0
Allballs

Is the AFF rating too easy?

Recommended Posts

This whole thread is about standard, experience, and are courses to easy, so on that note:

1. How can someone allow a candidate or candidates to attend a course without meeting the requirements.

2. How can the BOD directors let some go for ex-amount months without working with students and then say you can go out work with students, without any recurrency training?

And by the way I have seen several videos of the so called AFF I's and I am not impressed at all.

No chit this week here in FL a Tandem Examiner put someone through the USPA and Manufacture course and the individual did not have a coach rating, he did not have his Tandem card filled out. This whole weekend the candidate was working on his pre-reqs for his coach card and his tandem card. The system is broke and it is a shame. People are going to get hurt.
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
No . . . my DZ does not allow Coaches to do AFF harness hold jumps. I was suggesting that Coaches could do that with additional training and experience if the Instructor program was revised to allow it.

The walk before you run progression works well at our DZ.
Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No . . . my DZ does not allow Coaches to do AFF harness hold jumps. I was suggesting that Coaches could do that with additional training and experience if the Instructor program was revised to allow it.



That's a terrible idea. Putting a jumper who has not passed the AFF cert course on a harness hold jump is doing a great dis-service to the student.

The better idea is to bring back the JM rating, where you take a jumper who has passed the AFF cert course, and limit what they can do for a period of time after the course. This will give them time to learn 'on the job', and ensure that a student doesn't end up being a 'learning experience' for a pair of new instructors (or one new guy on a single JM jump).

Allowing coaches to do harness hold jumps is moving in the wrong direction. Additional training or not, you're giving the coach more responsibility when what really needs to be done is giving new course gradutates less responsibility.

There should be no flexibility when it comes to passing the AFF cert course for doing harness hold jumps. That has to be step one, and any changes that need to be made should be done with graduating the course as a starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct> Bring back the AFFJM. for the hundreth time.. Why dont we all get on a conference call and at the exact same time smash our head into a wall. It would be less painful then hearing us all preach the same thing for 13 pages. The BOD needs to know there is a problem.
I concur with skymonkey, there will be a fatality related to this topic. It is now a numbers game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This whole thread is about standard, experience, and are courses to easy, so on that note:

1. How can someone allow a candidate or candidates to attend a course without meeting the requirements.

~~Frankly, I think anyone including my grandmother can attend a course. I attended and/or sat around several courses before challenging the course. Successfully challenging it is entirely a different affair. In fact, I saw two people successfully challenge the course without having attended it. And darn it, they'd only gotten their coach rating a coupla days before. I'm not a TI, likely never will be, but I've attended a couple of courses. Is that wrong?



2. How can the BOD directors let some go for ex-amount months without working with students and then say you can go out work with students, without any recurrency training?

~~Probably the same way a lot of dropzones do. I wasn't allowed to jump with students the day I got back from my AFF course (and snow on the ground played a role in that, too). Then I only was allowed to jump reserve side for a spell.
Do you think that a person with 6 hours of freefall time suddenly loses their skills when they can't jump with students for 30 days? Cuz if they were teaching FJC's, and I'm told they were, then they were still working their skills, just not with students in the air.


No chit this week here in FL a Tandem Examiner put someone through the USPA and Manufacture course and the individual did not have a coach rating, he did not have his Tandem card filled out. This whole weekend the candidate was working on his pre-reqs for his coach card and his tandem card. The system is broke and it is a shame. People are going to get hurt.

~~They already have, haven't they?
No chit, an I/E handed someone their instructional rating a few weeks after a fatality. Can you comprehend that?




Can you believe it, one I/E gave someone a "conditional AFF rating.." Apparently, there is no such rating.
I agree, parts of the system are broken. I agree again, it is a shame.
Hopefully standards will be reiterated and somehow enforced, as this thread (and some of your comments) make it appear as though I/E's have relaxed the supposedly stringent requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The BOD needs to know there is a problem



That in itself might be a problem. As far as the BOD, the I/Es, or the DZOs are concerned, is there a problem?

Lot's of AFF cert. courses generating lots of course fees for the I/Es and lots of ratings fees for the USPA, all resulting in lots of instructors for DZOs. I'm not sure many folks in any of those groups would say that there is a 'problem'.

Even in the wake of a fatality, how would you prove that the primary cause was instructor inexperience or under-qualification? There are always a myriad of possible causes, and just as many unanswered questions in any fatality, let alone one involving a student and all of the things they're apt to do (or not do).

I think it would take a string of student fatalities with very clear connections to the instructors experience level or qualifications to really make a dent.

I don't like it any more than you may, but I do think it's a realistic view of the situation. Hell, small canopies in inexperinced hands have proven to be killers, and the USPA won't put any teeth behind stopping that, so with all the people the status quo makes happy and no directly visible downside, I won't hold my breath for change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sitting around and observing is different from taking the course and being evaluated a told you are an AFF I. There is nothing wrong with taking pre-courses prior to meeting the requirements to being an AFF I or any other type of instructor. It is call an AFF I Certification course, it is called a S/L Instructor Certification course, it is called an IAD Instructor Certification course, it is a Tandem Instructor Certification course, not a come to the a course and who cares what your experience is, and if you pass I will put a waiver in for you. What are we showing people? What are we showing the rest of the world? Come on get real.

