what can a coach sign versus what can an instructor sign

[SivaGanesha 2]

There was an email that just went out from USPA saying that some licenses are being denied because Coaches are signing skills cards where only an Instructor is allowed to sign.

Can anyone clarify this for me a bit? I have everything in Category A-E signed off by an Instructor. For Category F-H there is a note that says "Under the supervision of a USPA Instructor, a USPA Coach may train only the freefall portions of Categories E-H".

I have some stuff in Category F-G (not everything) now signed off. Some of it was signed by a Coach who (I believe) is not an Instructor. Will this be a problem? How can a Coach do their job if only an Instructor is allowed to sign?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[NWFlyer 2]

Coaches do their job under the supervision of a USPA instructional rating holder. So, we conduct the training, and request that a USPA instructional rating holder actually sign off the card based on our assessment that the candidate has met the skills requirement.

As for your situation, you'll probably want to ask an instructor to "co-sign" the sections of card that the coach signed, just to make sure that the application is kosher. Shouldn't be a big deal.

"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

[Reginald 0]

You're misreading the email. It applies to license application cards. Likely you've never seen one. This is different from your A license proficiency card. Basically, as long as an Instructor singes off on you final A license you have nothing to worry about.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

You're misreading the email. It applies to license application cards. Likely you've never seen one. This is different from your A license proficiency card. Basically, as long as an Instructor singes off on you final A license you have nothing to worry about.

Wait, now you've got me confused too. For the A license, don't students just fax in their proficiency card (whether it's the 4-page or 2-page variety)? Looking at the forms on the USPA web site they're entitled "A License Proficiency Card and Application" (2-page) and "A License Progression Card and Application" (4-page).

The Application Form on the web site only applies for B-D licenses.

http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/LicensesampRatings/Licenses/tabid/87/Default.aspx

"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

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Wait, now you've got me confused too. For the A license, don't students just fax in their proficiency card (whether it's the 4-page or 2-page variety)? Looking at the forms on the USPA web site they're entitled "A License Proficiency Card and Application" (2-page) and "A License Progression Card and Application" (4-page).

The Application Form on the web site only applies for B-D licenses.

http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/LicensesampRatings/Licenses/tabid/87/Default.aspx

Yes and the email from USPA today definitely specifically mentions A licenses so they aren't just talking about the higher licenses.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[riggerpaul 1]

It will be interesting to see if USPA really sticks to their guns on the A license and proficiency card issues.

I have asked USPA the question about what coaches can sign off a couple of times. and gotten different answers each time.

The bottom line was that the individual items on the proficiency cards were not actually checked by HQ. HQ would check the final authorizing signature. They admitted that, especially in the case of the 2 side proficiency cards, they knew that many dropzones were having coaches mark the individual blocks, and that HQ didn't have the resources to check each and every spot.

That information was in an email I have from HQ that was in May of 2008.

As I said, it will be interesting to see if they really intend handle proficiency cards differently from that description. If they didn't have the staff to check everything then, I don't see how they would be able to do it now.

Regarding the other license applications, I have no doubt that they really want all the i's dotted and t's crossed.

[azureriders 0]

Quote

You're misreading the email. It applies to license application cards. Likely you've never seen one. This is different from your A license proficiency card. Basically, as long as an Instructor singes off on you final A license you have nothing to worry about.

Not true.

If you are using the 4 page A license card, which it sounds as if the original post is, then a coach may only sign the blocks marked with a "C", Pilots may only sign blocks marked with "P", riggers may only sign blocks marked with "R", and Instructors may sign any block on the card.

If you are using the 2 page A license card, every block must be signed by an Instructor.

An A license card is an application and can be denied if the above is not followed. However, as was stated above, having an Instructor co-sign 'should' be sufficient.

As for the question of how does a coach do his job if he can not sign the card, I often wondered the same thing when I was only a coach. Now I am an AFF Instructor as well as a Coach Examiner. When a student and coach bring me a card to sign off blocks, I ask questions, mostly about the why of things. Why do you think you have to perform two swoop to docks to get an A license, etc etc. If they give me the right answers, I know my coach is doing a good job. It is a huge help in knowing that I actually supervising, even though I am not actively involved in the skydive.

Some people think coaches are the weak link, personally I think unsupervised coaches and/OR Instructors who do not properly supervise coaches are the weak link. I have some great coaches who work under my supervision, but still I would not want them signing all blocks on A license applications and therefore reducing the amount of supervision they get.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

You're misreading the email. It applies to license application cards. Likely you've never seen one. This is different from your A license proficiency card. Basically, as long as an Instructor singes off on you final A license you have nothing to worry about.

Not true. Look at the cards. Both the 2 page and the 4 page (which I prefer).

If you see an I next to the blank for an initial, then it me an Instructor. C/I means Coach or Instructor, R/I Rigger or Instructor, and P/I is Pilot or Instructor.

In addition the application signature on the back of cards MUST also be a VALID and CURRENT Instructor.

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

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

If you see an I next to the blank for an initial, then it me an Instructor. C/I means Coach or Instructor, R/I Rigger or Instructor, and P/I is Pilot or Instructor.

In addition the application signature on the back of cards MUST also be a VALID and CURRENT Instructor.

So then USPA's email sent today could be seen to contradict that (quote below is from the USPA newsletter). Guess it depends on what they mean by "skill table."

Quote

Who Can Sign Off?
Periodically, the membership department has to deny an applicant’s request for a USPA license. One area that seems to plague members, including rating holders, is who may verify a license.

The SIM (SIM, Section 3-1.D) allows any current USPA Instructor to sign each skill verification block and the final verification for A, B and C license applications. A current USPA Instructor may also sign each skill box for a D license, but the final verification signature must be a current S&TA, Examiner or board member.'

Even though a USPA Coach rating is part of the overall instructional rating system, a Coach is not an Instructor and may not initial the skill table or sign the verification box.

It may be helpful to ask your S&TA to review the application before it is submitted to avoid delays in obtaining your new license.

"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

[redramdriver 0]

Not directed at you specifically Krissy....I agree with some of this BS and some I don't. Why in the world don't we just get rid of the "Coach" rating in the first place??? It doesn't make anyone's "JOB" easier as in the terms of an "Instructor". If USPA wanted any "rating" to be the biggest bag of crap holders, it would be the identifier of coach. Lets just all have an instructional mindset for a minute. Just b/c someone teaches a student the 1st JC, and someone else actually jumps with them, who in the world decided that one person's rating WAS NOT INSRUCTIONAL in nature??

USPA!!!!!

So, all of us speak out against all this "not an instructor" bs. Its just politics anyway. If I have to have an "I" to sign off on a students proficiency card, then lets all just say were all "I" competent. Get rid of the coach rating alltogether. Because we all know that Coaches are suspossed to teach for free and jump for free...and that Instructors get monetary benefits from having an I.
My .02

So, you bring your beer?

Its 5 o'clock somewhere
POPS #9344

[azureriders 0]

Quote

who in the world decided that one person's rating WAS NOT INSRUCTIONAL in nature??

Quote

IRM Coach Rating Course 1.A.1
USPA Coach is the first of three instructional ratings USPA administers, followed by Instructor and Instructor Examiner.

Anyone who thinks a coach rating is not instructional in nature is missing the whole point of the rating in the first place.

Quote

It doesn't make anyone's "JOB" easier as in the terms of an "Instructor".

YES, the coaches that work under my supervision make my job way easier. So much in fact that there is no way I could turn over the work load that I do with out them. Period and no more discussion needed on this from my point of view.

Quote

If USPA wanted any "rating" to be the biggest bag of crap holders, it would be the identifier of coach.

As quoted before, a coach rating is the first Instructional rating of three. Just by the nature of things, an entry level is going to be easier to obtain than a more advanced level, no matter what subject we are speaking of. Unfortunately, that also means that there will be some that obtain the entry level with out truly deserving it. Some that just squeak by, and even more that after obtaining the entry level, decide that teaching is not for them and then decide not to pursue further.

Quote

then lets all just say were all "I" competent.

Why stop there, once we are all "I" rated, lets all just say we are all "I/E" competent. This way the day after we start teaching skydiving, we can turn right back around and start teaching others to teach skydiving. Yeah, that sounds smart




It all comes down to the fact that we need levels of instructional ability and responsibility. Call them Coaches or Jump Masters, call them Course Directors or Examiners. It doesn’t really mater what you call them, as long as they are in place.

There are plenty of entry level Instructional rating holders (Coaches) out there that do a great job assisting the Instructors, but have no where near the experience or ability to jump with first time jumpers. Obviously this is just one example of there limitations.

Instructors make up the core of our Instructional rating hierarchy, but similar to coaches, there are still limitations. Most Instructors are not ready to train other Instructional rating holders. This is where the upper level rating (Examiner) comes in.

The Examiner rating comes with the most responsibility, and rightfully so is the hardest rating to obtain. There is a ladder system even within the Examiner ratings, as a Coach/E is much easier to obtain than an I/E. If you look even closer, you will see that there are only 2 or 3 people in all of the USPA teaching the IERC (Instructor Examiner Rating Course). This is obviously the hardest level of Instruction to reach and completing the Instructional ladder.

All of these ratings work together by utilizing the ability of each teacher, and yet not overloading, or placing too much responsibility on anyone who is not ready for it. Personally I think the ladder of ratings in the USPA has just enough steps, not needing any more, and at the same time unable to stand for any less.

Some people still insist that our Coaches are the weak link in our instructional rating system. In actuality, the Examiners, DZOs, S&TAs, and Instructors are by far weaker than the coaches. These are the people who pass out coach ratings like candy, allow coaches to work outside of their limits, and fail to provide the proper supervision that our young INSTRUCTIONAL RATING HOLDERS need in order to perform their job to its fullest.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

You're misreading the email. It applies to license application cards. Likely you've never seen one. This is different from your A license proficiency card. Basically, as long as an Instructor singes off on you final A license you have nothing to worry about.

Thats not fully correct... There are two types of A cards in the US. The 2 sided one and the 4 part one. A coach can sign off some of the tasks on the 4 part one. Coach can not sign anything on the 2 part one..

This is the email that the op was taking about

Who Can Sign Off?
Periodically, the membership department has to deny an applicant’s request for a USPA license. One area that seems to plague members, including rating holders, is who may verify a license.

The SIM (SIM, Section 3-1.D)

D. Verification of Application

1. Experience verification: The certifying official should verify that the number of jumps and total freefall time are correct and meet the listed requirements for the license sought.

2. Skill verification: Jump numbers, scores, or date of completion require the initials of a current USPA Instructor, S&TA, I/E, or USPA Board member.

3. Knowledge verification: For the B and C license, the certifying official should record the qualifying exam score on the application.

4. Signature Verification: Applications for all licenses must be signed by an appropriate official (as listed in this Section) before the application is forwarded to USPA Headquarters.

a. USPA Instructors may verify A, and B, and C licenses.

b. S&TAs, I/Es, and USPA Board members may verify any license application.

5. Federation Aeonautique Internationale (foreign non-USPA) to USPA license conversions

a. Jumpers who hold an FAI equivalent license may apply for USPA equivalent license without completion of the USPA A License Proficiency Card or A License Progression Card.

(1) A USPA rated instructor must verify the FAI license of the applicant.

(2) A copy of the license must be included with the USPA license application.

(3) All other license requirements for USPA B, C and D licenses must still be verified and initialed by a USPA Instructor.

b. The USPA license application and a copy of the FAI license must be submitted to USPA Headquarters for processing.

6. USPA will charge a separate license fee for each license number issued.)
allows any current USPA Instructor to sign each skill verification block and the final verification for A, B and C license applications. A current USPA Instructor may also sign each skill box for a D license, but the final verification signature must be a current S&TA, Examiner or board member.'

Even though a USPA Coach rating is part of the overall instructional rating system, a Coach is not an Instructor and may not initial the skill table or sign the verification box.

It may be helpful to ask your S&TA to review the application before it is submitted to avoid delays in obtaining your new license.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[tdog 0]

Quote

You're misreading the email. It applies to license application cards. Likely you've never seen one. This is different from your A license proficiency card. Basically, as long as an Instructor singes off on you final A license you have nothing to worry about.

Wrong. A student, who's 2-page A licence card I signed the bottom line on, as an AFFI, and other AFFIs signed the check dive and verbal quiz - was rejected by USPA because of unauthorized signatures. It sounds like, from what I was told, the USPA saw a coach signed one of the accuracy landings or other line items...

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

You're misreading the email. It applies to license application cards. Likely you've never seen one. This is different from your A license proficiency card. Basically, as long as an Instructor singes off on you final A license you have nothing to worry about.

Wrong. A student, who's 2-page A licence card I signed the bottom line on, as an AFFI, and other AFFIs signed the check dive and verbal quiz - was rejected by USPA because of unauthorized signatures. It sounds like, from what I was told, the USPA saw a coach signed one of the accuracy landings or other line items...

I sent an email to HQ and got a quick response confirming what tdog is saying.

The gist of it is that, though they are not always actively checking all the verifications, if they happen to notice one from an unauthorized individual, they will now reject the application.

In the past they had told me that they were not checking the verifications except for the final authorization, and that it was essentially the dropzone's choice who would fill in the verification blocks.

This no longer the case. They might not check every verification on every application, but if they find a unauthorized verification, they will reject the application.

[tdog 0]

Quote

I sent an email to HQ and got a quick response confirming what tdog is saying.

Ok... So maybe we need to ask the USPA to change some rules and policies.

My view, as the instructor signing the bottom line, I want to see everyone who helped the student along the way, and their progression.

There are lots of real good coaches who are more than qualified to verify that a student used their rear risers, landed within X feet of a target, or was able to explain what an RSL or AAD are.

If the USPA requires instructors to sign every line, not coaches, then instructors are going to pencil whip lines when "coaches working under them" are doing the work... So as the instructor signing the bottom line, I won't see the student's accurate learning progression - or worse yet, when I quiz the student and they answer incorrectly, I don't know which coach to confront...

So, I believe the 2 page card should be accepted with coach signatures along the way, with only a few blocks that only an instructor is qualified to handle clearly marked, "An USPA coach is not authorized to sign this block".

In the long run, the instructor who signs the bottom line needs to know which coaches helped the student along the way as they will be held accountable for knowing who helped the student.

"Working under an Instructor's supervision" means that each coach should be able to put their signature on the line to take accountability for what they taught instead of hiding behind the signature of an instructor.

I love seeing coaches work with students, and at least at my dropzone, I trust all of them to inspire and teach. I want them to be able to sign the card as it is their signature that proves they did the work and are willing to take credit for their work, and take accountability for their workmanship.

Rant over. Anyone else agree?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

I sent an email to HQ and got a quick response confirming what tdog is saying.

Ok... So maybe we need to ask the USPA to change some rules and policies.

My view, as the instructor signing the bottom line, I want to see everyone who helped the student along the way, and their progression.

There are lots of real good coaches who are more than qualified to verify that a student used their rear risers, landed within X feet of a target, or was able to explain what an RSL or AAD are.

If the USPA requires instructors to sign every line, not coaches, then instructors are going to pencil whip lines when "coaches working under them" are doing the work... So as the instructor signing the bottom line, I won't see the student's accurate learning progression - or worse yet, when I quiz the student and they answer incorrectly, I don't know which coach to confront...

So, I believe the 2 page card should be accepted with coach signatures along the way, with only a few blocks that only an instructor is qualified to handle clearly marked, "An USPA coach is not authorized to sign this block".

In the long run, the instructor who signs the bottom line needs to know which coaches helped the student along the way as they will be held accountable for knowing who helped the student.

"Working under an Instructor's supervision" means that each coach should be able to put their signature on the line to take accountability for what they taught instead of hiding behind the signature of an instructor.

I love seeing coaches work with students, and at least at my dropzone, I trust all of them to inspire and teach. I want them to be able to sign the card as it is their signature that proves they did the work and are willing to take credit for their work, and take accountability for their workmanship.

Rant over. Anyone else agree?

I hope that it was clear that I only meant to amplify/support what you said.

And, yes, I'd like to see coaches be able to verify more things, just as you do.

Anyway, as I said, it sort of used to be that way. But that was perhaps only with a lot of winks coming from HQ.

So, on the one hand, I am glad they've stepped up and made the requirements clear now, but on the other hand, I don't much like that they further restricted the value of my Coach rating.

I'll probably let my rating lapse at the next renewal. It won't really mean much of a change to me. Mostly mostly just that USPA won't see my renewal fee. I'll still be spending the time I can with the new jumpers, as I did before I had the rating anyway.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

So, on the one hand, I am glad they've stepped up and made the requirements clear now, but on the other hand, I don't much like that they further restricted the value of my Coach rating.

But they really haven't clarified (IMHO they've obfuscated), unless they're planning to also change the 4-page license card, since it still has certain boxes that can be initialed by a coach or an instructor.

"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

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Quote

I sent an email to HQ and got a quick response confirming what tdog is saying.

Ok... So maybe we need to ask the USPA to change some rules and policies.

My view, as the instructor signing the bottom line, I want to see everyone who helped the student along the way, and their progression.

There are lots of real good coaches who are more than qualified to verify that a student used their rear risers, landed within X feet of a target, or was able to explain what an RSL or AAD are.

If the USPA requires instructors to sign every line, not coaches, then instructors are going to pencil whip lines when "coaches working under them" are doing the work... So as the instructor signing the bottom line, I won't see the student's accurate learning progression - or worse yet, when I quiz the student and they answer incorrectly, I don't know which coach to confront...

So, I believe the 2 page card should be accepted with coach signatures along the way, with only a few blocks that only an instructor is qualified to handle clearly marked, "An USPA coach is not authorized to sign this block".

In the long run, the instructor who signs the bottom line needs to know which coaches helped the student along the way as they will be held accountable for knowing who helped the student.

"Working under an Instructor's supervision" means that each coach should be able to put their signature on the line to take accountability for what they taught instead of hiding behind the signature of an instructor.

I love seeing coaches work with students, and at least at my dropzone, I trust all of them to inspire and teach. I want them to be able to sign the card as it is their signature that proves they did the work and are willing to take credit for their work, and take accountability for their workmanship.

Rant over. Anyone else agree?

I definitely agree. Of course, I'm a coach at your DZ.

I also agree with what Paul said above. By making this assertion, the USPA has further marginalized the Coach rating. As if it wasn't already a joke to begin with.

Don't get me wrong - I see the value in an 'introductory' rating. But 100 jumps has always seemed a little low to me. That's why I waited until I had 280-ish jumps & ~13 hours' tunnel time before I got my Coach rating: so I could feel like I actually had something of value to teach.

Still, if people are put through the vetting in a USPA-approved course, they should be trusted with some degree of autonomy. Not saying lots of things shouldn't be left to an instructor - but signing off on someone doing a braked approach is different from signing off on someone doing their A-license check dive.

By further handicapping the rating and not allowing Coaches to accept responsibility for what they've taught, what's the point of this rating besides raising more cash for Coach examiners (& fees for the USPA)?

Perhaps the better solution would be to raise the minimum req's for coaches, instead of doing our best to make sure their role is insignificant. 200 jumps has always sounded like a better number to me.

If I wasn't about to go for my AFFI rating, at this point I'd likely let this rating lapse. The USPA seems to be hell-bent on attracting 100-jump wonders (who just want a badge of honor) for the Coach rating, and driving experienced jumpers who want to teach to simply go through an all-in-one Coach-and-AFFI-Rating course.

Signatures are the new black.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Not directed at you specifically Krissy....I agree with some of this BS and some I don't. Why in the world don't we just get rid of the "Coach" rating in the first place??? It doesn't make anyone's "JOB" easier as in the terms of an "Instructor". If USPA wanted any "rating" to be the biggest bag of crap holders, it would be the identifier of coach. Lets just all have an instructional mindset for a minute. Just b/c someone teaches a student the 1st JC, and someone else actually jumps with them, who in the world decided that one person's rating WAS NOT INSRUCTIONAL in nature??

USPA!!!!!

So, all of us speak out against all this "not an instructor" bs. Its just politics anyway. If I have to have an "I" to sign off on a students proficiency card, then lets all just say were all "I" competent. Get rid of the coach rating alltogether. Because we all know that Coaches are suspossed to teach for free and jump for free...and that Instructors get monetary benefits from having an I.
My .02

The Coach is the new JM...an entry-level instructor who works under the supervision of more experienced instructors. In my opinion, such a stepping stone needs to remain in place.

Of course, I also pay my coaches...not a lot, but a bit. If you want to get paid like the I's on your DZ, go get an I rating.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[azureriders 0]

There are a lot of very good points here. All of which may not be exactly online with my views, but very valid all the same.

I do agree that 200 jumps (or more) would be a "better" requirement. I have however trained a couple of 100 jump wonders who made great coaches, they just require a bit more supervision. They are taught in my course to seek out, as well as accept this supervision. I have also had a candidate or two with 900+ jumps who was asked to come back later when more prepared. As with most things in skydiving, it is not all about the numbers, IMO.

Back to the signing issue. I do agree that coaches should be able to sign more than they are, and at the same time think it imperative that they not be able to sign all the blocks on either card.

I too trust the coaches at my DZ to do a good job, and I am continuously checking to make sure that happens. It does happen often though that I am signing off a check dive and stamping a card for someone who has received training at multiple DZs. In this case I do not know all the initials on the card and honestly it would make me feel better that it was an instructor that I don’t know, rather than a coach I don’t know, who had signed this guy off on his swoop to dock, etc.

Quote

what's the point of this rating besides raising more cash for Coach examiners

This one made me laugh. For the examiners who make a living doing such, I have no problem believing another big coach course will help there bottom line. However, for the work that most Coach Examiners put into a single course, well let’s just say we don’t do it for the money we are making.

Good thread, lots of good points.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

As with most things in skydiving, it is not all about the numbers, IMO.

+1, wholeheartedly.

Quote

Quote

what's the point of this rating besides raising more cash for Coach examiners

This one made me laugh. For the examiners who make a living doing such, I have no problem believing another big coach course will help there bottom line. However, for the work that most Coach Examiners put into a single course, well let’s just say we don’t do it for the money we are making.

Like I said, I had little respect for the coach rating until I got one myself...at which point I recognized all coaches are not created equal. But since the bar is set so low as far as numbers go, it seems that anyone who identifies themselves as a USPA Coach had best be prepared to be identified as an X#-jump wonder...as well as for the surreptitious [snicker] that follows the phrase 'USPA Coach'.

I think most of us agree that if the USPA wanted to make this rating meaningful, they would raise the bar higher, instead of setting it lower.

Signatures are the new black.

[azureriders 0]

Quote

the surreptitious [snicker] that follows the phrase 'USPA Coach'.

I guess this is the basis for my difference of opinion on a lot of coach related discussions, as there is no snicker following 'USPA Coach' at the DZ that I work at. I can honestly say the rating is respected there, and rightfully so as we do have some good coaches working there.

I do still understand that this is not the case all the time and to a degree I understand why. There are definitely some guys that are in and out occasional at the DZ with coach ratings that do not work there regularly and that I do not want coaching my students. There are also plenty of TIs running around that I would prefer not to use their Coach ratings at all. (whole other topic and I am not trying to bring that up here, just my observation.)

I was at another DZ once doing some RW when the "Head Instructor / S&TA / Pilot for this load" informed me that there was a A license required hop and pop going out and if I minded double checking the guys spot and gear, I said no problem, then he followed up with a statement to the point that the student had a coach with him, but you know.........
I honestly didn't get it; if he has a coach, what is it you want me to do again? Until after I observed the coach at work. No gear check, no instruction or teaching, just "get out". Ok, now I understand why I was asked to help. But again, I will point out that this was not a 100 jump wonder coach, the guy had over a 1000, just no respect for the rating nor the job he was charged with doing.

I guess the point to my rambling is, I do understand that there is a lack of respect for coaches out there, and rightfully so based on the actions of some. However, as I said up post, this is the fault of the Coach/Es, S&TAs, DZOs, and AFF/Is that allow this type of sub par instruction to take place. I think the system we have in place is pretty good and works well when implemented well, all the way down to the coach rating.

I also do not believe that the 100 jump requirement is the problem for any all of this. I do not see that many coach rating holders with under 2 or 300 jumps anyway. The ones that I do see, seem to take the job much more serious than the 1000 jump coaches. At times this can make the lower numbered guy a better coach. JMO.

If you think that the USPA Coach rating is a meaningless rating, I would charge you with the task of going out and being the best Coach there ever was and therefore raising some respect for the rating. If you hold a higher rating, show some respect for your coaches and demand a higher standard from them, that would help the system better than anything else you could do. (Again my opinion and not directed directly at you LloydDobbler)

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

I also do not believe that the 100 jump requirement is the problem for any all of this. I do not see that many coach rating holders with under 2 or 300 jumps anyway. The ones that I do see, seem to take the job much more serious than the 1000 jump coaches. At times this can make the lower numbered guy a better coach. JMO.

I would tend to agree with you there. But I have also heard/seen numerous arguments - both in person and online - between very experienced jumpers and someone with 110 jumps who justifies his position by, "I'm a USPA Coach. I know what I'm talking about." It seems to happen much more often with the 100-ish-jump coaches.

As I see it, this is where that snicker tends to come from. I recall a thread on dz.com where a user was arguing about docking technique, and pulled out the Coach card. He was arguing with a guy named Kirk Verner.

I think at 100 jumps there's a tendency to think you know it all...and at 200-300 jumps you start getting a little closer to realizing that you'll never know it all. To me, it's that sense of humility and self-awareness that seems crucial for an instructional rating holder to possess.

Quote

If you think that the USPA Coach rating is a meaningless rating, I would charge you with the task of going out and being the best Coach there ever was and therefore raising some respect for the rating. If you hold a higher rating, show some respect for your coaches and demand a higher standard from them, that would help the system better than anything else you could do. (Again my opinion and not directed directly at you LloydDobbler)

Well said. It's been my experience that if you raise the bar and expect a higher standard from someone, they'll rise to the occasion.

The problem is, by further handicapping the rating, the USPA is doing the exact opposite. They're taking the 'lower the standards and make it easier' approach.

I do recognize that it's a double-edged sword - if a coach isn't ready for that responsibility, you don't want to give them more autonomy/authority than they can handle. But IMO the answer to that is to make it tougher to get the Coach rating - to raise the bar - so that you're more confident that those who get it know what they're doing. The opposite approach only serves to lessen the rating's meaning. (I know we're pretty much arguing the same thing here - I just wanted to bring it back to the USPA, more in-line with the thread's original topic).

Signatures are the new black.

[redramdriver 0]

Couldn't agree more! When coaches are instructing, and you trust that coach to teach well, and are confident in their abilities, then their signature is their credential that the student has sucessfully passed that level of training. It is your job as an Instructor to teach your "coaches" to become better "instructors".

So, you bring your beer?

Its 5 o'clock somewhere
POPS #9344

[redramdriver 0]

Dave,
Nothing wrong with working under the supervision of an Instructor. I agree completly. The point I was making was this:

If a Coach is "working", "teaching", "instructing", at your or any other DZ, then I see it as "instructing" students. USPA is minimilizing the act of "coaches", but we all know how important and vital that coaches are at dz's.

What the hell is wrong with the system, is that so many have decided that the "coach" rating is not an instructional level rating! BS! Who teaches most 1st JC's? Coach's! I guess thats not instructional in nature?

And, as long as you pay them a little, not a lot mind you, I'm sure you have a lot of happy coach's. The point again wasn't the amount that they are being paid if any, but I for one am so tired of other jumpers, Instructers, and DZO's who think and feel that "coaches" should work for free.

Mark

So, you bring your beer?

Its 5 o'clock somewhere
POPS #9344