0
mkb0909

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

Recommended Posts

Quote

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.



Then you run into the problem of DZ with no new instructors. If you were to add the additional info today, only instructors who recieve their rating from this point forward will have the 'qualifications'.

The key point to keep in mind is that were not dealing with students. First jump or AFF level students need a rated instructor, every jump they make invovles new-to-them experiences with no track record of how they will do. There can be no question as to the training or abilites of the people who work with them, thus the need for the rating and the certification courses that go along with it.

Take the coaches, for example. They are permitted to work with and jump with students who have passed AFF and proven themselves to be able to 'self jumpmaster'. The training and abailites of the coach is less than an instructor because the people they are working with have proven their ability to save their own lives.

When it comes to canopy training beyond the A license, everyone involved will have at least 50 jumps (or close to it), and none of them will be undertaking 'life saving' manuvers during the course of the training. With this in mind, why burden the program with the need for a rating.

Who is the most qualifed canopy pilot on your DZ? They may or may not hold an instructional rating, they may or may not have the time to go get an instructional rating, and they may or may not have the desire to get an instructional rating, but if you make that a requirement, they will not be the ones giving the canopy control course.

Along those lines, what if the best candidate has no ratings as of now, would they need to dedicate a whole weekend of travel to a coach course, then add-on the canopy control rating? Would they allow a stand-alone canopy control rating? Would they tie it to the coach course, and then you have jumpers with 50 jumps teaching the course? What about the advanced courses for the 'expert' rating to go along with the D license, would that be taught by the 50 jump wonder?

The USPA should work out the syllabus, and let the DZ choose who will do the training. They know who the best person for the job is, and there's no reason to make any more out it. It's experienced jumpers dealing with experienced jumpers, and the USPA doesn't need to weigh it down with all of their administrative nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USPA has said by virtue of the S&TA signature requirement that it must be approved by said S&TA. Again where do I go to get my S&TA rating? USPA and DZO's are separate entities for a reason. I think USPA should develop a canopy course syllabus that can be taught to Instructors for use by their students and can be signed off by those same Instructors at any DZ they work at. What if I work at multiple DZ's? Do I have to "try out" for the benefit of the S&TA at each one? By the way, according to the 1998 SIM, "The S&TA is a local jumper who is available on your dropzone to provide you with administrative services and information. The S&TA is appointed by your Regional Director." I'd submit that the position was never intended to be an Instructional supervisory position but evolved that way over the years. I still feel that if it is to be used in this way, a path to obtaining an S&TA rating should be outlined by USPA prior to it's adoption rather than after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then you run into the problem of DZ with no new instructors. If you were to add the additional info today, only instructors who recieve their rating from this point forward will have the 'qualifications'.



Then maybe I didn't make myself clear. I only meant to suggest it as a going-forward requirement for new instructors. Existing instructors would be grandfathered-in; and all instructors' ratings would continue to be on par with all others'.

I'd also continue to allow anyone to give canopy instruction (although if there are currently certified freefall coaches who don't yet have full instructor ratings, why not certified canopy coaches?). That might address your concern. But if instructors already teaching pre-A license novices had even more enhanced canopy-instruction skills, the natural result might be that novices will become better canopy pilots sooner than is presently the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then you run into the problem of DZ with no new instructors. If you were to add the additional info today, only instructors who recieve their rating from this point forward will have the 'qualifications'.



That would still be a good start, right? And you could make it available to existing instructors who want a canopy flight endorsement on their rating.

Quote

When it comes to canopy training beyond the A license, everyone involved will have at least 50 jumps (or close to it), and none of them will be undertaking 'life saving' manuvers during the course of the training. With this in mind, why burden the program with the need for a rating.



This is a valid point. Mayne then we make it a Canopy Coach rating, rather than a Canopy Instructor rating.

Quote

Who is the most qualifed canopy pilot on your DZ?



Well, there's the question. The best swoopers may not be the best teachers. Indeed, they may not even know enough about why they do why they do. I know a great swooper who was asked to do a canopy course and refused on the grounds that he did not understand the science behind canopy flight well enough.

With the introduction of a canopy rating, the answer to your question would be clear. There would be an official, sanctioned subject matter expert.

Quote


Along those lines, what if the best candidate has no ratings as of now, would they need to dedicate a whole weekend of travel to a coach course, then add-on the canopy control rating? Would they allow a stand-alone canopy control rating? Would they tie it to the coach course, and then you have jumpers with 50 jumps teaching the course? What about the advanced courses for the 'expert' rating to go along with the D license, would that be taught by the 50 jump wonder?



Where are you getting the idea that someone can get a coach rating with 50 jumps? Not really following you on this one.

I really don't understand why you are so against this. Nobody would be forced to get the canopy rating, but the ones who did get it would be a known source for canopy instruction and information having been trained with approved material instead of the sort of ad hoc crap that gets passed down by the bonfire currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.



So...is there any planning going on to ensure better quality than what USPA has in place to ensure quality of AFFI?

We see how well that is going.
[:/]
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

Do I have to "try out" for the benefit of the S&TA at each one?



Yes. As was always intended.

Quote

I'd submit that the position was never intended to be an Instructional supervisory position but evolved that way over the years.



Then why since the beginning of the S&TA program have S&TA been granted the power to suspend instructional ratings for a period of up to 30 days pending the review of their RD?

The S&TA is not only an advisor, but also a safety stop for ineffective instruction and unsafe behavior. They are the eyes, ears, and an important line of safety checks for the USPA. The program has been slack in the last decade. It's coming back.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still doesn't answer the question of how to get an S&TA designation without kissing the butt of the DZO or how to keep it! When I got my "I" one of the priviliges was being able to approve "B" and "C" licenses. Now I have to have approval from a possibly unqualified and unknown indivdual with no recourse in the event of a dispute. When the USPA makes the S&TA an open to all position and not a "good ole' boy" appointment I might be willing to change my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Still doesn't answer the question of how to get an S&TA designation without kissing the butt of the DZO or how to keep it! When I got my "I" one of the priviliges was being able to approve "B" and "C" licenses. Now I have to have approval from a possibly unqualified and unknown indivdual with no recourse in the event of a dispute. When the USPA makes the S&TA an open to all position and not a "good ole' boy" appointment I might be willing to change my opinion.



Jim,
I must admit your concern has made me sit and think a bit. I like to think of the S&TA as the most knowledgeable, most rated, most conservative, most respected person at the DZ. With that being said, maybe I am being a bit naive. Of course that must not be the case across the country 100%.
Putting myself in your shoes and not having a relationship with the local S&TA or if I travel from DZ to DZ, what would I do? Kiss ass is not in my tool chest as it probably isnt in yours. I would hope that if you are an active instructor at any DZ and they know you and your values, instruction ability, and passion for teaching new skydivers they would have no problem with endorsing the card for you.

I do not know you personally but based on your initiative here if the above is true and you came to me explaining how you taught your student the requirred material, I will endorse your card, (hold me to that)
Please remember that the goal is to educate as many skydivers as possible in every aspect of canopy flight. Why would any S&TA refuse to accept and use you as an instructor unless they had some sort of grudge, or didnt want to reach as many students as possible? I guess you may run into the S&TA that just doesnt like the instructor for some reason, if that is the case I would suggest going to the Regional Director or National Director.
Or further pm me your particular situation and I will see if we need to adjust or ammend what we came up with. I will do what can to help a self motivated instructor.

It was also brought up that it could become a good ole boys network, where only certain instructors made financial gain off of the canopy initiative. If that is the case, again I would shed light on the particular situation via director. Your RD can bring the situation forward to the board and a possible remedy can be discussed.

This is just starting out and problems will arise, but as many above have said, it is a starting point and hopefully a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When the USPA makes the S&TA an open to all position and not a "good ole' boy" appointment I might be willing to change my opinion.



It shouldn't be. That's what has screwed up the quality of instructors, and IEs. A person should be a know quantity, vetted and proven before they receive an appointment to the position of S&TA.

Now if you're worried about proving it to a DZO, I'll tell you I received my first S&TA appointment without the approval of a DZO, as an S&TA "at large". Talk to your RD.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



You are correct, they are not the same things. Five fun jumps with your friends won't improve your canopy survival skills the way five hop and hops dedicated to working on those skills combined with classroom instruction and discussion will. That was certainly what I found when I did a canopy course at 900+ jumps, and it's also the feedback we get from those who do the canopy courses we put on (jumpers with experience ranging from 7 jumps to 1000+).

You can choose to do what many people with way more experience than you or I will ever have are suggesting, or you can choose to do whatever you want (but be sure to send in that B license app tomorrow!). Your life is your life. It is apparent that you're good enough that you'll never hurt anybody else. But should you ever be taken out by someone else, know that by choosing NOT to do a canopy course you are reducing your chances of survival in a worst case scenario.

