skybytch 273 #1 July 13, 2007 Question for AFF and S/L instructors... Let's say you jump with a student, Cat. B or above, who does better than average in freefall but has issues flying and/or landing the canopy (ie flaring way too high, not flying a pattern, landing on a road, etc). Assume that if they are still on radios, they couldn't hear/understand the directions. Would you pass them on to the next category/jump? If you did, would you give them additional canopy control training prior to their next jump? If you did both and the canopy control/landing was equally bad on the next skydive, would you continue to pass them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #2 July 13, 2007 What a great question. I am looking forward to reading comments, first thing that comes to mind is there are so many different types of training programs...Mykel AFF-I10 Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat… Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #3 July 13, 2007 Why would you hold them back and make them repeat freefall learning objectives when they have issues elsewhere. Move on for freefall, retrain for canopy... Pass to the next level, expect to see improvement in the canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #4 July 13, 2007 Quote Why would you hold them back and make them repeat freefall learning objectives when they have issues elsewhere. Because, according to the SIM, the following are TLO's for Cat B - Quote 4. Fly to the instructor-assigned pattern entry at 1,000 feet, as identified on the written flight plan. 5. Fly the pre-planned pattern using downwind, base, and final approach legs, with specific points to overfly at specified altitudes. 6. Fly a straight-in final approach without S-turns (S-turns present a hazard to other traffic). 7. Flare at ten feet, based on Category A experience. Why would you pass someone who didn't satisfactorily complete all of the TLO's of the category? QuotePass to the next level, expect to see improvement in the canopy. And if you don't? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #5 July 13, 2007 I think a good instructor uses whatever program they have as a guide (sim, uspa, skydive u) and works with a student. If they pass the TLO, move on, if not, repeat. I have no problem mix and matching objectives for the student. If they failed freefall, but nailed canopy, move on, remove the radio, whatever. The reverse is true. In the end, every TLO should be accomplished, in whatever order the student best learns, don't hold back all for one TLO. I never have failed a level for a student for canopy. I have for freefall. Why? Because in freefall I have to insure the student is ready to be let go, or for one instructor. Under canopy, I am not there anyway, so moving on to a new freefall TLO does not add risk to the canopy, anymore than repeating the freefall TLOs and still having a solo canopy ride. The net result is the same, another try to pass the canopy TLO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #6 July 13, 2007 QuoteI have no problem mix and matching objectives for the student. If they failed freefall, but nailed canopy, move on, remove the radio, whatever. The reverse is true. In the end, every TLO should be accomplished, in whatever order the student best learns, don't hold back all for one TLO. Okay. So at what point in the progression do you think a student should have satisfactorily completed the (very basic) canopy TLO's for Cat B? I submit that planning and flying a good pattern and the ability to flare at the correct height are more important survival skills than are stability and pulling in freefall. Why? For one thing it's like you said - in freefall you are there to assist them; under canopy, you aren't. For another, how many students have you seen or heard about being injured or killed because they forgot to pull or were unstable in freefall? Now compare that to how many students you've seen or heard about being injured or killed on landing (whether due to landing where they aren't supposed to - which indicates poor or no pattern - or from not flaring correctly). I'm not picking on you in particular, tdog. I just think that if education is the answer to reducing canopy related injuries and fatalities - and I think you agree with me that it is - why are we not insisting that students get it right by not passing them on to another level/category until they do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #7 July 14, 2007 I agree 100% that aff puts the focus on freefall if done incorrectly, and I catch myself sometimes being part of the problem. The solution is better instructors putting focus on canopy learning. Failing a student on freefall TLOs will not make a better canopy pilot. I think you are arguing the right problem with the wrong fix. Next time you see an AFFI reminding a student of the diveflow in the plane or at the mockup and stopping at pull time, remind them to make the student land the canopy. :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimjumper 25 #8 July 14, 2007 Yes, I would fail them and yes I would give them additional instruction. I failed the student that downwinded his landing on the runway! Not good on his check dive!