Forums: Skydiving: Instructors:
Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

chuckakers  (D 10855)

Aug 26, 2011, 4:09 PM
Post #26 of 176 (835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bart] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
....we have no radios...

Well that's just dumb. Get some dang radios and you won't have the problem to begin with.

Yes, I'm brilliant. That's why they put up with me.Wink

No Chuck I disagree, as I have already said they are trained to fly on there own and that's what they do. When I first got here it scared me to death, but with the program we run from what I have seen in the last 4 years we don't need them either. Our students do a great job without the radio. We added the audible to give them some extra info, but it is just a guide. We thought we would try some new technology to see if it could help us train them better and our results are encouraging.Smile By the way whats a "dang" radio, I don't think they have those here anywayWinkWinkWink

Do as you please. I hope your students stomp DC's daily, dang it.


bart  (F 670)

Aug 26, 2011, 4:17 PM
Post #27 of 176 (828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
The dz I did my progression at discourages students from using audibles until they've completed at least 100 jumps. This is to ensure students have altitude awareness entrenched in their brain. During freefall progression a student will fail a jump if the instructor does not see the student checking his altimeter to ensure altitude awareness is maintained. My instructors also discouraged altimeter use in the pattern once you were established on the downwind leg. We were taught at about 1000 ft set up your down wind leg, once the downwind leg was set up we were required to make our turns onto base and final based on other traffic in the pattern, wind speed and direction and any obstacles such as wind socks / blades and our position relative to the landing area. The 900 600 and 300 ft altitudes are used as learning tool for what the pattern should look like to be able to land safely my instructor stressed that the other factors mentioned above actually determine when you turn onto base and final and what height you make your turns. I can honestly say that I very rarely check my altimeter once my circuit pattern is set up, instead I focus on avoiding canopy collisions, wind speed and direction and set up final to ensure I land safely.

Just my 2 cents.

I totally agree that flying a parachute is something that needs to be learned visually. Im curious were you ever trainned on radios or another form of TA like an arrow?? We don't have any of these where we are. Our students are briefed to land and fly on visuals. We use the audible to give them some extra info about there height and decent rate so they can focus on learning to fly visually without using there altimeter. It allows them to see what the appropriate heights look like when they have never seen them before.

What the hell is up with you people? You're trying to tie and untied shoe with a motorized, remote-controlled, double-whizbang doodad.

Just get some damn radios, already. Geez.

oh damn radios so dang was a typo??? ha ha ha Wink

seriously chuck we don't need them!!!! As I was saying our students do a great job without the radio and its been done here for years we are just now using another piece of technology to help us train them better and it's working well here what ever you say it doesn't effect our results. I like the way our students are independent making there decisions from day one, The audible doesn't make decisions for them it doesn't pull down the toggles it just gives them information they can use. What ever methods Instructors use it comes down to the way they are applied the teaching and the briefing thats the important part not the device itself. I guess the guys that use to use an arow for TA might call your dang or damn radio a whizbang doodad too!!!WinkWink


bart  (F 670)

Aug 26, 2011, 4:20 PM
Post #28 of 176 (825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
No, he's teaching them a principle. One they can apply @any DZ. Not flying over any obstacles you don't want to land on @<1K' is a lesson they can take anywhere.

exactly, cheers Pilfly


riggerpaul  (D 28098)

Aug 26, 2011, 4:22 PM
Post #29 of 176 (823 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.

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.


PiLFy  (A License)

Aug 26, 2011, 4:41 PM
Post #30 of 176 (824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.

OK, so the alti was "beat up" when you needed that as your justification for audibles, but when I point out that learning at a DZ that put you out on a "beat up" alti might not have been a good idea, it's now not so beat up?

My friend, this is entertaining. Horribly scary when I think about it, but entertaining.

Yes, I'm brilliant. That's why they put up with me.

I hate to burst your bubble, Sunshine. Being obstinate isn't being a genius... So far, all you've been is stubborn. You haven't refuted any arguments. Now, you're twisting around what I've said.

My training DZ is highly respected in the field. That's why I chose it. The Alti that failed had some miles on it, yes. What I was pointing out was that even a spiffy newer one can still fail. School Altis get abused. They're gonna fail from time to time. Having a backup Audible, especially for a vulnerable student, is only prudent. Your wanting to throw my training DZ under a bus because one Alti failed, is w/o merit. Students expending attention, & experiencing stress, worrying about whether their only data source for altitude will fail, is also a distraction. My experience w/radios is that you usually can't hear them under canopy. They were only useful for calling the flare. Even then, they can fail @the worst time...


PiLFy  (A License)

Aug 26, 2011, 4:52 PM
Post #31 of 176 (819 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerpaul] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Paul,
Sorry, but not so fast, friend. Altis can fail in non-obvious ways, like mine did. My Alti that jump started sticking on the way down. It was OK on the ride to alt., BTW. Had it frozen in one position? I'd have known immediately that it had crapped out. It didn't. If I had had a second device available to me. I could have compared the two. An Audible is a backup, not a primary device. If I don't hear the beep @1K'? I know it isn't working. I'll disregard it, & go w/my primary Alti. I'm sorry, but your reasoning would disqualify the Galaxy I was wearing that day on the same grounds.

The odds of a well-cared for Galaxy failing are slim. The odds of said Galaxy, plus an Optima failing, are remote... Which odds would you rather bet your life & limb on as a student?


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Aug 26, 2011, 5:27 PM
Post #32 of 176 (812 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.

OK, so the alti was "beat up" when you needed that as your justification for audibles, but when I point out that learning at a DZ that put you out on a "beat up" alti might not have been a good idea, it's now not so beat up?

My friend, this is entertaining. Horribly scary when I think about it, but entertaining.

Yes, I'm brilliant. That's why they put up with me.

I hate to burst your bubble, Sunshine. Being obstinate isn't being a genius... So far, all you've been is stubborn. You haven't refuted any arguments. Now, you're twisting around what I've said.

My training DZ is highly respected in the field. That's why I chose it. The Alti that failed had some miles on it, yes. What I was pointing out was that even a spiffy newer one can still fail. School Altis get abused. They're gonna fail from time to time. Having a backup Audible, especially for a vulnerable student, is only prudent. Your wanting to throw my training DZ under a bus because one Alti failed, is w/o merit. Students expending attention, & experiencing stress, worrying about whether their only data source for altitude will fail, is also a distraction. My experience w/radios is that you usually can't hear them under canopy. They were only useful for calling the flare. Even then, they can fail @the worst time...

Sunshine? Really?

According to your profile, you have 2 years in the sport and 60 jumps, and you want me to agree with you that putting audibles on students for canopy control is a good idea but putting radios on them is a bad one??

Thanks for all the wisdom...cupcake. I don't know how I've kept thousands (literally) of students alive all these years.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Aug 26, 2011, 5:33 PM
Post #33 of 176 (810 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bart] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
The dz I did my progression at discourages students from using audibles until they've completed at least 100 jumps. This is to ensure students have altitude awareness entrenched in their brain. During freefall progression a student will fail a jump if the instructor does not see the student checking his altimeter to ensure altitude awareness is maintained. My instructors also discouraged altimeter use in the pattern once you were established on the downwind leg. We were taught at about 1000 ft set up your down wind leg, once the downwind leg was set up we were required to make our turns onto base and final based on other traffic in the pattern, wind speed and direction and any obstacles such as wind socks / blades and our position relative to the landing area. The 900 600 and 300 ft altitudes are used as learning tool for what the pattern should look like to be able to land safely my instructor stressed that the other factors mentioned above actually determine when you turn onto base and final and what height you make your turns. I can honestly say that I very rarely check my altimeter once my circuit pattern is set up, instead I focus on avoiding canopy collisions, wind speed and direction and set up final to ensure I land safely.

Just my 2 cents.

I totally agree that flying a parachute is something that needs to be learned visually. Im curious were you ever trainned on radios or another form of TA like an arrow?? We don't have any of these where we are. Our students are briefed to land and fly on visuals. We use the audible to give them some extra info about there height and decent rate so they can focus on learning to fly visually without using there altimeter. It allows them to see what the appropriate heights look like when they have never seen them before.

What the hell is up with you people? You're trying to tie and untied shoe with a motorized, remote-controlled, double-whizbang doodad.

Just get some damn radios, already. Geez.

oh damn radios so dang was a typo??? ha ha ha Wink

seriously chuck we don't need them!!!! As I was saying our students do a great job without the radio and its been done here for years we are just now using another piece of technology to help us train them better and it's working well here what ever you say it doesn't effect our results. I like the way our students are independent making there decisions from day one, The audible doesn't make decisions for them it doesn't pull down the toggles it just gives them information they can use. What ever methods Instructors use it comes down to the way they are applied the teaching and the briefing thats the important part not the device itself. I guess the guys that use to use an arow for TA might call your dang or damn radio a whizbang doodad too!!!WinkWink

If your students are already doing "just fine" without radios, they don't need audibles.

You pro-audible guys are now talking in circles.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Aug 26, 2011, 6:00 PM
Post #34 of 176 (807 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi Paul,
Sorry, but not so fast, friend. Altis can fail in non-obvious ways, like mine did. My Alti that jump started sticking on the way down. It was OK on the ride to alt., BTW. Had it frozen in one position? I'd have known immediately that it had crapped out. It didn't. If I had had a second device available to me. I could have compared the two. An Audible is a backup, not a primary device. If I don't hear the beep @1K'? I know it isn't working. I'll disregard it, & go w/my primary Alti. I'm sorry, but your reasoning would disqualify the Galaxy I was wearing that day on the same grounds.

The odds of a well-cared for Galaxy failing are slim. The odds of said Galaxy, plus an Optima failing, are remote... Which odds would you rather bet your life & limb on as a student?

Listen to this guy, Paul. Your 27 years means nothing compared to PiLFy's 2 years and 60 jumps.

Hate to say it, but this is what we've come to. What a shame.Unsure


PiLFy  (A License)

Aug 26, 2011, 6:11 PM
Post #35 of 176 (804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

...you want me to agree with you that putting audibles on students for canopy control is a good idea but putting radios on them is a bad one??

I never said that. Pulling the "I've been doing this sh*t for Twenty years" card is lame. You're still coming back w/obstinance, but no substance.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Aug 26, 2011, 6:33 PM
Post #36 of 176 (833 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bart] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

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.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Aug 26, 2011, 6:43 PM
Post #37 of 176 (795 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe, Pilfy, just maybe, you don't know what you don't know and you're coming cross as a know-it-all?

Yep, young jumpers sometimes come up with pearls of wisdom but not very often. By far and away, they most often regurgitate something they heard somebody say without having the knowledge foundation to be able to determine the rightness or wrongness of it.

We've discussed this before in other terms. You didn't listen then either. SO be it.


JerseyShawn  (Student)

Aug 26, 2011, 7:06 PM
Post #38 of 176 (790 views)
Shortcut
Re: Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

From reading the threads started from young/AFF jumpers, their biggest problem is when it comes to flaring. Radio can help there, audibles can't.

I was taught to visualize where I was at a 1000 feet AGL from jump one. My 6th jump (off radio after 2nd jump), my newly bought shiney altimeter took a shit at 6000. The previous visual observations in my holding area got me home. Since then, I know not to rely on anything except myself and my eyes.

Personally, if I was presented with the option under canopy for my first few jumps of listening to a beep to set my pattern, or an instructors voice, Id pick the radio. Id rather have an instructor tell me if I was in a bad spot or not. That's what made me nervous my first jump. Hearing beeps, to me, signal danger and would of got me more nervous. I was calmed to hear my instructors voice.


chuckakers  (D 10855)

Aug 26, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #39 of 176 (780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...you want me to agree with you that putting audibles on students for canopy control is a good idea but putting radios on them is a bad one??

I never said that. Pulling the "I've been doing this sh*t for Twenty years" card is lame. You're still coming back w/obstinance, but no substance, and that I actually used more than 2 decades of experience as my justification??

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.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Aug 26, 2011, 8:07 PM
Post #40 of 176 (780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bart] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
seriously chuck we don't need them!!!!

Full disclosure, I haven't read the entire thread.

That aside, I think you might need them, because there is a jumper who started a thread called 'Flarrrrring' (or something like that), in which they describe their trouble with canopy control, they might have even been injured on a bad landing, and they go on to say the DZ does not use radios, but just started offering digital altimeters and audibles to their students. Is this your DZ?

In some cases, this being one of them, the instructor is not the one who get's to say what does or does not work, it's the student. It's like a chef being told the food tastes bad by a customer, no matter what the chef thinks, the person the meal was made for didn't like the taste.

Beyond that, the radio is the better training tool by far. Provide all the ground training you normally do, and then provide modern, reliable radios. They'll work 99% of the time or better.

The radio allows you to give real-time advice and training to the students during their canopy flight. They also allow you to give real time advice when conditions change and the student would be better served not following their pre-determined flight plan, and using an alternate plan. A radio also allows you to tailor the amount and type of help each jumper gets according to their needs. A smart, heads-up jumper who seems to do well might need little to no assistance by jump 3, while a dim-witted or more timid jumper might need guidance up through jump 10. Each person is different, and the radio work well for all of them.

You can arugue the semantics of the 'best' training method all day long, but you cannot argue the safety enhancement by being able to talk to jumpers under canopy. As we all know, just opening a parachute does not guarantee safety or survival, and there is no way to replace the keen insight of an experienced jumper on the ground who's keeping an eye on the entire situation. They see the student, other canopies, weather conditions in the LZ, approaching aircraft, or other hazzards that may have arisen in the LZ. To expect a student to be aware of, and capable of handling all of the above is asking too much.

While a student might do well on their own if faced with unexpected problems, the better choice is that they get through it with help from the ground and they increase their chances for landing without incident. You may find out later on that they had no idea of the problem, or no idea how to handle it, and maybe you come to the conclusion that skydiving isn't the sport for them, but that's much better than finding out by loading them into an ambulence with a broken leg or worse.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Aug 26, 2011, 8:08 PM)


skydiver604

Aug 26, 2011, 9:37 PM
Post #41 of 176 (770 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bart] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
The dz I did my progression at discourages students from using audibles until they've completed at least 100 jumps. This is to ensure students have altitude awareness entrenched in their brain. During freefall progression a student will fail a jump if the instructor does not see the student checking his altimeter to ensure altitude awareness is maintained. My instructors also discouraged altimeter use in the pattern once you were established on the downwind leg. We were taught at about 1000 ft set up your down wind leg, once the downwind leg was set up we were required to make our turns onto base and final based on other traffic in the pattern, wind speed and direction and any obstacles such as wind socks / blades and our position relative to the landing area. The 900 600 and 300 ft altitudes are used as learning tool for what the pattern should look like to be able to land safely my instructor stressed that the other factors mentioned above actually determine when you turn onto base and final and what height you make your turns. I can honestly say that I very rarely check my altimeter once my circuit pattern is set up, instead I focus on avoiding canopy collisions, wind speed and direction and set up final to ensure I land safely.

Just my 2 cents.

I totally agree that flying a parachute is something that needs to be learned visually. Im curious were you ever trainned on radios or another form of TA like an arrow?? We don't have any of these where we are. Our students are briefed to land and fly on visuals. We use the audible to give them some extra info about there height and decent rate so they can focus on learning to fly visually without using there altimeter. It allows them to see what the appropriate heights look like when they have never seen them before.



Trained on radios for the first 3-6 jumps, then its up to the student to set up their own circuit based on what they were taught and also actually being able to see how the circuit looks from the air. the GCI would only get on the radio to make minor adjustments or provide guidance if things went for shit. Windsocks, it was up to the student to look at the windsock and determine the circuit pattern based on wind direction , speed etc. All of these combined taught me to fly the circuit based on conditions on the ground and in the air and to be able to adapt and change the circuit when the unexpected happens.


airtwardo  (D License)

Aug 26, 2011, 11:30 PM
Post #42 of 176 (755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Students have weak skills, Chuck. I went w/what I thought was solid data. An Alti can look unblemished N shiny, & still fail. You want to write off my training DZ because one of their Altis failed???

I was there Chuck, not you. Had I heard the thousand foot beep in my ear when my Alti said 2K'? I'd have known something was wrong.

unless of course the battery operated electro ear massager was somehow screwed up too...how do you know which one to trust?

better wear at least two of each....or just eyeball it like the bigboysdew. you really couldnt tell 1 from 2 THOUSAND FEET?
Laugh


bart  (F 670)

Aug 27, 2011, 1:04 AM
Post #43 of 176 (742 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
The dz I did my progression at discourages students from using audibles until they've completed at least 100 jumps. This is to ensure students have altitude awareness entrenched in their brain. During freefall progression a student will fail a jump if the instructor does not see the student checking his altimeter to ensure altitude awareness is maintained. My instructors also discouraged altimeter use in the pattern once you were established on the downwind leg. We were taught at about 1000 ft set up your down wind leg, once the downwind leg was set up we were required to make our turns onto base and final based on other traffic in the pattern, wind speed and direction and any obstacles such as wind socks / blades and our position relative to the landing area. The 900 600 and 300 ft altitudes are used as learning tool for what the pattern should look like to be able to land safely my instructor stressed that the other factors mentioned above actually determine when you turn onto base and final and what height you make your turns. I can honestly say that I very rarely check my altimeter once my circuit pattern is set up, instead I focus on avoiding canopy collisions, wind speed and direction and set up final to ensure I land safely.

Just my 2 cents.

I totally agree that flying a parachute is something that needs to be learned visually. Im curious were you ever trainned on radios or another form of TA like an arrow?? We don't have any of these where we are. Our students are briefed to land and fly on visuals. We use the audible to give them some extra info about there height and decent rate so they can focus on learning to fly visually without using there altimeter. It allows them to see what the appropriate heights look like when they have never seen them before.

What the hell is up with you people? You're trying to tie and untied shoe with a motorized, remote-controlled, double-whizbang doodad.

Just get some damn radios, already. Geez.

oh damn radios so dang was a typo??? ha ha ha Wink

seriously chuck we don't need them!!!! As I was saying our students do a great job without the radio and its been done here for years we are just now using another piece of technology to help us train them better and it's working well here what ever you say it doesn't effect our results. I like the way our students are independent making there decisions from day one, The audible doesn't make decisions for them it doesn't pull down the toggles it just gives them information they can use. What ever methods Instructors use it comes down to the way they are applied the teaching and the briefing thats the important part not the device itself. I guess the guys that use to use an arow for TA might call your dang or damn radio a whizbang doodad too!!!WinkWink

If your students are already doing "just fine" without radios, they don't need audibles.

You pro-audible guys are now talking in circles.

Again Chuck we I will again disagree, the students we have do a good job without the radio the way we train them, the audible now only just introduce is assisting the process. That's the point Chuck, sorry dude no circle there. Rather just a new addition to a solid training program.

Its working, that's also the point. I mean if you think it's a bad Idea then obviously you will never use it, that's cool with me Chuck, I was just letting people know we have actually used the device and the effect has been positive!!! Of course this is provided the right education methods are used. So when you THINK its a bad Idea we have seen from ACTUAL USE it is not.


Abedy

Aug 27, 2011, 2:29 AM
Post #44 of 176 (736 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PiLFy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

Just some points.

Students at our DZ are equipped with both a hand mounted analogue altimeter and a chest-strap mounted analogue altimeter. They are taught to use the "other" alti (depending on which alti they prefer to read) as a back-up device.
They are radioed down by people who've been in the sport for more than 15 years and have assisted hundreds and hundreds of students.
They are taught to take in the visual information and to connect it to the way they fly. After some time, mainly depending on the student, they get less and less input until they can fly safely without the radio.
I suspect a student hearing the "beeeep" for 300 meters might abruptly turn left no matter the traffic or other aspects just because he got an audio input that - especially after a couple of Pavlovian training exercises -triggers a jerk reaction. Good visual judgement is it - IMHO - that we should teach students rather than strictly keeping to certain altitudes.
(And comes it to flaring, audibles don't help at all but radios do!)

Apart from what I wrote above, an audible can fail and the student won't notice before it's too late, but you've always got your visual skills.

I have to admit I hardly check my alti below 300 meters and I don't check it below 100 meters at all but focus on landing safely, avoiding traffic etc using only visual guidance.

Last thing: I normally don't pay that much attention to jump numbers, but in your case please be aware that Chuck has got plenty of experience, has done the job for decades and first-hand knows about the very topic you're debating. Young Einstein came up with brilliant ideas, OK. But even he could only do so after a years (more than 2) of very intensive studies Tongue No offence, just a tip.


bart  (F 670)

Aug 27, 2011, 2:38 AM
Post #45 of 176 (734 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
seriously chuck we don't need them!!!!

Full disclosure, I haven't read the entire thread.

That aside, I think you might need them, because there is a jumper who started a thread called 'Flarrrrring' (or something like that), in which they describe their trouble with canopy control, they might have even been injured on a bad landing, and they go on to say the DZ does not use radios, but just started offering digital altimeters and audibles to their students. Is this your DZ?

In some cases, this being one of them, the instructor is not the one who get's to say what does or does not work, it's the student. It's like a chef being told the food tastes bad by a customer, no matter what the chef thinks, the person the meal was made for didn't like the taste.

Beyond that, the radio is the better training tool by far. Provide all the ground training you normally do, and then provide modern, reliable radios. They'll work 99% of the time or better.

