New Canopy Flight Program

[BrianSGermain 1]

Everyone seems to agree that there is a need to fortify the canopy flight instruction beyond what is customarily taught in our current programs. I have some suggestions for the cummunity to toss around:

Once a student has finished AFF, a seven level Canopy Flight Course becomes the required focus of attention. This could be called ACF (Accelerated Canopy Flight)

In the seven levels beyond freefall AFF, TLO's would be required prior to graduation and licensing.
Here are some ideas as to what we would require:

1) Flying a definite, presribed pattern from 1000 feet to the target.
2) Slow flight for no less than 60 seconds, demostrating 45 and 90 degree turns.
3) High speed level flight turns of 45 and 90 degrees, performed at 1000 feet so the instructor can observe.
4) Stand up landings within 10 meters of the target on 5 consecutive jumps
5) Accuracy requirements demonstrated in both low and high wind scenarios.
6) Flying within 100 feet of another canopy for no less than 60 seconds.
7) Demonstration of Dive-Arrest techniques at 1000 feet AGL.

These ideas require discussion and evolution by the skydiving community. Nevertheless, we must add something like this prior to licensure. It is our moral imperative as leaders and teachers. If we don't create a more complete student program that addresses the real needs of our sport, we will never be able to alter the statistics that are darkening this beuatiful experience.

It is up to us.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[diablopilot 2]

Brian, why not reduce the number of jumps and complete the same objectives in 1 or 2 high altitude hop and pops with the instructor/coach along for the viewing? Then you could ad a bit of no contact CRW. That's something one of my instructors/DZO DOB did for me.

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

[Reginald 0]

Brian,

I’m a big supporter of your concept. The specifics probably do need a little debate though. A number of your suggestions are essentially very similar to what the USPA already requires which I listed below.

The one that has to go is 4) Stand up landings within 10 meters of the target on 5 consecutive jumps.

No way students will be able to do that. Most struggle for the USPA version of five 20 meter landings that are not consecutive.

USPA:

1. Plan and fly a landing approach pattern that promotes smooth traffic flow and avoids obstacles.

2. Demonstrate a stand-up landing.

3. Perform a braked approach and landing.

4. Land within 20 meters of a preselected target
on at least five jumps.

5. Perform rear-riser turns (brakes set and released).

6. Above 2,500 feet, perform a maximum-performance
90-degree toggle turn, followed immediately
by a turn of at least 180 degrees in the opposite
direction (two times).

7. Above 1,000 feet, perform front riser dives and
turns (may be waived if insufficient strength).

8. Accurately predict the presence and effects of


Ron
And yes I do ahve too much time on my hands....

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[BrianSGermain 1]

You may be right about the accuracy requirement being too tight.

My point is that accuracy is not a competition, it is an imperative. If they can't land exactly where they want to, they are a hazard to themselves, and everyone near them.

I think the 20 meter requirement is too loose, and ill-inforced. From what I can see, traveling from dropzone to dropzone, the average "D" license holder still stinks at accuracy.

By the way, I do think that required high openings would be hugely helpful in achieving these goals. Five jumps, opening at 6000 or higher would be worth their weight in gold.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[BrianSGermain 1]

You said:

Quote

6. Above 2,500 feet, perform a maximum-performance
90-degree toggle turn, followed immediately
by a turn of at least 180 degrees in the opposite
direction (two times).

I am going to have to veto this idea. This drill is a formula for linetwist. I do not know how this got into the SIM, but it is insane without detailed instruction on how to perform the maneuver. Without a deliberate increase in the angle of attack in the transition from one turn to the other, the lines will go slack, and the canopy will spin into linetwists.

I am not saying that we should not teach aggressive turn reversal. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that we cannot give a loaded gun to a child without first teaching them how to use it.

This technique is not as important as dive arrest. Fast turns are for fun, and have no inherent value. Aggressive brake application, however, both during a turn and following one is much more utilitarian. We need to consider "why", not just "what" we teach them. Useful skills before playful ones...
+
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

You said:

Quote

6. Above 2,500 feet, perform a maximum-performance
90-degree toggle turn, followed immediately
by a turn of at least 180 degrees in the opposite
direction (two times).

