EFS4LIFE 0 #126 October 21, 2012 QuoteCorrect me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach? I think we may be miscommunicating here Jim. You are either unwittingly agreeing with me, or I did too poor of a job expressing my thoughts. That WAS exactly my point! I will be more specific in this post hopefully. My point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach. Now, I contend that an "experienced WSer" - (I just pulled 200 WS jumps from my ass, I would like feedback from the WS community on that final number, but for arguements sake lets say 200 WS jumps defines this "expereinced wingsuiter")- that is ALREADY a USPA instructor should be able to teach a USPA standardized FFC. They have already properly demonstrated the ability to teach, because they are already instructors, i.e. AFF-I, TI, etc. and they are experienced enough in the subject matter, that being wingsuiting, that they should be able to pick up the standard curriculm and teach it. They already teach people that have NEVER skydived before I am sure that they would be fine teaching jumpers that have 200 plus jumps. Remember that with the WS BSR it is a 200 jump min. so this "expereinced WSer" would have at the very least 400 jumps. 200 prior to WSing, and at least 200 WS jumps. Add to that he must be an instructor (AFF-I, TI, etc.) and you are looking at most likely more jumps than that. Do you understand what I am saying? I believe this could work and there is no need for an entire WS-I/E and WS-I program. 1. Develop a standard USPA FFC. Just like the FJC only for WS. 2. Add to the existing WS BSR that a WS wannabe must complete this FFC. 3. Define that the FFC course can be taught by an "experienced wingsuiter" (200+ WS jumps?) that is a current USPA instructor. (AFF-I, TI, IAD-I, etc.) QuoteJust to be clear~ It was EFS4LIFE that made the 'power grab' comment not DSE. Just to be clear. I think bigbearfng was clear and was agreeing with my comment. If not I believe he will correct me. QuoteIF that were the case, trust me the USPA is the last place DSE would be lobbying to get a standardized curriculum instituted. Jim are you mad? That is exactly where he MUST go to get it instituted! Where else could he get this mandated for all skydivers lol. QuoteYou're an LEO, you understand the importance of being objective and not relying on unfounded conjecture. When I hear the Power Grab argument I think - prema facie case, for the record, are ya stating opinion, theory or what. I object - Hearsay ~ you're stating facts not in evidence Me being a LEO has no bearing on my opinion on this matter, however since you want to bring it into the equation, okay I will bite. Do you know what Prima Facie is? (not prema, what the hell is that?) Prima Facie comes from latin, it basically means at first glance. Litterally translated I believe it means at first face. In common law (which we practice) it means evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular propsition or fact. Most all cases require prima facie to exist, then proceedings take place to test it. The speed limit on exit ramps where it is yellow is an example of prima facie law. The regular ones are absolute limits. I can site a person for breaking a prima facie speed limit and the onus is then on the driver to show that the speed he was operating at was safe under the conditions. Too fast for conditions. Per se law is something like the B.A.C. of .08%. The state says you are drunk per se at that level, even though some career alcoholics I know wouldn't even feel buzzed at that level. Further more you need some education on hearsay. Hearsay is where I attempt to submit evidence that I heard from somebody that heard something from somebody else. That is not what is going on here. This is all public knowledge and being discussed on an open forum, that DSE himself is participating in. So yes, Prima Facie, it looks like a power grab to me, and apparently I am not alone in that view. To have your handpicked 7 I/E's controling the entire discipline of wingsuiting in the US is a grab of power, PER SE. QuoteSo again~ how EXACTLY does this power grab take place? By the USPA membership voting yes, creating a little cabinet of WS Czar's that we must all flock to if we want to don wingies. QuoteI see by your profile your time in the sport wouldn't allow you to necessarily understand the what's & why's with that. Jim you could study war history and know a lot about what happened in the American Revolution, but you weren't there right? I don't think your THAT old. Please do not use statements like these. They seem a little condescending towards jumpers that haven't been around as long as you, and from experience it leaves a bad taste in those jumpers mouth. By all means please edjucate us younger jumpers as to your recollection of the history involved, but you can leave out that crap and I bet you would be heard better. I have heard from some guys that have been around since the start of the AFF program the same sentiment that bigbearnfg is referring to. It may have played out that way for some of the reasoning you gave, but it was still an issue. It is a valid concern in this issue as well. In DSE's own post he admitts it will hurt the potenital newcomers to the WS discipline at smaller DZ's. Small DZ's are the majority of places where people jump across this country. Not all of us are lucky enough to be near big DZ's. I believe this idea above could work. DSE of course does not. Apparently, he thinks that our current instructors can't teach, and he must evalute and pass anyone that is going to teach a FFC. That is nonsense. There really is not THAT much in a FFC. Go to one of the schools currently teaching. Hell I bet DSE's is similiar. Half the day on the ground instructing, second half making some coach jumps, bang your done. You are WS qualified. I see no need to institute a whole WS-I/E and WS-I system. It is overkill and will be costly. editied for clarification of prima facie speed vs. absoluteI am an asshole, but I am honest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimjumper 25 #127 October 21, 2012 Actually the post BigBearFNG and Wicked Suits are quoting is mine. And I have been around long enough to see the full evolution of the AFF program. I stand by what I posted and think that there are easier and more cost effective ways to do this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #128 October 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo. I've explained why several times. If you're not able to read my reasoning, I'm sorry. Standardization and "current USPA instructors with 200 jumps" don't go together. Just because someone can fly a wingsuit (or do anything else well) does not make them capable of providing standard, safe information that protects other skydivers, wingsuiters, or DZO's/aircraft. I'm in favor of standardization. That's funny because the USPA allows jumpers with only what 100 jumps that have proven efficiency by passing a coach course to teach first time jumpers the FJC. Hmm that STANDARDIZED. Seems to go together just fine so far. Oh ya but we have students bouncing all over the place right? Seems like a power grab to me. I will let others make up their own mind on this one. I have. Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach? No, it does NOT. It shows that you sat through a few hours of a course on pedagogy taught by someone who doesn't even have to have the most basic professional teaching credential.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #129 October 21, 2012 Quote My point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach. My step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EFS4LIFE 0 #130 October 22, 2012 QuoteMy step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach. Kallend we are not talking about teaching in an actual school, or the credentials required. We are talking about teaching a WS course. I highly value your opinion. You are an experienced WS, and you have shown the ability to think critically. Do you have any suggestions on how the USPA should handle this issue?I am an asshole, but I am honest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #131 October 22, 2012 Quote I believe this idea above could work. DSE of course does not. Apparently, he thinks that our current instructors can't teach, and he must evalute and pass anyone that is going to teach a FFC. That is nonsense. There really is not THAT much in a FFC. Go to one of the schools currently teaching. Hell I bet DSE's is similiar. Half the day on the ground instructing, second half making some coach jumps, bang your done. You are WS qualified. I sure wish you were right. If there was a way to cram a 1.5 day course (not including eval jumps) into half a day...I'd have more time to watch "Storage Wars" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #132 October 22, 2012 QuoteCorrect me if I'm wrong...but doesn't passing the coach course involving demonstrating that you know HOW TO TEACH as well as proving you know WHAT to teach? QuoteMy point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach. This is not true at all. You are talking about book learning. What Coaches learn is some minor pointers on how people learn, minor pointers on how to present information and a whole heapin' bunch of how to regurgitate just two specific ISP jumps. What AFFIs learn is even less than that. Once the regurgitation is successfully completed and the ratings handed out, all the rest of the "schooling" is forgotten and ignored. They are not required to know jack about skydiving in general. So, IMO, if wingsuit I/E course work is going to be anything like Coach and AFFI I/E is done, forget it and come up with something that is going to produce good I/Es all operating off the same page.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #133 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteMy step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach. Kallend we are not talking about teaching in an actual school, or the credentials required. We are talking about teaching a WS course. But that is NOT what the coach course is all about. I fail to see its relevance. If you're concerned with pedagogy, then exempt professional educators from the coach requirement since they've had the real training and actual classroom experience. Quote I highly value your opinion. You are an experienced WS, and you have shown the ability to think critically. Do you have any suggestions on how the USPA should handle this issue? Yes, I do. 1. Standardized curriculum 2. DZO's enforce it. DZO or S&TA nominates I candidates acceptable to them, send nomination packet to USPA RD, who endorses (or not). 3. NO I/E needed. No centralized bureaucracy needed. This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different. 4. No precedent is set for requiring ratings for "advanced" discipline instruction. 5. Post Simon's "Keep Your Wings CLosed" placard by the door to remind experienced folks not to be complacent. Complacency, not inadequate training, is clearly the cause of the problems.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #134 October 22, 2012 Quote4. No precedent is set for requiring ratings for "advanced" discipline instruction. The proverbial "can-o-worms" that nobody wants. Who is next? CrW? Camera? Inflatables? Some guys are seemingly trying to legislate the sport right into the ground.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #135 October 22, 2012 Quote Quote My point is that any course that a current USPA instructor has been through, wether it be AFF-I, TI, coach, etc. contains a very prominent portion of professional develpoment where the instructor-to-be has demonstrated the proper profeciency on what and how to teach. My step daughter, who has a real teaching credential, has to do more continuing education than the entire pedagogical content of a USPA coach course just to maintain her qualification to teach in a junior high school from year to year. Let's not get carried away with the idea that a USPA coach course teaches how to teach. I'm required 120 clock hours of related professional development to renew my teaching license every 5 years. In return, I move up in pay scale to reflect this advanced understanding of teaching practices. If we're going to start these analogies, tread carefully..... Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #136 October 22, 2012 Quote Actually the post BigBearFNG and Wicked Suits are quoting is mine. And I have been around long enough to see the full evolution of the AFF program. I stand by what I posted and think that there are easier and more cost effective ways to do this. I was speaking strictly from my experience will the AFF program back then...and seeing (as I said) what it has become in 'some' instances. I got into the crowd that thought AFF was a grand idea. A great way to teach and get 'student' up to speed faster than the basic S/L course that was commonplace back then. It was fun, and it was a rodeo at times...lucky nobody got dead. USPA got on board and came up with 'rules' and a curriculum and OMG...a RATING! I'd been a S/L instructor for years, why do I need ANOTHER rating to teach skydiving?! (sound familiar) One of the designated So. Cal. AFF-IE's (1st generation) explained it to me and said IF you're as good as you say, the rating should be a breeze... I had to wonder because I saw guys I KNEW were better flyers than me fail...I didn't even try at the time because it was obvious they were pulling only the top talent, dedicated pros that would focus on THAT exclusively (at least for a while)...I wasn't one of those guys. I knew what the quals were, how the program was set up, who was passing, who wasn't & why...that AFF-IE was my room-mate for 10 years. I may have a slightly different view on the evolution of that program than some, having seen it from both sides...but I stand by what I posted as well. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #137 October 22, 2012 Prima Facie comes from latin, it basically means at first glance. Litterally translated I believe it means at first face. In common law (which we practice) it means evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. Quote I understand that..it's exactly what I'm saying. You said Power grab...I re-butt that. Becasue as you point out if someone didn't it would be 'fact'. Power grab...It's not so ~ just because you say it's so. I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. & No I'm not madd, yes I understand that the USPA is the only place to have this program instituted, I also understand that going the 'only' available route pretty much excludes some Power Grab being discussed...that's the point I was trying to make. Unless there is something I'm not seeing...how will this power grab thing work - specifically? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #138 October 22, 2012 So the I/E program is a failure now too? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #139 October 22, 2012 QuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EFS4LIFE 0 #140 October 22, 2012 Power grab...It's not so ~ just because you say it's so. I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.Quote It is so, not because I say so. It is so because it is res ipsa loquitur. The fact that 7 I/E's will control anyone who wants to teach a FFC is by itself a shift of power. DSE is proposing it therefore it is a "power grab" from him. You can argue his MOTIVES for the move for him, but that does not change what it is. QuoteIF that were the case, trust me the USPA is the last place DSE would be lobbying to get a standardized curriculum instituted. I responded the USPA is the only place he could lobby. QuoteI also understand that going the 'only' available route pretty much excludes some Power Grab being discussed...that's the point I was trying to make. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about good sir. You have me thoroughly confused. First you say it is the last place he would go if he was attempting to power grab, and then you say that going the only available route excludes a power grab. I am just a lowly cop man. I can't get your reasoning here. QuoteI challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. Evidence of what? The butler in the library with the candlestick? There is no physical evidence judging someone's motives over the interent, but there are interesting points to be made. One he is keeping details of tailstrike incidents on the "down-low" I believe was his words. In other words he is using an anonymous incident as evidence to support his proposal. I wish that evidence was submissible in court, but it isn't. In court anonymous doesn't exist. Two, he is claiming there are instructors out there at well know WS schools teaching to exit with some unnamed anonymous poor exit technique, but despite repeated requests to name the source he has so far refused. It is clear that a lot of people are split on this issue. I don't think you are going to change your mind, and I am not going to change mine. So we can just let it be what it is. Sadly I believe the vote will pass just because people will do it for "safety" without thinking of the big picture here. Mark my words though. It will not stop tailstrikes. It will cost our association a lot of money, and it is not necessary. It is unprecedented to create a I/E program for advanced disciplines. It is not the road that I believe the USPA should travel down. YMMV.I am an asshole, but I am honest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #141 October 22, 2012 >Come on Bill what wingsuiter that is another instructor and has at least 200 WS jumps >would be teaching open wings on exit? Wasn't there a discussion here about how it's the experienced wingsuiters who are screwing up, not the newer ones? The AFF JCC teaches you nothing about wingsuiting. And if the only addition to that is wingsuit experience, and the experienced wingsuiters are the ones with the problem, it doesn't really help the situation. I don't think it's asking too much to ask that a potential instructor knows the curriculum he's supposed to teach. (And keep in mind that wings-folded-on-exit is one tiny part of it.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #142 October 22, 2012 Quote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EFS4LIFE 0 #143 October 22, 2012 QuoteWasn't there a discussion here about how it's the experienced wingsuiters who are screwing up, not the newer ones? The AFF JCC teaches you nothing about wingsuiting. And if the only addition to that is wingsuit experience, and the experienced wingsuiters are the ones with the problem, it doesn't really help the situation. Bravo Bill. Excellent point. I am being serious here, not smart ass or sarcastic. Believe it or not I am open to actually thinking about this issue. I just don't think the diagnosis is correct. As Kallend has stated serveral times. I believe tailstrikes are from complacency. I do not believe a WS I/E program will fix this issue. As fas as the AFF example you gave, let me draw another comparison. If a coach candidate showed up to a coach course without already knowing how to increase/decrease fall rate or forward/backward movement then there is no way he is going to pass his eval jumps. Those are skills he learned in his ISP and has spent time perfecting with experience. Although someone with just 100 jumps is by no means perfect at them yet. The same can be applied to WS experience exp. IMO. I was just throwing this prior instructor thing out there honestly as a way to help validate the potential FFC teacher to a group of people that think this WS I/E regime is necessary. The people that argue that some instructors may not teach it well enough is lame, because they are instructors that passed an examiner's course. If DSE's proposal is implemented then 20 years from now we are going to have some that are unfit to hold ratings for WS-I, just like we have TI's that allow granny to almost fall out of her harness today. To think this will be any different is rediculous. I will be the first to admit that I am a youngster (as far as time in this sport) and that I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I can't think critically about an important issue that will effect our sport and association. I believe Kallend's proposal would work. We allow a S&TA to observe the profeciency landings required for a Pro Rating already, I believe the same could be adopted for WS.I am an asshole, but I am honest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #144 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing. No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic. You are a well educated man, holder of many teaching credentials and have held them for numerous years. But, that level of credentialing is not needed if one is teaching a single subject, sure it can be a benefit, but it is not necessarily needed. To the original question of this thread, Yes-I think WS'rs and USPA Members who wish to be WS'rs, should, and would, want Standardized WS Training. Very similar to AFF and Tandem etc. Since those are Basic forms of Instruction I think they make a good example, for some we should be using advance skills as the example. OK. Belly or Traditional RW, there are standardized skills sets now, exits, verticals, grip presentation, techniques for blocks, and more, are almost down to a very few alternates, most all of the RW Coaches are using the same standards yo advance their students. We see similar actions in High Performance Landings Coaches (good ones that is). Maybe a new Instructional rating is not needed, maybe just a a BSR enforced. Bottom line is there is a safety concern in this aspect of the sport, you know better than I, since I have a grand total of 1 WS jump, that WS jumps are not just a normal skydive and small mistakes can lead to fatal mistakes or very dangerous situations for one or numerous others. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #145 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none. As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists... We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airtwardo 6 #146 October 22, 2012 Mark my words though. It will not stop tailstrikes. It will cost our association a lot of money, and it is not necessary. It is unprecedented to create a I/E program for advanced disciplines. It is not the road that I believe the USPA should travel down. Okay, we'll just agree to disagree then. Personally I think objections like the 'unprecedented' & 'no proof it'll work' are a bit short sighted. Other rating programs that somewhat fit those descriptions have worked...experienced wingsuiters agree there is a problem, to continue with status que seems . ...and again, tail-strikes is not the only issue this addresses. Eliminating them 100% is a lofty goal indeed however reducing them isn't. If the WSI proposal did that and that alone it would be worth in IMO, but in reviewing it at length ~ it in fact does a whole lot more. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skyjumpenfool 2 #147 October 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none. As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists... We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix. Even if it's a "possible" fix, I'm with Twardo. Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #148 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none. As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists... We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix. The burden of PROOF is on those who wish to introduce a new, costly program. There is no evidence whatsoever that what you see as a "fix" is, indeed, a fix at all rather than a boondoggle.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #149 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing. No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic. You are not correct. I EXPLICITLY stated in post #133, this thread: "This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different". You chose to cut out my words from your reply. Hence you can't draw any conclusion about my opinion on I/E in the AFF program. Thus your statement was, indeed, a strawman.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #150 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing. No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic. You are not correct. I EXPLICITLY stated in post #133, this thread: "This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different". You chose to cut out my words from your reply. Hence you can't draw any conclusion about my opinion on I/E in the AFF program. Thus your statement was, indeed, a strawman. "But that is NOT what the coach course is all about. I fail to see its relevance. If you're concerned with pedagogy, then exempt professional educators from the coach requirement since they've had the real training and actual classroom experience."- this is what I addressed from the same post. You always use this argument and it ignores many others who are well qualified, tested, certified and practiced in teaching as well. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
matthewcline 0 #138 October 22, 2012 So the I/E program is a failure now too? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #139 October 22, 2012 QuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EFS4LIFE 0 #140 October 22, 2012 Power grab...It's not so ~ just because you say it's so. I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion.Quote It is so, not because I say so. It is so because it is res ipsa loquitur. The fact that 7 I/E's will control anyone who wants to teach a FFC is by itself a shift of power. DSE is proposing it therefore it is a "power grab" from him. You can argue his MOTIVES for the move for him, but that does not change what it is. QuoteIF that were the case, trust me the USPA is the last place DSE would be lobbying to get a standardized curriculum instituted. I responded the USPA is the only place he could lobby. QuoteI also understand that going the 'only' available route pretty much excludes some Power Grab being discussed...that's the point I was trying to make. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about good sir. You have me thoroughly confused. First you say it is the last place he would go if he was attempting to power grab, and then you say that going the only available route excludes a power grab. I am just a lowly cop man. I can't get your reasoning here. QuoteI challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. Evidence of what? The butler in the library with the candlestick? There is no physical evidence judging someone's motives over the interent, but there are interesting points to be made. One he is keeping details of tailstrike incidents on the "down-low" I believe was his words. In other words he is using an anonymous incident as evidence to support his proposal. I wish that evidence was submissible in court, but it isn't. In court anonymous doesn't exist. Two, he is claiming there are instructors out there at well know WS schools teaching to exit with some unnamed anonymous poor exit technique, but despite repeated requests to name the source he has so far refused. It is clear that a lot of people are split on this issue. I don't think you are going to change your mind, and I am not going to change mine. So we can just let it be what it is. Sadly I believe the vote will pass just because people will do it for "safety" without thinking of the big picture here. Mark my words though. It will not stop tailstrikes. It will cost our association a lot of money, and it is not necessary. It is unprecedented to create a I/E program for advanced disciplines. It is not the road that I believe the USPA should travel down. YMMV.I am an asshole, but I am honest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #141 October 22, 2012 >Come on Bill what wingsuiter that is another instructor and has at least 200 WS jumps >would be teaching open wings on exit? Wasn't there a discussion here about how it's the experienced wingsuiters who are screwing up, not the newer ones? The AFF JCC teaches you nothing about wingsuiting. And if the only addition to that is wingsuit experience, and the experienced wingsuiters are the ones with the problem, it doesn't really help the situation. I don't think it's asking too much to ask that a potential instructor knows the curriculum he's supposed to teach. (And keep in mind that wings-folded-on-exit is one tiny part of it.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #142 October 22, 2012 Quote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EFS4LIFE 0 #143 October 22, 2012 QuoteWasn't there a discussion here about how it's the experienced wingsuiters who are screwing up, not the newer ones? The AFF JCC teaches you nothing about wingsuiting. And if the only addition to that is wingsuit experience, and the experienced wingsuiters are the ones with the problem, it doesn't really help the situation. Bravo Bill. Excellent point. I am being serious here, not smart ass or sarcastic. Believe it or not I am open to actually thinking about this issue. I just don't think the diagnosis is correct. As Kallend has stated serveral times. I believe tailstrikes are from complacency. I do not believe a WS I/E program will fix this issue. As fas as the AFF example you gave, let me draw another comparison. If a coach candidate showed up to a coach course without already knowing how to increase/decrease fall rate or forward/backward movement then there is no way he is going to pass his eval jumps. Those are skills he learned in his ISP and has spent time perfecting with experience. Although someone with just 100 jumps is by no means perfect at them yet. The same can be applied to WS experience exp. IMO. I was just throwing this prior instructor thing out there honestly as a way to help validate