Requiring B license applicants to fly their canopy with their eyes closed for 15 seconds (5 flares, approx 3 seconds each)?

[DBCOOPER 1]

Quote

>... Or if they absolutely have to jump in traffic, put a radio on them and have someone on the ground say "OK you're clear." ....

That might just be the answer to swoopers too...

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Not to hijack this thread but the other thing that I notice is that the signature requirement on the proficiency card is S&TA only. I assume that this means Instructors can no longer sign off "B' or "C" liscenses? If so, our S&TA's are gonna keep even busier than they are already.

Instructors may still sign for licenses, S&TA's are the ones who must sign the CP card. I think the intent is to maintain some standards, and have a lower number of the card "whipped".

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

[jimjumper 25]

I'd believe that if DZ's were required to have S&TA's that actually had some qualifiactions. I've seen S&TA's that had never jumped much less had any instructional ratings.

[PiLFy 0]

Here's the new card: http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Form_CPProficiencyCard.pdf

I don't see where you're getting "Fifteen seconds w/eyes closed" from(?). It's really a moot point, though. No way am I flying around under canopy for fifteen looong seconds w/my eyes closed.

Maybe it's my newness to the sport, but I really don't see the benefit of this new requirement. If it taught me more about effective piloting? Sure, that would be great. I did most of my training last year. I already had to do every canopy drill this supposedly new card cites, w/only one exception. We didn't do simulated flares from 1/4, 1/2, & 3/4 brakes.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Maybe it's my newness to the sport, but I really don't see the benefit of this new requirement.

Maybe for some people there is no benefit. For me and for many of the people who have done the canopy courses we put on, there is great benefit. I hear nothing but positive feedback from those who do the flare exercises in our course (flare looking at the horizon, flare looking up at the canopy and flare with eyes closed).

Like mentioned upthread, nobody is saying you should close your eyes and fly your parachute for fifteen seconds straight. Five practice flares with your eyes closed, clearing airspace before and after each one, preferably on a jump dedicated to canopy flight practice... not a safety issue.

Go do it once and then come back and tell us how it wasn't helpful...

[shattenjager 0]

It's on number two drill: Practice flare, five with eye closed.

The mind is like a parachute: If you don't open it, it doesn't work.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Not to hijack this thread but the other thing that I notice is that the signature requirement on the proficiency card is S&TA only. I assume that this means Instructors can no longer sign off "B' or "C" liscenses? If so, our S&TA's are gonna keep even busier than they are already.

Considering the only S&TA I know at our DZ is a member at large, and is a Tandem instructor doing back to backs all day, the requirement to have an S&TA sign it is foolish and stupid. He will never be in the landing area helping or have time to coach or instruct.

I think the DZO is an S&TA, but he is never in the landing area and does not teach. He has a lot of other legitimate things to do, such as run a business.

I think there is another TM who is the DZ S&TA, at least he told me he was about an year ago, but he also is only at the DZ when doing tandems...

The S&TA concept is not "endorsed" by all DZOs/DZs. Some use them a lot - others rely on instructors, staff, mentors and others to help with safety.

The S&TA concept is a tough conflict of interest... I had a DZO (not my home DZ) tell me once, "I own this business, not the USPA. I will be the one sued if someone gets hurt, not the USPA. So when it comes to safety, I run the ship, my rules, my policy, my enforcement, not the USPA. Therefore the S&TA is useless."

Instructors (AFF) are the ones that work with students every day. AFF instructors can be on loads and can be asked by other jumpers, "hey, watch my landing, I am getting this signed off." They are the ones in the landing area looking up every load. The USPA, in effort to actually get students to LEARN should consider who the resources are that can help TEACH. An S&TA is not the right tool for every DZ.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

I'd believe that if DZ's were required to have S&TA's that actually had some qualifiactions. I've seen S&TA's that had never jumped much less had any instructional ratings.

Well we've got to start fixing it sometime, right?

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

[diablopilot 2]

The S&TA isn't signing it for the DZ. The S&TA is signing it for the jumper, and the USPA. If a DZO doesn't want to use them that's fine, but then they won't be able to offer their jumpers the benefits of the USPA.

No one says by this that the S&TA has to be the one to supervise the jumps, they can delegate that responsibility to the instructor/coaches. The S&TA's are simply ensuring that the education is happening. It's always been intended by the USPA that instructors work under the supervision of S&TA's much like coaches work under the supervision of Instructors.

