Is the USPA I/E Program a sham?

[alabamaskydiver 0]

I think the USPA I/E program is a sham, a failure to uphold standards and produce safe and confident Instructors.

We now have a dozen more AFF I/E's than in the past and we are seeing a lack of ability in their Students in flying and Instructing.

For Static line and IAD, as they are a dying and "Not Cool", the few who are "Graduates", they know little of its history and the lessons we learned in the beginning of this sport in regards to safety.

Tandem? Well, all the graduates are just carnies. How many of the I/E's actually make sure the "Graduate Instructor" can conduct an actual category A and B jump? How many actually know that there are actual FAR's for Tandem Parachuting?

Coaches? Most of them can't even fly in a rookie 4-way but they are now "Coaching" RW techniques?

And then USPA doesn't follow up with disciplinary actions. How may I/E's have been found to break the BSR's and still hold ratings and run Courses? How many instructors have been disciplined for their behavior and then go on to be I/E's because they "played the game"?

Of course there is a similar issue in the S&TA community, but that is another thread.

If a member of USPA has been disciplined for violating a BSR, they should not be a rating holder of any kind.

[DSE 3]

Quote

How many of the I/E's actually make sure the "Graduate Instructor" can conduct an actual category A and B jump? How many actually know that there are actual FAR's for Tandem Parachuting??

I can tell you that I've been on more than a few Cat A/B jumps for tandem candidates. One of em' flew me into a Dumpster, another flew me onto the apron, but they were both in training. So...at least some of em...

Quote

Coaches? Most of them can't even fly in a rookie 4-way but they are now "Coaching" RW techniques?

So you've seen "most" coaches in the US? Or perhaps you have a poor I/E in your area?

Quote

And then USPA doesn't follow up with disciplinary actions. How may I/E's have been found to break the BSR's and still hold ratings and run Courses? How many instructors have been disciplined for their behavior and then go on to be I/E's because they "played the game"?

I agree, USPA has not been terribly consistent with disciplinary actions. One guy effectively got away with killing someone but USPA puts him on the cover and in the Parachutist magazine with regularity.
Other than Kip Lohmiller, what I/E's have violated BSR's and "gotten away with it?"
How about you tell *us* how many instructors have broken BSR's and gotten away with them. Your post suggests you have knowledge.

Quote

If a member of USPA has been disciplined for violating a BSR, they should not be a rating holder of any kind.

I'd wager most agree with you, but do you think that it should be a lifetime-rating ban?

[BIGUN 1,051]

The way I see it... As long as the ratings remain an evaluation process and not an Instructor Training Course, the issue will always be there. With an ITC, Instructors would be held to a training standard AND evaluated. Those I/E's would then have longer to train Instructor Candidates and there would be more time to coordinate audits of I/E courses to maintain their rating.

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

[JSE 1]

I can't speak about the I/E program, but I do feel like there have been a lot of threads here attacking new instructors as being unqualified, unsafe, or incapable. Frankly, I know that as a new AFF-I I do not have the experience of those who've been around longer, but that doesn't mean I'm not a good instructor. Likewise, I've seen some instructors who've been around a long time giving students very poor advice. So be careful making broad generalizations with regards to the quality of instructors you've never met.

Quote

The way I see it... As long as the ratings remain an evaluation process and not an Instructor Training Course, the issue will always be there. With an ITC, Instructors would be held to a training standard AND evaluated. Those I/E's would then have longer to train Instructor Candidates and there would be more time to coordinate audits of I/E courses to maintain their rating.

I agree. I was fortunate enough to take part in a ratings course where the evaluators had the opportunity to get to know each candidate. Each candidate was also given the opportunity to do as many training jumps and practice ground preps as was necessary for them to acquire the skills and confidence to perform at a high level when "going hot." The course also included a review of many of the teaching tools that are now a part of the coach course. Because my I/Es went that extra mile, when I took my first real student (the same day I graduated) despite being nervous I knew I was well prepared.

[BIGUN 1,051]

Quote

Frankly, I know that as a new AFF-I I do not have the experience of those who've been around longer, but that doesn't mean I'm not a good instructor. Likewise, I've seen some instructors who've been around a long time giving students very poor advice. So be careful making broad generalizations with regards to the quality of instructors you've never met.

Sure, that's going to be true about any type of Instructor/Professor/Trainer in any industry. There will always be those who are ticket punchers and those who are passionate about teaching. And, even for those that are passionate; when it wanes, take a break and come back when and if the passion returns.

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

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

I think the USPA I/E program is a sham, a failure to uphold standards and produce safe and confident Instructors.

We now have a dozen more AFF I/E's than in the past and we are seeing a lack of ability in their Students in flying and Instructing.

For Static line and IAD, as they are a dying and "Not Cool", the few who are "Graduates", they know little of its history and the lessons we learned in the beginning of this sport in regards to safety.

Tandem? Well, all the graduates are just carnies. How many of the I/E's actually make sure the "Graduate Instructor" can conduct an actual category A and B jump? How many actually know that there are actual FAR's for Tandem Parachuting?

Coaches? Most of them can't even fly in a rookie 4-way but they are now "Coaching" RW techniques?

And then USPA doesn't follow up with disciplinary actions. How may I/E's have been found to break the BSR's and still hold ratings and run Courses? How many instructors have been disciplined for their behavior and then go on to be I/E's because they "played the game"?

Of course there is a similar issue in the S&TA community, but that is another thread.

If a member of USPA has been disciplined for violating a BSR, they should not be a rating holder of any kind.

Sure the program can use some tweaking, but it is better than the old one. At least now there are written standards to follow, which for the most part removes the "Ego's" and "Attitudes" in evaluating.

USPA has disciplined I/E's, one has been mentioned here and others are mentioned in the USPA BOD Minutes.

Should Instructors who are disciplined become I/E's in the same method they where disciplined for? I agree with you, No, they should not. I think they should have that ability taken away as part of the punishment of being discipline by the BOD.

USPA Coaches are not supposed to be expected to Coach like RW champs. They should be good, decent, honest flyer's with the ability to observe, recall and retrain.

Tandem Instructors (all Instructors actually) have the FAR's and BSR's at their disposal to read, if they still act like carnies after the Course it is their fault.

Now if USPA and the I/E's had a direct line of communication they could use PRIOR to a Candidate attending a Course.....


Matt

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

[airtwardo 6]

You make a good point...but here's the thing~

There aren't enough instructors around period, much less GOOD instructors...it's like water seeking it's own level, the qualifications slide until the numbers of 'qualified' instructors needed is met.

It's always been that way, when there comes a point (which happens now & then) when there are way more instructors than needed, the QUALITY of the employed instructors goes up.

It's a retention thing, burn-out from the bullshit has the available quality instructor numbers at a minimum, been that way for several years! Simply stating the problem is easy, bitching about it is fun...come up with a WORKABLE solution ~ THAT'S the hard part!
Ya wanna raise the qualifications, then find a way to raise the retention numbers OF the instructors.

Until THAT happens, the USPA is doing what it can with what it has...sorry but reality sometimes bites!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Ya wanna raise the qualifications, then find a way to raise the retention numbers OF the instructors.

Respect, and pay.

If the industry really wants professionals, they will make it a livable profession.

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

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

You make a good point...but here's the thing~

There aren't enough instructors around period, much less GOOD instructors...it's like water seeking it's own level, the qualifications slide until the numbers of 'qualified' instructors needed is met.

Quote

Quote

Until the industry pays the Good instructor's enough $$$ to make it worth their time to stick around then the problem will continue.

The industry will continue to lower their standards and not increase the wages to replace the good instuctor's. As long as the industry has a warm body that will accept the low wages they paay and the free jumps they have no incentive to raise their standards.

I know this is a broad statement and some DZO's in the industry are better than others I assume thats why Pip and a lot of others are still at SDC.

***It's always been that way, when there comes a point (which happens now & then) when there are way more instructors than needed, the QUALITY of the employed instructors goes up.

Basic law of supply and demand. But the wages still stay the same.

Quote

It's a retention thing, burn-out from the bullshit has the available quality instructor numbers at a minimum, been that way for several years! Simply stating the problem is easy, bitching about it is fun...come up with a WORKABLE solution ~ THAT'S the hard part!

Quote

The solution is easy pay the instructors what their worth if you want to keep them. But as long as there's a warm body waiting in the wings that will work for the minimum wage S.O.S.

A similar situation exists with professional musicans, there's always a wanna be willing to work for chump change to get their foot in the door. So the honky tonk joints will go for the low bidder.

Quote

Ya wanna raise the qualifications, then find a way to raise the retention numbers OF the instructors.

Quote

Until THAT happens, the USPA is doing what it can with what it has...sorry but reality sometimes bites!

Quote

We all know who USPA represents. They have no incentive to keep minimum stds. The industry needs instuctors they provide the instructor's no matter what it takes.

I've know Mr Stokes for a long time and I would be to find out he was willing to lower his stds to fill slots. IMO he's a rare breed these days a man of honor.

The other evaluator's that change their stds due to the law of supply and demand. Don't know enough them to comment. If their to strict

Make a tandem and call yourself a skydiver? I've seen more than one tandem rider ask that question on DZ.com. If I make one tandem am I a skydiver they paid their $$$$ got the video

Since some of the peeps on DZ.com work in the industry. When the one tandem wonder asks the question everyone chimes in yes I've even done it on ocassion for

Maybe the industry or the real skydivers need to come up with a new classifaction..... The Tandem Skydiver.

It is what it is why sugar coat it. The tandems are the life blood of the industry. They will be around long after the last fun jumper bites the dust.

We don't have to insult the one tandem wonders and call them packages or whatever other blunt names you all come up with. The english language is a powerful tool.

I've not copywrited the term "Tandem Skydiver " so anyone can use it if they got the right stuff. Gender neutral

Damn today is Aprial 15. The date sounds signicant its tax time. No problemo live on the west cost got plenty of time to take a nappy and then work on my tax's.

One Jump Wonder

[jdfreefly 1]

The problem with that theory is this:

Let's say I open a DZ, and I decide I'm going to fix this by paying top dollar (base salary, benefits + good per jump rates) to my instructors and expecting them to uniformly perform at a high level.

Someone else an hour or two away opens a competing dropzone and pays $20 a jump, standard industry contractor situation...no bennies, no base but we'll give you staff rates at manifest!!!! They also offer their AFF program for $300 less than mine and tandems are half the price of mine.

Where do you think all the students in the area will go? How long will I be able to operate? Even if I'm independently wealthy and don't care about making money, it still doesn't stop the problem since none of the new students are coming through my operation.

The instruction will only be as good as the people paying for it demand, and they aren't smart enough to give a shit.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

The instruction will only be as good as the people paying for it demand, and they aren't smart enough to give a shit.

That, plus there's constant hand-wringing by skydivers and instructors when dropzones do make moves that are (ostensibly) aimed at increasing the instructional quality, such as this current thread on the move by Mile-Hi to require more coach jumps to achieve the A license. There's almost universal decry of the practice as "gouging students" and forcing them to pay more for an A license. Not that I know what's going on behind the scenes at Mile-Hi, but it could just as easily be an attempt to "professionalize" their coach ranks by giving them more work and more experience, but it's seen as being too "business" focused.

We seem to expect extremely high levels of professionalism in our instructor ranks yet are completely unwilling to support DZs that make the moves that would compensate instructors as professionals. Can't have both at the same time.

Meanwhile when I popped out of this forum to grab the link above, I noticed a brand new post titled Best and Cheapest Place to do AFF so I think your point certainly stands.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Ya wanna raise the qualifications, then find a way to raise the retention numbers OF the instructors.

Respect, and pay.

If the industry really wants professionals, they will make it a livable profession.

My point exactly, you want someone that will do a technical and dangerous job dealing with the general public, and do so in a professional manner....EVERY TIME, ALL THE TIME~ probably gotta pay 'em a real living with bennies and stuff.

You guys that do it in the manner that YOU do, truly have MY respect.

You guys are doing a whole lotta work for a lot less than it's 'really' worth in most any other profession...doin' it for love not money, and THAT'S where the 'problem' is.

