Forums: Skydiving: Instructors:
USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs

 


dorbie

May 21, 2012, 2:50 PM
Post #1 of 136 (5207 views)
Shortcut
USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs Can't Post

I just got an email notice of a poll asking about this. It seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It just makes no sense.

Are there really wunderkind waiting to become AFFIs who don't have enough freefall time to qualify? 6 hours is not a lot, that's less than 500 jumps.

If so, may I humbly suggest that you just jump more instead of trying to count your tunnel hours.

Is this in pursuit of a hidden agenda like laying the groundwork to get tunnel rats graduated to AFFIs that little bit earlier?

The more I think about it the less suitable tunnels seem considering you never dive to catch anyone low in the tunnel or try to close more than a few feet. There' s no high speed backsliding or whip-lashing formations.


Maksimsf  (B 37743)

May 21, 2012, 2:59 PM
Post #2 of 136 (5134 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

yup, got that 1 too. I remember another thread discussing that particular subject. I voted "Leave the requirement as-is: six hours of freefall time".


normiss  (D 28356)

May 21, 2012, 3:11 PM
Post #3 of 136 (5124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

There is also a lack of a wind speed control god in the sky.

FREEFALL time, not tunnel time.


dorbie

May 21, 2012, 3:25 PM
Post #4 of 136 (5107 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Maksimsf] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
yup, got that 1 too. I remember another thread discussing that particular subject. I voted "Leave the requirement as-is: six hours of freefall time".

Me too, not that I have a dog in the hunt. The most bizarre thing is that anyone is floating this for a mere 2 hours of freefall time. Where are the skydivers with 4 hours freefall time who are pushing to be AFFIs? The whole thing is kinda strange?


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

May 21, 2012, 5:11 PM
Post #5 of 136 (5054 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Me too, not that I have a dog in the hunt. The most bizarre thing is that anyone is floating this for a mere 2 hours of freefall time. Where are the skydivers with 4 hours freefall time who are pushing to be AFFIs? The whole thing is kinda strange?

Apparently enough of them that they lobbied USPA to consider replacing FF time with Tunnel time.
I watched the experimental jumps here; the tunnel guys were pretty impressive with their flying ability. The argument that they can't fly/manage the air skills is a very weak one.
If I were to make an argument, it's that canopy time (especially since AFF students are to learn canopy skills) and related decision-processing are the missing components when you cut out roughly 200 skydives from the experience bucket.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 21, 2012, 5:21 PM
Post #6 of 136 (5050 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

>Where are the skydivers with 4 hours freefall time who are pushing to be AFFIs?

Many of them are working in wind tunnels across the country, calculating the minimum number of jumps they have to make to get an AFF rating and make money skydiving.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

May 21, 2012, 6:48 PM
Post #7 of 136 (5016 views)
Shortcut
Re: USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Here's my comment:
Quote:
I think this comes down to how it's implemented. I can see that smaller dropzones could really benefit from this allowance but you absolutely CAN NOT replace airtime with tunnel time, it's just not the same thing. I feel like this should be a per dropzone annual waiver to allow dropzones to fill staff slots where there aren't enough jumps being made to get staff but honestly, at a larger DZ, this should not be allowed. I know from my own experience, in a lot of ways, the tunnel makes things way easier and there's never going to be a way to teach anyone about their mental state in freefall in the tunnel. You guys need to be really careful with this one, it's potentially really dangerous.
I voted for one hour with specific coaching with the comment above but I was definitely conflicted over that. My initial reaction was outright no but what happens to smaller DZs that just don't have AFF/Is? Do they just stop making students? Send people elsewhere? It'd be good to see the reasoning behind this (I mean directly from the USPA).


crazydiver  (D 28022)

May 21, 2012, 7:53 PM
Post #8 of 136 (4985 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I voted to keep the same. Partially for the same reasons that I support a three years in the sport rule for the tandem rating. I wish that were a requirement for AFF. It's always boggled me that someone could get an AFF rating with less than 500 jumps and less than three years in the sport and teach brand new skydivers the ins and outs of surviving. This combined with the fact that its never been easier to get an AFF rating than it is right now. AFF courses used to have a high failure rate. I rarely see someone repeat a course or the jumps in the courses I've seen in the last few years.


BobMoore  (D 13136)

May 21, 2012, 8:02 PM
Post #9 of 136 (4978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [crazydiver] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I voted to keep the same. Partially for the same reasons that I support a three years in the sport rule for the tandem rating. I wish that were a requirement for AFF. It's always boggled me that someone could get an AFF rating with less than 500 jumps and less than three years in the sport and teach brand new skydivers the ins and outs of surviving. This combined with the fact that its never been easier to get an AFF rating than it is right now. AFF courses used to have a high failure rate. I rarely see someone repeat a course or the jumps in the courses I've seen in the last few years.

Where's Don Yahrling and Paul Sitter when you need them?


topdocker  (D 12018)

May 21, 2012, 8:59 PM
Post #10 of 136 (4956 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BobMoore] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

We already have a severe problem with up jumpers showing a lack of skill and decision-making with regard to canopy control, and we want to make it easier for potential AFFI's to SKIP actual skydives!!??

How about: do the six hours and STFU about your awesome backflying skills because you can barely fly a canopy to save your own life, let alone teach someone else how to do it. Skydiving is not just about how well you can bore a hole in space in freefall, there are aircraft procedures, emergency aircraft procedures, spotting, exits, opening, canopy control, landing, field stowing gear, packing, debriefing, gearing up, gear check, buddy gear check..... none of that is covered with "tunnel time."

I wonder if all my freefall time will allow me to automatically become a tunnel coach?

top

Disclaimer: not an official USPA opinion, just my own.


JohnMitchell  (D 6462)

May 21, 2012, 9:05 PM
Post #11 of 136 (4953 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If I were to make an argument, it's that canopy time (especially since AFF students are to learn canopy skills) and related decision-processing are the missing components when you cut out roughly 200 skydives from the experience bucket.
I'd back you up to say that extra experience of being time constrained by the ground rushing up at you 70 seconds after your flight begins. That's definitely an element missing in the tunnel.


Maksimsf  (B 37743)

May 21, 2012, 9:15 PM
Post #12 of 136 (4948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I will excuse myself from discussing this subject. I dont even have a coach rating.....


Edit. I thing they should not count WS dives towards rating - just to make it fair. WS'ing is not a freefall. just my 2cents, but what I know about skydiving....


(This post was edited by Maksimsf on May 21, 2012, 9:34 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 21, 2012, 10:42 PM
Post #13 of 136 (4910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Maksimsf] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

>Edit. I thing they should not count WS dives towards rating

I think they should. You have to gear check yourself (even more so than on a regular skydive) check the spot, exit stable, open your canopy, deal with potential malfunctions, find the DZ, navigate back and land safely. That gives you experience doing all those things. (Flying in a tunnel, of course, does not.)


bodypilot1  (D 16037)

May 21, 2012, 11:20 PM
Post #14 of 136 (4900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We already have a severe problem with up jumpers showing a lack of skill and decision-making with regard to canopy control, and we want to make it easier for potential AFFI's to SKIP actual skydives!!??

How about: do the six hours and STFU about your awesome backflying skills because you can barely fly a canopy to save your own life, let alone teach someone else how to do it. Skydiving is not just about how well you can bore a hole in space in freefall, there are aircraft procedures, emergency aircraft procedures, spotting, exits, opening, canopy control, landing, field stowing gear, packing, debriefing, gearing up, gear check, buddy gear check..... none of that is covered with "tunnel time."

I wonder if all my freefall time will allow me to automatically become a tunnel coach?

top

Disclaimer: not an official USPA opinion, just my own.

+1

"Can't we just get some type of vacuum thingy to get us up to altitude? And pilot's are over rated! Crazy


toolbox  (D 18778)

May 21, 2012, 11:49 PM
Post #15 of 136 (4894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree very,very much.
To be honest,if I had not seen the e-mail from USPA,I would think this poll on a proposal was a joke.CrazyCrazyCrazy


(This post was edited by toolbox on May 22, 2012, 12:10 AM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 22, 2012, 1:01 AM
Post #16 of 136 (4874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We already have a severe problem with up jumpers showing a lack of skill and decision-making with regard to canopy control, and we want to make it easier for potential AFFI's to SKIP actual skydives!!??

How about: do the six hours and STFU about your awesome backflying skills because you can barely fly a canopy to save your own life, let alone teach someone else how to do it. Skydiving is not just about how well you can bore a hole in space in freefall, there are aircraft procedures, emergency aircraft procedures, spotting, exits, opening, canopy control, landing, field stowing gear, packing, debriefing, gearing up, gear check, buddy gear check..... none of that is covered with "tunnel time."

I wonder if all my freefall time will allow me to automatically become a tunnel coach?

+1

People who vote for anything other than no change are not seeing the big picture.

Hell, one step farther....they should be making it tougher to get the rating.

Guys. We already have AFFI ratings being handed out like candy. We already have too many AFFIs that have little skydiving book knowledge. We already have too many AFFIs who have little to no teaching abilities.
Do NOT make the AFFI rating easier to achieve. If you really cared about the safety of our youngsters, you would make the rating even harder to achieve. We have long since satisfied the debated "need" for AFFI quantity. Now let's start focusing on quality.

This poll is a very good demonstration that you guys are foolishly considering tunnel time to be relevant to the concept of teaching students to skydive. This push only pertains to freefall at best and completely disregards the safety, canopy skills and book knowledge skills that only experience in the air can provide.


DougH  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 6:17 AM
Post #17 of 136 (4821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Terrible idea. Which elected USPA officials are in support of this? If there are any on board I suggest they resign because they are seriously short on good judgment.


Ron

May 22, 2012, 6:27 AM
Post #18 of 136 (4814 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I watched the experimental jumps here; the tunnel guys were pretty impressive with their flying ability. The argument that they can't fly/manage the air skills is a very weak one.

I am willing to bet that the guys doing those jumps had more than two hours of tunnel time.


Premier NWFlyer  (D 29960)

May 22, 2012, 6:37 AM
Post #19 of 136 (4809 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I watched the experimental jumps here; the tunnel guys were pretty impressive with their flying ability. The argument that they can't fly/manage the air skills is a very weak one.

I am willing to bet that the guys doing those jumps had more than two hours of tunnel time.

This. I honestly don't recall if that specific detail was brought up in the meeting itself, but I know we chatted about it after the meeting. Taking a full-time tunnel instructor and putting them through an AFFI course does not in any way indicate that a jumper with 4 hours of freefall and 2 hours of tunnel time is likely to have the in-air skills to pass the course.

And then there's the rest of what you don't get by substituting tunnel for actual skydives and time on the dropzone... Unsure Not a fan of this proposal. I'm surprised it even got more than a "thank you for your presentation but no" response from the committee.


livendive  (D 21415)

May 22, 2012, 7:38 AM
Post #20 of 136 (4772 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I answered this poll last night. I spent 2-3 seconds considering the 1 hour of tunnel time with specific coaching on spin stops, rollovers, etc, then I remembered that what we're teaching is skydiving, not rollovers, and voted to keep the requirement the same. Tunnels don't impart the same level of stress, attention to gear, tracking, canopy control, consequences of failure, or randomness of an open sky. Allowing tunnel time to count as freefall would be like allowing a culinary student to count microwave TV dinners as meal preparations. It's a convenient substitute that only requires a small fraction of the total skill set. The AFF requirement may only be 6 hours of freefall time, but there's an understood "and all the extra stuff those hours will entail" that should not be ignored.

Blues,
Dave


piisfish

May 22, 2012, 8:01 AM
Post #21 of 136 (4759 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I am willing to bet that the guys doing those jumps had more than two hours of tunnel time.
maybe tunnel time could be traded for jump numbers. Like 1 jump = 1 hour tunnelAngelic


Scrumpot  (D License)

May 22, 2012, 8:04 AM
Post #22 of 136 (4758 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...but what happens to smaller DZs that just don't have AFF/Is? Do they just stop making students?

No - They have and use / develop either static-line, or IAD programs is all. Absolutely nothing wrong with those either! "Dummying down" the AFF program, or the credentials and skills needed to be under the belt and be EARNED for an (AFF) instructor to get his/her ratings in order to simply accommodate allowing a lesser-qualified instructor to do AFF at a smaller dropzone, just to say that dropzone now has AFF - and using that reasoning to answer this poll the way you have, is clearly flawed thinking!

Why is it that people think AFF is the begin-all, end-all, and/or the ONLY way to effectively teach skydiving? There are several progression methods currently available, and not having AFF at any particular DZ is absolutely no reflection at all, IMHO as to that DZ's QUALITY of skydiver training being provided!! Certainly don't know what the size of the DZ has got to do in any way at all, with assuring top-quality, properly credentialed (and vetted) instructors are the one's doing the teaching there - or rather, what you seem to be saying - or advocating - that it is better to maybe allow or even facilitate having lesser/lowered standards ...just for the sake of saying (only) that they actually have a certain (AFF) program? - That is about the most non-appropriate response to all this, i think I have seen yet.


davelepka  (D 21448)

May 22, 2012, 8:14 AM
Post #23 of 136 (4752 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I voted for one hour with specific coaching with the comment above but I was definitely conflicted over that. My initial reaction was outright no but what happens to smaller DZs that just don't have AFF/Is?

What makes you think that a DZ than can't retain a 'regular' AFF staff is going to be able to retain a 'tunnel AFF' staff? Making the rating easier to get isn't going to change the situation for those DZs.

Additionally, what makes you think that a jumper without the dedication to make spend the time at the DZ, in the sport, making the jumps, is going to be a loyal employee?

If a DZ cannot retain staff, that's a problem with the DZ, not the instructional rating system. Every DZ has locals that are not looking for a 'leg up' to a bigger and better DZ.

Take me for example, I have family and a business here in Cleveland, and no plans to move. If the only DZ was a small Cessna DZ, that's where I would jump. If they wanted me to work there, then it would be up to them to make it worth my time. By that I mean not over-staffing, advertising enough to keep the students coming, and good pay.

Mis-management of a DZ staff and instructional ratings are two seperate things.


topdocker  (D 12018)

May 22, 2012, 8:22 AM
Post #24 of 136 (4739 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DougH] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Terrible idea. Which elected USPA officials are in support of this? If there are any on board I suggest they resign because they are seriously short on good judgment.

I'm not really sure this has much support at the BOD, but since members brought it up, the responsible thing to due is to gather input from the community. I think it's great to check with those in the field.

top


skytribe  (D 9403)

May 22, 2012, 8:38 AM
Post #25 of 136 (4730 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I couldnt agree more wholeheartedly. The freefall part is just one part of the skydive.

Instructors are about teaching the whole skydive and 500 jumps in reality is not that much experience. If you look at today's dropzone with aircraft availability it doesnt take that long today to get 500 jumps if you really want to put your mind to it.


dorbie

May 22, 2012, 3:39 PM
Post #26 of 136 (1554 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I wonder if all my freefall time will allow me to automatically become a tunnel coach?

Now there's an interesting point. I anticipate a lot of hemming and hawing from the tunnel wunderkind.Laugh


dorbie

May 22, 2012, 3:43 PM
Post #27 of 136 (1552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DougH] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Terrible idea. Which elected USPA officials are in support of this? If there are any on board I suggest they resign because they are seriously short on good judgment.

Now THAT is a great idea, not the resigning but let's hear which board members if are supporting this and we can do something about it next election cycle.


(This post was edited by dorbie on May 22, 2012, 3:52 PM)


dorbie

May 22, 2012, 3:48 PM
Post #28 of 136 (1552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I watched the experimental jumps here; the tunnel guys were pretty impressive with their flying ability. The argument that they can't fly/manage the air skills is a very weak one.

I am willing to bet that the guys doing those jumps had more than two hours of tunnel time.

Yup, probably hundrds or even thousands of hours, it's certainly not a 1:1 trade.

But we're talking about an extra 150 skydives. Does an AFFI hopeful complaining about waiting another 150 jumps really have the right stuff?


dorbie

May 22, 2012, 3:50 PM
Post #29 of 136 (1552 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NWFlyer] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
And then there's the rest of what you don't get by substituting tunnel for actual skydives and time on the dropzone...

+1

2 hours of tunnel time is not equivalent to a single skydive in many respects.


dorbie

May 22, 2012, 3:59 PM
Post #30 of 136 (1547 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If I were to make an argument, it's that canopy time (especially since AFF students are to learn canopy skills) and related decision-processing are the missing components when you cut out roughly 200 skydives from the experience bucket.

There's a lot more than canopy time and RW acquired in 150 jumps.

It's added seasoning for want of a better word. It's such an unnecessary proposal for so many reasons.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

May 22, 2012, 5:00 PM
Post #31 of 136 (1515 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

If I may just throw something into the mix. I personally do not support this effort in any capacity. With that said, before we lynch the BOD members unfairly,lets take a step back for one moment.


A complaint I have heard is the BOD is out of touch and doesnt listent to membership. That there is a hidden agenda of some sort. Keep in mind the fact a poll went out just suggests that the BOD wants feedback. It doesnt suggest anything else. If a motion was made and passed in S&T, then the full BOD supported it without any input from membership I would say okay you have a valid point and if you want to hold any member responsible for his vote you have that right.

If it does not pass then I would hope those so willing to publically bash the directors would reverse and say, "Hey good job you asked and then you listened" Give us a chance before throwing the first stone.

I sat through the meeting where this was discussed and the committee decided to get some general membership input.

The BOD is very approachable and more than willing to listen to logic. That is why I read this thread to educate myself, as does many other BOD members. We are trying to get it right.


missbrz  (B License)

May 22, 2012, 5:44 PM
Post #32 of 136 (1506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

question for the BOD or perhaps a suggestion...

Most of the objections seem to be against taking away the jump numbers of AFF-I's. However, I think AFF-I training in the tunnel can teach people important skills that they don't always learn from just getting their minimum free fall time (for instance if its all spent wing suiting or doing rodeos or short delay hop n pops). What if the requirements were changed to be 500 jump minimum without the possibility of getting out of that if they have been an instructor for at least a year?
Then you could adopt the tunnel time switch and still have the jump numbers that seem to be majority rule. (For the record I personally think the tunnel should only count if its AFF-I training specific tunnel time.) Just a thought.


Squeak  (E 1313)

May 22, 2012, 5:54 PM
Post #33 of 136 (1501 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I watched the experimental jumps here; the tunnel guys were pretty impressive with their flying ability. The argument that they can't fly/manage the air skills is a very weak one.

I am willing to bet that the guys doing those jumps had more than two hours of tunnel time.
Exactly, and that what i wrote on the poll, that one hour of tunnel time in NO WAY equates to the time and distance you travel in one hour of freefall, and the learning that accompanies it

One hour of tunnel will teach you very little.

If they are asking to substitute your 20th hour of belly flying tunnel time for for one hour of freefall, that might be a different outcome.


skytribe  (D 9403)

May 22, 2012, 7:13 PM
Post #34 of 136 (1484 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Squeak] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

What if we said that we should give A licenses to people with time in the tunnel - say 1 hour in the tunnel in lui of actually doing the skydives.

There would be an uproar. The tunnel is NOT a skydive. It mary substitute for part of the skydive.

We are talking intructors ratings here but once you open the door then others use it as an argument for there own causes.

Is the system broken that we are in desperate need of AFF instructors or are we talking a few tunnel guys want to avoid having to do 500 jumps opening the door to everyone.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

May 22, 2012, 7:53 PM
Post #35 of 136 (1474 views)
Shortcut
Re: [missbrz] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey Miss,

If I understand you correctly, that would raise the standard to 500 jump min for AFFI. If that is correct you will not get any arguement from me. I have advocated for raising the requirements for many years long before I was on the BOD. I would have to think about it but not too long ago I advocated for much strictler requirements. To add a AFFI probabtionary period. I was and still am in the minority by the way. Pm me to explain your suggetion better. I will most definately bring it up at the meeting.
Thanks,
Rich


danielcroft  (D 31103)

May 22, 2012, 9:34 PM
Post #36 of 136 (1451 views)
Shortcut
Re: USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I admit to being an turbine baby so I do actually forget about IAD and static line, yes, I'm ashamed.

Having said that, I'm really not sure how some people responding to this thread can claim that the AFF training program is so fatally flawed and almost in the same breath say that specific, monitored training in a tunnel (which, we should remember, has proven to be a VERY affective training tool) would make it easier? I get that the mental aspect cannot be taught in a tunnel, I get that chasing someone across the sky can't be taught in a tunnel. What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that tunnel time with very specific and rigorous requirements wouldn't add value to an AFF/I. Personally I'd say that all the ratings and licenses need to go up now that people can get as many jumps as they do in a year (should we consider time in sport in this argument as well) but I'm no AFF/I.

I take the points of people about smaller DZs retaining staff, I was just wondering about reasoning behind this idea other than a crap load of tunnel instructors looking to get a job as an AFF/I which seems improbable to me but I don't really know.


ufk22  (D 16168)

May 23, 2012, 6:24 AM
Post #37 of 136 (1402 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Terrible idea. Which elected USPA officials are in support of this? If there are any on board I suggest they resign because they are seriously short on good judgment.

I'm not really sure this has much support at the BOD, but since members brought it up, the responsible thing to due is to gather input from the community. I think it's great to check with those in the field.

top
Agreed, this is the board acting responsibly.
Now, if they vote against the poll results, then we have a reason to complain, otherwise let's support them for asking us our opinion.


Ron

May 23, 2012, 6:43 AM
Post #38 of 136 (1393 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A complaint I have heard is the BOD is out of touch and doesnt listent to membership. That there is a hidden agenda of some sort. Keep in mind the fact a poll went out just suggests that the BOD wants feedback. It doesnt suggest anything else. If a motion was made and passed in S&T, then the full BOD supported it without any input from membership I would say okay you have a valid point and if you want to hold any member responsible for his vote you have that right.

You mean like the BOD and the USPA demo team? Like the BOD and changing the age of skydivers?

The fact the BOD has set up a poll means nothing; They can easily just ignore it, like they have ignored member input for years... Hell, decades.


Ron

May 23, 2012, 6:51 AM
Post #39 of 136 (1390 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I get that the mental aspect cannot be taught in a tunnel, I get that chasing someone across the sky can't be taught in a tunnel. What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that tunnel time with very specific and rigorous requirements wouldn't add value to an AFF/I.

I don't see anyone saying that it is not valuable, just saying that lowering the requirements of actual skydiving for a SKYDIVING instructors rating is a bad idea. Should we allow tunnel time to fulfill the requirements for licenses?


dorbie

May 23, 2012, 10:36 AM
Post #40 of 136 (1356 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If it does not pass then I would hope those so willing to publically bash the directors would reverse and say, "Hey good job you asked and then you listened" Give us a chance before throwing the first stone.

Thanks for your response, I liked it except the part I quoted. Who is bashing the directors?

The BoD is elected, it is absolutely 100% appropriate to raise issues of their support for an issue like this and it is up to them to take a public stance on it if they choose to.

Nobody on the BoD is owed an apology, they hold a public leadership position and public comments on BoD actions either on any support for this issue or on issuing this poll are absolutely fine.

I don't think this poll even passes the smell test, but that's my opinion.


dorbie

May 23, 2012, 10:48 AM
Post #41 of 136 (1351 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
would make it easier?

The objection is not about making it easier.

It is great that tunnel time will make it easier for potential AFFIs complete their real skydives and accumulate real freefall time as they work towards becoming seasoned skydivers.

This can't happen in a tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcL9kem_BDo

Nor this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS_WNJN2Dqg

Nor this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o448aNREbD0

There's something to be said for jumping enough and screwing up enough before you throw a student in the mix.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

May 23, 2012, 9:35 PM
Post #42 of 136 (1275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I don't see anyone saying that it is not valuable, just saying that lowering the requirements of actual skydiving for a SKYDIVING instructors rating is a bad idea. Should we allow tunnel time to fulfill the requirements for licenses?
Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel. Knowing how to turn and stop is something that can be taught much more easily in a tunnel than in the air. These skills still need to be transposed to the sky as anyone who's learnt something in the tunnel and then taken it to the air knows.

One of the arguments I've seen in favor is that this is how the military has worked for years with a measurable improvement in results. This was posted on the Ranch facebook page by someone directly involved in army training so I'm just passing that idea along.

I see it as similar to indoor rock climbing or learning to ride a motorcycle on a closed course. Those things are very helpful to the learning process but absolutely can't replace the actual activity (depending on what your intended activity is of course).

To me, allowing someone to replace one hour of air time with one hour of tunnel time that has specific performance metrics to be met, actually doesn't make becoming an AFF/I easier at all, it means that you need to have demonstrated advanced flying skills in an easily observable and verifiable environment in addition to doing the same rating test that happens now. You guys say that the lack of air time will mean worse instructors in terms of the mental game and sure I can see that but I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would prepare me mentally to bail on a student @ 2k. I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would have prepared me to be kicked in the head and do spin stops at the same time. Yeah, I've had a cut away and a couple of pilot chute hesitations that really freaked me out. I got my pro rating right after my D, blah, blah. What part of all that makes me ready to hold someone's life in my hands and what part of that makes me ready to do the serious job of actually flying with a student who's all over the sky? Even if people did replace one hour, they still need to be signed off by an I/E as having the ability to do the job, that includes the estimation of their ability to handle the mental side of things, some idiot who can fly well doesn't fit the bill and never should have. If they do now, how will tunnel time substitution change anything?


topdocker  (D 12018)

May 23, 2012, 11:11 PM
Post #43 of 136 (1265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I don't see anyone saying that it is not valuable, just saying that lowering the requirements of actual skydiving for a SKYDIVING instructors rating is a bad idea. Should we allow tunnel time to fulfill the requirements for licenses?
Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel. Knowing how to turn and stop is something that can be taught much more easily in a tunnel than in the air. These skills still need to be transposed to the sky as anyone who's learnt something in the tunnel and then taken it to the air knows.

One of the arguments I've seen in favor is that this is how the military has worked for years with a measurable improvement in results. This was posted on the Ranch facebook page by someone directly involved in army training so I'm just passing that idea along.

I see it as similar to indoor rock climbing or learning to ride a motorcycle on a closed course. Those things are very helpful to the learning process but absolutely can't replace the actual activity (depending on what your intended activity is of course).

To me, allowing someone to replace one hour of air time with one hour of tunnel time that has specific performance metrics to be met, actually doesn't make becoming an AFF/I easier at all, it means that you need to have demonstrated advanced flying skills in an easily observable and verifiable environment in addition to doing the same rating test that happens now. You guys say that the lack of air time will mean worse instructors in terms of the mental game and sure I can see that but I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would prepare me mentally to bail on a student @ 2k. I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would have prepared me to be kicked in the head and do spin stops at the same time. Yeah, I've had a cut away and a couple of pilot chute hesitations that really freaked me out. I got my pro rating right after my D, blah, blah. What part of all that makes me ready to hold someone's life in my hands and what part of that makes me ready to do the serious job of actually flying with a student who's all over the sky? Even if people did replace one hour, they still need to be signed off by an I/E as having the ability to do the job, that includes the estimation of their ability to handle the mental side of things, some idiot who can fly well doesn't fit the bill and never should have. If they do now, how will tunnel time substitution change anything?

It works in the military because they control the tunnel, the tunnel instructors, who is selected as a candidate, the requirements for flying in the tunnel, the aircraft, the freefall instructors. All aspects....

With us civilians, USPA can make recommendations for what needs to be done in the tunnel, but has no control over what really goes on, nor any way to enforce someone screwing it up. Each tunnel can come up with its own "Tunnel AFFI Camp" and toss out logbooks like popcorn and USPA couldn't do anything but repeal the action once it's too late.

Still not convinced.

top


virgin-burner

May 24, 2012, 12:06 AM
Post #44 of 136 (1262 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

i got hundreds of hours playing "gran turismo"; would you let me ride your supersports-car on a racetrack!?


pchapman  (D 1014)

May 24, 2012, 6:02 AM
Post #45 of 136 (1244 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
To me, allowing someone to replace one hour of air time with one hour of tunnel time that has specific performance metrics to be met,

Nobody is arguing against that.
That's not the point. The point is that people argue against tunnel time "in general" being substituted.


The Canadian PFF rules just got rewritten, largely following the line of thinking of the very experienced instructor who heads the program.

A comparison might be useful just to see what others in the world do.

We here in Canada have long required 6 hours, 600 jumps. (We don't have any time in sport rules, but one needs to have a C license, some form of instructor rating, and the Coach 2 rating - effectively the advanced coaching rating for teaching relative work skills.)

The new rules this year still have 6+ hours & 600 jumps and say "more STRONGLY recommended" for both categories. Also, there's a "recommendation only" of having 2 hours of tunnel time. (In addition to the jumps, not substituting for them.)

For course preparation, a "recommendation" is that a candidate do this sort of tunnel work:

Quote:
Tunnel practice training/coaching experience (recommended):
Maintenance of proximity
Stability
Skill analysis and the use of signals
Inverted recovery
Spin control (flat and inverted)

During the actual course, there are normally 10 practice jumps, before 6 evaluation jumps.

If the course conductor is using the tunnel, the practice jumps can be cut down to 5, and there's a detailed list of tunnel exercises to be done.

So this is an example of how elsewhere than in the US, updated rules don't substitute tunnel time for freefall time - but suggest adding it on. Also, specific tunnel practice and training is seen as part of the process of becoming a PFFI if a tunnel is available.

While sometimes the CSPA manuals really lag the USPA when it comes to developing detailed, up to date info, in this case the USPA might want to have a look at what's being done up north.


(This post was edited by pchapman on May 24, 2012, 6:04 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

May 24, 2012, 6:52 AM
Post #46 of 136 (1232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Even if people did replace one hour, they still need to be signed off by an I/E as having the ability to do the job, that includes the estimation of their ability to handle the mental side of things, some idiot who can fly well doesn't fit the bill and never should have. If they do now, how will tunnel time substitution change anything?

The problem is two-fold, but also the same, and it's that none of it is 'real'.

Tunnel time isn't really skydiving. It's a simulation of one slice of a skydive, and it leaves out most of the more difficult and more 'critical' parts of the jump.

AFF eval jumps aren't really doing AFF either. If the 'student' get's away from you, you know that they're not going to die, that 'student' is an AFF evaluator who is ten times the skydiver you are. The actual pressure of the jump is gone, save for the pressure you have to feed your ego with a good performance.

So you have a guy who spent a bunch of time in a tunnel, and then did OK during the cerification course, what happens when the shit hits the fan? Even for a candidate with all of their time spent in the sky, the evaluators are making their 'best guess' that they will be able to handle the 'real deal'. When you subtract even more reality from the prep, what are you left with?

Quote:
Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel. Knowing how to turn and stop is something that can be taught much more easily in a tunnel than in the air. These skills still need to be transposed to the sky as anyone who's learnt something in the tunnel and then taken it to the air knows

Freefall skills are the least important of the skills a student learns, with the expection of arching and pulling. If a student can get and remain stable, and pull while stable, technically that's all the freefall skills needed to make a safe skydive. Everything esle involved is not related to the freefall portion of the jump, and much more critical to their safety (and the safety of others).

We've all seen the tunnel videos where 4 or 5 instructors get in there and do some crazy rotations, looping around each other in a mind-bending routine. It's impressive to watch, but when have you seen that transposed to the sky?

You haven't, and the reason is (as stated by tunnel rats) things are different in the sky. With no walls or nets for reference, things get 'bigger'. What about the exits, how do you translate that to side-ways subterminal air? What happens at break off, does everyone fly to the door, like in the tunnel?

I'm not denying that tunnel flying is tough, and a skill in itself that takes hard work to develop, but that's the point is that it is a skill in itself. So is skydiving, and if you want to teach skydiving, learn how to skydive.


Ron

May 24, 2012, 7:27 AM
Post #47 of 136 (1222 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel.

No one said anything differently. What we have said is it should not supplant real skydiving.

There is SO much more to being an AFFI than just the ability to fly. There is no pressure in a tunnel. If you screw up, you can just reset. I free fall there is a large planet moving at you, and if you screw up.... It is still going to kill you.

Quote:
One of the arguments I've seen in favor is that this is how the military has worked for years with a measurable improvement in results. This was posted on the Ranch facebook page by someone directly involved in army training so I'm just passing that idea along.

I learned spin stops and rollovers at the Bragg tunnel. Again, no one has said that some of the skills could not be learned in the tunnel. We are saying that there are other skills that the tunnel cannot teach. The tunnel is not going to teach you anything about exits and that is a major part of AFF.

Quote:
I see it as similar to indoor rock climbing or learning to ride a motorcycle on a closed course.

And would you allow a guy to be a rock climbing instructor is all he ever did was climb on an indoor wall?

Your motorcycle example is false. You are still riding a motorcycle, not ridding a bike and using that experience to claim motorcycle credit.

Those that support this seem to forget that being an AFFI is more than just the ability to fly THEIR body.


davelepka  (D 21448)

May 24, 2012, 7:44 AM
Post #48 of 136 (1216 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I learned spin stops and rollovers at the Bragg tunnel.

How many times since then has a student spun or rolled over and remained laterally within a 15ft circle?

A big part of the rollover or spin correction is that first you have to catch the student, and 9 times out of 10, that means first chasing them down, and then fixing their problem.


dirtbox  (D 31759)

May 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
Post #49 of 136 (1168 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I am an AFF-I - can I now be a tunnel instructor? I have never been in a tunnel but I have 13hrs of freefall, I'll be fine right? If you want to be a tunnel instructor be a tunnel instructor, if you want to be an AFFI be an AFFI, if you want to be both then learn to be both but you can't learn one skill set and seek work in two different fields.


toolbox  (D 18778)

May 24, 2012, 5:02 PM
Post #50 of 136 (1145 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Flying in the tunnel is not skydiving.
I've always had issues with calling tunnel flying indoor skydiving, since it takes place not in the great blue yonder,but inside a tube.
There is some risk of injury or death in the tunnel,but nothing close to skydiving levels of risk.
Flying in the tunnel is composed of one activity(flying in a fairly steady controlled airflow with walls and a net).
Skydiving is composed of many different activities that occur in an orderly fashion that all require a different set of skills and knowledge,any of which can kill you.
I love the tunnel and wish I could afford to fly my ass off in it,but it is not skydiving and should not be logged as skydiving free fall time.
The tunnel is a cheap and safe training tool for skydivers,but it is no substitute for skydiving.


bigdad510  (D 29900)

May 24, 2012, 8:42 PM
Post #51 of 136 (1663 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

So I read everyones posts, some very strong opinions here.

I'm in favor of 2 hours of tunnel replacing 2 hour of freefall, ONLY if that person is signed off as a Level 2 belly flyer in the tunnel according to the IBA system that tunnels like SkyVenture Colorado use.

I have to disagree with some of the more experienced jumpers here. If you follow the IBA system for a level two belly flyer, the time it takes to achieve the skills can sometimes be equal as real skydives.

As a Level 2 tunnel instructor, I can't tell you how many times I've personally seen skydivers with thousand of jumps that get into a tunnel, and can't stay off the walls and be in control, let alone try to do 2-ways or 4-ways. A lot of these same flyers are AFFI's.

I'll agree that there are aspects of the tunnel that CANNOT duplicate REAL jumps. That's why I wouldn't agree with just a "random" two hours tunnel = 2 hours freefall.

However, let me tell you about my own personal experience.

Started with about 275 skydives and about 3 hours of freefall. Thought I was a descent jumper. So start going to the tunnel-first two hours was spent learning how to fly more efficiently and in A LOT more control since I only had 12 feet to stay within. Had to break a lot of bad habits from freefall but eventually improved. So, now the bad habits are broken, spent another two hours doing individual skills and working thru the IBA level 2 belly skills.WOW, talk about an improvement of being in control.

Someone mentioned that it is easier flying in a tunnel than in freefall. I disagree if you have specific objectives. My skills went thru the roof by training to specific objectives and I think people should take part in IBA in order to understand how regiment the progression is and it's value. If you just say that tunnel time=freefall time, I don't think they equal each other.

For me, the skills I learned in the 2 hours in the tunnel would have taken me 500 jumps to learn.

Please listen to what I'm typing. IBA Belly 2 has specific criteria that have a huge benefit for all jumpers to include jumpers who want to earn AFFI. With the structure I'm for it, without the structure I'm against it.

I have recently jumped with some AFFI's that got theirs the "real way" and I think they could use some tunnel time!

As far as the canopy stuff is concerned, that's a whole other topic. I believe there is a huge gap in training from AFF to D License. I know plenty of people who are AFFI's, record holders (both FS and VFS) that can't fly a canopy, spot an aircraft and teach basic skills. I see a lot of bashing tunnel instructors because they don't have the canopy skills. I agree they need canopy skills, but how much canopy training is really "required" after your "A License". Not enough in my opinion.
So if tunnel instructors have a "C" license, and 4 hours of freefall and are a least a Level 2 IBA Belly flyer in the tunnel, I don't think they are missing out on too much to count just 2 hours of tunnel for freefall. Last time I looked at the stats, it's not the "A-C" license people that are killing themselves and others under canopy, most of them have more freefall time and higher ratings that are doing the damage out there.

DISCLAIMER*** Since we live in a PC world, my disclaimer is there is exceptions to everythingI typed and there are boneheads everywhere that don't fit the "mold".


danielcroft  (D 31103)

May 24, 2012, 9:01 PM
Post #52 of 136 (1657 views)
Shortcut
Re: USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

You guys all have a lot more experience than me so I'll defer to you.

Ron - the motorcycle analogy refers to riding in traffic and on roads where you don't know what's around the next corner, not to mention people coming into your lane from the other direction... it is not false. I can very easily learn techniques on a closed course and then apply that knowledge to riding on the road.

As for allowing a rock climber who learnt in a gym how to belay, absolutely I'd be fine with them belaying me I'd also be fine with them teaching to belay, I wouldn't be fine with them setting anchors or leading route though because they didn't learn that. Any time they did have out on real rock could then be spent focussing on the things they don't know.

PC - I like the Canadian system way better than ours. Doesn't seem like the USPA's style though does it?

VB - clearly not. Your example misses the point but I get that you're saying what everyone else is. Many professional racers use simulators (I hear the air force is into them too) to learn a track before they go racing there. Does that mean it's the same? Of course not but it clearly helps. You've probably never raced a car around those circuits so you're not going to have any point of reference or even the tools to transpose that virtual experience to the real world when you get there.

I guess my point boils down to this: Do you guys really believe that someone who's goofed off for 400 jumps with just enough belly to pass the AFF/I course is going to be markedly better than someone who's goofed off for 500 jumps? Many of the experienced instructors complain that the AFF/I rating course is a joke so what exactly are you guys trying to save here? Personally I think that some people are cut out to hold that kind of responsibility and will make great AFF/Is, others won't. There's very little in my nearly 700 jumps (I know, not a lot) that has made me feel that I'm ready to hold a student's life in my hands *AND* be ready to pull at 2k. Ultimately what our instructors are being trained to do is give our students the best chance they can to learn safely in the air. If that means spin stops, roll overs or chasing them across the sky, then that's what it is but there are still no friends below 2k and AFAIC, that's the real mental challenge of being an AFF/I, at least from an outsider's perspective.

I always seem to end up playing devil's advocate. What I really think needs to happen is that all the license and rating jump requirements should be at least doubled and we should add time in sport.


virgin-burner

May 25, 2012, 12:10 AM
Post #53 of 136 (1639 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
VB - clearly not. Your example misses the point but I get that you're saying what everyone else is. Many professional racers use simulators (I hear the air force is into them too) to learn a track before they go racing there. Does that mean it's the same? Of course not but it clearly helps. You've probably never raced a car around those circuits so you're not going to have any point of reference or even the tools to transpose that virtual experience to the real world when you get there.

nope, i'm not missing the point mate, simulators are all fine and dandy, but it doesnt replace REAL experience; be it racing cars, flying jets or skydives from planes..


dorbie

May 25, 2012, 10:45 AM
Post #54 of 136 (1597 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You guys all have a lot more experience than me so I'll defer to you.

Tunnel experience or skydiving experience?


dorbie

May 25, 2012, 10:53 AM
Post #55 of 136 (1591 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Man I was in a really gnarly wind tunnel zoo dive once. It all went to hell on exit. The main chunk funneled and split and we wound up hundreds of feet apart, it took us about 5000 ft just to catch the low guy and then the levels were off and it whip-lashed like a bucking bronco as we reformed, but we got that first point in before we reached our break-off altitude.

The pressure was unbelievable because we were running out of altitude.

Who says tunnel time can't replace free-fall time?Cool


(This post was edited by dorbie on May 25, 2012, 10:54 AM)


LloydDobbler  (D 30655)

May 25, 2012, 3:48 PM
Post #56 of 136 (1556 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bigdad510] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Brad, you make some good points about the skills that come from tunnel instructor training. (& we share a birthday, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.) Wink

But I gotta disagree with you on this one, for one main reason: tunnel time does not equal skydives...and AFF instructors are teaching skydiving, not freefall.

As many have said, there are things you can't teach in the tunnel - spotting, aircraft emergencies, canopy flight, etc - that you get to practice on almost every jump. As you and others in support of the change have responded, "You still have to pass the course, and 260 jumps is enough to learn about spotting." But all those things are irrelevant. IMO, what the course doesn't evaluate is what that freefall time is there to represent: the intangibles.

If you've made 360 skydives, you'll have had more bad openings. More bad spots. More line twists. More chances at having to cut away. You may have seen a student land on a roof, or in a tree. You'll have landed off more often. You may have seen a student stand up and fall off the trailer on the way to the plane. God forbid, you may have been there when a close friend died.

All of these things can't be learned from a tunnel. Nor can they be tested in a ratings course. They're just things that make you a better instructor. This is why I'm in favor of adding a 'time in sport' requirement to the AFF-I rating. There are certain things you can't know, unless you're there.

You know I'm a huge fan of the tunnel. Hell, I would've had a much harder time passing my AFF-I course if I didn't have as much tunnel time logged as I have.

But in this case, you have to ask yourself: what's best for the student? Because that's what's most important here. Does it help a student to allow people with extensive tunnel time to skip a few jumps in their quest to become AFF-I's? If all AFF-I's pass a practical exam, then no. That should be weeding out the ones with inferior freefall skills.

Does it hurt the student? Not necessarily, either. But it seems more likely to me that someone with only 260 jumps' experience spotting, or dealing with emergencies, or riding the plane down, etc, would hurt a student more than help them.

I agree that some AFF-I's could be better on their belly with some tunnel time. No doubt. But I'll take a grizzled old skydiver with 500 jumps and decent flying ability (decent enough to pass the practical eval jumps) over a 240-jump-wonder tunnel instructor any day. Because they've been there, done that. And more importantly, they've had the patience to recognize the value of experience. They understand that it's about the student, not them.

(And I say that with about 800 jumps and almost 50 hours of tunnel time, paid for out of my own pocket.)


jumpnaked69  (D License)

May 25, 2012, 8:34 PM
Post #57 of 136 (1527 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Dorbie,

After watching these videos, I've decided to offer you free tunnel coaching...and anyone else that's in those videos.

I think a lot of the people chiming in here are 100% spot on about the differences and about the need for caution in considering this proposal. That being said, dives like these don't happen when people train in wind tunnels. It's cheaper, safer, and improves your skills faster. Not all of your skills, just the ones you use to, you know, fly your body around in freefall.

Your comment on that first youtube video was: Sometimes it's just more fun when there's a screw-up.

I disagree...everything is more fun when you're good at it.

Thanks for playing. Smile


dorbie

May 26, 2012, 1:16 AM
Post #58 of 136 (1507 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpnaked69] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Dorbie,

After watching these videos, I've decided to offer you free tunnel coaching...and anyone else that's in those videos.

I think a lot of the people chiming in here are 100% spot on about the differences and about the need for caution in considering this proposal. That being said, dives like these don't happen when people train in wind tunnels. It's cheaper, safer, and improves your skills faster. Not all of your skills, just the ones you use to, you know, fly your body around in freefall.

Your comment on that first youtube video was: Sometimes it's just more fun when there's a screw-up.

I disagree...everything is more fun when you're good at it.

Thanks for playing. Smile

Nice try but you're full of it. I'm flying the camera in the video titled "7-way ... chasing the low guy", so your comment as directed at me is a stretch. It is fun to try to catch a low timer who funnels through the base. I do train in the tunnel with tunnel coaches. I just don't confuse it with real skydiving and nothing in the tunnel comes close to that kind of jump.

You seem to have missed the point of that video in your attempt at a cheap shot. That video is about adapting to a dynamic situation with the large separations involved with the adrenaline of a real skydive. You don't get that in a tunnel.

EVERYONE on that jump, even the weaker skydivers gained experience you cannot earn in a tunnel no matter how much time you put in there.

If any of those jumpers asked me if they should do some tunnel training they'd get an enthusiastic recommendation from me. Substituting tunnel time for freefall time for qualifying AFFIs is still a really dumb idea.


(This post was edited by dorbie on May 26, 2012, 1:28 AM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 27, 2012, 9:12 AM
Post #59 of 136 (1452 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpnaked69] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

>After watching these videos, I've decided to offer you free
>tunnel coaching...and anyone else that's in those videos.

This is a good example of what tunnel people miss. You're not used to having someone do video (since you don't need camera flyers in the tunnel) so you never even considered that he might have been doing video. Is this something that is tested in the AFF course? Nope, it's just something that most skydivers just know intuitively - but that tunnel people might miss. It's a very small example, of course. But if an AFF-I forgets there might be a camera above the student before he dumps them out it could get to be a bigger problem. (Even though the camera guy's job is to get out of the way.)

>That being said, dives like these don't happen when people train in wind
>tunnels.

Oh, they absolutely do. I've used the Perris tunnel for training people for PPP bigways and while it's a great tool, it doesn't teach you some of the more critical things about bigways - like what to reference in a larger dive, what speed to approach it at or how to deal with large unstable formations.


jumpnaked69  (D License)

May 27, 2012, 10:55 AM
Post #60 of 136 (1441 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Shouldn't you be at the DZ instead of sitting in front of a computer?

My comments were meant to irritate Dorbie who was taking shots at tunnel flyers. There's bad skydivers and there's plenty of bad "tunnel people." Tunnels don't teach all of the skills you need to skydive and anyone who disagrees is a fool. They teach one set of skills that are applicable to skydiving.

And don't worry, Bill, I can figure out what's happening in a video. Thanks for the help. And if this sort of stuff is still happening on dives, is it possible they need a different coach? Sly


jdizzle  (D License)

May 27, 2012, 11:20 AM
Post #61 of 136 (1430 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpnaked69] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that a few hours of tunnel time should be a requirement instead of a "instead of ff time" cop out. also i think a aff candidate should have at least 200 jumps as 'coaches' as a qualification for the aff rating. the above requirements would help ensure the instructors have the flying as well as teachings skills necessary as well as ensuring they have more experience. we have all seen the recent tandem video disaster, one of probably many that never made it to the public eye, now how many aff jumps do you think have gone bat shit crazy that no one has even seen or heard of?


dorbie

May 27, 2012, 12:58 PM
Post #62 of 136 (1407 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpnaked69] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My comments were meant to irritate Dorbie who was taking shots at tunnel flyers.

Trolling is against forum rules.

If you think my posts were taking shots at "tunnel flyers" then you've gotten the wrong idea.

I book tunnel time and value the coaching there.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
May 27, 2012, 1:57 PM
Post #63 of 136 (1399 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpnaked69] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

>Shouldn't you be at the DZ instead of sitting in front of a computer?

I would be if I wasn't home taking care of a very demanding tiny skydiver.

>And if this sort of stuff is still happening on dives, is it possible they need
>a different coach?

Definitely! And some more practice jumps on smaller dives, and some tunnel time if they can get it.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 28, 2012, 4:21 PM
Post #64 of 136 (1346 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Can we get back to AFF jumps instead of post-aff zoo dives?


Ron

May 29, 2012, 9:58 AM
Post #65 of 136 (1301 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
How many times since then has a student spun or rolled over and remained laterally within a 15ft circle?

Never. But the point is you still can learn the mechanics of how to stop a spin or do a rollover in the tunnel. Understand, I agree that the mechanics can be taught but that I still think replacing tunnel for skydives is a terrible idea.


Ron

May 29, 2012, 10:18 AM
Post #66 of 136 (1297 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Ron - the motorcycle analogy refers to riding in traffic and on roads where you don't know what's around the next corner, not to mention people coming into your lane from the other direction... it is not false. I can very easily learn techniques on a closed course and then apply that knowledge to riding on the road.

It is false, one is ridding a bike in traffic the other is ridding a bike on a track.... Both are riding a bike, manipulating the controls of a BIKE. That has nothing to do with tunnel v skydiving.

The tunnel does not have gear, it does not have a time limit, it does not have an exit, it does not having spotting, it does not have most of skydiving. It only teaches a very small aspect of skydiving, body flight. Important yes, but not the only thing.

Your motorcycle analogy traffic vs track would be like jumping at a multi-plane boogie or doing a solo out of a Cessna.

Quote:
Many of the experienced instructors complain that the AFF/I rating course is a joke so what exactly are you guys trying to save here?

Making it more of a joke.

Quote:
but there are still no friends below 2k and AFAIC, that's the real mental challenge of being an AFF/I, at least from an outsider's perspective.

And you can't learn that in the tunnel... You can learn that in freefall.


Ron

May 29, 2012, 10:23 AM
Post #67 of 136 (1296 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpnaked69] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
That being said, dives like these don't happen when people train in wind tunnels.

False. I have several hundred hours tunnel time and have still been on teams (that I trained with in the tunnel) that had a funnel.

Quote:
My comments were meant to irritate Dorbie who was taking shots at tunnel flyers.

Got it, you were trolling.


(This post was edited by Ron on May 29, 2012, 10:27 AM)


skyrider  (D 14710)

May 29, 2012, 3:17 PM
Post #68 of 136 (1250 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
We already have a severe problem with up jumpers showing a lack of skill and decision-making with regard to canopy control, and we want to make it easier for potential AFFI's to SKIP actual skydives!!??

How about: do the six hours and STFU about your awesome backflying skills because you can barely fly a canopy to save your own life, let alone teach someone else how to do it. Skydiving is not just about how well you can bore a hole in space in freefall, there are aircraft procedures, emergency aircraft procedures, spotting, exits, opening, canopy control, landing, field stowing gear, packing, debriefing, gearing up, gear check, buddy gear check..... none of that is covered with "tunnel time."

I wonder if all my freefall time will allow me to automatically become a tunnel coach?

top

Disclaimer: not an official USPA opinion, just my own.

and a damn good one, well said.....


danielcroft  (D 31103)

May 29, 2012, 6:47 PM
Post #69 of 136 (1226 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It is false, one is ridding a bike in traffic the other is ridding a bike on a track.... Both are riding a bike, manipulating the controls of a BIKE. That has nothing to do with tunnel v skydiving.
And that is exactly what tunnel time is, you take away the most dangerous factors (on the road, that's traffic and unexpected obstacles) in skydiving that's canopy deployment and traffic and that pesky dying thing and you can train in a more focussed environment. If you think track or closed course riding is as dangerous as street riding then I'm not sure what I can say to you. I know you ride too so I guess it's just a difference of opinion.

That only 360 jumps are required to get the 6 hours of freefall is fucking ridiculous. For some reason I've always had it in my head that you needed 500 jumps. Fuck that, I've changed my opinion, there's no way in hell that someone with 300 jumps should be AFF at all or 360 for that matter. Our licenses are pathetic. sigh


Ron

May 29, 2012, 7:11 PM
Post #70 of 136 (1213 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
And that is exactly what tunnel time is

No, tunnel time is like riding a bike and trying to claim it is the same as a motorcycle.

Quote:
That only 360 jumps are required to get the 6 hours of freefall is fucking ridiculous.

You know what is even more ridiculous? 300 jumps.

Quote:
Our licenses are pathetic. sigh

Agreed.


Premier wmw999  (D 6296)

May 30, 2012, 5:25 AM
Post #71 of 136 (1166 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

The world was different when those requirements started up. Most DZs had Cessnas, and most jumpers going for AFF ratings had S/L JM or I experience (meaning hop and pops after dealing with and putting out students). So the likely number of jumps for 6 hours of freefall was much higher than it is in many places now.

Wendy P.


Chris_K  (C 3228)

May 30, 2012, 6:21 AM
Post #72 of 136 (1154 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wmw999] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

 
*disclaimer – I’m not talking about anyone in particular, avoid superimposing anything*

The discussion at hand should be more focused on setting a high standard for the AFFI course.

It was mentioned above “We already have AFFI ratings being handed out like candy.” This is very true in the USPA system. A jumper with 500 skydives, even if they are full altitude, is only 8hrs (approx) of freefall. That is not a lot.

I’ll break this down into a few categories:

1. Freefall skills to safely manipulate / save the student.

a. Tunnel helps with freefall skills; there is no argument about that. It’s an easier way to get time in manipulating the airflow. The muscle memory loss is less due to the shorter turn around time (more saturation) of airflow time in tunnel vs the sky.

b. The CSPA system adds tunnel time to the PFF (virtually the same as AFF) as a way of ensuring your have more memory of how to recover students. Its also used to “vet” jumpers who want to become PFF’s as they will be told what to continue to work on in there flying skills if they are not good enough yet before spending all the money on a course.

c. Tunnel should not be used in lieu of the extra skydives. As mentioned above 500 skydives is still a very in-experienced jumper.

d. The progression (specific tunnel tasks, not just flying around) covers:


i. Maintenance of proximity. If you need to “hang on” to a student you are making the jump harder for them. IMO you must be able to fly a grip without putting any pressure of the student. I’ve seen too many AFFI’s hanging 6 inches below the student…. Then the student wonders why it was so hard to do the turns required on the jump.

ii. Stability. If you cannot fly through a few burbles while being pushed and pulled… practice more. Even a bad exit is easy to recover on the hill if you have the ability to let go with one hand, reach over and correct the student (pushing chin up) or if you can roll your elbow under there arm and the other elbow under there thigh and force them into an arch. This way the student does not flip, you don’t have to worry about an instructor “falling off”

iii. Skill analysis and the use of signals. You learn quickly when a hand signal is too close, they don’t see it. If the signal is not clear or blocked, obviously they don’t respond.

iv. Spin control (flat and inverted) This one takes people a while to get in the air. Using the tunnel for practice might limit the spin to a 14 ft area, but it teaches you the mechanics of reliably flying under there spinning limbs, popping up into the gap and stopping the spin immediately. From there its easy to get them a smile and a thumbs up (to calm them), flip them over and carry on. If you’re concerned about being able to close within that 10 ft area as they are spinning in the sky….. Practice more RW. Learn how to put on sudden acceleration and deceleration.

v. Inverted recovery. The tunnel gives you a chance to learn to fly nice and tight to adjust to the faster speeds of a student on there back. They will not be doing the 120 MPH ideal and you have no time to stop and put on weight. (I know this sounds sarcastic, it is not intended to be. I have seen many AFFI’s struggling to get down to an inverted student who is doing 135-140mph as they have no real airflow time at those speeds).

2. Experience in teaching. This is the big one. A jumper with 400 jumps just has not learnt all the “little things” or “tricks” that need to be adapted to the learning style of your specific student. Some will get canopy right away, others will struggle. Knowing the seven major ways to teach canopy to the different learning styles makes you a great instructor. Usually you will only learn this by being around other instructors and over time, picking up on the different ways of explaining things in all aspects of skydiving as listed below:

a. Equipment
b. In aircraft
c. Exit
d. Freefall
e. Canopy
f. Landing

At 400 jumps, regardless of your own flying skills you don’t know all the little things about each stage of the skydive or the best methods to teach them to each learning style.

Before people start to try and pick this apart:

1. Read the intent of the paragraphs, don’t pick a single word and focus on it.

2. Accept certain facts: Tunnel is a great tool to learn freefall skills, it does not help in other areas of technical knowledge in the sport.

3. My experience:

a. I was one of the fast 400 jumpers. By that stage I had lots of tunnel time and felt that my flying was quite good. Looking back on it my flying was good, but my technical knowledge on all the aspects other then freefall was quite limited. At that stage I had less then 2 years in the sport.

b. I am writing this from the perspective of tons of tunnel time (RW and other), lots of AFF/PFF jumps and lots of RW skydives. None of my jumps are tandem.

c. The only times I have seen instructors lose there student on a jump were new AFFI with only 550-700 jumps, very little tunnel (less then 5 hrs of tunnel time).

My bottom line: The AFF standard should be increased; not chipped away by these sorts of initiatives.


(This post was edited by Chris_K on May 30, 2012, 10:04 AM)


tdog  (D 28800)

May 30, 2012, 6:22 AM
Post #73 of 136 (1154 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

All...

I emailed the USPA a nice little ditty with my opinion. I did not get a reply or acknowledgement, but I assume they read it.

If you feel concern, I would, instead of arguing here, send your own opinion to the decision makers.

For the record, I am against shortening the six hours with tunnel time. In fact, I would support 10 hours of total freefall, with no more than 3 AFF specific coaching in the tunnel counting towards the rating (backflying in the tunnel is not an AFF skillset), plus mandatory continuing education hours (most likely in canopy control, but with open ended options). But in the short term, this poll was not about increasing the required experience, but the first step in increasing the rating is to hold firm on the current requirement.


In my letter to the USPA I gave a few examples of what has happened in real jumps to support my claims, I tried to keep passion and emotion out of it. I don't want to influence your opinions by expressing my concerns, but I encourage AFFIs to share with the USPA real examples to support their opinions.


(This post was edited by tdog on May 30, 2012, 6:24 AM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

May 30, 2012, 6:56 AM
Post #74 of 136 (1141 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris_K] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
1. Read the intent of the paragraphs, don’t pick a single word and focus on it.

I see you've tried to post stuff on dz.com before..Laugh

("their" is a word)Sly

nice post


(This post was edited by rehmwa on May 30, 2012, 10:27 AM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

May 30, 2012, 9:50 AM
Post #75 of 136 (1109 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Chris_K] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you.


tonyhathaway  (D 13263)

Jun 1, 2012, 10:24 AM
Post #76 of 136 (1790 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ron] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

If people could replace 120 jumps with 2 hours of tunnel time to be an instructor, then surely USPA will allow camera jumps with 2 hours of tunnel, and only 80 jumps, right?
Tony


Premier NWFlyer  (D 29960)

Jun 1, 2012, 10:27 AM
Post #77 of 136 (1786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhathaway] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If people could replace 120 jumps with 2 hours of tunnel time to be an instructor, then surely USPA will allow camera jumps with 2 hours of tunnel, and only 80 jumps, right?
Tony

Unfortunately, USPA does allow that now. The 200 jumps for camera is just a recommendation, not a BSR (the request to make it a BSR got no traction at the last board meeting).


dorbie

Jun 3, 2012, 11:08 AM
Post #78 of 136 (1722 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Can we get back to AFF jumps instead of post-aff zoo dives?

I think there should be a zoo dive requirement for AFFI qualificationLaugh


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 3, 2012, 6:11 PM
Post #79 of 136 (1696 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Can we get back to AFF jumps instead of post-aff zoo dives?

I think there should be a zoo dive requirement for AFFI qualificationLaugh

Well, hell...we'd ALL qualify!
LaughLaughWink


oozzee  (D License)

Jun 8, 2012, 10:04 PM
Post #80 of 136 (1603 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

This is very simple..
""tunnel time is not freefall time..""
its that simple...!!

In a tunnel are you,,,,...
wearing a parachute..??
teaching or chasing someone wearing a parachute.?
Plumetting to your potential death.??
Operating under a limited and stressful timeframe.??
No tunnel time can emulate the chaos of realtime AFF training....Doing AFF is and always will be the ultimate test of a professional skydivers' skill and dedication to the sport

Anyone who seriously aspires to be an AFF instructor needs to be jumping out of airplanes...not playing in a tunnel...
A wind tunnel is a toy,,Jumping from airplanes needs to be taken seriously..
I know a few tunnel rats,,,their skydivng is ordinary at best,,a soon as there is a change in fall rate there'ye left behind,,,as soon as things dont go to plan they become a hazard,,,thier canopy control sucks because they come to the DZ thinking they hot shit skydivers for 45 secs ,,but what about aircraft ettiquette,,climb to altitude,,exit protocol,,altitude awareness and tracking discipline,stacking,,canopy right of way...
I personally avoid jumping with "tunnel gods"


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 3, 2013, 6:24 PM
Post #81 of 136 (1451 views)
Shortcut
Re: [toolbox] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Has anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident?

Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngsters


normiss  (D 28356)

Jun 4, 2013, 8:16 AM
Post #82 of 136 (1365 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Excellent observation and clearly this is THE shining example of why NO!


toolbox  (D 18778)

Jun 5, 2013, 9:25 AM
Post #83 of 136 (1253 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Exactly!
You don't need altitude awareness in the tunnel.
You don't need to check the spot in the tunnel.
You don't need a harness container with two parachutes in the tunnel.
You don't need a set of emergency procedures to practice in the tunnel.
You don't need canopy skills in the tunnel.
And the list go's on,and on.
The tunnel is friggin awesome,but it's not skydiving,but rather it's a free fall simulator.
I knew the guy at snohomish and liked him a lot.
He was a good guy,but very over confident like many guys his age. I'm sure many will miss him.
The free fall portion of skydiving is dangerous,but it is the canopy decent that takes the cake when it comes to serious injury or death.
I've always believed that the most dangerous part of modern skydiving is the last few hundred feet to the ground under a good canopy.
The current statistics strongly support my beliefs.


(This post was edited by toolbox on Jun 5, 2013, 9:59 AM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 5, 2013, 12:02 PM
Post #84 of 136 (1215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [toolbox] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

It's so idiotic -

you spend 1 minute in freefall with a student
the rest of the time is in class, in the plane, at the mockup, etc etc etc

there should be a 'time in sport' requirement added AFAIAC, more jumps, more hours FF, AND ADD (not replace) some tunnel time (learning and coaching), and tougher eval jumps - you can't swing a dead cat without hitting handfuls of very young (in sport) AFFIs lately


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jun 5, 2013, 12:21 PM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 5, 2013, 12:20 PM
Post #85 of 136 (1208 views)
Shortcut
Re: [bigdad510] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

bigdad510 wrote:
ONLY if that person is signed off as a Level 2 belly flyer in the tunnel according to the IBA system that tunnels like SkyVenture Colorado use.

I saw that list - it's horrible.

The "FF Path" is very distinctly defined - with specific skills to sign off, etc.

The "Belly Path" is just references to dive pools, etc. Not equivalent at all by listing skills demonstrations that reflect RW levels of expertise. I think 10 minutes with a professional 4-way instructor/competitor and they could have done a really good job on that portion.

It also states "Which path do you want to go down?" Crappy - a full body flyer should go down both paths. It's not a choice of one or the other.


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jun 5, 2013, 12:23 PM)


airtwardo  (D License)

Jun 6, 2013, 3:56 AM
Post #86 of 136 (1126 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
Has anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident?

Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngsters


I'm curious ~ does anyone know the current numbers?

The ratio of AAFI candidates that apply but fail.

The ratio of newly minted AFFI's as opposed to recently current AFFI's that dropped the rating.

10+ years ago the dirty little secret was - the standards were being pushed down some because there weren't enough applicants to replace the burned outs...I wonder if some of that is going on here?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 6, 2013, 11:13 AM
Post #87 of 136 (1079 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
10+ years ago the dirty little secret was - the standards were being pushed down some because there weren't enough applicants to replace the burned outs...I wonder if some of that is going on here?
Same thing except is not a dirty little secret anymore. I'd almost it's blatant.

As far as simple numbers, IMO, it's no longer an issue of battling attrition or getting enough out there to service all the DZs. We are now overfilling that hole that was dug with the advent of the AFF program and its need for instructors.


normiss  (D 28356)

Jun 6, 2013, 11:29 AM
Post #88 of 136 (1070 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

22 April, 2013

Proposal to Allow Tunnel Training for Accelerated Free Fall Instructor Course


The proposal is to allow up to one hour of AFFI specific tunnel training to count towards the 6-hour course prerequisite. This proposal was driven by and is designed to increase the skills of an AFFI candidate. Since this propsal was first brought up, it has generated strong opinions as well as misunderstanding of what is being proposed. I would like to clarify the proposal and address those concerns.

This proposal does not change the AFFI course standards. It gives candidates the option of replacing up to 60 minutes of free fall time, with no requirements or curriculum, and replaces them with a formal, controlled course of instruction and training that is directly applicable to the skill set applicable to AFFI skydives.

-It is impossible to know exactly what knowledge and skills will be learned from (approximately) jump 300 to jump 360 (approximately 5 hours of free fall to 6 hours of free fall). The argument is the candidate will be doing exits, canopy control, etc, but they cannot tell me that their skills will actually improve or that they will be doing RW-type exits and not wing suit or free fly exits. There is no plan, structure, or requirements for those 60 skydives. If those 60 skydives are wing suiting (which would mean less than 60 skydives with over a minute of free fall per wing suit skydive) or free flying, how do those skydives improve AFFI flying skills?

-The Static Line and IAD Instructor Ratings require a minimum of 200 skydives. Static Line and IAD Instructors teach all the same skills as AFFI’s. They teach the same canopy control skills, emergency procedures, gear, free fall maneuvers, and talk the student down on the radio, etc as the AFFI. The difference is the free fall flight skills needed to be an AFFI. There does not seem to be an issue created by this 200 minimum skydives creating under-qualified SL and IAD instructors. If 300 skydives (6-hours of free fall time) isn't enough to teach canopy control, emergency procedures, gear, etc, then how is 200 skydives enough to attend a SL or IAD Instructor course and become a SL or IAD Instructor and teach all of those same skills?

-Two Instructors from Skyventure Colorado attended an AFFI course with less than 100 jumps each. They were, according to the Course Director, the best flyers at the course. One passed that course and the other passed the evaluation skydives at a second course.

-The hour of tunnel time is not spent learning to back fly or fly head down. It is spent learning and improving body position, proximity flying, giving hand signals (docked and undocked), controlling an unstable student, spin stops, roll overs, and the deployment sequence. Learning these skills in a controlled environment with a high rate of repetition, direct and immediate feedback without external distractions better prepares the candidate for the AFFI course. That being said, the wind tunnel cannot completely replace actual skydive AFFI course training skydives.

-60 skydives with a coach and video costs approximately $4,200 ($25 per lift ticket x 120 slots plus $20 per skydive(coach fee) x 60 skydives). AFFI-specific tunnel training at Skyventure Colorado costs $1020 for 60-minutes, with video. Given the same budget of $1000, a candidate would be able to make 14 AFF training skydives. An AFFI course candidate is going to get more than 4 times the training, per training dollar, using a wind tunnel for AFFI training than making skydives.

-Not all candidates would have easy access to a wind tunnel for AFFI training. This proposal is not to make tunnel training mandatory. AFFI candidates would still be able to meet the course prerequisites with 6 hours of free fall time. The hour of tunnel training would be optional.






No clue why I received this, but I do NOT support it.


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 6, 2013, 12:26 PM
Post #89 of 136 (1053 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

normiss wrote:
-Two Instructors from Skyventure Colorado attended an AFFI course with less than 100 jumps each. They were, according to the Course Director, the best flyers at the course. One passed that course and the other passed the evaluation skydives at a second course.

Negative - "100 jumps" - This is part that takes away from the proposal. If it was just stated - "primarily tunnel trained eval candidates", then the knee jerk response would have been mitigated a lot. The fact that the example is of jumpers that don't even meet the minimum current standards makes the proposal intent easy to question.

Positive - Tunnel instructors -
1 - absolutely they should be outstanding flyers
2 - IMHO - this is great background in terms of being able to teach a body based discipline.
3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also. Just based on the guys I know at various tunnels. They are already screened for the tunnel job to the same expectations that I'd hope AFF candidates should meet (personality, disposition, friendliness, openness, skill, and observation)

I think the proposal's intent focuses on that positive aspect.
I also think people are mostly arguing about the negative point that implies (incorrectly) that the proposal is intended to short circuit the real life requirements in place (other than true freefall time).

Actually, I think the primary point of most of the objections is just that, in general, it's getting too easy to get the rating. Which is a bit of a divergence from the meat of the proposal.

I'd like the course and qual to hold a much higher standard of performance and experience - I'm thrilled if a candidate gets an advantage through excellent preparation in the tunnel for the flying portion. As noted before, I'd like to see it added to the minimums, not in exchange for any.


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jun 6, 2013, 12:27 PM)


lug  (D License)

Jun 6, 2013, 12:31 PM
Post #90 of 136 (1051 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
Has anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident?

Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngsters

Complacency comes to mind, but I could be wrong.

Those pushing for Tunnel time toward AFF requirements are looking for and easy way to get the ticket.


normiss  (D 28356)

Jun 6, 2013, 12:45 PM
Post #91 of 136 (1045 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Those are not my words, so I cannot say that is 'negative'.

I believe it to be properly stated.




FYI - I do NOT, I repeat NOT support this idea in any way.
Wink


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 6, 2013, 7:00 PM
Post #92 of 136 (1006 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Negative - "100 jumps" - This is part that takes away from the proposal. If it was just stated - "primarily tunnel trained eval candidates", then the knee jerk response would have been mitigated a lot. The fact that the example is of jumpers that don't even meet the minimum current standards makes the proposal intent easy to question.
True. However, that wouldn't mitigate the responses about aspects of AFFI other than flying skill.

In reply to:
3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also.
I would question this. Other than the Coach course, how often do tunnel instructors get out in the mainstream of skydiving to teach ground preps?

In reply to:
Just based on the guys I know at various tunnels. They are already screened for the tunnel job to the same expectations that I'd hope AFF candidates should meet (personality, disposition, friendliness, openness, skill, and observation)
Sadly, there currently are no AFFI candidate evaluations for personality, disposition, friendliness, openness, book knowledge, meaningful canopy flight knowledge and other.

In reply to:
I also think people are mostly arguing about the negative point that implies (incorrectly) that the proposal is intended to short circuit the real life requirements in place (other than true freefall time).
I disagree. Whatever the 'intent' was, substituting an hour in the tunnel for an hour of freefall experience does nobody any justice. It's kinda hard to chase young jumpers around in a tunnel. That hour, IMO, would be better spent on actually Coaching people on the ground and in freefall...you know..actually meeting the requirements of maintaining the Coach rating.

In reply to:
Actually, I think the primary point of most of the objections is just that, in general, it's getting too easy to get the rating. Which is a bit of a divergence from the meat of the proposal.
True except where you say 'a divergence'. It's a real concern. The divergence comes because they are trying to move away from real, beneficial activities that make for better AFFI.

Really now, being able to FF is not a requirement for AFFI.
Yes, yes, it's a good tool to have available.

In reply to:
I'd like the course and qual to hold a much higher standard of performance and experience - I'm thrilled if a candidate gets an advantage through excellent preparation in the tunnel for the flying portion. As noted before, I'd like to see it added to the minimums, not in exchange for any.
WoooHoooo! Now THAT I'll stand with you in the face of the enemy guns. We'd both be shot down though over the 'added to minimums'. Access to tunnels is limited both by proximity and cost.


faulk04  (D 32457)

Jun 6, 2013, 7:34 PM
Post #93 of 136 (999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tonyhathaway] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

do examiners submit how many people take their course in a year?


I don't think tunnel time should be replaced for freefall time. I do think the tunnel is a great place to learn specific aff drills such as spin stops, roll overs, and giving hand signals, but others things can't be learned there.


I've done an hour of Aff training in the tunnel and would like to eventually go take the aff course, but I'm having a tough finding a whole week that I can take off of work.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 7, 2013, 2:45 AM
Post #94 of 136 (967 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Disclaimer:

After having re-read the proposal and seeing that it is geared towards providing organized training as a substitute to just 1 of the current hours requiring no training at all, I'll back off on arguing against what the 1 hour of tunnel can help candidates achieve.

If the tunnel training is ever intended to replace actual in-air evaluation requirements then no, that shouldn't happen.

So what's really happening here is that AFF candidates are being offered the opportunity to get specific training for that hour instead of having spent it in a wingsuit or FF or solos or H&Ps. It's only an AFF pre-course for some specific air skills development.

Except for the tunnel availability problem and the cost, that can't be bad in and of itself.

Now, if we could get the powers that be to add real, meaningful ground training experience, canopy flight knowledge and experience, and book knowledge as a requirement for AFFI, we'd be getting somewhere.


devildog  (C 40302)

Jun 8, 2013, 4:12 PM
Post #95 of 136 (885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
Has anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident?

Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngsters
Heh. I saw the topic in the general feed and this was my first thought.


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 9, 2013, 12:20 PM
Post #96 of 136 (763 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
In reply to:
3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also.
I would question this. Other than the Coach course, how often do tunnel instructors get out in the mainstream of skydiving to teach ground preps?

I'd invite you to go watch some of the one on one teaching that a personal coach at a tunnel does. I'd also expect a personal trainer to do a good job, a karate instructor, a gymnastics instructor, etc etc etc to a better job teaching ground preps for AFF. (this is really because I don't have a high opinion of the Coach rating or if it's value added - I think being a pro at teaching body mechanics based activities is better by far.) teaching is teaching

Quote:
Really now, being able to FF is not a requirement for AFFI.
Yes, yes, it's a good tool to have available.

A belly only flyer should be able to become a decent AFFI. A FF only flyer,....well,,,,I've seen them and they crash and burn in AFF and shouldn't do it. BUT, give me someone that took the effort to learn to be good at both, and I'll put my money on that jumper doing Excellent in the flying portion. And, frankly, someone that recognizes that freefall just involves pushing on air regardless of orientation, and someone that learned a more than one discipline, etc, would have more experience and tools applicable to teaching someone something new - like skydiving.


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jun 9, 2013, 12:34 PM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 9, 2013, 12:28 PM
Post #97 of 136 (762 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
Disclaimer:

After having re-read the proposal and seeing that it is geared towards providing organized training as a substitute to just 1 of the current hours requiring no training at all, I'll back off on arguing against what the 1 hour of tunnel can help candidates achieve.

If the tunnel training is ever intended to replace actual in-air evaluation requirements then no, that shouldn't happen.

So what's really happening here is that AFF candidates are being offered the opportunity to get specific training for that hour instead of having spent it in a wingsuit or FF or solos or H&Ps. It's only an AFF pre-course for some specific air skills development.

Except for the tunnel availability problem and the cost, that can't be bad in and of itself.

Now, if we could get the powers that be to add real, meaningful ground training experience, canopy flight knowledge and experience, and book knowledge as a requirement for AFFI, we'd be getting somewhere.

SCORE!!

This is an option that actually drives IMPROVED air skills that are applicable to the rating.

Everything else put out there is really about something not related - no matter how good the points are, they are tangential to the specific proposal. (Even though those discussions should happen also)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 9, 2013, 3:02 PM
Post #98 of 136 (742 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

rehmwa wrote:
popsjumper wrote:
In reply to:
3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also.
I would question this. Other than the Coach course, how often do tunnel instructors get out in the mainstream of skydiving to teach ground preps?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear..

My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach.

Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc.

These things take practice to be good at it. How often do tunnel coaches get to practice teaching ground and book learning?

While I certainly agree with your sentiments about the Coach rating, it does give the Coach the green light to start practicing, and hopefully improving, his teaching methods....including the ground stuff.

If you want to teach skydiving you first need the Coach rating.

Do tunnel operations require a instructional rating of some sort?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 9, 2013, 3:06 PM
Post #99 of 136 (741 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

rehmwa wrote:
SCORE!!

This is an option that actually drives IMPROVED air skills that are applicable to the rating.

Well, yes and no. Option being the key word. As long as participation remains an option AND as long as it does not replace free fall hours, I'm good.

A new learning opportunity...how can that be bad?


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jun 9, 2013, 3:06 PM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 10, 2013, 7:40 AM
Post #100 of 136 (679 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear..

My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach.

Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc.

I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself. But I'll elaborate and still nod to your point.

To my point - I understand your point in that it doesn't hurt if someone has practice on the specifics......But it's not rocket science to prep a Cat jump or teach a first jump course. So - someone that's doesn't get how to teach isn't going to get better with a year of reps, yet someone that knows how to teach in general will likely have a pretty good course in just a few reps.

However, I absolutely believe that experience is needed to teach a multitude of different types of people. You need to have a large bucket of different techniques and examples to get through to others. I see so many new instructors try to convey a concept the same way over and over again when the student isn't getting it - like excessive repetitions and just saying it LOUDER will do the job - then complain about the student.....Unsure. The ability to change perspective and offer up other ways of teaching is essential (and that sometimes means being able to teach something you saw another do, or pull from something you didn't personally experience, but was shared by another instructor)...that's where your point is really made. Someone too young in the sport tends to pull solely from their own experience and only can convey those anecdotes.....


It always comes down to we need people with a lot of exposure AND a natural ability to teach as well. So I hate to weigh one against the other, but if I did, I'd have to say that you can go get experience, much harder to learn to empathize enough to teach well.

as always, you and I tend to agree as the discussions get clearer


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 10, 2013, 7:20 PM
Post #101 of 136 (939 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed, again. Teaching experience is a big plus regardless of the subject.

"like excessive repetitions and just saying it LOUDER will do the job"
LaughLaughLaugh

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW??????
LaughLaugh


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jun 10, 2013, 7:21 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jun 11, 2013, 4:38 AM
Post #102 of 136 (900 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

 
Not aimed at Pops, just adding on.

Recently I watched a new coach working with a jumper, and then the coach made it all the way to the plane without his helmet. He ran to grab it, and all else went well.

The point is that being a new coach, who just barely meets the experience requirements, he just doesn't have the accumulated time in the sport to be able to juggle all of the balls involved in supervising two people on a skydive.

I know that the 'student' in this case has been cleared to self-supervise, but like a good coach he put out an effort to supervise the student, and in doing so he forgot to supervise himself.

So when you take perspective AFF Is, and remove their time in the sport, and on a DZ, making actual jumps, you are losing more than some people think. A big part of the job is literally 'managing' a skydive for two people, yourself and the student. That student is counting on the AFF I to be sharp enough to handle every facet of their skydive from the gear up, to shedding the jumped rig in the packing room, and everything in between.

It just takes time in he sport to be able to put your own skydive on 'autopilot', and be able to focus on the needs of your student, and still have all of your own bases covered. Part of being an AFF I is the freefall flying skills, for sure, but a bigger part is having the knowledge, experience, and judgment to be able to accurately supervise and guide your student through a safe skydive, and you don't get any of that in the tunnel.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 11, 2013, 12:14 PM
Post #103 of 136 (861 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Yep, thanks. That is part of why I say that if they want to ADD the tunnel training to the existing free fall time requirements, fine. No to replacing free fall time. We don't need less, we need more.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Jun 12, 2013, 10:00 AM
Post #104 of 136 (805 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.ispot.tv/...ord-bed-or-breakfast


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 12, 2013, 11:40 AM
Post #105 of 136 (784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
Yep, thanks. That is part of why I say that if they want to ADD the tunnel training to the existing free fall time requirements, fine. No to replacing free fall time. We don't need less, we need more.

And isn't better. Some of us have many, many hours of freefall time and lots of jumps but don't live close to a tunnel or don't want to spend our dollars that way.

Don't diminish the importance of being an experienced skydiver in any way. Add jump numbers, freefall time, or any other skydiving-related experience, but not tunnel time.

top


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 12, 2013, 12:42 PM
Post #106 of 136 (776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

topdocker wrote:
but not tunnel time.

I don't read it as 'tunnel' time. I read it as merely "very focused and highly effective body flight training" time.


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jun 12, 2013, 6:07 PM
Post #107 of 136 (744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

It sounds like the true issue here is the 6 hour freefall requirement. Based on the comments here is seems like the general feeling is that isnt enough. Not sure I agree. Maybe there should be a requirement for documented hours of actually teaching as well as maintenence hours once you have a rating.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 12, 2013, 9:23 PM
Post #108 of 136 (730 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

topdocker wrote:
popsjumper wrote:
Yep, thanks. That is part of why I say that if they want to ADD the tunnel training to the existing free fall time requirements, fine. No to replacing free fall time. We don't need less, we need more.

And isn't better. Some of us have many, many hours of freefall time and lots of jumps but don't live close to a tunnel or don't want to spend our dollars that way.

Don't diminish the importance of being an experienced skydiver in any way. Add jump numbers, freefall time, or any other skydiving-related experience, but not tunnel time.

top

Yep. I mentioned cost earlier.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 12, 2013, 9:28 PM
Post #109 of 136 (728 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Deisel wrote:
.... Maybe there should be a requirement for documented hours of actually teaching as well as maintenence hours once you have a rating.

IIRC, there is already a requirement for teaching. Not hours, but number of FJC classes on top of a number of jumps, plus an annual seminar.
Unless that has changed recently.

If you have an IRM, it's in there.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jun 12, 2013, 9:31 PM)


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jun 13, 2013, 6:24 AM
Post #110 of 136 (712 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Yep. I'm well aware of that requirement. But as you are well aware - a monkey could stand there and recite the SIM. I'm talking about actual teaching. But then again, this is the exact same problem that we see in our schools across the country. The real question here is how to you truly evaluate someone's ability to teach? IMO the flying skills are secondary to this.


BASE469  (D 14328)

Jun 13, 2013, 7:22 AM
Post #111 of 136 (705 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Louis,
I'm not sure that separating flying skill and teaching skills, or emphasizing one over the other is a particularly useful notion.
Being an AFF/I should be the whole package....you can be the greatest teacher ever, but if you can't fly you're slot on a release dive effortlessly, how can you provide any useful feedback? Conversely, if the greatest flyer in the world couldn't teach a dog to sit with a freezer full of steaks, do you really want to be on the other side of a student that they briefed? As far as the tunnel time replacing freefall, that has to be one of the dumbest things that USPA ever contemplated, at least since the Coach course, so it's sure to be implemented.
M.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 13, 2013, 7:56 AM
Post #112 of 136 (695 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The real question here is how to you truly evaluate someone's ability to teach? IMO the flying skills are secondary to this.

Observation. But that is subjective. I can't think of an objective evaluation means.

Funny part, IMO, is that as important as teaching skill is, USPA does little to nothing to check that. What you get in the Coach course is not verified beyond being able to regurgitate two ISP jumps. AFF is worse...little to no review of CC material, just two more regurgitations and the regurgitations differ from AFFCD to AFFCD.
Unsure


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jun 13, 2013, 8:06 AM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 13, 2013, 8:04 AM
Post #113 of 136 (694 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASE469] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm not sure that separating flying skill and teaching skills, or emphasizing one over the other is a particularly useful notion.
I differ. Two separate entities. That's one reason behind being able to get a waiver for not doing AFF jumps and still teach and sign off on license applications.

In reply to:
Being an AFF/I should be the whole package....
With the exception of the waiver needs, I agree.

In reply to:
you can be the greatest teacher ever, but if you can't fly you're slot on a release dive effortlessly,....
You should not have the rating. You should not be jumping with AFF students.

In reply to:
Conversely, if the greatest flyer in the world couldn't teach a dog to sit with a freezer full of steaks, do you really want to be on the other side of a student that they briefed?

Well, I always checked with the student about their briefings by others by asking questions and having them demonstrate.

In reply to:
As far as the tunnel time replacing freefall, that has to be one of the dumbest things that USPA ever contemplated, at least since the Coach course, so it's sure to be implemented.
M.
LaughLaugh


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 13, 2013, 8:26 AM
Post #114 of 136 (689 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BASE469] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

BASE469 wrote:
As far as the tunnel time replacing freefall, that has to be one of the dumbest things that USPA ever contemplated, at least since the Coach course, so it's sure to be implemented.
M.

As far as I know, this died at the BOD last Summer.

top


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 13, 2013, 9:01 AM
Post #115 of 136 (685 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I would love to see this as a poll. But the poll should absolutely have a way to compare the response vs the amount of 'focused RW tunnel training' that the responder has.

Even though I'd rather have the requirement added. Not replaced, there are some misconceptions indicated by the short/flip answers here:

IMHO - from reading this thread: There's a huge disconnect here about the proposal vs what people are upset about.
--- the proposal is about a very effective skills (only) training option.
--- the gripe is about current levels of experience, skill, and aptitude already being seen as too low.
> these are different items. And the proposal actually raises the bar to help address one of the three issues reflected by the gripes......

1 - I think the proposal needs to be very clear to responders here - in the realm of experience/suitability/skill - IMO - it addresses just one item only "skill" - by offering a better option to random jumps, with something a lot more focused that directly targets AFFI skills, it's not just about someone bouncing around in the tunnel with no plan. I'm not sure why anyone can complain about raising the skill levels of candidates. Or call it a 'stupid idea'...

Now how to do that without impacting the other gripes (experience and suitability). The "inference" is that it takes away from the 'experience' issue. (I won't get into suitability - that would fixed by a referral requirement).

2 - - we need better experience and suitability requirements for the instructor rating. Time in sport would be a better and more direct requirement to clear up or make even tighter. Jumps and freefall time are ok... I guess, I'd like to see even more. I think the Coach rating is intended to do that, but then we need it done as intended, is that the case? But I'd suggest we try to address that more directly. What do we really want from our candidates - (number of unintentional reserve rides, years of experience, currency requirements, a referral from someone of extreme responsibility in the sport, drug tests, what? years and hours are a bit vague, but they do indicate a desire for someone that's survived long enough to indicate they aren't a dumbass)




as far as flying skills only - here's the key, "all other things being equal" (((that means provided they got a significant amount of experience some other way)), I trade 15 minutes of focused tunnel training over an hour of actual unfocused/randomly used freefall time -

(FWIW - based on being a decent AFFI, coach and advanced skills coach, and also having taken and conducted skills camps in the tunnel)


digression - If you haven't taken a training camp (100 jumps or 10,000 jumps) in a tunnel, you just don't know how strong the learning ramp is. it's hard to assess the proposal.

But I'd say, figure out what we really want from the AFFI requirements, and makes sure it's not something totally different than from this proposal before the knee jerk response


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 13, 2013, 9:02 AM
Post #116 of 136 (684 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

topdocker wrote:
As far as I know, this died at the BOD last Summer.

but I think the thread notes that there might still be concerns in other areas. Worth starting another thread?


tristansdad  (C 39285)

Jun 13, 2013, 1:09 PM
Post #117 of 136 (654 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dorbie] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

I think the idea is completely retarded. There's alot more to skydiving than freefall. I knew a guy who had tons of tunnel time but almost killed himself under his canopy. The tunnel is a great training tool but it doesnt replace all that goes into making a jump. Also I hate it when its called "indoor skydiving" Mad


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 13, 2013, 2:36 PM
Post #118 of 136 (636 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tristansdad] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

One of the real areas that needs to be cleaned up is "time in sport." Doing one tandem every year for ten years then going through AFF does not mean you have ten years in the sport. Also, its almost completely unverifiable.

I would suggest it be "years licensed." It is easily verified by HQ, means you have been skydiving and staying current, and ultimately is a better litmus than "freefall time" or "time in sport."

top


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 13, 2013, 2:46 PM
Post #119 of 136 (633 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tristansdad] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think the idea is completely retarded. There's alot more to skydiving than freefall.
True. But the tunnel time is only concerned with learning AFFI in-air skills. Everything else has nothing to do with the tunnel training. Those are all USPA course problems.

In reply to:
The tunnel is a great training tool but it doesnt replace all that goes into making a jump.

Self-evident, yes.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 13, 2013, 2:47 PM
Post #120 of 136 (632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

topdocker wrote:
...I would suggest it be "years licensed." It is easily verified by HQ, means you have been skydiving and staying current, and ultimately is a better litmus than "freefall time" or "time in sport."

top

Well, Top...we could shoot that idea out of the sky too easily.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 13, 2013, 3:02 PM
Post #121 of 136 (637 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
topdocker wrote:
...I would suggest it be "years licensed." It is easily verified by HQ, means you have been skydiving and staying current, and ultimately is a better litmus than "freefall time" or "time in sport."

top

Well, Top...we could shoot that idea out of the sky too easily.

Yes, but find an alternative then. If you are looking for verifiable starting metrics, that is an easy one. Certainly better than "time in sport."

top


Deisel  (D 31661)

Jun 13, 2013, 3:04 PM
Post #122 of 136 (637 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Yup. There is no currency requirement to remain licensed. You pay the fee, USPA will keep sending the cards. Currency only required for ratings.


topdocker  (D 12018)

Jun 13, 2013, 3:12 PM
Post #123 of 136 (633 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Deisel wrote:
Yup. There is no currency requirement to remain licensed. You pay the fee, USPA will keep sending the cards. Currency only required for ratings.

Yes, but there is no currency requirement for "time in sport" either. It's not THE answer, just a better one.

top


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 13, 2013, 3:16 PM
Post #124 of 136 (629 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

It's going to take deeper thinkers than what I got to solve this conundrum.


tdog  (D 28800)

Jun 14, 2013, 6:15 AM
Post #125 of 136 (565 views)
Shortcut
Re: [airtwardo] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

airtwardo wrote:
I'm curious ~ does anyone know the current numbers?

The ratio of AAFI candidates that apply but fail.

I have first hand knowledge of three AFFI Instructor evaluators, who have honest conversations with their candidates in the pre-course about their skillsets and recommend the types of coaching required before they "go hot", and therefore only candidates who are ready "go hot" and therefore their pass rate is nearly 100%. I have done air and ground evaluations for two of them - and have been the one to say, "you are not ready yet" or "lets go hot".

When I got my rating in 2006, I asked my evaluator this specific question and he said about 30-40% of all the people that travel to his course are told they need more coaching/skills before they go hot, and about 95% pass because of this.


(This post was edited by tdog on Jun 14, 2013, 6:16 AM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 14, 2013, 7:20 AM
Post #126 of 136 (576 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
In reply to:
I think the idea is completely retarded. There's alot more to skydiving than freefall.
True. But the tunnel time is only concerned with learning AFFI in-air skills. Everything else has nothing to do with the tunnel training. Those are all USPA course problems.

Thank you for this comment. I write so much, that I can hide what I think is the essence of what I'm seeing.



I hope my position is clear -

I think Derek's proposal 'raises' the bar for skill level. And only skill level.

I still think something is missed. But it's a lot more than just the minimum freefall time requirement.


ufk22  (D 16168)

Jun 15, 2013, 7:37 AM
Post #127 of 136 (543 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Requiring tunnel time or using tunnel time to replace ff time both miss what is needed.
The tunnel can be a valuable tool for learning some basic AFF skills (roll-overs and spin stops). It can also help with the basic flying, but the tunnel is far too limiting to really use for a lot of the flying skills needed (exit stabilization, staying close to a student that backslides 20' on release, staying with a students that drops 50' in a sudden roll-over, etc).
That said, having 500 RW team jumps or 500 FF jumps also don't give these skills. Maybe a requirement for 100 coach jumps might help. Nothing teaches flying skills like jumping with low-time people who are sliding across the sky.
As for the current teaching requirements, I've seen a wide variation of what C-Es and I-Es require.
I want to see lesson plans on at least a few of the topics from my candidates prior to the course, then require and grade their lesson plans during the course. The idea is to try to reinforce the idea that they need to PREPARE. I've been teaching for over 20 years, but never just "wing it" for a FJC. I show them my outline with notes scribbled all over the place to reinforce the concept that just because they skydive doesn't mean that they can teach it effectively without preparation.
I've had people go elsewhere to take the coach or I course and come back commenting on how "this other" I-E is a lot more effective because they don't waste all that time on lesson plan stuff.
I've also known more than one I-E that actually hand out complete lesson plans for what their candidates need to teach during the course, and seen candidates just recite it back so poorly that they obviously haven't even rehearsed to this low level.
The bottom line is that every candidate can reach a higher level than they themselves realize, but only if they are held to a real standard. Not all can or should pass.
This is less about written requirements and more about real-world evaluations.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 15, 2013, 8:08 AM
Post #128 of 136 (542 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ufk22] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

+1


kallend  (D 23151)

Jun 15, 2013, 2:13 PM
Post #129 of 136 (528 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rehmwa] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

rehmwa wrote:
popsjumper wrote:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear..

My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach.

Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc.

I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself.

So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jun 15, 2013, 3:45 PM
Post #130 of 136 (521 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

rehmwa wrote:
I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself.

In reply to:
So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?
They are....if they apply for the ratings.
They get a tip o' the hat from the I/E....maybe.
LaughLaugh

But you do point out what many have been saying all along...the ratings require no teaching skill whatsoever. All they require is the ability to regurgitate information.

Why? Who the hell knows. It's not like they (USPA) have never heard of this problem before.

My take is that they have no realistic means of evaluating teaching credentials unless you are simply talking about a piece of paper testifying for you. Even then, IMO, you'd need to prove your abilities. But that's no less subjective than what we have now.

Just out of curiosity, why is it that YOU list no USPA skydiving instructional ratings? You claim to be the worlds greatest 'teacher'. Put up for the benefit of the sport. Pay it forward.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jun 15, 2013, 3:48 PM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jun 16, 2013, 4:45 AM
Post #131 of 136 (498 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

The same reason that tunnel time shouldn't replace actual jumps in meet the requirements to become an AFFI. Much like the tunnel skills, the teaching is only one part of the overall puzzle needed to make a good AFFI.

Some people at larger DZs may forget this, but there are smaller DZ where there is very little in the way of staff. What you end up with is an instructor essentially teaching in a vacuum, where they do the FJC, the ground preps, make the jumps and do the debrief (in the case of AFF, there would be another I, but if that I is a junior instructor, they would be taking their queues from the senior I anyway). The point being that an I needs to be a complete package, who can teach in the classroom, on the DZ, in the plane, in freefall, and effectively supervise in all of those same places, and conduct a good debrief.

So just like a certified teacher has a leg-up in some of those areas, so does a certified tunnel instructor. Regardless, there are still the areas not pertaining to their certification where they also need to be proficient in order to do the job.


diablopilot  (D License)

Jun 16, 2013, 10:38 AM
Post #132 of 136 (484 views)
Shortcut
Re: [topdocker] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

Been saying it for 5 years. "Time in sport" needs to be from issuance of the "A" (or first) license.


Ron

Jun 16, 2013, 3:15 PM
Post #133 of 136 (476 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ufk22] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

ufk22 wrote:
Requiring tunnel time or using tunnel time to replace ff time both miss what is needed.
The tunnel can be a valuable tool for learning some basic AFF skills (roll-overs and spin stops). It can also help with the basic flying, but the tunnel is far too limiting to really use for a lot of the flying skills needed (exit stabilization, staying close to a student that backslides 20' on release, staying with a students that drops 50' in a sudden roll-over, etc).
That said, having 500 RW team jumps or 500 FF jumps also don't give these skills.

I have never seen a person with 500 RE team jumps have an issue with the flying skills needed for AFF. I have seen FF have issues, I have seen TIs have issues... But I have never seen or heard about a 500 team jump RW jumper having an issue with the flying.... The *teaching* yes, bit not the flying.

Just like I don't doubt that a tunnel rat could fly the slot... But flying the slot is half, maybe a little more than half of it. You need to be able to teach, not just fly.


Ron

Jun 16, 2013, 3:20 PM
Post #134 of 136 (472 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kallend] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

kallend wrote:
rehmwa wrote:
popsjumper wrote:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear..

My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach.

Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc.

I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself.

So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

They are, or were. You didn't new the BIC per the USPA.

But, while I don't doubt you personally..... Just because a guy can teach a classroom of students math, that does not mean he can teach skydiving.

Just like the fact I could teach skydiving didn't get credit when I applied for a corporate training job, or why the FAA doesn't just have me a CFI even though I have AFF/SL/T I ratings. Never mind that I taught RC flying, never mind that I taught martial arts..... The FAA still wants me to take a test. I consider it fair.


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 17, 2013, 11:30 AM
Post #135 of 136 (431 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
+1

+1 to ufk's post too

(though I do think you guys minimize the applicability of the skills learned in the tunnel and in RW competition. I see day to day that these guys fly circles around someone who's (as the example) done 100 "coach" jumps (or see Ron's note about RW jumpers, FF, TIs etc - good post), the overall note was spot on)


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jun 17, 2013, 11:35 AM)


rehmwa  (D 12816)

Jun 17, 2013, 11:32 AM
Post #136 of 136 (430 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs [In reply to] Can't Post

davelepka wrote:
Quote:
So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

The same reason that tunnel time shouldn't replace actual jumps in meet the requirements to become an AFFI. Much like the tunnel skills, the teaching is only one part of the overall puzzle needed to make a good AFFI.

Some people at larger DZs may forget this, but there are smaller DZ where there is very little in the way of staff. What you end up with is an instructor essentially teaching in a vacuum, where they do the FJC, the ground preps, make the jumps and do the debrief (in the case of AFF, there would be another I, but if that I is a junior instructor, they would be taking their queues from the senior I anyway). The point being that an I needs to be a complete package, who can teach in the classroom, on the DZ, in the plane, in freefall, and effectively supervise in all of those same places, and conduct a good debrief.

So just like a certified teacher has a leg-up in some of those areas, so does a certified tunnel instructor. Regardless, there are still the areas not pertaining to their certification where they also need to be proficient in order to do the job.

Here's another +100



Edit: side note - this overall thread is great. We see a bunch of early thinly thought out responses, then a clarification of intent and understanding, and an eventual convergence of opinion (at least in general) that's leading to a general understanding of concepts needed to make us better at our jobs and identifying candidate needs for future instructors. It's how discourse should be done.

If this was Speaker's corner, it's would have degraded into "you suck", "no, you suck" about 100 posts ago. Tongue


(This post was edited by rehmwa on Jun 17, 2013, 11:39 AM)



Forums : Skydiving : Instructors

 


Search for (options)