0
peek

Tunnel to AFF training BSR change

Recommended Posts

how is this any different than the sketchy tandem progression method where you really don't have any idea of what the student is doing....then they're handed off to an AFF instructor (yes, one instructor)? At least in the tunnel they're not strapped to an instructor under a drogue. There's a local DZ here in Oregon doing this method and from what I can see it's working just fine. They still (the instructor) has the ability to say 'nah, i want 2 instructors for this one'. I think it's a viable option. The tunnel can be such a great tool.

I'm not advocating one way or the other.......just throwing this out there.
my pics & stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linestretch

how is this any different than the sketchy tandem progression method where you really don't have any idea of what the student is doing....then they're handed off to an AFF instructor (yes, one instructor)? At least in the tunnel they're not strapped to an instructor under a drogue. There's a local DZ here in Oregon doing this method and from what I can see it's working just fine. They still (the instructor) has the ability to say 'nah, i want 2 instructors for this one'. I think it's a viable option. The tunnel can be such a great tool.

I'm not advocating one way or the other.......just throwing this out there.



That is pretty much how I am thinking about it. It is another way to do things, and it may work well for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pushing past revenue on student jumps, concentrating on making skydivers and bring our sport to new levels, finding a somewhat competent aff rated instructor is not easy, learning how to help the student achieve even more of which they might possibly think they want, harder; while doing it so that we as a sport can progress, near impossible. And yet, here we are.
There are similarities between tunnel and post terminal velocity acertation, laying in translation between the two is where many of these answers lay.
Quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Tunnel coaches will quite often encourage a flatter (arms and legs extended) position in order to
>keep wind speed down and therefore reduce risk. This is contrary to “arch like a mofo” that you
>typically hear from AFF-Is.

When we used the Perris tunnel for level 1 AFF's we'd have them get into a hard an arch as we could manage, then have them increase airspeed until they lifted off the net. Tunnel guy wasn't really involved (although he was there just in case.)



This was kind of the idea, with the original 3 tunnels, and the big baggy suits, as well as the humongous cushions. To reduce the chance of injury to the riders.

This is of course the same reasoning and evidence from the late 70's from the original AFF program.

To reduce risk.


And again, this has been supplanted not by looking at the evidence of a successful AFF program over the last 40 years. It has been replaced by a minority opinion. And with absolutely no supporting data. And yet we have years of 2 AFF instructors, and years of that same data all supporting the effectiveness and safety of that same program.

And again, all changed in favor of "Opinion."

Once again The USPA has increased risk for unwitting participants.

Not really a debatable point, IMO.
Brett Bickford Did Not Commit Suicide.

He is the victim of ignorance and faulty gear. AND as in the movie: "12 Angry Men," of an ignorant and callous jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several DZ's have been doing this for a few years now. It's not really "an experiment" at this stage. At Raeford/XP we've been transitioning students with a tandem (or two) and 10-20 min of tunnel time to single instructor jumps since 2015. There have been zero issues to my knowledge and in the case of students who "didn't get it, or seemed sketchy" instructors have the option of taking the student up with two instructors (and do).

I was initially opposed to it, but the results have been hard to argue with. Students in the XP PSP program are earning their A license having done 4way (with supervision, as opposed to going and doing it with 27 jumps and limited guidance). The program sets students up to start doing FS after earning their license. This limits the "I got my A, and now I'm adrift doing solos or trying to teach myself how to freefly" issue.

USPA didn't try to hide this or sneak an agenda by, they just made it "acceptable" for the DZ's that have been evolving their programs using the tools available. It's a natural progression of things. Tunnels are here, have been for awhile and they are changing the way things are done. Look at the 4 way numbers from this year's World Meet. Blame the tunnel for that too.

Jump numbers are essential vs. tunnel time when it comes to advanced/instructor ratings. It's hard to substitute the entire process of a jump (prep, a/c procedures, exit, freefall, opening, canopy flight, etc.). There is no substitute for the experience of the whole process. As it stands, no one has lowered the 25 jump cut off for the A. Which is as it should be.

Cheers,

-Harry
"Sometimes you eat the bar,
and well-sometimes the bar eats you..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a dumb question, but how can the details of AFF be a BSR when member DZs dont even need to follow AFF in the first place? As others have pointed out, plenty of DZs have already been using modified student programs, whether that includes tunnel time, tandems, etc. Have these DZs already been violating BSRs?
Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtrusBatleth

Perhaps a dumb question, but how can the details of AFF be a BSR when member DZs dont even need to follow AFF in the first place? As others have pointed out, plenty of DZs have already been using modified student programs, whether that includes tunnel time, tandems, etc. Have these DZs already been violating BSRs?



You can add stuff, but you can't skip / remove stuff. The 2 tandems and no 2 harness hold AFF training program is covered in the BSRs 2-1 G.5c

***. Students who have completed at least two tandem
jumps and demonstrated the ability to reliably
pull the drogue release at the correct altitude,
maintain heading and a stable body position,
without requiring any control or altitude prompts
from the tandem instructor, may progress to single
instructor AFF jumps after completion of solo
ground training.

I suspect that what you think are DZs not following the AFF BSRs is just you not knowing the BSRs or not knowing the training details.
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AtrusBatleth

Perhaps a dumb question, but how can the details of AFF be a BSR when member DZs dont even need to follow AFF in the first place? As others have pointed out, plenty of DZs have already been using modified student programs, whether that includes tunnel time, tandems, etc. Have these DZs already been violating BSRs?



Hopefully I understand the questions correctly...

BSR's set the minimum requirements. Much of the detail in the instructional programs is not related to the BSRs, so there is a lot of flexibility in how students are taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I didn't realize the BSRs specifically allowed the exception to go straight to single instructor AFF after demonstrating proper tandem objectives. That's how I did AFF. So that was still in compliance with the AFF BSRs. Thanks for clarifying.
Max Peck
What's the point of having top secret code names, fellas, if we ain't gonna use 'em?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Perhaps a dumb question, but how can the details of AFF be a BSR when member DZs dont even need to follow AFF in the first place?


?? Not all BSR's apply to all jumpers. The wingsuit BSR's, for example, don't apply to people doing RW.
Quote

As others have pointed out, plenty of DZs have already been using modified student programs, whether that includes tunnel time, tandems, etc. Have these DZs already been violating BSRs?


Not at all. You can always add stuff. The SIM calls out the minimums of training, not the maximums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Quote

Perhaps a dumb question, but how can the details of AFF be a BSR when member DZs dont even need to follow AFF in the first place?


?? Not all BSR's apply to all jumpers. The wingsuit BSR's, for example, don't apply to people doing RW.
***As others have pointed out, plenty of DZs have already been using modified student programs, whether that includes tunnel time, tandems, etc. Have these DZs already been violating BSRs?


Not at all. You can always add stuff. The SIM calls out the minimums of training, not the maximums.

What wingsuit BSRs? The only thing about wingsuits in the BSRs is that you need 200 jumps.

https://uspa.org/Portals/0/Files/Man_SIM_Section2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am interested in seeing the new SIM with the revised BSR 2-1.G.6 and the ISP section 4 categories A — C in addressing Tunnel to AFF Training. For now, I am skeptical but I remain open to the idea of early category ISP tunnel instruction mainly to judge for myself if the horror stories I have heard are more exaggerations then fact.

The question I have is, will and should DZs let the green instructor with their freshly minted rating work, in air, with an early ISP level tunnel trained student?
Memento Mori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lug

I am interested in seeing the new SIM with the revised BSR 2-1.G.6 ...



It will be updated, but I do not recall the schedule. You can find the verbiage in the USPA BOD meeting Minutes from the 2018 summer meeting.

Quote

... and the ISP section 4 categories A — C in addressing Tunnel to AFF Training. ...



This was a BSR change only. Nothing about the ISP has changed. (My apologies for sounding so picky about how this change is described, but not everyone uses the ISP for training. The BSRs need to be worded so as to be as flexible as possible.)

Quote

The question I have is, will and should DZs let the green instructor with their freshly minted rating work, in air, with an early ISP level tunnel trained student?



I would think that only a specific combination of instructor/student should take advantage of this BSR change. From the people I have talked to, no one is in a rush to do so. It is going to take some planning, and cooperation between tunnels and DZs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lug

I am interested in seeing the new SIM with the revised BSR 2-1.G.6 and the ISP section 4 categories A — C in addressing Tunnel to AFF Training. For now, I am skeptical but I remain open to the idea of early category ISP tunnel instruction mainly to judge for myself if the horror stories I have heard are more exaggerations then fact.

The question I have is, will and should DZs let the green instructor with their freshly minted rating work, in air, with an early ISP level tunnel trained student?



