0
Gary73

Change "Instructor Examiner" to "Examiner"?

Recommended Posts

Even back when there was only one kind of Instructor Examiner, the title always seemed rather ungainly to me. Now that we have four different kinds of IEs (or is it "I/Es"?) and Coach Examiners too, it has become even more ungainly. So I've been wondering how people would feel about shortening the title to just "Examiner" for the general case and then adding the type as a prefix when it's necessary to be specific (e.g., "AFF Examiner").

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I think it's fine just as it is. Just because they're an examiner, doesn't mean they're no longer an instructor (quite the opposite).
"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd prefer to call them anything you like as long as you get rid of the entire bunch and start over again making them all teach courses according to improved standards for knowledge and skills.

Getting rid of one military-fascist "IE" was a step in the right direction.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In suggesting the change I wasn't tying to minimize the Instructor part of the role, just trying to simplify the terminology. I keep hearing even experienced IEs use terms like "Coach Instructor Examiner" and the manuals are full of expressions like "I/E or C/E", so it just seems simpler to shorten it to "Examiner".

Andy - Don't condemn all IEs because of the bad habits of a few. Or even most. There are some good ones out there, too.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish they had given the rating a new title when they revamped the program. Bringing it back as I/E created instant confusion with the old rating, which was VERY different.

There was nothing wrong with the name Course Director, which was replaced by the "new" I/E. With due respect to all old I/Es, they could have just let the I/E moniker fade over time.

I think just calling them all Examiners simplifies the title and at least reduces the confusion with the old rating.
Arrive Safely

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Andy - Don't condemn all IEs because of the bad habits of a few. Or even most. There are some good ones out there, too.


I agree with the simplification of the titles, yes.

That's fine, Gary. I don't know what criteria you are using to determine good/bad. They all teach the same thing using the same guidelines. On the one hand, the IEs have to teach certain things...and only certain things according to the guidelines. And that's all they do...."That's all I'm required to do"

The unfortunate part is that they follow those guidelines and have show little interest and no success in improving those guidelines.

I want to see an IE that will stand up and tell it like it is..."This training regime sucks. Let's abandon it and create guidelines that are meaningful and successful in training critical skills over and above these minimal guidelines we have today."

I don't see one on the horizon nor do I see USPA paying any attention whatsoever to the problem. We continue to produce idiot Coaches and AFFIs by the buckets.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Aaaahhhh!!!!! Now we have a discussion. Please tell us more, Pops. What would your standardization program look like?



Coaches:
- Book knowledge
How do you explain Coaches that have no freakin' clue on EPs, equipment function, spotting, etc., etc., etc.

- Teaching skills
How do you explain Coaches having no clue that the student they are 'teaching is not learning?

- Air skills
How do explain Coaches who have little to no fall-rate skills and little belly-fly skills who couldn't stay close enough to a student for them the see hand signals?

- Debrief skills
How do you explain Coaches who only write: 'Good Job!'?

Now substitute AFFI and re-read the list.

Now consider what is currently being covered in Coach and AFFI course. Not much of the above. It doesn't matter if you agree with what I've written. You cannot disagree that the lack of Coaching and AFFI skills is not prevalent in our sport.

How about this:

Coach - Ground only
AFFI - Air only

At least we could focus training to fit the function..
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are specific criteria that Coaches and AFF-Is have to meet. If there are CE/IEs who are giving ratings to people who haven't earned them, then those would be bad Examiners. And if there are DZOs, S&TAs, and Chief Instructors who are allowing crappy Instructors and Coaches to work at their dropzones, those would be bad DZOs, etc.

Likewise, if an Examiner is doing things that deny ratings to deserving candidates, that's bad, too.

The Romans had the saying, "Who guards the guards?". Our equivalent is "Who examines the Examiners?". The only corrective mechanism we've ever had is for DZOs to fire bad Instructors and stop hosting courses with Examiners who are too hard or too easy. I don't even know what else we could do. Suggestions?

Oh, I'd have to disagree about splitting up air and ground training. Both Coaches and AFF-Is need to be able to do both. And if they can't, they need to either learn how or find something else to do.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are specific criteria that Coaches and AFF-Is have to meet.


Everybody knows that. We also know that there is nothing to say what happens after the criteria are "met". Some AFFI maintain it with integrity, most throw it aside and do whatever...good, bad, or ugly. THAT's the problem.

Besides, as I've said before, one IE's idea of "met" more often than not, IMO, does not jive with another's....or hell, even course to course.

Quote

Oh, I'd have to disagree about splitting up air and ground training. Both Coaches and AFF-Is need to be able to do both. And if they can't, they need to either learn how or find something else to do.


True..as it stands now. I'm talking change. with all teh AFFIs out here, why is it necessary to require Coaches to fly with students? Why is it necessary for AFFIs to teach ground stuff? Here's another option:

C1 - Passed the ground/book knowledge portion
C2 - C1 for X months + Passed the air portion

AFFI1 - C2 For X months + Passed the ground/book knowledge portion
AFFI2 - AAFI1 For X months + Passed the air portion


How do you test the examiners? Test the students.

If the guy they sold the rating to does not perform up to standards, EI gets a black eye. So many black eys, suspension/revocation.e
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0