Let me be the devil's advocate and suggest that parachute training is about as relevant today as glider training. We don't drop men behind lines by parachute anymore. Sometimes forces are dropped onto friendly airfields, but for various reasons the politicians and brass are not willing to drop thousands of men into the meat grinder.
I also wonder how many soldiers are injured or killed in parachute training every year. Is it worth doing this just to keep up the tradition?
Uh, yes we do. Grenada & Panama are just two examples of landing on an airfield in the midst of a hostile enemy.
Outside of high-value targets like airfields, you really ought not jump into the teeth of enemy defenses. Ideally, you would jump quite a ways to the rear where the enemy wasn't and (coordinated with land-bound units) do your best to attack the enemy where he is least prepared. This is somewhat similar a heloborne assualt, but with greater range, less vulnerability to the platforms, and much less infrastructure needed near the objective.
Our recent battles have not yielded many objectives amenable to an airborne assault, outside of airfield siezure at the beginning of an operation like Afganistan or Iraq. But, I am reminded of the old saw, "Armies prepare for the last war." In contemporary context, this would mean that we'll prepare for counter-insurgency ops and neglect to prepare for the massed waves of Chicom & Nork infantry and motorized units.
Injuries during training do happen, myself being an example. It is going to happen if the training is at all useful and meaningful.