New AFF requirements.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

My biggest grip with the way it is, is how someone can get their coach rating one weekend. Never teach a student and get their AFF or Tandem rating the next weekend. I don't understand how USPA allows this to happen.

The focus these days is on air skills. Knowledge has been thrown under the bus. It explains why there is so much stupid shit going on. We're doing a piss-poor job of instilling knowledge and safety in the youngsters.

POPS, USPA is trying very hard to change this. The IERC is one of the major steps forward, and more is coming.
I don't know what the teaching methodology was 15 years ago, but what they've adopted for the IERC, and requiring standardization courses is a step in the right direction, IMO.

Quote

{Ozzy}
My biggest grip with the way it is, is how someone can get their coach rating one weekend. Never teach a student and get their AFF or Tandem rating the next weekend. I don't understand how USPA allows this to happen. The change that just happened is a step in the right direction but as I said before half measures evil nothing.

Agreed, this shouldn't be an easily done thing. Flip side, look at someone like Craig Girrard...Why shouldn't he be able to take a Coach Course on Monday/Tuesday/Wed, and an AFFI course on Friday-Friday? With quadruple the jumps and instructional experience of most of the AFFI/E's out there, would you agree he's kind of in a different boat?

[kmills0705 0]

Quote

Quote

Here are some currency / time-in-sport requirements that don't seem to restrictive to me:
"3 years as a current USPA member"

I don't think that's reasonable. Experience and currency are experience and currency. We either trust the signatures on a person's logbook or we don't. This is little but economic protectionism and bullying on the part of the USPA. It's chickenshit like this that makes people resent the USPA.

Quote

"6 hours of freefall with 200 jumps in the last 18 months" - similar to the wingsuit currency requirement. Not too hard to do if you're motivated. Not too expensive if you can afford to take an instructor course.

Personally, and this ties in with what KMills posted, I think that's a bit on the stiff side for people with only a moderate amount of time and money, especially those who jump at a small Cessna DZ.

So, its not uncommon knowledge that I am a newly rated AFF Instructor. I have been a static line instructor for years and have taught countless first jump courses and have put out at least 250 static line progression students (probably more).

Looking at my numbers and years in sport are confusing. I made my first jump in 1994. Made 7 and stopped. Then in 1997 I went through FJC and jumped through 2000 when I did the marriage/kids thing. I had around 300 jumps at that time. I started jumping again in 2007. I received my static line I in 1999 and spent a lot of time time teaching FJC. When I started back in this sport I said this time I am jumping for me. No students. I don't need the money to jump (never did). But wouldn't you know... I went through the static line instructor course and earned my rating back and starting working with students again almost immediately.

I LOVE this sport and I am passionate about teaching students. Teaching them correctly and taking the time to do so.

Back to going through the AFF I course last year. I was scared and nervous and doubted myself. I took the course with Bram and as we went through the precourse jumps and I was the one learning I gained a lot of knowledge and became confident of my skills. I KNOW Bram would not have passed me if he didn't feel I was capable and setting out to be a good AFF I.

With all that said I dropped about 1,000.00 to take the course (maybe a little more but that is ballpark).

Why are people going to invest that much time and money if they are not going to take it seriously and be a good AFF I? It will take me a LONG time to earn that 1,000 in student jumps.

Maybe that is the difference between a smaller dz and a larger dz... those getting their I's are doing so to make money.

I don't care about the money part. I care about the students and being a good instructor and role model to them.

Kim Mills
USPA D21696
Tandem I, AFF I and Static Line I

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My biggest grip with the way it is, is how someone can get their coach rating one weekend. Never teach a student and get their AFF or Tandem rating the next weekend. I don't understand how USPA allows this to happen.

The focus these days is on air skills. Knowledge has been thrown under the bus. It explains why there is so much stupid shit going on. We're doing a piss-poor job of instilling knowledge and safety in the youngsters.

POPS, USPA is trying very hard to change this. The IERC is one of the major steps forward, and more is coming.
I don't know what the teaching methodology was 15 years ago, but what they've adopted for the IERC, and requiring standardization courses is a step in the right direction, IMO.

Quote

{Ozzy}
My biggest grip with the way it is, is how someone can get their coach rating one weekend. Never teach a student and get their AFF or Tandem rating the next weekend. I don't understand how USPA allows this to happen. The change that just happened is a step in the right direction but as I said before half measures evil nothing.

Agreed, this shouldn't be an easily done thing. Flip side, look at someone like Craig Girrard...Why shouldn't he be able to take a Coach Course on Monday/Tuesday/Wed, and an AFFI course on Friday-Friday? With quadruple the jumps and instructional experience of most of the AFFI/E's out there, would you agree he's kind of in a different boat?

Yes very much so. I just dont want the guy/gal with a 1000 jumps saying I want to make money in the sport. Go a take the coach course then take a AFF or Tandem course. Yes they might have flying skills. But should work with students under supervision before cut free.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

look at someone like Craig Girrard...Why shouldn't he be able to take a Coach Course on Monday/Tuesday/Wed, and an AFFI course on Friday-Friday? With quadruple the jumps and instructional experience of most of the AFFI/E's out there, would you agree he's kind of in a different boat?

No. He should take the same course as any other cantidate, and follow the same guidelines. If he doesn't like it, he should have thought of that 10,000 jumps ago, and got his rating then when he had 800 jumps or so like everyone else.

Despite all of his accomplishments, if they don't include the USPA mandated experience for becoming an instructor, than he's not qualified. He may be the head of the class at his coach course, and he may sail through the AFF cert course, but he needs to follow the rules like everyone else. All of his experience is an asset for sure, but if it doesn't include what the USPA says it should include to be an instructor, then he's not qualified to be a USPA rated instructor.

[DSE 3]

Quote

No. He should take the same course as any other cantidate, and follow the same guidelines. If he doesn't like it, he should have thought of that 10,000 jumps ago, and got his rating then when he had 800 jumps or so like everyone else.

Despite all of his accomplishments, if they don't include the USPA mandated experience for becoming an instructor, than he's not qualified. He may be the head of the class at his coach course, and he may sail through the AFF cert course, but he needs to follow the rules like everyone else. All of his experience is an asset for sure, but if it doesn't include what the USPA says it should include to be an instructor, then he's not qualified to be a USPA rated instructor.

You don't feel someone with say....25,000 jumps who coaches hundreds of students each year should be allowed a waiver should they request one?
(as an aside, CG took the coach course before the new ruling, taught more students than required to maintain currency in a week, took the AFFI course and passed both very handily).

While I agree with the new rules and publically supported same...
A guy has 16 years in sport, 600 jumps, becomes AFFI and just completed TI course.
Different guy has 2.5 years in sport, 1200 jumps, easily manages the AFFI course, but can't be a TI due to time in sport restriction. He got coach rating at 100 jumps, AFFI around 450 jumps.
Which guy would you prefer take your daughter or mother on an AFF or tandem jump?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

You don't feel someone with say....25,000 jumps who coaches hundreds of students each year should be allowed a waiver should they request one?

Not really. Somewhere in those 25,000 jumps, and the years upon years it took to rack them up, the guy should have taken care of the USPA requirements. Every other instructor had to go through the same process, and meet the same requirements, so should he.

Look at it from the point of view of a cantidate on the other end of the spectrum. They're working hard, investing time and money making sure that they meet the requirements before they get their rating. What does it say about their efforts, and the validity of those requirements if not everyone has to achieve them.

If you want to be a USPA rated instructor, go through the USPA instructor training program and earn your rating.

Quote

A guy has 16 years in sport, 600 jumps, becomes AFFI and just completed TI course.
Different guy has 2.5 years in sport, 1200 jumps, easily manages the AFFI course, but can't be a TI due to time in sport restriction. He got coach rating at 100 jumps, AFFI around 450 jumps.
Which guy would you prefer take your daughter or mother on an AFF or tandem jump?

The obvious answer is the guy with 16 years in the sport because he's the guy who's been through the TI course, and has the rating.

If you're asking the hypothetical question (which I think you are), I would still take the guy with 16 years in the sport. He may have fewer skydives, but he has the longevity, and the expereince that comes along with it. If you can manage to jump for 16 years, and still be in the sport and still physically able to get a tandem rating, that shows a guy with some degree of good judgement, common sense, and some respect for safety. On top of that, the guy has completed the TI course, has the education it provides, and performed well enough to pass.

The other jumper, while he may have more jumps, the fact is that it's not that hard to rack up 1200 jumps in 2.5 years, provided you have the money. Also, with the higher concentration of jumps in a short span, that would lead me to believe that there were many, many 10 or 12 jump days at the same DZ.

I would argue that you learn more making 3 jumps per day over the course of three or four different days (on different weekends) than by banging out 12 at one DZ, on one day. I would also argue that you learn more jumping at different DZs with different jumpers than by jumping at the same DZ with the same local crew you see every weekend.

I would have to imagine that the other guy, over the course of 16 years would have seen a few places, met a few people, and learned a thing or two that they don't teach at any instructor certification course.

[Para5-0 0]

17 quotes, 30 reply to's, who the hell is talking to who in your post...why so confusing, let us know your thought and move on.

[tdog 0]

Quote

The focus these days is on air skills. Knowledge has been thrown under the bus. It explains why there is so much stupid shit going on. We're doing a piss-poor job of instilling knowledge and safety in the youngsters.

I am going to ask for more information.... I believe it is important to look at PROBLEMS and find SOLUTIONS - not to just make policies that make people "Feel good". Can you tell me examples of how this piss-poor job is a real problem (I know of problems at my home DZ working with students, but the AFFIs I don't think are on the top of the list).

I can honestly say that the AFFIs I work with are great. Each has a personality, and flaws, but they all do a good job. Some are younger, some are older. Some have tons of tandems, some are weekend fun jumpers.

So lets look at fatalities, per USPA:

1998 - 44
1999 - 27
2000 - 32
2001 - 35
2002 - 33
2003 - 25
2004 - 21
2005 - 27
2006 - 21
2007 - 18
2008 - 30
2009 - 16

HOW MANY OF THESE WERE STUDENTS (AFF STUDENTS, NOT TANDEM)???

I went to this site:http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx and noticed the fatalities for people with less than 100 jumps are few and far between. I read each one... I see no smoking gun that the system is all that broken other than CANOPY CONTROL - which is not an instructor shortcoming but system shortcoming in AFF... (No dedicated canopy control jumps, no dedicated canopy control lesson plans... Just something that the instructor/student do post freefall).

This tells me things/instructors are no better or worse then they ever have been... Maybe slightly better since membership/jump numbers have gone up most years other than the last few... And this is coupled with the fact aggressive skydiving canopies for people well past their AFF has become a leading cause to offset better gear.

Can you point to an increase in incidents with jumpers with under 25 jumps where the AFFIs have control, or incidents post 25 jumps where AFFIs have clearly been negligent in teaching something (as opposed to the student trying to continue to learn, you can lead a horse to water, but drinking is.....)

Ok, so give me details to support your claim. (I may or may not dispute them, but I will learn from them).

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

look at someone like Craig Girrard...Why shouldn't he be able to take a Coach Course on Monday/Tuesday/Wed, and an AFFI course on Friday-Friday? With quadruple the jumps and instructional experience of most of the AFFI/E's out there, would you agree he's kind of in a different boat?

No. He should take the same course as any other cantidate, and follow the same guidelines. .

Why shouldn't he be allowed to test out? If he can display the skills and knowledge, why should he have to sit through hours of basic instruction on stuff he already knows from someone that knows less than he does?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

The focus these days is on air skills. Knowledge has been thrown under the bus. It explains why there is so much stupid shit going on. We're doing a piss-poor job of instilling knowledge and safety in the youngsters.

I am going to ask for more information.... I believe it is important to look at PROBLEMS and find SOLUTIONS - not to just make policies that make people "Feel good". Can you tell me examples of how this piss-poor job is a real problem (I know of problems at my home DZ working with students, but the AFFIs I don't think are on the top of the list).

I can honestly say that the AFFIs I work with are great. Each has a personality, and flaws, but they all do a good job. Some are younger, some are older. Some have tons of tandems, some are weekend fun jumpers.

So lets look at fatalities, per USPA:

1998 - 44
1999 - 27
2000 - 32
2001 - 35
2002 - 33
2003 - 25
2004 - 21
2005 - 27
2006 - 21
2007 - 18
2008 - 30
2009 - 16

HOW MANY OF THESE WERE STUDENTS (AFF STUDENTS, NOT TANDEM)???

I went to this site:http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx and noticed the fatalities for people with less than 100 jumps are few and far between. I read each one... I see no smoking gun that the system is all that broken other than CANOPY CONTROL - which is not an instructor shortcoming but system shortcoming in AFF... (No dedicated canopy control jumps, no dedicated canopy control lesson plans... Just something that the instructor/student do post freefall).

This tells me things/instructors are no better or worse then they ever have been... Maybe slightly better since membership/jump numbers have gone up most years other than the last few... And this is coupled with the fact aggressive skydiving canopies for people well past their AFF has become a leading cause to offset better gear.

Can you point to an increase in incidents with jumpers with under 25 jumps where the AFFIs have control, or incidents post 25 jumps where AFFIs have clearly been negligent in teaching something (as opposed to the student trying to continue to learn, you can lead a horse to water, but drinking is.....)

Ok, so give me details to support your claim. (I may or may not dispute them, but I will learn from them).

Now you are just using facts and logic. Psst. You are gonna lose your argument with that kind of attitude. You need emotion, not facts.

[kmills0705 0]

Quote

Quote

The focus these days is on air skills. Knowledge has been thrown under the bus. It explains why there is so much stupid shit going on. We're doing a piss-poor job of instilling knowledge and safety in the youngsters.

I am going to ask for more information.... I believe it is important to look at PROBLEMS and find SOLUTIONS - not to just make policies that make people "Feel good". Can you tell me examples of how this piss-poor job is a real problem (I know of problems at my home DZ working with students, but the AFFIs I don't think are on the top of the list).

I can honestly say that the AFFIs I work with are great. Each has a personality, and flaws, but they all do a good job. Some are younger, some are older. Some have tons of tandems, some are weekend fun jumpers.

So lets look at fatalities, per USPA:

1998 - 44
1999 - 27
2000 - 32
2001 - 35
2002 - 33
2003 - 25
2004 - 21
2005 - 27
2006 - 21
2007 - 18
2008 - 30
2009 - 16

HOW MANY OF THESE WERE STUDENTS (AFF STUDENTS, NOT TANDEM)???

I went to this site:http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx and noticed the fatalities for people with less than 100 jumps are few and far between. I read each one... I see no smoking gun that the system is all that broken other than CANOPY CONTROL - which is not an instructor shortcoming but system shortcoming in AFF... (No dedicated canopy control jumps, no dedicated canopy control lesson plans... Just something that the instructor/student do post freefall).

This tells me things/instructors are no better or worse then they ever have been... Maybe slightly better since membership/jump numbers have gone up most years other than the last few... And this is coupled with the fact aggressive skydiving canopies for people well past their AFF has become a leading cause to offset better gear.

Can you point to an increase in incidents with jumpers with under 25 jumps where the AFFIs have control, or incidents post 25 jumps where AFFIs have clearly been negligent in teaching something (as opposed to the student trying to continue to learn, you can lead a horse to water, but drinking is.....)

Ok, so give me details to support your claim. (I may or may not dispute them, but I will learn from them).

Canopy control is part of each and every AFF jump. There are freefall dive flows and canopy dive flows whichboth must be completed and passed before advancing to next AFF level. If someone did kick ass in freefall but totally blew the canopy dive flow they are repeating the jump.

I was trained by Bram and he stresses the skydive is NOT over when the canopy opens.

Kim Mills
USPA D21696
Tandem I, AFF I and Static Line I

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Why shouldn't he be allowed to test out? If he can display the skills and knowledge, why should he have to sit through hours of basic instruction on stuff he already knows from someone that knows less than he does?

Testing out would only cover a fraction of the information relayed in the course. Just because a cantidate happens to know enough info to get a passing grade on a test-out, doesn't mean he knows all of the information in the entire course.

If the USPA feels that it's courses are complete, and the cirruculum is well composed, containing all the relevant info an instructor cantidate would need to begin their time as a USPA rated instructor, then you cannot allow anyone to test out. The only way you guarantee that every cantidate knows ALL of the information is for them to do the work, and complete the course.

If the course is full of info that you may or may not need to know, and the USPA is happy to put their stamp of approval on a cantidate who may or may not know what's containted in the course, by all means allow a test out option.

In the end, however, 20 years and 25,000 jumps without a USPA instructional rating equals zero years and zero jumps as a USPA instructor. As such, the cantidate would have no jumps with AFF students as an instructor or a coach. While he may have extensive experience coaching licensed jumpers, that's not the same thing as a student jumper, and all of those jumps were made to his own personal standards, not those of the USPA.

If the USPA wants to ensure that all of it's instrcutor cantidates are on the same page, and operating to the standards of a USPA instructor, they need to establish a complete and comprehensive instructor certification course, and ALL instructor cantidates must pass that course.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Canopy control is part of each and every AFF jump. There are freefall dive flows and canopy dive flows which both must be completed and passed before advancing to next AFF level. If someone did kick ass in freefall but totally blew the canopy dive flow they are repeating the jump.

I was trained by Bram and he stresses the skydive is NOT over when the canopy opens.

I was trained by Bram too... Everything you say is a nice thought... Fundamentally, I disagree with your comment that they are repeating the jump. Every jump should be a step towards new learning, so if freefell went well, they should try new freefall skills on the next jump. What do you determine is totally blowing a canopy ride? Non-stand up landing? Landing out because they did the drills when the spot was borderline and should have flown straight home? Not doing the drills because the spot was long and they knew they had to get home first? Not looking before each turn, and how would you know other than honor system? How many students have YOU failed because of canopy - and what did they do specifically to cause the failure?

In the last few years I have done a ton of AFF jumps for a weekend jumper. What I learned - it takes a special student to be able to work on many tasks on one jump, and at a large otter DZ, sometimes the spot is kind of far out or there is traffic and students cannot always fly the pattern you want them to. It is simply hard to focus on 15 learning objectives on a jump... No matter how much you focus on canopy, it gets in the back burner in the student's mind UNLESS the jump is a hop-n-pop or high pull where the only learning objectives are canopy related. I have had some fun high pulls with students and they are good tools! You and I are taking this topic off track - if you want to rehash this debate, there are 10+ threads on the subject... Find one, post, and PM me you did and I will be glad to discuss.

[Reginald 0]

Quote

Quote

I am going to ask for more information.... I believe it is important to look at PROBLEMS and find SOLUTIONS - not to just make policies that make people "Feel good". Can you tell me examples of how this piss-poor job is a real problem (I know of problems at my home DZ working with students, but the AFFIs I don't think are on the top of the list).

I can honestly say that the AFFIs I work with are great. Each has a personality, and flaws, but they all do a good job. Some are younger, some are older. Some have tons of tandems, some are weekend fun jumpers.

So lets look at fatalities, per USPA:

1998 - 44
1999 - 27
2000 - 32
2001 - 35
2002 - 33
2003 - 25
2004 - 21
2005 - 27
2006 - 21
2007 - 18
2008 - 30
2009 - 16

HOW MANY OF THESE WERE STUDENTS (AFF STUDENTS, NOT TANDEM)???

I went to this site:http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx and noticed the fatalities for people with less than 100 jumps are few and far between. I read each one... I see no smoking gun that the system is all that broken other than CANOPY CONTROL - which is not an instructor shortcoming but system shortcoming in AFF... (No dedicated canopy control jumps, no dedicated canopy control lesson plans... Just something that the instructor/student do post freefall).

This tells me things/instructors are no better or worse then they ever have been... Maybe slightly better since membership/jump numbers have gone up most years other than the last few... And this is coupled with the fact aggressive skydiving canopies for people well past their AFF has become a leading cause to offset better gear.

Can you point to an increase in incidents with jumpers with under 25 jumps where the AFFIs have control, or incidents post 25 jumps where AFFIs have clearly been negligent in teaching something (as opposed to the student trying to continue to learn, you can lead a horse to water, but drinking is.....)

Ok, so give me details to support your claim. (I may or may not dispute them, but I will learn from them).

Now you are just using facts and logic. Psst. You are gonna lose your argument with that kind of attitude. You need emotion, not facts.

The next items needed in Tdogs excellent post is the number of total jumps, number of AFF jumps and preferably the experience and training method of the AFFI, etc. This would allow us to make fact based decisions instead of emotional ones. Estimating that they have not changed materially than one would conclude that AFF training is safer than ever or at minimum not statistically significantly different than in the past.

On the topic of emotional arguments here are a few fallacies in logic I've seen on this extended discussion over the years.

1. Starting with a conclusion and then seeking only evidence that supports the predetermined position while mitigating all information that contradicts the predetermined position. BTW: this is actually how the human mind tends to work and it requires effort to train it to work in a more reasonable and logical manor.

2. Stating that lack of evidence is in fact evidence to support a particular position. The clearly self contradictory nature of this argument should be obvious to all.

3. Using small sample sizes to draw conclusions sometimes intertwined with an “Availability Heuristic”. An example of which is, “if it happened here (easily available and recallable) it must be happening everywhere, therefore it is a big problem!” A sample of 1, 2, 3 or more is not one that conclusions can be drawn from. It is however, enough to draw up a hypothesis and take a larger sample to make a more accurate assessment, which is what Tdog is trying to do. People tend not to want to take the second step of seeking out more information and simply stop too early and draw a biased conclusion. Using only readily available information, specifically combined with small sample sizes will always lead to a cognitive bias.

4. Escalation of commitment (Also known as the “Never admit you’re wrong, even when it is clear you are” fallacy) – even when evidence is subsequently presented that someone had not considered in their prior decision making process that refutes their position, they refuse to admit they are wrong and escalate their commitment to the now defunct position. This typically involves a spiraling array of increasingly flimsily logic and distortions of facts. It also tends to have a flavor of continuing to comment, louder and louder on an issue until others walk away. It leaves the person in the wrong feeling like they won because they got the last word, when in fact everyone else just gave up arguing.

5. Over Focusing – in which people place too much emphasis on one variable in drawing a conclusion. This variable may or may not have predictive power and may or may not require other variables be included to achieve a reasonable degree of predictive power. However, the person believes it is all important.

6. Overconfidence – People uniformly tend to overestimate their abilities and knowledge. A simple example is to ask 100 people if they think they are above, at, or below average intelligence. The VAST majority will reply that they are above average intelligence. Clearly only 50% can be.

The above are just a few ways people can draw biased conclusions and they are part and parcel of normal human cognition. I actually give Tdog great props for trying to frame the problem based on convincing evidence.

My main comment on this issue is that it is in fact subject to a more rigorous debate and testing than it has in this and other threads. I for one would be willing to accept whatever the outcome is based on actual investigation of evidence. Hopefully this is the sort of thing the USPA does as it investigates policy changes.

To throw in my own antidote I will say that the ONLY AFF student deaths that I know of the last ten years (and I am only familiar with two) were both involving instructors with substantial experience and likely would not be questioned in any way for their competence or training method. Sometimes shit just happens no matter how good the instruction or instructor is, we are after all jumping out of planes.

Hopefully this discussion, if here or at the USPA, will be based as best as is possible on supportable facts. But likely it will just be a continuation of a shouting match.

PS: none of the opinions presented in this post represent real DZ.com members actual or fictional, batteries not included, your millage may vary, etc.

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

4. Escalation of commitment (Also known as the “Never admit you’re wrong, even when it is clear you are” fallacy) – even when evidence is subsequently presented that someone had not considered in their prior decision making process that refutes their position, they refuse to admit they are wrong and escalate their commitment to the now defunct position. This typically involves a spiraling array of increasingly flimsily logic and distortions of facts. It also tends to have a flavor of continuing to comment, louder and louder on an issue until others walk away. It leaves the person in the wrong feeling like they won because they got the last word, when in fact everyone else just gave up arguing.

Excellent description of American politics.

How would you gather sufficient data to justify the argument that the reality of skydiving has changed whereas the ratings haven't?

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Why shouldn't he be allowed to test out? If he can display the skills and knowledge, why should he have to sit through hours of basic instruction on stuff he already knows from someone that knows less than he does?

Testing out would only cover a fraction of the information relayed in the course. Just because a cantidate happens to know enough info to get a passing grade on a test-out, doesn't mean he knows all of the information in the entire course.

If the USPA feels that it's courses are complete, and the cirruculum is well composed, containing all the relevant info an instructor cantidate would need to begin their time as a USPA rated instructor, then you cannot allow anyone to test out. The only way you guarantee that every cantidate knows ALL of the information is for them to do the work, and complete the course.

If the course is full of info that you may or may not need to know, and the USPA is happy to put their stamp of approval on a cantidate who may or may not know what's containted in the course, by all means allow a test out option.

In the end, however, 20 years and 25,000 jumps without a USPA instructional rating equals zero years and zero jumps as a USPA instructor. As such, the cantidate would have no jumps with AFF students as an instructor or a coach. While he may have extensive experience coaching licensed jumpers, that's not the same thing as a student jumper, and all of those jumps were made to his own personal standards, not those of the USPA.

If the USPA wants to ensure that all of it's instrcutor cantidates are on the same page, and operating to the standards of a USPA instructor, they need to establish a complete and comprehensive instructor certification course, and ALL instructor cantidates must pass that course.

If you can pass the test without being properly prepared, then the test is defective. Are you saying the test is defective?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

6. Overconfidence – People uniformly tend to overestimate their abilities and knowledge. A simple example is to ask 100 people if they think they are above, at, or below average intelligence. The VAST majority will reply that they are above average intelligence. Clearly only 50% can be.

.

Wrong, you are caught in a trap of your own making.

If I ask the first 100 people I meet after typing this, I can pretty much guarantee they are all above average intelligence, because my sample is not random (I'm sitting in an engineering department at a university). Additionally, a sample size of 100 is not nearly enough to guarantee an exact 50% result even if the sample is truly taken at random from the population; the margin of error would be nearly 10% (95% confidence limit).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

If you can pass the test without being properly prepared, then the test is defective. Are you saying the test is defective?

I'm not saying the test is defective. What I'm saying is that when dealing with a complicated subject such as training to be an AFF instructor, there is no test that could cover every piece of information covered in the course. The test would literally have to be the same length as the course for it to be 100% inclusive, at which point the test is simply the course itself.

Even if a cantidate could pass a test, that's no guarantee that they know all of the information that would be covered in the course. They may know enough of the material covered in the test to get a passing grade, but that leaves a wealth of material which they may or may not know.

The only way to be sure that every USPA rated instructor knows all of the informaiton covered in the instructor certification course is for every cantidate to complete the certification course.

None of this is mentioning the false sense of status that waiving a cantidate from the course will instill. You're telling a jumper that they're so good they don't need to take the course like everyone else, when the real truth of the matter is that all instructors have the same number of student jumps the day the I/E puts the stamp in their logbook - zero, and they should all be treated as such.

You might be a great 4 way guy, and you might have 20,000 jumps, and you might have ten gold medals, but you have zero student jumps, and as such you have a lot to learn from the kid with 750 jumps total with the last 150 being live AFF jumps with actual students.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

If you can pass the test without being properly prepared, then the test is defective. Are you saying the test is defective?

I'm not saying the test is defective. What I'm saying is that when dealing with a complicated subject such as training to be an AFF instructor, there is no test that could cover every piece of information covered in the course. The test would literally have to be the same length as the course for it to be 100% inclusive, at which point the test is simply the course itself.

Even if a cantidate could pass a test, that's no guarantee that they know all of the information that would be covered in the course. They may know enough of the material covered in the test to get a passing grade, but that leaves a wealth of material which they may or may not know.

The only way to be sure that every USPA rated instructor knows all of the informaiton covered in the instructor certification course is for every cantidate to complete the certification course.

.

How, then, do you know that someone who takes the coach course actually knows what he's supposed to, if the test isn't comprehensive enough to assure that?

As a teacher with more than 35 years experience I can assure you that just sitting through a course means NOTHING when it comes to knowing what the course is about. We have lots of high school kids who have sat through countless courses who are also functionally illiterate to prove my point.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

How, then, do you know that someone who takes the coach course actually knows what he's supposed to, if the test isn't comprehensive enough to assure that?

Just because a test may be comprehensive enough to check the cantidates knowledge and retention at the end of the course does not mean that the test is comprehensive enough to replace the course itself.

If a cantidate has completed the course, and passed a test, then the two combined can be taken as reasonable assurance that the cantidate is indeed preparred to act as a coach or AFFI.

To only take the test only assures that the cantidate knows 70% of the test material, which in itself is only percentage of the total information covered in the course. In reality, you may be able to pass a written test knowing less than half of the course material. Would you want to send a coach or instructor out knowing only half of the course cirriculum?

As a teacher of 35 years, I'm surprised that you don't seem to get my point. Are your classes such that passing the final is the equivilant of taking the complete course? How many of your students would you sign off as having passed a Kallend physics course if they just passed the final? I would assume that your lectures contain more than just the 'book info', and that attending the lectures is an important part of earning a passing grade in one of your classes.

Another point about testing out is that the cantidate will miss the unique aspects of each individual course. Every group of cantidates will ask different questions and bring different issues to light thoughout the course itself, and a cantidate who tests out will miss out on all of that additional knowledge.

On top of all that, I would like to assume that any jumper with 20 years in the sport and 20,000 jumps would have learned that every area of this sport is it's own animal. Just becasue you're a gold medal 4-way guy, doesn't mean that you know squat about CRW. If you were going to attend a CRW camp, you should be sitting with all the other CRW newbies, learning the basics.

With that in mind, any 'overqualified' cantidate who might be able to test out, would be the last person to request that they be allowed to test out. They would relaize their place in the instructional world (which is the bottom of the barrel), and they would look forward to completing the course, and preparring themselves for the new challenge.

A jumper who thinks of themselves as 'overqualified', and would request a test out is the exact jumper who should never be allowed to test out, and in fact the I/E should pull them aside and remind them to check their ego at the door. They're at the beginning of a new road, and while they past expereince will be of value, they're still at the beginning of the instructional road, and should conduct themselves as such - eager, open to learning from the course and others, and ready to work hard and earn the rating.

[ufk22 32]

kallend
Don't see any instructional rating in your profile, so my assumption is you hold no USPA ratings.
Testing out of a coach or I course isn't just taking a written test. The candidate must also teach all the same sections, do the same equipments checks and debriefs, and pass all the same eval jumps as any other candidate. They must do this demonstrating the same teaching techniques and practices that are taught in the course.
If someone can do all this, I see no need for them to sit through the extra 2 days that would be involved in the classroom portion just so I or some other IE can demonstrate what they have proven they already know.
I've conducted or assisted with over 20 USPA ratings courses over the years (coach, instructor and even the old BIC). If your experience running ratings courses is other than what's in your profile, I apologize and would be more than willing to listen to your personal views and experiences.
If not, please explain what (other than your own bias) you're basing your argument on????

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.

[Para5-0 0]

I really dont want to screw up your mathematical fun but years ago nobody reported domestic violence. Does that mean that women werent abused or worse children weren't victim to emotional and physical abuse. Remember it was not reported so I guess there is no statistical data to support it.
Fast forward:
Oh wait a minute, why would a DZ or Instructor not report a problem? Maybe because of bad press, repercussions, loss of reputation and or money, loss of ratings.
I made mention of this in another thread, "Is the AFF rating too easy", There are incidents taking place and that is a personally witnessed fact. In my small corner of the world if I see incidents not being reported then imagine if all DZ's are not reporting incidents. Now when I say incidents I am not refering to fatalities, as I see is the only statistic you are looking at. What about injuries, cyrus fires, off field landings, lost students (Oh you will really get no reporting in this one)...
i see a problem with only looking at fatalities.
Remember the example, if we only looked at women or kids that got beat to death then I guess it would look like a small problem, (Domestic Violence).

[NovaTTT 1]

Quote

A simple example is to ask 100 people if they think they are above, at, or below average intelligence. The VAST majority will reply that they are above average intelligence. Clearly only 50% can be.

An otherwise very enjoyable (and necessary) post, but one infers from your statement that 50% are above average and 50% are therefore below.

So who's the average?

I suggest that the average constitutes ~30% of the population. That leaves 70% to split above or below.

Regardless, I think intelligence is a thing too subtle to be measured so severely. . . intelligence is far too complex to be simply categorized.

But please, don't subject my comments to your Logic Metric - I'm certain to fail on several of the points.



And now back to your regularly scheduled ravings.

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

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

If not, please explain what (other than your own bias) you're basing your argument on????

I've been a full-time professional educator for over 35 years. I do know something about courses, teaching and testing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ufk22 32]

Sorry, I wasn't clear on whether you or davelepka was making the "shouldn't be able to test out" argument. With all the different quotes and replies, I think I may have confused your 2 points of view.reply]

Quote

If not, please explain what (other than your own bias) you're basing your argument on????

I've been a full-time professional educator for over 35 years. I do know something about courses, teaching and testing.[/reply

This explains your bias (sorry, a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist), but to my 1st point; have you ever (especially since the introduction of the ISP, definitely post introduction of the old BIC) taken any USPA instructional courses? What you seem to think "testing out" means is not what it takes to challenge a USPA ratings course. Passing the written test is the smallest part of it. The biggest part is the teaching and evaluation of student performance, and it must be done following a defined format using clearly defined techniques. If you were to take a rating course from me, I would presume that I didn't have to teach you how to teach (positive vs. negative reinforcement, time management, lesson plans, braking down a topic into teachable portions, etc) and would certainly allow you to "test out" of this portion of the class. If I did have to teach you this, that wouldn't say a lot for your 35 years of experience. Your point seems to be that you, as a professional educator, should have to listen to me spend the better part of a day explaining basic educational theory to someone like you. To me, this would be a waste of time for both of us.

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.