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

[danielcroft 2]

@ibx - I read/heard a theory that people match their perceived risk to their acceptable level of risk. What that means (hopefully I get this right!) is that when a safety feature (AADs, skyhooks, etc.) is introduced, people will naturally increase the danger factor (& therefore risk) back to their acceptable level. There was a discussion about skyhooks suggesting that people would be more comfortable pulling lower because they thought they could deploy their reserve lower thanks to the skyhook. That's the concept. So all the safety advances, of which there've been plenty, actually lead people to be more comfortable doing more dangerous things rather than enjoying the new, wider margin of error that they have. The suggestion is that this mentality is actually what has kept fatality rates about the same. I'm sorry I don't have a reference for this, I'm sure someone else will know where it came from. I don't actually think that a slow progression will lead to a more balanced mindset but I don't really have any experience to back this statement up. I feel that the impatient, head strong types will just be more frustrated by a slower progression.

I get what you mean by "wrong person" (I've heard several stories about them at my DZ), my contention is that the "wrong person" isn't a new phenomenon brought about by tandem/AFF.

I'm not suggesting that people who have been around the block a few times (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't be frustrated by people who can't pack, hell, I'm annoyed by people who can pack but choose to use a packer! I've yet to hear a really strong argument as to why these people should be packing. I mean one that would convince them that they should be packing their own gear. I see the maintenance aspect, I can check my closing loop, make sure my RSL is properly tucked in & attached, check my reserve pin, check my AAD, untwist my brake lines, etc. but that's not a convincing argument for people who don't care because the ROI just isn't there for them. They can ignore that and it doesn't affect them so what's in it for them? For the record, I think this is a totally crappy attitude, I'm just making a point.

As for the licensing, I think it really is a shame that licenses aren't some kind of achievement. As far as I can tell, they're a rubber stamp telling other people that you've got a certain number of jumps. What we should be doing is looking at licenses to actually signify a skill level. There should be practical testing on top of the written testing. I'm not the guy to work out what these tests should be mind you but I just don't see the point.

Why don't you get out to the DZ this weekend then?

[virgin-burner 1]

this is an expensive sport.. that said, everyone knowledgeable seems to expect for them to teach you something, you're expected to shove money up their ass. i dont have a problem to pay for a slot for some coaching, what i miss is people you jump with, watch the video and get some pointers from it. or for someone to watch and video your landings for example to hone your landings and the like.

sure, those people have spent many a dollar to get where they are now, the might make a living with it, maybe they were your AFFI's and already earned a substantial amount of money on you..

seems, you need to earn a six figure paycheck if you want to become a reasonable skydiver in a short amount of time. various examples come to mind here.

what they all miss to realize is for the sport to grow and the people to enjoy their skydives in a safe manner, is them to be "good". more good people, more fun to have..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[ibx 2]

Quote

@ibx - I read/heard a theory that people match their perceived risk to their acceptable level of risk. What that means (hopefully I get this right!) is that when a safety feature (AADs, skyhooks, etc.) is introduced, people will naturally increase the danger factor (& therefore risk) back to their acceptable level. There was a discussion about skyhooks suggesting that people would be more comfortable pulling lower because they thought they could deploy their reserve lower thanks to the skyhook. That's the concept. So all the safety advances, of which there've been plenty, actually lead people to be more comfortable doing more dangerous things rather than enjoying the new, wider margin of error that they have. The suggestion is that this mentality is actually what has kept fatality rates about the same. I'm sorry I don't have a reference for this, I'm sure someone else will know where it came from. I don't actually think that a slow progression will lead to a more balanced mindset but I don't really have any experience to back this statement up. I feel that the impatient, head strong types will just be more frustrated by a slower progression.

I agree with you, that that is probably the reason for the steady fatality rate. But if progression was generally limited to a slower pace, it would not be possible to progress any faster, then no one would be frustrated. This would just be how skydiving is taught. Impatient head strong types are often the ones killing themselves trying to much too soon without anybody stopping them... I think guided training from first jump to solo license including basic RW, canopy control and packing would make for more sfatey consious skydivers.

[fallfast69 2]

Quote

this is an expensive sport.. that said, everyone knowledgeable seems to expect for them to teach you something, you're expected to shove money up their ass. i dont have a problem to pay for a slot for some coaching, what i miss is people you jump with, watch the video and get some pointers from it. or for someone to watch and video your landings for example to hone your landings and the like.

sure, those people have spent many a dollar to get where they are now, the might make a living with it, maybe they were your AFFI's and already earned a substantial amount of money on you..

seems, you need to earn a six figure paycheck if you want to become a reasonable skydiver in a short amount of time. various examples come to mind here.

what they all miss to realize is for the sport to grow and the people to enjoy their skydives in a safe manner, is them to be "good". more good people, more fun to have..

Ya know VB, that kinda sums it up.

Jon


.

[fasted3 0]

Quote

I'm annoyed by people who can pack but choose to use a packer!

Oh really?
Well, so sorry to get your panties bunched up.
Here is my deal.
I'm 58 years old. I jump in Mississippi, where in case you don't understand what that means, it's 98 degrees and 98 percent humidity in the summer, I can jump and pack, like one time, or jump all day, with other people packing for me. I know how to pack, and do so every chance I get. The people that pack for me do a good job, and I pay them for that. I give them a tip too.
When it's cooler, I pack.
When it's hot I don't.
Sorry to annoy you, but not really.
If I get a mal, I won't be on here crying and blaming the packers.
So what do you say to that?

Edited, but I'm not telling you why.

But what do I know?

[danielcroft 2]

There I go making vastly generalized statements.

I do find your post a little ironic but I can appreciate that there are reasons for people to use a packer. I don't believe that someone being lazy with no other reason counts as a good reason. No, I'm not calling you lazy, I'm thinking of specific people who jump at my DZ.

My apologies for offending you, that wasn't my intention.

[Sangi 0]

I don't see why it is bad to use packer, why do you even need a good reason? You can be a lazy fucker and have cash and let others do the job for you.. why not? It's everybody's free choice to not pack or pack for themselves.. Off course the person is going to have problems later on if he doesn't learn how to, when he does to places where he will need to pack for himself, but again it's everybody's free choice..

"Dream as you'll live forever, live as you'll die today." James Dean

[jclalor 12]

I went thru S/L training in 1982 and made about 40 jumps and then took a brief 26 year break and then did AFF last year. From a srudents perspective I thought AFF was safer and much more instructive over S/L.

The student progression of doing 5 S/L'S from 2800 and then the 5,10 15 second delays from 4k with no altimiter or AAD now seems crazy. AFF from 13k seemed like forever in FF.

This is just my opinion and I know for the most part I still don't know shit.

[gregpso 1]

i AGREE with you mate (aussie slang) i did S/L in 1981 with 5 second 10 15 etc did 40 jumps Then had a "short" 28 year break. Have returned to tandem 12 months ago (done 9 so far) Todays skydiving is way better first jump now freefall from 14000 feet. How good is that.

Yes its certainly more expensive (even allowing for inflation) than in 1981 but with the new gear aads rsl etc I feel safer. (Still an element of risk of course) My first freefall was a hop and pop from 2500 feet. If I did not pull anything it would have been thankyou and goodnight. I was please to see upon my return last year AADS are now around and compulsory for all jumpers where I jump.


It certainly is an industry now with the big commercial drop zones (even In Aust) but the tandooms keep the sport/hobby going for everyone. Us tandem passengers understand and realise we pay a premium price for the thrill. $360 for a tandem from 14000 ft here.


I upset a few on the aussie skydiving forum with safety questions but it does annoy me that the sport has basically fixed the no pull low pull fatalities but now people kill themselves on high performance canopies. (sick of reading about hook turns) I never heard of that happening in 1981. Their choice of course.. one does not have to swoop or fly high performance canopies.


Anyway what I have seen.. I like the skydiving of 2009 Its moved forward leaps and bounds (thanks Bill BOOTH) and Don and Louise and Skydive Nagambie

I tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ??

[riggerrob 558]

" ... but now people kill themselves on high performance canopies. (sick of reading about hook turns) I never heard of that happening in 1981. ..."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hook turns did happen back in the good old days.

I remember DZO Jim Hooper threatening to ground me - during the 1980 Easter Boogie in Z-Hills. Ths difference is that hook turns under the 180 to 230 square foot canopies that were fashionable back then would break your ankle.
The same hook turn - under a modern sub-100 square foot canopy - will put you in the ambulance or morgue!

[fasted3 0]

No problem bro.
I agree with you as far as people not being familiar with their equipment. Since I don't pack every time, I do make sure to give mine a good inspection at least once by bringing it home unpacked. After looking it over real well, I pack it myself. I don't think I do any better or worse than the packers, but it's not brain surgery.
I too am annoyed by lazy rich people; the most annoying part is not being one myself.

But what do I know?

[kallend 1,618]

Quote

I love your post. Don't really agree with it but I like the idea of challenging the status quo in teaching methods. I keep seeing people go in, so I assume there's room for improvement.

However...this:

Quote

Now here we are almost thirty years later and where are we? The amount of active skydivers is about the same, the overall fatality rate is about the same, the student retention rate is about the same (or lessened). And if not for the ten-fold improvement in gear and technology over the years I know that today we'd also be dealing with a ten-fold increase in fatalities.

I gotta call bullshit. Are you saying that the number of active skydivers in the US in 1980 was the same as the number now? Are you also implying the student fatality rate is the same?

I find it hard to believe we don't have fewer (as a percentage) student fatalities and more active jumpers than we did in 1980.

We DO have more skydivers and fewer fatalities than in 1980, by a large amount. NickDG's claims are not backed by the data.

...

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I don't see why it is bad to use packer, why do you even need a good reason? You can be a lazy fucker and have cash and let others do the job for you.. why not? It's everybody's free choice to not pack or pack for themselves..

**WHOOSH**
Read previous posts..your answer has already been posted a few times.

The problem with "free choice" is that some idiots insist on making the wrong choice even after the logic and common sense has been explained to them.
Life is simple: Don't be the idiot.

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

[wmw999 2,114]

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.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,618]

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).

...

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

[skydived19006 4]

What bothers me more than anything about the methods has nothing to do with the methods. It seems that many in the sport seem to think that Static Line, and IAD did actually die out in the 1980s. I get AFF instructors who come through Wichita for one reason or another. They often tend to have no interest in learning/obtaining an IAD rating (some are Air Force stationed here for multiple years). They often know nothing about SL/IAD and have no interest in being educated. Hell, even USPA treats SL/IAD as a red headed step child, and only something that they are forced to support because a few of us retards out here in fly over country still want to do it. The USPA/Jay Stokes/Army recently produced some really cool educational video for AFF, I don’t see anything like that for SL/IAD coming any time soon.

I have no distain for AFF, when I have an AFFI available, I’m more than willing to hybridize my progression, especially for those students struggling with a freefall issue. As has been stated many times, the problem is generally with the way the method is applied, as opposed to the method itself.

I’d be very interested to see out of curiosity how many skydivers each year earn their licenses through the various methods. USPA could add a line to their A license form, and/or license renewal form. Yes, it’s data of little use, but then gathering our occupational data is of equal value (I always lie about my occupation when I renew. Don’t tell!) Of the 274 DZs operating in the USA, my guess is that well over 200 are operating one to three small piston Cessnas. Of those, the majority are “still” offering SL/IAD as a training option. Granted, I didn’t go through the data base and compile any data, but Static Line seems to me to be alive, well, and turning out more than a few competent skydivers!

Come on out to Kansas Nick, I’ll put you to work! Remember, we’re all weekend DZs, and you’ll probably need a day job!

Martin

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I get AFF instructors who come through Wichita for one reason or another.

Because it's the approximate mid-point between Here and There.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

Quote

I get AFF instructors who come through Wichita for one reason or another.

Because it's the approximate mid-point between Here and There.

If that's the case, you pass through at 70 mph on the ground, or 500 plus at 30,000' plus. It's often referred to as "Fly Over Country" for a reason.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[rlucus 0]

70 on the ground? psh... I'm trying to get out of there as fast as possible.

[ufk22 32]

NO, it's not the program that's a failure. I came up through the S/L program almost 20 years ago, I'm a current S/L IE. Back then the BSR's in the SIM were the same number of pages as today, about 4, but the student training section was also about 4 pages.
Count the pages in the ISP. This is a great program, but only if used.
S/L progression wasn't any better than AFF. When I remember all the stuff I wasn't taught (flat turns under canopy, real techniques for freefall, even the 2 pull rule) and remember how I was taught (either be MORE agressive or less, put a hand out to turn, getting screamed at after the dive but being offered no advice for how to improve, etc), I can't see the superiority of either method.
What you're complaining about isn't the method, it's the $ culture of the modern day "CENTER". For a variety of reason, more experienced people don't do the "free" jumps with low timer near as often. Why? Combination of things. Jumps are more expensive, there are more, better people to jump with (don't need the newbe's to fill out the 4-way), and many drop zones look at someone teaching anything for free as someone who is taking money out of their revenue stream.
Also, if the DZ hasn't fully bought into the ISP, things are the same as they always have been.
The suggestion that a student could independently complete a level 1 AFF dive on their own if only we spent more time teaching them is absurd.
Learing skydiving is and always has been a progression. It takes time, good instruction, and a program after they start flying on their own.
And I'm not even going to start on the teaching abilities of the new coaches vs. the old S/L jumpmasters.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[riggerrob 558]

I agree with most of what you said, just made one correction:
"...
What you're complaining about isn't the method, it's the $ culture of the modern DAY CARE "CENTER". ..."

As hard as USPA is trying, the association cannot resist a fundemental change in society.
The younger generation is far too focussed horizontally - on their peers - and cannot grasp a vertical model of instruction.

North America is now a adolescent society.
Read Clotaire Rapaile (Culture Code) or Robert Bly (Sibling Society) for a deeper understanding.

[ufk22 32]

Whoa, that's pretty hard.....
I disagree. Young skydiver are a different generation, but the last guy I'd look to on this is Robert. He lived about 40 miles from me, i met him through a mutual friend and even had dinner at his house 30 years ago. Love his poetry but his prose has always been very self-centered.
Try a book called "Generations, the history of America' future". We were a generation of individualists, these new kids are much more into community.
They actually have more respect for their elders (us) than we ever did.
But in any case, the ISP, which has been a revolution in terms of giving uniformity and structure to teaching skydiving, is the right answer for this new generation of skydivers.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Bad analogies aside, I'd like to see SL used early in the progression to teach canopy skills at the very least. Students are so overwhelmed with freefall skills that the canopy is just more new stuff, and because it happens slower, they don't spend as many brain cells on it. They don't have them to spare.

I think you hit the nail on the head. AFF is a reasonable program, in my limited experience. But it's biggest failure is lack of good canopy (and landing) training. Yes, we're teaching a lot more in AFF than in S/L courses, and unfortunately it's mostly about freefall.

But I don't think S/L teaching will fix that - just the fact that you have little or no freefall time and your pin is pulled for you doesn't help teach you canopy or landing skills. That part is still taught on the ground. The failure of AFF in this regard is that not much time is spent teaching canopy and ground skills during the ground portion. But consumers still don't want more than an 8-hour class prior to their first jump. Maybe the answer is an 8-hour class before the first two or three AFF jumps, and the latter ground-school classes shift to light freefall and heavy canopy and landing.

I can see one advantage of the S/L with new students - teaching them to spot (a lost art today with GPS, even for experienced jumpers), and not having a lot of traffic during landing (since it's a hop-n-pop for the rest of us).

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.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[dks13827 2]

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.Regarding packers, geeeez !! on hot summer days, typically with not much shade, packing in the grass, and waiting a while for your next load in the 1 Cessna, 3 or 4 jumps in a day was the maximum. So the packer option now is really nice, however, new jumpers should, in my view, learn to pack well, and know their gear well.

[fencebuster 7]

I agree that the most significant weakness of the ISP is the lack of real, effective canopy training. I work at a DZ where the guy on the radio is a superstar, so we have few issues. But, notwithstanding my good fortune and recalling my concerns, they all revolved around canopy flight. We were well, if not excellently prepared for free fall stuff, but canopy was largely a mystery, even after I was off radio and thought I knew something.

I recently received my tandem rating and I think the weakness in that training, like AFF, relates to canopy stuff as well. I think I am prepared to deal with the issues in free fall, but you never know. I saw a situation this weekend under canopy that made me wonder what I would do and I spent alot of time talking to the "experts" at my DZ. Bottom line, in my view, is that you need to be prepared on every skydive for a student that wants to kill you and will enthusiastically make every effort to do so while you fight it to ground zero.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures