New Canopy Flight Program

[BrianSGermain 1]

I think it's really funny how all the newbies seem to be rejecting the accuracy requirement. I know it sounds intimidating, but if you cannot land your parachute exactly where you need to, you will run into serious trouble eventually. The accuracy capability of the average jumper under 1000 jumps has become alarmingly bad. Raising the bar is the only way to guarantee that skydivers have the skills to land where they need to.

I am sorry this scares you. I am sorry that you think that you are not good enough. You will be. Aim high, and you will get further than if you settle for mediocre. You don't have to kill yourself in order to land close to the target. You achieve the ability over time. This means being in a process for a longer period of time. I know you want to be done with learning how to skydive. That is human nature. The truth is, you will never be done.
+

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

[billvon 2,406]

First off, I really like the idea overall.

One issue I see is that the difficulty of these are going to be determined by factors other than skill i.e. canopy size/planform. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since you can require TLO's on a given loading of canopy before you go smaller, and that could help people self-pace themselves when it comes to downsizing.

>3) High speed level flight turns of 45 and 90 degrees, performed at
>1000 feet so the instructor can observe.

I like this idea, but I worry that a flat turn of 90 degrees done at 1000 feet will be difficult to 'judge' for a coach (since references will be lacking and altimeters are useless.) I'd worry it would get more subjective than objective.

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

I like this one; there is a serious lack of accuracy skills in even more experienced jumpers. It's a pernicious problem because a lot of people aren't even aware how bad their accuracy skills are. I know I didn't know how bad mine were until I started doing demos semi-regularly and got caught short a few times.

>7) Demonstration of Dive-Arrest techniques at 1000 feet AGL.

Could you expand on this? Would this be practice for digging out a low turn, something like starting a toggle turn and then leveling/flaring the canopy as rapidly as possible?

[Bartje 0]

I think the program is ok,
I'm wondering how you bring it to the students,
Would't it be not better to start tell the instructors how to bring it to the students?
Briefing skills are even important as the program.

A good communicator gives better results.

A FreeFly Gypsy

[BrianSGermain 1]

Quote

First off, I really like the idea overall.

One issue I see is that the difficulty of these are going to be determined by factors other than skill i.e. canopy size/planform. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, since you can require TLO's on a given loading of canopy before you go smaller, and that could help people self-pace themselves when it comes to downsizing.

>3) High speed level flight turns of 45 and 90 degrees, performed at
>1000 feet so the instructor can observe.

I like this idea, but I worry that a flat turn of 90 degrees done at 1000 feet will be difficult to 'judge' for a coach (since references will be lacking and altimeters are useless.) I'd worry it would get more subjective than objective.

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

I like this one; there is a serious lack of accuracy skills in even more experienced jumpers. It's a pernicious problem because a lot of people aren't even aware how bad their accuracy skills are. I know I didn't know how bad mine were until I started doing demos semi-regularly and got caught short a few times.

>7) Demonstration of Dive-Arrest techniques at 1000 feet AGL.

Could you expand on this? Would this be practice for digging out a low turn, something like starting a toggle turn and then leveling/flaring the canopy as rapidly as possible?

Hi Bill

You are correct. The dive arrest drill may unfold a little differently each time, but the primary skill set being cultivated is the ability to prevent a dive or low turn from resulting in impact. This drill requires several versions to be practiced:
1) Front riser dive (straight)
2) Front riser dive (turning)
3) Toggle turn (carving)
4) Toggle turn (aggressive)

The idea is to develop appropriate "Learned Instincts". When we are in a pinch, there is no time for complex thought. Only instincts are left, and the ones we have rehearsed are the ones that are most readily accessible. A theoretical plan that we have not physically rehearsed will not come to fruition.
+

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

[billvon 2,406]

>Would't it be not better to start tell the instructors how to bring it to the students?

Definitely. Any program like this has to start with an instructor training/certification program, similar to the AFF JCC in intent.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I am sorry this scares you. I am sorry that you think that you are not good enough. You will be. Aim high, and you will get further than if you settle for mediocre.
+

I'm sorry you responded to my post by assuming I can't hit a barn door under canopy because I disagree with you raising the bar for neophytes. Just discounting what I'm trying to say because you think I'm scared of it is one approach I suppose, but I wasn't actually thinking of myself.

I'm in favor of a more advanced canopy control course but maybe I can make my objections to the accuracy requirement clearer.

Your accuracy requirement is a proficiency test. It's not training at all. As a student I was striving to hit the target every time, your accuracy requirement wouldn't have done anything to change that and wouldn't have helped my accuracy one bit, it certainly wouldn't have made me any better or safer today. What are you teaching that's new with this? Beyond A there''s B and C accuracy so I've never stopped working on this.

Giving a neophyte a consecutive requirement to land on target is potentially dangerous IMHO. Do you think they're more or less inclined to fly the pattern safely with good judgement when they're trying to nail that 5th jump?

I have a big issue with proficiency requirements masquerading as training and your accuracy proposal is a perfect example of that. It's pure window dressing. That jumper is still going to be doing the exact same jumps but maybe he'll take 100 jumps to get his A license, maybe he'll get bored and quit, but one thing he won't do is land any safer IMHO. He'll be making the same jumps at the same skill level and one day he'll string 5 together and buy a case of beer.

[billvon 2,406]

>Your accuracy requirement is a proficiency test. It's not training at all.

AFF is based around TLO's (targeted learning objectives.) For example, a TLO for a level-5 AFF dive might be a 360 degree turn in both directions, stopping within 90 degrees of heading. A TLO isn't training at all, either, but it is what AFF is based around.

Similarly, the first step in any canopy training program is defining goals. If the goal is 5 landings within 10 meters, then the goal is clear and instructors know what level they have to train to. The next steps are defining a syllabus, a certification program for instructors, currency requirements for them etc.

[dorbie 0]

We currently have training goals for this particular skill, the real issue is at say jump 100 will the jumper be any safer and the answer IMHO will be no, he'll just be less certified. He'll still be making the same jumps.

In this case it's a lot about developing experience and judgement IMHO and less about useful training, there's only so much teaching you can do for flying a pattern for accuracy, I've been on a highly respected canopy course that I see recommended often and there were only a few pointers not covered during my AFF that helped with accuracy but not much more information. It was very thorough and covered everything but I guess my AFF and ground school was taught well because it was all fresh in my memory and almost boring because it was mostly the same stuff (other aspects were more useful). This TLO is going to involve a lot of just waiting around for the student to string 5 together if he doesn't quit the sport waiting and ultimately it doesn't really affect what he does in his jumps. He'll be making the same jumps just as competently or otherwise w.r.t. accuracy comparing my AFF to the canopy school I took immediately afterwards.

Accuracy doesn't tackle the elephant in the livingroom of guys bouncing when they attempt to move on to make aggressive landings.

[dorbie 0]

P.S. put a syllabus together teach it well and see what the median skill level you can produce after a target number of jumps is w.r.t. accuracy. Then set that (or possibly less) as the benchmark for certification. At least then you're picking a goal you know you can reasonably claim to be able to teach. After that cut the student loose, because it doesn't matter whether you teach them or not beyond this, they're learning on experience and you're only playing with labels not their accuracy. Don't forget to compare to vanilla AFF taught well to see if it's worth it.

[Sammy- 0]

As a very new skydiver, I think this is a wonderful idea. I, too, have a problem with it, however.

Who is going to teach this? I read posts on here all the time where people are asking for help with their canopy. The usual response?
"Take PERSONX or PERSONY's WONDERFUL canopy training course - It'll make your penis linger & your hair grow back thicker and fuller! Stops aging! reduces wrinkles. its' the cure-all for everything!

The problem is that I have a job, a wife, and 2 children. I can't travel to FL, CA, NV, or those other 'exotic' locations just to learn something about my 'hobby'


ps wouldn't it be nice if a canopy control course COULD make my 'hair' longer?

[billvon 2,406]

I'm not going to try to answer for Brian; he probably has a slightly different idea about this than I do.

However, his suggestion is very similar to a proposal several of us sent to USPA a while back, a proposal that includes TLO's similar to the ones he suggests. So I'll answer in terms of our proposal.

>the real issue is at say jump 100 will the jumper be any safer and
>the answer IMHO will be no, he'll just be less certified. He'll still be
>making the same jumps.

I think you may have a misperception about how this would work.

It will not be a program where an instructor says "go land in that circle" the guy jumps, misses the circle and the instructor says "you fail, now go try to land in that circle again." Imagine if AFF operated like that - they'd tell a student "do 360's and backloops", toss him out of the plane, look at him from the door for a while, then afterwards say "you didn't get stable and your AAD fired, so you fail - now go do it again until you get it right."

In AFF, of course, things don't work like that. A jumper has TLO's (like 360's and backloops) but takes a six-hour course first, and is prepped on the ground for that particular jump. Then he's prepped in the plane. Then an instructor jumps with him and gives him some help in the air. Then afterwards the instructor carefully reviews the jump with him. If he fails he gets remedial training on a creeper, or in a hanging harness, or via walkthroughs. The problem is fixed ON THE GROUND so there's less chance of a repeat in the air.

This program would not be much different (other than it would be more voluntary since the jumper is no longer a student.) USPA or a similar organization would define instructor standards, and an instructor that met those standards would tell a jumper how to be more accurate. Then he'd make a jump. He might even make a jump with the instructor and a radio, and the instructor would give him feedback. Afterwards they'd review the jump and decide what to work on next. After 100 jumps in a program like that you'd be able to land on a flea's ass.

>In this case it's a lot about developing experience and judgement
>IMHO and less about useful training . . .

Do you think a jumper who has five fun tandems is a better or worse jumper than a jumper who has done five AFF's? The difference between the two is training. Good training leads to better jumpers.

>Accuracy doesn't tackle the elephant in the livingroom of guys
>bouncing when they attempt to move on to make aggressive landings.

We're not talking about people bouncing who are trying to land their Katana 98 in a swoop competition. We're talking about someone on a Sabre2 150 who doesn't know how his canopy works trying to dodge someone at 150 feet. He's never done it before so he pulls down a toggle and hits the ground at 40mph. If he's practiced flat turns, he will flat turn instead of toggle turn, and likely survive.

The accuracy requirement in and of itself is not intended to prevent those accidents BTW. It's to allow you to survive landing in a parking lot when the spot is bad.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think it's really funny how all the newbies seem to be rejecting the accuracy requirement. I know it sounds intimidating, but if you cannot land your parachute exactly where you need to, you will run into serious trouble eventually. The accuracy capability of the average jumper under 1000 jumps has become alarmingly bad. Raising the bar is the only way to guarantee that skydivers have the skills to land where they need to.

I am sorry this scares you. I am sorry that you think that you are not good enough.

Brian, dismissing legitimate concerns as fear induced is mildly insulting, particular from someone who has an advanced degree in psychology.
You can dismiss me as a low timer (one who has taken your class), but I am experienced with instructing people in multiple other hazardous sports.

Simplifying it down, you want newly minted A grads to have better landing skills than the current average 1000jumper, or being kinder, the typical D jumper. Jumpers wouldn't be allowed to do even basic RW work until they could meet that standard. They also would be held to the usual wind hold max for students.

I don't think you've justified the need for this. As I said, the B license threshold seems to be a much more reasonable target. From the fatality side, it's not people's inability to land in 10m standing instead of 30m PLF that is killing them. Very rarely are people landing in backyards. It's overloading canopies and doing low turns. And it's crashing into each other - your recommendation for close no contact CRW jumps would seem to offer a much better ROI.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I think you may have a misperception about how this would work.

It will not be a program where an instructor says "go land in that circle" the guy jumps, misses the circle and the instructor says "you fail, now go try to land in that circle again."

That's not how I imagine it working. I've been on a canopy control course, with than and AFF, I've had many tips about wind asessment, using your altimeter, consistently picking your checkpoints & adjusting over multiple jumps, compensating in your pattern for wind, flying your ground track adjusting your base-final ground track for distance using your risers on final to alter your glide slope, etc. When I come down I always do my own analysis on what happened in the pattern, I've been given those basic tools.

In my opinion after all this it actually takes many jumps to hone your judgement and get it working at all consistently. You can only teach so much and then it takes a lot of practice.

I better understand what you're shooting for with your post now though. I think 5 in 10 is ambitious for new jumpers which I where I thought you were targeting this.

I was practicing flat turns during AFF.

[billvon 2,406]

>You can only teach so much and then it takes a lot of practice.

I think when you go through a "traditional" progression (i.e. 100 jumps on a PD210, then 200 jumps on a Triathalon 190, then 500 on a Sabre2 170 etc) that works. When you talk about the sorts of downsizing we're seeing today (i.e. a Sabre2 150 by 100 jumps) you need the sort of intensive training that right now only a very few places do. SDC is one of them. Scott Miller does some of that, although he's not training for that purpose.

The issue is that you cannot survive serious mistakes on a 1.3 to 1 loaded canopy. In the 'olden days' you could learn from your mistakes - turning a Cruislite too low generally didn't kill you, and you knew to not do it again. Nowadays, your first mistake may well kill you if you don't have good training - and you can't learn how not to make that mistake from experience in making it. The recent increase in canopy fatalities would seem to support this.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

The issue is that you cannot survive serious mistakes on a 1.3 to 1 loaded canopy. In the 'olden days' you could learn from your mistakes - turning a Cruislite too low generally didn't kill you, and you knew to not do it again. Nowadays, your first mistake may well kill you if you don't have good training - and you can't learn how not to make that mistake from experience in making it. The recent increase in canopy fatalities would seem to support this.

OK, but in the preceeding post you said accuracy wasn't about this kind of save.

I recently sought training for this type of canopy flying at the instructors discretion (unfortunately there was a last minute cancellation). I understand the need for it but I don't confuse that with more of the same rigmarole on flying the pattern. I don't see a lot extra in there nor do I think there is a lot more you can put in there w.r.t. flying the pattern that's going to get you to the stated accuracy objective for a newbie (just in my opinion of course).

Other saving manuvers OK, but much of the stuff mentioned is and should be taught on AFF (at least the AFF course I took).

If you're arguing for a training requirement (and ultimately this could become a burden on jumpers so I don't take this lightly) let's be specific about the why.

I've had my say, I don't have your experience, I'm nowhere near any instructor's skill level and greatly respect your views on this I just wanted to throw some thoughts in the ring as I see this relating to my recent personal experience. There's always a good reason to justify some new requirement but striking a ballance is key. See my post above about figuring out what you can actually teach someone as a means to drive what your teaching objective is.