Is the AFF rating too easy?

[Skymonkey2 0]

Yes I have, in fact, my last coach course I failed 1 for teaching and knowledge of the subjects, In the class before that two candidates did not passed for flying skills. And the two that failed understood. I am a fan of the program, I believe that the requirements need to be changed.

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

[Skymonkey2 0]

They must have at least a coach rating.

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

[jumpwally 0]

i agree,,,,,+1

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[DSE 3]

Quote

Yes I have, in fact, my last coach course I failed 1 for teaching and knowledge of the subjects, In the class before that two candidates did not passed for flying skills. And the two that failed understood. I am a fan of the program, I believe that the requirements need to be changed.

My question was whether you'd ever passed (given a rating to) someone who could teach well byt had poor belly skills, or passed/given a rating to someone who had you thinking "they'll be alright" after they successfully completed the course?
Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[ufk22 32]

I have, in the past, passed people for their S/L I that were great teachers but had limited flying skills. Same thing for the old S/L jumpmaster rating. I would have a problem passing a coach who didn't have those skills.
The problem with giving a rating to someone thinking "they'll be alright after completing the course" is that they have to be "alright" and complete the course before I would give them a rating.
This is mostly about $$$$. All DZ's need staff. People want to make some money skydiving. They need the rating to make money.
What small DZ's that do S/L or IAD need is the old JM rating back.
What big DZ's need is someone to help low timers along that doesn't cost the DZ much $$$, and hopefully makes them a few.
I agree that low time people in the sport bring an enthusiasm to this, just haven't seen ANYONE with 100 jumps that really has the flying skills to do the coach thing right. I've seen many that could be a great JM at those numbers, but that's a whole nother thread..........

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.

[Skymonkey2 0]

You know I don't think so, I also don't have the mind set as one of competitors it is a rating to learn, if someone can't show you the skills then they should be doing the job. It is funny nobody talks about in the open, but between each other no problem. I don't know what your insinuating, but I will fail my mother, I just won't say I will, I spent a whole summer debrifing my AFF partner like a student, he caused more problems then the students. Did u know that the thumbs up signal is not in the SIM! And it is not be evaluated as a signal in AFF course as per our BOD in the last standardization meeting!

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

[markovwgti 0]

Quote

Amen to your post,
I can give ample amount of examples.....

I would love to hear from the 52 skydivers that voted that the standards were ok for Coach rating and more importantly the 6 asswipes who think it is too difficult. Who are they polling in this issue of Parachutist?
How the hell is 100 jumps too difficult? how about we just give Coach ratings with the A license, we can make it a sign off on the yello card this way the coach rating can be lowered to 25 jumps. Wake up people will you.

IMO I think the coach course is way to easy! They should up it to 200 jumps and make you work for it alot more!

[danielcroft 2]

I think they should put all the license jump numbers up except A.

Coach ratings should require more jumps and that the person is someone who can do a good job. An I/E should be experienced enough to make the call as the whether the prospective coach or AFF/I has the "right stuff". I can see that enthusiasm is a good thing so a coach rating shouldn't require 500 jumps or anything silly like that (plus most people seem to be a bit jaded by then anyway). I know several people who have recently got their coach rating who I wouldn't send anyone I know to be coached by them.

I want to get my coach rating but not at the expense of being able to actually help the person I'm coaching.

[DSE 3]

Quote

You know I don't think so, I also don't have the mind set as one of competitors it is a rating to learn, if someone can't show you the skills then they should be doing the job. It is funny nobody talks about in the open, but between each other no problem. I don't know what your insinuating, but I will fail my mother, I just won't say I will, I spent a whole summer debrifing my AFF partner like a student, he caused more problems then the students. Did u know that the thumbs up signal is not in the SIM! And it is not be evaluated as a signal in AFF course as per our BOD in the last standardization meeting!

I'm not insinuating anything, why would you think I was? The rest of your post isn't very clear to me, but thank you for the answer. See you in January.

[dninness 4]

When I took the AFF course, our I/E mentioned that Don Yahrling used to use the phrase "Entry Level AFF" (meaning newly-minted AFF instructors). He said "I really don't like that term much.." and I said "I think probably a more accurate term is 'journeyman AFF'."

There is no way in hell that the AFF course can prepare you for every eventuality you'll encounter in the sky once you're rated. You get your rating having demonstrated a level of skill & ability and meeting the "standard" for AFF. I accepted my rating with the understanding that I don't know everything and haven't seen everything. Even as an instructor, while I may be "teaching" on a skydive, I continue to have the opportunity to learn and extend my own knowledge and experience.

Just this past weekend, I had a great jump with a coach-level student, followed by a C-1 that was positively *awful*. I learned on both jumps a few things that I was able to put into my "toolbox" for future reference. On the 2nd one in particular, the other instructor and I sat down and debriefed so that I could glean some additional tips out of it.

The rating course standards, IMHO, represent a level of competence and ability you have to demonstrate. I'm hard pressed to call it a "minimum level," but I think folks would agree that you can get your rating without being a member of Airspeed or something. And the idea is that you've demonstrated that you can successfully take a student out of the plane and recognize and respond to "generally understood" situations. And you will continue to gain domain knowledge as you gain experience.

I'd be very afraid of someone who gets their rating and then acts like "well, there's nothing more that I can learn, so please, all y'all bow down to my awesomeness..."

NIN
D-19617, AFF-I '19

[Skymonkey2 0]

You are correct, you can't learn everything in an AFF course. But you need to demonstrate the skills to help someone in freefall. The IRM is very explicit about the standards, and at the last AFF standardization meeting it was brought up by several people that the eval jumps are not to test your skill with a normal student but one you may see that is not in control. A good thing that is happening is some examiners are trying to train future AFF I in the courses. There are certain skills that need to be possessed by New AFF I's. We as examiners need to be worried about the training and evals and not just the money side. We need to train and evaluate.

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

[DSE 3]

Darin, I agree entirely.
This whole argument about "too easy" and "too hard" is really silly (IMO), but it _does_ have people conversing about the weaknesses and strengths of the program. Hopefully some good will come of that. It'll be interesting to attend the course standards meeting in January, as that will help create a frame of reference (for me, personally).
There are absolutely AFF instructors and coaches being passed that shouldn't be given the rating; everyone can likely agree on this. Yet every evaluator says "I'll fail my own mother."
There is a disparity here somewhere.

[dninness 4]

Quote

There are absolutely AFF instructors and coaches being passed that shouldn't be given the rating; everyone can likely agree on this. Yet every evaluator says "I'll fail my own mother."
There is a disparity here somewhere.

Yeah, I see that too.

When I was striking to become a coach, I approached the course very seriously with my head on a swivel and my game face on. Others did not. They came not meeting the prerequisites, not knowing the materials, not in possession of a SIM or an IRM, etc. Some had adequate air skills, some did not.

Apart from the guy who didn't have the jump numbers coming in and was only taking the course for skill improvement, everybody passed.

A subsequent coach course yielded a similar pass rate, but the DZO only allowed a couple of those students to actually exercise their ratings. I have my own private thoughts as to why, but the bottom line is that some of those people came out of that course still lacking the skill to be a coach, yet they are endorsed with a USPA coach rating.

I think there are some instances where the course directors/examiners are letting people slide a little on some basic stuff with the belief that they'll "pick it up later." If a jumper with 500 or 600 jumps does not possess the air skills to effectively jump with a coach student when they show up to the coach course, chances are that they're not going to "pick it up" as they go.

(again, I have some private thoughts on that matter, but when we saw some individuals taking a coach course, we assumed "Oh, [insert name of marginal student here] will flunk out of that one on air skills.." and then at the end of the weekend it was "What? They got the rating? HOW?")

Flunk your mother, indeed.

NIN
D-19617, AFF-I '19

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

"What? They got the rating? HOW?"

