From: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski)
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Subject: Re: how often does this happen?
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:49:35 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

Ok, I guess I started this, so I'll argue a bit...


In article <1992Sep1.000638.9794@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsouth@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Dale Southard Jr.) writes:
>In article <60005@mimsy.umd.edu>, jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu (Jerry Sobieski) writes:
>> 
>> 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. 

I think my meaning wasn't entirely clear...I do not think the JM's efforts
should be a consideration (reasonably speaking).  The student's safety
should be the priority.  IMO, the next dive for a student is their riskiest.
If, when they get off student status, they become complacent, that is
a different issue.  As long as they are students, we must insure their safety
while we teach them how to survive on their own.  They should not be
off student status if they can't handle the gear and procedures they 
are jumping.  We give them 20-25 jumps of training, IMO adding an option
to their emergency procedures when they have 15 jumps is preferable to
complicating the procedures as a newbie.


>Keeping the student safe is the main criteria, and
>NEITHER system can show a historical advantage statistically in that
>regard.

True.



>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.  

Ideal gear also minimizes operational complexity, particularly for 
the beginner.  Which is why they have a single point cutaway system (3-ring) 
as opposed to R3s.


>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.  

A) They are *not* off student status when they are trained in dual system,
and B) they still have both AAD and RSL (why are these backups incompatible
with a dual system?)


>> 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????!!!

Why would they NOT have an AAD (or an RSL)?  The rigs they use now have 
them.  

>> *If they survive that 1st jump.*
>
>Again, statistically students are safer 1-25 than 25-250,

But that is because of the student safety- not despite it.


> 
>>>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?  :-)
> 
Of course not.  The point was to find the fine line between too much
material too fast (quick progression but risky) and too little too slow 
(safe but boring).  I think 1st jumpers have to learn an incredible amount
of material on their first day, and their lives depend upon them
mastering it.  Emergency procedures are arguably the most critical skills
to their survival.  I think unnecessary complexity increases the risks
which could be managed better further downstream.


>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.  

Which means if the student can't perform their emergency procedures
adequately, they shouldn't be cleared off student status.  Once they
are off student status, they are on their own.  They are no longer
going to be supervised on every jump by a JM or even an "experienced"
jumper.  If they can't handle a dual system then, what makes you think
they would have ever handled one?

A similar situation occurs on level 3.  Students heretofore are taught
to pull immediately if they lose both JMs.  Then- all of a sudden -
on level 3 they gotta learn something new - not to pull when the JMs release.


>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.  

I never recommended an SOS for the entire student progression, to suddenly
change when they buy their own gear.  I recommend a transition, during
their student phase, from an SOS to a dual system, but during level 8
sometime.  Note, they will still have AADs and RSLs.

Also, unless the student demonstrates proficiency in a real emergency,
signing them off student status is an educated guess that they indeed
could handle a real emergency.  You never know *for sure* until it
happens.

>
>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.

Not if their RSL and AAD are properly installed and active.

>	SOS systems cause fatalities when intermediates forget to pull
>		the reserve because they were trained not to.

Not if they were trained correctly, and again, not if they have an RSL
and/or AADs.  And an intermediate level jumper is qualified and responsible
to judge whether they need those devices.


>(then again, I also think students should have square reserves
>so I am obviously nuts).

I whole heartedly agree with you (about the reserves:- not necessarily about
the nuts bit).  If we train students on square mains, why complicate things
with training them for rounds at the same time.  At AAF East, the only
difference between main and reserve are the colors and number of cells
(the mains are mantas, the reserves are sharpchuters).



>> I love a good argument:-)
>
>Likewise  :-)  Especially holy-wars (on to POP vs TOP...NOT)

REally!

I sure hope the Herd has airplanes...See y'all there.
Jerry


-- 
Domain: jerrys@umiacs.umd.edu		    Jerry Sobieski
  UUCP:	uunet!mimsy!jerrys		University of Maryland
 Phone:	(301)405-6735		Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
 					College Park, Md 20742