Radios on AFF students: WAS - Bad Tandem

[billvon 2,435]

>but if the "AFF" instructor is spending the time talking the student down, why not use
>that time more effectively by showing them the way down?

Because you can decide to not talk to them, and thus not build reliance on the instructor. You cannot decide to become invisible. Thus a follow-me system creates dependence on a leader, and that leaves students in a world of hurt when the leader is no longer there - and for the first time they have to make their own decisions without a guide.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

>but if the "AFF" instructor is spending the time talking the student down, why not use
>that time more effectively by showing them the way down?

Because you can decide to not talk to them, and thus not build reliance on the instructor. You cannot decide to become invisible. Thus a follow-me system creates dependence on a leader, and that leaves students in a world of hurt when the leader is no longer there - and for the first time they have to make their own decisions without a guide.

LOL...

Read the articles. You'll see that your premise is false and your conclusion unsupported by the data.

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]

Well, personally, as opposed to following a leader,

1. I'd rather have the student paying attention to what's going on around him.

2. I'd like the student to gain a sense of accomplishment knowing that he was doing it himself.

3. I'd rather the student be locating and flying to his ground reference points that will help him in the future.

4. I'd rather the student be learning about canopy flight by doing some practice landing/flares and turns and such.

5. I'd like the student to have some fun with it.

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Well, personally, as opposed to following a leader,

1. I'd rather have the student paying attention to what's going on around him.

2. I'd like the student to gain a sense of accomplishment knowing that he was doing it himself.

3. I'd rather the student be locating and flying to his ground reference points that will help him in the future.

4. I'd rather the student be learning about canopy flight by doing some practice landing/flares and turns and such.

5. I'd like the student to have some fun with it.

LOL... adding to the tumult in defense of custom before you even read the articles. Very intellectually rigorous of you, POPS.

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."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

none of my followers ever one time had even the tiniest problem with picking my canopy out of the mix

What happens if you have a cutaway? What happens if they have a cutaway? What happens if you have a traffic conflict? What happens if they have a traffic conflict?

Your idea has some merit, but overall there are too many scenarios where your guidance would be limited or eliminated alltogether, leaving the student with no options.

A radio provides for reliable communication from a variety of sources. The communication does not rely on the performance of rigs, canopies, openings, or traffic. If you have an operator on the ground, that person will be there and able to assist regardless of what happens in the sky. There are far more variables in the sky than on the ground, I have not once enountered an obstacle I could not overcome when walking to the radio to talk down a student.

On top of all that, follow the leader only provides directional guidance when the curcumstances allow. It does not account for anything out of the ordinary happening to or with the student, and that's a big part of the value of the radio. If everything under canopy goes as per the plan, meaning that exactly what they were taught comes to pass, flying and landing a canopy is not that hard. It's when things change and go off-plan that students could use the experience and decision making ability of a ground based instructor to help them make the best choices.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

none of my followers ever one time had even the tiniest problem with picking my canopy out of the mix

What happens if you have a cutaway? What happens if they have a cutaway? What happens if you have a traffic conflict? What happens if they have a traffic conflict?

Your idea has some merit, but overall there are too many scenarios where your guidance would be limited or eliminated alltogether, leaving the student with no options.

A radio provides for reliable communication from a variety of sources. The communication does not rely on the performance of rigs, canopies, openings, or traffic. If you have an operator on the ground, that person will be there and able to assist regardless of what happens in the sky. There are far more variables in the sky than on the ground, I have not once enountered an obstacle I could not overcome when walking to the radio to talk down a student.

On top of all that, follow the leader only provides directional guidance when the curcumstances allow. It does not account for anything out of the ordinary happening to or with the student, and that's a big part of the value of the radio. If everything under canopy goes as per the plan, meaning that exactly what they were taught comes to pass, flying and landing a canopy is not that hard. It's when things change and go off-plan that students could use the experience and decision making ability of a ground based instructor to help them make the best choices.

Thus does another otherwise intellectually disciplined gentleman add to the tumult in defense of custom without even reading the articles...

Sigh...

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."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Thus does another otherwise intellectually disciplined gentleman add to the tumult in defense of custom without even reading the articles...

Repeating this does not address my questions/concerns, nor does it add anything to the thread. I had not read the artcles, but I went back and did read them before typing this reply, and all it did was generate more concerns about your idea.

For starters, my original point still stands and has not beed addressed, that being that the FTL concpet is a one-trick pony. The only function it provides is guidance, there is no provision for providing any other type of advice or assistance. A radio, on the other hand, is adept at providing both, you can provide simple guidance as well as assist if things should go off-plan or the student needs more complicated instruction. Does your plan overcome that in some way, or do you just accept the reduced functionality?

In terms of the phrase 'learn to move in a 3D space', which you used many times in your articles, how is that different than radio assistance? Guiding someone through an actual canopy ride, be it by FTL or with a radio, provides them the same experience of seeing the relationships between time/altitude and forward/vertical movement first hand.

If you were comparing FTL to something like tracing a flight plan/landing pattern on an overhead picture of the DZ, in that case the 3D nature of the activity would be lost, and FTL would hold an advantage. but FTL and radio both work on the basis of in-air training (for the student), and both provide a real world experience flying through the 3D space.

My final comment on your articles (you were probably better off before I read them), is that all of your examples involve jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps and were from 15 to 20 years ago. None of your esamples address the needs of the students with 1 to 10 jumps, and those are the vast majority of the jumpers who use a radio these days.

Someone with the experience of 20-some jumps is in a much better position to be 'alone' under canopy, and then simply use FTL to tweak their accuracy skills. In that respect, it can be a useful training tool.

However, in terms of primary training, for the first few times a jumper is under canopy as a student. the increased functionality of a radio far out-performs the one-dimensional idea of FTL. Furthermore, given the new(er) canopy performance requirements of the A license proficiency card, jumpers couldn't make it off student status without the basic skills that the FTL program could provide. Even if it's a good tool for jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps, they would already have those skills by virtue of the new(er) training requirements.

FTL is not a bad idea, it's just as good of an idea as using a radio when you're talking about the first handful of times a student is alone under canopy. We use a version of FTL taught in the FJC, that being we tell students to look for (and follow) other canopies if they are having trouble finding the DZ.

[LyraM45 0]

Dave really hits the nail on the head in his posts, and has pretty much taken the words out of my mouth with what I was going to respond with.

I don't think anybody is saying that FTL is a bad thing, but most will agree it may not be the best thing out of all choices for students in their first few jumps. Put it this way..... I'm sure there's at least one student out there who has been saved from absolute carnage or even death because the instructor gave them input on a radio. Maybe the instructor stayed quiet the whole time and only piped up at that one moment when desperately needed before the student turned himself into some trees, powerlines, another canopy, or whatever. If it's helped in any of those situations, then I just don't see how you can argue against it's use at all, even if just used as an absolute worst case scenario back up if the student is about to hurt their self or somebody else under canopy.

Maybe I think this way because that's how my AFF went. The instructors at this DZ didn't baby people on radios, or encourage dependency on them. Only used if absolutely necessary, and even then you knew there was a chance of it not functioning properly, so you're taught right off the bat not to rely on them.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Thus does another otherwise intellectually disciplined gentleman add to the tumult in defense of custom without even reading the articles...

Repeating this does not address my questions/concerns, nor does it add anything to the thread. I had not read the artcles, but I went back and did read them before typing this reply, and all it did was generate more concerns about your idea.

For starters, my original point still stands and has not beed addressed, that being that the FTL concpet is a one-trick pony. The only function it provides is guidance, there is no provision for providing any other type of advice or assistance. A radio, on the other hand, is adept at providing both, you can provide simple guidance as well as assist if things should go off-plan or the student needs more complicated instruction. Does your plan overcome that in some way, or do you just accept the reduced functionality?

In terms of the phrase 'learn to move in a 3D space', which you used many times in your articles, how is that different than radio assistance? Guiding someone through an actual canopy ride, be it by FTL or with a radio, provides them the same experience of seeing the relationships between time/altitude and forward/vertical movement first hand.

If you were comparing FTL to something like tracing a flight plan/landing pattern on an overhead picture of the DZ, in that case the 3D nature of the activity would be lost, and FTL would hold an advantage. but FTL and radio both work on the basis of in-air training (for the student), and both provide a real world experience flying through the 3D space.

My final comment on your articles (you were probably better off before I read them), is that all of your examples involve jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps and were from 15 to 20 years ago. None of your esamples address the needs of the students with 1 to 10 jumps, and those are the vast majority of the jumpers who use a radio these days.

Someone with the experience of 20-some jumps is in a much better position to be 'alone' under canopy, and then simply use FTL to tweak their accuracy skills. In that respect, it can be a useful training tool.

However, in terms of primary training, for the first few times a jumper is under canopy as a student. the increased functionality of a radio far out-performs the one-dimensional idea of FTL. Furthermore, given the new(er) canopy performance requirements of the A license proficiency card, jumpers couldn't make it off student status without the basic skills that the FTL program could provide. Even if it's a good tool for jumpers with 20 to 50 jumps, they would already have those skills by virtue of the new(er) training requirements.

FTL is not a bad idea, it's just as good of an idea as using a radio when you're talking about the first handful of times a student is alone under canopy. We use a version of FTL taught in the FJC, that being we tell students to look for (and follow) other canopies if they are having trouble finding the DZ.

Much better, Dave. Thanks for checking out the articles.

To your contentions:

FTL is not a one-trick pony. As you apparently didn't notice from the articles, the whole system built autonomy into the process, so that if, by chance or deliberate intent, the follower did not follow the leader, s/he already had the toolbox necessary to handle the rest of it on his or her own. This brings me back to the original point in my first post on this subject about radios breeding dependency. The whole FTL process as I developed it does the exact opposite, so there's your answer right in your objection: FTL's only function is providing guidance, not hand holding. The process itself equips the student to act autonomously, even if something "off-plan" happens -- as did in fact occur and was recounted in the articles (Kim broke off from the instructor once; Ali landed in the boonies after a bad spot -- in both cases, they handled their "off-plan" situation with aplomb because the FTL program had equipped them with the tools they needed to do so).

Second, you can't teach navigating in 3D on a radio. What a preposterous proposition. All you're doing is telling them to turn one direction or another, which means absolutely nothing in terms of 3D maneuvering. Drawing it on the ground and pointing out the landmakrs -- then WATCHING someone navigate that space, then following them and SEEING how things look as you follow is orders of magnitude better. Heck, it's not even comparable.

Yes, all of my examples were students with 20 or more jumps 15+ years ago. The time frame, of course, is relevant because it shows that "AFF" training is still in the dark ages of canopy training; literally, nothing has changed since I wrote those articles in either the way "AAF" instruction presents parachute training -- or the failures thereof to substantially stem the continuing carnage under open canopies by people who never learned the fundamentals -- and associated judgment -- when they first started jumping.

As for the jump numbers, demolish that straw man, Dave!! Get 'im!! I say repeatedly in my articles that my findings are unscientific and need to be tested more comrephensively -- and with lower time jumpers. I further state repeatedly that the perfect laboratory for this is "AFF" instructors, one of whom should pull high with students and lead them down, to validate or disprove my findings on a larger scale with lower-time jumpers.

So far, no takers, just people adding to the tumult in defense of custom.

Keep the radios if you don't trust yourselves to train your students enough to do without them, But don't you think it's time to move forward instead of just digging in your heels against reason and then whining when so many "AFF" graduates kill themselves under open canopies a few hundred jumps down the line?

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]

Quote

Dave really hits the nail on the head in his posts, and has pretty much taken the words out of my mouth with what I was going to respond with.

I don't think anybody is saying that FTL is a bad thing, but most will agree it may not be the best thing out of all choices for students in their first few jumps. Put it this way..... I'm sure there's at least one student out there who has been saved from absolute carnage or even death because the instructor gave them input on a radio. Maybe the instructor stayed quiet the whole time and only piped up at that one moment when desperately needed before the student turned himself into some trees, powerlines, another canopy, or whatever. If it's helped in any of those situations, then I just don't see how you can argue against it's use at all, even if just used as an absolute worst case scenario back up if the student is about to hurt their self themselves or somebody else under canopy.

All these scenarios sorta evaporate if the student follows an instructor down, don't they? (Of course, that assumes that the instructor doesn't lead the student into trees, powerlines, other canopies or whatever.)

Quote

Maybe I think this way because that's how my AFF went. The instructors at this DZ didn't baby people on radios, or encourage dependency on them. Only used if absolutely necessary, and even then you knew there was a chance of it not functioning properly, so you're taught right off the bat not to rely on them.

I guess that makes radios a one-trick pony, doesn't it? If the radio doesn't work, THEN what are you going to do? Oh right, "don't rely on them."

With FTL, on the other hand, even if the instructor's parachute doesn't work, he still has a reserve that probably will, and then the student still has someone to follow -- plus, as the articles outline, the whole system builds autonomy into the process so that in the case of an "off-plan" situation, the student still has a backup plan -- and tin the case of FTL, that backup plan is more comprehensive than most "AFF" training -- and perhaps less likely to be needed (though radios are pretty reliable these days).

Again, the FTL system I describe builds autonomy into the process and by showing instead of telling also helps the student to advance more quickly than having to convert radio instructions into a flight path and figure out themselves how things are supposed to look. It's really just a variation on the old military training maxim:

Watch one.
Do one.
Teach one.

And there ain't nothing to watch when someone's talking in your ear on a radio; you go straight to the second phase -- and that delays your learning progression.

But keep the radios if you want; you never know when the instructor might bounce and leave the student alone in the sky. But hey, that' what they do now even if they don't bounce, so it's long past time for "AFF" instructors to quit bailing on their students just when the going gets tough.

My projection: If "AFF" instructors ever cease with the tumult in defense of custom and come to grips with reality, FTL will eventually make radios obsolete.

Until then, stick with them because obviously the "AFF" community doesn't have enough faith in its current system to do without them.

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."

[davelepka 4]

The simple fact is that silent demonstration is not the best method for teaching anything. The problem with that is it leaves room for the student to interpret your actions or intent with no ability for you to give feedback or correction in real time.

Do you speak during your FJC, or silently show them the moves required? You speak, because it's the clearest, most reliable form of communication. Most instructors do both, but if you had to pick one, you would choose to sit motionless and speak to the class. They could demonstrate to you, and you could could comment on their performance (like when speaking over a radio), but you could not demonstrate yourself.

How about in freefall? Do you use established hand signals, or do you fly out in front of your student and just show them the right way to fall stable? You use hand signals because then there is a clear line of communication between you and the student, and they don't have to guess what you're showing them or what they're doing wrong. Legs out, means legs out, and arch means arch. It's as close to speaking as you can get in freefall.

I'll make my final point on this, as I feel that the comminuty has seen my side of the story sufficiently. My final point is that it was 15 years ago that you did the initial experiments, but since then it has not been furthered persued or developed, and as far as I know, is not in regular use anywhere in the US. If the idea had merit, and was 'the way', someone, somewhere, would have latched onto it and put it into use.

The radio system is beautifully simple in that it 'fits' so many students needs. If they need lots of help, and special instructions, it does that. If they're flying like a pro, and need no help, it does that too, and everything in between. Given that most DZs won't let you get past jump 10 with a radio, and that it takes 25 jumps to earn an A license, there are no dependcy issues to be concerned with. A jumper will have twice as many jumps without a radio as with before they are licensed and free to jump on their own.

[popsjumper 2]

[replyLOL... adding to the tumult in defense of custom before you even read the articles. Very intellectually rigorous of you, POPS.

44

Well, Robin...it doesn't matter what the articles say unless you are trying to assimilate me.

Tumult? Defending?
Well, no. You are reading into much more than what was said. Quite typical,

I passed on my preferences..simple as that.

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

The simple fact is that silent demonstration is not the best method for teaching anything. The problem with that is it leaves room for the student to interpret your actions or intent with no ability for you to give feedback or correction in real time.

Do you speak during your FJC, or silently show them the moves required? You speak, because it's the clearest, most reliable form of communication. Most instructors do both, but if you had to pick one, you would choose to sit motionless and speak to the class. They could demonstrate to you, and you could could comment on their performance (like when speaking over a radio), but you could not demonstrate yourself.

How about in freefall? Do you use established hand signals, or do you fly out in front of your student and just show them the right way to fall stable? You use hand signals because then there is a clear line of communication between you and the student, and they don't have to guess what you're showing them or what they're doing wrong. Legs out, means legs out, and arch means arch. It's as close to speaking as you can get in freefall.

I'll make my final point on this, as I feel that the comminuty has seen my side of the story sufficiently. My final point is that it was 15 years ago that you did the initial experiments, but since then it has not been furthered persued or developed, and as far as I know, is not in regular use anywhere in the US. If the idea had merit, and was 'the way', someone, somewhere, would have latched onto it and put it into use.

The radio system is beautifully simple in that it 'fits' so many students needs. If they need lots of help, and special instructions, it does that. If they're flying like a pro, and need no help, it does that too, and everything in between. Given that most DZs won't let you get past jump 10 with a radio, and that it takes 25 jumps to earn an A license, there are no dependcy issues to be concerned with. A jumper will have twice as many jumps without a radio as with before they are licensed and free to jump on their own.

Ahhh, the tumult continues, this time by changing the subject to beat another straw man to death.

Beat 'im, Dave! Whup 'im GOOD!

Did I not just say in two posts immediately previous to this one that you can keep the radios as you employ FTL?

Sorta kills your whole argument before y'all git started, don't it, bucko? Not to mention the fact that, when you're on the radio, you can't show nobody nuthin, kin y'all?

Even though you say in that DOA post that show AND tell is superior to show-only or tell-only.

So why not incorporate both instead of continuing the tumult?

And then we come to your laughable contention that "If the idea had merit, and was 'the way', someone, somewhere, would have latched onto it and put it into use."

I mean, doood, not only are you running out of ammo, y'all shooting yourself in the foot with what you have left, given that in post #32 above, you wrote:

"FTL is not a bad idea, it's just as good of an idea as using a radio when you're talking about the first handful of times a student is alone under canopy. We use a version of FTL taught in the FJC, that being we tell students to look for (and follow) other canopies if they are having trouble finding the DZ."

Maybe you ought to let the tumult subside for a while... it's getting so loud you apparently can't hear yourself think.

XO

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]

Quote

[replyLOL... adding to the tumult in defense of custom before you even read the articles. Very intellectually rigorous of you, POPS.

44

Well, Robin...it doesn't matter what the articles say unless you are trying to assimilate me.

Tumult? Defending?
Well, no. You are reading into much more than what was said. Quite typical,

I passed on my preferences..simple as that.

You passed on your uninformed preferences that don't accurately reflect what FTL is about. You expressed preferences regarding something about which you know only what you assume and without bothering to see if any of your assumptions were invalid.

This is SOP for many people on this website, but IIRC not for you, which is why I gave you a gentle what-for for not meeting your own almost-always reasonable and thoughtful standard.

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."

[billvon 2,435]

Enough, Robin.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

You passed on your uninformed preferences that don't accurately reflect what FTL is about. You expressed preferences regarding something about which you know only what you assume and without bothering to see if any of your assumptions were invalid.

This is SOP for many people on this website, but IIRC not for you, which is why I gave you a gentle what-for for not meeting your own almost-always reasonable and thoughtful standard.

44

You couldn't tell that my post was not about FTL at all?

So why would you assume that I was comparing anything to anything?

Are you saying my preferences are bogus because I didn't compare them against FTL? Are you saying that any input is valid unless it it compared the FTL?

Again...just a simple listing of some of my preferences for student training.


But OK, I'll have it your way. I read the articles.

I think FTL is robs the student of good learning opportunities and contributes much more to "dependency" than does radio assistance. The articles are not convincing and frankly, IMO, show some disregard for instilling confidence in students.

About the only time FTL would be beneficial, IMO, is when the student is totally lost and cannot find a viable landing area.


My preferences still stand.

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

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

You passed on your uninformed preferences that don't accurately reflect what FTL is about. You expressed preferences regarding something about which you know only what you assume and without bothering to see if any of your assumptions were invalid.

This is SOP for many people on this website, but IIRC not for you, which is why I gave you a gentle what-for for not meeting your own almost-always reasonable and thoughtful standard.

44

You couldn't tell that my post was not about FTL at all?

So why would you assume that I was comparing anything to anything?

Are you saying my preferences are bogus because I didn't compare them against FTL? Are you saying that any input is valid unless it it compared the FTL?

Again...just a simple listing of some of my preferences for student training.


But OK, I'll have it your way. I read the articles.

I think FTL is robs the student of good learning opportunities and contributes much more to "dependency" than does radio assistance. The articles are not convincing and frankly, IMO, show some disregard for instilling confidence in students.

About the only time FTL would be beneficial, IMO, is when the student is totally lost and cannot find a viable landing area.


My preferences still stand.

Fair enough. Thanks for your input.

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."

[fcajump 153]

Not directed at Robin, just a few observations/thoughts related to the discussion.

First, I don't think most AFF instructors will adopt FTL as it removes from them several "perks"...
- no tiny canopies/HP... you need to be able to stay with the student's canopy.
- no hooks/swoops/720's... unless that's what you want the student to follow along with...
- no rushing down for the next load.
- maybe you even have to walk in from the student field.

That means that you're working 100% of the dive/flight, not just the freefall portion.

