Forums: Skydiving: Instructors:
New AFF requirements.

 

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

Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 20, 2010, 6:50 PM
Post #1 of 131 (4331 views)
Shortcut
New AFF requirements. Can't Post

I am very excited to hear something was done at the BOD meeting regarding rating requirements. Any updates or exact language of the changes would be appreciated. Thanks


diablopilot  (D License)

Feb 20, 2010, 7:54 PM
Post #2 of 131 (4282 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

in a nutshell jumpers with less than 500 jumps must hold a coach rating or foreign FAI recognized equivalent for 12 months before receiving and instructor rating.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 21, 2010, 1:05 AM
Post #3 of 131 (4229 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
in a nutshell jumpers with less than 500 jumps must hold a coach rating or foreign FAI recognized equivalent for 12 months before receiving and instructor rating.

Is there a minimum number of coach jumps that must be made and/or any sort of currency requirement - or is it strictly amount of time holding the rating, without regard to actual jumps?


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Feb 21, 2010, 6:05 AM
Post #4 of 131 (4180 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

If the point was to require some form of instructional experience and/or time in sport before going for the AFF rating, this is a huge fail. Someone with a fat wallet could still go from first jump to AFF rated in less than a year.


dninness  (D 19617)

Feb 21, 2010, 7:36 AM
Post #5 of 131 (4150 views)
Shortcut
Re: New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If the point was to require some form of instructional experience and/or time in sport before going for the AFF rating, this is a huge fail. Someone with a fat wallet could still go from first jump to AFF rated in less than a year.

I think its a start. You're going to play hell trying to catch _every_ possibility like this.

How many "fat-wallet, FJC-to-AFF-I in year" jumpers do you think would actually exist? One or two in 5 years?

I think there are far more people who might fit into this category: AFF one year, make 100 jumps, coach rating next year while doing another 100 jumps, take AFF at the beginning of that 3rd season with ~200 jumps.. thats a far more likely scenario, and one that I think we've agreed is maybe not the most optimal.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 21, 2010, 7:50 AM
Post #6 of 131 (4145 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dninness] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

The requirement should read. You must hold coach rating for 12 months AND have 500 jumps.

This new rule does nothing to stop the problem. A guy with 500 jumps wants to be a tandem I, he can take a coach class this weekend and be a TI the next with virtually no student contact. The whole purpose was to get a potential instructor 12 monthes of teaching, student interaction experience. Why are we so afraid of offending people? Good to see the coach rating requirement to c license and 200 jumps was shot down. No comment..


djmarvin  (D 22292)

Feb 21, 2010, 7:52 AM
Post #7 of 131 (4143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dninness] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
How many "fat-wallet, FJC-to-AFF-I in year" jumpers do you think would actually exist? One or two in 5 years?

I've seen at least a couple a year in the past several years that I have been an evaluator. Not all of them are 1 year wonders, but many of them fall in under the two year mark.


NYKid  (C 99999)

Feb 21, 2010, 8:08 AM
Post #8 of 131 (4135 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

-1 for USPA

This will change nothing... I think USPA did this to shut people up. People are still going to be able to get a coach rating one weekend and a I rating the next and have no teaching skills. What does that do for our sport?

No matter how may jumps you have , You should have to hold a coach rating one year before getting a I.

HALF MEASURES EVAL NOTHING!!!!
That's what uspa did here... NOTHING as usual!!!!


(This post was edited by NYKid on Feb 21, 2010, 8:28 AM)


voilsb  (D 30581)

Feb 21, 2010, 8:39 AM
Post #9 of 131 (4108 views)
Shortcut
Re: [djmarvin] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've seen at least a couple a year in the past several years that I have been an evaluator. Not all of them are 1 year wonders, but many of them fall in under the two year mark.
How many of them failed, because they lacked the experience to safely take students?


diablopilot  (D License)

Feb 21, 2010, 9:28 AM
Post #10 of 131 (4083 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

The previous requirements have not changed, so one still needs to do the 10 coach jumps.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Feb 21, 2010, 9:41 AM
Post #11 of 131 (4072 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dninness] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
AFF one year, make 100 jumps, coach rating next year while doing another 100 jumps, take AFF at the beginning of that 3rd season with ~200 jumps.. thats a far more likely scenario, and one that I think we've agreed is maybe not the most optimal.

