Forums: Archive: 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections:
Tom Deacon for USPA National Director

 


tdsnyr99  (D 27911)

Nov 11, 2010, 2:04 PM
Post #1 of 21 (3146 views)
Shortcut
Tom Deacon for USPA National Director Can't Post

Here is my agenda if elected to the USPA Board Of Directors.

1. As I said in my candidate statement the USPA Rating system needs to be looked at. We should be producing the highest quality instructors and thatís not possible when we train to minimum standards. The current system requires that an I/E hold one course per discipline every two years to stay current. I donít feel that one course every two years is enough. How can an I/E even stay current with the material if he/she isnít seeing it but once every 24 months? We really need to change this requirement to one course per year, per discipline. So if you hold Coach E, Tandem I/E and AFF I/E you should be teaching three courses per year. As far as the AFF rating goes, we need to drop the C-License and 6 hours of freefall requirement and just make the requirement a D-license and 500 jumps. Oversight of new instructors really falls on seasoned staff, DZOís and S&TAís. We as a whole need to set up these new instructors for success. Many of the concerns over the last several years have been around the instructional rating system and the need for quality instructors. USPA has a very good program in place and examiners out there that are doing their job very well. But I hear stories from DZís across the country about how some examiners are producing new instructors that are far below standard. This needs to be fixed because I feel that we are one student fatality away from having the FAA step in to regulate how we conduct our business and thatís not where we want to be.

2. We need to develop up to date training programs that meet the needs of modern skydivers. As we all know, the biggest problem facing us is canopy related fatalities and how are we going to stop this trend? Iím definitely in favor of mandatory advanced canopy training that you will need to meet future license requirements. Do we need a Flight-1 coach travelling around to every DZ teaching this type of course? No, we should be able to teach this type of course using current DZ staff but we do need a syllabus in place that meets or exceeds those requirements. If elected I plan on working with the industry experts to get this program on-line.

3. Corporate Sponsorships to help host events like USPA Nationals will elevate this sport to an all new level and reach a whole new audience. I feel it will push the level of media coverage we have yet to experience.

4. If elected to the BOD I plan on keeping lines of communication open and listening to the concerns of the membership. Assessing those concerns and basing my decisions for the membership majority.

Iím excited for this election and hope that you will consider me for USPA National Director.



Tom Deacon
USPA National Director Candidate

tom@proskydivingservices.com


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Nov 11, 2010, 2:09 PM
Post #2 of 21 (3114 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for this post.
I voted for you, Tom.


jtnesbitt  (B 30189)

Nov 11, 2010, 2:57 PM
Post #3 of 21 (3095 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Got my vote.


tdsnyr99  (D 27911)

Nov 12, 2010, 9:15 PM
Post #4 of 21 (3025 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for your vote!


stratostar  (Student)

Nov 12, 2010, 9:44 PM
Post #5 of 21 (3019 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
The current system requires that an I/E hold one course per discipline every two years to stay current. I donít feel that one course every two years is enough. How can an I/E even stay current with the material if he/she isnít seeing it but once every 24 months? We really need to change this requirement to one course per year, per discipline. So if you hold Coach E, Tandem I/E and AFF I/E you should be teaching three courses per year

Did it ever cross your mind that there places in the country where it is hard enough to find those who meet the course requirements in each 24 month cycle let alone each year. Just because an IE only holds a course each 24 mo cycle don't mean they don't do a good job. If you want to change something go after the sign your check here's your rating IE's and those who pass people and issue "conditional AFF ratings" in exchange for blow jobs.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Nov 12, 2010, 10:59 PM
Post #6 of 21 (3013 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

3 questions:

1. Have you ever jumped naked?

2. If elected would you find out how much we pay Larry bagley and what exactly he does for the money we pay him?

3. Why do instructors pay an extra fine each year to be members when we are the ones that bring new people to the sport? Shouldn't we get a discount?


tdsnyr99  (D 27911)

Nov 12, 2010, 11:05 PM
Post #7 of 21 (3011 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

AFF instructors are required to teach 1 FJC per year to stay current and I think it should be the same with I/E's. It's a matter of currency and I stand by my statement. There is no way that you can be current with the material and keep course standards high if your only teaching one course per 24 month period.
We all know I/E's should be held to a higher standard and if there are people out there handing out ratings, taking peoples money for courses and not showing up then the membership needs to notify USPA. As far as I know one Examiner has had his ratings pulled for these things in the last year. Also, USPA does not issue "conditional" AFF ratings. You either pass the course or you don't.


(This post was edited by tdsnyr99 on Nov 12, 2010, 11:37 PM)


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 15, 2010, 7:18 AM
Post #8 of 21 (2912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

You got my vote.

One question, didn't the new "Coach for a year or have 500 jumps requirement" kind of hit the D license and 500 jumps requirement? (just asking for clarification on your intent, not to sharp shoot)

I also agree I/E's should teach their classes no less than 1 a year.

We will see a portion of this sports instructional methods die off though. Or at least the I/E's who actually teach IAD or SL will be reduced to a small group. I know Next year I will no longer be a SL-I/E unless I can land a course by OCT 2011 (I am fine with that though).

Matt


tdsnyr99  (D 27911)

Nov 15, 2010, 8:15 PM
Post #9 of 21 (2864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [matthewcline] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Matt,
First off thanks for your vote. Secondly, we are moving in the right direction by making people hold the Coach rating for a year if they have less than 500 jumps so they will be forced to teach before they can move on to other ratings. What I would like to see is the C-license and 6 hours of freefall dropped entirely and just move it to a D-license requirement. Because it's still set up for the 100 jump candidate getting a Coach rating, acting as a Coach for a year maybe 2 then attending an AFFIRC with less than 400 jumps. Still right where we left off and what we should be doing is raising the standards.
The majority of USPA dz's are still small cessna dropzones. I don't want to see any instructional method die off but we need to raise the standards of our system and it needs to start with the people out there teaching the rating courses. Two of the biggest complaints from the field is 1. lack of standardization and 2. instructors being produced that can't do the job.

Tom


diablopilot  (D License)

Nov 16, 2010, 5:30 AM
Post #10 of 21 (2836 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Tom, just to be clear incase you didn't follow the original effort. I was at the BOD meeting where the "Coach rating for a year if they have less than 500 jumps" rule was put in place. Infact I was part of the group proposing and supporting it.

It was something, but I believe it to be a halfway effort mostly to try to placate instructors who were upset about instructional standards.

The original proposal was a Coach rating for a year for ALL instructional ratings, no exception for jumps.

This was also meant to stop the "drive by" no rating to coach to tandem in a week courses where cards were getting whipped and no history about the candidates was available for a background. I believe this trend of this type of course is what is producing the trend of sloppy, irresponsible carnival worker mentality tandem masters.

It was argued that his would be a hardship for DZO's as there would be an instructor shortage as a result. There is no shortage. Simply a shortage of good instructors and an industry that doesn't want to compensate professionals as they should be.

Food for thought.


matthewcline  (D 21585)

Nov 16, 2010, 7:14 AM
Post #11 of 21 (2826 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Tom,

I understand better, thank you.

I agree with JP, take the "or" away and make it a full year as a Coach. The D and 500 would not hurt either, it will help raise the quality of the Candidates.

I think the Instructional Rating program is not far from "right". We cleared up the AFF grading standards, some don't like it, some do. I think the clearing up of the standards was the right direction though.

I look forward to your tenure, I am sure you will be an asset (yeah I know I am counting the chicken before the egg hatched).

Matt


Para5-0  (D 19054)

Nov 16, 2010, 7:26 AM
Post #12 of 21 (2824 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tdsnyr99] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Tom/Diablo,

To ellaborate a bit further, I posted the letter I sent on this subject along with the petition that I had initiated. I spoke to numerous board members about my concerns and gave many examples of why I was motivated to pursue changes specifically in this area. I already posted this under another thread.
http://www.dropzone.com/...;;page=unread#unread

Ironically enough, every person I spoke to on the phone, email, or in person agreed with all of the modifications. What happened from there is anybody's guess.
IMHO the under 500 jump decision was specifically implemented to placate us and our voictrious methods. I was being loud and demanding debate about the topic. It was presented to S&T and then the BOD.
There were four specific changes I was looking to at least inititate debate on, see the letter/petition. I also gave examples of incidents that concerned me.
I am not satisfied in this area, but it is a step in the right direction.
I have received some opposing thoughts and I welcome them, again, this specific area should have some serious time dedicated to it.
Rich


(This post was edited by Para5-0 on Nov 16, 2010, 7:27 AM)


Premier TomNoonan  (D 24313)
Moderator
Nov 16, 2010, 7:46 PM
Post #13 of 21 (2776 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
It was something, but I believe it to be a halfway effort mostly to try to placate instructors who were upset about instructional standards.

To be honest, I believe that the removal of the tandem rating item from the 500 jump proposal is what got the motion passed. Personally I wanted it for all ratings, not just AFF, but IIRC, some on the board had concerns about putting that restriction on tandem ratings, and it wasn't about just making sure there were enough instructors available, there was a genuine request to simply investigate it further before jumping the gun. To be fair, yes, there are some absolutely legitimate examples of stupidity out there in the tandem industry, (I get mailed the videos and you'll get to see some of them at PIA if you attend my seminar). But there are also of a tremendous amount of TIs out there doing a professional job day in and day out. The thought at the time was that unless we could go back and verify if the knuckleheads out there were products of the fly by night, Coach to Tandem course directors, then we may be trying to fix the wrong problem. Truth is, that while we know dumb things are going on out there, a foolish TI is equally as likely to have gone through a long conservative training process as he or she is likely to be a product of the two week Coach/Tandem course. Safety and Training needed more time to study the problem before making a decision in haste.

As for the AFF issue, it was clear as day what population of newly minted AFF instructors were having the most problems. There were multiple videos floating around at the time of AFF jumps gone bad, REAL bad, and they were coming from AFF Is who were barely over the required time frame and from the Coach to AFF in two weeks camp. The reason that the 1 year requirement had the 500 jump minimum included and wasn't requested for all AFF course attendees, is that it was thought that there were alot of people out there capable of making the jump from Coach to AFF without having to wait a year. The example given to us at the meeting was made that say someone from Airspeed that decides they want to teach should be able to take a Coach course, do the required Coach jumps and that if they do it in less than a year, they would be adequately seasoned for the AFF course. (Don't blame me for the example.....I didn't make it.....lol).

So, that's basically how it all went down. If you remember, I was the board member that brought it to committee and petitioned for the change. I stood up in S&T and in front of the full board and advocated for the group of instructors that, like me, wanted the regs tightened. I also knew through straw poles and side conversations on breaks that in it's original form, the proposal would not have passed. We would have left with nothing changed. Instead we took the first step forward.

Are the reqs tight enough yet? Nope, but as I posted before on this when it passed, it was a step in the right direction.

As for rating AFF I/Es, there is a growing concensus in the field that the I/E proficiency card isn't working, that there are some of the newer AFF I/Es out there that are holding AFF courses below the standard that is expected of them. If I am re-elected, I will start there, working on revising the AFF I/E card. As for the current crop of AFF I/Es out there, lucky for us, it's a small group to start with, and most of them are doing great jobs. Polishing the few that are having problems will not be a big project. I'm just thankful that we caught the problem now, before we end up with 130+ AFF I/Es like we currently have in the tandem industry. It would be too big a problem to fix at that point IMHO.

As for the tandem industry, I think step one is to get all the tandem manufacturers to give us their current thoughts on training requirements. (I'm meeting with all of them next week on a project and will bring up the question) Then we do the same thing with the Tandem I/E proficiency card, we make it stronger. Today there are 130+ USPA tandem I/Es out there. 130 different I/Es teaching a broad spectrum of caliber courses. We start with the top and work our way down.

In the end though, the truth is, that the USPA rating debacle we are currently experiencing is to many, no surprise at all. Lots of us saw it coming. some standards got relaxed, some even ignored them altogether, and we ended up where we are now. We have created a landscape of uncertainty, and now it's time to mow the lawn. It sounds like people like myself, Rich Winstock and Tom Deacon are all on the same page. The biggest problem I faced this term was that when I looked around the room at the other board members, I didn't see many that thought the way I did, or believed in what I believed in. There were a few, but not a majority, and if we want to see these necessary changes happen quickly rather than slowly, we need a majority of like minded people, so elect us all: TOM NOONAN, RICH WINSTOCK and TOM DEACON.

There is strength in numbers. Elect us all, strengthen the rating process.

And JP......if you were running, I'd be adding your name to that list and voting for you too.


Premier TomNoonan  (D 24313)
Moderator
Nov 16, 2010, 8:06 PM
Post #14 of 21 (2769 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Scott

1) Yes: Out of the B-17 bomber at the WFFC.

2) No, I wouldn't pursue investigating Larry Bagley. I believe in Ed Scott the Executive Director and I believe that the Executive Committee was created and exists for situations such as this, to handle delicate issues. In good faith, I leave the issue in their hands. (If I am elected by the BOD to the Executive Committee in the next term, then I would ask to be brought up to speed on it). I also believe in Larry, that he is a valuable part of USPA and it's history, he's like a walking reference book on USPA procedures and actions.

3) There are those on the board that believe that ratings fee increases like membership fee increases are a necessary evil that can close budget gaps. The example of Scuba instructors paying the same fees to PADI and NAUI was brought up in committee and in full session. Anyone there would remember that I was the most vocal against the rating fee increase. The arguement I got was that it was a small amount. The arguement I made was that the message that it sent (especially when you looked at the percentage increase) was the wrong one. We (instructors) are a captive audience of sorts, we have to pay the rating renewal fees if we want to work, and I didn't like the idea of raising fees for instructors to cover budget gaps. I stood up in committee against it, and again at the full board, and I lost the vote (19 to 3). Scott Smith and I believe Gary Peek were the other No votes. I know we have to close budget gaps, but my arguement was that if we need $6000, raise the membership fee $0.50 across 30,000 members, instead of relying on 3000 instructors to pay $2 each. Spread the cost across the board, that was my request. My request was denied.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Nov 17, 2010, 7:40 PM
Post #15 of 21 (2720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks Tom, I also voted against dues increases (for everyone) when I was on the board and like you I was outnumbered. I am more in favor of cutting spending and looking for more creative non- dues revenues. I also believe it was the stupid decisions made by many of the current BOD that cost us money and made it necessary to pay for it somehow and the membership got stuck with the bill.

I was especially against dues increases for ratings holders because I believe the instructors are the people who are bringing new members into the sport and creating the skydivers of the future. More members=more dues. If anything they should get a discount for their efforts.

A few candidates have responded privately with the idea that instructors can easily afford to pay more since they make so much money from skydiving. Well, some at large commercial centers may do OK but are likely living in a trailer and will have to eventually get a real job if the want to someday buy a house, raise a family, or retire comfortably. The reality is most instructors are weekenders who barely make enough to pay their jump tickets and buy gear. The ones I talk to are resentful of USPA and only renew each year because they feel there is no other choice if they want to continue to train students. My dues were $65 just a few years ago and this year it's $100. Not a huge sum but it is the principle of the whole thing and I would certainly opt out if I could because I feel like USPA does not listen to the membership anymore.

Ed Scott fired Bagley and we were forced to hire him back and pay his legal fees. I thought the executive director had the authority to hire and fire his own staff? I guess not, and it always seemed to me that LB is secretly in charge of the association. He gets to work from home, travel on our dime, and we are not even allowed to know what we pay him each year. I tried to find out and was essentially told it was none of my business. Isn't that something, we are not even allowed to know what we pay our own employees. I mean come on, they work for us and we have a right to know what they do and how much they are costing us each year. I think it is worth looking into. I have absolutely have no problem with the rest of the hard working staff at HQ. The show up for work and have clearly defined duties. LB is most certainly a wealth of knowledge, the guy is a walking USPA museum. But that doesn't mean he should have a paid lifetime position to do as he pleases with no oversight.

The first question was tongue in cheek, I hardly think a naked jump should be a requirement but it's nice to knowWink

We only spoke a few times when I was on the board and you and Bill Morrissey were very helpful with an issue I had with a tandem instructor. I supported you becoming a regional director and you certainly have my vote for ND. We need more people on the board like yourself and I wish you success in the current election, maybe I will see you in Reno.

And to those that responded privately I will keep your responses confidential but I can't support anyone who is afraid to publicly let their opinions be known. We have enough secretive "behind closed doors" folks on the board already.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Nov 18, 2010, 6:04 AM
Post #16 of 21 (2692 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
If I am re-elected, I will start there, working on revising the AFF I/E card.

Making a point to communicate any changes to the card to the membership immediately, especially those who are currently working toward the rating, and an SOP for verifying the information on the card prior to the issuance of the rating would both be improvements. There is no excuse for a newly rated I/E being told months after receiving the rating that they still have to jump through another hoop before they can exercise the privileges of that rating...


Premier TomNoonan  (D 24313)
Moderator
Nov 18, 2010, 5:17 PM
Post #17 of 21 (2658 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
There is no excuse for a newly rated I/E being told months after receiving the rating that they still have to jump through another hoop before they can exercise the privileges of that rating..

I'm not sure if your referring to something that has already happened to someone, or the potential that something like that could potentially happen if the I/E criteria is strengthened?

I have a story that I think has some merit regarding your concern that I would like to share, as it directly relates to your statement:

In early 2009, Air Adventures in Clewiston hosted a USPA IERC course that fell just prior to a Strong Tandem Examiner course I was holding in Orlando, so I took that opportunity to bring my candidates down there for the IERC course. The IERC was still in it's infancy at the time, and it's course directors were still being "checked out" so to speak, to verify the accuracy of their info presented and their teaching ability. One of the those IERC course director's being checked out was Rob Laidlaw of Skydive University. For those unfamiliar with the creation of the IERC, it evolved from Skydive University's Advanced Instructor Course, the AIC, which Rob created to fill an instructional void he felt the industry was experiencing. He literally created the syllabus for Skydive University and it was subsequently morphed into what was to become the IERC. He had practically the entire content of the IERC in his head and could teach it with his eyes closed, yet there he was, spending 3 days in Clewiston assisting teaching a course that he effectively created. Some could have viewed that as him having to jump through a hoop, but he didn't. He used the opportunity to participate in evolving his SDU AIC into the USPA IERC.

Also in attendance as a course attendee in this IERC was Bill Morrissey. Bill created the Strong tandem training program twenty plus years earlier, and like Rob and his syllabus, Bill could teach a tandem course with his eyes closed. Arguably not a person on the planet had or has more experience training tandem instructors and tandem examiners than Bill. Yet there he was, sitting for three days taking copious notes, participating, asking questions and learning. Some would argue making him attend an IERC to remain a USPA Tandem I/E would be the biggest hoop of all anyone would have to jump through, yet there he was. Genuinely engaged and happy to be there, looking to improve his teaching technique, after two decades of training tandem instructors and tandem examiners.

Another attendee of the course was Jen Sharp from Skydive Kansas. Since completing that course, she has flown around the country attending as many IERCs and tandem courses as she can, even though she already has the I/E ratings. She is a rising star in the I/E field and it's because she jumps through her own hoops, ones she believes will continually elevate her already exceptional teaching ability.

As the IERC course concluded, the candidates took a picture with the course directors outside the hangar. Standing there, everyone just sort of looked at each other and realized that a course of this caliber and attendance was a unique thing and would probably not be duplicated for a long time. You had Rob Laidlaw, Bill Morrissey and USPA President Jay Stokes all in the same classroom together. (The coolest thing was that years ago Bill trained Jay and now Jay was training Bill.)

I offer this story as it's a great example of perception. From the outside it could have looked like Rob and Bill were jumping through hoops, but the reality was, when you have that caliber for course directors there is no such thing as a hoop to jump through, there are just new opportunities to learn.

So......if in fact when this is all said and done a newly minted AFF I/E is asked by either the President of USPA, or the Chair of S&T or even the Director of Safety and Training at USPA to jump through another training hoop, they will have the choice to view it as a punishment or an opportunity to learn.

The only other alternative, to avoid hurting their feelings is to let someone that is not meeting a standard continue to train and create AFF Is that themselves are not prepared for the responsibility of the rating. Then that AFF I goes on to lose a student, the student has an AAD fire, gets injured, or worse, killed, and then we all come on here and say "We all saw it coming, AFF I/E John Doe didn't teach to a standard, you all knew it and you didn't do anything about it. Now his AFF I lost a student and this happens."

What other options does the Safety and Training committee, or USPA for that matter, have? There is a legitimate problem out there. Something like 150+ instructors signed a petition that Rich Winstock created because they believe the course standards need serious improvement. To improve the standards, we have to start at the AFF I/E level and when that is fixed, it will filter dow to the AFF I level.

Admittedly, I am not an AFF I/E, so I am speaking a little bit out of my realm, but during this whole process this past term, I have consulted 3 of the most competent AFF I/Es working today, I have their numbers on speed dial..... During breaks in BOD sessions, I was on the phone with them and texting them to make sure I was educated in my presentation, and if re-elected, I will continue along that path, working with the AFF I/Es out there to strengthen the AFF I/E program.


(This post was edited by TomNoonan on Nov 18, 2010, 5:23 PM)


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Nov 18, 2010, 9:46 PM
Post #18 of 21 (2631 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Tom, that is one of the best posts in the history of DZ.com, IMO.
Thanks for the words and approach.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Nov 19, 2010, 7:50 AM
Post #19 of 21 (2607 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I'm not sure if your referring to something that has already happened to someone,

I'm referring to something that happened to someone within the past twelve months. All items were completed, all hoops were jumped through, paperwork was sent in, rating was received, thousands of dollars were spent. Only after he had the rating IN HAND for a couple of months was he told he had to do ANOTHER course under the supervision of another I/E before he could exercise the privileges of the rating he had already received.

He jumped through the new hoop because he wants to use the rating he worked hard to get, but it cost him several hundred dollars to pay the IE to come watch him teach the course.

The minimums are there for a reason. The board can change them; that's a way for the system to be improved. Forcing people to meet new requirements retroactively is not fair to anyone.

It is also wrong for new requirements to be written into the program by one person without a review by the full board, which this particular requirement was.

Is there a review process for new rating applications prior to the issuance of the rating? If so, are all applications reviewed or only selected ones signed off by particular IE's? If not, why not? No one should ever have to spend more money and time to be allowed to use a rating that they already have in their hand.


Premier TomNoonan  (D 24313)
Moderator
Nov 19, 2010, 9:01 AM
Post #20 of 21 (2593 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skybytch] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Only after he had the rating IN HAND for a couple of months was he told he had to do ANOTHER course under the supervision of another I/E before he could exercise the privileges of the rating he had already received.

I'm unaware of this situation you are referring to, but will look into it. Do you know if this person was given a reason for having to teach another course under supervision? Had they taught any courses on their own between the issuance of their rating and then being asked to teach another course under supervision? I ask this because if they ran a course after getting rated and it wasn't up to a standard, and then they were asked to assist in another course, then I have no problem with that. If someone is not teaching to a standard, even after being rated, then they need to be retrained/reevaluated, and if they still cannot meet the standard, then they shouldn't be allowed to exercise the right of the rating.

Quote:
Forcing people to meet new requirements retroactively is not fair to anyone.

Is it fair to let an I/E not training to a standard, one that needs more education or practice, to simply continue to work with instructor candidates and turn out less than properly trained Instructors into the field? Would you want your friends of family members making tandem or AFF jumps with those new instructors? This is not about forcing anyone to do anything other than recognize that there is a big problem out there and accept that a solution needs to be found.

I'm sorry someone you know met the proficiency card requirements, got the rating and was then told he needed to teach another course under supervision. If that was the case though, a valid reason must have existed.

Quote:
It is also wrong for new requirements to be written into the program by one person without a review by the full board, which this particular requirement was.

I agree with you 100% except in one scenario. If a house is on fire, and a firefighter lives next door, should he start fighting the fire while there is something to salvage, or wait for the whole fire department to arrive while the house burns down? If this action you speak of was done without the full knowledge or consent of the board, I believe that it was probably done because it was considered a problem that needed immediate attention, not something that could afford to wait for the full board to investigate. Part of the BOD process is having faith in the people we elect to act on their conscience and do what they believe is right when they are forced to make quick decisions. This may be one of them, and if that is the case, I am okay with that.

All rating applications and signatures are reviewed by the Director of Safety and Training at USPA Headquarters.

Quote:
No one should ever have to spend more money and time to be allowed to use a rating that they already have in their hand.

Even if after completing the proficiency card and being issued a rating, they are not teaching/training/evaluating properly and potentially putting unprepared new instructors in the field?

I get what your saying about "he had to do X, he did X, he paid to do X, earned the rating and now someone is saying he has to do Y as well and pay for Y as well? That's not fair." You have a valid point, but what happened to your friend versus what will happen in the I/E field on a macro level when this issue is resolved will be two different outcomes if I am elected to the board as a ND. I am a communicator first and foremost. I am fair, I am level headed and I am an AFF I and a Coach/Tandem I/E, so I can empathize with our instructional pool out there and what we are all going through.


Premier skybytch  (D License)

Nov 19, 2010, 1:30 PM
Post #21 of 21 (2560 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] Tom Deacon for USPA National Director [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Do you know if this person was given a reason for having to teach another course under supervision?

The reason given was because the requirements had changed prior to him sending in the paperwork. The change in the requirements was not communicated to the candidate nor to the IE who signed him off; that IE wouldn't have done so if he'd known that the requirements had been changed. He got the rating in the mail; before he could run his own course, the IE who signed him off contacted him to let him know that he couldn't.

In reply to:
All rating applications and signatures are reviewed by the Director of Safety and Training at USPA Headquarters.

In this case, the newly rated IE had done everything that he, the IE who signed him off and apparently even the Director of Safety and Training at USPA HQ thought were the only requirements.

In reply to:
Even if after completing the proficiency card and being issued a rating, they are not teaching/training/evaluating properly and potentially putting unprepared new instructors in the field?

In this case, until he's been allowed to teach a course and produce new instructors on his own, how can anybody say that he's producing unprepared new instructors? I agree that someone who isn't teaching up to standard should have to receive some remedial training and evaluation. This is not an issue of retraining an existing IE; it's an issue of a lack of communication on the part of someone at USPA leading to a newly rated IE not being able to use the rating that USPA told him he'd earned.

I'm not talking about a johnny come lately here either. This is someone who has 15+ years in sport, 5000+ jumps, 10+ years and 1500+ jumps as an AFFI, 8+ years as an S&TA at two dz's, a master rigger's ticket and 7+ years as a coach course director (now Coach IE).

I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond, Tom. Thanks.

And Tom Deacon - sorry for derailing your thread. Blush



Forums : Archive : 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections

 


Search for (options)