Static Line/AFF Hybrid Program

[BrianSGermain 1]

An idea that I have been trying to spread around for discussion is a new paradigm for student training.

The idea is based on my belief that too much time and effort is going into freefall training right from the beginning. This, in a climate of canopy related tragedy, doesn't seem to be sending a good message to our students.

My concept is simple. If we focus on canopy skills first, without the distraction of freefall work, the students will become competent canopy pilots prior to engaging the freefall trip. If we require students to demonstrate good canopy skills before moving on to freefall, they will be able to focus on the most dangerous part of the jump. We will also be sending the message that we care whether or not they know how to fly their parachutes.

I am a huge fan of the AFF program for freefall training. There is no better way to learn to skydive at this point. The issue is not how well they can fly their bodies, however, but when they will hook in. Therefore I propose a new program that requires the students to demonstrate specific skills under canopy prior to being cleared for AFF.

There is another advantage as well. Static line training is relatively cheap for both the DZ and the student. Therefore they are more likely to make more jumps right at the beginning, when their energy is highest. The more jumps they make, the more they will want to continue.

Like many skydivers out there, I made more than ten jumps before going higher than 5000'. That got me comfortable with my gear, spotting issues, and other canopy related concepts. Then, when I was ready, I was "cleared for freefall". At this point I could completely focus my attention on learning to fly my body, without the distraction of gear fear and associated concerns.

We will always be parachutists first,
and skydivers second.

+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Doesn't the tandem progression accomplish much of this?
You don't have to worry about them being too taskloading with the freefall that you can't cover canopy flight.

I don't think the accident rates warrant a new requirement pre AFF. More emphasis on the required but lightly covered A card requirements would be helpful. Speaking only as a customer, I wouldn't have done a s/l when I choose to do AFF1 last year. (my 3rd overall jump, first as a non tourist)

[rsibbald 0]

A very good idea for discussion.

In the British system, the possibility exists for static line progression students to transfer into the AFF system. However, by that stage in their training the majority will choose to continue with the static line progression system to teach them how to fly their bodies. Doing this at £30-35 a jump is a lot more attractive than having to spend over £600 on AFF levels.

Does the American system allow for similar transfers between the different methods of learning?

This is slightly off topic, but I think it has the same objectives as Brian's idea. One thing that may help teach people more about their canopies is a system coming into place next year in Britain. There will be four new levels of canopy handling qualification. The first of which will be mandatory before getting an 'A' license. The second before getting a 'B' license. Technically, it is a separate country-specific qualification, but by making it mandatory for all students - it forces a consistent set of life-saving skills to become an integrated part of the student syllabus, hopefully making them safer skydivers.

[AggieDave 6]

I really feel like the tandem progression addresses this very well, atleast if a TI is doing his/her job on the Cat A and Cat B tandems. When properly done a student going to AFF from the tandem progression has 2-3 tandem skydives. The canopy portion of the skydive should teach proper turns, how to fly a pattern then and how to choose a pattern before getting in the air, as well as many other things.

I'm a firm beliver that if from the beginning proper planning of landing patterns and planning of your canopy decent is taught, that students and jumpers will help keep themselves out of bad situations. Basically what Scott Miller teaches in his classes. That along with "wings level" training will fix many of the problems we have now.

All of that training starts with the first jump and if done as a working tandem, it is trained fairly indepth. Atleast at my DZ it is.

I do know that a lot of other DZs don't take the care and time teaching all of this stuff to the working tandems, but that's the the ISP's fault, its the fault of the instructor.

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

[BrianSGermain 1]

One of the ideas that I have been tossing around for Sweden regards a similar issue. Since most drop zones there do not have AFF qualified instructors, this is not even an option. Unfortunately, they find a dominant cause of student fatalities to be unstable deployments.

Therefore what I suggested was an inbetween rating that allows instructors to do harness-hold jumps for the first freefalls. Doing a harness-hold exit and skydive is not terribly skill intensive, and two or three level one/two type jumps might be enough to verify that a student has the awareness to pull on time. The rating would be easier to get, inviting existing Static Line Instructors to come out of the woodwork to get certified.

Once they are cleared for solo student work, they can practice on their own like the traditional static line method. It would increase the safety margin above the traditional static line method, which places the instructor in the spectator seat, rather than right there to help and give a calming smile.