I am going to have to veto this idea. This drill is a formula for linetwist. I do not know how this got into the SIM, but it is insane without detailed instruction on how to perform the maneuver. ...

I am not saying that we should not teach aggressive turn reversal. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that we cannot give a loaded gun to a child without first teaching them how to use it.

I think this is in the SIM because it was a "good idea" that didn't get a full-bodied safe teaching implementation worked out for it.

Some students (e.g. me) are taught that this is a recipe for line twists because of the slack-line issue (as you detailed in your post), and are told what to do about it. I was a scaredy-student so I worked my way gently up to the "maximum-performance" (as if I could have measured that ) mark.

Should I assume telling students something on the ground and hoping they are chicken enough to do it gently a step at a time is not an ideal instruction method?

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[ladyskydiver 0]

Looking forward to you being at SDC in April. Can't wait to take a class with you. Are you going to bring demos?

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[craig_b 0]

I'm newly A Licensed and must agree with the accuracy... we are fortunate to come close to anything. At 40 jumps I still will land either in the student area or off the main landing area because I don't have the fine control for accuracy yet, don't have the experience for an emergency manuever at extremely low altitude and may get rattled with a hot rod doing a 270 right in front of me. I agree that we can and do present a hazard to ourselves and others around us.

I personally am having coaching at present in freefall and will be taking a canopy piloting course very soon. I do think that a course in canoping piloting should be mandatory, maybe for B License? I know just getting use to a new canopy is quite the challenge when you are just off student status.

Well, that's input from the newbie. I look for all avenues to become better and safer.

_________________________________________
once you've experienced flight, you forever walk the ground with your head pointed skyward. There you've been and there you long to return.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You may be right about the accuracy requirement being too tight.

My point is that accuracy is not a competition, it is an imperative. If they can't land exactly where they want to, they are a hazard to themselves, and everyone near them.

I think the 20 meter requirement is too loose, and ill-inforced. From what I can see, traveling from dropzone to dropzone, the average "D" license holder still stinks at accuracy.

Indeed, but it's a pretty cruel requirement to impose on students to fix that problem. Much more stringent than the current B requirement, and the consecutive bit makes it harder than the C. On what is probably rental gear that is not the same from jump to jump. The other unintended consequence with the consecutive is that the focus then becomes to land within the radius rather than land safely.

The addition of level ('flat') turns to the current list seems most valuable, and doing a close canopy flight (perhaps on the 5500 HnP commonly done before the 3500) adds a lot. A lot of my canopy reqs were signed off on debrief or by viewing from a considerable distance away.

[davelepka 4]

Let me start by saying that your situation is through no fault of your own, but rather an indicator of how the system has short changed you in terms of your training.

Quote

I'm newly A Licensed and must agree with the accuracy... we are fortunate to come close to anything. At 40 jumps I still will land either in the student area or off the main landing area because I don't have the fine control for accuracy yet

However, you continue to climb into the airplane unsupervised. You are just as likely to get a bad spot as any other jumper on the load, all the while knowing that your accuracy skills are lacking.

Why do you think this is OK? My guess is that it has never been impressed upon you that your plans when you leave the aircraft have a large hole in them. Instructional programs do not stress the inportance of accuracy, and therefore students don't realize the importance.

Quote

I personally am having coaching at present in freefall and will be taking a canopy piloting course very soon. I do think that a course in canoping piloting should be mandatory, maybe for B License?

How did you graduate from AFF is you are unable to get stable and deploy your parachute at the correct altitude? If you can do those things, your basic freefall education is complete, however, you are choosing to persue greater levels of proficiency, while openly admitting that your accuracy skills are lacking.

Center-point turns and the mantis position will not help you when you are off field, and looking at a 10 meter circle as your best landing option. Your survival depends on you being a proficient canopy pilot, capable of handling any situation you may find yourself in.

While I appluad your intentions to take a canopy control course, those intentions will not help you while you continue to jump in the meantime. Additional canopy training is something that students need in concert with thier current training. Waiting until you get a B license will not help you in your early days of jumping.

This is exactly why we need a program in place. Firstly, students do not realize the importance of canopy control. Second, the fact that they are protesting the requirements shows their lack of confidence in thier skills.

Lets not dumb down the requirements so more people can pass, lets improve the training, so more people can pass, and be better pilots.

We should take a lesson form the AFF cert course. It was hard, and people failed, and complained. So they dumbed it down, and now anyone can pass. Since this, I have seen a distinct drop in the level of performance from new AFFCC grads. It's a shame that a student has to have a JM who can't fly their slot, lets at least give them some canopy skills to make it up to them.

[JeepDiver 0]

As I new student I've been searching for as much information as I can to make this sport as safe as I can make it for myself.

I hope I haven't been reading from an inaccurate source.

The Book of Canopy Control
http://www.skydiveaz.com/resources/book_canopy.htm

[tdog 0]

Brian,

Great Ideas. This post is gonna be long because I have cut and pasted info into it...

Quote

4) Stand up landings within 10 meters of the target on 5 consecutive jumps

Quote

You may be right about the accuracy requirement being too tight.

My point is that accuracy is not a competition, it is an imperative. If they can't land exactly where they want to, they are a hazard to themselves, and everyone near them.

I want to add a cross discipline perspective to this… I learned to Paraglide before this new skydiving passion of mine… The ram-air paraglider is really not that different than a skydiving canopy, yet the paraglidng proficiency and learning seems to be a lot more intense…

You have ONLY seven tasks for students to learn… Look at what I had to go thru to get my paraglider P2 rating (like the skydiving A)… This is cut and paste from http://www.ushga.org/documents/sop/sop-12-02-10-04.pdf. Substitute the ground launching with packing and deployment tasks, and it might transfer over to skydiving quite well…

Quote

Copyright © 2004, The United States Hang Gliding Association, Inc. page 23 of 34

B. Demonstrated Skills and Knowledge

1. Demonstrates layout and preflight of the canopy, harness, and backup reserve parachute.

2. Gives a reliable analysis of general conditions of the site and self, and a flight plan including flight path, areas to avoid in relation to the wind flow, and obstacles to stay clear of.

3. Demonstrates 5 consecutive forward inflations with a visual check of the canopy each time.

4. Demonstrates 5 consecutive controlled reverse inflations with proper surge dampening.

5. Demonstrates controlled kiting of a glider overhead for 2 minutes in a steady wind.

6. Demonstrates 2 clean, smooth reverse inflations/reversals prior to launch.

7. With each flight, demonstrates a method of establishing that the pilot is properly connected to the glider, with cleared lines and risers just prior to inflation.

8. Demonstrates 2 successful, aggressive, confident inflations/launches, where the wind is at least 15° cross to straight up the hill in wind not exceeding 5 m.p.h.

9. Demonstrates 2 no-wind (0-5 m.p.h.) inflations/launches.

10. Demonstrate how to brief and instruct a ground crew and explain when an assisted launch is necessary.

11. Demonstrates 2 high-wind (10-15 m.p.h.) inflations/launches.

12. Demonstrates flight with smooth variation in airspeed, from above minimum sink to fast flight, while maintaining a heading.

13. Demonstrates flight showing the ability to comfortably and precisely slow the glider to minimum sink and smoothly increase to normal airspeed while maintaining a heading. The pilot should not slow the glider to near the stall speed.

14. Demonstrates flight(s) along a planned path alternating 'S' turns of at least 90° change in heading. Flight heading need not exceed 45° from straight into the wind. Turns must be smooth with controlled airspeed, ending in safe, stand up landings on a heading.

15. Demonstrates 360-degree turns in both directions, and at various speeds and bank angles.

16. Demonstrates hands-off flying, one handed flying skills, weight-shift turns, and rear-riser turns.

17. Demonstrates symmetric and asymmetric tip folds for increased descent rate.

18. Demonstrates the ability to judge and allow for proper clearance from a ridge and other aircraft.

19. Demonstrates 5 landings within 25' of a target, safe, smooth, on the feet and into the wind. The target must be sufficiently close to launch such that turns are required to set up an approach and avoid over-flying the target. The target should be at least 100' below the launch point.

20. Explains proper strong wind landing procedures and how to keep from being dragged back.

21. Explains correct canopy maintenance.

22. Explains how to lengthen and shorten the flight path.

23. Explains the right of way traffic rules.

24. Explains the use of a speedbar/accelerating system.

25. Demonstrates reserve deployment while hanging in a harness in simulated turbulence or malfunction conditions.

26. Gives a thorough verbal demonstration of knowledge of how to: a. Maintain directional control during and correct for an asymmetric wing fold of 25% of the wing span. d. Fly at minimum sink while precluding any chance of inadvertent stall or spin. e. Increase descent rate and/or forward speed.

27. Demonstrates proper and effective PLF technique.

28. Must pass the USHGA Novice Paragliding written exam.

29. Must agree to all the provisions of the USHGA standard waiver and assumption of risk agreement for the Novice rating and deliver an original signed copy to the USHGA office.

30. Acknowledges and understands the need to become familiar with site-specific restrictions and launch or landing access limits, consistent with preservation of flying privileges at a site.

14.03 Recommended Operating Limitations for Novice Paragliding Pilots
A. Should exceed these limitations only after thoroughly mastering all required tasks, and after acquiring a full understanding of the potential problems and dangers involved in exceeding these limitations.

B. Maximum base wind of 12 m.p.h.

C. Maximum peak gusts to 15 m.p.h.

D. Maximum gust rate of 5 m.p.h. in 5 seconds.

E. Should not fly in thermal lift where peak climb rates exceed 200 fpm.

F. If foot launching, should launch only on slopes steeper than 4:1, where the wind is within 25° of being straight up the slope.

G. Visual contact with the landing zone.

H. Avoid application of either brake beyond 2/3 of the way from slack to stall position.

I. Limit turns to 30° of bank, limit speed in turns to 1.5 times the straight line, brakes off, cruise speed, and smoothly exit any spiral turn which shows a tendency to steepen or accelerate.

J. Should fly a canopy recommended by the manufacturer as suitable for Beginner to Intermediate pilots.

The paragliding P2 spot landing requirement is somewhere between the current skydiving A requirement and your proposed new requirement…

BUT – I know a lot of dangerous situations where students in paragliding were so obsessed with landing on the spot that they put themselves in harms way to get there… We used a little flag on the ground, and I remember doing all sorts of weird things to hit it dead on – when I should have been worrying about consistent flares and PLFs when needed… Now, I have to say the two times under student status that I landed on one foot on a handkerchief no bigger than my shoe, I was stoked – but there were many other times I was more than 25’ away - by choice and also by novice skills. I have also dropped a toggle on flare and landed in a sharp turn that should have killed me, so I have a lot of resepect for the ground.

That being said, knowing that hitting a spot was much less important than landing safely in the landing area, I picked up a different viewpoint in landing my paraglider (after a few painful landings) that I still use today while learning skydiving… I make a “landing zone box” – perhaps 100’ X 100’ wide. At my DZ, I take the pea gravel pit for size and cut and paste it to where I want to land. I draw this in my mind as I am flying overhead… Anywhere in the box is a-ok to land. If someone else is in my box, or about to land in my box, I will move my box before it is too late. Then I draw a “runway” thru that box that is into the wind. My goal is to land on the runway in the center of the box…. If the winds change or I catch last minute sink or lift, my runway is still safe to land on. I consider myself successful on a “spot landing” if I land in my box, on the imaginary runway…

As I got better at paraglidng, my box got smaller and my runway shorter. I am relearning a lot under my skydiving canopy because, like most students, I have used different canopies on different flights. Each one has a different glide slope and each reacts differently. I have landed a Spectre loaded 1 to 1 in no wind and a navigator loaded .6 to 1 in high wind gusts while doing a PLF backwards… Considering that I have used so many different canopies, I am happy with my results...

Now – the argument can be made that landing out you need better accuracy than my "box". I agree. The landing area becomes a much smaller box when landing in a parking lot… I don’t think my own personal learning technique is contradictory to a spot landing, because I always do have one specific target on my “runway” dead center of the “box” – and as I am landing on my “runway” I am learning to fine tune my skills to get to the center of the runway. But, I am not killing myself to get there.

As proof that my concept is not too far fetched – look at the following alternate approach acceptable in hang gliding… To adapt it to our steeper glide slope, just make the lengths shorter, as we don’t have a hang glider flat glide:

Quote

Copyright © 2004, The United States Hang Gliding Association, Inc. page 2 of 34

3.01 NEW OPTIONAL LANDING TASK - PART 104 ADDENDUM At the 1990 spring meeting of the USHGA Board of Directors, the safety and training committee approved an optional alternate landing accuracy task for testing pilots for Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced ratings.

At the discretion of the Observer or Instructor and not the pilot, this task may be substituted for the "three spot landings in a row" task.

The administration of the task is as follows:

A. Equipment: Two flags, connected by a 200' long piece of wide ribbon. Flags and ribbon should be of a size and color so as to be visible from the air. Alternately, a 200' long line may be permanently marked on the ground in areas where the wind direction is highly reliable. The endpoints of the line must be visible from the air on approach, and at least one wind direction flag should be provided.

B. Procedure: The Instructor or Observer selects the most logical (most desirable - safest) landing point in the landing area. He plants one flag (the limit flag) 100' directly upwind of this point, stretches out the ribbon and plants the second flag (the threshold flag) 100' downwind of the ideal landing point; 200' downwind of the limit flag.

The ribbon represents a runway. The task is to land on the runway. Successful completion of the task requires the pilot to make a landing where no weight bearing contact is made prior to the threshold flag, beyond the limit flag, or more than 20' laterally away from the ribbon (runway centerline). The pilot may not touch the nose of the glider, nor the control bar, nor any part of the pilot's body other than the soles of his feet to the ground. In a landing that is pre-designated to be made on wheels, the front of the pilot’s body may touch the ground.

Successful completion of the task requires that two landings be made and observed and recorded by the Observer or Instructor in the pilot's certification book or logbook. They need not be on consecutive attempts; however, following any failed attempt at the task, the Observer or Instructor shall note the failed attempt in the pilot's certification book of logbook, and the pilot shall not be eligible to attempt the task again until he logs ten additional landings. The required task is the same for candidates for Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced ratings.

However, Instructors and Observers should administer the task in conditions appropriate for each level: smooth winds at the end of the day with no significant thermal activity for Novice candidates, lighter or less consistent winds with some convective or turbulent activity for Intermediate candidates, and middle of the day, light or inconsistent winds with significant convective or turbulent activity for Advanced candidates. It is expected that pilots attempting the task be able to set up a crab to handle a slight variation between wind direction and "runway" orientation. However, the Instructor or Observer has the option of discounting a failed attempt and allowing an immediate re-test if a major change in wind direction or conditions during the attempt have made the difficulty of the task inappropriate for the level of skill being tested for.

So, to take this long post into one line… Perhaps the landing requirements should focus more on landing safely in a safe-zone with a defined center instead of landing on a specific spot???


Anyway, thanks Brian for challenging me to be a better canopy pilot and challenging the community to be safer.

Travis

[kneal 0]

Yeah Brian...my canopy pilot hero...but c'mon...10'?
Honestly I strugggled with my target jumps....barely made it a few times.
But here's a "morsel to chew on"...my JM and I will be doing canopy work together...side by side...to assist in my accuracy and develop an "air awarness" under canopy, to line up a good landing pattern....we feel where most students fail at our DZ is the mis reading of what 1,000' really looks like...500'...200'...etc. It maybe our Dz is kinda buried among water hazards, but we students, always seem to over shoot... endangering us to even more obstalces...
I love your books and LIVE by your words, because of your words...thanks for sharing your sport with us newbies!

"Don't waste the pretty"!

[BrianSGermain 1]

I am hearing that the requirement of 10 meters is scaring people. Why is that?

Perhaps we can make our students better skydivers than we are.

How'd that be?
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[tdog 0]

Quote

Yeah Brian...my canopy pilot hero...but c'mon...10'?

vs.

Quote

I am hearing that the requirement of 10 meters is scaring people. Why is that?

10 feet (what Kneal posted assuming ‘ = feet) vs 10 meters (what Brian posted)... Big Difference!!!

10 meters = 32.8 feet, right??? So, Brian is suggesting a “circle” 65.6’ in diameter.

Per my previous post, the paraglidng requirement for the beginner license is 25 feet or 7 meters, just to bring it into scope since we are talking two measurement systems in the same thread…

[kneal 0]

My Bad...I knew he meant meters...about 25'...still a difficult task....my apologies for using an american conversion...
It took me 5 out of 9 attempts to hit my mark....but may I say, I had to learn the "accuracy Trick" first, after that I nailed 3 in a row... Thanks to Brian's Book!
I am all for a new Canopy Flight program...focusing on "what if's..." would be beneifical.

"Don't waste the pretty"!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I am hearing that the requirement of 10 meters is scaring people. Why is that?

Perhaps we can make our students better skydivers than we are.

Brian, you proposed a student requirement of 5 *consecutive* *standup* landings with 10m accuracy. Whereas B currently requires ten 10m of any method. And the Pro rating requires only that attempts be predeclared and to 5m, don't have to be consecutive jumps. This would be a good backdoor method to get to the S/L program you talked about recently.

We just had a thread that stressed never being afraid or reluctant to do a PLF instead of trying to stick a standup landing. Your proposal would run counter to this.

As Travis writes, the goal of a small landing box is great, but not at the expense of landing safely. When you have a field 300 yards long, forcing oneself into a tiny square for the slight possibility of screwing up a LZ selection later doesn't have a good ROI for a lowtimer.

And and at least a couple of the DZs I visit, if not all of them, other flyers would be unhappy if I did a lot of S turns or other flight altering moves in the final approach. At a place like Lodi, they specifically asked me to go long - there's at least a half mile of land in that direction. There's a freeway just behind.

If such a requirement did come about, I think I'd run to Monterey. Their LZ is surrounded by tarmac and is pretty effective at enforcing a nice tight pattern. I was at about 5-10m accuracy there, with landings aided by the consistent winds. Heck of a lot easier than Davis or Hollister.

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

Brian, you proposed a student requirement of 5 *consecutive* *standup* landings with 10m accuracy.

We just had a thread that stressed never being afraid or reluctant to do a PLF instead of trying to stick a standup landing. Your proposal would run counter to this.

How about we change the idea to something like 5 landings within 10 m of the target on five consecutive jumps, all of which must be deemed "safe and soft" by an observing instructor?

Also, another possibility to consider would be landings on a 50 foot long line, say five feet wide.
+

Instructional Videos:www.AdventureWisdom.com
Keynote Speaking:www.TranscendingFEAR.com
Canopies and Courses:www.BIGAIRSPORTZ.com

[tdog 0]

Quote

As Travis writes, the goal of a small landing box is great, but not at the expense of landing safely. When you have a field 300 yards long, forcing oneself into a tiny square for the slight possibility of screwing up a LZ selection later doesn't have a good ROI for a lowtimer.

Just to make sure you understand my point... I am all about learning to land on a postage stamp right away - because you never know when you will need that skill... There is a lot of ROI in that skill.... I wanna be able to land in a parking space between a Winnebago and a tree… It takes a lot of time and training to get that skill, and until I do have that skill, I am more likely to get hurt!

If I was on the 5th of 5 consecutive required spot landings, I might consider something more risky to get the 5th spot knowing missing one would cause me to go back to the beginning… I am worried about the consecutive part more than I am worried about the meters. Losing 4 jumps of progress on a scorecard because of one “learning mistake” is high odds. Leave that kind of pressure to someone who has the skill to know when to abort the bet instead of risk it all.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Losing 4 jumps of progress on a scorecard because of one “learning mistake” is high odds.

Get used to it, that pressure will be with you as long as you jump and continue to learn.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Bartje 0]

I do not see any aerodynamic canopy basics in those exercises.
What's the briefing for each level?

A FreeFly Gypsy

[tdog 0]

Quote

Quote

Losing 4 jumps of progress on a scorecard because of one “learning mistake” is high odds.

Get used to it, that pressure will be with you as long as you jump and continue to learn.

Sparky

Sparky,

I respect your opinion a lot, and for the sake of debate, not argument, here is mine:

I agree about pressure... It is a great learning tool as long as it does not promote risky decisions. (Think peer pressure and swooping)

But take the next line of my comment that you did not quote: "Leave that kind of pressure to someone who has the skill to know when to abort the bet instead of risk it all." My argument is that a sub 25 jump student working towards an “A” does not yet have the maturity in canopy skills to meet the requirement of 5 consecutive landings safely, just as the same person in 150 jumps does not have the skills to swoop a canopy loaded 1.5 to one. This argument comes from someone who made some risky decisions to get 5 seven-meter landings for my paraglider rating and remembers learning the hard way.

I would (and am gonna as a personal goal) accept Brian’s challenge (and pressure) of 5 landings in 10 meters. Heck, my personal goal is to nail a postage stamp. But I am not gonna make it consecutive. I am going to be happy with picking a plan "B" whenever my plan "A" landing spot is not ideal due to patterns, traffic, change in winds, spectators, etc. I have no pressure to do something risky just to not miss a consecutive mark. In a few months, once I am used to my own canopy, I will gladly do a bunch of hop-n-pops with no one else in the patterns where I can concentrate on consecutive landings in a controlled environment… But not yet… For now, I will land in my Plan “A” spot only when I know I can do it safely and away from others.

Sparky, thanks for making me think. I know I am the novice on this thread, but I am learning here...

T.

[John4455 0]

There is an overall need for more canopy training. Before and after the A liscence. There are great courses like Brians and Scott Millers. Every DZ should have this type of program. New skydivers seem to worry about their freefall skills more than their canopy control.

How do ya like it Johnny?

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Brian, why not reduce the number of jumps and complete the same objectives in 1 or 2 high altitude hop and pops with the instructor/coach along for the viewing? Then you could ad a bit of no contact CRW. That's something one of my instructors/DZO DOB did for me.

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

I only agree with half of your suggestion.
Yes, high hop-and-pops are great for practicing canopy exercises.

However I disagree with assigning a student more than one or two new canopy tasks per jump.
If you remember back to the USPA Basic Instructor Course, they taught that a student can only grasp 3 maybe 5 new bits of information at one time. Far better to assign student one or two new canopy tasks per jump and tell them to repeat the exercise until they reach pattern altitude (i.e. 1,000 feet). Repetition will burn those (few) exercises into longer term memory.

[peek 20]

Q for tdog:
How are these demonstrated skills at altitude evaluated? Instructor on the ground with binoculars or something similar?

group:
Currently I am seeing problems with instructors properly evaluating the canopy manuvers already assigned. It is common to ask the student the result of the assigned manuver during debrief to determine if they have done it.

I have also heard instructors tell me they have opened up at the same altitude on a jump specifically to stay close under canopy and observe. That works fine for an instructor with a similar wing loading and who can figure out how to open close without being too close.

But many don't. In some case the students has (said they have) performed the manuver before the instructor has tracked, opened, squared awat things with their canopy, and looked around for the student.

(I have also had students that ran away from me under canopy when I tried doing that with them, because other instructors had empasized avoidance under canopy to the extent that they were afraid.)

I can't even get many people interested in doing no-contact CRW they are all so afraid of another canopy near them.

The point I am trying to make is:

Adding manuvers that cannot be readily observed by an instructor is questionable.

It seems to me that what "canopy control classes" best provide is landings that are videoed and discussed at debrief. But someone is going to need to stand in the landing area and do that.