S/L Anyone??

[Unstable 9]

This Safety and Training post seems to be dominated by Those with questions or comments in regards to Their AFF training.
Why have so many DZ's droped the S/L progression program and moved to AFF? Is it to maintain a better cashflow or do they feel it is a better training tool?

Personally, my logic tells me that Static Line is a better training device, for the fact that it puts more emphasis on canopy control early on, and slows the progression down to a step-by-step approach.
I was trained using a "Leash"or a "dope rope", so my opinion may be biased.
Comments? how were you trained, how do you feel about your training method??
Go wild.

Shaun Smith
Why didn't the pirate go to the movie?
- Because it was rated ARRRRRRRR

=========Shaun ==========

[AggieDave 6]

I did S/L as a student, I'm also about to get my S/L, IAD rating, but I don't think its the best program. I'm not thinking along the lines of money, either, but along the lines of "what is the best training tool."

The ISP, AFF done with a tandem progression, when done right is by far the best method right now. This give a student a safer environment to get past the first couple jumps where a severe amount of fear can hamper them. Also, this allows learning to progress at a slower pace, a pace that allows people to learn things better. Which way do you think a person would learn and retain more info? 1) a 6-8 hour ground course followed by their first jump, or 2) a 4 hour ground course that was precieded by 2 training tandem jumps?

Doing those 2 tandem jumps first, a student learns how to pull, also learns how to turn on the second jump. More importantly, the student gets a hands on canopy course twice, before they have to pilot their own canopy safely.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Hooknswoop 19]

I agree with the Aggie.

A tandem gets them through the sensory over-load of jumping out of a plane without the added stress of having to perform and then fly the canopy by yourself. Once under canopy, the tandemis a flying classroom. You can talk to them, show them what is happening and they can see it, and they learn faster and better than standing in front of them trying to explain canopy flight to them. Following up the 2-3 learning tandems with 15 jumps w/ and Instructor (preferably wearing video), then 2 H & P's is the best system I have seen for teaching people to skydive.

Hook

[Unstable 9]

Good insight, i appreciate it.

s. smith

=========Shaun ==========

[indyz 1]

Quote

Why have so many DZ's droped the S/L progression program and moved to AFF?

Some of the many of the reasons for going to AFF that I've heard cited include: Instant gratification (students get freefall right away), the newer methods are frequently perceived as better by jumper and whuffo alike, up-jumpers want turbines and turbines are more suited to AFF (although I've seen S/L out of a Caravan), S/L is only for old-fashioned backwater dropzones, and the list goes on.

For the record, I was an S/L student and am happy with my decision to follow that progression (AFF was also available where I learned). Being a poor college student, S/L allowed me to jump 3-4 times a month as opposed to once or twice with AFF.

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

I agree with the Aggie.

A tandem gets them through the sensory over-load of jumping out of a plane without the added stress of having to perform and then fly the canopy by yourself. Once under canopy, the tandemis a flying classroom. You can talk to them, show them what is happening and they can see it, and they learn faster and better than standing in front of them trying to explain canopy flight to them. Following up the 2-3 learning tandems with 15 jumps w/ and Instructor (preferably wearing video), then 2 H & P's is the best system I have seen for teaching people to skydive.

Hook

Not to mention it benefits the experienced jumpers in that the DZO can afford a turbine plane to take everyone to 13K feet. If you do S/L then you need two planes to do all that. 1 C-182 and then some other turbine. You have to split your instructional staff to go in two different planes. This add ineficiencies. So, it can be the best of both worlds. Good instructional technique and economics for the DZO/fun jumpers.

Chris

[aeronator 0]

Speaking from experience, I went through a Tandem Progression of 4 jumps before I got my own container. I think that doing the initial tandem jumps gets you out into the air without having the stress of dealing with any of the malfunctions that can occur. Personally, I watch people doing S/L and look back at the fact that most of my initial exits were not what is needed for a clean opening on static line. And with a 5 sec delay before your chute's opened for you, your arch needs to be good. Not much room for any margin of error in my opinion. I know for a lot of people it's a monetary issue, but if you can squeeze the extra money to do it the other way, I feel like you learn a lot more from the feedback of the instructors actually being in the air with you.

Blues Skies all!!!!

[billvon 3,120]

SL and AFF both have strengths and weaknesses. SL gets you better canopy training, since you're under the control of a JM for longer; he can critique 3x the number of landings. You get more experience with essentially the 'lifesaving' parts of the jump; an AFF graduate can get off student status after only 4 solo pulls (and 3 solo exits.) OTOH AFF gets you better RW training sooner. A combined program, where you go through AFF but stay under supervision of a JM as you do low exits, canopy control manuevers and RW drills would be ideal, but is seldom implemented. The ISP comes close but is far from common out there.

[skymedic 0]

One good thing about S/L is it can benefit the DZ. it enables them to still put out students when the ceiling is down. when the AFF only DZ's stop. some first time and prcp and 5 or more second drops can happen...

Marc
otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman....

[sducoach 0]

1. What the DZ teaches. Some smaller DZ's are either SL or IAD due to staff and equipment.

2. The method of training that addresses the student learning ability.

We at times take an IAD/SL student who is having stability problems and do a Cat. A/B and are able to "trim" the student in real time. Some choose to remain AFF others are right back to SL/IAD. We all learn in different manners. What best matches the student should be used. They are paying for it, give them what they are paying for!
Blues,
J.E.

James 4:8

[riggerrob 643]

We have debated this question several times before.
No single teaching method is perfect. Different teaching methods are best at teaching different skills to different students at different levels.

For example, tandem is the best tool for getting students over that huge psychological first step. Tandem is also the world's best hanging harness for teaching the basics of steering a canopy.
However, one third of tandem students freely admit that they lack the courage, intelligence, fitness and finances to do anything but tandem. Dont' kid your self, tandem students pay for turbines, while licensed jumpers barely pay for fuel.

Static line and IAD are the best ways to learn solo exits and the second best way to learn canopy control. Many DZs are so limited by clouds and staffing that S/L is the only way they can get students in the air.

Wind tunnels are a great way to teach basic freefall body position and survival skills. Too bad we have so few wind tunnels.

AFF puts it all together. Some students are bright enough to do AFF on their first skydive, but most tend to learn better when new information is fed to them in smaller chunks.

Also remember that different students learn better from different methods. For example, homophobic students will never learn with male tandem instructors strapped to their backsides, and they will be distinctly uncomfortable with guys grabbing their legstraps for AFF.
Hee! Hee!