Skymonkey2 0 #51 February 22, 2006 As a rooming dz. how much do you for free? I do a lot of free coaching, I also work with people to get them ready for courses very inexpensively. So what to you do? I believe in education. And I am a professional skydiver now that I am retired. I go to meetings and talk to USPA at least twice a week, I am also a advisor to the S&TA Committee, how about you?AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E Students are our future teach them well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #52 February 22, 2006 QuoteStudents are our future.Help keep them in the sport.Jump with them for free. Our sport is being raped and robbed one coach jump at a time. . Absolutely. The requirement to have a coach rating to jump with pre-licensed jumpers caused a lot of grief when it was first implemented.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aitke12 0 #53 February 22, 2006 hey its mikey one of your packers!!! Hows it going/? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shark 0 #54 February 22, 2006 QuoteDoesn't a D licensed holder have more jumps than someone who had just enough jumps to become a coach? j Yes, but if both suck neither would be jumping with any of my students. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #55 February 22, 2006 Quote question is posed about allowing D-license holders to jump with unlicensed students who are signed off for self-supervision in relative work. A ratio of a minimum of one D-license holder to one student seems practical with a maximum size of four people. This was approved. We are heading towards an expansion of Coach responsibilities to allow them to do everything after method specific deployment procedures are completed. It is such that a coach will be able to supervise S/L and IAD students who have completed their first successful solo freefall jump. This will allow Coach rating holders more jump supervision responsibilities and free up "appropriately rated instructors" from having to be in the aircraft during those jumps. There was a motion to this affect that was approved. Look for details to come in the USPA's website for the BOD minutes. So you weaken, and then try and strengthen the coach rating? The coach rating was nothing other than a bandaid to pick up the slack where AFF and the 7 jump program abandonded jumpers. I am glad a "D" licensed jumper can jump with the new guys....But a good number of them have no business. And a good number of coaches have no business in the later steps of IAD/SL. Why not allow Coaches to do the later AFF levels as well then? A first freefaller has ONE good deployment, while an AFF level 4 grad has 4. I think the USPA is giving WAY to much power to coaches, but only when it comes to SL and IAD...And I wonder why?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skymonkey2 0 #56 February 22, 2006 Hi Ron, it is pretty funny that we are giving low jump number coaches more resopnsiblities, but not giving them the education. Like I said earlier and Ron stated, we should allow coaches to jump with AFF students too, it is the same dive flow in the SIMS. Why not make the standards higher for the coaches, I mean more experience jump numbers and time in the sport. Just a question.....AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E Students are our future teach them well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jsaxton 0 #57 February 22, 2006 Cool, now I can let my coach rating lapse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #58 February 22, 2006 Does anyone have any actual data to show that novices jumping with "D" licensed skydivers prior to the ISP had any more accidents than novices jumping with coaches after the ISP, or is this just blowing hot air?... 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 Shark 0 #59 February 22, 2006 Coach with more responsibility and skills? Wasn't that what a JM was? Maybe we should go back to the old structure. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tr027 0 #60 February 22, 2006 Quote Does anyone have any actual data to show that novices jumping with "D" licensed skydivers prior to the ISP had any more accidents than novices jumping with coaches after the ISP, or is this just blowing hot air? I agree, looks like vigorous huffing and puffing of hot air so far... "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #61 February 22, 2006 Hi Ron, it is pretty funny that we are giving low jump number coaches more resopnsiblities, but not giving them the education.(quote) One of my students did his 1-110 jumps just this season and got his coach rating right at the end of the season and now it's winter so you know he has not been jumping or at the dz, just because he got the rating,don't make him a coach yet he needs more education for sure, he is a good jumper and learns well and some day will make a good inst. however at this time he has very little skills in reading a persons body and I don't think the flying skills are where they need to be in order to turn him loose with freefall students, he is still learning to fly himself. He has a lot more to learn to IMHO on how to work/read a student. So I'm not to sure about "low jump number coaches" just being turned loose with others also learning to fly, I guess on the other hand as least they will be learning to fly together. ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #62 February 22, 2006 Quoteand I don't think the flying skills are where they need to be in order to turn him loose with freefall students, he is still learning to fly himself. Honest question here from someone who has no ratings... is this lack of confidence in coaches like this because: 1) the criteria by which we're evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches is not stringent enough or 2) the course directors who are evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches aren't applying those criteria or 3) some combination of both? I hear a lot of complaining about folks who only have 100 jumps getting to be coaches, but there are, surely, more criteria than "rack up 100 jumps" to become a coach, right? If that isn't really the case in practice, then I'd probably be much more inclined to support this proposal for D-licensed jumpers to work with students. I have not gone for my coach rating for the simple reason that I don't feel ready to teach. I, personally, don't think my flying skills are at a level where I would feel comfortable working with unlicensed jumpers. And yet, all the concerns with the coach program seem to revolve around the fact that people view it as a "rubber stamp" credential ... go through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #63 February 22, 2006 I not really trying to knock anything, just talking about someone that was my student and after seeing him fly I don't think he has all the skills he may need to be fair to the person he is working with, 1. flying skills 2.able to see what is right and wrong and be able to debrief it. In this case it is #2 that I think he needs the most work on. I do agree that if they can coach in the S/L or IAD then why not the AFF as someone posted. However the person I refer to, I wouldn't turn loose on a AFF student he don't the flying skills to do it, and that got me thinking about it after reading Kip's post. Should we turn this guy loose with freefall students at his skill level ?(their still students to me till they have an "A" IMO") As for 1, 2 & 3 I would say could be all, I haven't made my mind up on #1, but #2 who gave the course? some CD's I have met sucked ass while others were very demanding about knowing the info and having skills, if you didn't, you didn't pass. people view it as a "rubber stamp" credential ... go through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. (quote) I can understand why, I have known people who have signed off rating paperwork in exchange for a check. ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumpnaked69 0 #64 February 22, 2006 I dont really like posting on here but I think this issue is worth discussing. This new change, if I'm reading it correctly, would allow ANY D-license jumper to go jump with someone who has as few as 7 jumps and that they could do so in a 4-way (two d-license jumpers and two jumpers with 7 jumps). If this is the case I think the BOD should really reconsider. I'm not very experienced in this sport and I dont have a lot of fancy initials to back up anything I'm about to say--just trying to apply some common sense. A few years back (2003?) they changed the requirements for D-licenses from 200 to 500 jumps. I think this was a good change because when I reached 200 jumps I still knew I didn't have a clue what I was doing. The D-license SHOULD be the gold standard, the person to go talk to, the one with a safe record and some good advice to offer younger jumpers. That person should set the example. I happen to know of some folks who got their D-licenses before that requirement changed and even some folks who have gotten their D-license since that requirement changed that don't meet the standard I described above. I think that every skydiver can name more than one D-license holder who they find to be either irresponsible, unsafe, or unhelpful in the learning process that's critical to safe skydiving. I think another empirical example of why D-license holders are not the solution to all problems is the statistical accident and fatality list--I'm not sure what the numbers are for 2005 but I remember that in 2004 the highest number of accidents were attributed to D-license holders and the second-highest attributed to students. Do you really want to take the two most accident-prone groups in skydiving and enable them to hurt themselves that much easier? I've done fewer coach jumps than some of the AFF-Is posting on here but I've seen my fair share of dumb student stuff. Some of my favorites include--arching harder and pulling instead of tracking; "tracking" in a giant circle; "tracking" into a nearly head-down position below you and then deploying; forgetting about their altimeters altogether in freefall; etc. These are all free-fall related issues that would only become much more complicated and much more dangerous with extra jumpers in the area--D-license holders OR students. Should we expect D-license holders to exercise better judgment? Maybe so but it's a dangerous gamble. You have people who bust their butts to hit 500 jumps for tandem ratings or pro-ratings without ever developing good freefall skills and possibly not even any TEACHING skills. Having skill in an area doesnt mean that you're capable of passing that skill on. I recognize that you also have people who try to blaze to 100 jumps to be coaches and I dont think that's a good thing either. I think the best solution is to simply make the coach requirements harder. Having a coach course (COULD) accomplish several things. First, it would evaluate a skydiver's ability to fly their body. Second, it would evaluate a skydiver's ability to teach skills. And finally, and perhaps most important, it would prove that the candidate is interested in teaching to the point that they want to incur the extra cost (time and money) that it takes to be a teacher of skydiving. This requirement could be totally blind to licenses held and focus only on what the candidate is capable of doing. Is the current coach course way too easy? Yes, I think so (and I went through it). To reply to stratostar, I think the critera are too easy and we should make them more stringent. It shouldnt matter what license a person holds, it should matter if they're good enough at skydiving to teach it and if they're good enough at teaching to do it while skydiving. Just my two cents Alan p.s.--i think perhaps the better change (in my very humble opinion) would be for the USPA to develop a REALISTIC wingloading chart that accurately reflects the general level of wingloading; and a way to better develop canopy skills as part of a comprehensive trainig program for those that want to enter the sport. Canopy skills are the most overemphasized but underdeveloped skill in all of skydiving. This needs to change if we want to bring those fatalities and accident numbers down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites stratostar 5 #65 February 22, 2006 I'm leaning that way too, nice post dude. I'm waiting to see what the offical word is from HQ and read the new rules before I make my mind up and say one way or the other, because I want to fully understand what was said and what the new play ground rules are. Stay safe. ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tdog 0 #66 February 22, 2006 Alan, I could not agree with your post more. I was fortunate to earn my coach rating with Don Yharling as one of my evaluators. He taught me so much, along with Djan (regional director) as the Coach class instructor. My first real student pulled at 6.5K in my face while I was still docked in a two way. My second student tracked in a circle around me. My third student came at me with such speed for the dive and dock that if I did not move out of the way, it would have been a nasty crash... We dirt dived the jumps on the ground perfectly... Student 1 told me the ground looked big so he pulled. Student 2 swore the track was striaght. Student 3 knew what happened and made a great dock on the second pass. All of those things I was ready for, because my instructors drilled me on them. Doing a jump with a student is not as simple as "Lets turn a few points then track and pull." Teaching is a huge responsibility. The cause and effect is something that I am learning is one of the more challenging things to learn. AND I consider myself the biggest student of all right now, only starting to appreciate everything that goes into instructional jumps... So this thread is full of arguments: Problem Not enough coaches, so open the group up so "real" instructors can work on real student jumps and let "Experienced" skydivers help out the newbies. Answer Don't remove the training, assist with the training. DZO's needing more coaching should help people get the training. Problem Once a coach has a rating, they are charging for their services - thus making it more expensive for the student. Answer Establish the mentality - "We at the DZ helped you get your rating - now pay it forward." Even without that DZ investment, I have done a lot of pay-my-own-slot jumps, especially when the "customer" is saying things like, "I have only enough funds to do one jump this week." I know other coaches who are passionate about teaching who do the same. If a D licenced jumper is willing to invest in a newbie, let them invest in a weekend in an instructional class. I paid some money, spent the time in the class room, and have, in joy and money, earned every penny back. I am starting to think that DZOs will have to do more governing over their student programs if the USPA keeps making it easier... I know the DZ I jump at has the attitude, "instructional ratings are so easy to get, that they are the bare minimum required, not the key to, being an instructor here." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Eule 0 #67 February 22, 2006 All, Even though I'm pretty new, I might be able to add a little to the debate about instructor/coach ratings and coach jumps and teaching from a new guy's perspective. Or, I might just be coughing up a pellet of mouse bones into the middle of the dinner table. First, I will say again that I am a new guy - I started jumping in June 2005. I never went through any of the changes in requirements for licenses or ratings that have been mentioned. If I didn't happen to read about them on here or see them in an old copy of the SIM or whatever, I wouldn't know they existed. So I can't speak much to if the "old way" or the "new way" is better. About the idea of knowing how to teach. I have very little experience with teaching "physical" things - skydiving, dancing, playing football, things like that. But I do have a fair-to-middlin' amount of experience with learning and teaching "mental" things - computers, electronics, and even a little mechanical engineering. When I was going to college, I had some professors that clearly knew a lot about the subject, but were not very good at _teaching_ it to someone else. In one case, it was because English was his second or third language, and he didn't know it very well. In another, it was a native speaker of English who just couldn't get his points across to most of the class. These profs were in the minority, but they did exist. Also, since then, I have been in a position to teach things to others, even though I don't have any formal experience in "how to teach". Usually I seem to do OK, but sometimes I have a hard time getting my point across, and I feel like if I knew more about how to teach, it'd be easier. So, I have to agree with the idea that knowing a lot about a subject doesn't mean you know how to teach it. About the idea of required "coach" jumps. I have jumped, as an AFF student, at a DZ where their student program required several coach jumps (something like 5 to 7; I don't remember exactly) after one finished AFF. I had a couple of more experienced jumpers pull me aside and advise me to finish AFF, and then go to some other DZ where coach jumps weren't required, so as to save money on the costs of training. One of them had a C license and about 300 jumps, and the other had at least a couple of hundred jumps. Nobody likes to spend money they don't absolutely _have_ to spend, but I thought it was interesting that somebody would tell me that. Maybe some more experienced jumpers wouldn't have told me that. About the idea of "all coach ratings/D licenses are not created equal", or "I'd jump with this one guy that has 100 jumps but I'd never jump with this other guy that has 1000 jumps". I think some of this is inevitable when you're dealing with humans. But some of it is due to the way the training is set up and/or controlled. In the US, you've got over 200 dropzones, all potentially having people earn higher licenses and ratings there. It is probably _possible_ to ensure a reasonable uniformity of training and requirements across those 200+ DZs, but from what little I know of how the regulation works, I'm not sure that this is being done. Again, this may be a bold statement from a new guy, but that's what I see. The contrast to this might be someplace like the military, where the training is tightly controlled and fairly uniformly delivered. One goal of the training is to turn people into interchangeable parts - everyone who has the same specialty will have about the same level of knowledge. If the Army says "this guy is a helicopter mechanic and that guy is an artilleryman", you _know_, with a high degree of confidence, that the first guy will know how to fix a helicopter, and the second guy will know everything you can do with a mortar. We could have this in skydiving, but then the training would probably look a lot like boot camp. Another somewhat-related thing to "all licenses are not created equal" is this. There has been some discussion of people getting higher licenses or instructional ratings because they dig it, and people getting them because they want to make some money. I went to college to get a Computer Science degree. I noticed that you could split the students into two broad groups. The first group, if they didn't have anything else to do, would go and fart around with a computer for fun. The second group seemed to have looked at a list in a magazine of "Jobs that will make you a lot of money" and just picked one. A few of the people in this second group came to enjoy what they were doing and be reasonably good at it. A lot of them, though, seemed to have a harder time of the classes and projects - they saw it as a chore they had to go through before they could get the bucks, rather than something fun. Since I have seen the different motivations lead to different results in one field, I don't doubt that it could happen in another field. Unfortunately I don't know how one separates the people that dig it from the people that just want the cash, or even if it's a good idea to do so - 'wanting the cash' has also been known to spur innovation and improvements. Again, all this is just my opinion as a relatively new guy. Feel free to correct, flame, agree with, or ignore any and all of it. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CSpenceFLY 1 #68 February 22, 2006 Quotego through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. then get your jumps paid for by the new guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,623 #69 February 22, 2006 As a teaching professional for the last 35 years, I should point out that a 3 day coach course is not remotely adequate to make anyone a teacher. Would you send you kids to a school where the teachers had just 3 days of training? This claim that someone who passed a coach course knows how to teach is laughable. IMO it's all about judgement and safety in the air, and no course teaches good judgement; that comes from experience.... 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 Hooknswoop 19 #70 February 22, 2006 So, once again, USPA's solution to not enough Instructor's- make it easier to become an Instructor. Is USPA looking out for it's member's needs (ensuring well-trained, quality Instructors for it's members)? or the DZO's needs (more, cheap labor)? Why not address why there are not enough Instructors? Pay. Benefits. Treatment. Working conditions. A new AFFI makes just as much as an AFFI with 500 AFF jumps and years of experience. How does lowering the standards to pass the AFFI course serve the student/member? How does it serve the DZO? How does making anyone with a D license a Coach serve the needs of the student/member? How does it serve the needs of the DZO? Once again, the member loses when USPA chooses between it's members and the DZO's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skymonkey2 0 #71 February 22, 2006 the criteria by which we're evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches is not stringent enough or 2) the course directors who are evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches aren't applying those criteria or 3) some combination of both? Let me help with this, First I am an AFF, Tandem, Coach, S/L and IAD Course Director and in the old days a BIC Course Director. The coach course is a combination of the old BIC and an education in the ISP and a basic evaluation of some ones communication and flying skills. The candidates are supposed to learn how to teach, and understand how people learn, and if the course director is doing his job teach or introduce how to conduct body scanning. And then they are evaluated on basic flying skills. We are checking to see if they can stay close to a student that is attempting basic RW skills and body scanning, (remember, they are jumping with students that have anywhere 9 jumps to 16 jumps. Not 5 or 6 jumps. And have proven stability by back loops, barrel rolls.). All the candidates’ are supposed to be taught the proper techniques for docking, swooping, fall rate, break off procedures, and tracking. These are basic RW skills. I remember when was a student and after my initial training I was released to the wolves, I had to learn this from who ever was available, I received so much different information based on individuals knowledge and preferences. The ISP was developed to teach young skydivers the basic survival skill in RW. I have been on many RW dives where young skydivers have not made the formation, or have taken it out. One problem we have is what you have stated, course directors are not doing there jobs, either because they don’t understand what they are teaching or because they are lazy. I have witnessed such courses. This is why the AIC has been developed. I have seen coach course directors hold a 1 ½ to 2 day coach course, I know form experience that this is not possible. The ISP is excellent program I have watch small and medium DZs use it and love it. There are many coach and aff candidates learn about the program and wish that when they were learning to skydive that they used the program. USPA is stepping backwards in their education of coaches and instructors, buy letting D license skydivers jump with students who have not proven that they can teach, this is a crime to our students. Are students are paying for a service, either buy slots or coaching. And letting a coach jump with students is not smart. They are not experienced and have not had a chance to mature in the sport. People in this forum have stated the old system, well in the old system the jumpmaster had to attend a JCC, and were not allowed to teach a FJC, and had to be a JM for a year before attending ICC, and then had to prove they could do the job of an instructor. But in the old days the Static-line JM’s and Instructors were not evaluated on there flying skills. Now in the S/L and IAD course they have to have there flying skill evaluated. When the first coach course was held there were two S/L instructors with over a thousand jumps that attended, and failed the air evaluations. So I guess to answer your question I believe it is a combination of both. www.airrageskydivingservices.comAFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E Students are our future teach them well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CSpenceFLY 1 #72 February 22, 2006 Anyone who feels like I do checkout SkydiveMentors.com.They have a neat idea that I am going to help them spread. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NWFlyer 2 #73 February 22, 2006 QuoteQuotego through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. then get your jumps paid for by the new guy. That makes me sad that there's so many people for whom that's the motivation for getting the rating. But you've been around the sport quite a bit longer than me, Spence, so I'm sure you've got some history underlying that cynicism. I'm not sure that I'm ready to agree that just because it's expensive to learn this sport we should throw away some of the requirements we've developed for our instructors. I wasn't around in the "old days," so I paid for every single student jump that I did with an instructor. I also learned at a DZ where (even if you took out the gear rental component) all student jumps were more expensive than a standard jump ticket for a licensed jumper because (at least theoretically) even solos were supposed to be conducted under the guidance of a USPA instructor (students have a jump worksheet/plan they fill out and are supposed to go over with an intsructor before each jump). Cynically and in retrospect that was/is probably a ploy to line the DZO's pockets, but at the time, I accepted the idea that students and tandems are at the wide part of the pyramid scheme that keeps life affordable for up jumpers. It'd be hard to administer, but I wonder if something like "coach rating renewal fee is waived if you provide documentation of free coaching to X students." Of course, that's a legalistic solution to an attitude problem and, as such, probably causes more problems than it solves. And it wouldn't work at DZs where the student program is tightly controlled by the DZO, who wants revenue and a cut on every jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CSpenceFLY 1 #74 February 22, 2006 I'm not asking for anything to be thrown away.I'm saying that there should be an alternative to paying a 100 jump wonder for a coaches jump.I would like to see how many coaches candidates or renewals there would be this year if it was announced you would no longer have your slot covered.That would show you how many were really interested in "teaching" . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites davelepka 4 #75 February 22, 2006 QuoteI would like to see how many coaches candidates or renewals there would be this year if it was announced you would no longer have your slot covered.That would show you how many were really interested in "teaching" Isn't there value to the student in terms of the information they recieve? Or the experiecne they have? I understand that SOME people at SOME dzs had mentors who whould jump with them, and provide them the same service as a coach, but at no cost. What about the jumpers who didn't have that luxury? Or the ones who ended up jumping with up-jumpers who were poor teachers, or taught mis-information? Maybe they would have preferred to pay the additional fee to have a guarantee that they would A) have someone to jump with and that B) they would be teaching from an established cirriculum and with established methods. I can understand your dissatisfaction with the situation, but you need to deciede if the supervised jumps are needed or not. If they are not needed, then thats the answer, get rid of them. If they are needed though, you can't leave it up to chance, and the generosity of other skydivers to get them done. There has to be a guideline there to ensure the quality and safety of the jumps. Without a guideline, you end up with the same situation we have with canopy selection. It's just up to the DZO, or S&TA, or who ever to determine who is qualified to do what, and with differing opinions on what that means, you'll have different standards from DZ to DZ. We've seen the results of this approach with canopies, and I don't see how the same approach to supervised jumps would net any better results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 of 6 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
Shark 0 #54 February 22, 2006 QuoteDoesn't a D licensed holder have more jumps than someone who had just enough jumps to become a coach? j Yes, but if both suck neither would be jumping with any of my students. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #55 February 22, 2006 Quote question is posed about allowing D-license holders to jump with unlicensed students who are signed off for self-supervision in relative work. A ratio of a minimum of one D-license holder to one student seems practical with a maximum size of four people. This was approved. We are heading towards an expansion of Coach responsibilities to allow them to do everything after method specific deployment procedures are completed. It is such that a coach will be able to supervise S/L and IAD students who have completed their first successful solo freefall jump. This will allow Coach rating holders more jump supervision responsibilities and free up "appropriately rated instructors" from having to be in the aircraft during those jumps. There was a motion to this affect that was approved. Look for details to come in the USPA's website for the BOD minutes. So you weaken, and then try and strengthen the coach rating? The coach rating was nothing other than a bandaid to pick up the slack where AFF and the 7 jump program abandonded jumpers. I am glad a "D" licensed jumper can jump with the new guys....But a good number of them have no business. And a good number of coaches have no business in the later steps of IAD/SL. Why not allow Coaches to do the later AFF levels as well then? A first freefaller has ONE good deployment, while an AFF level 4 grad has 4. I think the USPA is giving WAY to much power to coaches, but only when it comes to SL and IAD...And I wonder why?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skymonkey2 0 #56 February 22, 2006 Hi Ron, it is pretty funny that we are giving low jump number coaches more resopnsiblities, but not giving them the education. Like I said earlier and Ron stated, we should allow coaches to jump with AFF students too, it is the same dive flow in the SIMS. Why not make the standards higher for the coaches, I mean more experience jump numbers and time in the sport. Just a question.....AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E Students are our future teach them well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #57 February 22, 2006 Cool, now I can let my coach rating lapse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #58 February 22, 2006 Does anyone have any actual data to show that novices jumping with "D" licensed skydivers prior to the ISP had any more accidents than novices jumping with coaches after the ISP, or is this just blowing hot air?... 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
Shark 0 #59 February 22, 2006 Coach with more responsibility and skills? Wasn't that what a JM was? Maybe we should go back to the old structure. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tr027 0 #60 February 22, 2006 Quote Does anyone have any actual data to show that novices jumping with "D" licensed skydivers prior to the ISP had any more accidents than novices jumping with coaches after the ISP, or is this just blowing hot air? I agree, looks like vigorous huffing and puffing of hot air so far... "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #61 February 22, 2006 Hi Ron, it is pretty funny that we are giving low jump number coaches more resopnsiblities, but not giving them the education.(quote) One of my students did his 1-110 jumps just this season and got his coach rating right at the end of the season and now it's winter so you know he has not been jumping or at the dz, just because he got the rating,don't make him a coach yet he needs more education for sure, he is a good jumper and learns well and some day will make a good inst. however at this time he has very little skills in reading a persons body and I don't think the flying skills are where they need to be in order to turn him loose with freefall students, he is still learning to fly himself. He has a lot more to learn to IMHO on how to work/read a student. So I'm not to sure about "low jump number coaches" just being turned loose with others also learning to fly, I guess on the other hand as least they will be learning to fly together. ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #62 February 22, 2006 Quoteand I don't think the flying skills are where they need to be in order to turn him loose with freefall students, he is still learning to fly himself. Honest question here from someone who has no ratings... is this lack of confidence in coaches like this because: 1) the criteria by which we're evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches is not stringent enough or 2) the course directors who are evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches aren't applying those criteria or 3) some combination of both? I hear a lot of complaining about folks who only have 100 jumps getting to be coaches, but there are, surely, more criteria than "rack up 100 jumps" to become a coach, right? If that isn't really the case in practice, then I'd probably be much more inclined to support this proposal for D-licensed jumpers to work with students. I have not gone for my coach rating for the simple reason that I don't feel ready to teach. I, personally, don't think my flying skills are at a level where I would feel comfortable working with unlicensed jumpers. And yet, all the concerns with the coach program seem to revolve around the fact that people view it as a "rubber stamp" credential ... go through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #63 February 22, 2006 I not really trying to knock anything, just talking about someone that was my student and after seeing him fly I don't think he has all the skills he may need to be fair to the person he is working with, 1. flying skills 2.able to see what is right and wrong and be able to debrief it. In this case it is #2 that I think he needs the most work on. I do agree that if they can coach in the S/L or IAD then why not the AFF as someone posted. However the person I refer to, I wouldn't turn loose on a AFF student he don't the flying skills to do it, and that got me thinking about it after reading Kip's post. Should we turn this guy loose with freefall students at his skill level ?(their still students to me till they have an "A" IMO") As for 1, 2 & 3 I would say could be all, I haven't made my mind up on #1, but #2 who gave the course? some CD's I have met sucked ass while others were very demanding about knowing the info and having skills, if you didn't, you didn't pass. people view it as a "rubber stamp" credential ... go through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. (quote) I can understand why, I have known people who have signed off rating paperwork in exchange for a check. ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpnaked69 0 #64 February 22, 2006 I dont really like posting on here but I think this issue is worth discussing. This new change, if I'm reading it correctly, would allow ANY D-license jumper to go jump with someone who has as few as 7 jumps and that they could do so in a 4-way (two d-license jumpers and two jumpers with 7 jumps). If this is the case I think the BOD should really reconsider. I'm not very experienced in this sport and I dont have a lot of fancy initials to back up anything I'm about to say--just trying to apply some common sense. A few years back (2003?) they changed the requirements for D-licenses from 200 to 500 jumps. I think this was a good change because when I reached 200 jumps I still knew I didn't have a clue what I was doing. The D-license SHOULD be the gold standard, the person to go talk to, the one with a safe record and some good advice to offer younger jumpers. That person should set the example. I happen to know of some folks who got their D-licenses before that requirement changed and even some folks who have gotten their D-license since that requirement changed that don't meet the standard I described above. I think that every skydiver can name more than one D-license holder who they find to be either irresponsible, unsafe, or unhelpful in the learning process that's critical to safe skydiving. I think another empirical example of why D-license holders are not the solution to all problems is the statistical accident and fatality list--I'm not sure what the numbers are for 2005 but I remember that in 2004 the highest number of accidents were attributed to D-license holders and the second-highest attributed to students. Do you really want to take the two most accident-prone groups in skydiving and enable them to hurt themselves that much easier? I've done fewer coach jumps than some of the AFF-Is posting on here but I've seen my fair share of dumb student stuff. Some of my favorites include--arching harder and pulling instead of tracking; "tracking" in a giant circle; "tracking" into a nearly head-down position below you and then deploying; forgetting about their altimeters altogether in freefall; etc. These are all free-fall related issues that would only become much more complicated and much more dangerous with extra jumpers in the area--D-license holders OR students. Should we expect D-license holders to exercise better judgment? Maybe so but it's a dangerous gamble. You have people who bust their butts to hit 500 jumps for tandem ratings or pro-ratings without ever developing good freefall skills and possibly not even any TEACHING skills. Having skill in an area doesnt mean that you're capable of passing that skill on. I recognize that you also have people who try to blaze to 100 jumps to be coaches and I dont think that's a good thing either. I think the best solution is to simply make the coach requirements harder. Having a coach course (COULD) accomplish several things. First, it would evaluate a skydiver's ability to fly their body. Second, it would evaluate a skydiver's ability to teach skills. And finally, and perhaps most important, it would prove that the candidate is interested in teaching to the point that they want to incur the extra cost (time and money) that it takes to be a teacher of skydiving. This requirement could be totally blind to licenses held and focus only on what the candidate is capable of doing. Is the current coach course way too easy? Yes, I think so (and I went through it). To reply to stratostar, I think the critera are too easy and we should make them more stringent. It shouldnt matter what license a person holds, it should matter if they're good enough at skydiving to teach it and if they're good enough at teaching to do it while skydiving. Just my two cents Alan p.s.--i think perhaps the better change (in my very humble opinion) would be for the USPA to develop a REALISTIC wingloading chart that accurately reflects the general level of wingloading; and a way to better develop canopy skills as part of a comprehensive trainig program for those that want to enter the sport. Canopy skills are the most overemphasized but underdeveloped skill in all of skydiving. This needs to change if we want to bring those fatalities and accident numbers down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #65 February 22, 2006 I'm leaning that way too, nice post dude. I'm waiting to see what the offical word is from HQ and read the new rules before I make my mind up and say one way or the other, because I want to fully understand what was said and what the new play ground rules are. Stay safe. ~you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #66 February 22, 2006 Alan, I could not agree with your post more. I was fortunate to earn my coach rating with Don Yharling as one of my evaluators. He taught me so much, along with Djan (regional director) as the Coach class instructor. My first real student pulled at 6.5K in my face while I was still docked in a two way. My second student tracked in a circle around me. My third student came at me with such speed for the dive and dock that if I did not move out of the way, it would have been a nasty crash... We dirt dived the jumps on the ground perfectly... Student 1 told me the ground looked big so he pulled. Student 2 swore the track was striaght. Student 3 knew what happened and made a great dock on the second pass. All of those things I was ready for, because my instructors drilled me on them. Doing a jump with a student is not as simple as "Lets turn a few points then track and pull." Teaching is a huge responsibility. The cause and effect is something that I am learning is one of the more challenging things to learn. AND I consider myself the biggest student of all right now, only starting to appreciate everything that goes into instructional jumps... So this thread is full of arguments: Problem Not enough coaches, so open the group up so "real" instructors can work on real student jumps and let "Experienced" skydivers help out the newbies. Answer Don't remove the training, assist with the training. DZO's needing more coaching should help people get the training. Problem Once a coach has a rating, they are charging for their services - thus making it more expensive for the student. Answer Establish the mentality - "We at the DZ helped you get your rating - now pay it forward." Even without that DZ investment, I have done a lot of pay-my-own-slot jumps, especially when the "customer" is saying things like, "I have only enough funds to do one jump this week." I know other coaches who are passionate about teaching who do the same. If a D licenced jumper is willing to invest in a newbie, let them invest in a weekend in an instructional class. I paid some money, spent the time in the class room, and have, in joy and money, earned every penny back. I am starting to think that DZOs will have to do more governing over their student programs if the USPA keeps making it easier... I know the DZ I jump at has the attitude, "instructional ratings are so easy to get, that they are the bare minimum required, not the key to, being an instructor here." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #67 February 22, 2006 All, Even though I'm pretty new, I might be able to add a little to the debate about instructor/coach ratings and coach jumps and teaching from a new guy's perspective. Or, I might just be coughing up a pellet of mouse bones into the middle of the dinner table. First, I will say again that I am a new guy - I started jumping in June 2005. I never went through any of the changes in requirements for licenses or ratings that have been mentioned. If I didn't happen to read about them on here or see them in an old copy of the SIM or whatever, I wouldn't know they existed. So I can't speak much to if the "old way" or the "new way" is better. About the idea of knowing how to teach. I have very little experience with teaching "physical" things - skydiving, dancing, playing football, things like that. But I do have a fair-to-middlin' amount of experience with learning and teaching "mental" things - computers, electronics, and even a little mechanical engineering. When I was going to college, I had some professors that clearly knew a lot about the subject, but were not very good at _teaching_ it to someone else. In one case, it was because English was his second or third language, and he didn't know it very well. In another, it was a native speaker of English who just couldn't get his points across to most of the class. These profs were in the minority, but they did exist. Also, since then, I have been in a position to teach things to others, even though I don't have any formal experience in "how to teach". Usually I seem to do OK, but sometimes I have a hard time getting my point across, and I feel like if I knew more about how to teach, it'd be easier. So, I have to agree with the idea that knowing a lot about a subject doesn't mean you know how to teach it. About the idea of required "coach" jumps. I have jumped, as an AFF student, at a DZ where their student program required several coach jumps (something like 5 to 7; I don't remember exactly) after one finished AFF. I had a couple of more experienced jumpers pull me aside and advise me to finish AFF, and then go to some other DZ where coach jumps weren't required, so as to save money on the costs of training. One of them had a C license and about 300 jumps, and the other had at least a couple of hundred jumps. Nobody likes to spend money they don't absolutely _have_ to spend, but I thought it was interesting that somebody would tell me that. Maybe some more experienced jumpers wouldn't have told me that. About the idea of "all coach ratings/D licenses are not created equal", or "I'd jump with this one guy that has 100 jumps but I'd never jump with this other guy that has 1000 jumps". I think some of this is inevitable when you're dealing with humans. But some of it is due to the way the training is set up and/or controlled. In the US, you've got over 200 dropzones, all potentially having people earn higher licenses and ratings there. It is probably _possible_ to ensure a reasonable uniformity of training and requirements across those 200+ DZs, but from what little I know of how the regulation works, I'm not sure that this is being done. Again, this may be a bold statement from a new guy, but that's what I see. The contrast to this might be someplace like the military, where the training is tightly controlled and fairly uniformly delivered. One goal of the training is to turn people into interchangeable parts - everyone who has the same specialty will have about the same level of knowledge. If the Army says "this guy is a helicopter mechanic and that guy is an artilleryman", you _know_, with a high degree of confidence, that the first guy will know how to fix a helicopter, and the second guy will know everything you can do with a mortar. We could have this in skydiving, but then the training would probably look a lot like boot camp. Another somewhat-related thing to "all licenses are not created equal" is this. There has been some discussion of people getting higher licenses or instructional ratings because they dig it, and people getting them because they want to make some money. I went to college to get a Computer Science degree. I noticed that you could split the students into two broad groups. The first group, if they didn't have anything else to do, would go and fart around with a computer for fun. The second group seemed to have looked at a list in a magazine of "Jobs that will make you a lot of money" and just picked one. A few of the people in this second group came to enjoy what they were doing and be reasonably good at it. A lot of them, though, seemed to have a harder time of the classes and projects - they saw it as a chore they had to go through before they could get the bucks, rather than something fun. Since I have seen the different motivations lead to different results in one field, I don't doubt that it could happen in another field. Unfortunately I don't know how one separates the people that dig it from the people that just want the cash, or even if it's a good idea to do so - 'wanting the cash' has also been known to spur innovation and improvements. Again, all this is just my opinion as a relatively new guy. Feel free to correct, flame, agree with, or ignore any and all of it. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #68 February 22, 2006 Quotego through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. then get your jumps paid for by the new guy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #69 February 22, 2006 As a teaching professional for the last 35 years, I should point out that a 3 day coach course is not remotely adequate to make anyone a teacher. Would you send you kids to a school where the teachers had just 3 days of training? This claim that someone who passed a coach course knows how to teach is laughable. IMO it's all about judgement and safety in the air, and no course teaches good judgement; that comes from experience.... 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
Hooknswoop 19 #70 February 22, 2006 So, once again, USPA's solution to not enough Instructor's- make it easier to become an Instructor. Is USPA looking out for it's member's needs (ensuring well-trained, quality Instructors for it's members)? or the DZO's needs (more, cheap labor)? Why not address why there are not enough Instructors? Pay. Benefits. Treatment. Working conditions. A new AFFI makes just as much as an AFFI with 500 AFF jumps and years of experience. How does lowering the standards to pass the AFFI course serve the student/member? How does it serve the DZO? How does making anyone with a D license a Coach serve the needs of the student/member? How does it serve the needs of the DZO? Once again, the member loses when USPA chooses between it's members and the DZO's. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skymonkey2 0 #71 February 22, 2006 the criteria by which we're evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches is not stringent enough or 2) the course directors who are evaluating the skills and readiness to teach of potential coaches aren't applying those criteria or 3) some combination of both? Let me help with this, First I am an AFF, Tandem, Coach, S/L and IAD Course Director and in the old days a BIC Course Director. The coach course is a combination of the old BIC and an education in the ISP and a basic evaluation of some ones communication and flying skills. The candidates are supposed to learn how to teach, and understand how people learn, and if the course director is doing his job teach or introduce how to conduct body scanning. And then they are evaluated on basic flying skills. We are checking to see if they can stay close to a student that is attempting basic RW skills and body scanning, (remember, they are jumping with students that have anywhere 9 jumps to 16 jumps. Not 5 or 6 jumps. And have proven stability by back loops, barrel rolls.). All the candidates’ are supposed to be taught the proper techniques for docking, swooping, fall rate, break off procedures, and tracking. These are basic RW skills. I remember when was a student and after my initial training I was released to the wolves, I had to learn this from who ever was available, I received so much different information based on individuals knowledge and preferences. The ISP was developed to teach young skydivers the basic survival skill in RW. I have been on many RW dives where young skydivers have not made the formation, or have taken it out. One problem we have is what you have stated, course directors are not doing there jobs, either because they don’t understand what they are teaching or because they are lazy. I have witnessed such courses. This is why the AIC has been developed. I have seen coach course directors hold a 1 ½ to 2 day coach course, I know form experience that this is not possible. The ISP is excellent program I have watch small and medium DZs use it and love it. There are many coach and aff candidates learn about the program and wish that when they were learning to skydive that they used the program. USPA is stepping backwards in their education of coaches and instructors, buy letting D license skydivers jump with students who have not proven that they can teach, this is a crime to our students. Are students are paying for a service, either buy slots or coaching. And letting a coach jump with students is not smart. They are not experienced and have not had a chance to mature in the sport. People in this forum have stated the old system, well in the old system the jumpmaster had to attend a JCC, and were not allowed to teach a FJC, and had to be a JM for a year before attending ICC, and then had to prove they could do the job of an instructor. But in the old days the Static-line JM’s and Instructors were not evaluated on there flying skills. Now in the S/L and IAD course they have to have there flying skill evaluated. When the first coach course was held there were two S/L instructors with over a thousand jumps that attended, and failed the air evaluations. So I guess to answer your question I believe it is a combination of both. www.airrageskydivingservices.comAFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E Students are our future teach them well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #72 February 22, 2006 Anyone who feels like I do checkout SkydiveMentors.com.They have a neat idea that I am going to help them spread. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #73 February 22, 2006 QuoteQuotego through the motions, pay your fee to USPA, and get the rating. then get your jumps paid for by the new guy. That makes me sad that there's so many people for whom that's the motivation for getting the rating. But you've been around the sport quite a bit longer than me, Spence, so I'm sure you've got some history underlying that cynicism. I'm not sure that I'm ready to agree that just because it's expensive to learn this sport we should throw away some of the requirements we've developed for our instructors. I wasn't around in the "old days," so I paid for every single student jump that I did with an instructor. I also learned at a DZ where (even if you took out the gear rental component) all student jumps were more expensive than a standard jump ticket for a licensed jumper because (at least theoretically) even solos were supposed to be conducted under the guidance of a USPA instructor (students have a jump worksheet/plan they fill out and are supposed to go over with an intsructor before each jump). Cynically and in retrospect that was/is probably a ploy to line the DZO's pockets, but at the time, I accepted the idea that students and tandems are at the wide part of the pyramid scheme that keeps life affordable for up jumpers. It'd be hard to administer, but I wonder if something like "coach rating renewal fee is waived if you provide documentation of free coaching to X students." Of course, that's a legalistic solution to an attitude problem and, as such, probably causes more problems than it solves. And it wouldn't work at DZs where the student program is tightly controlled by the DZO, who wants revenue and a cut on every jump. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #74 February 22, 2006 I'm not asking for anything to be thrown away.I'm saying that there should be an alternative to paying a 100 jump wonder for a coaches jump.I would like to see how many coaches candidates or renewals there would be this year if it was announced you would no longer have your slot covered.That would show you how many were really interested in "teaching" . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #75 February 22, 2006 QuoteI would like to see how many coaches candidates or renewals there would be this year if it was announced you would no longer have your slot covered.That would show you how many were really interested in "teaching" Isn't there value to the student in terms of the information they recieve? Or the experiecne they have? I understand that SOME people at SOME dzs had mentors who whould jump with them, and provide them the same service as a coach, but at no cost. What about the jumpers who didn't have that luxury? Or the ones who ended up jumping with up-jumpers who were poor teachers, or taught mis-information? Maybe they would have preferred to pay the additional fee to have a guarantee that they would A) have someone to jump with and that B) they would be teaching from an established cirriculum and with established methods. I can understand your dissatisfaction with the situation, but you need to deciede if the supervised jumps are needed or not. If they are not needed, then thats the answer, get rid of them. If they are needed though, you can't leave it up to chance, and the generosity of other skydivers to get them done. There has to be a guideline there to ensure the quality and safety of the jumps. Without a guideline, you end up with the same situation we have with canopy selection. It's just up to the DZO, or S&TA, or who ever to determine who is qualified to do what, and with differing opinions on what that means, you'll have different standards from DZ to DZ. We've seen the results of this approach with canopies, and I don't see how the same approach to supervised jumps would net any better results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
