USPA I/E rating requirement changes?

[skybytch 259]

Heard a rumor that one of the requirements to obtain a USPA tandem I/E rating has changed. No longer are I/E candidates expected to do 50 actual eval jumps with TI candidates. Now they only have to do 10.

I was told that the "logic" behind this comes from back when tandem ratings were controlled solely by the container manufacturer. Since the manufacturers didn't require lots of actual eval jumps of their examiners, USPA shouldn't require them either.

It is now entirely possible for someone to go from first jump as a tandem passenger to tandem instructor/examiner in less than four years. Three years in sport is required for the tandem rating; hit 500 jumps on the third anniversary of your first jump, picking up a coach rating along the way. Start a tandem rating course at 501 jumps and bang out 500 tandems as quick as possible (very easy to do in six months at many dz's). Attend an I/E course at some point before you hit 500 tandems. Do 10 eval jumps with candidates (easy enough to do at one course) as soon as you hit 500 tandems. Bingo - three and a half years in the sport, less than 1100 jumps total (at least 510 of which were done with a drogue) and you're a god.

We already see many tandem "instructors" who don't seem to have a good handle on the gravity of what they are doing; whether this is due to complacency on their part or on the part of the person who rated them is a good question. Requiring less of those charged with doing the rating isn't going to improve the overall safety of the whuffos trusting their lives to their "instructors."

Relaxing the standards will increase the number of people available to rate others. While this is a good thing for people in BFE who want a rating but can't afford to travel, that alone is not a good reason to make it easier to become a tandem I/E, and I don't see any other good reasons for the change.

The requirements for I/E ratings should be the same for all instructional methods. You are either an instructor examiner or you're not. Joe Q Justoffstudentstatus doesn't know the difference between a tandem I/E and an AFF I/E. A god is a god...

[DualHawk 0]

I think I can help answer the questions that you've posed. I believe the Minutes of the BOD will be posted in a week or two, but I don't think I'm violating any rules or regs speaking on it now, as nothing that was discussed or voted on was done so in closed session.

So with that said, the reason a request was made to lower the number of 50 supervised tandem jumps under an I/E's supervision to 10 has a couple of explanations.

1) Getting 50 evaluation jumps could take someone upwards of 10 courses to achieve, and asking anyone to attend 10 courses to meet a pre-requisite is a little excessive in most peoples opinions. For example, I am holding a tandem course for 3 people in 2 weeks. That's 15 eval jumps before they go on to their "Phase II jumps with Experienced jumpers. I was asked by a local T/I to sit in and assist as he wants to be a Tandem I/E. Per our (Strong) Examiner regs, I have to make the tandem terminal with each person, so that leaves 4 jumps per person, 12 in total that I can share with him to help him get his jumps in. Let's a say I give him half, thats 6. So he attends a full course, with a typical size of 3 candidates and he gets 6 evals done under my supervision. He still has 42 more to go.

2) The other consideration is that reaching minimums isn't an automatic consideration. Bill Booth, Marc Procos, Ted Strong, myself, Nancy LaRivierre and John Sherman still have to endorse the candidate on the manufacturer system. We still have veto power over anyone that intends to teach as a tandem I/E on our equipment.

3) They still have to attend a manufacturer specific tandem I/E course to be certified and currently, myself (Strong), Jay Stokes & Kip Lohmiller (UPT) and Nancy LaRivierre (Jumpshack) are the only four people holding manufacturer examiner courses in the US, and I think most people that have attended any of these courses would attest that the standards are pretty high.

4) In the past, 100 tandems was all that was needed to be a Tandem Examiner, and the only USPA add on was to fax your letter of designation from Strong, UPT or Jumpshack to USPA to become a USPA Tandem TCD (you had to have held a USPA T/I rating for 3 years as well). So, the standards from USPA's perspective have certainly gone up, but all along, the standards from the manufacturers was never down to begin with. The USPA Tandem I/E rating is designed to show that you understand how the ISP relates to tandems and how tandem can be used to teach IAF, as well as how to make sure your teaching using IERC techniques and that you understand the paperwork process.

So, in the end, we decided that we agreed with the instructors in the field that 50 I/E Supervised evaluation tandem jumps prior to attending a course was an excessive number and lowered it to a number that in theory, meant that you would have to attend atleast 2 courses with a Tandem I/E to get your 10 jumps which I believe that we all felt was ideal as a prerequisite to attend a USPA Tandem I/E course.

With that said, if enough people truly disagree with it, let your regional directors know, and we can add it to the agenda of the next meeting and vote a change if the instructor pool in the field deems it necessary.

My email is [email protected].

If I can answer any other questions, let me know.

Tom Noonan
Tandem Director
Strong Enterprises

ps. - Only the President of USPA and the Executive Director can speak on behalf of USPA. The above statements are my personal opinion and view of what happened at the meeting. Thanks!

[skybytch 259]

Nice, thanks for the response Tom.

Quote

1) Getting 50 evaluation jumps could take someone upwards of 10 courses to achieve, and asking anyone to attend 10 courses to meet a pre-requisite is a little excessive in most peoples opinions.

Okay. But the same requirements must be met for an AFF I/E rating. If it's too much to ask someone to do for a tandem I/E rating, then isn't it also too much to ask someone to do for an AFF I/E?

Yes, the AFF I/E must cover more material in the certification courses that they'll be running (the whole ISP as opposed to Cats A and B), but the processes used to get the information across and to evaluate candidate performance are the same. If this can be accomplished in 10 actual evals and 2 courses for the tandem rating, then it can be accomplished in the same time frame for the AFF rating. There aren't enough differences between the two to warrant requiring 1/5th the effort to achieve one as opposed to the other.

Quote

2) The other consideration is that reaching minimums isn't an automatic consideration. Bill Booth, Marc Procos, Ted Strong, myself, Nancy LaRivierre and John Sherman still have to endorse the candidate on the manufacturer system. We still have veto power over anyone that intends to teach as a tandem I/E on our equipment.

It's long been known that the tandem rating is the only one you can buy. Heck, I even got one "back in the day." And having spent almost 10 years in gear sales, I know that manufacturers can and do make mistakes, despite their best efforts not to. So knowing that there is manufacturer oversight doesn't reassure me much.

Gear manufacturers have a vested interest in increasing the number of tandem jumps that are done. Increasing the number of tandem masters is a good way to go about that. Increasing the number of tandem examiners will certainly help to increase the number of tandem masters. Relaxing the standards will increase the number of tandem examiners.

USPA should have a vested interest in training quality skydiving instructors. As the first instructor contact for many new skydivers, the tandem instructor has an incredible opportunity to do far more than give a whuffo the ride of their life and an incredible responsibility for the safety of that whuffo (regardless of waivers saying otherwise). IMHO, lowering the standards for those who seek to train tandem instructors while retaining "excessive" requirements for those who seek to train AFF instructors sends the message that tandems are an amusement park ride, not a viable instructional method.

[Skymonkey2 0]

If you think about it, it is now easier to become an I/E then in the past, no real testing all it is, is an apprentice program. I think some of the old requirements should come back. You needed to be a rigger, you needed to be a instructor for at least 3 years, you then had to take 10 tests, closed book and you only had 4 hours to do it. I don't think 50 eval jumps for AFF is asking to much, it gives you experience, it is not easy to debrief two candidates, as an evaluator you get the experience and if the program is followed you learn how to open, and close a course to include all the paper work. In reality it is pretty easy now, you just have to have the dedication to want it.

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

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I think some of the old requirements should come back. You needed to be a rigger, you needed to be a instructor for at least 3 years, you then had to take 10 tests, closed book and you only had 4 hours to do it.

I agree 100%. The I/E rating meant you really knew something about skydiving back then. The new version is very watered down in comparison.

Quote

I don't think 50 eval jumps for AFF is asking to much, it gives you experience, it is not easy to debrief two candidates, as an evaluator you get the experience and if the program is followed you learn how to open, and close a course to include all the paper work. In reality it is pretty easy now, you just have to have the dedication to want it.

I agree with this also. I think the tandem requirements should be the same though.

[Skymonkey2 0]

The issue is that the manufactures don't require Tandem Examiners to ride on the front, so it is hard to hold people to this standard, myself I ride in the front on all the jumps, this gives me the opportunity to teach in the aircraft, in freefall and under canopy. I think some front rides should be required, but I don't know the magic number.

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

[DualHawk 0]

You have a lot of valid points and concerns. I can't really speak for the other equipment manufacturers in terms of how many Examiners are trained annually, but for our company (Strong) we only offer a limited amount of courses each year because we prefer to keep our Examiner pool small so the Examiners hold more courses. We'd rather have one Examiner hold three courses on the dropzone, than three examiners hold one course each. You need to be out teaching the info repetitively to keep sharp. Plus, every candidate has to pass a Bill Morrissey background check, which based on his 49 years in the sport, goes back a looooooong way.....lol.

At just around 100 AFF jumps, I don't think I'm qualified to render a decision on the AFF eval prerequisite of 50 jumps, whether it's too high, or just enough. I do work with Kip, Jay and Rob Laidlaw quite often though and I think if it were put to a vote at the next BOD meeting, I would make sure I got input from all of them. (I'd also go track down Bram Clemente at ZHills).

We (you, me and anyone else interested) have just under six months to put our heads together and address the issue so we can put it on the agenda at the next BOD.

I am a few months late visiting the Georgia dropzones in my region, but I plan to visit all of my DZs before the winter 2010 meeting and get input from AFF Is and AFF I/Es on a number of different topics. (I'm also looking for input on the WSI proposal and wingsuits in general, but that's another topic in another forum.....lol).

One thing this process on the BOD has taught me is that reason can prevail and that positive change isn't impossible to effect. I am all ears and interested in what people are thinking.

(anyone) Please feel to email me at [email protected] with questions or concerns.

Tom

[DualHawk 0]

Quote

The issue is that the manufactures don't require Tandem Examiners to ride on the front,

Hey Kip, We do!

We require that our Examiners ride on the front, at a minimum on the Level 4 tandem terminal jump and encourage them to ride on as many as they can.

Our Tandem I/E course requires 2 tandem terminal jumps (one from the front and one from the back). We have been including having the Tandem I/E candidate throw the drogue and activate the main from the front at tandem terminal, as that is pretty much the worst case scenario going 180mph having to take over the skydive. It's a great experience for the Examiner candidate to know that on that tandem terminal, if the Instructor candidate brain locks, they can throw the drogue from the front and open the main.

Blue skies amigo,

Tom

[Skymonkey2 0]

Sorry Tom you are correct, I was speaking generally. I agree that the I/E has become extremely watered down.

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

[incendium 0]

I agree with this entire post. On some DZs you see folks that shouldn't be teaching, nevermind becoming I/Es.
But the almighty dollar and influence helps many out there achieve their goals, good news is that many Course directors are failing students for not meeting the standards. Oops I used the "S" word....sheesh.
There is another post out here on DZ.com that talks specifically about how young people want their ratings and take on too much too soon. There is so much to learn in this sport, especially now that there are so many disciplines.
At the end of the day I would ask each instructor and I/E to ask themselves, "Did I teach or instruct to the level I expected to be taught to/at?" If you can't answer that one immediately then something is up.
As for the rigger ticket, I would agree that any I/E would want theirs, why because as I have said, there is so much to learn in this sport, I would hate to forget something or leave something out because of ignorance. The old requirements were pretty stout, but the instructors and I/Es I have had, held me to the "standard" so to them I say thanks.

Side note: I voluntarily repeated a level 6 AFF, why because although I passed the dive, I didn't feel comfortably and wanted to do it again. The instructors first response was "that's gonna cost you more money towards your license......" so sometimes I think some people are in it for the wrong reasons.
Ok I'm done......

v/r
Paul
"Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you!"

[Skymonkey2 0]

Well put, an I/E is or should be the expert in the field, this was brought up to the BOD a few years ago, and they did not want to here it. We are going to be our own worst enimies. It is sad to say but true, I read the presidents page in this months parachutist, and he makes is sound like he was at Sebastian for the incedent, but he was not.

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

[johnny1488 1]

Well I Have made it up to 30 or so, so far. I guess I don't have to sweat that.

It should be about you're performance, not pulling random numbers out of the air. I have no problem with proving myself on the front. And on the back. That's why I want the rating, to try and help make better instructors.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Well I Have made it up to 30 or so, so far.

How many courses did it take you to get 30 in? Do you think that assisting in more than one course (if you have) was a good or bad thing - ie did you feel more ready to run your own courses after assisting in your second/third/fourth than you did after the first?

[ufk22 32]

My question would be, "what was the purpose of the old I/E rating?"
It wasn't needed to instruct or to run courses for new instructors. It wasn't needed to be an S&TA. It wasn't needed for demo jumps.
I see the new rating as being a much more logical and useful rating.
I also see the 50 eval jump rule as being excessive. If after assisting with 2-3 ratings classes you aren't ready to take on running a course on your own, you probably won't be any more ready after assisting with 10 courses, but this can and should be the call of the I/E that's evaluating you.
Forcing this kind of a time commitment (10+ 3 day weekends) to get a rating pretty much guarantees that the only new I/E's will be those going into it as a profession, which is fine for the big skydiving centers, but will pretty much eliminate all the local people who run most of the coach and I courses at smaller drop zones around the country.

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.

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

did you feel more ready to run your own courses after assisting in your second/third/fourth than you did after the first?

I was much more ready and prepared after assisting in my 15th course than I was on my 5th. Maybe we should put a minimum of 15 course assists prior to getting an I/E rating. People would be much more prepared and capable of properly teaching new Instructors.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Well put, an I/E is or should be the expert in the field, this was brought up to the BOD a few years ago, and they did not want to here it. We are going to be our own worst enimies. It is sad to say but true, I read the presidents page in this months parachutist, and he makes is sound like he was at Sebastian for the incedent, but he was not.

A-what does the president's editorial have to do with him being an expert in the field? Are you suggesting the president of the USPA isn't an expert in being a Tandem I/E?

B-Which verbage, or commentary (specific line quote, please) in the president's editorial (in your opinion) gives the impression he was suggesting he was at Sebastian?
His use of the phrase "As an observer" doesn't necessarily suggest he was there.

I have a great respect for you, Kip, but fail to understand why you dragged the Sebastian fatality and the president's editorial into it.
FWIW, Jay seems to be trying to learn about every parachuting discipline in which he's not already an expert. His recent forays into wingsuiting and BASE jumping suggest he's trying to be as well-rounded as possible.
Back to the point of the I/E changes, if the requirements are too strict, the interested pool thins and you're left with the best of those willing to put in the effort. This may not be enough people. If the requirements aren't stringent enough, you've got I/E's coming out of your ears with not enough qualified backstopping. This holds true in any training discipline whether it's building widgets for 3 year olds or teaching specific skydiving principles.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Back to the point of the I/E changes, if the requirements are too strict, the interested pool thins and you're left with the best of those willing to put in the effort. This may not be enough people.

Personally, I don't see a problem with only the best of those willing to put in the effort getting the rating. The AFF and Tandem I/E ratings are the highest instructional ratings that USPA issues. The people who hold them should be the best of the best, and the rating itself shouldn't be easy to attain - the candidate should have to really want it to be willing to put out the large amount of time and effort that are needed to complete the requirements.

As I see it, the point of the requirements isn't so much to prove how good the candidate is, but more to allow the candidate an "apprenticeship" time sufficient for them to gain the skills needed to run good courses on their own. I think very few people will be able to gain all of those skills through assisting in one or two courses.

[johnny1488 1]

I have done 3 courses with an examiner and done a lot of the jumps in them, plus the 10 or so I had before that.

I felt much better after the first, and a bit better after the second, and feel like more is just going through the motions. Every candidate is going to be different and challenging, no matter how many I do.

I think the idea is good, but 50 is excessive. I dont think many TIs are going to be running to get their IE regardless of the qualifications.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[livendive 8]

I vigorously disagree.

The hoops necessary to re-rate or cross-train an uncurrent or non-USPA tandem instructor are absurd. In the last 3 years I’ve had 5 experienced guys face an uphill battle in this regard. One had 600 tandems and expired S/L & IAD instructor ratings, but never had a USPA tandem rating and was 2 years uncurrent…he drove several hundred miles to get his mfg’s rating, but the USPA side of things wasn’t completed properly and that took months to resolve. Another was a very current jumper (coach rated) but new TI whose examiner didn’t cross USPA’s T’s & dot their I’s, so I had to sit him when the BSRs changed because it took months for the examiner to fix things on the USPA side of the house (his mfg rating was fine). Another was a prior rig owner with hundreds of tandems, in the past year, and a current coach rating…his best bet for the USPA rating ended up being to go to an examiner he knew on the other side of the country. In the works now are two guys with >5000 jumps each, one of whom has >1000 tandems and a current S/L-I rating, but he’s never had a USPA-TI rating and hasn’t done a tandem in two years. The other has 3500+ tandems, is a former rig owner (different mfg), and has an expired S/L-I rating, but he hasn’t had a USPA tandem rating and hasn’t jumped in 4 years. One’s about done after only a week and several hundred miles. The other is still a couple weeks out.

I’ve been a USPA instructor of one sort or another for 10 years now (currently all four sorts), an S&TA for 6 years, I own 4 tandem rigs, have around a thousand tandems, and have been front-side somewhere around 20 times, including with a first-timer who froze up and not only didn’t pull, but blocked both drogue releases at pull-time. In my opinion, my qualifications ought to be enough to train brand new tandem instructors, but, at a minimum, I ought to be able to get these sorts of people (listed above) recurrent and properly documented. Instead, I have an option of paying thousands of dollars to travel somewhere and be blessed by the powers that be, despite my complete disinterest in doing it commercially, or joining guys in the head>>>wall-banging that is bound to ensue any time a USPA tandem rating or any lack of currency is involved. I’m not trying to toot my own horn here, and I don’t consider myself god’s gift to skydiving instruction, tandem or otherwise, but c’mon…this stuff ain’t rocket science. Some reasonable amount of experience teaching skydiving and teaching tandems (and even teaching skydiving via the tandem->AFF method) ought to be good enough for at least some minimal abilities in this regard.

Blues,
Dave
(happy to take flames on this issue...you won't piss me off any more than it already has)

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

[ufk22 32]

Obviously spoken by someone from a small DZ.
Sorry, your opinion doesn't matter any more....

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.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Obviously spoken by someone from a small DZ.
Sorry, your opinion doesn't matter any more....

Yep. I think USPA assumes all the small DZ's have already gone under, when in reality some of us are trying to thrive despite their best efforts to the contrary. Five ratings might seem like small potatoes at Perris and Eloy, but they make a big difference in a 2-3 man rotation.

Blues,
Dave

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

[ufk22 32]

n.s...

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.

[incendium 0]

I would disagree with your opinion for two simple reasons. Each tandem system is slightly different and a rating requires a TI to become proficient with that system. I am not one of those gifted people, but I personally know I need to pack a tandem more than once to become proficient at it, especially cross-training to another system. and two, skydiving in and of itself is not rocket science. Just because you have the experience doesn't automatically make you qualified to teach. Some people do it better than others. Just the way it is. The purpose behind the TI I/E requirements should drive this home. I have found very few people that after sitting through even 2-3 coach courses were masters at it, never mind becoming a coach I/E. So i ask you to look at it as a whole and not at an individualistic approach to the subject.Chers!

v/r
Paul
"Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you!"