ufk22

Truly eXcellent This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I agree, up to a point. Just remember this when you're tired, got another student waiting, and have passed on a couple of "fun-jumps" already that day. Doing it right (coaching) involves a lot of time spent with students both before and after the jump, and a fair bit of time when you're not teaching, getting together a plan for teaching each level. There is a difference between having a coach rating and being a good coach. A little time spent putting together a lesson plan or outline for what and how you're going to teach each lesson is invaluable. Getting a smile is great, but getting compensated for all the time spent is not a bad thing either. P.S. - Ok Andy, you can stop thinking of ways to screw with me in the course this weekend. I'm sure you have more than enough evil plans by now. Just remember, unless you endanger the "student" (miss something serious on gear check, unbelievable bad spot, etc) or blow the hard deck, you won't fail any of this. Relax and enjoy it. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

So you're jumping with pre-license holders without any kind of rating? Oh, my God!!! Say it isn't so! What the hell did we do before USPA created the Coach rating? I was there... I was taught.... stick out your arm to make a turn... adjust your fall rate by extending or pulling in your arms and legs... losing altitude faster makes for a better track... training after the first jump course lasted for less than 5 minutes or was done on the ride to altitude... postdives should consist of either "be more aggressive" or "be less aggressive"... This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Talk to Bev about the Majic suit, monster booties, with the "Dive-Rite" modifications. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, but you bought a Triathlon... It was sold as a multi-purpose canopy, but that basically means that it isn't really good at anything This is the toughest canopy made for getting a good landing. For you to get a good landing on that canopy your timing has to be "perfect". If you are flying a straight-in final, the difference between stand-up and crash is about 1/2 second, and you need to give it a full flair, not staging it. Do a couple of jumps on a Sabre 2 or something similar to get your confidence back. The up side..... If you can do consistent stand-ups with your canopy, you can land anything. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Shoulda taken your dock with your cutaway handle in hand... That and the missing main from the container would've gotten some interesting looks. That's eactly what I was thinking about for about a second. How cool would this be.... Then I got over it and pulled the silver, followed my trash, and landed 5' from the freebag and 50' from the main. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

About ten years ago, maybe 15. Busy student day at the DZ, packing after a working with a student, quick formation load (C182 lead, C296 trail). I'm last out of the trail 206. As I'm moving forward, I hear a seatbet buckle bouncing off the side of the plane, know that the pilot won't be able to reach it, don't want it smacking the paint all the way down. I'm focused on grabbing it and bringing it inside as I made my turn at the door. The pilot said my rig hit his seat so hard it almost threw him through the windshield, but I never felt it. I dive and see a mess of lines over my left shoulder, think "no, I didn't really see that", look over my right shoulder and..... yes, I have a horseshoe. Throw my pilot chute immediately, now I'm upright looking at a bag lock. I grab both handles, pull the cutaway, get belly to earth with my hand on the reserve ripcord, look down and... The formation is building about 200 feet below me, about 50" horizontal, my slot is right there, perfect angle for a swoop. I'll always remember that view and the fact that I actually paused and thought making that swoop. Stronger memory than the whole horseshoe thing. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I like that. But the most important thing for me is that the student and I are on the same page on whatever jump we're on - it certainly does help to have a default set of expectations at the DZ or in general - but we still talk about hand signals in the prebrief/training just to be clear for any coaching or AFF jump (you never know what the last guy taught him unless you review) it doesn't take long - "you remember your hand signals?.....ok, what does this mean, and this, and this....great, here's a couple new ones for this jump" etc etc Without a doubt. My only point is that it's a lot less confusing for the student, and lowers the chance of brainlock, if eveyone at the DZ is teaching the same thing rather than the student to have to learn different signals every jump. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I'm not saying it should happen (pointing with one finger), just saying that it can and does. Just like the proper signal for altitude check is "circle of awareness", not tapping on their altimeter or yours (no matter how many fingers you use). I do believe that the wave-off and track is the absolute "pull" indicator for any coach to give. Also, after cat H, the "student" can jump not only with a coach or instructor, but also with any D licenced skydiver, who may have no training in hand signals. If the coach in question (the one talking about the pull sign going away) was briefing someone post Cat H, I would fully support it. Not knowing all the details, I wasn't going to judge. I also don't recommend making any signals to students that they haven't been briefed on. Students need to know what to expect rather than to try to figure out things in freefall while nearing deployment altitude. As I said, the most important thing is that everyone at the DZ be on the same page. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I am a Coach-E No, a coach (or any skydiver) can use whatever hand signals they wish with any other skydiver, no matter the student status. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, keep things the same, pull signals always means pull. On the other hand, if you have a low-time student in the air and the coach or another jumper point down (to indicate a bad spot) or points at their altimeter (I know this isn't a valid hand signal, but I've seen it done many times) you don't necessarily want the student to immediately pull. I'd say either is OK, as long as it's discussed with the student before the jump AND there is consistancy between the various coaches on the DZ. That being said, unless you fly right in the students face, a pull sign can be hard to see from 10-20 feet away. The proper procedure for a coached dive is... The student should wave off, turn and initiate a track by 5500'. If they don't, the coach should immediately wave off. If the student does not then turn and begin to track, the coach should immediately turn, track to gain sufficient separation, and deploy by or above 3500. I can easily watch a student either over my shoulder or between my legs as I track off, just to be sure the student isn't following behind. Also if it does say that somewhere, and that situation happened to arise, would you do it anyway? Ultimately my goal is to get us all on the same page here so as student move around we avoid confusion, I personally know that either way if I saw a plane below me and a student, I wouldn't want to risk precious time trying to get him/her to understand what I am trying to show them, or risk giving them the track away and deploy movement and risk them tracking further into danger if I felt deploying was the safest bet, and although them seeing me deploy should tell them something is up and they need to deploy, I think a clear pull sign followed by my action of deploying would be more precise. Hopefully I never need to do this, but like I said I want to get rid of which ever way is wrong, even if by cahnce I disagree. Thanks for reading, I left my SIM and IRM at a friends house last weekend, and won't be back there for a week, but was also curious on what people thought about these 2 different thought processes regardless of what the IRM actually states. Edit to add The student should be taught ; If I see the instructor or coach wave off, I should immediately turn, track and then deploy If I see the coach turn and track, I should immediately deploy If I see the coach deploy, I should immediately deploy. No exceptions. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Every time???? No But PD says that most are caused by line twists in steering lines. Walking back your steering lines at the end of every day makes the chance of tension knows much lower. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

And I would disagree with that given the multi-rating situation. So if I have multiple ratings, I don't need to follow the proper procedure for either of them??? Since you didn't understand my post, please re-read Dave's post. He does have a way with words. Thanks, Dave. Well, this thread started with a coach without a lot of experience that watched a student go low, didn't take appropriate action, and then pulled low. He got totally reamed on this board, and not just for the altitude he pulled at. The situation in the later post was an experienced coach and AFF-I who also just watched a student go low, didn't take appropriate action, but did manage to pull at altitude (even if it was too late for her student to see), and you seem to think her actions were appropriate. I'm kinda slow on the uptake, so what I'm asking for is an explaination of why your responses about these two very similar situation (other than the deployment alltitude of the Coach/Instructor) seem very different. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

My point was you should follow one or the other. From what's been posted about this dive... Student on his back at 6K, back on his belly at 4.5K. 1. As a coach, at 5.5K you should immediately wave off, track and deploy, hopefully in his line of sight. 2, As AFF-I, you have the option of docking, rollover if necessary, give him the pull sign and deploying for him if he gets below 4K. In this case, neither was done. The Instructor gave hand signal for altitude awareness, backslid, and didn't deploy til after the student had turned and initiated a low track with his back to her. With the student tracking away below 3.5K, the chances of catching and deploying for the student were getting slim, so I'm not saying that the Instructor should have then been chasing the student down. The deployment by the coah at 3.5K seemed to be the only thing done right, but it was done after the coach was no longer in the student's view. A dump at 4K with adequate seperation (per the SIM and IRM), before the student turned, would have been a better option. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

In Reply To If the student was locked so bad that he didn't respond to hand signals, what good was your being there watching. If the student was so locked that the sight of your canopy deploying wouldn't have made a difference, OSB..... Well, some of us place more importance on living than on by-the-book rules that could result in disaster when there are viable options available. Jenn's jump was maybe one of those times, IMO. I'll not second-guess her. reply] I'm sure this is simply a tongue-in-cheek question since I'm sure you already know the answer. What's funny is that you would even ask. Again, why would you need to ask such a question? Totally different context altogether. No, seriously, you need to back up what you've said. YOU are the one that mentioned not following procedure in order to live. YOU are the one that mentioned "other viable options" being used. I've run a lot of coach courses over the years, and I've never talked about "do this to pass the course, but ignore this in the real world." If there truly is a way to justify what happened on the coach dive we're talking about, I'd like to hear it. I'm always open to changing what and how I teach my candidates to do things. You have a lot of years in the sport and a lot of instructional experience, as do i, but I need some clarification on this. Otherwise, I can only assume this is more of the "my friends and I are always right in our decisions, but people I don't know or don't like don't know shit" school of skydiving. There are plenty of coaches and potential coaches that read these threads. I think I've explained my point of view. If you have a valid point here, I will admit my error. If you aren't willing to explain your points, it only confuses these people that are trying to learn. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, it was. Well, some of us place more importance on living than on by-the-book rules that could result in disaster when there are viable options available. Jenn's jump was maybe one of those times, IMO. I'll not second-guess her. OK, I'm open to this. What part of tracking, sufficient separation and then deploying would end the life of the coach, or result in disaster. We aren't talking about something up high, and she didn't dock and roll the student over or deploy for the student. Is sitting there watching this happen the viable option you're referring to, or is there another viable option that I'm missing. To quote you, from an earlier post in this same thread "USPA can come up with any and all the "training" programs they can dream up and people will do what's necessary to pass the course and then promptly throw it all by the wayside and go off on their own doing whatever they damn well please as long as they get paid to do whatever stupid shit they can come up with. " This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, It was not. If the student was locked so bad that he didn't respond to hand signals, what good was your being there watching. If the student was so locked that the sight of your canopy deploying wouldn't have made a difference, OSB..... This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with both of you. There are very good reasons why USPA has the "end of coach jump" procedures, and it's important to properly explain them to the student and then follow them exactly, and giving the pull sign is not part of the drill. The idea is to clearly indicate to the student that the dive is over. 1. Wave off 2. turn and track to gain sufficient seperation 3. Deploy at or hopefully above the student's minimum pull altitude. What should the student be trained? 1.If you see me wave off, turn and track, then deploy 2. If you see me turn and track, deploy immediately 3. If you see me deploy, deploy immediately Having you watch the student go low has no benifit for the student. Being able to tell the student how low they went has no benifit for the student. The dive was over. Just because the student didn't do their job is no reason for you not to do yours. Instructors go in or get the Cypres award because they lack the dicipline to follow standard procedures every time. From a selfish point of view, follow the procedures to protect yourself. If you student ends up dead or injured because of lack of deployment at a proper altitiude, your having done everything "by the book" is your protection. Having done thing your way rather than the USPA way can be used against you to indicate possible neglegence. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I ALWAYS felt the most important thing about punching a cloud was knowing what the base of it was. The higher the base, the better I felt about it. MOST aircraft have windows and most of us have altimeters so there's almost no excuse for not knowing. They aren't going to change much from the time you go through them on climb to the time you go through them again in freefall. Quote That's what I used to think.... Nice 4th of July weekend boogie, over 15 years ago, private airport, fast-climbing King-air, solid cloud layer, but thin, time to jump. Bases at 2700 on the last jump, same on the climb to altitude. 12 way, the plan......break at 5500, track to the tops, around 3800, hold position and pull after coming out the bottom. Great dive, good breakoff, everyone facing in as we hit the cloud, 2500 solid, 2000 solid, 1800 still solid but everyone getting more scared of the ground than a canopy collision, people fire, out the bottom as canopy is deploying. No storm, no fronts, almost no winds, the bottoms dropped 1200' in 5 minutes. People watching from the ground said it was beautiful watching the canopies blossum as we all appeared out of nowhere. 1/2 hour later, blue skies for the day. Just saying, it doesn't take a storm front for things to change in a hurry. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Didn't say that. Just said that we all know that sometimes students don't. That's why they are required to have AAD's. That's why AFF I's can pull for them. To give them a second chance if they screw up. To use your line of thought.... Am I wrong? It's not the riggers job to properly assemble your reserve? Guess the riggers course just got a lot shorter...... This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry, but what a crock..... We have riggers pack our reserves for a reason. Riggers need certification for a reason. It is their responsibility NOT to make a mistake. All the waivers in the world mean nothing when there is negligence. This rigger was negligent. He made a mistake. He made a very serious mistake. I've been jumping for over 20 years. I jumped without an AAD (as soon as I was off student status) for 16 years. That was my choice. I had a couple of stupid low pulls early (one at 500', one a little higher) and fortunately didn't die. I fully understand the personal responsibly aspect of the sport but that's beside the point. Students sometime make mistakes (as do we all, no matter time in sport) and they are required to jump with AAD's for a reason. Anyone with an Instructional rating or Riggers rating has to be held to a higher standard. If I forget to hook up a static line or turn on an AAD and my student doesn't execute EP's, I'm as much or more at fault as my student. If the student dies, is this just an honest mistake? If an airplane mechanic fails to attach a safety wire, which causes a mechanical failure and the plane goes in (even if the pilot MIGHT have been able to save it), is this just an honest mistake? I dislike lawsuits (frivolous lawsuits) as much as anyone, but suing when a real wrong has been committed is the civilized answer (the other option being personal vengeance, i.e. taking a gun and shooting the party that wronged us). If the deceased was someone with thousands of jumps, not unconscious or disabled in the air, I could at least see some merit in the "it was his job to pull" argument. This was a student, with very few jumps. He wasn't irresponsible or foolhardy, he just had things go wrong and he brain-locked. That's what students sometimes do. That's something we have all done. The AAD wasn't a guarantee, but it should have been a second chance. I haven't seen any suggestion in this thread that requiring AAD's on students is stupid or a waste of money. How come? Why bother? It's their responsibility to pull? This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Just remember.... Neither of you is flying. You're both dropping like rocks. You both want to live. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I stated several times that sometimes there is a difference between sticking to the 'letter of the law', and doing what just makes sense. Just because you can read the regs in such a way that it appears to endorse one course of action doesn't mean that course of action is always going to be the right one. While you do have to stick to the regs in terms of how permissive you can be, nothing states that you cannot impose your own, more conservative, guidelines if they appear to be prudent. If you think an SL I with no freefall instructional experience, or a coach with 102 jumps is a good fit for a recertification jump, get video. Creating straw dogs to howl at doesn't really add to the discussion. To repeat myself I certainly hope all the posters that are so quick to condemn are willing to hold themselves to the same standard of "no mistakes ever" perfection that they seem to be willing to impose on others. I've been around long enough to know that is NOT the case, but I keep hoping........ This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Sorry Dave, but you really don't get it. Anyone who has not spent a lot of time working with students has no idea how much a students performance can vary from jump to jump. This is not to defend or attack, just to explain. Let's apply your standards to you and your posting. I've read alot of what you've written, and generally it's been very good. But......on this thread, you started by attacking the terrible performance of an AFF -I (without reading the facebook thread that was in plain sight saying this was a coach jump), discussed more than once the leg straps (if you had experience with a lot of student gear, it's bulky, one-size-fits-no-one, and when in the position that this guy was in, leg straps that are plenty tight can appear loose. Not saying this was definitely the case with only one viewing, just that it might have been. I've seen this before in Cessna climbouts), refer to "that jackass posts the video online and thinks it's cool that his Protrack reported a 300ft opening altitude" (the guy posted the video as a learning tool, he never express pride in what went on), Then proceed to now tear into the Instructor who made the previous jump with the guy "If you want to get mad, how about start with the AFF I who passed this jumper to a coach after an admittedly unsatisfactory re-certification jump" (even though no-one said his previous jump was unsatisfactory, just not perfect. None of us have seen that video, so how can you judge?), then express a total misunderstanding of jumper re-currency training and who is allowed to do what "An SL instructor can supervise an SL jump, not make a one-on-one freefall jump in an instructional capacity" and when told this isn't the case, devote a few more posts trying to still justify your position. I'm not saying that this coach didn't make a very important mistake (not pulling at altitude), just thinking about what standards you hold YOURSELF to, and wondering if some recognition of error or apology to those involved in this incident might not be appropriate. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

I'm not sure what you mean. An SL instructor can supervise an SL jump, not make a one-on-one freefall jump in an instructional capacity. With that in mind, I'm not sure how an SL jump with a practice pull would be an adequate indication of currency for a jumper intending to make freefall jumps with an extended delay. Just like you need to select an appropriate instructor for recurrency jumps, you need to select an appropriate skydive. If the jumper is looking to do SL jumps, or 5 second delays, then yes, maybe an SL I and an SL jump with a dummy pull would be appropriate. If the jumper wants to do freefall jumps from full altitude, that what that need to do in the presence of an instructor rated to teach that type of jump. From the SIM "USPA C and D-license holders who have not made a freefall skydive within the preceding six months should make at least one jump under the supervision of a USPA instructional rating holder until demonstrating the ability to safely exercise the privileges of that license." Dave, I'm sure you are very knowledgeable about skydiving, but I see no instructional ratings in your profile. A S/L Instructor is fully rated to make not just S/L jumps, but also freefall instructional jumps. They are just NOT allowed to take harness holds or deploy for the student. No one has stated what level of retraining this returning jumper received, but this thread has, from the beginning, been full of assumptions (initially that the person going out with the student was an AFF I, assumptions about proper gear checks, assumptions about why the coach posted this, even assumptions about the exit that the previous jumper leaving the airplane made) based on no facts. I've seen a lot of returning jumpers over the years, and I've seen more than 1 case where giving the jumper the "benefit of the doubt" has worked well, but I've also seen (and been directly involed in some) where this has gone poorly. Retraining for this type of jumper at a S/L DZ, based on my experience, would involve a complete first jump course, at least 1 successful PRCP, and a clear and pull before progressing to freefall. This is based on 20 years of instruction. While this is my standard, it is not USPA's. USPA RECOMMENDS additional training after a long lay-off from the sport, but does not require it. Would I make this mistake today? No. Could I have made this mistake 15-20 years ago, with a lot less experience? Yes. I have PMed the coach involved and told him I hoped he wouldn't give up his rating over this. He's not the first one to make a mistake, nor will he be the last. A USPA instructional rating is not a certificate of perfection. It is a license to teach and a license to learn. Lastly, I certainly hope all the posters that are so quick to condemn are willing to hold themselves to the same standard of "no mistakes ever" perfection that they seem to be willing to impose on others. I've been around long enough to know that is NOT the case, but I keep hoping........ This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Good idea for your students, but this is my take on the transition, being a S/L IE and in the process of getting AFF rated for a different type of crossover program... Even though both programs use the same catagory letters, there is not a direct crossover until cat F. You can't advance them into a AFF catagory that they aren't qualified for and you don't have the proper rating to do IAD or S/L. I would suggest that you get a IAD instructor rating, which shouldn't be too hard for you. You need to learn the different progression and exit techniques, but most of the teaching material is the same. I suggest IAD because you can still use the same equipment. S/L would require different or modified gear. The ISP require a MINIMUM of 1 successful simulated deployment while exiting IAD during the crossover, but I would suggest 2 or 3, especially Cat C and below. This is a whole new game for your student. The climbout and exit are different, with the need for immediate stability and deployment. Plan on a significant amount of training for this crossover. Once the student has done the simulated deployments and a real hop-and-pop, they can then progess through longer delays. This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.