Is the AFF rating too easy?

[DSE 3]

Quote

I hope that everyone that has read this whole thread as painful as that might be, will consider voicing their opinion about: the coach rating requirements, the time in rating (Coach) prior to AFF CC., bringing back the AFFJM rating. A time in sport requirement for AFF CC.
All of these will help the safety of students and create dedicated rounded instructors.
As far as statistics, you will not get them because the lost students, cyprus fires, two out, and any other jump where the instructor may be leaving himself open to discussion are either not on video, not reported, or the video is lost. Accurate data will never be available.

I'm in agreement with you on each point, except one.
You haven't convinced me there is a "real" problem so much as I'm convinced that there may one day be.
Absent stats, it's conjecture.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I hope that everyone that has read this whole thread as painful as that might be, will consider voicing their opinion about: the coach rating requirements, the time in rating (Coach) prior to AFF CC., bringing back the AFFJM rating. A time in sport requirement for AFF CC.

I wouldn't count on the USPA making any changes that will make things harder for jumpers to get ratings. Somewhere along the line they got the impression that if you make it easier, more people will become involved, and that will benefit the sport (and of the course the USPA with increased course fees and ratings dues).

Take the coach rating for example. It was preceeded by the Basic Instrcutor Course, which was a good idea. For those that don't know, the BIC was a two-day class that taught effective teaching techniques, and it became a prerequisite for any instructional rating course.

The BIC was certainly an additional hurdle toward getting a rating, but in itself the course afforded you no new privledges at the DZ. It was like a medical certificate for a tandem instructor, you need it to get the rating, but by itself it means nothing.

No surpirse, the BIC was very short lived, and replaced by the Coach rating. Of course, the coach rating was now the prerequisite for all instructor courses, but the coach rating also offered the privledges of jumping with certain students.

The BIC was a rare case in which the USPA made it to harder to get a rating, so they replaced it with a new, much easier to get rating that would be more appealing to the potential instructor.

It's somewhat similar to the (lack of) regulations regarding canopy type and size for upcoming jumpers. The USPA has refused to implement any such regulation despite the fact that open canopy incidents have been the largest protion of yearly fatalities for many, many, years. Most other countries have some sort of system in place to regulate this area, but the USPA has limited it's invovlment to making 'reccomendations', which aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. When it comes to instituting a new BSR for this purpose, they will not. Again, it would be a case of making things harder for jumpers, and like I said, that's not the USPA's forte.

[FrflyPimpDaddy 0]

Think about this, the difference between an AFFI and me a coach is ONE JUMP.

Yes, you are correct, it is one jump. However, that one jump and the 8 or so jumps before that one jump have the built in potential to be doozies.

Once that student is signed off of AFF they should be going to a coach

Yes they should. Or to an AFF instructor who is already a coach.

If they had crappy AFFI's (no offense to any poster here) then when I get them they are crappy students to deal with in the air

Could you please define crappy students? Are you saying that some students (apparently the ones that had crappy AFF I's) don't meet the requirements to pass the AFF portion defined by the USPA? Or, are you saying that they don't fly as good as you would like them to when they get to you. See, that's the thing. Aff instructors don't teach people how to be good skydivers, AFF instructors teach and verify that students are able to save their own lives, and do it for them when they blow it. Coaches get to teach students how to be kick ass skydivers, without the added responsibility of having to save the life of the student if they (the student) blow it. Big diff.

Some one posted earlier that the coach course should be harder as coaches are teaching more skills than AFFI or something to that effect.

You know what I'm tired of, lazy ass coaches who apparently (from what you said above ) have to teach more skills than an AFF I, and spend a whole 10 minutes training a student for a very complex skydive. It takes me anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half to train a student for a cat B, C or D. Then, when it's over, they don't re-train the student. If you (coach) have to teach more skills than me (AFF I), how can you be done before me? (not directed at you personally). Happens all the time.

[danielcroft 2]

So, what is a viable solution to these problems then? As far as AFF/I goes, I think even without changing and rating requirements, requiring that someone have X number of coach jumps and/or must have held a coach rating for Y amount of time seems completely reasonable to me.

Canopy requirements should be set by the USPA. There should also be a path for people who are genuinely over-achievers whereby their S&TA/DZO/AFF signs off on them exceeding the loading limit. In that way the USPA could avoid any legal issues and people who are genuinely capable wouldn't be limited.

I was a member of the American Motorcyclists Association (AMA) for a few years and was happy to pay my dues & support them. Over time I realized that the AMA (in my opinion) was more interested in maintaining the status quo, supporting manufacturers and not in the very serious safety concerns that I had. I let my membership lapse after getting a few emails into a discussion with the head of the safety department (or whatever it was called) and then having them just stop responding. My concerns were about helmet and licensing laws, both of which are pretty pathetic in the US. Now, I don't want to get into a debate about that because I know people have strong opinions on the matter and everyone's entitled to their opinion. The point is that I was unhappy with where my dues were going so I stopped being a member. I can't do that with the USPA.

I don't actually want to do that either because I do get value out of my membership. I have corresponded with the BOD before about another issue and I will raise these two as well but where do I go from there? I can send some emails but who the hell would listen to me? 283 jumps & 3 years in the sport, what do I know? I see a lot of push back to change when talking about these issues, and in plenty of cases, there are great reasons for the push back and my questions stem from my lack of experience. In a couple of cases, plenty of people seem to agree, experienced & inexperienced alike. I want to know how I can get this addressed. And not in a "thanks for your concern" kind of way.

I'm here discussing these issues because I think it's important get ideas out there so that people can pick holes in them & shoot them down where required. In some (rare!) cases, these things have legs & seem to require further pursuit.

[Para5-0 0]

You ask some good questions.
Our chain of command is S&TA, Regional Director, National Director, Safety and Training commitee, BOD.
The first step IMHO is to change the requirements of a coach rating to 200 jumps and a C license.
If we can manage to do that:
The next step would be to require a 12 month in coach rating to be eligible to take a AFF course. This will presumably give the coach at least 20 coach jumps as requirred for renewal and 12 more months of experience.
Then:
Bring back the AFF JM rating. After completion require that a AFFJM be a JM for 12 months prior to being elligible for AFFI status. This will allow a JM to train along side seasoned AFFI and learn how to teach and how to fly with real students. mentorship program.

This would be my perfect world of skydiving. Oh I would also add a time in sport requirement for the AFFJM course and up the jumps to 1000. Sorry I am an asshole, while I am dreaming here.

Results: Dedicated instructors who have taken a path specifically to become quality instructors. Earn respect for going the distance to get an Instructor rating. They will by this time have the respect at the DZ of fellow jumpers. Integrity will be restored in the AFFI rating. It will be again looked at as a rating that is considered the golden chalice of ratings. It used to be as I have stated, that the AFF rated skydivers were held in regard as at the top of the sport kind of guys.
Trust me when I say because I have spoken to many many people and they have all said the same thing."The rating has become a joke" That should infuriate AFFI's that have gone through the new course. Dont you want to be respected for your accomplishments? I would.
Or screw this whole dam concept and let it go the way it is. I have put to much time into this and I feel as if I am pissing into a fan.
Problem: The only people advocating for this are seasoned instructors. Everyone else is argueing against it. Why would someone coming up the ranks argue for it to be harder to get a rating? They wouldnt, or at least very few. Why would DZO's argue for it to be harder to get a rating? They wouldnt. Who is on the BOD? DZO's...Hence the problem. Very few are advocating for more stringent policies. The funny thing is that the ones advocating for the above are the ones that are currently doing the job. Shouldnt they have the strongest say? Shouldn't the rating be determined by current AFFI's or AFF I/E's? If the board will shoot everything down then turn the fan on high because the piss is flying.
I was told that the jump requirement for coach has been brought up numerous times to the BOD, and it has been voted down each time. WHY?
Unfortunately it will take several student deaths to get people to look at this differently. We are trying to prevent that. Remember that word proactive not reactive.
and lastly the poll in this months parachutist about the coach rating is comical. Out of a membership of upward of 30,000 people or whatever the heck it is, 106 responded to the poll. Who the hell were the 106? I guarantee the 52 that wanted it to stay the same do not have it yet and the 6 that want it easier to get definately do not have it yet. How about a real poll? Poll all Instructors that are USPA members. Send it out with membership renewal. Ask Instructors what the coach rating requirements should be, no the general whuffo world.
I am done now. Have a nice day.

[matthewcline 0]

I think that is over complicated.

IMO

We go back to the BIC.
And then the JM and I ratings in each Instructional Discipline.

It worked! The only thing "we" (potential AFF-JM's) asked for was clarification in the AFF-JM Course Grading system. That was what should have been addressed, nothing more.

I think (agian IMO) that if we had done that initially then we would have avoided this current argument. I also think we would see afew more DZ's still using SL and a few more SL-JM's out there (which I think was a good way to get some experience before AFF-JM).

This "Old School" system worked pretty well and we only realy needed to update safety and equipment as things came out (like the AFF BOC that Mr. Nelson helped to facilitate if I am not mistaken).

Coach should be for a portion of the Comp stuff, VWR, RW, CRW etc. etc.

Again just my opinion.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[dninness 4]

I had a nice salient reply typed up, then *pow* I had to do real work and closed my browser and lost it... @#$%* This reply will not be nearly as good. *sniff*

When I took the AFF course, the I/E said: "When we sign off the rating, as far as the USPA is concerned, you can do soup-to-nuts AFF." So yeah, technically you can do FJCs & Cat A all the way to A-license check dives immediately after getting signed off. Again, necessarily smart to do single-instructor dives? Maybe not. Possible? Yeah.

My "cherry" jump as a newly-minted AFF-I was a D-1.

Really.

I'm not saying that's smart, mind you, but I had just spent a considerable amount of time getting my ass kicked on D-1 jumps by AFF course evaluators in practice and eval dives, so I knew that dive as well as reaching for my wallet.


(BTW, my D-1 student was rock solid thru the whole skydive. I spent the entire time about 4-6" from my grips, expecting him to roll, flip, backslide, whatever. He waved and pulled on time and as I'm tracking off I'm laughing in my helmet over the fact that he basically was "perfect student." I had just spent that entire jump, from gear up to his pull probably about 100% more tense than he was... I know that there are going to be students who are definitely NOT going to perform like that..)

The funny thing is, my student on that jump was a CFII. We were talking later as I was writing up his jump in his logbook, and we were talking about instructional ratings (it was here I revealed to him, as a fellow instructor, that his was my pre-second jump as an instructor) I was explaining to him in a little more detail how things work in the later parts of the student progression, and since he was a CFI, I used a student pilot analogy. I said "Its like you as a CFI take a student to solo, and then you hand them off to another person who is sort of 'instructor lite.' You've taught them how to fly, how to get the plane around the airpatch a few times, etc, and now its time to give them to the guy who will polish their skills. Thats kind of how it works with Instructors versus Coaches. We give you the survival skills, and make sure you can pretty much jump without killing yourself, and then hand you off to a trained skydiver who can get you to your license."

Which got me to thinking...

Basically, how about this idea for a proposal:

You become a coach. A coach would be considered sort of "AFF-JM-in-training." Still does the "post E" jumps, etc, mostly as now.

After X jumps as a coach in T time (say, 50 in 18 months or 25 in a year or whatever.. something realistic that could be done at a Cessna DZ), and Y total time in as a coach, you are now qualified to take an AFF-JM course. (AKA "AFF pre-course)

The AFF-JM course is a prep for the Instructor course. Now you're an "AFF-JM" and allowed to accompany an fully-qualified instructor on 2-instructor AFF jumps. You serve under the direction of an instructor, work closely with him or her in training AFF students (Cats A-E).

You can't do 1 instructor jumps, but you're instructor in training. You can do ground training and all that, but when it comes to the actual jumps you need to be with an -I.

Then the requirements for AFF-I are something X AFF-JM & Coach jumps over T timeframe and Y time as a coach/AFF-JM. Then you can take the AFF-I course and be the big dog.

USPA would love it: Adds another rating level & rating course. More $$, right?

Anyway, thats just an idea off the top of my head. There may be something to riff off of there.

(I'm submitting this reply before I lose the friggin' thing again..)

NIN
D-19617, AFF-I '19

[dninness 4]

BTW, Para5-0 basically said what I said. I was losing my reply and retyping when he replied. He has the idea, probably a little better than I do. Great minds and all.

NIN
D-19617, AFF-I '19

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

You can't do 1 instructor jumps, but you're instructor in training. You can do ground training and all that, but when it comes to the actual jumps you need to be with an -I.

All good but some DZ's do AFP and only do 1 Instructor dives. What we do is keep the newer AFF's on Level 1,2 non release for a time period.

[dninness 4]

Quote

Quote

You can't do 1 instructor jumps, but you're instructor in training. You can do ground training and all that, but when it comes to the actual jumps you need to be with an -I.

All good but some DZ's do AFP and only do 1 Instructor dives. What we do is keep the newer AFF's on Level 1,2 non release for a time period.

Yeah, not sure what to do there. I'm talking traditional ISP-based Cat A-Cat H AFF here. Not hybrid or AFP or whatever.

That's a whole 'nuther animal. I don't have a good answer/idea on that.

But I do agree on keeping newer AFFs on non-release dives for a period of time. Like I said, I was a little freaked out to be doing a D-1 as my pre-second. Sure, I *could* do it (and I did it just fine), but there is a good possibility to get into trouble, too. Believe me, if that guy had done even the least bad thing to me, it was going to turn into a gigantic single-JM Cat B: "Sorry, Charlie, I aint letting your ass go..."

I said in an earlier post: there is a period as a new AFF-I where you're in your "journeyman" period.

I used to fix helicopters, and as a fresh-out-of-AIT soldier I swore I knew everything about that aircraft I needed to know. Yeah, got to my first unit and I was working with far more experienced guys for the first 3-5 months. I was a quick learner, however, and got moved into aircrew quickly, but still, I was a "junior" guy under the tutelage of a more experienced person. A "journeyman." (the Air Force, as I recall, in their position titles for guys fresh out of tech school uses the term "journeyman" even... So a brand new, say, cook is a "Food Services Journeyman".. )

I don't recommend using that term, but the concept is valid: You may be book-smart, but you ain't seen it all yet.

NIN
D-19617, AFF-I '19

[danielcroft 2]

Ok, I contacted the USPA & me RD about this. Hopefully it'll get raised & discussed at the next BOD meeting.

I'd like to encourage others to do the same.

[Para5-0 0]

It is good to see we are on the same page. Not to mention our D numbers are close, did you take some time off or just jumped part time?

I am going to start making some more noise about this topic..See what happens.

[Para5-0 0]

I checked your profile and I am glad I did, your RD is my RD. Randy Schroeder.

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

I checked your profile and I am glad I did, your RD is my RD. Randy Schroeder.

Yep, I PMed you the email I sent. I had to check my profile to see what was there actually.

To everyone else:
Find out who your RD is here:
http://www.uspa.org/AboutUSPA/USPABoardofDirectors/tabid/140/Default.aspx#1862

Let them know how you feel about this issue so we can address it.

I refrained (for the most part) from mentioning the canopy progression rules (or lack thereof) because I didn't want to muddy the waters.

I have to say, it's going to be way more convincing if you experienced guys say something about this rather than

[dninness 4]

Quote

It is good to see we are on the same page. Not to mention our D numbers are close, did you take some time off or just jumped part time?

I've always jumped "part time," unfortunately. Kids and a(n ex-)wife will do that to you, too. There were a couple-three years where I made less than 25 jumps a year, and I think one year after my son was born I might have made 5-6 jumps. It sucked.

The last 3 years I've made more jumps per year than I've ever made, and of course thats when I've gotten my ratings, too.

I would love to be a professional jumper, but there is no way in hell I could survive right now like that. :( So its mild-mannered IT professional by weekday, adventurous skydiving instructor by weekend.

NIN
D-19617, AFF-I '19

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Ok, I contacted the USPA & me RD about this. Hopefully it'll get raised & discussed at the next BOD meeting.

I appriciate your enthusiasm, but I caution you not to get too excited. Like I said, the USPA as of late hasn't been real keen on making anything harder for anyone. It's almost like they got all 'PC', and are trying to make ratings and such more 'friendly' for everyone.

If anything you metnioned to them involves making the road to ratings either longer or harder, my money is on the subject getting little to no attention out of the BOD.

An interesting exception to this, of course, was the ISP. That certainly did make it much harder and more expensive for students to get licensed, but of course you have to consider that the USPA, in addition to being a skydiver organization, is also a DZO organization. The longer you can call someone a 'student', the longer you can charge them for 'student jumps', which always cost more than just a slot.

[danielcroft 2]

Thanks for the advice Dave.

The reason I'm excited is that there seems to be consensus to some extent here that people feel that there's a problem and a reasonable amount of agreement on a possible solution. If a bunch of skydivers think there's a problem then the USPA's job is to address that problem. If that means explaining why it is the way it is, then fine. If that means getting better at enforcing the rules as they stand, I'm also fine with that. If it means changing the rules, great.

The USPA doing nothing would certainly put them in the same league as the AMA in my book with the obvious difference being that the USPA has a captive market which I can't quit. I would not have positive things to say about the USPA given this scenario but I would continue to push to have the issue addressed.

I'm asking people to contact their RDs because the worst thing we can do here is just drop it saying to ourselves "nothing will ever change". I may be a noob skydiver and I'm sure all you jaded jumpers are looking at my posts in a somewhat wistfully bemused or outright contemptuous manner but I'm idealistic in a lot of things I do and when something isn't right, I want it fixed. This isn't right, it needs to be fixed. I've been in IT for 15/16 years now and I still have this attitude.

I'll say it again, if you feel strongly about this issue, *either way*, please send your RD an email, even if it's just a one liner. Our only recourse is to try to get the RDs raising this issue at the BOD meeting. The more that do, the better chance we have of actually getting the USPA to address the issue.

[Skymonkey2 0]

Sorry this took so long been working. He is how it went: A dzo call the examiner that works on the dzo's demo team and scheduled an AFF Course and told him that his son and his friend will be attending the course and that both of them do not have the required hours but have a lot of tunnel time, and they will have the coach course done the weekend prior to the AFF course. ( I know this because several AFF I's from the dz called and or emailed me several times, and they also sent emails to one other Board Member) The examiner told the dzo that he will conduct the course and after the course he will submit a waiver to the BOD because of their wind tunnel time. At the Board meeting the email from the concerned AFF I's was read to the BOD and the waiver was not approved. The BOD said that when the two individuals have their time they can then work with students. To me if you don't have the requirements to be an Instructor you should not be allowed to do the course and the evaluations. So I guess the good old boy network is hard at work still.........

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well

[DSE 3]

Quote

To me if you don't have the requirements to be an Instructor you should not be allowed to do the course and the evaluations. So I guess the good old boy network is hard at work still.........

Yes and no, IMO.
Seems to me the system worked. The waiver failed, the candidates were not given their rating, Story over. FWIW, several people have said that these two candidates subsequently earned their air time, and they are very good instructors now. The system worked.

One guy played a large role in a fatality. He was given a rating by an I/E, even though several members of the board felt he should not be given a rating to instruct.
In my mind, if you are negligent with a student at any point and it results in a fatality or serious incident, that person probably shouldn't hold a rating.
Every I/E has stories, I guess.

[KathleenL 0]

Wow, did not mean to get you all spun up. You must remember that I speak from my own experience.
As for the definition of "crappy student" I think that AFF graduates should at least be able to fall stable. That is really all I mean.
You said in your post that the big difference between AFFI and coach is responsiblity. You are right about that technically. But do you really believe that if I had a student on a coach jump and they "blow it" and I watched them go in that I would not be held responsible? I am pretty sure that I would be nailed to a wall. Not to mention the overwhelming guilt and mental torture that would go along with it.
I know what you mean about lazy coaches. And I assure you that I am not one of them. I actually spend an hour or more on ground prep prior to any coach dive. I do this because I love skydiving and I want to give back to the sport. I was fortunate enough to have two world class skydivers mentor me who have every rating there is and multiple national and one world gold medal in 4way. They are my very good friends, I did not pay them for coaching and they paid their own slot. They are a huge reason that I got my coach rating.
I just said all that to say this, I know several coaches and I don't know a single one that gets paid to coach. But every AFFI that I know gets paid. The coaches at my DZ do it for the love of the sport and almost always we pay our own slot. So you might ask the "lazy" coaches you have seen if they are even getting their jump covered because mostl likely they are not. And sadly that makes a big difference. I am not saying it is right or wrong just saying that is what I observe.
I think USPA should make all the ratings progressive.

[fencebuster 7]

I took the Coach course at about 150 jumps. I found the course very challenging and I was totally stressed out working on the ground preps and worrying about my fall rate (I am a big guy). If the student is motivated and serious about teaching skydiving and has spent some time prepping for the Coach rating, 100 jumps is enough to be a decent coach. I now have my AFFI rating (at about 550 jumps) and I have successfully trained dozens of skydivers in preparation for their A licenses. A good coach can rally impact the quality of training that a noobie receives and can provide a positive influence in that skydiver's decision making matrix.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[fencebuster 7]

As was reflected in my prior post, I believe Coaches are an integral part of the skydiver training program. I am extremely fortunate to work at a DZ where coaches are appreciated and compensated for their skills. The result is a motivated crew of trainers who are invested in the student program and success for the students. I believe it to be a truism that you get what you pay for. Our DZ this year exceeded the A licenses from the year before and we still have some time to qualify some additional students for their A licenses and the compensated coaches play a major role in that success.

My DZ is focused on and rewards A licenses, not self-supervision, although we recognize that step in the student progression. Training should focus on A licenses not just getting the student self-supervised and left to their own devices to get their A license. Coaches are a key cog in that wheel and payment for coaches ensures a ready supply of competent staff.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[fencebuster 7]

I personally feel like it would be a good thing to allow an experienced coach to do reserve side JM with some additional training and evaluation. My DZ adheres to the walk before you run progression . . . a bunch of CAT A and CAT B before you go on a reserve side CAT C. A bunch of CAT C2 before you move to CAT D or E. I believe it works well; the experienced AFFIs report to the floor manager after every jump so that progress is followed.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[DSE 3]

Quote

I personally feel like it would be a good thing to allow an experienced coach to do reserve side JM with some additional training and evaluation. My DZ adheres to the walk before you run progression . . . a bunch of CAT A and CAT B before you go on a reserve side CAT C. A bunch of CAT C2 before you move to CAT D or E. I believe it works well; the experienced AFFIs report to the floor manager after every jump so that progress is followed.

So you're saying your DZ allows coaches on harness hold jumps with AFF students?

[KathleenL 0]

I don't think fencebuster is saying that his DZ allows coaches to jump reserve side. I think he is saying that he feels that experienced coaches could do it with additional training and evaluation.

I agree with fencebuster about the progression thing you know walk before you run. I think AFFI's should have to be monitored closely after they get their rating and start on reserve side only. Fencebusters idea is pretty good. It is very similar to how I trained EMT's and Paramedics. Just because you passed the National exam doesn't mean we put you as on an ambulance with another newbie. You really need to ride on a lot of calls before you get over your nerves that "hey I could make someone worse or kill them if I don't do my job correctly."