AirRage2 0 #351 December 22, 2009 The only reason he's on here posting about the AFF rating is 1. to talk smack about the President of USPA who he has a long standing beef with and 2. Now that being and I/E is actually a rating instead of an appointment there will be a lot more I/E's out there cutting into his funds. Now people won't have to travel as far to go through courses so his market is getting smaller. One of the biggest problems with the old course was there was only a few AFF I/E's who would fail and fail people because the could. They had the monopoly on ratings courses. Well those days are over. Let's see what the new crop of I/E's are all about. Hopefully it's a change for the better. How many times can you screw the pooch as an I/E before the USPA takes action? As far as K.L is concerned quite a few I see. He needs to be tossed. Let's start a petition about that. if you want to make a career out of being an I/E you have an obligation to the people you train. Not being a shady piece is a pretty good start. Billy Rhodes had his ratings pulled and K.L. is well on his way to having the same done to him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para5-0 0 #352 December 22, 2009 AirRage, I guess I am out of the political loop and naive. I thought that we all generally enjoyed seeing the sport evolve. That being said this isnt about any particular I/E. In fact, I was speaking about this long before KL chimmed in. I will not agree or disagree withyour comments because it is not my place or any of my buisness. But Kip has always been professional with me. I am not a moron it seems there is some bad blood throughout the ranks, but I am not involved in that. I have the utmost respect for Jay and consider him to have played a major role in my career. In fact I have gone to him on numerous ocassions with questions. Every time he has answered me expeditiously and professionally. I respect his view, his opinions, his ability, and his integrity. I will defend him and his actions to anyone who has a negative thing to say about him because I consider him a friend. I by no means am trying to belittle any member of the BOD or any I/E. I think that is another topic that I do not want to get involved in. I am just asking that we open some dialog about our current process. If you could put your personal feelings aside I would like to hear your honest opinion. and maybe PM me so I know who you are and your concerns. I drafted the suggestions for a positve dialog. The first topic is increasing a coach rating requirement to 200 jumps and a C license and the second is requiring 12 months as a coach to be eligible for an instructor rating course. I think that is a good platform to start out on. Rich 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/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #353 December 22, 2009 I'm going to say it again, if you really think there is a problem then you need to start by getting rid of the I/E's who hand out made up ratings called "conditional rating". You need to fix the problem with those who run the course's first! Then worry about the rest of the program! I will not sign your petitions because your addressing the wrong problem.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AirRage2 0 #354 December 23, 2009 I just felt I needed to voice my opinion and it seemed as though a very small number of people know exactly what is really going on. i have been following this thread since the begining and only felt I had to comment because of Kip. I became an examiner because of seeing I/E's working in the field first hand. In my own Tandem course my paperwork was lost and took me months to finally get the rating. Since becoming an Instructor and seeing the substandard performance of such a large number of I/E's in the field I knew I had to "get in" the club and institute change from the inside. My courses are hard, but fair. I don't hand ratings over, you earn them. I wish more I/E's would step up but I guess money is more important than the safety of students. I feel the changes need to start with the I/E's. The USPA, Tandem Manufacturers these are the folks that have to do this. I think we have a great program in place but the I/E/'s need to step up or get out. Now if that can be fixed which won't be easy but we can start by dropping I/E's who don't even stay current. I/E's need to be put in check first. Now, the requirements for instructor ratings. I honestly believe the coach requirement should stay the same. The AFF rating should lose the 6hr freefall and go to 500 jumps. The Tandem I should move to 1000 jumps. My opinion. There have been several incident's in the past few years that have really gotten under my skin. They involve fatalities of students and the instructors involved still working out there with ratings intact. Not acceptable. One coach rating was issued in January 2009 one week after that candidate was involved in a wingsuit fatality. There isn't a wingsuit Instructor rating yet but to save Mr. Knebelkoph Mr. Lohmiller pretty much handed him a rating without putting him thru the course. It's a pretty well know incident in the skydiving world. Conditional AFF ratings where you can't take students up alone or fly main side. Because a Reserve side JM has never ended up on the main. What? Also a Mr. Lohmiller rating. Total B.S. and how did this get thru USPA? I'm only an examiner working in the field so take my opinions and views or don't. This isn't science fiction it's science fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWFlyer 2 #355 December 23, 2009 QuoteI'm only an examiner working in the field so take my opinions and views or don't. So who are you? I'm sure people more "in the know" than I have figured it out but for those of us who look at online profile information to figure that out, you're just some anonymous person on the internet (or two, I'm not sure since you appear to have two user names now). Tell us your name and maybe that'll help us determine your credibility relative to the others who have posted in this thread under their real names."There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #356 December 23, 2009 Quote jumper03 said : Quote but an in-air and in-classroom recertification? You think that shit is free. I said that USPA is upping our renewal fees anyway. They should cover this at least. Give us something for the increased price. I'm going to assume that really didn't read the post based on the other commets as well. Back to instructing. Later. Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #357 December 23, 2009 Well maybe he as a USPA member in good standing wishes not to risk being thrown off group member dz's for voicing his views in a public fourm. Can't say I blame him or her for doing so. Who ever it is sure seem to know fact from fiction! Kind of like to know myself so I can buy a round or two for having the balls to tell it like it is!you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #358 December 23, 2009 What you think that up in dues is going to cover the slots & the I/E fees too? you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para5-0 0 #359 December 23, 2009 Air, Good post, I still feel you have a lot of hostility towards the system and those that benefited from it. I assure you, Ido not. I am an I/E working in the field as well. I agree with the 500 jumps and I also would love to see the tandem go to 1000. I just feel it is a pipe dream of mine but I support it whole heartedly. I am on the same side as you and take your thoughts seriously. I hope to present our thoughts to the committe through the proper channels. It will be hard if experienced I/E's like yourself just monitor threads and dont voice opinions. Your post is exactly what I was asking. My opinion is only in my small corner of the skydiving world. I have no idea of other I/E's experiences or concerns. Maybe a annual I/E meeting may be in order for some way for us to communicate effectively. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #360 December 23, 2009 Quote One coach rating was issued in January 2009 one week after that candidate was involved in a wingsuit fatality. There isn't a wingsuit Instructor rating yet but to save Mr. Knebelkoph Mr. Lohmiller pretty much handed him a rating without putting him thru the course. It's a pretty well know incident in the skydiving world. Conditional AFF ratings where you can't take students up alone or fly main side. Because a Reserve side JM has never ended up on the main. What? Also a Mr. Lohmiller rating. Total B.S. and how did this get thru USPA? . In the interests of clarity, the rating wasn't issued only a week after the fatality, it was a few weeks after. Due to changes in the area RD, it took a few weeks for the couple of hour suspension to take place during the RD's investigation. Had the rating been in place prior to the investigation, I think that a different result would have occurred, because a rated instructor carries specific responsibilities and culpabilities that I don't think the RD could have avoided. In fact, I was specifically told nothing punitive could be done because there were no ratings in place at the time of the fatality. I also understand the political reasons that the RD did nothing. When I was told of the conditional rating (by someone who works out of the USPA offices), my first question was the same as yours. It's very possible that a reserve side instructor will end up main side, so how can anyone expect a "conditional" rating to make sense? In the interests of fairness... I don't think it's appropriate to point fingers at one specific I/E. Toning down the language might help perpetuate a rational discussion? I do agree the I/E's have some bad apples after having sat in on a few courses. And agree that the I/E program is where the changes need to begin, vs changing the Coach or AFF programs. I know some of y'all don't care for statistics, but the proof is there. More AFF fatalities occurred in the "old" program than in the "new" program when comparisons are made within the same scope of time. The only recommended change that makes sense to me is a one-year requirement in holding a coach rating, ten (or XX) coach jumps, and losing the 6 hours in favor of 500 jumps. Perhaps an addition of a 3 year requirement so that the AFF requirements mirror TI requirements makes sense? Makes for a clean program all the way around. I can see where the "coach one day/AFFI the next" concept has been of value in exceptional cases. In my AFF course, Craig and Eliana were challenging the course. They'd gotten their coach ratings a week previous to the start of the AFFI course. Who can argue that they weren't qualified? With 35K jumps between them, numerous camps and thousands of people trained by them....They've been coaches for years, they just didn't have the official card. However, there are always waiver applications available in those situations, so changing up the requirements should have little impact on that sor of scenario. Speaking of which, Mr. Stokes