USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I wonder if all my freefall time will allow me to automatically become a tunnel coach?

Now there's an interesting point. I anticipate a lot of hemming and hawing from the tunnel wunderkind.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Terrible idea. Which elected USPA officials are in support of this? If there are any on board I suggest they resign because they are seriously short on good judgment.

Now THAT is a great idea, not the resigning but let's hear which board members if are supporting this and we can do something about it next election cycle.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

I watched the experimental jumps here; the tunnel guys were pretty impressive with their flying ability. The argument that they can't fly/manage the air skills is a very weak one.

I am willing to bet that the guys doing those jumps had more than two hours of tunnel time.

Yup, probably hundrds or even thousands of hours, it's certainly not a 1:1 trade.

But we're talking about an extra 150 skydives. Does an AFFI hopeful complaining about waiting another 150 jumps really have the right stuff?

[dorbie 0]

Quote

And then there's the rest of what you don't get by substituting tunnel for actual skydives and time on the dropzone...

+1

2 hours of tunnel time is not equivalent to a single skydive in many respects.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

If I were to make an argument, it's that canopy time (especially since AFF students are to learn canopy skills) and related decision-processing are the missing components when you cut out roughly 200 skydives from the experience bucket.

There's a lot more than canopy time and RW acquired in 150 jumps.

It's added seasoning for want of a better word. It's such an unnecessary proposal for so many reasons.

[Para5-0 0]

If I may just throw something into the mix. I personally do not support this effort in any capacity. With that said, before we lynch the BOD members unfairly,lets take a step back for one moment.


A complaint I have heard is the BOD is out of touch and doesnt listent to membership. That there is a hidden agenda of some sort. Keep in mind the fact a poll went out just suggests that the BOD wants feedback. It doesnt suggest anything else. If a motion was made and passed in S&T, then the full BOD supported it without any input from membership I would say okay you have a valid point and if you want to hold any member responsible for his vote you have that right.

If it does not pass then I would hope those so willing to publically bash the directors would reverse and say, "Hey good job you asked and then you listened" Give us a chance before throwing the first stone.

I sat through the meeting where this was discussed and the committee decided to get some general membership input.

The BOD is very approachable and more than willing to listen to logic. That is why I read this thread to educate myself, as does many other BOD members. We are trying to get it right.

[missbrz 0]

question for the BOD or perhaps a suggestion...

Most of the objections seem to be against taking away the jump numbers of AFF-I's. However, I think AFF-I training in the tunnel can teach people important skills that they don't always learn from just getting their minimum free fall time (for instance if its all spent wing suiting or doing rodeos or short delay hop n pops). What if the requirements were changed to be 500 jump minimum without the possibility of getting out of that if they have been an instructor for at least a year?
Then you could adopt the tunnel time switch and still have the jump numbers that seem to be majority rule. (For the record I personally think the tunnel should only count if its AFF-I training specific tunnel time.) Just a thought.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

I watched the experimental jumps here; the tunnel guys were pretty impressive with their flying ability. The argument that they can't fly/manage the air skills is a very weak one.

I am willing to bet that the guys doing those jumps had more than two hours of tunnel time.

Exactly, and that what i wrote on the poll, that one hour of tunnel time in NO WAY equates to the time and distance you travel in one hour of freefall, and the learning that accompanies it

One hour of tunnel will teach you very little.

If they are asking to substitute your 20th hour of belly flying tunnel time for for one hour of freefall, that might be a different outcome.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[skytribe 16]

What if we said that we should give A licenses to people with time in the tunnel - say 1 hour in the tunnel in lui of actually doing the skydives.

There would be an uproar. The tunnel is NOT a skydive. It mary substitute for part of the skydive.

We are talking intructors ratings here but once you open the door then others use it as an argument for there own causes.

Is the system broken that we are in desperate need of AFF instructors or are we talking a few tunnel guys want to avoid having to do 500 jumps opening the door to everyone.

[Para5-0 0]

Hey Miss,

If I understand you correctly, that would raise the standard to 500 jump min for AFFI. If that is correct you will not get any arguement from me. I have advocated for raising the requirements for many years long before I was on the BOD. I would have to think about it but not too long ago I advocated for much strictler requirements. To add a AFFI probabtionary period. I was and still am in the minority by the way. Pm me to explain your suggetion better. I will most definately bring it up at the meeting.
Thanks,
Rich

[danielcroft 2]

I admit to being an turbine baby so I do actually forget about IAD and static line, yes, I'm ashamed.

