Forums: Skydiving: Instructors:
Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher.

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Poll: Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher.
Yes 22 / 22%
No 23 / 23%
Just demonstrate canopy proficiency  9 / 9%
Who cares only FF skills are needed 4 / 4%
Pro rating should be required 7 / 7%
Canopy proficiency should be incorporated into the Eval 29 / 30%
Don't change the Eval. 3 / 3%
Make Evals harder. 1 / 1%
98 total votes
 
Premier TomNoonan  (D 24313)
Moderator
Jun 23, 2013, 1:28 PM
Post #26 of 58 (3511 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This is a big-picture thread, Tom, and you're trying to limit it to one subsidiary element thereof, even though as a member of the BOD, you're tasked with looking at the big picture.

Im not trying to limit anything Robin. You, and anyone else that wants to contribute to the thread is free to do so. I was simply replying to this, the first sentence of the OP's post:

Quote:
Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all.

And again......I am simply saying 1) I havent seen that, or anything close to that, at all over the last few years, so if it happening, as Im a BOD member as you pointed out, where specifically is it being seen? Places, people and dates? Doesnt have to be public, simply send me a private message.

I dont see it at all that way, and I actually travel quite extensively to USPA DZs domestically and abroad.

As for the remainder of your point/counter point of my reply, again, I will leave the content of my posts up the community to decide for themselves its merit, or lack there of.


robinheid  (D 5533)

Jun 23, 2013, 3:55 PM
Post #27 of 58 (3462 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

TomNoonan wrote:
Quote:
This is a big-picture thread, Tom, and you're trying to limit it to one subsidiary element thereof, even though as a member of the BOD, you're tasked with looking at the big picture.

Im not trying to limit anything Robin. You, and anyone else that wants to contribute to the thread is free to do so. I was simply replying to this, the first sentence of the OP's post:

Quote:
Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all.

And again......I am simply saying 1) I havent seen that, or anything close to that, at all over the last few years, so if it happening, as Im a BOD member as you pointed out, where specifically is it being seen? Places, people and dates? Doesnt have to be public, simply send me a private message.

I dont see it at all that way, and I actually travel quite extensively to USPA DZs domestically and abroad.

As for the remainder of your point/counter point of my reply, again, I will leave the content of my posts up the community to decide for themselves its merit, or lack there of.

Sigh...

As I said, you are trying to limit this to a subsidiary element of the thread; In fact, you did not address the primary purpose of the thread at all; you just wanted to debate with the OP about how frequently "AFF" instructors land off-DZ or not.

Congratulations on demolishing that straw man, but that is not the subject of this thread.

As the OP said in full: "Over the last few years I have noticed some AFF instructors and even some AFF evaluators who could not land on the drop zone consistently or at all. Should these instructors be teaching canopy control to AFF students if they themselves cannot fly their own canopies proficiently? Should There be a canopy proficiency portion to the AFF Instructors Evaluation?"

I don't recall that you answered his questions; you just want to "reply" to him about whether or not "AFF" instructors land on the DZ almost all the time, or somewhat less than almost all the time.

Now that is a great use of your BOD time, isn't it?

Sorry I misunderstood your intent: I actually thought you were showing some interest in doing something about the fatally flawed training system we've been foisting on an unsuspecting public for decades, a fatally flawed training system that not only kills people down the road but radically reduces our retention efforts because it's so mindlessly put together.

Heck, it's fundamentally illegitimate because compared to private pilot training and scuba training to name two, you don't even end up with a license when you finish this "training:" you have to spend a few thousand MORE $$$ for coaching jumps and renting gear, etc etc...

But I digress.

Thank you for your invaluable contributions to this thread; it's great to know that in your experience almost all "AFF" instructors land on the DZ while they're not focusing on teaching people first and foremost the fundamentals of how to operate their equipment and fly and navigate their parachutes so that they don't kill themselves doing something ignorant 100 or 1000 jumps removed from their "AFF" training that doesn't even earn them a license for all of their trouble and energy and $$$ spent. Way to zero in on the critical path, Tom. No wonder people voted for you!

Cool
44


Premier TomNoonan  (D 24313)
Moderator
Jun 24, 2013, 12:54 AM
Post #28 of 58 (3389 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
you just wanted to debate with the OP about how frequently "AFF" instructors land off-DZ or not.

Not debate, simply disagree. Actually, I didn't even respond to the OP, I was actually responding to another poster in the thread who said it first. I was agreeing with another poster's comments.

Quote:
"Should these instructors be teaching canopy control to AFF students if they themselves cannot fly their own canopies proficiently? Should There be a canopy proficiency portion to the AFF Instructors Evaluation?"

I believe that anyone earning an AFF I rating should exhibit a proficiency in their own canopy flight as well as a fundamentally sound and quantified ability to teach canopy flight to others.

Quote:
Now that is a great use of your BOD time, isn't it?


Really? I didnt realize I was on official "BOD time" when I chose to respond to something I didnt agree with here (the canopy skill level of current AFFIs as suggested by the OP). I thought I was just Tom the AFF I/skydiver on the road with wifi and responding as I could with the time I had in between travels. Next time, I'll put on my BOD hat and clock in before I reply so as not to provide future

"invaluable contributions to this thread" for you.

Quote:
Sorry I misunderstood your intent: I actually thought you were showing some interest in doing something

Did you miss the part up thread where I offered my email address and said that if you, or anyone wanted to discuss this issue with me that I was all ears? And went on to say, if you want to publish my responses, agreed with or not, here on the forum, you were welcome to?

How is that not showing interest Robin?

I'm taking the time to continue to respond to your statements about me and my post today as I have a little time before I hit the road, but I may not in the next few days, so emailing me, you or anyone else that has BOD related questions on this subject, I am happy to listen, as I always have been, and always will be.

Closing thoughts on your responses Robin:
1) I was on the BOD as the SE Region Director for 2 years, and now I am on as ND in my first term. At no point in time do I remember seeing you present any proposals to the Safety and Training Committee about the fatally flawed canopy training, or whatever your calling it, that is currently being implemented today. No presentation, no paper proposal by Robin Heid. You never contacted me directly, never emailed or called to discuss this issue with me while I was or am (again now) a representative of the BOD. So, I apologize, but if it weren't for DZ.com, I as a BOD member, would have no idea what your position is on the subject. Perhaps you will consider emailing your documentation to the Safety & Training chair and we can start from there?
2) I believe there were 40+ AFF I/E in Daytona the Saturday following PIA for the standardization meeting. Were the documentation that you posted here for Pops made available to Jim Crouch for the meeting to be address by the people that are out there today teaching this stuff? I ask because I honestly don't know, I wasnt there. I wanted to be, planned to be, but one of my best friends requested that I help him get back in the air that very same day at ZHills and I couldnt be in two places at once.
and finally
3) And since you ended your reply with a sarcastic comment about why people voted for me Robin, I'll close by saying, the people that voted for me, voted for me because I am willing to listen to all sides, and I speak up and voice my opinions on the board, even if they are not the popular path. If you were at the last BOD meeting in the gallery, you would have seen that regarding the "preposterous proposal" as you called it. If you were at the meeting when I was on the board as the SE director, and the idea of replacing a portion of freefall time with tunnel time for AFFI candidates, I was one of the proposals most vocal opposers. This was before I ever heard of you, knew your thoughts, or saw your posts. I disagreed with the premise wholeheartedly because being an AFF I is more than just teaching freefall, you have to teach canopy control equally as well, and there is no tunnel time replacement for canopy control experience gained to be passed on through flying in a tunnel."

Anyways, as I've said now repeatedly, you have my contact info, if you want to discuss this with me, great, email me and we will arrange a time and place, otherwise if you want to keep picking apart my comments and adding sarcastic remarks, by all means you are welcome to do that too here.

One route would lead to a dialogue between us, the other probably won't, as I simply lack the time to keep going back and forth with you on here.

(BOD hat off now).


(This post was edited by TomNoonan on Jun 24, 2013, 1:01 AM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Jun 24, 2013, 10:07 AM
Post #29 of 58 (3285 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomNoonan] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

The Straw Man Assassin strikes again.

I wrote my proposal; 20 years ago. The documentation you say has not been available was published in Skydiving Magazine 17 years ago and 15 years ago, respectively.

I also wrote two other articles that deal directly with this fatally flawed system and how it affects the marketing, health and potential survival of the sport. Both were also published in Skydiving: one in 1992; the other in 2006. I have attached the latter document to this post, since you apparently never read Skydiving Magazine.

So my perspective, proposals and projects have been out there almost twice as long as you've been skydiving, and they were published repeatedly in the world's most prestigious and widely read parachuting publication. I have also repeated those perspectives, proposals and projects on this website multiple times.

So the only real questions are:

Where have you and every other "AFF" apologist been on this for the last 20 years?

When are you going to actually do something concrete instead of beating up straw men?

Seriously, Tom, you are merrily trying to put bandaids on a severed artery while the sport bleeds out because of its fatally flawed fundamental training structure.

In fact, you inadvertently underscore this point when you relate your opposition to replacing "AFF" jumps with tunnel time by saying that "being an AFF I is more than just teaching freefall, you have to teach canopy control equally as well, and there is no tunnel time replacement for canopy control experience gained to be passed on through flying in a tunnel."

Notice you keep saying "canopy control": No basic aerodynamics, navigation or meteorology, no learning to be a pilot because, yo, we gotta get them into freefall immediately.

So you can babble all you want about how "AFF" instructors have to teach "canopy control" too, but they do not teach basic parachute piloting because the emphasis -- as confirmed by the very name of the training system -- is on freefall fun skills instead of parachute survival skills.

Period. Full stop.

Enjoy the read. Feedback appreciated.

Cool
44


(This post was edited by robinheid on Jun 24, 2013, 10:31 AM)
Attachments: Marketing the Sport 299.pdf (197 KB)


nigel99  (D 1)

Jul 8, 2013, 2:32 AM
Post #30 of 58 (3068 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rustywardlow] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Our CI believes all skydivers should have done at least 1 CRW jump.

I know it's not a canopy coach rating, but I think good canopy flying skills are sorely neglected. We should be seeing far more activity in theatre of all round canopy skills.

Harking back to the days of static line is wrong though (I learnt on static line rounds). Canopies of today need a new level of tuition - we all are happy to pay freefly or rw coaches, or pay for tunnel time, and yet most are happy with a single canopy course!


jumpwally  (D License)

Jul 19, 2013, 7:33 AM
Post #31 of 58 (2562 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Great article and commentary....


robinheid  (D 5533)

Jul 19, 2013, 10:54 AM
Post #32 of 58 (2530 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpwally] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

jumpwally wrote:
Great article and commentary....

Tanks monn...

Cool
44


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Jul 28, 2013, 6:50 AM
Post #33 of 58 (2477 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rustywardlow] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Not necessary


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Jul 28, 2013, 6:50 AM)


yoink

Jul 30, 2013, 1:37 PM
Post #34 of 58 (2398 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

robinheid wrote:

In a rational, reality-based world, training would start with static line/IAD jumps where the sole focus is on learning how to use the gear generally, and learn basic canopy control and navigation specifically.

Basic Parachute Training instructors would be qualified separately from AFF instructors. Individuals may hold both ratings, but in no case could an AFF-only instructor teach a BPT course without a BPT rating.

Students "graduate" from basic parachutist training when they met the requirements, which would include being able to:

[snip]


Hey. USPA. Do this.


*include exiting safely in the basic parachutist training.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Aug 2, 2013, 3:34 AM
Post #35 of 58 (2095 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Apprenticeship is a far superior method of learning than courses.

The best method involves both...people do their apprenticeship time, then attend a course to polish their skills and fill in any gaps. It also is a great way to increase standardised methods of instruction, which leads to clearer understanding, and safety, across the board.

Sometimes the apprentice does not get everything needed because the mentor is also deficient in some areas, and occasionally teaches some things badly or completely incorrectly.

Many times I've observed very experienced instructors do things in such a way, that if they attended a course I would fail them.

I agree with Robins ideas completely, I've never thought AFF catered properly for thorough first jump training, and have always been uncomfortable with that. I think the number of open canopy fatalities is directly related to the quality of training the jumper received in their initial training.

The comparison with initial pilot and scuba training is completely apt.

Methods of instruction should always be a process of continuous evolution, AFF is definitely deficient in important areas, and initial training needs to be re evaluated and changed.

Changing ingrained mindsets is the bigger problem however.


peek  (D 8884)

Aug 2, 2013, 4:42 AM
Post #36 of 58 (2086 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

obelixtim wrote:
Many times I've observed very experienced instructors do things in such a way, that if they attended a course I would fail them.

I would love to hear some of the examples you have seen. Can you describe any?


obelixtim  (D 84)

Aug 2, 2013, 5:37 AM
Post #37 of 58 (2074 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

 
In reply to:
I would love to hear some of the examples you have seen. Can you describe any?

Briefly:

An experienced instructor gear checking a student and failing to notice the hooks on the shoes which snag lines during deployment. (I've seen this one many times. demonstrates an alarming lack of awareness)

Arriving at a first jump training session with no equipment to show the students, then continuing the training using skydiving jargon with out explaining what these words meant, then abusing the students who failed to pick up things that he omitted from his training (this was a DZO and Chief Instructor). I've never seen such a bewildered group of students.

Another who regularly low dumped, thus setting an example for his students.

Operators who still put students out on military surplus equipment, or who use ragged out gear.

Operators using non rated jumpers to supervise low timers.

Operators who knowingly use aircraft with timeex components.

Those are just a couple off the top of my head. And most were in countries that I was visiting.

I have advised quite a lot of intending jumpers where NOT to go.


peek  (D 8884)

Aug 2, 2013, 6:32 AM
Post #38 of 58 (2064 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

obelixtim wrote:
Quote:
In reply to:
I would love to hear some of the examples you have seen. Can you describe any?

Briefly: ... ... ...

Thank you for the examples. It is a shame that you have seen that many.


obelixtim  (D 84)

Aug 2, 2013, 6:51 AM
Post #39 of 58 (2063 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

 I've been around for a long time, and I tend to take an interest in what is going on at any new DZ I visit.

Back in the day we set up a system of courses to overcome these very problems on a national basis. After a horrendous few years of carnage we had to do something about it.

Standardising training and equipment was the only way to go, although its easier to do with a relatively small skydiving population. The student incident/fatality rate fell to zero, and has remained that way for many years.

Difficult as it may be to implement in bigger countries, the principle remains valid, and Robins' ideas are very much the way to go. Training has not evolved at the same pace as equipment/ new disciplines.

I've forgotten a whole lot more examples of bad practise that I've seen over the years. I think it might be alz...alz...you know what I mean!!!.Wink


Deisel  (D 31661)

Aug 2, 2013, 11:39 AM
Post #40 of 58 (1984 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

These are all indeed good examples. But they all revolve around an issue that has been discussed many times on these boards; instructor continuing education. There has yet to be a plan proposed (that I’m aware of) to address this. It seem that everyone is fine with the status quo; get your rating and it’s good for life. Shouldn’t there be some type of recertification that involves spending some quality time with an IE? But of course, that will cost time and money so it’s not practical…


(This post was edited by Deisel on Aug 2, 2013, 11:41 AM)


obelixtim  (D 84)

Aug 2, 2013, 12:34 PM
Post #41 of 58 (1975 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Deisel] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

 Its true that nothing beats practical experience, and many instructors improve as they gain experience. and never stop questioning and learning.

But there is a danger, especially at small DZ's that things become very insular. and things are done the same way over and over, which is good in some ways, but when methods and ideas go past their sell by date, its time to change things a little. This sometimes doesn't happen.

On the other hand, at big DZ's things become a bit like a factory, and the individual becomes "the product" and things can be a bit too impersonal, and small things can be overlooked.

I would suggest a course/seminar where to retain your I rating you would be required to attend, maybe a long weekend every 3, 4, or 5 years. A meeting of instructors can be a great place for getting differing viewpoints and cross pollination of ideas.

If time and money are the issue, a weekend every 5 years shouldn't really be a problem especially if its a condition of retaining a rating.

Failing that a travelling I/E that visits DZ's to assess, observe and offer advice could be organised. If it is approached in a positive waythen it would be of benefit to DZO's and rated personnel alike.

Prolly this would fall into the "too hard" basket for some of the egos out there, but it would have benefits, because despite what a few people think, learning never stops. I'm pretty sure the best instructors would agree with me and would be happy to demonstrate their skills to an observer (who can also learn new tricks).


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Aug 2, 2013, 4:33 PM
Post #42 of 58 (1927 views)
Shortcut
Re: [peek] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

peek wrote:
Thank you for the examples. It is a shame that you have seen that many.

He is in the majority as to seeing all that, plus more. None of those issues would I claim as uncommon.

If you're interested, I have another specific one:
An AFF Level 1 student (no aviation background) teaching the AFFI how too read the winds aloft charts.
I did the FJC and the jumping was delayed by weather. During the weather hold, the student was asking questions. One was what is the winds aloft board for. I explained it to him.

When the jump was prepping, the AFFI told him to fly a pattern that, at the time, would have been a downwinder. The student pointed out the chart AND noted the winds by observation.
The AFFI says, "I don't go by the4m charts. I don't even know how to read it."
Student says, "Let me show you. These numbers right here mean....."

True story.

It only points out the failures of the AFFIC....passing people who have very little real skydiving knowledge and then expecting them to pass proper methods, techniques and knowledge on to the students.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Aug 2, 2013, 4:33 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Aug 2, 2013, 4:37 PM
Post #43 of 58 (1921 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

obelixtim wrote:
I'm pretty sure the best instructors would agree with me and would be happy to demonstrate their skills to an observer (who can also learn new tricks).
I'll not comment on the quality of my instruction but I certainly agree with you on this.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Aug 2, 2013, 4:47 PM)


robinheid  (D 5533)

Aug 3, 2013, 10:52 AM
Post #44 of 58 (1671 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

popsjumper wrote:
peek wrote:
Thank you for the examples. It is a shame that you have seen that many.

It only points out the failures of the AFFIC....passing people who have very little real skydiving knowledge and then expecting them to pass proper methods, techniques and knowledge on to the students.

That's because essentially every "AFF" course instructor is an "AFF" graduate. When you build sand castles on sand, it's no wonder they don't stand the test of time, tides or tiddlywinks.

Cool
44


diablopilot  (D License)

Aug 3, 2013, 12:08 PM
Post #45 of 58 (1670 views)
Shortcut
Re: [obelixtim] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Proposed this idea to the S&TA committee 5 years ago. It went nowhere.


Deisel  (D 31661)

Aug 4, 2013, 1:08 PM
Post #46 of 58 (1494 views)
Shortcut
Re: [diablopilot] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Maybe it's time to take another run at it. It's possible that with five additional years of data, they may be more receptive. Especially if there is support from the instructor community. Was the idea presented at a standardization meeting? What do the IE's have to say?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Aug 4, 2013, 6:57 PM
Post #47 of 58 (1408 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

robinheid wrote:
popsjumper wrote:
peek wrote:
Thank you for the examples. It is a shame that you have seen that many.

It only points out the failures of the AFFIC....passing people who have very little real skydiving knowledge and then expecting them to pass proper methods, techniques and knowledge on to the students.

That's because essentially every "AFF" course instructor is an "AFF" graduate. When you build sand castles on sand, it's no wonder they don't stand the test of time, tides or tiddlywinks
That and there is no requirement for AFFICDs to even ask about the candidate's knowledge...much less test for it.


Bignugget  (A License)

Aug 5, 2013, 3:00 PM
Post #48 of 58 (1295 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

robinheid wrote:


Enjoy the read. Feedback appreciated.

Cool
44

Interesting article on Marketing techniques and student retention.

But I didn't notice a proposal on how to ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting, understanding aerodynamics, and teaching new students in the article?

I thought that was what is being discussed, not how to retain more tandem students?


robinheid  (D 5533)

Aug 5, 2013, 4:53 PM
Post #49 of 58 (1283 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Bignugget] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

Bignugget wrote:
robinheid wrote:


Enjoy the read. Feedback appreciated.

Cool
44

Interesting article on Marketing techniques and student retention.

But I didn't notice a proposal on how to ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting, understanding aerodynamics, and teaching new students in the article?

I thought that was what is being discussed, not how to retain more tandem students?

Thanks for your feedback.

I do not propose ways to "ensure AFF-I training is complete and comprehensive when it comes to canopy piloting."

I declare that "AFF" should be summarily executed because it is a fatally flawed system that is pedagogically psychotic and thus fundamentally incapable of providing "complete and comprehensive" basic canopy pilot training.

Please go back to post #12 and read my comments from there on through the end of the first page and you will see within those posts an outline to replace "AFF" as the basic parachute training course with something that is pedagogically more sane.

Go to post #24 for three documents on how do better deliver basic parachute training.

Cool
44


Bignugget  (A License)

Aug 5, 2013, 8:07 PM
Post #50 of 58 (1246 views)
Shortcut
Re: [robinheid] Should Aff Instructors also have a Canopy coach rating or higher. [In reply to] Can't Post

I did read those.

I liked the idea of the course..

"Module One Jumps

1-2. Execute basic pre-flight procedures; then follow an instructor
under canopy to familiarize with basic parachute control and
pattern flying. Ground video of jump.

3-4. Follow instructor through toggle control and riser control
procedures, and landing pattern.

5. Solo jump. Perform basic wing envelope measurement
procedure (aka Play With It Procedure) and execute the basic
landing pattern.

Module Two Jumps

6. Spot with instructor supervision, then follow instructor
through basic pattern accuracy procedures and land in half
brakes; ground video of jump.

7-8. Solo jumps. Perform and refine spotting, and accuracy flying
and landing procedures; ground video.

9. Follow instructor through basic riser control flying
procedures, then follow the instructor through the basic
pattern, including a straight-in riser dive approach and flare.
Ground video.

10. “Show the leader” jump. Spot without instructor assistance,
follow instructor through basic riser control flying
procedures, then lead instructor through basic landing and
accuracy approach. Ground video."


Most of that is covered in the requirements to get your A license is it not? I am all for learning more about canopy piloting, but if you are proposing to add another layer of training prior to AFF (or whatever you want to make freefall training prior to licensing called) how do you propose that will make the sport more accessible financially and time dedication wise?

That's why I was confused by the article about student retention.

It seems to me MORE work and MORE money to get a license won't be an incentive to join the sport.

Again, I am all for learning about piloting a canopy, have read some canopy piloting books, and made arrangements to take canopy courses... but I knew how to fly a pattern and land in a 150ft circle after AFF. I don't really see what you are trying to accomplish that couldn't be done by tweaking the A license requirements and the A license structure to (better?) include those items you mention in your proposal....

To be fair to the BOD member who said he was unaware of the stuff you published...it was published when I was like 10 years old. I was unaware of it also. Not everyone can keep up on every article from the last 20 years.


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Instructors

 


Search for (options)