The Arrogance of Bad Canopy Flight

[HydroGuy 0]

On Monday I took a canopy control class @ Perris. Six hop and pops. I learned ten times more in those six jumps about my canopy than my previous 56 skydives combined.

A typical AFF course level(2-8) for me was about 1 1/2 hours on the ground. During that time, we went over spotting, exits, the skydive, some canopy work, landing, and tons of EP's. So maybe I received two hours of canopy talk...MAYBE during my AFF courses combined..

I got 5 hours of it with video debrief in my canopy course.

Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary

[LearningTOfly 0]

I think that part of the cause of the sloppiness under canopy is that skydiving isn't as organized as other airborne activities. Once a student is competent to save himself, they're cut loose- and unless they're self motivated, they will be confident flying whatever path gets them to the ground- whether it be a straight in, square circuit, 270 hook, or a series of unorganized turns to loose altitude- followed by a student flare. The student flare may be common because there is just a lack of developed canopy pilots- and after that, the one's who do know what they're doing may not want the responsibility of passing thier knowledge onto others.

Learning at smaller DZ's may allow this lack of technique to develop into a habit because there typically is much less traffic in the final stages of the approach.

In the end it's up to the jumpers- publish (via a printed piece of paper stapled to the wall) an approach procedure for four different wind directions. Specify keypoints to turn base and final over. The circuit should be square- downwind, base, final. Maybe swoopers should be told to use an opposite downwind so they can keep a better eye on who's conflicting (provided there is airspace for this). - I saw such a sheet at a DZ a while back and it made an impression on me- the procedure was there in print, instead of being local knowledge someone may or may not tell you.

As for the student landings... maybe that's more of a personal comfort level thing than anything else. It's what worked the first time, and has been working for the last 1200 landings, so why change? I personally am younger, thus dumber, and try new things/ techniques... sometimes not the healthiest things (leaning to swoop), but I keep aware of what and where my outs are- and what's going on.

It seems some people don't give much thought to what 'plan b' is- and don't care, because they know the student landing works, and they have no interest in trying to push it. They don't want to have to come up with a 'plan b'- and so they work to create a situation where it is not needed. They are happy with their basic skill set and want to focus on ... (RW etc)

[feuergnom 29]

Quote

Quote

you ask how a standard can be maintained? well in scuba diving (just as an example) you have a world wide standard like padi, and the organisation behind takes a real close look on who teaches what, how & where. if padi instructors don't follow the program by the letter they will loose their license.

i think the only question is if skydivers/instructors/dz's or any skydiving organization are willing to walk this way

I sure hope not. When actually done as you describe, it prevents PADI instructors from teaching more than the minimum standards. As typically done, it churns out divers who are told not to go out alone until they come back for the $199 'Advanced' class.

thats why you can translate padi as "put another dollar in"

if i didn't know this for a fact i wouldn't post (go talk to a padi instructor)....


if you follow all the discussions what should be taught and was is taught to students most of the posters show concern about the broad spectrum of "you can do this but you also can do that" that the current system allows. usually the consensus goes like "well i guess we have to live with this because there is no way we could put up a system that works on a nationwide level yadayadayada".

pointing out how scuba divers do it is just showing there is a way.

if uspa is not going to do it (which i don't care about cause i don't live in the states) - well it's postmodern times. apply the rules of free market and see who sets a new standard and who is going to be moe succesful = putting out competent, well trained, responsible skydivers who know a bit more than just save their lazy asses from hitting the ground with 200 kilometers an hour when they finally get their a-license


edit grammmer & spel

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

pointing out how scuba divers do it is just showing there is a way.

The status quo is better than PADI's way. Things aren't so bad that a crappy solution is the answer to our problem.

[feuergnom 29]

ok, just to nitpick once:
i said it was a way not the way to go - can we agree on this?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[Remster 30]

Quote

Quote

There will be no instructor swooping with you

I agree Bill. Usually the instructor's and vidiot's are to busy swooping crosswind/across everyone else's pattern to notice anyway!

Maybe its something other DZs should implement: at ours, at least 1 AFF instructor is to land in the student/A/B licence field, with the student, and be the one who directs them with radio once landed (taking over the radio guy on the ground).

Remster

[feuergnom 29]

found something else for nitpicking (sorry, can't help it)

Quote

....until they come back for the $199 'Advanced' class.

do you think that directing people toward canopy control courses after tehir a-license is any different?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

do you think that directing people toward canopy control courses after tehir a-license is any different?

The difference is that these jumpers aren't told not to jump until they do it. Some of these OW certs leave with a whopping 50 minutes of bottom time and no clue what to do in the water. While the AFF/A sequence may play short shrift to the canopy stuff, it's not that bad.

[feuergnom 29]

point taken.
aff + the coach program put out reasonably skilled skydivers - but pays - at least for me - to little attention on canopy skills.

to add something positive: at the place i jump/coach we try to teach as much as possible before & after people get their licenses - guess that fall in the category give back what you received

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[Spizzzarko 0]

aff + the coach program put out reasonably skilled skydivers - but pays - at least for me - to little attention on canopy skills.



Is canopy flight not as improtant as freefall if not more so? Your instructors could have focused more on the canopy controll aspect, but did they? This brings me back to my point. Instructors are not focusing enough on canopy control.

[feuergnom 29]

Quote

This brings me back to my point. Instructors are not focusing enough on canopy control.

are you trying to break an already open door? i didn't say anything different - generally speaking and not meaning to offend all the AFF-I's and other instructors that put their heart and soul, their energy & love to into their work and try everything in their might to train students properly.

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666