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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

would make it easier?

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?

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,

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

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?

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

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

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.

I learned spin stops and rollovers at the Bragg tunnel.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Our licenses are pathetic. sigh

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

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

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

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