Changes are needed, but not the knee-jerk way that some are proposing …

[CanuckInUSA 0]

The longer I stay in this sport, the more and more I come to the conclusion that we are doing a piss poor job training people to be safe(r) skydivers. I’ve come to the conclusion that AFF is not way to be initially training people and that the old static line methods appear to be so much superior. Oh and for the record I am an AFF graduate. But I was also licensed private pilot before I started jumping, so I already knew much of the aerodynamics all aviators should know (yes we are aviators as long as we are using canopies to get us safely back to the ground) and I was already used to flying a pattern and landing in crosswind conditions.

Why is AFF in its current iteration so wrong? Well because from the get go there is far too much emphasis on freefall and little emphasis on canopy control. Shouldn’t we be training people to become competent canopy pilots before we train them to become freefallers? If the new student wants to experience freefall, take them on a tandem. But they need to learn better canopy control before we teach them freefall. It’s not like AFF needs to be thrown out the window (AFF instructors can still be utilized). It’s a valid way to be training people freefall skills. But the current minimum 7 jumper iteration does a piss poor job of training people on how to fly canopies. Shouldn’t there be some sort of static line training progression and then once cleared as competent canopy control pilots, introduce the student to AFF? WTF people? Is the only thing that matters to the DZOs of this world the almighty dollar and getting students off of AFF as soon as possible?

We need segregated landing lanes for fast and slow canopies in this sport. But some people argue that we shouldn’t be forcing students into crosswind landing scenarios. I say (partial) baloney in this regard. Students should not be subject to high crosswind components early on in their jump careers. But student airplane pilots are forced from the get go to get used to crosswind landings. They are however grounded when the crosswind component exceeds certain limitations. So why shouldn’t student canopy pilots also not be grounded when the crosswinds exceed certain limitations? If we had people not freaking out from the get go about crosswinds, we could introduce segregated bi-directional landing lanes and this sport would take a step in the right direction towards solving some of the recent issues we’ve been experiencing. Instead of lobbying your governing organization to ban things like “swooping” or certain turn types, you need to be lobbying these organizations to come up with better methods to train all skydivers to become better aviators and to lobby the DZs to setup segregated bi-direction landing lanes. This way people interested in expressing themselves in the higher risk realms of high performance canopy flight of the fast lane can do so knowing that they will only be dealing with fellow fast canopies. And those people looking for more predictable, more docile landing pattern scenarios need not worry about being buzzed by some hot shot. It’s a win-win scenario for most people and may allow our sport to evolve instead of shrink.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Why is AFF in its current iteration so wrong? Well because from the get go there is far too much emphasis on freefall and little emphasis on canopy control.

Does your DZ teach the traditional 7-jump AFF program, or the full ISP? I might have agreed with you about canopy control and AFF when I did it, but the ISP does place a huge emphasis on canopy control. You get just as much canopy time in 15 AFF/ISP jumps as you do in 15 static line (or IAD... why does anybody still do static line?) jumps. No reason the same things can't be learned using either method. Under the ISP, certain (different) canopy skills are to be practiced on each jump.

I was also a pilot when I started skydiving. I think knowing about traffic patterns helps a lot. But crosswind landings? I don't see the relevance. Without a vertical stabilizer, crosswind landing technique is completely different for a parachute than a plane. I do agree though that students shouldn't be afraid of crosswind landings. Our DZ is long and narrow, so we do them all the time when it's light wind.

Dave

[riggerrob 558]

Steve,

CSPA came up with an answer a long time ago and more recently USPA adopted a similar answer with their Integrated Student Program.
Both programs aim to teach students a little more about canopy before every jump.
This is a 30-200 jump process.
For example, the first jump course only includes "must knows" for surviving a canopy ride.
Before their second jump, a student should hear a bit about improving upon their landing pattern/flaring at the correct altitude, etc.
Once a student has mastered the basic landing pattern and is flaring at the correct height, then we start teaching them rear riser turns, etc.
The goal is to teach students a little more about canopy flight during their first 30-100 jumps.

Unfortunately, the system fails when instructors get lazy. For example, this past week, I was talking down a fourth-jump student who was flying as sloppy a pattern as her first jump.
I had to remind her jump-master that he was responsible for teaching her a little more about landing patterns before every jump.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

crosswind landing technique is completely different for a parachute than a plane.

Hey Dave my point wasn't the actual technique of crosswind landings since yes the two wings are different and I'm under the firm impression that landing an airplane requires much more mental multi-tasking skills whereas landing a canopy is more reactionary.

The crux of my point is that segregated bi-directional landing lanes are needed and that we need to get all skydivers (not just students) to not be afraid of landing crosswind. If the WX exceeds someone's limits, then sit this jump out. Plus the fact that I think AFF is just not the way to do things.

PS: It's funny that as we gain experience in both disciplines that we find ourselves sitting on the ground waiting for the WX to change versus our desire to play no matter what when we were new.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[CygnusX-1 42]

I could not agree more. It has boggled my mind how (and why) it was determined that you could become a competent skydiver with only 7 jumps in AFF. And before those of you start getting into semantics, that is what we are saying when you say that you do not need to jump with an instructor after passing AFF. I personally did not like that option when I went through AFF. That is why I purposely failed levels that I did not feel I was ready to pass. It took me 20 jumps to complete AFF - and I'm glad it did. By the time I finished, I knew I had the skill set to keep me safe in the air. But it did little for my canopy skills. Those I had to learn on my own after AFF by doing things like taking Scott Miller's canopy basics course. If we wanted to make better overall skydivers, we would require that as part of AFF you would have to make (I don't know) another 10 jumps dedicated to canopy control. Something similar to what is taught in these basic canopy piloting courses.

Of course now we are going to get those people out there who are going to complain that "Oh my GOD, that is going to cost me another $1000 to go through AFF". Why is this sport getting so expensive. I should be able to kill myself and everyone else around me without having to invest more than a few hundred dollars. <- please note sarcasm in typing ->

Seriously, this is how evolution works. AFF was probably designed to prevent deaths caused by freefall collisions. If you look at the current stats (and I haven't outside of what was printed in the latest Parachutist), our biggest killer is not FF collisions. It is canopy piloting related. We need to supplement our training with solutions to prevent these problems. We may even want to require people of all experience levels to get some supplemental training before allowing them to renew their license. I don't know what the real solution should be. I'm just throwing out ideas.

[pilotdave 0]

So we should stop jumping when the crosswind is too strong instead of just landing into the wind?

I don't mind making some changes to give the swoopers a separate place to land, but I'm not willing to go that far.

I once watched a 152 land across a (grass) runway, onto a DZ, so he could land into the wind. Good thing it was too windy to be jumping that day.
Dave

[AFFI 0]

Ummmmmm, "Try not to worry about the things you have no control over "...

You post does come across as being overly critical and suggests you believe that ALL skydiving schools and instructors are doing a half ass job of training and that ALL the skydiving centers are training a specific method that does not do an adequate job of training the other aspects of skydiving other than freefall skills.

Some of your post I agree with, some I think you need to become more aware of the facts concerning the varying methods being utilized across the world.

To me, it definitely came across as being overly critical but rather than get upset, I just remind myself that a handful of years back I thought I had it all figured out as well.
I slowly began to realize that millions of skydivers had been trained throughout the history of this sport successfully and there are many skydivers out there that have forgotten more about skydiving than I have even learned yet.

More later, maybe...
-

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

But it did little for my canopy skills. Those I had to learn on my own after AFF by doing things like taking Scott Miller's canopy basics course.

Blame your DZ and instructors. I was shocked last year when one of the new jumpers mentioned that Scott Miller's course was just a review of what she learned in AFF. I sure as hell didn't learn all of that in AFF, but the ISP and instructors that have gone through canopy courses change EVERYTHING. Scott Miller is putting himself out of business every time he teaches an AFF instructor.

Dave

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

So we should stop jumping when the crosswind is too strong instead of just landing into the wind?

You can't just landing into the wind at Eloy's north landing area can you? No you can't. If you want to landing in that landing area you're going either east or west (no exceptions if you don't want to get Burke'd or Betsy'ed).

Besides, if the winds exceed our limitations, should we really be jumping? It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Those I had to learn on my own after AFF by doing things like taking Scott Miller's canopy basics course.

Excellent ... in fact I think the Scott Miller and Brian Germains of this world should spend less time teaching newbies on how to fly their canopies and teach more experienced people on how to teach people what's in their respective heads. Then there would be more Scott Millers and Brian Germains meaning more qualified canopy coaches available to teach newbies canopy control.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

You can't just landing into the wind at Eloy's north landing area can you? No you can't.

Never been to eloy, but they have 2 landing areas, right? If I wanted to land into the wind, I guess I'd land in the other landing area.

I have no problem with landing direction being limited for narrow landing areas. But I do have a problem with direction being limited for the convenience of a swoop lane. Maybe swoopers don't get to swoop when the wind direction isn't convenient?

No need for a knee-jerk reaction: let's just change all our landing areas so we only land in one direction... and stop offering AFF! That's not knee-jerk?

