"Time-In-Sport" as criterion for instructional ratings?

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

"Time in sport"

I have watched several lenghty threads here which discuss the value of "time in sport" as a criterion for various instructional ratings. I still don't understand.

Let's compare two jumpers:

FAST FREDDIE makes ten jumps every weekend for a year. At the end of the year he has >500 jumps.

SLOW SAM makes ten jumps on every third weekend.  At the end if three years he has >500 jumps.

Folks who favor "time in sport" would say that SLOW SAM is better prepared that FAST FREDDIE.

My question is:

What is happening on those extra 14 days between SLOW SAM's jumping weekends that makes him better prepared for an instructional rating than FAST FREDDIE?

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[feuergnom 22]

maybe he gets himself edumacated?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[skybytch 259]

Quote

What is happening on those extra 14 days between SLOW SAM's jumping weekends that makes him better prepared for an instructional rating than FAST FREDDIE?

A few visits to friend's hospital rooms and a funeral or two.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What is happening on those extra 14 days between SLOW SAM's jumping weekends that makes him better prepared for an instructional rating than FAST FREDDIE?

It's not the extra two weeks between jumps. It's the extra two years of exposure to the sport, in which he's read more magazines, talked to more people, and seen more things that can go wrong. That's what makes time-in-sport valuable.

Fast Freddie may or may not have better freefall skills, but as far as the most knowledge goes, that's Slow Sam's. And knowledge gives you the power to be more safe.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

In the example you cited not much. However in my experience Slow Sam does not make 10 jumps every 3rd weekend. He makes 3 or 4 jumps every weekend. He packs, he helps gear up students, he bothers the rigger with endless questions, he hangs around the fire listening to the gray beards tell lies. This is what makes him better prepared than Fast Freddie.

[Harmless 0]

That's a third person in my opinion... I know plenty of people show up every so often make a bunch of jumps and then head home before the sun sets. That's who I think of as slow Sam.

Obviously this third person (lets say Dedicated Dave) is the best option, but they are very few and far between. I still believe that Freddie is a better candidate than Sam...

ETA: I can count the number of weekends I haven't been on a DZ in the last 2 years on one hand. Rain or shine, sometimes I get 10 jumps in a day, others I get a single 2k foot Pop-Hop. Then I spend the rest of the day packing rigs, studying Poynters, or just fetching beers for all the old guys.

I teach a S/L first jump course at least twice a month, travel to other dropzones on a regular basis, and could easily hit my 500 mark in May. But I can't get my tandem rating for another year, because the day I did my first jump I fell in love with the sport and immediately continued on to AFF the next week...

"Damn you Gravity, you win again"

[soulbabel 0]

From all the responses I've read, apparently SLOW SAM is more qualified because it's ASSUMED he is doing his homework and preparing himself to become a knowledgable instructor. I really don't understand why people make these assumptions, because the jumpers I come across apply themselves differently. Some people actively pursue the knowledge and experience to develop the wisdom, while others may be far more casual about pushing the boundary of their knowledge. The fact that we can set our own developmental pace and focus in this sport, proves how "time in sport" can be a really poor qualifier in judging who'd be the better instructor.

[Para5-0 0]

Fuel to Fire: If freddie made a tandem jump 3 years earlier, went into a coma for three years and then started, he will meet the time in sport for a tandem I rating prior to completing his first jump class. If there was an avg. jumps per year issued each year with your rating it might help.

[TheCaptain 2]

People do apply themselves to things differently and time in the sport may not be the best qualifier and it is not the only qualifier. A person also has to prove their knowledge and skills in the instructor courses. I personally believe if something is worth doing, it is also worth taking the time to do it right. I find it interesting the only ones that wine about the three years in the sport are the ones that do not have three years in this sport. Time in the sport allows one to see more things go wrong, even if that person may not be looking for it. By the time I had three years in the sport, I had lost a friend, someone I knew got really hurt when their parachute clasped 200 feet AGL (crushing their face, foot, and breaking their leg & pelvis), seen a skydiver break both legs and have to be airlifted to the hospital, I watch another skydiver land after having a heart attack & dying in freefall. To me time in the sport, allows one to truly grasp the concept of mortality and the responsibility one is taking on when accepting the responsibility for another persons life.
Oh and fill out your profile

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[chris74 0]

Hello birds,
An old skydiver is one who can remember when jumping was dangerous and sex was safe ;-)
It's all about the EXPERIENCE
Blue skies
Chris

[riggerrob 558]

CSPA is better than USPA in this respect because skydivers have to review emergency procedures before every new license, high-performance canopy endorsement, etc.
I generally give them something to read (e.g. first jump course manual), then I quiz them on what they just read.
And I can be a hard-ass when fun-jumpers get lazy about learning. For example, when reserves come due, I tell them to pull their own handles - in the correct sequence - while I spin them around and yell at them about scary malfunctions.
I have shamed more than one fun-jumper - in front of his girlfriend - because he did not pull enough handles, or pulled them too slowly.

Rob Warner
CSPA Instructor B

[DSE 3]

Quote

People do apply themselves to things differently and time in the sport may not be the best qualifier and it is not the only qualifier. A person also has to prove their knowledge and skills in the instructor courses.

Person A-has 900 jumps/12 years, most of them solos or horny gorillas with newer jumpers, females who are nice looking. Can't fly well enough for the coach rating let alone anything else, but achieves a tandem rating. He comes from a fairly small DZ, hasn't experienced injuries, fatalities, nor bonfires.

Person B- has 500 jumps, 1 year, large DZ, jumping/learning with some of the best in the US. Lots of coaching, tunnel time, passion. spends every minute in books, IRM, very capable. He's also very active in BASE, paragliding, and similar endeavors.

There are many that would say that Person A is the better skydiver.

[TheCaptain 2]

Quote

Can't fly well enough for the coach rating let alone anything else, but achieves a tandem rating. He comes from a fairly small DZ, hasn't experienced injuries, fatalities, nor bonfires.

Hmmmm, correct me if I am wrong but you have to have a coach rating in order to get your tandem rating or atleast that was the case back when I got my tandem rating. In fact I just got my USPA tandem rating a couple years ago and to get that I had to preform a coach jump.
Also if skydiver "B" was that great after 1 year in the sport, he should only get better after 3 years in the sport.

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[Rover 9]

For a tandem rating iit should be time in sport & 1000 jumps IMHO

2 wrongs don't make a right - but 3 lefts do.

[TheCaptain 2]

I would whole heartly agree with that

Kirk
He's dead Jim

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Can't fly well enough for the coach rating let alone anything else, but achieves a tandem rating. He comes from a fairly small DZ, hasn't experienced injuries, fatalities, nor bonfires.

Hmmmm, correct me if I am wrong but you have to have a coach rating in order to get your tandem rating or atleast that was the case back when I got my tandem rating. In fact I just got my USPA tandem rating a couple years ago and to get that I had to preform a coach jump.
Also if skydiver "B" was that great after 1 year in the sport, he should only get better after 3 years in the sport.

Yes, you must have a coach rating prior to any advanced I rating. I agree with this. Having it for 7-8 years before seeking the I rating doesn't mean you used it. Hell, I watched with mine own eyes as one Coach course director handed a coach rating to a very experienced skydiver. Literally. No jumps, no course. Just a written test.
In this regard, your argument is very weak.
BTW, I agree with time-in-sport requirements. I'd agree with time-in-sport for AFFI as well, even though it would have affected my own goals at the time. But it's only one facet of what requirements should be observed. Even then, they're fairly easy to skate.

And yes...if Skydiver B was that good after one year, he'll likely be 2X better in two more years. But....Skydiver A isn't remotely as good as Skydiver B on his best day, in spite of more than a decade of additional experience. Ergo; time in sport alone, cannot be a measurement of anything significant.

[feuergnom 22]

and you don't think your opinion is a little bit biased while looking at your own quick progression, do you?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[DSE 3]

Quote

you don't think your opinion is a little bit biased while looking at your own quick progression, do you?

Perhaps.... perhaps not.
I held my coach rating for much longer than a year before undertaking the AFF course because even tho I had the time required, I didn't feel I was ready.
Had I been told I had to wait a year, like most people, I wouldn't have wanted to and the year fixation might have made me challenge the course sooner, if that makes any sense.
If not on my personal experiences, what should be the foundation of my opinion?

[feuergnom 22]

Quote

Quote

you don't think your opinion is a little bit biased while looking at your own quick progression, do you?

Perhaps.... perhaps not.
I held my coach rating for much longer than a year before undertaking the AFF course because even tho I had the time required, I didn't feel I was ready.
Had I been told I had to wait a year, like most people, I wouldn't have wanted to and the year fixation might have made me challenge the course sooner, if that makes any sense.
If not on my personal experiences, what should be the foundation of my opinion?

looking how fast you went from scratch to your various ratings and how outspoken you are on most topics I would certainly say that I sometimes wonder if you are really as "experienced" as you state to be - hence the question on bias

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[popsjumper 2]

In defense of DSE, he did say, in post #16, "...time in sport alone, cannot be a measurement of anything significant."

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

[feuergnom 22]

and that is exactly why discussing this topic over and over again tends to become boring - everybody is going in circles - even me

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[matthewcline 0]

Well at least you've seen the finish line already.

Matt

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

[skypuppy 1]

And yes...if Skydiver B was that good after one year, he'll likely be 2X better in two more years. But....Skydiver A isn't remotely as good as Skydiver B on his best day, in spite of more than a decade of additional experience. Ergo; time in sport alone, cannot be a measurement of anything significant.
_________________________________________________

The question isn't who's skills are better, but are Skydiver A's skills 'good enough' that tempered with his experience he can perform the job well.

And if Skydiver B is so happy and enthusiastic about skydiving that he needs to get paid to skydive tandems or he'll lose interest and quit, then maybe he isn't really that in love with skydiving anyways.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

"...time in sport alone, cannot be a measurement of anything significant."
__________________________________________________

Well, I would say time in sport alone is indeed a measure of longevity, and in a sport where many will fly fast and burn out or just sort of fade away, longevity is, on its own, significant.

To me, anyways.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As an "old skydiver ......... It's all about the EXPERIENCE"

typical "I consider I have a lot of experience, so therefore I value experience...and so should everyone else"


I know quite a few jumpers with decades behind them that I wouldn't point to a student for any reason. We spend more time cleaning up bad outdated advice from these guys than we do teaching new fliers.

And I know a handful of newbies that just have the knack for teaching and coaching.

1 - very defined skills requirements (Either demonstrated on site or previously observed by the course director or validated by some trustworthy source)
2 - demonstration of knowledge of the subject and demonstrating ability to teach the subject
3 - advocacy from the DZO or S&TA that the individual would be a good instructor

skills....not time....not numbers are what matters
knowledge.....not time....not numbers are what matters
a referral doesn't hurt either
showing the ability to teach sure helps too

that said - someone with a lot of USEFUL and APPLICABLE skydiving experience would certainly have the edge over someone new with a similar commit level.......That's called an 'advantage', not a 'prerequisite'

IMHO


I'd rather leave a bit of discretion to the directors in deciding who's in and who's not, and then have the directors monitored periodically to make sure they have the judgment necessary for that responsibility

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants