Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher.

[rustywardlow 0]

Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all. Should these instructors be teaching canopy control to AFF students if they themselves cannot fly their own canopies proficiently? Should There be a canopy proficiency portion to the AFF Instructors Evaluation?

[peek 20]

rustywardlow

Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all. Should these instructors be teaching canopy control to AFF students if they themselves cannot fly their own canopies proficiently? Should There be a canopy proficiency portion to the AFF Instructors Evaluation?

There are accuracy requirements for the licenses, so it is assumed that an instructor should have some skill in that area. "Not landing on the dropzone" does not seem to be related to "accuracy". There seems to be some other issue. Perhaps spotting? I think you are going to need to be specific about what you have seen.

[rustywardlow 0]

Spotting has nothing to do with it. It's competency in canopy control that lacks.

[djmarvin 2]

I would love to see more canopy proficiency throughout our sport. I do believe that a lot of the lack of education is due to Instructors and Coaches who do not understand how their canopy works or how to properly execute and/or teach the maneuvers. I believe Instructors across the board (AFF, S/L, IAD, and Tandem) should show a strong (not just competant) understanding and skill set with canopy control prior to attending a rating course. The courses are full of strong information as it is and we should continue to build on those strengths in the course, but it is not the place for us to train those basics. I hope over time that we see an increase in canopy control coaching and instruction including pre-requisites for canopy for any Instructional Rating Course.

DJ Marvin
AFF I/E, Coach/E, USPA/UPT Tandem I/E
http://www.theratingscenter.com

[Ron 7]

1. There is no 'canopy coach' rating. So you are asking about something that does not exist.
2. Basic skills in both free fall and canopy control should be required for a license.

As a guy with a pro rating. I just think we need to make better instructors overall. Bit asking for a rating that does not exist does not help anything.

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

[Deisel 35]

I believe that what we need is an Instructor's Course. Basically what the AFFIRC Pre Course already does but a mandatory and comprehensive event. Something that actually teaches someone how to be an instructor. That alsa allows enough TIME for the IE to mentor the prospective I's.

I've mentioned this before but was shot down with - you should show up already trained. This obviously does not work for most. I believe that a rating course, rather than an evaluation of skills is a big part of what we're missing.

D

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[peek 20]

Quote

I believe that what we need is an Instructor's Course. Basically what the AFFIRC Pre Course already does but a mandatory and comprehensive event. Something that actually teaches someone how to be an instructor.

You mean like a BIC? (Basic Instructors Course?) USPA had that some years ago. (I see you have been skydiving for 7 years. The BIC might pre-date you so you might not know that it existed.)

The BIC was a pretty good idea in my opinion, because it was a teaching course that taught people how to teach, before they went to one of the method specific courses, which were evaluation courses.

Also, the Coach rating is supposed to be a "license to learn", which would be similarly helpful, with Coaches being supervised by Instructors as they learn. But for the most part that does not happen. They are just turned loose with students. (I have even heard of new Coaches ignoring the advice of seasoned Instructors because, well, after all, they just got their rating so they don't need anything else.)

Here is the real problem. Skydiving instruction used to be learned via apprenticeship, as in following a rated instructor around for at least a few weekends if not an entire season, teaching a numerous topics under their supervision, and having them signed off on a proficiency card when they were proficient. Then they went to an evaluation course.

Now everything is expected to be learned via formalized education in a "course", and I think we have enough (at least empirical) evidence that this is not working very well for skydiving.

I think that the apprenticeship method of learning/evaluation being changed over to going to "course" learning/evaluation happens as any activity grows and matures, (and I believe the commercialization of an activity has something to do with it.)

[rustywardlow 0]

O.K. you got me there. I should choose my words more carefully. But even if there is not a "canopy instructor rating" so to speak it really isn't the topic of the conversation that I'm trying to stimulate here.

[Joellercoaster 6]

Instructors here are required to have a Canopy Handling coach rating.

--
"I'll tell you how all skydivers are judged, . They are judged by the laws of physics." - kkeenan

"You jump out, pull the string and either live or die. What's there to be good at?

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

I've had a PRO card since the program started and I think everyone owes it to themselves to get qualified, particularly if they are in the business of training others. I also think it's a good idea to compete in canopy piloting competitions, at least at the local level. I competed at the pro/open level for five years and it was a tremendous experience. You owe it to yourself to get as qualified as possible.

On that note, I don't think non-PRO-rated swoopers who do not possess AFF tickets have any business teaching basic canopy control to students. Just my opinion.

Chuck
AFF/SL/TM-I, PRO, S&TA, PFC/E, MMPCI, etc, etc, etc.

[Deisel 35]

Whole hearted agreement here. I once remarked that new AFFIs (before I had a rating) should only do 2 instructor jumps for their first 25 or so student jumps. I was laughed at. But even now that I've got a couple of AFF jumps under my belt I still feel the same way.

Apprenticeship is a far superior method of learning than courses. But as you said, the commercialization of the sport has made it quite difficult to do. DZOs need I's in the air, not spending time as asst JMs. I would love to see an additional requirement for coaches to actually jump with I's for a set number of live student jumps. I think it could go a long way toward expanded mentorship and getting over the hump of being a new instructor.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[robinheid 0]

peek

Quote

I believe that what we need is an Instructor's Course. Basically what the AFFIRC Pre Course already does but a mandatory and comprehensive event. Something that actually teaches someone how to be an instructor.

You mean like a BIC? (Basic Instructors Course?) USPA had that some years ago. (I see you have been skydiving for 7 years. The BIC might pre-date you so you might not know that it existed.)

The BIC was a pretty good idea in my opinion, because it was a teaching course that taught people how to teach, before they went to one of the method specific courses, which were evaluation courses.

Also, the Coach rating is supposed to be a "license to learn", which would be similarly helpful, with Coaches being supervised by Instructors as they learn. But for the most part that does not happen. They are just turned loose with students. (I have even heard of new Coaches ignoring the advice of seasoned Instructors because, well, after all, they just got their rating so they don't need anything else.)

Here is the real problem. Skydiving instruction used to be learned via apprenticeship, as in following a rated instructor around for at least a few weekends if not an entire season, teaching a numerous topics under their supervision, and having them signed off on a proficiency card when they were proficient. Then they went to an evaluation course.

Now everything is expected to be learned via formalized education in a "course", and I think we have enough (at least empirical) evidence that this is not working very well for skydiving.

I think that the apprenticeship method of learning/evaluation being changed over to going to "course" learning/evaluation happens as any activity grows and matures, (and I believe the commercialization of an activity has something to do with it.)

The apprenticeship/course issue is important but it is a secondary problem.

The "real" problem is that we continue to teach people the fun freefall skills first instead of the survival canopy-gear skills.

In a rational, reality-based world, training would start with static line/IAD jumps where the sole focus is on learning how to use the gear generally, and learn basic canopy control and navigation specifically.

Basic Parachute Training instructors would be qualified separately from AFF instructors. Individuals may hold both ratings, but in no case could an AFF-only instructor teach a BPT course without a BPT rating.

Students "graduate" from basic parachutist training when they met the requirements, which would include being able to:

1. Name all of the main components of a dual parachute system and describe what each component does.

2. Assemble a main parachute (bag, bridle, pilot chute) and attach it to and detach it from a rig.

3. Pack your main parachute without assistance.

4. Gear up completely without assistance.

5. Declare your exit point accurately.

6. Navigate and control your parachute properly.

7. Land within 50 meters of the target center without radio assistance.

8. Pass a "ground school" exam similar in character but not scope to general aviation private pilot ground schools, with considerable attention paid to basic aerodynamics, the theory and practice of flying landing patterns; and basic meteorology.

After students graduated from BPT, then they could continue on to Basic Freefall Training, formerly known as AFF (a stupid name if there ever was one), or they may stay "down low" as a basic parachutist who just flies their canopy around after hop and pop or static line jumps (Denmark did and maybe still does have a rating like this IIRC).

Two things will happen:

1. Parachutists will learn the survival skills first and foremost and because of the FOCUS thereon, they will be better pilots throughout their jumping careers.

2. Those who go on to freefall training will learn at a faster rate and be better at it because they will have the comfort factor of having become autonomous parachutists already able to take care of themselves after their parachutes open -- so they can FOCUS better on the freefall training and segment of their jump.

Net result? Better trained parachutists, and probably significantly fewer fatalities and injuries.

This is how a rational, reality-based training system would be organized. The current "AFF" system is neither rational nor reality-based but it is so politically and psychologically entrenched that it may never change, so to get back to the question that titles this thread:

The answer is no because asking "AFF" instructors to have a "canopy coach" rating (even if there was one) is akin to asking for a bandaid to take care of the artery you severed because you thought that was the best way to lose weight.


44

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[popsjumper 2]

Impressive...finally, a real proposal for betterment.

Personally, I like it....IF the general book and safety knowledge is included in #1-7 and is part of the #8 exam.

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

[Deisel 35]

I'll second. There's a BOD meeting next month...

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[rehmwa 2]

peek

Here is the real problem. Skydiving instruction used to be learned via apprenticeship, as in following a rated instructor around for at least a few weekends if not an entire season, teaching a numerous topics under their supervision, and having them signed off on a proficiency card when they were proficient. Then they went to an evaluation course.

Now everything is expected to be learned via formalized education in a "course", and I think we have enough (at least empirical) evidence that this is not working very well for skydiving.

I think that the apprenticeship method of learning/evaluation being changed over to going to "course" learning/evaluation happens as any activity grows and matures, (and I believe the commercialization of an activity has something to do with it.)

beautiful comment -

1 - experience is earned over time and under mentorship
2 - someone that's already experienced actually sees all aspects of the candidate's ability and inclination to teach - as well as basic skydiving skills and personality
3 - the 'master' should have to recommend the 'candidate' as a pre-req to go test for the rating


and you nailed the $$$$ aspect involved as well in terms of candidate preparations

...
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

[robinheid 0]

popsjumper

Impressive...finally, a real proposal for betterment.

Personally, I like it....IF is included in #1-7 and is part of the #8 exam.

Thanks, Pops, I'm glad you lilke it.

However, I have no idea what you mean by "the book and safety knowledge (being) included in #1-7 and is part of the #8 exam".

The Basic Parachutist Training would be completely separate and unrelated to "AFF." It would have nothing to do with that fatally flawed system.

BPT would precede and be the prerequisite for advancement to freefall training. Pretty simple -- just like a high school diploma or GED is required to get into college, just like a BA being required before you can go to graduate school.

The BPT would also have no prescribed number of jumps; you would graduate when you accomplished all of the tasks and passed all the written and practical tests.

And the cool thing about that is that it would address Peek's "apprentice" issue too because it would likely take more than 8 jumps to pass BUT each of those eight jumps would be about 1/4 the cost of an "AFF" jump because:

a) you need one instructor instead of two
b) you split the instructor cost between more than one jumper in many cases
c) you're only going to 3,000 feet

Which means you could get 32 jumps for the price of 8 -- and also get all the "apprentice value" of those extra jumps... you would also be free after graduation to make hop and pop jumps using rental gear until you decided to move on to freefall training.

Then you would learn the freefall part faster for the reasons described in my first post; you already know what you're doing when you get to the most critical part: pulling, navigating, flying and landing.

Right now, however, we have this psychotic system where we are basically putting people into graduate school before they have graduated from high school or earned an undergraduate degree. When you look at it that way, it's pretty easy to see why we have such a high dropout rate, yes?


44

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[JohnMitchell 14]

rustywardlow

Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all.

Those who can't do . . . teach.

I haven't noticed a problem at our DZ. Our staff, even the FNG's, seems pretty dialed in.
Robin, you have some good points there.

We've been selling Disneyland and delivering Death Valley. (Is that one of your quotes?)

You and I started when skydiving was still "dangerous" and you figured you die if you f-ed up bad enough. That attitude still sticks in my bones. I try and emphasize survival skills when I teach, but I think every instructor at a big commercial DZ feels the pressure of time constraints on busy days. I never get to teach every last thing I'd like to teach.

[popsjumper 2]

Maybe I'm too zoned in on AFF progression where they learn about FARs, BSRs, USPA recommendations, etc?

Quote

The Basic Parachutist Training would be completely separate and unrelated to "AFF." It would have nothing to do with that fatally flawed system.

That's the part I missed. Thanks

I still like it, FWIW.