~~Probably the same way a lot of dropzones do. I wasn't allowed to jump with students the day I got back from my AFF course (and snow on the ground played a role in that, too). Then I only was allowed to jump reserve side for a spell.
Do you think that a person with 6 hours of freefall time suddenly loses their skills when they can't jump with students for 30 days? Cuz if they were teaching FJC's, and I'm told they were, then they were still working their skills, just not with students in the air.

USPA should set the standard.
A lot of dzs require their new AFF I's to work reserve side and have x-amount of aff jumps before doing release or one on one jumps, but there is the same amount that don't require it, and let new AFF I's jump with other new I's even on release dive within the first week they have received their ratings. Don't think what happens at your dz is the national standard, because it is not. NOT EVEN CLOSE. 182 dz in IN all the AFF I's are new (ALL OF THEM) and they are doing release dives one on one dives.

~~They already have, haven't they? No chit, an I/E handed someone their instructional rating a few weeks after a fatality. Can you comprehend that?

Yes and an I/E gave someone back their rating that killed someone. It does not make it right or justify what is going on. Double standards, good old boy network.

Can you believe it, one I/E gave someone a "conditional AFF rating.." Apparently, there is no such rating.
I agree, parts of the system are broken. I agree again, it is a shame.
Hopefully standards will be reiterated and somehow enforced, as this thread (and some of your comments) make it appear as though I/E's have relaxed the supposedly stringent requirements.

Yea I believe it, when I was a evaluator I had an I/E try for one hour to get me to change my score, allowing me to look at the video and telling me that it is a rating to learn, he will be ok, he will figure it out. now that candidate is a I/E not even 3 or 4 years later. I did not change my score and he re-took the course the next year and I failed him on a skydive and the same I /E jumped with him and the rest is history.
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
It's obvious to me that one major part of the problem is the sheer number of AFFIs out here.

Is that because it's "easy" to get the rating?
Is it because there are more and more AFF I/Es out here competing for business?

I think the sheer volume of AFFI I/Es and AFFIs induces a lower and lower level of integrity in the system.

Why would an I/E allow an unqualified person to even take the course? Because his level of personal integrity is shot all to hell.

Why would he"invent" a rating for someone that doesn't quite meet the requirements? Because his level of personal integrity is shot all to hell

The system has allowed a lot of "chaff" online.

Oh, if there was a way to rid ourselves of the chaff and get back to quality E/Is and AFFIs that have a decent level of integrity.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And furthermore...

A periodic performance review would help weed out those who pass the course and completely disregard what the were taught in the course.
"You've been an AFFI for X-time now? Prove that you're actually practicing what you were taught and we'll re-new the rating."

AFFIs that do no FJCs?
AFFIs that have a severe lack of knowledge of what's in the SIM?
AFFIs that ignore book knowledge and only focus on air skills?
AFFIs that get their rating renewals pencil whipped?

AFFI I'Es that bend requirement rules?
(I suspect this has to do with income. Bend the rules for the guys so I can collect and additional per-person fee.)



Yeah, I know. I live in a dreamworld and have little understanding of the big picture.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's obvious to me that one major part of the problem is the sheer number of AFFIs out here.

Is that because it's "easy" to get the rating?
Is it because there are more and more AFF I/Es out here competing for business?

*BINGO, this is the major problem, and also some of them barely stay current.*

I think the sheer volume of AFFI I/Es and AFFIs induces a lower and lower level of integrity in the system.

*BINGO Again, I like your dream world, it is reality.*

Why would an I/E allow an unqualified person to even take the course? Because his level of personal integrity is shot all to hell.

*Money is more important than integrity and putting yourself on a pedistle is just as important.*

Why would he"invent" a rating for someone that doesn't quite meet the requirements? Because his level of personal integrity is shot all to hell

*Bingo again, I want to be in the history books as the one.*

The system has allowed a lot of "chaff" online.

*Imagine that, and nothing will be done.*

Oh, if there was a way to rid ourselves of the chaff and get back to quality E/Is and AFFIs that have a decent level of integrity.

*There is, but the BOD will not worry about it, there is to much money to be made, for individuals and USPA.*

You are all over it, I like the way you think.
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

Even in the wake of a fatality, how would you prove that the primary cause was instructor inexperience or under-qualification? There are always a myriad of possible causes, and just as many unanswered questions in any fatality, let alone one involving a student and all of the things they're apt to do (or not do).



