static line - the ultimate device dependency
Eileen_Tudelef
Look at what you deal with:
AFF level 1
exit
altitude awareness
pulling for yourself (personal responsibility).
body position
sensation overload
Static line
How to pry your hands from the strut.
SL is now outmoded unless the student has
too much fear and needs a crutch.
AFF helps weed out the weak.
TY
Eileen_Tudelef wrote:
> Static line is the ultimate device dependency.
>
> Look at what you deal with:
> AFF level 1
> exit
> altitude awareness
> pulling for yourself (personal responsibility).
> body position
> sensation overload
>
> Static line
> How to pry your hands from the strut.
Don't they usually just slip off?
Especially when the pilot start shaking the plane....... ;o)
Shop4Skydiving
>> How to pry your hands from the strut.
>
Never had to pry my hands off anything. Was not much to hold on to exiting a
C-141 at 500 feet with 200 lbs. of gear strapped to me. Actually out of the jet
you were just sucked outta the door. Got 76 military static lines. How about
you Lord?
Tracy
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Eileen_Tudelef wrote:
>Static line is the ultimate device dependency.
Ya think?
> Look at what you deal with:
> AFF level 1
> exit
As the JMs pry you outta the door.
> altitude awareness
And, of course, a static line student just off the rope has no altitude
awareness, eh? Ground looks pretty darn close on a 10 second delay.
> pulling for yourself (personal responsibility).
As above.
> body position
vs. canopy (survival) skills, not to mention that when you flail, you have
to straighten yourself out, or things become quite uncomfortable at pull
time.
> sensation overload
Three seconds, right? Totally dependent on jumpmasters while one is totally
out of one's mind, right? Not much less time than one is dependent on the
static line, right?
>Static line
> How to pry your hands from the strut.
Well, I remember my second jump. He said "go" and I said "what?" and he said
"go" and I said "WHAT??" so he said "GO!!" and I said "oh" and went. No
prying (I had trouble holding on), but 'tis true that one can hear one's AFF
jumpmaster's screams better than the static line guy.
>SL is now outmoded unless the student has
>too much fear and needs a crutch.
Fear? Huh! How 'bout: I had a spin on level 4 that wouldn't quit. I managed
to kick Nanette Studebaker in the head and it scared the shit out of me. I
went back to static line, worked out what turned out to be a pretty slow
turn, and finished up pretty quickly even though I insisted on repeating my
last level.
>AFF helps weed out the weak.
See my reference to jumpmaster dependence above. When I did static line, I
knew the only thing between me and a mess on the ground was me (Yeah, the
reserves were equipped with AADs--very old and interesting looking AADs.) On
the other hand, I had no doubt that if I screwed up AFF, there would be a
jumpmaster around to bail me out, not to mention the CYPRES.
I've done a bunch of jumps without an altimeter--by myself and with
others--and I've never not known where I was. I now have very mixed feelings
about my CYPRES but I generally turn it on (and am ever conscious about what
it can do to screw me up further if I do something I shouldn't have done).
My only other "device" is my rig.
OTOH, I've made 1 jump in the last 10 months, so who the hell am I to talk.
:/
rl
Posted and mailed
P.S. Eileen, you are a fine troublemaker. Keep up the good work.
Livendive
Rhonda Lea Kirk <rhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:GCuK7.35189$Lo5.4...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> Eileen_Tudelef wrote:
>
> >Static line is the ultimate device dependency.
>
>
> Ya think?
<snip>
Jeez Rhonda...I thought you were wiser than this little troll! :-)
Blues,
Dave
Nicko
TR011!
--
YOP...
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Livendive wrote
>Jeez Rhonda...I thought you were wiser than this little troll! :-)
Funny thing about that, huh, Dave. She's a very bright and clever little
troll...or she would be if folks who are as bright and clever as she would
fail to notice her trolling and just allow her to reel the fishies in,
instead of outing her every time. ;)
Love,
rl
Dusty Trale
of us.
Dusty
>
>
kallend
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> On
> the other hand, I had no doubt that if I screwed up AFF, there would be a
> jumpmaster around to bail me out, ...
>
>
Even after you kicked her in the head?
Rhonda Lea Kirk
>Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
And on a one-jumpmaster jump, no less. ;) The optimism of baby skydivers is
never-ending and totally defies logic.
Good to see you're still here, John.
rl
Posted etc.
kallend
continual whining about AFF sheep.
--
jk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Cox
With my static line progression I learned 5 basic skill areas.
The action in performing each skill was identified along with the
theoretical knowledge learned while these skills were being developed.
Each phase of static line progression expanded on knowledge and skills
aquired during the previous phase, so correct performance was required for
advancement:
-aircraft procedures
-exit procedures
-body position
-canopy check
-canopy control
-landing
The static line progression after my Tandem jump was my choice as I needed to
advance slowly to
build my confidence, learning Practice ripcord pulls- coordinated movement/
First freefall- time awareness- stability/ 10 second delays- altimeter use-
heading maintainance -spotting intro/ 15 second delays- controlled turns-
equipment checks/ 30 second delays- backloops- delta position- RW intro (hook
up)-
Wave off/45 second delays- front loops- barrel rolls- turns and redocks.
Karen ;o)
"Eileen_Tudelef" <etud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:280ed319.01112...@posting.google.com...
--
Posted from h24-83-155-147.va.shawcable.net [24.83.155.147]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
kallend
Karen Cox wrote:
>
> Excuse me, Eileen...
>
> With my static line progression I learned 5 basic skill areas.
> The action in performing each skill was identified along with the
> theoretical knowledge learned while these skills were being developed.
> Each phase of static line progression expanded on knowledge and skills
> aquired during the previous phase, so correct performance was required for
> advancement:
> -aircraft procedures
> -exit procedures
> -body position
> -canopy check
> -canopy control
> -landing
>
And did you deploy your own canopy or did you depend on some mechanical
device to deploy it for you?
Livendive
kallend <kal...@iit.edu> wrote in message news:3BFAA370...@iit.edu...
I'm sure she deployed it herself, at least to the same extent as someone
pulling a ripcord is deploying their parachute.
Blues,
Dave
Nicko
Good point. My bad; mea culpa.
Blues this holiday, all!
--
YOP...
peanut
shucks, yew didnt jump with no 200 lbs of gear little woman.. and for
you to get 76 military jumps, you had to be stuck at bragg for a DAMN
LONG time.
TY
peanut wrote:
Ummmm, Peanut???? I think Tracy is a guy......
Shop4Skydiving
>you to get 76 military jumps, you had to be stuck at bragg for a DAMN
>LONG time.
>
5 years at Bragg and that will be Mr. Tracy to you peanut!!!!!!!!
Mr Tracy Williams
me
Actually, the general POV amongst the students is that
the AFF/JM is the crutch. It is the difference between
going "solo" and having someone hold your hand.
The funny part about that is that techinically you
are correct. We used to dump them out at 2500 because
it gave them less time to "blow away". They didn't know
it, but once they were out on the step, they were going,
even if we had to put the plane in a shallow dive to do
it. We put them out on T-10's with little steering
ability. They landed where the wind blew them. Even
when we switched to squares, they got big docile ones
you couldn't hook or stall to save your soul.
But, the students didn't know this. They definitely
thought they were "out there all alone". Once they let
go of the strut, it was "just them". And we counted on
that feature. It was all the big lie, but it worked.
Anything went wrong, they had to handle it.
It's this "big lie" that is the point of the SL
proponents. There is a real tendency in AFF to allow
the student to think that "there are these two guys
and they'll keep me stable and pull if I screw up".
That's sorta the whole concept, no more "solo on the
first flight". It's what tandem is all about too.
For instructors, that's a boon. No one liked throwing
out the "dopes on a rope". That's why they threw
them out low, short lined the static line, and just
generally tried to keep control of them everytime they
could touch them. AFF made that much more doable.
Add to that a couple of tandem jumps where they get
to understand the fundamentals of canopy flight,
a radio and an AAD and the instructors finally have
some measure of control they have been seeking.
But what is lost is the big lie. Oh, yeah,
we still point out that once the student pulls,
they have to handle it themselves. And there is
more truth in that than I think the students
understand.
Best idea I ever heard was that the first
couple of jumps were tandem. Ya teach them how
to fly a canopy, and get them over the sensory
overload. Then you start heaving them out on
a rope for 2 or 3 as the skydiving equivalent
of the "solo flight". If they can exit
stable, THEN you start jumping out with a
couple of AFF/JM's.
Kevin O'Connell
Noshi. T.
uhmm..somehow I dont peenut cares..as long as they are legal.., no???
hehehehehe
Alan Binnebose
news:73af7090.01112...@posting.google.com...
snip
> Best idea I ever heard was that the first
> couple of jumps were tandem. Ya teach them how
> to fly a canopy, and get them over the sensory
> overload. Then you start heaving them out on
> a rope for 2 or 3 as the skydiving equivalent
> of the "solo flight". If they can exit
> stable, THEN you start jumping out with a
> couple of AFF/JM's.
>
Kevin, funny you should say this. When my daughter started jumping, we
talked about it and decided on a plan very similar to what you describe.
Her first jump was a tandem. It went great and being a DZ rat and having a
rigger and SL/I for a dad, gave her a jump start on the ground instruction
part. Since she had been working at the DZ as a packer for a couple of
years, she did not have the worries and gear fear that some new students
experience. Next came her SL jumps. All went well and she progressed to
completing two 15 sec delays and meeting all of the proficiency requirements
to that level. After that we went to full altitude with AFF level IV type
jumps. No need for AFF ratings since she had already demonstrated
stability, altitude awareness, and the ability to pull on her own. It was a
twenty jump program. She, and another girl that followed the same program,
turned out to be safe, competent, and knowledgeable skydivers.
I agree with you.
Tandem = introductory flight
SL = solo instruction
AFF(?) = advanced flight instruction to meet licensing requirements
We could all use all 3 methods, everyday, combined into one universal
complete program. No need for such stringent AFF JM/I course requirements
as it takes the responsibility of the JM to pull for the student and puts it
where it belongs....with the student.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
LORD OF THE SKY
> device to deploy it for you?
Well Professor , I had a total malfunction on the static line and yes , I
did deploy my own canopy.
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
roberth
people who make skydiving their hobby and lifestyle begin with the
static line method (correct me if I'm wrong) AFF is too expensive for
most people, and some drop zones don't even offer it.
Azul Celest!
Roberto!
etud...@yahoo.com (Eileen_Tudelef) wrote in message news:<280ed319.01112...@posting.google.com>...
Peril
KISS
love cheryl peril
KISS
"LORD OF THE SKY" <lord...@ellijay.com> wrote in message
news:9tf0e...@enews4.newsguy.com...
LORD OF THE SKY
Shop4Skydiving <shop4sk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011120095027...@mb-fz.aol.com...
>Got 76 military static lines. How about
> you Lord?
Is Tracy addressing me?
I have zero military static line jumps.
Here's an interesting anecdote.
Last weekend military jump ops were taking place at the airport.
The Sherpa comes by on the first pass and one jumper leaves the plane.
Immediately it is apparent that his spot was way short and there's no way he
was going to land on the airport.
I guess he was the WDI.
Second pass they put out eight jumpers in the exact same spot. Chalk it
up to Military Intelligence.
Our "Most Excellent DZO" gets on the radio and tells the Sherpa they
might want to lengthen the spot up a 1/4mile or so. They didn't acknowledge
his communication but on the next pass they put the jumpers out about 1/4
mile upwind of their original spot. LOFL!
Needless to say those guys landed in the target area.
Shop4Skydiving
> I have zero military static line jumps.
> Here's an interesting anecdote.
> Last weekend military jump ops were taking place at the airport.
> The Sherpa comes by on the first pass and one jumper leaves the plane.
>Immediately it is apparent that his spot was way short and there's no way he
>was going to land on the airport.
> I guess he was the WDI.
> Second pass they put out eight jumpers in the exact same spot. Chalk it
>up to Military Intelligence.
> Our "Most Excellent DZO" gets on the radio and tells the Sherpa they
>might want to lengthen the spot up a 1/4mile or so. They didn't acknowledge
>his communication but on the next pass they put the jumpers out about 1/4
>mile upwind of their original spot. LOFL!
> Needless to say those guys landed in the target area.
>
> "Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
Guess that is the militaries way of surrounding the enemey from the front and
back. Jumpmasters depend too much on the ground crew. Should of just did a pass
and dropped a wind streamerI remember on my second jump with the 82nd we jumped
into Ft Irwin. Due to inaccurate wind readings on the ground we had 15 real
world fatalities. People were being dragged so fast they were being chased down
in jeeps. Not to mention the people slamming into heavy dropped equipment on
the ground. Kinda funny winds were ok to jump in but the 5000 lb. quick
releases were not chopping the cargo chutes on the Gamma Goats. OOPS showing my
age some there. We had a Gamma Goat actually get pulled on it's side due to
winds. It weighed 9000 lbs. So much for those bloody bastards on the ground.
Tracy
Mike Spurgeon
>
> Troll or no troll, what she wrote is no more stupid than Snuffy's
> continual whining about AFF sheep.
You got any research to back that up?
me
When AFF and tandem were first coming wide spread, I heard alot
of DZO's and JM's talking about integrating these systems together.
For some reason, it never really happened. Informally I know
that most DZ's will encourage you to make a tandem before taking the
FJC. I'd bet that many SL DZ's virtually do this as a matter of
course. I've known many DZ's, including really big ones, that
try to maintain all three systems. But I really haven't seen
many that formally integrate the systems together. I'm sure that
they exist, they just don't seem to be really "taking hold".
I will admit though that once you take the rope off the dope
and put an instructor out there, it takes some decent air skills
to be that instructor. It does seem though that some of the
more risky jumps that instructors go through could be avoided
with a couple of good SL drops.
Kevin O'Connell
Rhonda Lea Kirk
rl
Peril wrote in message ...
Eileen_Tudelef
> I'm sure you are simply trying to be facetious, but I believe most
> people who make skydiving their hobby and lifestyle begin with the
> static line method (correct me if I'm wrong) AFF is too expensive for
> most people, and some drop zones don't even offer it.
>
> Azul Celest!
> Roberto!
>
"most people ... begin with the static line method"
"some drop zones don't even offer it"
How can "most people start with it" if "some drop zones
don't even offer it"?
A self-contradiction in a single sentence.
Bigger DZs use tandem/AFF. By bigger, I mean larger
volume. Yes, cessna DZs still use it.
Since the larger volume DZs are using AFF, the largest
percentage of new students are getting trained that way.
I am talking about now, not 20 years ago. I know people
will post "when I started....". I am talking about today.
E.
Eileen_Tudelef
What is missing in this list ? Freefall.
In Girl Scouts, we got to ride in a plane and
learned about aircraft procedures. It wasn't skydiving.
I got pulled up on a large canopy behind a boat at
the beach in Cozumel. Canopy ride, no skydiving.
Freefall is skydiving. SL does not teach real skydiving.
Did you notice that all the things I mentioned
in my AFF list, appear in your list under "First Freefall".
SL used to be the only method "in the olden times".
Skydiving has evolved. Let's move on.
"slowly to build my confidence"
Snuffie always says "weed out the weak".
It seems that Snuffie is supporting a program that
coddles people.
Eileen_Tudelef
Think about this.
I give you some opinions. I give you some reasons
why I have those opinions. You can argue those
reasons with me. That is a discussion or debate.
Snuffie just says you are wrong or
a "kid" (implying that you are new, unknowledgeable).
I don't mind his opinions. I just want the reasons.
You want to discuss, let's rock.
The valuable info is the underlying reasons.
I'll learn from anyone who has a valid point,
regardless of their experience level or time
in sport.
Whining without supporting statements just wastes
electricity.
kallend
Yes.
--
jk
-----------------------------------------------------------
kallend
From USPA:
Number of Student jumps in 2000
AFF 32,410
Tandem 185,410
SL 60,338
TOTAL 278,158
Believe it or not.
--
jk
-----------------------------------------------------------
flywithmyarms
S/L is the primary method still used, simply due to the weather. We get 10
months of cloud cover, a month and a half of broken sky, and 2 weeks of sun
and blue sky. Needless to say, AFF isn't the most practical method in our
case. Thus we continue to use the "olden days style" of instruction in
order to continue the sport.
just my 2 cents worth....
A. Wright
D-24693, JM sumpthingorother....
--
******************************************************
"You skydive....? Uh huh, and you don't....!?"
******************************************************
Eileen_Tudelef <etud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:280ed319.01112...@posting.google.com...
ftrain
"flywithmyarms" <awr...@skydivenet.com> wrote
> A. Wright
> D-24693, JM sumpthingorother....
A. Wright
D-24621
Pretty funny...
Livendive
ftrain <wrig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9tglt5$2hh0n$1...@ID-83233.news.dfncis.de...
I've been trying (not very hard) for a couple weeks now to catch you two
being the same person. I honestly thought you were.
Blues,
Dave
ftrain
"Livendive" <live...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9tgr2v$2dfra$1...@ID-75676.news.dfncis.de...
I noticed the name thing a while back. But the closeness of the D-numbers
was what made me chuckle.
-Andy
Eileen_Tudelef
OK. I'll believe it. You've always been pretty
accurate with your facts.
I am surprised though.
freeflyer
>
>>> Bigger DZs use tandem/AFF. By bigger, I mean larger
>>> volume. Yes, cessna DZs still use it.
>>> Since the larger volume DZs are using AFF, the largest
>>> percentage of new students are getting trained that way.
>>>
>>> I am talking about now, not 20 years ago. I know people
>>> will post "when I started....". I am talking about today.
>>> E.
>>>
>>From USPA:
>>
>>Number of Student jumps in 2000
>>
>> AFF 32,410
>> Tandem 185,410
>> SL 60,338
>> TOTAL 278,158
>>
>>Believe it or not.
>>
>
> OK. I'll believe it. You've always been pretty
> accurate with your facts.
> I am surprised though.
Now, why would that be a surprise to anyone? Those numbers
(not exact ones ofcourse) are pretty common knowledge,
unless you only jump at a big dz with only AFF training and
are pretty ignorant about the rest of the skydiving
community. Are you that removed from reality "Eileen"? Figures.
--
Espen
ALF#1
JM '01
Eileen_Tudelef wrote:
> Static line is the ultimate device dependency.
> Static line
> How to pry your hands from the strut.
>
> SL is now outmoded unless the student has
> too much fear and needs a crutch.
>
> AFF helps weed out the weak.
Eileen, you ignorant slut.
This might be true if jumpmasters really hooked up the static line
for those students who, in the jumpmaster's expert opinion, need
to be weeded out. Of course we don't.
Besides weeding out those who weren't paying attention during the
emergency proceedures part of the FJC, this little trick provides
endless amusement for the JM. Hey, the pay's not much, we have
to get something out of it.
Gutter gear without AAD: a few hundered bucks
Ride to altutide: make five bucks per static liner
The look in the student's eyes as the static line follows him out the
door: priceless.
Livendive
news:<7cdc2522.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> > I'm sure you are simply trying to be facetious, but I believe most
> > people who make skydiving their hobby and lifestyle begin with the
> > static line method (correct me if I'm wrong) AFF is too expensive for
> > most people, and some drop zones don't even offer it.
> >
> > Azul Celest!
> > Roberto!
> >
> Did you read your own post ?
> "most people ... begin with the static line method"
> "some drop zones don't even offer it"
>
> How can "most people start with it" if "some drop zones
> don't even offer it"?
> A self-contradiction in a single sentence.
He said most people begin with the static line method, and that some
dropzones don't even offer AFF. No contradiction there.
Blues,
Dave
Livendive
JM '01 <JM...@uspa.org> wrote in message news:3BFC032E...@uspa.org...
> Eileen, you ignorant slut.
LOL - "Come on Eileen..."
Blues,
Dave
Rhonda Lea Kirk
jumps it takes (theoretically) to graduate SL than it does AFF?
Statistics are so cute. The numbers in this case need to be "by the student"
not "by the jump" if you want to obtain a legitimate sense of what's going
on out there.
rl
Posted; informational copy to Eileen
Martin Evans
> > From USPA:
> >
> > Number of Student jumps in 2000
> >
> > AFF 32,410
> > Tandem 185,410
> > SL 60,338
> > TOTAL 278,158
> >
> > Believe it or not.
>
> OK. I'll believe it.
Yeeeaaayee! Let's hear it for John. You knew it all along didn't you ya sly
old fox! You knew that statistical shit you've been spouting on here for
years would pay of one day and the time would come when someone would say
"you know what John, you're right"!
Now let's get back to normal programming and wait for it to happen again
sometime this decade!
;-)
--
Blue ones,
Stay Safe.
Martin Evans.
For information about Sky-Eye Skydiving Services please visit our website
at:
http://www.skyeyeskydiving.com
After browsing please follow the link to Skydive Delmarva.
"Never confuse movement with action". Ernest Hemingway
Ronjumps
Really SL does not teach skydiving?
Well how the hell did I learn?
Do my 2000 freefalls not count?
Oh hell, does that mean USPA is going to take away my D License?
My Tandem I?
My Non teaching students SL I?
Oh shit....I better take up Golf, or maybe I can go to a big DZ and learn AFF
so I can continue to jump.
There is nothing wrong with Static line training, yes, its old, but I bet more
people have LEARNED TO SKYDIVE with it. And I know lots of places that still
teach it. And IT WORKS.
Not that there is anything wrong with AFF. Its fast, flashy and I have met
several students that refuse to learn SL (They like to depend on someone else
to pull for them.) But it requires good WX, 2 I's on every jump (As opposed to
1 for 3 students at first). It costs more (I would have never been able to
afford AFF when I started).
Not that I am slamming it. But I bet after 100 jumps no one could tell what
program a person learned on.
So lay off the dissing of SL...It works.
Ron Hill
Livendive
Ronjumps <ronj...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011121162550...@mb-mj.news.cs.com...
> Not that there is anything wrong with AFF. Its fast, flashy and I have
met
> several students that refuse to learn SL (They like to depend on someone
else
> to pull for them.) But it requires good WX, 2 I's on every jump (As
opposed to
> 1 for 3 students at first). It costs more (I would have never been able
to
> afford AFF when I started).
>
> Not that I am slamming it. But I bet after 100 jumps no one could tell
what
> program a person learned on.
You can usually tell if you ask them to do a hop & pop from 3,000 feet. :-)
Blues,
Dave
Ronjumps
But I bet after 100 jumps no one could tell
>what
>> program a person learned on.
>You can usually tell if you ask them to do a hop & pop from 3,000 feet. :-)
Sit back kids and I will tell you a story.
Once apon a time....at a big DZ.
A plane was on the ride to altitude, and oh no, something broke!!!!! We were
at 3,500 feet. as the plane yawed, and rolled wildly.
The brave and fearless pilot struggled to maintain control of the crippled
aircraft. He soon realized that while he could continue to make the plane fly.
It required full, rudder input to control the yaw. This children is a bad
thing.
The heroic pilot managed to bring the Airplane around, to give the jumpers the
best spot he could. With great difficulty our pilot kept the plane stable and
ordered all of us out. It would be safer for us to bail out at 3,500 feet than
to try and land with the plane he fiqured. Quickly, darring skydivers lept
into the void below. Falling fast away, before canopies with colors like
flowers rapidly blosomed.
Here dear friends is where the story turns dark......One jumper, a skydiver
that learned AFF, and did more than 40 freefalls....Refused to exit. The
pilot stuggled to maintain control, The jumpers behind her tried to get
past...she would not budge. Trapped behind her lives flashing before thier
eyes.....(Did I really get that drunk? Did I act THAT bad? Did I tell my Mom
I loved her?) I pushed the fucking bitch out the door.
Some say I acted like an asshole (Like her boyfriend) but the others agreed
with me.
Moral of the story,
There is no reason not to get out at 3,500. If you can't get out that low.
Don't be in front of me when the plane breaks, and the pilot says......Bail
out!
Ron
Chewie
> learned about aircraft procedures. It wasn't skydiving.
> I got pulled up on a large canopy behind a boat at
> the beach in Cozumel. Canopy ride, no skydiving.
And this one time at band camp... oops, this time it's:
And this one time at girl scouts...
> Freefall is skydiving.
Agreed. Just skydiving. Not *real* skydiving.
Mainstream skydiving focuses on freefall.
Business skydiving focuses on freefall.
Tandem is freefall.
All of this is just skydiving.
> SL does not teach real skydiving.
You're so right! Nothing can teach *real* skydiving.
It's a state of mind that you have to find by yourself.
> Skydiving has evolved. Let's move on.
Yes, move on with skydiving.
And make way for the real skydivers :-)
--
Chewie [beer adjudicator]
D16842
>> SL is now outmoded unless the student has
>> too much fear and needs a crutch.
Good one Eileen, the ng needs more humor and trolls.
Back to reality, if you want to see some pale faces, take a load of recent AFF
graduates to 2,500' for some hop and pops. "But we only have 500' to get
stable!" Lions and tigers and bears oh my!
AFF is a good method, for those that can afford it and have the luxury of
living near a DZ that offers it. But I don't see it as greatly superior. For
the financially restricted student, I prefer to see them staying current with
more frequent SL progression jumps, than spread out fewer AFF ones. Dollar for
dollar, I don't know a better or cheaper way than the combination of SL
progression and some tunnel time. Again, this works only if you live near a
tunnel or can travel.
Tom B
ynotssor
...
> Point is.....how low would you get out?
> On your main?
> On your reserve?
> And, would you have the sack to do it?
...
> Hell given the choice of dying in a plane crash or maybe surviving a low
> jump...If the pilot lets me, I am out. I have seen both a bounce, and a
plane
> crash.....both were bad, and both did the job.
>
> What altitude will you bail at? And would you?
...
Given the condition of an emergency exit as you described:
PD126R: 500 ft. <= exit <= 1500 ft.
AR Diablo 120: > 1500 ft.
Although the Diablo would (has consistently) open(ed) in far less than a
thousand feet, in an emergency situation who in their right mind would begrudge
a reserve repack? USD $45 is cheap insurance in a stressful moment. The owner
of the AC would love to have such a small repair bill.
Getting the mass out of the plane ASAP after the pilot's instruction to do so,
without a disturbance of the CG may have everything to do with the outcome, and
whether control can be maintained long enough to land or avoid hitting houses
etc.
I think you did the right thing by pushing her out the door. Returning to the
thread topic, I couldn't really say whether her mindset was a generic result of
AFF training, or just one individual's ignorance and lack of proper training.
I'd like to think the latter, but I'm not sure of it.
tony
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Alan Binnebose
news:tvop1p6...@news.supernews.com...
> According to Livendive <live...@aol.com>:
3k
>
> The jump 18 was part of my aff program.
Bbbut, bbut.......Marc said AFF meant "accellerated". S/L is only 15 jumps.
Funny, the dictionary doesn't use the word "better" anywhere in the
definition of accellerated or the Thesuarus.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
Alan Binnebose
news:20011121202119...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> Ron Hill wrote:
>
> >Not that there is anything wrong with AFF. Its fast, flashy and I have
met
> >several students that refuse to learn SL (They like to depend on someone
else
> >to pull for them.)
>
>
> I chose AFF instead of SL because I wanted to go SKYDIVING, not
"parachuting."
>
>
> I chose AFF instead of tandem because I wanted as much control as possible
over
> my own jump.
>
> All three methods were were available to me, and the DZO twice suggested
> tandem, but to the whuffo-me contemplating which method would provide "the
full
> enchilada," AFF was the clear choice.
>
> Freefall was always what attracted me to the sport, ever since I was a
little
> kid, and my opinion was that anything that didn't include freefall just
had to
> be the sissy way out. YMMV.
>
Last time I checked, freefall was part of the s/l progression. Most people
get to it around the 6th or 7th jump and progress from there to meet the
same standards as AFF, or any method for that matter. When did they change
all of that? Or, are we quibbling about the first few jumps here?
Alan Binnebose
news:<7cdc2522.01112...@posting.google.com>...
> > I'm sure you are simply trying to be facetious, but I believe most
> > people who make skydiving their hobby and lifestyle begin with the
> > static line method (correct me if I'm wrong) AFF is too expensive for
> > most people, and some drop zones don't even offer it.
> >
> > Azul Celest!
> > Roberto!
> >
> Did you read your own post ?
> "most people ... begin with the static line method"
> "some drop zones don't even offer it"
>
> How can "most people start with it" if "some drop zones
> don't even offer it"?
> A self-contradiction in a single sentence.
Eileen, did _you_ read his post?
>>I believe most people who make skydiving their hobby and lifestyle >>begin
with the static line method (correct me if I'm wrong)
>>AFF is too expensive for most people, and some drop zones don't >>even
offer it.
It seems as if he was talking about AFF when he said it was too expensive
for most people, and some drop zones don't even offer it. you should be
more careful when snipping.
> Bigger DZs use tandem/AFF. By bigger, I mean larger
> volume. Yes, cessna DZs still use it.
> Since the larger volume DZs are using AFF, the largest
> percentage of new students are getting trained that way.
>
> I am talking about now, not 20 years ago. I know people
> will post "when I started....". I am talking about today.
You are inerror as John has pointed out. And BTW, didn't FAA define the
tandem passenger as a passeger recently? I would think that S/l still
trains the most "students"
john
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Ahem. Do you intend to adjust those figures to account for how many more
> jumps it takes (theoretically) to graduate SL than it does AFF?
>
Hey, I just reported the numbers, I'm not interpreting them. Do that
yourself.
> Statistics are so cute. The numbers in this case need to be "by the student"
> not "by the jump" if you want to obtain a legitimate sense of what's going
> on out there.
>
> rl
>
> Posted; informational copy to Eileen
>
> > > From USPA:
> > >
> > > Number of Student jumps in 2000
> > >
> > > AFF 32,410
> > > Tandem 185,410
> > > SL 60,338
> > > TOTAL 278,158
--
Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared
to
exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of
freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the
United States.
john
Ronjumps <ronj...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20011121162550...@mb-mj.news.cs.com...
> > Not that there is anything wrong with AFF. Its fast, flashy and I have
> met
> > several students that refuse to learn SL (They like to depend on someone
> else
> > to pull for them.)
Ahem. Who pulls for the static line students, then, the tooth fairy?
I didn't learn SL, and I have deployed my own canopy on every jump I
ever made.
--
ynotssor
...
> Once apon a time....at a big DZ.
> A plane was on the ride to altitude, and oh no, something broke!!!!! We were
> at 3,500 feet. as the plane yawed, and rolled wildly.
> Here dear friends is where the story turns dark......One jumper, a skydiver
> that learned AFF, and did more than 40 freefalls....Refused to exit.
> Moral of the story,
And a very good one.
> There is no reason not to get out at 3,500. If you can't get out that low.
> Don't be in front of me when the plane breaks, and the pilot says......Bail
> out!
...
Low??? Let me check Ye Olde Logbook ... jump #8 - first jump from 3,500 - a 7
second delay! Damn, way too eager. Jump #9 I did correctly, 10 seconds. Signed
by Alice Fuget, who taught me a lot about skydiving. Last I heard she was
flying a D-18 on the Right Coast somewhere.
What are the post-AFF instructors teaching about the students' altitude
awareness? Altitude awareness is not just knowing how high one is above the
ground, it's a sense of elapsed time from exit, time allotted for remaining
freefall, how long a freefall one can enjoy from any given altitude, and more.
It's way too bad if these things are no longer taught. Bodes ill for the
futures of these jumpers in such circumstances as you related.
I remember my first 30 second freefall from 7000, jump #15 - thought I was
seeing the curvature of the Earth - turned out to be just the Kingdome.
Flywithmyarms
If I remember right - we're both on different coasts as well.
A. Wright
D-24693, JM sumthingorother
Ronjumps
>second delay!
Doing Demos I have exited several times at 2 grand with the tail in the
clouds..... Not much time to get out, pull smoke, pull a canopy out, pull a
flag down, get seperation from the other jumpers, set up an accuracy approach,
land on target....all the time looking like you are relaxed and waving at the
crowd.
Point is.....how low would you get out?
On your main?
On your reserve?
And, would you have the sack to do it?
StarTrack I...I would get out around 1,000 feet. No problem.
Stilletto 107.....1,500 with hands in the gunslinger position (On Cut away and
reserve handles). Would check to see if I would have a good landing area, if
not I would fire the reserve.
Reserve PD113 & PD143....I would get out at 500 feet over an open area. Hell
I once cut away at 800 due to a hard cutaway pull. My choices were pull the
reserve and let it wrap in the mal, which I was going to do, but I just then
got the damn thing cut away. Or ride it in....not an option.
T-10....500 feet with way to damn much gear on, and people shooting at me.
Hazzards of the job. 800 feet all day long.
Hell given the choice of dying in a plane crash or maybe surviving a low
jump...If the pilot lets me, I am out. I have seen both a bounce, and a plane
crash.....both were bad, and both did the job.
What altitude will you bail at? And would you?
Ron
Martin Evans
>
>
> But I bet after 100 jumps no one could tell
> >what
> >> program a person learned on.
>I pushed the fucking bitch out the door.
>
> Some say I acted like an asshole (Like her boyfriend) but the others
agreed
> with me.
>
> Moral of the story,
> There is no reason not to get out at 3,500. If you can't get out that
low.
> Don't be in front of me when the plane breaks, and the pilot
says......Bail
> out!
>
> Ron
Better to be a live asshole than a dead sweetheart!
Did the bitch survive?
Does she still have your palm prints embedded in her shoulder blades?
Marc
> I will admit though that once you take the rope off the dope
>and put an instructor out there, it takes some decent air skills
>to be that instructor.
Tell that to CRWMike. He claims that all of AFF Is "bought" our ratings.
Blue Skies,
Marc
"We hold . . . that [the 2nd Amendment] protects the rights of
individuals . . . to privately possess and bear their own firearms."
U.S. v. Emerson
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
Marc
>Not that there is anything wrong with AFF. Its fast, flashy and I have met
>several students that refuse to learn SL (They like to depend on someone else
>to pull for them.)
As opposed to having a static line pull for them right off the step?
I chose AFF instead of SL because I wanted to go SKYDIVING, not "parachuting."
I chose AFF instead of tandem because I wanted as much control as possible over
my own jump.
All three methods were were available to me, and the DZO twice suggested
tandem, but to the whuffo-me contemplating which method would provide "the full
enchilada," AFF was the clear choice.
Freefall was always what attracted me to the sport, ever since I was a little
kid, and my opinion was that anything that didn't include freefall just had to
be the sissy way out. YMMV.
Blue Skies,
Livendive
you did when you pulled your ripcord. Both require positive action, both
pull a little cord out of a little loop, and both let a pilot chute do the
rest of the work.
Blues,
Dave
john <pr...@teamfunnel.com> wrote in message
news:3BFC3A23...@teamfunnel.com...
Marc
>By exiting the airplane, they are deploying their own canopy just as much
>you did when you pulled your ripcord. Both require positive action, both
>pull a little cord out of a little loop, and both let a pilot chute do the
>rest of the work.
Regardless of the fact that "both pull a little cord out of a little loop" (if
we disregard direct-bag and IAD), AFF requires more extensive training -- and
more extensive performance. The canopy deployment isn't immediate -- it comes
after completion of additional tasks, after a much longer period of time in a
stressful environment, and at the assigned altitude (as opposed to 10 feet
below the plane's altitude).
AFF students have a lot more to deal with. Hence the use of the term
"accelerated."
LORD OF THE SKY
over
> my own jump.
> tandem, but to the whuffo-me contemplating which method would provide "the
full
> enchilada," AFF was the clear choice.
C'mon Marc.... Just admit that some amount of homophobia influenced
your decision.
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
squirts_the_ejac...@hotmail.com
I did AFF, my first few low exits were: jump 18, 5k; jump 28, 4k; jump 50, 3k
squirts_the_ejac...@hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
> Ronjumps <ronj...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > news:20011121162550...@mb-mj.news.cs.com...
> > > Not that there is anything wrong with AFF. Its fast, flashy and I have
> > met
> > > several students that refuse to learn SL (They like to depend on someone
> > else
> > > to pull for them.)
>
> Ahem. Who pulls for the static line students, then, the tooth fairy?
No, silly, not the tooth fairy, another fucking DEVICE. Skydiving
is becoming way too device dependant, haven't you been following the
threads.
squirts_the_ejac...@hotmail.com
> Freefall was always what attracted me to the sport, ever since I was a little
> kid
Yes, and if you had concerned yourself with parachuting as a kid you
may not have gotten that head injury jumping off of the roof of your
house.
CDRINF
enough? ;-)
kallend
Livendive wrote:
>
> By exiting the airplane, they are deploying their own canopy just as much
> you did when you pulled your ripcord. Both require positive action, both
> pull a little cord out of a little loop, and both let a pilot chute do the
> rest of the work.
>
You don't really expect me to be impressed by that, do you?
> Blues,
> Dave
>
> john <pr...@teamfunnel.com> wrote in message
> news:3BFC3A23...@teamfunnel.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ronjumps <ronj...@cs.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20011121162550...@mb-mj.news.cs.com...
> > > > Not that there is anything wrong with AFF. Its fast, flashy and I
> have
> > > met
> > > > several students that refuse to learn SL (They like to depend on
> someone
> > > else
> > > > to pull for them.)
> >
> > Ahem. Who pulls for the static line students, then, the tooth fairy?
> >
> > I didn't learn SL, and I have deployed my own canopy on every jump I
> > ever made.
> >
> > --
--
jk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Geronimo
>
> Ahem. Do you intend to adjust those figures to account for how many more
> jumps it takes (theoretically) to graduate SL than it does AFF?
Nowadays, it takes at least 20 jumps for anyone to graduate.
It used to be that the AFF could graduate in about 8, SL was 20 ish all
along.
BTW, in your absence, AFF was renamed to
"Affluent Freefall", since accelerated learning is no more.
The numbers listed from Y2K are under the old graduation rules.
If you want a high 'guestimate' on number of student graduates:
aff ~ 32,410 / 8 ~ 4051
sl ~ 60,338 / 20 ~ 3016
under the *bold* assumptions of:
- takes 8 jumps for aff
- takes 20 jumps for sl
- all students graduated
- all students graduated in 'nominal' number of jumps
It's interesting that the guestimate of graduates for aff & sl are so
close. the way some people bad-mouth sl, you'd think sl only had a few
students each year.
Weather may play a factor in number of students too. Generally, the dzs
that use sl are in climates where you don't have year - round jumping.
I have no idea on the comparative attrition rates. We can generate lots
of statistics with different attrition rates. Maybe John can assign it
as a homework problem, so we can play out the various scenarios.
> Statistics are so cute. The numbers in this case need to be "by the student"
> not "by the jump" if you want to obtain a legitimate sense of what's going
> on out there.
>
> rl
>
> Posted; informational copy to Eileen
>
> > > From USPA:
> > >
> > > Number of Student jumps in 2000
> > >
> > > AFF 32,410
> > > Tandem 185,410
> > > SL 60,338
> > > TOTAL 278,158
--
Geronimo
mailto:Gero...@ParachuteHistory.com
http://www.ParachuteHistory.com
mo ghile meer
>Eileen wrote:
>
Aye, the main thing about SL is climbing out alone and hanging the strut, a
gateway to charater. It wuz a real twit filter. Many
mainstream skydivers would be bowling
in the 20/ 21st centurys if AFF had nae cum along. Going out gripped by two
AFF/JM's is the ultimate wuss marker
IMHO. These are the same types that want D's without doing night jumps and
expect money to teach their poosyfied tricks so the basics that were
traditionaly free and learned by weasling in on formations in the olden days
has actually been devalued. Aye tis a sad state of afairs in the
USPA, soon their will be no real jumpers left....only politicians & money
changers. :(
Wopping BIG....slow canopys
oSPX SL/OG 28+
bad to the bone! :)~ fang
CDRINF
canopy flight aspect. Here goes: Are AFF graduates responsible for the
increase in injuries and deaths under fully functional canopies in recent
years? It seems to me that AFF grads progress faster in their freefall skills
and are cut loose on their own (after about 8 jumps) without the benefit of the
additional canopy flight time that S/L students get (around 15-20 jumps before
cleared - 5 S/L and about 10-15 FF). So, you have a group of people with more
money than sense who think that after 8 jumps they are "real" skydivers
(whatever that means). Then they go out and try to imitate the cool guys at
the DZ because they think they are already at the their level and hook it in
low. The lowly S/L student progresses , slower, learns more about canopy
flight along the way, and I think recognizes his limitations better than the
AFF guy who bought his way into the sport. The result is that USPA then has to
legislate a student program that requires formal instruction in the canopy
skills the AFF guy missed along the way. Then in an interesting twist in
solving this problem that AFF created, the S/L jumpmaster has to genuflect
before the AFF Instructor by performing an air skills evaluation in order to
keep his rating!
While we're at it, what's up with ram-air canopies? A REAL skydiver
learns on a round! You learn a lot about proper PLFs during those bone
crushing landings. What about throw out pilot chutes? What was wrong with
rip-cords? Three-ring release? That's for pussies! Give me a good sharp
knife. I enjoy the challenge of grapping and cutting risers at 120 MPH!
Okay - flame on! (I'm also waiting for the wing suit guys to say that any kind
of parachute is a form of device ependency)
CDR
TY
kallend wrote:
> Number of Student jumps in 2000
>
> AFF 32,410
> Tandem 185,410
> SL 60,338
> TOTAL 278,158
>
> Believe it or not.
>
Hey John.... any idea on the number of people who _graduated_ from AFF vs. S/L?
ynotssor
news:20011122081055...@mb-ft.aol.com...
> Been observing this a while - my two cents since no one has touched on the
> canopy flight aspect. Here goes: Are AFF graduates responsible for the
> increase in injuries and deaths under fully functional canopies in recent
> years? It seems to me that AFF grads progress faster in their freefall
skills
> and are cut loose on their own (after about 8 jumps) without the benefit of
the
> additional canopy flight time that S/L students get (around 15-20 jumps
before
> cleared - 5 S/L and about 10-15 FF). So, you have a group of people with
more
> money than sense who think that after 8 jumps they are "real" skydivers
> (whatever that means). Then they go out and try to imitate the cool guys at
> the DZ because they think they are already at the their level and hook it in
> low. The lowly S/L student progresses , slower, learns more about canopy
> flight along the way, and I think recognizes his limitations better than the
> AFF guy who bought his way into the sport. The result is that USPA then has
to
> legislate a student program that requires formal instruction in the canopy
> skills the AFF guy missed along the way. Then in an interesting twist in
> solving this problem that AFF created, the S/L jumpmaster has to genuflect
> before the AFF Instructor by performing an air skills evaluation in order to
> keep his rating!
An interesting speculation, and it tickles an idea:
On each Incident Report that is completed, it might be informative to have an
entry "Method of Initial Instruction" with checkboxes "AFF", "Static Line",
"Tandem/AFF".
It may be that with time, some statistically significant correlations might
occur that would answer the question you posed, and lead to beneficial changes
in methods of instruction.
TY
ftrain wrote:
> "Livendive" <live...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9tgr2v$2dfra$1...@ID-75676.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > ftrain <wrig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9tglt5$2hh0n$1...@ID-83233.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "flywithmyarms" <awr...@skydivenet.com> wrote
> > > > A. Wright
> > > > D-24693, JM sumpthingorother....
> > >
> > > A. Wright
> > > D-24621
> > >
> > > Pretty funny...
> >
> > I've been trying (not very hard) for a couple weeks now to catch you two
> > being the same person. I honestly thought you were.
>
> I noticed the name thing a while back. But the closeness of the D-numbers
> was what made me chuckle.
>
> -Andy
Next ya know they will be having "Andy Wright" ways.
kallend
I don't think this is a very interesting problem. I have no vested
interest in either method and wish people would stop badmouthing both of
them. Someone who feels the need to badmouth can do the homework. ;-)
kallend
--
jk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ronjumps
>
Once they get to the clear and pull it is all them. And that is where it
matters. There is no one there to pull for them. They must get stable by
themself, pull by themself, and at most DZ. SL students learn to spot
themselves.
Ron
Livendive
kallend <kal...@iit.edu> wrote in message news:3BFC6D90...@iit.edu...
>
>
> Livendive wrote:
> >
> > By exiting the airplane, they are deploying their own canopy just as
much
> > you did when you pulled your ripcord. Both require positive action,
both
> > pull a little cord out of a little loop, and both let a pilot chute do
the
> > rest of the work.
> >
>
> You don't really expect me to be impressed by that, do you?
Contrary to what some might believe, my purpose here is not to impress you.
:-)
Blues,
Dave
Livendive
> Dave wrote:
>
> >By exiting the airplane, they are deploying their own canopy just as much
> >you did when you pulled your ripcord. Both require positive action, both
> >pull a little cord out of a little loop, and both let a pilot chute do
the
> >rest of the work.
>
> Regardless of the fact that "both pull a little cord out of a little loop"
(if
> we disregard direct-bag and IAD), AFF requires more extensive training --
and
> more extensive performance. The canopy deployment isn't immediate -- it
comes
> after completion of additional tasks, after a much longer period of time
in a
> stressful environment, and at the assigned altitude (as opposed to 10 feet
> below the plane's altitude).
>
> AFF students have a lot more to deal with. Hence the use of the term
> "accelerated."
Agreed. I was only addressing the pull issue, not the rest of the dive.
Blues,
Dave
Livendive
<squirts_the_ejac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvop1p6...@news.supernews.com...
I said "usually". My first jump from 3,000 feet was jump 1. Why were you
still in the AFF program on jump 18? That doesn't sound very "accelerated"
when compared to static line.
Blues,
Dave
Marc
>"Marc" <frefa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I chose AFF instead of SL because I wanted to go SKYDIVING, not
>"parachuting."
>>
>> I chose AFF instead of tandem because I wanted as much control as possible
>over
>> my own jump.
>>
>> All three methods were were available to me, and the DZO twice suggested
>> tandem, but to the whuffo-me contemplating which method would provide "the
>full
>> enchilada," AFF was the clear choice.
>>
>> Freefall was always what attracted me to the sport, ever since I was a
>little
>> kid, and my opinion was that anything that didn't include freefall just
>had to
>> be the sissy way out. YMMV.
>>
>
>Last time I checked, freefall was part of the s/l progression. Most people
>get to it around the 6th or 7th jump
"6th or "7th jump." Precisely. Thanks for making my point for me Alan.
SL students "get to it," (freefall), "around the 6th or 7th jump." As an AFF
student I got to freefall starting with the *1st* jump, and by the "6th or 7th"
jump I was doing flips, turns, tracking, etc., and was about to graduate -- not
just (at long last) beginning to freefall.
and progress from there to meet the
>same standards as AFF, or any method for that matter. When did they change
>all of that? Or, are we quibbling about the first few jumps here?
"Quibbling about the first few jumps?" Ha. Those "few jumps" you mention
would have taken me a few *months* to get through since I started jumping in
February in Central Texas, and wind kept students on the ground most days.
Like I said, I wanted the real deal. I wanted to SKYDIVE, not simply go
parachuting. I thought the notion of having the parachute deploy immediately
out the door sounded lame. I thought tandem sounded pretty lame too. I wanted
more. AFF was the method that most closely matched MY priorities. YMMV, and
if so, that's fine.
Marc
I said:
>>As opposed to having a static line pull for them right off the step?
>>
>
>Once they get to the clear and pull it is all them.
"Once they *get* to the clear and pull."
Getting there takes a while, and I didn't want to wait two or more months to
get to that point. See my post to Alan for more detail.
TY
freeflyer wrote:
> Eileen_Tudelef wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Bigger DZs use tandem/AFF. By bigger, I mean larger
> >>> volume. Yes, cessna DZs still use it.
> >>> Since the larger volume DZs are using AFF, the largest
> >>> percentage of new students are getting trained that way.
> >>>
> >>> I am talking about now, not 20 years ago. I know people
> >>> will post "when I started....". I am talking about today.
> >>> E.
> >>>
> >>From USPA:
> >>
> >>Number of Student jumps in 2000
> >>
> >> AFF 32,410
> >> Tandem 185,410
> >> SL 60,338
> >> TOTAL 278,158
> >>
> >>Believe it or not.
> >>
> >
> > OK. I'll believe it. You've always been pretty
> > accurate with your facts.
> > I am surprised though.
>
> Now, why would that be a surprise to anyone? Those numbers
> (not exact ones ofcourse) are pretty common knowledge,
> unless you only jump at a big dz with only AFF training and
> are pretty ignorant about the rest of the skydiving
> community. Are you that removed from reality "Eileen"? Figures.
Well I was surprised. At my little club dz they have been running both
programs. Last year they had quite a few S/Lers mostly because of this
group of Russians who all came to learn to skydive and chose S/L. There
were a few others and overall I think we had about 7 S/L graduates and 9
AFF graduates. This past year there were very few S/Lers and most
graduates were AFF students. A few who started S/L last year did finish
and graduate this year. Despite a good S/L program and encouragement to
go that way, it seems to be dying out. And because most other DZs near
us don't offer it, we get any potential S/Lers around.
Marc
>> The jump 18 was part of my aff program.
>
>Bbbut, bbut.......Marc said AFF meant "accellerated". S/L is only 15 jumps.
S/L is "only 15 jumps" for perfect students. Most students probably repeat at
least one level. Many repeat more than one level. And it's not terribly
uncommon for a student to repeat several levels, and to take over 20 jumps to
graduate (I've even known some who have taken 30+). But you knew that Alan.
>Funny, the dictionary doesn't use the word "better" anywhere in the
>definition of accellerated or the Thesuarus.
"Better" is a relative term. AFF did a "better" job of fitting my priorities,
and I graduated in 8 jumps. For me, AFF was "better."
As for "accelerated," AFF is just that -- an "accelerated" program. Of course,
"accelerated" programs tend to be best-suited for students who can handle the
"accelerated" pace. In my experience, most students can handle AFF, but there
are certainly exceptions and that's fine. These people can go AFP, or SL, or
IAD, or even do some hybrid program that includes windtunnels, etc. In a world
where one size does not necessarily fit all, isn't it great that people have
all of these options to choose from? I think so. YMMV.
mo ghile meer
>
>Number of Student jumps in 2000
> AFF 32,410
>SL 60,338
???? Wharbthe fok are the sheepgods germating?.....must be Tandem
>Tandem 185,410
jim/hoe WHAT HAVE EWE CREATED? :(
freeflyer
>
>>Now, why would that be a surprise to anyone? Those numbers
>>(not exact ones ofcourse) are pretty common knowledge,
>>unless you only jump at a big dz with only AFF training and
>>are pretty ignorant about the rest of the skydiving
>>community. Are you that removed from reality "Eileen"? Figures.
>>
>
> Well I was surprised.
You're new, so you're excused :o)
> At my little club dz they have been running both
> programs. Last year they had quite a few S/Lers mostly because of this
> group of Russians who all came to learn to skydive and chose S/L. There
> were a few others and overall I think we had about 7 S/L graduates and 9
> AFF graduates.
I have a feeling that 7 and 9 graduated students aren't
going to sway the stats very much ;o)
I'm not surprised because most dzs I've been to offer
_atleast_ SL, while some also offer AFF. There are very few
dzs I've been to that don't offer SL at all.
So, you've got lots of dzs that offer SL, some dzs that also
offer AFF, and a few (compared with the other categories)
that only offer AFF. The few are probably the ones with the
most jumps, but there aren't that many of them afaik.
It would actually be interesting to hear from people here
whether their dz offers SL(and IAD as I believe those two
are lumped together) and/or AFF(or a variant thereof).
Maybe my perceptions of the dzs I've visited has been all
wrong? After all, I have been skydiving a lot in Norway :o)
> Despite a good S/L program and encouragement to
> go that way, it seems to be dying out.
Any ideas on why it's dying out at your dz?
--
Espen
ALF#1
Livendive
offer S/L. In Idaho, the only two DZ's I know of offer S/L only. In
Montana, there are only two DZ's that I know of. 1 offers AFF and S/L, the
other just S/L AFAIK. In Oregon, there are 5 DZ's that I know of...only one
offers AFF AFAIK. I think Lodi should be able to offer decent numbers, as
they're the biggest DZ I know of that offers both. I believe all the
"mondo" dz's like Perris and Eloy have migrated to AFF only.
Blues,
Dave
freeflyer <free...@freeflyer.no> wrote in message
news:3BFE7AEF...@freeflyer.no...
Ronjumps
Nothing wrong with AFF. But I don't think it maters what method you learn
after 100 jumps.
If you have the money, WX and need to learn quick. Go AFF.
But I do not agree with SL students are not learning to Skydive. Hell I did.
You need to get off the whole I wanted to learn to skydive no parachute
thing.......You learned to Skydive, I learned to skydive, and I bet that no one
could tell the differace between us now....Except you keep yelling I WANTED TO
LEARN TO SKYDIVE.......HeHe
freeflyer
> In Washington State, there are 6 DZ's. One (maybe two) offer AFF. All
> offer S/L. In Idaho, the only two DZ's I know of offer S/L only. In
> Montana, there are only two DZ's that I know of. 1 offers AFF and S/L, the
> other just S/L AFAIK. In Oregon, there are 5 DZ's that I know of...only one
> offers AFF AFAIK. I think Lodi should be able to offer decent numbers, as
> they're the biggest DZ I know of that offers both. I believe all the
> "mondo" dz's like Perris and Eloy have migrated to AFF only.
Thanks Dave. It supports my point, but then again, I'm
probably biased :o)
freeflyer
>
> You need to get off the whole I wanted to learn to skydive no parachute
> thing.......You learned to Skydive, I learned to skydive, and I bet that no one
> could tell the differace between us now....Except you keep yelling I WANTED TO
> LEARN TO SKYDIVE.......HeHe
I did NOT yell that!! Oh wait, you weren't talking to me,
were you. I get confused when people DON'T KNOW HOW TO
FUCKING QUOTE!!! ;o)
Ronjumps
>FUCKING QUOTE!!! ;o)
>
I know how to fucking quote......I was just paraphrasing...I have no idea how
to do that.
HEHE
TY
Livendive wrote:
Well Dave messed this all up by top posting but here goes anyway. ;o)
It's just about the opposite around here. There are 2 DZs in Rhode Island,
Boston Providence and Skydive Newport, both only offer AFF, Addison in Vermont
offers both AFF and S/L, CPI in Conn. offers AFF and IAD, Boston Hartford in
Conn offers only AFF beginning with tandems, as does I think Airborne Adventures
in MA, Pepperell in MA only offers AFF, Jumptown offers AFF and SL, and Skydive
New England only offers AFF.
I'm not sure why it's dying out at our dz except that most students calling are
interested in doing AFF. Maybe they have experienced freefall as a tandem and
loved that part and want to do it again. I know that's how I felt. In the
beginning it was all about freefall to me and the canopy part was just a way to
get the rest of the way down. It's funny now that while I still love freefall,
the canopy ride may have taken over as my favorite part.
SkymonkeyONE
>Once apon a time....at a big DZ <snip>
>I pushed the fucking bitch out the door.
RIGHT ON BROTHER!!!!
And did I say that all you trolls out there can kiss my ass?
Chuck Blue
D-12501
Alan Binnebose
"Marc" <frefa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011123102710...@mb-fy.aol.com...
>
> "Once they *get* to the clear and pull."
> Getting there takes a while, and I didn't want to wait two or more >months
to get to that point.
Most reasonably committed s/l students can get to the c&p in 6 or 7 jumps.
That is about 2 to 4 weekends, not 2 or more months.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
Alan Binnebose
> "6th or "7th jump." Precisely. Thanks for making my point for me Alan.
I made no point for you. You did some liberal interpretation to arrive at
that conclusion
> SL students "get to it," (freefall), "around the 6th or 7th jump." As an
AFF
> student I got to freefall starting with the *1st* jump,
No you didn't, you had two jm's holding on to you, doing the bulk of the
work. Not very different from tandem really, except 2 jms instead of the
dual harness and one jm.
>and by the "6th or 7th"
> jump I was doing flips, turns, tracking, etc., and was about to
graduate -- not
> just (at long last) beginning to freefall.
So you were an above average student.
> and progress from there to meet the
> >same standards as AFF, or any method for that matter. When did they
change
> >all of that? Or, are we quibbling about the first few jumps here?
>
> "Quibbling about the first few jumps?" Ha. Those "few jumps" you mention
> would have taken me a few *months* to get through since I started jumping
in
> February in Central Texas, and wind kept students on the ground most days.
Again, your personal circumstances should not be viewd as representative.
Most of the s/l students I work with progress at about the same rate (in
terms of time) as you did. The jumps are less expensive so they can
typically afford to make more jumps per day than the AFF students we see.
> Like I said, I wanted the real deal. I wanted to SKYDIVE, not simply go
> parachuting. I thought the notion of having the parachute deploy
immediately
> out the door sounded lame. I thought tandem sounded pretty lame too. I
wanted
> more.
So you decided to go out at full altitude with a couple of babysitters.
Cool. I define freefall as just that, falling free, not with a couple of
pros hanging on. I have always viewd AFF as about as lame as tandem.
Semantics I guess.
>AFF was the method that most closely matched MY priorities. YMMV, and
> if so, that's fine.
Agreed.
Alan Binnebose
> Alan wrote:
>
> >> The jump 18 was part of my aff program.
> >
> >Bbbut, bbut.......Marc said AFF meant "accellerated". S/L is only 15
jumps.
>
> S/L is "only 15 jumps" for perfect students. Most students probably
repeat at
> least one level. Many repeat more than one level. And it's not terribly
> uncommon for a student to repeat several levels, and to take over 20 jumps
to
> graduate (I've even known some who have taken 30+). But you knew that
Alan.
Yes I did and feel that that is balanced by the AFF students that take 12 to
15 jumps to graduate from the 7 jump program, so my point still stands.
> >Funny, the dictionary doesn't use the word "better" anywhere in the
> >definition of accellerated or the Thesuarus.
>
> "Better" is a relative term. AFF did a "better" job of fitting my
priorities,
> and I graduated in 8 jumps. For me, AFF was "better."
The key words being "For me". You want to project your experiences onto the
whole program.
> As for "accelerated," AFF is just that -- an "accelerated" program. Of
course,
> "accelerated" programs tend to be best-suited for students who can handle
the
> "accelerated" pace.
That is the rub. The USPA AFF program tends to be best suited for those
students with lots of money and who are easily fooled into thinking they
will learn more, faster or that they will be "freefalling" on their very
first jump. And how do you predetermine/screen which students can handle
that "accelerated" pace?
>In my experience, most students can handle AFF, but there
> are certainly exceptions and that's fine.
I don't agree. But they do seem to get graduated.
> These people can go AFP, or SL, or
> IAD, or even do some hybrid program that includes windtunnels, etc.
You mean all of us slow learners that can't handle the accelerated pace of
AFF? Your arrogance is leaking all over your keyboard.
>In a world
> where one size does not necessarily fit all, isn't it great that people
have
> all of these options to choose from? I think so. YMMV.
I don't agree. All of these options have lead to a very disorganized array
of questionable training programs and practices.
kallend
OTOH, some of us pulled for ourselves from jump 1.
--
jk
-----------------------------------------------------------
D16842
>That is the rub. The USPA AFF program tends to be best suited for those
>students with lots of money and who are easily fooled into thinking they
>will learn more, faster or that they will be "freefalling" on their very
>first jump. And how do you predetermine/screen which students can handle
>that "accelerated" pace?
Come on Alan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can tell based on the model and make of car, and the credit limit on the
Gold or Platinum card. Those ARE the accelerated students.
Tom B