Forums: Skydiving: Instructors:
New AFF requirements.

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Heatmiser  (C License)

Feb 22, 2010, 10:44 AM
Post #26 of 131 (1870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm sorry for the daft question, but since the thread title says new AFF requirements, does the 12 months between coach and I effect S/L as well? The title seems to suggest it won't, but I couldn't tell from the posts of those that attended the meeting.Blush


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)

Feb 22, 2010, 12:51 PM
Post #27 of 131 (1828 views)
Shortcut
Re: [darthur2000] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

The one year clock starts when the Coach Rating is issued. From the date the Coach Rating is issued, a Candidate must wait one year (and complete the other experience requirements on the AFF Proficiency Card) before he can attend the AFFIRC. It's a "time as a Coach" requirement, not a "time in sport" requirement.


Premier slotperfect  (D 13014)

Feb 22, 2010, 12:53 PM
Post #28 of 131 (1825 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Heatmiser] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

The new requirement applies to time between Coach Rating and AFFIRC only; the other rating requirements remain the same.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 23, 2010, 7:17 AM
Post #29 of 131 (1725 views)
Shortcut
Re: [slotperfect] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Why not make that a hard rule instead of under 500 jumps?

Simple: You must hae 500 jumps, 6 Hours ff, and a coach rting for one year. Is that asking to much of someone who will be responsible for students lives?

This is the new politically correct me.


hchunter614  (B 30368)

Feb 23, 2010, 12:52 PM
Post #30 of 131 (1662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

This requirement will not take effect until the next printing of the IRM.


NickDG  (D 8904)

Feb 23, 2010, 7:29 PM
Post #31 of 131 (1573 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hchunter614] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

The "rule" should be apprentice under an 20 year Instructor veteran until he/she deems you ready to touch a student. Apprenticing under me would take you about 5 years, and I'd still be forgetting to tell you some things . . .

NickD Smile


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Feb 23, 2010, 7:32 PM
Post #32 of 131 (1571 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NickDG] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Under your mentoring rule, many would learn and improve, I would do it!

Matt


NickDG  (D 8904)

Feb 23, 2010, 7:53 PM
Post #33 of 131 (1560 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the complement . . .

The fly in the ointment would be after I gave you a five year PHD in student instruction you'd earn the same 20 bucks a jump as a 90 day moke wonder!

NickD Unimpressed


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Feb 23, 2010, 8:09 PM
Post #34 of 131 (1550 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NickDG] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

I could live with it, I don't do this for a "living", my other pay checks provide that.Wink

Matt


NickDG  (D 8904)

Feb 23, 2010, 8:19 PM
Post #35 of 131 (1545 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

There's the second fly in the ointment.

If you didn't commit to teaching skydiving full time I wouldn't take you on.

Part time skydiving instructor always sounds like part time brain surgeon to me . . .

NickD Smile


diablopilot  (D License)

Feb 23, 2010, 8:43 PM
Post #36 of 131 (1542 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NickDG] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thanks for the complement . . .

The fly in the ointment would be after I gave you a five year PHD in student instruction you'd earn the same 20 bucks a jump as a 90 day moke wonder!

NickD Unimpressed

It's the sad truth.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Feb 24, 2010, 8:33 AM
Post #37 of 131 (1500 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NickDG] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Yeah I can see that, every weekend or every other weekend is really regular, but not daily. I guess "Daily" equals full time. But even if I was Daily I still have income that allows me to live comfortable with the long stretches of bad weather that happen.

Matt


loudtom  (D 23115)

Feb 24, 2010, 9:45 AM
Post #38 of 131 (1479 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quit Bragging already will ya...Wink


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Feb 24, 2010, 10:43 AM
Post #39 of 131 (1467 views)
Shortcut
Re: [loudtom] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Blush

Matt


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Feb 24, 2010, 8:38 PM
Post #40 of 131 (1402 views)
Shortcut
Re: [darthur2000] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Agreed!

USPA should also require a list of coaching contacts before issuing a a "continuous" coach rating. That list should be long enough that any candidate will have to spend a few weeks - or months - (coaching junior jumpers) between his coach course and any other rating course.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Feb 24, 2010, 8:41 PM
Post #41 of 131 (1398 views)
Shortcut
Re: [NickDG] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Funny!
That reminds me of the time Don Balsch referred to two-instructor AFF as an apprenticeship program for newly-minted AFF Instructors.
And the concept makes perfect sense, because newly-minted AFF Instructors should have to do a few dozen cling-on jumps before they allowed to do early release dives with students.
Those cling-on dives should be done with a senior AFF Instructor on the other side, so he/she can coach the newbie instructor on the finer points of teaching freefall skills.


tdog  (D 28800)

Feb 24, 2010, 8:59 PM
Post #42 of 131 (1395 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I fully intend to present some time in sport requirement at the next BOD meeting if that is what the instructors in the industry want/demand.

With all due respect, as an AFFI, someone who has evaluated coaches, and someone who loves seeing students learn....

Time in sport = meaningless
Number of jumps = meaningless

These are metrics that do not give any indication to the quality of the instructor candidate.

Instead I would advocate a difficult written test, similar to the FAA exams for riggers - done on a computerized platform with tons of questions for the computer to randomly select. There are plenty of commercial testing facilities who do these types of exams for organizations for a small fee, internationally, for many different customers. (I took one for my LEED AP rating and had 10 places to choose from in a network of testing facilities)...

That would determine how "seasoned" the instructor candidate is for "book knowledge". If someone can pass the test with 10 days in the sport, then great - they did all their homework and have the knowledge to teach! (And hopefully have the discipline to not BS answers but instead get help from people that know, should they be encountered with a question they don't know... It just happened last week to me, as an FAA rigger and AFFI - a student stumped me so I had to research the question.)

Once the candidate passes the written - then they can take an instructor course, for which the USPA would have very strict expectations of their examiners. Each examiner would have to register their course with the USPA, and the USPA can send a S&TA or other official to the course to audit the course directors to make sure the USPA criteria is met. Part of that criteria is teaching ability, the other flying ability. And I support 25 coach jumps with real students prior to the AFF course (with a waiver given to those who come from a small DZ and simply cannot find that many students).... And, once someone gets their AFFI - they should be on a 25 jump probation where they must be partnered with another AFFI. (Our DZ does this as a management policy and it works well).

So, in recap - numbers are meaningless (my opinion). Why not test for skill and knowledge instead???


(This post was edited by tdog on Feb 24, 2010, 9:05 PM)


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 25, 2010, 6:06 AM
Post #43 of 131 (1349 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Time in sport = meaningless

It always cracks me up when low timers like you make this claim.


Reginald  (D 28162)

Feb 25, 2010, 6:38 AM
Post #44 of 131 (1339 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay the time in sport issue keeps coming up. This post is not directed ant anyone specifically but the "time in sport" discussion generally. I'm literally taking an old post of mine and re-posting it.

--------------------------------------------------

So which is better?

A. 500 jumps and 2 years and 6 months in the sport but at DZ 52 weekends a year
B. 500 jumps and 5 years in the sport but at DZ every OTHER weekend (26 weekends a year)

The problem with time “in sport” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s time applied TO the sport. In the example above both A and B have the exact equal amount of time applied TO the sport, assuming they only time they apply to the sport is while at the DZ (which is probably a reasonable assumption for everyone but the handful of DZ.com fanatics).

Does one gain knowledge by osmosis if they are at a day job, home with the kids, or focusing on something else? Does this knowledge only come from being at the DZ? Likely it is neither extreme.

Probably the reason for jump numbers or freefall time being the primary method of measuring experience is because they are the most reliable measure of time actually applied TO the sport. Is this the perfect system, of course not. Would adding time in sport be beneficial? Possibly but likely the collinearity with jump numbers is such that it makes it appropriate to use only jump numbers instead.

Personally, for USPA - AFFI’s I’d rather see a requirement for “X” number of coached jumps than I would time in sport. It’s more likely to be beneficial than number of years since a person’s first jump, or time since receiving a coaches rating.

Of course opinions vary…


tdog  (D 28800)

Feb 25, 2010, 6:52 AM
Post #45 of 131 (1330 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Time in sport = meaningless

It always cracks me up when low timers like you make this claim.

As long as I don't take this as a personal attack, I counter with another non-personal attack:

"It always cracks me up when old farts like you are so stuck in their ways."Tongue

You are right... With less than 1000 AFF instructor jumps (but still "re-earned my D licence on AFF instructor jumps working with students") - I consider myself a younger skydiver. I am always learning. Unfortunately, in the 6 years I have been jumping, I have seen a lot of people leave the sport because of money, lack of interest, grumpy people, etc... Thus, more people at the DZ are newer jumpers than me than people who were my mentors when I had 25 jumps. In fact, 3 of the tandem instructors were in my FJC (one I taught years ago, god forbid when I was even younger) and do great jobs, infact are some of the best at making sure students have fun and are safe, 2 of which now are AFF instructors ...

However, I thought I gave a pretty complete alternative to jump numbers and time in sport by giving detailed solutions including very difficult written quizzes taken at a 3rd party testing facility where "friendships" and "perks" can't get you a rating in the "good 'olde boys club"... The questions in those tests would require someone who has knowledge of the sport. Either learned by time in the sport OR doing intense homework.

I still contend that time in sport = (almost completely) meaningless... HOWEVER - what is learned in that time is MEANINGFUL! I know some 10 year veterans who know very little because they simply are not interested in learning. I had a FJC student a few weeks back who had every question I could ask him answered correctly before I taught him anything, including complex questions like, "say you pull your reserve handle and it gets stuck. How else can you pull your reserve?" He devoted his time to learning prior to $ for FJC and proves time in sport does not equal knowledge as he technically had 1 hour in the sport when he was getting everything right in a quiz.

However, I will agree, until someone sees some bad injuries or worse, sometimes people feel invincible and take risks. That is where time in the sport builds character.


(This post was edited by tdog on Feb 25, 2010, 7:03 AM)


tdog  (D 28800)

Feb 25, 2010, 6:53 AM
Post #46 of 131 (1328 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Reginald] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Personally, for USPA - AFFI’s I’d rather see a requirement for “X” number of coached jumps than I would time in sport. It’s more likely to be beneficial than number of years since a person’s first jump, or time since receiving a coaches rating.

Of course opinions vary…

Amen.


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 25, 2010, 7:08 AM
Post #47 of 131 (1320 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Reginald] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

How about someone who say has done:

25 years in sport, 1500 jumps and spent most every weekend on the dz wearing every hat.

vs

500 jump wonder with one year in the sport spending most weekends on the dz and wearing only the basic hats, packer, jumper.

This topic always makes me think of people like Nate Gilbert who died doing something "we" learned a long time ago. We see the flash in the pans come and go, they show up hit it hard a few years and then their gone, some leave to other sports or life callings, some leave in body bags.

In the last five years I've seen a number of flash in the pans who thought they were the hot shit on the dz, racked up jump numbers and collected ratings in a very short time, some of those retards were kept out of the tandem or aff business because they didn't meet the time requirements and that was a good thing because their actions proved they were not ready, sure they might have been able to pass the course, but that don't mean they have any business teaching or working with students.

There are also a lot of people who forge logbooks to get the jump numbers they need, someone just told me the other day they were thinking about using their base jump numbers (forged into a logbook as skydives) in order to go get a tandem rating now that they have 3 years in the sport but not the jumps.


timmyfitz  (D License)

Feb 25, 2010, 7:16 AM
Post #48 of 131 (1317 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Time in sport = meaningless

Quote:
I still contend that time in sport = (almost completely) meaningless... HOWEVER - what is learned in that time is MEANINGFUL!

Meaningless or almost meaningless? Don't start back peddling now.

Quote:
I had a FJC student a few weeks back who had every question I could ask him answered correctly before I taught him anything, including complex questions like, "say you pull your reserve handle and it gets stuck. How else can you pull your reserve?" He devoted his time to learning prior to $ for FJC and proves time in sport does not equal knowledge as he technically had 1 hour in the sport when he was getting everything right in a quiz.

So he would be qualified to teach/instruct? He past the written/oral exam and time in sport is meaningless.


kmills0705  (D 21696)

Feb 25, 2010, 7:26 AM
Post #49 of 131 (1311 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
I fully intend to present some time in sport requirement at the next BOD meeting if that is what the instructors in the industry want/demand.

With all due respect, as an AFFI, someone who has evaluated coaches, and someone who loves seeing students learn....

Time in sport = meaningless
Number of jumps = meaningless

These are metrics that do not give any indication to the quality of the instructor candidate.

Instead I would advocate a difficult written test, similar to the FAA exams for riggers - done on a computerized platform with tons of questions for the computer to randomly select. There are plenty of commercial testing facilities who do these types of exams for organizations for a small fee, internationally, for many different customers. (I took one for my LEED AP rating and had 10 places to choose from in a network of testing facilities)...

That would determine how "seasoned" the instructor candidate is for "book knowledge". If someone can pass the test with 10 days in the sport, then great - they did all their homework and have the knowledge to teach! (And hopefully have the discipline to not BS answers but instead get help from people that know, should they be encountered with a question they don't know... It just happened last week to me, as an FAA rigger and AFFI - a student stumped me so I had to research the question.)

Once the candidate passes the written - then they can take an instructor course, for which the USPA would have very strict expectations of their examiners. Each examiner would have to register their course with the USPA, and the USPA can send a S&TA or other official to the course to audit the course directors to make sure the USPA criteria is met. Part of that criteria is teaching ability, the other flying ability. And I support 25 coach jumps with real students prior to the AFF course (with a waiver given to those who come from a small DZ and simply cannot find that many students).... And, once someone gets their AFFI - they should be on a 25 jump probation where they must be partnered with another AFFI. (Our DZ does this as a management policy and it works well).

So, in recap - numbers are meaningless (my opinion). Why not test for skill and knowledge instead???

Just because someone has the knowledge doesn't mean they have the ability. Part of the AFF I course evaluates a candidates ability to teach.

When it comes down to it there are no magic formulas. If you have x number of jumps over x amount of years then you will be a good AFF I. The fact is each person has different knowledge, experience and abilities. The AFF I course directors should be evaluating each individual based on a combination of knowledge, skills and ability to teach. If there are "problem" AFF I's then it must go up to the AFF I/E that passed them.

I personally believe that the requirement for coach rating for a year prior to AFF is a good step. It was this way in the past when we had jump master to Instructor rating. Then they have some experience with working with students and actually teaching.

I believe the BOD was trying their best to please everyone. That simply won't happen. I think they should be applauded for hearing our voices and taking the steps to make changes that will ultimately better our solution.

Were the decisions the best? Well, that will depend on who you ask.


Reginald  (D 28162)

Feb 25, 2010, 7:56 AM
Post #50 of 131 (1302 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How about someone who say has done:

25 years in sport, 1500 jumps and spent most every weekend on the dz wearing every hat.

vs

500 jump wonder with one year in the sport spending most weekends on the dz and wearing only the basic hats, packer, jumper.

Interesting point. In my example I intentionally chooses a neutral example not one biased to an extreme. The flip side of your example is:

A: Old timer that has been jumping for 25 years and has 1500 jumps. He shows up to the DZ a few times a year, flying some old school box man in his Wonderhog rig with an F111 canopy and flat packs.

B: A newer jumper that has been at the DZ every weekend for 5 year has 1500 jumps, has 15 hours in the tunnel with Airspeed, has a Sr. riggers ticket, 750 4 way jumps has been to nationals several times, has been to big way camps and been on multiple 100+ ways, can fly a solid mantis plus and boxman and is a respectable free flyer.

Pointing to extremes speaks little to the bulk of the population we're discussing.

In reply to:
In the last five years I've seen a number of flash in the pans who thought they were the hot shit on the dz, racked up jump numbers and collected ratings in a very short time, some of those retards were kept out of the tandem or aff business because they didn't meet the time requirements and that was a good thing because their actions proved they were not ready, sure they might have been able to pass the course, but that don't mean they have any business teaching or working with students.

Well this brings up another interesting point and that is competence. I’ll point it directly at TI and AFFI’s. I’ve seen plenty of instructors with a rating, which means they’ve passed some minimal proficiency level, that if I owned a DZ I would not hire to work with students. Some of these are “less experienced” but many of them are “old timers” too. Just because someone posses a rating does not mean they automatically get work. A rating is one of many factors that a DZO should and likely does consider when looking at hiring people to work with students.


In the context of the conversation about AFFI requirements I personally think a 3 year in sport requirement is fine which synchs it up with the TI rating. Likely this will affect very few people anyway. I also think that a minimum number of coach jumps is better than "time since coach rating" as this speaks more directly to working with students as opposed to watching some period of time go by on a calender.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Instructors

 


Search for (options)