Not optimal? Maybe not in sheer jump numbers (although 6 hours of freefall usually = 300+ jumps), but way better than coach rating on Friday, AFF rating by the following weekend. At least those candidates have a couple years in the sport and hopefully a few coach jumps under their belt before going for the AFF rating.

I'm curious what the reasoning is behind the "or 500 jumps" exception, cuz I'm not seeing it.


Premier PhreeZone  (D License)
Moderator
Feb 21, 2010, 10:13 AM
Post #12 of 131 (4053 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

JP, that may be the letter of the rating but it does not explain how there are courses that occur that instructors go from nothing to AFF-I in 10-14 days unless the IE is counting the AFF course jumps as coach jumps also.

I just went and looked at the calendars of a few of the IE's and they have back to back courses or a single weekend off schedules. This is one of the issues that could have been addressed if done correctly by the BOD but its still an issue, now you've basically just raised the AFF requirement to 500 jumps or a year in a coach rating which s a good starting point but still not ideal.


Psychonaut  (C License)

Feb 21, 2010, 11:06 AM
Post #13 of 131 (4031 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Not to be the devils advocate, nor would I like the idea of the 12 months first jump to affi, but if it happened I don't necessarily think it would be the worst thing to happen. 500 jumps in 12 months is a reasonable amount, and if you did that you would be incredibly current. Currency is very vital!


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 21, 2010, 2:34 PM
Post #14 of 131 (3978 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

I am still trying to figure out who this even effects. If you have 500 jumps you can take a coach course and an instructor course the next week. (NO CHANGE) If you have 100 jumps and a B license you get the coach rating, it will take a year to get the 6 hours of FF for AFF anyway. Either way will someone please tell me who this effects? Unless it is just a stepping stone.
If the change was coach rating for 12 months and 500 jumps total to be eligible for an instructional rating I would be happy with the change.
God forbid we entertain 200 jumps and a c license for coach. OMG..the world would come to an end, how dare anyone suggest that a new skydiver wait for 100 more jumps. Why dont we just make a coach rating the 100 jump reward, instead of a pie in the face, we can mail a coach rating and save a lot of time and effort.


tuffyjensen  (D 25830)

Feb 21, 2010, 3:26 PM
Post #15 of 131 (3962 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

What is wrong with an AFFI needing 3 years in the sport the same as a TI. You gain so much more knowledge by being around the sport. I don't see how a person can be an effective instructor without that broad base of overall skydiving knowledge. It is not just about the flying skills, why do we want to risk the safety of our own up and coming members/friends. Probably wouldn't be a bad thing to require a coach to have a full year in the sport as well.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 21, 2010, 4:16 PM
Post #16 of 131 (3941 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tuffyjensen] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Good Luck.


GLIDEANGLE  (D 30292)

Feb 21, 2010, 4:25 PM
Post #17 of 131 (3933 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Interesting, this AFF-I change is not mentioned in the brief report of the meeting posted on the USPA site:
http://www.uspa.org/...9/Default.aspx#12659

I wonder if this change was reccommended by committee to the whole board, but maybe was defeated by the whole board. Of course the brief report may have just omitted it.


Premier TomNoonan  (D 24313)
Moderator
Feb 21, 2010, 4:33 PM
Post #18 of 131 (3929 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Greetings to all,

I think I can help shed some light on the motion that passed and how it came to be. I would just like to say first thought that I donít speak for USPA (only the Pres and Exec Director can do that), I am simply offering my personal opinions and observations on what occurred and what was voted on.

- Coach Rating increase to C license and 200 jumps

I brought this to the Safety and Training committee and it was discussed amongst the members of the committee, and the committeeís advisors. There were both pros and cons mentioned and in the end it was concluded that to raise the coach rating requirement at this time would put undue duress on smaller dropzones with SL/IAD programs that still rely on their jumpers to be able to earn a coach rating at 100 jumps and earn a SL/IAD at 200 jumps.

This issue isnít dead in the water, to the contrary, I think a lot of good info came from meeting and I plan to bring it back to the Safety & Training committee in July after I get a chance to talk with some of the above mentioned DZOs and SL/IAD instructors. So while it didnít pass committee today, that doesnít mean it canít pass in July 2010.

- AFF Rating Requirements Increase

I also brought this to the Safety and Training committee and it too was discussed at length. Prior to (and during the BOD meeting) I consulted a few of AFF I/Es that I know to get their thoughts and also brought up the petition created by Rich and the general industry concensus that we have to do something about the fly by night Coach to AFF one week courses.

I believed the intent of the petition was to address the issue of jumper seasoning, preventing the above mentioned one week Coach/AFF courses. No one disputes that, but then the question became ďhow much seasoningĒ. 12 months holding a coach rating makes sense for the newer jumper, but what about say, a member of Airspeed? Do they need to wait a year? The truth is that there are numerous jumpers out there with many hundreds or thousands of jumps that may not necessarily need to wait the full year because they were seasoned before they took the coach course. Add to that, as JP pointed out above, that there is still (has always been) a jump requirement between the Coach and AFF rating. That an I/E could or would skirt that, is a problem to address up stream with I/Es, not with the Coach candidates themselves.

So, if you saw my Motion form on this, youíd see all the scratched out corrections. I started it with 12 months between Coach and AFF unless you had 1000 jumps. ButÖ.through the discussion process, it became apparent that at 500 it had a 99.9% chance of passing the full board, which it did, but at 1000 jumps to divert the year requirement, it was any ones guess. And to be fair, I think most agreed at the meeting that once you get to between 500 and 1000 jumps, some form of seasoning has occurred. Can someone do 500 jumps in a year? Yes, of course, but that brings up a different issue, time in sport. Personally I am in favor of the idea of inserting a 3 year time in sport requirement for AFF Instructor candidates attending a course, but I believe that it needs to be a stand alone item/motion and based on the conversations I had in the meetings and in the hallways, we need more research and time to present it. 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.

So, if you wanted a bigger wait/more jumps, donít give up hope. This meeting proved one very valuable thing. We can make changes. If it takes 2 meetings to get us where we need to be, I think that is an acceptable thing. Anyone know how many times the night jumps/D license issue has been going on.? Believe me I am with you guys on this.

- Tandem Rating Issue

Someone above mentioned that the AFF rule doesnít prevent someone from going to a Coach Rating right to a Tandem Rating, and they are right. I left Tandem out of my motion for a reason though. I believe that any change we make regarding the USPA Tandem program should have the input of the tandem manufacturers. I am going to attempt to sit down with UPT, Strong and Jump Shack in April and discuss the concerns of the industry instructors and what recommended changes are being discussed and get their input. We need to work together with the manufacturers on tandem items like this.

Is it time to increase the overall jump numbers from 500 to 750 or 1000 before a tandem rating can be earned? Maybe it is. Should tandem rating candidates hold a coach rating for a year? Maybe they should, letís see what UPT, Strong and Jump Shack say before we put it to a vote. Six months from now I can present the Safety and Training committee and the full board opinions from everyone involved here, and under that context, I believe we can make a noticeable difference in what is motioned and what gets passed.


So, thatís my thoughts. Is the 12 month wait with under 500 jumps the perfect solution? No, of course not. But is a step in the right direction and it shows that we can accomplish something and is a piece of the solution. Can we up the number to 750 or 1000 in July if we need to? Of course we can put up for another motion if thatís what we need to do.

In the interim, what we have done, is preventing the jumper with 5:59 of freefall and one year in the sport from going to a Coach course and AFF Course in a week. That is a good thing.

Beyond that, I think most people/instructors realize that itís more of an issue up stream at the I/E level. What is the saying? ďThere arenít bad students, only bad teachers.Ē This issue was also discussed and address in S&T and we are going to focus on tryin to improve the standards at the I/E level. That can then trickle down to the instructor level.

I know with these types of issues we will always have differing opinions to one degree or another, but I really donít consider what happened at this meeting a failure, it was the first step in the right direction.

Iíd also like to add that the petition was very helpful. Member turn out at these meetings is traditionally low, so itís often hard to validate that an idea is represented by the masses. Having the petition and the numbers it represented, helped to validate that the concern was not isolated. The only downside to a petition is that it can't participate in discussions. JP was really one of only a handful of USPA Instructors at the S&T and plenary session meetings who is not a member of the BOD to actively participate and share his opinions, the good ones and the bad ones on this issue. That sort of dialogue is incredibly helpful. The next meeting is in Boston, the more instructors we have at the meeting, the more dialgue we can have. This is my invitation to you all, Boston is my home town. Come on up!

Okay, sorry for the marathon response, but I just wanted to share my thoughts in hopes it would clarify what happened.

If anyone would like to contact me directly with concerns and ideas, please feel free to send them to me at noonantommy@yahoo.com. Whatever I receive, I will bring to the next S&T meeting and advocate for.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Feb 21, 2010, 4:46 PM
Post #19 of 131 (3924 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Nice, thanks for the explanations Tom. Smile


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 21, 2010, 5:03 PM
Post #20 of 131 (3917 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Tom,
You should run for public office, you are patient, calm, professional, and I am proud of the work you have done. I am also greatful to JP and his dedication, along with numerous other members.
I will be advocating as strong as I can for change and I will be at the Boston meeting. Let me know dates and locations.
I would also be more than happy to help you with your research.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 21, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #21 of 131 (3813 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks so much for posting that Tom.

I'm glad we have some movement in the right direction and hopefully it'll be a good start.

Personally I think that there should be a higher bar with the option to have S&TA sign off for people who don't meet the requirements. Some people are just better at some things than other people.


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 21, 2010, 9:45 PM
Post #22 of 131 (3794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Para5-0] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

As one of the "handful" at the meeting;
Tom took the bull by the horns (and dealt with the other kind of bull) very well. He was the first to step up in several instances.
Although it's mentioned elsewhere, I'd like to publically thank Tom for his (several) safety and instructor-related motions and his willingness to openly discuss things.

It should also be said that JP fought like a very calm, quiet dog, and he pointed out more than one inconsistency with certain issues before the board, one of which required an amendment the day following its passage.
Always a pleasure to hang w/you, JP.


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Feb 21, 2010, 10:04 PM
Post #23 of 131 (3784 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Keep them honest fellas, good job.


danielcroft  (D 31103)

Feb 22, 2010, 7:41 AM
Post #24 of 131 (3724 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for your hard work JP.


darthur2000  (D 30384)

Feb 22, 2010, 8:19 AM
Post #25 of 131 (3704 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] New AFF requirements. [In reply to] Can't Post

Time in sport is a meaningless criteria as it's currently defined. The time is counted from when you make your first jump which is silly. Here' a scenario:

Person A went through a FJC in January 2008, gets a Coach rating in the spring of 2009, and gets their D-license in spring 2010 (500 jumps, 6+ hours FF etc). That person must wait until January 2011 to get a TI rating (and AFF-I if you use the current "time in sport" definition).

Person B makes a single tandem jump on a dare from a college classmate in 1990. 18-years later they go through the same FJC as person A in January 2008, gets a Coach rating at the same time in the spring of 2009, and gets their D-license in spring 2010 (500 jumps, 6+ hours FF etc). Under the current system Person B would have sufficient "time in sport" to get either rating simply because they made that one tandem jump years ago.

Does doing a single tandem jump and then coming back years or decades latter really make that much of a difference?

If the USPA and manufacturers are going to have a "time in sport" criteria then it really should be time as a licensed skydiver.


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

Forums : Skydiving : Instructors

 


Search for (options)