SL Unsafe??

[des 2]

mark,please consider that less than half 1st jump students continue,yes ,the next jumps are cheaper,but you really don't believe the dz's are doing them to break even,not my argument or my point,aff gets cheaper too.
i think i underpriced the s/l 1st jump course quite a lot (125!,bet you paid more than that!).
point is, s/l is undeniably more profitable to the dz ,than aff,for the 1st jump.
completion cost varies considerately,depending on student ability,and a host of other factors.
as an aff and a s/l instructor,all i know is i am a lot more worried doing s/l ,than aff. once a s/l student exits ,i have no control,can't do anything to help(i hate that).
my main point is ;that dz's that do not offer s/l courses,are doing it 'cos they believe aff is the way to go,NOT for financial reasons.
i personally know a dzo,who tries to talk all tandem and aff bookings into doing s/l,for purely financial reasons. i will name him and his dz by email if you like.
don't really want to tho,cos he is a friend and a good guy,but also a businessman.
been a fulltime skydiver inst/tm for 10 yrs,and there's no way my kids are going near a dope rope.
respects to all that do tho.,imho you guys got balls.
those old guys that did s'l with roundies are real men,and have my total respect,i don't think i would have had the guts.
regards,
des

[riggerrob 643]

des,
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on whether S/L is safer than AFF.
The fewer variables, the lower the risk.
When a S/L instructor lets go of a student there is a 99 per cent chance that student will soon have a good main parachute overhead. Can't beat those odds with any other system!
The fewer new bits of information, the higher the chances of sucess.
It is the heigth of arrogance for AFF Instructors to believe that every student can absorb and use the huge volume of information presented in a typical AFF First Jump Course! AFF doctrine defies what USPA teaches in the Basic Instructor Course. BIC candidates are taught that a student can absorb - at most - 7 new pieces of information in one sitting. Granted the perfect student can apply all the information dished out during an AFF ground school. The rest of them mumble "I hope I can remember all this stuff," as they stumble towards the airplane.
While I will agree that AFF is the better method for teaching freefall skills, it is the most risky for teaching first timers.
Fortunately there is an all-encompassing solution to this debate. Feed students a little new information on every skydive and use all the methods of instruction available.
Start all first-timers with a tandem jump. Then run them through the first jump course and have them do 2 or 3 S/L or IAD jumps. After they have demonstrated basic canopy skills, then hand them to the freefall instructors. Canadian DZs have been doing variations on this theme for 20 years.
In case you think I am biased towards any one system, look at my ratings:
USPA Instructor in S/L, IAD and Tandem methods
CSPA Coach 2, Instructor B and Progressive Freefall
Master Rigger, jump pilot, opinionated old fart, etc.

[MarkM 0]

  Quote

s/l is undeniably more profitable to the dz ,than aff,for the 1st jump

The first jump? Easily. But over the entire course of the training?
SL and AFF both cost about the same over the entire course, yet you'll do twice the number of jumps with SL.
Does that mean AFF pulls in more money for the overhead? After all you're charging the same amount of money for half the jumps.
But then you have two instructors to pay for some of those jumps and all those jumps are from a higher altitude.
So then does SL bring in more money?
Not if you have a fuel hungry turbine, then you're better off with those high alt exits. Circling around at 3500 wouldn't be economical.
I don't think it's as simple as: SL rakes in more cash for the DZ.

  Quote

that dz's that do not offer s/l courses,are doing it 'cos they believe aff is the way to go,NOT for financial reasons.

Agreed.

  Quote

as an aff and a s/l instructor,all i know is i am a lot more worried doing s/l ,than aff. once a s/l student exits ,i have no control,can't do anything to help(i hate that).

As a student I would've been very uncomfortable exiting the plane with two people holding onto me. With SL I was in control of my own life and didn't have too much to remember(pretty much just fall out of the plane and make sure you have a good canopy).
And the problem with both methods is you may control the student in flight or can make sure he gets deployed, but once they're under that canopy all bets are off. And I've seen a lot of students screw up under canopy, it's real easy to get confused up there the first few jumps.
IMHO the "best" training system would be:
Couple tandems to get the student familiar with the environment, teach landing and canopy control.
Couple SL jumps to get the student used to checking main, flying themselves down, exiting.
Several coached sessions in a wind tunnel to teach body control, freefall skills.
On to AFF to put those skills to use in flight jumping with an instructor.

[TBone 0]

  Quote

those old guys that did s'l with roundies are real men

Thanks, but who you calling "old"?
Carl

[vikyflia 0]

It's right, I think there is nothing unsafer than the SL!
Believe me! I'm not an owner of a DZ..
Do an AFF! A friend of mine in the exit with a sl made a loop and his legs went into the deploying canopy.. try to imagine it! A big mess!

[des 2]

hi riggerob,hey i'm an opiniated old fart too.
i agree 100% on a tandem for the 1st jump or 2.
my main concern with s/l is the sensory o/load thing,which i believe is far more serious 2 secs after exit than 30-50 secs,a high speed mal in that situation is very unhealthy,( i realise high speed mals are rare in s/l,but they do happen)a horseshoe being prolly the most common and dangerous,and with an unstable deployment, are a real possibility.at least i can ensure a stable deployment on early aff jumps.
my other concern is the spinner,at least with aff,we have a chance to stop it,s/l no chance.
that being said,s/l has proved itself,as has aff,and it really comes to a matter of choice and circumstance.
i have made my decision on preference,as have all the other posters here,and i am not arguing your choices.
my point again was, ist jump s/l's are more profitable,and dz's that do aff only, are not just after money.
mark ,i would agree that s/l from a turbine is not economical, i've been to many dz's in my time,and all i've seen have a c182,or similar, available for s/l.i'm sure there are ways to make s/l more expensive,but i am talking generally,please remember my original comparison was with a c182,and no-one has yet,come up with substantially different figures.
carl ,i have no problem with you age (i know you were joking)i'm a grandfather tho,so most of these guys are just pups to me.
regards all,
des

[mikefarmer 0]

Uhhh, maybe this DZ does IAD. Same income as S/L, and maybe they bashed S/L simply to keep the student from going elswhere. Improbable theory, but possible and hadn't been mentioned.
Mike
I ponder on this dangerous, but irresistible pastime- Pink Floyd