Minimum Jump Numbers for Instructor Ratings

[listo 0]

Well, here is a hot subject. I am going to start this in hopes of getting some positive feedback.

In regards to static line instructors, I believe that they too should have to posses the exact same prerequisits that a tandem instructor should have to have.

I believe that all a static line instructor has to have is a BIC and a "D". It used to be a "C". Well honestly I think that this is a great injustice to students out there to have someone with only 200 jumps teaching them how to skydive. Knowledge wise, sure they can probably do the job, but when it comes to flying skills......well I don't know very many 200 jump wonders out there that could keep up with an AFF evaluation.

I believe that any freefall instructor/coach should have to be able to pass a flight test for stabilizing as well as chasing an out of control student.

Just my two cents worth........

What does everyone else feel like on this subject?

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[Hooknswoop 19]

1) There are AFFI's that can't/haven't caught students before they pull or the AAD fires......

2) Increasing requirements so as to have better Instructors won't happen. At the 2001 PIA symposium, there was a presentation about the lack of Instructors. Long-term fixes were treating the Instructors better, increasing pay, that sort of thing. Short-term fixes were creating more Instructors. Pay hasn't changed and the AFFCC was changed to make it easier to pass. Increasing Instructor pay won't happen because it eats into the DZ's profit margin. Just pass the increase on to the student? That increases the cost of the skydive, resulting in less volume for the DZ, and less profit.

3) I agree S/L Instructors should be held to a higher standard than they are currently.

4) I believe a new AFFI should not be signed off to do solo AFF until after being signed off by an AFF Mentor, and only after a minimum of 25, 2 Instructor dives with that AFF Mentor.

5) Unless DZ's see a profit increase in it, Instructor standards will not go up.

6) The APF regulates it's Instructors and publishes disciplinary actions against Instructors every month in their newsletter. Even minor incidents are reported and published. USPA could learn a lot from the APF.

Hook

[masher 1]

Static line instructors or static line JM's?

Over here (Oz), you can use an instructor D (the lowest one) to despatch static liners. The prequisite (amongst others) is your D licence (200 jumps)

To actually teach the FJC, you need an instructor B, or an ID under the supervision of an IB.

--
Arching is overrated - Marlies

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Well honestly I think that this is a great injustice to students out there to have someone with only 200 jumps teaching them how to skydive.

Depends on the person with 200 jumps. I was told by several long time instructors that I did a great job teaching S/L FJC's when I had 150-400 jumps; I got my S/L JM rating as soon as I got my C license and my S/L I rating as soon as I got my D. It doesn't take hundreds or thousands of jumps to teach someone what they need to know to make one safe static line jump; all it takes is someone who knows the subject matter and has the skills to teach what they know to someone else. It doesn't take hundreds or thousands of jumps to jumpmaster a static line student; all it takes a cool head, knowledge of the gear, the jump and all procedures, and a calm manner in the aircraft (a good experienced jump pilot helps a lot too...).

Now a student in freefall is a different story. Was I up jumpmastering freefall students when I had 100-400 jumps? Nope. The dzo where I jumped brought in AFF JM's and I's to handle that, and for good reasons. I'd agree that jumping with a student in freefall should be reserved for those with 500+ jumps and proven flying skills, regardless of the training method (AFF or S/L) being used.

[jerm 0]

Quote

I believe that all a static line instructor has to have is a BIC and a "D".

Actually i think this has been changed.. AFAIK ALL instructional ratings now begin with the coach rating.

Quote

It used to be a "C". Well honestly I think that this is a great injustice to students out there to have someone with only 200 jumps teaching them how to skydive. Knowledge wise, sure they can probably do the job, but when it comes to flying skills......well I don't know very many 200 jump wonders out there that could keep up with an AFF evaluation.

No, but you were talking about static line instruction. Why would AFF-level flying skills matter for an SL instructor? You've already conceded that they can do the knowledge part of it, the rest is getting them out the door.

Quote

I believe that any freefall instructor/coach should have to be able to pass a flight test for stabilizing as well as chasing an out of control student.

A freefall instructor, yes. And there are such tests.

A coach, no. The coach rating is designed to help people just off instruction hone their flying skills. They are NOT aff instructors and NOT supposed to be stabilizing/chasing students.

When a coach gets someone, they should already know how to get stable and save their lives at pull-time. If not, then the instructors haven't done their job.

my 3 cents

Blue skies, soft landings, and cold beer.

Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time

[listo 0]

Quote

you were talking about static line instruction. Why would AFF-level flying skills matter for an SL instructor?

Well the answer to that is very simple. A static line student's progression isn't complete when he/she graduates from the static line to free fall. Actually this is the most dangerous part of the static line progression. The 5 second delay and 10 second delay should be abolished in my opinion. This is the time when students have just enough time to "brain-lock" and get themselves into trouble. Honestly, I think that instead of a 5 or 10 second delay, the student should have to go up with an AFF JM for a level 4 AFF dive or a level 3 with one AFF JM.

These are just my opinions from what I have seen. I have seen plenty of static line students have a great body form during the static line phase of their jumps only to fail blatently on a 5 second by pushing off of the strut or getting consumed by the freefall and forgetting about body positioning while struggleing for the ripcord. A person in free fall by themself for the first time is a scarey thing. You feel like you have to pull for your life and that is all that matters, when it really isn't. No JM in the world can completely get a student over his/her fear on that first 5 second delay and that is why I think that having a JM there in freefall with a longer freefall would lessen the amount of students deploying while spinning or on their backs.

Just my opinions from what I have witnessed.

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[riggerrob 563]

Okay,
If we raise the bar for static-line instructors to obscene levels, where are we going to find entry level instructors?
Rob Warner
S/L, IAD, PFF and Tandem Instructor

[riggingstuff 0]

OK, being both SL and AFF rated there is a big diff. Static line students are not suppose to get rid of that line until they show stability and control, and yes the 1st h-p is the scariest for the jm. I also remember my 1st hp, bending at the waist to find the handle( the old arch, LOOK, reach, pull) and watching the parachute come up in between my legs. I never de-arched again. The instructors job is to observe and make sure that the student stays semi stable. Grips from exit is strictly forbidden and after exit is a real gray area. Believe me I had this conversation with USPA's S&T director of the time who told me I was splitting fine hairs. At that time we had a real problem with cross over training. Somebody showing up that had past AFF L3 or 4 and us only running S/L. What do you do? The integrated program has at least given us some guidelines. Until these changes came around all you needed to throw students out of the plane was a C lic.....100 jumps. Were are JMs competent. You bet they were, for the job they do, observing and teaching basic FF skills. Hmmmm, thats what is taught in the coaches course.What's taught in either 1st jump course S/L or AFF is of importance. Priorities in both and should be hammered in, alt. awareness, arch, arch, arch, and the 3 pull priorities. I've never had a student fail AFF L-1 or their 1st S/L. L-2s or never get off the rope... yes. I've had 15 secs return to S/L, L-7s back to L-4. It's a judgment call of the instructors and it's the drop zones will probably know their instructors, how they were trained, their commitment and how they teach, also their willingness to learn. Just because we are instructors new or old doesn't mean we know it all, I've been teaching for over 10 years and I'm still learning. Bad instructors tend to help them selves and weed out and usually pretty fast. The S/L drop zone where I worked had a hybrid program, 5 S/ls or 1 tandem and 4 S/Ls, 1 h&p, 2- 10 sec., 2- 15s and up to the top we'd go. JMs were required to leave with the student after the 15s all the way through the progression to teach and help in case of instability, but remember, its the students sole and final responsibility. When I received my 1st rating the examiners last words in the course was be careful you have just been given a license to kill.... and you will if your not. Just like with rigging its a license to learn. Both disciplines have there place and their instructors are or will be good for the job at hand.

CB
Don't look for why it might work....look for why it might not.

[sducoach 0]

Quote

become a new coach on Monday and an Instructor on Friday without time in sport requirements such as one year after your receive your coach rating as it used to be with JM' and I's.

However Hook, how has the AFFCC been made easier? Having gone through one myself and worked (video) several, I'm not sure what you see as a change other than the point system and it has taken out some of the "good ole boy, SkyGod AFFI" attitude.

Friendly reply.

James 4:8

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

However Hook, how has the AFFCC been made easier?

They changed the format of the course to increase the pass rate. They should have offered a structured, official pre-course. Need more Instructors? More training not an easier course is the answer. I believe that the current format of the AFFCC imakes it easier to pass. The number of people getting AFFI ratings each much is huge compared to several years ago. I have personally seen the quality of Instructors go down.

Just my observations/opinion.

Hook

[SkySlut 0]

I believe that there should be several changes to the AFFCC.

Here is what the information sheet for the AFFCC says. "Be properly trained, then tested, as an AFF Instructor."

I honestly believe that you need to train yourself to even enter this course...and no matter how ready you think you are, trust me, you arent. The course is set up in a traditional military way.There really isnt any "training" in the course. You better have your shit together or you are going to have a really tough time. There arent too many chances to make mistakes and learn. They give you a manual and video that gives you a general outline for what they are looking for, but they never actually tell you what they are expecting from you. Therefore, no training...For the most part, the I/Es seem to be far and above the candidates in every way. If you are having a problem figuring things out...they will just tell you that its wrong...figure it out yourself...end of discussion.

I realize that they intentionally try to push your buttons to see how you handle stress. Even if you had done everything right...they will still find something to push you mentally. There is nothing wrong with pushing the candidates to succeed, but I think that it can be done in such a fashion that doesnt include beating them into submission.

Another important consideration:Students learn from their instructors, whether its an AFF student or an AFF candidate. A good teacher or instructor is very difficult to come across. Candidates learn to instruct from their course directors and I/Es. If the candidate didnt have a good coaching background before attending the AFFCC, then the only way that they will learn to teach is how they were taught by thier I/E of CDs. Beating students into submission. I think that this is terribly unfortunate. I am not saying that all I/Es are terrible because there are some great ones out there that will help you. But I have seen quite a few candidates that graduate from that course and become total dictators in their FJCs. They make their students feel stupid for asking questions...very similar to the way some AFFCC are held. People learn from example, and if your example is intimidating and condescending...well then what do you expect from these new instructors.

Final point:There needs to be a precourse that a candidate can feel free to ask all the questions in the world or the AFFCC training methods need to change.

That being said:Please dont take my ratings away!!!

[listo 0]

Quote

JMs were required to leave with the student after the 15s all the way through the progression to teach and help in case of instability, but remember, its the students sole and final responsibility.

Ok, but you just proved my point. How likely is a student to go unstable in their first 15 seconds of free fall vs. 30 seconds of free fall. Is it fair to the student to say, "well, we are short of instructors so we are going to lower the standards and make it easier to become an instructor, but don't worry, if you deploy on your back we will just move you back a notch" This is a huge injustice and a load of bull in my opinion. Students are the life blood of the sport and they are the up and coming future of the sport. What kind of example are we setting for them when we make instructor ratings easier to attain just so dropzones can make more money. I am sorry, but this sounds as ludicrous as it is.

I want some advocates of these new rules to come explain to Nick's parents that there son is a product of a student program where the instructors had an easier time in getting their ratings because we need more instructors in the sport. I want "you" to look his parents in the eyes and tell them that their son is just ignorant because he deployed on his back after he had done perfectly on his PRCPs. How many AFF or IAD students do you see deploying on their backs, not nearly as many static line progression students. I am sorry, but even if the static line JMs were the best in the world, a student doesn't need to be in free fall for the first time by themself, it just leads to problems. Every AFF level 1 or 2 dive I have videod have always had the student being slightly unstable for the first few seconds and then becoming relaxed and doing well. It is the first 5-10 seconds that a student "freaks" because they aren't used to the free fall portion of the dive. Every tandem I have done has always resulted in the passenger being "tense" until about 10 seconds into the dive. I know because I can feel their bodies against my own and I know exactly when they relax and start having fun.

My ultimate point is that students don't need to be in free fall by themselves on their first or second free fall.(not jump, but free fall) The whole concept is insane, espcially when we have as many AFF and tandem instructor out there like we do. I don't know of any dropzone that doesn't have at least one tandem master. After all, tandem is a very safe and viable way to teach someone the proper free fall techniques and body positioning.

At the same time, I say that we need to increase our instructor requirements and say the hell with trying to get a higher number of instructors. We are doing ourself a great injustice by lowering the standards. It is only going to lead to more accidents.

I am a really strong advocate of first time free fallers not doing it solo. This is insanity and it is coming from someone that did it perfectly all the way through the static line program for my student training. I find it ironic, that someone that has done this type of training and did fine with it, is now a strong advocate against it.

I am not ranting, just extremely concerned for those who don't know better. It is really easy for someone to appear highly knowledgable to a first jump student even if they really suck.

Doesn't it make more sense to take a "rope graduate" on a tandem or AFF for security purposes for their first free fall instead of hoping they won't "brain lock" and deploy while on their back or spinning. I do and I also think that they will be much more comfortable on their first "solo" free fall wearing their own rig.

common sense is great thing!


Listo

"A closed mind is a wonderful thing to waist"-me

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I honestly believe that you need to train yourself to even enter this course...

Oh absolutely! Every AFFI I've ever talked to about getting a rating says that, the AFFCC evaluators that I know say it even stronger.

It's not the AFF Training Course, it's the AFF Certification Course. Perhaps it would be better named the AFF Practical Exam because that's what it is - not a place to gain skills but a place to prove them.

A precourse should be a requirement imho, but beyond that a potential AFF instructor should be working on their own to get ready long before even the precourse. This is where I think the s/l ratings and coaches ratings are most valuable, as an entry level point for skydiving instructors. If you've been working with students and recent graduates for a couple hundred jumps or more, you probably have a lot of the teaching end of it figured out already.

[rigging65 0]

Quote

I believe that all a static line instructor has to have is a BIC and a "D". It used to be a "C". Well honestly I think that this is a great injustice to students out there to have someone with only 200 jumps teaching them how to skydive. Knowledge wise, sure they can probably do the job, but when it comes to flying skills......well I don't know very many 200 jump wonders out there that could keep up with an AFF evaluation.

Just throwing this out there, but what happens this September when the min. jump requirements for Licenses goes up? Will all the Instructor Requirements stay the same (ie - "D") or will they revert to a "C" to stay closer to the jump number requirements? I don't know, I'm asking.

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[listo 0]

from what I have heard, the requirements are going up as well, but I don't know for sure. I would hope that they would.

Live today as tomorrow may not come

[RozeAY 0]

Quote

I'd agree that jumping with a student in freefall should be reserved for those with 500+ jumps and proven flying skills, regardless of the training method (AFF or S/L) being used.

I still would say it depends on the person. I'm two eval jumps away from my AFF rating and I still don't have 400 jumps. It just depends on what you've done with the jumps you have and your ability and awareness as a skydiver.

[SkySlut 0]

I agree with that one to...it does depend on the person. I got my AFF rating when I had 6 hrs of freefall and 370 jumps. There were guys in my course that had 1500 jumps and bailed out of the course after their 1st 2 practice evals. It just depends on what you are doing. I did 150 4 way jumps starting at about 80 jumps and I had done about another 100 coaching jumps prior. You just cant walk into an AFF course with jump numbers...its not the way it works. I once saw this guy in Deland doing 100 hop-N-pops so he could hit his 500 jumps so he could get his tandem rating. Talk about cheating the system!!! I honestly believe that its quality over quantity when it comes to each individual skydiver and their chance at getting a rating and being a competent instructor.

One of the things that I was told at the end of the AFF course. "this is your license to learn. go and learn!"

[billvon 2,476]

>I believe that any freefall instructor/coach should have to be able to
> pass a flight test for stabilizing as well as chasing an out of control
> student.

At our DZ, new AFF-JM's spend a lot of time doing reserve side level 1 and 2's, then do some main side 1 and 2's. Then they move on to the 'easy' release dives (i.e. 7 and 6.) It isn't until they have a lot of experience that they start on the 'hard' dives, the 4's and 5's.

SL's can follow the same progression. Start a SL I out by doing dummy pulls, probably the 'safest' place to start. Then move on to second and then first jumps. Then go to 10 second delays. At this point they'll be staying in the plane and just watching, getting experience with students. After a while they'll start to exit with them to watch them. As they improve they move up to the longer delays.

>I believe that any freefall instructor/coach should have to be able to
> pass a flight test for stabilizing as well as chasing an out of control
> student.

Why? That's like requiring that they are checked out on a tandem rig as well. They don't (in fact, are required not to) use those skills when doing SL's. It's a different program.

[JGarcia 0]

Quote

I also remember my 1st hp, bending at the waist to find the handle( the old arch, LOOK, reach, pull) and watching the parachute come up in between my legs. I never de-arched again.

LOL! Hey, don't feel bad, I had to repeat my 5 second delays 7 times and had the pilot chute go between my legs as I deployed on my back 3 times, with the PC wrapping around my leg once!

Definately gave my instructors gray hairs. I never gave up though...and here I am now.

--Jairo

Low Profile, snag free helmet mount for your Sony X3000 action cam!

[JYorkster 0]

Sorry listo, I have to disagree once again. A person's ability to teach and safely monitor and evaluate a student does not necessarily depend on the number of jumps he/she has. I got my S/L JM rating when I had just over 100 jumps. Yeah, some of the course evaluator initially raised an eyebrow, but when they saw my skills, they had no problems with me getting a rating. I had been an instructor/evaulator in other fields for a very long time. The ability to teach and evaulate are just as important as the ability to skydive. The reality is that it doesn't matter whether or not I can match an AFF I in the air. And making the skills required the same as a Tandem I doesn't make any sense at all. Some people get 6 hrs and an AFF rating before the 500 jumps required for Tandem.

Minimums are set to rule out people who may think they are redy but are not. Most people getting ratings are ready for the task and actually care about the students. It depends on the individual. If they aren't ready, then they shouldn't pass the course.

Rock

[JGarcia 0]

Quote

I have personally seen the quality of Instructors go down.

I know of at least 2 AFF instructors who can't fly their bodies (at least when I see them performing regular jumps). And watching some of them exit with AFF students makes me cringe. And of course, they'll come up with every excuse as to why they f'd up, except that they f'd up. Quite amusing sometimes, actually, because you see when the excuses are about to start pouring in.

I actually got a Level II AFF a couple weeks ago and he brough in his video from AFF Level I that he had done at Z-hills. DAMN!. The Main Side I comes out (of an Otter) completely FETAL!. This instructor then proceeds to SWIM and kick with his legs as they rotate away from line of flight. (Meanwhile, the student has a perfect arch). Only a matter of seconds before they're all back to earth. The Reserve side I let's go. Now the pair are spinning on their backs, with the I holding on with one hand. The student is still arched, but the Main I is butt low keeping him on his back. Reserve side I is orbiting the pair.

I can just imagine the Cameraman's thoughts on this one (I'm an AFF-I and cameraflyer myself). Finally they flip over, first signal from Main side instructor is ARCH?!!?, not "Check Altitude." Student has just enough time to do a practice throw out, and wave-off/pull.

This video definately needs to be put on the "Students at play" video they show all prospective AFF I's...and the Instructor should seriously reconsider his qualifications.

Cheers!

--Jairo

Low Profile, snag free helmet mount for your Sony X3000 action cam!

[skreamer 1]

Quote

I once saw this guy in Deland doing 100 hop-N-pops so he could hit his 500 jumps so he could get his tandem rating. Talk about cheating the system!!!

Huh? Cheating the system? I'm not saying what that guy did was right, but he could very easily just have faked the entries in his logbook. At least he actually did the 500 jumps.

[Ron 7]

Well then they have been teaching wrong for HOW many years?

It works....If you don't like it fine. But it does work.

Oh well

Ron

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

[Ron 7]

I personally think there should be a time in sport requirment for an I rating...

I know a lot of people that have the 6 hrs, and the skills to fly well enough to pass an AFF course, but they know almost nothing about the sport.

I think there should be some time in sport requirment...maybe 2 or 3 years. Tandems do it....why not AFF/SL?

Ron

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

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Just throwing this out there, but what happens this September when the min. jump requirements for Licenses goes up? Will all the Instructor Requirements stay the same (ie - "D") or will they revert to a "C" to stay closer to the jump number requirements? I don't know, I'm asking.

I believe the jump numbers for a rating are expected to stay where the are right now and not go up with the license change. See the attached (below) from the S&TA Newsletter following the July BOD meeting:

"JULY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
The Board Meeting wrapped up on Sunday, July 14 after several long days of work by Board members, USPA staff and Board advisors. Below are the motions that came out of Safety and Training:

• USPA Licenses will be aligned with the FAI requirements effective September 30, 2003. The jump number requirements will be the following:
 25 for a USPA A License
 50 for a USPA B License
 200 for a USPA C License
 500 for a USPA D License

Appropriate changes will also be incorporated into the competition and rating systems to allow for similar jump number requirements that already exist in order to obtain ratings or enter competition. Those who have obtained a license prior to September 30, 2003 will not be required to meet any additional jump numbers if they are below the FAI minimum when they receive their USPA License."

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy