Skydiving becoming MUCH safer for students ?

[XWuffo 0]

I will probably get flamed out here, but
after reading thousands of posts on incidents
etc, it seems to me that the vast majority
of injuries and accidents are had by Skydivers
off student status !
You very seldom read about students with bad
accidents and certainly they dont 'go in'.
IMHO, I think AFF instructors are of a very high standard, and the attitude towards training is way
better than 15 years ago. Your comments please

[Newbie 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=190156;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=281369;search_string=student;#281369

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=257564;search_string=student;#257564

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=248652;search_string=student;#248652

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=292945;search_string=student;#292945

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=231644;search_string=student;#231644

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=607042;search_string=student;#607042

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[pds 0]

no flame, but please dont feed the trolls.

namaste, motherfucker.

[XWuffo 0]

Quote

no flame, but please dont feed the trolls.

I dont know what you mean by trolls ??? Can you
elaborate please

As we in Africa know - "If you're going to be dumb - you'd better be tough."
- Tonto

• Quote

[fudd 0]

The most dangerous part of your skydiving career is probably your first 100-200 jumps after your off student status.

There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

[pds 0]

i will leave the definition of troll for the end of this post, as i behaved rather badly and contributednopthing to this thread. so, sorry. that said:

there are 339 incident threads on this site for a total of 6000 -/+ posts. a simple search for the term "student" in incidents results in 421 hits. a poor method of reaching a sample rate, given, but it yields about 6%.

that given, in the last 50 active threads in incidents i count at least 3 student fatalities. thats a pretty solid 6%. and then there is newbies collection of 7 posts, which is actually lacking a few that i am familiar with.

i assure you that students do 'go in'.


so i guess what i am trying to say is that it is apparent that you did not read thousands of posts _here_, so it is a misrepresented, uninformed post soliciting reaction in respect to a fairly sensitive subject. that in my opinion smells like troll.

i will admit that your post is most certainly not as sinister () as i may have intoned, but still....

in regards to AFF and safety standards, I am the one jumping into the flames here so enjoy your reprieve.

know that what i am about to say is in absolutely no way meant to be a generalization or blanket statement.

it is my humble opinion that the current standards for aff certification are effective. I take issue with the lack of recertification requirements. If a person who asserts the ability to take a zero jump individual out of a plane and get them to the ground is not willing to recertify every, say 4 years, then i must question thier dedication to the safety ( or in the case of affi with crazy kind of currency) or even the token appearance of the safety of the MOST important thing, a live human being. It's not too much to ask.

I also believe that there needs to be more proactive involvement of the governing bodies in regards to S&TA's. How does that work? once S&TA, always s&TA? are there no 'term limits' to keep the talent pool alive and vigilant?

a system without checks and balance is not in the best interest of those it is meant to protect.

i am confident that those who know me will understand that i am in no way attempting to atagonize AFF or S&TA. I strive to be one and perhaps both in the future. the issue is to what degree are we willing to let the possibility of apathy, stagnation, nepotism and or obsfucation creep into THE most critical aspect of our sport?

wow. i hope this is recieved in the humble and hopeful sense that it is proferred.

so again, sorry X, you did not deserve to be called a troll

namaste, motherfucker.

[riggerrob 558]

Skydiving BECAME safer for students 20 years ago when Mantas, pigybacks, tandem and AFF were introduced.
Since then we have seen vast increases in the numbers of students, but insignificant increases in the numbers of student injuries.
The first step in preventing student injuries is getting a decent main canopy over their head. Since Mantas are far more reliable than their round predecessors, Mantas provide the first criterian.
Tandem eliminates the necessity for students to touch ANY handles.
All other factors pale in comparison.

[skydivejersey 0]

Student skydiving will be a hell of a lot safer once the static line system is dead and buried IMHO.

[Remster 24]

Quote

Student skydiving will be a hell of a lot safer once the static line system is dead and buried IMHO.

huh????

Remster

[skydivejersey 0]

To my mind the static line system is great if your jumping rounds otherwise you are asking a student with little time to get stable. Then you are asking them to stick their hands up into the way of a parachute deploying over the top of their shoulder in a manner it is not designed to.
Just my opinion. SL are dangerous (relatively speaking) compared to the more progressive, and thankfully increasingly more popular ways of learning to skydive.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

To my mind the static line system is great if your jumping rounds otherwise you are asking a student with little time to get stable. Then you are asking them to stick their hands up into the way of a parachute deploying over the top of their shoulder in a manner it is not designed to.
Just my opinion. SL are dangerous (relatively speaking) compared to the more progressive, and thankfully increasingly more popular ways of learning to skydive.

I disagree only partially. I have seen many very successful static line jumps out of 182s with the student holding on to the strut and dangling their feet into the relative wind. When they release, they are already in a pretty good body position. On the other hand, I would never put a static line student out of a side door aircraft. Exiting and getting stable completely unassisted on a first jump is just too much to ask of most students.

[billvon 2,413]

SL and its derivatives (IAD and the like) have gotten a bad reputation over the years because overall the fatality rates are a lot higher. They're higher because they include the jumps made with unmodified or poorly modified military gear 40 years ago. AFF does not since it's relatively new.

Nowadays, using new equipment, it's about as safe as AFF. The big risk factors in my mind are incorrect reaction to mals and poor performance under canopy, and both are pretty much the same between programs. A graduate of an AFF program generally has more RW skills; a graduate of a SL program generally has more canopy control skills. This gap is narrowing as the ISP brings the two programs closer together.

>Then you are asking them to stick their hands up into the way of a
>parachute deploying over the top of their shoulder in a manner it is not
> designed to.

If this concerns you, use PCA instead of direct bag. Then the parachute opens behind them as it would during a normal hop and pop. Heck, one could make the same argument about AFF - the springloaded PC can get stuck in a student's burble very easily. That's not an argment against AFF, it's an argument against one kind of deployment (spring loaded PC.)

[billvon 2,413]

SL and its derivatives (IAD and the like) have gotten a bad reputation over the years because overall the fatality rates are a lot higher. They're higher because they include the jumps made with unmodified or poorly modified military gear 40 years ago. AFF does not since it's relatively new.

Nowadays, using new equipment, it's about as safe as AFF. The big risk factors in my mind are incorrect reaction to mals and poor performance under canopy, and both are pretty much the same between programs. A graduate of an AFF program generally has more RW skills; a graduate of a SL program generally has more canopy control skills. This gap is narrowing as the ISP brings the two programs closer together.

>Then you are asking them to stick their hands up into the way of a
>parachute deploying over the top of their shoulder in a manner it is not
> designed to.

If this concerns you, use PCA instead of direct bag. Then the parachute opens behind them as it would during a normal hop and pop. Heck, one could make the same argument about AFF - the springloaded PC can get stuck in a student's burble very easily. That's not an argment against AFF, it's an argument against one kind of deployment (spring loaded PC.)

[XWuffo 0]

***If this concerns you, use PCA instead of direct bag.
Thanks for your input billvon. I searched for info
in PCA, and found very little. Would you please
explain the difference between that and direct bag ?

As we in Africa know - "If you're going to be dumb - you'd better be tough."
- Tonto

[XWuffo 0]

Hey PDS, thanks for your perspective. I guess making wild statements about safety is not going to help anyone. I just honestly think that so much has changed, since I did my first wacked out unstable side door exist from a Cessna turbo, with a round, back in early 90's. Sure, there are still big risks for students, no one could be stupid enough to deny that. But it seems to me that the risks are equal, for
students and experienced skydivers.

As we in Africa know - "If you're going to be dumb - you'd better be tough."
- Tonto

[wilmshurst 0]

It would seem to me that most fatalities these days involve people with perfectly functioning canopies - for example, low level canopy collisions and low, 'high performance' turns. Both of these examples are less likely to occur with students.

The only thing worse than a cold toilet seat is a warm toilet seat.

[billvon 2,413]

> I searched for info in PCA, and found very little. Would you please
>explain the difference between that and direct bag ?

PCA = pilot chute assist. In the version I learned on, the SL contains a closing pin (usually a long piece of ripcord material) and a piece of velcro on the end of the SL. The PC is packed inside the container, like a pullout. The velcro is mated to another piece of velcro on the PC. The container is closed with the pin on the SL.

When the student exits, the pin is pulled via the SL, opening the container. Then the velcro on the SL pulls the PC into the air, at which point the force against the PC unmates the velcro and the main opens normally.

Advantages include more normal openings and less chance of getting hung up in lines during a bad exit. Disadvantages include the ability to grab the PC as it goes by if you're unstable on exit, and the fact that the container is open somewhat longer than it would be with a 'normal' throwout.

IAD is a twist on this, where the JM puts the PC in the air manually. Strong also had an interesting twist where the SL deployed a drouge, which then either opened the main immediately (i.e. acted like a PC) or held the student stable during a 5 second delay; the student then relesed the drouge with a ripcord. It was intended to be part of a tandem progression.

[billvon 2,413]

> It would seem to me that most fatalities these days involve people with perfectly functioning canopies . . .

I would tend to agree, and this was one of the reasons SL had an advantage - a jumper got a lot more instruction under canopy, over 25 jumps or so, than an AFF jumper got in 7. Nowadays it's less of an issue if a DZ follows the ISP, since an AFF jumper gets more jumps under instruction.

[riggerrob 558]

I have worked with most of these systems since becoming an instructor back in 1982.
I never liked static-line with pilotchute assist after I saw a woman roll over, grab her deployment sleeve and hold it until her FXC 8000 got scared.
For that reason I prefer direct bag and IAD because they open so quickly. DB and IAD get the d-bag past the students' reach too quickly for them to interfer with deployment.

[skydivejersey 0]

Maybe I'm just coloured because about 2 weeks ago we had a 2nd jump SL student get wrapped up in her main at my local DZ, go bounce and die on her way to the hospital.

I learned the SL way but when people ask me now I say AFF every time - to me it's the far safer alternative. There are so many more potential hazards with SL over AFF

I would be interested to see how many malfunctions are caused by SL in terms on percentages compared to AFF (ie leaving student canopy control issues etc aside).

Plus what do you learn in the .5 of second you have to demonstate competence to your instructor. jack shit is the short answer. You get as much air time on level 1 AFF as you do in 90 static lines. pointless IMHO. Don't slam - my opinion only.

[Scrumpot 1]

This sounds like the post of somebody who is planning to run for office someday? ...Any aspirations there, Sky? hmmmm.... ?

Do tell.
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Student skydiving will be a hell of a lot safer once the static line system is dead and buried IMHO.

And you came to this opinion in 110 jumps?

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Remster 24]

Quote

Plus what do you learn in the .5 of second you have to demonstate competence to your instructor. jack shit is the short answer. You get as much air time on level 1 AFF as you do in 90 static lines. pointless IMHO. Don't slam - my opinion only.

Pointless!?! man.....

Disclaimer: I learned PFF (the Canadian version of AFF, and until not long ago, it was always with +/-3 IADs frist).

That being said, to say the IAD or SL training is pointless is taking a very narrow minded look at skydiving. Yes, most people will learn freefall skils faster with AFF type jumps. However, you will end up typically skimming on other skills you need to skydive....

As someone else pointed out (Rob?) SL/IADs students typically have better canopy control skills, an lets not forget spotting.....

To dismiss SL/IAD for safety reasons is pointless.

Remster

[freakydiver 0]

Absolutely! And, if I may add... Perhaps a student on SL or IAD will learn free fall skills faster since they will ultiamtely be comfortable with the fact that their shit is going to open and they already know how to handle that portion of the skydive...

My 1.5 cents.

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[pds 0]

Quote

This sounds like the post of somebody who is planning to run for office someday? ...Any aspirations there, Sky? hmmmm.... ?

Do tell.
-Grant

oh no you don't. i like it just fine here in the frying pan.....

namaste, motherfucker.