Eventually you start thinking about life beyond the DZ, and if you are good at teaching skydiving, you can usually make more $ doing something in another field so out of necessity...move on.

Show me some OTHER profession in which you have peoples lives in your charge 60 hours a week with the real possibility of injury or death...with no insurance, no 401k, no six figure income!



DZO's contend the market won't cover that kind of expense, I'm no DZO so I guess I have to take their word...which means lower than desirable retention rate which means newer pool of less experienced instructors to pull from.

None of this is news, it's been going on for years.

If there were a set in stone 'ideal' model regarding needed skills and knowledge to be a beginner skydiving instructor, the drop out rate would = that of the S.E.A.Ls...they gotta work with what they have and hope for the best, weed of the blatantly incompetent and hope the 'C-' students harden the fuck up and get better.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[SethInMI 145]

The only way to increase pay for instructors is to limit instructor supply, which would be by making the course harder or increase the requirements to take the course.

This would force DZOs to increase instructor pay to stop existing instructors from leaving, b/c they could not replace them as easily with new candidates. So instructor pay goes up, student/tandem prices go up, and total number of students/tandems goes down.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

The only way to increase pay for instructors is to limit instructor supply, which would be by making the course harder or increase the requirements to take the course.

This would force DZOs to increase instructor pay to stop existing instructors from leaving, b/c they could not replace them as easily with new candidates. So instructor pay goes up, student/tandem prices go up, and total number of students/tandems goes down.

So...you see the flaw there right?

Make the requirements higher and you WILL get 'better' qualified instructors.

If you pay more, trust me there will be no 'shortage' of quality people willing to long term career it...pass the costs on to the students, and as you point out, the numbers will likely decrease... not supporting the higher pay for the higher qualified instructors.



Don't get me wrong here, there are some fantastically talented people teaching our sport to the unwashed masses.

And there are some that either should never have gotten into it or should have quit when it became 'just' a factory job to them.

I get to travel a lot and I like to quietly observe different people, methods and techniques...I know a great instructor when I see one.

Heck I use to BE one, but fortunately knew I was losing it to burnout so I chopped that end of involvement with the sport.

The time and effort were no longer worth what I was getting out of it...I too KNOW the quality of several programs just isn't what it should be in a perfect world, but I do to a degree, respect the guys trying to make it work.

I always hope their bucket of teaching talent/skill fills up faster than the one filled with enthusiasm empties!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[fencebuster 7]

One tandem wonders are "tandem skydiving students." Even on the non-CAT A tandem, the instructor should still be teaching the student about the sport. The idea is to get the student interested in coming back and trying it out as a solo student. At lest that is the way we try to work at my DZ.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Even on the non-CAT A tandem, the instructor should still be teaching the student about the sport.

That's all well and good, however, on the subject of I/Es, and instructors they're turning out, here's a quote from another post where the poster, a US based TI, was commenting on worknig conditions at one DZ -

Quote

The work load was heavy. Every tandem got an altimeter, taught to pull, hands on the toggles on landing and the 2nd tandem taught to exit,turn and track. Logbook was filled. Never paid extra for this.

Somewhere along the line this TI got the impression that treating a tandem like a carnival ride was the 'standard', and that teaching the student was above and beyond, and worthy of additional pay. Who taught this guy to be an instructor? Why wasn't it made clear to him that each jump is a learning opportunity for the student, and that by not teaching them, you robbing them of that opportunity.

In the 'old' AFF course, if you had your hand on an evaluator for one nano-second longer than it takes to stabilze them and throw a corrective hand signal, they would dock you points for infringing on the students opportunity to learn. I don't know what the standard is at the 'new' style course, but it appears that the tandem course has no standard in that area. I guess it's OK to remove any opportunity to learn from the entire experience, and let a perspective student flush $200 down the learning-progression drain.

[fencebuster 7]

I have been to plenty of DZs where the Tandem students are taught nothing and it is treated as a carni ride. All I am saying is that every person who walks through the door is a "student" and potential future skydiver and should be learning about the sport. Every tandem student gets an altimeter and we teach them to read it and hopefully look at it in droguefall. I teach on every student jump, including a Tandem where the student does not want to participate in practice touches, waive off, drogue release, or flying the canopy and I do my best to try to get that jumper to come back and try AFF. All I am saying is that I have been places where I have seen tandems treated as a money making carni ride by the staff.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[Deisel 35]

Every person that walks through the door is not a potential future skydiver. The vast majority will never jump again and we all know that (Bucket list checked - what's next?).
I'm not saying that you shouldn't train them but the facts are what they are. I have to wonder what the rate of return is. Maybe 5% ever come back for a second jump? Even fewer for AFF?

D

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[riggerrob 558]

Back in the days when static-line was the only way to make a first jump, we only enjoyed a five percent retention rate.

TIs' goals should be to teach the student a little about skydiving and send them away with a positive attitude, so they will tell all their friends what a great time they had at ABC Skydiving School.

Sometimes lazy TIs actually teach their students more about skydiving. For example, I like to keep students' hands on toggles all the way from opening to landing. That is because I have found that students vomit less often if they can anticipate turns and the best way for them to anticipate turns is to keep their hands on toggles.
Call me lazy if I hate washing jumpsuits!

[alabamaskydiver 0]

Here is a prime example of an instructor who has been disciplined by USPA and should not be and I/E and not even an instructor. This is why the system is broke.

[davelepka 4]

Let's just be clear that Bram Clement, owner and operator of SkydiveRatings, and present in the third photo posing in front of his classroom, is NOT present in either of the two photos of the camera guy riding the tandem student, and would never teach or endorse that behavior.

I have worked with him in the past, and he has a zero tolerance policy for safety violations of any kind.

[popsjumper 2]

Well, raising pay is all well and good. And you are probably right in that higher pay would trend towards more qualified instructors staying with it.

However, the less qualified would also be staying with it for that higher pay and you get no net gain in instructor quality over all.

Love of the game is what the good ones are all about.
Money and ego is what the poor ones are all about.

Guess what? Industry wide, both tend to burn out eventually, regardless of pay.
(yes, you're gonna say, "Not true...I know a guy.....")



As far as quality I's...You want quality? Then set up periodic reevaluation for rating retention. Of course, that depends on the integrity of the evaluator and the criteria to be met, doesn't it? Kinda hard to set up meaningful criteria for reevaluation when the criteria for the initial rating is so low.

What we're seeing is the results of "good enough" dumbing down of America.
Good luck with that.

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

[airtwardo 6]

However, the less qualified would also be staying with it for that higher pay and you get no net gain in instructor quality over all.

[Deisel 35]

I agree complely that every tandem stu should be taught some basics. The soldier that landed with a deceased TM on his back was more than enough to convince me of that. I'm just saying that for most people it IS a circus ride. That's what they think they are buying. And there's nothing wrong with that. Giving the customer what they want is just plain good business.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

for most people it IS a circus ride. That's what they think they are buying. And there's nothing wrong with that. Giving the customer what they want is just plain good business.

If you take a passenger who thinks they're going to the circus, and you teach them a little something about jumping, and allow them to participate and achieve some sort of success, all while taking them on the curcus ride they were expecting, you have given the cutsomer what they wanted. You've also given them something more, which is even better business.

If that something more was a free t-shirt, good on you, and the customer would be even more satisfied than without the free T. In this case, however, the something more is information and the accomplishment of participating in a skydive. If the leads to them making a second jump, or an AFF jump, or even just being more enthusiastic about sending their friends, then the DZ wins too due to the increased revenue.

Let's face it, one more tandem, an AFF jump, or a referal will more or less double the revenue from that student. That's a big increase, and not something that should be taken lightly. If your DZ does 50 tandems per week, and you get one additional 'come back' based on treating them like students, you're looking at close to an additional $1000/mo in revenue, or $7000/season for a seasonal DZ.

Unless you DZ is so strapped for time that you cannot take the extra 5 min to treat someone like a student, than you're just throwing that money out the window. If your DZ is that busy, they should have a dedicated tandem dresser and trainer on the ground taking care of that end, leaving the instructors time to drop off gear, pick up gear (including a full gear check) and taking care of 'personal business' like lunch, drinks, pissing or shitting.