USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs

[popsjumper 2]

Agreed, again. Teaching experience is a big plus regardless of the subject.

"like excessive repetitions and just saying it LOUDER will do the job"


CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW??????

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

[davelepka 4]

Not aimed at Pops, just adding on.

Recently I watched a new coach working with a jumper, and then the coach made it all the way to the plane without his helmet. He ran to grab it, and all else went well.

The point is that being a new coach, who just barely meets the experience requirements, he just doesn't have the accumulated time in the sport to be able to juggle all of the balls involved in supervising two people on a skydive.

I know that the 'student' in this case has been cleared to self-supervise, but like a good coach he put out an effort to supervise the student, and in doing so he forgot to supervise himself.

So when you take perspective AFF Is, and remove their time in the sport, and on a DZ, making actual jumps, you are losing more than some people think. A big part of the job is literally 'managing' a skydive for two people, yourself and the student. That student is counting on the AFF I to be sharp enough to handle every facet of their skydive from the gear up, to shedding the jumped rig in the packing room, and everything in between.

It just takes time in he sport to be able to put your own skydive on 'autopilot', and be able to focus on the needs of your student, and still have all of your own bases covered. Part of being an AFF I is the freefall flying skills, for sure, but a bigger part is having the knowledge, experience, and judgment to be able to accurately supervise and guide your student through a safe skydive, and you don't get any of that in the tunnel.

[popsjumper 2]

Yep, thanks. That is part of why I say that if they want to ADD the tunnel training to the existing free fall time requirements, fine. No to replacing free fall time. We don't need less, we need more.

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

[skyjumpenfool 2]

http://www.ispot.tv/ad/7ohL/ford-bed-or-breakfast

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[topdocker 0]

popsjumper

Yep, thanks. That is part of why I say that if they want to ADD the tunnel training to the existing free fall time requirements, fine. No to replacing free fall time. We don't need less, we need more.

And isn't better. Some of us have many, many hours of freefall time and lots of jumps but don't live close to a tunnel or don't want to spend our dollars that way.

Don't diminish the importance of being an experienced skydiver in any way. Add jump numbers, freefall time, or any other skydiving-related experience, but not tunnel time.

top

Jump more, post less!

[rehmwa 2]

topdocker

but not tunnel time.

I don't read it as 'tunnel' time. I read it as merely "very focused and highly effective body flight training" time.

...
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

[Deisel 35]

It sounds like the true issue here is the 6 hour freefall requirement. Based on the comments here is seems like the general feeling is that isnt enough. Not sure I agree. Maybe there should be a requirement for documented hours of actually teaching as well as maintenence hours once you have a rating.

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

[popsjumper 2]

topdocker

***Yep, thanks. That is part of why I say that if they want to ADD the tunnel training to the existing free fall time requirements, fine. No to replacing free fall time. We don't need less, we need more.

And isn't better. Some of us have many, many hours of freefall time and lots of jumps but don't live close to a tunnel or don't want to spend our dollars that way.

Don't diminish the importance of being an experienced skydiver in any way. Add jump numbers, freefall time, or any other skydiving-related experience, but not tunnel time.

top

Yep. I mentioned cost earlier.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Deisel

.... Maybe there should be a requirement for documented hours of actually teaching as well as maintenence hours once you have a rating.

IIRC, there is already a requirement for teaching. Not hours, but number of FJC classes on top of a number of jumps, plus an annual seminar.
Unless that has changed recently.

If you have an IRM, it's in there.

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

[Deisel 35]

Yep. I'm well aware of that requirement. But as you are well aware - a monkey could stand there and recite the SIM. I'm talking about actual teaching. But then again, this is the exact same problem that we see in our schools across the country. The real question here is how to you truly evaluate someone's ability to teach? IMO the flying skills are secondary to this.

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

[BASE469 0]

Louis,
I'm not sure that separating flying skill and teaching skills, or emphasizing one over the other is a particularly useful notion.
Being an AFF/I should be the whole package....you can be the greatest teacher ever, but if you can't fly you're slot on a release dive effortlessly, how can you provide any useful feedback? Conversely, if the greatest flyer in the world couldn't teach a dog to sit with a freezer full of steaks, do you really want to be on the other side of a student that they briefed? As far as the tunnel time replacing freefall, that has to be one of the dumbest things that USPA ever contemplated, at least since the Coach course, so it's sure to be implemented.
M.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

The real question here is how to you truly evaluate someone's ability to teach? IMO the flying skills are secondary to this.

Observation. But that is subjective. I can't think of an objective evaluation means.

Funny part, IMO, is that as important as teaching skill is, USPA does little to nothing to check that. What you get in the Coach course is not verified beyond being able to regurgitate two ISP jumps. AFF is worse...little to no review of CC material, just two more regurgitations and the regurgitations differ from AFFCD to AFFCD.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'm not sure that separating flying skill and teaching skills, or emphasizing one over the other is a particularly useful notion.

I differ. Two separate entities. That's one reason behind being able to get a waiver for not doing AFF jumps and still teach and sign off on license applications.

Quote

Being an AFF/I should be the whole package....

With the exception of the waiver needs, I agree.

Quote

you can be the greatest teacher ever, but if you can't fly you're slot on a release dive effortlessly,....

You should not have the rating. You should not be jumping with AFF students.

Quote

Conversely, if the greatest flyer in the world couldn't teach a dog to sit with a freezer full of steaks, do you really want to be on the other side of a student that they briefed?

Well, I always checked with the student about their briefings by others by asking questions and having them demonstrate.

Quote

As far as the tunnel time replacing freefall, that has to be one of the dumbest things that USPA ever contemplated, at least since the Coach course, so it's sure to be implemented.
M.

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

[topdocker 0]

BASE469

As far as the tunnel time replacing freefall, that has to be one of the dumbest things that USPA ever contemplated, at least since the Coach course, so it's sure to be implemented.
M.

As far as I know, this died at the BOD last Summer.

top

Jump more, post less!

[rehmwa 2]

I would love to see this as a poll. But the poll should absolutely have a way to compare the response vs the amount of 'focused RW tunnel training' that the responder has.

Even though I'd rather have the requirement added. Not replaced, there are some misconceptions indicated by the short/flip answers here:

IMHO - from reading this thread: There's a huge disconnect here about the proposal vs what people are upset about.
--- the proposal is about a very effective skills (only) training option.
--- the gripe is about current levels of experience, skill, and aptitude already being seen as too low.
> these are different items. And the proposal actually raises the bar to help address one of the three issues reflected by the gripes......

1 - I think the proposal needs to be very clear to responders here - in the realm of experience/suitability/skill - IMO - it addresses just one item only "skill" - by offering a better option to random jumps, with something a lot more focused that directly targets AFFI skills, it's not just about someone bouncing around in the tunnel with no plan. I'm not sure why anyone can complain about raising the skill levels of candidates. Or call it a 'stupid idea'...

Now how to do that without impacting the other gripes (experience and suitability). The "inference" is that it takes away from the 'experience' issue. (I won't get into suitability - that would fixed by a referral requirement).

2 - - we need better experience and suitability requirements for the instructor rating. Time in sport would be a better and more direct requirement to clear up or make even tighter. Jumps and freefall time are ok... I guess, I'd like to see even more. I think the Coach rating is intended to do that, but then we need it done as intended, is that the case? But I'd suggest we try to address that more directly. What do we really want from our candidates - (number of unintentional reserve rides, years of experience, currency requirements, a referral from someone of extreme responsibility in the sport, drug tests, what? years and hours are a bit vague, but they do indicate a desire for someone that's survived long enough to indicate they aren't a dumbass)




as far as flying skills only - here's the key, "all other things being equal" (((that means provided they got a significant amount of experience some other way)), I trade 15 minutes of focused tunnel training over an hour of actual unfocused/randomly used freefall time -

(FWIW - based on being a decent AFFI, coach and advanced skills coach, and also having taken and conducted skills camps in the tunnel)


digression - If you haven't taken a training camp (100 jumps or 10,000 jumps) in a tunnel, you just don't know how strong the learning ramp is. it's hard to assess the proposal.

But I'd say, figure out what we really want from the AFFI requirements, and makes sure it's not something totally different than from this proposal before the knee jerk response

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

topdocker

As far as I know, this died at the BOD last Summer.

but I think the thread notes that there might still be concerns in other areas. Worth starting another thread?

...
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

[tristansdad 0]

I think the idea is completely retarded. There's alot more to skydiving than freefall. I knew a guy who had tons of tunnel time but almost killed himself under his canopy. The tunnel is a great training tool but it doesnt replace all that goes into making a jump. Also I hate it when its called "indoor skydiving"

[topdocker 0]

One of the real areas that needs to be cleaned up is "time in sport." Doing one tandem every year for ten years then going through AFF does not mean you have ten years in the sport. Also, its almost completely unverifiable.

I would suggest it be "years licensed." It is easily verified by HQ, means you have been skydiving and staying current, and ultimately is a better litmus than "freefall time" or "time in sport."

top

Jump more, post less!

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I think the idea is completely retarded. There's alot more to skydiving than freefall.

True. But the tunnel time is only concerned with learning AFFI in-air skills. Everything else has nothing to do with the tunnel training. Those are all USPA course problems.

Quote

The tunnel is a great training tool but it doesnt replace all that goes into making a jump.

Self-evident, yes.

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

[popsjumper 2]

topdocker

...I would suggest it be "years licensed." It is easily verified by HQ, means you have been skydiving and staying current, and ultimately is a better litmus than "freefall time" or "time in sport."

top

Well, Top...we could shoot that idea out of the sky too easily.

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

[topdocker 0]

popsjumper

***...I would suggest it be "years licensed." It is easily verified by HQ, means you have been skydiving and staying current, and ultimately is a better litmus than "freefall time" or "time in sport."

top

Well, Top...we could shoot that idea out of the sky too easily.

Yes, but find an alternative then. If you are looking for verifiable starting metrics, that is an easy one. Certainly better than "time in sport."

top

Jump more, post less!

[Deisel 35]

Yup. There is no currency requirement to remain licensed. You pay the fee, USPA will keep sending the cards. Currency only required for ratings.

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

[topdocker 0]

Deisel

Yup. There is no currency requirement to remain licensed. You pay the fee, USPA will keep sending the cards. Currency only required for ratings.

Yes, but there is no currency requirement for "time in sport" either. It's not THE answer, just a better one.

top

Jump more, post less!

[popsjumper 2]

It's going to take deeper thinkers than what I got to solve this conundrum.

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

[tdog 0]

airtwardo

I'm curious ~ does anyone know the current numbers?

The ratio of AAFI candidates that apply but fail.

I have first hand knowledge of three AFFI Instructor evaluators, who have honest conversations with their candidates in the pre-course about their skillsets and recommend the types of coaching required before they "go hot", and therefore only candidates who are ready "go hot" and therefore their pass rate is nearly 100%. I have done air and ground evaluations for two of them - and have been the one to say, "you are not ready yet" or "lets go hot".

When I got my rating in 2006, I asked my evaluator this specific question and he said about 30-40% of all the people that travel to his course are told they need more coaching/skills before they go hot, and about 95% pass because of this.