CSpenceFLY 1 #126 February 27, 2006 So everyone that learned to skydive before 1999 learned wrong?If I saw a notable improvment in safety or the quality of skydives a new A-licenced jumper was doing I might give in to some of this,but I have seen neither. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #127 February 27, 2006 QuoteSo everyone that learned to skydive before 1999 learned wrong? No, not wrong just cheaper! jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydived19006 4 #128 February 27, 2006 I got my instructional ratings back in the “Jump-Master” days. So I attended a JCC, and ICC (Jumpmaster Certification Course/Instructor Certification Course). These courses basically amounted to sitting in a room, and listening to lecture, then demonstrating a couple of ground instruction skills. Compared to the Coach Course I attended last summer, and assisted with it’s a night and day difference. Maybe part of it may be due to the Coach Course Director as well, she did an excellent job. I imagine there could still be some fairly poor Coach Courses being conducted? As the BSRs now stand its extremely vague, BSR Section 2-1 E.4. c. All students must jump under the direct supervision of an appropriately rated USPA Instructor until demonstrating stability and heading control prior to and within five seconds after initiating two intentional disorienting maneuvers involving a back-to-earth presentation. [E] There is no clarification as to who can jump with and/or supervise the student after completing the disorienting maneuvers, so the “new” rule allowing D licensed skydivers to jump with “Self Supervision Students” is actually no change at all. The BSRs are the “law” we live by, what’s given in SIM chapter 4 or the IRM are really moot, just ask for a waiver to a “rule” in the ISP or IRM, and see what the response is from USPA. MartinExperience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else. AC DZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #129 February 27, 2006 QuoteSo everyone that learned to skydive before 1999 learned wrong?If I saw a notable improvment in safety or the quality of skydives a new A-licenced jumper was doing I might give in to some of this,but I have seen neither. . Apparently no-one is able to measure that improvement, or I would have received an answer to my thrice asked and as yet unanswered question.... 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
tombuch 0 #130 February 27, 2006 QuoteAs the BSRs now stand its extremely vague, BSR Section 2-1 E.4. c. All students must jump under the direct supervision of an appropriately rated USPA Instructor until demonstrating stability and heading control prior to and within five seconds after initiating two intentional disorienting maneuvers involving a back-to-earth presentation. [E] There is no clarification as to who can jump with and/or supervise the student after completing the disorienting maneuvers, so the “new” rule allowing D licensed skydivers to jump with “Self Supervision Students” is actually no change at all. I think you are correct, although I hate that position. Last summer at my drop zone several D licensed jumpers were asked to supervise students with about 9 jumps while they were in the airplane. The licensed jumpers didn't want to provide that supervision, and instead suggested that the students should be supervised by at least a coach in the airplane so somebody with a rating was there to supervise and actually teach gear checks, spotting, aircraft emergencies, exit separation, etc. They asked for my interpretation as an S&TA. As I read it, the BSR's do suggest that once a student has done two disorienting maneuvers they require overall supervision by an instructor, but no supervision in the airplane or freefall. I thought that was odd, and asked for clarification from Jim Crouch and others at USPA. The answer I was given was that yes, after recovering from disorienting maneuvers a student no longer needed an instructor in the airplane, at least under a very technical reading of the regulation. However, a DZO should still require an instructor or coach in the airplane as a means of liability protection, and to provide the student with the actual training needed to meet the A license requirements. It seemed to strike several USPA officials as odd that a DZO might try to squirm out of using rating holders in the airplane. At my request, Jim asked to have the topic of supervision on the Safety and Training docket at the February meeting. Last summer I had a lengthy discussion with BOD member Max Coen, and just prior to the meeting I had a long talk with BOD member Gary Peek about the topic. Gary actually called me because he saw the topic of supervision on his agenda with my name attached to it, and wondered what it was about. After hearing my concern Gary tried to bring it up, but the meeting apparently skipped the topic. Thus, we are left with a BSR that doesn't define what level of supervision is needed in the airplane, and is still being used by cheap DZO's to cut costs and quality of training. I had a chat with board member Mike Perry a few hours ago about the topic and he has promised to review it, and may have some definitions added to an S&TA newsletter at some later point. In the meantime, it really is a free for all, at least as per the BSR's. It's my understanding that the Safety and Training Committee of the Board of Directors feels that the regulations must be designed so that the smallest Cessna DZ can say they provide all the training required, even if there is but one instructor and no coach on staff. It seems to me to be a dumbing down of the regulations. The USPA BOD response seems to be that drop zones can provide higher levels of supervision if they choose, but that the supervision required by the BSR's is just a minimum, and that it seems to be working in the field. I think I have come to an agreement with Mike Perry to disagree with him on this point. Allowing D licensed jumpers to supervise students is a bad policy that in my opinion, gives strength to the worst DZ's, offers cause to reduce instructional supervision, and harms students. As a S&TA at a big DZ I see lots of our graduates, and plenty of graduates from other schools. I've got to say that training is better than when I started 25 years ago, but that is is absolutely not adequate for the current jumping environment or equipment. We should be increasing requirements and supervision, not decreasing them. I guess I really disagree with the BOD on this point. I am especially annoyed because several jumpers took the initiative to bring this concern to me as an S&TA. I in turn brought that issue to USPA, and the BOD, yet the concern wasn't addressed. I let the jumpers down, and USPA in turn let me down. Then, on page two of this thread I was lambasted (well, maybe that's too harsh of a word) about not attending the BOD meeting, or discussing these issues with the BOD in advance. Jeeeze it's frustrating. .Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #131 February 27, 2006 QuoteApparently no-one is able to measure that improvement, or I would have received an answer to my thrice asked and as yet unanswered question. Safety is a tough thing to measure. How do you quantify it? Does a situation have to degrade to the point of an incident to be classified as 'unsafe'? If not, what is the criteria for being safe or unsafe? It like this, tall tress upwind of an LZ, I would say is less safe than no trees upwind of the LZ. Does a jumper need to have a hard landing for that LZ to be unsafe, or can we call it unsafe based on the knowledge of airflow, turbulence, and tall trees upwind of other LZ's. This why you have to look at the situation, and make your best guess. Take the newbie jumpers - Situation 1 - Jumping with experienced jumpers who have no training or prescribed dive flow to follow. Situation 2- Jumping with less experienced jumpers who have a Coach rating, and are following a predetermined dive flow. In this case, I would vote that Situation 2 has the better chance for a positive outcome. Thats not to say that Situation 1 is inhernetly 'unsafe', but I think that Situation 2 shows more in the way of 'checks and balances' in terms of safety. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #132 February 27, 2006 QuoteGary tried to bring it up, but the meeting apparently skipped the topic. I had a chat with board member Mike Perry a few hours ago about the topic and he has promised to review it, as an S&TA. I in turn brought that issue to USPA, and the BOD, yet the concern wasn't addressed. I was lambasted (well, maybe that's too harsh of a word) about not attending the BOD meeting, or discussing these issues with the BOD in advance. This is what I'm talking about. Who is going to be more in touch with what is happening than the S&TA, who is on site, and taking questions from jumpers on a daily basis? Yet you get no consideration for your issues beyond lip service? What is the BOD doing then? Who are they responding to with the issues they choose to address? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #133 February 27, 2006 QuoteLast summer at my drop zone several D licensed jumpers were asked to supervise students with about 9 jumps while they were in the airplane. The licensed jumpers didn't want to provide that supervision Then they should have to provide the supervision. If its too much to ask from your D licensed jumpers then you will have to find another way. Its really sad though they wouldn't help out. QuoteI am especially annoyed because several jumpers took the initiative to bring this concern to me as an S&TA. I in turn brought that issue to USPA, and the BOD, yet the concern wasn't addressed Maybe you are bringing it to the attention of the wrong Board members? There are some good guys and gals on the BOD, but SEVERAL have their own agenda and will pretend to be concerned about your concerns, but really aren't. We really need to re-think about who we vote for and why. jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #134 February 27, 2006 >>However, a DZO should still require an instructor or coach in the airplane as a means of liability protection, << I am not sure I understand what additional liability the DZO has once someone is "cleared to self supervise in freefall." It would seem to me that self supervising on the plane would come first. Brent ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #135 February 28, 2006 Back in the old days,ummm 1999,when you got through AFF you were cleared to self jumpmaster yourself.That ment manifest,put your gear on,go to the plane,ride to altitude,spot(yeah right),jump,land,walk to the hanger,and pack(yeah right again).I think my 5th or 6th jump was my own pack job.Now correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as though there are alot of people here that are not comfortable with the people they just cleared off AFF to do all of these things.Maybe we have a bigger problem than letting D-licenced jumper jump with non-licenced people. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #136 February 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteLast summer at my drop zone several D licensed jumpers were asked to supervise students with about 9 jumps while they were in the airplane. The licensed jumpers didn't want to provide that supervision Then they should have to provide the supervision. If its too much to ask from your D licensed jumpers then you will have to find another way. Its really sad though they wouldn't help out. If I was asked to supervise a number of students with 9 jumps, I'd also decline. Why? Because I don't believe I know enough about their gear or what they need to know versus what's nice to know. That's why I'm in the middle of getting my RW tutor rating - so I can feel comfortable helping out those that're just off AFF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carbonezone 0 #137 February 28, 2006 QuoteBack in the old days,ummm 1999,when you got through AFF you were cleared to self jumpmaster yourself.That ment manifest,put your gear on,go to the plane,ride to altitude,spot(yeah right),jump,land,walk to the hanger,and pack(yeah right again).I think my 5th or 6th jump was my own pack job.Now correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as though there are alot of people here that are not comfortable with the people they just cleared off AFF to do all of these things.Maybe we have a bigger problem than letting D-licenced jumper jump with non-licenced people. <<>> B--I--N--G--O <> Tami Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dolph 0 #138 February 28, 2006 Quote If I was asked to supervise a number of students with 9 jumps, I'd also decline. Why? Because I don't believe I know enough about their gear or what they need to know versus what's nice to know. That's why I'm in the middle of getting my RW tutor rating - so I can feel comfortable helping out those that're just off AFF. What exactly does supervising a student in the plane mean? Ensure their gear is on ok, working? Gear checks? Evaluating their mental state? Their conduct and movement while in the plane? Their spot, if they spot? All the other details that I don't pay attention to because I'm not an instructor and don't know what to look for? Or more like with licensed jumpers? If you're asked to do something you're not really qualified to do, it's a pretty shitty situation from a moral and liability point of view. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tombuch 0 #139 February 28, 2006 QuoteQuote If I was asked to supervise a number of students with 9 jumps, I'd also decline. Why? Because I don't believe I know enough about their gear or what they need to know versus what's nice to know. That's why I'm in the middle of getting my RW tutor rating - so I can feel comfortable helping out those that're just off AFF. What exactly does supervising a student in the plane mean? Ensure their gear is on ok, working? Gear checks? Evaluating their mental state? Their conduct and movement while in the plane? Their spot, if they spot? All the other details that I don't pay attention to because I'm not an instructor and don't know what to look for? It's all that and more. It means actually taking responsibility for the life and safety of a student. It means making decisions on behalf of the student, and being willing to handle the legal liability if something goes wrong. It means not just doing all those those things for the student, but rather teaching the student to do those things for himself, and reviewing his decision making process as he does so. It means being aware enough of everything that is happening to teach the student in the airplane, and then to add further instruction on the ground if needed. It means knowing the process at the local school, knowing what the school is teaching, and being consistent in your approach so that the student isn't confused by conflicting information. Supervising a student is a really big deal because until they actually have an A license, students depend on on instructional rating holders to keep them safe, and they rely on instructors to provide appropriate training so that one day they can manage their own safety without assistance. .Tom Buchanan Instructor Emeritus Comm Pilot MSEL,G Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #140 February 28, 2006 QuoteBack in the old days,ummm 1999,when you got through AFF you were cleared to self jumpmaster yourself.That ment manifest,put your gear on,go to the plane,ride to altitude,spot(yeah right),jump,land,walk to the hanger,and pack(yeah right again).I think my 5th or 6th jump was my own pack job.Now correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as though there are alot of people here that are not comfortable with the people they just cleared off AFF to do all of these things.Maybe we have a bigger problem than letting D-licenced jumper jump with non-licenced people. . While I can appreciate everyone taking what they do seriously,we are talking about skydiving.It's recreation.Every jump does not have to by a life changing,sport changing experience. If there are people out there that really look to someone else to keep them safe till they get that damn card filled in we really do have bigger problems ahead.The more responsablity you accept,the more ammo you give the sue happys out there. Does anyone remember when the first airline started carrying the defibulators on board?Then some guy had a heart attack on another airline and the family sued because they didn't have one on that airplane. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #141 February 28, 2006 Does anyone have any hard figures on the I & Coach retention rate, average age, average experience? ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #142 February 28, 2006 QuoteIf I was asked to supervise a number of students with 9 jumps, I'd also decline. Why? Because I don't believe I know enough about their gear or what they need to know versus what's nice to know You can't do a gear check? That was required for your A license. jBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dolph 0 #143 February 28, 2006 Quote It's all that and more. It means actually taking responsibility for the life and safety of a student. It means making decisions on behalf of the student, and being willing to handle the legal liability if something goes wrong. It means not just doing all those those things for the student, but rather teaching the student to do those things for himself, and reviewing his decision making process as he does so. It means being aware enough of everything that is happening to teach the student in the airplane, and then to add further instruction on the ground if needed. It means knowing the process at the local school, knowing what the school is teaching, and being consistent in your approach so that the student isn't confused by conflicting information. Supervising a student is a really big deal because until they actually have an A license, students depend on on instructional rating holders to keep them safe, and they rely on instructors to provide appropriate training so that one day they can manage their own safety without assistance. . Which makes this not a little deal, but a very big one. I am very surprised it wasn't handled at the BOD meeting - when you personally got involved in the process. You could not get me to accept such responsibilities. Others may, either out of ignorance, deference or gung-ho'ness. In all cases, it add a substantial amount of risk to everyone involved. What will be done about it now? I do not know how the USPA operates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #144 February 28, 2006 QuoteI do not know how the USPA operates Welcome to the club. Now you are a real skydiver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #145 March 1, 2006 QuoteYou can't do a gear check? That was required for your A license. I can check my own gear. I can't reliably check an adjustible-MLW Telesis with a ripcord-activated spring-loaded pilot chute and an FXC 12000 on the main. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #146 March 1, 2006 QuoteQuoteI do not know how the USPA operates Welcome to the club. Now you are a real skydiver. From Dolph's profile: Location: Europe/Denmark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
