deltarush 0 #1 September 24, 2005 Hi all!!!!! i'm looking to get back into skydiving. What is the safest & best course to do static or AFF? $$$ wise i was going for static though it will take longer. What opinion do you guys have out there????? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jloirsdaan 0 #2 September 24, 2005 I did static line and it does take a little more time...but like you said....$$$ was the issue and static line is definetly cheaper....only cost me around $1100 to get my license. Safety wise...I think they are both about equally safe....But look to my jump numbers...What do i know except for my experience...LOL! Jordan Go Fast, Dock Soft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azureriders 0 #3 September 25, 2005 I am in the middle of a tandem progresion course of which I have had a few small problems which my instructors partially blame on the ATP course and highly recommend the AFF course. I posted here a few days ago with questions about this. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1827770;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread Static line is not offered at my DZ and the instructors there refer to it as 'worse than ATP' Hope this helps because I know where you are at Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #4 September 25, 2005 search before you post... this subject has been beaten to death http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=static+aff&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25 this will help you MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike111 0 #5 September 25, 2005 AFF is quite intesne i think, but good if you want to progress fast, but static is less intense yet just as good so ive heard. Good luck in your choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcords 0 #6 September 26, 2005 Having taught both methods: IMO AFF is most definitely safer for the student and the stats show that also. Your learning curve is also so much faster because you have the immediate, in freefall feedback. Best of luck with your skydiving training. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DeNReN 0 #7 September 27, 2005 Firstly..as a lowly student I bow to your experiance in the sport. QuoteIMO AFF is most definitely safer for the student and the stats show that also. Could you please expand on that statement.....I read quite abit and have never seen stats that support your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ripcords 0 #8 September 27, 2005 I would have to check with USPA for the most up to date US specs. Perhaps Paul Sitter, Don Yahrling, or one of the current AFF Course Directors may know them off the top of their head. From the point that the AFF program started with Ken Coleman in the early 80's in the United States, they did not have a single fatality for many years. The first AFF fatality was a jumpmaster, not a student. I know that as a static-line jumpmaster, that I have been in the plane watching helplessly with my heart in my throat, hoping that a student would pull at altitude like they were trained to do, rather than struggling to regain stability when they forgot about arching, or got into an uncontrolled spin. It was always fun to try to debrief a student on an extended freefall who was learning to do a maneveur that you could not really see from the plane. We now only offer an AFF style freefall progression at my dz. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #9 September 27, 2005 IMO, static line is best, then tandem progression and lastly AFF, instructors being equal. However, AFF with good instructors is far better than static line with less qualified instructors. AFF leaves the student short on canopy experience and/or skills in comparison to static line or a tandem to AFF progression. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ripcords 0 #10 September 28, 2005 Yes, canopy control is vitally important. That is why at our DZ we start with an introductory tandem skydive, followed by the solo jump training class. Then the student does a skills evaluation tandem skydive which allows them to practice freefall skills, but evaluates their canopy control ability. Then they do two or three IAD jumps to gain confidence under canopy in a solo environment. Finally they concentrate on freefall with our AFF style freefall progression, yet still work on canopy control objectives as per the Integrated Student Program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tso-d_chris 0 #11 September 28, 2005 QuoteYes, canopy control is vitally important. That is why at our DZ we start with an introductory tandem skydive, followed by the solo jump training class. Then the student does a skills evaluation tandem skydive which allows them to practice freefall skills, but evaluates their canopy control ability. Then they do two or three IAD jumps to gain confidence under canopy in a solo environment. Finally they concentrate on freefall with our AFF style freefall progression, yet still work on canopy control objectives as per the Integrated Student Program. It is always good to hear about DZs that take advantage of the relative strengths of different training methods. I think the student is better off that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 643 #12 September 28, 2005 By the time they have 20 jumps, AFF and S/L students have spent about the same amount of money and have roughly the same skills. As for which program is safer ... it depends upon the skill and commitment of individual instructors. Anyone who tells you that AFF is "safer" than S/L has never done backloops off the step with a student! Hee! Hee! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
DeNReN 0 #7 September 27, 2005 Firstly..as a lowly student I bow to your experiance in the sport. QuoteIMO AFF is most definitely safer for the student and the stats show that also. Could you please expand on that statement.....I read quite abit and have never seen stats that support your statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcords 0 #8 September 27, 2005 I would have to check with USPA for the most up to date US specs. Perhaps Paul Sitter, Don Yahrling, or one of the current AFF Course Directors may know them off the top of their head. From the point that the AFF program started with Ken Coleman in the early 80's in the United States, they did not have a single fatality for many years. The first AFF fatality was a jumpmaster, not a student. I know that as a static-line jumpmaster, that I have been in the plane watching helplessly with my heart in my throat, hoping that a student would pull at altitude like they were trained to do, rather than struggling to regain stability when they forgot about arching, or got into an uncontrolled spin. It was always fun to try to debrief a student on an extended freefall who was learning to do a maneveur that you could not really see from the plane. We now only offer an AFF style freefall progression at my dz. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #9 September 27, 2005 IMO, static line is best, then tandem progression and lastly AFF, instructors being equal. However, AFF with good instructors is far better than static line with less qualified instructors. AFF leaves the student short on canopy experience and/or skills in comparison to static line or a tandem to AFF progression. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ripcords 0 #10 September 28, 2005 Yes, canopy control is vitally important. That is why at our DZ we start with an introductory tandem skydive, followed by the solo jump training class. Then the student does a skills evaluation tandem skydive which allows them to practice freefall skills, but evaluates their canopy control ability. Then they do two or three IAD jumps to gain confidence under canopy in a solo environment. Finally they concentrate on freefall with our AFF style freefall progression, yet still work on canopy control objectives as per the Integrated Student Program. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #11 September 28, 2005 QuoteYes, canopy control is vitally important. That is why at our DZ we start with an introductory tandem skydive, followed by the solo jump training class. Then the student does a skills evaluation tandem skydive which allows them to practice freefall skills, but evaluates their canopy control ability. Then they do two or three IAD jumps to gain confidence under canopy in a solo environment. Finally they concentrate on freefall with our AFF style freefall progression, yet still work on canopy control objectives as per the Integrated Student Program. It is always good to hear about DZs that take advantage of the relative strengths of different training methods. I think the student is better off that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #12 September 28, 2005 By the time they have 20 jumps, AFF and S/L students have spent about the same amount of money and have roughly the same skills. As for which program is safer ... it depends upon the skill and commitment of individual instructors. Anyone who tells you that AFF is "safer" than S/L has never done backloops off the step with a student! Hee! Hee! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