IOW, it's all fun and games until somebody dies in front of you. And then it's hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought about it overnight and I believe what I am going to do is when a student/novice comes to me for their "B" or "C" license I will just pass them on to the S&TA and inform them that I am not qualified to sign off their application or profciency card. This will place the responsibility on the S&TA. It is obvious that USPA wishes to have final authority for "B" and "C" licenses vested with the S&TA's and by extension the DZO's. If, (or when), USPA decides to let Instructors have the authority to complete the license application, I will then attend what should be (by then) a complete, USPA Endorsed, Advanced canopy piloting proficiency course for the purpose of being current at instructing a basic course. In the meantime I will still teach to the "A" license as USPA hasn't placed me under supervision to teach to that level. I'm afraid after 12 years as an AFF Instructor, "I don't try out." However, the suggestion of getting designated by my RD as an S&TA is an excellent one that I intend to pursue. Thanks for listening to my opinions and I hope I was clear in my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It is apparent that you're good enough that you'll never hurt anybody else."

Are you inferring in any way that I said I've got Mad Skillz? I never said that. Nor did I say I didn't want or need a canopy course in the near future. In fact, I specifically said I just haven't had the opportunity to take one yet, due to time constraints.

"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."

BTW, don't preach to me about bodies under plastic. I'll bet I've seen more deaths than you ever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim,

USPA or nobody else is saying you are not qualified to teach the canopy requirement. Think about the big picture for one moment.
All USPA is suggesting is that someone should say, YES, that instructor is competent to teach this syllabuse. Now who should that person be? In our minds the S&TA is supposed to oversee operations at any particular DZ. He/she is also easy to communcate with all in one shot, (Through the regional Director reaching out to all S&TA's in the area.)
If we just said yes any instructor can teach this whole card, and 6-10 and 6-11 then we believe there would be a shit load of pencil whipping and instructors who do not fully understand the entire purpose or mission. I have taught AFF Instructor courses and I am telling you just because you walk away from a 7 day course with a nice endorsement in your log book does NOT mean you can teach a full canopy course. It doesnt even touch upon it. 6-10 and 6-11 is a lot of information and until the AFFI course specifically hits upon the fundamentals of the two chapters, I dont think a new AFFI or maybe even a seasoned AFFI can just jump in and start teaching the whole card. Not to say some cant but how do you tell? and the flip side is there are some people very qualified to teach it that do not have any ratings. Again, how do you control it? We came up with what we thought was a way to keep a moderate handle on it.

Here is a question; Is every Instructor in this day and age capable of teaching advanced canopy skills? If the answer is not Yes 100% then we need someone to evaluate that persons teaching skills, ability, knowledge...etc. Who do you think it should be?

You mentioned it is obvious that USPA wants to have final authority for B and C licenses vested with the S&TA. I can tell you that is 100% not true. This is just a way for USPA to use the S&TA position to oversee who teaches the canopy course at their DZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"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."



Do you understand that for every single downsize of a canopy, change of a type of canopy, change in wing load for whatever reason these drills should be done. That means although an instructor said yes you can perform the drills properly: it doesnt mean you dont need them ever again. Every canopy has its own flight characteristics. Especially when you get to the high performance canopies.
Try going from a stiletto to a velocity and not going through the initial drills we are talking about. (I am being facetious, DO NOT do that, Disclaimer) You will inititate what you thought was a great turn to final on your stiletto to find your canopy hitting the ground before you do.

I am not preaching at all by the way, just trying to point out that basic drills are the building blocks for safe canopy progression and flight. Similar to any sport out there. Build solid basic fundamentals like the base of a pyramid and the pryamid will go high and be strong. I might be having some difficulty explaining what I am trying to say so any other instructor out there feel free to elaborate on this.
Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your points on that clearly, Rich. I do go through drills when jumping an unfamiliar canopy. I only pasted that quote in again because someone else (whose admitted hobby is to stir the pot) chose to cite a different reply I'd sent to you.

We're cool ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>I think flying your canopy with your eyes closed makes about as much sense as
>driving or cycling on a public road with your eyes closed, even if you 'assume' it's
>empty.

Or flying with a hood on during pilot training?



Slight difference there is that you have a safety pilot to keep you clear of aircraft and other things.



AND the hood lets you see the instruments.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"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."



So your point here is to complain about having to get someone to initial a few spots and sign a name on a card? If you've done the drills, go tell the local S&TA that you've done so and have them signed off. No big deal.

btw, one of my hobbies is indeed pot stirring . Not much else I can do until the ortho says I can jump again (fyi, ice hockey is dangerous). Other than teaching canopy courses that is..

Quote


BTW, don't preach to me about bodies under plastic. I'll bet I've seen more deaths than you ever will.