the potential FFC teacher to a group of people that think this WS I/E regime is necessary. The people that argue that some instructors may not teach it well enough is lame, because they are instructors that passed an examiner's course. If DSE's proposal is implemented then 20 years from now we are going to have some that are unfit to hold ratings for WS-I, just like we have TI's that allow granny to almost fall out of her harness today. To think this will be any different is rediculous. I will be the first to admit that I am a youngster (as far as time in this sport) and that I don't have all the answers. But that doesn't mean I can't think critically about an important issue that will effect our sport and association. I believe Kallend's proposal would work. We allow a S&TA to observe the profeciency landings required for a Pro Rating already, I believe the same could be adopted for WS.I am an asshole, but I am honest Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #144 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing. No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic. You are a well educated man, holder of many teaching credentials and have held them for numerous years. But, that level of credentialing is not needed if one is teaching a single subject, sure it can be a benefit, but it is not necessarily needed. To the original question of this thread, Yes-I think WS'rs and USPA Members who wish to be WS'rs, should, and would, want Standardized WS Training. Very similar to AFF and Tandem etc. Since those are Basic forms of Instruction I think they make a good example, for some we should be using advance skills as the example. OK. Belly or Traditional RW, there are standardized skills sets now, exits, verticals, grip presentation, techniques for blocks, and more, are almost down to a very few alternates, most all of the RW Coaches are using the same standards yo advance their students. We see similar actions in High Performance Landings Coaches (good ones that is). Maybe a new Instructional rating is not needed, maybe just a a BSR enforced. Bottom line is there is a safety concern in this aspect of the sport, you know better than I, since I have a grand total of 1 WS jump, that WS jumps are not just a normal skydive and small mistakes can lead to fatal mistakes or very dangerous situations for one or numerous others. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #145 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none. As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists... We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #146 October 22, 2012 Mark my words though. It will not stop tailstrikes. It will cost our association a lot of money, and it is not necessary. It is unprecedented to create a I/E program for advanced disciplines. It is not the road that I believe the USPA should travel down. Okay, we'll just agree to disagree then. Personally I think objections like the 'unprecedented' & 'no proof it'll work' are a bit short sighted. Other rating programs that somewhat fit those descriptions have worked...experienced wingsuiters agree there is a problem, to continue with status que seems . ...and again, tail-strikes is not the only issue this addresses. Eliminating them 100% is a lofty goal indeed however reducing them isn't. If the WSI proposal did that and that alone it would be worth in IMO, but in reviewing it at length ~ it in fact does a whole lot more. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #147 October 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none. As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists... We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix. Even if it's a "possible" fix, I'm with Twardo. Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #148 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote I challenge you to make the case with evidence not just opinion. And I challenge YOU to make the case for a new USPA bureaucracy with evidence and not just opinion. Oh, I did that before and you admitted you have none. As did you that it wouldn't work to 'fix the problem' you admitted exists... We both see a 'problem'...I see a fix. The burden of PROOF is on those who wish to introduce a new, costly program. There is no evidence whatsoever that what you see as a "fix" is, indeed, a fix at all rather than a boondoggle.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #149 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing. No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic. You are not correct. I EXPLICITLY stated in post #133, this thread: "This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different". You chose to cut out my words from your reply. Hence you can't draw any conclusion about my opinion on I/E in the AFF program. Thus your statement was, indeed, a strawman.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #150 October 22, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo the I/E program is a failure now too? Matt If a STRAWMAN is the best you can do, I guess you have nothing. No strawman, just pointing out your using the same old argument, and IMO it is with out merit in this case, for this topic. You are not correct. I EXPLICITLY stated in post #133, this thread: "This is NOT a parallel activity to AFF, the issues are quite different". You chose to cut out my words from your reply. Hence you can't draw any conclusion about my opinion on I/E in the AFF program. Thus your statement was, indeed, a strawman. "But that is NOT what the coach course is all about. I fail to see its relevance. If you're concerned with pedagogy, then exempt professional educators from the coach requirement since they've had the real training and actual classroom experience."- this is what I addressed from the same post. You always use this argument and it ignores many others who are well qualified, tested, certified and practiced in teaching as well. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
