Recommended Posts
If half the claims of your conduct are true you should have the I/E's pulled.
Are you bashing becuase your not getting paid? This is after all your "business" and it would appear that your falling into the same rut that your standing on the soap box yelling about.
Are you bashing becuase your not getting paid? This is after all your "business" and it would appear that your falling into the same rut that your standing on the soap box yelling about.
ufk22 32
I don't think I would put too much stock in claims of misconduct posted anonamously on the internet. If someone won't at the very least identify themselves, why put any stock in their "stories"??????
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.
More and more are confirming the two "ragers" stories though. Sad as KL was pretty well respected till his self distruction on the BOD.
Well, I just finished my coach course today. I don't think that the flight skills required are all that hard but there's so much more to it than that. I think that someone taking the course should be assessed for maturity and attitude (I'm a bit nervous & need to relax but because I am worried about the person who is relying on me). I did my course with skydiveratings.com, those guys were really good.
I don't think that letting the DZ decide who's an appropriate person to teach is really answering the whole question here. If the person has a rating from the USPA, what does that say to new jumpers? Yes we can stop them actually "teaching" students formally but we can't stop the example they set as a rating holder. They should not have the rating to start with.
I don't think that letting the DZ decide who's an appropriate person to teach is really answering the whole question here. If the person has a rating from the USPA, what does that say to new jumpers? Yes we can stop them actually "teaching" students formally but we can't stop the example they set as a rating holder. They should not have the rating to start with.
ufk22 32
Confirmation of anomous posts by an anonamous poster......
Sorry, I guess I've just heard way too many one-sided stories over many years in this sport. These stories are usually much less "shocking" when the object of them is standing along side the accuser.
Sorry, I guess I've just heard way too many one-sided stories over many years in this sport. These stories are usually much less "shocking" when the object of them is standing along side the accuser.
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.
ozzy13 0
145 and some pretty heavy hitters on the list. Maybe something will get done.Quote
In two days we have nearly 100 skydivers who agree that we should take a closer look at this. Many of these are very seasoned instructors, S&TA's, and DZO's.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/instructorchanges/[
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!
riggerrob 558
" ... One year as a coach should be a requirement prior to challenging the AFF course ... but so should be a minimum number of jumps as a coach, too. ..."
........................................................................
AGREED!
........................................................................
AGREED!
DSE 3
Glad we agree on sumthin', Rob. 
More than once we've all seen Coach on Friday, AFFI next week. Requiring # of Coach jumps signed for by an instructor (IMO) is more valuable than requiring a year, because a year could go by without a single FJC or single coach jump. And...folks inflate their jump numbers in many cases, but having someone actually sign for them might make a diff.
skybytch 259
QuoteRequiring # of Coach jumps signed for by an instructor (IMO) is more valuable than requiring a year, because a year could go by without a single FJC or single coach jump.
Fifteen coach jumps within a year are already required to renew a coach rating. Be fairly simple to require that an AFFI or ride operator candidate have a coach rating that they have renewed at least once.
We already trust that S&TA's are checking logbooks that haven't been falsified to be sure that those jumps were actually done. Requiring a supervising instructor to sign off on each jump adds another task to what will likely already be a thankless and unpaid job, and if applied solely to coach jumps also gives the impression that someone who is just a coach can't be trusted to not lie in their logbook.
DSE 3
Quote
Fifteen coach jumps within a year are already required to renew a coach rating. Be fairly simple to require that an AFFI or ride operator candidate have a coach rating that they have renewed at least once.
We already trust that S&TA's are checking logbooks that haven't been falsified to be sure that those jumps were actually done. Requiring a supervising instructor to sign off on each jump adds another task to what will likely already be a thankless and unpaid job, and if applied solely to coach jumps also gives the impression that someone who is just a coach can't be trusted to not lie in their logbook.
I understand your point (and agree).
Yet if the S&TA is merely taking the word of someone that they've done the jumps...then the system is still going to fail.
One case in point: Instructor leaves our DZ with expired ratings and 1600 jumps. Bearing in mind Utah DZ's close in winter, same instructor has renewed ratings and 4K jumps 6 months later.
Is this a rare or common occurence? Can it be avoided/prevented?
skybytch 259
QuoteIs this a rare or common occurence? Can it be avoided/prevented?
From what I've seen, it's not uncommon. I knew a guy who was 100 jumps or so shy of the AFF requirements, followed by a month of unjumpable weather on the west coast, and yet somehow he had enough jumps to go for the rating in January. I'm sure many others know people like that.
Requiring a signature probably wouldn't keep someone who would lie to get/renew a rating anyway from forging the signatures or finding a "nice" S&TA to sign off the lies. It would put one more roadblock up for honest candidates and add another task to the S&TA or supervising instructor's (unpaid, unappreciated) list of responsibilities. I'm not sure it would be effective enough in the real world to justify the extra effort - but I would support it if others thought that it would be.
Para5-0 0
Does it happen? Yes
Can it be prevented?
I had a student that I guestioned for Tandem I. I called the dropzone he worked at and retrieved real exact numbers. Nowhere near what I was told by the way. There were no other DZ's jumped at. It may take a bit of vigilalance. With computer systems at most DZ's some records can be obtained. In another instance, for a D license and downsize below 150, I had to go to the records as well. Both were below cited numbers. Keep in mind the only reason I did this was a suspicion based on what I was seeing in the air and under canopy. If the student was a natural, I would never have questioned it. Maybe if it were requirred to contact previous jumped at DZ's, you could cut down on the bullshit.
Can it be prevented?
I had a student that I guestioned for Tandem I. I called the dropzone he worked at and retrieved real exact numbers. Nowhere near what I was told by the way. There were no other DZ's jumped at. It may take a bit of vigilalance. With computer systems at most DZ's some records can be obtained. In another instance, for a D license and downsize below 150, I had to go to the records as well. Both were below cited numbers. Keep in mind the only reason I did this was a suspicion based on what I was seeing in the air and under canopy. If the student was a natural, I would never have questioned it. Maybe if it were requirred to contact previous jumped at DZ's, you could cut down on the bullshit.
Quote...Maybe if it were required to contact previous jumped at DZ's, you could cut down on the bullshit.
...and therein lies one way to catch the bozos.
On top of that, maybe list those people for ALL I/Es reference.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteDoes it happen? Yes
Can it be prevented?
I had a student that I guestioned for Tandem I. I called the dropzone he worked at and retrieved real exact numbers. Nowhere near what I was told by the way. There were no other DZ's jumped at. It may take a bit of vigilalance. With computer systems at most DZ's some records can be obtained. In another instance, for a D license and downsize below 150, I had to go to the records as well. Both were below cited numbers. Keep in mind the only reason I did this was a suspicion based on what I was seeing in the air and under canopy. If the student was a natural, I would never have questioned it. Maybe if it were requirred to contact previous jumped at DZ's, you could cut down on the bullshit.
This is what can happen when people go to other dz's or different states to get their rating. We had some guy who was afraid to take the AFF course with seven other jumpers at his own dz, so he went to a different state and came back with his AFF rating. After the manager and other staff at his own dropzone saw what poor AFFI he was, the manager didn't give him work. A couple months after receiving his rating, he was in a serious skydiving accident but still managed to "log" jumps. Now he regularly bitches and lies about the manager and other instructors at his own dz on the Internet.
QuoteQuote...Maybe if it were required to contact previous jumped at DZ's, you could cut down on the bullshit.
...and therein lies one way to catch the bozos.
On top of that, maybe list those people for ALL I/Es reference.
I agree with this. It would probably be a good idea to contact the previous dzo, manager, and S&TA, not just about a potential instructor's jump numbers, but also about what kind of person he is. Sometimes a jumper can create such a persona on the Internet that they seem more experienced than they really are, especially here on dz.com.
MakeItHappen 15
QuoteI called the dropzone he worked at and retrieved real exact numbers. ..... With computer systems at most DZ's some records can be obtained. ..... I had to go to the records as well.
Keep doing stuff like that and there will be a lawsuit against the DZ for giving out customer information to third parties.
Businesses have no right to give out customer information to anyone except law enforcement with proper subpoenas, unless the customer has agreed to a disclosure agreement that specifics what type and to whom the info can be given.
A dzo answering a question of how many jumps and who the jumper did them with in the past month is just as bad as a phone company telling someone who you called and how long the calls were in the past month.
.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker
Quoteifteen coach jumps within a year are already required to renew a coach rating. Be fairly simple to require that an AFFI or ride operator candidate have a coach rating that they have renewed at least once.
We already trust that S&TA's are checking logbooks that haven't been falsified to be sure that those jumps were actually done. Requiring a supervising instructor to sign off on each jump adds another task to what will likely already be a thankless and unpaid job, and if applied solely to coach jumps also gives the impression that someone who is just a coach can't be trusted to not lie in their logbook.
Part of the problem are several IE's who are willing to "reach" when stretching the definitions of the requirements.
For example, I've witnessed several "drive by" coach/AFF courses. There is a minimum number of coach jumps required before the AFF rating after receiving a coach rating, and while not imposible to get them done in a week while also doing the prep for an AFF course, it's highly unlikely.
Now it's usually assumed, or implied that they are "Coach" jumps, done by a person with a Coach rating, however some imaginative IE's have allowed "coach jumps" that were done as a qualified and approved D license holder PRIOR to the courses. It's not a violation of the rules, but it sure isn't within the spirit of the rules.
Maybe it's a function of making the IE position a career. Perhaps we should have made IE's employees of the USPA. Probably too late to fix that mushroom cloud....
Another problem I've seen in close to 3 years of attending USPA board meetings are the number of waivers that are put forward for consideration to waive requirements for specific individuals to obtain instructional ratings. We have standards and requirements for a reason, and waivers should exist for extraordinary circumstances.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
I'm all for requiring instructor candidates to give consent for a background investigation. 
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
Para5-0 0
With all due respect, I 100% disagree with you. It is an utterly ridiculous arguement and I am surprised you even brought it up. I am starting to feel as if you are the devils advocate of everything regarding improvement/safety or you are extrememly liberal. In either case, you appear to be an obstacle to change or improvement. This is an exert that you sent to USPA,
"For about 5 years now I have tried to get little tiny changes to the SIM. I have asked my RD and many other Directors and HQ to follow up of these items. It was all for naught. The items never made it to a discussion or into the SIM."
Do you feel disgruntled therefore those that wish to attempt change should give up?
The questions:
1. Does John Doe Jump at your DZ?
2. How many jumps has he done in the previous 12 months?
Once a log book is presented, the student is volunteering the information in the log book as valid and representing his/her resume. Supposedly, with signatures. In your thought process if I call the person who signed the log book they can not tell me if they signed it or not because he would be opening himself up to personal liability.
I imagine the lawsuit for not verifying the credentials would be just as detrimental? Why dont you open the flood gates up for forging and lying about credentials if you are saying that verifying them is not allowed for fear of a lawsuit. I believe it is our responsibility to verify.
How is it possible that you would be opposed to this? If we put our tail between our legs and run everytime we are scared of a lawsuit , then we will have our own Fort Hood masacre. All because we are scared to offend someone. I call bullshit.
Would that be any different than a DZ letting an uncurrent person jump 'without verifying the credentials' they presented. In your mind, which I do not know what side you are on, the USPA database should be illegal as well. DZ's can search names, and determine if skydivers are current members.
Explain your agenda? Is it to cautiously move forward and attempt to improve our system? If so, what are your suggestions? I would love to hear them and will support you in implementation.
Note: I think your whistle idea is spot on.
"For about 5 years now I have tried to get little tiny changes to the SIM. I have asked my RD and many other Directors and HQ to follow up of these items. It was all for naught. The items never made it to a discussion or into the SIM."
Do you feel disgruntled therefore those that wish to attempt change should give up?
The questions:
1. Does John Doe Jump at your DZ?
2. How many jumps has he done in the previous 12 months?
Once a log book is presented, the student is volunteering the information in the log book as valid and representing his/her resume. Supposedly, with signatures. In your thought process if I call the person who signed the log book they can not tell me if they signed it or not because he would be opening himself up to personal liability.
I imagine the lawsuit for not verifying the credentials would be just as detrimental? Why dont you open the flood gates up for forging and lying about credentials if you are saying that verifying them is not allowed for fear of a lawsuit. I believe it is our responsibility to verify.
How is it possible that you would be opposed to this? If we put our tail between our legs and run everytime we are scared of a lawsuit , then we will have our own Fort Hood masacre. All because we are scared to offend someone. I call bullshit.
Would that be any different than a DZ letting an uncurrent person jump 'without verifying the credentials' they presented. In your mind, which I do not know what side you are on, the USPA database should be illegal as well. DZ's can search names, and determine if skydivers are current members.
Explain your agenda? Is it to cautiously move forward and attempt to improve our system? If so, what are your suggestions? I would love to hear them and will support you in implementation.
Note: I think your whistle idea is spot on.
kallend 1,619
QuoteQuoteI called the dropzone he worked at and retrieved real exact numbers. ..... With computer systems at most DZ's some records can be obtained. ..... I had to go to the records as well.
Keep doing stuff like that and there will be a lawsuit against the DZ for giving out customer information to third parties.
Businesses have no right to give out customer information to anyone except law enforcement with proper subpoenas, unless the customer has agreed to a disclosure agreement that specifics what type and to whom the info can be given.
A dzo answering a question of how many jumps and who the jumper did them with in the past month is just as bad as a phone company telling someone who you called and how long the calls were in the past month.
.
There's nothing wrong with asking for references and checking them. We even do that before letting people on big ways.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites