I can't take credit for the proposal. I got it from Denete. I had asked him to post it in here somewhere but evidiently he hasn't received my note as yet. On the face of it, I loved the idea so...
We have the A Progression cards (2-page and 4-page versions). We all know the value of them when they are used and used properly.
How about progression cards for all the other licenses too? B-license Progression cards listing skill and knowledge requirements to obtain the license. C...D...Pro...etc.
Candidate comments? And others?
(This post was edited by popsjumper on Nov 18, 2008, 5:23 PM)
Re: [popsjumper] New Education Proposal
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I'm not opposed to the idea. As a matter of fact, I like it, it could well tie in with the solo challenge that USPA has come out with. It could be another carrot to increase Jumper retention if played right.
Here is a likely response if it's brought up in committee:
Do we have a need for it? How much will it cost? What good will it do? We all ready have the requirements on the application form.
Now through my background before skydiving I can see the benefit. Sometimes repackaging something can generat interest and participation, both in the student and instructor.
Another hurdle to overcome is the fact that USPA Staff is BUSY. It's hard for them to take on another task that can be seen as low priority or even unnecessary. One goal of mine should I be elected or not, is any project I bring before the Board, I'd like to have at least 75% of the work done, or a plan to get it done with out overtaxing HQ staff.
On that note, if anyone has the opportunity to talk to HQ staff, please thank them for the job they do.
Re: [popsjumper] New Education Proposal
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Along JP's thoughts I think they already live just need to be "repackaged". OF course it would be a cool thing either way to hand the next license requirments to the jumper so they can put it in the log book and see it every time they log jumps.
(And yep I still paper log all my jumps and teach my students the same, as well as explain ot them all the IT lingo they hear about logging.)
The SIM already lists the requirements for the B, C and D licenses very succinctly on page 13 and online There are sign-off blocks on the license application.
Re: [popsjumper] New Education Proposal
[In reply to]
Can't Post
it actually could and should be pretty simple to do. Add a few pages to the "standard" log book, one for each license and as you "qualify/complete" have an instructor or D license holder on the jump(s) sign off then once all completed all the requirements take the written test and you're done.....or something similar, it isn't that hard really and will add only a few cents, a dollar at the most to producing a log-book, or produce a "license log-book" just for this.
as Jan said the SIM already has the information.
(This post was edited by collinb on Nov 19, 2008, 2:36 PM)
Re: [popsjumper] New Education Proposal
[In reply to]
Can't Post
I had the privledge of sitting down with Jimmy Hayhurst 10 years ago. He had come up with a discipline rating system that USPA never adopted. It gave newer jumpers a "roadmap" to success. If they were interested in RW, they started to complete the RW1 card. Once completed, they then could go on to the RW2 card, then RW3 and finally RW4. There would be 4 cards for all disciplines, RW, FreeFly, Skysurf, Freestyle, etc. Additionally, the cards could be added to the membership card. When a new jumper shows up at a DZ with a card that states RW4 and FF3, you then know the true experience level of the jumper. More importantly, it gives the newer jumpers a path to sucess.
Re: [MakeItHappen] New Education Proposal
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Quote
There are sign-off blocks on the license application.
How would a proficiency card be different?
That is exactly what I was thinking. Repackaging the existing requirements into separate proficiency cards seems like an unnecessary expenditure of time and money. If there are ideas to add requirements for each license i would like to hear them.
Re: [diablopilot] New Education Proposal
[In reply to]
Can't Post
If you're talking about the ISP, that was more of a reinvention than a repackaging. It integrated all student training disciplines and the instructional rating system, and put all of the training guidelines in one place.
As far as first jump marketing goes, that has been a continuous process to grow the sport and worth the money and effort IMO.
What motivates people to pursue higher licences? There are people that have been skydiving for years with enough jumps for a D license that only hold an A because it allows them to do what they want in the sport. People who want to attain ratings certainly go after licenses because they are a requirement for the ratings they seek. They are going to do so whether the requirements are listed in the SIM and license application or a proficiency card.
Rating proficiency cards provide proof of pre-course experience requirements all in one place, but those requirements are much more numerous than licenses (jump numbers, free fall time, accuracy, maneuvers, test score). The current license application works fine for me, and access to the SIM in this age of the internet has never been easier.
If there are additional training gates to be added to each license level, and they become more numerous, then a proficiency card becomes more practical as it mirrors the purpose for the rating proficiency cards. If there are ideas about adding training gates to each license requirements I would like to hear about them.
Re: [popsjumper] New Education Proposal
[In reply to]
Can't Post
Like others who have already responded, I'm not sure that I see the difference between the existing license applications and what you're proposing, although perhaps we could benefit from new "packaging" or marketing of those license applications.
Another thing that we could do is to encourage the use of an existing proficiency card - the Canopy Piloting Proficiency card. It seems like not too many people know about it, yet it's a great tool for a jumper to have skills to work on for canopy piloting. The card is designed to be used as part of a canopy skills course, but there's nothing that says that it can't be used by an individual jumper as well. Jumpers using the card outside of a structured course would need to supplement it with sections 6-10 and 6-11 of the SIM.
There's a lot of great tools and information that's already been developed - the trouble is knowing about it. I think USPA and individual dropzones can do a MUCH better job of helping developing jumpers to use these tools.
