From: dsouth@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Dale Southard Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: how often does this happen?
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:06:37 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <60005@mimsy.umd.edu>, jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes:
> Ok Eric...get your asbestos shorts...:-)
> 
> In article <1992Aug31.185924.25915@eng.ufl.edu> esj@viper.eng.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson) writes: 
> 
>>SOS disadvantages: Not real skydiving gear, which necessitates emergency 
>>procedure retraining. This retraining is often done after the student has
>>graduated, and may or may not be as formal or organized as "regular" student
>>training. Also this is often done at the same time the student tranasistions
>>from ripcord to throw out or pull out. Lots of stuff for a baby skydiver to 
>>assimilate at once. 20-100 jumps is a dangerous period for these and other
>>reasons. 
> 
> The advantageous of a dual system seem to benefit the Jumpmasters more
> than the students.  The student's safety - on the 1st jump - should be
> more important than possible *minor* retraining differences 15 or more
> jumps down the road.


Well, as a Jumpmaster, I cannot agree that an SOS aids the jumpmaster
(I assume by eliminating the need for retraining) anymore than I could
agree that a TAS (Two Action System) aids the instructor by making the
training simpler.  Keeping the student safe is the main criteria, and
NEITHER system can show a historical advantage statistically in that
regard.

> Students will *always* be learning new things.  They go to throw-out, 
> why should that require a different cutaway system?  The justification
> above seems (to me) a bit contrived.  Comparing the amount of new material
> a novice must assimilate going to a throwout - even with a new 
> cutaway procedure- is far less than a level 1 student is expected to master.
> It seems this reasoning is burdening the 1st jumper over a more 
> experienced jumper.  

Gee, then perhaps we should be moving things around more -- perhaps
switching them to R-3's after a few jumps :-)

Gear is standardized for safety.  Ideal gear takes the student through as
few operational changes as possible.  If one looks at the better designed 
student rigs, one sees that the handle placement remains the same from
PRCP through freefall.  The idea that a student should be forced to learn
an entirely new emergency procedure AFTER getting off of student status
(and without an AAD/RSL for backup) is somewhat ludicrous.  Statistically,
the period between 25 and 250 jumps is the most dangerous.  Why stack
the deck any worse??

<stuff deleted> 

>>In a perfect world I would want a SOS on all static line students and
>>two handle for all freefall. 
> 
> YUCK!  Put a SOS on all of 'em.  Let them learn the more dynamic dual
> point cutaway procedures when they have less new material to master.

And no AAD for backup????!!!

 
>>Typically a student doing a freefall (weather AFF I or after a static line
>>progression) will be sticking with the sport. 
> 
> *If they survive that 1st jump.*

Again, statistically students are safer 1-25 than 25-250,
 
>>Might as well get them in
>>sport gear when their under total instructional control. 
> 
> Well hell, give `em a Sabre 120 and teach em to front riser!  Why
> mess around with this student stuff...get `em right into the sport!

Well, yes, I do teach my AFF/SL students to front riser.  As well as rear
riser, stall, break turn.  No, not on the first jump, but by level 7....
I suppose you would prefer giving them only a single toggle so that
they wouldn't become confused?  :-)
 
>>One jump thrill seekers
>>are better served with as easy to operate gear as possible.
> 
> ALL students are best served with gear that is as easy to operate
> as possible.  How do we differentiate between one-jump thrill 
> seekers and people who will stick with it?  And why should that
> dictate what type of gear they get?
> 
> With students, there should only be one concern: Safety- maximize the
> fun at minimum risk.  A dual point system increases complexity and
> is unlikely to increase either the fun or decrease the risk for
> a low time student.
> 
> As the student
> progresses through their training, they will be able to better 
> understand the implications of 
> certain procedures and equipment design.  Then they can progress
> at their own pace.


Or at least bounce after they get off student status.

As instructors, our job is to create SAFE skydivers.  That means that
when you sign-off that log book, the instructor should KNOW that the
student has demonstrated the capability to handle the challenges that
the sport presents.  No, I don't think that they should be able to
preform a back-in in the 5th wave of a 40-way (yet), but they SHOULD
be able to skydive safely WITHOUT any further babysitting.  I personally
don't feel that saying "when you buy a real rig, remember to pull the
right, then the left" is the nearly as good as drilling it into them
for 20 jumps.  Again, there is a trade-off.  But having taught using
both systems, it is not THAT much more difficult to teach/operate a
TAS (and if anyone is teaching an SOS as "just pull the handle" they
aren't teaching it effectively).

I think they both have their cons.  From a pessimist's point of view:
	TAS systems cause fatalities when students forget to pull the
		reserve due to panic.
	SOS systems cause fatalities when intermediates forget to pull
		the reserve because they were trained not to.

I'll take the first risk because it has more backups (RSL/AAD) than
the second. (then again, I also think students should have square reserves
so I am obviously nuts).
 
> Sorry, didn't mean to scorch you too bad...
> I love a good argument:-)

Likewise  :-)  Especially holy-wars (on to POP vs TOP...NOT)

-- 
/* Dale Southard Jr.                                 Sr. Rigger      */
/* University of Toledo                             AFF/I   SL/I     */
/* dsouth@uoft02.utoledo.edu                           D-11216       */
/* Department of Chemistry -- "Just another skydiving grad student." */