That happened at my DZ too. I've been told that the coach course is not set up to account for personalities that shouldn't be coaching, i.e. the instructor can't just say "well, you're an idiot, so no". Seems to me that they should be able to say no as long as there's a viable reason.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

"What? They got the rating? HOW?"

That happened at my DZ too. I've been told that the coach course is not set up to account for personalities that shouldn't be coaching, i.e. the instructor can't just say "well, you're an idiot, so no". Seems to me that they should be able to say no as long as there's a viable reason.

That was one of the points of the "new" AFF program (as I understand it) was to remove the personality factor from the end result.
And I agree. The Examiner should be able to say no.
Should someone who was found negligent in a fatality be given a rating?
Should an individual who had been found to be skydiving while drunk or stoned on multiple occasions be given a rating?
Should someone who had violated USPA regs on multiple occasions be given a USPA rating?
Or...should they receive the rating because they were better skydivers than the examiners mother?

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

Should someone who was found negligent in a fatality be given a rating?
Should an individual who had been found to be skydiving while drunk or stoned on multiple occasions be given a rating?
Should someone who had violated USPA regs on multiple occasions be given a USPA rating?

Excellent and valid points, and I agree these actions might be grounds for barring one from USPA instructor ratings.

But word-of-mouth, hearsay and/or innuendo can too easily influence a candidate's appearance to an Examiner. Furthermore, these points, especially negligence and moreso negligence resulting in injury or death, being exclusionary, should be part of the eligibility requirements.

So these points shouldn't be relevant to the Examiner. Personal feelings, opinions and beliefs shouldn't be part of the Examiner's job. The examiner isn't and shouldn't be a character judge or a moral guardian. His job is to evaluate candidates based on their qualifications, skill and knowledge, not their ability to appear in Sunday School finery and impress the Blue Haired Ladies Guild.

I don't know the number of jumpers who have participated in "safety meetings", or jumped after having a beer or two. I know it's a large number. BSR violations are pretty common as well. I don't personally know any jumpers who blatantly disregard BSRs, or go out of their way to make their jump riskier than it is, but how hasn't busted a cloud, for example? Show me a jumper who hasn't knowingly violalated a few or more BSRs and I'll show you a FJC student.

How many skydivers have spent time in jail or prison?

What if he fucked another skydiver's wife/girlfriend, or reneged on a dope deal. Maybe he's a cheap bastard who doesn't buy beer.

Does any of that intrinsicly make him a less able instructor?

So it therefore must become a further function of USPA to police and adjudicate skydivers (including investigating and prosecuting) for violations of matters that are extra-BSR.

Again, I'm neither condoning nor endorsing BSR violations. I think the BSRs are a great living document and fully support their raison d'etre.

BUT -

It is not the function of USPA to Police, Prosecute and Adjudicate skydivers on non-BSR matters. They have the catch-all "Conduct Unbecoming a USPA Member" (for what that's worth!) but don't seem to use it unless they can pay the expelled member a large, undisclosed amount of $$$ and give them back their membership at Lifetime status.

Anyway, think of how skydiving would be if USPA had real authority and/or refused to accept as members anyone who actually commits "Conduct Unbecoming a USPA Member".

I'd rather hang myself than be a part of that.

.02

Nova

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[DSE 3]

Quote

It is not the function of USPA to Police, Prosecute and Adjudicate skydivers on non-BSR matters.
Anyway, think of how skydiving would be if USPA had real authority and/or refused to accept as members anyone who actually commits "Conduct Unbecoming a USPA Member".

I'd rather hang myself than be a part of that.

.02

Nova

I agree entirely. It's not the USPA's job to create/enforce moral standards. However, the USPA is giving a license to instruct in a classroom that can be fatal. A guy who is constantly bombed, known to be bombed (this is just an example), or is known to be intentionally unsafe can clean up his/her act for the few days of the course, and then return to their ways.
Should there be a mechanism to counter this, or is it merely for a DZO to determine that they won't use that particular newly minted instructor?

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

Should there be a mechanism to counter this, or is it merely for a DZO to determine that they won't use that particular newly minted instructor?

Well, Douglas, I guess you know how I feel based on my last post.

It would be nice if we could have a mechanism to qualify candidates based on real-world criteria, such as ability to teach, stay sober, and perform critical duties without negligence.

The can of worms that would open. . . if it even could be opened. With USPA regulating but having no actual authority, we'd have to allow the FAA to become the governing authority, or USPA would have to become an arm (tentacle?) of the FAA so as to have real authoritative power.

The scope of this simple concept quickly becomes too great to be implemented, nor could it be effective, imo.

Maybe we're at a Xroads, or up against a wall, but as the sport progresses it might just come to be that the need for true, uniform instructor certification will give rise to FAA oversight (which isn't very likely) or the void will be filled by a USPA led and run university-style instructor certification program.

Maybe there will be recognized the difference between skydiving instruction and carnival ride operation and separate certification standards will be adopted. A real separation between tandem riding and skydiving instruction.

The qualifications shouldn't be the same for tandem v AFF/SL/IAD/TP because these are different activities. A tandem ride giver doesn't need to be able to instruct, and it's probably pointless anyway. We don't need to know the mechanics behind the ride when we get on a roller coaster, we just need the basics. It's the same for the majority of tandems. Thorough, basic presentation of what's to come, but that's not instruction.

Preparing a student for AFF, SL, IAD or even TP requires thorough specific instruction from a qualified, rated, capable instructor.

So we're back to the beginning - instructor candidate vetting.

We know it won't be solved here in the forums, but in the end it will probably be written in blood. Until then, I guess it's up to the DZO to choose.

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Seems to me that they should be able to say no as long as there's a viable reason.

What's a viable reason?

I don't think that any examiner would have to give a rating to someone who has been found negligent in an incident, or is personally known to the examiner to be frequently drunk or high while skydiving.

But in the absence of hard evidence or personal knowledge, there is no FAIR way to go about denying someone who meets all the pre-reqs and air and ground skill requirements a rating. Whether someone is mature enough to be a rating holder or not is completely subjective and therefore cannot be a part of the rating process.

Not that many of us don't wish it could be at times...

[skybytch 259]

Quote

The qualifications shouldn't be the same for tandem v AFF/SL/IAD/TP because these are different activities. A tandem ride giver doesn't need to be able to instruct, and it's probably pointless anyway. We don't need to know the mechanics behind the ride when we get on a roller coaster, we just need the basics. It's the same for the majority of tandems. Thorough, basic presentation of what's to come, but that's not instruction.

Other than that, I agree with you.

Marketing tandems as a thrill ride does nothing for student retention. Doing what you suggest will make it worse. At least now some tandem ride operators TRY to impart some actual instruction to their passengers, but too many others are more focused on giving the passenger (and, to the detriment of passenger safety, themselves) a good "ride." If the ride operators of the future aren't required to have learned at least a minimal amount of instructional techniques and aren't at least requested to actually teach something to their passengers... I think that would be a bad thing.

But that's really an argument for another day and another thread.

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

Marketing tandems as a thrill ride does nothing for student retention.

I agree completely - but the majority of tandems, in my experience and imo, aren't students. They are one-time thrill-seekers who want to make a skydive, mark it off their list, and get on with their life. Many of them, perhaps most of them, claim they will be back for student progression, but that's just adrenaline and post-thrill high talking. Very few become students, in my experience.

Student acquisition will come largely from a different population and student retention issues are as old as the sport.

You're right that the tandem discussion (merits, training, purpose, and the changes/effects it is having on the sport [both positive and negative]) is for another thread. But I'm too damned lazy to jump into that behemoth.

...and now back to the scheduled thread, already in progress...

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[danielcroft 2]

Here's the thing, I'm not saying that an instructor should be able to just say "I don't like them" and then shit can someone. I'm saying that, since the judgement calls have been removed, anyone who is able to meet the objective criteria are then able to be coaches or AFF/I. This does not reflect the community attitude to coaching/instruction *at all*. I'm sure everyone has "that person" on their DZ who they wouldn't trust any student to, but if they pass the objective requirements, they're made a coach/AFFI.

The reality (in my experience) is that, as a community, people who have poor decision making skills or a bad attitude would not be asked to help out students or low time jumpers. As I understand it, this used to be taken into account before because instructors could just say no. While I can see that this could be abused, in making the requirements purely objective, we're removing the very valuable filter which once existed and not replacing it with anything.

I think an instructor should be able to deny an applicant for reasons beyond the objective knowledge/skill requirements as long as the objection is documented. The applicant should be able to appeal this denial but they would have to answer the concerns of the instructor.

As an example (and I'm not actually saying this is or should be the case, just an example); a friend of mine has 5 cutaways (I think) in <300 jumps. Not sure what caused them all but it's reasonable to suggest that he maybe shouldn't be teaching people how to pack but also reasonable to say that he'd be great for teaching people about EPs and how to deal with a malfunction. Another person could be really bad under canopy, erratic & dangerous, should that person be teaching students about canopy?

It's not even necessarily the curriculum that is being taught either. If they follow the SIM then the actual material should be the same. It's the example people set as a coach or AFFI to those students in the way the coach or AFFI behaves and their attitudes. As a mentor or guide there is definitely more to coaching or AFFI than skill, knowledge and jump numbers.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

It's the example people set as a coach or AFFI to those students in the way the coach or AFFI behaves and their attitudes.

Oh I agree with you 100%, but the problem is - that's not measurable. Using anything other than measurable benchmarks to evaluate someone for a rating takes it into the political, if not the personal - whether we think that non-measurable benchmark is the right thing to do or not.

Let's say you have 300 jumps now and want to go for a coach rating. Back when you had 100 jumps you did something really stupid; luckily no one was injured. Then when you had 150 jumps you again made an error in judgment, this time less stupid but still. Other than that you've been a fairly safe and heads up jumper. But there's that time you got in an argument with that one guy. He told the I/E about your errors in judgment, the stories well embellished of course. The I/E chooses not to rate you - a 100% qualified candidate - because of those stories.

That's politics in skydiving. A maturity requirement won't work because it can't possibly be fair, and USPA is tasked with creating a fair rating system.

Therefore, keeping those that we think aren't mature enough to work with students from doing so can't be the job of the I/E. That has to be a local decision.

[danielcroft 2]

When the instructor says no, they have to document why. Once they've documented it, the "no" could be appealed by the applicant and would need to be reviewed by people who are objective to decide if it's worth a no. In the example you gave, I'd say most people would think it wasn't good cause.

I really don't know, I have hardly any jumps and not a lot of experience. I've just seen lots of comments about the requirements for these ratings being too lenient and people just being passed even though they wouldn't make good coaches/AFFIs. So what's the answer?

Do we keep passing people because the PC world says that we can't fail someone who's an idiot if they meet the requirements? Or do we come up with a system that's harder to abuse that does take into account the "the guy's just a tool" factor?

There's also the DZO side of the equation. As long as the DZO has a clue about the people with ratings but then why wouldn't they just go somewhere else?

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Do we keep passing people because the PC world says that we can't fail someone who's an idiot if they meet the requirements? Or do we come up with a system that's harder to abuse that does take into account the "the guy's just a tool" factor?

I don't think that it can be done within the USPA rating system.

Since most dropzones are businesses, dropzone owners/managers can usually pick and choose who works for them and hire/fire at will, based on any reason or none at all. That's business.

USPA is a non-profit organization supported by our dues. Not judging candidates on non-measurable benchmarks is not being "PC", it's covering the organization's ass.

If a dzo wants good instructors, they should mentor those coaches that exhibit all the right habits, take good care of the instructors who exhibit all the right habits and refuse to give work to those who don't. Because someone has a rating doesn't mean they are entitled to work with students - only that during a certification course, a USPA rated I/E felt that they met or exceeded the ground and air skills required to work with students.