I understand that being a full timer on a DZ means that you have to jump for money and may not be in the landing area, or able to drop everything to watch an event. That's where an S&TA who knows their instructors well enough, delegates. If your S&TA's can't find the time when jumping is done to sign a card, or check some knowledge then you have the wrong people in the role.

At your home DZ in particular you have a team that teaches this canopy stuff within the A license package, right? Then the S&TA can simply confirm that this team has done the job, or perhaps one of them needs to become an S&TA (Slipstream).

The USPA seems to be getting the programs back on track to the way they were intended to work.

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

[Para5-0 0]

Hello All,

If I can clarify a few points or muddy the waters a bit probably.

This was a response/complaint we had about the S&TA having sign off athority.

Complaint
Sign off authority complaint from the membership.... they want it to be any instructor. So far this is not advanced canopy training and they feel any Instructor should be able to teach , supervise and sign off on the form.

Response
We hashed this out at the meeting and determined that there were some very competent non Instructors who could teach the course. That is why we gave the overall authority to the S&TA to select who he felt was qualified. By him signing the form he is approving of the Course Director as now referred to. The S&TA is someone we can stay in contact for future updates and changes and that I feel we should empower to oversee this program. The S&TA is in theory someone who is our link to the DZ and in our chain of command so to speak. If the S&TA is not competent enough to handle this then replace the S&TA. I also think this is too important to just let any instructor sign off on it (Tandem, Static, …Etc., without some internal control. Students will just go to the easiest or most lienent instructor and get signatures. If we keep the control with the S&TA that may still happen but it will be seriously reduced. One last point- this is advanced canopy training as defined by the sim sections, it is not just 5 basic hop and pops. The syllabus is very detailed and should be taught as a canopy class. It also allows the canopy courses out there to all start to come together using the SIM as a starting point for a national syllabus. With input from the big dogs out there we can add or delete as we go.

The S&TA does NOT have to teach the course he just needs to approve the person teaching it and ultimately sign the card saying it was taught properly and in accordenance with the SIM. We did have it originally as an instructor which drew critisim from members teaching canopy progression with no ratings. It was a bit of give and take and as I mentioned a starting point.


As far as the eyes closed, I reponded to the complaint or I think the OP as follows: and this was the sentiment of the S&T committee.
"I too had some concern about this being on the card but it was determined via debate to be a good thing and that it should STAY there and not be removed. If the below posters had an issue with it, I am curious why it was not voiced prior. Section 6-11F4 has stated for some time now, "repeat the practice flares with eyes closed, paying close attention to the physical sensation during each phase of the flare." We did NOT add this, it was already there.

As Skydive University has preached for some time Kinestetic development is, "A sensory report that subconsciously tells us where our body parts are in relation to our environment" (Skydive University Coaches Certification Clinic, pp.13)."

Listen, if you clear your air space and make a flare to feel the sensation and open your eyes to clear the airspace again. I truly believe this can be accomplished safely. We just need to brief it properly on the ground and explain the benefit of the drill and of course the potential hazards of closing your eyes for a few seconds.

Lets not forget the reason for USPA is tackling the issue. We are attempting to add a continueing educational component to our requirements. As I have stated many times we used to have to beg students to take a canopy class by being proactive and seeking them out. Usually the ones in the class are the self motivated skydivers who are not and will not be the problem. We were trying to figure a way to MAKE skydivers come to us for the training. and when I say us I mean advanced canopy pilots, instructional rating holders, instructors, and S&TA's. We have accomplished at least that. Now the new jumpers wanting a B license must be educated on section 6-10 and 6-11, similar to water training.
Now, if anyone has any recomendations or suggestions to add or delete material in those sections please let me know and I will bring it to the next meeting for discussion.
The S&T committee did their best to start a program to address the rash of canopy incidents. Fuuture topics were even C and D license requirements for canopy to keep the student skydiver learning right up until his D license.
I am all ears for any suggestions but please try not to get side tracked from the ultimate goal of reducing canopy incidents.

Further, it may be difficult to track the progress of this idea. Why? It is hard to track avoided incidents. Sorry to rampble on.

Rich Winstock
National Director

[tdog 0]

Quote

This was a response/complaint we had about the S&TA having sign off athority.

Complaint
Sign off authority complaint from the membership.... they want it to be any instructor. So far this is not advanced canopy training and they feel any Instructor should be able to teach , supervise and sign off on the form.

