S/L or AFF -another approach or question...

[prada 0]

Hi there

we all know that AFF has an accelerated learning curve in the beginning, hence the name...

But I would be curious if there is data about the amount of people staying in the sports after the one or the other method.

There is this funny gap somewhere between 40-80 jumps where I have the impression that potential skydivers quit although they went a long way already...

I wonder if there is a higher or lower rate of these when they learned it either with S/L or with AFF.

Does anyone have numbers / statistics on that matter?
thanks and regards
Prada

[Andy9o8 0]

I would think there may be a correlation between those who have trouble with their student program (either performance or affordability), and those who quit before they get their A-license. S/L - IAD progression students may quit out of pure frustration if they have repeated stability problems, while AFF students who have to repeat a few levels may get overwhelmed with the per-jump expense.

However, after they're A-licensed and in the 40 - 80 jump range, I'd be surprised if the drop-out rate has much, if any, direct relation to the type of student program they started with. But, if anyone has any statistics otherwise, I'd be interested.

[dragon2 0]

Quote

I would think there may be a correlation between those who have trouble with their student program (either performance or affordability), and those who quit before they get their A-license. S/L - IAD progression students may quit out of pure frustration if they have repeated stability problems, while AFF students who have to repeat a few levels may get overwhelmed with the per-jump expense.

However, after they're A-licensed and in the 40 - 80 jump range, I'd be surprised if the drop-out rate has much, if any, direct relation to the type of student program they started with. But, if anyone has any statistics otherwise, I'd be interested.

Yeah, that would be my feeling as well.

We have waaaay more students not progres after SL than after AFF. But that's firstly because most of them just go for the military wing and consider themselves done after 5 jumps. After that, they may have trouble getting off the rope and get frustrated by that and may quit. But again, if you really WANT to, you will just keep jumping until you get it.
Once people progress to freefall, they usually have a quick progression and I doubt many of them at that stage quit because it's a whole new world again

My gut feeling is that some AFFers for whom money isn't the issue treat AFF like a holiday thing (take a week and learn to skydive) and never see it as a sport they'd want to keep doing, these may never finish AFF.


I believe, anyone who WANTS to jump will keep jumping for at least a year or 2, regardless of the method used. SL may require a bit more effort and stamina than AFF while AFF costs more money.

By the time a jumper has a couple dozen jumps, he/she has shown the will to jump, but is now at the stage where there's a well-known "black hole" where if you don't put some effort into finding jump mates or are loked after very well in that way by the DZ, people may get fed up with doing solos or jumping aimlessly and quit.

To help with this, we try to organise a couple of coach-slash-competiton events a year for newer jumps to introduce them to potential jump buddies and give them goals like forming a rookie FS team or trying out something new like FF or CRW.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Andy9o8 0]

Not to get too off-topic, but this brings to mind why I'm a big advocate of a hybrid training program: a tandem to get past the initial sensory overload, a couple S/L or IAD and a couple hop & pops to learn the basics of saving one's own life after jumping from a plane, then modified AFF-style jumps to learn stability and flight. Too few DZs offer this as a formal program, IMO.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Not to get too off-topic, but this brings to mind why I'm a big advocate of a hybrid training program: a tandem to get past the initial sensory overload, a couple S/L or IAD and a couple hop & pops to learn the basics of saving one's own life after jumping from a plane, then modified AFF-style jumps to learn stability and flight.

Same way I fell.

Tandem to get the idea and one to one canopy control lessons.

A few SL/IAD's to get canopy control dialed in and comfortable with the whole canopy flight.

Then AFF to work on freefall.

It seems to me that the current program puts the focus on freefall skills, yet that is not the area where we are having folks getting killed. So now the USPA is talking about a canopy proficiency card. This could have been answered by this hybrid program.

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

[captain_stan 0]

Quote

Does anyone have numbers / statistics on that matter?

Sorry, but no data to contribute. But FWIW, I think any such data would be more influenced by economic and demographic factors than by the effeciency of any specific learning method. People who are motivated to become skydivers are usually successful in the method that best fits into their schedule and budget.

[dks13827 2]

I have thought the same for a long long time. Tandem to S/L to AFF is a path for some students. If my daughter wanted to do more than her tandem jump, I would recommend such a path even if it required spending a week at a Cessna DZ in another state. AFF students often hit the wall when they are supposed to do some turns, etc when they are in great fear of flipping onto their back or whatever.
It reminds me of TI's doing spins in freefall even though the tandem student just wants to survive this jump. These students often get very sick.

[obelixtim 100]

i believe retention of jumpers if money or access is not a problem, is directly related to the quality of instructor they deal with during their student days, whether its AFF or SL, or any other.

I've always considered the main weakness with AFF is its focus on the freefall skills at the expense of canopy flight and landing skills. You cannot possibly do a good job of both, considering the emphasis necessary for FF.

I think the number of "good" canopy related incidents we see today can be attributed in part to progressing via AFF rather than SL.

It would be interesting to know the training background of those people injured or worse in good canopy related incidents, to see if their are any indicators, either way...

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[Skydivesg 6]

I'm inclined to agree with the idea that S/L provides more time in toggle and therefore has the possibility of growing better canopy pilots.

It also seems that it's easier to give the student more canopy coaching and drills to work on before each jump. This is because many AFF instructors don't want to add to the already heavy work load that the student is tasked with before and during each AFF jump.

On a personal note, one year our DZ trained a combined S/L and AFF course (splitting the students off for the jump specific training). We had low clouds for more than 2 weeks (3 weekends). Some of the S/L students had nearly 20 jumps before the AFF students got in the air.

At least one of the AFF students never made a jump.

It gives a whole new perspective to retention.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

It reminds me of TI's doing spins in freefall even though the tandem student just wants to survive this jump. These students often get very sick.

I do pretty mellow tandems unless specifically asked for an "E ticket" ride. I've never had any complaints and no pukers in years.