chuckakers

Again I never disagree on the use of radios but I know we can do a good job without it. Again from your question, I would not say it if it wasn't true, but one thing that isn't true is that I'm in Australia. I'm not and never said I was. People assume that because I'm Australian. So it's not my National Federation it's someone elses. But as I have seen I agree with the method. Most AFF courses I have been involved with were done in one day with the student either jumping at the end of the day they started or first thing the next day. Putting people through this quick radio is a efficient option. As are tandem and I think doing a tandem with an instructor is probably the best way, having someone there with you not only for communication but takes lots of pressure of the student. But we don't work that way here. When people come here to do AFF they do not come for a first jump course they come to do an AFF course the whole 7 jumps. For sure we have a few drop out skydiving is not for everybody. And I mean very few. There is no such thing as the first jump course, they call it the ground school. That's because they not only come to do the first jump they come to do the whole course. They give up a week of there life to do so. They arrive on a friday night or early saturday. They begin there training on saturday morning and are being examined sunday evening. Jumping begins on monday, by tuesday evening they are usually finished easily by wednesday with the AFF and onto consolidation jumps. By the end of the week weather permitted they have enough jumps for an A licence. Our CI has signed of 150 A licences this year. This sounds fast and we do put them through fast but this year on average we have had one repeat jump for every 21 or so jumps. That's one repeat jump for every 3 students doing the whole course so I don't believe we have any quality loss either. We also follow them through with every aspect escpecially canopy control while they are doing there consolidations, but that goes with out saying. With a longer ground school it give people much more time to learn the canopy stuff, it's not like its just one 50 minute lesson. So yes chuck I think we do have some thing special here something very special indeed.

That's all they're perfectly good for. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Maybe we do Chuck, escpecially if you with all your experience can't imagine how we make it work Oh I understand how you make it work. You make it work the same way we did before we had those handy little radios. I just believe you could make it work even better - and safer - with the ability to communicate to students under canopy. BTW, you never answered my question about your national federation. Do they really advocate NOT using radios because - as you put it - "if the radio fails the student needs to be able to land themselves anyway"? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Totally my assumption, but I think what Chuck may have been getting at is that if you are wearing earplugs you may not be able to hear someone shouting at you under canopy to attract your attention. This could result in a canopy collision. Which could result in death. So, in a nutshell, better deaf than dead. Uh, oh. Now yer gonna git it. Yeah, I know! But was I close with my assumption? Yep. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Totally my assumption, but I think what Chuck may have been getting at is that if you are wearing earplugs you may not be able to hear someone shouting at you under canopy to attract your attention. This could result in a canopy collision. Which could result in death. So, in a nutshell, better deaf than dead. Uh, oh. Now yer gonna git it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The brand new unblemished N shiny audible can fail as well. And when it fails, the student has NO indication of it. A visual altimeter, whether analog or digital, will appear to be wrong. The needle falls off, or the needle stops, or the digits start going up, or stop going down, or the display goes blank or all the segments come on, or something. SOMETHING will give a clue that the device is not working. What clue is there when the audible fails? All this talk of students having weak skills really bothers me. It is NOT a solution to add a device, which can fail in many ways on its own, to compensate for students who are not yet ready to do what needs to be done to become a safe skydiver. I liken this to the problem faced by all the makers of aviation-certified GPS devices. A huge hurdle that the makers of certified GPS units faced was to be sure that the device told you when it had failed. Because without that clear indication, you won't be able to take the appropriate steps at the appropriate time. If we are going to use an audible for pattern guidance, the user needs to know when it has failed. For an experienced parachutist, he may be able to discern this without any help from the audible. He'll just see that something is not right, and he will use his other skills to execute a safe approach and landing. But the student has no ability to identify that the device has failed, and is literally left hanging. So, while I was trying to keep an open mind, I have to close it now. If the audible has no mechanism to unambiguously indicate failure, then it should not be used by a student. That's a good point paul. The devices we use as well as actually having 2 atlimeters inside them (meaning the device operates with a back up actually inside it) also hold charge when they get to 1000 feet. ie when it beeps at 1000 feet it has taken charge from the battery to be used for the alarms on the way down. If it doesn't beep then it wont function. When we use the audible it is simply briefed to the student as a guide not a rule. They have it so they can learn what the heights look like without having to look at there altimeter. It's hard for someone to begin there pattern at between 1000 to 900 ft if they don't know what that looks like. If they don't here the beep at 900 feet then they know its not going to work but they already have a plan. They have taught it this way here for years without the audible. The problem has been that students tend to rely on the altimeter to give them the heights no matter how much you tell them to do it visually. Atleast in the begining, I think they actually pick it up pretty quick with the proper de-briefing. The audible is an attempt to get them to focus visually while still receiving the information about there height. To me it's just about education and how you brief the student, for us it is proving to be a plus but not a crutch If the student was unduly focusing on the altimeter, how is it that he won't shift that same focus to waiting for the beep? If he has a device that will help him, the student who is prone to undue focus will find a way to focus on whatever helpful device is provided. Now, interestingly enough, we have me suggesting that maybe a device that only mostly works would be better than a device that always works. Then, you could tell the student, "that audible USUALLY works, but maybe it won't. Either way, you are going to land, so be prepared to go it alone if you get nothing from the audible." Maybe you need a ground person with a button labeled "Fail the student audible". Then you could be sure you wouldn't let the student get too comfy with the device. (Only HALF joking.) -paul Or Paul we could simplify the whole thing even further and just teach students not fly with their heads in their altimeters. The pro-audible guys keep talking about how their students don't need radios because they teach them well enough that they don't need them. Kind of funny that they can teach 'em all that stuff and can't teach 'em to use an altimeter correctly. Of course if their students were equipped with radios, the radio operator could remind them not to stare at their altimeters in real-time. Gee, what a concept. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

What? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

PiLFy is funny, but it sounds like I'm getting under his skin a bit. Screw me and my quips. What a riot! That'll be great material for MY ballpark, where everyone can hear!! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Another bad idea, but I'll let someone else explain it to him. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I swing face-to-face too. Verbally, of course. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Just curious: are the audibles used only as long as radios would have been used? I.e., after a certain point (usually, once they graduate AFF) the student goes without them? I'm not an instructor (nor very experienced) but it seems to me that one useful function of radios is getting students through that phase where they have limited experience flying a landing pattern. I.e., at a time they have little or no experience visually judging altitude, little or no experience controling a canopy, little or no experience orienting themselves to their ground picture, and when they might also be close to being overwhelmed by all the other unfamiliar aspects of the experience. Since the audibles are useless for one important function that radios allow (helping the student learn to time their flare), I'm wondering when you think it is appropriate to wean them off of it. I.e., when exactly do you feel they are "grown up and ready to leave the nest"? BTW, on my AFF level-1 jump I had a long spot, and barely made it back to the LZ after flying a direct line the whole way, and was unable to land following the preplanned landing pattern. (The other AFF-1 student who exited before me landed off.) I landed safely and uneventfully by being directed in by radio to do an opposite-turn pattern putting me on the preplanned final leg (with somewhat abbreviated downwind, base, and final legs due to my lack of altitude). An audible would have been less than useless for that jump, more likely to have distracted me than anything else. (And it probably would have been useless for the other student who landed off.) Yeah, what he said. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

When I said "be here at 1000 and here at 500", maybe I was being a bit too simplistic for you. I have taught thousands of students and I assure you they all knew more about flying canopies than students at the vast majority of DZ's. "Here" and "here" referred to a place in the pattern, not a place carved in stone without regard to wind changes. Of course that place changes if the wind does and my students understood that. Every DZ I worked at as an instructor, including my own DZ, did everything you talk about - theory, understanding, adaptability, all of that and more. I also assure you that my students "left the nest" as competent pilots too. You make it sound like you're DZ has something special going on that allows your students to progress better than students on radio at other DZ's, but the truth is they are just like students at every DZ - some get it quickly, others not so much. You can teach students to know every tiny detail about flying canopies. Hell, you can teach them so well that they could teach it to others. But until they get under canopy you really have no idea how they will perform. There's no way you could. So why would you not put a radio on them so you can give instruction if it's needed? Wouldn't it be useful to be able to stop a student who heading for trouble and doesn't seem to be employing all that understanding you made sure they have? I can't imagine an audible device warning a student to maneuver away from [insert obstacle of choice here], but a qualified radio operator sure can. Face it, it would suck to see a kid fly into a 50,000 volt power line while you watch from the ground wishing like hell you could communicate with him, don't you think? Regardless of how well they "get it" on the ground and no matter how much they know and understand intellectually, students, especially during the first few jumps, are prone to doing really dumb things at the worst possible moment, or doing absolutely nothing when action is needed. You know that as well as I do. Even if you choose not to "talk them down", equipping students with a radio gives the instructor another layer of control and gives the student another layer of safety. Are you honestly telling me that your country's national organization encourages NOT using radios because (quoting you) "if the radio fails the student needs to be able to land themselves anyway"? In your reply above that's certainly what it sounded like you said. If that's case, why have the audible? After all, if it fails the student needs to be able to land without it anyway - just like the radio. Using your federation's logic (assuming that comment was correct) why have freefall instructors? If the student loses them, he or she has to deal with freefall without them anyway. Why have a windsock on the field? If it falls down while the student is in the air, they'll have to figure out the wind direction on their own anyway. You could certainly do things that way. After all, there was a time when people learned to jump with pretty much no assistance of any kind, so why not just do it that way? The answer of course is that we have a better way. We have developed a long list of best practices over many years and untold numbers of students. Those best practices include having the ability to communicate to students whenever possible. Your students may be doing fine without radios, and if it works for you that's great. However, you can't say that putting radios on your students, even if used only for emergencies, wouldn't give you as an instructor another way to keep your students safe. It would, and that is undeniable. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Guess you failed to read the whole thread... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=4178187;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC; I guess you conveniently forgot to see the time stamp on that post. Yeah, I saw it. It came very late in the conversation. It came after you'd attacked the OP repeatedly. So now disagreeing with the OP is attacking? I'm through with you. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

And we'll be doing Chuck-Ways for those not participating in the Rose jumps!! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I think that's where the DZO/rigger misrouted the reserve closing loop (outside the Cypres cutter) and a student went in with a fired Cypres and a closed reserve container. The DZO might have pulled a gun on a jumper in the aftermath. The whole thing seems like a moot point because if it is that DZ, the DZO closed up shop not long after the fatality. I can't imagine a mistake - however egregious - resulting in removal from USPA. More details???? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Guess you failed to read the whole thread... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=4178187;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC; Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You shouldn't need an altimeter below 1000 feet. Why do some insist on making simple things complicated? Take off all the damn instruments and fly your canopies. It really is pretty easy. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Wow man, you're a piece of work. Again, ask a question and I'll gladly answer it. Otherwise, your comments are really just...well...babble. And if you're worried about taking advise from someone with a "tude", you picked the wrong sport. Ask around. I think you'll find that my contributions are pretty well documented and respected. But you are of course entitled to your very uneducated opinion. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

So I'll ask again - why not? And don't say you don't use them because they can fail. That's like saying you don't jump with a reserve because it might malfunction when you need it. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I don't recall failing to answer any question you asked. If I did, please restate it and I'll gladly answer. And you might want to think about who looks comedic here. You have less than 100 jumps. Your exposure to the sport is quite simply miniscule, yet you speak with the confidence of a veteran skydiver with thousands of jumps and many years in the saddle. That makes you look like silly. No offense intended, but it is what it is. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

QuoteHi Jim, Sure, an audible can fail too. If I don't hear the initial beep @1K'. I'll disregard, & sort it out later. Exactly the point. When an audible fails, the jumper has no way of knowing it did, forcing them to "sort it out later". I don't know where I fall in relation to other Newbies being able to judge altitude. I don't feel comfortable that I can judge them accurately enough for safety, yet. So are you using an audible for canopy control? Sure sounds like you need one. Almost all of my jumps are w/up-jumpers w/a lot more experience. They come in to land @all different alts & headings. If folks at your DZ are flying patterns and landing in different directions on a regular basis, you should be addressing that problem. And how exactly does that necessitate the use of a beep? I don't have a lot of other visual cues to go on. At my level.... At 2.5 jumps per month over 2 years, I doubt you ever will. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Kenny has resorted to babble. Or is that wisdom? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

1. The reason people are responding to the newbie (and subsequently questioning his wisdom) is because he is making comments, just as people reply to you when you make them. 2. The newbie's opinion may be valid (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), but let's be honest - the odds of anyone's position being accurate go way up with long term exposure to the environment of which he or she opines. 2 years and 60 jumps? Sorry, but that's not the guy I'll hang mine or a student's safety on. 3. Do I need to swoop to know it adds risk? Do I need a pilot's license to understand the physics of flight? No and no. You are correct that I have never worked with students using audibles. That's because there's no need to. It's not the physical act of training student on audibles that I disagree with. It's the concept of adding to the complexity of canopy control unnecessarily, and for that I don't need trial and error. The point is simple. Radios are available, reliable, and cheap. In the hands of a qualified operator, radios can be used to actually TEACH. Audibles beep. That's all, just beep. That's not teaching. 4. I do have experience with no-radio operations as I was a no-radio baby. And you know what? It worked just fine for every student I watched when I was training. "Be here at 1000, be here at 500." What the hell is so hard about that? Most importantly, you made the original post to solicit qualified (valid?) opinions, and then you argue with very qualified people who opine. If you like audibles on students, go for it. But why ask for input when you've clearly decided what is right? And finally - why have you not answered the most important question in this entire thread....I'll ask it again. Why the hell does the DZ just not buy some damn radios???????? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Actually you did. Go back and look at your posts. And to tell someone that their long-term, real-world experience tossing thousands of students out of planes is "lame" when you have 60 jumps over 2 years is......well....comical. PiLFy, you are a joke. Unfortunately in our world, that is dangerous. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

While I have posted my strong negative feelings on the use of audibles on students for canopy control purposes on this thread, I haven't made any comments on the digital altimeter issue. I like 'em. I used digital altimeters at my drop zone in the late 90's, long before many others were. At that time the only digital was an altimeter called a Digitude, and I liked the fact that it displayed altitude the same way we teach student to think - 2 digits. We teach student to think of altitude in terms of thousands and hundreds - 9-5, 7-3, 5-2. We believed that a 2-digit digital altimeter gave the simplest, most logical display to match the logic in the student's mind. We were right. Our students seldom reported during debriefs that they had trouble identifying altitudes using the digital. That was a big contrast from analogs, where students got altitudes wrong. Digitals on students make sense, at least in my experience. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX