robinheid

I couldn't disagree more. A wing is a wing is a wing.. Aside from his thousands of hours as a fixed wing pilot, I'll bet he was applying *everything* he knows and has learned about lift, airspeed, drag, glide angle, emergency procedures, etc. To a fixed wing pilot that is accustomed to landing on long paved runways, I'll bet that field would look impossibly small. For someone that is used to landing a parachute in fields a fraction of that size, I'm sure it looked do-able. It all crosses over. Way to go, Bill! +1 I was thinking the same thing watching the news video. The good outcome started when Bill picked out "his" field, then put her down and did what was necessary to stay in the field. As you say, a wing is a wing and the process and procedure Bill used to create that good outcome is a great example for anyone forced to land out. BTW, this is the second Florida "Bill emergency landing" that has process/procedure lessons for jumpers: Bill Kitchen (inventor of Skycoaster and Skyventure and now a retired skydiver) had his 182 catch fire while in flight. I've attached the story I wrote about it in the March 2007 issue of SKYDIVING. Congrats, Mr. Booth. I still remember fondly the rides I took in that little beast with you. 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."

Not unless you're going to fly the suit without the rig. 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."

Actually, you're not too far off. Long ago, a cutting edge jumped named Kevin Shea wrote about getting to know your gear, and he strongly advocated wearing it around the house, even eating meals in it, so that it felt as much a part of you and as second-nature to you as your clothes. He was talking about harness/container systems, but adding the wingsuit to it makes sense too. Think about it. Even without it being inflated, you start to get familiar with where the handles are, how the material moves when you move, what happens to all of the orientations and relationships between suit, gear and body as you go through your day. And of course, you can watch TV on your belly and do those practice pulls you asked about. You can't duplicate the inflation, but you can duplicate the body position and pull motion and develop the muscle memory that will help you when you do "take it live" and start jumping it. (One caveat here: If any of the experienced WS instructors think you should not practice the pull in your living room because you might do it wrong and then have a bad habit to break, I defer to their judgment.) Whatever the exact details, the idea is to get to know your suit well enough before you jump it that it's a friend, not a stranger. In the meantime, I second McCordia's advice to just develop your overall skydiving skills and save the live pull practice for the FFC. 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."

Do you ever do research before flexing your fingers? There is one word very familiar to parachutists that both answers your question and also serves to shoot down your supposition: BEER. 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."

Thanks, mountainman and a huge shout out to DZ.C and L&B too. I found a forgotten Pro-Dytter in an old helmet the other day. Put new batteries in it but couldn't remember how to set it. Searched the DZ.C forums for "pro-dytter" and found this thread. Went to mountainman's link and there was the pro-dytter manual. Time from entering search term to unit up and running: About two minutes. Thanks to all. I have an audible again for the price of two CR2330 lithium batteries. 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."

Interesting article on Marketing techniques and student retention. But I didn't notice a proposal on how to ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting, understanding aerodynamics, and teaching new students in the article? I thought that was what is being discussed, not how to retain more tandem students? Thanks for your feedback. I do not propose ways to "ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting." I declare that "AFF" should be summarily executed because it is a fatally flawed system that is pedagogically psychotic and thus fundamentally incapable of providing "complete and comprehensive" basic canopy pilot training. Please go back to post #12 and read my comments from there on through the end of the first page and you will see within those posts an outline to replace "AFF" as the basic parachute training course with something that is pedagogically more sane. Go to post #24 for three documents on how do better deliver basic parachute training. 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."

It only points out the failures of the AFFIC....passing people who have very little real skydiving knowledge and then expecting them to pass proper methods, techniques and knowledge on to the students. That's because essentially every "AFF" course instructor is an "AFF" graduate. When you build sand castles on sand, it's no wonder they don't stand the test of time, tides or tiddlywinks. 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."

Tanks monn... 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."

