mofo554 0 #1 February 27, 2003 Hey everyone, I'm very new here. I'll post an introduction sometime soon... Anyways, I have done two tandems and around 11 static line jumps. I did all these jumps at the same DZ, mainly because I really like the people and atmosphere there. I've done these jumps with a friend, and we are both fanatical about skydiving; neither of us can get it out of our heads. The problem is, we are both having trouble with the S/L program. Besides the tandems, I have done 4 freefalls - two hop and pops and two 5 second delays. My hop and pops were good according to the instructors, and I felt confident with my abilities and performance on each. However, on both my 5 second delays, I exited the plane (a Cessna 182) in a good arch and then through some body movement rotated onto my back. Both times I quickly corrected the problem and pulled my ripcord. The instructors worked with my friend and me extensively before our first freefalls, and between each one. However, I seem to have hit a dead end with the S/L program (by no fault of the instructors). Without an instructor physically in the air with me on the freefalls to correct my body position, how am I supposed to learn how to do it correctly? I realize the S/L program has trained thousands of skydivers or many years, yet the very concept of sending people who have never really skydived out the door of a plane alone almost seems insane. I would compare it to teaching swimming lessons on land and then telling the students to just go jump into the deep end while the teacher watches from the pool deck. Is it just me, or is S/L completely out-dated? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
underdog 0 #2 February 27, 2003 Your instructor should have observed your body position from exit to pull time and told you why you rolled in his or her debrief. from my experience you probably dropped a shoulder and twisted at the hips when looking and reaching for the ripcord. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #3 February 27, 2003 >I realize the S/L program has trained thousands of skydivers or many years, yet the very concept of sending people who have never really skydived out the door of a plane alone almost seems insane. I would compare it to teaching swimming lessons on land and then telling the students to just go jump into the deep end while the teacher watches from the pool deck. Excellent...that's what it feels like! After instructing a student to arch and pull you watch them leave the A/C....fold and grope. That's why they invented AFF. It's safer,faster and more educational"performance wise".You do have to have respect for people who came up through the conventional way" clear n pull- delays"...it's a very exciting way to learn! Is it just me, or is S/L completely out-dated? S/l can still be used to introduce people to the sport when tandem is not an option. Then they can progress to aff program. Small DZ's can than handle lots of first jump students.----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faber 0 #4 February 27, 2003 Quote Is it just me, or is S/L completely out-dated? Just youWe all had problems at some point,work at it Stay safe Stefan Faber Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
174fps 1 #5 February 27, 2003 lots of students struggle at first, S/L AFF whars the cure? More jumps. build up muscle memory. check out Wendy's log (Wendy is our CRW moderator) crw.boxofclue.com/skydive/howcrw.html I did 4 5sec delays before I moved to 10sec. Andrew Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #6 February 27, 2003 Failing a Static line costs about $50, failing an AFF (I failed 2 ) costs about 150 each to fail. My wallet wishes I had taken static line. Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #7 February 27, 2003 I wouldn't say s/l is outdated, but it's definitely not for everyone. Don't feel too bad if you're not one of us naturals- just do some aff and you'll be flying stable in no time. It will hurt your wallet more, but it's probably worth it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AntiPinkChrissy 0 #8 February 27, 2003 I think that both ways are excellent ways to learn to skydive and both have their pros and cons. I personally went though the S/L program, I had some hangups and had to repeat some jumps, but think it is a great way to learn. The thing that I have learned in this sport is there are many hurdles. I have witnessed only 1 perfect student. I know that once I got past my 5 second delay (after having to repeat it 2 times) then I had a problem with floating, then there was backsliding and the list goes on. But it is just a matter of learning what your body is actually doing and learning how to correct it. Good luck though in which ever way you choose to learn, and welcome. ~La La Gang Member #2~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
underdog 0 #9 February 27, 2003 QuoteExcellent...that's what it feels like! After instructing a student to arch and pull you watch them leave the A/C....fold and grope. I've watched AFF students do the same thing at pull time. The JM's hold on to keep them from rolling over.Since it's pull time they are not going to correct their body position but keep them from rolling while the bag deploys and the canopy opens. What did they learn while in the air? nothing. They learned what they did wrong in the debrief, the same way a s/l student would. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #10 February 27, 2003 No single training method is perfect. Different methods are just better at teaching different skills. For example, tandem is great for getting students over that huge first psychological step. S/L is great for teaching canopy control. AFF is the best way to teach basic freefall survival skills. As a PFF instructor, I often wonder if my primary job is holding students stable until they wake up five seconds after exit. Hee! Hee! Finally, wind tunnels can help teach basic freefall body position without all the added stress of monitoring altitude, saving your life, etc. Dude, your next step should be either playing in a wind tunnel or jumping with an AFF instructor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #11 February 27, 2003 >Without an instructor physically in the air with me on the freefalls to > correct my body position, how am I supposed to learn how to do it > correctly? He cannot correct your body position; he can only tell you to do it. Same as on SL, except that you have a much shorter time to do it right. > I would compare it to teaching swimming lessons on land and then > telling the students to just go jump into the deep end while the > teacher watches from the pool deck. Actually, I would compare SL to being taught to swim in the shallow end without any instructors in the water with you; in AFF they throw you in the deep end with someone hanging onto you so you don't drown. Both ways work. Personally I was more comfortable learning on my own in smaller steps; other people may be more comfortable with people hanging on to them 'just in case.' SL students end up with more survival skills; AFF students end up with more RW skills. Both can work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #12 February 27, 2003 First of all, static line progression isn't outdated, but there are other options. If one training method isn't working for you, then I would suggest trying a different one. After all, it is your money that you are spending to learn something that you seem to really enjoy. Don't let frustration get the best of you. Take you time and don't forget to enjoy it. I would also suggest going to a wind tunnel if there is one nearby. You can learn ten times more in 5 minutes in a tunnel than you can on 5 jumps, body positioning wise anyway. The other great thing about a wind tunnel is that you don't have to save your life. You can learn without pressure. I have sent 3 of my students to a tunnel that were doomed to failure. All three of them are now really hot skydivers. Granted wind tunnels are few and extremely far in between, but it is worth the drive for the experience and confidence you will gain by doing so. The other thing to consider is this. A C-182 has a really low exit speed. This slow air can make you feel like it is taking forever to correct something. If there is a DZ nearby that has a larger airplane, go try that. The faster air might help you to have more control from the exit vs. having to wait for the wind speed to build up. I am in no way saying the C-182 DZ's are harder to learn at. I am just saying that it might be easier for someone to explore their options a little bit. ListoLive today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #13 February 27, 2003 There will continue to be many opinions on this for many years to come. Let me offer mine. Your choice in moving from the Static Line program (which I happen to think is an excellent program) will require you to move to new DZ, at least for your training. I think this point is being overlooked. Also in my opinion, Tecumseh is by far the best DZ in MI. Nothing else comes close in my eyes. If you like the people and the atmosphere, do yourselve a favor and give Static line another shot. I don't think you will regret it. Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #14 February 27, 2003 I wasn't trying to say that he was jumping at a less than par DZ. I was just suggesting some alternatives. I also wasn't saying that he should do what I said, just throwing some options out there. Listo Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #15 February 27, 2003 Perhaps a little OT, but here in the northwest SL is the only practical way to learn during the winter months. The ceiling is often way too low for AFF. If not for SL, students wouldn't be jumping at all. Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #16 February 27, 2003 I wasn't really repling to your post. It was just the one I happened to click reply to. sorry for the confusion. Josh That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Liemberg 0 #17 February 27, 2003 Quote Is it just me, or is S/L completely out-dated? OK - I'll bite... I think both programs are outdated and that what is called for is a new program which would be a 'hybrid'program, combining the best of both worlds. It would mean that the training would start with a tandem jump - to familiarize you with the environment, then you would start the classic static-line progression up untill your hop and pop (basicaly you do the same drill as you would with your dummy ripcord pulls - when you have jumped direct bag untill then, the parachute would only take 2 or 3 seconds longer to open, with IAD I think there would even be less difference.) Once cleared for hop and pops you would make a couple of jumps (as long as it takes to reach the target learning objectives for the last part of the AFF program) you do them starting with a harness-hold jump with one AFF jumpmaster, who is acting as primary, from 10000ft or above. You learn to control your body in freefall, check your altitude in freefall, maintain your heading in freefall and regain stability in freefall. Once you are cleared to what used to be AFF level 7 (after 4 to 6 jumps) you make solo jumps from gradualy lower altitudes until you are back at your 4000ft hop and pop. The best of both worlds, I think - and economicaly feasable... First tandem lets you decide if you want to be a skydiver and what that would mean, static-line progression familarizes you with the concept of being on your own out there and having to cope with that - checking your canopy, deciding if you can land it or should go for the reserve, learning how to steer it, 'become tough & independent' so to speak. Then into the freefall environment with hands-on instruction. Why only one instructor? To keep the program economically feasable and since there is no need for two. After all, you have PROVEN to be able to jump on your own and pull the parachute (You already envisaged that to be the most important part? Excellent! 2 way 'harness hold' exits with a student are less complicated than 3 way, for only one instructor has to hold on. Should you find yourself 'unstable, lost and alone' you'll be in the same situation as with your failed 5 to 10 seconds delay - with way more time to deal with it... Now you might feel extra secure with two instructors, thinking "twice the safety" but in fact the whole thing gets more complicated for when on exit one of the 3 participants isn't perfectly "in synch" it can funnel (it often does in AFF) while with only 2 people (you + instructor) it is not that hard for an accomplished flyer to stay with you. Should he want to pull you, the sky above you will always be clear, no 2 people chasing one unstable student and ariving there at different intervals and altitudes etcetera. In fact, the S.O.P. on funnel exits with 2 instructors holding one student is that the primary is the one that holds on and the secondary lets go. In the french P.A.C. system they work with one instructor holding the student and the other one in front of the student - showing the ropes... Usefull for the learning proces, but expensive and not strictly neccesary in terms of safety. Could you end up becoming unstable at pull time? Yes you can - what is new about that? That is where you came from, isn't it? But now there probably is somebody to counteract your 'stupid moves'- and you had several occasions to practice your pull, before ariving at the pull altitude. That is much better than the 4500ft 'find-out-for-yourself / do-or-die' jumps you are subjected to in the traditional static line training which is indeed outdated IMHO. Regretably the traditional AFF program as it stands is as outdated... sucks, doesn't it? Of course, this doesn't mean that both programs don't work for anybody. For a lot of people they do; they have worked in the past so there is no reason to think they won't work in the future. But given retention rates, static line students doing stupid things in freefall and AFF students doing stupid things under canopy, it is time to move on. Why isn't there a program as described? Can you say 'vested interests'? (But in fact there are programs like this in many places, albeit not always recognized by the national parachutists organisations...) "Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci A thousand words... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #18 February 28, 2003 I'm not qualified to analyze this in detail, but I am an AFF student, and I can certainly say one aspect I found frustrating was the lack of canopy instruction in the first few jumps. "What do I do once I get the parachute open, it's square, stable and steerable, and I'm at 4,000 feet directly above my landing site?" "Um.. Fly around until you're at 1000 and then start your landing pattern." Argh. I'm planning on taking a canopy control class as soon as I'm done with AFF, and I've done well so far (reading articles here and on the manuf sites has given me things to practice, like rear riser control and flat turns), but the lack of guidance in this area feels 'wrong' at least to me.7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eddytheeagle 0 #19 February 28, 2003 I don't think SL is outdated. For some, AFF works better, for others SL. The point is that nearly all skydivers meet some problems along the way in either method, so don't get dissapointed to quickly! Having video really helps a lot in correcting the problem, as you see what went wrong. Of course, after a couple of seconds, it gets really hard to see what somebody does wrong, so video might not be that helpful in this particular case Now with aff, this problem doesn't occur, but having a video is much more expensive Succes (relax!), and don't forget to enjoy your jumps! Don't underestimate your ability to screw up! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikeat10500 12 #20 February 28, 2003 >[OK - I'll bite... I think both programs are outdated and that what is called for is a new program which would be a 'hybrid'program,...< The idea sounds great to me. mike.----------------------------------- Mike Wheadon B-3715,HEMP#1 Higher Expectations for Modern Parachutists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #21 February 28, 2003 Quote "What do I do once I get the parachute open, it's square, stable and steerable, and I'm at 4,000 feet directly above my landing site?" "Um.. Fly around until you're at 1000 and then start your landing pattern." . At my DZ AFF students are taught how to steer the canopy in the theory sessions. Then when under canopy there is a TA with and BIG white arrow, the TA points the arrow to where they want the student to go and at about 1200 (ish) feet the arrow is folded up and thew Paddles (battons) come out. It's a pretty good way to fly your 1st jumpYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JYorkster 0 #22 February 28, 2003 What you describe is a completely feasible scenario under USPA's ISP. That's one of the great things about the ISP. It allows students to transition (almost) seamlessly between methods. I don't know of any DZs that advertise their training program that way, but it certainly helps if a student is having difficulty with a particular method. Rock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GroundRush1 0 #23 March 1, 2003 I had two static lines. The first, I started to roll onto my back the same as you were, but by throwing my waist furthur forward, the position was corrected and I rolled back forward. The second, again didnt get my waist forward, even though back was arched, waist too far in caused me to forward flip twice while on the static line. DONT DO THAT! That was really scary. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masher 1 #24 March 3, 2003 Yep, same here. We've got radios, an arrow and batons for canopy control. The radio is primary, with the arrow as backup for driving the student around the sky. Once the student is on their finals, then the batons come out for the toggle movements and flare.-- Arching is overrated - Marlies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skr 1 #25 March 5, 2003 >one aspect I found frustrating was the lack of canopy instruction An article called "Canopy Control - Wings Level" at http://indra.net/~bdaniels/ftw/index.html#learning can help with that. On the original question of SL vs AFF vs something else, you're going for the same initial set of skills, get stable, keep track of altitude, pull, canopy skill - both toggle technique and large scale technique, packing, and so on regardless of which route you're taking to get there. Skr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
