1 Instructor AFF vs 2 instructor AFF program (Was: Fatality - Texas (Spaceland) - 12 March 2008)

[chrismgtis 0]

Quote

On some programs you do your first few jumps as tandem then move to a single AFF instructor program. Typically your first "AFF" style jump is your 3-5th skydive.

Ah, I see.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[NickDG 23]

You can trace the very beginnings of modern AFF (which began in earnest in the early 1980s) all the way back to Bob Sinclair in the 1960s who was "experimenting" with what he called Harness Hold Jumps. These were first jump students doing freefalls with a single jumpmaster. For back-up Bob used a lanyard from himself to the student's main ripcord just in case the student got away. You could say Bob Sinclair was ahead of the times and his initial ideas would indeed eventually all but sink the more traditional static line training methods.

However, in the early 1980s while skydiving was progressing in amazing ways with the advent of big-way RW, canopy RW, square reserves, etc, the USPA, and most Instructors, took a very conservative approach to student training. And there was always a bit of an uproar when any of the "accepted" student training methods were tampered with.

Most here won't recall this, but there was a time when every experienced jumper on the DZ was wearing a piggyback rig (reserve on the back) while all the students were still in conventional gear (reserve on the front). When some DZs began going with piggybacks for students there was a hue and cry in many quarters. "It's dangerous!" Some said. The same thing happened when instead of rounds we started putting our first jump students under squares, and the first time we stopped making students wear actual jump boots, and when we did away with real water jumps, and so on and so on.

The fact is while historically we've been very accepting of almost anything goes for experienced jumpers we've been very old school with our students. Those people who raised their voices against student training changing too radically, and who now seem quaint in hindsight, did serve a valuable purpose. They were saying, "Don't experiment on students!" It was through this wall of concern that new student practices had to prove themselves before they were accepted broadly in the field.

A good example of this was when Roger Nelson started putting his first jump students on smaller (than the student standard) canopies. Some called it progressive, some called it outrageous. And at the time I knew Roger well enough to know it was only Roger (Hey everyone, look at me) being Roger. The idea of using standard humongous F-111 squares on students was to allow them to do the things that students inevitably do and still live. Like landing downwind, flaring too high or too low, hitting barns and other obstacles, or they even, corkscrew them into the ground with a low panic turn and get up only bruised rather than dead.

However, we are losing those voices of restraint. There are so many various ways of training students nowadays it's almost not possible for us to know what every individual DZ is doing. (The proof of that is in this thread where people can't even figure out what this particular DZ is doing). My fear is while years ago a non-conforming student program stood out like a sore thumb they have now disappeared into a sea of sore thumbs.

So it's become okay to base your student program, not on accepted practices, not on conservatism, but on economics. Don't have a large enough staff to do straight ahead AFF, okay, let's invent something else. Don't want to spend money on student canopies that have zero resale value, okay, let's put them on canopies that will have some resale value.

Any DZO will tell you that besides aircraft related expenses the largest cash drain is their staff. The largest and most successful DZs can afford two AFF JMs, and a camera person per each student. The problem is when smaller or newer DZs can not.

I've done every AFF hybrid out there. Tandem to AFF, Static Line to AFF, as well as traditional AFF. In the earliest days of these hybrid programs we were presented with fresh tandem students with 3 to 5 tandems, we then gave them a full blown AFF first jump course and took them up with one AFF jumpmaster. Since not many, if any at all, in this thread seems to hold an AFF rating I'm here to tell you these jumps are high workload and high stress. This was a time when tandem masters had no other rating other than a tandem certification from a tandem equipment manufacturer. In a traditional sense they weren't Instructors at all. They were trained to carry super-cargo and that was about it. At the time I would have rather taught first jump students from scratch. While tandem satisfies the 'requirements" for advancement to solo freefall, it doesn't translate to reality all that well. I mean face it, except for the PRCPs - a dead man could ride as passenger.

Then as tandem itself progressed it never really reached Ted and Bill's original ideal of being like the dual instruction a novice pilot receives. It merely became a ride and a revenue producer for the DZ. Stong & RWS's mistake came in the very beginning when instead of only Instructors being tandem certified they were handing out tandem ratings to just about anyone with a few hundred jumps. When you see old Bill from Strong Enterprises (who I adore, btw) stand up at a USPA meeting complaining about how USPA is running the tandem program it's really just him paying the price for that early mistake.

I know how easy it is for someone new to the sport, to disagree with all I said above. That's fine, in fact its how things are supposed to work. We must have progress so you go ahead and push the boundaries while us old guys push back. From that symbiosis comes safe progress without going too fast. My main issue is I've seen every advancement made in AFF since it started, and they were always in the vein of making it better, easier, and safer for the student. Now it's moving toward the point (it’s really already there) of only making it cheaper for the DZO to operate. Its the very reason some marginal operations even exist.

And the pool of experienced AFF Instructors will eventually shrink away to nothing. Someone upboard justified single JM AFF by mentioning the rule concerning a student being alone in freefall, and the answer of "just pull." It's a very short and slippery slope from that emergency procedure becoming a normal part of AFF. So why use AFF JMs at all? With the very reliable gear and AADs we now have why not just put all students out completely alone. Just tell them, "Okay kid, if you're stable and altitude aware go ahead and smoke it on down to your pull altitude. If anything else happens - just pull." Don’t laugh, that's a DZO wet dream, and you're kidding yourself if you don't think there are DZOs out there looking for every way possible to downsize their staffs.

So what keeps the largest most established DZs in line? What keeps most of them using the more traditional methods of student training? It's because they have a lot to lose. They don't want to wind up in a courtroom with Dan Poynter as an expert witness (or even worse, me, LOL) against them. The smaller or newer DZ have less to lose, and may be operating on the boom or bust theory, as in what the hell - we make it or we don't. So you must ask yourself, if your sister wants to start skydiving, what are you going to suggest? Do you even know enough about student training to make a safe and logical suggestion?

And finally, yeah I know this is a big rant on a Saturday morning when I should be on my way out the door, but one more paragraph, I promise.

There used to be a time when once you received a USPA "C" license you were automatically considered a Jumpmaster. You may have had nothing at all to do with handling students, but it made you responsible for others. If something weird happened on a plane load of experienced jumpers it was you, the senior jumper, who got hung out to dry. Now it's every man for themselves and being the senior jumper on any particular load means absolutely nothing. Stuff like that trickles down over time and when we get to point where every DZO starts doing whatever they want with their student program somebody is going to pay the price. And (on the basis of this thread even existing) we may already be there and already paying that price . . .

NickD

[MarkM 0]

Quote

I've done every AFF hybrid out there. Tandem to AFF, Static Line to AFF, as well as traditional AFF. In the earliest days of these hybrid programs we were presented with fresh tandem students with 3 to 5 tandems, we then gave them a full blown AFF first jump course and took them up with one AFF jumpmaster. Since not many, if any at all, in this thread seems to hold an AFF rating I'm here to tell you these jumps are high workload and high stress. This was a time when tandem masters had no other rating other than a tandem certification from a tandem equipment manufacturer. In a traditional sense they weren't Instructors at all. They were trained to carry super-cargo and that was about it. At the time I would have rather taught first jump students from scratch. While tandem satisfies the 'requirements" for advancement to solo freefall, it doesn't translate to reality all that well. I mean face it, except for the PRCPs - a dead man could ride as passenger.

I don't think experimenting with new programs these days is also all about cost to the DZO. There's also a big problem with transitioning tandems into skydivers and a 2 instructor AFF jump is much more expensive for the customer than a tandem or 1 instructor jump. That cost can turn potential skydivers away.

If you want to talk about student safety and AFF, I'm sure you've had first jump AFF students go unresponsive under canopy and put themselves under risk. Maybe they turn at the wrong time, flare at the wrong time, or even go totally catatonic and do nothing. Having an instructor on hand, under canopy, do deal with that could prevent those situations.

The AFP program I was referring to started you with a full AFF groundschool before your first training tandem and you did your tandem with an AFF instructor. But yeah, I can see your point where tandems without proper training don't help at all for AFF jumps.

[chuckakers 426]

>>>>Rex had trouble flying stable because he was 6'3" tall but only had a 29" inseam. Even in all his tunnel work at Eloy this was a problem.<<<<<


Interesting comment. Any idea if this problem was overcome in the tunnel?

[danielcroft 2]

I am currently going through the IAF (Tandem) progression. Given that, with the exception of 2007, the last several years have had the majority of deaths caused under a fully functioning canopy on landing, having someone there to look after it was a great opportunity to learn about landings in a safer manner.

I still find it concerning that my DZ barely mentions the canopy flows in the SIM. It's up to me to practice them (yes, before decision altitude!) by myself.

I'm glad I wasn't expected to land a canopy on my first ever skydive.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I've done every AFF hybrid out there. Tandem to AFF, Static Line to AFF, as well as traditional AFF.

Which, in your opinion, was best and why?

Edit to add: Let's assume all instructors are equally competent for this purpose.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,121]

I'm definitely not Nick, but I've taught both as well. And I can't quantify this, but I think that AFF students progress faster and have better freefall skills when they graduate. Static line students are less likely to get injured or killed. (And I tend to find SL students more competent overall when they graduate.)