While I was raised on radio, the notion of FTL saved my A$$ on a single-instructor dive when we got out very long. (nothing but woods between us and home) My instructor openned high and got in front of me, then turned and spirled down over an open field. I saw where the instructor was headed, followed him down to a safe landing.

A few years later I watched as another student flying a DC-5 was left by two AFF instructors a mile out over woods as they flew flat out over the same woods to make for home. She had no one (but me) to show her that her canopy wasn't going to make it and get her to the field away from the high-tension lines.

The difference - my instructor was raised to teach at all times, her instructors stopped being her instructor once her canopy openned.

JW

Always remember that some clouds are harder than others...

[ChrisD 0]

Quote

Quote

I had a radio on all my student jumps in 1983 but with jumping T-10's about all you could do from 2500' was change the view.

Radios with T10s? I gotta ask...WHY?????


One reason:
"Jumper 1, turn 180 so that you can see the tree you are about to hit."

In 1973 PI had mandatory radios on all "first Jumpers." You might want to ask Jerry B. about this one as he predates me by a couple of years. Dan P., when he was working at Ted's place was at Orange and has first hand knowlege of one very sad story of a jumper who did in fact hit a tree, his last...if he had listened to his radio???? Perhaps that last was'nt quite fair, no one really knows if the radio failed or if it was the student, but regardless he was moving fast enough forward to do fatal damage.
C

FTL plus radio? Now that's a great idea,...knock it off you two... Can't we all get along???

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[popsjumper 2]

Indicates humor. It doesn't indicate belief.
*sigh*

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

[popsjumper 2]

...and just to add, I do tell my students the color of my canopy and that if they have trouble finding the DZ look below and near for my canopy and follow me to the DZ.

I guess maybe that qualifies as FTL procedure?

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

[ChrisD 0]

Quote

Indicates humor. It doesn't indicate belief.
*sigh*

In no way am I flaming you or anything even remotly close, I , in fact love reading, your advice...

However, and quite often I will take the opportunity to provoke for discussion,...

Whether it be by FTL or Radio, or Ground Signal, (ask the folks at DeLand about the big inflatabble arrow!! that the Belgium Army came with this past Nov/Dec.) The point is students, and perhaps many of us benifite greatly by instruction, at the time they need it most, I realize however that their are a few that would leave students to the wolves, and perhaps we should approach students with this attitude in some respects considering the incident/student/ crash rate, considering the fact that radios do fail, and FTL won't work if the student cant find someone to follow, or the big ass arrow deflates...

Personally anyone is free to hang around first time jumpers, ask them if they thought the radio was a good idea? This illustrates what is called "feedback," and belive it or not this isn't always incorporated into FJC's, it should be because it's how the instructers learn.

Rob Laidlaw has a nice view on just this subject,...his position is that "you had better take an interest in how (your) student performs,...because it's an indication of how well you have trained them..."

Please beg my pardon if I have incorrectly quoted you Rob, and also my forgiveness to the many fine instructors out there who also share this view!!!

I love you pops jumpers, everywhere!!
C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[popsjumper 2]

We're good.

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

[nigel99 150]

Quote

...and just to add, I do tell my students the color of my canopy and that if they have trouble finding the DZ look below and near for my canopy and follow me to the DZ.

I guess maybe that qualifies as FTL procedure?

Well we know how that worked out for a certain AFF student, don't we?

* BTW - I like the way our DZ does it for first AFF students. One instructor deploys 'with' the student and the student has been briefed on the instructors canopy. The other burns it down to an arrow. The student is told to follow the 'high' instructor, until they see the arrow moving, at which point they are to start following the arrow. This allows for a spot/emergency where an off DZ landing occurs (but it would be interesting if the high instructor had a cutaway). For final flare and last 100 foot there are paddles - which is the only part I don't like about our setup.

We also have radios as backup.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[jumpinjackflsh 0]

I used radios when I did the static line course 17 some odd years ago. Then, went away from the sport, came back, did AFF and used radios again.

I don't understand the debate?

They worked well and I learned a lot. That wasn't the only training I had. Of course I was given full instruction on what to do and how to do it. So if the radio failed, I could fly my way in.

I never had a problem with it.

What's the debate about? Re following someone in? Hell typically there are many canopies about, always someone to lurk albeit from far away, if you are lost. But gods honest truth if you paid attention, wind sock, arrow, and ran your pattern, no problem. Jeez a Manta is pretty damn easy to steer, and certainly slow enough to feel comfortable.

I don't get it. Where's the issue?