Tandem progression - popular/successful?

[cpoxon 0]

A dropzone in the UK recently proposed a trial of a tandem progression system but it was not carried at the most recent Safety and Training Committee meeting. Paraphrasing the minutes (Paragraph 9 A.O.B., item c),

Quote

The Committee was advised that a similar arrangement to that proposed had been trialled in the USA with mixed results. It was no longer being used at the larger Drop Zones that had been involved in the trial, although it was still running at some of the smaller ones.

Is this a fair statement? I'd be interested in the experiences of both larger and smaller dropzones who have tried, and either adopted or discarded, a tandem progression system. Please try and avoid the temptation to go down the route that BPA stands for Ban Parachuting Altogether.

Edit: For the sake of argument, let's call a smaller dropzone a Cessna or a non-turbine one.


Here is the full section of the relevant minutes.

Quote

A paper from Mike Rust had been circulated with the agenda requesting that STC considers a proposal to run a trial for a Tandem Assisted Free Fall (TAFF) programme at Chatteris. This would only be run by qualified AFF and Tandem Instructors on all levels apart from level one which does not require any training other than a standard Tandem brief.

Mike presented details of his request and gave details of the reason he was submitting the proposal, with details of the Programme and the Syllabus.

Proposal One would be to run a trial for 21 students and Proposal Two would be to run a year’s trial for Students at NLPC. He stated that both proposals would be under the proviso that there would be regular feedback to STC with a conclusion presented at the end of the trial period.

Mike stated that from experience, Tandem was clearly becoming the preferred first jump experience. He stated that he felt it was time to incorporate Tandem into a training system that could lead to a qualification and hopefully give participants more of an incentive to progress further into the sport of skydiving.

Mike stated that experience had showed that a major disadvantage of current solo training methods was that the student lands their canopy on their own on the first jump without any practical experience – just theoretical ground tuition, which it could be argued, was not sufficient.

Mike stated that we know that a solo jumper is at higher risk on their first descent and he believed it would therefore seem to make sense for at least an accompanied descent prior to jumping on their own. This was the basis of the TAFF system.

Mike felt the Tandem Assisted FreeFall (TAFF) system was a method of instruction, which did now allow anyone to jump solo until a minimum of three descents had been made with an Instructor. This had the advantage of allowing the student to learn in a safer environment, initially under direct supervision.

Mike’s proposal generated a great deal of discussion.

A number of CCIs reported that their own experience had shown that even if a Student completed a pre-Tandem jump this did not always guarantee a good performance on AFF.

Some members stated that they agreed with Mike’s proposal and believed in the idea of trialling this system and saw it as a positive step in progressing the sport and likened it to the way in which the RAPS system had evolved.

The Committee was advised that a similar arrangement to that which Mike Rust was proposing had been trialled in the USA with mixed results. It was no longer being used at the larger Drop Zones that had been involved in the trial, although it was still running at some of the smaller ones.

Following further discussion, it was proposed by Mike Rust and seconded by Stuart Meacock that Mike Rust be permitted to run a trail TAFF programme as per his proposals 1 & 2 above and to the syllabus that had been circulated to CCIs. Also that Mike reports back to STC on a regular basis.

For: 5 Against: 8 Abstentions: 3 - Not Carried

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[peek 20]

I would be interested in what the BPA thought as far as the progression that was trialed in the US, because a number of them were used at various DZ's from what I recalled.

In other words, what the progression consisted of as far as the jumps and what the student was to perform on them.

Strong Enterprises published one of their design, and a number of us created our own.

(This is going to be an interesting thread.)

[billvon 2,400]

We were a small DZ that put a few students through a trial tandem progression program. Worked OK, but was more difficult to schedule. AFF first jump students showed up at 8am and took a four hour class; it was tougher to get a student down from a tandem and get an instructor to teach them the same class on an as-needed basis.

(For reference our program was one 'normal' tandem, 2-3 'working' tandems and then an AFF level 4.)

[pwln 0]

I don't know if this will help any.
The DZ that I learn how to jump at uses Tandem Progression as the primary training program. It has worked for them for years. I'd say it was a small family oriented dropzone (Even if we always have a Otter or Casa sitting out front.)

One of the main reasons that I picked this dropzone to learn at was because of Tandem progression. I wanted to learn about the canopy flight and landing with someone that knew how to do it. I figured having a few landings with someone else there would help me to see how it was done and build confidence.