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

[TomNoonan 1]

Quote

Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all.

I agree with you John. I don't have the same time in sport as the OP, but in say the last 10+ years or so, I simply don't see any great volume or increase in AFF Is or I/ES failing to make it back to the DZ or exhibit problematic accuracy skills.

Add to that, there are many reasons an AFF I or I/E could find themselves landing away from the primary LZ. AFF student or I/E puts the AFF I in the basement, AFF course eval jump goes to shit and low (they can sometimes, it's the nature of a course), maybe the AFF I or candidate is jumping a canopy that comes out of the sky fast, versus a flat glider and occasionally doesn't have the glide to make it back where another canopy choice could?

My point is just that there certainly exists a number of situations, beyond just "today's AFF instructors and I/Es can't fly their canopies".

I guess my only gripe, if you even want to call it that.....is a broad stroke statement that is given without specifics. For example:

"I see today's AFF Is landing, and they can't land on the DZ it seems."
(Lacks validity. Where do you see them, how often do you see it?)
Versus
"At DZ XYZ, I saw 3 instructors land off 6 times last weekend on AFF jumps. Is that normal for AFF today?"
(That type of statement is easily quantifiable, and a statement of fact.)

One question I would throw out there to anyone that sees that sort of thing and questions it, would you go to the S&TA and/or the DZOs in a constructive manner and inform them of your concern, to help correct the situation?

We're a small sport and not everyone is on here or has access to modern evolutions in training or performance changes and it may very well be that the person we see failing to meet a standard of some sort that others hold themselves to, just may not know what they don't know and would welcome a friendly infusion of information.

just my thoughts.

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[robinheid 0]

TomNoonan

Quote

Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all.

I agree with you John. I don't have the same time in sport as the OP, but in say the last 10+ years or so, I simply don't see any great volume or increase in AFF Is or I/ES failing to make it back to the DZ or exhibit problematic accuracy skills.

Add to that, there are many reasons an AFF I or I/E could find themselves landing away from the primary LZ. AFF student or I/E puts the AFF I in the basement, AFF course eval jump goes to shit and low (they can sometimes, it's the nature of a course), maybe the AFF I or candidate is jumping a canopy that comes out of the sky fast, versus a flat glider and occasionally doesn't have the glide to make it back where another canopy choice could?

My point is just that there certainly exists a number of situations, beyond just "today's AFF instructors and I/Es can't fly their canopies".

I guess my only gripe, if you even want to call it that.....is a broad stroke statement that is given without specifics. For example:

"I see today's AFF Is landing, and they can't land on the DZ it seems."
(Lacks validity. Where do you see them, how often do you see it?)
Versus
"At DZ XYZ, I saw 3 instructors land off 6 times last weekend on AFF jumps. Is that normal for AFF today?"
(That type of statement is easily quantifiable, and a statement of fact.)

One question I would throw out there to anyone that sees that sort of thing and questions it, would you go to the S&TA and/or the DZOs in a constructive manner and inform them of your concern, to help correct the situation?

We're a small sport and not everyone is on here or has access to modern evolutions in training or performance changes and it may very well be that the person we see failing to meet a standard of some sort that others hold themselves to, just may not know what they don't know and would welcome a friendly infusion of information.

just my thoughts.

If those AFFIs had had decent fundamental parachutist training themselves when they started, they wouldn't be making the kind of decisions that result in the "justifiable" off-landing scenarios you describe. Like jumping canopies that are incompatible with the job-related scenarios you described above. Seriously, how long would a construction materials driver keep his job if he tried to do it in a sports car?

The whole AFF system is fatally flawed in the literal sense of the word. Yes, its apologists point to its great overall safety rate, but they don't count all the "AFF" "Graduates" who kill themselves (and others) later because they never learned how to be a basic parachutist during their "AFF" training -- which by definition and name means neglecting the parachute part of their training no matter what is written in our ridiculously complicated training system... all they ever really learned was the freefall fun part, not the parachute survival part. That statistical evidence makes that very clear and not arguable.

One of these days maybe this sport will get its collective head out of the dark world and figure out that arguing about whether we need more rules and regulations about what parachutes people can pilot and when is a useless exercise compared to changing the training so we quit creating so many bad pilots that wee need to make more rules and regulations to compensate for it. Solve the problem at its source.


44

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[TomNoonan 1]

Robin,

Your response is on like a 4 level, my initial response was maybe at a 2......I'm just participating in a casual conversation here.

My initial point was I don't see this trend today that was suggested in the original post. Maybe I don't get out much.....but I just don't see bad AFf Is landing off all day and flying bad patterns. If they are, if you know of them and see them, then say something, point it out.

As for "justifying land off". AFF Is occasionally land long on an airport. Or even off. From your generation all the way through today. Read: "occasionally". That could be one in a season at a DZ, is that cause to restructure an entire program? Outliers exist in all disciplines, all areas and can be nit picked all day. All I was saying is that there could be a reason beyond canopy skill level of an AFF I as to why they don't land in the pea pit.

As for me, when I go North for a weekend where I might be doing AFF over a populated area, I fly a big, flat gliding canopy, because I know that no matter how current I am on AFF, and how (relatively?) proficient of a canopy pilot I believe myself to be, I know that on any given AFF jump, through no fault of my own, I could end up long or have to land in a back yard. So, I go big and flat up there. In Florida where its wide open where I jump, I choose smaller wings. I'll end here by saying, I've never landed off on an AFF jump, but I also ackowlegde the human element (fallibility?) of myself and anyone that I might be skydiving with, and plan accordingly.

That said, if you want to suggest that the canopy flight of today's AFF Is is subpar and needs fixing? I'm all ears, provide examples with valid data, names, dates and locations to me directly and I'll bring it to the board.

[email protected].

Edit to change the score to a 4....lol....I just reread your post and absorbed more...lol

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[robinheid 0]

TomNoonan

Robin,

Your response is on like a 10 level, my initial response was maybe at a 2......I'm just participating in a casual conversation here... if you want to suggest that the canopy flight of today's AFF Is is subpar and needs fixing? I'm all ears, provide examples with valid data, names, dates and locations to me directly and I'll bring it to the board.

[email protected].

LOL... what exactly is casual about the notion that the number of people dying from pilot error is directly correlated to the fatally flawed training system from which both they and the vast majority of their instructors "graduated?"

But to the main thread:

I "suggested" nothing; I commented on REALITY -- that requiring a "canopy coach" rating for AFFIs just makes worse an already fatally flawed system, and I commented on your supposition that some AFFI off-landings come from them choosing the wrong tool for the job -- i.e., a canopy that is not compatible with the work they do.

Neither did I "suggest" that "the canopy flight of today's AFF Is is subpar and needs fixing." That is also REALITY, based on the principal fact that essentially all AFFIs jumping today are "graduates" of that fatally flawed system themselves so of course they lack the fundamentals that make good parachute pilots. Some of them learn their way out of it, but a lot of them do not, and a good number of them don't even notice that they have a problem or they wouldn't be passing on their lack of knowledge to their students, who then graduate and kill themselves 100 or 1000 jumps later doing something stupid under canopy that they should have learned when they were trained in basic parachuting -- oh wait, they weren't trained in basic parachuting; they went through "AFF."

As for your "request" that I "provide examples with valid data, names, dates and locations to (you) directly and (you'll) bring it to the board:"

I don't have to provide that data -- USPA already has it.

Look at all the pilot-error-under-a-good-parachute fatalities dating to the year that such fatalities became the most prevalent cause of parachuting fatalities, then break out the number of those fatalities who were "AFF" instructors.

When you're done, let's continue this conversation and maybe then you won't be so casual about it.


44

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[TomNoonan 1]

Again, I was replying again, to the OPs statement that today's AFFIs are not landing at the DZ with great regularity. (Paraphrased). and again, in my limited experience compared to you, I don't see it. That is the only statement I was responding to (casually).

As for AFF Is landing off. They did it occasionally in your generation, occasionally in my generation and they will do it occasionally in the next generation.

And again, I'll ask. Who are these AFFIs teaching bad canopy flight? you say USPA knows, is there a secret file I am unaware of?

in practical application however, it's a fair assumption that hopefully everyone is trained that if you make a low turn and impact the ground without a wing level over your head, you will gravely injure yourself or kill yourself. Yet, skydivers of all levels and training backgrounds have and will continue to make bad decisions when presented with the low turn scenario. 90+ percent of all plane crashes at all levels are pilot error, does that suggest that the FAA needs to mandate a better pilot training? Maybe they do. Maybe USPA does too. I'm all ears and willing to listen.

But there are a number of issues out there today that need to be addressed. Including canopy flight training. But to go back to the original post. I do not see a lack of canopy skill in the AFFIs out there. That was a baseline of this thread. That was what I was responding to, if you want to keep debating everything else here, I welcome you to, but I'm done here. I've said my peace, the community can decide the merits of my comments based on their content.

Namaste,
Tom Noonan

www.everest-skydive.com

[robinheid 0]

popsjumper

Maybe I'm too zoned in on AFF progression where they learn about FARs, BSRs, USPA recommendations, etc?

Quote

The Basic Parachutist Training would be completely separate and unrelated to "AFF." It would have nothing to do with that fatally flawed system.

That's the part I missed. Thanks

I still like it, FWIW.

Thanks again.

I have attached the work I first did on this subject back in 1993, and my followup work in 1996 and 1998.

You will note that in my initial formulations, I presented a parachute pilot course as an adjunct to, as well as a standalone alternative to, the current training system then and now - "AFF." So, back then I too was "too zoned in on AFF" to realize that it cannot serve as the first level training if we are serious about reducing pilot-error parachuting fatalities.

Anyway, some of what's in these documents is dated and/or has been superseded by better solutions, but some of it is also prescient, and the scariest part of all is that most of it is still as on-target now as it was then and little of it has in reality been incorporated into our training system, documentation lip service notwithstanding.

Feedback appreciated.


44

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[robinheid 0]

TomNoonan

And again, I'll ask. Who are these AFFIs teaching bad canopy flight? you say USPA knows, is there a secret file I am unaware of?

Sorry, Tom, that is not what you "asked" above. In your previous post, you "asked" this:

"if you want to suggest that the canopy flight of today's AFF Is is subpar and needs fixing? I'm all ears, provide examples with valid data, names, dates and locations to me directly and I'll bring it to the board."

I answered by saying that I didn't have to provide examples because USPA already has it -- and not in a "secret file" but in the very public fatality report file, the contents of which has been published in Parachutist Magazine. I said to look at all the pilot-error-under-a-good-parachute fatalities dating to the year that such fatalities became the most prevalent cause of parachuting fatalities, then break out the number of those fatalities who were "AFF" instructors.

I don't know what the numbers will be, but there are only three possible outcomes -- the percentage of pilot-error fatalities among "AFF" instructors will be:

• lower than their numbers in the general parachuting population

• equal to their numbers in the general parachuting population

• higher than their numbers in the general parachuting population

And again, I say: After we get the actual data, then we can continue this part of the conversation.

Quote

In practical application however, it's a fair assumption that hopefully everyone is trained that if you make a low turn and impact the ground without a wing level over your head, you will gravely injure yourself or kill yourself.

Assume makes an ass of u and me and hope is not a plan or a course of action. Assuming and hoping? In one sentence? Kinda doubling down on doing nothing, wouldn't you say?

Quote

90+ percent of all plane crashes at all levels are pilot error, does that suggest that the FAA needs to mandate a better pilot training?

It would if basic pilot training started with aerobatics and instrument flight instead of ground school and basic flight training that covered basic aerodynamics, basic flight maneuvers and basic navigation and meteorology. That is precisely my point. Parachute training does not mirror private pilot training; it starts with the advanced fun stuff at the expense of the basic survival stuff.

Quote

But to go back to the original post. I do not see a lack of canopy skill in the AFFIs out there. That was a baseline of this thread.

Sorry, Tom, no it wasn't. This is a poll and thread about whether "AFF" instructors should have a canopy coach rating so they can better teach parachute piloting to their students.

I said no because it'll just make an already fatally flawed system even worse. This is a big-picture thread, Tom, and you're trying to limit it to one subsidiary element thereof, even though as a member of the BOD, you're tasked with looking at the big picture.

So if you're truly "all ears," then read the documents I attached to my reply to Pops, and then we can more productively continue this conversation.


44

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."