SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) (04/07/91)
Reply-to: Dave.Appel@p30.f30.n231.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Appel)
Fido-To: all
I was at the Daytona Beach (Flagler) DZ a couple years
ago when there was an AFF certification course going
on. While waiting for other jumpers to make a load,
I helped out by playing "Farmer Brown", an AFF
student. Two of the AFF candidates had over 2,000
jumps each, and they didn't pass the course. So
I can attest that an AFF rating is more than just
a formality. It's a very tough course. And Don
Yarling didn't cut anyone any slack.
O_o
=(.)=
U
Nick Di Giovanni and I had a discussion over on GEnie
(time sharing service) about the relative merits
of AFF training versus the static line method and
ASL method. Nick is a S/L instructor.
My observation at the DZ where I jump is that
AFF grads seem to do better than SL grads.
And most of those who stay with the sport and go on
to be licensed jumpers (at this DZ at least) are also AFF
grads.
That's just my $.02.
--- XRS!% 4.10
--- eecp 1.45 LM2
* Origin: The Drop Zone, Dave Appel, 1:231/30.30 (Quick 1:231/30.30)
--
SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13 (ehsnet.fidonet.org)SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) (04/11/91)
Reply-to: NICK.DI@p0.f412.n202.z1.fidonet.org (NICK DI GIOVANNI) Fido-To: dave appel Like round parachutes, the traditional S/L method is basically history. ASL is a good program, but you're correct in saying AFF is now the most popular. In the S/L vs AFF debate, which is sort of comparing appels and oranges (GRIN), I was just talking about some of positive aspects of S/L and ASL. BTW Dave, I took and passed the AFF certification course in the early 80's and found it the most demanding USPA program to date. I remember sitting in the van at night going over the lesson outlines with the rest of the candidates with all of us feeling we were in over our heads. We weren't. We just never had anybody pushing us so hard. --- SLMAIL v1.36M (#0339) --- eecp 1.45 LM2 * Origin: ElectroShokTherapy It Isn't Just 4 Breakfast anymore/no (1:202/412) -- SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13 (ehsnet.fidonet.org)
bb1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Barry Lowell Brumitt) (04/15/91)
> Like the round parachute, traditional S/L training is basically dead.
(Paraphrased)
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 peope 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.
Even though the price may work out to be roughly equivalent, for someone with
limited cash-flow, being able to go jumping every couple weekends, spend only
$35 on a couple jumps, it makes for a better deal.
Most people don't take more than, say, 40 S/L-series jumps to complete training,at, again estimate, $20 ave. a pop after the first one, that ends up being
$800 for 40/3 weeks. Given some bad weather, and adding a little bit to
cover incidental extras, we're looking at $900 for 15 weeks = $60 a week.
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.
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.
I suspect the really appropriate compromise is ASL, where the student can switchto AFF from S/L whenever desired/appropraite.
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.
Comments?
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.esj@gnarley.eng.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) (04/16/91)
In article <cc2Q7E600aw=IaMWI9@andrew.cmu.edu> bb1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Barry Lowell Brumitt) writes: > >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 peope 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. > This is true. While S/L, AFF, and Tandam were all offered at my DZ, I chose S/L simply because after every jump as a student, I felt I had the $25 bucks worth of fun. No matter how badly I mucked up the dive, no matter how few of the objectives I actually met. I have seen people spend literally thousands of dollars (and bunches of repeat dives) doing AFF training. Ej A-12472 ( USPA finally got around to sending me my number ;-/ )
jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) (04/16/91)
Barry- A few comments:-.... In article <cc2Q7E600aw=IaMWI9@andrew.cmu.edu> 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
robie@umbc1.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)) (04/16/91)
In article <32987@mimsy.umd.edu>, jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes... >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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gee, Jerry, why does this fail to make me feel better about the future of the sport? :)
jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr15.231128.26617@umbc3.umbc.edu> robie@umbc1.umbc.edu writes: >In article <32987@mimsy.umd.edu>, jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes... >> >>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. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Gee, Jerry, why does this fail to make me feel better about the future of >the sport? :) YEah I agree. Personally, I think the sport has lost some of it's "uniqueness" now that we are seeing some savvy business people really pushing it. This trend does make the sport more mainstream (read: profitable) and is responsible for much innovation over the last 15 years. But in a way, I miss the days when the typical jumper was less "conventional"- When tree landings were a real possibility, when spotting was a carefully honed skill for *all* jumpers, downwind accuracy under a PC, bare-ass beacon rides, getting some unsuspecting female whuffo to trudge half a mile into the brush to "help me find my ripchord" (:- Ha HA What a Contry!)... Sun's shining...think I'll take an emergency vacation:-() Jerry -- Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu Jerry Sobieski UUCP: uunet!mimsy!jerrys UMIACS - Univ. of Maryland Phone: (301)405-6735 College Park, Md 20742
chrise@wa4mei.UUCP (Chris England) (04/18/91)
In <32987@mimsy.umd.edu> jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes: >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. Whooooooa! Did you say nere-do wells? Lets keep in mind that those "special forces types", made up the majority of the pioneers of early freefall. Having been in sf, I can say that public opinion of what, and who we are is often skewed by the above type of remarks. For example, every time a fellow nere-do well gets in a little trouble, you can count on the press to make statements like "Greene Beret Kills...." etc. when in fact, the guy was one of the few that bring shame to the organization. >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 Having said all of that, I do agree with categorizing non-jumpers as weenies though.... Chris England A-11215 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brock Control Systems, Inc. | SF rule #161: Remember that your weapon was Technical Support | made by the lowest bidder! tel: +800 444 3070 | -- Chris England A-11215 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brock Control Systems, Inc. | SF rule #161: Remember that your weapon was Technical Support | made by the lowest bidder! tel: +800 444 3070 |
jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) (04/19/91)
In article <1113@wa4mei.UUCP> chrise@wa4mei.UUCP (Chris England) writes: >In <32987@mimsy.umd.edu> jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes: >> 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. > >Whooooooa! Did you say nere-do wells? Lets keep in mind that those >"special forces types", made up the majority of the pioneers of early >freefall. Having been in sf, I can say that public opinion of what, and >who we are is often skewed by the above type of remarks. For example, >every time a fellow nere-do well gets in a little trouble, you can >count on the press to make statements like "Greene Beret Kills...." >etc. when in fact, the guy was one of the few that bring shame to >the organization. > OK OK OK... I apologize. Didn't mean it in a derogatory sense. More of a nostalgic sense:-? (I think I'll go find an old trailer and live at the DZ...) Jerry -- Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu Jerry Sobieski UUCP: uunet!mimsy!jerrys UMIACS - Univ. of Maryland Phone: (301)405-6735 College Park, Md 20742
mes@tellabs.com (Martin Swinney) (04/20/91)
>In <32987@mimsy.umd.edu> jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes: > >> 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. Speaking, as a "basic nere-do well", SF'er, who used to own a Harley until I became domesticated and one who like's both Jeeps and raquetball, but wouldn't own a pair of those overpriced shoes. To Jerry I have but one thing to say. PPPPPhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt! You Yuppie Scum.
robie@umbc1.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)) (04/22/91)
>In <32987@mimsy.umd.edu> jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes: >>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. Jerry - I really *tried* to let this one slip past, but the bite marks on my lip just won't go away. Perhaps the point(s) about AFF are good and true, but categorizing ex-special forces types as ne're-do-wells is a bit uncalled for. Yes ... we all know that certain "GI Joe" who won't let go (and is an a**hole) but they are the exception. The raquetball set does have its apparent advantages, but, along with the Jeeps and Air-Jordans they also have hair-trigger lawyers. In the "old days," we used to look out for each other on the ground and in the air ... that was part of the special forces mentality that was a plus (trusting each other to do pin checks, etc.). I can't *as* easily picture "Biff" or "Muffy" trying to track down to an unconscious diver as I can "Sgt. Rock" ... maybe it is just my warped sense of values. :)
ryoder@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert W Yoder) (04/23/91)
In article <32987@mimsy.umd.edu>, jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes: [text deleted] > 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. I've had enough of this bad-mouthing of Jeep owners; For you information, I have driven Jeeps for 12 years, (I'm on my second one which is now ten years old), and I wouldn't be caught dead wearing Air-Jordans. :-) Let's not waste time being picky about who we jump with. Experienced jumpers are too scarce to be getting fussy about the socio-economic category to which they belong. If someone is a safe, enthusiastic jumper, why should we be looking for reasons to thumb our noses at him? The more people of all kinds we bring into the sport, the more money there will be available for more planes and more DZ's. Robert Yoder "It's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your child processes are?" 306 Hawkins Graduate House Internet: ryoder@ecn.purdue.edu West Lafayette, IN 47906 Bitnet: ryoder%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm (317)495-6845 N9CON UUCP: {purdue, pur-ee}!ecn.purdue.edu!ryoder
jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) (04/23/91)
OK folks...I give! A couple of points about my last (it would seem controversial) posting... 1. I apologize to all our Special Forces and Biker friends. I used a term that was inaccurate and demeaning to describe many of the people responsible for nurturing the sport into its present state. 2. As to the people who took exception to being a "Jeep owner" or wearing fancy sneakers (and you know who you are:-)...give me a break. I was trying to make a point about the difference in the first jumpers we're seeing today verses 10 or 15 years ago. I was not passing judgment on them (Hell..*I* even own a Cherokee). 3. Anyone else that wants to bend my pins can send me e-mail. (Geez...you make a guy feel like he went low on a hundred-way...) Jerry -- Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu Jerry Sobieski UUCP: uunet!mimsy!jerrys UMIACS - Univ. of Maryland Phone: (301)405-6735 College Park, Md 20742
chrise@wa4mei.UUCP (Chris England) (04/23/91)
In <33246@mimsy.umd.edu> jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes: >In article <1113@wa4mei.UUCP> chrise@wa4mei.UUCP (Chris England) writes: >>In <32987@mimsy.umd.edu> jerrys@mobby.umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes: >>> 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. >> >>Whooooooa! Did you say nere-do wells? Lets keep in mind that those >>"special forces types", made up the majority of the pioneers of early >>freefall. Having been in sf, I can say that public opinion of what, and >>who we are is often skewed by the above type of remarks. For example, >>every time a fellow nere-do well gets in a little trouble, you can >>count on the press to make statements like "Greene Beret Kills...." >>etc. when in fact, the guy was one of the few that bring shame to >>the organization. >> >OK OK OK... I apologize. Didn't mean it in a derogatory sense. More of >a nostalgic sense:-? >(I think I'll go find an old trailer and live at the DZ...) >Jerry Good deal jerry, I think I'll drop this computer and join you. -- Chris England A-11215 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brock Control Systems, Inc. | SF rule #161: Remember that your weapon was Technical Support | made by the lowest bidder! tel: +800 444 3070 |
SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) (05/18/91)
Reply-to: Mike.Mcnamara@p0.f64.n382.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Mcnamara) Fido-To: uiucuxc!andrew.cmu.edu!bb1v+ I am president of the Herd at New Hanover, PA, and expect to continue with all 3 programs (AFF, SL, Tandem). AFF is growing, and SL is holdiolding its own. BTW, we do ASL. --- QuickBBS 2.75 (Beta-11) --- eecp 1.45 LM2 * Origin: Skydive Over Texas (512)873-9464 FIDO: (1:382/64) -- SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13 (ehsnet.fidonet.org)