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #9 July 14, 2007 QuoteQuestion for AFF and S/L instructors... Let's say you jump with a student, Cat. B or above, who does better than average in freefall but has issues flying and/or landing the canopy (ie flaring way too high, not flying a pattern, landing on a road, etc). Assume that if they are still on radios, they couldn't hear/understand the directions. Would you pass them on to the next category/jump? Would really depend on their response to my questions about the poor performance. Quote If you did, would you give them additional canopy control training prior to their next jump? Always. Throuought the student process and beyond. It is every instructors duty to do so. Quote If you did both and the canopy control/landing was equally bad on the next skydive, would you continue to pass them? No. AFF (the method that applies in my case) is more than just performing in freefall. No one graduates till they can show the ability to skydive, and land safely.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #10 July 14, 2007 QuoteWhy would you hold them back and make them repeat freefall learning objectives when they have issues elsewhere. Move on for freefall, retrain for canopy... Pass to the next level, expect to see improvement in the canopy. Because the entire jump needs to be passed, not just a portion. If you continue to pass someone who is going to be a danger to themselves and others when under canopy, you're doing the individual and the sport a disservice.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #11 July 14, 2007 QuoteI agree 100% that aff puts the focus on freefall if done incorrectly, and I catch myself sometimes being part of the problem. The solution is better instructors putting focus on canopy learning. Failing a student on freefall TLOs will not make a better canopy pilot. I think you are arguing the right problem with the wrong fix. Next time you see an AFFI reminding a student of the diveflow in the plane or at the mockup and stopping at pull time, remind them to make the student land the canopy. :-) So when a student does a CAT E and completes all the freefall maneuvers but fails to pull on time thus requiring you to dump them out, do you simply tell them they must pull on the next skydive? Not one of my students will make it to CAT C without showing me they know how to fly a pattern. It is assumed that an AFF instructor is a Freefall instructor, and they are, but the full job is that of a SKYDIVING INSTRUCTOR and if we're not doing that, we're doing the sport and our students a disservice.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #12 July 14, 2007 I"m not a coach, but I do have a suggestion. WHy not just have him do the canopy portion over again. throw him out at 4 grand, and have the student focus on canopy only. My freefall was always good, but my landings were terrible. I took it upon myself to just concentrate on piloting. thus, about jumps 30 through 50, most were hop & pops. I wouldn't go back into freefall until I got the landing down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denete 3 #13 July 14, 2007 And, hop & pops are required for A.SCR #14809 "our attitude is the thing most capable of keeping us safe" (look, grab, look, grab, peel, punch, punch, arch) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #14 July 14, 2007 QuoteWHy not just have him do the canopy portion over again. throw him out at 4 grand, and have the student focus on canopy only. Only issue with that is it the exit altitude. Most new jumpers freak out a bit when they do their 5000 ft hop n pop after doing 10+ jumps (it looks awfully low if you're used to full altitude, and there's the issue of getting stable out the door). Now imagine doing it with 2 or 3 total jumps, all from the top... That could be a good option at a dz that does static line though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #15 July 14, 2007 Quote Because the entire jump needs to be passed, not just a portion. If you continue to pass someone who is going to be a danger to themselves and others when under canopy, you're doing the individual and the sport a disservice. When did I say that you would not work hard on the part that they failed on? If the freefall went great, move on. If the canopy sucked, re-train, do lots of ground prep, make them fly a pattern on a tandem, anything to teach. But at least give them something challenging on the 1st half so they feel like they are making progress. And I agree, if a student is clueless, they need to be trained. This is focusing on the problem, being creative, and giving new TLOs for the stuff they are good at, and redoing the stuff that needs improvement. I don't see aff as black and white, yes and no, but instead an opportunity to teach a person at their own speed, in a way progress is made, and they feel good about the experience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #16 July 14, 2007 I understand what you are saying, and have no furthur point to make, I just wanted to express that when I say, "you" I'm not targeting you Travis, I know you're a good instructor, we just see things in different ways, and can learn from that. Or in other words, I'm more warm and fuzzy in person than online. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #17 July 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteWHy not just have him do the canopy portion over again. throw him out at 4 grand, and have the student focus on canopy only. Only issue with that is it the exit altitude. Most new jumpers freak out a bit when they do their 5000 ft hop n pop after doing 10+ jumps (it looks awfully low if you're used to full altitude, and there's the issue of getting stable out the door). Now imagine doing it with 2 or 3 total jumps, all from the top... That could be a good option at a dz that does static line though. I remember thinking 5 grand was soooo low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #18 July 14, 2007 QuoteOnly issue with that is it the exit altitude. Most new jumpers freak out a bit when they do their 5000 ft hop n pop after doing 10+ jumps (it looks awfully low if you're used to full altitude, and there's the issue of getting stable out the door). Now imagine doing it with 2 or 3 total jumps, all from the top... That could be a good option at a dz that does static line though. IAD. That's the point of the ISP system is that you can move around a bit and address the student's needs where they lay. I've had students come to me and ask for help with canopy control after a couple of AFF jumps. Their request? Go do a tandem with me and focus canopy control. Most of their problems tended to not be the obvious, flaring and the such, but just the lack of a plan. Sit down and explaining distances of flight in regards to altitude, how to use the winds to your advantage and how to design a landing pattern to fit the winds is a big deal. Its all very simple when its taught the right way, but it seems like the biggest problems I've seen is from a lack of proper instruction from the instructors. Each time I've encountered that its been students coming to me after a being instructed by an instructor who isn't a good canopy pilot. Notice that I didn't say an instructor who wasn't a swooper, I said one who isn't a good canopy pilot. The same goes for instructors teaching piss-poor and wrong techniques. Once again it still comes down to education. If the instructors aren't educated properly, how can they teach it properly? Or something I've seen is that canopy flight and canopy design has passed up their skill set.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mixoligist 0 #19 July 14, 2007 I only use the word "failed" if they are dead................................... Better you than me .................................. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #20 July 15, 2007 As was said before, what a wonderful question. I believe this issue is great contributor to the amount of deaths and injuries in skydiving today. I went through the static line progression and 80% of the focus was on canopy control. With AFF it is common to pass the free fall and fail the canopy control. There is no reason to repeat the free fall if it was really good. A student SHOULD NOT GRADUATE AFF IF THEY CANNOT LAND THEIR PARACHUTE 'SAFELY' BY THEMSELVES. Skymonkey's system using tandem jumps for the start of the training seem to be the best Idea to me. It seem silly that a student spends 6 hours OVER LEARNING in a classroom and is expected to remember everything when the parachute opens. If they have been having trouble with some aspect of their freefall, all the focus shifts to there and then they are bewildered when the parachute opens. I have seen this happen before. Nothing beats hands on instruction and a tandem is the perfect way for that to happen. The instructor can explain in detail what is happening and why, while it is actually happening and the student can experience it without having to imagine and without the fear of fucking up. IMHO this tandem jump should be performed BEFORE the classroom instruction so the student can fathom what it is the instructor is actually talking about. As experienced skydivers it is very easy for us to forget that simple things may not make sense to first time jumpers. Especially if they are 'Peaking out' about jumping from a plane for the first time."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #21 July 15, 2007 [opens cans of worms] QuoteI believe this issue is great contributor to the amount of deaths and injuries in skydiving today. The incident reports show that swoopers or wanna be swoopers with various jump numbers are getting hurt more often than AFF students. QuoteA student SHOULD NOT GRADUATE AFF IF THEY CANNOT LAND THEIR PARACHUTE 'SAFELY' BY THEMSELVES. You are right. But the problem is we don't have fancy simulators like the airlines. We can watch a student land their canopy in a big open field when everything goes right. What happens when everything goes wrong? You can quiz the hell out of them, but in the end, their first time to practice landing on a roof is the first time they have to do it. The first time a student has to flat turn away from a powerline, do they whip a toggle and dive into the ground, or land safely? Imagine if a 737 pilot's first time to land the plane with no engines was with paying customers on board a real plane... Commercial aviation would have a higher "incident rate" too. (I have no proof other than a good guess... But those of you who are commercial pilots, when you go to the simulators, how many times do you see not-so-perfect landings until practice makes perfect?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Waldschrat 0 #22 July 16, 2007 Would be interesting for me to hear tontos opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #23 July 16, 2007 QuoteThe incident reports show that swoopers or wanna be swoopers with various jump numbers are getting hurt more often than AFF students. They were once students.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #24 July 16, 2007 Quote I only use the word "failed" if they are dead. Fuck that. I'm not here to make people feel wam and fuzzy about poor performance, I'me here to make safe skydivers.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #25 July 16, 2007 CSPA allows us to pass a student on freefall tasks, but fail them on canopy control. They would be allowed to jump again - after remedial training on canopy control - but would advance faster in freefall. If their canopy control remained poor, they would never graduate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