IMO, a "rating" is a rating. "Green" isn't a consideration. Any AFFI is ready to go to work right out the door, otherwise why would have someone given them a "rating?" That said:

You make a sound argument though. IMO your highlighting the difference between experience, and the real world results. If you want some additional reading I suggest the lengthy and comprehensive IRM and the many pages outlining the duties of the reserve side AFFI. Basically with this BSR you have literarily ripped out pages of safety and procedures all designed and tested over the years to maximize performance and safety, in favor of opinion. IMO, just read all of what is required, or used to be required of any second AFFI and now all of that is "Optional?"
Brett Bickford Did Not Commit Suicide.

He is the victim of ignorance and faulty gear. AND as in the movie: "12 Angry Men," of an ignorant and callous jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisD2.0

***I am interested in seeing the new SIM with the revised BSR 2-1.G.6 and the ISP section 4 categories A — C in addressing Tunnel to AFF Training. For now, I am skeptical but I remain open to the idea of early category ISP tunnel instruction mainly to judge for myself if the horror stories I have heard are more exaggerations then fact.

The question I have is, will and should DZs let the green instructor with their freshly minted rating work, in air, with an early ISP level tunnel trained student?



IMO, a "rating" is a rating. "Green" isn't a consideration. Any AFFI is ready to go to work right out the door, otherwise why would have someone given them a "rating?" That said:

You make a sound argument though. IMO your highlighting the difference between experience, and the real world results. If you want some additional reading I suggest the lengthy and comprehensive IRM and the many pages outlining the duties of the reserve side AFFI. Basically with this BSR you have literarily ripped out pages of safety and procedures all designed and tested over the years to maximize performance and safety, in favor of opinion. IMO, just read all of what is required, or used to be required of any second AFFI and now all of that is "Optional?"
Folks, Be extremely cautious about relying on anything ChrisD2.0 says.

He is clearly the same ChrisD who appeared for a while about 5 years ago, with a phony profile of inflated jump numbers, and posted as if he was a seasoned instructor, with a cock-sure attitude quite often contradicting actual seasoned instructors on all sorts of issues by stating things that were wrong, particularly about training and safety.

So much so that it prompted several to find out who he actually was, and expose the fact that he was a phony masquerading as an knowledgeable and experienced expert. He then posted a sad mea culpa, and then disappeared. But clearly he is back, doing the exact same thing. He is as much an expert in all that he claims now as he was back then.

The end of ChrisD (1.0):
http://www.dropzone.com/...rum.cgi?post=4581656

So beware. Despite his authoritative tone, he's a low time jumper who has no ratings and no actual experience or actual knowledge about anything he pontificates on. He's a phony that is best ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Basically with this BSR you have literarily ripped out pages of safety and procedures
>all designed and tested over the years to maximize performance and safety, in favor of
>opinion.

Yes. Static line goes even further and rips out the whole chapter on AFF. So does IAD. Tandem progression removes the reserve side as well. I've taught SL and tandem progression - and even worked for the military, where the reserve side does almost nothing other than ensure stability and deployment.

All of them work. None are perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something I think everyone misses with this (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the tunnel time needs to be under the instruction of someone with USPA accreditation if not an AFF-I. It will also vastly improve the instructor pool to get them into the tunnel doing this work and will also put tunnel instructors in the air pursuing those ratings.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL

Something I think everyone misses with this (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the tunnel time needs to be under the instruction of someone with USPA accreditation if not an AFF-I. It will also vastly improve the instructor pool to get them into the tunnel doing this work and will also put tunnel instructors in the air pursuing those ratings.



Well actually, the AFF instructor could simply be outside the tunnel watching the (possibly AFF unrated) tunnel instructor doing the training, and then log the training much like a skydive.

But I know what you mean. If I were that AFF instructor, I would be wanting to get in there with my future student!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrisD2.0

If you want some additional reading I suggest the lengthy and comprehensive IRM and the many pages outlining the duties of the reserve side AFFI.


Have you ever even seen a real IRM?
“Many pages outlining reserve side duties”?..
People like you are why this site has become so worthless over the years.
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ufk22

*** If you want some additional reading I suggest the lengthy and comprehensive IRM and the many pages outlining the duties of the reserve side AFFI.


Have you ever even seen a real IRM?
“Many pages outlining reserve side duties”?..
People like you are why this site has become so worthless over the years.

Sections 3-1 up to 3.2 H Cover the responsibilities of the "INSTRUCTORS"

PLURAL

SECTON 4

again plural

The largest section of the AFF in the IRM pertains to "INSRUCTORS."



Anyone is free to see that in the IRM, the most written pages are devoted to 2 AFFis'.
Brett Bickford Did Not Commit Suicide.

He is the victim of ignorance and faulty gear. AND as in the movie: "12 Angry Men," of an ignorant and callous jury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0