It was also priced less than AFF.

[douwanto 22]

Tandem progression Offers the first time jumper the chance to skydive with the comfort of knowing the TI is going to perform his job even if they dont. That means they are more likely to enjoy themselves more and have less stress associated with skydiving.

It allows the TI to build confidence in the student of their ability to save their own life.

Someone who already has that will sign up for AFF after their first Tandem someone with out that is more likely to sign up for Tandem progression or not at all.

Juts my 2 cents

Uncle/GrandPapa Whit
Unico Rodriguez # 245
Muff Brother # 2421

[Feeblemind 1]

I did a tandem 1st at one DZ then went through TAFF at another. I thought "my" TAFF was 1st rate! But I also went through a private program. I had the same instructor through out my progression which I found very beneficial.

The most notable positives I had with the tandems were:

I learned the raw basics of canopy flight with an expert literally on my ass.

I learned to fly a landing pattern (when I made my 1st AFF the radio was silent except for the flare portion.

The instructor has explained to me numerous benefits he gets from doing the tadems, maybe he will chime in here.

Cheers,

Phil

Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I have only taught one student through Tandem Progression. I was working in Mexico, landing on a busy beach. I thought it was brilliant. We were able to go through all the free-fall learning as per AFF but with canopy control lessons that were far superior to regular AFF or RAPS style program could ever provide. I particularly remember hitting a wind sheer at 1000' or so and asking the student how the new wind direction affected our planned pattern. This training paid off big time when his radio malfunctioned on his first jump on solo gear; He flew a nice pattern, moved down the beach a bit to where he had more room and landed nicely (it really was tight for a student).
I have not used the method since because of manpower; TAFF really does take a lot of one of your more usefull instructors' time.
For the committee to refuse this program they should be prepared to give their reasons. I cannot see a safety concern that would preclude the program, nor can I find an issue of quality of instruction. Any other issue I can think of would come under business efficiency or competitive advantage; neither of these IMHO should be within the mandate of any BPA committee.

[pchapman 261]

Quote

For the committee to refuse this program they should be prepared to give their reasons. I cannot see a safety concern that would preclude the program, nor can I find an issue of quality of instruction. Any other issue I can think of would come under business efficiency or competitive advantage; neither of these IMHO should be within the mandate of any BPA committee.

Exactly!!!

My opinion is that Tandem Progression is within the acceptable range of safety & training effectiveness of other training methods. Far greater variation can exist at any DZ with any instructional method, depending on how the DZ implements its programs.

The original question:

Quote

I'd be interested in the experiences of both larger and smaller dropzones who have tried, and either adopted or discarded, a tandem progression system.

In my area of Canada, a couple DZ's have very different training philosophies, but both are well respected. One DZO chooses not to have any tandems whatsoever and only does PFF (essentially AFF) progression. Another DZO chooses only to do tandem progression.

As for personal experience, I have one example of where a tandem progression program has essentially been abandoned.

At a Cessna DZ I've instructed at, they never got the critical mass of PFF instructors to run a PFF program, so they had tandem progression as an alternative to beginning only with traditional static line progression.

There were students who came out of the program happy & successful, but on average the program wasn't as effective as desired. The problem appeared to not be the tandem progression concept, but its implementation.

Tandem progression students were handed to tandem instructors in the normal course of tandems during the day. The instructor would be expecting to gear up and go with the next student in the next 20 minutes, but suddenly be told that the student was on his 3rd tandem. For the same pay as a regular tandem, the instuctor, who might not have done a tandem progression for a couple months, would have to re-learn from the tandem progression sheet what he'd be teaching. The progression sheet was very terse so it wasn't convenient to interpret for those who didn't teach tandem progression often. And the sheet would sometimes not be updated to reflect current DZ policy. All in all, no wonder that on a per jump basis, the amount of student learning wasn't as much as desired.

[brwonder 0]

I'm in a small DZ in Alberta, Canada and we have been using the Tandem progression (TAFF) for a couple years. We have been very successful with it. The TI is also a PFF instructor (Canadian version of AFF). I believe the main reason it has been working for us is because our instructor is very capable. On small business perspective the TAFF can be valuable safe tool. On the other hand it does create a constraint, because now your TI is also an instructor. Limiting the number of tandems.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

A dropzone in the UK recently proposed a trial of a tandem progression system but it was not carried at the most recent Safety and Training Committee meeting.

Sigh, there's the BPA for ya.

Quote

***

The Committee was advised that a similar arrangement to that proposed had been trialled in the USA with mixed results. It was no longer being used at the larger Drop Zones that had been involved in the trial, although it was still running at some of the smaller ones.

Is this a fair statement? I'd be interested in the experiences of both larger and smaller dropzones who have tried, and either adopted or discarded, a tandem progression system.


I would say it's not a fair statement. There are many DZ's that have been running successful Tandem progressions for 5 to 10 years. The USPA endorses the progression as it is one of the options in the ISP or training curriculum.

The ability to coach a student through canopy deployment and flight can not be rivaled as a canopy training method. And that is the prime cause of student injuries/fatalities.

Please try and avoid the temptation to go down the route that BPA stands for Ban Parachuting Altogether.
***

Ooooops.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[feuergnom 22]

we are the only school in austria offering tandem progression - so far we've been teaching by this method for five years now succesfully. our course consits of three working tandems and 4 more levels where the student is accompanied by one teacher (basically aff levels 4 - 8 depending on progression/abilities)

pro's:
- students get excellent canopy skills within their first three jumps
- usually they are very relaxed and self confident once they switch so levels 4-8 with a single teacher. they know how to turn & stop. higher levels include saltos and docking, dive exits etc.

con's:
- you have to be a bullet proof TI willing to do more than the usual "ass-hauling-job" and have an AFF-rating to teach this method in autria- so this limits the teaching-staff to two persons at our school which makes trainig a bit slow sometimes
- working tandems from 3500 meters won't do it. so i guess it's not the method of choice for cessna 182/206 dz's - try to get a floater exit out of these ones...

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[rhyswynn 0]

I learned at what I would call a fairly large DZ (Cross Keys) and they have what's called AFP, which includes several tandem jumps before ground school, followed by something akin to AFF. I don't know about anyone else, but I seriously doubt I would have performed well on my first jump without doing a tandem first. The experience was so overwhelming, not a thought went through my mind other than WHOOOOSH! A few jumps on tandem, as well as introduction to canopy flight and control was a huge help in moving forward, IMHO.

[tkhayes 126]

We tried tandem progression a few years ago and had not much luck with it.

Bottom line was that tandem is a great training tool for altitude awareness and pulling, other freefall skills, and EXCELLENT for canopy control, but it teaches poor body position.

So transitioning to 1-on-1 AFF meant that the student was usually back-sliding and with one instructor, you go around and around and around and learn nothing.

So the decision would be to take the student up on 2 on 1 as the first AFF, which raises the question of "why bother?" They already do that in a program called AFF, which we offer already.

I am customer conscious so I am not going to charge the customer for 1 to 3 tandems, then make then do AFF Level 1, it simply costs too much and has no value for the customer.

Having said that, I do not think we are the authority on tandem progression, and I expect that DZ's are out there with successful programs. I for one, would like to see what others are doing and what is working out there. That way I can re-evaluate it for our needs.

I totally agree that a tandem is a better/safer first jump, as long as you are teaching the student something that will be used later.

If you are just taking more money from them and still doing the current AFF 1 thru 7 or 8 program, then you are wasting their money.

TK

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

I offer straight AFF, tandem progression, and hybrids of varying degree at my private school. More times than not, at least this past year, it's been more of a hybrid program with one CAT A/B tandem (COA, PRCPs,RT,LT,forward mvt, lock on, wave and pull) tandem, then on to a cat B/C1 with two instructors, then back to just one instructor for the rest. Having my own training gear (tandem rig, AFF rig, etc) allows me to do whatever I feel is prudent to get the student safely through to their A license. It does not suck that I don't have to share any of that money with anyone else if I do tandem progression (which is two or three training tandems, then straight to C2/D1 with one instructor). It also does not suck that I have so many other super-qualified AFF guys on the DZ (Z-hills) to help out when I need someone to fly reserve side. If you are a solid tandem instructor, solid AFF instructor, and have your own gear then tandem progression is a fantastic methodology. The SIM and the four-page A card allow for an infinite number of posibilities.

Chuck

[AFFI 0]

Quote

The Committee was advised that a similar arrangement to that proposed had been trialled in the USA with mixed results. It was no longer being used at the larger Drop Zones that had been involved in the trial, although it was still running at some of the smaller ones.

The voting results here is this poll do not seem to support the BPA assessment. But that is neither here nor there eh?

There are a number of training programs available. I have not only been working in a tandem progression program for 7 years but I have been very involved with the curriculum development and know from first hand experience how well it works. We do not make a couple fun tandems then throw students into AFF though, the tandems are structured and involved with detailed dive flows that begin the teaching process from the very first jump even though the vast majority of tandem students will not progress any further than the first tandem.

That being said:
A program is only as good as the instructors teaching it.
You can have the best program in the history or history itself but it is as useless as the paper it is printed on if you do not have quality instructors to implement and teach it to the students. I have seen a lot of effort put into finding quality instructors, but stopping there still falls short without the guidance necessary to get all of the instructors on the same page and train them how the philosophies of a particular training program works to produce an environment where quality learning will occur.

I would suspect that with the right staff, just about any training program can be made effective. But of course, that is just my opinion, I could be wrong…

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

Quote

That being said:
A program is only as good as the instructors teaching it.
You can have the best program in the history or history itself but it is as useless as the paper it is printed on if you do not have quality instructors to implement and teach it to the students. I

Exactly what I said

[popsjumper 2]

My pet peeve:

Cons
- Landings. From what I've seen, students nearly always butt slide their first solo landings after tandem progression.
Makes my tailbone ache every time I see it.

Other than that, I support tandem progression IF the instructor is worth a shit.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

I don't know if this will help any.
The DZ that I learn how to jump at uses Tandem Progression as the primary training program. It has worked for them for years. I'd say it was a small family oriented dropzone (Even if we always have a Otter or Casa sitting out front.)

I'm from the same DZ... there were advantages and disadvantages to the tandem progression. When I learned, I thought it was the better way, however looking back (older and wiser, of course) I now believe tandem progression was overall a negative. For background, our progression was 4 tandems (carnival ride, altitude and pull, turns, forward/backward movement), then a shorter version of the AFF program. Reasons I am now against it:

- We had a LOT of students who were so used to holding on the ripcord that they would hold onto the pilot chute on their 1st harness-hold dive

- The presence of the tandemaster would give students a false sense of stability/capability. i.e., a HUGE input on a turn would have a sluggish response. Then the same person would do the same thing on an "AFF" jump and wonder why they got into an uncontrolled spin. Even more basic things like being stable at all... how would you feel if you did 4 tandems "perfectly" and then suddenly you're on your own and you're potato-chipping and can't hold a heading.

- The lack of extensive instruction meant people wouldn't be around all day and talking to people... after 2 or 3 times of coming out, jumping within an hour, and leaving almost immediately, people would get bored and quit.

- For the same reason, too much of a "carnival ride" feel, and I think it led the more independant people to become disinterested.

- Ground classes were rare enough that they weren't held regularly... inconvenient to schedule, and typically you would be the only one in the class... that means noone to go through it with you, adding to the isolation.

- Good tandem masters for 1st jumps are not necessarily good instructors for jumps 2 - 4.

- Relative rarity of AFF jumps vs. tandems led to the good AFF instructors moving on and/or becoming uncurrent. Quality of instruction suffered.

Don't get me wrong, tandem is a good thing and has it's place. Personally, I think tandem should be a 1-off thing. If you come back for a 2nd jump it should be strait into AFF. Also, all students should be given the option of tandem or AFF for their first jump, and encouraged to start with AFF if they're interested in pursuing more than just a carnival ride.

For smaller DZ's that might not have a lot of instructors, I would encourage greater use of *gasp* static line/IAD! You get a lot of the education/interaction/commitment benefits of AFF, but larger groups are easier to handle. Plus, for students that aren't investment bankers, jumps are maybe $60 instead of $200 - $300... so doing 2 or 3 every week (or at least every other week) isn't financially impossible.

The success of the program is based on retention of people, and what retains people is getting them out there all day, making them feel like they've accomplished something, and having them hang out around the fire when they're done. They meet people, make friends, and want to come back. Tandem does not lend itself to that atmosphere.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[skydivezimbabwe 0]

We practise a tandem progression system in Zimbabwe. The results have been very good, and student retention has been excellent.

My major concerns are always student instructor reliance and height awareness. However, student canopy control is 200% better as a result of jumping tandem.

Ultimately, a student is a result of the instructor and you only get out what you put in.

Rob-By
Check it out at http://www.skydive.co.zw Clicky!