the inability to recover from a single malfunction or late pull or slow opening), in addition to the many other things which make it dangerous.

High is a relative term. Jump from 1700 feet, then fall for 10 or 11 seconds you're not up high any more. In skydiving 1700 feet is not very high. In BASE it's pretty darn significant.

I would never jump a skydiving rig off any fixed object no matter how tall it is, especially knowing what BASE specific gear is available today.

Unless you come watch how to set up a BASE rig, it will make no sense.

C-ya

No shit. Ironic how Skydiving magazine covers BASE, but Parachutist won't. Dicks. Skydiving magazine kicks ass. Parachutist suck. Good photos, though.

I do belive that you DONT understand.But if you have knowleged that we dont have,then please tell...

so when we freefall 200ft we should cut our main,and pull the reserve?sorry,it wont work...

please see my latest video were i freefall 200ft(sorry Blair,i only used the breakcord in 400ft but promice that that S is mine as i get home from my trip to come),there are even a high pull (400ft aprox 2sec delay,im not even sure i would cut a main and pull a reserve there.. ftp://207.189.27.51/...ic/BASE/Faberlow.mpg
When you (the111)has seen it then please tell me were i had the time to cut a main,pull a reserve and get it over my head...

USE BASE GEAR FOR BASE,AND SKYDIVE GEAR FOR SKYDIVE,that simple..

ohh to the guy on this board that freefalled a 150ft Cliff.. hmm damn.. respect i dont get my fat ass freefalling under 200ft..haha

If it were up to me, and wouldn't get me banned from skydiving, I would make every skydive with a BASE rig.

ha ha just to spear thwe mony from a cypress and a reserve?
i like the idea,but i would still use skydive gear for skydives(well atleast most of them)

I might explained myself wrong.I mean that in most cases under a skydive i want to use skydive gear.as the rule here is that i need to be in the saddel at 2000ft then i see no reason not to wearing a reserve.I aslso like my cypress,in the case i should get knoced out on a skydive.however if i do a really low jump then i rather jump my BASE gear,but NEVER skydive gear on a BASE..

That's my exact point, at 2000 ft it would work, at 200 it wouldn't (as you pointed out). As it's already been said countless times in this thread, you have one chance on a BASE jump, but two chances (and much more time/margin for error) on a skydive. That's a significant difference (and not simply a factor of 2, regardless of how much attention BASE jumpers pay to their gear). The largest amount of incidents on the fatality page were due to cliff strikes, but pretty close behind were incidents related to the "one chance, time-critical" nature of BASE. Hence my continued belief that it is still a significant risk. Though I do understand it's NOT THE ONLY ONE.


Out of curiosity, why? I hope you still don't think I'm trolling you... if we look back far enough we'll see the original point of this thread was the comparison between swooping and BASE, which inherently is going to bring in a skydiver's perspective. I expressed an idea based on the knowledge I had at the time that a BASE jump was only as dangerous as the altitude, and a swoop was only as dangerous as the wing loading. Obviously in both cases that is an over simplification, and I got a lot of replies from experienced BASErs telling me how unimportant low altitude was compared to the other risks... I agree now that there are greater risks but I still feel that based on theoretical and real statistics, the low altitude/time risk still is comparable to them and significant, not to be overlooked entirely.

That said, I'm not trying to create an argument about which sport is better. I think BASE is cool as hell and respect the shit out of you guys for jumping off of stuff measured in hundreds instead of thousands of feet. :) Maybe some day I'll join but I probably don't have the balls...

To me I dont think you can compare the two really. Its like comparing paragliding / BASE / Skydiving / or any other parachuting activity - some things you do in each that are not compatable / relevant to the others. Basics are they all use a parachute of one way or another but generally and to the core they are all different beasts. As people had previously stated I would never take a skydive rig off any BASE jump - 200ft - 20,000ft (I wish!) just because in some jumps the alititude you participate crosses both skydiving / BASE does not mean it becomes a skydive environment.

Next time you play golf go use a hockey stick - same sort of ball sport - (hitting a small ball with a stick like thing) but in essence 2 completly different beasts.............

My 0.02 whislt bored shitless at work hoping the wind will die down!! fucking UK!!!

Be safe always

PS) I feel safer jumping my BASE rig than my skydiving rig!!

I'm sure your landings are a LOT safer...

The point we're trying to make is that more altitude does not make a BASE jump necessarily safer. Take the cliffs in Norway and Italy. Many, many fatalities have occurred there notwithstanding the fact that those cliffs are 3000+ feet in height. That's because the structure of those objects is such that the risk of object strike exists no matter how high they are.


Wingloading, experience and, ironically enough, altitude, are all factors in swooping.

I agree.


Point taken. Notice in the following sentence I said I was aware that was an over-simplification.

Hmm, well phrased that way I suppose one must agree with you. BASE is much less forgiving of errors than skydiving or most any other sport. things happen fast; problems escalate quickly if not avoided or addressed with precision immediately during a jump.

Nonetheless, those of us who have pushed limits in one way or another in BASE really don't lose sleep at night worrying about "low altitude," not carring a reserve, or mysterious canopy malfunctions.

We worry about over-delaying and getting a snivel, flubbing aerials and entangling in our gear, or jumping new exitpoints that are too underhung to clear consistently. Most of al, we worry about off-headings and object strike under canopy, on each and every jump off hard objects.

It is difficult to explain the dynamics of BASE to skydivers, as the primary drivers of BASE effectiveness are essentially orthogonal to those in skydiving. In BASE we have no mother-bear that sets rules and regulations within which we must operate. Thus, we rely on our own judgment, experience, and wisdom in making decisions. In doing so, we hone or ability to dynamically manage risk - something essentially unnecessary in skydiving, where safety is achieved through uniform rules and statistical management. In BASE, all the statistics in the world don't mean much since each jump is essentially a statistical singularity.

Peace,

D-d0g
BASE 715

ahh, sweet pic, D-dog! A little bit different than the summity type look people have on their faces after going UP a cliff...

I concur. What's that vertical bit off in the distance??? Looks like a promising area for sure.

Gardner

Yep. That look sort of captures the essence of it, doesn't it?

Wew! I've read the whole thread, and two things come to mind:

First, on average, a BASE jump is clearly more dangerous than a skydiving swoop/high performance landing/hookturn/label du jour.

While accurate stats are going to be hard to come by, I have no doubt that each day, far more swoops are performed than BASE jumps. Yet, if the last years trend continues, BASE will soon claim more lives each year than skydiving, even with less participants.

This isn't to say that all base jumps are more dangerous than all swoops. An overzealous and poorly prepared/unexperienced skydiver could easily be taking a bigger risk attempting to swoop a student canopy than a run of the mill base jumper might be taking jumping a 450' bridge with a properly packed and maintained modern base gear.

And now my main reason for responding (are you listening skydivers?):
<soap box on>
Second: It's true that a disturbing proportion of skydiving fatalities now occur under fully functional main canopies.
However, IMHO, far too many of them are attributed to botched swoops, when in reality, they were more fundamental errors made by people that weren't trying to swoop at all.
An example would be someone making a low turn in an attempt to land into the wind or avoid an obstacle.
If one reads the fatality reports, I think you'll notice a lot of statements along the lines of "the deceased was not known to do high performance landings..." or "...was a conservative canopy pilot..."

My point is certainly not that swoops aren't dangerous, but rather that NOT swooping doesn't necessarily make one a safe skydiver.

It's all about knowing your gear, learning as much as possible about your sport(s), and knowing and pushing your personal limits in incremental steps.

Remember, if it looks easy when someone else does it, it just might be because they've practiced it a helluva lot!
-Josh