And if you stay in the sport, you'll see more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para,

I understand the concept that an instructor might need to be proven before teaching. However, the new card requires an s&ta to sign each student. In years past my instructor rating expired, as it needs an s&ta signature yearly, for over a month because no one was around to sign it. The s&ta was out of town, or working off site. My app was sitting unsigned for weeks. The RD has never been to out dz that I know of during his term, so he would not even know who would and would not be qualified to be an S&ta. Thankfully we now have a good one, but this is new, and I am not confident if he moved away again we would get a replacement.

Not every dz has an s&ta hanging around the students. That is my problem. Instructors with endorsement should have power to sign. Maybe the s&ta grants that endorsement. Some non uspa dropzones also have uspa students and instructors, but no s&ta, unless an at large rep travels there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In years past my instructor rating expired, as it needs an s&ta signature yearly, for over a month because no one was around to sign it. The s&ta was out of town, or working off site. My app was sitting unsigned for weeks. The RD has never been to out dz that I know of during his term, so he would not even know who would and would not be qualified to be an S&ta. Thankfully we now have a good one, but this is new, and I am not confident if he moved away again we would get a replacement.

Not every dz has an s&ta hanging around the students. That is my problem. Instructors with endorsement should have power to sign. Maybe the s&ta grants that endorsement. Some non uspa dropzones also have uspa students and instructors, but no s&ta, unless an at large rep travels there.



Perfect examples of what I'm talking about. The subject at hand is licensed jumpers teaching other licensed jumpers, there's no need for the USPA to goof it up with all of their 'hoops' that just makes it hard to achieve the real goal, passing along the info.

What the USPA should be doing is the hard part. Taking all of what we (as a community) know about canopy flight, chopping it up into seperate levels, and writing a syllabus and dive flows to effectively get the info out to the jumpers. From that point on, they should step back and let the comminuty handle it from there.

Show me the DZ where the DZO, S&TA, and every staff member is going to allow an unqualifed jumper to teach the classes? It's not going to happen. Everyone out there can already picture the short list of jumpers they could see filling the role at their DZ. Knock off any of those people who just don't want to do the job, and you have an easy job of selecting a person to teach the classes.

Then, get this, have the same person sign on the proficiency card that the class was completed. They are guaranteed to be there and available to sign, everyone is in the same room at the same time, just get it done.

As far as the jumps go, you leave that to the jumpers honor. Unless an instructor follows them out and witnesses the drills being performed, it's on their honor anyway. Have them sign their own card, comfirming that they did indeed follow the dive flows as indicated. If they want to be a schmucko about it and lie, so be it. There's nothing to stop them from lying to an S&TA about having done the work, so take the S&Ta out of the picture.

The harder they make this, the longer it will be before it gets done. The sooner these programs can be put in place, the sooner the info gets out the people, and the sooner it looks like the USPA (and the community in general) gives two shits about any of this. All of the talking, and thinking, and posturing do nothing to impress upon new jumpers as to the importance of taking canopy flight seriously. Until continuing education becomes something that everyone is doing everywhere, it will remain one of those things that some people do in some places, and that doesn't make the impression that it's important or neccesary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have taught AFF Instructor courses and I am telling you just because you walk away from a 7 day course with a nice endorsement in your log book does NOT mean you can teach a full canopy course. It doesnt even touch upon it. 6-10 and 6-11 is a lot of information and until the AFFI course specifically hits upon the fundamentals of the two chapters, I dont think a new AFFI or maybe even a seasoned AFFI can just jump in and start teaching the whole card.



Wouldn't it be an idea to allow or require AFF-I's to undertake a canopy control course and for them to do the progression card. Once the USPA had proof that the AFF-I had done the appropriate training they could sign off the card for B applicants?

What is pretty shocking is that this is an apparent admission/recognition by the USPA that instructors in our sport lack basic canopy control skills. Lets face it the B license is hardly an 'advanced' license (although I am proud of what I have had to do to achieve mine). I'm not saying the USPA are wrong in their assumption - but it does go along way to show why canopy related deaths and injuries are so high.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Until continuing education becomes something that everyone is doing everywhere, it will remain one of those things that some people do in some places, and that doesn't make the impression that it's important or neccesary.



No worries ... good old 'common sense' will prevail when necessary. Those DZ's that don't offer the continuing ed will enforce their good will and wisdom on everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

one of my hobbies is indeed pot stirring . Not much else I can do until the ortho says I can jump again (fyi, ice hockey is dangerous). Other than teaching canopy courses that is.



Good on you for staying involved in that way. Thank you. Hope you heal up fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0