Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!relay.nswc.navy.mil!oasys!mimsy!mobby.umiacs.umd.edu!jerrys From: jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) Newsgroups: rec.skydiving Subject: Re: AFF training Message-ID: <32987@mimsy.umd.edu> Date: 15 Apr 91 21:41:20 GMT References: Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Reply-To: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) Organization: UMIACS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 Lines: 127 Barry- A few comments:-.... In article bb1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Barry Lowell Brumitt) writes: >> Like the round parachute, traditional S/L training is basically dead. > >I think dropzones are losing a potentially big section of the market without thetraditional S/L training. (Particularly those with less $$, such as students) > >From talking to people about skydiving, it seems that they would be far more >willing to do the many jumps required of S/L at cheaper prices, (spread >more out over time) than to cough up the ~$1000 to go through AFF. AFF was bound to happen for 2 reasons: 1) The sport needed some profitable way to get 1st jump students into *freefall*, and 2nd) AFF is safer. I will elaborate. My qualifications are 6 years S/L Jm & Instructor and 8 years AFF-I. First, as of the early '80s, the new membership in the sport had peaked. Not to say we didn't have lots of first jump students, we did. But they weren't sticking it out to A-license. By the time they made it through the static line progression to serious freefal (with manuevers, etc) they were discouraged, broke, tired of being treated like a necessary evil. The AFF program solved this. It put them into freefall, under squares, put video on them, ground-to-air/air-to-air radio for canopy control, etc. *All on the first jump!* The retention rate went through the roof. Secondly, the safety aspect was better. Primarily due to better instructor to student ratios, in-air corrective training, and redundent stability and deployment systems (Read: freefall jumpmasters), and better *sport* parachuting equipment. Unfortunately, the benifits of AFF cost money. But it was tailored to *SPORT* skydiving in the 80s, not some bastardized version of military jumping from the 40s and 50s. Now having said that, there are some interesting things that have happened due to AFF. 1. AFF is much more expensive per jump than S/L thereby attracting first jumpers with much more discretionary money. Because of this, the sport has moved from bikers and ex-special forces types (basic nere-do wells) into the raquetball set with Jeeps and Air-Jordans. 2. These students do not flinch at the price of AFF jumps. Nor do they flinch at the price of "New Gear". This has caused the market for used gear plummet since there are fewer cost-conscious novices in the market - and there are more people around able to pay for new gear every 2 or 3 years causing a glut of used gear. (Listen up all you poor novices...used gear is cheap and typically very well maintained. Ask a rigger, not the DZ operator /new-gear-salesperson.) 3. AFF is much more profitable than S/L. This allows for better gear in general which has actually raised the quality S/L programs as a side effect. Since many DZs do run dual curriculums, it helps is the gear is interchangeable. 4. In order to get the prospective students into the sport who cannot afford $300 bucks for the jump, and at the same time retain the positive (safety) aspects of AFF, the TANDEM process arose. So now DZs do not *need* S/L to address the young dollar-tight or older skeptical types. They still get freefall, video, canopy assistance, etc. As older gear is replaced, I think you will see more tandem jumps used for introductions. >Now, yes, you could do 1 AFF every two weeks and spend about the same, but you >don't get as much time under canopy, or time at the DZ. Plus, the Up-front >commitment is far less. The idea isn't to get time under *canopy*, it is to get *freefall* time. The training MUST address their freefall skills as these are the most critical to their survival. Canopy control is nice if they pull, if they are stable when they pull, know when to cut-away and when not to, etc. Besides, AFF open a 1000' higher than S/L, so they get more canopy time per jump than S/L anyways. As to spending time at the DZ, the S/L students pay the same hourly rate as AFF students and wuffos(:-). This is a motivational factor, not a cost factor. >Though I learned AFF, it makes too much sense to keep the traditional methods >around for those who want to "ease" into skydiving, getting several jumps >under their belt for what their first AFF would cost them. If this were the case, why not keep S/Lers on rounds and bellywart reserves? You don't "ease" into skydiving, you either jump or you don't jump. If you jump, it should be as safe as much fun as possible for the novice. If you don't jump, you're a weenie(:-) and we don't discuss weenies in rec.skydiving AFF is safer than S/L (look at the stats). AFF is more fun than S/L (personal experience and general IMO concensus). >I suspect the really appropriate compromise is ASL, where the student >can switchto AFF from S/L whenever desired/appropraite. One place I taught for several years, we had both programs. The students trained together, used the same gear. The difference was that AFF students got about an extra hour or two of climbout & freefall classroom and 60 seconds of freefall out of an Otter, personalized attention, and video. >So, to conclude, I still think both methods (incl. compromises), have their >financially viable places within the market, and keeping both around will >maximize the number of people that a dropzone can introduce into the sport. While the S/L program has done well over the years, and is IMO an *adequate* program, I believe the AFF program approximates the true nature of the sport and is safer. You get what you pay for. >Barry >A-12249 (and learning...) > >Disclaimer: Yes, I know I'm a novice, and therefore everything I say has a 98% >chance of being wrong. Actually, everything I say is wrong, some things are >merely less wrong than others. I request tolerance: you were a zoomie once >too, and flaming on novices is hardly a positve action. Ok. Just this once. Do it again and your back on drcp's:- Blue Skies! Jerry -- Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu Jerry Sobieski UUCP: uunet!mimsy!jerrys UMIACS - Univ. of Maryland Phone: (301)405-6735 College Park, Md 20742