Talk:Parachuting

Parachuting merge

Both articles are already very long. Merging them makes little sense. One article is about a piece of hardware. The other article is about the hardware's many applications. If if the topics were about Toasters and Toasting, I'd understand. Rklawton 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If there is a problem here, it's not that the two should be merged, it's that parachute covers too much ground. Superdix 20:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too - they are about different things. Ian Page 01:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As a skydiver, I agree as well. Parachuting and skydiving are NOT the same thing. -E

Oppose merge. Parachute is a device, parachuting is something done with the device, both deserve their own separate articles. If anything I think we need to consider splitting off skydiving, the sport, as a separate article from parachuting which is a much broader topic. Dragomiloff 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a skydiver. Agree with what you say! I just created as a draft a page for skydiving where I just wrote the meaning and the disciplines. LHG1975 (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge tag removed - it's been a couple of weeks, and I see no merge supporters here. Rklawton 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Precision d'Atterrissage - ThomasJeannerot2013.jpg
• Thomasjeannerot style.jpg
• Voltige ThomasJeannerot2013.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Parachuting is NOT Skydiving

1. Parachuting is now commonly referred to as skydiving. LHG1975 (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a fact Rstpch (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

SKYDIVING .... a dedicated page!

Hi,

• The page "Parachuting" has a multitude of topics that should be separated.
• It doesn't exist a page dedicated for Skydiving, the term or meaning has nothing to do with "Parachuting"
• Skydivers: how do you think about this idea and the text below for an initial page (I got denied when I created the page)

SKYDIVING The act of jumping from an aircraft at high altitude, followed by a controlled period of freefall, the duration of which is determined by the exit altitude and the skydiver's subsequent bodyflight (aerodynamic) maneuvers before parachute deployment and landing.

DISCIPLINES

DISCIPLINE	Sub-Discipline
Formation Skydiving	4-way 8-way Accuracy Landing Style VFS-4 Way
Artistic Events	Freeflying Freestyle Skydiving Skysurf
Canopy Piloting	Accuracy Distance Freestyle Speed
Wingsuit Flying	Acrobatic Flying Performance Flying
Parachute Ski	Accuracy Landing Giant Slalom
Speed Skydiving
Style and Accuracy Landing

See also

• International Skydiving Commission
• Bodyflight

References

LHG1975 (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Lead image discussion

@Belbury: Thank you for your edit.

The replacement of the lead image should be evaluated strictly under Wikipedia’s content policies and image guidelines. There are several strong policy-based arguments against using the military photograph as the primary illustration.

Undue weight and neutral point of view

Policy references:

• WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view)
• WP:UNDUE

The military photograph depicts parachuting in a military training context. However, the overwhelming majority of contemporary parachuting activity worldwide is civilian (sport, recreational, competitive, instructional). Using a military image in the lead section gives disproportionate weight to a specialized subdomain and may imply that parachuting is primarily a military activity.

Per WP:UNDUE, content (including images) should reflect the relative prominence of viewpoints and applications. Military parachuting is notable, but not representative of the subject as a whole.

Lead image representativeness

Policy references:

• MOS:LEADIMAGE
• WP:IMAGES

The lead image should visually represent the subject in a neutral and broadly characteristic way. A military formation jump represents a specific institutional use case, not the general concept of parachuting as defined in the article.

If the article covers sport parachuting disciplines, recreational jumping, equipment evolution, and civilian practice, the lead image should reflect that broader scope.

Well, it won't be that easy to find one image that encompasses all the disciplines and the rest you listed. That being said, I don't find the current image of Anastasia Barannik clinging to a plane in preparation for the jump shows what parachuting is either. I'd certainly prefer an image of a person or several people in the air with an unfolded parachute in clear view. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Contextual accuracy and reader interpretation

Policy references:

• WP:V
• WP:NPOV

Images shape first impressions. A military image may unintentionally frame the topic as combat-related or state-controlled, which is not consistent with the sourcing and structure of most parachuting articles. The visual framing should align with the sourced content and overall emphasis of the article.

Currency and encyclopedic relevance

While age alone is not disqualifying, a 2007 photograph may not accurately reflect current equipment standards, canopy design, harness/container systems, or safety gear. Wikipedia encourages up-to-date and informative media where available (see WP:IMAGES). A more recent civilian example better reflects the present state of the discipline.

Appropriate placement of military content

Military parachuting is a legitimate and notable subtopic. However, it would be more appropriate to illustrate it within a dedicated section (e.g., “Military parachuting” or “Airborne forces”), rather than as the primary visual defining the entire subject.

In summary, per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and MOS:LEADIMAGE, the lead image should represent the subject in its most general and widely recognized form. A civilian sport parachuting image fulfills that requirement more accurately than a military training photograph.

Rstpch (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed comprehensive rewrite

Hello. I am primarily active on Latvian Wikipedia and also edit on English Wikipedia. Aviation is one of my long-standing interests. While researching skydiving, I substantially improved the Latvian and Russian articles, both of which had previously been much shorter and needed extensive sourcing. That work led me to look more closely at the English article. The current English article covers a wide range of subjects, but it has carried a general sourcing banner since 2009 and contains a mixture of useful material, duplicated sections, highly detailed instructional passages, outdated or weakly sourced records, commercial price information, and media whose size or placement sometimes obscures the article's structure. I therefore prepared a proposed comprehensive rewrite at User:MargaritaPLV/Parachuting rewrite. While preparing the draft, I asked a USPA examiner and instructor, as well as several other experienced participants in the sport, to read the technical descriptions and identify terminology or practical inaccuracies. Their comments were useful as an informal technical check. I do not regard this as approval, and it does not replace reliable published sources or on-wiki consensus. Every substantive claim in the proposed article is intended to be supported by a cited source. My intention was not simply to shorten the article. I tried to retain its encyclopedic breadth while making it more clearly represent modern sport parachuting, its aviation context, its training systems, and its internationally recognised disciplines. Source approach The draft generally uses:

• the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale for international discipline status, competition formats and records;
• the United States Parachute Association and British Skydiving for their own training systems, terminology and safety guidance;
• the Federal Aviation Administration and the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations for United States aviation requirements;
• peer-reviewed research for injury and fatality patterns;
• the Smithsonian Institution, FAI and other institutional sources for historical claims.

I have tried to identify the geographical and institutional scope of each source. For example, USPA guidance is presented as United States guidance rather than as a universal international rule, while FAI is used for international competition and record status. Material retained or expanded The proposed version retains and develops:

• the early history of parachuting and the development of sport parachuting;
• recreational, military, emergency and smokejumper uses;
• the sequence of a sport jump, including exit, freefall, deployment, canopy flight and landing;
• the main training routes, including tandem, static-line progression, instructor-assisted deployment and accelerated freefall;
• equipment and the distinction between main, reserve and automatic activation systems;
• safety, using a recent systematic review and clearly identified national statistics;
• canopy formation, formation skydiving, freeflying, skysurfing, angle flying, wingsuit flying, canopy piloting, accuracy landing, speed skydiving, paraski and indoor competition;
• the distinction between international FAI disciplines and training or recreational terminology used by national associations;
• international and national organisational roles;
• drop zones and the aviation-regulatory context;
• the principal high-altitude milestones and the main formation records;
• the existing popular-culture topic concerning Blood on the Risers.

Formation skydiving, freeflying, canopy formation and wingsuit flying have been expanded because they are major parts of modern sport parachuting and needed enough prose to explain both their practice and their competitive status.

Material removed or condensed The following material was removed or substantially condensed:

• duplicated coverage of wingsuit flying, skysurfing, freeflying, tracking and vertical body positions in several different parts of the article;
• the long explanation of ejection-seat operation, which seemed more appropriate for the dedicated article on ejection seats;
• detailed instructional advice for night jumps and cross-country jumps;
• poorly sourced or highly local material about space-ball jumps, object or raft jumps, swoop-and-chug traditions and similar activities;
• detailed retail prices for parachutes, containers and automatic activation devices;
• a very long list of age, lifetime-jump, local-club and novelty records from sources of uneven quality;
• weak, dead, commercial, forum-based or hobby-site references where a stronger source was available or where the associated claim was not important enough to retain;
• an external-links section that largely duplicated material which should either be cited in the article or omitted.

These subjects were not removed merely because they are unusual. They were removed or reduced where the existing treatment was disproportionate, instructional, duplicated, weakly sourced or too temporary for a general encyclopedic overview.

Media changes The media have been reorganised so that each file has a specific explanatory role:

• parachute opening and landing media illustrate the stages of a jump;
• the tandem image supports the training section;
• the aircraft image illustrates jump operations;
• canopy formation, formation skydiving, freeflying, angle flying and wingsuit flying each have media placed with the corresponding prose;
• the ground rehearsal image illustrates a formation-skydiving;
• the large generic freefall image near the beginning of the current article was removed because it dominated the layout without explaining a distinct part of the subject.

I would particularly welcome comments on:

• whether any important encyclopedic content from the present article has been omitted;
• whether the balance between FAI, USPA, FAA, British Skydiving and scholarly sources is appropriate;
• whether national rules and terminology are sufficiently distinguished from international governance;
• the classification and relative weight of the disciplines;
• the wording and scope of the safety statistics;
• whether any section is still too instructional, too detailed or too dependent on primary institutional sources;
• whether the rewrite should eventually be implemented as one coherent replacement or in several carefully coordinated stages.

I will incorporate specific feedback in userspace before making a major change to the main article. MargaritaPLV (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

One additional point is that earlier discussions on this talk page raised both whether skydiving should be treated as a separate topic from parachuting and whether the current lead image is sufficiently representative. The draft keeps both terms in one article while distinguishing their common and narrower uses in the lead, and it retains the current civilian pre-exit image with a revised caption. Comments on those two choices would also be particularly useful. MargaritaPLV (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)