USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement

[billvon 2,918]

>How important are freefall skills?

They are life or death important.

> Don't we have the best modern equipment with aad's so how important is
>it that they catch the student anyway.

As instructors we don't trust AAD's to save anyone's life.

>We should . . . rely on our quality modern skydiving equipment

We should NEVER rely on any gadgets.

>on the rare time a student gets away from the instructor. Isn't this the
>same as on S/L or IAD once cleared to 5 sec delays watching a student
>spin and saying it sucks to be you hope the equipment works.

Nope, not the same at all. That is a failure in the system, not how we expect a skydive to go. An AFF instructor must be able to be there at pull time. If he can't - SL is a good option, because then the student is not cleared to pull for himself until he demonstrates that he can in a real world environment.

[DaVinciflies 0]

The comparison between wind tunnel time and aircraft simulator time is so flawed I can't believe that it is even being used. Aircraft simulators can replicate anything that can happen during an actual flight whereas wind tunnels can replicate falling straight down. That is ALL. They cannot train the following essential skills for an AFFI:

- spotting
- exits with a student
- recovering a student that has "got away from them"
- deploying a student's canopy in an emergency
- altitude awareness
- canopy skills and assessment

I am sure there are others I have missed (feel free to add to the list)

My view is that the freefall requirement should be increased and tunnel time should not count formally at all.

[rehmwa 2]

.....

...
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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

My statement to the USPA as a dual rated international AFFI/Tandem I (USA and Australia), having instructed for over 20 years and jumped for over 30 years:freefall experience covers all aspect of safety and responsibility, Aircraft safety, exits, spacial awareness and canopy control.

I have to disagree. Freefall experience teaches none of that except for maybe spacial awareness. If you want to include canopy time under the umbrella of freefall, then, yes, it will possibly enhance canopy skills...to an extent.

Quote

There is no substitute for expereince and exposure.

This I agree with with the caveat of learning on the ground before you step out for that experience and exposure.

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

[DougH 270]

You can't have real freefall experince without gaining *some* experince with gear, aircraft operating, spotting, canopy flight, weather conditions.

Of course how much experince in those different areas really depends on who is making the jumps and where they are making the jumps.

I had a side conversation about this with someone and they pointed out that S/L and IAD ratings have much lower requirements when compared to AFF.

Putting aside the argument that maybe those requirements are too low, I think in general the individuals who want to get and IAD or S/L rating have been exposed to a lot more of the other elements that make up skydiving. IAD and S/L tends to be the domain of smaller aircraft dropzones where jumpers get more spotting, more canopy work, more hop and pops. The enviroment is smaller so they get more exposure when compared to a large multi turbine dropzone.

It may be that you could subsitute 100% of the freefall time for tunnel time and not diminish the quality of AFF instruction. I don't agree with that, but lets play devils advocate here.

If that was true I still want to know the motivation for the change. What is the problem that exists with the current standard that needs to be "fixed" with this change.

Is it money? Is the argument that we are making otherwise qualified candidate pay for more jumps before making it to paid instructing jumps?

That is the only real argument I can see for the change and I think it is a lousy one. In my opinion the individuals who should be holding an AFF rating should have no complaints about having to make enough fun jumps and coach jumps to get the 6 hours.

Skydiving is fun! Make your jumps. Are we wronging these individuals for making them skydive? They are going to be teaching skydiving, it shouldn't be an inconvience to actually have to skydive!

If they are dying to teach they can earn a S/L or IAD rating while they are waiting for the AFF requirments to be met.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Ron 10]

While I agree with your intent.....

Quote

Here's what I might support:

Currently the requirement is six hours of freefall time, 500 jumps or coach for a year.

Change that to:

Instructional rating for a year PLUS

600 jumps PLUS

Six hours of freefall time OR five hours of freefall time plus two hours of AFF instruction in the tunnel, taught by a course director or designated evaluator.

The bolded part is not really realistic. I mean there are only four instructional methods: SL, IAD, T, and AFF.

Tandem really has nothing to do with an AFF rating. In fact some TI's I have seen trying for the rating actually have a harder time than others.

SL, IAD. While it would help some... How would a guy at Perris get and actually USE a SL or IAD rating. The rating itself without the Exp would be worthless, IMO.

So while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.

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

[SkydiverDZO 0]

NO. Period.

Charlie Gittins
MEI-I, CFI-I
Sigma TI; AFF-I
FAA Senior Rigger

[DougH 270]

Make it coach rating for a year minimum plus a set number of coach jumps signed off by the supervising instructor or the DZ S&TA.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[billvon 2,918]

>So while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating
>for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.

OK. Coach for a year would provide many of the same benefits.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>So while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating
>for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.

OK. Coach for a year would provide many of the same benefits.

Forgive me here... I am not an IE. I thought you already had to have the coach for a year first?

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

[missbrz 0]

I'll probably get flamed for this BUT I think it would be ok if they stipulated the tunnel time had to be on AFF-I skills. I know some wanna-be AFF-I jumpers pad their free fall time with wing suiting. I'm sorry but I'd rather have an AFF-I with 5 hours of any free fall and 1 hour in a tunnel learning how to flip and stabliize students than one with 5 hours of any free fall and 1 extra hour of pure wing suit jumps. Just because someone has 6 hours of free fall does not mean that they have the skills that everyone here is saying is necessary to be an AFF-I. They could have gotten it 5 seconds at a time doing hop-n-pops even.

I do agree that tunnel is NOT a substitute for real jumping. I also agree that tunnel does NOT prepare you for all situations in AFF. And it does NOT give you knowledge of spotting, aircraft procedures, or any of that. I also dont think it should be accepted if it's just any kind of tunnel time. BUT I still think the tunnel can be a useful tool in training good instructors.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

while I agree with the intent, I don't think making an instructor rating for a year mandatory is really workable when those ratings ar SL, IAD, or T.

How would you feel about a prerequisite 1-year COACH rating + a minimum of X-number of jumps as the designated coach? "Coach" being the equivalent of AFFI-in-training, much the way the old Jumpmaster was sort of an SL/I in training.

=======

And general question to everyone: Is "freefall" time alone sufficient? Why not minimum hours freefall belly-RW time? I say that because there are some people who do 99% freeflying, and are good at it, but have precious little belly-RW experience, the skill-set of which I'd argue is more akin to AFFI than freeflying (even a lot of it) is.

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

I voted NO!

I think that the most interesting question is "Who is proposing this?" I don't know the answer, but I suspect that it is the tunnel owners, operators, &/or coaches who see this as a way to drum up more business. From their perspective, the effect on student instruction would be largely irrelevant (unless they own/operate a DZ too).

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[Ron 10]

Quote

How would you feel about a prerequisite 1-year COACH rating + a minimum of X-number of jumps as the designated coach? "Coach" being the equivalent of AFFI-in-training, much the way the old Jumpmaster was sort of an SL/I in training.

As I stated before... I thought that was already required. If it is not... Then I think it is an obvious step in the right direction.

I could even see waiving that for a rated tunnel instructor... Since the main aspect is the ability to teach. Same thing with a licensed teacher.

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

[beowulf 1]

I think all AFFI's should supplement their freefall training with tunnel training. But tunnel should not be a replacement for freefall time.

[time2jmp 0]

when free fall time is used it is used mostly for awards and ratings. So does any amount of tunnel time equal time towards a rating or a skydiving award? My opinion is that tunnel time is tunnel time and skydive freefall time is skydive freefall time. So if the poll is set up to fail I sure hope it fails. I personally LOVE the tunnel but I wish we were talking about continuing education for instructors of any rating. The tunnel is an amazing tool that I plan to use as long as I teach, skydive, and can afford.

[jonathan.newman 1]

I voted that two hours of tunnel coaching could substitute two of the six required. Here's why:

I got my AFFI with just barely 6 hours of freefall at around 400 jumps. I had been doing coach jumps for over a year at a busy DZ. After making over 100 AFF jumps, I finally knew what I needed to work on.

After 20 minutes in the tunnel with a Canadian PFF I/E, he was impressed enough to ask when I was planning to get a CSPA rating. Then, I spent another 45 mins at Paraclete getting more AFF-specific training.

I think that 15-30 mins of dedicated AFF tunnel coaching would be the most helpful prep for a ratings course.

Any jumper can spend 6 hours in the air doing rodeo jumps and never get half as good as he should be. It takes dedicated practice to build the skills needed of an AFFI.

The discussion here seems to be forgetting that the progression card exists for a reason. Before anyone attends a course, they need to demonstrate that they can radio-control a student, that they have participated in a number of student briefs, etc.

I'd like to see the USPA build on the progression card to include a skills grid for AFFI candidates. How about calculating jump run and exit point using winds aloft? Demonstrating exits from inside and outside (or not, as each I/E, aircraft, and DZ can be substantially different.) Spin stops and roll-overs are usually pre-course material. And every instructor, I don't care how many thousands of jumps, should take a canopy course or prove that they have the ability to demonstrate or teach proper canopy flight. How about swoop and docks? Techniques for fast and slow fall? The skills of an AFFI should be conscientiously built, not assumed to appear at 6 hours of freefall.

