Coach Candidate Feedback

[ep11300 0]

I am looking for how some instructors or coach course directors would handle a situation with a student who is somewhat quiet. I was an evaluator for a coach course this last weekend. It was away drop zone and I was a visitor.

There was a student in the class from my home drop zone who is very young, but very talented and intersted in being an instructor some day. I actually encouraged him to take the course so he could work on his skills and become an instructor in the future. He is somewhat quiet and lacks a lot of people interaction - more nerves than anything. During one of his evaluated teach backs an evaluator provided hi with great feedback on interaction with students and him needing to be more open and accessible to the student. He appreciated the feedback and contimued to work.

At the end of the day, this evaluator and the course director asked to see the two of us. We were informed that there were issues with the student candidate and his teaching. The evaluator started to really go after the student explaining that if he didn't loosen up and become more of an instructor he would never make it. The course director followed by stateing "we will see how you do on your evaluation jumps, but if they are not good you will not be recommended for a coach."

In my personal opinion, this was out of line and totally negative towards a perspective coach. I was involved in the end of day meeting because I am one of the senior intructors at the home DZ.

Because I feel these two individuals were out of line, and in my opinion almost damaging to young skydivers, would it be appropriate to talk more with them as instructors? Or, since i was simply an evaluator, let them go with thier own training methods?

I strongly believe that the coach candidate in question is a fine coach and will gain the skills necessary for a promising instructor ove the course of the next season or two.

Hope this makes sense at all..

[JustChuteMeNow 0]

Quote

I strongly believe that the coach candidate in question is a fine coach and will gain the skills necessary for a promising instructor ove the course of the next season or two.

I think new skydivers definitely need encouragement but I also feel very strongly about candidates meeting the course standards. If the candidate didn't have the teachiing skills then giving him a rating in my opinion would not be approbriate.

it sounds like the evaluator could have sugar coated the message a little bit but I have always preferred evaluators that could key in on my weaknesses so that I could fix them. I also have always preferred the non-sugar coated version. It sounds like the evaluator was up front with his criticism but giving encouragement and positive feedback is also something that many very good evaluators practice.

I wasn't there and so my response is based soley on the information that you provided. Howver, in your own words you stated that the candidate would need to gain some new skill sets over the next season or two. During that time I'm sure that your friend can develop the skills and earn his rating if he doesn't pass this time.

Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that.

[tdog 0]

Quote

I strongly believe that the coach candidate in question is a fine coach and will gain the skills necessary for a promising instructor ove the course of the next season or two.

Assuming he has the knowledge and flying skills - AND MOST IMPORTANTLY has the passion and desire to help others earn their A licence, then go to bat for him, and promise the course director you will continue to mentor him as he starts to work with real students.

[timuuu 0]

As a course director, coaching in my opinion is multi faceted. Getting people excited about the sport is a part of the job, but for a USPA coach (I'm assuming this was a USPA course), all the teaching happens on the ground, both before and after the jump. If the candidate can't pass the information successfully to the student, while no jump is wasted from a learning standpoint, there are specific TLO's to achieve in the coach program that will not be achieved. This frustrates the student, or worse has opportunity to have them learn the wrong information. Both outcomes have negative consequences.

I'm confused about the comment concerning the eval jumps. The jumps and the ground preps are 2 seperate phases of the course. BOTH need to be passed. They are independant of each other. Of course if he doesn't do well on the jumps he won't pass. There are guidelines in the SIM (and the IRM) for all of this.

I'm confused how you feel the course director is out of line. As you don't seem to be one yourself, how do you know where that line is? Sounds like you should take the AIC (or its new version) as you are already an instructor so you can find that line.

There's my $.02

[popsjumper 2]

IMHO:

I agree with your assessment of the approach the CD took. Not good.

I have never been a proponent of the "in your face" approach. You other guys can use all the negative terms you like such as "sugar-coating" and "coddling" to describe a more rational approach and so be it.

The fact is, we are not military boots and if you approach your teaching that way, you are robbing the student of any and, possibly, all sense of excitement about the sport.

And before you go off the deep end with an extreme counter-argument of "Oh, please, please Mr. Student, do it this way", I'll tell you that you are totally missing the point.

We are all human. We like to be talked to as though we are human and have some level of intelligence. If you can't have an honest, open, intelligent conversation without the in-your-face tactics then YOU need to go back to teaching school.

In the case submitted, I agree that the kid should NOT be Coach-rated at this time even if he DID pass the eval jumps. You're either qualified at the end of the course or you're not...there should NEVER be a case where "We'll give him the rating now and let him learn the how-to later". In this case, the kid should go home and use his mentors to help him get over the hump and THEN come back for the rating.

Let ME go to the extreme for demonstration purposes only:
Give me ALL the ratings now. I promise I'll learn all the skills eventually. How about that?

Now...didn't you guys just love the in-your-face approach to slamming the boot camp style of teaching?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DanG 1]

The OP said the student was already a good COACH and would develop the skills to be a good INSTRUCTOR.

The two ratings are different, and the standards are different.

I don't see the point of berating the kid for his teaching style, but then saying that he'll still pass the course if his jumps are good. Either he met the standards or he didn't.

I do, however, think that the Coach Course should be used as an opportunity to teach the new coaches and help them improve their coaching skills. It sounds like the CD did not do a very effective job of that.

- Dan G

[ep11300 0]

The reason for the OP was because of the difference between coach and instructor. I like to see individuals who are good coaches become and work towards being effective instructors. We all need to start somewhere and that is what the coach is for. I do agree with a lot fo the responses so far; I alike to create a positive learning environment instead of a basic training facility.

As an evaluator for the coach course, the candidate met the standards for the course, but needs to work on the instructor skills needed for later ratings. IMO the evaluator who provided feedback expected the candidate to be an "all out" instructor out the gate.

I did provide the suggestion that I would continue to mentor the coach after the course was complete, because I feel they are a good coach.

[AndyMan 7]

I think there's a fair number of coach course directors who think it's their job to put a candidate through the ringer, and then hand-select those who they think are worthy of the rating. They think that putting a ton of pressure on a candidate and seeing if they cope is a good way to determine fitness. Of course they're wrong.

My coach-course director was like this. I hated the experience, and it turned me off getting any more ratings for 5 years. I was a lot more careful about picking my course director when I went for my AFFI.

Course Directors should teach the course, give the written, teaching, and air skills exam, and give the rating if they meet the published criteria. Anything else is horse shit.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...As an evaluator for the coach course, the candidate met the standards for the course..."

These two statements from your OP seem to contradict each other.

From the CD/evaluator:
"(You) were informed that there were issues with the student candidate and his teaching."

From you:
"I strongly believe that the coach candidate in question is a fine coach..."

So what I'm reading is that the CD/evaluator didn't think his teaching skills were up to snuff for the Coach rating but you do.

Leaving the future aside, apparently there is a difference of opinion on what his qualifications are NOW.

So, really, there are two issues going on:
1. Difference of opinion
2. Demeanor of the CD/evaluator

We've already agreed that the demeanor could be improved.

In the big scheme of things, one has to bow to the opinion of the CD/evaluators as to relevant skill levels.

I think it is going overboard expecting a candidate coming out of the Coach course to have the skills of an instructor...waaaay overboard. A good foundation, a good starting point, yes. Working with others and self-discovery of good teaching techniques to develop good Instructor-level skills is a given.

It's quite honorable that you are willing to work with him and help him progress. Good stuff. Paying it Skyward.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Andy...that's horseshit.

You were too kind and generous.


That attitude obviously comes from the old-school, long-term military boys...they know no other way to speak to people.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[JustChuteMeNow 0]

Quote

That attitude obviously comes from the old-school, long-term military boys...they know no other way to speak to people.

Some of the best skydiving instructors I know or knew were old-school, long-term military. Most of the military instructors want people to succeed and they want people to do well. They do it in a very positive way.

Some names that come to mind in no particular order are: Paul Rafferty, Chris Talbert, John Hoover, Craig Girard, Kip Lohmiller, Jay Stokes, etc.

Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that.

[popsjumper 2]

Though I don't understand how your statement contradicts mine, I guess I should say, Oooops, I should have added the smiley to indicate that the statement was not an absolute covering ALL old-school, long-term military instructors. But then OTOH, it's generally recognized that it's only rarely that any similar type statement IS an absolute.

So, what's your take on the OPs question?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[JustChuteMeNow 0]

Quote

So, what's your take on the OPs question?

I didn't take your statement as an absolute and yes there are plenty of asshat instructors that have serious attitudes and don't know how to act professionally. There are plenty of those asshats who have never been in the military.

As far as the OPs question, I was the second one to answer it in this thread. However, based on some of the comments I will add some more of mine. IMO if a person is qualified and meets the standards then they should recieve the rating. The standards should be known up front and they shouldn't change at the will and pleasure of the CD. However, if the standard isn't met then like you I don't believe that they should receive a rating.

If a person just barely passes the course and just barely meets the standards, they should still recieve a rating and that is when people like the OP should help the new rating holder to improve their skills.

FWIW I also don't like instructors that try to intimidate students. I much prefer instructors who try to teach. What I was trying to imply with my initial statement was that I prefer instructors that are direct with their critisisms. i.e. here is what you did wrong and this is how you can fix it. I didn't mean to imply that the same instructors couldn't also give positive direct feedback as well.

Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that.

[MajorDad 0]

Quote

Quote

So, what's your take on the OPs question?

I didn't take your statement as an absolute and yes there are plenty of asshat instructors that have serious attitudes and don't know how to act professionally. There are plenty of those asshats who have never been in the military.

As far as the OPs question, I was the second one to answer it in this thread. However, based on some of the comments I will add some more of mine. IMO if a person is qualified and meets the standards then they should recieve the rating. The standards should be known up front and they shouldn't change at the will and pleasure of the CD. However, if the standard isn't met then like you I don't believe that they should receive a rating.

If a person just barely passes the course and just barely meets the standards, they should still recieve a rating and that is when people like the OP should help the new rating holder to improve their skills.

FWIW I also don't like instructors that try to intimidate students. I much prefer instructors who try to teach. What I was trying to imply with my initial statement was that I prefer instructors that are direct with their critisisms. i.e. here is what you did wrong and this is how you can fix it. I didn't mean to imply that the same instructors couldn't also give positive direct feedback as well.

I agree with JustChuteMeNow. I am not famillar with the USPA Coaching System but in Canada, the Coach 1 Course is the entry level course for all the other ratings in Canada (Coach 2, PFF, JM, Tandem). A candidate needs his B License (as little as 50 Jumps) and it allows the Coach 1 to do 1:1 instruction of a portion of the skills grid on the ground and watch the student in the air (no contact).

Even if the individual does not use the Rating and decide that Coaching or Instructing is for them, they still gain the benifit of the course. For many from the civilian world, this is their first experience in learning how to teach and how to observe skills.

I have seen many people gain confidence and experience by entering the Coach system and gain life skills which carry on into the "Real World".

From the OP's original Posting, the Candidate comes across as a quiet guy with skill and potential. Hardly unusual. The Course Conductors come across as Gatekeepers to prevent the unworthy from entering the club by preaching Standards.

Which is better for the sport: having a new Coach that the OP and other Instructors on his Home DZ work with to see if he can develop the skills to become an instructor or keeping someone from becoming a junior Coach and souring him on the program altogether?

Major Dad
CSPA D-579

[ep11300 0]

Major,

That was the reason for my post originally. I do not want to discourage someone with the talent and the right attitude. I see so many individuals who want to be an instructor for status and money. In my opinion, the coach rating is where you prove to an instructor examiner that you have what it takes to be an instructor.

I am all about the standards, but attitude and professionalism takes the lead for me.

By the way, the candidate in question completed his evaluation jumps on Wednesday. He did an excellent job in the air, according to his evaluators. He and I talked afterwards and he stated he was going to work on his interaction with students so he can become an instructor.

So, all in all, no matter the approach, we have a new instructor in the making.

Thanks fo rall the feedback, I truly appreciate the info.

[NickDG 23]

Between the JCCs (Jumpmaster Certification Course) of old and the "Coach" rating of today there was the "BIC" (Basic Instructor Course.) This was a low pressure affair that just reinforced (and in some of cases taught) things most experienced jumpers getting ready to handle students may have forgotten or don't think much about. Spotting, student gear checks, student psychology, the basics of good instructing, and so on. The BIC was in its way to becoming a good program when the USPA shitcanned it . . .

I've never been keen on the Coach program. Instructors should be turning out competent basic skydivers already. If we aren't let's change and revamp the program of basic instruction. For example, I think there should be way more than seven or eight AFF student levels and they should be cheaper in cost. And I think the Coach program was the USPA trying to fix two things. They were trying to re-create the "jumpmaster" (a rating they dropped) by making Coaches the new breeding ground for Instructors, and they were also responding to the fact the current AFF program wasn't turning out competent students who could integrate into the fast pace of today's DZ environment. The Coach program is just a big ol' band aid.

Novices (off student status but not yet licensed) should be jumping alone and honing the skills they learned in AFF. Also two-ways with kindly experienced jumpers for no fee would be okay too (like it was for many years). Being a novice is all about the freedom of graduating the AFF program (and catching your breath, while replenishing your wallet from the ton of money you just spent). What we do now is just throw these novices into another de-facto and variably effective program where they are over-controlled and plundered for even more money. No wonder so many quit.

Okay, here comes the meat in all this . . .

The breeding ground for new Instructors should be them spending their day with old Instructors. We should devise an Instructor Prep Program (similar to the BIC) and once passed that you spend a certain amount of hours shadowing an experienced Instructor around. During this phase the Junior Instructor (yes, that needs a snappier name) under an experienced Instructor's supervision would teach small sections of real FJCs, help prep students in ground briefings, and even go along on the dives to see Instructor/Student interaction and operations up close both in the aircraft and in the air by lurking the dive at safe distance. They could then start to develop an eye for later student debriefs. They would also join in the post-jump walk & talks as the student gives their perceptions. And be in on what's used to fix student problems as they arise and participate in the pass or repeat decisions. In other words, if you want to be an Instructor, than hang with Instructors.

Right now we are teaching new Instructors from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Right now sometimes the very first time a brand new Instructor actually interacts with a real live student he's completely on his own. Right now sometimes the first time a brand new Instructor faces a room full of eager young first jump students he's in there completely alone. This is sheer lunacy.

And not every current Instructor would be designated an Instructor's instructor. Before taking that on you'd have to have X number of FJCs under your belt, or some minimum amount of time in grade. And you can bet you might also be asked to pack my rig and fetch my lunch. Also I get paid extra for taking you on out of your own pocket and you get paid nothing plus pay for your jumps. Don't like that? Well, suck it up cupcake because I've got it and you want it.

There are a lot of things wrong with the current AFF Instructor certification course both now and even before they opened the floodgates to hoards of course directors. Most here have heard that from me before. We could fix it but I think we should scrap it entirely by adopting something like I've outlined above.

Someone upboard wrote that he, "shopped for an AFF cert course." And I took that to mean he looked for a good course with a minimum of Mickey Mouse BS. And that's fine, but I'm not so sure in other people's cases that same line wouldn't be code for finding an "easy" course.

All this could be eliminated if we cooked our own Instructors from scratch. We have to allow people time to absorb, think, and learn. The BS part of the current AFF course comes from the fact I've only got a few days and a few jumps to figure out if a total stranger (in most cases) is capable of teaching my sister how to skydive. And yes, too many evaluators abuse this aspect, or simply don't know when and how to apply it, but most times it works. I've seen a lot of candidates voluntarily drop out during cert courses. "I thought I was ready, but I'm not," is what most say. And it's sad to see them pack up and leave. It's sad because given enough time a good Instructor can teach almost anyone to also be a good instructor. But in the current system we aren’t allowing for that to happen.

And when would these Junior Instructors become full-fledged Instructors? When I say so that's when, and if you keep getting me mustard on my ham sandwich you're going to be here FOREVER . . .

NickD

[DanG 1]

Nick, you are obviously much more experienced than I, and I usually think your posts are spot on, but I disagree with some of what you said here.

I believe the seven level AFF system was dropped (and make no mistake, 7 level AFF exists only in the memories of instructors at this point) because there were huge inconsistencies in the quality of post-AFF instruction. Too many students (including myself after my 15 jump static line course) were being left to their own devices and not really learning anything about canopy control, group freefall skills, gear issues, etc. The ISP attemped to address that, and coaches were intended to help bridge the gap. If applied properly, I don't think you can argue that today's A license holders are not much better skydivers that yesteryear's.

The Junior Instructor idea you describe is pretty much exacly what the Coach program is supposed to be: a young jumper hoping one day to become a full instructor teaching the basics under the supervision of a more seasoned Instructor. All you really did was change the names around. Coaches should be doing all the thing you desccribe (except maybe getting you lunch). If they aren't doinb that at the DZ's you visit, fix that instead of trying to tear down a system that is aleady 90% of the way there.

- Dan G

[2ndgensteinke 0]

I Think this whole thing was blown out of the water. the person in question may be out of a comfort zone, this person doesn't know a single person at a new dropzone, is told to teach in front of evaluators that are known to already have a bad relationship with most of the people at your home D.Z (we where visiting a DZ while attending the course) it can all be a little intimidating.. all these can have a person overwhelmed. on the other hand a person who is at their home DZ could make a person more "at home"

meeting the standards is a must, but also what if a person doesn't have a salesman like approach to teaching?? does that disqualify them from being a coach? but acting like a fake salesman and trying to act all uppedy isn't for some people... people have different teaching methods. I guess is what im trying to say.

kind of off topic, but I used the term "bow tie" in my canopy control section on my teach back, (as in stalling a canopy and folding it up) is this wrong terminology?? maybe because it is not mentioned in the S.I.M does any one else use that term in skydiving??
F*** my life...
thanks

the big dirty

[NickDG 23]

Better overwhelmed on the ground than with a spinning out of control student blowing through their pull altitude.

And to the poster two up - Coaches work with novices not students. And that's night and day as far as difference . . .

NickD

[2ndgensteinke 0]

well... I am the cantidate that the OP was about... im talking in relation to the coach course and my experience.. but that is a good point, by the time a student moves onto a coach they should have a fair idea about whats going on, not saying that supervision and instruction can be ignored by any means..

the big dirty

[JustChuteMeNow 0]

Quote

meeting the standards is a must, but also what if a person doesn't have a salesman like approach to teaching??

I agree with you and of course there are many teaching styles that will meet the standard and not just one. It sounds like you have a very good mentor. Good luck with everything.

Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that.

[PhreeZone 14]

Nick, at the DZ's that I have worked with that have fully adopted the ISP as its layed out from the USPA coaches are teaching 90-95% of the FJC and are there to assist the student as soon as they get to a Cat G I believe. They are under the supervision of an instructor for the FJC and the instructor steps in when it gets to the method specific instruction portion but for everything else the coaches are the ones involved in the program initially teaching students. This is actually better then the old BIC since the coach can teach no matter what method the student is learning for almost everything and then only have an instructor to cover the small method specific items they don't teach. The students first contact is not with an instructor but with a coach/instructor team.

If your DZ doesn't have coaches teaching almost all of the FJC then that is not something the USPA can tell them to do.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com