This might present a viable solution to the problem of students not wanting to spend so much money for the AFF program, as they would only have to do two or three "expensive jumps". The money is generally in the groundschool and tandems anyway.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

All of that training starts with the first jump and if done as a working tandem, it is trained fairly indepth. Atleast at my DZ it is.

I am not convinced that the existing training methods are sufficent, although it is unarguable that some are better than others. I find that most folks between 10 and 300 jumps have a real deficiency in canopy knowledge. That needs to change.

The sky makes a good place to practice what we have learned, but ultimately is a terrible classroom. There is simply too much going on. We need to keep the students in the classroom and teach them as if their lives depended on it. Then we can go out there and give them specific objectives to rehearse, on tandem or otherwise.

I have reservations, however, regarding the applicability of flying tandem canopies to real world understanding of solo parachute flight. Certainly it is a great start, and helps a bunch with navigation issues. Nevertheless, parachute flying is very much a feel-thing, and tandems just don't feel the same. The more similar the practice is to what is being trained, the more valuable and applicable the experience wil be.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[AndyMan 7]

While there's obviously a gap between the level of skill required to fly a modern high performance canopy, and what many skydivers posess... I tend towards the idea that the missing skills are advanced skills, and the way to fix the system is with mandatory advanced training at around the 'b' or 'c' license.

I'm curious what parts of the required skills could be taught during student status?

What specific canopy skills would you target?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Therefore what I suggested was an inbetween rating that allows instructors to do harness-hold jumps for the first freefalls. Doing a harness-hold exit and skydive is not terribly skill intensive, and two or three level one/two type jumps might be enough to verify that a student has the awareness to pull on time. The rating would be easier to get, inviting existing Static Line Instructors to come out of the woodwork to get certified.

Gosh, do I disagree. The exit is often the hardest part of a non-release AFF skydive, and requires the most flying skill. Further, the expense of the AFF jump (one-to-one instructor/student relationship) remains even if a lower rated instructor does the work, so there isn't much savings for the student or DZ, unless the SL instructor is paid substantially less than a current AFF instructor. Why reduce the skill of the instructor, and provide less freefall training when the savings are so limited?

I like your idea of more canopy control training far better, and think that can be accomplished with improved tandem instruction. Unfortunately, many drop zones skimp on the training part of tandem, and the big looser is the student. Sadly, at many DZ's student training is about fast turn-arounds and volume, so actual teaching (especially canopy control) is left behind.

Another way to improve canopy control training is to use the most experienced staff for the radio work, and then provide solid debriefs with training as the goal. Unfortunately, radio people are often the least experienced jumpers, and sometimes don't even have any instructional training or experience. Again, it's the student training that suffers.

I'll also use this opportunity to make another pitch for the Sport ParaSim computer based trainer. This device was originally introduced for malfunction training, but it offers great potential as a navigation trainer. It allows the student to practice flying a pattern under different wind conditions and from different opening points. It allows practice in object avoidance, and it offers a play-back feature that is great for debriefs. It's expensive (20,000 - 25,000 dollars), but a big drop zone should be able to afford it. My DZ, for example, does a gross in excess of a million dollars, and we already own more than 250,000 dollars in student gear. A canopy simulator will cost about as much as two tandem rigs. A DZ that is focused on training can make the economics work. The device has been quickly adopted by government and military because it is so effective at canopy control training, and reduces injuries on the actual jumps.

Overall, I think the solutions already exist in the programs as they are currently structured. We just need to focus on the basics and make teaching the priority. Easier said than done.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

Gosh, do I disagree. The exit is often the hardest part of a non-release AFF skydive, and requires the most flying skill. Further, the expense of the AFF jump (one-to-one instructor/student relationship) remains even if a lower rated instructor does the work, so there isn't much savings for the student or DZ, unless the SL instructor is paid substantially less than a current AFF instructor. Why reduce the skill of the instructor, and provide less freefall training when the savings are so limited?

Disagreement is absolutely necessary, that's what makes this a discussion. I find that chasing a spinning student to be the hard part of AFF. The exit procedures, in my opinion can be trained easier than the quick-twitch thinking necessary for flying skill. Few AFF candidates fail due to exit problems. It's usually breaking the hard deck. If they didn't have to let them go, would anyone with 500 jumps fail the course?

Please understand that this issue does not apply in places where there are qualified AFF Instructors. In that case, AFF is the way to go, no question. I am referring to the places that are still teaching strict static line progression due to a deficiency of AFF qualified personnel.

If it comes down to watching the student pull on their back or letting 500 jump wonders take them out (assuming ample training), I would choose to give the student some assistance
.

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

While there's obviously a gap between the level of skill required to fly a modern high performance canopy, and what many skydivers posess... I tend towards the idea that the missing skills are advanced skills, and the way to fix the system is with mandatory advanced training at around the 'b' or 'c' license.

I'm curious what parts of the required skills could be taught during student status?

What specific canopy skills would you target?

_Am

I think accuracy with stand up landings to be a great place to start. Further, accuracy requirements that stipulate various wind conditions is absolutely necessary. Landing on the target on a windy day does not guarantee that they can hit the peas on a no wind day, and vice-versa.

Also, demonstration of heading changes during the landing surf would also be a great idea, as well as demonstration of turns to final below 200 feet above the ground. I know that sounds a bit crazy at first, but being afraid to turn below 300 feet causes many accuracy problems that lead to serious injuries. Such fear can lead to no turn at all when one is necessary, or using a turning method that loses too much altitude. We need to teach them that they have more than one tool in their tool-box for changing their heading.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BIGUN 1,439]

An excellent idea. Let me know how I can help.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Disagreement is absolutely necessary, that's what makes this a discussion. I find that chasing a spinning student to be the hard part of AFF. The exit procedures, in my opinion can be trained easier than the quick-twitch thinking necessary for flying skill.

Generally, yes, but not always. On the conventional level 1-3 AFF jumps there is no release, and I'm assuming that's what you are thinking about as a static line substitute or enhancement. The exit is mostly easy, but when it gets ugly, man is it ugly. My very worst student was a transfer from the SL program (struggling with stability at the 10 second point), who gave me the ride of my life right from exit. I swore he was an evaluator just testing me. Damn, did I work. That's the kind of problem that happens and requires the best of the best. If I hadn't been at the top of my game, that guy would have spun into the ground (he needed help all the way down, including assistance with the pull).

Your suggestion of comparing unstable static line jumps with out assistance, to harness hold jumps with not-ready-for-AFF instructors fails to include the better option...actual AFF instructors. I don't believe it CAN'T be done, but rather think it is a matter of economics. How much is a life (and quality training) worth, and how do we structure a program to bring the necessary resources to the table. It may be that drop zones need to increase the cost of tandem jumps to subsidize the training and pay of their AFF staff, but certainly there is an economic solution. Heck, the costs of SL training haven't kept up with inflation in the 25 years since I made my first SL jump, so perhaps we need to think about raising those rates to pay for better training.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[BrianSGermain 1]

I hear you, and I have been there myself. The trouble students need two jumpmasters. I assume the nighmare you just described was a single jumpmaster dive. So was mine.

There are times when the skills of a single flyer are not enough to keep the situation under control. This is why this proposed program requires two jumpmasters.

Again, I am not suggesting that we put our flunkies on the job of being Quasi-AFF jumpmasters. Perhaps a preliminary course that gets them their initial "jumpmaster" rating which they have to hold for one year before getting their Instructor rating, which would qualify them to do release dives. This would get the teachers in the classroom, and focus exclusively on the secrets of harness-hold exits. The training would be just as deep as the AFF course is now, with training jumps, but would have a narrower focus.

In so many places, there simply are no AFF Rated people. We need to get them trained, and stop them from throwing the students out alone on their first freefalls. That's what this is about. Whatever intermediate steps are necessary to accomplish this goal, I am fully behind.

This is the reason why I offer the Canopy Flight Instructor's Course. Teaching the teachers is the way to change the future.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[JYorkster 0]

I'm not sure I get what you are asking...

What is the difference between what you are proposing and the current SL/IAD progression? The ISP already allows for what you suggest and you don't have to be an AFF I to jump with a student in freefall.

Am I missing something?

Rock

[Ron 10]

Great idea. I learned basicly this way, and taught this way for years.

2 SL jumps focus on exit, arch and canopy control.
3 SL jumps focus on exit, arch canopy control and deployment...

Nothing new so far.

A 5 sec delay to prove you can pull. Focus on Stable exit, arch, deployment and canopy control.

10 second delay with a focus on all of the above. If you can hold a heading and pull stable, then its up to 10,000 feet for AFF/Coach jumps.

Worked great. If a person had problems we could fix them in air, or if they REALLY had problems we could keep them on the traditional SL program of increased freefalls.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I find that most folks between 10 and 300 jumps have a real deficiency in canopy knowledge. That needs to change.

I don't see that as a program problem, but an instructor problem. I believe that a lot of instructors out there don't have a full firm grasp of canopy flight, atleast not well enough to teach it well. Sitting through a course like Miller's shows some incredible key words and other things to help bring ideas to lessons and teaching ideas.

Quote

The sky makes a good place to practice what we have learned, but ultimately is a terrible classroom. There is simply too much going on.

Right, that's why I'm such a big fan of the tandem progression. The first tandem shows the basics, how we fly, what it feels like, how we flare, etc. The second tandem's canopy training starts before the student is even in a harness. It provides the foundation in which to build the rest of the AFF knowledge on, then the subsequent coach's training for the post-AFF student (assuming that the DZ is properly using their coaches).

Quote

Nevertheless, parachute flying is very much a feel-thing, and tandems just don't feel the same.

I feel like its pretty darn close, atleast with a modern well designed tandem canopy like the Sigma. How it flares and flies feels very similar to alot of the other canopies I've jumped, however, I don't feel like the EZ, Icarus or Firebolt flies or flares like a canopy that the student would be jumping before long (i.e. a Sabre2).

Obviously this is only my opinion, but you are right, something needs to be done! Although I just feel like its the level of instruction, not the programs, so it comes down to the instructor's knowledge and ability to teach that knowledge. As well as making damn sure to not rush through students simply to get more students done. In the end all that gives us is our current problem.

Atleast you've got a good discussion going now, if anything maybe we'll all come away with some new ideas and at the very least, its got folks thinking about the problem from an instructor standpoint instead of a regulate via the USPA standpoint.

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

[peek 21]

I think it is a wonderful idea, but.....

(You knew there would be a but.)

If the industry of skydiving really cared about how well our students learned, this would have been done to some degree a long time ago.

For many years a lot of us have said things like "you should become a parachutist before becoming a skydiver." It is still good advice.

Unfortunately now, skydiving has become commercialized enough to cause "marketing issues" if a drop zone began requiring certain canopy skills of their students before advancing to longer freefalls. It would take a lot of guts.

Imagine DZ "A" requiring this. DZ "B" would have a field day, telling their potential students how much quicker they could do the "real skydiving" part if they chose their DZ.

I don't think marketing-wise this would even be possible now. We already have lots of Tandem students, when asked why they chose taking a "ride" rather than having the satisfaction of learning how to skydive by themselves, say that they "want the freefall". (With kind of a crazed expression on their face sometimes I might add!)

It has actually put me off on Tandems a bit lately, (and I love doing Tandem instruction.)

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

I'm not sure I get what you are asking...

What is the difference between what you are proposing and the current SL/IAD progression? The ISP already allows for what you suggest and you don't have to be an AFF I to jump with a student in freefall.

Am I missing something?

Rock

I guess I was not clear enough. The idea is to have a harness-hold level one type jump for the first few freefalls. Before that would be a fairly lengthy period of static line jumping with tons of canopy flight TLO's to earn their right to be cleared for freefall. Obviously the students will have to satisfy exit requirements, but the goal would be to get used to flying the parachute before doing any freefall, then havng the assistance of freefall jumpmasters for the first few delay jumps.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

Great idea. I learned basicly this way, and taught this way for years.

2 SL jumps focus on exit, arch and canopy control.
3 SL jumps focus on exit, arch canopy control and deployment...

Nothing new so far.

A 5 sec delay to prove you can pull. Focus on Stable exit, arch, deployment and canopy control.

10 second delay with a focus on all of the above. If you can hold a heading and pull stable, then its up to 10,000 feet for AFF/Coach jumps.

Worked great. If a person had problems we could fix them in air, or if they REALLY had problems we could keep them on the traditional SL program of increased freefalls.

The part I would like to see eliminated is the solo freefalling at the beginning of their "skydiving" career. The paet I would like to see extended is the static line portion, so they spend more time strictly focusing on canopy flight.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

I think it is a wonderful idea, but.....

(You knew there would be a but.)

If the industry of skydiving really cared about how well our students learned, this would have been done to some degree a long time ago.

For many years a lot of us have said things like "you should become a parachutist before becoming a skydiver." It is still good advice.

Unfortunately now, skydiving has become commercialized enough to cause "marketing issues" if a drop zone began requiring certain canopy skills of their students before advancing to longer freefalls. It would take a lot of guts.

Imagine DZ "A" requiring this. DZ "B" would have a field day, telling their potential students how much quicker they could do the "real skydiving" part if they chose their DZ.

I don't think marketing-wise this would even be possible now. We already have lots of Tandem students, when asked why they chose taking a "ride" rather than having the satisfaction of learning how to skydive by themselves, say that they "want the freefall". (With kind of a crazed expression on their face sometimes I might add!)

It has actually put me off on Tandems a bit lately, (and I love doing Tandem instruction.)

I agree that economics often gets in the way of real progress. That does not mean that things have to go that way. The changes may not come from new student programs at all, but from concerned individuals that deepen the existing programs. We have a long way to go, but that does not mean that we always have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

That being said, I still think the existing progression requires significant improvements in both the quantitiy and the quality of the canopy flight instruction. That includes both the initial instruction programs as well as the continuing education formats that go right up the chain of command to the top. Licensed skydivers have more work to do as well. We all do.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[SCR10480 0]

Right on Brian! One can not insure another jump, unless one makes a satisfactory landing! At my home DZ we have had a few of our S/L students that either forgot, could not hear the radio, or ignored ground commands...some required EMT removal.

I would be first in your camp, to have students PROVE canopy proficiency PRIOR to being released for unsupervised freefall.

Just my 1/2 cent.


__________________________________________________

[Shark 0]

Your suggestion has some merits, and probably will be looked into. I do, however, doubt that it will adopted anytime soon. Large DZs are somewhat locked-in to their type of ISP and may be resistant to change.

On a side note, I've noticed that most of our students that have instability problems are typically the ones that are better canopy fliers. It may be due to the fact that they have more time under canopy as well. The freefall problems can be addressed in the wind tunnel. One student commented that he was a parachutist, not a skydiver. He required additional jumps and a couple of tunnel sessions to complete AFF.

As both an AFF and tandem instructor I feel most students would benefit more from the AFF program rather than doing several tandems.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think accuracy with stand up landings to be a great place to start. Further, accuracy requirements that stipulate various wind conditions is absolutely necessary. Landing on the target on a windy day does not guarantee that they can hit the peas on a no wind day, and vice-versa.

I know I proved this as I had to adjust from PD300 in constant wind to a Falcon 265 in no wind, then to a Spectre 210 (about 10ft smaller than ideal) when I saw you at Hollister.

But how the heck would you implement such a thing? I had a hard enough time getting student legal winds. If I had to drive to Monterey every weekend to log a given number of zero wind landings I'd have never finished. Add it to the B or C requirement, fine. Tag it to the A, or as a prereq to freefall seems unfair, esp given the student incident rate. (Mind you, I only know the fatalities, rarely the broken legs)

[BrianSGermain 1]

I do think that the requirements for accuracy in licensure needs to be beefed up. Further, we need to teach them how to do it. Many instructors can't land on the target themselves, which is the root of the problem.

The whole climate of freefall skills taking priority over canopy flight skills is the problem. There needs to be more sport accuracy competitions, as well as a general proliferation of the hop-n-pop culture. I see it growing, but others continue to stick with gripper grabbing and spocking as the most important thing. Which skill saves your life?
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[Shark 0]

Quote

The whole climate of freefall skills taking priority over canopy flight skills is the problem. There needs to be more sport accuracy competitions, as well as a general proliferation of the hop-n-pop culture.

Interesting that you mentioned this. Skydive Elsinore is now hosting a fun sport accuracy competition held on the first Sunday of each month. 2 jumps, with an open and intermediate class. Judges are may also provide coaching and advice.