Having said that, I'm really not sure how some people responding to this thread can claim that the AFF training program is so fatally flawed and almost in the same breath say that specific, monitored training in a tunnel (which, we should remember, has proven to be a VERY affective training tool) would make it easier? I get that the mental aspect cannot be taught in a tunnel, I get that chasing someone across the sky can't be taught in a tunnel. What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that tunnel time with very specific and rigorous requirements wouldn't add value to an AFF/I. Personally I'd say that all the ratings and licenses need to go up now that people can get as many jumps as they do in a year (should we consider time in sport in this argument as well) but I'm no AFF/I.

I take the points of people about smaller DZs retaining staff, I was just wondering about reasoning behind this idea other than a crap load of tunnel instructors looking to get a job as an AFF/I which seems improbable to me but I don't really know.

[ufk22 32]

Quote

Quote

Terrible idea. Which elected USPA officials are in support of this? If there are any on board I suggest they resign because they are seriously short on good judgment.

I'm not really sure this has much support at the BOD, but since members brought it up, the responsible thing to due is to gather input from the community. I think it's great to check with those in the field.

top

Agreed, this is the board acting responsibly.
Now, if they vote against the poll results, then we have a reason to complain, otherwise let's support them for asking us our opinion.

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.

[Ron 7]

Quote

A complaint I have heard is the BOD is out of touch and doesnt listent to membership. That there is a hidden agenda of some sort. Keep in mind the fact a poll went out just suggests that the BOD wants feedback. It doesnt suggest anything else. If a motion was made and passed in S&T, then the full BOD supported it without any input from membership I would say okay you have a valid point and if you want to hold any member responsible for his vote you have that right.

You mean like the BOD and the USPA demo team? Like the BOD and changing the age of skydivers?

The fact the BOD has set up a poll means nothing; They can easily just ignore it, like they have ignored member input for years... Hell, decades.

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

[Ron 7]

Quote

I get that the mental aspect cannot be taught in a tunnel, I get that chasing someone across the sky can't be taught in a tunnel. What I don't get is why so many people seem to think that tunnel time with very specific and rigorous requirements wouldn't add value to an AFF/I.

I don't see anyone saying that it is not valuable, just saying that lowering the requirements of actual skydiving for a SKYDIVING instructors rating is a bad idea. Should we allow tunnel time to fulfill the requirements for licenses?

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

[dorbie 0]

Quote

If it does not pass then I would hope those so willing to publically bash the directors would reverse and say, "Hey good job you asked and then you listened" Give us a chance before throwing the first stone.

Thanks for your response, I liked it except the part I quoted. Who is bashing the directors?

The BoD is elected, it is absolutely 100% appropriate to raise issues of their support for an issue like this and it is up to them to take a public stance on it if they choose to.

Nobody on the BoD is owed an apology, they hold a public leadership position and public comments on BoD actions either on any support for this issue or on issuing this poll are absolutely fine.

I don't think this poll even passes the smell test, but that's my opinion.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

would make it easier?

The objection is not about making it easier.

It is great that tunnel time will make it easier for potential AFFIs complete their real skydives and accumulate real freefall time as they work towards becoming seasoned skydivers.

This can't happen in a tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcL9kem_BDo

Nor this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS_WNJN2Dqg

Nor this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o448aNREbD0

There's something to be said for jumping enough and screwing up enough before you throw a student in the mix.

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

I don't see anyone saying that it is not valuable, just saying that lowering the requirements of actual skydiving for a SKYDIVING instructors rating is a bad idea. Should we allow tunnel time to fulfill the requirements for licenses?

Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel. Knowing how to turn and stop is something that can be taught much more easily in a tunnel than in the air. These skills still need to be transposed to the sky as anyone who's learnt something in the tunnel and then taken it to the air knows.

One of the arguments I've seen in favor is that this is how the military has worked for years with a measurable improvement in results. This was posted on the Ranch facebook page by someone directly involved in army training so I'm just passing that idea along.

I see it as similar to indoor rock climbing or learning to ride a motorcycle on a closed course. Those things are very helpful to the learning process but absolutely can't replace the actual activity (depending on what your intended activity is of course).

To me, allowing someone to replace one hour of air time with one hour of tunnel time that has specific performance metrics to be met, actually doesn't make becoming an AFF/I easier at all, it means that you need to have demonstrated advanced flying skills in an easily observable and verifiable environment in addition to doing the same rating test that happens now. You guys say that the lack of air time will mean worse instructors in terms of the mental game and sure I can see that but I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would prepare me mentally to bail on a student @ 2k. I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would have prepared me to be kicked in the head and do spin stops at the same time. Yeah, I've had a cut away and a couple of pilot chute hesitations that really freaked me out. I got my pro rating right after my D, blah, blah. What part of all that makes me ready to hold someone's life in my hands and what part of that makes me ready to do the serious job of actually flying with a student who's all over the sky? Even if people did replace one hour, they still need to be signed off by an I/E as having the ability to do the job, that includes the estimation of their ability to handle the mental side of things, some idiot who can fly well doesn't fit the bill and never should have. If they do now, how will tunnel time substitution change anything?

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't see anyone saying that it is not valuable, just saying that lowering the requirements of actual skydiving for a SKYDIVING instructors rating is a bad idea. Should we allow tunnel time to fulfill the requirements for licenses?

Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel. Knowing how to turn and stop is something that can be taught much more easily in a tunnel than in the air. These skills still need to be transposed to the sky as anyone who's learnt something in the tunnel and then taken it to the air knows.

One of the arguments I've seen in favor is that this is how the military has worked for years with a measurable improvement in results. This was posted on the Ranch facebook page by someone directly involved in army training so I'm just passing that idea along.

I see it as similar to indoor rock climbing or learning to ride a motorcycle on a closed course. Those things are very helpful to the learning process but absolutely can't replace the actual activity (depending on what your intended activity is of course).

To me, allowing someone to replace one hour of air time with one hour of tunnel time that has specific performance metrics to be met, actually doesn't make becoming an AFF/I easier at all, it means that you need to have demonstrated advanced flying skills in an easily observable and verifiable environment in addition to doing the same rating test that happens now. You guys say that the lack of air time will mean worse instructors in terms of the mental game and sure I can see that but I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would prepare me mentally to bail on a student @ 2k. I don't know what part of my first 500 jumps would have prepared me to be kicked in the head and do spin stops at the same time. Yeah, I've had a cut away and a couple of pilot chute hesitations that really freaked me out. I got my pro rating right after my D, blah, blah. What part of all that makes me ready to hold someone's life in my hands and what part of that makes me ready to do the serious job of actually flying with a student who's all over the sky? Even if people did replace one hour, they still need to be signed off by an I/E as having the ability to do the job, that includes the estimation of their ability to handle the mental side of things, some idiot who can fly well doesn't fit the bill and never should have. If they do now, how will tunnel time substitution change anything?

It works in the military because they control the tunnel, the tunnel instructors, who is selected as a candidate, the requirements for flying in the tunnel, the aircraft, the freefall instructors. All aspects....

With us civilians, USPA can make recommendations for what needs to be done in the tunnel, but has no control over what really goes on, nor any way to enforce someone screwing it up. Each tunnel can come up with its own "Tunnel AFFI Camp" and toss out logbooks like popcorn and USPA couldn't do anything but repeal the action once it's too late.

Still not convinced.

top

Jump more, post less!

[virgin-burner 1]

i got hundreds of hours playing "gran turismo"; would you let me ride your supersports-car on a racetrack!?

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

[pchapman 261]

Quote

To me, allowing someone to replace one hour of air time with one hour of tunnel time that has specific performance metrics to be met,

Nobody is arguing against that.
That's not the point. The point is that people argue against tunnel time "in general" being substituted.


The Canadian PFF rules just got rewritten, largely following the line of thinking of the very experienced instructor who heads the program.

A comparison might be useful just to see what others in the world do.

We here in Canada have long required 6 hours, 600 jumps. (We don't have any time in sport rules, but one needs to have a C license, some form of instructor rating, and the Coach 2 rating - effectively the advanced coaching rating for teaching relative work skills.)

The new rules this year still have 6+ hours & 600 jumps and say "more STRONGLY recommended" for both categories. Also, there's a "recommendation only" of having 2 hours of tunnel time. (In addition to the jumps, not substituting for them.)

For course preparation, a "recommendation" is that a candidate do this sort of tunnel work:

Quote

Tunnel practice training/coaching experience (recommended):
Maintenance of proximity
Stability
Skill analysis and the use of signals
Inverted recovery
Spin control (flat and inverted)

During the actual course, there are normally 10 practice jumps, before 6 evaluation jumps.

If the course conductor is using the tunnel, the practice jumps can be cut down to 5, and there's a detailed list of tunnel exercises to be done.

So this is an example of how elsewhere than in the US, updated rules don't substitute tunnel time for freefall time - but suggest adding it on. Also, specific tunnel practice and training is seen as part of the process of becoming a PFFI if a tunnel is available.

While sometimes the CSPA manuals really lag the USPA when it comes to developing detailed, up to date info, in this case the USPA might want to have a look at what's being done up north.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Even if people did replace one hour, they still need to be signed off by an I/E as having the ability to do the job, that includes the estimation of their ability to handle the mental side of things, some idiot who can fly well doesn't fit the bill and never should have. If they do now, how will tunnel time substitution change anything?

The problem is two-fold, but also the same, and it's that none of it is 'real'.

Tunnel time isn't really skydiving. It's a simulation of one slice of a skydive, and it leaves out most of the more difficult and more 'critical' parts of the jump.

AFF eval jumps aren't really doing AFF either. If the 'student' get's away from you, you know that they're not going to die, that 'student' is an AFF evaluator who is ten times the skydiver you are. The actual pressure of the jump is gone, save for the pressure you have to feed your ego with a good performance.

So you have a guy who spent a bunch of time in a tunnel, and then did OK during the cerification course, what happens when the shit hits the fan? Even for a candidate with all of their time spent in the sky, the evaluators are making their 'best guess' that they will be able to handle the 'real deal'. When you subtract even more reality from the prep, what are you left with?

Quote

Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel. Knowing how to turn and stop is something that can be taught much more easily in a tunnel than in the air. These skills still need to be transposed to the sky as anyone who's learnt something in the tunnel and then taken it to the air knows

Freefall skills are the least important of the skills a student learns, with the expection of arching and pulling. If a student can get and remain stable, and pull while stable, technically that's all the freefall skills needed to make a safe skydive. Everything esle involved is not related to the freefall portion of the jump, and much more critical to their safety (and the safety of others).

We've all seen the tunnel videos where 4 or 5 instructors get in there and do some crazy rotations, looping around each other in a mind-bending routine. It's impressive to watch, but when have you seen that transposed to the sky?

You haven't, and the reason is (as stated by tunnel rats) things are different in the sky. With no walls or nets for reference, things get 'bigger'. What about the exits, how do you translate that to side-ways subterminal air? What happens at break off, does everyone fly to the door, like in the tunnel?

I'm not denying that tunnel flying is tough, and a skill in itself that takes hard work to develop, but that's the point is that it is a skill in itself. So is skydiving, and if you want to teach skydiving, learn how to skydive.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Personally, I don't see why certain elements of flight couldn't be performed in a tunnel.

No one said anything differently. What we have said is it should not supplant real skydiving.

There is SO much more to being an AFFI than just the ability to fly. There is no pressure in a tunnel. If you screw up, you can just reset. I free fall there is a large planet moving at you, and if you screw up.... It is still going to kill you.

Quote

One of the arguments I've seen in favor is that this is how the military has worked for years with a measurable improvement in results. This was posted on the Ranch facebook page by someone directly involved in army training so I'm just passing that idea along.

I learned spin stops and rollovers at the Bragg tunnel. Again, no one has said that some of the skills could not be learned in the tunnel. We are saying that there are other skills that the tunnel cannot teach. The tunnel is not going to teach you anything about exits and that is a major part of AFF.

Quote

I see it as similar to indoor rock climbing or learning to ride a motorcycle on a closed course.

And would you allow a guy to be a rock climbing instructor is all he ever did was climb on an indoor wall?

Your motorcycle example is false. You are still riding a motorcycle, not ridding a bike and using that experience to claim motorcycle credit.

Those that support this seem to forget that being an AFFI is more than just the ability to fly THEIR body.

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I learned spin stops and rollovers at the Bragg tunnel.

How many times since then has a student spun or rolled over and remained laterally within a 15ft circle?

A big part of the rollover or spin correction is that first you have to catch the student, and 9 times out of 10, that means first chasing them down, and then fixing their problem.

[dirtbox 0]

I am an AFF-I - can I now be a tunnel instructor? I have never been in a tunnel but I have 13hrs of freefall, I'll be fine right? If you want to be a tunnel instructor be a tunnel instructor, if you want to be an AFFI be an AFFI, if you want to be both then learn to be both but you can't learn one skill set and seek work in two different fields.

[toolbox 0]

Flying in the tunnel is not skydiving.
I've always had issues with calling tunnel flying indoor skydiving, since it takes place not in the great blue yonder,but inside a tube.
There is some risk of injury or death in the tunnel,but nothing close to skydiving levels of risk.
Flying in the tunnel is composed of one activity(flying in a fairly steady controlled airflow with walls and a net).
Skydiving is composed of many different activities that occur in an orderly fashion that all require a different set of skills and knowledge,any of which can kill you.
I love the tunnel and wish I could afford to fly my ass off in it,but it is not skydiving and should not be logged as skydiving free fall time.
The tunnel is a cheap and safe training tool for skydivers,but it is no substitute for skydiving.