AFF or SL

[robskydiv 0]

Hi. I've read your question and all of the subsequent replies. I've got a friend who is currently taking AFF. From his input about the course, I think that he'd be better off doing the static line freefall progression. And he'd spend less money. Just an observation. Harry

[MaryM 0]

Hi to everybody!
Actually, I've got one question & can't find the answer.
AFF versus SL
It's clear that SL is becomming less popular. The reason is that AFF is more safe, more perfect, takes less time?
Or there may be some other reasons?

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

think the number one student killer is a horse shoe mal after a messy exit in the S/L program. A problem close to non existing in AFF. I'm pretty sure your odds for surviving as a student is better with AFF.

Do you have any figures to support this or is it just a feeling? With direct bag deployment, a horse shoe is all but impossible. Have you ever thought about how many military S/L jumps are made every year without a horse shoe malfunction?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[martin-o 0]

Quote

Do you have any figures to support this or is it just a feeling?

First a little correction, you don't do direct bag throughout the whole
program

I don't have any numbers for the whole world but here in Sweden the most Dangerous jump you can do is the first one where your supposed to pull by yourself. This is from the statistics that is reported to FAI every year, unfortunately there is very few countrys that keeps track of their statistics. Even the numbers from USPA (at least used to be as late as 2002) to FAI is only estimates. Personally I've seen far to many students make a perfect last automatic and then just forget everything and tumble out the door on their first jump without the static line.

Martin

[feuergnom 22]

Quote

To further your discussion Ron, I would argue that students coming from a proper tandem progression have better canopy skills at the same jump numbers then a SL or traditional AFF student since they were taught atleast twice hands on how to properly fly and flare a canopy by an experienced instructor.


Of course if that instructor slacked or didn't care, then they probably didn't learn that much, but good instructors vs. bad instructors is a different discussion.

imho tandem progression is the best teaching method at hand (note: i'm no TI nor AFF-I, just a stupid coach who works with students after tandem-progression)

what you said about canopy skills is absolutely true. how do i know this: the dz where i jump teaches tandem progression. it is really small and our landing area is a field 250 x 250 meters (whatever it is in feet or yards) - none of our students ever had a problem landing safely in there. from time to time jumpers coming from other dz's complain about the "small" landing area - what does this tell you? students coming off tandem-progression have sometimes more knowledge of how to fly a canopy than license-holders


the downside: there's still to few instructors for this method. you have to be a TI & an AFF-I. and even if you have both qualifications, there is - again imho - a difference in attitude. for some (most? - flame me if you want) TI's a passenger is just a treacherous and unpredictable piece of cargo that has to be delivered (ever heard the term "haul meat"? well i suppose that says enough about attitude ...) - they wouldn't and couldn't see them as a student

so i guess tandem-progression will stay a program for minorities for some longer
and to everybody teaching it: you have my deepest respect!

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

dudeist skydiver # 666

[dragon2 0]

Yes that's why they changed the progression here from "dummies then c&p" to "dummies then 5000ft/10 secs", after what the military had been doing for a while already. The clear&pull comes later in the progression this way. So far, results are good

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

Do you have any figures to support this or is it just a feeling?

First a little correction, you don't do direct bag throughout the whole
program

I don't have any numbers for the whole world but here in Sweden the most Dangerous jump you can do is the first one where your supposed to pull by yourself. This is from the statistics that is reported to FAI every year, unfortunately there is very few countrys that keeps track of their statistics. Even the numbers from USPA (at least used to be as late as 2002) to FAI is only estimates. Personally I've seen far to many students make a perfect last automatic and then just forget everything and tumble out the door on their first jump without the static line.

Martin

Quote

think the number one student killer is a horse shoe mal after a messy exit in the S/L program.

You don't pull by yourself on a S/L jump. You say the number one killer of students is a horse shoe after a S/L exit. Which do you mean. Again do you have any numbers on why you think this.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[martin-o 0]

Quote

You don't pull by yourself on a S/L jump. You say the number one killer of students is a horse shoe after a S/L exit. Which do you mean. Again do you have any numbers on why you think this.

Sparky

Sorry if I'm not clear enough ... what I wrote was "exit in the S/L program" I did not mean a S/L exit. Maybe I'm not using the correct definitions here...

Regarding the numbers; of course they are not statistically sure because of the relatively small statistic population, Sweden only got about 2500-3000 licensed jumpers, but…

In the last 10 years we have had a number of student fatalities and the only thing that is repeating itself is students on the first jumps where they are supposed to pull by themselves. The last place I saw the numbers where at a national conference for chief instructors, unfortunately I have only seen these numbers “live” and don’t have anything saved. I have tried surfing the FAI site but it seems that we (skydivers in general) don’t like to put our statistics ”out there”. I should say that I don’t think that the S/L program (at least as I define it) is unacceptably unsafe; after all I have a S/L rating and not an AFF rating.

Martin

[mjosparky 3]

Not to worry. You do much better in English that I could hope to do in Swedish.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Orange1 0]

ok - i admit to being extremely biased here cos i've just come back from the DZ having made my first free-fall on the SL progression... yeeeee-haaa! )
do you know what the progression is in Sweden, here we have to do 5 DRCPs of which the last 3 have to be pretty much perfect before they let you free-fall... and your first free-fall is just a replica of these DRCPs albeit obviously without the line. although i guess in theory knowing you just have to do what you did last time, and not freezing with fear at the thought of losing your safety net, can be big.
I assume AADs are mandatory on student rigs there too? (and no i don't want to start an AAD thread but they are a good back-up for a frozen student)

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[martin-o 0]

It's almost the same here but we do 6 drcps. The last one must be uber perfect and the next jump (first free fall) must be done within 24 hours of the last jump.

/Martin

[Orange1 0]

same 24 hour rule for us too - maybe the difference being our last 3 consecutively have to be "uber perfect"... our student fatalities are quite rare but mostly seem to come later in the progression when they do happen. most students here still learn SL.

Skydiving: wasting fossil fuels just for fun.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I find it interesting that one issue is left untouched. Which program (S/L or AFF) has the best survival rate.

Do you have any proof of which is safer?

Quote

but I think the number one student killer is a horse shoe mal after a messy exit in the S/L program.

I have never seen a student have a horse shoe mal. And either program it could happen.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[martin-o 0]

I finally found the source of the numbers I was talking about (or at least some of them). An MD named Anton Westman (University of Umeå, Sweden) has written a report where he has examined all fatalities the last 50 years in Sweden (there is 37 in total). The conclusion is that the skydiving is a lot safer today than 50 years ago but there is one group that has especially bad statistics and that is S/L students on their first free fall, but these figures are not statistical sure because of the small population (Swedish skydivers)

This doesn't mean that it is proved that S/L is more unsafe but it's an indication that you may want to consider. It's hard to have any proof for anything in this sport (this could be another interesting subject...). Partly because we aren't that many people and partly because we are so secret with the few statistics we got. What I mean is that there is some info that point's in this direction but to call it proof would be an exaggeration.

Martin

[Ron 7]

Quote

I finally found the source of the numbers I was talking about (or at least some of them). An MD named Anton Westman (University of Umeå, Sweden) has written a report where he has examined all fatalities the last 50 years in Sweden (there is 37 in total). The conclusion is that the skydiving is a lot safer today than 50 years ago but there is one group that has especially bad statistics and that is S/L students on their first free fall, but these figures are not statistical sure because of the small population

Or age. A SL student 20 years ago without an RSL or AAD vs an AFF student with a CYPRES and a skyhook is a big difference....But it is based on the equipment.

I don't see the method that different.

I could be wrong, but one thing I know is we cant compare SL students from 20 years ago to a modern student on a modern rig.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[phoenixlpr 0]

Some years ago I heard about an IAD fatality. I was not on site when it happend. He was a first timer. So IAD is not 100% pool proof either. It was due to his poor exit position.

[martin-o 0]

With a horseshoe an AAd won't help you much, as long as a students don't always pull with their belly in the relative wind they will have a safety disadvantage.

If we would try to switch focus a little bit, what are the safety disadvantages with AFF during the program? (not caring about how safe they are when they are done)

/Martin

[Ron 7]

Quote

It was a rough and tumble AFF jump with two jumpmasters. THe deceased was flung off of the formation, which continued to funnel. The other JM decided to dump the student out. Unfortuantely, the deceased collided with the PC, Bag or canopy and broke his neck. He went in with no handles pulled.The student, though he should have had a canopy of some sort over his head, was found dead many days after the incident

....

The deceased was a reserve-side JM on an AFF Level 1 skydive. When the student opened, she was kicked in the face and knocked unconscious. She was wearing a frap hat. Her CYPRES fired appropriately and deployed a good reserve. She never regained consciousness and hit a rock on landing, causing severe chest trauma. The rock in question was the only one for hundreds of yards around. Later review of a videotape of the incident by the Country Sheriff's office indicates that her neck was probably broken when the students foot hit her face. The cardiac damage may have been caused at that time, or on landing; there is no conclusive evidence.

....
This event occurred during an AFF Level VII skydive, accompanied by his JM and a cameraman (who was also an AFF JM). He began his briefed objectives and performed them, but lost altitude awareness and was still attempting maneuvers below the 6,000' stop-movement altitude. He realized his mistake, but lost stability and did not deploy either parachute. Both JM's tried to reach him, but could not get close enough. His CYPRES fired, but due to his extreme instability (flipping end over end), a horseshoe malfunction resulted. He landed in a river, and died from the impact with the water.

...

Early reports state that an AFF student on a single jumpmaster level appeared to be unstable on opening. The jumper was observed under a spinning canopy from opening until impact in a wooded area. The jumper appeared motionless and unresponsive to the situation which may have been due to a medical situation. Others arrived quickly at the scene of the accident and administered CPR but the jumper died soon after.

These are just some of the accidents.

Having an AFF JM or even two is not a proof that you will be stable at pull time.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[martin-o 0]

Quote

These are just some of the accidents.

Having an AFF JM or even two is not a proof that you will be stable at pull time.

Point taken, but do you believe that the chance that the student has a stable pull is greater with the S/L method? Is there any risks that are specific for AFF?

As the question that started this thread is in the student perspective, let's keep it there and skip the AFF-JMs safety. Just for the sake of this argumentation, please.

I'm just trying to get to the core of the problem here and don't wish to stir up a fight.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Point taken, but do you believe that the chance that the student has a stable pull is greater with the S/L method?

I think either method has risks.

I would not dare a guess at which method is safer when done with modern methods and equipment.

I like the SL method because I think it makes a better student in the end.

I don't think any one method is safer than another. But by the same token I don't think any method is more dangerous either.

Quote

As the question that started this thread is in the student perspective, let's keep it there and skip the AFF-JMs safety. Just for the sake of this argumentation, please.

OK, the last two I listed were student fatalities. I looked for both Student and JM fatalities and listed two of each.


These are just fatalities not injuries and I removed any accident that could have happend with either method (Canopy flight, improper response to a mal...ect). This was also a quick check as I am sure I missed some.

But my point was your info was over a small group (Sweden only 37 fatalities) over a long period of time (50 years).

AFF was not around Officially till the early 80's.

You can't compare 50 years worth of SL to 25 years of AFF.

The equipment is much better today that the first AFF rigs and the methods are better today for BOTH programs.

To compare the two you would need injury/fatality results from the same time period with comperable gear using the two methods.

I personally don't see one being safer than the other.

In fact my dream school would have 1-2 Tandems, 10-15 min. Tunnel, SL to the clear and pull and then Cat "D" AFF.

Tandems to teach the canopy control part and the first two pulls plus into to turns and tracking. Ltes face it most will never go past this part of the program and it allows the DZ to not spend 5-6 hours teaching a FJC that will be used once.

Tunnel to get the student stable, teach turns, practice pulls, and build confidence...SkyVenture Orlando has 10 min for 145.00 dollars..About the cost of an AFF level . Perris has it for 165.00 dollars, again about the cost an an AFF jump.

AFF to teach the student to skydive and add it all together.

The thing is I don't see a problem with either method as it comes to saftey IN the program.

I do see some real benefits to SL AFTER the person is off student status.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[riggerrob 558]

In fact my dream school would have 1-2 Tandems, 10-15 min. Tunnel, SL to the clear and pull and then Cat "D" AFF.


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

I agree with all of your program except "SL to clear and pull."
Practice pulls (while still on static-line) are the most difficult part of the old program because they require the student to demonstrate a radically new skill in a very short period of time (only 2 or 3 seconds before he feels line stretch)

[Ron 7]

Quote

I agree with all of your program except "SL to clear and pull."
Practice pulls (while still on static-line) are the most difficult part of the old program because they require the student to demonstrate a radically new skill in a very short period of time (only 2 or 3 seconds before he feels line stretch)

I agree, but it is possible (otherwise I'd still be on the rope). And the benefits of doing it I can see are:

Not afraid to exit low. A problem I see MANY AFF grads have.

Confidence in themselves. It builds dependance on themselves, not instructors.

Cheaper. One Instructor with three students is much cheaper than 6 for three students

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

Anyway, I wish there were more people on the DZ with your attitude (particularly those skygods who, from the inside of a plane, obviously know more about the spot than the guy with his head stuck out the door because they have more jump numbers than him!). While I can adopt a "let 'em yell" attitude, I would just be percieved as a cocky 70-odd jump wonder, which isn't a label I wanna give myself!

Me neither, but I just want to bring up an important point.

I have noticed that us sub-100 jumpers are flying big canopies that often get blown away from the DZ (myself included) more easily than the higher performance canopies during a bad spot. That happened to me where I couldn't make the DZ and had to land flying backwards in farmland more than a mile out! Also students should usually be out after the experienced solos because students pull higher. So all of us newbies are more easily prone to a bad spot (assuming similiar pull altitudes).

That's my observation anyway. Most of the time I am going to be jumping out of Cessna's, with the occasional Twin Otter (fun!)

I can see how the bigger dropzones often deprives you of spotting opportunities, especially if you jump at a big place like Perris...

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

I agree with all of your program except "SL to clear and pull."
Practice pulls (while still on static-line) are the most difficult part of the old program because they require the student to demonstrate a radically new skill in a very short period of time (only 2 or 3 seconds before he feels line stretch)

I agree, but it is possible (otherwise I'd still be on the rope). And the benefits of doing it I can see are:

Not afraid to exit low. A problem I see MANY AFF grads have.

Confidence in themselves. It builds dependance on themselves, not instructors.

Cheaper. One Instructor with three students is much cheaper than 6 for three students

But it breeds device dependence, Ron. The static line is a device that pulls for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,433]

>But it breeds device dependence, Ron. The static line is a device that pulls for you.

That's why we get em off it as soon as possible!