tonyhathaway 0 #76 June 1, 2012 If people could replace 120 jumps with 2 hours of tunnel time to be an instructor, then surely USPA will allow camera jumps with 2 hours of tunnel, and only 80 jumps, right? TonyMy O.C.D. has me chasing a dream my A.D.D. won't let me catch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #77 June 1, 2012 QuoteIf people could replace 120 jumps with 2 hours of tunnel time to be an instructor, then surely USPA will allow camera jumps with 2 hours of tunnel, and only 80 jumps, right? Tony Unfortunately, USPA does allow that now. The 200 jumps for camera is just a recommendation, not a BSR (the request to make it a BSR got no traction at the last board meeting)."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #78 June 3, 2012 Quote Can we get back to AFF jumps instead of post-aff zoo dives? I think there should be a zoo dive requirement for AFFI qualification Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #79 June 4, 2012 Quote Quote Can we get back to AFF jumps instead of post-aff zoo dives? I think there should be a zoo dive requirement for AFFI qualification Well, hell...we'd ALL qualify! My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oozzee 0 #80 June 9, 2012 This is very simple.. ""tunnel time is not freefall time.."" its that simple...!! In a tunnel are you,,,,... wearing a parachute..?? teaching or chasing someone wearing a parachute.? Plumetting to your potential death.?? Operating under a limited and stressful timeframe.?? No tunnel time can emulate the chaos of realtime AFF training....Doing AFF is and always will be the ultimate test of a professional skydivers' skill and dedication to the sport Anyone who seriously aspires to be an AFF instructor needs to be jumping out of airplanes...not playing in a tunnel... A wind tunnel is a toy,,Jumping from airplanes needs to be taken seriously.. I know a few tunnel rats,,,their skydivng is ordinary at best,,a soon as there is a change in fall rate there'ye left behind,,,as soon as things dont go to plan they become a hazard,,,thier canopy control sucks because they come to the DZ thinking they hot shit skydivers for 45 secs ,,but what about aircraft ettiquette,,climb to altitude,,exit protocol,,altitude awareness and tracking discipline,stacking,,canopy right of way... I personally avoid jumping with "tunnel gods" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #81 June 4, 2013 Has anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident? Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngstersMy reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 737 #82 June 4, 2013 Excellent observation and clearly this is THE shining example of why NO! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toolbox 0 #83 June 5, 2013 Exactly! You don't need altitude awareness in the tunnel. You don't need to check the spot in the tunnel. You don't need a harness container with two parachutes in the tunnel. You don't need a set of emergency procedures to practice in the tunnel. You don't need canopy skills in the tunnel. And the list go's on,and on. The tunnel is friggin awesome,but it's not skydiving,but rather it's a free fall simulator. I knew the guy at snohomish and liked him a lot. He was a good guy,but very over confident like many guys his age. I'm sure many will miss him. The free fall portion of skydiving is dangerous,but it is the canopy decent that takes the cake when it comes to serious injury or death. I've always believed that the most dangerous part of modern skydiving is the last few hundred feet to the ground under a good canopy. The current statistics strongly support my beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #84 June 5, 2013 It's so idiotic - you spend 1 minute in freefall with a student the rest of the time is in class, in the plane, at the mockup, etc etc etc there should be a 'time in sport' requirement added AFAIAC, more jumps, more hours FF, AND ADD (not replace) some tunnel time (learning and coaching), and tougher eval jumps - you can't swing a dead cat without hitting handfuls of very young (in sport) AFFIs lately ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #85 June 5, 2013 bigdad510 ONLY if that person is signed off as a Level 2 belly flyer in the tunnel according to the IBA system that tunnels like SkyVenture Colorado use. I saw that list - it's horrible. The "FF Path" is very distinctly defined - with specific skills to sign off, etc. The "Belly Path" is just references to dive pools, etc. Not equivalent at all by listing skills demonstrations that reflect RW levels of expertise. I think 10 minutes with a professional 4-way instructor/competitor and they could have done a really good job on that portion. It also states "Which path do you want to go down?" Crappy - a full body flyer should go down both paths. It's not a choice of one or the other. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 7 #86 June 6, 2013 popsjumperHas anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident? Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngsters I'm curious ~ does anyone know the current numbers? The ratio of AAFI candidates that apply but fail. The ratio of newly minted AFFI's as opposed to recently current AFFI's that dropped the rating. 10+ years ago the dirty little secret was - the standards were being pushed down some because there weren't enough applicants to replace the burned outs...I wonder if some of that is going on here? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #87 June 6, 2013 Quote10+ years ago the dirty little secret was - the standards were being pushed down some because there weren't enough applicants to replace the burned outs...I wonder if some of that is going on here? Same thing except is not a dirty little secret anymore. I'd almost it's blatant. As far as simple numbers, IMO, it's no longer an issue of battling attrition or getting enough out there to service all the DZs. We are now overfilling that hole that was dug with the advent of the AFF program and its need for instructors.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 737 #88 June 6, 2013 22 April, 2013 Proposal to Allow Tunnel Training for Accelerated Free Fall Instructor Course The proposal is to allow up to one hour of AFFI specific tunnel training to count towards the 6-hour course prerequisite. This proposal was driven by and is designed to increase the skills of an AFFI candidate. Since this propsal was first brought up, it has generated strong opinions as well as misunderstanding of what is being proposed. I would like to clarify the proposal and address those concerns. This proposal does not change the AFFI course standards. It gives candidates the option of replacing up to 60 minutes of free fall time, with no requirements or curriculum, and replaces them with a formal, controlled course of instruction and training that is directly applicable to the skill set applicable to AFFI skydives. -It is impossible to know exactly what knowledge and skills will be learned from (approximately) jump 300 to jump 360 (approximately 5 hours of free fall to 6 hours of free fall). The argument is the candidate will be doing exits, canopy control, etc, but they cannot tell me that their skills will actually improve or that they will be doing RW-type exits and not wing suit or free fly exits. There is no plan, structure, or requirements for those 60 skydives. If those 60 skydives are wing suiting (which would mean less than 60 skydives with over a minute of free fall per wing suit skydive) or free flying, how do those skydives improve AFFI flying skills? -The Static Line and IAD Instructor Ratings require a minimum of 200 skydives. Static Line and IAD Instructors teach all the same skills as AFFI’s. They teach the same canopy control skills, emergency procedures, gear, free fall maneuvers, and talk the student down on the radio, etc as the AFFI. The difference is the free fall flight skills needed to be an AFFI. There does not seem to be an issue created by this 200 minimum skydives creating under-qualified SL and IAD instructors. If 300 skydives (6-hours of free fall time) isn't enough to teach canopy control, emergency procedures, gear, etc, then how is 200 skydives enough to attend a SL or IAD Instructor course and become a SL or IAD Instructor and teach all of those same skills? -Two Instructors from Skyventure Colorado attended an AFFI course with less than 100 jumps each. They were, according to the Course Director, the best flyers at the course. One passed that course and the other passed the evaluation skydives at a second course. -The hour of tunnel time is not spent learning to back fly or fly head down. It is spent learning and improving body position, proximity flying, giving hand signals (docked and undocked), controlling an unstable student, spin stops, roll overs, and the deployment sequence. Learning these skills in a controlled environment with a high rate of repetition, direct and immediate feedback without external distractions better prepares the candidate for the AFFI course. That being said, the wind tunnel cannot completely replace actual skydive AFFI course training skydives. -60 skydives with a coach and video costs approximately $4,200 ($25 per lift ticket x 120 slots plus $20 per skydive(coach fee) x 60 skydives). AFFI-specific tunnel training at Skyventure Colorado costs $1020 for 60-minutes, with video. Given the same budget of $1000, a candidate would be able to make 14 AFF training skydives. An AFFI course candidate is going to get more than 4 times the training, per training dollar, using a wind tunnel for AFFI training than making skydives. -Not all candidates would have easy access to a wind tunnel for AFFI training. This proposal is not to make tunnel training mandatory. AFFI candidates would still be able to meet the course prerequisites with 6 hours of free fall time. The hour of tunnel training would be optional. No clue why I received this, but I do NOT support it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #89 June 6, 2013 normiss-Two Instructors from Skyventure Colorado attended an AFFI course with less than 100 jumps each. They were, according to the Course Director, the best flyers at the course. One passed that course and the other passed the evaluation skydives at a second course. Negative - "100 jumps" - This is part that takes away from the proposal. If it was just stated - "primarily tunnel trained eval candidates", then the knee jerk response would have been mitigated a lot. The fact that the example is of jumpers that don't even meet the minimum current standards makes the proposal intent easy to question. Positive - Tunnel instructors - 1 - absolutely they should be outstanding flyers 2 - IMHO - this is great background in terms of being able to teach a body based discipline. 3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also. Just based on the guys I know at various tunnels. They are already screened for the tunnel job to the same expectations that I'd hope AFF candidates should meet (personality, disposition, friendliness, openness, skill, and observation) I think the proposal's intent focuses on that positive aspect. I also think people are mostly arguing about the negative point that implies (incorrectly) that the proposal is intended to short circuit the real life requirements in place (other than true freefall time). Actually, I think the primary point of most of the objections is just that, in general, it's getting too easy to get the rating. Which is a bit of a divergence from the meat of the proposal. I'd like the course and qual to hold a much higher standard of performance and experience - I'm thrilled if a candidate gets an advantage through excellent preparation in the tunnel for the flying portion. As noted before, I'd like to see it added to the minimums, not in exchange for any. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lug 4 #90 June 6, 2013 popsjumperHas anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident? Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngsters Complacency comes to mind, but I could be wrong. Those pushing for Tunnel time toward AFF requirements are looking for and easy way to get the ticket.Memento Mori Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 737 #91 June 6, 2013 Those are not my words, so I cannot say that is 'negative'. I believe it to be properly stated. FYI - I do NOT, I repeat NOT support this idea in any way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #92 June 7, 2013 QuoteNegative - "100 jumps" - This is part that takes away from the proposal. If it was just stated - "primarily tunnel trained eval candidates", then the knee jerk response would have been mitigated a lot. The fact that the example is of jumpers that don't even meet the minimum current standards makes the proposal intent easy to question. True. However, that wouldn't mitigate the responses about aspects of AFFI other than flying skill. Quote3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also. I would question this. Other than the Coach course, how often do tunnel instructors get out in the mainstream of skydiving to teach ground preps? QuoteJust based on the guys I know at various tunnels. They are already screened for the tunnel job to the same expectations that I'd hope AFF candidates should meet (personality, disposition, friendliness, openness, skill, and observation) Sadly, there currently are no AFFI candidate evaluations for personality, disposition, friendliness, openness, book knowledge, meaningful canopy flight knowledge and other. QuoteI also think people are mostly arguing about the negative point that implies (incorrectly) that the proposal is intended to short circuit the real life requirements in place (other than true freefall time). I disagree. Whatever the 'intent' was, substituting an hour in the tunnel for an hour of freefall experience does nobody any justice. It's kinda hard to chase young jumpers around in a tunnel. That hour, IMO, would be better spent on actually Coaching people on the ground and in freefall...you know..actually meeting the requirements of maintaining the Coach rating. QuoteActually, I think the primary point of most of the objections is just that, in general, it's getting too easy to get the rating. Which is a bit of a divergence from the meat of the proposal. True except where you say 'a divergence'. It's a real concern. The divergence comes because they are trying to move away from real, beneficial activities that make for better AFFI. Really now, being able to FF is not a requirement for AFFI. Yes, yes, it's a good tool to have available. QuoteI'd like the course and qual to hold a much higher standard of performance and experience - I'm thrilled if a candidate gets an advantage through excellent preparation in the tunnel for the flying portion. As noted before, I'd like to see it added to the minimums, not in exchange for any. WoooHoooo! Now THAT I'll stand with you in the face of the enemy guns. We'd both be shot down though over the 'added to minimums'. Access to tunnels is limited both by proximity and cost.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
faulk04 0 #93 June 7, 2013 do examiners submit how many people take their course in a year? I don't think tunnel time should be replaced for freefall time. I do think the tunnel is a great place to learn specific aff drills such as spin stops, roll overs, and giving hand signals, but others things can't be learned there. I've done an hour of Aff training in the tunnel and would like to eventually go take the aff course, but I'm having a tough finding a whole week that I can take off of work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #94 June 7, 2013 Disclaimer: After having re-read the proposal and seeing that it is geared towards providing organized training as a substitute to just 1 of the current hours requiring no training at all, I'll back off on arguing against what the 1 hour of tunnel can help candidates achieve. If the tunnel training is ever intended to replace actual in-air evaluation requirements then no, that shouldn't happen. So what's really happening here is that AFF candidates are being offered the opportunity to get specific training for that hour instead of having spent it in a wingsuit or FF or solos or H&Ps. It's only an AFF pre-course for some specific air skills development. Except for the tunnel availability problem and the cost, that can't be bad in and of itself. Now, if we could get the powers that be to add real, meaningful ground training experience, canopy flight knowledge and experience, and book knowledge as a requirement for AFFI, we'd be getting somewhere.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #95 June 8, 2013 popsjumperHas anyone recognized the tie-in with the Snohomish incident? Are those types really the types we want teaching our youngsters Heh. I saw the topic in the general feed and this was my first thought.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #96 June 9, 2013 popsjumper Quote3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also. I would question this. Other than the Coach course, how often do tunnel instructors get out in the mainstream of skydiving to teach ground preps? I'd invite you to go watch some of the one on one teaching that a personal coach at a tunnel does. I'd also expect a personal trainer to do a good job, a karate instructor, a gymnastics instructor, etc etc etc to a better job teaching ground preps for AFF. (this is really because I don't have a high opinion of the Coach rating or if it's value added - I think being a pro at teaching body mechanics based activities is better by far.) teaching is teaching QuoteReally now, being able to FF is not a requirement for AFFI. Yes, yes, it's a good tool to have available. A belly only flyer should be able to become a decent AFFI. A FF only flyer,....well,,,,I've seen them and they crash and burn in AFF and shouldn't do it. BUT, give me someone that took the effort to learn to be good at both, and I'll put my money on that jumper doing Excellent in the flying portion. And, frankly, someone that recognizes that freefall just involves pushing on air regardless of orientation, and someone that learned a more than one discipline, etc, would have more experience and tools applicable to teaching someone something new - like skydiving. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 June 9, 2013 popsjumperDisclaimer: After having re-read the proposal and seeing that it is geared towards providing organized training as a substitute to just 1 of the current hours requiring no training at all, I'll back off on arguing against what the 1 hour of tunnel can help candidates achieve. If the tunnel training is ever intended to replace actual in-air evaluation requirements then no, that shouldn't happen. So what's really happening here is that AFF candidates are being offered the opportunity to get specific training for that hour instead of having spent it in a wingsuit or FF or solos or H&Ps. It's only an AFF pre-course for some specific air skills development. Except for the tunnel availability problem and the cost, that can't be bad in and of itself. Now, if we could get the powers that be to add real, meaningful ground training experience, canopy flight knowledge and experience, and book knowledge as a requirement for AFFI, we'd be getting somewhere. SCORE!! This is an option that actually drives IMPROVED air skills that are applicable to the rating. Everything else put out there is really about something not related - no matter how good the points are, they are tangential to the specific proposal. (Even though those discussions should happen also) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #98 June 9, 2013 rehmwa*** Quote3 - I fully expect a tunnel instructor of experience to be tops in class in flying, and one of the top, in general, in the ground work also. I would question this. Other than the Coach course, how often do tunnel instructors get out in the mainstream of skydiving to teach ground preps? Maybe I didn't make myself clear.. My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach. Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc. These things take practice to be good at it. How often do tunnel coaches get to practice teaching ground and book learning? While I certainly agree with your sentiments about the Coach rating, it does give the Coach the green light to start practicing, and hopefully improving, his teaching methods....including the ground stuff. If you want to teach skydiving you first need the Coach rating. Do tunnel operations require a instructional rating of some sort?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #99 June 9, 2013 rehmwa SCORE!! This is an option that actually drives IMPROVED air skills that are applicable to the rating. Well, yes and no. Option being the key word. As long as participation remains an option AND as long as it does not replace free fall hours, I'm good. A new learning opportunity...how can that be bad?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #100 June 10, 2013 popsjumper Maybe I didn't make myself clear.. My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach. Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc. I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself. But I'll elaborate and still nod to your point. To my point - I understand your point in that it doesn't hurt if someone has practice on the specifics......But it's not rocket science to prep a Cat jump or teach a first jump course. So - someone that's doesn't get how to teach isn't going to get better with a year of reps, yet someone that knows how to teach in general will likely have a pretty good course in just a few reps. However, I absolutely believe that experience is needed to teach a multitude of different types of people. You need to have a large bucket of different techniques and examples to get through to others. I see so many new instructors try to convey a concept the same way over and over again when the student isn't getting it - like excessive repetitions and just saying it LOUDER will do the job - then complain about the student...... The ability to change perspective and offer up other ways of teaching is essential (and that sometimes means being able to teach something you saw another do, or pull from something you didn't personally experience, but was shared by another instructor)...that's where your point is really made. Someone too young in the sport tends to pull solely from their own experience and only can convey those anecdotes..... It always comes down to we need people with a lot of exposure AND a natural ability to teach as well. So I hate to weigh one against the other, but if I did, I'd have to say that you can go get experience, much harder to learn to empathize enough to teach well. as always, you and I tend to agree as the discussions get clearer ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
