Do you need a "big name" for a basic skills canopy course?

[NWFlyer 2]

A comment skybytch made in this thread brought back a question I've mulled around in my mind for a while and which comes up (at least indirectly) on here a lot when people ask "Should I invest time/course fee/travel cost to go to [insert big-name canopy course] here?" [In this context, when I say canopy course, I'm talking about the "basic/fundamental skills" courses aimed at the "standard pattern" jumper, not those aimed at people trying to work on high performance canopy skills]

I'll state up front this is not meant to be anything against the big name canopy courses or their instructors. The folks who have spent a lot of their time and energy to develop and refine the courses they (and their successors) teach today deserve much credit for taking that on. That said, there's a limited supply of "big names" (and their time is not unlimited, either) and it seems like there's probably a place for local instruction to supplement.

I've taken Scott Miller's course back when he was still teaching, Brian Germain's course, and a course taught by local instructors (based on the Flight-1 curriculum), I'm curious as to whether people believe that you need a big name to have a successful canopy course.

I personally got a LOT out of each of the courses I took (at various points in my skydiving career) and I like the fact that local courses are being taught at my DZ so it's super-easy for me to do a course as a refresher every year or two. I was very happy with the quality of instruction locally, but I have called that out as a possible con below depending on the available folks at a dropzone.

My thoughts:

Pros of the big name:

They are typically a known quantity - their courses and instructors have a reputation and history teaching canopy control.

The big name might draw in students who might not otherwise be drawn to a canopy course (the "ooh I can learn from this skygod" thing can be a powerful motivator).

Cons of the big name:

The cost is necessarily going to be higher as the instructor's travel costs have to be taken into account and those costs are generally totally or partially funded by the students.

There's also the possible discrepancy between what a "big name" would charge for their time vs. a local instructor, which is another discussion in and of itself.

Another con is that a dropzone is typically only going to bring in someone from the outside once a year (or less frequently) as there is an up-front cost to scheduling the course and the DZ will want to make sure it is recouping the cost of holding the course.

Pros of local instruction:

Ability to offer classes more frequently/reach more people. If your instructors don't have to travel, it's a lot easier to put a 1-day class on the calendar several time a year.

Ability to provide ongoing feedback/have ongoing involvement in the students' development. If most of the attendees are local jumpers and you teach at that dropzone, it gives you a chance to continue supporting their learning on a more informal basis after the class is over.

Cost can be much lower as you're not including travel costs.

More flexibility to reschedule courses due to weather.

Cons:
Not necessarily a known quantity in terms of instructor quality.

Not a known quantity in terms of course content/quality (though this can be mitigated by using some of the available tools/curricula out there).

Lack of "big name" draw (for most DZs, of course, some have the big names resident).

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Glitch 0]

Don't need a "big name".... just some confidence that the course instructor knows wtf they're talking about and has something to teach me. ...lord knows I got lots to learn!

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[DocPop 1]

You summarized the main points in my mind very nicely.

I think more canopy education is better*. Whatever we can do to get people to attend has to help, be it the attraction of a Big Name, or the lower cost of the local instructor. So, I guess there is a solid role for both.

*the one condition is that it has to be of a certain standard. There is so much misinformation being spouted by people with an instructor rating when it comes to canopy flight that an uncontrolled explosion of self-professed canopy instructors could perpetuate these non-facts. Examples of the sort of things I am thinking of include flying in turbulence and getting back from a long spot.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[diablopilot 2]

How about we forget the "size" of the name and go on practical experience and teaching ability.

I've seen some "big name" courses where the "instructor" doesn't hold a rating of any sort, and may have a couple thousand jumps, but when they are all high performance hook turns how can they really teach anything else?

How about you look for someone who has experience on a 50 to 100+ different parachute designs and sizes. Someone who has shot not only high performance hook turns but classic accuracy. CRW experience, and has a history of teaching students from first jump?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

How about you look for someone who has experience on a 50 to 100+ different parachute designs and sizes. Someone who has shot not only high performance hook turns but classic accuracy. CRW experience, and has a history of teaching students from first jump?

That seems like a qualification that would eliminate all but a few people. Is that what you were going for?

I started this thread to see if we could get some thoughts on how to actually expand the availability of canopy education; your proposal seems like it would keep the ranks of canopy instructors fairly small. Am I missing something?

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[DocPop 1]

Quote

That seems like a qualification that would eliminate all but a few people. Is that what you were going for?

I started this thread to see if we could get some thoughts on how to actually expand the availability of canopy education; your proposal seems like it would keep the ranks of canopy instructors fairly small. Am I missing something?

I assume we're talking about teaching the basic-intermediate level rather than someone to help the top 10% of jumpers fine-tune their 450s?

If that's the case then don't think the person necessarily has to have a background in CRW and/or swooping, but there probably should be some kind of qualification which would ensure that they can teach the basics right and can properly carry out a video debrief.

Kinda like the current coach rating - but hopefully with a bit more substance to it.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Quote

That seems like a qualification that would eliminate all but a few people. Is that what you were going for?

I started this thread to see if we could get some thoughts on how to actually expand the availability of canopy education; your proposal seems like it would keep the ranks of canopy instructors fairly small. Am I missing something?

I assume we're talking about teaching the basic-intermediate level rather than someone to help the top 10% of jumpers fine-tune their 450s?

Yes, perhaps I should have been more specific (and I should still be able to edit my original post) that I'm talking about the "basic skills" canopy courses aimed at people who are generally not doing high performance landings.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[JerseyShawn 0]

Being new to skydiving I think it would be worth holding monthly canopy courses for new students to learn as soon as possible what their wings can/cant do. Canopy flight seems to be not touched upon that much during training, and is statistically more dangerous than freefall.

For me, Im really eager for the up coming course at my DZ, but that's not until August Having some training earlier than later would make me a safer flyer for myself and others.

Edit: Big name or not, more canopy courses.

[grimmie 177]

There are "Big Names" and there are "Good Names".

Sometimes as we progress we forget that the school of hard knocks was our teacher back in the day, so to speak. I think older jumpers learned a real common sense approach to canopy skills, and jumping overall. Most progressed with the canopies.

ALL DZ's have jumpers that have a lot to teach. A lot. Sometimes those jumpers just come packaged in grey hair and flying a 170 instead of spiked hair and a 98.

[AggieDave 6]

It doesn't have to be a "big name" but it needs to be someone who is an avid and learned canopy pilot. I've had students taught by good instructors come to me with wrong and poorly taught information. Some of that information is just old outlooks, some of it was flat out dangerous. Just because someone is an AFF instructor doesn't mean that they know how to teach canopy control well. Just because someone has thousands of jumps doesn't mean that they can teach canopy control well. Just because someone is a competitive CRW pilot doesn't mean they can teach canopy control well (or even with correct/safe information for modern 9-cell canopies). Just because someone is a competitive swooper doesn't mean they can teach canopy control well.

There are a number of us around the US who aren't "big names" but are well qualified canopy control instructors who enjoy teaching. There is even a sticky thread in the Canopy Control forum with a lot of us listed.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."