0
ozzy13

petition

Recommended Posts

USPA Safety and Training Comittee:

I have seen a growing amount of support to make some modifications to the current process to become a USPA Coach and a USPA AFF Instructor. I respectfully request that the topic be brought up for discussion at your earliest convienence.

Some suggested changes:

1. Increase the requirement to be eligible for the USPA Coach rating to 200 jumps and a C license.

2. Add a 12 month as a USPA Coach requirement to be eligible for a Tandem I or AFFI.

3. Add a AFF jumpmaster rating to all new graduates of the AFFCC.

4. Add 12 month requirement as a AFFJM to be eligible for the AFFI rating.

Obviously, this would open up the above for discussion and require input from all parties involved. Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rich Winstock D19054 (S&TA, Tandem I/E, Coach I/E, AFFI)

sign here
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/instructorchanges/
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically a 2 year wait between deciding you want to be an AFFI and becoming one, no matter how long you're been in the sport or your jump #'s, etc etc.

And you can still be an AFFI without much skill or dedication. Just get your ratings and sit on them til the time requirements pass by. In fact, it'd be in your best interest to get a coach rating at 200 jumps and not use it just on the off chance you want to AFFI later on. It'll shave a year off your requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats one way to look at it.

Or you could look at it as someone becoming a Instructor would have to teach for a year before getting a instructor rating

You say sit on the coach rating.
As of now I could of done a tandem 6 years ago and really got into skydiving this year. I have done 500 jumps this year and go get my tandem rating only being really in sport for one year. Since I did a tandem 6 years ago I have meet all requirements. This can happen now.

All im trying to do is get the word out that requirements should chance. Times are changing. People are getting higher jump numbers faster. Lets slow the rating processes down to make better instructors thats all
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

USPA Safety and Training Comittee:

I have seen a growing amount of support to make some modifications to the current process to become a USPA Coach and a USPA AFF Instructor. I respectfully request that the topic be brought up for discussion at your earliest convienence.

Some suggested changes:

1. Increase the requirement to be eligible for the USPA Coach rating to 200 jumps and a C license.

2. Add a 12 month as a USPA Coach requirement to be eligible for a Tandem I or AFFI.

3. Add a AFF jumpmaster rating to all new graduates of the AFFCC.

4. Add 12 month requirement as a AFFJM to be eligible for the AFFI rating.

Obviously, this would open up the above for discussion and require input from all parties involved. Thank you for your time, it is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rich Winstock D19054 (S&TA, Tandem I/E, Coach I/E, AFFI)

sign here
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/instructorchanges/



What's the purpose behind calling coaches jumpmasters?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So basically a 2 year wait between deciding you want to be an AFFI and becoming one, no matter how long you're been in the sport or your jump #'s, etc etc.



Time in the sport is different than time as a teacher of new skydivers. I know people with a zillion jumps that couldn't teach a rock to fall. I don't know about 2 years, but I believe rating holders should have to hold a rating for some period of time before "moving up" on the instructional totem pole.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A minimum number of instructional jumps would be better than "time as instructor", as it is a better indicator of actual teaching time.

That said, I don't know that this change is actually necessary. I have yet to hear anything concrete about the supposed plummeting quality of rating holders; it seems to be more of the one horror story extrapolated into an epidemic variety.

Where's the data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What's the purpose behind calling coaches jumpmasters



That's not what's being suggested. The JM rating would apply to AFF certification course graduates for a one year period (and I'm sure some min. number of AFF jumps), and it would limit them to only doing AFF jumps with two instructors, with the other being a full fledged AFF I.

As it sits now, a course graduate can literally be paired one-on-one with a student 24 hrs after passing the course. They have no jumps with actual students, but now they are going to be the sole instructor in the air with a student who may have as few as three jumps. The idea is to pair them with a more experienced instructor and let them build their experiecne with actual students with the assitance and guidance of said instructor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with two years being long. I think you could drop the coach in exchange for the JM rating of the instructional discipline your trying to acheive. Thats what it used to be. You became a JM as your first step. Then you apprenticed with an I until you had your time in so you could go to an I course.

The only value of a coach rating would be to give you time working with people for a TI rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A minimum number of instructional jumps would be better than "time as instructor", as it is a better indicator of actual teaching time.

That said, I don't know that this change is actually necessary. I have yet to hear anything concrete about the supposed plummeting quality of rating holders; it seems to be more of the one horror story extrapolated into an epidemic variety.

Where's the data?



I would also be ok with an activity minimum over a time-based minimum for people with a lot of years in the sport.

As for the quality of the rating holders, there has indeed been a decline in the skill level of some candidates allowed to make it through some courses. I've known people that got AFF ratings that have trouble with anything tougher than basic RW. That didn't happen in the early days of AFF.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I agree with two years being long. I think you could drop the coach in exchange for the JM rating of the instructional discipline your trying to acheive. Thats what it used to be. You became a JM as your first step. Then you apprenticed with an I until you had your time in so you could go to an I course.

The only value of a coach rating would be to give you time working with people for a TI rating.




That's roughly the idea, however when it comes to harness hold freefall instruction, you really do need to pass some sort of certification course to prove your basic abilites to do the job. It's not like SL or IAD where in-air skills are not relevant.

An overview of what's suggested -

1. A min time with a coach rating of one year. As it sits now, a jumper can get a coach rating one weekend, and take the AFF cert. course the next week, without exercising the coach rating or learning anything from exercising the rating.

2. After a year with a Coach rating, you can take the AFF cert. course. Passing will make you an AFF JM, allowing you to jump with students only on jumps where two instructors are required, and the other instructor would need to be a full fledged AFF I.

3. After a year (and a min number of AFF jumps, and a sign off from an AFF I), you are upgraded to an AFF I.

So the only real delay to jumpers is the one year as a coach rating. After that year, they are eligible to take the AFF cert. course, and become an AFF JM.

These aren't my ideas, but I've been following the thread where they originated, so I figured I spell them out in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a simple game of telephone. The message is getting confused because there are too many chefs on this thread. (Ozzy) 10 different people ae putting spins on this and it is nothing more than opening some debate amongst qualified instructors.
Dave- you are right on point with the thoughts above I read your post after typing this. There is no delay at all becuase if you get your coach rating at 200 you still have to wait anyway to get the 6 hours of freefall.

Without copy and pasting my thoughts all over the place, I am not looking for drastic change here. Just some oversight and a heirarchy that does not certify skydivers not ready and does not throw anyone to the wolves.

Path to a AFFI that I feel would be acceptable:

1. 200 jumps earn a coach rating.
Teach a min of 20 students and have rating 12
months.
2. 6 Hours of free fall and a coach rating for 12
months then take AFFCC.
3. Pass AFFFCC and become AFFJM.
Min 20 AFF jumps for recert and 12 months
under supervision of AFFI. All student
priveleges are the same as now.
4. Earn AFFI and hopefully become an outstanding
representation of a thorough process.

That is basically what we are doing now except requiring 200 for a coach and a year in coach rating.

Now that the thread has split into two, I am sure everyone will be uterly confused. Thanks Ozzy.

The reason that this was started was simply to bring it to the attention of the Safety and training commitee that there is a concern and discussion is needed. That is it. There is no mutany here and nobody is saying that anyone in particular is substandard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

What's the purpose behind calling coaches jumpmasters



That's not what's being suggested. The JM rating would apply to AFF certification course graduates for a one year period (and I'm sure some min. number of AFF jumps), and it would limit them to only doing AFF jumps with two instructors, with the other being a full fledged AFF I.

As it sits now, a course graduate can literally be paired one-on-one with a student 24 hrs after passing the course. They have no jumps with actual students, but now they are going to be the sole instructor in the air with a student who may have as few as three jumps. The idea is to pair them with a more experienced instructor and let them build their experiecne with actual students with the assitance and guidance of said instructor.



Sorry - when you said AFFCC, my brain said "coaches course".

Now that I understand, I still don't agree. AFF rating holders have always been able to do one-on-one ground and air instuction with students as soon as they get their ratings - even back when there were "Jumpmasters" and Instructors". As far as I know that has never been a safety or educational quality issue.

AFF rating holders should be capable of doing solo jumps with students or they shouldn't get the rating. We already have a coaches rating to give wannabe AFF holders an entry point to the training process.

What you are suggesting are 2 levels of restricted insrtructional ratings. If AFF candidates are held to an adequate standard, there's no need for a restricted rating.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of AFF rating holders that you don't trust in the air alone with a student? If so, why not address that instead of reinventing the system to accommodtae those that don't make the grade?
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Where's the data?




Check out the thread that spawned this petition. I address the issue of data in post #326 and up.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=2469164;page=14;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;



Thanks for the link. No way I was wading through that mega-thread otherwise.

I agree with what you are saying, essentially that a sufficient sample size to make a statistical decision is pretty much infeasible to obtain.

But without any sort of data, what is making people decide that things are actually broken? Maybe we have heard a few stories about someone with 400 jumps becoming an AFFI and making some boneheaded error. But you are never going to see a 100-reply thread on dz.com about some prodigy with only 18 months in sport who is a natural at teaching. Nobody notices when the trains are on time.

And if they are broken, then why would breaking up an AFF certification program that is (apparently) too lax into several components fix anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok,
I was also a AFFJM and started out on reserve side levels 1 and 2's. Nobody is saying an AFFI couldnt let the JM do one on ones. Just keep an eye on him or her to make sure he is learning as well as the student.
The debriefing process could then work for the new AFFJM as well as the student.

You stated,"AFF rating holders should be capable of doing solo jumps with students or they shouldn't get the rating." Yes lets just call them AFF jumpmasters and ease them into the most challenging position inthe sport. And to answer your question, there are unqualified AFFI's out there, I see no arguement against a process that will give a clean clear supervised path to a full fledged instructor, but I welcome your thoughts on the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If AFF candidates are held to an adequate standard, there's no need for a restricted rating.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of AFF rating holders that you don't trust in the air alone with a student? If so, why not address that instead of reinventing the system to accommodtae those that don't make the grade?



The first line fo your quote is the most relevant, where you say, 'IF candidates are held to an adequate standard'. This whole idea was based on the idea that the AFF cert. course may not be adequate, and is allowing substandard cadidates into the instructional ranks.

Reverting back to the old standard is not likely, so this idea is designed to put another layer inbetween AFF I cadidates, and unrestricted access to students. The year of riding shotgun with an AFF I will grant the JM the experience to let them do the job adequately.

Actually I have run into newer AFF Is that I would not like to see solo on certain jumps. I personlly witnessed a student who was very borderline in passing or failing their level three. The idea was floated that they could move on to level four provided they were going to jump that day (the student had already planned and paid for two jumps) and that one of the more senior instructors would be jumping with them. As it turned out, the only available AFF I on the next load was the new guy. The student was bumped back a load in order to jump with a more senoir instructor.

The new AFF I passed the course like everyone else, but was uncomfortable with the idea of a borderline student in a one on one skydive, and the more senoir instructors agreed. The new guy has never had a problem, or shown any lack of confidence, but all involved realized that there is a big difference between the new guy, and the more senior staff members, even though they are both afforded the same liberties by their AFF I rating.

The JM idea is good step in terms of 'quality control'. Even if the current crop of course grads is fine, all this will do is improve the standard, and create a sharper more experienced instructional corp.

Without a stack of student related incident reports all pointing toward unqualifed instructors, it's very hard to tell if the standard is right or not. In the absence of a clear answer, you can never go wrong with a step that will increase the quality of instructors. It's simply erring on the side of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ok,
I was also a AFFJM and started out on reserve side levels 1 and 2's. Nobody is saying an AFFI couldnt let the JM do one on ones.

Actually someone is, and that's who I was addressing - http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=3758392;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;


Just keep an eye on him or her to make sure he is learning as well as the student.
The debriefing process could then work for the new AFFJM as well as the student.

You stated,"AFF rating holders should be capable of doing solo jumps with students or they shouldn't get the rating." Yes lets just call them AFF jumpmasters and ease them into the most challenging position inthe sport. And to answer your question, there are unqualified AFFI's out there, I see no arguement against a process that will give a clean clear supervised path to a full fledged instructor, but I welcome your thoughts on the topic.



We've done the "Jumpmaster" thing. I'll ask you the same question I asked the poster in the link above. Are you aware of a specific problem involving recently rated Instructors? We have a path to a full-fledged Instructor and one that does ease people into the most challenging position in the sport. It's called Coach.

Adding layers doesn't help. Keeping every rating holder on the same page and demanding a higher skill level than the job requires works every time it's tried.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Chuck,
I have answered that several times in the other thread before some knucklehaesd split the two. I can look around but the short answer is yes to your first question. and
as far as a coach rating, I am a coach I/E and I will tell you a coach rating does not ease you into AFF in any way shape or form. What it does it allow youto teach the most basic of skills, work with students, and fall as a base for them use as a reference. Short of that it does not teach you intervention of any sort. I am excluding hand signals, waving off, tracking, or deploying themself as a signal to deploy to the student.
I do not feel that any layer is being added at all here. I feel that a new AFF JM is just going to have person to draw from with situations he may not have been exposed to as of yet. What layer is being created? If you earn your coach rating then you must actually teach 20 students and have it for 12 months beofre taking an instructor rating? If that is a layer than we are in more trouble than you or I could possibly solve.
If requiring 200 jumps and a C license is a layer it is a layer that all jumpers must go through anyway, so what is the difference there? except maybe some flying experience.
and lastly as the AFFJM nothing will change except the new AFF will have someone to draw from experiences that he/she may not of seen as of AFF number 1 Live student.
Again, no real changes just a heirarchy. I went through the old system with AFFJM and I thought it was excellent. I had several senior AFFI's that taught me invaluable tools that I still use today. In fact all of them or at least three of them signed the petition to start some debate about the topic.

That is it, but almost every question you can ask about this topic is on the other thread. Like I said it branched off for some odd reason..
It is great debate and I wish the moderator would kill this thread and refer it back to the original Is the AFF Rating to Easy.
I will look for the post that answers your question but do not expect a clicky, I suck at them,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so basically you've got all of YOUR ratings and YOU wanna make it even harder and more money costing to those who wants to become a skydiver as a means of living....

great thanks....

we don't really need to make it harder... things are just about right....
Bernie Sanders for President 2016

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