GFF program with bigger airplane

[lifesatrip 0]

Hi there just wondering if there are any other schools out there that have a GFF program that puts students out of a 182 or 206, then has a big turbine. The question I have is how do you do your progression? At what stage do they switch over to the turbine? I am just looking at how other places do things so I can come up with ideas and basically a program design for our students since this year we are going to have a turbine running full time.

[peek 20]

I have been working in a program that had the students doing the "usual" 5, 10, 20 second delays, then having them do "coached" jumps at 13-14K after that. No problems at all.

Depending on the student, I think it could be sooner than that. All you really need to do is see that the student has basic control at terminal velocity, i.e., doing some turns both ways, not spinning, pulling stable at the right altitude.

(Of course, if you expect them to ever learn how to (actively) spot, you will need to start very early on while they are still in the smaller aircraft.)

[JohnRich 4]

What's "GFF"?

[DeNReN 0]

Gradual Free Fall (?)

[AdD 1]

Hey pal, I would like to see the issue of the five second delay addressed somehow. Seems like there is a lot of risk in those first couple freefalls. Go back to FL and get your AFF rating and make Adam pay for it!

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[livendive 8]

Our students do IAD progression through the clear and pull out of a 182, then move on to single-instructor AFF out of a Caravan (4-5 levels).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Our students do IAD progression through the clear and pull out of a 182, then move on to single-instructor AFF out of a Caravan (4-5 levels).

Blues,
Dave

That is doing it backwards.
That sounds more like a military "selection" process than a "training method."
Why put the most stressfull/difficult dives early in the process?
Or are you just trying to "select" students early in the process?

AFF/PFF Instructors are most useful on the first two or three freefalls. Once a student has demonstrated stable exits and pulling on their own, the usefullness of AFF Instructors diminishes rapidly. By the sixth or seventh freefall jump, AFF Instructors just/should become observers with big egos.

Rob Warner
S/L, IAD and PFF Instructor
Strong Tandem Examiner

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Our students do IAD progression through the clear and pull out of a 182, then move on to single-instructor AFF out of a Caravan (4-5 levels).

Blues,
Dave

That is doing it backwards.

Dammit, I knew something seemed wrong...I meant to have them do AFF to IAD!

***Why put the most stressfull/difficult dives early in the process?

You think an IAD jump is more difficult than an AFF jump? Sure, it requires more self-confidence, but outside of that whole "being responsible for yourself" thing, it seems to me that an IAD jump is much simpler than an AFF jump. I think the IAD to AFF progression increases from simple to complex, in an order that matches up with standard priorities and needs. Every student (except tandem) must be prepared to execute EPs and must be able to fly and land a parachute. So let them concentrate on just that first, then add things like stability & heading control, turns and forward motion, recovery from instability, tracking, etc...all things that *could* simply be observed and debriefed by an IAD-I, or even a coach, but that are probably best taught by an AFF-I.

Traditional static line/IAD graduates typically seem to have better canopy control and survival skills, but they're often behind the curve on freefall skills. Traditional AFF graduates can typically fly better in freefall, but they more often seem like they need a babysitter, are sometimes terrified of getting out low, and canopy control skills are frequently less developed. I think it makes sense to teach a student the basic survival skills first, with several jumps of canopy control experience from good spots. This way you can reduce their gear fear and increase their self-confidence before adding longer spots, increasingly complex dive flows, and more advanced freefall skills. I am, however, in the middle of tweaking our system, so if you've got a good explanation for why some other program will make better skydivers than an IAD to AFF progression, I'm all ears.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[peek 20]

Quote

That is doing it backwards.

In some respects I suppose one could say that if you look at just the freefall portion. But there are so many aspects to determining what training progression to use.

It is my understanding that a fair number of DZs do something like Dave is doing, and it sounds like it works well.

However the world does not revolve around AFF rating holders at a drop zone that uses that progression, something that many AFF instructors feel uncomfortable with after having earned that coveted rating that turns them into skygods. That is why a lot of places can't pull it off, and just go "regular" AFF.

I know one DZO that gave up on static-line instruction because his staff was more interested in the extended freefall (and higher pay) of AFF instructional jumps. (They were too cool to do a mere clear and pull after jumpmastering the S/L students.)

[riggerrob 558]

Sorry folks,

I meant to say that I believe hop-and-pops are the most difficult phase.

Up in the Great White North, we tend to start students out with a tandem, then two or three IADs, then a five or six jumps with PFF Instructors, finally doing hop-and-pops around jump number ten.

Yes, Gary, I share your disdain of arrogant AFF-only Instructors.

The best syllabus includes all different methods.
Heck!
If there was a wind tunnel near Vancouver, I would insist on my students spending a few minutes tunnel-flying before they ever got near free fall.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Sorry folks,

I meant to say that I believe hop-and-pops are the most difficult phase.

Up in the Great White North, we tend to start students out with a tandem, then two or three IADs, then a five or six jumps with PFF Instructors, finally doing hop-and-pops around jump number ten.

Yes, Gary, I share your disdain of arrogant AFF-only Instructors.

The best syllabus includes all different methods.
Heck!
If there was a wind tunnel near Vancouver, I would insist on my students spending a few minutes tunnel-flying before they ever got near free fall.

Ah, well that makes sense. I'm kind of torn on the hop & pop thing. Part of me thinks it makes sense to let them have that confidence builder before transitioning them to AFF, as it dramatically reinforces the whole "you must pull" thing. The other part of me says I'd rather their first real pull on their own be with an AFF-I nearby to help out if necessary. USPA's stance on the subject seems to be that no AFF-I's are better than one. Tandem progression students can go straight to single instructor AFF in category C, but AFF and IAD crossover students must start category C with two AFF-I's. If there is one AFF-I and one IAD-I at the dropzone when a student is starting category C, the IAD-I putting them out on a clear and pull seems to be the only compliant way to get them in the air.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[riggerrob 558]

The primary function of the second AFF Instructor is to hold the student stable until they wake up.

IOW If the reserve side instructor only prevents a back loop off the step, he has earned his pay.

[popsjumper 2]

I question the belief that IAD/SL students learn canopy skills faster because of the nature of the program.

Is that, you think, because:
a) You are having IAD/SL students pull higher than AFF students normally do?
b) Canopy skills are stressed more in IAD/SL than in AFF schools?
c) Other

If b), then FJC and AFF instructors are doing our students a major disservice. This can be corrected easily.

I do agree about the H&P fear, though. I get a kick out of AFF students getting all nervous when having to do a H&P when IAD/SL students consider it old-hat.


My first jump (SL), I thought 2.6K was high as hell and got nervous going higher!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[livendive 8]

Quote

I question the belief that IAD/SL students learn canopy skills faster because of the nature of the program.

Is that, you think, because:
a) You are having IAD/SL students pull higher than AFF students normally do?
b) Canopy skills are stressed more in IAD/SL than in AFF schools?
c) Other

If b), then FJC and AFF instructors are doing our students a major disservice. This can be corrected easily.

I think it's because S/L and IAD students start out with several jumps of concentrating on very little other than canopy control. 98% of the time they spend on their jump is under canopy. If you subscribe to the notion that a student can only retain so much (the reason FJCs present only the basics), and you acknowledge that AFF dedicates a significant portion of that toward freefall (easiest way to fail level 1 is not pulling, something an IAD doesn't even think about), it's kind of obvious that an IAD or S/L will have significantly more attention to dedicate to C/C, and a much higher percentage of their jump to focus on it. I've taught C/C the same way to IAD and to AFF students, and the former seem somewhat better at it.

HP canopy pilots dedicate hop & pops to their canopy skills rather than doing (extended) freefall on every jump. This is in part due to the cost of a lift ticket and the separation it gets them from freefallers, but it's also in part because it lets them concentrate on just flying their canopy, rather than a whole bunch of ther stuff PLUS flying their canopy. Similarly, canopy control course folks agree that when trying to improve C/C skills, hop & pops, even if from altitude, are better than freefall skydives followed by C/C. I think there's a reason for that.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[peek 20]

Quote

I question the belief that IAD/SL students learn canopy skills faster because of the nature of the program. Is that, you think, because: c) Other

I'm thinking along the lines of Dave's response to your question. We all know of students that are so heads-up that we might as well load them up with every task we can on a jump, both in freefall and under canopy.

But for many people, doing an IAD or S/L jump is enough in itself, and the reduced workload of little freefall helps them learn canopy control better.

Basically we just need to try to know and understand our students, and steer them towards what works best for them. And this is difficult if a DZ must limit the types of instruction and can't do much about it.