From: esj@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson)
Subject: Re: how often does this happen?
Reply-To: esj@wasp.eng.ufl.edu (Eric S. Johnson)
Organization: U of Florida Engineering Computing Services
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 15:19:07 GMT

In article <60005@mimsy.umd.edu> jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) 
Master of the One True Way of skydiving writes:

>Ok Eric...get your asbestos shorts...:-)

Asbestos shorts on ;-) Flame thrower set for medium.

>>Jerry asks:
>>>(BTW, Why do student Vectors have belly bands? Didn't the sport decide 
>>>those were needless and risky?)
>>
>>BB's are risky only with a throwout system. With a ripcord a twisted belly 
>>band is just uncomfortable. Why are they there? Well on our student Vectors
>>thats where the Sentinal brain box is mounted.
>
>There are proven better ways.  Why stick with riskier methods when dealing
>with low time students?
>

Don't ask me on this one. DZ owns em. 5 left and counting. The newer rigs 
are jav's, which suit me fine. And the vectors do work just fine. Never 
bounced anyone. Or maybe its the training and not some minor variations
in the rigs.

>
>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.
>

Hmm. How can I put this without being rude? Id say it is pretty obvious 
that training a student on a SOS system is easier for the FJ instructor, 
and is a disservice to the future JM's and future skydiver.

And minor retrain?? I would say switching from a SOS to a two handle system
is far from a minor retrain. Suddenly the emergency procedures you have been
drilling for your entire student status will now most likely kill you. 
Nothing minor here. 


>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.  
>

The one thing I have found as an instructor is that the first jump course
is the only time you REALY have a students complete attention. And boy do 
you have their attention when it comes to emergencies. As they go through
the student progression you have their attention a bit less, but still as
strong. You consistantly drill "cutaway and pull your reserve" to them 
during this period. Once off student status, this is firmly ingrained in
their brain. A sentence that is one word. And will save their life. Under
any gear. 

>>Either system is perfectly safe with complete training, followed by 
>>proper performence. Bad training and/or bad performence can mess up either.
>
>The same can be said for small thermonuclear weapons:-) (so whats yur point?)
>

My point is that I believe safe skydivers can be trained on both systems.
Adapt as a instructor.  I know I can produce safe skydivers on both systems.
Do you belive that YOU can not produce a safe skydiver with a two handle 
student rig? 

>
>IMO, The RSL should be present on either system for students.
>And it seems most novices are getting RSL on their own rigs anyway, so
>why have a dual system at all? 
>

Yeah. Why does the damn sport gear have a two handle system? (sarcasm)

Novices buy used gear. Novices jump demo gear. Novices jump rental
gear. Novices jump all kindsa gear. Novices rarely jump SOS gear after 
student status. Novices MIGHT have a RSL. It doesn't matter. The emergency 
procedures are the same RSL or no. 

>
>>
>>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.
>
>

For a student, learning "cutaway and pull your reserve" is just as easy as
pull the silver handle. With most (hopfully all) student gear cutaway
means the reserve comes out next anyway. Having drilled over and over again
to pull two handles in the correct order might just save their life 
later when they jump "normal" gear.

>>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.*
>

And if they survive the drive home. And if they survive the hurricane.
Etc Etc.. Whats your point? 

>
>>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!
>

I would hope a student knows about front risers and other non-standard 
ways of controling a canopy before they graduate. 

>Sorry, didn't mean to scorch you too bad...
>I love a good argument:-)
>

s'ok. I think you have students and the sport's best interests at heart.
But I also think you are a bit single minded about "the one true way".
While I never think your have bad ideas, I always find myself defending
all the other ideas. Very similer to the AFF/SL/Tandem argument we had 
a while back. 

>Jerry
>

Ej
(I hate pullouts too. ;-)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving