0
Allballs

Is the AFF rating too easy?

Recommended Posts

Quote

We can all sit around and tell stories, but what are the stats? Are we trying to create a solution to a problem that does not exist?

If you wish to prove me wrong, then show me the stats and quit telling stories.




Here's the problem with stats, something has to actually happen (more than once) for there to be stats. In this case, that something would be a student injury, fatality, or Cypres fire. Are you suggesting that we would need to see a 'reliable' string of these events occuring for you to agree that there is a problem?

The issue here, is the decline in the quality of the new instructors we are seeing (not all new instructors are bad, but the average certainly seems to be lower than before). This is not something you could quantify with statistics because, for example, there is no record of every time an AFFI is out of their slot at pull time. If the student managed to pull on their own, or the other AFFI was able to assist, the event is not recorded. What's worse is that it's probably not even given a second thought by any of the parties involved.

So do we wait until that same scenario plays out without the happy ending to recognize that there is a problem? Do you really want to wait until you have a stack of incident reports in front of you?

Until the criteria for reporting poor performance on the instructors part changes, we cannot look to statistics to guide us in terms of 'quality control' with regards to AFFIs.

The real question is this - regardless of the existance of an actual problem, wouldn't the ideas being put forth here only serve to produce a more experienced, more qualifed group of instructors?

What's the harm in instituting an min. one year with a Coach rating to qualify for the AFF cert. course?

Why not bring back the JM rating, and make sure that new AFF course grads have a chance to ease into freefall instruction?

Statistics or no statistics, these ideas only serve to make for better instructors, and in turn, better instruction. What's the downside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feb 19th to 21st is the USPA BOD meeting in Phoenix, AZ (Embassy Suites Hotel, Phoenix/Tempe. Hotel: EmbassySuites1.hilton.com), the place where any changes will happen. To get this on the table we need to have it added to the appropriate agenda, namely the Safety and Training committee.

I am somewhat familiar with the process having been attending the committee meeting for a while now..... let me know if I can help in any way.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I may interject for a moment.
I personally have not said one negative thing about a specific AFF I/E. In fact I know many of them and thank them for their efforts. This is in NO way a negative reflection on any of them. I see that there may be some history here that I am completely unaware of so I will let it be and try to stay on point.

As far as statistics go, I truly believe it would be very difficlut to obtain accurate stats. I am personally seeing lost students, AFFI's not in proper slots to make an effective contribution, cyprus fires, off field landings of students, etc. I personally know of at least 6 that fit the above categories. That is in my small corner of the skydiving world. They were not reported because of embarassment to instructor, DZO, dropzone reputation....they just were debriefed and all moved on. I am speaking about several DZ's not just one by the way. Imagine if there was 6 in every region that was not reported. Thats a lot of students that we are hoping deploy their parachutes or the cyprus works. I am not willing to take the chance any longer. I would like to be proactive for once not reactive. Statistics to me means we are reacting to a problem after it occurs. I have a problem using live students as guinnea pigs to justify making a progression safer. If you look at the list of skydivers who signed the petition or at least are urging USPA to go over som eprocedures they are many AFFI's, S&TA's, and skydivers with well over 10000 jumps. If these are the people saying hey something needs to be looked at then what could the harm possibly be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Here's the problem with stats, something has to actually happen (more than once) for there to be stats. In this case, that something would be a student injury, fatality, or Cypres fire. Are you suggesting that we would need to see...



Given that there are those screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling, and claiming that there WILL BE fatalities as a result of poor AFFI performance, threatening court appearances etc...then there must be a significant problem, which statistics would bear out in some form. It's not at all unreasonable to ask for at least a few instances that are documented, and can point to poor/incomplete training. If there is such a huge need for change, provide the "why" proof vs the "I've been around, dude, and it needs to change" argument.



Quote

The issue here, is the decline in the quality of the new instructors we are seeing (not all new instructors are bad, but the average certainly seems to be lower than before).
Until the criteria for reporting poor performance on the instructors part changes, we cannot look to statistics to guide us in terms of 'quality control' with regards to AFFIs.



Who says they're lesser in quality? A bunch of guys on the internet who already have their rating, that's who. Is it real, or is it more of a focus on an issue that is no different than it once was? Wasn't all that long ago I had a DZO of one of the largest DZ's in the world explaining how bad some of the AFFI's were just a few years ago, and explained how one I/E would even "put in his order" for who he'd be sleeping with during the course program. I'm simply not all that impressed with some of the "old dogs" compared to the new dogs, once time in sport is removed from the discussion. Recently watched a "hot shit" old dog come back to re-certify. He musta lost a lot of talent between old program and new, because he didn't successfully complete the "new" course. And he was once a JM.


Quote

What's the harm in instituting an min. one year with a Coach rating to qualify for the AFF cert. course?


I couldn't agree more. It's been discussed here, and I'm told it's been discussed by members of the BOD for the past couple of years. I'd additionally recommend a requirement for 10 coach jumps with debriefs overseen by a veteran. Require they teach at least one FJC overseen by a veteran.

Can you provide proof that bringing back the JM rating will absolutely guarantee greater safety? You're gonna have to start higher than the AFFI program. Get the I/E's to do their jobs.
If this was corporate structure, we'd be screaming for better management (which in this case, is the I/E's).



Quote

Statistics or no statistics, these ideas only serve to make for better instructors, and in turn, better instruction. What's the downside?



Cost and little else.
I'm mostly on your side. The histrionics become where we part ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skymonkey2, you are a part of this problem as well. I’ve noticed that you have chosen to pick on an Indiana dropzone three or four times in this thread. Let’s talk about that.

*This dz was one that I have on several occasions have worked at for more then 4 years doing courses.

*At the coach course, everyone in the course wanted to make a difference, and they were tired of what was happening their at the dz, no formal student program, coaches jumping with S/L students, ect...... putting S/L students out after legal sunset.

*And I talked to Chris the AFF/S/L/Coach student what ever he was, he was not cleared for self supervision at the time of the jump, he had not shown stability, heading maintenance nor hover control, he had not shown that he could get unstable or regain stability on his own so he is still a student in the S/L or AFF program, what ever the dz was using at that time with him, it changed every day. You, your self asked me on several times to help you with him so I gave you info over the phone, you voiced your concerns for his skydiving education. You were frustrated.

After you watched me demonstrate a ground prep to the candidates you asked me on several occasions to work with Chris, you felt the AFF I did not know his job and he was doing a disservice to the students, (quote).

*You told me that I had high standards in the course and I taught more then the previous courses you have seen, so now that I use your dz and you as an example or is it because I used you as an example. You bring up double standards. You so wanted to spend time in FL learning more about being an AFF I, and I told you not with me. OK...

*(HE WAS NOT A COACHING STUDENT and IF HE WAS HE IS STILL A STUDENT! YOU AND YOUR PARTNER SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE AN AFF JUMP WITH HIM, AND IT WAS SAD TO SEE AN AFF I AND A SOON TO BE AFF I ALLOW A STUDENT TO DEPLOY IN A BACK SLIDING TURN.)

* I also witnessed the debrief the candidates and the coach candidates did a better job of debriefing, and there was not retraining, you and I talked about it. It is funny you talk about double standards, you evaluate one way and then go out and do just the opposite.

* I did have a problem with it, I spoke with the AFF I and you the next day.

* I did use the AFF I for one maybe two jumps, and used you for more. You have been an evaluator at other courses and so has the AFF I.

You said that you watched a S/L I harness hold exit an AFF student right? I know of the incident that you speak of and the student was actually on his low 20s in jumps and that SLI and AFFI were trying to work out a few problems he was having. (I’m not going to agree or disagree with this practice.) In fact, you helped debrief that student after the jump and had no problem with it at that time. The very next day you used the same AFFI and SLI as evaluators for your coach course candidates. So are you saying that you will let instructors that you have these serious problems with evaluate your course candidates?

While teaching that coach course you informed the candidates that a current instructor at their dropzone had pulled below the hard deck on a coach course eval jump in the years past and you still passed that candidate. Could it be that the candidate is a friend of yours? Maybe a little favoritism there?

*That is not true, but good try..

When this dropzone decided to create an AFF program (it had never been done there before) you were contacted first as their IE of choice to work with the AFFI candidates. You had no problem at all with this at the time. In fact, the only time that you developed a problem with it is when you informed that DZ that your schedule would not permit you to be there when it was convenient for the group. So they went with another IE and then all the sudden you develop a problem with it? Every dropzone has to start somewhere, like this fact or not it’s irrelevant. I just want to know why you were ok with it when they asked you and then had to go with another IE because you wouldn’t be able to make it, your problem begins?

*The problem came when I saw the jump, you and I had many conversations and you were in total agreement with me, and you talked so much smack about the AFF I that you jumped with.

*I could not be there for the dates you guys requested. No problem with that. But when you need someone to work with you or one of your students who did you call, not the other I/E but me.

Those that know you know that you have a certain IE out there that you love to bash. In fact you complain about this IE almost every course you put on. Care to tell us all who you got your ratings from? So everyone else that got a rating from this guy did not earn it but you did?

*Rick Horne was my Course Director.

*I remember talking to you during your course, almost every night, you had nothing good to say about your I/E and his teachings, you gave more compliments to the evaluator.
You stated, why am I paying someone to read to me? I could have done that myself.

*Please let me remind you, after the coach course and several conversation, you wanted to attend my AFF course, so you canceled with the other, and registered to mine, then you said you were pressured into doing the course at your dz, and so I returned your deposit. And I supported you, talked to you every night. I am so confused.

You are a very skilled skydiver. You are an amazing instructor. So the truth may hurt but you also suffer from a case of double standards.

All this being said, I couldn’t agree with DSE anymore. Where is the data to support the claim that there is a problem? We can all sit around and tell stories, but what are the stats? Are we trying to create a solution to a problem that does not exist? Is there and issue with IE’s…. yes, all of them, they are human. I am lead to believe that the process works. If you wish to prove me wrong, then show me the stats and quit telling stories.

Thanks DSE for bringing the stats question up!
AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's not at all unreasonable to ask for at least a few instances that are documented, and can point to poor/incomplete training.



I have two problems with that statement -

1. It would be very difficult to take a student incident, and conclude that the root cause was insuffucient training/experience of one or both of the instructors. There are so many variables at work, that you could never rule out enough of them to place the blame squarely on the instructors training/experience.

Not every student can be caught. Let's face it, events can transpire that would allow a student to fall into a Cypres fire dispite the best efforts of the instructors. How would you conclude in a student Cypres fire that the instrucotrs did a sub-standard job, and furhtermore that the substandard job was the result of poor instructor training? Maybe it was a bad day for an otherwise qualified instructor.

The point is that in order to have statistics, you would have to be able to connect a student incident to poor performace on the part of the instructor, and then connect that poor performance to a lack of expereince or inadequate training as an instructor. It's long way to go to make that conclusion, and as such you probably won't see many incidents that would fall under that heading.

2. Again, in order to have any statistics, you need to have incident reports from which to compile them. Keeping my above point in mind, think about how many overall student incidents we would need before we had enough that were directly linked to poor instructor performance to compile any sort of meaningful statistics. It would be too many for my taste, and I can't accept the idea that we should wait until such time to take action.

Quote

Can you provide proof that bringing back the JM rating will absolutely guarantee greater safety? You're gonna have to start higher than the AFFI program. Get the I/E's to do their jobs.
If this was corporate structure, we'd be screaming for better management (which in this case, is the I/E's).



Nobody can provide such proof, and in truth, I would think that 'better mangement' would be a much better idea. The rub is that the management are the ones making the decisions.

In truth, 'better management' would mean going back to the tougher AFF cert. course. If you have higher standards for graduating, you have more qualified instructors entering the work force, but I can't see that happening. That would mean the 'management' would have to admit that they were wrong to ease the performance requirements to graduate, and go back to a presumably lower pass rate, and the lower attendace rate (and related reduction in course fees paid).

I do think, however, that bringing back the JM status would put an addiitonal layer of training for the new instructors, and that the management would be more likely to back that type of plan. You would still need to pass the course, but then you would have an additional year of experience under your belt before being cut loose for one on one interaction with a student.

Let me ask you this question - as a new AFFI, would you imagine that your skills as an instructor would improve after your first year 'on the job'?

I would suggest, like most other learning experiences, that the early part of your learning would represent the steepest part of the learning curve. So if you start off at zero, you'll learn as much in your first year as you may learn in years 2 and 3 combined. With this in mind, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that a period of 'limited responsibility' coming out of the AFF cert. course is that unreasonable.

Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting to furhter ease the AFF cert. course, and then let the remainder of the learning take place on the job. Keep the course requirements what they are, and make sure that every grad is an instructor would feel comfortable jumping with your mom. Beyond that, recognize that these instructors do have zero in terms of real world experience, and look at a gradute not as a jumper who is 'ready to instruct in every situation possible', but as a jumper who is 'ready to learn to instruct in every situaiton possible'.

It's just not something you can learn in a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recap
2 year C licence for coach
20 coach jumps and one year as coach before any I rating ( Three years D license For I Rating )
AFFI One year min. 20 AFFI jumps for probation .. After whice Full AFFI signed off by Experience AFFI working under for past year.

I think this would produce better instructors. Jump numbers are one thing. I think time in sport is just important.
My 2 cents;)

USPA could grandfather in anyone already in process. This requirements could be for all new rating holders..

I put the petition here so more people would see it


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3758159;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What's the harm in instituting an min. one year with a Coach rating to qualify for the AFF cert. course?



So get the intro ratings, sit around on them doing nothing, then auto-qualify for the higher end ratings just because time passes.

Don't think time in sport is such a great measurement. It discounts skill, aptitude and dedication which should all be part of an instructor rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What's the harm in instituting an min. one year with a Coach rating to qualify for the AFF cert. course?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So get the intro ratings, sit around on them doing nothing, then auto-qualify for the higher end ratings just because time passes.




No. Every rating has a minmum activity level that must be exercised with that rating to qualify for renewal. If you don't exersise the rating, you cannot renew, and cannot use it meet the requirements for earning a higher rating.

All of that aside, the minimum time as a coach would just be a requirement for taking the AFF cert. course, not a qualification for an 'auto pass'. Any potential candidate would have to meet the requirements and successfully pass the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should have separated the 4 points.
The only part I could agree with is the 1 year as coach before getting an I rating in any discipline.
The year as coach would be the probationary period for the other ratings.
I've seen alot more Tandem I's that scare me than anything else.
This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in agreement!

I watch guys on a regular basis come out and do hop and pops all day just to get their required 500 jumps so they can go get their instructor ratings.
Does 200 or 300 hop and pops really prepare you to take someone's life in your hands or does it only satisfy the fact that now you get paid to jump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


You should have separated the 4 points.
The only part I could agree with is the 1 year as coach before getting an I rating in any discipline.
The year as coach would be the probationary period for the other ratings.
I've seen alot more Tandem I's that scare me than anything else.



I agree with a one-year coach rating, but disagree with the current 6 hours of freefall and would rather see a minimum jump number.
Why?
One person got his AFF rating after around 300 jumps, most of them wingsuit. He'd never once coached a student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


You should have separated the 4 points.
The only part I could agree with is the 1 year as coach before getting an I rating in any discipline.
The year as coach would be the probationary period for the other ratings.
I've seen alot more Tandem I's that scare me than anything else.



I agree with a one-year coach rating, but disagree with the current 6 hours of freefall and would rather see a minimum jump number.
Why?
One person got his AFF rating after around 300 jumps, most of them wingsuit. He'd never once coached a student.




How about a different approach to this? What if there were a yearly recertification? Not the current pencil whip on the form (that I am sure most instructors are honest on) but an in-air and in-classroom recertification?

I put this out there after thinking about my time in the military - we shoot all the time. Be we still have to requalify on a periodic basis. If you don't make the grade, you go for remedial training until you do qualify.

Since USPA is continually upping the renewal fees all of the time, they could provide this mechanism to us as a way of justifying the increases. It would also generate the statistics everyone wants. If a group of AFFIs trained by certain I/Es consistently fail to requalify, then we have something to investigate.

I would be glad to do this as it would keep me honest and give me much needed quantitative feedback on how I am progressing as an Instructor.

Thoughts?
Scars remind us that the past is real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just recently earned my Coach rating and did some coach jumps this last season. I received great feedback from several seasoned Instructors when I asked questions. And, I asked a lot of questions!! I have many, many years in the sport and well over 200 jumps.

My plan is to eventually get my AFF-I rating. I'm in no hurry and welcome any change in the system that would increase my proficiency as an instructor. I consider myself a lifelong student of the sport and I challenge the BOD to make my road to the I rating challenging. I’m willing to jump thru the hoops if they make sense and will increase my knowledge, understanding, and skill.

I see nothing in the above recommended changes that would discourage me from moving forward in my road to AFF-I. In fact, I think these changes would further challenge my skill and knowledge. My two cents…… Bring It On Bitches!!! B|B|

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The funny thing is you are already doing exactly what the suggestions are. You earned your coach rating and are working with students and sesoned AFFI's. Next step is AFFI course. Then as a AFFJM you will have someone to help you out as you ease into full fledged one on one AFF.

You are doing it perfectly regardless of what suggestions USPA makes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What if there were a yearly recertification? Not the current pencil whip on the form (that I am sure most instructors are honest on) but an in-air and in-classroom recertification?



Well you might have no problem down in NC getting all the student number to get your yearly quota for renewal, but in many many places such as fly over country, not every dz has maga student numbers and it's hard enough to get what you need. You now want us to shell out more money and go to a recert class and or hire one of these fulltime I/E's to come out here to run it, I'm sure Kip would love that he already bitches about how he don't make enough money as it is.

This lack of student numbers and lack of AFF-I in their area is one reason you see so many dz's doing tandem progression. If you want to start having us add on more fees and extra bullshit you will see a number of current rated people say fuck it and not keep the rating.

If you want to solve the current problem then start with weeding out the I/E's who trade blow jobs for their newly invented non USPA approved "conditional ratings".
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is how it is. The system isn't broken, the Instructor Examiners in the field is where the problem lies. You have people out there taking money for courses and not showing up. People taking money for courses and not submitting paperwork. Failing people with skill because they can and passing others who shouldn't have ratings. The AFF course is still as hard as it's ever been but there are some examiners out there that have fluctuating standards.
You have dumbass examiners who give out "conditional" AFF ratings because you don't have skill enough to pass the course but you have boobs and hand over coach ratings to people who were just involved in a wingsuit fatality. Your shit is being looked at and good job making all examiners out there look stupid. K.L.
My favorite examiner by far is the one who holds tandem courses and isn't even there. Just watch these videos then jump with each other. When you have your card filled out send it to me and I'll sign off on it. Amazing I know. I personally ride on the front for all 10. But that's just me. USPA needs to re-evaluate who they have in the field along with all the tandem manufacturers. There are more jackasses out there than I care to think and the King of them all is the one posting on here trying to slam everyone else for low standards when he in fact has the lowest standards of all. Shady business practices, low course standards, can't manage a dz without getting fired for sleeping with other skydivers girls, jumping with underage tandems. K.L. you sir are a piece of work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us not forget that Mr. Lowmiller while still holding his mid-eastern regional seat, didn't like the fact someone would say/post their point of view about their seated USPA RD Mr. Lohmiller.

So like a fucking ________ after reading my posts on the subject of a seated USPA RD, S&TA, Tandem I/E, AFF I/E, SL I/E, IAD I/E, he kicked me off a group member dz because of my post about MY elected USPA regional director.

So all of you need to keep in mind this: if you have the balls to say or post anything bad about Mr. Lohmiller and plan to attend a ICC you might show up and find out your banned from attending or he might even stoop low enough to try to ask your DZO to kick you off the DZ while his lame ass is there. And if you do get in the ICC and are stupid enough to trust you'll get a fair eval after stating your point of view, don't be surprised if you don;t pass.

Then again you always could suck his dick and get a "conditional rating".

Oh and Kip, contrary to your wild ass claims of me being kicked off EVERY dz in the state of Ohio, it had only been 1, up to the point of you being a pussy who can't handle people voicing their disapproval of your actions as an elected USPA official. Kind of funny as hell to hear as the prop turns you were helped off SS by the police.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0