A few years back there was a waiver request for two of my fellow instructors to take the AFF course with less than 6 hours of FF. Both had fathers who were instructors. Both made their first jumps when they were "barely legal". Both had competed in 4-way. Both had all the skills, but not all of the FF time, if you excluded tunnel. By the time the BOD considered and rejected the waiver, they had accumulated the time needed. The point was moot, but their instructional abilities were more than adequate. I only wish that one of them would take a canopy course.

Flame away...

[time2jmp 0]

My understanding and please correct me if I am wrong. If two hours of tunnel time equals two hours of freefall. Someone with around 240-260 jumps could be an AFF instructor? I like more seasoning on my instructors please.

As stated on the survey
(All other AFF Instructor requirements would remain, e.g., needing a C license, holding a coach rating for at least 12 months OR having at least 500 jumps, etc.)

[toolbox 0]

Proposing tunnel time replacing free fall time for any instructional rating in skydiving is asinine.
The #1 cause of injury and death in skydiving is related to canopy control and they want to eliminate roughly 120 parachute descents.
Then there are all the other issues with gear,aircraft,free fall collisions,ect,ect..... The AFF I is the pinnacle of the ratings for instructors.
In my opinion they have already lowered the bar enough as it is.

[theonlyski 4]

Quote

Quote

How would you feel about a prerequisite 1-year COACH rating + a minimum of X-number of jumps as the designated coach? "Coach" being the equivalent of AFFI-in-training, much the way the old Jumpmaster was sort of an SL/I in training.

As I stated before... I thought that was already required. If it is not... Then I think it is an obvious step in the right direction.

I could even see waiving that for a rated tunnel instructor... Since the main aspect is the ability to teach. Same thing with a licensed teacher.

Currently it's coach rating for a year if you have less than 500 jumps.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[billvon 2,918]

>I think that 15-30 mins of dedicated AFF tunnel coaching would be the
>most helpful prep for a ratings course.

Agreed. It's tremendously helpful.

>Any jumper can spend 6 hours in the air doing rodeo jumps and never get
>half as good as he should be. It takes dedicated practice to build the
>skills needed of an AFFI.

Also agreed. But making those 360 jumps does (in general) teach people how to spot, how to gear check themselves and others, how to exit an aircraft in a stable orientation, how to get to someone who is far away or falling at a drastically different rate, how to track, how to pull stable, how to deal with malfunctions, how to find the DZ, how to set up a landing pattern and how to land safely. And tunnel flyers learn none of that during their time in the tunnel.

Is the above all you need to be an AFF-I? Absolutely not! But can you be an AFF-I without the above skills? No.

[toolbox 0]

Being a good AFF instructor takes far more than good free fall skills.
And free fall skills are more than just flying your body against the wind.
How about altitude awareness and other aspects of situational awareness that are needed in the real life world of flying at the ground at 120MPH?
Do you wear altimeters in the wind tunnel? An altimeter simulator would be unrealistic,since they are just timers that give estimations of where you might be on a normal belly to earth dive (about 5.5 seconds per 1000ft),but as any skydiver or skydiving instructor will tell you the fall rates can greatly vary and the ground can sneak up real quick when things get busy,especially if you are not used to being on a real skydive.
Some might rely on audibles,but I've known a few folks who had AAD fires because they did not hear the audible.
Tunnels are great training tools but they are not real skydiving.
You can't go in flying the tunnel.

[skyturtle 0]

From the point of view of a less experienced jumper I think it would be selling students short to lower the reqs. in any way. The people who take short cuts to ratings arent the people I would have wanted to take me out of a plane the first time, regardless of if it was safe or not. There should be a good industry standard to offer a good level of customer value.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

>I think that 15-30 mins of dedicated AFF tunnel coaching would be the
>most helpful prep for a ratings course.

Agreed. It's tremendously helpful.

>Any jumper can spend 6 hours in the air doing rodeo jumps and never get
>half as good as he should be. It takes dedicated practice to build the
>skills needed of an AFFI.

Also agreed. But making those 360 jumps does (in general) teach people how to spot, how to gear check themselves and others, how to exit an aircraft in a stable orientation, how to get to someone who is far away or falling at a drastically different rate, how to track, how to pull stable, how to deal with malfunctions, how to find the DZ, how to set up a landing pattern and how to land safely. And tunnel flyers learn none of that during their time in the tunnel.

Is the above all you need to be an AFF-I? Absolutely not! But can you be an AFF-I without the above skills? No.

Agreed. I have more than 1200 AFF jumps and 2 years as a tunnel instructor and I have to add that the EASIEST part of my job to learn and execute is the freefall portion.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[tdog 0]

I have a few videos in my private library that show why six hours is a good bare minimum. I say 10 hours total, no more than 4 in the tunnel. That way everyone gets their way!