Tandem Master to Tandem Instructor

[steveorino 7]

After reading this on another thread I have a question ...

So with the requirement that all TI's at USPA DZ's have both a CURRENT USPA and Manufacturer's rating come Fall 2008 ...

So TMs with manufacturer ratings but without a USPA TI rating will be grounded until they get the USPA TI?

Is there a grandfather clause or what are the requirements for a TM with multiple manufacturer's ratings and 100s or 1000s of tandem jumps to be a USPA TI? Must they go through the entire TI class from scratch?

steveOrino

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Is there a grandfather clause or what are the requirements for a TM with multiple manufacturer's ratings and 100s or 1000s of tandem jumps to be a USPA TI? Must they go through the entire TI class from scratch?

The grandfather clause ended in 2001 I believe.

And the requirement as stated is "Any USPA member conducting a tandem jump must hold a USPA Tandem Instructor rating and a current equipment manufacturers type rating, effective with the publication of the 2009 SIM (October 2008)."


I'd say that does change the earlier stance that the USPA had of manufacturer rated instructors could continue to do first time or non teaching tandems.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Must they go through the entire TI class from scratch?

You've probably already reviewed the IRM. If you still have questions, contact Jim Crouch by email: safety _A_T_ uspa.org.

He's the one who's given me guidance with Mule's transition from S/L to IAD.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[bclark 0]

FAR 105.45
No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless-

1)One of the parachutists using he tandem parachute system is the parachutist in command, and meets the following requirements:
a.)Has a minimum of 3 years of experience in parachuting, and must provide documentation that the parachutist-
b.)has completed a minimum of 500 freefall parachute jumps using a ram air parachute, and
c.)holds a MASTER PARACHUTE LICENSE issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, and
d.)has successfully completed a tandem instructor course given by the MANUFACTURER OF THE TANDEM PARACHUTE SYSTEM used in the parachute operation OR a course acceptable to the administrator.
e.)has been certified by the appropriate PARACHUTE MANUFACTURER ORtandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used.

Interpret how you will, but the FAR's do not seem to require any USPA license other than a "Master Parachute License (D-License)".

[BIGUN 1,053]

And, the FAR's don't require a USPA License; "holds a MASTER PARACHUTE LICENSE issued by an organization recognized by the FAA."

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[matthewcline 0]

True, but the FAA only recognizes USPA in this as far as a License goes.

And USPA is saying IF your a member, you will be rated by us ALSO for Tandem Instruction.

Maybe one day the Ratings will all come from USPA, but I do not think Bill, Ted, et all are comfortable with that yet.

Matt

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

[slotperfect 7]

I was told in May that the USPA BOD was also "re-looking" the requirement for AIC to become any sort of USPA Course Director during the July BOD meeting. I plan to call USPA today or tomorrow to inquire about that issue and the Tandem Instructor grandfather question.

I'll post what I find out (if it's anything conclusive).

Arrive Safely

John

[NSEMN8R 0]

At first glance, I think it sucks. I've been doing tandems safely for almost 5 years. Now all of a sudden I have to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay for more ratings in order to keep doing it? I don't even really want to be an instructor. I just like having fun jumping with the wuffos.

What will be involved in getting the uspa rating for someone like me? My coach rating hasn't been current since 03. Do I need to take the coach course again before I get the USPA I rating? Will I need to go find a TI Examiner for this rating? How many eval jumps are involved? Or is it just a written test?

[bclark 0]

Seems that the only way USPA can really enforce this is through their "Group Membership" program. "Group Members" are required to abide by the BSR's set forth by USPA as a condition of their membership. But there is no LAW that you have to have a USPA Tandem I rating. Only a "Master Parachutist License" issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, along with time in sport, experience requirements and a manufacturers rating. So if you were jumping at a non USPA group member drop zone it would theoretically not be an issue unless the DZO made a USPA Tandem I rating a requirement.

[riggerrob 558]

Quit yer bitchin!

We can all use a little refresher training.

For example, last year I sat through a CSPA Skydive School Instructor Course. Sure it covered all the same first jump course material that I passed twenty years ago - to earn my CSPA Instructor B rating - but it was also a pleasant refresher about a few key points (i.e. confirming that learning had taken place).

[matthewcline 0]

Lets not forget that if your a CURRENT individual member and rated, that USPA can hold you accountable for the BSR's as well, regardless of the DZ you jumped at.

Some thing I was told and then confirmed with USPA's Head S&TA Jim Crouch.

But I think it is not a bad thing. The refresher couldn't hurt. If your not an Examiner you may not have gone over the Video and required currency stuff on your own (not saying YOU, just the General
T-I/M populace).

It could also add a little more credibility to the
T-I/M as being discussed in another thread.

Matt

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

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quit yer bitchin!

We can all use a little refresher training.

For example, last year I sat through a CSPA Skydive School Instructor Course. Sure it covered all the same first jump course material that I passed twenty years ago - to earn my CSPA Instructor B rating - but it was also a pleasant refresher about a few key points (i.e. confirming that learning had taken place).

I really don't think my question would classify as bitching. I was simply trying to find out what I must do this year to keep being a Tandem Master at my USPA DZ next fall.

steveOrino

[NSEMN8R 0]

He was probably talking to me. I was bitchin.

I agree that the review is a good idea, and there are some other good points on here, but the fact that I'm doing tandems fine right now and they're telling me that next year I "can't" unless I pay them and they say I can gives me a "fuck them" attitude.

Maybe they really will make a 500 jump min for vidiots. That would open up some slots in the video rotation so I could make up the jumps doing that since I won't be "qualified" to do tandems anymore.

[Schoenauer 0]

Talk to your S&TA about what you need to do to get the TI rating, they should help you. If they won’t then call the USPA license and rating department.

The Grandfather clause you mentioned was a one time deal if you were a TM when the USPA dropped the TM classification.

On a side note: I do not agree with the TI requirement I think it’s a bunch of bull. I believe the old TM rating should be reinstated, and allow the TM to jump upper level tandem students under the supervision of someone with the instructor rating. That means that the instructor needs to be available if there is a problem or question.

I would not write off the TI rating, it has its place, they can conduct upper level tandem jumps self supervise and supervise other TMs’.

Further, if a TM wants to make the transition to TI, if so desired, the TM would have to attend a course like the old days when the AFFJM had to attend an instructor certification course.

Memento Mori

[steveorino 7]

To me ... opinion coming ... it seems silly to make a TM who is already an IADI or AFFI attend a class to be be a TI ... just my opinion.

steveOrino

[chriswelker 0]

Something that should be brought up about this discussion:

You have 2 of the BOD's that stand to MONETARILY benefit directly from this policy change, Kip Lohmiller and Jay Stokes. These guys are both on the S&T committee too.

Just wondering if they had input what so ever on this change, because if they did it would be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.Any DZO should have been excluded from the vote too according to USPA's conflict of interest policy.

The reason the BOD did this is because THEY did what THEY wanted to do because that is what THEY wanted to do. I would like to know how many TM's were contacted by BOD's to discuss this policy change.I bet it was 0.

Chris Welker

[Schoenauer 0]

I don’t know about the monetarily benefit that Kip and Jay would gain from mandatory TI rating for all USPA tandem pilots. If there are benefits then I agree there is a conflict in interest and I feel they should have refrain from voting on the issue, in the spirit of Robert Rules Of Order. Understand that Robert Rules Of Order is only a guide to bring order out of chaos when conducting meetings, so only being a guide, a voting member in a meeting is not forced to refrain from voting. The requirement for a board member to refrain from voting where a conflict exists would have to be stated in the organizations’ bylaws.

About Board Committees they study the pros and cons about an issue and present a report to the Board on their findings and recommend a Yes or No vote to the board.

I was not contacted nor have I ever been contacted by a BOD about any issues so this leads me to believe that the committees are not doing a complete job.

Memento Mori

[camamel 0]

I agree with you and NSEMN8R.
I am doing tandem since 1985 and I am examiner since 97. I don't know how to say that perfectly in english, but basicly what I hink is if I was good enough before to do the job and they (USPA, CSPA or others) now decide to change the rules they should automaticly upgraded instructors that were approved to do the job in first place. That's commom sence for me.

Richard

When you think you're good...this is when you become dangerous.

[PhreeZone 15]

Kip and Jay both offer USPA TM courses so they are two of a hundred and fifty or so people that can sign off on the paperwork to become a USPA TM. Jay and Kip both spend a lot of time on the road doing TM, AFF and other rating classes as part of their income. All the TM's out there that do not have a USPA rating are going to have to call on one of the course directors to hold the course to get their rating. With this amount of course directors I find it really hard to see how either one of them would potentially profit from this action since unless you are already at their DZ there are probally closer people to get your rating from.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[SkymonkeyONE 3]

Oddly, I just happened to be in Deland when they had this"off the record" meeting concerning the direction of tandem certification in the USA. I had not heard such a meeting was to take place in Parachutist nor did I hear that anyone else had known about it when I asked afterwards. The people I know to have been involved in the meeting were John and Nancy from Jumpshack, Ted Strong, Bill Booth, Jim Crouch, TK Donle, Todd Spillers and several others on the S&T committe.

When I asked one of those people the outcome of the meeting about two weeks later I was told that the main focus of the meeting was who was going to get paid and who was not. I was told that the manufacturers were not happy about losing their ability to collect their annual fee from their rated TM's (like they did prior to the end of the FAA exemption). I was told that they thought it was BS that the USPA was now collecting that $20 dollars every year. I was told that, in the end, what came out of the meeting was that people were going to have to pay BOTH their annual USPA rating renewal fee as well as the manufacturer fee , plus get their USPA rating in order to be "legal." I had e-mail conversations with at least two USPA reps who were there, but I am not going to mention their names here. I guess if you don't already have your USPA transition then you had better get with it.

I know plenty of guys working at USPA group member DZ's as TM's who do not possess so much as a Coach rating. Guys with thousands of tandems. I am anxious to see what, if anything, happens to those guys. It's my guess that plenty of them will simply be allowed to continue on as they are now until they get ratted out by some outsider.

Chuck Blue
D-12501
AFF/SL/TM-I, PRO, S&TA, BMCI-4
Z-Hills.

[diablopilot 2]

TI's were offered the ability to "grandfather" their ratings into USPA ratings back when the USPA TI rating was created.

I will agree with the earlier point that the BOD probably didn't contact TI's in the industry about this ruling.

It seems there are only a small handful of BOD members that bother to comunicate with the members they are suposed to represent.

Maybe I should run for office.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Skymonkey2 0]

Jay and I sub-stained from this vote. I offered to help get people up to speed. As a matter of fact we sub-stained from a lot of the votes.

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

[livendive 8]

Kip, can you tell us what reasons the S&T committee based this decision on? I'm assuming there was some debate before the vote and I'm curious what what the deciding factors were.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Skymonkey2 0]

There was a meeting with the manufactures in FL a month or so ago, and this is one of the things that was agreed on. Jay and Todd Spillers attended the meeting, so they have better understanding then I. From what I know is that the manufactures and USPA are trying to get on the same sheet of music. Sorry I don't have more info then that. I am sure you will see more things come out of this in the future.

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

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Jay and I sub-stained from this vote. I offered to help get people up to speed. As a matter of fact we sub-stained from a lot of the votes.

As a matter of fact, you and Jay did NOT abstain or recuse yourself from this particular motion vote.

The vote was
Voting Record:
Yes 19
-Sherry Butcher,Frank Casares,John DeSantis,Ed Dixon,John Goswitz,Mike
Gruwell,Larry Hill,Victor Johnson,Marylou Laughlin,Kip Lohmiller,Jan Meyer,Gary
Peek,Chris Quaintance,Lee Schlichtemeier,Scott Smith,Todd Spillers,scott
stewart,Jay Stokes,BJ Worth,
No 0 -
Abstain by Name 0 -
Total 19

I believe I brought a Point of Order on this motion about a fiduciary conflict of interest and requested that you and Jay not be allowed to vote (or participate in the discussion) on this motion. This was overuled by the Chair and you were allowed to vote/discuss if you wanted to. You always had the option of recusing yourself or abstaining from the vote.

Regardless of whether you or Jay voted or abstained from this motion, it would have passed.

The motion arose from a request from the manufacturers at the FL meeting earlier this year.
They wanted some way to reduce or elminate the carnival rides, aka non-training tandem jumps.
I personally have heard this request by phone and in person from mfgs.

At first, I was not too keen on the idea.
But then I looked at what USPA has in the way of rules/BSRs.
The current rules pre-disposition those without a USPA TI rating to do 'carnival' rides only. They cannot do teaching tandem jumps.
[SIM 2-1.E.4.d.1 All tandem training jumps must be conducted by a USPA Tandem Instructor.]
This rule change will require all GM-DZ TIs to have a USPA TI rating. That will allow them to do training tandem jumps.
It will not require that training tandem jumps be done, but it certainly removes the bias towards carnival rides that we see today.

It's nice of you to have 'offered to help get people up to speed', but that just smacks with a fiduciary conflict of interest, unless you do it for free.

I suspect that USPA will see a lot of non-USPA TIs that have, say an AFF I rating, wanting to be grandfathered into the USPA TI rating.
I don't have a problem with doing something like that.
If someone does not have any USPA I rating, then they probably have to take an I certification course of at least one type of instructional method.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker