Renewal Requirements

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

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?

I know of one instance that it could have been one of the contributing factors in a student's death.

The short version of the story basically is that the jumper acting as JM didn't review any emergancy proceedures and took a problem student up on 5 second delays (problem student, it was her 20-somethingth jump still being on 5 second delays). Student had line twists, lost altitude awareness, chopped at 400 feet.

The non-rated JM reviewed NOTHING with the student, just put the gear on and went. A rated SL-I may have taken the student through an emergancy review that could have saved her life. Or told the student, who was obviously having a VERY hard time, not to come back, or suggested using another part of the ISP to fix her problems (doing a tandem, or an AFF jump).

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

[buzzfink 5]

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.

Quote

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

Perhaps in your area but I would be interested in hearing about how many complaints USPA or the Regional Directors get. It's easy to say "it happens more often than it should" but before creating a large check dive program, perhaps we should see if there is a big problem that needs to be solved.

Also, what is the current procedure? If a Regional Director or USPA recieve a complaint about an AFF Instructors skill (or lack there of) what options does the Regional Director or USPA have?


Buzz

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Also, what is the current procedure?

From what I've seen in the past...the procedure is to do nothing and perpetuate the paper tiger problem of the USPA.

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

[buzzfink 5]

Quote

Quote

Also, what is the current procedure?

From what I've seen in the past...the procedure is to do nothing and perpetuate the paper tiger problem of the USPA.

Jan and DJan,
Can you post what the current procedures are?

Thanks.


Buzz

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

USPA doesn’t actually regulate anything.

USPA cannot force jumpers or DZOs to do jumps according to the BSRs.
USPA can and does regulate who is a USPA member and who has USPA ratings.

Quote

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?

The disciplinary actions stated the reason for the action was because the jumper was not rated. This is a violation of the BSRs and for the GM DZOs also a violation of the GM Pledge. The actions made no statement, one way or the other, that said the use of an un-rated jumper contributed to the fatality. As stated above, USPA can only regulate membership and ratings. These were rescinded for specified amounts of time.

To clarify how a check ride system would curtail the use of un-rated jumpers acting as JMs:
If all staff members had to do a check ride every few years, then up jumpers may notice that so-n-so never had to do a check ride. They may inquire 'Why is that? Don't you have a rating?' In most cases, the DZO knows so-n-so doesn't have a rating but the rest of the jumpers assume that the person has a rating because they are working with students. A DZO may be less likely to use un-rated jumpers.

Quote

Also, what is the current procedure? If a Regional Director or USPA recieve a complaint about an AFF Instructors skill (or lack there of) what options does the Regional Director or USPA have?

Most issues are dealt with at the local level. For the example of a questionable Instructor, an RD would most likely review video(s) that document a skill deficiency. If a deficiency was found, then the jumper might be asked to obtain additional training from the appropriately rated person (aka DE or CD).

Other times the jumper might be 'let go' by one DZ. Then the jumper can go jumpmaster some place else. The skill deficiency does not get corrected. This might happen when the DZ's S&TA is notified of a deficiency and only cares about correcting the DZ's problem, and not the deficiency of the instructor.

In more severe cases, an RD can proceed with formal disciplinary actions and can even suspend a rating on the spot for up to 60 days. This procedure is detailed in the Gov. Man.

Recently, a Tandem Examiner just happened to observe a TM with deficient skills. The Examiner said the TM could not do tandems until the TM took some additional training from the examiner, otherwise the Examiner would report the TM to the mfg. The TM complied with this request because he did not want to face the rating revocation from the mfg. There was video evidence in this case too. This is an example of how a check ride jump can maintain the quality of instruction. This also illustrates that jumpers can do everything right at a rating course, get their rating and then pick up or fall into bad techniques that jeopardize the safety of students.

This mechanism is strongly dependent upon 'whistle blowers' and appropriate follow-up actions. These conditions are not always present were a skill deficient Instructor is.

.............

Keep the comments coming. I am putting together a report that lists the Pros and Cons of a Check Ride Jump and possible alternatives.

I do like a continuing education type program. And maybe something like a Safety Day for Instructors. And maybe even the PIA Symposium can help augment some Instructor seminars for continuing education as they do for riggers.

As to how close to reality is a check ride jump:
I do not see it happening at the next BOD mtg. I do see some discussion about it and evaluation of concerns brought to the BOD by members and ways that USPA can ensure quality instructors after they obtain their initial rating.

One other advantage of a Check Ride jump or CE program would manifest itself when USPA changes up ratings. (Historically, USPA changes ratings every 5 to 10 years.) When the BIC and Coach were introduced, a lot of Is that had been teaching ICCs and JCCS for 20+ years had to attend a bunch more courses and pay more money. A system that keeps everyone up to date, would ameliorate the expected gripes about having to take yet another course to continue doing what they know how to do. Grand-fathering issues would disappear because everyone would be up to speed with the same skill level and teaching techniques.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[mustard 0]

Quote

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.

OK, I apologize for using the phrase "a lot" because that's not fair and not descriptive. But it does happen.

It happens when people are independent contractors who make just barely enough money to get by and consequently shortchange the student because they have other students waiting for them.

Realistically, this shouldn't happen. The student should get whatever time and energy he or she requires, but I myself sometimes have to make a choice between a student who requires lots of continuing instruction and those who have waited around all day and I know will do well if given a chance to skydive.

It also comes from burnout, which I'm sure you have seen with instructors who work all the time and can no longer get themselves excited about an endless stream of students needing instruction. Instructors are people, and people do this without realizing it.

I didn't mean to slam anybody. It's an observation from ten years of teaching and watching others teach. Instructors check in to see how long before the First Jump Course will be done in order to line up Instructors. This is normal, but as you know we have to teach to the slowest student in an FJC, and so often the class is later than at other times.

Ground preparation is, in my opinion, the most important part of the skydive. If the student gets good instruction on the ground, and it is imparted to them so that they "get it," they mostly do well in the air.

***
DJan

[buzzfink 5]

Quote

It happens when people are independent contractors who make just barely enough money to get by and consequently shortchange the student because they have other students waiting for them.

Realistically, this shouldn't happen. The student should get whatever time and energy he or she requires, but I myself sometimes have to make a choice.....

I don't see how a check dive will fix this. The AFF instructor can ace the check dive and chose to short change the student so he can get more jumps in.

Blue Skies!


Buzz

[buzzfink 5]

Jan,
Thanks for the replies.

I still wonder how many complaints has USPA or the Regional Directors recieved and wether they were unable to handle it.

We can come up with all kinds of good ideas that will, in the end, result in the little change. Don't get me wrong, philisophically, I agree with the premise of a check dive. But in reality, if there is really almost no problem to solve, then it just increases the buracracy. And what's next? Drug testing?? Why not? Isn't it in the best interest of the student? (again, I'm against uspa requiring drug testing-that should be a DZO decision).

It can be a slippery slope we go down.

Blue Skies!


Buzz

[buzzfink 5]

Quote

OK, I apologize for using the phrase "a lot" because that's not fair and not descriptive. But it does happen.

No apology needed! That is what this forum is for-in depth discussion. I appreciate having this avenue to discuss the topic.

With that said, it is clear you favor a mandatory check dive for instructors (correct me if I'm wrong).

So how do you feel about mandatory drug testing?? Isn't it in the best interest of the students just like a check dive?

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

Thanks for the posts.

Blue Skies!


Buzz

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

I still wonder how many complaints has USPA or the Regional Directors recieved and wether they were unable to handle it.

I do not have exact numbers, but my feeling is that this is a problem with anywhere from 5 to 20 % of rating holders. This is certainly a subjective guess, but it is based upon the number of incidents that make it to the BOD for discussion, number of comments I get from members and some inference made from comments (both in person and postings) of students and new jumpers. It is across the country, not localized to one area.

Some comments are all too obvious that one person has a grudge against another. Other comments are backed up with video. Most of the real complaints come from people that end up labeled 'whistle blowers'. There should not be such a negative perception upon people trying to make training safer.

Quote

We can come up with all kinds of good ideas that will, in the end, result in the little change. Don't get me wrong, philisophically, I agree with the premise of a check dive. But in reality, if there is really almost no problem to solve, then it just increases the buracracy. And what's next? Drug testing?? Why not? Isn't it in the best interest of the student? (again, I'm against uspa requiring drug testing-that should be a DZO decision).

You can be pessimistic. I am doing background information gathering, asking members to contribute their ideas or suggestions and digesting it into a discussion on whether a check ride jump or continuing education or whatever can help solve the problem of either out-of-date or unskilled JMs (JMs = any coach or instructor).

There has always been the long standing problem of entraining instructors with the improvements that happen over time. In the past, the only way to fix this is to require 'yet another cert course'. It would be good to see some mechanism in place that keeps people current as they continue to train jumpers. The existing renewal requirements do not do this.

How many other BOD members or USPA staff ask you what you think about such-n-such idea?? The usual complaint is that USPA makes up a program, almost in a vacuum, and declares one day 'Here - do this now.'

Re 'almost no problem to solve':
One can argue that fatalities are so low percentage-wise per number of jumps made that we should have no concern about them. This instructor problem is large enough to have several members to bring it to the attention of the BOD.

Re: 'Drug Testing'
At last summer's BOD mtg (or the one before that) USPA took the stance that drug testing should be up to the DZO. I do not see that position changing.
.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[buzzfink 5]

Quote

You can be pessimistic. I am doing background information gathering, asking members to contribute their ideas or suggestions and digesting it into a discussion on whether a check ride jump or continuing education or whatever can help solve the problem of either out-of-date or unskilled JMs (JMs = any coach or instructor).

Jan,
Please don't take my post as pesimistic. If anything, it's giving you what you asked for. Opinions. I believe the requirement of a check dive is more burdensome than helpful and will not solve the problem you mention. There is nothing to stop an Instructor from nailing the check dive and going back to his old ways, short training students to try to get more up in a day so he makes more money as DJan feels.

Quote

How many other BOD members or USPA staff ask you what you think about such-n-such idea?? The usual complaint is that USPA makes up a program, almost in a vacuum, and declares one day 'Here - do this now.'

And I appreciate the chance to have input as many others on this forum do and as I posted in my post.

Quote

Re 'almost no problem to solve':
One can argue that fatalities are so low percentage-wise per number of jumps made that we should have no concern about them. This instructor problem is large enough to have several members to bring it to the attention of the BOD.

Jan,
Thats apples and oranges. As for the Instructor problem, I don't mean to be argumentative, but several members bringing this issue to the board does not make it "large enough". Aside from opinions and feelings, is there anything in the files of the Director of S&T at USPA that supports the contention that it is a problem to the magnitude of 5-20%?

Please don't take this as an attack. It is not. If it is believed that up to 20% of Instructors fall into this category, than can we say 80%+ are living up to the expectations? Since you and DJan seem to be doing the good work, and I do think this is good work and appreciate it, of soliciting input, can we send a questionaire out to all Instructors asking for their input? Perhaps one of the questions can include do they think there is a problem.

Quote

Re: 'Drug Testing'
At last summer's BOD mtg (or the one before that) USPA took the stance that drug testing should be up to the DZO. I do not see that position changing.

I understand this but how do you feel regarding drug testing? Does the argument for check rides not hold true for this too?

Keep up the good work. It is appreciated when a BoD member solicits input here.

Blue Skies!


Buzz

[mustard 0]

Quote

With that said, it is clear you favor a mandatory check dive for instructors (correct me if I'm wrong).

I actually don't favor a check dive at this time because I cannot see how it can be done equitably. I cannot figure out how to implement it without all the problems mentioned earlier becoming impediments to a fair evaluation.

The best kinds of program changes come from the grassroots, and I really like the idea Jan put forth about some DZO deciding to use a check dive as a marketing ploy. Then others will see it and if it is actually helpful, it will multiply.

I'm convinced this problem is smaller than 5-20%, and that there are many DZs that have no problem with their instructors at all. Out of the 18 AFF instructors at Mile Hi, there are only two I can think of who might need it, and it's really because they don't work with AFFs that often. I'm sure that if they prepared for a check dive they would do fine. So -- again we have no solution for the problem, which seems to me should be addressed locally, bottom-up, rather than top-down (from USPA).

Quote

So how do you feel about mandatory drug testing?? Isn't it in the best interest of the students just like a check dive?

I learned last year that I cannot simply state my opinions as a private skydiver because of having been elected to the BOD. However, that said, I am a civil libertarian who believes deeply that mandatory drug testing is a violation of civil rights. I also believe that a DZO needs to know and trust his staff, and then any questionable staff member can be cut loose.

***
DJan

[buzzfink 5]

Thanks DJan. I agree with your post that the check dive will not solve the problem.

Perhaps a sample check dive can be sent out to all S&TA's and DZO's for their use. If a DZ wishes to impements it, it has a format to use. As you said, it's their decision.

I think this is a good case where DZ.com forum helps flush out input.

Blue Skies!


Buzz

[chriswelker 0]

Jan,

Who is go to evaluate the evaluators?

Chris Welker

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Who is go to evaluate the evaluators?

Probably the same as today: CD

Who evaluates the CDs??
dunno - maybe a peer review or the future Train the Trainer position.

Who evaluates the Train the Trainer?
TBD.

Strange thing is that most evaluators never do any training eval jumps. They start off evaluating rating candidates and then get OJT from a CD.
Results are mixed. This past week I got a complaint about some evaluators and a cert course. I won't be able to see the video from these dives until next week, so I do not know how valid the complaint is.

THe pilot courses for Train the Trainer had sessions were candidates evaluate a ground presentation by another candidate. Candidates usually all observed the same omissions, but recorded them in different areas. So we need to set up more guidelines on this. [Mark Baur, DJan Stewart and I (among others) all went to the one in FL last year.]

I'm off to Eloy for the weekend, so no replies til next week. Keep the comments coming.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[chriswelker 0]

Jan,

How many Student skydivers in the past 10 years have died due to a lack of good instruction?

Chris Welker
AFF-I '04
Tandem
S&TA

[livendive 8]

Quote

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

According to the USPA web page, there is not an AFF evaluator in my REGION, much less at my dropzone.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[tspillers 0]

Unfortuneately I know in many cases at many DZ's you are correct. Being a DZO, I want better instruction. In many ways I shoot myself in the foot as a business because we try to give the student the best instruction (must begin on the ground) so they can learn faster. Many times this means they end up spending less money overall for their license. It has however produced many impressive skydivers with low jump numbers.

Todd

I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example.

[markbaur 0]

More on evaluators:
The usual progression is Instructor - Evaluator - Course Director, which assumes that the qualities that make for a good instructor are the same that make for a good evaluator, and later a good CD. But a good Evaluator is not necessarily a good Instructor. An AFF Instructor has to skydive well; an AFF Evaluator has to fly like a student. An AFF-I has to be able to analyze his student's body position; an AFF-E has to keep track of his candidates' relative position in the sky. What are the qualities that make for a good evaluator, and how will we make sure the evaluators possess them?

More on standards:
At the most recent annual AFF Standardization Meeting, much was discussed about standardization of procedures. Nothing was said about standardization of performance requirements. It is possible that all the Course Directors require the same level of performance for a successful ground prep and skydive, but we have no way of knowing. If we cannot know now that all new Instructors meet the same standards, how will we be able to ensure fairness in any future recertification scheme?

Mark