Being that one of my best friends, and a fellow instructor who was once my coach and someone I respected a lot when I was learning - both died last year due to canopy incidents - I can tell you I support your efforts 100%... It was a sad year.

Now back on topic.

I don't understand the logic of S&TAs signing off. It seems like the wrong answer to a real problem.

S&TAs are politically appointed members of the establishment. I looked up a few random dropzones and found often it is the DZO. For example, in my home state, every DZO is a S&TA - or director of the military program at the military base. A S&TA faced with challenges of making a profit, can, if they choose, turn the new B licence program into a profit center and force their customers to attend a for-profit course. As a business owner, I understand the need for profit, but saving lives are so much more important. This needs to be a grass roots, gorrila marketing, solution, not part of the establishment. More instructors, not less, should be encouraged to help students. More conversations, not less, should occur. Limiting the program to S&TAs actually, in my opinion, isolates this program from the daily conversations that could or should occur between skydivers.

There are no requirements for an S&TA to have any knowledge of anything... Here is exactly what the USPA says about S&TAs:

Quote

Safety and Training Advisors are usually very experienced instructors (although instructional ratings are not specifically required), who possess a great deal of knowledge in all aspects of skydiving and drop zone operations. An S&TA should be available at the drop zone anytime skydiving operations are conducted. The drop zone owner will select an S&TA for the drop zone and notify his Regional Director of his choice. If the Regional Director agrees with the selection, the appointment is forwarded to the Director of Safety and Training at USPA Headquarters for processing. If you are interested in an S&TA appointment, contact your drop zone owner or Regional Director.

By contrast, instructors are tested for their ability to teach and knowledge prior to earning ratings. They work every day (or just on weekends) with students. Sometimes they are equally part of the "political system", by making money from a DZO, following the DZO's policies, but sometimes they are retired from working at the DZ, but still are mentors to many.

Quote

I also think this is too important to just let any instructor sign off on it

This kind of offends me. If the USPA is worried that instructors are not serious about teaching, they seem to forget instructors are faced with life or death teaching experiences every day. 50 jumps before it is time to teach someone how not to die under canopy, we have to teach our students how to pull and deal with malfunctions.

Quote

If the S&TA is not competent enough to handle this then replace the S&TA.

There is absolutely no way any student, instructor or skydiver can do this. The appointments are part of a political system. Perhaps you are suggesting the public can vote out the regional director and hope the new RD would appoint a new S&TA - but that takes years. And even then, the DZO chooses the S&TA, the regional director can only approve the candidate.

Solutions? Maybe limit the signatures to AFF, SL, IAD instructors (not tandem). Make instructors apply for an "endorsement" to sign the card - and just add it into the existing computer system as another instructor type. There are solutions...


P.S. I started this post to say that I support your mission because I have lost friends.

Would this program have saved their lives? I am confident not. One friend died while being under the direct coaching of a world class canopy competitor. The other was one of the most experienced canopy pilots in our region. Both hit the ground "in the corner." Both had D licences and thousand(s) of jumps. I have seen other incidents first hand, and it has become clear to me the USPA can do very little to prevent swooping incidents. However, the braked turns and canopy collisions are an area where USPA coaching can help. Once someone starts doing high performance landings, it becomes very personal and very individual, and I can't see any standardized program helping.

[tdog 0]

Quote

The USPA seems to be getting the programs back on track to the way they were intended to work.

I agree... However I also think that the S&TA is a broken concept full of political appointments, etc.

In the business world, 3rd party testing agencies certify people to have proper skills, that, do not have a financial incentive.

The FAA endorses pilots. The USPA endorses instructors. DZOs and politically elected individuals endorse S&TAs.

I rather see instructors (even if it is just a whole new type of instructor with no freefall teaching skills, but canopy skills) earn a rating to teach. It would give a lot of credibility to the program and process and get everyone, not just a select few appointees, involved.

[Para5-0 0]

I think everyone is tip toeing around a concept that has been discussed and will contine to be discussed; A Canopy Instructor Rating, dare I say that.

[VideoFly 0]

I am not sure that adding flying with your eyes closed without appropriate instruction would be helpful. I have never been told to close my eyes by any instructors, but I have been doing it for years. I kind of discovered on my own that after ensuring clear air space, periodic flight with my eyes closed enhances my awareness of canopy flight characteristics. For me, it has been a valuable learning tool, but again, the practice requires a lot of explanation, analysis, and subsequent reflection. Unfortunately, I don’t believe we see a lot of those attributes in much of what we call skydiving instruction.

The learning technique may be a good one, but not in the absence of quality instruction.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Is there anything that stipulates that the eyes must remain closed continuously for this exercise or can the novice open his/her eyes between iterations to check for traffic/spot?

[skybytch 259]

I'm encouraged that the BOD has begun to address this issue. My hope/guess is that this is a start on the way to a full canopy education program that will include dedicated canopy coach ratings.

Quote

I don't understand the logic of S&TAs signing off.

In the absence of dedicated canopy coaches, having an S&TA sign off the card is the best option. Most if not all S&TA's know the local jumpers and instructors; they know which instructors teach canopy control well and which ones tell noobs they'll be fine under 1.5 loaded Katanas.

Quote

50 jumps before it is time to teach someone how not to die under canopy, we have to teach our students how to pull and deal with malfunctions.

Your skills as an instructor are not being maligned by this requirement. You know that there are at least some instructors out there who should not be allowed to talk to anybody about canopy control. Are you okay with those instructors being able to sign people off without any oversight?

Quote

There are no requirements for an S&TA to have any knowledge of anything...

There are no requirements for a BOD member to have any knowledge of anything, and they are the ones doing the appointing of the S&TA's - not to mention they are the ones making these decisions.

Here's a question for those who are complaining about this requirement - have you taught even one basic canopy control course at your local dz within the past year?

[PiLFy 0]

"Go do it once and then come back and tell us how it wasn't helpful..."

"I did most of my training last year. I already had to do every canopy drill this supposedly new card cites, w/only one exception. We didn't do simulated flares from 1/4, 1/2, & 3/4 brakes."

As I'd said earlier. I've already done it during my initial training. It WAS very helpful to me. My point is that I already had to fulfill the requirement for my A. Why require it to be done again, & be signed off only by an ST&A? If I didn't display enough proficiency doing the initial drills. My instructors would've made me do them again until I was. Are these canopy drills not already a part of the standardized training that students receive in this country?

[Para5-0 0]

The answer to why make you do them again is multi facitted:
1) One of the main purposes of the card is to go over section 6-10 and 6-11. These sections mimic most canopy courses to date and include invaluable information. The end goal, we are using these two sections as a starting point for a basic canopy course. If you have to do the drills a second time, does it really hurt that much. Repetition is a good thing and the better you learn all of your controls and the canopy flight characteristics the safer you will be especially in an avoidance or emergency scenario.

2) If you instructor feels you completed a particular portion of the card then by all means let him endorse it under the supervision of an S&TA.

GOALS of this iniciative:
1) Begin a continueing education curriculum in canopy.
2) Look to improve the syllabus as we move forward.
3) Discuss advanced criteria for C or D license to keep continuity in prigression training.
4) Have all Canopy Instructors and courses begin to get on the same page with the instruction being taught.
5) Eventually discuss a Canopy Instructor rating and if that is the direction we want to head.

Another main goal is to standardize the canopy education being received. To standardize it we are not recreating the wheel we are asking for all of the course instructors out there to assist USPA in improving what we already have.

[PiLFy 0]

Hi Rich,
So, these new requirements aren't just the expense & time of five jumps. They're a part of a mandatory class I must pay for?

I've some questions, please. I already had to do every one of those "New" drills, save one, when I was a student last year. We didn't do simulated flares from 1/4, 1/2, & 3/4 brakes. If I didn't display sufficient proficiency during those drills. My instructors would've made me do them until I did. Are those drills not already a part of the standardized training students receive? If this new requirement is such a positive step towards increased safety. Why did I just receive an E-mail from USPA urging me to send in my application (& monie$) before Jan 1, to circumvent the new requirement? From your post, am I to infer that additional time & money demands are coming for other requirements I've already fulfilled?

This sport is already expensive. It's too expensive for many who would otherwise like to pursue it. Adding to that expense w/o providing additional benefit doesn't seem like the way forward. I've an alternative suggestion. How about a few of you canopy Gurus get together & write a short book? USPA's Essential Canopy Drills need be nothing more than a short affair, including the canopy drills you wish to impart. Any DZ has instructors readily available to clarify any points of confusion for a student. Would that not accomplish the same, or more objectives, w/o adding nearly as much to the costs? Ultimately, would that not be a better way to bring more people into the fold? Increasing safety & membership numbers is the bottom line, right?

Edit to add: Oops. I just saw that you replied to me while I was typing. Sorry for any repeats, Rich.

[Para5-0 0]

Quote

So, these new requirements aren't just the expense & time of five jumps. They're a part of a mandatory class I must pay for?

As much as I dont want to make anyone have to pay anything for extra instruction the fact is they probably will have to. The answer would depend on the DZ. Remember you have to have 50 jumps to be elligible for your B license. So requirring 5 dedicated jumps to just canopy practice, repetition , and education is not that big of an investment. You would have to do the five jumps anyway. Depending on how your DZ and instructors decide to implement this program is really up to them. If you are a student that is right around the 50 jump mark and this new requirement wasnt put into place, I would suggest you take a canopy course at your earliest convienence. The cost of that will range from 100-300 plus jumps depending on the class. All USPA is trying to do is require the education but unfortunately it cant be done for free, so yes there will be some expense.

Quote

Are those drills not already a part of the standardized training students receive?

Keep in mind as a student you are usually on rental studen gear loaded .75.1.0 and you are very overwhelmed with learning as much as possible. At 50 jumps you more than likely will be flying a smaller canopy and quite possibly your own canopy that you will have for some time. These drills are recommended after you change you canopy anytime during your career. An example would be any experienced swooper changing canopies or downsizing. He/she will repeat these drills hundreds of times to get the feel of the flight characteristics. This is done before attempting any high speed/performance landing.
I will defer your question to your canopy coach or instructor by the way because I really am shooting in the dark as to your specific experience.

Quote

If this new requirement is such a positive step towards increased safety. Why did I just receive an E-mail from USPA urging me to send in my application (& monie$) before Jan 1, to circumvent the new requirement? From your post, am I to infer that additional time & money demands are coming for other requirements I've already fulfilled?

I will agree in one area if I understand you correctly. USPA probably shouldnt be advertizing to renew before Jan 1 to avoid the extra requirement. The requirement is a good thing and should be encouraged. That will be a mute point in about 6 days. It will be requirred for all students wanting a B license

Quote

This sport is already expensive. It's too expensive for many who would otherwise like to pursue it. Adding to that expense w/o providing additional benefit doesn't seem like the way forward.

Like I said it will be about the same cost as you taking a canopy course. I assume this was a possibility for you in the upcoming months? If so whatever course you go to make sure to bring your card with you and have it completed in the course. Any canopy course worth its weight will cover the card and you should walk away with it completed. If you decide to do it at your DZ the cost will be comparable. One suggestion: dont show up to the course and tell the instructor you already did these drills as a student. You will probably get a very harsh answer.

Quote

I've an alternative suggestion. How about a few of you canopy Gurus get together & write a short book? USPA's Essential Canopy Drills need be nothing more than a short affair, including the canopy drills you wish to impart.

I hope this doesnt come out as being wise, but it is a great idea and we already did it. It is called the SIM and the drills we want you to perform are in it. It was put together by input from the Big names in the sport regarding canopy. And the great part about this is that it is a book that can only get better with continued input from the big gurus.

[PiLFy 0]

You're not coming across as being a wiseguy, Rich. I hope I'm not, either. I'm fully aware of my Newbness. Paying for five jumps w/friends. Or, paying for five dedicated jumps, & having to sit in a class on a rare day off aren't the same things. I had a feeling you might say it's already all in the SIM. I was thinking more of a pocketbook w/only the drills as a progression to work on individually. Perhaps it would be a bit of spoon-feeding, but would make it easier for some of us to more-easily improve between instruction. I know the SIM is available for smartphones, but I don't have one. Not_fur_nuttin, but the SIM is kinda big, & has a lot of other info in it. I work a lot, including weekends. So, I haven't had the opportunity to take a canopy course, yet. It's not that I'm averse to paying for qualified instruction. I rankle at having additional demands placed on me. Especially when I already do those demands on my own. I still jump rental gear. I routinely jump different canopies depending on where I go that day. I'm only humbly offering another approach to the same goals.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I think everyone is tip toeing around a concept that has been discussed and will contine to be discussed; A Canopy Instructor Rating, dare I say that.

Don't say that. I couldn't be more behind the idea that canopy piloting education needs to be ongoing, tied directly to licensing, and tied directly to a WL/canopy type restriction, but the last thing you should do is make another rating.

I can already feel the momentum dying out, and the whole process becoming expensive, cumbersome and time consuming. If you create the rating, you need a rating course, an I/E, another fee on the renewal, etc, etc, etc.

This isn't about teaching students, who are essentailly non-jumpers, this is about teaching licensed jumpers and so you lose the need for a 'rated' person. It doesn't have to be that formal or complicated.

What happens when a DZ doesn't have a Canopy Instructor on the field? Or then they only have one, and they are busy with tandems or AFFs?

The idea is twofold - first it's to get the info, good solid correct info, out there into the jumpers heads. The other is to imprint upon the sport as a whole that canopy flight is it's own 'thing' and needs to be regarded as such. If you make it a part of the 'scene' it lends a degree of importance to what has thus far been the red-headed stepchild of skydiving training.

Again, what you need is to develop a solid classroom syllabus for three or four progressivly more advanced canopy control courses. The syllabus allows it to be taught by anyone with a modicum of experience and an understanding of the aerodynamics/mechanics of a canopy. They don't need a rating, or any of the administrative hassles or costs that go along with it, they just need the approval of the DZO, S&TA and DZ staff in general. If those people feel they are qualifed to teach the established syllabus to already licensed jumpers, then that should be good enough.

Neither Scott Miller, Brian Germain, or Luigi Cani have a Canopy Instructor rating, but they all teach a good canopy control course and all have the endorsement of DZOs, S&TA and DZ staffs around the world.

Partner the classroom time with a proficiency card (simialr to what you have now) outlining the drills and air-skills that correspond to the classroom time, and there you go. You have the book knowledge presented in the class, the air time outlined on the card, and if it's all tied in to a WL/canopy type restriction, you'll have educated, practiced jumpers, flying canopies within their abilites at appropriate WLs.

Every DZ has a 'best choice' for who coudl teach the classes, and they could be scheduled for a Fri night (or other weekday time) once or twice per season for each level of class. It provides all jumpers at every DZ access to the classes without requiring anyone (students or the instructor) to travel anywhere at any specific time.

The more complicated you make it, the better chances it will fail. Keep it simple, stupid (no offence).

[DaVinciflies 0]

Quote

I think everyone is tip toeing around a concept that has been discussed and will contine to be discussed; A Canopy Instructor Rating, dare I say that.

Sign me up. I'd definitely go for that.

At the moment, with the exceptions of the likes of Flight-1 and Brian Germain, young jumpers take a hell of a gamble asking instructors about canopy flight. Many otherwise competent instructors don't know even the basics such as the right control inputs to get back from a long spot, and a Canopy Instructor Rating would take the guesswork out of finding the right person to ask.

I applaud this initiative.

[jimjumper 25]

In light of some of the responses I’ve received/seen I thought I would clarify my opinions on this subject. I think that using the S&TA’s for this purpose is contrary to how the USPA outlines it’s instructional hierarchy. S&TA’s may be assigned without regard to their individual skills and are not required to demonstrate any skills as is the case with Instructor ratings. For that reason I believe that Instructors should be the primary authority for verifying skills demonstrated for the purpose of qualifying for a license.
In the past, there was a constant friction between AFF Course Directors and qualified Instructors wanting to be Course Directors which took years to fix. The same path appears to be the direction taken here. Instructional ratings should have a definite path from the bottom to the top with definitive performance and evaluations for each step. The position of S&TA does not have any performance definitives or a USPA pathway for individuals to achieve the designation. I would prefer to not have to suck up to my DZO to obtain an arbitrary designation to evaluate the performance of students in my perview.
I agree that canopy flight safety needs to be addressed but I would submit that it needs to start at the top and work down. Statistically the largest fatality sector in canopy flight are the most experienced. How about requiring a canopy flight course starting with Course Directors and then working down to Coaches over a 2 year period? For Instructional rating holders a requirement to get a Canopy Flight Instructional endorsement in 2 years I don’t think would be excessive.
I have also heard the argument that some Instructors would try to get around the new requirements, hence the S&TA endorsement. I personally have seen way more abuse of the system by S&TA’s than by Instructors. S&TA’s are beholden to the person that appointed them and the designation can be taken away when the S&TA doesn’t cooperate. A previous post said that Instructors aren’t being maligned by this new requirement but I would submit that they are. It’s just being implemented in a polite way.

[Andy9o8 0]

I agree with your end conclusion; however I'm still sympathetic to the emotion behind suggesting a canopy instructor rating. Perhaps a good approach, and a way to harmonize the 2 schools of thought on this issue, would be to further enhance the canopy-instruction training and requirements in the current instructor courses.