SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) (04/23/91)
Reply-to: Mike.Johnston@p0.f2.n265.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Johnston) Fido-To: dale southard As I promised, here is the answer to your question. Sorry about how long it's taken me to post this. An AFF instructor's (and JMs) job is to take care of the student as best he can. He does this by first giving good training, and that includes making sure the student knows that he alone is responsible for saving himself. The instructor might be able to help out, but the student must rely upon himself. Second, provide the student with good equipment that includes an AAD, square main, RSL, etc. Third, accompany the student in freefall and help as much as possible. Instructors are thoroughly trained and tested. They must show the ability to teach and to skydive. They are even tested on their ability to catch a non-performing "student." But everyone should remember that instructors are taught to REMEMBER THAT THE INSTRUCTOR HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT ENDANGER HIMSELF. The best skydivers in the world (with gold medals to prove it) have been unable to catch a tumbling, spinning student. And they went lower than they should have, but they did save themselves. With some students, it is quite hard to draw the fine line between staying in control and giving the student too much room. Yes, the instructor is supposed to pull for the student who doesn't. But he can't always do so, he is not superman. The instructor is also always responsible for opening his own parachute, about 2000. If you can't save the student, at least save yourself. AFF has such a good safety record because the instructor's performance in the air is only one third of the safety system. The fact that this was only the second (yes that's right, second) AFF fatality, shows how difficult it is for the reaper to beat all three levels of safety. There are about 275,00 student jumps made in the USA each year. AFF must account for at least 10%, probably more like 20%. These estimates are very conservative when you consider that about 7% of all first time jumps are AFF and that many DZs require all students to start with a tandem or two before advancing to AFF training. It is true that about 50% of the 2500-3000 new skydivers each year trained in the AFF method. There are alot of AFF jumps being made each year, more than most people realize. This has been going on for ten years too. The first AFF fatality involved a non-rated JM. In fact, he had failed the course a couple of months earlier (he didn't have very much experience either). That jump was an AFF jump as distinguished from a simple harness hold jump. That is the distinction we always made. The fatality with the non-rated JM just shows that the instructor training system works pretty well, it did screen this guy out. It also shows that those early levels require TWO qualified instructors. To that guy's credit, he called me and confessed the whole thing even before he told his partner on the jump. --- --- eecp 1.45 LM2 * Origin: Skydive Orange BBS : WOCin' on Air (Opus 1:265/2) -- SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13 (ehsnet.fidonet.org)
jnrees@athena.mit.edu (Jim Rees) (04/25/91)
In article <2809.28158962@ehsnet.fidonet.org> SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) (Mike Johnston) writes: safety. >... The >fatality with the non-rated JM just shows that the instructor training >system works pretty well, it did screen this guy out. This statement is a leap of logic and is inconsistent with the spirit of the rest of the article. The unrated JM fails the AFF course and subsequently a student of his is killed, therefore the AFF course works? Surely the non-rated JM did not plan on letting his student die, and as was stated earlier in the article, the student is responsible for saving him/herself on any skydive. One datapoint among the countless AFF skydives with rated and un-rated AFF JM's does not say much. Besides, in light of recent events, there have been equal numbers of AFF student fatalities with rated and un-rated JM's. Does this mean that the AFF course makes no difference? Jim Rees D-13359 (rated) AFF JM '91
SKYDIVE@f15.n233.z1.FIDONET.ORG (SKYDIVE) (05/13/91)
Reply-to: Dale.Southard@p0.f2.n265.z1.fidonet.org (Dale Southard) Fido-To: mike johnston Mike: Just wanted to thank you again for your post. It was very complete and well-written (so much so that there wasn't even a discussion brewed up). Thank you for taking the time to provide your input/wisdom on this topic. Sorry if this is the second time I thanked you -- I am not sure if my first post got to you or not -- the Internet <---> fidonet gateway has been known to eat my mail without bouncing it back to warn me. --> --> Dale (ds4a@virginia.edu) --- --- eecp 1.45 LM2 * Origin: Skydive Orange BBS : WOCin' on Air (Opus 1:265/2) -- SKYDIVE - via FidoNet node 1:233/13 (ehsnet.fidonet.org)