Currency debate

[swoopfly 5]

An interesting debate to me came up. One guy has 500 jumps over 3 years. Another guy makes 500 jumps over one year. The guy whose been jumping one year makes the claim he has more currency in a shorter amount of time creating a faster learning curve. The other guys claims he has been in the sport longer over those jump numbers and has seen more. Skill wise which do you think is the better learning curve. This was debated also over the tandem rating but think its a good topic in general. Does time in the sport help more than currency?

[Trafficdiver 8]

swoopfly

An interesting debate to me came up. One guy has 500 jumps over 3 years. Another guy makes 500 jumps over one year. The guy whose been jumping one year makes the claim he has more currency in a shorter amount of time creating a faster learning curve. The other guys claims he has been in the sport longer over those jump numbers and has seen more. Skill wise which do you think is the better learning curve. This was debated also over the tandem rating but think its a good topic in general. Does time in the sport help more than currency?

My vote is for 500 in one year. To extend it look at 1000 jumps over 20 years vs 1000 jumps over 5 years. I'd say the latter is more current.

[rwieder 0]

+1

Best -
Richard
IHS

[swoopfly 5]

Trafficdiver

***

An interesting debate to me came up. One guy has 500 jumps over 3 years. Another guy makes 500 jumps over one year. The guy whose been jumping one year makes the claim he has more currency in a shorter amount of time creating a faster learning curve. The other guys claims he has been in the sport longer over those jump numbers and has seen more. Skill wise which do you think is the better learning curve. This was debated also over the tandem rating but think its a good topic in general. Does time in the sport help more than currency?

My vote is for 500 in one year. To extend it look at 1000 jumps over 20 years vs 1000 jumps over 5 years. I'd say the latter is more current.

Of course more jumps is more current but im saying overall learning wise. Rememeber both have the same airtime, but you think being around the dz, talking to pilots, learning from others plays a roll or just jumping landing and jumping is the only true skill builder. An if so what do you think of the 3 year stipulation on Ti rating?

[Joellercoaster 6]

swoopfly

Skill wise which do you think is the better learning curve.

That's what you said. But let's answer both.

swoopfly

but im saying overall learning wise.

That's not what you said.

In terms of raw skydiving skill, all other things being equal (like tunnel time and physical talent) the one year guy will be much better.

In terms of overall learning, the other guy will be better.

In terms of who will make a better instructor (which is what this thread is usually about, it comes up pretty often), my money is on the guy who's been around longer, seen more and heard more.

(And since you specify TI later on, then I don't think either of them is a brilliant idea (but then I'm not an instructor or examminer, so my opinion is worth what you paid for it). The first guy hasn't seen and heard enough, and the second one isn't super current.)

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[swoopfly 5]

Well to clarify i guess the main debate or question is which skydiver would be better overall? say its the same person, if they squeeze in a bunch of jumps in a short time, or jump regularly over a longer time, what would make the skydiver better overall? Does time outweigh consistency? or does consistency outweigh time? This is with the idea that both jumpers jump regularly, as in stay current in the respect of not letting a month go by without jumping. just curious on thoughts on the subject

[SoCalJumper 0]

swoopfly

An interesting debate to me came up. One guy has 500 jumps over 3 years. Another guy makes 500 jumps over one year. The guy whose been jumping one year makes the claim he has more currency in a shorter amount of time creating a faster learning curve. The other guys claims he has been in the sport longer over those jump numbers and has seen more. Skill wise which do you think is the better learning curve. This was debated also over the tandem rating but think its a good topic in general. Does time in the sport help more than currency?

First I'd need to know which one is the idiot because this hypothetical leaves a lot to be desired. Does it really matter?

[nigel99 144]

swoopfly

Well to clarify i guess the main debate or question is which skydiver would be better overall? say its the same person, if they squeeze in a bunch of jumps in a short time, or jump regularly over a longer time, what would make the skydiver better overall? Does time outweigh consistency? or does consistency outweigh time? This is with the idea that both jumpers jump regularly, as in stay current in the respect of not letting a month go by without jumping. just curious on thoughts on the subject

The value of time in the sport is under-rated by most people. Banging out 500 jumps in a year at the same dz, from the same aircraft, and likely doing the same jump does not make you well rounded. The easiest way to get those jump numbers is to do camera so it is likely almost the same jump every time as well.

You become rounded, by travelling, competing or at least doing some discipline to a reasonable standard, experiencing the different weather patterns and aircraft stuff that you come across.

500 jumps in a year makes you very current, but that is one metric of many. I have spent significant time this year being ground crew at a commercial dz (fueling, packing and other crap) I have learn't enormous amounts from the pilots, riggers and others that you don't get from being an active jumper.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

One guy has 500 jumps over 3 years. Another guy makes 500 jumps over one year. The guy whose been jumping one year makes the claim he has more currency in a shorter amount of time creating a faster learning curve

The 'currency' aspect of this is not relevant. If you make 10 or 15 jumps per week for a couple weeks in a row, I would suggest that you're just as 'current' as a jumper who makes 20 or 25 jumps per week for the same amount of time.

Being 'current' just requires a minimum level of activity, and once you meet that, you're 'current'. Going beyond that isn't going to make that much of a difference.

As for who is the 'better' jumper, it's probably the guy with more time in the sport. He has 500 jumps, and the 3 years of experience, while the other guy has 500 jumps and one 1 year.

A very respected AFF course director once made a comment to a candidate that hit this nail right on the head. While debriefing one of the ground-preps, he noted that while quizzing the 'student', all the questions has asked were the standard examples they used in training for the ground prep. The candidate asked things like, 'What will you do is you lose one instructor in freefall?' and 'What will you do at 5500' ft?'.

What the course director said is that you need to propose more 'unusual situations' to really see if the student understands the lesson. Ask something that takes some understanding and deduction in order to come up with the right answer, and then you know if the student really understands.

Back to your example, the jumper with 500 jumps over 3 years in the sport has spent more individual days at the DZ, met more jumpers, and been exposed to more 'unusual situations' then the guy who did the same number of jumps in 1/3 the time.

[monkycndo 0]

Too many variables not defined. Comparing apples to water buffalo.

The two jumpers could have been at the DZ the exact same number of days, made the exact same number of jumps per day, met the same number of jumpers and had the same conversations. The only difference being that one went every Saturday banging out 10 jumps a day. The second went every third Saturday.

Now if the second jumper went every Saturday and only did about 3 jumps a day for those 3 years, totally different situation.

The first example, who knows who will be better. Maybe the uber current jumper.
Second example, absolutely the jumper with more time in and around the sport.

This question is kind of like a big pot of soup. What is better, soup made in a hurry and eaten right then, or one that has sat for a while and had a chance to have all the flavors meld and come together. Time in sport can do wonders for the "seasoning" of a jumper.

50 donations so far. Give it a try.

You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity

[FlyingRhenquest 1]

People are different and you can't really draw any conclusions from that. If someone's made it to 500 jumps in the first place they're in a minority of the people who started out skydiving. The USPA was complaining the other day that the student retention rate for tandems is less than 1%. I don't think it's a lot better for AFF, either -- I've only seen one other guy from my class of 12 or 13 in the last year, and I don't think he's got his A license yet.

My observation of my own abilities and the skydivers I jump with is that the more skydives you can make in a given period, the more you seem to improve your technical skills in that period. Tunnel time also seems to have a fairly dramatic impact on your ability to fly your body. But overall I think jump numbers (below several thousand anyway) and time in the sport are not particularly good measures of a skydiver's ability. This is a pretty good example of that.

I'm trying to teach myself how to set things on fire with my mind. Hey... is it hot in here?

[djmarvin 2]

This answer can vary depending on each person. However skill learning goes to the 1 year jumper.

Knowledge learning can go to either depending on the situation. A 3 year jumper who is on a large DZ turning loads and comes out just to get their jumps and leaves, the knowledge goes to 1 year jumper who is immersed in the sport.

A 3 year jumper who is on a DZ regularly but not able to jump as much as they like (load availability, weather, finances, work in ground ops) will generally be more knowledgeable.

"Does time in the sport help more than currency?"
I think they can play an equal part. Each brings it's own value. However none of this is relevant if the jumper is unwilling to shut their mouth and open their mind.

