0
2shay

coach rating jump requirements

Recommended Posts

maybe 200-250 thereis no magic number as i said boosting the standards would only help shorten the gap of incompetent teachers and that goes along with the skill of flying and teaching. The jump numbers are just a basis. As i said in my last post quality over quantity this is the wrong sport to take the risk of iggnorance.
don't try your bullshit with me!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

maybe 200-250 thereis no magic number as i said boosting the standards would only help shorten the gap of incompetent teachers and that goes along with the skill of flying and teaching. The jump numbers are just a basis. As i said in my last post quality over quantity this is the wrong sport to take the risk of iggnorance.



What kind of ignorance is acceptable? By comparison to Peek, Billvon, or Bill Booth, you and I are both incomparable, ignorant morons.
By comparison with any jumper with say...10 jumps, you and I are skygods.
On the other hand, there is a newbie rigger in the Gear forum that doesn't understand flat packing vs propacking, and another rigger that didn't know what an MLW is. One of them claims 100,000 jumps, while the other claims 500+ jumps. IMO, neither one of them should be riggers, but I'm not the rigger examiner, so my opinion doesn't matter. But at the end of the day, these guys that are FAA certified to pack reserves don't know about flat-packs, propacks, and MLW's. That's basic stuff that even a low-number jumper like me understands.
So where do you draw the line? USPA, after a lot of discussion, input, arguing, whatever, determined that 100 jumps is sufficient to be a coach. You could set the number at 150, 200, 300...and still leave a percentage unhappy with the baseline. Look at all the threads bitching about how low the requirements for an AFFI rating is. Look at the bitching about how low the TM rating is...
As long as there are jumpers with numbers greater than the rating requires, and as long as there are jumpers with lesser numbers than the rating requires, the only people who will be at the least, accepting of the benchmark, are those that aspire to it, and those that are near that rating goal.

For me, I'm well past the numbers you're wanting a coach to have, so it's a moot point, personally. But I sure as hell wish there had been a 100 jump coach to help me out when I was just getting going. During a busy tandem season, AFF season, and the C/D license "Jump with my buddies" time, it's tough to find a D license holder that has time to jump. 'Course, if you want the newbies to sit around all day in hopes of jumping with someone of quality, now you've got a great program for getting folks to want to come back to the DZ.:S(tongue in cheek, in case you didn't get it)
Unless of course, the student in question is a cute lil' lady. Then *everyone* wants to jump w/her.
Do you have your coach rating? Been through the process? Do you jump with newbies on your own dime?

[edited to add] doesn't matter what industry you're in, incompetent teachers exist at every level. Years of experience don't ameliorate idiocy, it just means they've got years of experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

maybe 200-250 thereis no magic number as i said boosting the standards would only help shorten the gap of incompetent teachers and that goes along with the skill of flying and teaching. The jump numbers are just a basis. As i said in my last post quality over quantity this is the wrong sport to take the risk of iggnorance.



I'm getting some really mixed messages here. Quality over quantity seems to agree that low jump numbers can be okay - is this what you're saying? Also, doesn't shifting this training to non-rated jumpers open the door for some very sketchy "instruction" for advanced students? Sure seems like there's more "risk of ignorance" in that route.

As far as the magic number goes, what exactly are you planning to ask USPA to do then? As a suggestion, maybe it's more appropriate to require a C license, which at least has some additional breadth of experience requirements than simply asking for 200 jumps. The bottom line is figuring out a way to develop junior instructional staff more effectively. What effect does increasing the jump number requirement have on that, if any?

Just out of curiosity, did you try to help the new coaches that you saw making the mistakes cited in the original post? If so, what did you do? If not, why not?

Lance

edited for spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not convinced that the jump numbers matter as much as the flying & teaching skill sets needed to instruct students well.



I agree.

Teaching skill or lack thereof varies by person, not number of jumps. For flying skills, the jumps done in the certification course adequately represent what's going to happen with a "student" with 8+ jumps. If someone with 100 jumps is capable of being "there" on those jumps, why shouldn't they have the rating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


OTOH, someone who has 100 jumps over 2 years has _seen_ a lot more than someone with 100 jumps in 3 months. Different skills, both valuable. It's a tough call as to which is 'better' in a coach.



This summarizes my thoughts completely. I'm working on the coach rating right now and I have over 700 jumps, fly well, and speak in clear language. I don't think the skills required for this rating are beyond someone with 100 jumps, but what everyone must understand is that the coach jumps must be under the supervision of an instructor rated jumper. Coaches earn their rating by being tested by rated jumpers, not the USPA, they are then allowed to jump with students by permission of the dropzone staff, not the USPA.

A lot of what I'm hearing here is exactly what everyone rants about in other threads, that the USPA or FAA should get out of their hair because we can do it ourselves. So I say that if you don't think it's being done right then get rated and do it right yourself. Don't just sit there and criticize from the sideline.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that was in refference to not being enough coaches. I would rather see some good ones rather than a lot of so so ones. Also if you read my first post it was that i posted this for those who wanted to voice their concerns with folks at uspa not to sit here and further substantiate my opinions.

Joel
don't try your bullshit with me!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I would rather see some good ones rather than a lot of so so ones.

We have both today, which I think is how it should be. Want to learn vertical moves? Get a good RW coach. Just want someone to help you learn not to backslide? Get someone with 100 jumps and a coach rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what learning vertical moves has to do with (USPA) coaching. Hiring an RW coach isn't what's being talked about. It's about students jumping with USPA coaches to finish the requirements for the A-license.

I doubt I've met anyone with 100 jumps that has the skill to jump with students and provide them with really useful feedback. But if there are people like that out there, great, give them ratings. If dropzones are hiring coaches that can't stay with students or can't teach them effectively, whether the coach has 100 jumps or 1000, they're short changing their students.

But is bad coaching worse than no coaching? 8 years ago I didn't get any real instruction beyond the 7 AFF levels. I'm sure I could have learned a lot from someone with 100 jumps who was also able to pass the evals of the coach course, assuming they didn't get off easy!

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm not convinced that the jump numbers matter as much as the flying & teaching skill sets needed to instruct students well.



I agree.

Teaching skill or lack thereof varies by person, not number of jumps. For flying skills, the jumps done in the certification course adequately represent what's going to happen with a "student" with 8+ jumps. If someone with 100 jumps is capable of being "there" on those jumps, why shouldn't they have the rating?



I don't think a course lasting a couple of days transfers much in the way of teaching skills. Just my opinion, of course. as someone who's been teaching since 1968.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't think a course lasting a couple of days transfers much in the way of teaching skills. Just my opinion, of course. as someone who's been teaching since 1968.



That's true, but at least it gives a new coach a foundation from which to work. Sure seems better than nothing. Conversely, I'm sure we've all encountered teachers who've been teaching badly for a long time. Neither is ideal.

If a candidate goes to the coach course fully prepared, they should have already spent a reasonable amount of time at their home DZ working on both teaching & flying skills. Again, this goes back to the responsibilities of the chief instructor to only sign a candidate's card if they believe that he or she has the necessary skills.

Lance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

that was in refference to not being enough coaches. I would rather see some good ones rather than a lot of so so ones. Also if you read my first post it was that i posted this for those who wanted to voice their concerns with folks at uspa not to sit here and further substantiate my opinions.

Joel



Everyone would prefer great coaches, which would lead to phenomenal AFFI's in most cases, yes?
But as posted in the other thread,
Quote

"That's like a one eyed dude with thick glasses leading the blind. "

but it's better than no one helping out/instructing anyone.
You'd rather leave smaller DZ's with no one at all due to the smaller pool?
Either way, you're right on one level,...folks should voice their opinions to the USPA on either side of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I doubt I've met anyone with 100 jumps that has the skill to jump with
>students and provide them with really useful feedback.

I've met a few. To me it has far more to do with teaching ability than with skydiving skill.

>But if there are people like that out there, great, give them ratings. If
>dropzones are hiring coaches that can't stay with students or can't teach
>them effectively, whether the coach has 100 jumps or 1000, they're short
>changing their students.

I agree there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There has been a lot of talk of coach jump requirements.



I agree...

Here is my proposition...

REMOVE ALL JUMP NUMBER REQUIREMENTS from the coach rating. 1 or 1,000 jumps - I don't care... It is about:

Passion to teach

Passion to learn

Ability to teach

Ability to learn

If a course evaluator was doing his our her job correctly, they would know without asking jump numbers if the candidate is ready to coach...

I consider myself still a novice, however I am an AFF instructor and have no problems handing off students to coaches with limited experience so as long as they teach and motivate well and don't over advertise their ability...

There is nothing about jump numbers that says anything... Jump numbers are for people who think some number makes them smarter, sexy, or have a bigger Johnson...

I honestly don't give a crap about jump numbers...

A very well respected AFF course director said to a candidate who passed the AFF course with the minimum requirements: "You are the future of the sport, you have used modern training methods like tunnels, and advanced coaching, to achieve what people years ago could only dream of. The old timers who are so set in their ways are going to have to either change their attitude, or get out of your way as you pave the new path."

So, give me a petition that says, "All rating canidates will be evaluated on a strict set of documented and uniform required skills, and shall not be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation, ethnicity, appearance, jump numbers, or training methods."

I would sign that petition in a heartbeat... Who cares about jump numbers, all it proves is someone knows how to punch a hole in the sky. I care about ability to motivate, ability to mentor, and ability to share knowledge...

Honestly, when I look for a coach for myself, I have never asked, "how many jumps do you have?" It does not matter. What matters is their ability to communicate, to teach, and to want to teach!!!!:$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>REMOVE ALL JUMP NUMBER REQUIREMENTS from the coach rating. 1 or 1,000 jumps - I don't care...

I would agree with that PROVIDED we have a truly skills-based certification (as opposed to a "well we really need AFF instructors so we're going to get this batch out there." take on it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>REMOVE ALL JUMP NUMBER REQUIREMENTS from the coach rating. 1 or 1,000 jumps - I don't care...

I would agree with that PROVIDED we have a truly skills-based certification (as opposed to a "well we really need AFF instructors so we're going to get this batch out there." take on it.)



I think those course directors should be removed from the system. I know of one right away I would suggest, but I would never say publicly....

I know a few people who asked, "who is the easy evaluator?" I always tried to find the hardest. Earning a rating should be earning, not giving...

It is the evaluators who are screwing up, not the ones with low jump numbers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

maybe when I have 134 jumps I'll be entitled to have an opinion.

You'll be surprised with how much you learn in those 101 jumps. I know I was.

I think my 100-jump coach was awesome. He explained what I needed to know, and was good enough in the air (great when compared to me at the time) to show me where I was lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think those course directors should be removed from the system. I know of one right away I would suggest, but I would never say publicly....



So, if you don't say or do anything, who will?



I have to pretty high ranking people at the USPA... But that won't help, this is a good olde boys club. And to people seeking ratings who ask me privately who to go to. (I don't say who NOT to go to, but I say who I like instead.)

I am doing my part by sending the candidates (and their money) to the good guys... If we all did that, the bad guys would not have the money to support their business. Just another way to make change when politics won't allow it higher up the food chain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you've told "high ranking people at USPA" but how are they supposed to deal with it when their instructor/examiners are buddy/buddy, or when the evaluator in question is maybe a reseller or buyer of whatever the evaluator has for sale or is buying?

I can't help but keep looking at the threads in the Rigging forum where someone comments "He bought his riggers ticket from XXX" and then some unnamed person is referred to. Then a couple others that clearly shouldn't have passed the riggers cert post about MLW's and "what is it."
In other words, if it goes to the top, it goes to the top at all levels, yes?
I worry more about a rigger not knowing how to flat pack or not knowing what a main lift web is than I'd worry about a 100 jump buddy that has a coach rating.

this sport needs more "friendlies" helping bring and retain skydivers, not fewer, IMO.

BTW, Bob Dino...you're a hero of a coach. when did you start helping out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I agree.

Teaching skill or lack thereof varies by person, not number of jumps. For flying skills, the jumps done in the certification course adequately represent what's going to happen with a "student" with 8+ jumps. If someone with 100 jumps is capable of being "there" on those jumps, why shouldn't they have the rating?



Agreed. Just have to take into account that the relationship of good vs bad coaches is the same in the 100 jump group as in the 1000+ jump group. Just a general population distribution so to speak.

So, you could have very inexperienced people going up with newbies. And the newbies are full of shit.

I'd rather be up with someone with 1000 jumps who is full of shit than someone with 150 who's full of the same.

Beside, everyone knows the 100 jump coach rating is all about bragging rights. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would hope that for most people it has nothing to do with bragging. I jump at a small dz and most of the students that make jumps are still in the early parts of progression. I would like to become a coach to help out the other instructors when the students get close to the end of the licensing process. If I was able to jump with students without a rating I would do it. I want to be active in the process of student progression because I want to help continue to get new jumpers licensed.
Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of how good you are in a tunnel or on your 4-way team at 10, 100, 1000 jumps, or how good you are as a teacher, there are some aspects of skydiving that REQUIRE the experience that only comes with having made a bunch of jumps.
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, you've told "high ranking people at USPA" but how are they supposed to deal with it when their instructor/examiners are buddy/buddy, or when the evaluator in question is maybe a reseller or buyer of whatever the evaluator has for sale or is buying?




I addressed that in the last post... I know I can't expect the USPA to pay attention to me. Clearly there are politics at play, so as a low level non-elected jumper, my solution is recommending the good guys so the money and business makes the good guys more successful.

Now, I am not working off second hand knowledge. I evaluated coaches for one of the course directors. This person did not pay me a dime, and did not have enough people helping, so I ended up having to evaluate 4 people in one day for both ground and air evals when I only agreed to 2. I have also studied under (been evaluated under) three other course directors, so I had three other people to compare this director to.

These candidates paid the full fee, but the instructor did not teach the core fundamentals I was EXPECTED to know for my coach and AFF ratings. These candidates wanted to be AFFIs in the future... They wanted to learn. They needed to learn for their goals.

After all of them were going to fail due to automatic unsats on the eval form - I ended up saying, "guys, why are you not doing XXX". They said, "what is XXX?" When I quizzed them, they did not know from the IRM most of the stuff, as they did not fully read or study the IRM in the course.

Now we are not talking very detailed nuts and bolts, but instead things that are right on the eval form. For an example, I said, "What is Whole, Part, Whole"? (the 5th thing to be tested) and no one knew.

At the end of the evaluations I got the guys to understand and perform to a level I would expect. They all had the flying skills, but had not been taught the fundamentals of the USPA program.

One candidate told me, "He was terrible, I owe you for teaching me all this, I appreciate it. I wish I could get my money back from him and give it to you."

So, what we can do as friends helping other friends getting a rating - refer them to the good guys. Where the money goes, so will support for future operations. Where the money leaves, so will their ability to continue to not do a good job.

Also, when you see someone who is working for a rating, be a tough evaluator/mentor. Make sure they have the knowledge so everyone will say, "ya he has only 100 jumps, but he earned his rating and is doing a great job."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Regardless of how good you are in a tunnel or on your 4-way team at 10, 100, 1000 jumps, or how good you are as a teacher, there are some aspects of skydiving that REQUIRE the experience that only comes with having made a bunch of jumps.



Yes, that is the beauty of all of us learning from all of us... Just because someone has a rating, does not mean they can't stop learning.

Hopefully all of us will continue to seek info from the very experienced guys... But you don't need to always jump with someone with millions of jumps, as everyone has knowledge they can share that has value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0