The Great AFF Experiment has been an Abject Failure . . .

[Chubba 0]

Quote

my 2 cents is that the difference is that the old time Cessna DZ's had something that is now lacking. The key is not the aircraft type of course, but, as stated above, we used to get to spot, jump with real experienced jumpers early on, falling base for 4 ways, and get briefed and debriefed by them ( at no charge, either.Smile)

We're still around :)

I really took for granted all the experienced jumpers paying out of their own pocket to watch me float, backslide and screw up exits all over the place for my first 50 jumps off my A-license.

Now that my rel skills are somewhat acceptable, I really enjoy taking out A licensed jumpers and doing some of the initial troubleshooting... its all part of the fun.

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We DO have more skydivers and fewer fatalities than in 1980, by a large amount

However, AFF is almost certainly not the only (or even a significant) contributor. It wasn't generally available until 1983, and even then it took awhile to spread. Most students at that time still learned via S/L. Tandem was after that.

The big drop was after 80 and 81; those were awful years. Gear very possibly had something to do with it, but that'd take doing more data collection.

Wendy P.

The POINT is that NickDG's claim is simply incorrect, which kind of invalidates his rant.

The reason for the improvement in safety is another matter entirely and is open for discussion (but that's a different thread).

So...a better position to take up might be that the modern gear and training have been a great success but when you look at the very obvious trends in the sport we still have a long way to go. maybe?

I don't think our training methods and rules are fully flushed out yet..clearly since friends keep dying or getting seriously hurt. Someday some new and energetic DZO or skydiver is going to come up with a new policy for landing patterns or a new syllabus for canopy control training and 5 years latter we'll all be wondering how we never thought of it earlier. We'll sit around the bonfire with the new jumpers and tell stories about the old days, when people thought they could effectively clear their airspace...and a few of us will point at the fatalities these new policies or training methods failed to prevent and rail against them and demand the good old days...and I'll keep burying friends or god willing visit them in the hospital.

...I have to give it to popsjumper though, I think he nailed it:
"Life is simple: Don't be the idiot"

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[billvon 2,384]

>I don't think our training methods and rules are fully flushed
>out yet..clearly since friends keep dying or getting seriously hurt.

I don't think you will ever eliminate that. Booth's Law will always apply. (Which, in a way, is what Nick's post was all about.)

[riggerrob 558]

" ... But what we really need is a tunnel for canopies If someone could invent an effective canopy simulator, many of the canopy problems would solve themselves. I'm not sure if the computerized virtual ones are effective, but I'd love to try one.

..."

.........................................................................................

That simulator is called a "hill."
God invented hills a few million years before he/she/it invented humans.
The modern, cool, stylish term is "ground launching.'
I really wish we could take students to a ground launching site for a couple of half-days practice before they ever got near an airplane. That would reduce most of the anxiety and injuries that occur during parachute landings.

[danielcroft 2]

You mean we could move half of them to a hill away from the DZ?

[runnit 0]

I kind of skimmed through the 1st page and then jumped to the end so admitted I might've missed something, but I take it that the general idea is that AFF doesn't allow enough time between the instructor and student to pass on all the knowlege that doesn't directly relate to their next AFF stage. Is that about right?

Well I reckon that seeing you learn at least half your skydiving knowledge after the bar's open, then it's really a simple solution... students must log at least 30 hrs around the fire before they can qualify for their A licence! And this way it doesn't discriminate between AFF or S/L students. Problem solved forever

BTW, I really agree with Nick that there's something to be said for leaving the student wanting more. I did 6 S/L jumps in 1998 as a stand-alone package (not the actual course) at Toogoolawah and that left me absolutely gagging to actually go and freefall (ie start my AFF).

BJ

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

That would reduce most of the anxiety and injuries that occur during parachute landings.

Um, or would it just move the anxiety and injuries to the ground launching site?

[Ron 7]

Quote

My thoughts exactly! (if you mean SL and IAD are inferior)

No offense, but I am willing to bet you have never done SL.

SL has some serious advantages over AFF. It also has some serious disadvantages. You have to weigh them all.

SL encourages self dependence... AFF encourages dependence.

SL does a much better job of teaching canopy skills, AFF does a much better job of teaching Freefall skills.
I tend to think that a self dependent student with good canopy skills is SAFER than a dependent student with great Freefall skills.

SL takes more time... Time that can be spent learning. AFF is fast.

I see MANY more SL students that can spot than AFF grads.

I see MANY more SL students that have no issue leaving at 3k. I have seen AFF grads freeze in the door.

Does that mean that an AFF program can't teach self dependence, spotting and good canopy control? Nope, but right now it does not really do it IMO.

Same thing with SL... A proper SL program can teach FF skills. I had a guy once tell me that I would NEVER be as good in freefall as him since I learned SL and he learned AFF. Funny, I have an open class medal in 8way at the Nationals... He must have two.

Simply put, most people get off student status and work on freefall skills.... Very few get off student status and work on spotting, low exits, and canopy control. The instructional programs should cover ALL these things, but only one covers most of them right now.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

My thoughts exactly! (if you mean SL and IAD are inferior)

No offense, but I am willing to bet you have never done SL.


Simply put, most people get off student status and work on freefall skills.... Very few get off student status and work on spotting, low exits, and canopy control. The instructional programs should cover ALL these things, but only one covers most of them right now.

While I'm not an SLI, I am an IADI and AFFI. With regards to your comments to which I agree to a point, but I still think AFF is superior. Maybe my opinion is biased. I started IAD and had 13 jumps. I struggled because I'd chip and my IADI (who watched me from the plane because he had to put out 2-3 more students) simply told me to relax more. Yeah, that helped. Heck, looking back on it he was more scared with his 150 jump IAD jumpmaster rating than I was. I was about to quit as I felt uncomfortable in the air and I felt I had nothing to prove. I had already made many SL jumps in SF. But a friend said come to my DZ where they teach AFF. I went up and I was chippy again. My Instructor immediately gave me the "relax" signal and I did. Now I was over the fear. INSTANT feedback! THAT is why I think AFF is a superior teaching method. Later, Bigun, Spanky, Lloyd and many others helped me with my canopy skills and spotting. How many jumpers from huge DZs can spot? Does that make small Cessna DZs superior to the big turbo DZs?

Anyway, it is just my opinion, and as an IADI and AFFI I know what I am comparing.

steveOrino

[Ron 7]

Quote

I had already made many SL jumps in SF

You and I both know those don't count... I was 82d.

Quote

Heck, looking back on it he was more scared with his 150 jump IAD jumpmaster rating than I was.

OK, now compare a SL I that has the same number of jumps as the newest AFFI.... About 400-500.

Quote

THAT is why I think AFF is a superior teaching method

And that is a valid point... and I have agreed that AFF teaches better Freefall skills. The question is *overall*, not just freefall.

Quote

Later, Bigun, Spanky, Lloyd and many others helped me with my canopy skills and spotting.

The key there being LATER. Canopy skills and spotting are life saving skills... Chipping in freefall will not kill you.

Quote

How many jumpers from huge DZs can spot? Does that make small Cessna DZs superior to the big turbo DZs?

For students, I would say smaller DZ's are better. They learn more since the whole DZ is pretty much geared towards them.

Quote

Anyway, it is just my opinion, and as an IADI and AFFI I know what I am comparing.

As a SL I and an AFF I I also know what I am comparing. People can disagree.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[pilotdave 0]

Since you teach both SL and AFF, I'll believe you when you say that SL students do better under canopy than AFF students. My question is WHY? After 25 jumps, they both have 25 parachute descents. Why is the SL student better than the AFF student at that point? What have you taught the SL student that you haven't taught the AFF student?

I can understand that the SL student focuses on the exit and then the canopy flight... for the first few jumps. The AFF student has a lot more to focus on. But do you teach more about canopy flight in a SL FJC than an AFF FJC? Do you give the SL student more to work on under canopy?

I can understand that, at when they get licensed, a student with 40 jumps in the SL program is going to be better under canopy than an AFF student that gets licensed with 25 jumps. But equal jump numbers... why should one be better than the other?

Dave

[Ron 7]

Quote

My question is WHY? After 25 jumps, they both have 25 parachute descents. Why is the SL student better than the AFF student at that point? What have you taught the SL student that you haven't taught the AFF student?

I can understand that the SL student focuses on the exit and then the canopy flight... for the first few jumps.

I think you answered yourself. "I can understand that the SL student focuses on the exit and then the canopy flight... for the first few jumps"

Quote

But do you teach more about canopy flight in a SL FJC than an AFF FJC?

*I* don't, but I have seen many students that were basically told TONS about freefall and malfunctions and then told VERY little about the canopy control portion. Mostly they are told about the radio with a little conversation about left and right turns and flaring...

One of my beefs with AFF (And I am an AFFI, AND I was a professional instructor for a large corporation). Is that we have a large amount of information that we try to give students. Every bit of it is important, but people only really remember 20-50% of what they are taught.

Dr. Elliot Merenbloom broke down the amount of student retention this way:

Teaching others/ *USING* the skills 90%
Real World Application/ Practice 75%
Discussion 50-60%
Demonstration 30-50%
Audio visual 20%
Reading 10-15%
Lecture 5-10%

We break it down in to, "Students remember 10-15% of what they read, 20% of what you tell them, and 75% of what they do."

In addition, many of our teaching methods are teacher centered, not learner centered.

Example:

Teacher centered: "What would you do if you saw a (insert name) malfunction?"

They are going to answer, "Cutaway" and we might call it a day and consider the lesson learned.

But really we just lead them to the answer. They could have answer "cutaway" without any clue what it was or why they were doing it, they just knew the answer that would get them to pass without any understanding of WHY and WHAT it really is.

A better way would be to ask them when would they cutaway and see what answer they come up with. If they answer the name of a malfunction, that's great. But if they answer with, "anything that would not be safe to land" would be a better answer.

"How do you know it is not safe to land?"

They would answer they could not control it.

I have seen students answer ALL questions asked with one word answers without really understanding the reasons behind the answers.

In the end, a SL student is under supervision for many more jumps than an AFF student. This gives much more time to present the material and gives more time to really make sure the student grasps the material, not just "knows" the answer.

In addition, the first 2 SL jumps are almost totally canopy control. This limits the amount of tasks needed to focus on on each jump... thus allowing more focus on the task.

I think the first jump course should have VERY little information about AAD's, RSL's, how a canopy works...Ect. The more information that does not pertain to the tasks is just more information that risks limiting what information the student does retain.

Quote

But equal jump numbers... why should one be better than the other?

It is about focus. And regrettably, in most cases when a student gets off student status they start working on freefall skills and NEVER focus on spotting and canopy control skills again.

I think the AFF program should have mandatory 5-10 hop n pops to teach these skills.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[peek 20]

Quote

Since you teach both SL and AFF, I'll believe you when you say that SL students do better under canopy than AFF students. My question is WHY? After 25 jumps, they both have 25 parachute descents. Why is the SL student better than the AFF student at that point? What have you taught the SL student that you haven't taught the AFF student?

To some extent, it is the attitude of the students themselves. Many dropzones and/or instructors suggest to students that AFF is a superior way to learn how to skydive, and so, their AFF students sometimes think they are better. Well, they probably are better in freefall, but to do that, their focus is more on the learning of freefall topics and perhaps less on the learning of canopy control.

Also, if a student can only absorb a certain amount of information during the training for a particular jump, they will likely absorb mainly the freefall part for AFF students, and the canopy control part for S/L or IAD students, as least until they get to the longer freefalls, which is about half way through their 25 jumps for a license (assuming the USA).

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

That would reduce most of the anxiety and injuries that occur during parachute landings.

Um, or would it just move the anxiety and injuries to the ground launching site?

..........................................................................................

Agreed!
By 1979 I had carried my full quota of stretchers off the DZ!

On a more serious note, since ground-launching involves fewer things to remember, a student is more likely to concentrate on the basics of steering and landing a canopy.
Without the sensory over-load and over-dose of adrenaline - in freefall - a student is less likely to injure him/herself ground-launching.

[riggerrob 558]

Agreed Steve!

I believe that instructors are severely biased towards whichever method they are licensed to teach.

For example, one of our IAD Instructors always - loudly, profusely and repeatedly - encourages students to pursue the Gradual Free-Fall Program (IAD followed by practice pulls, followed by short free-falls, then gradually longer free-falls, etc.).
I suspect that his advice has more to do with him selling video to GFF students ... off of manifest's books.

We also predict that this instructor's advice will change (as in SLAM! CLANG! CHANGE!!!!!) after he earns a Progressive Free-Fall Instructor rating next year.
Tee!
Hee!

Rob Warner
static-line instructor since 1982
IAD instructor since 1984
PFF Instructor since 1989
Strong Tandem Examiner since 2008

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Later, Bigun, Spanky, Lloyd and many others helped me with my canopy skills and spotting.

The key there being LATER. Canopy skills and spotting are life saving skills... Chipping in freefall will not kill you.

Let me clarify the later. Those guys helped me on jumps IMMEDIATELY after I completed AFF ... like jump # 8 (okay I had 13 IAD jumps before, so it was jump number 20)

While chipping won't kill you I was ready to quit because I was uncomfortable in the air until I had IMMEDIATE feedback on my problem. I consider AFF superior to IAD or SL because you receive immediate feedback IN THE AIR. As far as canopy control and spotting I teach that in AFF and that should continue immediately after completing Cat G&H. To fail to do so is negligence.

steveOrino

[Ron 7]

Quote

I believe that instructors are severely biased towards whichever method they are licensed to teach.

I have SL, Tandem, AND AFF ratings. So your theory does not hold true.

Also I have found a good number of instructors say the method that pays the most is the best system

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Quote

While chipping won't kill you I was ready to quit because I was uncomfortable in the air until I had IMMEDIATE feedback on my problem. I consider AFF superior to IAD or SL because you receive immediate feedback IN THE AIR.

While you may LIKE IT MORE, that does not make it better.

Children like the imediate gratification of ice cream and would eat it all day long. That does not make it better for them.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

While chipping won't kill you I was ready to quit because I was uncomfortable in the air until I had IMMEDIATE feedback on my problem. I consider AFF superior to IAD or SL because you receive immediate feedback IN THE AIR.

While you may LIKE IT MORE, that does not make it better.

Children like the imediate gratification of ice cream and would eat it all day long. That does not make it better for them.

So I'm the only one spouting opinion? Give me break! every thread about this subject is opinion.

steveOrino

[Andy9o8 0]

(Not directed at anyone in particular)
As I said up-thread, I don't agree that it must be an "either/or". I still extol the virtues of a good hybrid student program, blending the most beneficial aspects of tandem progression, SL/IAD and AFF in a single program. It can be done; and I commend the (far too few) DZs that take this approach.

Here's an example of one such program:

http://www.paskydive.com/htm/skydivinglessons.html

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

my 2 cents is that the difference is that the old time Cessna DZ's had something that is now lacking. The key is not the aircraft type of course, but, as stated above, we used to get to spot, jump with real experienced jumpers early on, falling base for 4 ways, and get briefed and debriefed by them ( at no charge, either.)

I got my AFF training at one of these. At least one such dropzone still exists

Sadly, I don't go back there as much as I should because of my dream to be in big ways, and that's hard at a Cessna dropzone. Also because now I live in Montreal, about 3+ hours away.

I still spot better than most of the 1000 jumpers at turbine dropzones, methinks... And I was chief Cloud-clearing forecaster at my home dropzone; "Call will probably occur in 30 minutes." when the whole sky is still coudy, just by observing clouds, distant open spots, cloud cieling, and cloud movement vectors. I was usually accurate

[Ron 7]

Quote

So I'm the only one spouting opinion? Give me break! every thread about this subject is opinion

A major difference is I have provided examples and referenced trade papers on adult education. You have said what you LIKED better and then claimed that your opinion alone made it better.

Your opinion, while compelling, does not turn anacdotal evidence into data.

You liked AFF better. Great, while that makes the program better for you in your situation.... You have ignored any evidence given and instead replied with how much more you LIKED AFF.

You claimed that you learned canopy control and spotting after AFF... But you had done SL jumps both civilian and military prior to your AFF experinece. So to claim that AFF teaches canopy control and spotting as well as SL is not a claim you can make based on your educational experience.

You have only repeated the story how AFF corrected you from chipping in freefall. Granted, AFF teaches freefall skills better than SL. You have constantly ignored my point that that is only one part of a students required skill set, and how that skillset is both the least important a d the one they will work on most.

It is impossible to continue the discussion as long as you ignore the points raised and instead focus on your personal favorite method based on a single incident.

I was not trying to discuss your personal situation, you insisted on ONLY discussing it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

One of my beefs with AFF (And I am an AFFI, AND I was a professional instructor for a large corporation). Is that we have a large amount of information that we try to give students. Every bit of it is important, but people only really remember 20-50% of what they are taught.

.

Those may be averages, but some students have a far greater capacity for learning than others (AS YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL). The training should be tailored to the student, one size does not fit all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

So I'm the only one spouting opinion? Give me break! every thread about this subject is opinion

A major difference is I have provided examples and referenced trade papers on adult education. You have said what you LIKED better and then claimed that your opinion alone made it better.

Your opinion, while compelling, does not turn anacdotal evidence into data.

You liked AFF better. Great, while that makes the program better for you in your situation.... You have ignored any evidence given and instead replied with how much more you LIKED AFF.

You claimed that you learned canopy control and spotting after AFF... But you had done SL jumps both civilian and military prior to your AFF experinece. So to claim that AFF teaches canopy control and spotting as well as SL is not a claim you can make based on your educational experience.

You have only repeated the story how AFF corrected you from chipping in freefall. Granted, AFF teaches freefall skills better than SL. You have constantly ignored my point that that is only one part of a students required skill set, and how that skillset is both the least important a d the one they will work on most.

It is impossible to continue the discussion as long as you ignore the points raised and instead focus on your personal favorite method based on a single incident.

I was not trying to discuss your personal situation, you insisted on ONLY discussing it.

Yeah, you only offer "facts" ie, a paper that can be interpreted to support my opinion as well as yours (students learn better by doing)

Your opinion does turn anecdotal information into facts either ... here are some of your opinions.

No offense, but I am willing to bet you have never done SL. You were wrong, I have both SL and IAD experience and the IAD progression is the same as SL

More opinions ...

SL has some serious advantages over AFF. It also has some serious disadvantages. You have to weigh them all.

SL encourages self dependence... AFF encourages dependence.

SL does a much better job of teaching canopy skills,

Why? It still takes 25 jumps to be off student status. The AFF student has the same opportunity to learn canopy & spotting skills as the SL or IAD student. If he doesn't it is the Instructor's fault, not the method.

More opinions ...

I tend to think that a self dependent student with good canopy skills is SAFER than a dependent student with great Freefall skills.

SL takes more time... Time that can be spent learning. AFF is fast.

The AFF student can spend the jumps after Cat G&H learning canopy control & more spotting on their way to the 25 jump for an A license.

I see MANY more SL students that can spot than AFF grads.

More anecdotal evidence from you. I see lots of AFF students at our DZ that can spot simply because we are a Cessna DZ that keeps teaching students after they have passed Cat H. Again the problem is with Instructors, not the method. More opinions ...

I see MANY more SL students that have no issue leaving at 3k. I have seen AFF grads freeze in the door. I've seen 200 jump guys freeze in the door ... so what? Talk about anecdotal evidence!

As far as research there are tons of papers written about the kinesthetic learner who learns better with IMMEDIATE hands on feedback. I'm hardly in a minority here.

I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with you. I was responded to the original thread comment that stated that "AFF experiment was a failure" as a fact.

steveOrino

[g3ninfinite 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So I'm the only one spouting opinion? Give me break! every thread about this subject is opinion

A major difference is I have provided examples and referenced trade papers on adult education. You have said what you LIKED better and then claimed that your opinion alone made it better.

Your opinion, while compelling, does not turn anacdotal evidence into data.

You liked AFF better. Great, while that makes the program better for you in your situation.... You have ignored any evidence given and instead replied with how much more you LIKED AFF.

You claimed that you learned canopy control and spotting after AFF... But you had done SL jumps both civilian and military prior to your AFF experinece. So to claim that AFF teaches canopy control and spotting as well as SL is not a claim you can make based on your educational experience.

You have only repeated the story how AFF corrected you from chipping in freefall. Granted, AFF teaches freefall skills better than SL. You have constantly ignored my point that that is only one part of a students required skill set, and how that skillset is both the least important a d the one they will work on most.

It is impossible to continue the discussion as long as you ignore the points raised and instead focus on your personal favorite method based on a single incident.

I was not trying to discuss your personal situation, you insisted on ONLY discussing it.

Yeah, you only offer "facts" ie, a paper that can be interpreted to support my opinion as well as yours (students learn better by doing)

Your opinion does turn anecdotal information into facts either ... here are some of your opinions.

No offense, but I am willing to bet you have never done SL. You were wrong, I have both SL and IAD experience and the IAD progression is the same as SL

More opinions ...

SL has some serious advantages over AFF. It also has some serious disadvantages. You have to weigh them all.

SL encourages self dependence... AFF encourages dependence.

SL does a much better job of teaching canopy skills,

Why? It still takes 25 jumps to be off student status. The AFF student has the same opportunity to learn canopy & spotting skills as the SL or IAD student. If he doesn't it is the Instructor's fault, not the method.

More opinions ...

I tend to think that a self dependent student with good canopy skills is SAFER than a dependent student with great Freefall skills.

SL takes more time... Time that can be spent learning. AFF is fast.

The AFF student can spend the jumps after Cat G&H learning canopy control & more spotting on their way to the 25 jump for an A license.

I see MANY more SL students that can spot than AFF grads.

More anecdotal evidence from you. I see lots of AFF students at our DZ that can spot simply because we are a Cessna DZ that keeps teaching students after they have passed Cat H. Again the problem is with Instructors, not the method. More opinions ...

I see MANY more SL students that have no issue leaving at 3k. I have seen AFF grads freeze in the door. I've seen 200 jump guys freeze in the door ... so what? Talk about anecdotal evidence!

As far as research there are tons of papers written about the kinesthetic learner who learns better with IMMEDIATE hands on feedback. I'm hardly in a minority here.

I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with you. I was responded to the original thread comment that stated that "AFF experiment was a failure" as a fact.

I concur