USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement

[catfishhunter 2]

USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement
The USPA Board is soliciting comments from the membership regarding the acceptance of some wind tunnel time in place of some freefall time for the USPA Accelerated Freefall Instructor rating. A proposal was presented at the 2012 Winter Board meeting to change the current requirements for the AFFI rating. Presently, USPA requires instructor candidates to have completed at least six hours of freefall time to earn the rating. The change proposed would allow instructor candidates to substitute wind tunnel time for up to two hours of the required freefall time. (All other AFFI requirements would remain, e.g. C license, have held a rating for at least 12 months or have at least 500 jumps, etc.) Please take a minute to complete this online poll so that membership input can help guide the Board’s decision regarding this proposal.

Here is my response...

The tunnel does not replicate the seriousness of freefall. Anyone call fly safely in a tunnel if something goes wrong you can just get out. You cannot do that in freefall. I do not agree with changing anything or putting anyone at risk to satisify a few cry babies. if they want to teach tunnel then they should teach tunnel. If they want to teach skydiving then they should go jump!

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[tonyhays 86]

I voted the same.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[wmw999 2,460]

I got 6+ hours of freefall time to get my AFFI (since expired) in the 1970's and 1980's, when single-airplane DZs were the norm, no one had packers, and just about everyone had a significant number of Cessna jumps in there. It's not that hard.

Since you need 500 jumps, that means that if someone hasn't amassed 6 hours of FF time, they're probably primarily swooping.

While it's good to have some focus on canopy skills, I think that someone who has a range of FF experience is best suited. Really.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[hillson 0]

Voted no for pretty much the same reasons

[grimmie 186]

Tough to train diving after an out of control student from 13,000ft in a 25' wind tunnel. No.

[3331 137]

The poll is absolute nonsense !

I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.

[jdpml 0]

They should be raising the standard, not dropping it.
There,s AFF Is out there now who couldn't dock on a twenty way and they want to put 33% of your freefall time in a tunnel ???
This is a bad idea, you have to have FREEFALL time, not replicator time.
Not a great way to learn canopy skill to pass on to your students is it .
USPA has over the last few years gone out of there way to promote better canopy control for new jumpers by better teaching from instructors.
Great way to back that up.
Truly one of the dumbest ideas I have heard from them ever.

[faulknerwn 38]

I voted no as well. These instructors have to be able to talk students down on radio as well. How many 200 jump wonders do you see who can do that?

[normiss 806]

Everyone PLEASE DO fill out the poll from the USPA.
They have GOT to know how we feel about this.

This is not safe. No way this is better for the student or the sport.

While considering the inclusion of a WSI rating they want to water down the AFFI rating.
Foolish move.

[skybytch 273]

I replied with a blanket no as well. Tunnels can't teach how to salvage a less than ideal exit, right a funneled one without letting go, or make up major separation. Only repeated skydives that include these skills can do that. These are VITAL skills for an AFFI.

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

Tough to train diving after an out of control student from 13,000ft in a 25' wind tunnel. No.

No shit. You might have to fly a good 15-20 ft. to pin 'em up against the wall.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Tough to train diving after an out of control student from 13,000ft in a 25' wind tunnel. No.

No shit. You might have to fly a good 15-20 ft. to pin 'em up against the wall.

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

[popsjumper 2]

No
(I had hoped they had a "HELL NO" option)

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

USPA Poll on AFF Instructor Requirement

First off - I am totally against using any tunnel time to count as freefall time in any rating requirement.


I think HQ implementation of a request from the S&T Comm did not get executed the way the committee directed HQ to do it.

The discussion at the last BOD mtg was a 'consideration' of some 'tunnel time' to replace 'freefall time' - akin to simulator time that pilots get.
My understanding was that the S&T comm asked HQ to ask the question of:
How many tunnel hours could be substituted for x many freefall hours?

IOW - some sort of question of
10 tunnel hours = 1 freefall hour
or
20 tunnel hours = 1 freefall hour
or
30 tunnel hours = 1 freefall hour
and could this be used in the rating requirement?

That poll that USPA put out does not reflect the intention of what the S&T Comm asked them to do.
That poll is set up to fail.
I can't think of anyone that would equate one hour of tunnel time to one hour of freefall time.
But I can think of people that would say x many hours of tunnel time equals one hour of freefall time. (That's the sad part of this whole thing.)

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Ron 10]

While I disagree with the suggestion and think they should be making the requirements MORE not less.

This is not exactly accurate "you have to have FREEFALL time, not replicator time."

People said simulators were a bad idea for flight training and that has pretty much been shown to be false.

But yes, the idea that you can replace jumping with tunnel is crap.

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

[skybytch 273]

After some thought (and a post on FB linked to the poll), I have more reasons this is a bad idea.

Allow 2 of the 6 hours to be replaced by tunnel time and you could theoretically have someone with 200 jumps "qualified" for the course. As long as that person meets the minimums during the course, they will end up with a rating.

Note that none of the minimums during the course have anything to do with canopy control. As it is right now, a candidate could fly no discernible pattern at all on each jump during the course and still get a rating - as long as they do a good job in freefall...

[Andy9o8 2]

Do you have a link? Sorry if I'm being a moron.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Do you have a link? Sorry if I'm being a moron.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TG7TNP2

The link came in yesterday's USPA Update e-mail.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[avgjoe 0]

To be contrary. How important are freefall skills? Don't we have the best modern equipment with aad's so how important is it that they catch the student anyway. We should concentrate on teaching skills and not flying skills and rely on our quality modern skydiving equipment 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.

[rehmwa 2]

I think serious tunnel training is a great way to increase many of the skills (any of the in tight flying and lurking) needed for AFF. (but not to replace any)

From what I've seen, I'd like to see the requirements increased from the current baseline as it is for just regular jumping and coaching.

Frankly, I'd prefer to see the jump numbers and experience requirements increased AND a certain amount of focused/coached tunnel time added to that increase. (that should get me a little bit of flak)

However, demonstration of abilities directly to the course evaluator is still better than any pre-reqs. And I'd give a lot more respect to a personal recommendation/endorsement by a respected local instructor to the course evaluator over some unknown person showing up with a logbook regardless of the relative numbers of years or jumps between the two.

...
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

[Para5-0 0]

It is probably common knowledge just based on the position I took during this discussion at the meeting but I will go on the record and say I am not in favor of tunnel time being used in any capacity to count towards your freefall 6 hours.

I can get into all of the reasons but between this thread and the other one I think they have all been covered.

Rich Winstock

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Note that none of the minimums during the course have anything to do with canopy control. As it is right now, a candidate could fly no discernible pattern at all on each jump during the course and still get a rating - as long as they do a good job in freefall...

Also note that the current AFFI course does nothing to evaluate general skydiving knowledge.
If you can regurgitate two ground preps that are provided for you, you win. You don't have to know anything about general skydiving knowledge...all you have to do is regurgitate information handed to you.

One case in point: A student teaching an AFFI how to read winds aloft reports. True story.

It provides for no check-ups on the candidates learning and practices in the field.
Pass the course, get the rating and you can teach students all kinds of stupid shit....for as long as you want to pay for the renewals.

One case in point: AFFI says, "Spotting is looking out the door, locating the DZ, looking for clouds and looking for air traffic." True story.


There are waaaaaay too many more examples of ignorant people obtaining AFFI ratings as it is. And now they want to make it easier? Un-freakin'-believable.

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

[Para5-0 0]

To add: I have typed dozens of responses about how I feel the AFF I/C should implement more canopy assessment. To include a canopy ground evaluation and an in air canopy evaluation or at minimim a air evaluation/debrief of a student. I posed this as an answer for better canopy instructors. I think a wind tunnel is a great tool to hone some skills, no dought, but as it is 6 hours if you include wingsuits can still be a very young skydiver.

We have all worked too hard to increase canopy skills acoss the board, I do not see how reducing the time under canopy requirement can be a good thing. That is exactly what this will do by the way. It will give us a candidate who is eligible quicker and who has less time under a canopy.

[richwilk 2]

Unfortiunately your statement clearly displays your ignorance on this subject. Duty of Care and professional responsibility. Tunnell time is not free fall experience and they are completely different. Sometimes equipment doesn't work, sometimes people don't work. A life lost is a life too many lost. 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. There is no substitute for expereince and exposure.

[billvon 3,008]

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.