Do you think a canopy courses should be required?

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

Quote

Back to the hour or so of calssroom time

An hour? Seriously?

Covering what many have established to be general topics to be covered and explained, an hour doesn't give near enough time.

+1 Also the video of your landings is one of the best parts of the course! For you and a good instructor to be able to see and pick apart your landing to show you how you can better your landings.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

An hour? Seriously?

Covering what many have established to be general topics to be covered and explained, an hour doesn't give near enough time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


+1 Also the video of your landings is one of the best parts of the course! For you and a good instructor to be able to see and pick apart your landing to show you how you can better your landings.

You have to keep in mind that this needs to be general course. There has to be a balance between what people need to know, and what people will be willing to sit through and pay attention to. It's already been mentioned earlier in this thread that a priem motivator for the students paying attention is that they are paying for the course out of their own pockets. With a required course, you're going to be removing a large part of that motivation.

On that subject, I see this course as being very inexpensive, something on the order of $5 or $10 a head, just to cover the instructors time. Lets keep in mind that I'm still looking at an hour or so of classroom time as the entire course.

Why would I exclude the jumps? I know that this is the most exciting part, and yes, you can learn quite a bit from a video and a debrief of your landings. The trick to this is that it takes a MUCH more experienced and talented instructor to effectively handle this part of the course. It's no secret that the current crop of guys running the courses available now are not only highly experienced canopy pilots, but also talented instrcutors as well.

If you were trying to recreate these courses at every DZ across the country, this is where you'd run into trouble. Finding a jumper with the experience, ability, and most importantly, the time and willingness to run the course. Making the jumps a required part of the course would either make it an impossibility due to lack of instructors or give the course dimished value due to sub-standard instruction.

By keeping the course to classroom time, you make it much easier to ensure that the information is correctly and completely taught in a consistant manner from DZ to DZ. I think you'd be surprised how much your average 50 jump or less jumper does not know about canopies, how they work, and how to use them. Additionally, you make the logistics of running a course 100 times easier, and in turn boost the chances of them being run in the first place.

Can a DZ choose to include jumps? Sure. Could a jumper take away an interest in canopy control, and choose to seek out a course including jumps? Also yes. It could lead to alot of things, but in the beginning you need to start off slow, and work your way into a bigger and more complex situation. Let's give the Scott Millers out there some credit for what they have accomplished, and realize that not just anyone can do what they do.

[kelpdiver 2]

Ok, I'm going to rephrase - if this requirement is an hour of talk (I've seen safety day discussions go longer), what's the point?

That's not a canopy course anymore. I'd like each DZ to spend at least that much time just on the subject of landing direction.

[brucet7 0]

Required? I would like to have one close enough so I could go. Haven't seen one in my area, though I have only been jumping for a year.

POPS #10623; SOS #1672

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

On that subject, I see this course as being very inexpensive, something on the order of $5 or $10 a head, just to cover the instructors time. Lets keep in mind that I'm still looking at an hour or so of classroom time as the entire course.

Kind of like the course I teach, I ask for a couple hop-n-pops to be put on my account (if they can afford it) and/or a cold beer after the class.

An hour isn't enough time to cover a general course. One that covers different types of stalls, flat turns, bail out maneuvers, accuracy and patterns.

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Kind of like the course I teach, I ask for a couple hop-n-pops to be put on my account (if they can afford it) and/or a cold beer after the class.

An hour isn't enough time to cover a general course. One that covers different types of stalls, flat turns, bail out maneuvers, accuracy and patterns.

Let's not gethung up on the one hour time frame. Just to be accurate, I did say 'an hour or so' figuring it would be more than an hour and less than two. The size of the class, and the number and nature of questions the students have will have an effect.

As far as the class you offer, remember that your students are there by choice. These are people who have come to the conclusion that they need the information you are presenting, and that you are qualified to present it. In the case of a required course, it's possible that neither of those factors will be present, and so you run into the need to balance the attention span of the student vs. the information you choose to present.

Much like ISP, or the FJC at most DZs, the course structure and content will grow and develop over time. Start off with simplicity, and continuously evaluate the outcome in order to focus and hone the final product.

[Kami-kaze 0]

I am living in Germany now, but when I was in Australia few years back, I flew to USA just because it is te Mecca of skydiving. I still believe that one gets the most professionaly orientated instruction there. Man, it's easier for you guys to travel to the DZ's living there so you can attend courses...and you do have more skydiving population base to educate potencial instructors.
cheers

[JohnDeere 0]

I do understand what you are saying. I also do not believe one hour is not close to enought time. I would have to beleive a min. of 3 to really get something out of it. It would also not have to be at every DZ. In smaller states you could prob. have one instructor in every 2 or 3 states ( like a tri state area). In texas maybe one north and one south. In arizona, cali, florida, etc... there would prob. have to be several more?. Maybe not even as many as i suspect. Also beleive me i would NEVER insist that an instructor of the caliber of Miller could be reprodused easyally.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[kallend 1,634]

A canopy course requirement would undoubtedly save more lives than the night jump requirement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnDeere 0]

I agree completly! I also beleive it would be better than water training. Not saying water training isnt good, but it was suited tord round canopys.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I also do not believe one hour is not close to enought time. I would have to beleive a min. of 3 to really get something out of it

I can't see this as being a reality. Due to the fact that 'qualified' canopy course instructors do not grow on trees, these courses will be taught by instructors who have been 'taught' the course. These people will largely be pulling from the written cirriculum, and won't have the same ability as the Scott Miller types do to stand there and go on for hours, while stil making sense and staying on track.

Of equal importance is attention span you can expect of the student. There will be limit to that, as well as the amount of info we can expect the 'average' jumper to absorb in a single setting.

Quote

It would also not have to be at every DZ. In smaller states you could prob. have one instructor in every 2 or 3 states ( like a tri state area). In texas maybe one north and one south.

If you are indeed trying to replicate a full canopy course, then yes, you will run into this situation, but not by choice. You'll be limited to this by the small number of instructors you'll have.

But it does need to be available at every DZ, like the live water training. By keeping it simple, you can have an AFF I, or the S&TA run the course at every DZ.

The USPA would never get behind something they thought to have an unreasonable level of effort to achieve, especially if that thing was to be a requirement (aka roadblock) to one of their liscenses. Let's face it, this idea has been presented to the USPA types several times, and they have yet to back even the simplest of ideas. Making it more difficult or more complex isn't going to help matters.

[klingeme 0]

Quote

Quote

....I beleive it should be done before B lic. I think A is a basic lic. and should stay that way. Also (good) instuctors are sometimes limited. Before anybody says that there are not enought instuctors...... If it became a requirement more quality canopy pilots would start to teach! Supply and demand Awould come into effect.

Put me solidly in the "make it a requirement" camp.
When? Hmmmm...I voted "before A" simply because I feel the sooner the better but I'm still thinking on it.

We do already have a Conopy Control Progression Card of sorts. The CC courses use it, I'm sure.

For those who voted "big boys and girls", I ask you:
That's what we have going now and with the current state of things, it's obvious that that approach is not working. Too many getting hurt under good canopies.
Most, by far and away, are choosing NOT to take any advanced instruction of canopy control and you see where it's leading, right?

For those who would willingly avoid obtaining a higher license because of additional training requirements...I'm not sure I want to be jumping with those attitudes anyway. I feel let down when I come across those attitudes.

And you are right, John...there is the problem of training availability right now but that can be fixed. Train the trainers.

Along this line, should DZO's be REQUIRED to designate someone as a "canopy course instructor" and what are the rewuirements for this designation? I personally live in Florida and canopy courses happen all the time around here, but for a little 182 dropzone to be required to fly in a Scott Miller or Luigi for anyone that wants an A, B, C, or D license is asking a lot. What would stop them from taking their "most experienced" instructor (maybe only 1,000 jumps) and making them their "instructor"?

Mark Klingelhoefer

[skybytch 259]

Quote

What would stop them from taking their "most experienced" instructor (maybe only 1,000 jumps) and making them their "instructor"?

Nothing. It doesn't take a Scott or a Luigi - or even a swooper for that matter - to teach basic canopy control.

It's entirely possible that an instructor with only 1000 jumps could be very good at teaching and coaching basic canopy control. It's not hard to video landings, nor it is difficult to figure out if someone is flaring too early, too late, reaching and/or not finishing their flare.

There are lots of instructors out there who could teach the course that is outlined in the SIM. It's a matter of them taking the time to do it...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The USPA would never get behind something they thought to have an unreasonable level of effort to achieve, especially if that thing was to be a requirement (aka roadblock) to one of their liscenses. Let's face it, this idea has been presented to the USPA types several times, and they have yet to back even the simplest of ideas. Making it more difficult or more complex isn't going to help matters.

But implementing a minimal version just because it's easier isn't going to help matters either.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.