Low / Flat turn education - AFF MISS?

[RedBaron 0]

OK fellow skydivers...after my first really scary incident and landing, I've confronted a subject with myself that I need to share, and get other opinions on...

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED...

I was at my local DZ 2 weeks ago - jumping with a friend. I had made one jump, and was on my second. The jump went perfectly, including freefall, deployment, and canopy flight to within 150 feet or so of my landing... BUT - at that altitude, a MAJOR wind gust lasting several seconds literally turned me 45 degrees - pointing me away from the grassy alternate landing area I was headed for, and changing my path to land directly on a cement runway. I pulled my right toggle (to turn back INTO the wind) as aggressively as I dared (heeding all of the "no low turn" advice from my AFF training), but to no avail. The wind was so strong that I couldn't counteract it enough to make a difference in my heading, without pulling unreasonably on the toggle. So, I accepted the situation, and settled in for the landing. I tried to make the best flare and PLF (if necessary - which did happen) that I could. Nothing but scrapes, bruises - but it could have been a LOT worse...and really got me thinking.

HERE'S MY QUESTION...

Why don't we even 'DISCUSS" the process for completing low / flat turns in the AFF course?

Right now - the accepted teaching in the AFF program is "NO TURNS BELOW 500 FEET - PERIOD." You can cover a LOT of ground in 500 feet... This is a good practice (staying away from low turns), but the reality is that conditions (or other jumpers) can create a situation where a student MUST make a turn at a lower altitude. Knowing what I know now (after a still admittedly low number of jumps) reinforces that this is a subject that we should PREPARE students for...not just leave them hanging. Leaving AFF students to fend for themselves without so much as a mention on this topic is dead (sometimes literally) wrong.

If we KNOW people react instinctively to pressure situations, why wouldn't we want to give them the education to use the RIGHT instincts? If we are teaching people how to CUTAWAY a main and deploy a reserve (the most extreme preservation act), why wouldn't we want to teach them the very simple and easy process of turning a canopy at 30 or 45 degrees to avoid a major hazard? I'm not talking at 50 feet - I'm talking at 200 or 300 feet or any other altitude that would be reasonable. If a new jumper finds themself in a situation where they need to avoid another jumper, a building or other hard object, or in some cases (my DZ fronts a major FREEWAY) a major ground traffic issue - why aren't we preparing them?

IGNORING this simple procedure is a mistake, in my opinion. Indeed - I believe it should be REQUIRED as a demonstrated SKILL in order to graduate AFF. One review of the "Incidents" forum on this site and the statistics related to all incidents (including fatalities) will show that this is one of the most important skills in terms of avoiding potentially hazardous situations. I've read those statistics, and what I know now is that people with thousands of jumps have died from low turns, and in one instance a woman on her FIRST EVER jump died from a low turn. She did it wrong - because the SAFE procedure wasn't even DISCUSSED. I'd say this topic warrants discussion.

After I graduated AFF, I felt like I had most of the tools to begin pursuing the sport in a reasonably safe way. While I'm only a short timer in the sport now, that feeling has changed. I feel that I'm woefully unequipped to handle SOME instances that will LIKELY happen under canopy. I know that there is no cure-all that can cover all issues, and prepare you for all incidents... That said, I belive that this is the single area (teaching the simple process for completing a SAFE FLAT TURN at lower altitude) that is the biggest miss in the AFF education scenario.

After I graduated from student status (January of this year) I began to make regular jumps. I practiced what I'd been taught, and have progressed at a normal rate - to the point where I'm about to send in my "A" license card.

I'd heard the term "flat turn" before, and heard quick explanations of how people do it. Some do it with "minor" downward pressure on one toggle, while the more effective and common method seems to be getting 1/4 to 1/2 way into the brakes, and then letting up slowly on the toggle in the OPPOSITE direction of the way you'd like to turn. BOTTOM LINE: This could be taught in a matter of minutes during the AFF course - with the restriction that it would only be used in case of REAL EMERGENCY and in order to avoid a potentially hazardous situation. The same way the EP's are taught. If I board a plane and sit in an exit row - I'm taught how to extract and discard a MAJOR OPENING on the fuselage. In about 10 seconds... Are we missing something here?

As I think back on my education in other sports (advanced SCUBA, expert motorcycle road racing, etc.) I can think of many scenarios that were planned for (evasive / preventive actions). Some were noted to be used "only in severe emergency situations"...but they WERE taught. Just saying "no turns below 500 ft - period" is risky. Unless the student immediatly searches out an instructor that WILL share this skill with them (as I did after my incident - and getting LUCKY in a dicey situation) they will never be fully prepared. Just saying "it's the student's responsibility to seek out ALL knowledge" is a COP OUT. No "NEW" student knows ALL of what to ask. It's the age old saying..."You dont' know, what you DON'T KNOW!" Because this issue can present itself on the EIGHTH jump (first after AFF) that a jumper makes...we owe it to new jumpers to share this skill.

Why don't we share this knowledge now? Are there any really GOOD reasons why we don't, and why by NOT doing this - we keep reading about people yanking down on a toggle at low altitude, and winding up in the "Incidents" forum...?

Red Baron
www.kneeriders.com

[billvon 2,476]

>Why don't we even 'DISCUSS" the process for completing low / flat turns in the AFF course?

Same reason we don't discuss canopy transfers I imagine - because we're trying to get them as much useful information as possible without overloading them. I could teach a 24 hour first jump course in three eight-hour days - but how much of that would they retain?

>"NO TURNS BELOW 500 FEET - PERIOD."

Well, I teach no more than 90 degree turns below 500 feet, and no more than very minor (correction) type turns below 200 feet.

> Some do it with "minor" downward pressure on one toggle, while the more
> effective and common method seems to be getting 1/4 to 1/2 way into
>the brakes, and then letting up slowly on the toggle in the OPPOSITE
>direction of the way you'd like to turn.

Actually the most effective method is to begin with one toggle then immediately counter with the other toggle, to a degree that the turn is flattened but the canopy is not flared. The ideal flat turn exits with the same speed as you enter it. But this is not something that someone with zero jumps is going to be able to do.

There are a lot of things you could teach in the FJC. You could teach reserve repacking (always good to know your gear) and leg turns (could help them with stability) and canopy transfers (never know when you might need to do that) and how to turn their cypres off in the airplane (in case their JM has a heart attack and they have to land with the plane.) But the likelihood of them needing to know any of that is low - and the likelihood of them needing to know to arch, and check their altitude, and pull at a certain altitude, is very high. So you try to target the course towards what they will probably need to know, and put off the more advanced stuff until later. Not ideal, but a decent compromise between overloading students and telling them too little (IMO.)

[Scoop 0]

In the UK you have to do a very basic canopy handling practical before you can get your A licence. Its not really a course but there is an exam, you practice some techniques inlcuding what I think were referred to as braked turns and elevation turns and being observed by an instructor on a few jumps and discuss what you noticed. If there is nothing similar for you guys I'm sure the information will be available on the BPA website

EDIT: Yeah, here is the manual in PDF: http://www.bpa.org.uk/safetydocs/chmanual.pdf

[darwin143 0]

While I was never taught flat turns on AFF, I was introduced to it when I get some coach jumps to get my A. The instructor sat with me for awhile going over some canopy stuff I hadn't learned on AFF.

Like billvon said, they can't teach you everything on AFF, or you won't remember it. You're expected to keep learning (from coach jumps, other jumpers, etc) as you keep jumping.

However, I think some extra canopy skills, maybe in the later levels, would be a good idea.

[popsjumper 2]

Wow!

No/little canopy control learning during AFF?
Wow!

Bill's correct in that you can't teach everything in the FJC but canopy control exercises are a staple during our AFF course. We have progressive canopy control learning objectives with every level.

Contollability check
Practice flares
Toggle turns
Flat turns
Flare turns
Braked turns

We do not teach "no turns below 500 ft." (kinda makes it hard to turn on final at 300-250ft, eh?)

I would suggest that you attempt to get these things into the AFF program at your DZ.

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

[tombuch 0]

I think I'm with Bill on this one.

In the basic first jump course we should be teaching no turns greater than 90 degrees below 500 feet, only minor corrections below 200 feet, and plan on a PLF if a bad landing is likely. We should also cover recovery from a stall and a flare that is too high.

After the FJC we should focus on additional canopy control. The ISP covers this pretty well.

I'll also add that any program that uses tandem jumps should really be focusing on canopy control during those jumps, so if you had more than one tandem you certainly should have been exposed to flat turns in that part of the program.

You should not have graduated without significant canopy instruction, including flat turns (break turns), front and rear riser turns, and stalls and stall recovery. you should also be capable of understanding canopy flight to the degree necessary to get yourself to a targeted landing spot without radio instruction. Check out the SIM, section 4-1. There is a terrific skill training grid on roughly page 19.

Too often DZ's and instructors skimp on the canopy component of training. If you feel like your home DZ let you down in this regard, speak with the chief instructor or DZO and offer your constructive feedback. It may well be that the outlined program wasn't being followed, and additional staff direction or oversight is needed. Or it could be that the DZ doesn't put much emphasis on canopy control by design.

After graduation it's always a good idea to seek out additional canopy instruction, and while the USPA program is lacking in this area, there are some outstanding private courses that will guide your advanced learning.

I wish I could say that our industry is really focused on canopy instruction, but too often we are not. That's one place where we still let our students down. I'll also add that there are some virtual reality canopy simulators on the market that have not been embraced by civilian drop zones, but that are heavily used by the military. This is another way we can improve canopy control at the student and novice level, but again, it requires a commitment from the independent drop zones.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[littleskycrab 0]

Andy, I just got my 100th, as you know and until the weekend prior to this milestone, I had no canopy skills to speak of other than how to land. I have asked many experienced jumpers in the past year about canopy control. I have even stated to them "I'm not sure of what to ask you because I'm not sure what there is to ask about". Every request for information that I made was either answered in a vague fashion or I was told to take a canopy control course...... which I did....... many thanks to Scott Miller. My 99th landing could have been quite ugly if it weren't for the skills that I learned 1 week prior. After seeing the Dublin incident with my very own eyes, I realized just how very little information I had acquired in regards to flying my canopy. I began running various scenarios through my mind and realized I didn't have the skills that I would need to save myself.

I also don't understand why more canopy control isn't taught in AFF. Not the 1st jump course, but later on, say jump 6-7. by that point the student should be able to handle a little more info, well, at least I feel like I could have. Or at the very least be required to take a canopy control course prior to receiving an "A" License. I cannot begin to tell you how valuable the information that I acquired through Scott's canopy course is to me....... priceless! I would have gladly shelled out the $$ to get some life saving info long before now. (Just so you know, I have been trying to take a canopy course for a yr, but they were full before I could sign up).

Yes, each jumper is responsible for educating themselves, but again, the new jumpers haven't a clue on the questions to ask because we haven't yet been exposed to the issue........ does that make sense? Therefore we have no choice other than to rely on our fellow jumpers with experience to help us educate ourselves. It shouldn't be a hard thing to do, but sometimes it is.

My only advice to the OP....... take a canopy course ASAP! What you learn may very well save your butt sooner or later.

Next time a sunrise steals your breath or a meadow of flowers leaves you speechless, remain that way. Say nothing and listen as heaven whispers, "Do you like it? I did it just for you."

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

....... take a canopy course ASAP! What you learn may very well save your butt sooner or later.

WELL worth repeating for the OP. Thanks, Nicci.

I'm just very surprised and sorry to hear that there was little to no Canopy Control taught in that DZs AFF progression.

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

[micduran 0]

Quote

Too often DZ's and instructors skimp on the canopy component of training.

I believe this to be true, as well. I had my pilot's license prior to skydiving. After my 3rd jump I was told "you can land a plane, you'll have no problem with a parachute".

I took a canopy course after 300 jumps and was shocked to realize how little I actually knew.
Coaches and experienced jumpers help with the freefall but don't spend enough time on canopy control.
If you aren't able to take a canopy course get with instructors, coaches or experienced jumpers. Hopefully everyone can find someone to help with canopy skills.

Yes, the "official" training courses might be lacking but it is up to every skydiver to learn as much as possible so that we can all be safe.

Be patient with the faults of others; they have to be patient with yours.

[littleskycrab 0]

Surprising, I know. Apparently lack of canopy control education seems to be missing from AFF all over the place......... I sure do hope that starts to change soon. Hopefully with more jumps and more practice of the skills I have learned, I'll be capable of helping others in the future............. pay it forward, right? Afterall, the person that I show how to do a flat turn may very well be the same person that AVOIDS hitting me under canopy.............. can you say self preservation .

Next time a sunrise steals your breath or a meadow of flowers leaves you speechless, remain that way. Say nothing and listen as heaven whispers, "Do you like it? I did it just for you."

[tdog 0]

Quote

Same reason we don't discuss canopy transfers I imagine - because we're trying to get them as much useful information as possible without overloading them. I could teach a 24 hour first jump course in three eight-hour days - but how much of that would they retain?

How about teach every turn below 1000 feet as a braked/flat turn as part of their landing pattern? I know of one teaching program that does that...

(P.S. I do teach flat turns in my FJC. I expect them to practice them on the ground by walking a landing pattern and I jump in front of them and when they walk around me they have to use a flat turn. I bet they forget when they need it if they are in the high stress level 1, but maybe by level 4 or 10 or 20 they will go "oh ya, now it makes sense" when they hear people talking about it around the DZ. I was not introduced to the flat turn until like 25 jumps or something, and that was a shame.)

[DHolland 0]

How about S/l? I am actually taking my S/l training tomorrow out of Lodi, i am keeping my mouth shut and only going to focus on what my instructor tells me so i dont overload or piss him/her off, but because of the nature of S/l over AFF do you think emphasis(spelling?) will be on canopy control rather than freefall
-Dennis

[littleskycrab 0]

Don't know dear, I'm no where near close to having the qualifications to answer any such question. There are many qualified jumpers that can, maybe one of them will chime in.

I've never done S/L. I did do tandem progression, however canopy control was still minimal. Yes, the instructor let me assist him while flying, and he explained to me the things I was assisting with, but that was about all. No flat turns, etc. Pull right toggle = turn right, pull left toggle = turn left, pull them both = flare, the end..... was it good for you?

Next time a sunrise steals your breath or a meadow of flowers leaves you speechless, remain that way. Say nothing and listen as heaven whispers, "Do you like it? I did it just for you."

[DHolland 0]

I guess ill be able to answer my own question in 24 hours anyway. I'm friggin stoked!

[stayhigh 2]

even with proper education people still low turn from time to time...

and any skydiver who thinks that their big docile canopy will never hurt them, but that idea is actually far from reality..

and i think flat turn is covered in some where in sim book..

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I also don't understand why more canopy control isn't taught in AFF. Not the 1st jump course, but later on, say jump 6-7.

Does your DZ still do the outdated 7-level AFF program, or the complete ISP (levels A-H)? Canopy control is a big part of the ISP, including flat turns. I took the traditional 7-level program before the ISP was created, and I couldn't believe it when one of the new jumpers mentioned that scott miller's course was just a refresher of what she learned in AFF. I sure as heck didn't learn all that in my 7 AFF jumps! Dropzones still doing the old AFF program aren't doing their students any favors, except for maybe saving them some money.

Dave

[kkeenan 13]

Quote

...do you think emphasis(spelling?) will be on canopy control rather than freefall

By the nature of S/L, there is more opportunity to teach canopy control. Whether this is done is up to the operator of the course.

In AFF, the student is taught a lot of freefall things that simply do not exist on a S/L jump. Therefore, most S/L courses devote additional time to canopy skills. In my opinion, this creates a better base of knowledge for the student, allowing them to start with a smaller number of critical skills and building to more requirements. Good luck in your training.

Kevin

_____________________________________
Dude, you are so awesome...
Can I be on your ash jump ?

[billvon 2,476]

>How about teach every turn below 1000 feet as a braked/flat turn as
>part of their landing pattern?

I suppose that's doable, but you'd have to get all the instructors on board so they will be able to anticipate the different patterns the students will fly (since their turns will be quite different.) Also would have to make sure that by the time they graduate, they understand that regular pattern turns are toggle turns, not flat turns. We're having enough trouble matching landing patterns nowadays without adding people with big canopies who always flat turn!

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

>How about teach every turn below 1000 feet as a braked/flat turn as
>part of their landing pattern?

I suppose that's doable, but you'd have to get all the instructors on board so they will be able to anticipate the different patterns the students will fly (since their turns will be quite different.) Also would have to make sure that by the time they graduate, they understand that regular pattern turns are toggle turns, not flat turns. We're having enough trouble matching landing patterns nowadays without adding people with big canopies who always flat turn!

see SIM Cat F

Quote

6. Braked pattern and landing approach

a. Fly one entire landing pattern in at least half brakes, to determine the effect on glide path.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[littleskycrab 0]

7-level AFF.

Next time a sunrise steals your breath or a meadow of flowers leaves you speechless, remain that way. Say nothing and listen as heaven whispers, "Do you like it? I did it just for you."

[calledisrael 0]

i was definitely taught this - not in FJC itself, but within the span of my first 5 or 6 jumps. it took a similar incident - i landed off because i was scared to turn at all, and my instructor spent a good hour helping me understand how to do flat turns and what qualified as "minor corrections..."

it was also the advantage of learning at a smaller dz with lots of swoopers and canopy people - when i moved there they didn't want to focus on freefall at ALL - mostly just learning to relax in freefall - but worked on canopy skill. it was a good way to learn.

life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all.
(helen keller)

[kelpdiver 2]

In general, I think the 'no terms below X feet' needs to be more clearly communicated. I got that, yet on radio they were having me do turns at 500 and 300. Paying heed to the creed, I was turning slower than a 747. Seems like a case of KISS gone too far.

Afterwards, they say, oh, no terms over 90 below that. To me, "no turns" without specification would include even 30 or 45 degree corrections.

I suppose this discussion furthers the notion that having a training tandem at the start of the progression is a nice improvement.

[riggerrob 563]

In AFF, the student is taught a lot of freefall things that simply do not exist on a S/L jump.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

By the time they understand the freefall tasks, many AFF students' brains are full, leaving no room for new information about canopy control.
The amount of new information - that a student can absorb - varies from day to day. Good instructors try to match the amount of new information to the amount that the student can absorb TODAY.

[billvon 2,476]

>see SIM Cat F

SIM category F is not part of the traditional AFF program. It is part of the graduate program which was introduced under the ISP, and can be taught by a coach rather than an AFF instructor. It is indeed a great place to introduce flight in brakes, but the original poster was wondering whether this should be taught from the first jump.

[peek 20]

Quote

I took the traditional 7-level program before the ISP was created, and I couldn't believe it when one of the new jumpers mentioned that scott miller's course was just a refresher of what she learned in AFF. I sure as heck didn't learn all that in my 7 AFF jumps! Dropzones still doing the old AFF program aren't doing their students any favors, except for maybe saving them some money.

Dave, you apparently learned at a DZ that didn't do too well on the traditional 7 level AFF program, but that does not mean it is "old" or "outdated".

It's kind of like when people talk about having learned on the "static line method". Well, usually only the first 5 jumps are static line.

And when a person learns on the 7 level AFF program usually (if they are pretty good) only the first 7 jumps are AFF.

After that, you are either taught well (by coaches, mentors, etc.) or you aren't. It is a DZ quality issue, not an instructional method issue.

Only a small part of the quality of instruction involves the specific "method". The ISP is not a panacea.