Injury incidence with T-10 and T-11 parachutes in military airborne operations.

Joseph J Knapik, Ryan Steelman, Kyle Hoedebecke, Shawn Rankin, Kevin Klug, Keith Collier, Bruce H Jones
{"title":"Injury incidence with T-10 and T-11 parachutes in military airborne operations.","authors":"Joseph J Knapik,&nbsp;Ryan Steelman,&nbsp;Kyle Hoedebecke,&nbsp;Shawn Rankin,&nbsp;Kevin Klug,&nbsp;Keith Collier,&nbsp;Bruce H Jones","doi":"10.3357/ASEM.4012.2014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The T-10 parachute has been the U.S. Army standard parachute since 1952 and is now being replaced by the T-11, which has a capacity for heavier loads. This investigation compared injury rates between the two parachute systems during mass tactical parachute training exercises at Fort Bragg, NC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Investigators were on the drop zone for all parachute operations. Data on injured jumpers were collected on the drop zone and supplemented with medical records. Operational data were collected from standard reports and weather data were obtained using a Kestrel(®) Model 4500 pocket weather tracker.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were a total of 131,747 jumps resulting in 1101 injured service members for a crude incidence of 8.4 injuries/1000 jumps. Most injuries (88%) with a known injury mechanism were associated with ground impact. In univariate analysis, risk of injury with the T-10 was 9.1/1000 jumps and that with the T-11 was 5.2/1000 jumps [odds ratio (T-10/T-11) = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.45-2.08, P < 0.01]. Other factors that independently increased injury risk included night jumps, combat loads, higher wind speeds, higher temperatures, certain aircraft, and entanglements. After controlling for these factors in a multivariate analysis, injury risk was still higher for the T-10 parachute when compared to the T-11 [odds ratio (T-10/T-11) = 1.56, 95%CI = 1.28-1.89, P < 0.01). For virtually all strata of the independent risk factors, the T-11 had a lower injury rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the T-10, the T-11 parachute had a lower injury incidence under virtually all the operational conditions examined.</p>","PeriodicalId":8676,"journal":{"name":"Aviation, space, and environmental medicine","volume":"85 12","pages":"1159-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3357/ASEM.4012.2014","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aviation, space, and environmental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.4012.2014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Background: The T-10 parachute has been the U.S. Army standard parachute since 1952 and is now being replaced by the T-11, which has a capacity for heavier loads. This investigation compared injury rates between the two parachute systems during mass tactical parachute training exercises at Fort Bragg, NC.

Methods: Investigators were on the drop zone for all parachute operations. Data on injured jumpers were collected on the drop zone and supplemented with medical records. Operational data were collected from standard reports and weather data were obtained using a Kestrel(®) Model 4500 pocket weather tracker.

Results: There were a total of 131,747 jumps resulting in 1101 injured service members for a crude incidence of 8.4 injuries/1000 jumps. Most injuries (88%) with a known injury mechanism were associated with ground impact. In univariate analysis, risk of injury with the T-10 was 9.1/1000 jumps and that with the T-11 was 5.2/1000 jumps [odds ratio (T-10/T-11) = 1.72, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.45-2.08, P < 0.01]. Other factors that independently increased injury risk included night jumps, combat loads, higher wind speeds, higher temperatures, certain aircraft, and entanglements. After controlling for these factors in a multivariate analysis, injury risk was still higher for the T-10 parachute when compared to the T-11 [odds ratio (T-10/T-11) = 1.56, 95%CI = 1.28-1.89, P < 0.01). For virtually all strata of the independent risk factors, the T-11 had a lower injury rate.

Conclusion: Compared to the T-10, the T-11 parachute had a lower injury incidence under virtually all the operational conditions examined.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
T-10和T-11降落伞在军事空降行动中的伤害发生率。
背景:自1952年以来,T-10降落伞一直是美国陆军的标准降落伞,现在正在被T-11所取代,T-11具有更重的载荷能力。这项调查比较了两种降落伞系统在布拉格堡大规模战术降落伞训练演习中的受伤率。方法:调查人员在所有降落伞操作的空降区。在跳伞区收集受伤跳伞者的数据,并辅以医疗记录。操作数据是从标准报告中收集的,天气数据是使用Kestrel(®)4500型袖珍天气跟踪器获得的。结果:共有131,747次跳伞,导致1101名服役人员受伤,粗略发生率为8.4 /1000次跳伞。大多数已知损伤机制的损伤(88%)与地面撞击有关。单因素分析中,T-10组损伤风险为9.1/1000次跳跃,T-11组损伤风险为5.2/1000次跳跃[比值比(T-10/T-11) = 1.72, 95%可信区间(95% ci) = 1.45-2.08, P < 0.01]。其他独立增加受伤风险的因素包括夜间跳跃、战斗负荷、更高的风速、更高的温度、某些飞机和缠结。在多因素分析中控制这些因素后,与T-11降落伞相比,T-10降落伞的伤害风险仍然更高[优势比(T-10/T-11) = 1.56, 95%CI = 1.28-1.89, P < 0.01]。对于几乎所有的独立危险因素,T-11有较低的伤害率。结论:与T-10相比,T-11降落伞在几乎所有测试的操作条件下都具有更低的伤害发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Aviation, space, and environmental medicine
Aviation, space, and environmental medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
1 months
期刊最新文献
Chronic bacterial prostatitis. Carpe diem. Temperature changes in selected areas of body surface induced by systemic cryostimulation. Comparison of in-flight measures with predictions of a bio-mathematical fatigue model. Demographic and occupational predictors of neck pain in pilots: analysis and multinational comparison.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1