Lizz

Thanks for all the replies. I keep getting this image in my mind, of a graph showing the risk compared to knowledge (& skills and attitude), and experience. In the graph the risk is higher in the initial stages, and then it reduces, as knowledge and experience increase. I would like to reduce that risk sooner by methodical and thorough training before-hand. My job is to develop training in the military and so I find myself judging things fairly critically... especially when safety is involved. Personally I think that it is posssible to develop a training programme that anticipates the majority of student needs (though not all), but it would have to be done very systematically and thoroughly, and within defined boundaries. An Australian military unit has the motto 'Knowledge dispels fear' and I suppose that this is my philosophy too, regarding jumping. Problem is that I keep discovering that there are important things that I didn't know and just wish that someone had told me. I do read books, and I do talk, and listen, and watch others, and check out jumping sites on the net but I still do also wish that someone could just 'see' my ignorance and tell me beforehand. That would be so nice, (but I suppose naive)! I also jumped S/L first time, for same reasons as Nick. If instructors are responsible for making sure that students know *enough*, who decides what 'enough' is? Different people have different ideas of 'enough'. In incident reports I have noticed an abscence of reasons attributed to poor training.... Is it just me or do other people wonder this stuff? Maybe I should just develop some training!!! Then I would be more content. Lizz

Hi I am interested to read the intro paragraph on the Dropzone/Safety page which says that, '...there is a direct relationship between your knowledge, skill and attitude, and your chances of survival', and, 'the responsibility is yours to make sure you keep growing in the three areas mentioned above'. That makes sense, but what about the *instructor's* responsibility? What do skydiving instructors regard as their responsibilities towards their students? I am a student skydiver (16 jumps) and there are many things about skydiving that I don't know that don't know, (i.e. I am ignorant of my ignorance) and therefore I have no choice but to rely upon my instructor's anticipation and awareness of my ignorance, ... and I am wondering what instructors think about this..., and is it a topic of discussion among instructors? Cheekily yours, Lizz

I'm looking for parachute training which has been developed using a 'systems approach', developed using a thorough task analysis (in terms of physical and mental skills, attitudes and knowledge), and with a thorough assessment, pre-jump, during the jump, and post jump. I would like to find materials that are written for the instructor to use, not just for the student. The military and some industry develop training using the Systems Approach. I think it's very good and reduces the occurrence of taking things for granted, on both the instructor and trainee's parts. The reason I thought that training materials could be commercially sensitive is that if they are very good, then the writers of them might want to sell them rather than make them freely available. I was looking for a reason to explain why it's hard to come accross this kind of material. I have looked at the Ohio (phreezone) material and the SIM pdf file. They are both great in terms of information from the student's perspective, but still do not tell what the instructor should *do* except for oral quizzes. For example, I'm looking for material that says things like: "Training Objective 1: Identify and Describe Purpose of Main Components of Student Parachute Rig (Prior to class, photocopy student handouts.) State: "By the end of this objective you will be able to identify and describe the purpose of the main components of your parachute rig." Instruct the trainees to gather around a packed, complete student parachute rig. Point to and explain the purpose of the following parts:..... Invite trainees to ask questions. Provide practice to trainees by getting trainees to work in pairs and name and describe the purpose of the various parts (one trainee checking with answer sheet, then swapping over). Monitor trainees. Test the trainees' understanding by individually asking each trainee to name and explain each part of the rig. Re-test and consolidate understanding by following up with a written test (fill in blanks on diagram) at the start of the next training session." That kind of stuff! Lizz

Yes, we're on the same topic. I would also like to compare first jump courses. There may also be commercial sensitivities with this kind of information, perhaps that is a reason it's not easy to come by. But maybe it's possible to buy instructional materials - does anyone know?.

RiggerRob, Thanks for your reply. I checked out all the sites you mentioned. I am looking for a parachute training curriculum developed using a 'competency based traing approach'. The two Canadian sites (CSPA and NCCP) seem to be what I'm looking for. I can't tell from the other sites what methodology their training is developed in, but will send them an email and ask. If anyone else out there has a particular interest in these things I'd be keen to hear from you too. Thanks, Lizz.

Hello Does anyone know if there a site or forum that deals with the development of training materials for skydiving? I've had a look but can't find anything specifically on training development... I'd be keen to hear from anyone in the TD and skydiving field, Thanks, Lizz.