The Arrogance of Bad Canopy Flight

[Designer 0]

Reading Mr. Johnsons letter in the july Parachutist set me off again on "Bad Canopy Control"Most of us coming out of getting our "A license" wanna go learn RW or Head Down,Free fly etc.The last thing the arrogant new cuss flushed with his or her new success wants to do is learn how to fly the parachute well in any "Condition"Oh Yeah,it's just there to save my dump ass from hitting the ground!Wrong,wrong,wrong!Our Instructors at our DZ do a "Masterful" Job giving them the pattern training.Then what?Set them loose under Canopy with me?I don't think so.I still see people with hundreds and thousands of jumps(very good RW Jumpers)Land their parachutes like students.I call this "the Arrogance" factor.Who cares,I got up and walked away!,wrong again!What if you are the new "Club Safety Officer" and everyone who watches you land your parachute gets a sense that you might be a great person,great RW jumper,but canopy landing skills are "Shit".What kind of message does that send to the rest of the club members who count on your judgment?

[Icon134 0]

OK, I'll bite... I took a canopy control course before I even got my A License. It really helped me develop an understanding of the wing over my head what it takes to pilot it.

I still have a lot to learn but I don't have a problem landing my canopy in no wind, crosswind, or even down wind if that is what the plane is doing and I would consider myself a "very young" jumper.

Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife...

[AggieDave 6]

That's a very good point. I thought I had that canopy control thing going well until I went to a DZ that was serious about canopy control. I had about 100 jumps at the time. Basically that served as a kick in the pants to learn as much as I can about canopy flight. With that said, I'll say that at a boogie this past weekend I saw numerous near misses on final due to seriously poor canopy control. All the while some reasonably experienced jumpers (a couple of them instructors) were commenting on how well people were flying.

It comes down to a DZ's feel, if the instructors and top up-jumpers can't fly for crap, then who else is going to? Who's going to teach? What about that 100 jump wonder who goes through a good canopy control course and comes back full of new information? He/she's shrugged off as having learned something wrong and their confidence takes a hit thinking that they learned wrong information.

Its a perpetual cycle at some places. How do we fix that? I'm not really sure except by simply saying education. Perhaps we go back to the idea of having a canopy coach rating? That's a crappy way to go about fixing this though.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Designer 0]

I've been struggling with the "Proper Answer" to bad canopy control for years!I have no fault with USPA saying "Education" is the key!They are right,knowledge is the key.What is the best way to make sure all canopy pilots get what they need to survive in spite of themselves?You can't make everybody listen.I want my Canopy Skills Teaching Friends to continue to educate all interested.I just think we are "Not" doing nearly enough as an organization to see teaching standards published,available and of course "Canopy Coach Rating".It might be the right answer,I don't know?I do know the work involved would kill the normal person who tried to see the job done properly.What is the answer?Damn it.

[Spizzzarko 0]

You really think that a canopy coach rating is the answer? I have seen some very good coaches and some very good AFF I's but I have seen some VERY VERY VERY bad ones too. I have corrected coaches and AFFI's who are blatantly providing bad information. So I am of the opinion that the school option is better than that of some "canopy coach" rating that is going to put more money in the pocket of USPA. Also who is going to certify these canopy coaches? If you are serious about learning canopy control then you need to go to a school for it, and practice it. Just like serious RW where people travel to camps the canopy control issue is set up the same way. Is it the most cost effective way, NO, but it's what we have, and if you got in this sport as a cost effective way to spend your time, then I think you are in serious need of some accounting training with your canopy coaching.

[flipper 0]

Seen an incident a few years back at a fairly busy european dz ... 'hot' pilot comes into land cuting other canopies up etc etc etc ... result was that one of the cut up pilots told the 'hot' dude what a prick he had been ... 'hot' pilots reply was ' I have 2000 jumps I can do nothing wrong '....it was at this point that the ' hot ' pilot was knocked clean on his arse by a well aimed right hook

not saying that this is the way to deal with canopy arrogance but I reckon that this guy thought twice before he did it again

flipper

[skybytch 259]

Quote

You really think that a canopy coach rating is the answer?

I don't think it's the answer, but I do think it's part of an answer.

I think every skydiver, regardless of experience level and regardless of if they want to learn to swoop or not, needs canopy control training beyond what they got as a student. The creation of a canopy education syllabus and a "Canopy coach" rating would eventually bring state of the art canopy control training to every jumper that wants it, regardless of where they skydive (although I feel it should be required, not optional).

Currently such training is available only to those who can travel to where the training is or to those who jump where someone feels it's important enough to bring in a "name" coach. This limits the number of people such training is available to.

Good canopy control is a survival skill. Survival skill training should be available to all skydivers. I'm for anything that will help make that happen.

[Designer 0]

I'm not sure what is the "True Answer"!I think the cost of such a program to develop scares the hell out of everybody?So,that is why we will continue to read about bad canopy pilots dying!

[Designer 0]

I like the way you think!Survival skill for sure!This issue will trouble me to my last day on this planet.To throw them out and hope they learn enough to survive through the years of getting and flying new,smaller,faster parachutes is a "Mistake".What do you think?

[Spizzzarko 0]

I call bull shit.

You say"I think every skydiver, regardless of experience level and regardless of if they want to learn to swoop or not, needs canopy control training beyond what they got as a student."

I say, If AFF training is not sufficient enough then whoever is doing the training needs to reevaluate why they are an instructor. AFF and the A liscense is designed for a skydiver to safely exit an airplane and get to the ground. A skydiver who has completed his or her "A" liscense should be armed with the knowledge of how to properly land a parachute. If this person honestly does not know what he or she is doing under canopy then that is a reflection on the training recieved by the student, and the instructors are to blame. If the person does stupid things under canopy, because they want to look cool (which is usually the case), and they break themselves or someone else, then they are to blame. So saying that the student program is flawed, is bad logic on your part.


You say "The creation of a canopy education syllabus and a "Canopy coach" rating would eventually bring state of the art canopy control training to every jumper that wants it, regardless of where they skydive."

I say the creation of this canopy syllabus has been done in the SIM, for the "A-D and Pro" licenses. If people are not able to perform to the requirements of the license on EVERY jump, then why have they been given that license? The rating system is currently flawed, because there is no real standarization with in it's structure. I have seen many times that one Instructor is more strengent on the enforcement of license requirements than another. The rating applicant then goes to the easier instructor to get the boxes checked so that they can go out and start free flying with their friends earlier. This becomes a disservice to not only the student, but all the other skydivers in the air. Is it the students fault? NO, the instructor is responsible for putting all the other skydivers in jeopardy by unleashing an UNQUALIFIED rating holder loose. To fix this there needs to be better standardization enforcment in the skydiving community. The S&TA's need to stop pencil whipping their instructors. The instructors need to slow down and speen the time with the student that they deserve, and not hurry up to the next $30.00 as fast as they can. The DZO's need to stop rushing the instructors from student to student. It's a viscious cycle in which we ALL lose.

You say" Currently such training is available only to those who can travel to where the training is or to those who jump where someone feels it's important enough to bring in a "name" coach. This limits the number of people such training is available to."

I say why do you need a big name coach to teach canopy control? Look at most of what is talked about in Brian Germains book. He goes back and focuses on the basics. Look at what is taught in the canopy control classes given by these big name guys. Most of it is fairly basic in nature. Let's take the pattern for example. How many license holder skydivers fly a true pattern on every jump? Most that I have seen just either blow it off all together while trying to set up for their hook turn, or only fly a base to final. When in AFF where you taught that? You were taught to fly a downwind, base, and final. The pattern is the building block to all accuracy. Take the classic accuracy competitors for example. The really good ones fly multiple patterns in there decent. Look at the pro swoopers. The really accurate ones fly a downwind base and final. The only thing different is the degree of turn from base to final.

You say "Good canopy control is a survival skill. Survival skill training should be available to all skydivers."

I say It is, and that you just need to pay attention to what you have been taught, and to do the right thing. It may not be cool to do PLF's, or fly patterns, but since when was cool always the right thing?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I say, If AFF training is not sufficient enough then whoever is doing the training needs to reevaluate why they are an instructor.

AFF (or any other method of training) is not enough to make a good canopy pilot. For some DZ's, this can as little as 7 jumps. Even 25 jumps with an AFFI and/or Coach is not enough. Continuing education is needed.

Derek

[Spizzzarko 0]

Yes Derek, I firmly agree with you, but the foundation of good canopy flight begins with the first jump course, and is continued from there on. Do you think that these canopy piloting schools would be popping up everywhere if the coaches and instructors where doing a proper job?

[billvon 2,478]

>You really think that a canopy coach rating is the answer?

Yes!

> have seen some very good coaches and some very good AFF I's but
> I have seen some VERY VERY VERY bad ones too.

Of course. But overall the AFF program has worked pretty well, wouldn't you agree? We could do something similar with canopy control.

>So I am of the opinion that the school option is better than that of
>some "canopy coach" rating that is going to put more money in the
> pocket of USPA.

Any school is no better than the coach who runs it.

>Also who is going to certify these canopy coaches?

A canopy coach course director. I would imagine we would start out with people like Scott Miller, Brian Germain, John LeBlanc etc.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Do you think that these canopy piloting schools would be popping up everywhere if the coaches and instructors where doing a proper job?

Yes, even when Instructors do a great job. You can't teach someone to be a good canopy pilot in 25 jumps. These schools aren't so much for teaching what Instructors failed to teach, but for skills beyond what they learned as a student. They can learn it on their own (re-learnig the same lessons the hard way that have been learned too many times over already) or go to a school.

If skydivers got formal one-on-one canopy training to fix problems and give them things to work on every 100-200 jumps, they would be much better canopy pilots than having only what they learned as a student and figured out on their own.

Continuing education is important and makes a huge difference. USPA should make a Canopy Coach/Instructor rating, make the standards very high to get the rating, and ensure those standards are maintained. If USPA had done this with the AFFI rating there would be a difference in the average AFFI.

Derek

[Spizzzarko 0]

You say "Of course. But overall the AFF program has worked pretty well, wouldn't you agree? We could do something similar with canopy control."

I say all in all the AFF program is pretty good, but the certification process is currently flawed.
1. There are to many course directors. It seems like everyday there is a new course director out there. How can you maintain a standardization of course material, with all these different course directors putting their own spin on how AFF should be done.
2. The AFF course graduation criteria currently allows unqualified candidates to slip through the cracks. Look at how the grading is done. if you pass 51% of the graded area's with out an auto failure, then you pass the dive. Do that 3 out of 4 dives and you are now a rating holder. Do you think a AFFI who is in the proper position 51% of the time is acceptable?
This is what will happen to the canopy control coach rating system should it be implemented.


You say "Any school is no better than the coach who runs it."

I say you are right, and I also say and aff FJC is as good as the person teaching it. Any "A" license holder is only as good as the amount of time that their instructors put into them. A solid foundation of canopy control should be instilled in the student from day one.

[Spizzzarko 0]

"Continuing education is important and makes a huge difference. USPA should make a Canopy Coach/Instructor rating, make the standards very high to get the rating, and ensure those standards are maintained. If USPA had done this with the AFFI rating there would be a difference in the average AFFI."

Now there's some sensable talking there folks! I know we are not going to make perfect canopy pilots out of people in 25 jumps, but I think we should as a comunity hold ourselves up to the standards we set. Just because someone has 25 jumps should not "Entitle" them to be a license holder. USPA has set a precedent by making the A license card. We as instructors should mandate that all people seeking the rating beable to perform the tasks listed in the requirements. Not "Oh he or she was close enough". It's out there in black and white. You must beable to do A B & C to get your license. If you can perform these tasks then you need to do it on every jump.

I'm a firm believer in continuing education, but I just don't think there needs to be another rating system that can and will be bastardized over the years, and end up producing shitty instructors and even shittier students.

[billvon 2,478]

I agree that the AFF CC has gotten too lax. However, the canopy control course will be inherently different. There will be no instructor swooping with you, able to pull you out of the corner if you screw up. So teaching ability, rather than flying ability, should be the important part. In other words, it will be more like the BIC than the old AFF JCC.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I say, If AFF training is not sufficient enough then whoever is doing the training needs to reevaluate why they are an instructor. AFF and the A liscense is designed for a skydiver to safely exit an airplane and get to the ground.

AFF students exit last and open a good 2000ft higher than just about anyone else. They may have an alternate landing zone as well - that may apply until they have a B license. By the time they enter the pattern, everyone else is on the ground. So they're not going to get any practical experience about flying in the midst of an otter load during their AFF jumps.

I watched a load come down at the American in light to no wind where the jumpers split 60/40 which direction they used on landing. At least 3 pairs came down on a head on, and not with much horizonal separation.

Elsinore has a written policy of landing towards the lake in light/variable, but apparently an unwritten one of landing towards the complex in the same.

Those bother me more - whom am I supposed to follow?

[jlmiracle 7]

Are we talking canopy control or swooping? Swooping is a discipline and should be treated as such.

Students are taught in the FJC how to land your canopy, not to swoop it or turn low (hook) to the ground. Those are OPTIONs in my book, if they choose to follow that discipline after they get their A then, they need to go get some good coaching. I fly a pattern and land like a student because I choose to set a good example for them. I guess that makes me Arrogant? (I'm very confused with the first post)

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[gemini 0]

Quote

There will be no instructor swooping with you

I agree Bill. Usually the instructor's and vidiot's are to busy swooping crosswind/across everyone else's pattern to notice anyway!

Blue skies,

Jim

[billvon 2,478]

>Are we talking canopy control or swooping?

Both, sort of. Canopy control is the basis of the course; that includes how to get out of bad situations, such as the ones you put yourself in swooping. It's like a good driver's course, or flying lessons. You will often purposely do scary/dangerous things (like locking up the brakes, or stalling the plane) so you can handle it if it ever happens for real.

But in terms of advanced swooping, like 270's and freestyle in the flare - that would be its own thing.

[feuergnom 22]

Quote

I say all in all the AFF program is pretty good, but the certification process is currently flawed.
1. There are to many course directors. It seems like everyday there is a new course director out there. How can you maintain a standardization of course material, with all these different course directors putting their own spin on how AFF should be done.

you ask how a standard can be maintained? well in scuba diving (just as an example) you have a world wide standard like padi, and the organisation behind takes a real close look on who teaches what, how & where. if padi instructors don't follow the program by the letter they will loose their license.

i think the only question is if skydivers/instructors/dz's or any skydiving organization are willing to walk this way

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

dudeist skydiver # 666

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

you ask how a standard can be maintained? well in scuba diving (just as an example) you have a world wide standard like padi, and the organisation behind takes a real close look on who teaches what, how & where. if padi instructors don't follow the program by the letter they will loose their license.

i think the only question is if skydivers/instructors/dz's or any skydiving organization are willing to walk this way

I sure hope not. When actually done as you describe, it prevents PADI instructors from teaching more than the minimum standards. As typically done, it churns out divers who are told not to go out alone until they come back for the $199 'Advanced' class.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I say, If AFF training is not sufficient enough then whoever is doing the training needs to reevaluate why they are an instructor. AFF and the A liscense is designed for a skydiver to safely exit an airplane and get to the ground. A skydiver who has completed his or her "A" liscense should be armed with the knowledge of how to properly land a parachute. If this person honestly does not know what he or she is doing under canopy then that is a reflection on the training recieved by the student, and the instructors are to blame. If the person does stupid things under canopy, because they want to look cool (which is usually the case), and they break themselves or someone else, then they are to blame. So saying that the student program is flawed, is bad logic on your part.

To the etent of the most basic canopy skills, I agree. However, there is no way you can learn all the skills necessary for today's canopy pilots in 25 jumps. Many AFF dropzones try to do it in eight. But everyone can improve their canopy skills. In fact, I know of one world class swooper who may well be one of Scott Miller's best customers

Quote

The S&TA's need to stop pencil whipping their instructors. The instructors need to slow down and speen the time with the student that they deserve, and not hurry up to the next $30.00 as fast as they can. The DZO's need to stop rushing the instructors from student to student. It's a viscious cycle in which we ALL lose.

I couldn't agree more. One of the problems, IMO, is the potential conflict of interest that can arise when the DZO wears the S&TA hat.

For Great Deals on Gear

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Are we talking canopy control or swooping? Swooping is a discipline and should be treated as such.

It's all just flying your parachute. Swooping is just advanced canopy control.

For Great Deals on Gear