I will tell you how. A lawyer subpenas DZ.com and this thread for the lawsuit that ensues. Or someone with the proper qualifications and same thought process as mine is used as an expert witness to give his thoughts on how the AFFI contributed to the incident. It would be up to a jury. That is fairly damaging testimony when a I/E gets on the stand and says that he warned of the possible problem, and nothing was done.
Further, If USPA is made aware of the issue or the concerns and fails to act upon it they are also opening themselves up to liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope that someone going to the AFF standardization meeting on the west coast this year will print this entire thread out and bring it with them. Feel free to use my name and telelphone number. I cant make it to the west coast but I will be there next year on the east coast. Although I have a web came and would be happy to give my thoughts via the web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members of the Exec Committee have been made aware of, and read this thread. That was how I learned of the very recent "issuance" of a "conditional AFF rating."

FWIW, a "conditional AFF rating" is for someone who is only allowed to jump reserve side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

FWIW, a "conditional AFF rating" is for someone who is only allowed to jump reserve side.



Which side is the reserve side?

Is it always the left side? How about on a 182, where the left-side jumpmaster starts with two grips? How about on other aircraft where the left-side jumpmaster is in a better position to control the exit?

Is the idea of a "conditional rating" that if the jumpmaster screws up there won't be serious consequences? If that's the case, why not just dispense with the apprentice and make it a 1-jumpmaster jump?

I don't get it.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Which side is the reserve side?

Is it always the left side? How about on a 182, where the left-side jumpmaster starts with two grips? How about on other aircraft where the left-side jumpmaster is in a better position to control the exit?

Is the idea of a "conditional rating" that if the jumpmaster screws up there won't be serious consequences? If that's the case, why not just dispense with the apprentice and make it a 1-jumpmaster jump?

I don't get it.



Nobody does.

That's why every instructor doing harness hold jumps needs to start off by straight up passing the AFF cert course. Not almost pass, not real close to pass, but completed the course and met the minimun requirements.

Lets keep in mind that this thread started off discussing the level of difficulty involved in the AFF cert course, and that some think it's not hard enough. If you then go to the level where you're 'passing' jumpers who are so marginal that they have to have a 'conditional' rating, can you imagine the skill level of said jumper?

Back to jumpers who can at least manage to pass the course 'straight up', the reason you then put them on JM status is not because you doubt their skills, but because they lack experience. Even the top of the class at the AFF cert course graduates with zero jumps with an actual student. The JM status allows them to gain experience from more seasoned AFF Is, and really hone all of their skills before being cut loose to handle students one on one.

Those skills are not limited to just the in-air work, but the whole experience from trainging, to gear up, to student supervision, and debreifing. These are all skills that need to be developed, and much like the in-air work, you're short changing a student by assigning them a guy who has had a rating for a week as their sole instructor. For the instructor, that student is just one in a long line of students that the instrucotr will use to devleop their skills, but to the student that is (presumably) their one and only lv. 5 or lv. 6 skydive, and they need a full and complete learning expereince they can use to begin their skydiving career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
***
Back to jumpers who can at least manage to pass the course 'straight up', the reason you then put them on JM status is not because you doubt their skills, but because they lack experience. Even the top of the class at the AFF cert course graduates with zero jumps with an actual student. The JM status allows them to gain experience from more seasoned AFF Is, and really hone all of their skills before being cut loose to handle students one on one. ***

I agree 100% and then some. The JM rating is the answer. no need for conditional anything. pass the AFFCC and you are a AFFJM, thus begins the educational process.
let me repost:
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with that is money... Why should a student pay for someones apprenticeship. So with the way you guys are suggesting, The student would have to pay more so the new AFFI can learn. Most DZ's in my area are one jm jumps. To add the new rating they would be just riding along getting experience. Who's paying for that? (STU is)
Im not saying things shouldn't be different.
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.




Why not reverse that order?

Bringing back the JM status will really solve a buch of the problems by keeping the new, inexperienced instructors away from one or one situations with students.

Even if you got your coach rating one week, and AFF the next, you still have a year as a JM to get into the swing of things under the supervision of a more experienced instructor.

Of course instituting a one year min. as a coach to even qualify for the AFF course would put another level of experience and education into the perspective instructors tool kit.

Of the least importance is upping the requirements for the coach rating. Coaches themselves can do very little harm, as they don't get near a 'student' in the air until an AFF I has cleared them for self supervision. These jumpers could make the skydives with no help what-so-ever, but thanks to the ISP, they end with a 'buddy' to tag along and watch.

In the end, I'm going to stick to my theory that the USPA isn't very fond of making things harder for anyone, and that what you and I see as a 'problem' might look different to the USPA, I/Es and DZOs.

Even so, if you are going to push for change, make the JM rating the primary focus, and have the other ideas as secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

FWIW, a "conditional AFF rating" is for someone who is only allowed to jump reserve side.



Which side is the reserve side?

Is it always the left side? How about on a 182, where the left-side jumpmaster starts with two grips? How about on other aircraft where the left-side jumpmaster is in a better position to control the exit?

Is the idea of a "conditional rating" that if the jumpmaster screws up there won't be serious consequences? If that's the case, why not just dispense with the apprentice and make it a 1-jumpmaster jump?

I don't get it.

Mark



There is no such "conditional rating."
Why it was issued? Maybe someone here has an idea.
I'm confident that her age, appearance, and personality weren't part of the rating process, because I/E's are professionals.

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