The radio allows you to give real-time advice and training to the students during their canopy flight. They also allow you to give real time advice when conditions change and the student would be better served not following their pre-determined flight plan, and using an alternate plan. A radio also allows you to tailor the amount and type of help each jumper gets according to their needs. A smart, heads-up jumper who seems to do well might need little to no assistance by jump 3, while a dim-witted or more timid jumper might need guidance up through jump 10. Each person is different, and the radio work well for all of them.

You can arugue the semantics of the 'best' training method all day long, but you cannot argue the safety enhancement by being able to talk to jumpers under canopy. As we all know, just opening a parachute does not guarantee safety or survival, and there is no way to replace the keen insight of an experienced jumper on the ground who's keeping an eye on the entire situation. They see the student, other canopies, weather conditions in the LZ, approaching aircraft, or other hazzards that may have arisen in the LZ. To expect a student to be aware of, and capable of handling all of the above is asking too much.

While a student might do well on their own if faced with unexpected problems, the better choice is that they get through it with help from the ground and they increase their chances for landing without incident. You may find out later on that they had no idea of the problem, or no idea how to handle it, and maybe you come to the conclusion that skydiving isn't the sport for them, but that's much better than finding out by loading them into an ambulence with a broken leg or worse.

I would never suggest that radios are a bad idea, its just we don't use them here, in fact they never have. If the radio failed then the student needs to be able to look after themselves anyway, we work hard at making sure they understand what this involves before they go up on there first jump.

The program we run has worked well and the audible is just an addition to that. As I have already said it's important the way you use them, the way you brief your students. If a radio is 99 percent reliable then the audible is just as reliable as far as its function is concerned. Perhaps even more, the devices we use actually have 2 components that read the altitude inside the single device ie the device is designed with a back up inside it. Also the device does store charge on the way up so once your at 1000 ft the device has enough charge to work on the way down. But as we know all devices can fail so we don't teach or students to rely on it. Just as you would brief a student on there planned flight if they had no radio we brief them as if they have no audible and what to do. The difference for us is we have been doing this for years anyway.

The Flaring for sure is the most perplexing problem for any student. That's why we follow this process and always have with comprehensive de-briefs with students about there flare height.

As far as the Flaaaaaaring thread, if this is one of ours I'm not sure but I would like to know. We have had several girls this year who were short with short arms. The problems have been with there flaring not one with the height of there flare but rather with there strength or technique with how they are pulling the toggles down. In the begining I know for one in particular she was pulling down the toggles with her arms to wide and just couldn't finish the flare, we fixed this by briefing her to keep her arms closer to her body and she could then finish. This can't be fixed with a radio either but only by de-briefing the landing itself.

No teaching system is perfect, there are pros and cons with every system. I'm happy now after the last 4 years here the one we use is very good. And it produces independent student capable of making there own decisions landing on or off the DZ. The audible has just been added to see if we can improve the way we deliver our program, and the results are encouraging but is early days yet.

I would just like to here from someone who can tell me they are a bad Idea because they ACTUALLY USED them and ACTUALLY FOUND something negative about it, NOT JUST THOUGHT about it. We have already been through that process put it into practice and its had a positive effect.


Abedy

Aug 27, 2011, 2:44 AM
Post #46 of 176 (732 views)
Shortcut
Re: [chuckakers] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Teach jumpers to see glide angles and perceive forward penetration - all while flying well ahead of themselves and avoiding traffic. Teach them that pattern altitudes are estimates and that no two flights are the same. Teach them how to deal with the puzzle they get after each deployment.

This ain't rocket science, folks. Get your damn faces and ears out of your instruments and fly your canopies.

+1
Clap clap clap! [inline attachment_http://www.smiliecenter.de/smilies/Applaus.gif]


bart  (F 670)

Aug 27, 2011, 3:11 AM
Post #47 of 176 (726 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Abedy] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Just some points.

Students at our DZ are equipped with both a hand mounted analogue altimeter and a chest-strap mounted analogue altimeter. They are taught to use the "other" alti (depending on which alti they prefer to read) as a back-up device.
They are radioed down by people who've been in the sport for more than 15 years and have assisted hundreds and hundreds of students.
They are taught to take in the visual information and to connect it to the way they fly. After some time, mainly depending on the student, they get less and less input until they can fly safely without the radio.
I suspect a student hearing the "beeeep" for 300 meters might abruptly turn left no matter the traffic or other aspects just because he got an audio input that - especially after a couple of Pavlovian training exercises -triggers a jerk reaction. Good visual judgement is it - IMHO - that we should teach students rather than strictly keeping to certain altitudes.
(And comes it to flaring, audibles don't help at all but radios do!)

Apart from what I wrote above, an audible can fail and the student won't notice before it's too late, but you've always got your visual skills.

I have to admit I hardly check my alti below 300 meters and I don't check it below 100 meters at all but focus on landing safely, avoiding traffic etc using only visual guidance.

Last thing: I normally don't pay that much attention to jump numbers, but in your case please be aware that Chuck has got plenty of experience, has done the job for decades and first-hand knows about the very topic you're debating. Young Einstein came up with brilliant ideas, OK. But even he could only do so after a years (more than 2) of very intensive studies Tongue No offence, just a tip.

All devices fail I like your Idea of having the 2 as a backup but what if one of the analogs fails or reads incorrectly how will the student know which one is right??

I have seen far more analogs fail than digitals this does not mean that digital wont fail. But the devices are very reliable.

A student is no more likely to do a radical turn on the beep as they are to do a radical turn when told on the radio, again as I have already written if you read the material, we don't train them to turn turn turn on the beeps.

I'm not going to say to much more about this part I think I have written it 5 times already, but we train our students to land with out radios, to fly visually to look out for hazards and traffic, the audible just gives them some more information while there doing this.

As for the last thing Our young friend isn't the one who has been conducting the trial, he didn't start the thread. However his opinion like everyones is valid, but for sure all our opinions are valid. For sure interpreted in conjuction with the left hand column. Why your comparing his experience with my thread and not my experience I'm not really sure. I really dislike talking about the whole jump number experience thing, for sure it's important to have a solid background and experience when discussing these things but the I have more jumps than you kind of fades when you have instructors all with years and 1000's of jumps training students. So If your into reading the left column you would see I'm not a new comer either. Chuck may have lots of experience (I also read the left columnWink) and I totally respect that, but does he have experience with these devices and students?, does he have experience training students to fly parachutes with out the use of radios?. I'm gathering from his responses that the answer is no. Here we have experience with both and plenty of experience with training students with out the use of radios!! I'm not theorising here, I'm actually communicating results from what we have actually done in the field. As I said the audible thing is really new for us but its working. oh and no offence takenSmile


brocc69  (D 20931)

Aug 27, 2011, 3:22 AM
Post #48 of 176 (719 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

+100


davelepka  (D 21448)

Aug 27, 2011, 5:32 AM
Post #49 of 176 (709 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bart] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If the radio failed then the student needs to be able to look after themselves anyway, we work hard at making sure they understand what this involves before they go up on there first jump.

That's why I said that the radio isn't a replacement for training, it's in addition to the training. It's the same thing as freefall hand signals, you don't tell the students, 'Don't worry about what to do in freefall, I'll just give you hand signals when we get out there', you teach them the dive flow, make sure they know and understand it, and then you also tech and use the hand signals during the jump. There's no way to beat that type of real-time training, customized for each jumper and each moment of the jump.

The radio is the same thing. It allows you to communicate with the jumper in whatever capacity they need. Using an audible over a radio is like replacing freefall hand signals with a pre-recorded message on an iPod that says, 'Arch, legs out, relax, arch, legs out, relax, arch, legs out, relax' during the entire skydive. It's providing good information, but not necessarily the information that student needs at that time.

Quote:
If a radio is 99 percent reliable then the audible is just as reliable as far as its function is concerned. Perhaps even more, the devices we use actually have 2 components that read the altitude inside the single device ie the device is designed with a back up inside it.

I never questioned the reliability of the audibles. Both them and modern radios are highly reliable, on the order of above 99% reliability. The idea that any device can or may fail is not a reason not to use it. It's a reason to use high quality, well maintained devices, but not a reason not to implement a device into a training method.

In the end, audibles for canopy control leave a lot to be desired, and this is why they're not the best idea for student training. In freefall, an audible has value because the vast majority of freefall jumps go as planned with regards to break off and pull altitudes. Once you leave the plane, garvity is a highly reliable source of propulsion, and very little will change the idea that you want to break off at 'x' and pull at 'y', and an audible is a good reminder of that. Even when something occurs that does change that plan, such as an injury, collision, gear problem, etc, the change itself is evident to the jumper, so the device does not need to be able to recognize and adjust it's perameters. The jumper knows at that point to act outside of the device.

Under canopy is the exact opposite. The effects of wind, weather, the spot and traffic on canopy flight are profound, but suttle. The end reuslt of a 5 mph wind increase is significant by the end of a canopy ride, but very hard to recognize early on. The things you're using an audible for could, and probably do, most certainly change mid-jump, and the audible has no way of adjusting for that. The problem with teaching students to use an audible right from the start is that they also have no way of knowing how to adjust for that.

Proper training may prepare them to make on-the-fly adjustments under canopy to their patterns and LZ selection, but being students, you have to be ready for when the trainign either doesn't get through or the student just brain locks, and the radio is the tool for that job. Just like a freefall hand signal, it let's you give your expert adivce to the student in real time, customized to the situaiton they're in.

Ask yourself, would you ever consider doing a freefall training jump in which you didn't use hand signals, look at the student, or communicate with them in any way? That's what you're doing with the canopy ride, and the canopy ride has proven (even for students) to be the most dangerous part of the jump. Hell, at least you have an AAD to step in and 'save' the day if the student should take no action what so ever in freefall, so you almost could take a student out and ignore them the whole time. Under canopy, there is no such device, and if the student wanted to just look at the pretty clouds from opening to landing, you have no way to intervene.

(Relax people, I'm not suggesting anyone relies on any ADD, it's just an example)


PiLFy  (A License)

Aug 27, 2011, 5:46 AM
Post #50 of 176 (706 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Digital Altimeters and Audibles for students [In reply to] Can't Post

Below is where our discussion ended in the other thread, Andy. You claimed I'd attributed thoughts & statements that weren't yours, to you. I refreshed your memory w/the below reply. I'm not regurgitating anything. I've repeatedly acknowledged that I'm a new jumper w/no ratings on this board. That's hardly putting myself out there as a know-it-all. What I've done, is respectfully put forth ideas for discussion. From a few crusty old-timers like yourself, I've gotten derision instead. Respect is something you earn. Attempting to negate my ideas, simply due to my jump numbers, isn't the way to go. Show me I'm wrong. Provide sound examples from your considerable experience. At Bart's DZ, they're trying this, & it's working out very well. The sky hasn't fallen. The multiple predicted problems haven't materialized. That speaks a lot louder to me than your dismissive rhetoric. If you can refute my ideas w/credible examples? I'm all ears. If derision & dodging the issue are all you've got? I'm going to finish writing you off. As you seem to love to say: So be it.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________


Re: [popsjumper] AFF Level 7 - Cutaway - Argus fire [In reply to] Quote | Reply
You attribute a couple ideas and statements to me that I didn't make. So be it.

Well, geez, I didn't realize I was taking "cheap shots".


In Reply To
Dude, it took you 2500ft under a (albiet spiraling) canopy to locate and pull your handles?

He was waiting for the beep.

In Reply To
To Pops note, c'mon now...you know better than to say I was waiting for that beep...

Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek raggin' on audible use for students.
___________________________________________________

For example:
"You think Germaine's article doesn't apply to students."
The discussion here is about freefall. BG's article is about landing patterns - not applicable here. Two different animals. No, they're not. If a student's wrist Alti goes south. That audible might well be the difference between a safe landing, or an ambulance ride.
______________________________________________

But to be fair across the board, I'll re-think.

Oh, BTW the article by BG is not relevant to student training, IMO.
From Germaine's article: "Within this broad objective is the ability to fly a safe and consistent landing pattern. This is crucial for everyone, from the highest level of experience down to the beginner.//Altitude awareness is not something that ends once the canopy opens.//The time has come to utilize these tools for students and intermediate skydivers as well."

Post AFF training maybe, Post A-license training for sure. Well, I'll be damned. Post-AFF is still student status. Post-A license is certainly under 100 jumps. The party line has long been "No audible until >100 jumps." Did the glass just crack? Did you cede these points intentionally? It's not your position on this that irks me, Andy. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. It's your tone that's sometimes right under the surface, & other times more overt. Your mind doesn't seem open to new tricks. You said to be fair, you'd rethink it. Most of your posts don't reflect that. You're firmly entrenched in the no-audibles-for-students camp? OK, as you said: "So be it." I don't want to argue w/you. I've explained my thoughts more in replies to others. Feel free to read them.

You have a nice night too, sir.

Kenny



First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Instructors

 


Search for (options)