Forums: Skydiving: Safety and Training:
Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem

 


davelepka  (D 21448)

Oct 31, 2012, 5:15 AM
Post #1 of 58 (5267 views)
Shortcut
Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem Can't Post

Quote:
Radios breed dependency, dampen initiative, and reduce awareness building.

That's just silly, and you know it. Using a radio for the first 5 or 6 jumps does nothing but help the student to ensure that they have a safe canopy flight, and if used properly, they can help the student learn faster. Train the student as if there was no radio, and remind them that it could fail at any time, but in the end what could be better than having an experienced jumper literally in your ear during your first couple of solo canopy rides?

Again, the reason we have AADs and AFFIs is because you don't know how a student will perform. You plan for the worst and hope for the best. If you believe that the skydive is not over once the canopy is open (as I do), why would you stop the 'teaching' at that point when you don't have to.

Most injuries and fatalities these days happen after a good opening. To simply abandon a student at that point for no reason is non-sense. We help students though the first few exits, we help them though the first few practice (and actual) pulls, and we should be there to help them through the first few jumps under canopy.

Even if a student stays on the radio for 10 jumps, they'll have more than twice that many jumps by the time they get a license. Any dependency they have on a radio will have to disappear within 5 or 6 jumps of taking the radio off, or they will never meet the accuracy rewuirements for the license. We're not talking about dependency of GPS, or an audible altimeter, which would be present on every jump made well past the student training days, the radio is just another tool to help teach students, and is a valid and simple part of a good (and prudent) student training program.


(This post was edited by PhreeZone on Oct 31, 2012, 9:57 AM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Oct 31, 2012, 9:51 AM
Post #2 of 58 (5143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Radios breed dependency, dampen initiative, and reduce awareness building.

<snip>

Most injuries and fatalities these days happen after a good opening. To simply abandon a student at that point for no reason is non-sense. We help students though the first few exits, we help them though the first few practice (and actual) pulls, and we should be there to help them through the first few jumps under canopy.

Funny that you mention abandonment -- without even noticing that this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does as soon as the "FF" is over; plummet 2500K below the student so they can hurry up and make the next turn, leaving the actual under-canopy "instruction" to the bandaid that is a radio in the hands of one "instructor" juggling two or three radios because s/he drew the short straw.

Years ago, I developed a "follow-the-leader" canopy training program, wherein the instructor would fly ahead of and below the student, who would follow.

I developed this concept because, as a TI I would usually hand the toggles to the student after opening, point out the DZ to them and say "fly toward that" while I adjusted the harness to make them more comfortable. Usually, when I took control again, they were pointed at amost every direction of the compass except at the DZ.

However, when there was a camera flyer on the jump, I would point to the camera flyer and say "follow him" -- and they did it right every time.

Why the discrepancy? Because unless we're scuba divers or pilots, we never navigate in a 3D medium until we jump, and adding that extra axis gets confusing.

When following someone, however, you're still doing a 2D path even though you are moving through 3D space.

So I did it with low-timers (25-40 jumps) and even with the severe canopy training deficiencies of "AFF," they were landing within 15-30 feet of me every time.

I would dirt dive the basic setup-to-pattern-entry flight, then fly a precise pattern of crosswind, 1k-750; downwind, 750-500; base 500-250; final, 250-landing.

Additionally, I would dirt dive the "magic" of cheating your line tighter or wider on each leg to adjust as necessary as you went, along with all the other little pattern-flying tricks I won't go into here.

And it worked magnificently. It also radically increased their overall awareness and lurkfulness, because, as one of them put it, "when I'm in the pattern I know where I'm going and where I'm at so I can relax on that a bit and focus more on finding the other traffic so I feel much safer."

Moreover, by having someone to follow, they developed their "pattern eye" much faster, even when they made mistakes. In one case, our opening point was out of position from the norm and my student was afraid she wouldn't make it back by following me, so she broke away and ended up... not making it back. But as she ambled off into the weeds, she noticed that I once again landed in the center of the target, and she said afterward that she learned more from comparing what she did to what I did than she did by just following me.

These are the sorts of training benefits that can accrue when we do not abandon our students after opening and/or try to cover up that abandonment with the bandaid that is a radio held by someone standing on the ground.

But get this, Dave: when I proposed this to the honcho "AFF" instructors at my large turbine DZ -- that on each dive, one of them pulls higher and leads the student through canopy training, the immediately dismissive repsonse I got was, "but then I'd miss a turn."

So much for not abandoning the student, eh? Student abandonment is endemic in and a fundamental part of the "AFF" economic model, and the radio is the bandaid to camouflage the abandonment.

If you were really serious about not abandoning students after they open instead of just pronouncing it silly to replace bandaids with more and better training, you would no doubt have called for this kind of thing a long time ago, given your otherwise almost always stellar views and insights on things parachuting-related.

But you're as blind as the rest of the bunch on this one, so Samuel Jackson to you too, my friend, because, as you say, "we should be there to help them through the first few jumps under canopy" -- and sitting on the ground looking up at them through 5,000 feet of sky is not "being there," no matter what kind of bandaid you have in your hand.

44
Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Oct 31, 2012, 10:12 AM
Post #3 of 58 (5113 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
If you were really serious about not abandoning students after they open instead of just pronouncing it silly to replace bandaids with more and better training, you would no doubt have called for this kind of thing a long time ago, given your otherwise almost always stellar views and insights on things parachuting-related.

I have. Do a search for threads about radio use, and even the one about the gal at Lodi who hit the telephone pole, and you'll see I mention all of the same things, and more. Radio is a tool, and how a DZ uses it (or abuses) it does not change the fact that it can be a huge asset and given the cost, it's more or less a 'freebie' in the world of skydiving.

You're not going to build dependency or stem initiative over the course of 5 to 7 jumps. Even if you told the students every turn to make on all of those jumps, when you remove the radio, they will have to learn in short order, and once they do, any dependency will be lost, and your point moot.

I'm not syaing that it's the only way to teach it, or that every place uses them the right way, but at the end of the day, having the ability to guide students who are under canopy is clearly a benefit to the safety of all involved. To pass on that because of cost, or pride, or stubborness is doing a dis-service to the students.

If you don't want it used the wrong way, then enforce that with your instructors. Tell them to keep quiet until the student makes a mistake, and even then just offer the needed correction and go back to radio silence. This way the student gets the benefit of learning 'on the fly', and the back up of an experienced jumper in their ear if they should make a wrong turn or get into trouble.


Scrumpot  (D License)

Nov 1, 2012, 3:40 PM
Post #4 of 58 (4933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Funny that you mention abandonment -- without even noticing that this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does as soon as the "FF" is over; plummet 2500K below the student so they can hurry up and make the next turn, leaving the actual under-canopy "instruction" to the bandaid that is a radio in the hands of one "instructor" juggling two or three radios because s/he drew the short straw.

If that's how it's actually done at dropzones in your observation or experience Robin, then that is not only just a shame, it is, IMO - WRONG.

Sure, if you predicate your argument just strictly based upon that model or premise - you win - hands down. But this is clearly not the best, let alone what should be even accepted as any "industry practice" for student radio procedure/ops. Surely no-one would actually advocate that.

I am of mixed feelings on radio & radio use / perceived possible dependency. I can actually see both your points, and I know I have posted on this in much greater detail (than I care or have time right now to get into here) before elsewhere. I think I may have even myself somewhere once, actually even started a thread, with very similar title.

I will either find it and reference it, or weigh-in with my experience examples on more proper radio protocol procedures I've observed, later. But this example given, is just plain - sad. Disappointing to say the least, if anywhere this is truly, some(s) actual practice.

P.S. - Quick Edit to add: I take exception at your comment / premise that: "this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does..."

Robin, I am an AFF instructor, and this is *NOT* what I do! ...Nor is it what any other AFF instructor I either work with, or have recently observed at several dropzones I've experienced does in fact and/or in practice either! Mad


(This post was edited by Scrumpot on Nov 1, 2012, 3:46 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 1, 2012, 3:41 PM
Post #5 of 58 (4930 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

>But you're as blind as the rest of the bunch on this one, so Samuel Jackson to you too,
>my friend, because, as you say, "we should be there to help them through the first few
>jumps under canopy" -- and sitting on the ground looking up at them through 5,000
>feet of sky is not "being there," no matter what kind of bandaid you have in your hand.

Hard to imagine people once survived learning via the static line method, where there was no one there to help them through any part of their first few jumps.


ruleofpull  (Student)

Nov 1, 2012, 4:50 PM
Post #6 of 58 (4885 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Interesting discussion. Does anyone know when radios first began being used for student jumps? And, what was the motivation behind radios being used (train students but have a back-up device should something happen, etc.)? (I did a search, but didn't really see a topic that covered this-after not looking too hard).


obelixtim  (D 84)

Nov 1, 2012, 6:39 PM
Post #7 of 58 (4827 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ruleofpull] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

 When large, student friendly canopies came out, I switched from PC's to squares back in 1987. To go with the switch in canopies, I had to come up with a completely new set of canopy control protocols and training, which I gave a lot of thought to.

At the time I was most concerned about the extra distance a student could get under canopy, and had to allow longer spots. This often put the students out of range of the old ground based "follow the arrow" canopy control method.

There were very few suitable radio systems around at the time, so I went with an intense course of canopy flight training, giving students altimeters and waypoints over the ground.(incidentally this canopy flight phase of training I have never had to modify, so I got it right)

First load of first jumpers I put out, all landed safely, although scattered over a wide area.

Right then, I realised that radios were essential, and went about procuring a set for students.

The difference was amazing. I was able to get the students right back where I wanted them, proving that the radio was part of the minimum equipment to be given to students. Especially on a busy airfield with sometimes 20 or 30 first jumpers per day.

I continued to train the students to fly themselves, and only told them about the radio immediately before the jump. Then they were only given commands when they headed off the wrong way. Most students were off the radio within 3 or 4 jumps max.

I was prolly one of the first in the world to switch to square student mains, certainly I had to design my own programme for them, as there were no precedents to go on, as far as I knew.

Radios were as essential as any other vital piece of equipment, once the roundies were retired.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Nov 1, 2012, 7:58 PM
Post #8 of 58 (4801 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ruleofpull] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Does anyone know when radios first began being used for student jumps?

That's hard for me to say, because radios were in use when I started jumping in 1995.

However, we know that they weren't around when students jumped rounds, and probably for the first little while when they switched to squares. It would have been the combination of the technology not being available (at a reasonable price), and just not knowing all that was going to be involved in teaching canopy control.

What I do know is that before radios, DZs used paddles to direct their students. Some of them were different colors, or the operator would use a combination of movements/positions to indicate left turn or right turn. The overall idea is that people wanted to communicate with the students because the benefits were obvious.

Think about this - how many times have you been standing at the DZ watching something bad happen, like a low cutaway or jumper making some really bad choices under canopy, and someone (or multiple people) start yelling, 'Pull!' or 'Cutaway!' or 'Flare!'? We've all seen it, and if you haven't, check out the video of the Russian wingsuiting lady who had the collision at Perris not too long ago. There are a buch of people shouting instructions to her, but she's way too far away to be able to hear them.

The point is that being an outside observer to an emergency situation, you may have a better perspective or state of mind, and can more easily see the solution or best course fo action. In terms of a student with 5 jumps or less, there's a good chance you'll know more than them, and have a better idea than they will if something should go wrong.

So would you rather be standing there shouting instructions to someone who will never hear them, or speaking into the radio, where you're probably the only thing they can hear?


davelepka  (D 21448)

Nov 1, 2012, 8:08 PM
Post #9 of 58 (4795 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Hard to imagine people once survived learning via the static line method, where there was no one there to help them through any part of their first few jumps

Why is that hard to imagine? For many years, static line was done with rounds, where canopy control was less of an issue. Once DZs started to use squares, it became more of an issue, and some of them started to use radios.

My first 4 jumps were static line jumps with square canopies, and I was given a radio. It was a big help for the first few jumps, and then after having flown a canopy a few times, I was able to stop using the radio and had 'good' canopy control on my first 'no radio' jump.

Could I have performed that way on my first jump with no radio? Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm gald it was there in case I needed it, and it gave me the ability to experience canopy flight, and drop the radio when I felt like I could do it on my own. I don't see a downside to that scenario.

Again, it's a tool, and it's effectiveness is related to how it's used. Use it wrong, and you'll get less out of it. Use it right, and you can help to accelerate the learning curve. In either case, you maintain that line of communication to your student should things go 'off plan', and that's the real value.


melanie91  (C License)

Nov 2, 2012, 4:09 AM
Post #10 of 58 (4707 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

What's with the past tense? Static line is still used, and I've seen quite a few instances of radios failing/students not hearing them and at least 75% of them landed safely on the dz. Just about all of the rest landed safely but off the dz; and a very small number sustained minor injuries on landing either on or off the dz. This has been in the past 5 years and it's a reasonably small landing area.


Amyr  (C License)

Nov 2, 2012, 4:17 AM
Post #11 of 58 (4705 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

As a new jumper I remember how glad I was to get off radio. BUT I also remember how glad I was to have that radio on my first jump after the canopy opened. I am glad I had that (Band-aid) on my first few jumps. So I didn't learn old school >real skydiver way. After 50 jumps can you tell who learned on radio their first 5 or so jumps to those who learned hard core?


jimjumper  (D 11137)

Nov 2, 2012, 6:59 AM
Post #12 of 58 (4659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ruleofpull] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

I had a radio on all my student jumps in 1983 but with jumping T-10's about all you could do from 2500' was change the view. Radios on students even then wasn't anything new. The dropzone was surrounded by scrub trees and it was easier to keep the students out of them than haul out an axe ad cut the tree down.


fcajump  (D 15598)

Nov 2, 2012, 8:33 AM
Post #13 of 58 (4614 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Funny that you mention abandonment -- without even noticing that this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does as soon as the "FF" is over; plummet 2500K below the student so they can hurry up and make the next turn, leaving the actual under-canopy "instruction" to the bandaid that is a radio in the hands of one "instructor" juggling two or three radios because s/he drew the short straw.

If that's how it's actually done at dropzones in your observation or experience Robin, then that is not only just a shame, it is, IMO - WRONG.

Sure, if you predicate your argument just strictly based upon that model or premise - you win - hands down. But this is clearly not the best, let alone what should be even accepted as any "industry practice" for student radio procedure/ops. Surely no-one would actually advocate that.

I am of mixed feelings on radio & radio use / perceived possible dependency. I can actually see both your points, and I know I have posted on this in much greater detail (than I care or have time right now to get into here) before elsewhere. I think I may have even myself somewhere once, actually even started a thread, with very similar title.

I will either find it and reference it, or weigh-in with my experience examples on more proper radio protocol procedures I've observed, later. But this example given, is just plain - sad. Disappointing to say the least, if anywhere this is truly, some(s) actual practice.

P.S. - Quick Edit to add: I take exception at your comment / premise that: "this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does..."

Robin, I am an AFF instructor, and this is *NOT* what I do! ...Nor is it what any other AFF instructor I either work with, or have recently observed at several dropzones I've experienced does in fact and/or in practice either! Mad

When I was a SL student (1990) radios were the normal, but at my DZ there was a designated ground-radio instructor for each load with a list of the students and what they were jumping. It was also STRESSED that radios fail and the instructors tried to keep their instructions minimal and only as needed.

A DZ I was at later did something that made me very uncomfortable with their AFF students... not only was there the drop low and rush to get the next student after dumping the last, the radio instructor WAS one of the AFF instructors... they would land as quick as possible, pull the radio out of their jump suit and then look up at the 2-4 students already under canopy and try to talk them all down. This system was made worse by the student canopies all looking the same and made no allowance for the occasions when the instructor landed off...

I think its a good 1st jump instruction aid (it helped me wake up to what was next on my first jump) but must be kept from being a crutch to either the instructors or students.

JW


dthames  (B 37674)

Nov 2, 2012, 10:39 AM
Post #14 of 58 (4586 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

I learned better and faster if I was left along. But if I was headed for an accident/injury the radio could have been used to get me back on track.

I did a jump or two where the radio person thought I was a remote controlled device and I felt like I learned very little on those canopy flights. But for the most part, the radio help was kept to a few suggestive instructions.

Some people need more help than others do. I have known some that were concerned about losing their radio ôlifelineö.


jackwallace  (Student)

Nov 2, 2012, 11:21 AM
Post #15 of 58 (4569 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

I see radios as a necessary evil. In the days of round canopies, and openings at 2500 feet, or less, if the spot was good the student couldn't get very far away from the DZ. With squares and openings above 3500 ft, they can cover a lot of distance. The student can have a much harder time finding the DZ now days. Higher altitude at opening and a lot of DZ's are in much higher population areas. Picking out the DZ from an industrial park, baseball field, football or soccer field can be difficult for them. Radio's like the tunnel are a tool. Used properly they ad safety and skills to the student. Used improperly they become a sloppy crutch that can cause more harm than good.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 2, 2012, 11:22 AM
Post #16 of 58 (4567 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jimjumper] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I had a radio on all my student jumps in 1983 but with jumping T-10's about all you could do from 2500' was change the view.
LaughLaugh
Radios with T10s? I gotta ask...WHY?????
LaughLaugh

One reason:
"Jumper 1, turn 180 so that you can see the tree you are about to hit."


RyanFYF  (C 41792)

Nov 2, 2012, 2:09 PM
Post #17 of 58 (4523 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jackwallace] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

They used radios on my aff jumps but I only got talked to on my second jump. I was actually suprised that no one said anything on my first jump, the second jump all I got was "doing good, watch your altitude, ok good turn, there ya go!, flare! PERFECT!"

then jumps 3-7 never heard anything. A few times the instructor would even ask if someone told me to turn or to flare and when I said no, he just nodded and said "oh, cool. good job"

That was just my personal experience but I never found the radio destracting or a crutch I guess because they barely used it on me. But if I was doing something wrong on the first jumps I would hope someone would scream at me to turn lol


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 2, 2012, 4:13 PM
Post #18 of 58 (4493 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Scrumpot] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Funny that you mention abandonment -- without even noticing that this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does as soon as the "FF" is over; plummet 2500K below the student so they can hurry up and make the next turn, leaving the actual under-canopy "instruction" to the bandaid that is a radio in the hands of one "instructor" juggling two or three radios because s/he drew the short straw.

If that's how it's actually done at dropzones in your observation or experience Robin, then that is not only just a shame, it is, IMO - WRONG.

Sure, if you predicate your argument just strictly based upon that model or premise - you win - hands down. But this is clearly not the best, let alone what should be even accepted as any "industry practice" for student radio procedure/ops. Surely no-one would actually advocate that.

I am of mixed feelings on radio & radio use / perceived possible dependency. I can actually see both your points, and I know I have posted on this in much greater detail (than I care or have time right now to get into here) before elsewhere. I think I may have even myself somewhere once, actually even started a thread, with very similar title.

I will either find it and reference it, or weigh-in with my experience examples on more proper radio protocol procedures I've observed, later. But this example given, is just plain - sad. Disappointing to say the least, if anywhere this is truly, some(s) actual practice.

P.S. - Quick Edit to add: I take exception at your comment / premise that: "this is precisely what every "AFF" instructor does..."

Robin, I am an AFF instructor, and this is *NOT* what I do! ...Nor is it what any other AFF instructor I either work with, or have recently observed at several dropzones I've experienced does in fact and/or in practice either! Mad

Let me get this straight:

1. You've never seen a large turbine DZ where a "ground instructor" manned 2-4 radios at the same time to talk down 2-4 students while the test of the "AFF" instructors high-tailed it off the landing area to get their next student?

2. On every "AFF" jump you make, you pull near student altitude and lead them down to landing?

3. On every "AFF" at your DZ, one of the instructors pulls near student altitude and leads the student down to landing?

4. On every "AFF" jump at the several DZs you've visited, one of the instructors pulls near student altitude and leads the student down to landing?

44
Cool


peek  (D 8884)

Nov 3, 2012, 4:34 AM
Post #19 of 58 (4415 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RyanFYF] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
They used radios on my aff jumps but I only got talked to on my second jump. I was actually suprised that no one said anything on my first jump, the second jump all I got was "doing good, watch your altitude, ok good turn, there ya go!, flare! PERFECT!"

then jumps 3-7 never heard anything. A few times the instructor would even ask if someone told me to turn or to flare and when I said no, he just nodded and said "oh, cool. good job"

That was just my personal experience but I never found the radio destracting or a crutch I guess because they barely used it on me. But if I was doing something wrong on the first jumps I would hope someone would scream at me to turn lol

Good story. In my opinion that is exactly how radios should be used. Have them available if they are needed, but don't say anything unless really needed.

If the training is reasonable, they should at least be able to land in the vicinity of the normal landing area.


(This post was edited by peek on Nov 3, 2012, 4:35 AM)


Andrewwhyte  (C 1988)

Nov 3, 2012, 7:41 AM
Post #20 of 58 (4382 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jimjumper] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I had a radio on all my student jumps in 1983 but with jumping T-10's about all you could do from 2500' was change the view.
This is an often used saw. It is however patently false. A modified T-10 has a forward speed of ~8 mph. I used to smoke jump with T-10s. During training it was made clear that landing more than 30m from the target was not an option. I used to select which tree I was going to snag the canopy on for a softer landing.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Nov 4, 2012, 8:21 AM
Post #21 of 58 (4288 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Robin, I jump at a DZ that has radios assigned to each instructor. The Main side instructor is responsible for also landing in the student landing area and using their radio to guide their student down. We frequently put 10-20 AFF students out per day on the weekend out of multiple turbines and a few weekends we do 60+ with a yearly count of AFF Cat A & Cat B students in the several hundreds if not nearing 1000. The instructors are there for the deployment of the student and then freefall to their own deployment altitude and then are responsible for getting to the Student Field and being present to watch/radio their student under canopy for that portion of their skydive for debriefing. They are also the instructor that does the full debrief and fills out the students logbook. It is extremely rare that a "ground instructor" is ever used. Reserve side instructor can land in the experienced jumper area and can turn loads if needed. There is a pay difference but at the end of the day they make about the same money either via more jumps or more per jump.


Abedy  (D 10153)

Nov 4, 2012, 8:39 AM
Post #22 of 58 (4283 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

That's a jolly neat and well-working scheme!


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 4, 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #23 of 58 (4248 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Robin, I jump at a DZ that has radios assigned to each instructor. The Main side instructor is responsible for also landing in the student landing area and using their radio to guide their student down. We frequently put 10-20 AFF students out per day on the weekend out of multiple turbines and a few weekends we do 60+ with a yearly count of AFF Cat A & Cat B students in the several hundreds if not nearing 1000. The instructors are there for the deployment of the student and then freefall to their own deployment altitude and then are responsible for getting to the Student Field and being present to watch/radio their student under canopy for that portion of their skydive for debriefing. They are also the instructor that does the full debrief and fills out the students logbook. It is extremely rare that a "ground instructor" is ever used. Reserve side instructor can land in the experienced jumper area and can turn loads if needed. There is a pay difference but at the end of the day they make about the same money either via more jumps or more per jump.

Thanks for that. What you describe is sure better than ganging the radios to one "ground instructor," but if the "AFF" instructor is spending the time talking the student down, why not use that time more effectively by showing them the way down?

44
Cool


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Nov 4, 2012, 11:53 AM
Post #24 of 58 (4242 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

The instructors only give radio corrections if the student is doing something incorrect. The "Follow the Leader" does not work if the student is on a 280 and the instructor is on a 79 Velocity. At our DZ is is way more likely that the AFF instructors are on canopies that are loaded 1.8 or higher than not. You can hang in brakes as deep as you want on a small canopy but its not going to help the situation if the student does not pick your one canopy out of the rest of the canopies that are in the air at the same time or another situation arises like needing to have a cutaway as the instructor or changing the landing area and now the "follow the leader" situation is shot since the student has no idea what is going on. In those cases its better to have the radio there to give assistance if needed to help guide them to a better landing.


I can say this has worked great on probably 3500 AFF Cat A and B's over the last 6 years so take it for what its worth.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 5, 2012, 10:16 AM
Post #25 of 58 (4125 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The instructors only give radio corrections if the student is doing something incorrect. The "Follow the Leader" does not work if the student is on a 280 and the instructor is on a 79 Velocity. At our DZ is is way more likely that the AFF instructors are on canopies that are loaded 1.8 or higher than not. You can hang in brakes as deep as you want on a small canopy but its not going to help the situation if the student does not pick your one canopy out of the rest of the canopies that are in the air at the same time or another situation arises like needing to have a cutaway as the instructor or changing the landing area and now the "follow the leader" situation is shot since the student has no idea what is going on. In those cases its better to have the radio there to give assistance if needed to help guide them to a better landing.


I can say this has worked great on probably 3500 AFF Cat A and B's over the last 6 years so take it for what its worth.

Good to hear that your input is only to correct, not direct, but it's still a bandaid on a flawed process and I must also correct you on a key element:

Follow the leader ONLY works when the instructor flies a smaller, faster canopy. I started out on a canopy loaded at .8 or thereabouts because, like you, I thought I needed to be on a canopy similar to that used by the student.

When I actually did it, however, I discovered that was the wrong approach because I couldn't maneuver myself properly into the "leader" position.

As soon as I switched to a more heavily loaded canopy, presto, problem solved! And the thing is, you don't "hang in brakes;" you brake just enough to slow your vertical and horizontal speed to stay within 1,000-1,500 feet or so.

Also, as I discovered initially by having tandem students "follow" the photog... they can follow a flight path even when the "leader" is far below them. It's a natural consequence of having their 3D navigation problem converted to 2D by having someone to follow. They see where the leader goes and they follow, even if the leader slowly moves farther ahead of and below them.

Finally, none of my followers ever one time had even the tiniest problem with picking my canopy out of the mix. Why? Because, for one thing, we're pulling higher and later than the mob. Perhapos even more importantly, part of that opening-near-student-level thing AND using a smaller, faster canopy is that I would fly right over to where they were and establish contact/communication/whatever, then I would turn and lead them down. Yes, I would outpace them, but they still followed easily.

Thomas Paine wrote that "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.ö

We are still in the first phase with regard to converting from bandaid radios to follow-the-leader canopy training. There are all sorts of formidable outcries in defense of custom but at some time down the road the "AFF" community will quit abandoning their students just when they need them the most.

It's funny, but the late great Jerry McCauley was onsite when I was doing my follow-the-leader training and when I disucssed it with him, he said that not only did he do that in the SEAL teams, they added a "graduation" wrinkle called "show the leader."

This meant that, after the leader felt that the low-timer was up to speed, he made the low-timer the leader and his task was leading not just his instructor but the whole team to a safe landing in the right spot.

So rather than defend what you do now, and make excuses for why you can't do follow-the-leader, maybe you ought to consider the advice of Morpheus to Neo and... "phree your mind."

To help you in that quest, I have attached the two articles I wrote on the subject in 1996 and 1998 for Skydiving Magazine.

44
Cool

NOTE: Edited to add attachments


(This post was edited by robinheid on Nov 5, 2012, 10:57 AM)
Attachments: Follow The Leader181.doc (46.0 KB)
  Follow The Leader205.doc (51.5 KB)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 5, 2012, 10:28 AM
Post #26 of 58 (1154 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

>but if the "AFF" instructor is spending the time talking the student down, why not use
>that time more effectively by showing them the way down?

Because you can decide to not talk to them, and thus not build reliance on the instructor. You cannot decide to become invisible. Thus a follow-me system creates dependence on a leader, and that leaves students in a world of hurt when the leader is no longer there - and for the first time they have to make their own decisions without a guide.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 5, 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #27 of 58 (1144 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>but if the "AFF" instructor is spending the time talking the student down, why not use
>that time more effectively by showing them the way down?

Because you can decide to not talk to them, and thus not build reliance on the instructor. You cannot decide to become invisible. Thus a follow-me system creates dependence on a leader, and that leaves students in a world of hurt when the leader is no longer there - and for the first time they have to make their own decisions without a guide.

LOL...

Read the articles. You'll see that your premise is false and your conclusion unsupported by the data.

44
Cool


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 5, 2012, 4:44 PM
Post #28 of 58 (1115 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, personally, as opposed to following a leader,

1. I'd rather have the student paying attention to what's going on around him.

2. I'd like the student to gain a sense of accomplishment knowing that he was doing it himself.

3. I'd rather the student be locating and flying to his ground reference points that will help him in the future.

4. I'd rather the student be learning about canopy flight by doing some practice landing/flares and turns and such.

5. I'd like the student to have some fun with it.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 5, 2012, 4:52 PM
Post #29 of 58 (1112 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Well, personally, as opposed to following a leader,

1. I'd rather have the student paying attention to what's going on around him.

2. I'd like the student to gain a sense of accomplishment knowing that he was doing it himself.

3. I'd rather the student be locating and flying to his ground reference points that will help him in the future.

4. I'd rather the student be learning about canopy flight by doing some practice landing/flares and turns and such.

5. I'd like the student to have some fun with it.

LOL... adding to the tumult in defense of custom before you even read the articles. Very intellectually rigorous of you, POPS.

44
Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Nov 5, 2012, 6:00 PM
Post #30 of 58 (1104 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
none of my followers ever one time had even the tiniest problem with picking my canopy out of the mix

What happens if you have a cutaway? What happens if they have a cutaway? What happens if you have a traffic conflict? What happens if they have a traffic conflict?

Your idea has some merit, but overall there are too many scenarios where your guidance would be limited or eliminated alltogether, leaving the student with no options.

A radio provides for reliable communication from a variety of sources. The communication does not rely on the performance of rigs, canopies, openings, or traffic. If you have an operator on the ground, that person will be there and able to assist regardless of what happens in the sky. There are far more variables in the sky than on the ground, I have not once enountered an obstacle I could not overcome when walking to the radio to talk down a student.

On top of all that, follow the leader only provides directional guidance when the curcumstances allow. It does not account for anything out of the ordinary happening to or with the student, and that's a big part of the value of the radio. If everything under canopy goes as per the plan, meaning that exactly what they were taught comes to pass, flying and landing a canopy is not that hard. It's when things change and go off-plan that students could use the experience and decision making ability of a ground based instructor to help them make the best choices.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 5, 2012, 10:28 PM
Post #31 of 58 (1064 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
none of my followers ever one time had even the tiniest problem with picking my canopy out of the mix

What happens if you have a cutaway? What happens if they have a cutaway? What happens if you have a traffic conflict? What happens if they have a traffic conflict?

Your idea has some merit, but overall there are too many scenarios where your guidance would be limited or eliminated alltogether, leaving the student with no options.

A radio provides for reliable communication from a variety of sources. The communication does not rely on the performance of rigs, canopies, openings, or traffic. If you have an operator on the ground, that person will be there and able to assist regardless of what happens in the sky. There are far more variables in the sky than on the ground, I have not once enountered an obstacle I could not overcome when walking to the radio to talk down a student.

On top of all that, follow the leader only provides directional guidance when the curcumstances allow. It does not account for anything out of the ordinary happening to or with the student, and that's a big part of the value of the radio. If everything under canopy goes as per the plan, meaning that exactly what they were taught comes to pass, flying and landing a canopy is not that hard. It's when things change and go off-plan that students could use the experience and decision making ability of a ground based instructor to help them make the best choices.

Thus does another otherwise intellectually disciplined gentleman add to the tumult in defense of custom without even reading the articles...

Sigh...

44
Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Nov 6, 2012, 4:16 AM
Post #32 of 58 (1050 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Thus does another otherwise intellectually disciplined gentleman add to the tumult in defense of custom without even reading the articles...

Repeating this does not address my questions/concerns, nor does it add anything to the thread. I had not read the artcles, but I went back and did read them before typing this reply, and all it did was generate more concerns about your idea.

For starters, my original point still stands and has not beed addressed, that being that the FTL concpet is a one-trick pony. The only function it provides is guidance, there is no provision for providing any other type of advice or assistance. A radio, on the other hand, is adept at providing both, you can provide simple guidance as well as assist if things should go off-plan or the student needs more complicated instruction. Does your plan overcome that in some way, or do you just accept the reduced functionality?

In terms of the phrase 'learn to move in a 3D space', which you used many times in your articles, how is that different than radio assistance? Guiding someone through an actual canopy ride, be it by FTL or with a radio, provides them the same experience of seeing the relationships between time/altitude and forward/vertical movement first hand.

If you were comparing FTL to something like tracing a flight plan/landing pattern on an overhead picture of the DZ, in that case the 3D nature of the activity would be lost, and FTL would hold an advantage. but FTL and radio both work on the basis of in-air training (for the student), and both provide a real world experience flying through the 3D space.

My final comment on your articles (you were probably better off before I read them), is that all of your examples involve jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps and were from 15 to 20 years ago. None of your esamples address the needs of the students with 1 to 10 jumps, and those are the vast majority of the jumpers who use a radio these days.

Someone with the experience of 20-some jumps is in a much better position to be 'alone' under canopy, and then simply use FTL to tweak their accuracy skills. In that respect, it can be a useful training tool.

However, in terms of primary training, for the first few times a jumper is under canopy as a student. the increased functionality of a radio far out-performs the one-dimensional idea of FTL. Furthermore, given the new(er) canopy performance requirements of the A license proficiency card, jumpers couldn't make it off student status without the basic skills that the FTL program could provide. Even if it's a good tool for jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps, they would already have those skills by virtue of the new(er) training requirements.

FTL is not a bad idea, it's just as good of an idea as using a radio when you're talking about the first handful of times a student is alone under canopy. We use a version of FTL taught in the FJC, that being we tell students to look for (and follow) other canopies if they are having trouble finding the DZ.


(This post was edited by davelepka on Nov 6, 2012, 4:17 AM)


LyraM45  (B 26378)

Nov 6, 2012, 8:35 AM
Post #33 of 58 (1017 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Dave really hits the nail on the head in his posts, and has pretty much taken the words out of my mouth with what I was going to respond with.

I don't think anybody is saying that FTL is a bad thing, but most will agree it may not be the best thing out of all choices for students in their first few jumps. Put it this way..... I'm sure there's at least one student out there who has been saved from absolute carnage or even death because the instructor gave them input on a radio. Maybe the instructor stayed quiet the whole time and only piped up at that one moment when desperately needed before the student turned himself into some trees, powerlines, another canopy, or whatever. If it's helped in any of those situations, then I just don't see how you can argue against it's use at all, even if just used as an absolute worst case scenario back up if the student is about to hurt their self or somebody else under canopy.

Maybe I think this way because that's how my AFF went. The instructors at this DZ didn't baby people on radios, or encourage dependency on them. Only used if absolutely necessary, and even then you knew there was a chance of it not functioning properly, so you're taught right off the bat not to rely on them.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 6, 2012, 9:22 AM
Post #34 of 58 (1001 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Thus does another otherwise intellectually disciplined gentleman add to the tumult in defense of custom without even reading the articles...

Repeating this does not address my questions/concerns, nor does it add anything to the thread. I had not read the artcles, but I went back and did read them before typing this reply, and all it did was generate more concerns about your idea.

For starters, my original point still stands and has not beed addressed, that being that the FTL concpet is a one-trick pony. The only function it provides is guidance, there is no provision for providing any other type of advice or assistance. A radio, on the other hand, is adept at providing both, you can provide simple guidance as well as assist if things should go off-plan or the student needs more complicated instruction. Does your plan overcome that in some way, or do you just accept the reduced functionality?

In terms of the phrase 'learn to move in a 3D space', which you used many times in your articles, how is that different than radio assistance? Guiding someone through an actual canopy ride, be it by FTL or with a radio, provides them the same experience of seeing the relationships between time/altitude and forward/vertical movement first hand.

If you were comparing FTL to something like tracing a flight plan/landing pattern on an overhead picture of the DZ, in that case the 3D nature of the activity would be lost, and FTL would hold an advantage. but FTL and radio both work on the basis of in-air training (for the student), and both provide a real world experience flying through the 3D space.

My final comment on your articles (you were probably better off before I read them), is that all of your examples involve jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps and were from 15 to 20 years ago. None of your esamples address the needs of the students with 1 to 10 jumps, and those are the vast majority of the jumpers who use a radio these days.

Someone with the experience of 20-some jumps is in a much better position to be 'alone' under canopy, and then simply use FTL to tweak their accuracy skills. In that respect, it can be a useful training tool.

However, in terms of primary training, for the first few times a jumper is under canopy as a student. the increased functionality of a radio far out-performs the one-dimensional idea of FTL. Furthermore, given the new(er) canopy performance requirements of the A license proficiency card, jumpers couldn't make it off student status without the basic skills that the FTL program could provide. Even if it's a good tool for jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps, they would already have those skills by virtue of the new(er) training requirements.

FTL is not a bad idea, it's just as good of an idea as using a radio when you're talking about the first handful of times a student is alone under canopy. We use a version of FTL taught in the FJC, that being we tell students to look for (and follow) other canopies if they are having trouble finding the DZ.

Much better, Dave. Thanks for checking out the articles.

To your contentions:

FTL is not a one-trick pony. As you apparently didn't notice from the articles, the whole system built autonomy into the process, so that if, by chance or deliberate intent, the follower did not follow the leader, s/he already had the toolbox necessary to handle the rest of it on his or her own. This brings me back to the original point in my first post on this subject about radios breeding dependency. The whole FTL process as I developed it does the exact opposite, so there's your answer right in your objection: FTL's only function is providing guidance, not hand holding. The process itself equips the student to act autonomously, even if something "off-plan" happens -- as did in fact occur and was recounted in the articles (Kim broke off from the instructor once; Ali landed in the boonies after a bad spot -- in both cases, they handled their "off-plan" situation with aplomb because the FTL program had equipped them with the tools they needed to do so).

Second, you can't teach navigating in 3D on a radio. What a preposterous proposition. All you're doing is telling them to turn one direction or another, which means absolutely nothing in terms of 3D maneuvering. Drawing it on the ground and pointing out the landmakrs -- then WATCHING someone navigate that space, then following them and SEEING how things look as you follow is orders of magnitude better. Heck, it's not even comparable.

Yes, all of my examples were students with 20 or more jumps 15+ years ago. The time frame, of course, is relevant because it shows that "AFF" training is still in the dark ages of canopy training; literally, nothing has changed since I wrote those articles in either the way "AAF" instruction presents parachute training -- or the failures thereof to substantially stem the continuing carnage under open canopies by people who never learned the fundamentals -- and associated judgment -- when they first started jumping.

As for the jump numbers, demolish that straw man, Dave!! Get 'im!! I say repeatedly in my articles that my findings are unscientific and need to be tested more comrephensively -- and with lower time jumpers. I further state repeatedly that the perfect laboratory for this is "AFF" instructors, one of whom should pull high with students and lead them down, to validate or disprove my findings on a larger scale with lower-time jumpers.

So far, no takers, just people adding to the tumult in defense of custom.

Keep the radios if you don't trust yourselves to train your students enough to do without them, But don't you think it's time to move forward instead of just digging in your heels against reason and then whining when so many "AFF" graduates kill themselves under open canopies a few hundred jumps down the line?

44
Cool


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 6, 2012, 9:37 AM
Post #35 of 58 (992 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LyraM45] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Dave really hits the nail on the head in his posts, and has pretty much taken the words out of my mouth with what I was going to respond with.

I don't think anybody is saying that FTL is a bad thing, but most will agree it may not be the best thing out of all choices for students in their first few jumps. Put it this way..... I'm sure there's at least one student out there who has been saved from absolute carnage or even death because the instructor gave them input on a radio. Maybe the instructor stayed quiet the whole time and only piped up at that one moment when desperately needed before the student turned himself into some trees, powerlines, another canopy, or whatever. If it's helped in any of those situations, then I just don't see how you can argue against it's use at all, even if just used as an absolute worst case scenario back up if the student is about to hurt their self themselves or somebody else under canopy.

All these scenarios sorta evaporate if the student follows an instructor down, don't they? (Of course, that assumes that the instructor doesn't lead the student into trees, powerlines, other canopies or whatever.)

In reply to:

Maybe I think this way because that's how my AFF went. The instructors at this DZ didn't baby people on radios, or encourage dependency on them. Only used if absolutely necessary, and even then you knew there was a chance of it not functioning properly, so you're taught right off the bat not to rely on them.

I guess that makes radios a one-trick pony, doesn't it? If the radio doesn't work, THEN what are you going to do? Oh right, "don't rely on them."

With FTL, on the other hand, even if the instructor's parachute doesn't work, he still has a reserve that probably will, and then the student still has someone to follow -- plus, as the articles outline, the whole system builds autonomy into the process so that in the case of an "off-plan" situation, the student still has a backup plan -- and tin the case of FTL, that backup plan is more comprehensive than most "AFF" training -- and perhaps less likely to be needed (though radios are pretty reliable these days).

Again, the FTL system I describe builds autonomy into the process and by showing instead of telling also helps the student to advance more quickly than having to convert radio instructions into a flight path and figure out themselves how things are supposed to look. It's really just a variation on the old military training maxim:

Watch one.
Do one.
Teach one.

And there ain't nothing to watch when someone's talking in your ear on a radio; you go straight to the second phase -- and that delays your learning progression.

But keep the radios if you want; you never know when the instructor might bounce and leave the student alone in the sky. But hey, that' what they do now even if they don't bounce, so it's long past time for "AFF" instructors to quit bailing on their students just when the going gets tough.

My projection: If "AFF" instructors ever cease with the tumult in defense of custom and come to grips with reality, FTL will eventually make radios obsolete.

Until then, stick with them because obviously the "AFF" community doesn't have enough faith in its current system to do without them.

44
Cool


davelepka  (D 21448)

Nov 6, 2012, 10:01 AM
Post #36 of 58 (984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

   
The simple fact is that silent demonstration is not the best method for teaching anything. The problem with that is it leaves room for the student to interpret your actions or intent with no ability for you to give feedback or correction in real time.

Do you speak during your FJC, or silently show them the moves required? You speak, because it's the clearest, most reliable form of communication. Most instructors do both, but if you had to pick one, you would choose to sit motionless and speak to the class. They could demonstrate to you, and you could could comment on their performance (like when speaking over a radio), but you could not demonstrate yourself.

How about in freefall? Do you use established hand signals, or do you fly out in front of your student and just show them the right way to fall stable? You use hand signals because then there is a clear line of communication between you and the student, and they don't have to guess what you're showing them or what they're doing wrong. Legs out, means legs out, and arch means arch. It's as close to speaking as you can get in freefall.

I'll make my final point on this, as I feel that the comminuty has seen my side of the story sufficiently. My final point is that it was 15 years ago that you did the initial experiments, but since then it has not been furthered persued or developed, and as far as I know, is not in regular use anywhere in the US. If the idea had merit, and was 'the way', someone, somewhere, would have latched onto it and put it into use.

The radio system is beautifully simple in that it 'fits' so many students needs. If they need lots of help, and special instructions, it does that. If they're flying like a pro, and need no help, it does that too, and everything in between. Given that most DZs won't let you get past jump 10 with a radio, and that it takes 25 jumps to earn an A license, there are no dependcy issues to be concerned with. A jumper will have twice as many jumps without a radio as with before they are licensed and free to jump on their own.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 6, 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #37 of 58 (973 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

[replyLOL... adding to the tumult in defense of custom before you even read the articles. Very intellectually rigorous of you, POPS.

44
Cool
Well, Robin...it doesn't matter what the articles say unless you are trying to assimilate me.

Tumult? Defending?
Well, no. You are reading into much more than what was said. Quite typical,

I passed on my preferences..simple as that.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 6, 2012, 12:18 PM
Post #38 of 58 (955 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

The simple fact is that silent demonstration is not the best method for teaching anything. The problem with that is it leaves room for the student to interpret your actions or intent with no ability for you to give feedback or correction in real time.

Do you speak during your FJC, or silently show them the moves required? You speak, because it's the clearest, most reliable form of communication. Most instructors do both, but if you had to pick one, you would choose to sit motionless and speak to the class. They could demonstrate to you, and you could could comment on their performance (like when speaking over a radio), but you could not demonstrate yourself.

How about in freefall? Do you use established hand signals, or do you fly out in front of your student and just show them the right way to fall stable? You use hand signals because then there is a clear line of communication between you and the student, and they don't have to guess what you're showing them or what they're doing wrong. Legs out, means legs out, and arch means arch. It's as close to speaking as you can get in freefall.

I'll make my final point on this, as I feel that the comminuty has seen my side of the story sufficiently. My final point is that it was 15 years ago that you did the initial experiments, but since then it has not been furthered persued or developed, and as far as I know, is not in regular use anywhere in the US. If the idea had merit, and was 'the way', someone, somewhere, would have latched onto it and put it into use.

The radio system is beautifully simple in that it 'fits' so many students needs. If they need lots of help, and special instructions, it does that. If they're flying like a pro, and need no help, it does that too, and everything in between. Given that most DZs won't let you get past jump 10 with a radio, and that it takes 25 jumps to earn an A license, there are no dependcy issues to be concerned with. A jumper will have twice as many jumps without a radio as with before they are licensed and free to jump on their own.


Ahhh, the tumult continues, this time by changing the subject to beat another straw man to death.

Beat 'im, Dave! Whup 'im GOOD!

Did I not just say in two posts immediately previous to this one that you can keep the radios as you employ FTL?

Sorta kills your whole argument before y'all git started, don't it, bucko? Not to mention the fact that, when you're on the radio, you can't show nobody nuthin, kin y'all?

Even though you say in that DOA post that show AND tell is superior to show-only or tell-only.

So why not incorporate both instead of continuing the tumult?

And then we come to your laughable contention that "If the idea had merit, and was 'the way', someone, somewhere, would have latched onto it and put it into use."

I mean, doood, not only are you running out of ammo, y'all shooting yourself in the foot with what you have left, given that in post #32 above, you wrote:

"FTL is not a bad idea, it's just as good of an idea as using a radio when you're talking about the first handful of times a student is alone under canopy. We use a version of FTL taught in the FJC, that being we tell students to look for (and follow) other canopies if they are having trouble finding the DZ."

Maybe you ought to let the tumult subside for a while... it's getting so loud you apparently can't hear yourself think.

XO

44
Cool


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 6, 2012, 12:35 PM
Post #39 of 58 (950 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
[replyLOL... adding to the tumult in defense of custom before you even read the articles. Very intellectually rigorous of you, POPS.

44
Cool

Well, Robin...it doesn't matter what the articles say unless you are trying to assimilate me.

Tumult? Defending?
Well, no. You are reading into much more than what was said. Quite typical,

I passed on my preferences..simple as that.
You passed on your uninformed preferences that don't accurately reflect what FTL is about. You expressed preferences regarding something about which you know only what you assume and without bothering to see if any of your assumptions were invalid.

This is SOP for many people on this website, but IIRC not for you, which is why I gave you a gentle what-for for not meeting your own almost-always reasonable and thoughtful standard.

44
Cool


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Nov 6, 2012, 12:36 PM
Post #40 of 58 (949 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Enough, Robin.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Nov 6, 2012, 3:24 PM
Post #41 of 58 (929 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You passed on your uninformed preferences that don't accurately reflect what FTL is about. You expressed preferences regarding something about which you know only what you assume and without bothering to see if any of your assumptions were invalid.

This is SOP for many people on this website, but IIRC not for you, which is why I gave you a gentle what-for for not meeting your own almost-always reasonable and thoughtful standard.

44
Cool

You couldn't tell that my post was not about FTL at all?

So why would you assume that I was comparing anything to anything?

Are you saying my preferences are bogus because I didn't compare them against FTL? Are you saying that any input is valid unless it it compared the FTL?

Again...just a simple listing of some of my preferences for student training.


But OK, I'll have it your way. I read the articles.

I think FTL is robs the student of good learning opportunities and contributes much more to "dependency" than does radio assistance. The articles are not convincing and frankly, IMO, show some disregard for instilling confidence in students.

About the only time FTL would be beneficial, IMO, is when the student is totally lost and cannot find a viable landing area.


My preferences still stand.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Nov 6, 2012, 4:02 PM
Post #42 of 58 (918 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
You passed on your uninformed preferences that don't accurately reflect what FTL is about. You expressed preferences regarding something about which you know only what you assume and without bothering to see if any of your assumptions were invalid.

This is SOP for many people on this website, but IIRC not for you, which is why I gave you a gentle what-for for not meeting your own almost-always reasonable and thoughtful standard.

44
Cool

You couldn't tell that my post was not about FTL at all?

So why would you assume that I was comparing anything to anything?

Are you saying my preferences are bogus because I didn't compare them against FTL? Are you saying that any input is valid unless it it compared the FTL?

Again...just a simple listing of some of my preferences for student training.


But OK, I'll have it your way. I read the articles.

I think FTL is robs the student of good learning opportunities and contributes much more to "dependency" than does radio assistance. The articles are not convincing and frankly, IMO, show some disregard for instilling confidence in students.

About the only time FTL would be beneficial, IMO, is when the student is totally lost and cannot find a viable landing area.


My preferences still stand.

Fair enough. Thanks for your input.

44
Cool


fcajump  (D 15598)

Nov 7, 2012, 8:33 AM
Post #43 of 58 (875 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Not directed at Robin, just a few observations/thoughts related to the discussion.

First, I don't think most AFF instructors will adopt FTL as it removes from them several "perks"...
- no tiny canopies/HP... you need to be able to stay with the student's canopy.
- no hooks/swoops/720's... unless that's what you want the student to follow along with...
- no rushing down for the next load.
- maybe you even have to walk in from the student field.

That means that you're working 100% of the dive/flight, not just the freefall portion.

While I was raised on radio, the notion of FTL saved my A$$ on a single-instructor dive when we got out very long. (nothing but woods between us and home) My instructor openned high and got in front of me, then turned and spirled down over an open field. I saw where the instructor was headed, followed him down to a safe landing.

A few years later I watched as another student flying a DC-5 was left by two AFF instructors a mile out over woods as they flew flat out over the same woods to make for home. She had no one (but me) to show her that her canopy wasn't going to make it and get her to the field away from the high-tension lines.

The difference - my instructor was raised to teach at all times, her instructors stopped being her instructor once her canopy openned.

JW


ChrisD  (No License)

Jan 8, 2013, 3:25 PM
Post #44 of 58 (705 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I had a radio on all my student jumps in 1983 but with jumping T-10's about all you could do from 2500' was change the view.
LaughLaugh
Radios with T10s? I gotta ask...WHY?????
LaughLaugh

One reason:
"Jumper 1, turn 180 so that you can see the tree you are about to hit."

In 1973 PI had mandatory radios on all "first Jumpers." You might want to ask Jerry B. about this one as he predates me by a couple of years. Dan P., when he was working at Ted's place was at Orange and has first hand knowlege of one very sad story of a jumper who did in fact hit a tree, his last...if he had listened to his radio???? Perhaps that last was'nt quite fair, no one really knows if the radio failed or if it was the student, but regardless he was moving fast enough forward to do fatal damage.
C

FTL plus radio? Now that's a great idea,...knock it off you two... Can't we all get along???


(This post was edited by ChrisD on Jan 8, 2013, 3:50 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 8, 2013, 6:37 PM
Post #45 of 58 (659 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisD] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Laugh
Indicates humor. It doesn't indicate belief.
*sigh*


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 8, 2013, 6:47 PM
Post #46 of 58 (654 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

...and just to add, I do tell my students the color of my canopy and that if they have trouble finding the DZ look below and near for my canopy and follow me to the DZ.

I guess maybe that qualifies as FTL procedure?


ChrisD  (No License)

Jan 9, 2013, 10:17 AM
Post #47 of 58 (530 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Laugh
Indicates humor. It doesn't indicate belief.
*sigh*

In no way am I flaming you or anything even remotly close, I , in fact love reading, your advice...Laugh

However, and quite often I will take the opportunity to provoke for discussion,...

Whether it be by FTL or Radio, or Ground Signal, (ask the folks at DeLand about the big inflatabble arrow!! that the Belgium Army came with this past Nov/Dec.) The point is students, and perhaps many of us benifite greatly by instruction, at the time they need it most, I realize however that their are a few that would leave students to the wolves, and perhaps we should approach students with this attitude in some respects considering the incident/student/ crash rate, considering the fact that radios do fail, and FTL won't work if the student cant find someone to follow, or the big ass arrow deflates...Cool

Personally anyone is free to hang around first time jumpers, ask them if they thought the radio was a good idea? This illustrates what is called "feedback," and belive it or not this isn't always incorporated into FJC's, it should be because it's how the instructers learn.

Rob Laidlaw has a nice view on just this subject,...his position is that "you had better take an interest in how (your) student performs,...because it's an indication of how well you have trained them..."

Please beg my pardon if I have incorrectly quoted you Rob, and also my forgiveness to the many fine instructors out there who also share this view!!!

I love you pops jumpers, everywhere!!
C


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 9, 2013, 7:11 PM
Post #48 of 58 (482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisD] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

We're good.
Smile<--- happy

Tongue<--- Pffft.


nigel99  (D 1)

Jan 9, 2013, 7:30 PM
Post #49 of 58 (477 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
...and just to add, I do tell my students the color of my canopy and that if they have trouble finding the DZ look below and near for my canopy and follow me to the DZ.

I guess maybe that qualifies as FTL procedure?

Well we know how that worked out for a certain AFF student, don't we?AngelicTongue

* BTW - I like the way our DZ does it for first AFF students. One instructor deploys 'with' the student and the student has been briefed on the instructors canopy. The other burns it down to an arrow. The student is told to follow the 'high' instructor, until they see the arrow moving, at which point they are to start following the arrow. This allows for a spot/emergency where an off DZ landing occurs (but it would be interesting if the high instructor had a cutaway). For final flare and last 100 foot there are paddles - which is the only part I don't like about our setup.

We also have radios as backup.


jumpinjackflsh  (B 27757)

Jan 9, 2013, 9:42 PM
Post #50 of 58 (456 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

I used radios when I did the static line course 17 some odd years ago. Then, went away from the sport, came back, did AFF and used radios again.

I don't understand the debate?

They worked well and I learned a lot. That wasn't the only training I had. Of course I was given full instruction on what to do and how to do it. So if the radio failed, I could fly my way in.

I never had a problem with it.

What's the debate about? Re following someone in? Hell typically there are many canopies about, always someone to lurk albeit from far away, if you are lost. But gods honest truth if you paid attention, wind sock, arrow, and ran your pattern, no problem. Jeez a Manta is pretty damn easy to steer, and certainly slow enough to feel comfortable.

I don't get it. Where's the issue?


ChrisD  (No License)

Jan 10, 2013, 7:20 AM
Post #51 of 58 (309 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpinjackflsh] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I used radios when I did the static line course 17 some odd years ago. Then, went away from the sport, came back, did AFF and used radios again.

I don't understand the debate?

They worked well and I learned a lot. That wasn't the only training I had. Of course I was given full instruction on what to do and how to do it. So if the radio failed, I could fly my way in.

I never had a problem with it.

What's the debate about? Re following someone in? Hell typically there are many canopies about, always someone to lurk albeit from far away, if you are lost. But gods honest truth if you paid attention, wind sock, arrow, and ran your pattern, no problem. Jeez a Manta is pretty damn easy to steer, and certainly slow enough to feel comfortable.

I don't get it. Where's the issue?


Thank God someone who really gets it,...Wink

I have no respect or paitence for any instructor or coach that dosen't land with their student.
C

thanks "jumpinjackflash" awsome!


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 10, 2013, 8:02 AM
Post #52 of 58 (297 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpinjackflsh] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Of course things seem easy now. Don't forget what it was like to be a student. And if you were one of the 'naturals', then it's going to hard to empathize.

Sometimes, maybe more often than one would think, it's hard for students to pick up on that 'simplicity'.

And I don't see any debate about radios..radios work. FTL may or may not work. THAT'S the debate.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 10, 2013, 8:10 AM
Post #53 of 58 (294 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisD] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I used radios when I did the static line course 17 some odd years ago. Then, went away from the sport, came back, did AFF and used radios again.

I don't understand the debate?

They worked well and I learned a lot. That wasn't the only training I had. Of course I was given full instruction on what to do and how to do it. So if the radio failed, I could fly my way in.

I never had a problem with it.

What's the debate about? Re following someone in? Hell typically there are many canopies about, always someone to lurk albeit from far away, if you are lost. But gods honest truth if you paid attention, wind sock, arrow, and ran your pattern, no problem. Jeez a Manta is pretty damn easy to steer, and certainly slow enough to feel comfortable.

I don't get it. Where's the issue?


Thank God someone who really gets it,...Wink

I have no respect or paitence for any instructor or coach that dosen't land with their student.
Well, yes and no, Chris.
It seems that your assumption is that every AFFI CAN land with his student. Unless you pull at the same altitude as the student and have a canopy that will hang up there with the big ones, and the ability to work it, you'll be landing first and there are no guarantees on where ol' Stu will land.

It would be my job to help guide him in instead of following him until I couldn't follow any more.

I'm not so sure I want to land in the trees with that lost student.

Please be patient with us...the job is a little tougher than some appear to think.


jumpinjackflsh  (B 27757)

Jan 10, 2013, 9:01 AM
Post #54 of 58 (288 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Pops, all good points.

I guess the thing I'm struggling with is of course radio can't be "all that there is". Reviewing the dz, optional "outs" in the area if you can't make it back from a bad spot as well as hazards in the area (power lines to the North 1/4 mile, etc..).

In that vein, FTL, Radio, and other methods that help in the early phase are certainly worthwhile I would think. So long as one doesn't negate the other.

My biggest pet peeve in life is the one trick pony. Myopia in anything can cause significant issues when a situation threatens that requires alternate solutions.

Re the "simplicity" you are right. Especially when in the early phases there is so much adrenaline unloading that brain farts can be the norm. Aka, toggle right student, toggle right student, TOGGLE RIGHT STUDENT!

How many times have you heard that one? The radio is working, but the student is so freaked, or "gone" that they just can't register it...

Anyhow, I digress. Rambling. I think it's important for instructors to teach a holistic, big picture, and work with any /every tool that is fit for the purpose to ensure the student gets it as early as possible.

Aka, radios are great, I could see FTL being a nice addition, however, neither are guarantees. The biggest guarantee is to teach them to navigate changing winds, stick to the pattern and when in need, pick the out and land it successfully.

Good stuff. I don't think I was a "natural" necessarily. I think, like many, I was lucky. I had great instructors starting with Kirk Verner's dad back in the day (first guy on my radio) and I listened, with both ears.


Blues


jumpinjackflsh  (B 27757)

Jan 10, 2013, 9:06 AM
Post #55 of 58 (287 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisD] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Ha! Thanks Chris!

I have to admit, there are many more things in life that I don't "Get!"

The simplicity of this sport, and all the lessons that have learned by those before us certainly provide a solid foundation to build on that's for sure. On the backs of giants, no doubt.

Even in the few jumps I've had, I've had a few very hairy situations to navigate and thankfully, came out on top. I have to admit, had it not been for the training, I wouldn't be here.

Hopefully, that's the way it will always be and I won't succumb to a brain fart and go in, or simply find myself in an irrevocably irretrievable situation. One never knows.


ChrisD  (No License)

Jan 10, 2013, 1:23 PM
Post #56 of 58 (267 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile

Andy, your so sweet,...

"Well, yes and no, Chris.
It seems that your assumption is that every AFFI CAN land with his student. Unless you pull at the same altitude as the student and have a canopy that will hang up there with the big ones, and the ability to work it, you'll be landing first and there are no guarantees on where ol' Stu will land.

It would be my job to help guide him in instead of following him until I couldn't follow any more.

I'm not so sure I want to land in the trees with that lost student.

Please be patient with us...the job is a little tougher than some appear to think. "

OF COURSE I'm not speaking about following someone into the tree's, and yes I realize it's a tought jobSmile

Perhaps I should have said:
"I have no respect or paitence for any instructor or coach that dosen't (intend/plan) to land with their student."

I only mention this because I was just at a DZ where all of the coaches and AFFI's never land with their students/ clients because it is "beneath them," for they are better than their lowley students and besides it's a longer walk back to the shack anyways...I was not making a comparison to anyone here... Regardless you can imagine their attitude towords the unnesesary cost of "Radios." FTL might as well mean PTL to this bunch,...(Just venting)

When you post something like this: "I'm not so sure I want to land in the trees with that lost student." The key words I immediatly noticed were "I'm not so sure I want to land,..." At least your thinking about it? What if the student was hurt? But I noticed you were thinking about it?

I know way to many that this subject isn't even a debate! and yes I have "No respect or paitence, for them either...and I suspect you as well??
C


(This post was edited by ChrisD on Jan 10, 2013, 1:31 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 10, 2013, 4:59 PM
Post #57 of 58 (232 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpinjackflsh] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I think it's important for instructors to teach a holistic, big picture, and work with any /every tool that is fit for the purpose to ensure the student gets it as early as possible.
Bingo. You said it, sir, yes. The better ones do just that. Unbelievably, IMHO, there are way too many who only do the minimum...and some of those ONLY if they get paid.


I share your peeve...indeed, I do.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jan 10, 2013, 5:18 PM
Post #58 of 58 (225 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisD] Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Smile

Andy, your so sweet,...
LaughLaughMy ex would argue that point.

In reply to:
OF COURSE I'm not speaking about following someone into the tree's, and yes I realize it's a tought jobSmile
Of course you weren't. I knew that and I didn't mean to imply that you actually thought that. I could have worded my sentence better. My apologies.

In reply to:
I was just at a DZ where all of the coaches and AFFI's never land with their students/ clients because it is "beneath them," for they are better than their lowley students and besides it's a longer walk back to the shack anyways...
I am 100% with you on that. The DZO could put a stop to it if he/she wanted..or even cared.

In reply to:
(..landing in trees...) What if the student was hurt? But I noticed you were thinking about it?
It has happened. It has happened to me. I'm below and in front of him and realized that neither of us were going to make it over wooded area. Stu was not responding to the radio. I tried to lead him to a nearby pasture but he went ahead into the trees. I saw where he was headed and landed as close to that as I could get. (BTW, the other AFFI was there with us and he and I landed side-by-side. We dropped our gear and went into the woods to help ol' Stu. Bad news: Scared the shit out of both of us thinking he was gonna be impaled or something dreadful. Good news: No hurts and the DZ got a case of beer.

Oh...BTW, the beer fine was because he said, " I heard you on the radio but I thought I could make over the trees."
*sigh*


Yes, I have little respect for AFFIs who don't give their best to student training.

Anyway, back to the FTL suggestions from RobinHeid.

Anybody got anything else too add to that conversation/debate?


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jan 10, 2013, 5:20 PM)



Forums : Skydiving : Safety and Training

 


Search for (options)