Renewal Requirements

[MakeItHappen 15]

General informational question:

Renewal requirements:

Check Ride jump: a jump done with an evaluator of your rating discipline acting as a student.

What are your thoughts on adding a renewal requirement of a 'check ride jump'?
Please mention if your thoughts are discipline specific.

What would be an appropriate frequency of this?
e.g. 1 year, 2 years, 3 years etc

Would the frequency depend upon the rating?
e.g. Coach every 3 years // S/L, IAD, tandem & AFF every 2 years etc??

Does any other country have a 'check ride jump' as part of the renewal process??


Background Info:
Some of the most experienced and current instructors are asking USPA to add some sort of 'check-ride jump' to the renewal requirements of ratings. They have said they would be the first in line to do such jumps.

There are some logistical concerns, especially at smaller DZs, where evaluators may not be readily available.

There are some concerns about what needs to be done if a jumper failed a check ride jump.

The motivation behind this is NOT a money-maker motive from USPA. The motive comes from current and active Instructors that see other instructors that are not performing up to the expectations of their rating. This is motivated by a safety concern.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[AggieDave 6]

That's not a bad idea, the problem is going to be the general out cry against it. If the USPA actually stands up and does this, I hope they make it in such a way to keep it from being pencil whipped, otherwise this will surely be the practice for a lot of instructors.

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

[markbaur 0]

Is there evidence of a problem other than anecdotal?

If there is non-anecdotal evidence of a problem, is it a problem with all disciplines, or just with AFF and everybody else would have to do check jumps in the name of equity?

Where would the evaluators come from? I suspect the proliferation of AFF Course Directors and AFF IRCs has led to a number of small courses not requiring use of AFF Evaluators or Designated Evaluators. How many AFF-DEs are current? Even if the program is not set up as a money-maker for USPA, I can see it developing into a bonanza for some of the folks most strongly advocating it. I'd like to be proven wrong. Could you run some numbers?
------------------
At a dropzone I visited -- not my home dropzone! -- I observed a very senior instructor doing the gear orientation portion of his FJC, early in the first hour of the course as is typical in most FJCs I've seen. As the instructor stretched out the canopy, I was inwardly horrified by the amount of time he spent describing how things could go horribly wrong.

I know instructors who can stretch a static-line FJC to 8 or 10 hours. What do they find to talk about?

What would a "check ride jump" do to improve their teaching skills? I ask because we rarely have a chance to see another instructor in the air, so we form our opinions about their teaching ability from seeing them interact with their students on the ground.
------------------
As to the issue of "check jump failure," wherever one sets the standards, and whoever evaluates, some good instructors will have off days and will not meet the standards on a test jump. I don't think we want to suspend their instructor tickets, and we don't have to if there is some system of "train to standard," that is, like airplane pilot Flight Reviews, there is the option of considering each "check jump" as a training jump until the instructor demonstrates performance to standard. That might be just one jump, but it might also require a series of jumps before the instructor is proficient again.
------------------
The FAA BFR has an alternative, the "Wings" program. I think I could support a continuing education program like that. I wouldn't support a "check jump" requirement without a continuing education alternative.

Mark

[Shark 0]

It may be a good idea, but what can we expect if we only require 15 AFF jumps in the previous 12 months to be considered "current?" Also, are these AFF-Is able to effectively teach an FJC? I know several whom have never taught an FJC, nor do they desire to. "I'd rather be jumping," they say. We should probably require more than the 15 AFF jumps prior to an annual eval jump. Then again, others may feel that they don't need 15 AFFs and would rather challenge the eval jump. If we do require an annual or bi-annual check jump, would it be an additional fee to get tested? I'm not sure how popular that would be, either.

[GravityGirl 0]

I think it's a great idea.

But I think the "Check Ride" should be an evaluator going up on a "real live" AFF jump.

Or perhaps the submission of videos of the jumpmaster handling the various senarios. Poor exits, flip overs, fetals, etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[Shark 0]

Quote

But I think the "Check Ride" should be an evaluator going up on a "real live" AFF jump.

That might even be better way to go. Saves money, too. I've actually done several "live" AFF with my AFFCD. Quite fun, actually.

[flypunk 0]

I dont really see the purpose on doing a check dive, to renew the ratings, I would rather see hte # of yearly jumps brought up. !5 jumps a year is hardly current for an instructor IMO.

...

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I dont really see the purpose on doing a check dive, to renew the ratings, I would rather see hte # of yearly jumps brought up. !5 jumps a year is hardly current for an instructor IMO.

I agree the minum jump requirement is lacking, but hanging onto a few level 1's a year doesn't mean they can catch a spinning student. I knew an AFFI that would only do level 1's and refused to re-dock on a student. If you can't pass a re-currency check dive, then you shouldn't be an AFFI anymore. Annual/biannual check-dives are ,ong over-due. There are AFFI's out there that couldn't pass the AFFI course today.

Derek

[MakeItHappen 15]

Some additional comments:

I have talked about this with many people before this post. We even talked about it at the last BOD meeting. DJan Stewart and I are on a task force committee to look into the implications of a ' check ride jump'.

Pencil Whipping:
This issue has been raised before too. The thought is that an outsider must do the check ride jumps or some external impartial review would need to take place. Some suggested that allowing another I (aka peer) to do the check ride would make it palatable to all. Yet at the same time this would open up the 'pencil whipping' route.
So, I think that if a check ride jump renewal requirement comes to fruition that it would most certainly have to be done by someone that does not always jump with the rating holder.

Problem Scope:
The problem of 'rating holders not performing up to their duties' applies across all disciplines and ratings. There are reports from all areas of the US that suggest that current rating holders are not always cracked up to be what their paperwork claims.

This can further be broken down into a few sub-categories:
1. long-time rating holders that do not advance with modern methods
2. new rating holders that work at their small DZ, but are not up to the standards of a larger DZ or performance required at a certification course.
3. new rating holders that somehow pass a certification course, but in real student jumps do not perform to the level that they demonstrated in a certification course

A related problem to this is the use of un-rated jumpers to perform JM duties. When a current and appropriately rated Instructor knowingly allows an un-rated jumper to perform the duties of a Coach or Instructor, then the rated I is not performing up to their duties. There were two disciplinary actions on this at the last BOD meeting. Both were the result of fatalities.

Currency Requirement:
'we only require 15 AFF jumps in the previous 12 months'

I've heard this issue brought up many times. The strange phenomena is that it is ONLY brought up for AFF, not tandem, S/L, IAD or Coaches. Yet all those other ratings also have an annual 15 jump minimum requirement.

A bit of background on why this renewal requirement is so low:
This requirement is low to accommodate the small DZS, especially the small DZS in northern states. Small DZs are the norm in the US. Large DZs are the anomaly.

Small DZs, especially in the northern states, have very few staff. There are also very few jumpers that continue through the student progression. In order, for the staff to maintain their ratings, a what seems disproportionately low number of annual jumps to someone from a large DZ, has been stated for currency.

I agree that the annual number of jumps ought to be higher. At the same time I can see that this would pose a burden on some of the smaller DZS. One way to ensure that these rating holders with only 15-20 student jumps per year were qualified is to add in a 'check-ride jump'.

There are also highly experienced jumpers, with a rating, that jump at large DZS and only do the minimum to keep their rating current. These jumpers most often have the air skills, but sometimes they lack in the instructional techniques for student jumpers.

Video Submissions:
Many people have suggested this. The big drawback is that rating holders would submit their 'best' student jumps. If it was required to submit 'rollovers' or 'bad-exits' etc, then the rating holders with few jumps or excellent teaching skills or with students that opted not for video would be disadvantaged because these extreme scenarios may not occur within the time period of the renewal or there may not have been video on the jump.

The key to making a 'check-ride jump' work is that it:

1. identifies the weak instructors and either corrects their instruction or removes
them from the instructional pool
2. works for small and large DZS
3. is inexpensive and available
.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

A related problem to this is the use of un-rated jumpers to perform JM duties. When a current and appropriately rated Instructor knowingly allows an un-rated jumper to perform the duties of a Coach or Instructor, then the rated I is not performing up to their duties. There were two disciplinary actions on this at the last BOD meeting. Both were the result of fatalities.

I see a few problems.

1) I told a RD, now BOD member that a DZO was doing AFF w/o a rating (never had a rating) and had video proof. Her response was “What do you want me to do, take away a rating he doesn’t have?” Self regulating means skydivers do whatever they want.

2) If AFFI’s at small DZ’s can’t do enough instructing to stay current, then they shouldn’t be Instructors. Students deserve high quality Instructors. Unfortunately Instructors that skimp on training and take up more students in a day or disregard BSR’s for winds, etc, make the DZ more money and therefore are more valuable to the DZ. Lower quality Instructors make DZ’s more money so DZO’s couldn’t care less about the quality of Instructors.

3) DZO’s will be against it since it can only hurt, and cannot help their bottom line. USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI in response to the Instructor shortage, do you think they will put a system in place to take Instructors out of the pool? DZO’s won’t stand for it and DZO’s make the rules, not USPA. Remember when the ISP was supposed to be mandatory and DZO’s said we aren’t going to use it and bang, it was changed to be optional, non-mandatory.

It is a good idea to have a re-currency check dive, but it will never fly.

Derek

[PhreeZone 15]

I think a good starting point would be on the annual renewal appliaction the rating holder needs to get more then just a S&TA signature. I know of a SL-I that has'nt been in a plane with a Static line for probally 5 years but because he travels he managed to convince the S&TA to renew his rating since he "drops students" when he travels. I also met an Instructor that refused to teach the FJC and only wanted to take AFF level 6 and 7 since they were the easiest jumps to do while getting paid.

I'd suggest that having something like a "regional instructors confrence" similar to how S&TA's have a regional meeting to bring the entire group up to speed. Have a meeting off DZ's to discuss with all instructor rating holders for each region or a few meetings per region to discuss new techniques and to do a ground evaluation of the rating holder during a simulated teaching of the FJC. If they pass that portion then they can submit either video of them on 3 jumps or an in air evaluation with an examiner.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[buzzfink 5]

I think some are trying to put together a huge evaluation program because of a few bad eggs.

My suggestions:

1. Any S&TA, DZO or I can refer someone to a Regional Director for skills evaluation if they feel they are below standards. Unfortunately, in addition to this be used properly, some may use it to try to "get back" at some instructor they do not like. Limiting the number of times someone can be evaluated would help solve this. Say twice in any 5 year period.
2. Random evaluation jumps. Each year, 10% (or whatever percentage works) of rating holders could be required to do an evaluation jump as a condition of their renewal. It's just like getting a smog check in California to renew your car registration. The Regional Director could assign the evaluator of however it works best.

Requiring every rating holder to do an evaluation jump, I feel, is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. There is not a big problem so let's not get into a Big Brother syndrome.

Just my 2 cents.


Buzz Fink, San Diego
AFF-I
Tandem-I
SL-I
S&TA
PRO

[Shark 0]

There are a lot of good suggestions here, but I think if somebody's skills are in question, the DZ should not keep them on staff. It is, after all, the DZ's responsibility for hiring good instructional staff.

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

There are a lot of good suggestions here, but I think if somebody's skills are in question, the DZ should not keep them on staff.

The only thing about this solution is that the Instructor in question could just go to another DZ and join the Staff there. Some will ask for references, but others who may really be hurting for AFF Instructors night snap them right up.

I agree with Buzz that a random sampling each year would be more effective than a blanket annual check dive.

Arrive Safely

John

[markbaur 0]

Quote

submit either video of them on 3 jumps or an in air evaluation with an examiner

I could not support video as a substitute for an air evaluation.

The goal of an evaluation is to see how well a candidate or instructor performs on some particular jump. We use that information to guess how that candidate or instructor will perform on typical jumps and interesting jumps.

Substituting video allows a candidate or instructor to submit his best jumps, instead of representative jumps. Not much useful information there.

Mark

[mustard 0]

Quote

The goal of an evaluation is to see how well a candidate or instructor performs on some particular jump. We use that information to guess how that candidate or instructor will perform on typical jumps and interesting jumps.

Substituting video allows a candidate or instructor to submit his best jumps, instead of representative jumps. Not much useful information there.

I agree. Jan and I have both been asking and checking out what options there might be in order to make a recommendation at the next BOD meeting in July. We have at Mile Hi a sudden surplus of AFF I's. In past years, those of us with ratings have worked whether we wanted to or not, but right now Mile Hi has 18 current AFF instructors. And now we are fighting for the AFF business. I have never before seen this problem! The DZO can pick and choose who works each weekend. In a way, this is similar to DZs that have low demand and small staff: how to keep current enough to be safe? You cannot do AFF once in a while and do it well.

When I have had a layoff for whatever reason, I limit myself to "klingon" skydives until I feel up to speed. (That's Cat A and B or Levels 1 and 2). Then I move to the scary ones, Cats C and D, which are the ones tested at AFF certification courses, the first release dives, because a student can do anything and you need to be skilled enough to help.

However, that said, I believe that the best instructors have the fewest rollovers and student deployments, because they have successfull taught the student these maneuvers on the ground. The student then puts these into practice. I know an AFF I who says it has been five years since he has had to roll a student over, and two years since he's had to pull for a student. So how could he have video of a successfull rollover, etc.? Just because he did his job well he should not be penalized by having to show video that he did it!

The current AFF I's that I work with feel that the DZ should be the one to filter out the weak links, by putting them in situations with current instructors. I agree with Buzz that if we require this from *every* instructor, no matter how current, it is swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.

How about this: we require some check ride system every couple of years for those who do not do more than, say, 50 AFF jumps/year? Since the standard is very low (15), could we have a system of checks and balances that is agreed upon by instructors.?

Just wondering and anxious to hear what instructors think. On top of all these AFFs, we have another certification course happening next weekend in the area, and I spent some jumps helping a candidate get ready for his course. It was good for me -- and I wonder how we can certify people to be the ones to say, "you're still good enough to take out AFFs."

***
DJan

[markbaur 0]

Quote

How about this: we require some check ride system every couple of years for those who do not do more than, say, 50 AFF jumps/year?

Two observations:

First, we would like our instructors to be proficient, but I think you are assuming that current and proficient are the same thing. Rick Horn told me, "It isn't true that practice makes perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." (I don't think that idea was original with him, but he's the one I remember.) All we know about someone who claims to have made 15, 50 or 500 AFF jumps last year is that they might have done so. We don't know how good a job he or she did on any of them. Being current helps proficiency, but is no substitute.

Second, this thread has focused largely on AFF air skills. There needs to be an equal focus on ground skills.

Mark

[mustard 0]

Quote

Second, this thread has focused largely on AFF air skills. There needs to be an equal focus on ground skills.

Excellent point. What we successfully teach them on the ground will be reflected in the air.

However, that said, I eyeball my student carefully and watch what they do on the ground, and if I am taking out a Cat D and that student is 6 feet tall and weighs 160 lbs (for instance), I am going to be extra vigilant and "dress for success" by wearing my slowest falling suit. I've had them spin away from me in a heartbeat. Now if I have prepared my student for the eventuality of loss of control, I can expect correct response before I have to correct them myself.

Most students do fine when given the chance to learn. If a JM is all over the student before they've had a chance to learn on their own, in my opinion the student has been cheated.

It's a fine line, Mark, but at our DZ, the new AFF instructors all seem to think their student is going to be like the evaluator in the course. They haven't yet learned the difference. All the skill in the world cannot make up for experience that is only learned through doing the real thing.

The new AFF instructors at our DZ are learning by mentoring by the more experienced instructors. Ground training of the student varies considerably depending on the instructor, but everybody has a different technique that works well for him/her.

The biggest problem is the "revenue unit" mindset that a lot of DZOs and instructors have who want to make as much money as possible. This leads to students and instructors learning poorly.

***
DJan

[MakeItHappen 15]

Check Ride Jump would also include the ground training. I should have explicitly stated that.

Quote

But I think the "Check Ride" should be an evaluator going up on a "real live" AFF jump.

This would not allow an evaluator to do the job of evaluating, unless the evaluator was an observer of the dive. Then this gets back to the same problem with video submissions. You may end up with perfect student scenarios.

Quote

1) I told a RD, now BOD member that a DZO was doing AFF w/o a rating (never had a rating) and had video proof. Her response was “What do you want me to do, take away a rating he doesn’t have?” Self regulating means skydivers do whatever they want.

RDs are BOD members. If your RD does not respond to the level you think they should, then you can elevate the problem by contacting the USPA President in accordance to the Governance Manual Sec. 1-6.4.D.3 There is a time limit that may apply to your particular case. Please refer to Gov. Man Sec. 1-6.6.C.1 for the specifics.

Quote

2) If AFFI’s at small DZ’s can’t do enough instructing to stay current, then they shouldn’t be Instructors. Students deserve high quality Instructors. Unfortunately Instructors that skimp on training and take up more students in a day or disregard BSR’s for winds, etc, make the DZ more money and therefore are more valuable to the DZ. Lower quality Instructors make DZ’s more money so DZO’s couldn’t care less about the quality of Instructors.

This comment addresses several of the problem areas.

1 - Small DZs do not always have enough student volume to provide for jumps for all of their staff. Say the re-currency # jumps was raised to 50 per year. This would prevent small DZs from maintaining their staff.

2 - Instructors that skimp etc are an issue, at times, at larger DZS. One potential way to ensure that these instructors are doing what they are supposed to be doing is to require a check ride every so often.

3. - 'DZOs don't care about the quality of instruction.' True and False. One way to elevate the importance of quality instruction is to require a check ride every so often.

Quote

3) DZO’s will be against it since it can only hurt, and cannot help their bottom line. USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI in response to the Instructor shortage, do you think they will put a system in place to take Instructors out of the pool? DZO’s won’t stand for it and DZO’s make the rules, not USPA. Remember when the ISP was supposed to be mandatory and DZO’s said we aren’t going to use it and bang, it was changed to be optional, non-mandatory.

DZOs carry significant clout as a group, compared to the rest of regular jumpers. This is because they are vocal in their concerns. Most regular jumpers never write to the BOD about their concerns.

A savvy DZO would implement annual check rides right now - before USPA does anything about it - to emphasize how much better their instructors are. It would be a fantastic selling point, besides all the claims of thousands of jumps and world records held by staff members. A DZO would then be able to claim that 'Our instructors are tested annually on their teaching abilities and air skills to verify that our instructors are the best of breed.' Initially, they could claim that 'They are the ONLY DZ in the US that does this.'

Quote

I'd suggest that having something like a "regional instructors confrence" similar to how S&TA's have a regional meeting to bring the entire group up to speed. Have a meeting off DZ's to discuss with all instructor rating holders for each region or a few meetings per region to discuss new techniques and to do a ground evaluation of the rating holder during a simulated teaching of the FJC. If they pass that portion then they can submit either video of them on 3 jumps or an in air evaluation with an examiner.

The S&TA meeting thing is almost unique to your region. Sherry Butcher goes out of her way to keep the S&TAs up to speed. Other regions do not have this mechanism in place. It can be put in place by the RD. Elect one that will do that for your region.
Many of the larger DZs have regular meetings (weekly) to disseminate this info. Smaller DZs do the same thing, but on a more informal basis.

Quote

1. Any S&TA, DZO or I can refer someone to a Regional Director for skills evaluation if they feel they are below standards. Unfortunately, in addition to this be used properly, some may use it to try to "get back" at some instructor they do not like. Limiting the number of times someone can be evaluated would help solve this. Say twice in any 5 year period.

This is a deficiency with the current system. If there was a check ride jump required, every so often, for all rating holders, then the 'get back at them' argument is not valid.

Quote

2. Random evaluation jumps. Each year, 10% (or whatever percentage works) of rating holders could be required to do an evaluation jump as a condition of their renewal. It's just like getting a smog check in California to renew your car registration. The Regional Director could assign the evaluator of however it works best.

Smog checks in CA are not random. Everyone has to get on every two years.

Quote

Requiring every rating holder to do an evaluation jump, I feel, is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. There is not a big problem so let's not get into a Big Brother syndrome.

Then again it could be implemented now on a voluntary basis to demonstrate to the whuffo community just how good your instructors are.

Quote

There are a lot of good suggestions here, but I think if somebody's skills are in question, the DZ should not keep them on staff. It is, after all, the DZ's responsibility for hiring good instructional staff.

The problem arises when an Instructor goes to a larger DZ. The new DZ staff 'cannot believe that this jumper ever got a rating'.

Quote

Second, this thread has focused largely on AFF air skills. There needs to be an equal focus on ground skills.

The respondents to the thread have pushed this into AFF mostly. The problem is across disciplines. Ground eval is also part of the 'check ride jump'.
.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

RDs are BOD members. If your RD does not respond to the level you think they should, then you can elevate the problem by contacting the USPA President in accordance to the Governance Manual Sec. 1-6.4.D.3 There is a time limit that may apply to your particular case. Please refer to Gov. Man Sec. 1-6.6.C.1 for the specifics.

I don’t expect USPA to do anything about, especially now that it was several years ago. I meant that the RD became a ND. My point is that USPA doesn’t actually regulate anything. As long as DZO’s control the money, USPA is just a puppet organization. DZO’s don’t need their own organization, they already have one, USPA.

***This comment addresses several of the problem areas.

1 - Small DZs do not always have enough student volume to provide for jumps for all of their staff. Say the re-currency # jumps was raised to 50 per year. This would prevent small DZs from maintaining their staff.

2 - Instructors that skimp etc are an issue, at times, at larger DZS. One potential way to ensure that these instructors are doing what they are supposed to be doing is to require a check ride every so often.

3. - 'DZOs don't care about the quality of instruction.' True and False. One way to elevate the importance of quality instruction is to require a check ride every so often.***

1) If the DZ doesn’t have enough business that AFFI’s to keep AFFI’s proficient, then they shouldn’t offer AFF. Simple. Offering AFF w/ sub standard Instructors is not the solution.

2) I agree that check rides would be great, but jus like everything else, they would get pencil-whipped.

3) DZO’s won’t support it as it can only cost them money because of fewer Instructors. Since they control USPA though controlling, or at least keeping flowing, the money, it won’t happen.

Derek

[buzzfink 5]

Quote

One potential way to ensure that these instructors are doing what they are supposed to be doing is to require a check ride every so often.

OK. So what exactly is an AFF Instructor "suppose" to be doing? Seriously. I'm not talking about air skills. Other than what is in the BSR's which state one must be an appropriately rated instructor, advancement criteria and equipment requirements, it leaves open how to teach and how much to teach. Most people know there is AFF Cert Course AFF, USPA AFF and real world AFF and all three are different.

Will the eval be subjective or will the USPA add to the BSR's to describe in detail exactly how AFF is to be precisely taught?

Just some points to ponder.


Buzz

[buzzfink 5]

Quote

The biggest problem is the "revenue unit" mindset that a lot of DZOs and instructors have who want to make as much money as possible. This leads to students and instructors learning poorly

With all due respect, this is a deragotory statement against DZO's and Instructors. It implies a lot of DZO's care more about money than student safety and training. (how many is a lot?) It also implies that Instructors are don't care about training or safety and are simply running through as many students as they can get paid for.

I disagree. I think that no matter what system is in place, there will always be exceptions and will be those that are not good instructors, who fall through the system, either on the ground skills or in the air skills. With that said, why create this "requirement" for a annual or bi-annual check dive when the problem is less than 5% of the instructors? Actually, I feel it is with less than 2%.

And then, where does this stop? Does USPA than require drug testing of all instructors? Why not? Isn't it in the best interest of the students?

For the record, I am against USPA requiring drug testing. Thats the DZO's responsibility. All but one in my area do it.

I guess the bottom line is what evidence do you have that there is a big problem out there? If there is no eveidence of this, then why create this big program?


Buzz

[Shark 0]

Quote

This leads to students and instructors learning poorly.

Why don't we ask the students what they have learned, and what they continue to learn from their instructors, post-A license?

Many instructors have students who post here. Ask them.

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

A related problem to this is the use of un-rated jumpers to perform JM duties. When a current and appropriately rated Instructor knowingly allows an un-rated jumper to perform the duties of a Coach or Instructor, then the rated I is not performing up to their duties. There were two disciplinary actions on this at the last BOD meeting. Both were the result of fatalities.

Are you saying that this unrated JM/Coach caused these fatalities? Or not being rated somehow led to a fatality? How 'bout a little more clarification on that statement?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

With all due respect, this is a deragotory statement against DZO's and Instructors. It implies a lot of DZO's care more about money than student safety and training.

Yee, but it is all too often true.

Quote

(how many is a lot?)

In my experience, more often than not.

Quote

It also implies that Instructors are don't care about training or safety and are simply running through as many students as they can get paid for.

Yes, it does, which happend much more often than it should.

Derek