mustard 0 #26 January 20, 2003 Seems to me that the main problem with S/L is its instructors. Most S/L instructors who encourage their students and are good for the sport are the ones with more experience. Someone with 100 jumps isn't over their *own* difficulties with skydiving, much less handling an overamped student. The best part about a good S/L program is the canopy control the student develops. Then moves on to freefall, with longer and longer delays. But each time they fly a canopy back to the DZ with less and less instruction, the better they get with those wings before moving on to becoming a body pilot. I've seen many a former AFF student put off for a long time the need for that first hop-n-pop. Not S/L students, they know what the ground looks like after a low exit, but AFF students don't. I know I waited until 50 jumps to make my first low jumps, they scared me after getting comfortable with long delays. *** DJan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NtheSeaOrSky 0 #27 January 20, 2003 I would just like to chime in a friendly reminder....jump numbers alone do not a good instructor make. Of course the basic knowledge and skills are there, but being an effective teacher encompasses quite a bit more.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mustard 0 #28 January 20, 2003 Well said. I think the new Coach Course is a pretty good way to find out how to teach skydiving. But some people go through the course and are not any better at teaching, partly because they don't put into practice what they learned. Teaching anything well, it seems to me, comes from a desire to reach the student with important knowledge. It makes me really happy to see somebody "get it," and I try to figure out what worked and why, so I can help the next person more effectively. *** DJan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NtheSeaOrSky 0 #29 January 20, 2003 Absolutely, but also there is something that can't quite be taught. The ability to 'read' people and personality types and combine that with the appropriate method of teaching for that type. THATS when teachers are most effective (imo).Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cameramonkey 0 #30 January 22, 2003 QuoteQuote..............The stress of instant freefall.??.. Isn't freefall what its all about?/... and as for stress... how about the stress an S/L student feels,,,(after going through about 5 Hours, of complicated training),, when the door opens and they have to get out there,, and stand on a tiny little step.??.. Is this a teaching method???? or an indoctrination/hazing episode ? ................. actually, because of how S/L is taught, the act of climbout becomes a reflex (muscle memory). Many students I teach say climbing out wasnt the hard part, LETTING GO was. And quite a few (myself included) let the training and subsequent instinct take over to the point that they dont consciously remember climbing out.Two wrongs don't make a right, however three lefts DO! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #31 January 22, 2003 He! He! Here we go again with the old S/L versus AFF debate. Let's try to put a positive spin on the debate. Tandem is best at getting students over the initial fear/sensory overload. Static Line/IAD is best at teaching canopy control. AFF/PFF is best at teaching freefall skills. Wind tunnels are best for fine-tuning freefall body position. No single method is best overall. The ideal training program combines different methods at different levels. Rob Warner USPA S/L I (lapsed) CSPA IAD and PFF/I CSPA Coach 2 Tandem Instructor on 3 different systems pompous Master Rigger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #32 January 22, 2003 QuoteStatic Line/IAD is best at teaching canopy control I dont hold that to be true anymore. A properly done ISP (tandem progression), will teach some seriously good canopy control from the first jump on, since that first jump has an instructor holding a canopy class with his/her student at 4,000ft. Showing them first hand how to properly fly and land a parachute.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NtheSeaOrSky 0 #33 January 22, 2003 I have to agree with Dave here. As an example I banged up my right hand pretty bad after I was cleared to solo (i was an AFF student). I was not sure I could throw out, much less cutaway, so I opted to do a tandem (yeah yeah I couldnt stand being on the ground).....but under canopy the TM was able to show me so much stuff that helped improve my control. I understood the concept of max/min sink and glide and such, but seeing and feeling it done correctly under canopy was the best help ever. Sure, I could have eventually figured it out on my own, but that would have taken many many more jumps.Life is not fair and there are no guarantees... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mattb 0 #34 January 22, 2003 QuoteI've seen many a former AFF student put off for a long time the need for that first hop-n-pop. Not S/L students, they know what the ground looks like after a low exit, but AFF students don't. I know I waited until 50 jumps to make my first low jumps, they scared me after getting comfortable with long delays. Some AFF/AFP programs require a hop-n-pop. I know I had to do one before graduating - around jump 15 or so. -mb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #35 January 22, 2003 yeah at some places as "low" as 6,000 feet!!!! A very large differance from 3200."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #36 January 22, 2003 One of the student jumps required at my DZ for our AFP program requires a Hop-n-pop from 3500ft. Milage varies between DZs, I'm glad to have found one with a head instructer that knows WTF and is very good with his students.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #37 January 22, 2003 thats the same thing I have seen....however pilots don't like to stop climbing with an otter load at 3500 feet....on the last 3 "low" solos I have seen, they were all 5-6 grand."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #38 January 22, 2003 Then those pilots need to be talked to by the S&TA/DZO. Aggieland is a 182 DZ, so its sort of hard to not stop climbing for the hop-n-pop guys.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #39 January 22, 2003 DZO does not want his full otter to be at 3500 feet when it can still be going to altitude... this is the real world."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #40 January 22, 2003 Jumping at some airports its just not fesible do to the pattern that has to be flown to make passes at 3500 since the plane might as well level off instead of keep climbing. As a regular jumper are you willing to add 5 more minutes onto the climb so that a new jumper could get out at 3500 instead of 5000?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #41 January 22, 2003 QuoteI would just like to chime in a friendly reminder....jump numbers alone do not a good instructor make. Of course the basic knowledge and skills are there, but being an effective teacher encompasses quite a bit more. Funny, I've been a teacher for 32 years, but USPA still insists that I take a 2 day course on how to teach from one of their course directors if I want to be a coach.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #42 January 22, 2003 QuoteOne of the student jumps required at my DZ for our AFP program requires a Hop-n-pop from 3500ft. this is a doggone good idea, it's been around for a long time. i'm glad i did it when i was training, now i do hop-n-pops from 3000-4000 all the time. if nothing else, it will aclimate the student to "emergency" bail outs, getting stable immediately, and pulling.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rigging65 0 #43 January 23, 2003 Quotein light of the fact that half of the skydiving fatalities are now under properly functioning canopies, I think you could make a strong argument that we're emphasizing freefall a little too much in AFF. ...there's truth in that.... "...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward. For there you have been, and there you long to return..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #44 January 23, 2003 Well if the program says 3,500 feet, then put them out at 3,500 feet. What is the reason for a low solo? 5 grand is not low. So yes....hold up the pattern, and the traffic. Do what is required."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #45 January 23, 2003 QuoteQuoteStatic Line/IAD is best at teaching canopy control I dont hold that to be true anymore. A properly done ISP (tandem progression), will teach some seriously good canopy control from the first jump on, since that first jump has an instructor holding a canopy class with his/her student at 4,000ft. Showing them first hand how to properly fly and land a parachute."end quote. I stand corrected. Aggie Dave has a valid point here. Tandem does provide the best hanging harness for teaching canopy control. Tandem allows the instructor to show a student the perfect approach. Once the student has the mental picture of the perfect approach, he can repeat that picture on solo jumps. Tandem also allows the instructor to emphasis what he is looking at during various aspects of the skydive. For example, with first jump tandem students, I encourage them to look up at the canopy right after opening (canopy check), then we watch the first few solos landing (landing direction), then we look at the other tandems at our level (avoiding traffic), then we look at the wind sock (meterology), etc. Unfortunately I have also seen tandems fail miserably at teaching emergency procedures. Some students flatly refuse to touch dummy cutaway and reserve handles, no matter how many times you go over it on the ground and no matter how badly a canopy is spinning over their heads. I have also seen the same scary phenomenon on the ground, when skydivers flatly refuse to pull their own reserve ripcord handles when their gear is due for repack. I seriously doubt if these people will pull enough handles when they have a malfunction overhead. Sorry about the tangent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #46 January 23, 2003 Well, I learned SL and taught SL for well over a decade before I got any other ratings. In my opinion, a perfect training method would employ a bit of all three other "mainstream" programs. This, of course, assuming each and every dropzone would get off their ass and AT LEAST teach the basic ISP fundamentals. It made me really fucking mad to take a ten-jump AFF "graduate" from St. Louis on what he thought would be a "solo jump" when he had not once been instructed on spotting, nor had he ever completed a barrel roll nor a front loop. Hey, whatever. I have all the ratings now and don't care which method a student cares to pay for. The bottom line here is that each and every one of them is still going to recieve the same level of professional instruction from my school. Chuck Blue D-12501 SL/AFF/Tandem/BM Instructor King of all Skymonkeys Manager, Raeford Parachute Center School Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #47 January 23, 2003 I learned SL, but graduation in this country did not, as of two years ago (I think it does now), require a barrel roll or a frontloop. Were you mad because the other school did not do a decent job at teaching that student? Or do you consider a training that does not include mentioned maneuvers as inadequate regardless? Would you care to elaborate a bit? Thanks,Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #48 January 24, 2003 What I am saying is that a young skydiver needs to be prepared to make recovery from all types of instability. That is the purpose of doing barrel rolls and flips; not just to prove that you can "do a trick." Anyway, here in the USA all three maneuvers have been a part of the USPA student training progression ever since there has been such a thing. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #49 January 24, 2003 I know the feeling....I tought martial arts for several years and I had to do a BIC AFTER I had a JM for 7 years. However, I understand the desire to have people know how to teach before you send them to the world to do it. But USPA should let you skip it if you have prior teaching exp. Anyway the BIC is gone now right? Replace by coach? Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markbaur 0 #50 January 24, 2003 QuoteUSPA should let you skip it if you have prior teaching exp. How do you propose to distinguish between those whose teaching experience is one-on-one or small group performance-oriented training, and those whose experience is lecturing (who think telling someone is the same as teaching them)? Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