Was saddened to see your post, Usetawuz. For anyone interested in the circumstances of John's death, you can read it here. Bottom line: He got ambushed by badly-neglected "Road Closed" signage and drove off the end of a washed-out road during a rainstorm into an irrigation ditch. Anyway, I jumped and skiied with John for years many years ago in Colorado. He was indeed a big guy and jumped really big gear, yet was one of the most graceful skiers I'd ever seen. He also had a real trying time for about year way back in the late 1970s or early 1980s. He bought a 252 Parafoil and after a few jumps he started having trouble landing it. He kept hammering in and we kept trying to work with him on his approach and flare, brake line length, etc. He was one P.O.ed big bad dude about this because all of us, including him, thought he was doing something wrong. And the worst part was, no one else had a Foil so we didn't know much about the canopy characteristics. He never injured himself, but he sure biffed in a bunch -- and then it turned out that Parafoil had gotten a bad bunch of fabric that lost its porosity after 25 jumps or so, and that had been his problem all along. I don't remember if they replaced it or he just bought something else, but when he instantly started landing the new canopy like he knew what he was doing, he was the happiest big bad dude on the block. Also one of the funniest. Although much of his humor would today fall even outside the normal parameters for politically incorrect speech, here is a sample that should give you an idea of his big bad sense of humor: John was pretty fit for a big old guy but he did have a bit of a belly so one day somebody kidded him about his belly, and without missing a beat he said: "You can't drive a spike with a tack hammer." BSBD, John. I love ya, man. 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."

The Straw Man Assassin strikes again. I wrote my proposal; 20 years ago. The documentation you say has not been available was published in Skydiving Magazine 17 years ago and 15 years ago, respectively. I also wrote two other articles that deal directly with this fatally flawed system and how it affects the marketing, health and potential survival of the sport. Both were also published in Skydiving: one in 1992; the other in 2006. I have attached the latter document to this post, since you apparently never read Skydiving Magazine. So my perspective, proposals and projects have been out there almost twice as long as you've been skydiving, and they were published repeatedly in the world's most prestigious and widely read parachuting publication. I have also repeated those perspectives, proposals and projects on this website multiple times. So the only real questions are: Where have you and every other "AFF" apologist been on this for the last 20 years? When are you going to actually do something concrete instead of beating up straw men? Seriously, Tom, you are merrily trying to put bandaids on a severed artery while the sport bleeds out because of its fatally flawed fundamental training structure. In fact, you inadvertently underscore this point when you relate your opposition to replacing "AFF" jumps with tunnel time by saying that "being an AFF I is more than just teaching freefall, you have to teach canopy control equally as well, and there is no tunnel time replacement for canopy control experience gained to be passed on through flying in a tunnel." Notice you keep saying "canopy control": No basic aerodynamics, navigation or meteorology, no learning to be a pilot because, yo, we gotta get them into freefall immediately. So you can babble all you want about how "AFF" instructors have to teach "canopy control" too, but they do not teach basic parachute piloting because the emphasis -- as confirmed by the very name of the training system -- is on freefall fun skills instead of parachute survival skills. Period. Full stop. Enjoy the read. 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."

Im not trying to limit anything Robin. You, and anyone else that wants to contribute to the thread is free to do so. I was simply replying to this, the first sentence of the OP's post: ***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. And again......I am simply saying 1) I havent seen that, or anything close to that, at all over the last few years, so if it happening, as Im a BOD member as you pointed out, where specifically is it being seen? Places, people and dates? Doesnt have to be public, simply send me a private message. I dont see it at all that way, and I actually travel quite extensively to USPA DZs domestically and abroad. As for the remainder of your point/counter point of my reply, again, I will leave the content of my posts up the community to decide for themselves its merit, or lack there of. Sigh... As I said, you are trying to limit this to a subsidiary element of the thread; In fact, you did not address the primary purpose of the thread at all; you just wanted to debate with the OP about how frequently "AFF" instructors land off-DZ or not. Congratulations on demolishing that straw man, but that is not the subject of this thread. As the OP said in full: "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?" I don't recall that you answered his questions; you just want to "reply" to him about whether or not "AFF" instructors land on the DZ almost all the time, or somewhat less than almost all the time. Now that is a great use of your BOD time, isn't it? Sorry I misunderstood your intent: I actually thought you were showing some interest in doing something about the fatally flawed training system we've been foisting on an unsuspecting public for decades, a fatally flawed training system that not only kills people down the road but radically reduces our retention efforts because it's so mindlessly put together. Heck, it's fundamentally illegitimate because compared to private pilot training and scuba training to name two, you don't even end up with a license when you finish this "training:" you have to spend a few thousand MORE $$$ for coaching jumps and renting gear, etc etc... But I digress. Thank you for your invaluable contributions to this thread; it's great to know that in your experience almost all "AFF" instructors land on the DZ while they're not focusing on teaching people first and foremost the fundamentals of how to operate their equipment and fly and navigate their parachutes so that they don't kill themselves doing something ignorant 100 or 1000 jumps removed from their "AFF" training that doesn't even earn them a license for all of their trouble and energy and $$$ spent. Way to zero in on the critical path, Tom. No wonder people voted for you! 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."

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. 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? 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. 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."

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."

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."

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."