Dave

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Scott Miller is putting himself out of business every time he teaches an AFF instructor.

And I'm willing to bet Scott would be totally okay with that.

I did a hybrid SL/AFF program at a smallish and got pretty good canopy instruction throughout all of it, but there are a lot of subtleties that either didn't sink in or just weren't covered during my student progression. You're trying to absorb a LOT in those 25 (or more) jumps. I think I learned everything the ISP covers before I got my A, but I think there's a lot of room to learn more later.

I like the idea of additional training later on as a prerequisite to maybe the B or C license; I took Brian Germain's course at about 100 jumps and Scott's at about 200 jumps. For me I primarily wanted help with some landing issues, but what I learned with respect to pattern management, vertical separation, accuracy, etc. was also very valuable. Some was a review and reinforcement and reminder, some was info that had either never been covered or not explained as clearly as Scott can.

I wish people would do additional canopy training on their own, but maybe making continuing education a license requirement is what's needed to force the issue.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Mr17Hz 1]

I learned how to skydive at Skydive Chicago. They use AFP (Advanced Freefall Program), which is different than AFF. It is an 18 step program that significantly spreads out the training, and puts a lot of emphasis on canopy control.

I really didn't know how good the program was until I met some people trained on AFF.

I agree that I think that the initial training requirements needs to be extended. AFP, if I recall, is being used by dropzones other than Skydive Chicago as well.

This having been said; I think this has very little to do with the discussion about banning 270 degree turns in a primary landing area. The fact is that more and more skydivers die each year from swooping, and that they are seldom anywhere near having just graduated.

I haven't been to Arizona and so I don't feel I am able to say weather I agree with the ban or not - I know that in Chicago we have a HUGE landing area available, and that in order to land in the high performance area they require jumpers to have 1,500 jumps.

Matt Christenson

[email protected]
http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

For the DZs who have the luxury of having tons of land, then sure. Let's split up the so called main landing areas into these segregated bi-directional landing lanes I speak of, while still having a nice big open area for those who wish to follow predictable landing patterns to land into the wind.

BTW ... the convergence of the northeast corner of Eloy's two respective landing areas is potential black death as far as I'm concerned when the winds are out of the south and the landing direction of the north area has been set by someone to go west. Hopefully the Eloy regulars (ie: their coaches) who are usually the first ones down are setting the direction go east when the winds are out of the south.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[jacketsdb23 45]

I did the S/L progression training at Malone Parachute Club, Dick Swanson's Operation. I was taught canopy control from the start. When I got back into the sport last year, I carried those things I learned when I bought my new Silhouette and then my Safire 2 at 98 jumps.

When I did Johnathan Tagles course in Elsinore, I was down right shocked that some of the folks had NEVER done the things we did in the course. The stalling of canopies, braked turns, etc. I thought everyone was taught to open high and practice this stuff until I took the course. It was a good refresher for me, but mostly I had already done all of it on my own

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[ORANGENBLUE 0]

Quote

You get just as much canopy time in 15 AFF/ISP jumps as you do in 15 static line (or IAD... why does anybody still do static line?) jumps. No reason the same things can't be learned using either method.[reply/]

you might get as much canopy time with both methods, but the time you get is fruitful for learning canopy skills with S/L than AFF. It is the same manor as hop n pop being more beneficial to learn canopy skills than after an altitude skydive. less adrenaline, less task saturation, more ability to focus on flying the canopy as opposed to just using it to get you to the ground so you can go learn some more about freefall.

• Quote

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Shouldn’t we be training people to become competent canopy pilots before we train them to become freefallers?

Steve, in order to train a competent canopy pilot, the instructor should have some competence in the area.

Currently there is no requirement to demonstrate that skill to become an AFF instructor.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

What do crosswinds and AFF courses have to do with very experienced jumpers swooping through traffic? I agree that knee-jerk solutions are a bad idea to enact this month, but these seem like total copouts.

What does more static line jumps at low altitude teach the students about navigating through 22 other jumpers on an Otter load? Unless the remote control man (instuctor) is on top of those jumps, the SL allows the student to get away with anything they want. (AFF student has to at least be vary of the tandems)

[billvon 2,396]

> So we should stop jumping when the crosswind is too strong instead
>of just landing into the wind?

That's what happens at Perris; not many problems. When the winds are strong out of the east/west you have two options:

Land in the grass crosswind (to the north or south)

Land off into the wind.

[AFFI 0]

Quote

Currently there is no requirement to demonstrate that skill to become an AFF instructor.

That is correct, but that does not mean that there are no skydiving centers in existence that do have good canopy curriculums as part of their student training progressions as well as qualified instructors able to guide students through said courses proficiently.
-

Mykel AFF-I10
Skydiving Priorities: 1) Open Canopy. 2) Land Safely. 3) Don’t hurt anyone. 4) Repeat…

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Why is AFF in its current iteration so wrong? Well because from the get go there is far too much emphasis on freefall and little emphasis on canopy control. Shouldn’t we be training people to become competent canopy pilots before we train them to become freefallers?

I would have agreed with you about five years ago, but USPA has since responded and developed the ISP. Canopy control is well covered under the complete ISP program. See the grid at: http://www.uspa.org/publications/SIM/2007SIM/section4.htm#42. Specifically, click on "Skill and Knowledge Sets." The ISP is designed as a progressive training program that allows a student to mix and match training from SL, AFF, and tandem, and places significant emphasis on canopy control, equipment, and regulation. While a student can leave the direct control of an AFF instructor after just a few jumps (something I still object to), he remains under the direction of a Coach, and the overall supervision of an Instructor until completing the license requirements. The program gives the student lots of freedom as the build jump numbers and gains experience, but it includes greater depth of knowledge and skill development than any previous program, including conventional static line programs.

The problem, as I see it, isn't that the program is weak, but that too often our instructors, especially our AFF instructors, are not teaching the required skills. Part of that is money...a professional tandem instructor can make a dozen jumps a day, while an AFF instructor can only make a small fraction of that number if he really spends the necessary time with a student. So, some of our AFF instructors skimp on the non-freefall training so they can pack more jumps into a day, and reach pay parity with the tandem instructors and unrated packers. We need (that means our DZO's need) to pay AFF and advanced instructors a better wage and then insist that they spend adequate time and attention with every student, and cover all the material in the ISP.

The AFF/ISP program does work at some drop zones, as long as the school understands that skydiving isn't all about freefall, and that we must teach the rest of the basics with an emphasis on canopy control.

And, there is no reason an AFF student can't do a tandem jump in the middle of the program to work on canopy control under the hands-on direct supervision of an instructor...a school can use any of the training methods in any order to accomplish the required training objectives.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[diablopilot 2]

Agreed.

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

[billvon 2,396]

>Shouldn’t we be training people to become competent canopy pilots
>before we train them to become freefallers?

Absolutely. I've been bugging USPA to create a canopy-coach rating for years now, and been bugging them for "graduate training" for a lot longer than that. We finally have the ISP which, when implemented, can help a lot - but many places do not implement it. And it's still light on canopy training.

>We need segregated landing lanes for fast and slow canopies in this sport.

Careful, there, or someone will accuse you of having a knee-jerk reaction towards banning swooping!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

What do crosswinds and AFF courses have to do with very experienced jumpers swooping through traffic?

I'm sorry you lost the picture (from the movie "Pushing Tin")

If we had segregated landing areas, then fast canopies and slow ones wouldn't be conflicting with each other. Swoopers would not be making the big turns in airspace occupied by people who don't want to be around swoopers. So if more people knew how to handle crosswinds, then they would be less likely to be against bi-directional landing lanes. We would be segregated, then the only conflicts would be between fast canopies and other fast canopies and slow canopies would be conflicting with other slow canopies.

I don't know how you see things, but there is always going to be the potential for conflicts. But swoopers (at least those that know what they are doing) know how to handle conflicts with other swoopers and I'm sure if you did a poll the vast majority of us swoopers know the risks we take and accept them. It's just not right for us to be swooping in the same traffic with people who don't want to accept our risks.

Oh and a message out to my fellow swoopers. Please if you are learning to swoop and/or learning the bigger turns. Take your training to hop n' pops and/or high pulls (assuming we don't all get "economically viabled"). Normal freefall loads are not the time to be learning new swooping skills. You're only rolling the dice if you think you can have your cake and eat it all at once.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Careful, there, or someone will accuse you of having a knee-jerk reaction towards banning swooping!

Oh contraire my friend. This segregate fast lane I speak of is open to all types of speed inducing turns. But swoopers must always know when to abort their swoop. Plus good swoopers communicate with each before the airplane even leaves the ground. We decide on a landing direction and we decide on order of landing. Obviously what I speak of has no place at a large boogie, but for normal "high" speed fun we can achieve harmony if we comminicate with each other before we even leave the ground.

Nothing will ever be perfect. Danger will always exist in such a less than safe sport. But segregating fast canopies from slow ones is a step in the right direction.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over