New (old) USPA I/E rating (Tandem)

[johnny1488 1]

I don't know a whole lot about the old system, but I found out about the new one they just implemented.

I was interested in getting my UPT examiner rating this winter and have been in contact with UPT and Kip Lohmiller about it.

Apparently the requirements for the tandem I/E include such things as teaching 50 first jump courses, doing 100 freefall student jumps and doing 50 examination rides on the front of a tandem.

The UPT requirements include 2 ratings, 500 tandems and 3-5 jumps in the course if I remember correctly.

This seems pretty far away from each other.

It was explained to me that because a USPA TI can jump with students when they are cleared for solos, they need to do ground preps and jumps in the TI course, so I would need tons of requirements.

But those same TI candidates did that in the coach course (which they need to get a TI.

So why do I need to have these requirements that have nothing to do with tandems.

I did about 1000 tandems this year, and probably 5 coach jumps.
I had no time to do jump courses. I would not know when I would be able to do 50 jump courses. I don't know how long I would have to follow a current Tandem examiner around to do 50 rides.

I think USPA has tried to wrap all 4 of their ratings up in a nice little bow to try and neaten things up, but tandem has never, nor will it ever fit with the others.

3 you are teaching freefall and canopy to a jumper with a parachute on their back.

1 You are mocking freefall, but can teach canopy control better than the other 3 together (if you do it right). All to a student who is not wearing a parachute and is not going to be in full control of the system at any time.

I love the tandem progresion at my DZ, but tandem is a different animal. I love doing tandems and want to help people do them better.

Tandems is what I do the most, and its what I want to continue doing. I dont want to force other things in there that I can'y in reality afford to try and get a rating that USPA has trumped up to be more than it should be.

Anyone else consider getting their examiner rating and troubled by this?

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[diablopilot 2]

I've considered it, but I'm not troubled by it. I feel the standards of instructors needs to come up in this sport as the traditional methods of keeping people safe are falling by the wayside.

For whatever reasons, cost, generational, media; mentorship is loosing ground both within the student ranks as well as the ranks of instructors. Toughening things up a bit might discourage some, but I think the requirements are still very achievable, and a better crop of talent may come of it.

Good luck John, I know you'll make a good I/E should you push for it.

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

[johnny1488 1]

I have no problem with tough standards, but standards that pertain to tandems. Not 50 jump courses and 100 student freefall jumps.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[livendive 8]

It sounds like the requirements are considerably less stringent than they previously were for an I/E rating. It also sounds like I'd have to do around 40 more rides to get the rating, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable demand to place on someone who wants to decide who should and should not get an instructor rating.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[azureriders 0]

I understand your point but I still agree with the system. Wrapping all four ratings up in one bow as you put it, is what keeps us all on the same page, and what makes Tandem Instructors, rather than Tandem Masters.

You say that the TI candidates did the same student prep requirements in their coach course as they will have to do in the TI course. I hear this a lot, but it is simply not true. Although the teaching techniques a Coach and an Instructor are taught are on the same line, they are not the same and they are not to be (should not be) held to the same standards. For the system to work properly, a Coach should perform many many coach jumps to refine their teaching skills, then an Instructor Examiner can evaluate and help to further refine those skills, and bring them up to Instructor standards. I personally think the # of student jumps required should be raised to get any Instructor rating for this reason.

A Coach works under the supervision of an Instructor; this could be a Tandem Instructor. Should an Instructor be expected and trusted to supervise coaches simply because he went through the same coach course that they did, or because his training has went even further and his teaching skills have been refined in an Instructors course?

I think having Tandem Masters in stead of Instructors could be a system that would work, but in that system they would not be allowed to supervise coaches, sign license applications, instruct students, etc. I highly prefer the system and requirements that we have now. I like having as many Instructors as possible around me, to work as a team.

I find that a lot of Tandem Instructors (I did not say most, and I for sure did not say you) want to have the privileges of an Instructor, but do not want the responsibility that comes along with them. Your responsibility to a student goes much further than while he is strapped to you, your teachings will stay with him the rest of his skydiving career.

If you wonder just how much difference the teachings of a Tandem Instructor can really make, go get an AFF rating. Then work on the other end of your Tandem progression system. I promise you that with in 100 jumps you will have a favorite Tandem Instructor and probably another that scares the wazu out of you, all based on the students that work with them.

Yep, I like the standards and think we should stay with them. Go put forth the effort to do what ever it takes to get your Examiner ratting, it will be worth it. Then do what ever it takes to show your candidates that they are more than meat haulers, they are Instructors.

For what it is worth, I am not a Tandem Instructor, like you I do not have time to do it all. I am an AFF Instructor as well as a Coach Examiner, and I can attest that working with Tandem Instructors that strive to Instruct is a pleasure, working with the others, yeah well, anyway.

Good luck on your rating.

[diablopilot 2]

I hear what you're saying, but I feel it needs to be pointed out, we're Instructors (of skydiving) first and formost, and second to that is the method specific stuff. (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem).

The operative words is instructor and there for the experience should be higher than that of the introductory instructional rating, i.e. Coach.

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

[Para5-0 0]

I agree 100% with you. I have advocated for raising standards for a while now. For example I think the coach rating should be a min. of 200 jumps C license, and TI should be 1000 jumps and D.
I understand the OP.
The IE rating should remain the most difficult rating to acheive. You should in fact be able to supervise and mentor instructors, coaches. I think the
Coach, TI path to Instructor is considerablly less stringent than the coach, AFF route. Therefore if you are going to pursue the IE rating you should be brought up to speed so to speak. As an IE you will be looked to by instructors from all disciplines. Remember you will have privledges beyond tandem Instructor oversight. My two cents, good luck to OP

[johnny1488 1]

I have spoken with a lot of people about doing away with the TI rating and going to a seperate rating, maybe tandem master and tandem maaster examiner.

No matter how hard we try, tandems will never be the same as the others. Tandem is not a student progression. Its a student beginning, a very good one, but no one will ever get their license through it alone.

I think TI have too many rights with other students. If I want to work with students in that capacity, maybe I should get another rating.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think USPA isblowing tandem up to a lot more than what it is.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[Skymonkey2 0]

Quote

I agree 100% with you. I have advocated for raising standards for a while now. For example I think the coach rating should be a min. of 200 jumps C license, and TI should be 1000 jumps and D.
I understand the OP.
The IE rating should remain the most difficult rating to acheive. You should in fact be able to supervise and mentor instructors, coaches. I think the
Coach, TI path to Instructor is considerablly less stringent than the coach, AFF route. Therefore if you are going to pursue the IE rating you should be brought up to speed so to speak. As an IE you will be looked to by instructors from all disciplines. Remember you will have privledges beyond tandem Instructor oversight. My two cents, good luck to OP

I agree that the I/E should be the hardest rating to achieve. There are only about 70 active old I/E's and the new system makes it pretty easy to become an I/E using the good old boy network, I am seeing it already. I/E should be a rigger, should have to take the tests and do what USPA is talking about, for the Tandem I/E I think some things need to change. Back in the day you needed to be a rigger for an RWS Examiner Rating and they also preferred that you were an AFF instructor, once again USPA has lowered the standards, from some of my own reseach, USPA has the lowest standards when it comes to becoming a rating holder. Crazy.

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well

[lug 4]

This is just for the USPA Tandem I/E rating an excerpt of the IER-Course.



C. What Is Required To Attend This Course/Earn The Instructor Examiner Rating?

1.This course may be attended by any USPA member in good standing, once any of the following criteria have been met:

d.Tandem Instructor Examiner candidate
(1)Current USPA Tandem Instructor rating
(2)Completed at least 100 actual tandem student training jumps
(3)Completed at least 100 actual freefall student training jumps
(4)Conducted at least 15 solo student first jump courses

2.Below are the requirements necessary to earn the Initial Instructor Examiner rating in each rating discipline:

d.Tandem Instructor Examiner Rating
(1)Current USPA Tandem Instructor rating
(2)Completed at least 500 actual Tandem jumps
(3)Conducted at least 50 solo student first jump courses
(4)Conducted at least 50 Tandem evaluation jumps under the direct supervision of a Tandem Instructor Examiner
(5)Manufacturer Examiner Endorsement for the equipment type in use for the rating course
(6)Successful completion of the Instructor Examiner Rating Course
(7)USPA D License

Memento Mori

[feuergnom 22]

/stirring the pot/

imo it was way to easy to get your I/E from UPT (in comparison to strong ent. who handpicked the people who they made I/E).
my uneducated guess from across the pond: with the installement of the new rules quality of I/E's will go up

/stirring the pot/

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

dudeist skydiver # 666

[matthewcline 0]

// Stepping into stirred pot//

Best I can tell and remember, Strong and UPT really only had the "Hand Picking" as a difference. My undertsanding after talking to M.P. and T.N. a while back is they now are more closely aligned and are encouraging/using "hand picking". For UPT you still had to have letters of recomend and experience, maybe the rigs them selves help to encourage so many to be UPT T-I's and I/E's?

I agree that as far as USPA is concerned the I/E standards will probably go up due to attrition. If I/E's aren't staying busy then they won't be able to be validated and then will end up having thier I/E rating expire.

Matt

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

[feuergnom 22]

//likes well stirred pots//

no, í do not what to turn this into a rig-discussion, seriously. not this time.

maybe, and probably definitely, things run a bit different in the states, because manufacturers are geographically closer, so the process of who is able to become a I/E is watched with more scrutinity.
but here? i am fairly new minted regarding tandems, but i have noticed huge differences what my I/E taught me and in what other I/E's teach the next generation. hence my pot-stirring...

edit 4 grammar/spell

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

dudeist skydiver # 666

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

a Coach should perform many many coach jumps to refine their teaching skills, then an Instructor Examiner can evaluate and help to further refine those skills, and bring them up to Instructor standards.

Another point is that a good number of Tandem Instructor candidates take the coach course just to get the tandem rating and for no other reason. It is very common to have aperson get the coach rating and go right into the tandem I course, without one real coach jump or without jumping with one student. So, they will become TI's with virtually no teaching experience. Hence, in theorythey will be supervising coaches without having made one jump. Big Problem here.

[johnny1488 1]

That could very well be the case, but I think that has to do with people going for their TI rating, not the I/E rating.

Needing someone to have some experience coaching before going to tandem, absolutely. But needing a TI to have 100 freefall coach or AFF jumps to teach someone to do tandems seems to have missed the mark.

Johnny
--"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!"
Mike Rome

[playhard 0]

This is Utah with Deb. The mistake that has (and continues) is that Tandem is considered a freefall instrutional tool. It is not. Tandem does not teach freefall skills well, but is the finest tool we have to teach the most dangerous aspect of this sport, which is using your ram-air glider to a safe landing. It is the best, most profitable, safest intro to this sport that we will ever have.

The evolution of instructing sport parachuting has not been easy. The last ten+ years of convolution says that we are on the cusp of getting it right. If we completely separate tandem ratings from intructional ratings, we can get closer to being on the same page.

In the real world, the manufacturers set the standard for creating TM's and their Examiners. There is a desire of the manufacturers to remove themselves from the over sight of the TM's and move it to the USPA. All well and good. The rub is the manufacturers must maintain the integrity and training of their examiners. There is also a problem with this removal of Course Directors to I/Es. This is our suggestion...

Coach is the first requirement to enter into the world of instructing, and is a good course. It is a good evolution from the BIC.

Combine the SL rating with the IAD rating making it 1 rating. If you do this, it gives you the opportunity to issue only 1 USPA I/E rating that would cover teaching Coach, SL/IAD and AFF. Set the standards as high as you like for the I/E. It's about teaching Skydiving and Parachuting.

Get rid of the TI rating all together. You already have a TM being created by the manufacturer. Once that rating is issued, it would be maintained by the USPA and shown as TM on the USPA card.

Get rid of the USPA Tandem I/E and have the manufacturers change what they call their Examiners. Instead of Tandem Instructor/Examiners call them Tandem Master/Examiners. Once created, It would be shown as TM/E on the card.

This separation would clear a lot of the confusion that exists now. To qualify:

Coach: B-license
SL/IAD, AFF: Coach + C-license + 50 logged coach jumps.
USPA I/E: All ratings available including 1 TM/E rating, Senior Rigger, and whatever else the USPA requires.
Tandem: Coach + D-license + 100 logged coach or AFF jumps + manufacturers other requirements.
KISS y'all...

utahsteve
(sorry for the book)

[douwanto 22]

at least 50 solo first jump courses
Uspa wants to incorporate further student training into every tandem and fallow Roger and Steve's lead by teaching every first time tandem things that over whelm them and give them sensory overload.
Let tandem be the gateway to our sport but it is not the way to train first time jumpers. let them enjoy thier jump like they enjoy the roller coaster at six flags. If they love it put them in static line or aff.

Uncle/GrandPapa Whit
Unico Rodriguez # 245
Muff Brother # 2421

[riggerrob 558]

Strong and UPT are slowly converging in their methods of evaluating new Tandem Instructor Examiners.

For comparison I earned a Strong Examiner rating the spring of 2008 and looked into earning a UPT Examiner rating during the spring of 2009.
In 2008, Strong insisted on three letters of recommendation (one of mine came from a retiring TE), etc.
Strong insisted that they would only certify one TE per region.

Fast forward to spring of 2009, when I contemplated earning a UPT TE rating - Jay Stokes invited me to earn the UTP TE rating with him - in the USA - but it was clear that Jay did not understand politics in Canada.
Not Jaye's fault, because few BC skydivers understand BC politics.
A lot goes unsaid ...

When Kip Lohmiller announced tha he was coming to Abotsford, BC to teach a TI course, I asked if I could assist and earn a TE rating. Kip explained that Jess Harper had already been nominated as the UPT TE for BC and UPT would only certify one TE per region.
Then I gracefully stepped aside.

[Skymonkey2 0]

First of all, I don't know what the politics are in your area, Skydive Vancouver asked me to come to their dz to conduct 3 USPA certification courses (AFF,Coach,and Vector/Sigma Tandem). When I talked to Jessie he asked if I could conduct a UPT Examiner course for him, I told him I have to talk to Mark Procos, so everyone know Mark runs the tandem program for UPT, not Jay nor myself can invite or conduct a UPT Examiner course without the approval of Mark P. Strong Enterprises and UPT try to keep the number of examiners to a minimum in regions so that their examiners can stay current. The dz in Abbortsford has more then 10 vector and sigma systems, it was felt that he and the dz would be a good candidate to become an examiner for UPT. There was nothing said that there is only one, just that they do not want fill the area with numerous examiners. You are on a Strong dz, Jessie is on a UPT dz.

AFFI-E, Tandem I-E, S/L I-E, IAD I-E, Coach I-E
Students are our future teach them well