USPA AFFCC Standards

[Hooknswoop 19]

It is a fact that USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI.

There are people getting their ratings at the new course that would have smoked the old course too, I don't want to take anything away from those people.

How can lowering the standards to be an Acclerated Free Fall Instructor be in the interest of skydivers?

Why would USPA do this?

I strongly believe that the Instructor shortage and the lowering of the standards was not a coincidence and was, in fact, in response to the Instructor shortage.

Opinions/thoughts?

Derek

[TALONSKY 0]

It was my understanding that the lowering of the AFFI standard, was in response to AFFI canadates complaints that the course was too hard and too expensive. It also was my understanding that the falure rate was quite high in the old AFFI course.
Kirk

[indyz 1]

Quote

It was my understanding that the lowering of the AFFI standard, was in response to AFFI canadates complaints that the course was too hard and too expensive. It also was my understanding that the falure rate was quite high in the old AFFI course.

So, do you think that the complaints about the difficulty of the course and the high failure rate are because the course was genuinely too difficult, or because the courses were filled with unqualified candidates?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So, do you think that the complaints about the difficulty of the course and the high failure rate are because the course was genuinely too difficult, or because the courses were filled with unqualified candidates?

At the course I went to in 1999, 7 of 15 people passed. No one passed that shouldn't have and no one failed that shouldn't have.

USPA didn't need to lower the standard to make it cheaper.

The old course wasn't too hard. It should be very difficult, you have people's lives in your hands.

What was missing from the old course was a standardized pre-course. People didn't know what to expect and *gasp* over-estimated their abilities. So instead of saying, "Ya, I failed because I wasn't good enough., they would say, "I failed because it was too hard." Not their fault, you see.

Derek

[voodew1 0]

As one of the newly rated AFFI's (in May), I would say that from what I know the course has changed in the way it is taught.

1 After the classroom there are 2 days of practice with the evaluators--this is to learn how to do the job and also learn the evaluator

2 The ground prep is also "taught" to the first going thru it and they are used to teach the rest of the candidates.

From what I know these are major changes as in the past you were to show up knowing how to do everything.

As for this being easier yes it would be.

The pimp hand is powdered up ... say something stupid

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

As one of the newly rated AFFI's (in May), I would say that from what I know the course has changed in the way it is taught.

1 After the classroom there are 2 days of practice with the evaluators--this is to learn how to do the job and also learn the evaluator

2 The ground prep is also "taught" to the first going thru it and they are used to teach the rest of the candidates.

From what I know these are major changes as in the past you were to show up knowing how to do everything.

As for this being easier yes it would be.

They changed the format AND the standards to pass the course.

If you did the pre-course card correctly, that would prepare you for the course, I passed.

For example;

Old course required 12 points from a maximum of 6 dives. Each dive could earn from 0 to 4 points. To get 4 points, it must be on video and all the evaluators must agree that it is a 4 point dive.

New course, pass 2 out of 3 dives, or pass more than you fail, with no limit on number of eval dives.

An example of how it is an easier format:

Old course: First dive score a 2.

New course: First dive score a sat.

Old course: Second dive, score a 0.

New course: Second dive, score an un-sat.

Old course: Third dive score a 2.

New course: Third dive score a sat and earn your rating.

With the old course at this point, you have 3 dives to score 8 more points. You must demonstrate higher than average abilities to recover from the failed Second dive.

Old course: Fourth dive score a 2

Old course: Fifth dive score a 2.

You must now score a 4 on the last dive to earn your rating, no pressure.

Old course: Sixth dive, score a 2 or 3, fail the course.

If you do not believe me that the course has lowered it’s standards, ask other people that have seen both the old and new courses.

I watched a candidate that could not catch the evaluator while they were on their back become an AFFI because they simply kept jumping with him, passing the other two presentations that didn’t include the evaluator on his back until he had more sats that un-sats and passed.

The standard to become an AFFI has been lowered.

Derek

[voodew1 0]

Slight change to the rules

You have 4 jumps to get 3 Sats not an unlimited number of jumps only 4 to get 3
At least where I took it and there seems to be differences such as we simulated a ride thru with a tap out at 3.5 and some evaluators actually have the candidates do a ride thru

The pimp hand is powdered up ... say something stupid

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Slight change to the rules

You have 4 jumps to get 3 Sats not an unlimited number of jumps only 4 to get 3
At least where I took it and there seems to be differences such as we simulated a ride thru with a tap out at 3.5 and some evaluators actually have the candidates do a ride thru

That's they way it was when I did it. But like you said one course director would have you tap and leave and one would have you ride thru.

Aside from those 4 jumps, you do get 2 practice jumps with an evaluator.

I don't think the course got "easier", just more information is put out there to help the candidates instead of guessing.

I practiced the tap and go method but my course director wanted us to do the ride thru. I did fail one of jumps because I did the tap and go as I was taught by someone who was helping me but went through the course with a different course director.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[FemaleFlyer 0]

I would have to agree that the standard has been lowered not for the interest of our fellow new comers.

I believe that the reason why this took place is that there is a shortage of AFF instructors all over the country. You can't have new skydivers if their is no one to teach them. So they decided to lower the standards to allow more people to pass, get involved. I have seen some of the people who have passed the AFF course lately and I honestly believe that in the old course they would have had a chance to ever get their rating.

Do I think these people are terrible instructors, maybe no, just that they were not ready at that time and place with knowledge and skill to successfully teach, save someone's life, at that current time. I think it would be better for them to fail the course, go back home, do some more research, practice, train, get better and then come back ready with no doubt in their mind that they can pass the course.

I think instead of making the course easer they should have look at maybe the reason why there was shortage of Instructors and what were the complaints.

Is it the pay in the industry?
Is it the cost of the course itself? (maybe lowering the cost be even better then lowering the standards)
Is it because maybe the lack of interest in being an instructor?
Is it because more people just want to only fun jump?
Why are people complaining? What are there arguments and are they legit?

I think there are many other ways to solve the problem that is going on then lowering the standards of the course.

I hope this is not a bash on the people who have gotten their ratings recently, you may have been one of the people who would have passed the course even in the old courses, I am just saying that I agree that the old course was harder and maybe we need to think on what do we want our final results to be. I think they should have done something as simple as lowering the course cost and doing it more efficiently.

______________________________________________________________________

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Is it the pay in the industry?

That and the way Instructors are treated, I think anyway.

Quote

I think there are many other ways to solve the problem that is going on then lowering the standards of the course.

I agree. A standardized pre-course would have been a better solution.

Quote

I hope this is not a bash on the people who have gotten their ratings recently, you may have been one of the people who would have passed the course even in the old courses, I am just saying that I agree that the old course was harder and maybe we need to think on what do we want our final results to be. I think they should have done something as simple as lowering the course cost and doing it more efficiently.

Not bashing the AFFI's that have passed the new course at all. They earned their ratings.

My point is USPA is not out to help skydivers. They are out to help DZO's, even at the cost of safety.

USPA is a puppet organization controlled by DZO's.

Derek

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I don't think the course got "easier", just more information is put out there to help the candidates instead of guessing.

Talk to someone that has seen the new and old courses. The new course standards are lower. I had an AFFCC CD admit this to me.

I think the 2/3 was the first change, then it went to 3/4. Irregardless, there are AFFI's out there that could have have passed the old course because their abilities aren't up to the old course's standards.

Again, if you do not believe this, ask around.

Not enough Instructors in the country.....What to do, what to do? Pay more? No way! Treat the Instructors better? No way! Give them perks? No way! I know, make more Instructors, since the DZ makes the same $ regardless of the quality of the instruction.

Derek

[Ron 7]

Standard response for the USPA...

We need more I's so lets make the course easy.

Fuck saftey, lets make it cost effective.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ryoder 1,404]

Hmmm...
This must be the first plank of Derek's campaign platform.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[AggieDave 6]

I also think that it depends on the Course Director.

I watched Bram do the course at Aggieland and was very impressed with the level of proficiency he required and wanted to pass.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Shark 0]

Quote

They are out to help DZO's, even at the cost of safety.

If you assume that the DZ hires anyone with an AFF-I.... Most of the large DZs I know have high standards and it can be difficult to get on staff. You can be shit hot flyer, but if you can't teach, is the student any safer? If you suck you will not last long at the DZ.

As a prospective student you should visit the DZ and talk with the instructional staff.

[PhreeZone 15]

>Most of the large DZs I know have high standards and it can be difficult to get on staff

That might be the case in Cali but here in the midwest there is still a lack of instructors at almost every DZ I've been to. Tandem staff is backed up 2-3 loads, AFF students get manifested many loads out since it takes that long to get enough instructors lined up to do their jumps. It says something when 2-3 King Air/Twin Otter sized DZ's in a 200 mile area hold an AFFCC every year to get enough staff.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If you assume that the DZ hires anyone with an AFF-I.... Most of the large DZs I know have high standards and it can be difficult to get on staff. You can be shit hot flyer, but if you can't teach, is the student any safer? If you suck you will not last long at the DZ.

I have seen exactly the opposite at DZ's.

I worked at a DZ where a tandem I forgot to hook up the upper connections. He would have never known if the cameraman hadn't pointed it out. he was back doing tandems the next day.

Derek

[Shark 0]

Quote

Quote

If you assume that the DZ hires anyone with an AFF-I.... Most of the large DZs I know have high standards and it can be difficult to get on staff. You can be shit hot flyer, but if you can't teach, is the student any safer? If you suck you will not last long at the DZ.

I have seen exactly the opposite at DZ's.

I worked at a DZ where a tandem I forgot to hook up the upper connections. He would have never known if the cameraman hadn't pointed it out. he was back doing tandems the next day.

Is this TI an AFF-I as well?

[riggerrob 561]

CSPA addressed the issue by insisting that aspiring freefall instructors earn a Coach 2 rating before they can attend a Progressive Freefall Instructor certification course.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Is this TI an AFF-I as well?

Yes.

I have seen other, similar occurances. I knew an AFFI that refused to re-dock on a student becuase they didn't want to get kicked.

Derek

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have seen other, similar occurances. I knew an AFFI that refused to re-dock on a student becuase they didn't want to get kicked.
/reply]

Whew - that's scary stuff. I'm glad to say that the army of AFFIs I had (Mike, Raff, Randy, Terry, Tom, Shelley, Andy, John, and Kogi) all gave me the assurance to keep at it. I can't imagine trying to do the sequence without the confidence that they would do their best to keep the jump safe.

5 extra AFF-Is can get more students in the air, but 1 bad one can lose you those students for good.

• Quote