put those two through the same paces, same challenges in the coach course that I had to go through. During both programs. And yet they are arguably two of the most skilled skydivers on the planet. They probably could have challenged the course with zero classroom and practice time, but they got busted for things on the evals just like the rest of us did. Only three out of seven successfully passed that course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para5-0 0 #361 December 23, 2009 One more thing to AirRage, Not signing the petition does not hurt me. The petition only says that we would like to discuss concerns and a possible better route. By not signing it you are saying you do not want there to be any discussion and how it is, is how it will stay. If you are pissed then make some contribution in way of voicing your concerns or experiences. You can sign it anonymously and only I will see your name. The letter clearly states that I only want to open up discussion and I voiced some of my suggestions. Bring your own to the table and I will assist or at least meet you in the middle. I feel like I am reaching across party lines here and you are content with partisan politics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #362 December 23, 2009 Quoteyou need to start by getting rid of the I/E's who hand out made up ratings called "conditional rating". You need to fix the problem with those who run the course's first! Then worry about the rest of the program! I agree that outright abuse of the I/E position should be delt with, but in terms of overall instructor quality, I don't think that any group of I/Es is going to be fool-proof. Even those with the best of intentions will be forced to make 'judgment calls' from time to time, and like all humans they are subject to make mistakes. This is why beefing up the requirements for the cadidates, and bringing back a JM type rating for AFF makes so much sense. For example, if a shithead wants to take the coach course, at least it will be a shithead with more expereince in the sport, which I'm sure we all agree is a good thing. For the AFF candidates, a min, jump number will of course increase their experience level overall, but a requirement for a min. of one year as a coach (and the required number of coach jumps needed to maintain the rating) will make for a better instructor on day one after the course. If a guy just barely squeaks by the AFF course, now he has a year as a JM to ride shotgun, and hone his skills in the presence of an AFF I who can provide guidance and assitance. Just booting a couple of I/Es and trying to tighten up the remaining I/Es will have little effect in the jumpers coming into and moving through the various courses. By building some required time into the various steps to becoming a full fledged AFFI, you make sure that every jumper has the benefit of time and experience on their side as they move forward and gain more and more responsibility along the way. I can't help but look to GA as an example of tiered progression. You become a basic flight instructor and are allowed to teach single engine land VFR students. Then you can continue on and add an instrument rating, and then a multi engine rating. It's a building process that leads up to being certified to teach multi-engine instrument flying. In skydiving, a jumper can go from zero, to AFFI in 10 days. Take the coach course one weekend, and start the AFF course on Monday. By the end of the week, you're an AFF I with the same responsibilities as a guy who's been an AFF I for ten years. It just doesn't make sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #363 December 23, 2009 QuoteOne more thing to AirRage, Not signing the petition does not hurt me. The petition only says that we would like to discuss concerns and a possible better route. By not signing it you are saying you do not want there to be any discussion and how it is, is how it will stay. If this is true, then your intent is completely lost due to the wording of the petition. You ask for very specific changes, some of which some folks can't agree with. I do believe a more general request for change would offer up more signatures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #364 December 23, 2009 You know dave I kind of agree with the bring back the JM deal, however I also strongly feel we should have never got rid of the JM rating to start with, even in all areas in other words S/L, IAD etc. I'm still a JM rating holder I earned mine and it was taken away, yet it was not replaced with coach, I would have to take a course for that, but seeing how I'm an I in SL & AFF that trumps coach so says the USPA, I says how about give me my rating back asshats! (I also worked my ass of and earned my AFF it was not given to me or as a conditional use rating) And as far as the problem I/E's and there are only a few, where do you draw the line? I think one has proven beyond a shadow of doubt he is not up to snuff and needs to be removed from the pool of I/E's and he also has no biz holding a S&TA appointment IMHO.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #365 December 23, 2009 Quote. In fact, I was specifically told nothing punitive could be done because there were no ratings in place at the time of the fatality. I also understand the political reasons that the RD did nothing. That is pure BS. USPA has revoked memberships of people putting out students without ratings. But in the WS case, I am not so sure that in can be assumed that the 'WS coach/instructor' had the same level of duty as a SL/IAD/AFF or T instructor that works with students. QuoteI know some of y'all don't care for statistics, but the proof is there. More AFF fatalities occurred in the "old" program than in the "new" program when comparisons are made within the same scope of time. I call BS on this claim too. AFF was adopted by USPA in Oct 1981. The first AFF student fatality was after Oct 1987. During the 1990's IIRC, there were two AFF student fatalities, two AFF student suicides and two AFF JM/I fatalities. During the last decade there has been an increase in AFF student fatalities. I will note that student fatalities in the past couple of years in both AFF and tandem have risen and are alarming. The tandem fatality rate in the past 5 years is comparable to the tandem fatality rate during the 1980s. FMI see The Chase annual fatality reports SE tandem fatality report from Reno 2009 .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #366 December 23, 2009 Quote That is pure BS. USPA has revoked memberships of people putting out students without ratings. But in the WS case, I am not so sure that in can be assumed that the 'WS coach/instructor' had the same level of duty as a SL/IAD/AFF or T instructor that works with students. I'm repeating verbatim what I was told by the RD. Take it for what you will. And if that weren't the case, how do you explain an "instructor" not looking at his "student's" gear, resulting in a fatality, and then receiving a rating a few weeks later? Either A-the USPA doesn't give a shit B-The RD made an error C-The RD is right, nothing can be done to a lay member. My interpretation of Sec 1-6 in the governance manual "3. While engaging in any phase of skydiving, is so grossly negligent in his conduct or acts as to imminently imperil his fellow skydivers or aircraft or persons or property on the ground, or wantonly disregards the safety of himself or other persons 4. Engages in any conduct as a skydiver which a person of reasonable prudence would anticipate as being likely to bring public contempt upon himself or herself, or upon skydivers, or upon USPA" AND 7. Willfully and knowingly misrepresents any material fact in connection with any application filed with USPA Would suggest option A and B are the correct answers. Quote I call BS on this claim too. AFF was adopted by USPA in Oct 1981. The first AFF student fatality was in Oct 1987. During the 1990's IIRC, there were two AFF student fatalities, two AFF student suicides and two AFF JM/I fatalities. During the last decade there has been an increase in AFF student fatalities. So, you have numbers for one group, but not the other? I'm referring to the printed 2008 statistics report from APF, as reported to the FAI by the USPA. This iwas handed out at the APF conference in May. The figures for 2007 jibe with what Ed presented at the BOD meeting in January of 2008. Looking at 1990-1992 specifically, and looking at 2006/2008, there were more fatalities in the old program. The fatality database doesn't provide enough info to ascertain which are/aren't AFF, so can only go by the information USPA provides FAI. However, I don't think fatalities are/should be the measure to which the standard is applied. Incidents as a whole are what really matter, because problems of off landings, hit powerlines/poles, equipment failure, CYPRES fires, collisions, etc likely outweigh fatalities 50;1 (pulling a number out of my helmet). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #367 December 23, 2009 QuoteQuote That is pure BS. USPA has revoked memberships of people putting out students without ratings. But in the WS case, I am not so sure that in can be assumed that the 'WS coach/instructor' had the same level of duty as a SL/IAD/AFF or T instructor that works with students. I'm repeating verbatim what I was told by the RD. Take it for what you will. Yeah I know that. I was saying that the party line was BS. Quote And if that weren't the case, how do you explain an "instructor" not looking at his "student's" gear, resulting in a fatality, and then receiving a rating a few weeks later? Either Well, suppose an RW or CRW or Swoop 'instructor' failed to notice a mis-fasten chest strap on someone on their load. Would that person be held accountable to the same level of an I supervising students? Quote Quote I call BS on this claim too. AFF was adopted by USPA in Oct 1981. The first AFF student fatality was in Oct 1987. During the 1990's IIRC, there were two AFF student fatalities, two AFF student suicides and two AFF JM/I fatalities. During the last decade there has been an increase in AFF student fatalities. So, you have numbers for one group, but not the other? I'm referring to the printed 2008 statistics report from APF, as reported to the FAI by the USPA. This iwas handed out at the APF conference in May. The figures for 2007 jibe with what Ed presented at the BOD meeting in January of 2008. I don't have the APF report. Is it online? QuoteLooking at 1990-1992 specifically, and looking at 2006/2008, there were more fatalities in the old program. He he he - You look at two year slices? Yeah bend the 'stats' the way you want to. I can claim that from 1981-1987 - AFF had 0 fats 2001-2007 AFF had 4 or 5 fats. I don't know the # off the top of my head. Quote The fatality database doesn't provide enough info to ascertain which are/aren't AFF, so can only go by the information USPA provides FAI. Nope, that's not right either. You can go read each year's summary fat rpt and the individual incidents and correlate them to media rpts and get a much clearer picture. QuoteHowever, I don't think fatalities are/should be the measure to which the standard is applied. Incidents as a whole are what really matter, because problems of off landings, hit powerlines/poles, equipment failure, CYPRES fires, collisions, etc likely outweigh fatalities 50;1 (pulling a number out of my helmet). I think the type of incident matters too. Stuff like tandem fallouts and experienced jumpers crashing into students just did not happen in the last century. None of the 3 persons causing those accidents has ever been reprimanded by USPA, yet those are the most egregious accidents of this century. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #368 December 23, 2009 Quote Quote Looking at 1990-1992 specifically, and looking at 2006/2008, there were more fatalities in the old program. He he he - You look at two year slices? Yeah bend the 'stats' the way you want to. I can claim that from 1981-1987 - AFF had 0 fats 2001-2007 AFF had 4 or 5 fats. I don't know the # off the top of my head. . 'Course I'm only looking at a slice. Not only does it support a weak point in my argument, but more importantly, a previous post said that "incidents are up in the past couple of years." So, I looked at the "last couple of years."Not my fault if the stats happen to bend one way or t'other. You were on the BOD. Maybe you can outline why these egregious incidents have slid by? Do you think it will change under the new administration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Para5-0 0 #369 December 23, 2009 I love you guys and your ability to research but does it take statistical data to make a hypothesis that a coach will have more experience prior to the course with 200 jumps rather than 100? or if you coach for one year, and remain current 20 coach jumps, you will have more experience than if you go directly into an instructor course the next day? What if we are successful in implementing change and then we have a rash of student incidents, (God forbid) does that mean we can go back to less stringent requirements? I have spoken about stats x 10 during this monstrasity of a thread. They are not reported, period. Do not expect a call from a DZ or an instructor saying Hello USPA, I lost a student today, sorry just couldnt catch him/her. Here is my rating thanks, Can we stick to the point can we raise the coach requirement to 200 jumps and a C license? and require 12 months in rating to be eligible for an instructor course. The JM stuff and one year under a AFFI is gravy as far as I am concerned because I see that this is going to be an uphill battle. The resistance is pretty impressive to say the least. I just have no sane reason why it needs to be that way. 103 Skydivers so far think we need to do something. Take a look at the names, it is fairly impressive. I know that I/E's are on there, DZO's are on there, S&TA's are on there. and some BOD wish they could be on there. If you want stats then maybe we can start a petition to keep it the same. Then lets take the first 100 skydivers and add up the total number of combined jumps on each petition, the one with the most skydives wins. There are your stats. Of course I am being phasetious. Next step after acquiring at least 200 signatures is to draft a letter to my regional director asking his assistance in getting this on the table for discussion. If any of you have suggestions please make them. and if you say they will want statistics then you guys are coming with me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #370 December 23, 2009 -you don't need 200 signatures to draft a letter. You want 200 so you can show some strength in numbers. Yet you aren't willing to support your position with some numbers? Stats help quantify the need for a solution. No offense to anyone, but numbers don't mean shit once you've gotten past a certain point. Like I said, I photographed a skygod who had been a JM, rating lapsed. And couldn't close major separation on his re-run of the new AFF course. Maybe students fly worse now than they did 10 years ago?If I'm sitting on the board, I want someone to show me objective information on why change is needed vs opinions of a lot of people who aren't instructors. Especially when the issue should be managed at the I/E level. My "devils advocacy" comes from having stood in front of the board and understanding that for the most part, they don't want to deal with these sorts of changes. When I proposed the wingsuit instructor rating program, they wanted numbers to support how many wingsuiters there are, how many there will be, how many incidents are related to wingsuiting and poor training. Three fatalities isn't enough, apparently. The predominant argument was that we don't need skydivers teaching experienced skydivers (the majority of whom have 200 jumps or fewer). My counter was "Why do we have TI programs?" To which was replied "Because it's specialized equipment with different deployment techniques and different needs." So is a wingsuit skydive... Fortunately they at least have encouraged public comment. I VERY much appreciate that you're having this dialog in public vs how the USPA accepted and adopted the wingsuit grid system, which was done entirely in secrecy. Changing the AFF requirement is likely going to occur, IMO. Changing the coach requirement? Likely not, IMO. There are a hundred arguments for the former, and not too many arguments for the latter. Refer back to this post in a year's time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #371 December 23, 2009 (off topic) QuoteI can't help but look to GA as an example of tiered progression. You become a basic flight instructor and are allowed to teach single engine land VFR students. Then you can continue on and add an instrument rating, and then a multi engine rating. It's a building process that leads up to being certified to teach multi-engine instrument flying. You can get certified in all of those ratings in a weeks time. There is no time requirement to have one rating before getting the next. Just a check ride. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #372 December 23, 2009 QuoteCan we stick to the point can we raise the coach requirement to 200 jumps and a C license? and require 12 months in rating to be eligible for an instructor course. There are issues that you have overlooked that will trump the arguments that you have given. Getting people into training others starts early. At 100 jumps you can teach all the non-method specific topics. These topics are not complicated and every jumper needs to know them. Flying skills may not be all that great, but you don't need to be a world champion to lay base for a student. Practical issues that occur at small DZs are that jumpers may only get 50-100 jumps per season. Today most of the coaches that come from small DZs already have 2 years in the sport. It would severely limit the number of people becoming coaches if you bump up the rating to 200 jumps. That limits what the DZ can provide. Some large DZs don't use coaches. They have plenty of people to choose their staff from. Why choose a coach when you can have an I? At the larger DZs is where you usually see people getting the coach then AFF ratings back to back. Look at the whole picture - including the economic aspects. At a big DZ you get to choose between a multi-thousand jump jumper that got back to back ratings v. a coach with 100 jumps. At a small DZ your only applicants are the 100 jump coaches, who may leave the sport sooner if they don't find more meaning to their jumping. The major reason of bad coaches or Is out there is within the rating courses, eg the IEs. Several years ago someone gave me a DVD with every jump from an AFFCC. Every jump was recorded. There were jumps that should have been zeros. There was one evaluator that turned his dummy handle to be in better position for the candidate at pull time. etc, etc. At the next AFF standardization mtg I brought up the idea of using real AFF eval jumps to distribute to all the AFF IEs. Then they would watch each jump and grade it. Then the grades would be compared. That would help ensure a more uniform grading policy. The idea was shot down because several AFFCD did not want their vids distributed and there was a model release issue. There is also the difference between watching a dive 3rd person and actually being on it, & off-screen issues. But I think that enough vids can be gathered to help get the grading standardized. FMI The End of Level One .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #373 December 23, 2009 Quote You were on the BOD. Maybe you can outline why these egregious incidents have slid by? Do you think it will change under the new administration? I will soon, but it's much too long for a post here. No, not really. More on that later. The tandem industry has taken a hard hit recently because of one incompetent TI and contributing factors from other companies. You'll hear that story soon too. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #374 December 23, 2009 QuoteI can't help but look to GA as an example of tiered progression. You become a basic flight instructor and are allowed to teach single engine land VFR students. Then you can continue on and add an instrument rating, and then a multi engine rating. It's a building process that leads up to being certified to teach multi-engine instrument flying. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can get certified in all of those ratings in a weeks time. There is no time requirement to have one rating before getting the next. Just a check ride. That's true, but you have to earn the instrument ticket and the multi-engine ticket first. There'a a written and a checkride for each of those. Once that's done, you still have two more checkrides to get the instructional rating for each of those. So a pilot with zero instructional experience needs to pass 5 written exams and 5 seperate checkrides (instrument, multi, CFI, CFII, CFI-multi) before being let loose to teach at the highest level. Even if you could manage all of that in a week, it would only be after a long period of intense sudy and preperation. As a skydiver, you can go from zero instructional jumps/experience to being an AFF I in 10 days, and be instructing one on one students in freefall on the 11th. Under the current system, the 10 day wonder is afforded the same liberties as a 10 year veteran AFF I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #375 December 23, 2009 Quote As a skydiver, you can go from zero instructional jumps/experience to being an AFF I in 10 days, and be instructing one on one students in freefall on the 11th. Under the current system, the 10 day wonder is afforded the same liberties as a 10 year veteran AFF I. You could do that in the 1980s too. You could get an AFF JM rating and go out with any level AFF student. IIRC, the only thing that an AFF JM could not do that an AFF I could do was teach the FJC. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites