TEACHING CANOPY PILOTING TO OTHERSGuidelines for Instructors The Instructor When I began learning freefall technique in 1980, there was no real body of instructional knowledge on how to teach freefall. Each person had their own way of communicating technique, and in fact even actual technique varied considerably. Half a generation later we have AFF, Skydive U, and other teaching standards. Everyone knows what a box man is. Coordinated turns, exit positions, vertical and horizontal control - all these things that were obscure and arcane subjects in 1980 are now well understood and easily taught. Nothing about the air or our bodies really changed; it was a change in thinking. Freefall skills went from being some mysterious ability to being simple techniques that anyone could learn and most people could learn to teach. Canopy flying today is where we were in freefall when AFF came along. Many of the finest canopy pilots I know could not describe what their parachute does, or their technique to put it where they want it, if their life depended on it. They learned through trial and error over thousands of jumps. But just as what I learned about freefall in a thousand jumps I could now teach someone in 250, what I learned about canopies in 3,000 jumps I can teach to someone in 500. But it doesn’t really matter what I can teach: I can only reach a few dozen, at most a few hundred people. A teaching method that can be used by any mentor, any drop zone, is far superior. I have tried to formulate the text with that idea in mind. The next step is for you, the instructor, to put the information out in a useful context. Before we go further, however, let’s ask an important question. Who is capable of instructing someone on canopy control? To be blunt, I would say that more than half of the AFF Instructors I have met do not have the necessary knowledge. I personally don’t feel someone should present themselves as a competent canopy pilot unless they have at least fifty CRW jumps, competition accuracy experience, and a number of demo jumps under their belt. Although CRW canopies are very different from RW canopies, CRW is without a doubt the best all around teacher of canopy skills there is and anyone who hasn’t done enough to at least dock fourth is under qualified to be a canopy flight instructor. True, we aren’t teaching a CRW course here. But to really understand how canopies sink and float, fly in turbulence and deploy you need some serious CRW experience. It is also invaluable for canopy collisions. You should also have several hundred "hook turns" in your log. Regardless of how you or your dz feels about hook turns people want to know about this technique. If you can’t do it safely, you can’t teach it. Before you answer "yeah, I can swoop with the best of 'em," ask yourself this: Have often do you use your brakes to pull out of your dive? If you use your brakes very often (more than once every fifty or so swoops?) you don’t have the skill. Do you use more than a 180 turn? If so, you don’t have the judgment. It might seem to some that my standards are too high. After all, you might say, "I don’t need to be a national champion to teach RW." No doubt some individuals will be exceptions, but my point is that most so called expert skydivers have extremely limited canopy experience and don’t realize how little they know. If you haven’t done a fair amount of CRW, you don’t know much about canopies, period. Go get the experience; learning to learn again will make you a better teacher. If you don’t know how to swoop a modern canopy, you won’t have any credibility with that very large segment of our audience that wants to learn. Try it - you might like it. Finally, someone is bound to have a big, slow demo type canopy. You need enough accuracy skill to guide them on approach planning and inform them on how to fit in with other canopy types in the traffic pattern. Other than the canopy handling skills, the course instructor needs two teaching skills: assessment of performance and ability to communicate. A good grasp of the materials and flying skills won’t be any help if you don’t have the ability to watch a landing and critique it effectively. To practice this, just watch a lot of landings with a critical eye. What distinguishes a "good" flight from a "bad" one? What would you have done differently? Class Size and Management To test my theories I ran three "canopy camps" in 1996. The camps were one day affairs. Students signed up in advance, with a ten dollar down payment to cover the cost of the written materials they were expected to study before arriving and to confirm their reservation. To qualify they needed at least fifty jumps and their own gear, with a minimum of twenty jumps on the canopy they were using. The day’s structure was simple, and it was effective enough that I didn’t make any significant changes between courses. We met at nine a.m., at which time I would get everyone’s name, number of jumps, canopy type, wing loading, and general goals. All the camps were about evenly split between conservative canopy fliers seeking better accuracy and traffic skills and aggressive younger fliers interested in learning how to swoop, or planning to move to a smaller canopy. The fee for the one day course was $60.00. This included six jumps from 3,500 feet, video of each landing, course materials, and classroom instruction/video debriefs. I paid the drop zone $6 per jump; that left $24 per person to pay the video man, the copy shop, and myself. With six students I could figure on making about $100 for a day’s work. Not a princely sum, but enough to give an instructor an incentive to take a day off from other teaching duties. People motivated primarily by money would want to charge a little more if class size is small. I don’t want to sound cynical here, but I understand the financial reality of choosing between doing six tandems or teaching a canopy class. Regarding class size, at a Cessna dz a class of four would be ideal. I am from an Otter dz and I didn’t want to load the plane up with a lot of people going out low, so I limited it to six. More than that requires a second load (which would really slow things down) and clutters up the sky with too many students. The students need a little traffic to sort out, but not too much. I believe that four or five is the optimum class size. Larger groups are also unwieldy in time. It takes everyone longer to pack, get manifested, sit through the briefings, etc. For optimum efficiency, stick to four or five and have then all exit on the same pass. This keeps the class moving as a group. If drop zone logistics don’t permit moving as a group you will have to be creative, but it really helps to debrief as a group since so many common errors will be shared by more than one participant. As soon as they land, they should get packed while you review the video in private and note what you will cover in the debrief. Give them about 20 minutes to pack and grab a snack or drink before meeting again. Be sure they know when they are expected and emphasize that they are part of a group; being late or unprepared is unacceptable behavior. We met for a debrief after every jump as soon as the group was packed. I did my best to point out things that everyone could learn from. Be sure to emphasize positives more than negatives, but don’t hesitate to be firm about any dangerous behavior. I found I needed to allow about twenty minutes to review and debrief the prior jump and another twenty to thirty to present the next segment of material and brief the group for the next jump. If there is any back up at the manifest, be sure to manifest while you are still in class to avoid idle time waiting for a plane. I feel strongly that the jumps should be done from 3,500 and dedicated strictly to canopy flying. Doing canopy instruction after RW would involve too many distractions. The 3,500 exit really focuses people on the task at hand, which includes spotting and deployment as well as piloting the open canopy. With four to six people getting out on the same pass they have a little traffic management to work on, but not so much that it distracts from the landing portion. It is also an economical altitude and keeps the pace moving quickly. My classes always went until six or seven in the evening - there is that much to cover once you get into detailed analysis. Of course, after the last jump a debrief over cold beer is the natural course. Most of the class will feel they have really learned something. This is a great time to reinforce their enthusiasm for improving flying skills. Another important point is the video. On a few landings I tried to shoot the video myself, but it is much more effective to get someone else to do it while the instructor stands by with a note book to record what takes place. A video doesn’t show the ground reference until the canopy is quite low, so you need to take careful notes about what they do while setting up the approach. Furthermore, it helps the video recorder to have the instructor help spot canopies since they will all be landing in the space of a couple minutes. You will soon learn that vertical traffic separation is as crucial to you as it is to the student; they need it for an unimpeded approach and you need it so you can concentrate on individuals one at a time. The first jump of the course was always the same. I asked each student to do what they would normally do, aiming at the pea gravel to establish a yardstick of precision landing skill. Once they were down, a brief critique would pick out one or two points for them to concentrate on. As the course progressed the individual students would become differentiated: some would need lots of focus on their set up, some on the flare timing, etc. In any teaching effort it is useless to try and note every possible area of improvement. One or two major things will stand out. Focus on no more than three areas of improvement. I found it easiest to have a theoretical outline I would cover in class between jumps, and then a particular set of tasks on the jumps themselves to reinforce basics. Classroom Syllabus Section I: Introduction to the course, evaluation, and goals. Prior to the first jump. 1) General discussion of common problems/accidents associated with canopies; the reason we are doing this course.
2) General overview of parachute design and flight characteristics. Discuss lift and drag, fluid flow, turbulence, and flow separation. Differences between main and reserve, and what to expect. Special reserve considerations: rounds, old five cells.
3) Basic canopy safety
Section II: Improving your canopy flying. Discussed between the next three jumps. 1) Discussion of canopy control input
2) Conventional approach - downwind, crosswind, final. Patterns, why no S turns or brakes. 3) Performance approach
Section III. Canopy Safety: after a three or four jumps.
1) Unusual landing situations
2) Problems specific to our drop zone
3) Problems associated with out landings
4) Winds
Section IV: Ethics and Aesthetics. At the end. 1) develop a thoughtful pattern that gives the most options to you and to everyone else. 2) if you want to fly like a student, go to the student area! Do not use brakes, 360s, or S turns in the landing area. 3) clear the area at once, don’t run with an open canopy. Reasons not to debrief or chat in the landing area. Particular traffic danger zones: peas, fence. You aren’t safe until you are out of the landing area!
Jump Schedule Lesson 1: One jump Focus on clean deployments, have them play with body steering, both riser groups, toggles. Flat turns. Discuss riser blocks and loops. First jump will be an evaluation, so no special approaches, just try and put it in the peas using your normal approach. Lesson 2: Three jumps Based on the performance in jump one, discuss traffic management and approach patterns. Give each a goal based on previous demonstrated ability. Have them track on opposite 90 headings prior to deployment, stage openings, etc. Lesson 3: One jump - set up crosswind landing with cones if conditions permit Further individual instruction, review mals and collision procedures. Lengthy talk on separation, tracking technique, and wave offs. Two most critical decision making areas of the skydive are break-off/deployment and the landing. Final jump, class wrap up Continued individual assessment and challenge. Reserve characteristics. Some of the things covered in the camp are items that many people have never had presented to them before. Give them challenges. For example, I always try and get people to check altitude visually on the ride up and the ride down. Teach them to play a game with themselves where, without looking at their altimeter, they glance out the window (or at the ground when under canopy) and ask themselves if they are high enough to cut away, what the exact altitude is, whether they could make a certain field from where they are, etc. My class of six was a little perplexed when I told them on the second jump that I wanted them all out of the Otter in ten seconds, leaving from 3,500. On the first load they had each waited in the door for five seconds or so prior to a hop and pop. Without guiding them too much, I pointed out that 3,500 was a typical break off altitude, and they had plenty of time to track off the line of flight, stagger openings, etc. They soon learned to take advantage of the 1,500 feet of potential freefall altitude, combined with varying descent rates, to give themselves plenty of separation for deployment and landing approaches. Another challenge is to restrict a certain portion of airspace; "on this jump you may not overfly such and such an area." Add imaginary lakes, power lines, or buildings to your landing area. If the winds are light, make them land cross wind if a safe opportunity to do so exists. In conclusion, what has been done so far has been simple, early experimentation. There is lots of room for improvement and innovation. I look forward to hearing from instructors or students who have insights, suggestions, or other information to share. Please feel free to contact me at Skydive Arizona e-mail: jump@skydiveaz.com |