Forums: Skydiving: Instructors:
New AFF requirements.

 

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

tdog  (D 28800)

Feb 25, 2010, 8:15 AM
Post #51 of 131 (1409 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.

Which one of these people opened their ears more, learned from their peers, asked tons of questions, went to many DZs for training camps from AZ Airspeed and others, jumped with students as a coach every chance they could, and was passionate to learn? If both people had the same exact personality - then the 25 year person might have more knowledge, but the one year guy probably would have enough knowledge to be a good instructor (especially if he worked REAL hard for it). In that case, yes time matters, but only because both people were good students... Time in sport however is still meaningless if the 25 year guy in the sport did not give a crap while wearing the hats - and I would even say, 1500 jumps in 25 years is not enough to be an aggressive flyer when needed for an out of control student, especially if half of those are tandems. Currency (and belly flying coaching/training) is much more important outside of the aircraft when words and teaching don't matter any more but it comes down to one thing only - flying your body.

Quote:
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.
And in the last five years I have seen some new skydivers who inspire me to be a better instructor, are great people, and have become great instructors with only a few years in the sport. I also have seen some guys I know will die in this sport, and I am not afraid to tell them, and I would never let them be on the other side of my student in an AFF level 3... And I don't think the DZO would either...


Quote:
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.

I agree with all of those things. DZOs need to pick their staff carefully - ratings don't equal jobs. Other instructors need to mentor people they see living on the edge. Forging logbooks = fraud when ratings are concerned, thus course directors should be checking references to see if the canidate recieves recommendations from their peers...


If you are counting on years in the sport and jump numbers to protect the general public from these bad candidates, then you are weeding out the flowers in the garden too. Use other techniques to weed out just the weeds - such as the very demanding and more difficult evaluation criteria I posted a few posts prior, that test for skill and knowledge, not time in sport.

Quote:
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

They soon would learn they are not the hot shit when they are required to take a very detailed exam and fail it.


tdog  (D 28800)

Feb 25, 2010, 8:24 AM
Post #52 of 131 (1404 views)
Shortcut
Re: [timmyfitz] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

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

Yes and no.

That very same student, who I taught to pack, taught someone else to pack and did a good job of it. So yes, he is qualified to teach some things. Is he AFFI ready? No, because he does fly good enough and would fail evaluation. He also would not pass the ground evals for a coach rating or AFFI, because while he knows the answers, he is not comfortable enough with them to teach them effectively and smoothly... He will need a lot more practice. However, if he studied more, and keeps jumping a lot, and practices a lot, he will be ready for an instructor rating younger than most people.


(This post was edited by tdog on Feb 25, 2010, 8:25 AM)


tdog  (D 28800)

Feb 25, 2010, 8:31 AM
Post #53 of 131 (1401 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.

One other thing I thought about - the yin and yang of life. What one person does well, someone else does not... While a younger jumper, who may be more than able to outfly and out teach most other instructors at the DZ can be a great instructor and should not be denied the rating because of time in sport - other people bring other experiences such as length of time in the sport and should eventually work with the student too. Diversity brings knowledge. By no means am I not valuing the perspectives of all instructors when I suggest time in sport is not an important metric for instructor qualifications.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 25, 2010, 8:37 AM
Post #54 of 131 (1395 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Reginald] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
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.
Quote:

If they are to remain current after one year they must have made 15 or 20, whatever it is, coach jumps...in theory.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 25, 2010, 9:32 AM
Post #55 of 131 (1382 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
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.
Quote:

If they are to remain current after one year they must have made 15 or 20, whatever it is, coach jumps...in theory.

To keep a Coach rating current, 15 Coaching Jumps and one FJC in 12 months is required.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 25, 2010, 9:44 AM
Post #56 of 131 (1380 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Jumps per year is a ratio that might be more meaningful than time in sport or jump numbers alone.

I did my first tandem in 2005 but didn't start jumping actively until a couple of years later. I don't consider those couple of years as time in the sport because it really wasn't.

I think that there needs to be some hard rules with a waiver process that's not governed sole by the I/E because as far as I've gathered from all these threads, the process becomes corrupted if we rely on single people. Not that all people are corrupt but the credibility of the system is undermined when one I/E doesn't follow the rules. For example (making these up!) 5 years in the sport and at least 150 jumps per year to be an AFFI candidate but your S&TA (or someone of authority) could get it done sooner in the case of smaller DZs where they don't have to people to wait that long or someone is just really good and deserves to be in the program.

For the record, the "flash in the pan" 5 year wonderkind that you guys keep referring to were taught by the generation before them, what does that say about teaching methods?

Please don't send me PMs saying I should be reading and not posting, I got those in the last thread, My view (as a newly minted Coach) of the system is from a different perspective which and is no less valid. After all, it's just an opinion and I'd much prefer to get reasons why it's not valid from the experienced people rather than just wonder to myself. I'm learning from this too.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 25, 2010, 10:07 AM
Post #57 of 131 (1364 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Jumps per year is a ratio that might be more meaningful than time in sport or jump numbers alone.

This is true, yet bear in mind that the standard needs to apply to dropzones with multiple turbine aircraft and dropzones that can barely support a 182 at the same time. 15 coach jumps a year is a no-brainer in Elsinore whereas at a place in the midwest, it might be somewhat more difficult.

As identified by several, the I/E process needs to be more carefully examined. One bad I/E does tend to spoil it for everyone.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Feb 25, 2010, 11:21 AM
Post #58 of 131 (1347 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdog] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Your written exam mirrors the entry level exam for earning a Strong Tandem Instructor rating.
By insisting that candidates order the course package (a month) ahead of time and read through it and arrive with the written exam 3/4 completed in pencil, Tandem Examiners can save everyone a couple of days in the classroom.

Strong Enterprises feels so strongly about pre-course reading that they tell Examiners to send candidates home - empty-handed - if they arrive without attempting the written exam.

Similarly, candidates need to pass a written exam before earning a learners' permit to drive busses or air brakes.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 25, 2010, 11:21 AM
Post #59 of 131 (1345 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

What do you think about the idea of having an individual or DZ waiver allowing a person to be admitted into the AFFI program without the requisite experience? In the case of a small 182 DZ, the ratio could be adjusted for that (those) DZs. One way of doing it might be to factor in the number of jumps/loads per year at the AFFI candidate's home DZ? I think some real thought needs to go into what factors are important in gauging people's state of "seasoning" (sounds tasty!). That's something I don't really have the experience to come up with but it seems to me that rules should be made that are going to be basically right and that a waiver process should be included because some people really are just better and you want those people to be teaching.


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 25, 2010, 11:24 AM
Post #60 of 131 (1342 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
For the record, the "flash in the pan" 5 year wonderkind that you guys keep referring to were taught by the generation before them, what does that say about teaching methods?

Oh no they were not, they were trained by by the new breed who have the same attitude they display.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 25, 2010, 11:40 AM
Post #61 of 131 (1334 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Who trained them? There seems to me to be a disconnect when people say that the AFFIs are bad. At some point we went form allegedly good instruction to poor instruction, when and why? I ask that because I'm curious to know what changed.


kmills0705  (D 21696)

Feb 25, 2010, 11:48 AM
Post #62 of 131 (1326 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Jumps per year is a ratio that might be more meaningful than time in sport or jump numbers alone.

This is true, yet bear in mind that the standard needs to apply to dropzones with multiple turbine aircraft and dropzones that can barely support a 182 at the same time. 15 coach jumps a year is a no-brainer in Elsinore whereas at a place in the midwest, it might be somewhat more difficult.

As identified by several, the I/E process needs to be more carefully examined. One bad I/E does tend to spoil it for everyone.

Thank you DSE and thank you BOD who realize that there are a lot of small Cessna DZ's in existence today.

And you can't have different standards for different dropzones. That takes away the meaning of "standard".


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 25, 2010, 1:42 PM
Post #63 of 131 (1291 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
What do you think about the idea of having an individual or DZ waiver allowing a person to be admitted into the AFFI program without the requisite experience? In the case of a small 182 DZ, the ratio could be adjusted for that (those) DZs. One way of doing it might be to factor in the number of jumps/loads per year at the AFFI candidate's home DZ? I think some real thought needs to go into what factors are important in gauging people's state of "seasoning" (sounds tasty!). That's something I don't really have the experience to come up with but it seems to me that rules should be made that are going to be basically right and that a waiver process should be included because some people really are just better and you want those people to be teaching.

Two initial reactions to your idea;
-If waivers become "standard" fare for small DZ's, then waivers become "standard" as opposed to waiving the rules for special circumstances.

-If waivers for small DZs become somewhat "standard" then we've effectively lowered the standard to (probably) lower than it was in the first place.

IMO, there is simply no way to counter the throughput differences between places like Eloy, Perris, Elsinore, etc and "Skydive Kansais." It's easy to say "well, then the folks at Skydive Kansas should plan on spending a coupla weeks in the winter time at Eloy, Perris, Elsinore (wheverever) getting their ratings." In practical terms, this sport simply doesn't have the compensation to make that idea work.

The standard is low enough that everyone can play, high enough that it takes effort to achieve, and if someone wants to go above/beyond the standard (like Skydive University decided to), then more power to them.


NickDG  (D 8904)

Feb 25, 2010, 2:17 PM
Post #64 of 131 (1280 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

I've made my views known on this before so won't go into it again other than to say this . . .

The old way of certifying new AFF candidates, while not perfect, worked. Three people running it and traveling the country gave it standardization. The kid at Skydive California had to meet the same standard as the kid at Skydive Ozarks.

And the fact so many failed candidates would come on here after busting a course complaining of how unfair it was proved it was working. Funny, but you don't hear anyone complaining anymore.

That alone should make you very afraid . . .

NickD Smile


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 25, 2010, 3:34 PM
Post #65 of 131 (1268 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

My comments are across the board for all ratings when I talk about "flash in the pans" there people who think because they can bust out 500 or more jumps in a season and get a few ratings they fucking know it all and disregard solid advice from seasoned skydivers rated and non rated, who have more time in the sport then FNG's have spent on the planet.

The end result is people get killed, maybe you should go look the tandem master death in Indiana about 5 years ago and read that report. One of those people involved was part of a crew who all thought they knew it all and just the type I'm talking about, and good number of jumpers with twice the time in the sport as me, along with myself and a number of others kept calling out the shit we were seeing and got blown off. The person killed (the TM) and myself sat in the parking lot about two weeks before this happened and we were talking about all the shit and he said, yea if the shit don't change soon someone is going to die, little did he know it would be him and not those he was speaking of, just two week later.

It's more about attitude then anything, I've been jumping for 27 years, I spent 12+ more years before my first jump living and working on a number of DZ's, I started packing parachutes in 4th grade along with a number of other things clear up until my first jump. I learned about catching cutways in 1978 live and in person watching someone go in from doing that, it was the trend back then for a short time, till we got wise that was not a real smart idea, yea I saw a lot of people get away with it too.

There is whole host of things i learned about in my early years involved in this sport, such as an beech 18 (Hawaii 1981 85-hotel) out of CG and flown by a lowtime pilot can kill a whole load of very good friends or like at my second home dz once I started to jump was skies west, in loveland co, maybe you can look up and read about the commuter plane that rear ended (mid air) our 206 and killed a couple people. I learned that doing crew with mis matched canopies on demo will kill you, see the wheatridge co demo reports from 1984 or 85.

I could just keep on going on with a number of things over the years and friends I've known who went west, there is just somethings you can only learn in this sport by putting in your time and not by signing your check book for a rating or reading it in a fucking sims manual.

So yea I find it funny as hell when people say and think time in this sport is meaningless, come back in 20 years if your still around and we'll see if your tune is changed.

I also find it funny as hell that we have so many retards who discount the good advice of people like Sparky, Nick DG, Al Frisby (RIP) and a whole host of other folks across the country, because they are "oldtimers" those people have forgot more about this sport then you can learn in 20 years.

And no I'am not surprised there are a number of people posting here who don't understand what the fuck I'm talking about.

(as a side note, no I don't know it all, I do know one thing though, and that is you will never know it all in this sport and the day you stop learning something new in this sport is the day you should walk away!)


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 26, 2010, 1:04 PM
Post #66 of 131 (1160 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

DSE - Then the number of loads flown per year or the type of aircraft would define the difference and there would be two models. I'm thinking something like the 182 DZ has to do AFF with at least one certified AFFI and one who passed under the waiver. The waiver person would fit into the apprenticeship model to the AFFI. I know that opens a can of worms (throughly discussed in the AFF thread) about reserve and main sides not always staying where they should based on what happens on the dive. The waiver AFFI still has the same training as the AFFI just not the experience required to fly single AFF or whatever the limitation is. I can't say what that limitation should be because I don't have enough experience but I would expect that you guys could. Forget what we've got now for a minute and say what makes sense. For the record, I don't think that it's a problem that the waiver becomes the standard if that's what's required. There's never going to be a perfect system but I think there's the possibility for a better system.

Stratostar - I do listen to the experienced people around DZ.com. I read the posts and try to understand the points being made. They don't always make sense to me, sometimes I just don't get it and sometimes I just don't agree. I haven't been in the sport for long and certainly don't understand (in some cases) why things are done a certain way. Some of the examples you give are instances where I don't need to see it first hand to understand why. Those lessons have been learned the hard way by the people who came before me. We can learn from other people's mistakes if we listen (as you said) and actually take heed.

In other cases however, things have changed and bemoaning that change isn't a constructive solution. Back in the day, when 3 people ran all the courses, there probably weren't as many people actually trying to take the course(s). Now that we have many more skydivers, I don't know if it would be practical to have only 3 people run every course. So what's the solution? Seems like there should be a practical and effective way to evaluate I/Es if the problem is there and I think that making the AFFI/Coach/TI/etc. ratings harder to get will help people's attitudes.

If I'm here another 20 years, I hope you are too so you can call me a noob politely again then too. Wink


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 26, 2010, 2:20 PM
Post #67 of 131 (1143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

I just cant buy into different standards across the board. We are governed by the United States Parachute Association. We should be able to come up with what a skydiver must possess and demonstrate to be responsible for another human life, (wether it be AFF, Tandem, IAD, Static) If you people, are tying to sell the fact that becasue a DZ is a small cesna dropzone, that we must lower the standards or actually keep them as low as possible so as to give instructors the opportunity to make DZO's money, I can not be objective. One AFF jump out of a cesna in bumfuck Dropzone is no different than one AFF Jump at a busy DZ. They both have the possiblilty of death to the student or instructor. Further, why would we not want our instructors to be the most qualified instructors that we can produce, thus limiting the possibility of said death.
A waivered AFFI is like saying, okay you do not meet the qualifications but go ahead give it a shot. Not to mention the law suit that will come out of a drop zone that provides waivered instructors vs full fledged instructors. I can see the arguement now. I think this problem boils down to those making the decisions and what motivates their decisions to keep the requirements where they are. You need to look at each BOD members and their background and see how they vote. Which brings up another completely seperate topic as to why a DZO can be on the board to begin with, but I do not want to throw the thread into a tizzy and get a hundred PM's. The unmentioned fact: A DZO needs as many staff as possible to make as much money as possible. So why would they vote to increase requirements if it will reduce their staff? C'mon this is as much a political discussion as it is a common sense one. Safety and Training did not bring forth some suggestions because they felt they would not pass the board. So, hence the viscious cycle. and no I am not bashing DZO's just saying the conflict is possible. See for yourselves and make your own decision.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 26, 2010, 4:22 PM
Post #68 of 131 (1112 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

I understood the reasoning behind having some way to accommodate small DZs is that there just aren't enough people around to have very strict requirements on jump numbers/time in sport/whatever makes sense to enable some small DZs to have sufficient instructional staff. We can argue about the principals or possible ethical considerations but I was only trying to suggest a practical solution to the issue that had been raised by more than a few people regarding smaller DZs.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 26, 2010, 6:20 PM
Post #69 of 131 (1078 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

that wasnt to you I just hit reply on the last post sorry...just an overall opinion which, nobody really gives a shit about anyway. sorry


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 26, 2010, 6:25 PM
Post #70 of 131 (1077 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Fair enough, no hard feelings, I was just responding to the general question out there.

I think we'd be better off having strict standards because we'd end up with better instructors. The practical factors shouldn't be dismissed however which is why I was wondering about a waiver process for instructor candidates. That would be a compromise that might allow us to have good, strong rules but still account for practical considerations. Do you think that would not work?


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 26, 2010, 9:47 PM
Post #71 of 131 (1048 views)
Shortcut
Re: [danielcroft] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

I am too far right at this point for a variety of reasons. Most would call me out of my mind I believe that the AFF rating should be 500 jumps, 3 years, 6 hours of FF, and a coach rating for a year with at least 15 coach jumps. (I wouldnt mind 1000 jumps but that is never going to happen).

I also believe while I am at it, to take the coach course you should have a C license and 200 jumps.
http://www.ipetitions.com/...n/instructorchanges/

and tandem should be 1000 jumps, 3 years in sport, and a coach rating for one year.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 27, 2010, 12:24 PM
Post #72 of 131 (1007 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I just cant buy into different standards across the board. We are governed by the United States Parachute Association. We should be able to come up with what a skydiver must possess and demonstrate to be responsible for another human life, (wether it be AFF, Tandem, IAD, Static) If you people, are tying to sell the fact that becasue a DZ is a small cesna dropzone, that we must lower the standards or actually keep them as low as possible so as to give instructors the opportunity to make DZO's money, I can not be objective. One AFF jump out of a cesna in bumfuck Dropzone is no different than one AFF Jump at a busy DZ. They both have the possiblilty of death to the student or instructor. Further, why would we not want our instructors to be the most qualified instructors that we can produce, thus limiting the possibility of said death.
A waivered AFFI is like saying, okay you do not meet the qualifications but go ahead give it a shot. Not to mention the law suit that will come out of a drop zone that provides waivered instructors vs full fledged instructors. I can see the arguement now. I think this problem boils down to those making the decisions and what motivates their decisions to keep the requirements where they are. You need to look at each BOD members and their background and see how they vote. Which brings up another completely seperate topic as to why a DZO can be on the board to begin with, but I do not want to throw the thread into a tizzy and get a hundred PM's. The unmentioned fact: A DZO needs as many staff as possible to make as much money as possible. So why would they vote to increase requirements if it will reduce their staff? C'mon this is as much a political discussion as it is a common sense one. Safety and Training did not bring forth some suggestions because they felt they would not pass the board. So, hence the viscious cycle. and no I am not bashing DZO's just saying the conflict is possible. See for yourselves and make your own decision.

I'm not at all suggesting the standards be lowered for the 182 DZ vs a multi-aircraft DZ. I'm suggesting that the opportunities are fewer, and that does need to be factored in.
The risks are identical at both DZ's.
We've gone in circles over whether the "old program is better/worse" (I'm convinced it was as much about who greased whose palms and who gave the best BJ as it was actual skills), and whether the "new program" is worth a damn. No point in revisiting that one.
Then we've got the I/E that issued a "conditional rating" and even defended it. More silliness.
We have RD's that do nothing, even fight submitting a fatality report to the FAA, that might incriminate an instructor that made an error.
There are LOTS of issues unrelated to the instructional programs and requirements themselves.

The USPA responded to a part of the complaint; maybe baby steps are in order here. But the crux of it, IMO, comes down to the I/E and disciplinary processes. There are solid I/E's and there are weak I/E's. There are solid AFFI's and there are weak AFFI's. There is an incredibly apathetic board and a number of even more apathetic RD's, and a few very "easy" s I/E's out there. Hopefully the IERC changes and some actual disciplinary actions on the part of the S&TA's, RD's, and BOD will take place, and we'll see an uptick in quality vs quantity.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 27, 2010, 3:21 PM
Post #73 of 131 (986 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There are solid AFFI's and there are weak AFFI's.
Quote:

We are on the same page for the most part, but isnt there a way to reduce the weak future AFFI's? Maybe if we ask ourselves why are the weak ones weak or how did the weak ones get to where they are?, we can start to correct the problem. I guess there are weak and solid in everything but we cant afford just to ignore the problem. I do not want to settle for,"weak AFF's. Weak AFF's lead to potential bad things for the sport. I imagine that there are solid and weak fighter pilots out there, but at least the bar is set so high that even the weak fighter pilots are pretty dam good pilots. That is what I am looking for through oversight, change if necessary, and continual support and debrief. I know there are weak AFF's out there, I just want to get back to the time where if you graduated an AFF course everyone was comfortable with your teaching and flying ability. I do not have that warm and fuzzy feeling, at all lately.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 27, 2010, 3:46 PM
Post #74 of 131 (980 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

There will always be "weak" anything, IMO.
Either they get the rating to make money, they get the rating for ego, they get the rating for god-knows-why, but they're not really in the same mindset as people like yourself.
Moreover, you'll never understand it any more than I will. I don't understand people that don't take their role as instructors seriously, yet we've all come across several that are like that.
Here's the problem...There HAS to be a standard, and that standard MUST be objective. That was the problem with the "old" system was that it was very subjective.
Here's an example;
We'll call my hypothetical guy "Phil." Phil has 2000 jumps and is terribly serious about instruction. He's a terrific flyer, but he pisses off a course director during an off-DZ dinner.
CD doesn't pass Phil, but a young chickie who has huge assets, 400 skydives does get the rating. Phil challenges the course again from a different CD 6 months later. Same CD also doesn't pass him. Phil's DZO sends a letter to USPA saying "WTF." Phil takes course again, and passes from same CD that wouldn't pass him in the first place. Meanwhile, chickie has taken students up and has femured one of them during radio'd landing, and flies another one downwind (resulting in no injury). Chickie is now out of sport, Phil is still in sport with 5k skydives and is one of the most respected instructors I know.
Slightly off-track, but the point is, character can't be part of the "evaluative" process, because character is subjective. That's why the system *had* to be changed. It allowed for subjectivity. Now, it's pretty cut/dried as to how you do in the course. We all know instructors in every discipline of life that suck, we all know of the instructors that don't observe the 8 hour "bottle to toggle" rules, and we know instructors that burn one down during the day. How do you weed those guys out during the evaluative process? I submit you can't. Because it's subjective.
Rather, hope that those instructors don't kill anyone in the process, hope they wash out or are known for their weak skills and the DZO's wash them out, whatever. Or hope that the S&TA or RD will undertake disciplinary action (riiiiigggghhhhtttt). But the process has to remain objective. Unfortunately, that can mean that less-than-idyllic skydivers will be successful when challenging the course.
I can't at all accept your comparison to fighter pilots. We don't have millions of dollars at our disposal to teach people to do AFF. Moreover, we don't need it.
Yeah, we all want better instructors, we all want to see the courses find a means of weeding out certain types, but at the same time, skydiving doesn't require a Master's Degree (flying a fighter jet requires the equivalent).

If you've lost the "warm fuzzy feeling," then I'd honestly suggest you look back at yourself, and how good YOU feel you're doing, because I happen to know you're a very fine instructor who cares a lot for how you teach, and how your students do after they've come off the program. Of course you want to make it better across the board, but (IMO) you should still have that warm, fuzzy feeling because of your own efforts and the successes you see your students enjoying.
It's pretty hard to see the world as it is, but it's pretty easy to see the world as you are in it.
Smile Rich, you're one of the good guys.Tongue The sky ain't falling, it's just not quite as blue as you remember it once being.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Feb 27, 2010, 4:34 PM
Post #75 of 131 (970 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Im trying to get him to chill a little more. I took him freeflying last week. I think he has 5 freefly jumps
http://www.youtube.com/...FE60AC/1/Y8bycmWJ394

Its hard teaching a old dog new tricksWink


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Feb 27, 2010, 6:47 PM)


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

Forums : Skydiving : Instructors

 


Search for (options)