DJ Marvin
AFF I/E, Coach/E, USPA/UPT Tandem I/E
http://www.theratingscenter.com

[dirtbox 0]

like you said air time is air time and it is equal…it also takes about the same amount of ground time to achieve the same. Someone who has done 500 jumps over three years has possibly spent a total of 180 days at the dz to achieve those 500 jumps. The person who has done 500 in a year has also spent the same number of days to achieve the same number of jumps and has been exposed to the same amount of information if measured with a time value (like you are suggesting)…. that said the point it a stupid one as it suggests we learn by osmosis. Simply sitting in an airport won't make me a pilot. I might learn a bit of cool trivia but it won't make me a pilot. IMHO someone who has done 500 in a year is hungry for success, wants to learn and will seek out knowledge while practising with a much higher of frequency.

Dave

[pchapman 261]

Dirtbox has a point about someone who jumps a lot -- they likely do it because they are highly immersed in skydiving and like to learn more and do more.

He is in effect (in my mind) defending high jump number per year people against the feeling that some are just in it for the jump numbers or are just automatons. Sure, there is always the guy who wants to do 200 Lodi hop and pops to finish qualifying for his tandem rating, or the tandem instructor who does a million tandems but nothing else, and gets bored and takes shortcuts. But they're not all like that.

For every example, there can be a counter example. So for the valid case of "500 jumps can take the same number of days at the DZ, whether in 1 or 3 years", one can contrast it to a different example:

One guy jumps at a US turbine DZ and puts in 10 jumps a day; another pays 25% more per jump at a Canadian C-182 DZ for 30% less working time in freefall and only 5 jumps a day. Both come out to the DZ just as often, and both feel they are dedicated to the sport and learning all they can. Will the guy with 10 jumps a day be a more skilled skydiver? Sure, most likely. But it is hard to tell how much more 'current' that makes him. Both have spent the same number of days at the DZ. The guy with fewer jumps will resent if he's told he's half as current as the other guy, as if he's half as good or half as dedicated. Even where there are real skill differences, these equity issues can get people riled up when too much is made of differences in currency.

So there's one extreme, where number of jumps per year (or just number of jumps) is used as a direct scale for currency. Another extreme is the one where once one is considered current, one is current, and fine distinctions don't matter. The truth not surprisingly is somewhere in between. But I don't have the answer to exactly where.

[airtwardo 6]

dirtbox

like you said air time is air time and it is equal…it also takes about the same amount of ground time to achieve the same. Someone who has done 500 jumps over three years has possibly spent a total of 180 days at the dz to achieve those 500 jumps. The person who has done 500 in a year has also spent the same number of days to achieve the same number of jumps and has been exposed to the same amount of information if measured with a time value (like you are suggesting)…. that said the point it a stupid one as it suggests we learn by osmosis. Simply sitting in an airport won't make me a pilot. I might learn a bit of cool trivia but it won't make me a pilot. IMHO someone who has done 500 in a year is hungry for success, wants to learn and will seek out knowledge while practising with a much higher of frequency.

Dave

It may not 'make' you a pilot, but if you keep your ears open it WILL make you a better pilot.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

The truth not surprisingly is somewhere in between. But I don't have the answer to exactly where.

There's just too many possible variables to have any kind of definitive answer.

I agree current is current...but even that offers differing levels, current for what?

Able to safely make a skydive on their own to winning a trophy at the world meet...'currency' means many things to many people.

Time in the sport is intrinsic and often has an intangible value, again it depends on the person & the circumstances.

Is someone who has 4000 jumps in 4 years a 'better' skydiver than I am with 4000 jump over 40 years? All depends on the situational definition of better.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Zlew 0]

everything else being equal, one will likely have higher skill, and the other higher wisdom.

No doubt doing something more and more often will tend to increase profiecincy/skill.

However, there is a value in time in the sport. Seeing people come and go from the sport. Seeing people make mistakes, bad choices, along with the benefits of making more wise decisions over time leads to a wisdom/understanding that you cant get just by being on every load. Things become more real and not just DZ beer light stories when you see these things first hand (over...and over....good and bad).

[DrewEckhardt 0]

swoopfly

An interesting debate to me came up. One guy has 500 jumps over 3 years. Another guy makes 500 jumps over one year. The guy whose been jumping one year makes the claim he has more currency in a shorter amount of time creating a faster learning curve. The other guys claims he has been in the sport longer over those jump numbers and has seen more. Skill wise which do you think is the better learning curve.

Both points are valid.

The guy who made 500 jumps in one year is more likely to fly his slot in freefall and look good on video.

The guy who watched other people for 3 years is more likely pick up judgement observing other peoples' painful mistakes, less likely to run into some one under canopy (unless he does CRW where that's intentional), and less likely to need an orthopedic surgeon.

The second option is safer for everyone involved, although the first might be more fun.

[airtwardo 6]

One guy reads five newspapers a day for a year ~ the other reads one a day for five years...which one 'knows' more?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[DBCOOPER 1]

I thought this thread was going to be about money...

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[fastphil 0]

I think the guy with 500 in one year most likely has greater interest in the sport and is actively learning more and faster and therefore the best skydiver.

I made almost 500 my first year and to do it I jumped day and night at several DZs in several states at several boogies from many different DC-3s, several twin beech, otters and cessnas (might have been a heli too) and spent untold hours at the DZ waiting for weather to clear. I had a good feel for skydiving after the first year.

[dthames 0]

***

Better? Not hurting anyone and being able to walk to the car and drive home at the end of the day. I vote for the old guy.

Instructor quote, “What's weird is that you're older than my dad!”

[grimmie 173]

Some people have 500 jumps, some people have the same jump 500 times.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

I vote for the old guy.

There IS something to be said for longevity...and hey WHO's an old guy?

Aren't YOU older than me by a week or two?!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[hillson 0]

edit: in general, IMO, I tend to think the comparison / question is better when you're talking about folks in the 500-1500 range of jumps...when this guy has 9000, that guy has 4500, this dude has 12000 (be they tandem, demos, RW etc) the comparions begin to lose some meaning, I think. In general, I would assume that if someone is doing 1000 a year they're either being paid to teach, compete, are commerical or some combination.

Dunno...sort of an odd thing to think about when there are digits bigger than 1 or 2 in front of the comma...

dthames

[quote "airtwardo

Is someone who has 4000 jumps in 4 years a 'better' skydiver than I am with 4000 jump over 40 years? All depends on the situational definition of better.

Quote

Better? Not hurting anyone and being able to walk to the car and drive home at the end of the day. I vote for the old guy.

While the plural of anecdote is not data, of course, the only concrete info we have is those that tried to outsmart the planet and lost (minus the rumor mills and the things that some know happen and are never reported etc etc).

The USPA presents the data a bit differently depending on the year and it is admittedly a small sample but there is a running theme that the org has highlighted each of the last three years in their "general comments / remarks" section. I suspect it will be similar this year though I've not looked. Anyway, just some random thoughts...

2012 - 19 deaths

Average Jumps
2049

Years in Sport
14

Age
46

Median in the same order: 850, 11, 47

The jump experience of skydivers who die in the sport has shifted to the high end.When the sport was in its infancy, students represented about 33 percent of the fatalities in any given year. In 2012, students (including two tandem students) represented 16 percent of the deaths, whereas people with more than 1,000 jumps represented 42 percent. Fifteen of the jumpers (80 percent) were at or above the D-license experience level. The average age of U.S. skydivers who died was 46. By way of comparison, in 1963, 35 percent of the people who died were students and about 6 percent had reached the D-license level. None had more than 1,000 jumps. The average age was 27.

http://parachutistonline.com/feature/lessons-to-be-learned

2011 - 25 deaths

Average Jumps
3634 (range: 1-20K)

Years in Sport
11.3 (range: 1d to 43yrs)

Age
49 (range: 21-75)

Median in the same order: 1000, 9. 31.5

This was not a good year for students. Novice jumpers, those with less than 25 jumps, represented 20 percent of the total who died in 2011. This compares unfavorably with the previous 10-year average of 11 percent. The telling statistic in regard to experience level is the percentage of those at the USPA expert (D-license) level. The majority—64 percent—of the people who died in the U.S. in 2011 had more than 500 jumps.

http://parachutistonline.com/feature/fatality-summary-2011

2010 - 21 deaths

Average Jumps
2083

Years in Sport
18

Age
47

Median in the same order: 1450, 20, 25

Experience should be a real advantage in facing the challenges of skydiving, but overconfidence and complacency are killers.The average number of jumps for the people who died in 2010 was 2,083. In 2010, 83 percent of those who died were D-license qualified. Eleven of those had anywhere from 1,000 to 9,000 jumps. The average for those who died landing their main parachutes was 3,071 jumps. It is obvious that experience will not offset equipment choices and jumping conditions.

http://parachutistonline.com/feature/time-to-regroup%E2%80%94-2010-fatality-summary