Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement

 


catfishhunter  (D 28796)

May 21, 2012, 2:49 PM
Post #1 of 52 (2989 views)
Shortcut
USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement Can't Post

USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement
The USPA Board is soliciting comments from the membership regarding the acceptance of some wind tunnel time in place of some freefall time for the USPA Accelerated Freefall Instructor rating. A proposal was presented at the 2012 Winter Board meeting to change the current requirements for the AFFI rating. Presently, USPA requires instructor candidates to have completed at least six hours of freefall time to earn the rating. The change proposed would allow instructor candidates to substitute wind tunnel time for up to two hours of the required freefall time. (All other AFFI requirements would remain, e.g. C license, have held a rating for at least 12 months or have at least 500 jumps, etc.) Please take a minute to complete this online poll so that membership input can help guide the Boards decision regarding this proposal.

Here is my response...

The tunnel does not replicate the seriousness of freefall. Anyone call fly safely in a tunnel if something goes wrong you can just get out. You cannot do that in freefall. I do not agree with changing anything or putting anyone at risk to satisify a few cry babies. if they want to teach tunnel then they should teach tunnel. If they want to teach skydiving then they should go jump!


tonyhays  (D 26336)

May 21, 2012, 2:58 PM
Post #2 of 52 (2969 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I voted the same. Smile


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 21, 2012, 3:10 PM
Post #3 of 52 (2958 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I got 6+ hours of freefall time to get my AFFI (since expired) in the 1970's and 1980's, when single-airplane DZs were the norm, no one had packers, and just about everyone had a significant number of Cessna jumps in there. It's not that hard.

Since you need 500 jumps, that means that if someone hasn't amassed 6 hours of FF time, they're probably primarily swooping.

While it's good to have some focus on canopy skills, I think that someone who has a range of FF experience is best suited. Really.

Wendy P.


(This post was edited by wmw999 on May 21, 2012, 3:33 PM)


hillson  (D 33134)

May 21, 2012, 3:20 PM
Post #4 of 52 (2947 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Voted no for pretty much the same reasons


grimmie  (D 18890)

May 21, 2012, 3:27 PM
Post #5 of 52 (2941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Tough to train diving after an out of control student from 13,000ft in a 25' wind tunnel. No.


3331  (D 3331)

May 21, 2012, 4:01 PM
Post #6 of 52 (2913 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

The poll is absolute nonsense ! Crazy


jdpml  (D 18680)

May 21, 2012, 4:09 PM
Post #7 of 52 (2906 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

They should be raising the standard, not dropping it.
There,s AFF Is out there now who couldn't dock on a twenty way and they want to put 33% of your freefall time in a tunnel ???
This is a bad idea, you have to have FREEFALL time, not replicator time.
Not a great way to learn canopy skill to pass on to your students is it .
USPA has over the last few years gone out of there way to promote better canopy control for new jumpers by better teaching from instructors.
Great way to back that up.
Truly one of the dumbest ideas I have heard from them ever.


(This post was edited by jdpml on May 21, 2012, 4:12 PM)


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
May 21, 2012, 5:53 PM
Post #8 of 52 (2860 views)
Shortcut
Re: [3331] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I voted no as well. These instructors have to be able to talk students down on radio as well. How many 200 jump wonders do you see who can do that?


normiss  (D 28356)

May 21, 2012, 6:11 PM
Post #9 of 52 (2848 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jdpml] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Everyone PLEASE DO fill out the poll from the USPA.
They have GOT to know how we feel about this.

This is not safe. No way this is better for the student or the sport.

While considering the inclusion of a WSI rating they want to water down the AFFI rating.
Foolish move.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 21, 2012, 6:12 PM
Post #10 of 52 (2845 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I replied with a blanket no as well. Tunnels can't teach how to salvage a less than ideal exit, right a funneled one without letting go, or make up major separation. Only repeated skydives that include these skills can do that. These are VITAL skills for an AFFI.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

May 21, 2012, 9:50 PM
Post #11 of 52 (2785 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Tough to train diving after an out of control student from 13,000ft in a 25' wind tunnel. No.
LaughLaugh No shit. You might have to fly a good 15-20 ft. to pin 'em up against the wall. Laugh


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 22, 2012, 12:17 AM
Post #12 of 52 (2755 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JohnMitchell] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Tough to train diving after an out of control student from 13,000ft in a 25' wind tunnel. No.
LaughLaugh No shit. You might have to fly a good 15-20 ft. to pin 'em up against the wall. Laugh

LaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaugh
LaughLaughLaugh


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 22, 2012, 12:42 AM
Post #13 of 52 (2750 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

No
(I had hoped they had a "HELL NO" option)


(This post was edited by popsjumper on May 22, 2012, 12:51 AM)


MakeItHappen

May 22, 2012, 12:43 AM
Post #14 of 52 (2749 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement

First off - I am totally against using any tunnel time to count as freefall time in any rating requirement.


I think HQ implementation of a request from the S&T Comm did not get executed the way the committee directed HQ to do it.

The discussion at the last BOD mtg was a 'consideration' of some 'tunnel time' to replace 'freefall time' - akin to simulator time that pilots get.
My understanding was that the S&T comm asked HQ to ask the question of:
How many tunnel hours could be substituted for x many freefall hours?

IOW - some sort of question of
10 tunnel hours = 1 freefall hour
or
20 tunnel hours = 1 freefall hour
or
30 tunnel hours = 1 freefall hour
and could this be used in the rating requirement?

That poll that USPA put out does not reflect the intention of what the S&T Comm asked them to do.
That poll is set up to fail.
I can't think of anyone that would equate one hour of tunnel time to one hour of freefall time.
But I can think of people that would say x many hours of tunnel time equals one hour of freefall time. (That's the sad part of this whole thing.)

.


Ron

May 22, 2012, 6:22 AM
Post #15 of 52 (2699 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jdpml] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

While I disagree with the suggestion and think they should be making the requirements MORE not less.

This is not exactly accurate "you have to have FREEFALL time, not replicator time."

People said simulators were a bad idea for flight training and that has pretty much been shown to be false.

But yes, the idea that you can replace jumping with tunnel is crap.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 6:37 AM
Post #16 of 52 (2690 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

After some thought (and a post on FB linked to the poll), I have more reasons this is a bad idea.

Allow 2 of the 6 hours to be replaced by tunnel time and you could theoretically have someone with 200 jumps "qualified" for the course. As long as that person meets the minimums during the course, they will end up with a rating.

Note that none of the minimums during the course have anything to do with canopy control. As it is right now, a candidate could fly no discernible pattern at all on each jump during the course and still get a rating - as long as they do a good job in freefall...


Andy9o8  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 6:42 AM
Post #17 of 52 (2688 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Do you have a link? Sorry if I'm being a moron.


Premier NWFlyer  (D 29960)

May 22, 2012, 7:02 AM
Post #18 of 52 (2668 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do you have a link? Sorry if I'm being a moron.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TG7TNP2

The link came in yesterday's USPA Update e-mail.


avgjoe  (Student)

May 22, 2012, 7:23 AM
Post #19 of 52 (2644 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

To be contrary. How important are freefall skills? Don't we have the best modern equipment with aad's so how important is it that they catch the student anyway. We should concentrate on teaching skills and not flying skills and rely on our quality modern skydiving equipment on the rare time a student gets away from the instructor. Isn't this the same as on S/L or IAD once cleared to 5 sec delays watching a student spin and saying it sucks to be you hope the equipment works.Wink


rehmwa  (D 12816)

May 22, 2012, 7:26 AM
Post #20 of 52 (2635 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I think serious tunnel training is a great way to increase many of the skills (any of the in tight flying and lurking) needed for AFF. (but not to replace any)

From what I've seen, I'd like to see the requirements increased from the current baseline as it is for just regular jumping and coaching.

Frankly, I'd prefer to see the jump numbers and experience requirements increased AND a certain amount of focused/coached tunnel time added to that increase. (that should get me a little bit of flakSly)

However, demonstration of abilities directly to the course evaluator is still better than any pre-reqs. And I'd give a lot more respect to a personal recommendation/endorsement by a respected local instructor to the course evaluator over some unknown person showing up with a logbook regardless of the relative numbers of years or jumps between the two.


(This post was edited by rehmwa on May 22, 2012, 7:29 AM)


Para5-0  (D 19054)

May 22, 2012, 7:48 AM
Post #21 of 52 (2609 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

It is probably common knowledge just based on the position I took during this discussion at the meeting but I will go on the record and say I am not in favor of tunnel time being used in any capacity to count towards your freefall 6 hours.

I can get into all of the reasons but between this thread and the other one I think they have all been covered.

Rich Winstock


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 22, 2012, 7:52 AM
Post #22 of 52 (2604 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Note that none of the minimums during the course have anything to do with canopy control. As it is right now, a candidate could fly no discernible pattern at all on each jump during the course and still get a rating - as long as they do a good job in freefall...

Also note that the current AFFI course does nothing to evaluate general skydiving knowledge.
If you can regurgitate two ground preps that are provided for you, you win. You don't have to know anything about general skydiving knowledge...all you have to do is regurgitate information handed to you.

One case in point: A student teaching an AFFI how to read winds aloft reports. True story.

It provides for no check-ups on the candidates learning and practices in the field.
Pass the course, get the rating and you can teach students all kinds of stupid shit....for as long as you want to pay for the renewals.

One case in point: AFFI says, "Spotting is looking out the door, locating the DZ, looking for clouds and looking for air traffic." True story.


There are waaaaaay too many more examples of ignorant people obtaining AFFI ratings as it is. And now they want to make it easier? Un-freakin'-believable.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

May 22, 2012, 8:11 AM
Post #23 of 52 (2578 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

To add: I have typed dozens of responses about how I feel the AFF I/C should implement more canopy assessment. To include a canopy ground evaluation and an in air canopy evaluation or at minimim a air evaluation/debrief of a student. I posed this as an answer for better canopy instructors. I think a wind tunnel is a great tool to hone some skills, no dought, but as it is 6 hours if you include wingsuits can still be a very young skydiver.

We have all worked too hard to increase canopy skills acoss the board, I do not see how reducing the time under canopy requirement can be a good thing. That is exactly what this will do by the way. It will give us a candidate who is eligible quicker and who has less time under a canopy.


(This post was edited by Para5-0 on May 22, 2012, 8:13 AM)


richwilk  (E License)

May 22, 2012, 8:20 AM
Post #24 of 52 (2565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [avgjoe] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Unfortiunately your statement clearly displays your ignorance on this subject. Duty of Care and professional responsibility. Tunnell time is not free fall experience and they are completely different. Sometimes equipment doesn't work, sometimes people don't work. A life lost is a life too many lost. My statement to the USPA as a dual rated international AFFI/Tandem I (USA and Australia), having instructed for over 20 years and jumped for over 30 years:freefall experience covers all aspect of safety and responsibility, Aircraft safety, exits, spacial awareness and canopy control. There is no substitute for expereince and exposure.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 22, 2012, 8:22 AM
Post #25 of 52 (2562 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's what I might support:

Currently the requirement is six hours of freefall time, 500 jumps or coach for a year.

Change that to:

Instructional rating for a year PLUS

600 jumps PLUS

Six hours of freefall time OR five hours of freefall time plus two hours of AFF instruction in the tunnel, taught by a course director or designated evaluator.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 22, 2012, 8:26 AM
Post #26 of 52 (866 views)
Shortcut
Re: [avgjoe] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

>How important are freefall skills?

They are life or death important.

> Don't we have the best modern equipment with aad's so how important is
>it that they catch the student anyway.

As instructors we don't trust AAD's to save anyone's life.

>We should . . . rely on our quality modern skydiving equipment

We should NEVER rely on any gadgets.

>on the rare time a student gets away from the instructor. Isn't this the
>same as on S/L or IAD once cleared to 5 sec delays watching a student
>spin and saying it sucks to be you hope the equipment works.

Nope, not the same at all. That is a failure in the system, not how we expect a skydive to go. An AFF instructor must be able to be there at pull time. If he can't - SL is a good option, because then the student is not cleared to pull for himself until he demonstrates that he can in a real world environment.


DaVinciflies

May 22, 2012, 8:44 AM
Post #27 of 52 (854 views)
Shortcut
Re: USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

The comparison between wind tunnel time and aircraft simulator time is so flawed I can't believe that it is even being used. Aircraft simulators can replicate anything that can happen during an actual flight whereas wind tunnels can replicate falling straight down. That is ALL. They cannot train the following essential skills for an AFFI:

- spotting
- exits with a student
- recovering a student that has "got away from them"
- deploying a student's canopy in an emergency
- altitude awareness
- canopy skills and assessment

I am sure there are others I have missed (feel free to add to the list)

My view is that the freefall requirement should be increased and tunnel time should not count formally at all.


rehmwa  (D 12816)

May 22, 2012, 9:00 AM
Post #28 of 52 (843 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

.....


(This post was edited by rehmwa on May 22, 2012, 9:01 AM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 22, 2012, 9:14 AM
Post #29 of 52 (829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [richwilk] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My statement to the USPA as a dual rated international AFFI/Tandem I (USA and Australia), having instructed for over 20 years and jumped for over 30 years:freefall experience covers all aspect of safety and responsibility, Aircraft safety, exits, spacial awareness and canopy control.

I have to disagree. Freefall experience teaches none of that except for maybe spacial awareness. If you want to include canopy time under the umbrella of freefall, then, yes, it will possibly enhance canopy skills...to an extent.


In reply to:
There is no substitute for expereince and exposure.
This I agree with with the caveat of learning on the ground before you step out for that experience and exposure.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on May 22, 2012, 9:15 AM)


DougH  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 9:45 AM
Post #30 of 52 (804 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

You can't have real freefall experince without gaining *some* experince with gear, aircraft operating, spotting, canopy flight, weather conditions.

Of course how much experince in those different areas really depends on who is making the jumps and where they are making the jumps.

I had a side conversation about this with someone and they pointed out that S/L and IAD ratings have much lower requirements when compared to AFF.

Putting aside the argument that maybe those requirements are too low, I think in general the individuals who want to get and IAD or S/L rating have been exposed to a lot more of the other elements that make up skydiving. IAD and S/L tends to be the domain of smaller aircraft dropzones where jumpers get more spotting, more canopy work, more hop and pops. The enviroment is smaller so they get more exposure when compared to a large multi turbine dropzone.

It may be that you could subsitute 100% of the freefall time for tunnel time and not diminish the quality of AFF instruction. I don't agree with that, but lets play devils advocate here.

If that was true I still want to know the motivation for the change. What is the problem that exists with the current standard that needs to be "fixed" with this change.

Is it money? Is the argument that we are making otherwise qualified candidate pay for more jumps before making it to paid instructing jumps?

That is the only real argument I can see for the change and I think it is a lousy one. In my opinion the individuals who should be holding an AFF rating should have no complaints about having to make enough fun jumps and coach jumps to get the 6 hours.

Skydiving is fun! Make your jumps. Are we wronging these individuals for making them skydive? They are going to be teaching skydiving, it shouldn't be an inconvience to actually have to skydive!

If they are dying to teach they can earn a S/L or IAD rating while they are waiting for the AFF requirments to be met.


(This post was edited by DougH on May 22, 2012, 9:47 AM)


Ron

May 22, 2012, 10:20 AM
Post #31 of 52 (785 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

While I agree with your intent.....

Quote:
Here's what I might support:

Currently the requirement is six hours of freefall time, 500 jumps or coach for a year.

Change that to:

Instructional rating for a year PLUS

600 jumps PLUS

Six hours of freefall time OR five hours of freefall time plus two hours of AFF instruction in the tunnel, taught by a course director or designated evaluator.

The bolded part is not really realistic. I mean there are only four instructional methods: SL, IAD, T, and AFF.

Tandem really has nothing to do with an AFF rating. In fact some TI's I have seen trying for the rating actually have a harder time than others.

SL, IAD. While it would help some... How would a guy at Perris get and actually USE a SL or IAD rating. The rating itself without the Exp would be worthless, IMO.

So while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.


SkydiverDZO  (D 29918)

May 22, 2012, 10:26 AM
Post #32 of 52 (779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

NO. Period.


DougH  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 10:26 AM
Post #33 of 52 (779 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Make it coach rating for a year minimum plus a set number of coach jumps signed off by the supervising instructor or the DZ S&TA.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 22, 2012, 10:30 AM
Post #34 of 52 (773 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

>So while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating
>for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.

OK. Coach for a year would provide many of the same benefits.


Ron

May 22, 2012, 10:34 AM
Post #35 of 52 (766 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
>So while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating
>for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.

OK. Coach for a year would provide many of the same benefits.

Forgive me here... I am not an IE. I thought you already had to have the coach for a year first?


missbrz  (B License)

May 22, 2012, 10:38 AM
Post #36 of 52 (765 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I'll probably get flamed for this BUT I think it would be ok if they stipulated the tunnel time had to be on AFF-I skills. I know some wanna-be AFF-I jumpers pad their free fall time with wing suiting. I'm sorry but I'd rather have an AFF-I with 5 hours of any free fall and 1 hour in a tunnel learning how to flip and stabliize students than one with 5 hours of any free fall and 1 extra hour of pure wing suit jumps. Just because someone has 6 hours of free fall does not mean that they have the skills that everyone here is saying is necessary to be an AFF-I. They could have gotten it 5 seconds at a time doing hop-n-pops even.

I do agree that tunnel is NOT a substitute for real jumping. I also agree that tunnel does NOT prepare you for all situations in AFF. And it does NOT give you knowledge of spotting, aircraft procedures, or any of that. I also dont think it should be accepted if it's just any kind of tunnel time. BUT I still think the tunnel can be a useful tool in training good instructors.


Andy9o8  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #37 of 52 (764 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron & everyone] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.

How would you feel about a prerequisite 1-year COACH rating + a minimum of X-number of jumps as the designated coach? "Coach" being the equivalent of AFFI-in-training, much the way the old Jumpmaster was sort of an SL/I in training.

=======

And general question to everyone: Is "freefall" time alone sufficient? Why not minimum hours freefall belly-RW time? I say that because there are some people who do 99% freeflying, and are good at it, but have precious little belly-RW experience, the skill-set of which I'd argue is more akin to AFFI than freeflying (even a lot of it) is.


GLIDEANGLE  (D 30292)

May 22, 2012, 10:40 AM
Post #38 of 52 (763 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I voted NO!

I think that the most interesting question is "Who is proposing this?" I don't know the answer, but I suspect that it is the tunnel owners, operators, &/or coaches who see this as a way to drum up more business. From their perspective, the effect on student instruction would be largely irrelevant (unless they own/operate a DZ too).


Ron

May 22, 2012, 10:46 AM
Post #39 of 52 (753 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How would you feel about a prerequisite 1-year COACH rating + a minimum of X-number of jumps as the designated coach? "Coach" being the equivalent of AFFI-in-training, much the way the old Jumpmaster was sort of an SL/I in training.

As I stated before... I thought that was already required. If it is not... Then I think it is an obvious step in the right direction.

I could even see waiving that for a rated tunnel instructor... Since the main aspect is the ability to teach. Same thing with a licensed teacher.


beowulf  (C License)

May 22, 2012, 11:14 AM
Post #40 of 52 (733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I think all AFFI's should supplement their freefall training with tunnel training. But tunnel should not be a replacement for freefall time.


time2jmp  (D 28868)

May 22, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #41 of 52 (699 views)
Shortcut
Re: [MakeItHappen] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

when free fall time is used it is used mostly for awards and ratings. So does any amount of tunnel time equal time towards a rating or a skydiving award? My opinion is that tunnel time is tunnel time and skydive freefall time is skydive freefall time. So if the poll is set up to fail I sure hope it fails. I personally LOVE the tunnel but I wish we were talking about continuing education for instructors of any rating. The tunnel is an amazing tool that I plan to use as long as I teach, skydive, and can afford.


jonathan.newman  (D 30644)

May 22, 2012, 1:39 PM
Post #42 of 52 (666 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DaVinciflies] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I voted that two hours of tunnel coaching could substitute two of the six required. Here's why:

I got my AFFI with just barely 6 hours of freefall at around 400 jumps. I had been doing coach jumps for over a year at a busy DZ. After making over 100 AFF jumps, I finally knew what I needed to work on.

After 20 minutes in the tunnel with a Canadian PFF I/E, he was impressed enough to ask when I was planning to get a CSPA rating. Then, I spent another 45 mins at Paraclete getting more AFF-specific training.

I think that 15-30 mins of dedicated AFF tunnel coaching would be the most helpful prep for a ratings course.

Any jumper can spend 6 hours in the air doing rodeo jumps and never get half as good as he should be. It takes dedicated practice to build the skills needed of an AFFI.

The discussion here seems to be forgetting that the progression card exists for a reason. Before anyone attends a course, they need to demonstrate that they can radio-control a student, that they have participated in a number of student briefs, etc.

I'd like to see the USPA build on the progression card to include a skills grid for AFFI candidates. How about calculating jump run and exit point using winds aloft? Demonstrating exits from inside and outside (or not, as each I/E, aircraft, and DZ can be substantially different.) Spin stops and roll-overs are usually pre-course material. And every instructor, I don't care how many thousands of jumps, should take a canopy course or prove that they have the ability to demonstrate or teach proper canopy flight. How about swoop and docks? Techniques for fast and slow fall? The skills of an AFFI should be conscientiously built, not assumed to appear at 6 hours of freefall.

A few years back there was a waiver request for two of my fellow instructors to take the AFF course with less than 6 hours of FF. Both had fathers who were instructors. Both made their first jumps when they were "barely legal". Both had competed in 4-way. Both had all the skills, but not all of the FF time, if you excluded tunnel. By the time the BOD considered and rejected the waiver, they had accumulated the time needed. The point was moot, but their instructional abilities were more than adequate. I only wish that one of them would take a canopy course.

Flame away...


time2jmp  (D 28868)

May 22, 2012, 1:56 PM
Post #43 of 52 (659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonathan.newman] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

My understanding and please correct me if I am wrong. If two hours of tunnel time equals two hours of freefall. Someone with around 240-260 jumps could be an AFF instructor? I like more seasoning on my instructors please.

As stated on the survey
(All other AFF Instructor requirements would remain, e.g., needing a C license, holding a coach rating for at least 12 months OR having at least 500 jumps, etc.)


toolbox  (D 18778)

May 22, 2012, 3:23 PM
Post #44 of 52 (623 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Proposing tunnel time replacing free fall time for any instructional rating in skydiving is asinine.
The #1 cause of injury and death in skydiving is related to canopy control and they want to eliminate roughly 120 parachute descents.
Then there are all the other issues with gear,aircraft,free fall collisions,ect,ect..... The AFF I is the pinnacle of the ratings for instructors.
In my opinion they have already lowered the bar enough as it is.


(This post was edited by toolbox on May 22, 2012, 3:33 PM)


theonlyski  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 5:44 PM
Post #45 of 52 (579 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
How would you feel about a prerequisite 1-year COACH rating + a minimum of X-number of jumps as the designated coach? "Coach" being the equivalent of AFFI-in-training, much the way the old Jumpmaster was sort of an SL/I in training.

As I stated before... I thought that was already required. If it is not... Then I think it is an obvious step in the right direction.

I could even see waiving that for a rated tunnel instructor... Since the main aspect is the ability to teach. Same thing with a licensed teacher.

Currently it's coach rating for a year if you have less than 500 jumps.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 22, 2012, 7:12 PM
Post #46 of 52 (557 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonathan.newman] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

>I think that 15-30 mins of dedicated AFF tunnel coaching would be the
>most helpful prep for a ratings course.

Agreed. It's tremendously helpful.

>Any jumper can spend 6 hours in the air doing rodeo jumps and never get
>half as good as he should be. It takes dedicated practice to build the
>skills needed of an AFFI.

Also agreed. But making those 360 jumps does (in general) teach people how to spot, how to gear check themselves and others, how to exit an aircraft in a stable orientation, how to get to someone who is far away or falling at a drastically different rate, how to track, how to pull stable, how to deal with malfunctions, how to find the DZ, how to set up a landing pattern and how to land safely. And tunnel flyers learn none of that during their time in the tunnel.

Is the above all you need to be an AFF-I? Absolutely not! But can you be an AFF-I without the above skills? No.


toolbox  (D 18778)

May 22, 2012, 11:11 PM
Post #47 of 52 (511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jonathan.newman] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

Being a good AFF instructor takes far more than good free fall skills.
And free fall skills are more than just flying your body against the wind.
How about altitude awareness and other aspects of situational awareness that are needed in the real life world of flying at the ground at 120MPH?
Do you wear altimeters in the wind tunnel? An altimeter simulator would be unrealistic,since they are just timers that give estimations of where you might be on a normal belly to earth dive (about 5.5 seconds per 1000ft),but as any skydiver or skydiving instructor will tell you the fall rates can greatly vary and the ground can sneak up real quick when things get busy,especially if you are not used to being on a real skydive.
Some might rely on audibles,but I've known a few folks who had AAD fires because they did not hear the audible.
Tunnels are great training tools but they are not real skydiving.
You can't go in flying the tunnel.


(This post was edited by toolbox on May 22, 2012, 11:15 PM)


skyturtle

May 23, 2012, 5:14 PM
Post #48 of 52 (416 views)
Shortcut
Re: [toolbox] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

From the point of view of a less experienced jumper I think it would be selling students short to lower the reqs. in any way. The people who take short cuts to ratings arent the people I would have wanted to take me out of a plane the first time, regardless of if it was safe or not. There should be a good industry standard to offer a good level of customer value.


diablopilot  (D License)

May 23, 2012, 5:25 PM
Post #49 of 52 (413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I think that 15-30 mins of dedicated AFF tunnel coaching would be the
>most helpful prep for a ratings course.

Agreed. It's tremendously helpful.

>Any jumper can spend 6 hours in the air doing rodeo jumps and never get
>half as good as he should be. It takes dedicated practice to build the
>skills needed of an AFFI.

Also agreed. But making those 360 jumps does (in general) teach people how to spot, how to gear check themselves and others, how to exit an aircraft in a stable orientation, how to get to someone who is far away or falling at a drastically different rate, how to track, how to pull stable, how to deal with malfunctions, how to find the DZ, how to set up a landing pattern and how to land safely. And tunnel flyers learn none of that during their time in the tunnel.

Is the above all you need to be an AFF-I? Absolutely not! But can you be an AFF-I without the above skills? No.

Agreed. I have more than 1200 AFF jumps and 2 years as a tunnel instructor and I have to add that the EASIEST part of my job to learn and execute is the freefall portion.


tdog  (D 28800)

May 23, 2012, 7:57 PM
Post #50 of 52 (380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [catfishhunter] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

I have a few videos in my private library that show why six hours is a good bare minimum. I say 10 hours total, no more than 4 in the tunnel. That way everyone gets their way!Tongue


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 24, 2012, 5:00 AM
Post #51 of 52 (205 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DougH] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If that was true I still want to know the motivation for the change. What is the problem that exists with the current standard that needs to be "fixed" with this change.

I'm glad you asked.
With respect to the courses in general:

Here's what I would like to see in both the Coach and the AFFI courses...

Instructors, be they Coach or AFFI, are handling students all the way to A-license officially and yes, beyond that in an unofficial capacity.

The students have a lot of learning to do to obtain that A-license. USA puts out the minimum requirements in the form of the A-License Progression Cards.

Why not test the course candidates knowledge, at the very least, on all those line items on the card?

For example, the Coach or AFFI will be teaching the students about spotting, center of gravity on an aircraft, aircraft emergencies and much, much more but the courses do not evaluate the candidates' knowledge on any of that.

Why not? For Pete's sake, why the heck not?


In reply to:
Is it money? Is the argument that we are making otherwise qualified candidate pay for more jumps before making it to paid instructing jumps?

That is the only real argument I can see for the change and I think it is a lousy one. In my opinion the individuals who should be holding an AFF rating should have no complaints about having to make enough fun jumps and coach jumps to get the 6 hours.

With respect to the tunnel time discussion:
Agreed across the board.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 24, 2012, 5:09 AM
Post #52 of 52 (202 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyturtle] USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
From the point of view of a less experienced jumper I think it would be selling students short to lower the reqs. in any way. The people who take short cuts to ratings arent the people I would have wanted to take me out of a plane the first time, regardless of if it was safe or not. There should be a good industry standard to offer a good level of customer value.

Bingo!
...and I would question the "safety" of it, too.



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)