[j1f4]

This reminds me of Freeman Dyson's research on British Bombers during WWII -- the data showed experienced crews didn't fair better than novices, but they didn't figure out why till after the war.

> Bomber Command told the crews that their chances of survival would increase with experience, and the crews believed it. They were told, After you have got through the first few operations, things will get better. This idea was important for morale at a time when the fraction of crews surviving to the end of a 30-­operation tour was only about 25 percent. I subdivided the experienced and inexperienced crews on each operation and did the analysis, and again, the result was clear. Experience did not reduce loss rates. The cause of losses, whatever it was, killed novice and expert crews impartially. This result contradicted the official dogma, and the Command never accepted it. I blame the ORS, and I blame myself in particular, for not taking this result seriously enough. The evidence showed that the main cause of losses was an attack that gave experienced crews no chance either to escape or to defend themselves. If we had taken the evidence more seriously, we might have discovered Schräge Musik in time to respond with effective countermeasures.

...

> the German pilots were highly skilled, and they hardly ever got shot down. They carried a firing system called Schräge Musik, or “crooked music,” which allowed them to fly underneath a bomber and fire guns upward at a 60-degree angle. The fighter could see the bomber clearly silhouetted against the night sky, while the bomber could not see the fighter. This system efficiently destroyed thousands of bombers, and we did not even know that it existed. This was the greatest failure of the ORS. We learned about Schräge Musik too late to do anything to counter it.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/406789/a-failure-of-intel...

The wingsuit jumpers consider possible dangers to lie with complacency of experts on easy flights, experts envelope pushing, or novices jumping unprepared. But these factors are all so contradictory that I'm left wondering if there is a hidden risk that affects novices and experts alike.

[agarden]

Fascinating.

In a comment elsewhere on this page capncrunch suggests downdrafts[1]. Seems like the kind of thing that could randomly strike novices and experts alike.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15114380

[Dwolb]

That's a great story.

My first instinct for where to look to find things that would affect experts and beginners alike is manufacturing defects or poor suit design.

I'd say also weather but that seems more likely to be highly variable and prone to skill (i.e. experts know when conditions are poor).

[jacquesm]

I would look no further than the basic ingredients of the sport: speed, gravity, zero margin for error and over a long enough run of events you are destined for the morgue. This is not a sport, it is suicide in disguise.

[dhimes]

One more thing: it's turned into a small industry. Some of the work in it I am certain is considered to be partly art (I am thinking of the analogy to the sailing industry in the early years of yachting). I wouldn't rule out a look to "advances" in suit design where the new engineering has an unforeseen consequence. Something the advanced guys would jump on board with, but we don't have enough data yet to determine the failures.

[TheCondor]

Does experience grow the margin of error? Do "incidents" become less fatal? Like in Russian roulette, its possible that experience doesn't improve your odds when something bad happens.

Sky diving is a little different, if a chute fails to open, your ability to remain calm and deal with it and deploy the backup makes a difference. In a lot of extreme activities I could see experience making a huge impact during incidents, flying suits might not be that forgiving.

[PoachedSausage]

It could just be the non-linearity inherent in flight. Or perhaps being in proximity to the surface causes the Reynolds number to be more variable, meaning 10 experts could do the same maneuver and have different outcomes.