AFF RATING is it easy to get!!!!!

[tdog 0]

Diablo,

I agree with you 100 percent.

But, since there is not perfection now, I gave options for the newbie to get what they need.

Also, no matter how good the SIM and ISP, a two day, 12 jump, hop n pop with video canopy course is going to beat any form of coaching an AFFI or coach can give, unless they are the ones giving the two day, 12 jump course. Reason = focus of the TLOs in such a course.

If you can tell me how an AFFI can beat a canopy specific course, tell me how.

I see this as the ISP with balls, not a replacement to the isp.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If you can tell me how an AFFI can beat a canopy specific course, tell me how.

Because every student has to learn from the AFFI (or S/L I or IAD I), Not every student has to learn from a canopy control Instructor. The AFFI has the student's undivided attention.

Derek

[dharma1976 0]

I actually went and got my coach rating to add to the canopy control section of students lives...

that and taking Brian Germains advanced course which subtly preps you to teach stuff as well

Dave

http://www.skyjunky.com

CSpenceFLY - I can't believe the number of people willing to bet their life on someone else doing the right thing.

[DSE 5]

Quote

I actually went and got my coach rating to add to the canopy control section of students lives...

that and taking Brian Germains advanced course which subtly preps you to teach stuff as well

Dave

I don't understand your post? An AFFI is already a rated coach, right? There was very little canopy control instruction in the coaches course I attended. Is there something more in the rating that I may have missed out on?

[jheadley 0]

Quote

I don't understand your post? An AFFI is already a rated coach, right? There was very little canopy control instruction in the coaches course I attended. Is there something more in the rating that I may have missed out on?

Categories F, G, and H have lots of canopy control drills in them. How to adjust your glide, flat turns, reverse turns, etc... Some very important parts of the student program. The rating courses don't teach you everything you need to know. For example in the AFF I rating course, you're just tested on Cat C and D dives but an AFFI can obviously teach A-E.

[tdog 0]

Quote

Because every student has to learn from the AFFI (or S/L I or IAD I), Not every student has to learn from a canopy control Instructor. The AFFI has the student's undivided attention.

Derek

If you look at the SIM/ISP, the drills are there just to insure the basic level of safety to live.

A student is often so worried about the freefall, that the canopy ride is the "reset" afterword. The canopy class I went to (and went twice, once with 200 jumps, once with 700 jumps) - I learned life saving skills well beyond the SIM. We dumped at 6K on each load and spent time playing with more learning objectives per jump than a student gets in freefall.

The cost of the course was $150 per day for six jumps with video, including everything, from a "flight one" trained instructor. $300 for 12 jumps.

Ya, the student does not have to do anything past AFF to learn, but if they WANT to be safe, this takes it to the next level.

This is not to say AFFIs should not teach what they can to a student to make them safe as possible, but why not take it a step further? There is only so much to teach in a single AFF or coach jump before information overload, and if freefall skills are taught too, that it is overwhelming and the adrenaline is pumping after pull time for the student, so they are not in the mindset to learn. Plus, the resources of being able to watch 10 video taped landings of you and your peers in invaluable, with the coach watching from the ground the entire time to evaluate.

I look at it this way. The number one leading cause of death in our sport is canopy control. The current system is broken and I only half blame the instructors, and half blame the system. Canopy control courses fix it. The tunnel is to freefall learning as canopy courses are to canopy learning. Innovative, new, exciting, detailed, focused, etc.

If nothing else, it is much cheaper than the alternative. Hiring a coach for 12 skydives that will video tape landings is $1068 and will take multiple weekends because of lack of efficiency. Taking a class, pre-manifested for every hour and half, with a dedicated focus, costs the student $300. Plus you are teaching only canopy, as the student is cleared to do the hop-n-pops.

If I had my way, every city would have a tunnel... This would be my progression:


1) 30 minutes in the tunnel - learn how to fly.

2) 3 jumps in the sky (or more if needed). Stability, altitude awareness, and pull.

3) 6 hop-n-pops to refine canopy pattern and get comfortable with flare, etc.

4) 6 hop-n-pops, finding the sweet spot, stalls, flat turns, riser turns, toggle turns, EPs, etc (Flight One Essentials)

5) 6 coach jumps, tracking, exits, group safety skills

6)6 hop-n-pops, (Flight One advanced).

In the end, it would cost less, and our students would be rockstars.

Over and out, opinion expressed.

[Hooknswoop 19]

If you started a DZ, I just might jump again.

Derek

[denete 3]

Okay, Andy knows that I've had some personal experiences with this topic and that I've done my best to find the "acceptable" way to talk through the frustrations. I want better instructors out there teaching, because I want to enjoy this activity for the long haul.

I've just recently left the teaching profession. I taught in a performance-based subject area. Essentially, you could observe my students and know if I was doing a good job or not. One of the things that I did every year, even though it was not required, was to have every one of my students critique my instructional methods, information delivered, choice of material, etc. For the newest students, they always had the same reaction, "you mean there might be other ways to teach us"? Or, "you don't think you're the best teacher you can be"?

Hell no, that's why I was good at what I did. I constantly labored under the idea that I could still be a better teacher, and that there must be an even better way of doing things than the method I was using. When it came to having my peers in the business critique me, I was all ears. I wanted to know what I needed to fix. Not because I didn't know, but because of their perspective on the situations. As an instructor, you cannot see things that you say and do through the eyes of your students all the time. If you assume that what you are doing is good enough in this sport, you must also assume that none of your students will speak up to let you know that they aren't getting the training that they need.

This sport / activity has an unspoken pecking order to it. It is based on some bizarre things, but one of those has to do with the amount of time that you've been in the activity and your "swagger value". I watched three jumpers swoop the "foot traffic only" area in front of the hangar last weekend while the DZO and resident mother of "doing things by the book" stood / sat and watched it. This was a cross-wind, rotor-filled, pedestrian traffic area. I waited to hear the royal hormone-induced ass-chewing that should have happened, but I just stood there with my jaw on the ground as nothing was said. What?! I got very close to leaving the place and never coming back. The only thing that stopped me was the thought that I must be getting way too uptight about this, and there is probably a reason that it was alright to do something that seemed so obviously wrong. All I could come up with was this unspoken pecking order. I did ask a couple of people who had witnessed this if I, as a student with only 8 jumps, would have been "talked to" if I landed there.

By the way, the experience of the canopy pilots in question doesn't matter at all. None of them could have avoided the tragedy that would have occurred if a small child had run across the grass at the moment they were swooping. Oddly enough the one small child that likes to run across that area the most is the one that would have had the greatest impact on those who "looked the other way" that day.

That story isn't there to bash those people, but rather to point out the problem with people bringing up questionable areas of their instruction. A student wont question the techniques of their instructor, because the student is the "new guy" in the activity. The student who has read the SIM, has studied canopy control, has absorbed as much as possible on skydiving is still going to say that their instructor must be right, because they have the title of instructor.

If I were to set up a re-testing method for AFFIs, it would be a "real world" evaluation. Take me on one of your AFF jumps. Better yet, teach me the jump as though I was your student. Even better yet, I'll pretend that I've never been out of an airplane before and you'll teach me like I was your new AFF student. I wont ask too many questions, but I will watch and listen carefully to see if you actually teach me, instill cautious confidence, and then control the dive to acceptable standards. I will probably make it go to hell when you release me, and with any luck you will respond to me as a student that you take a genuine interest in teaching.

My goal as a teacher was always the same, to make myself progressively unnecessary. I didn't often directly answer student questions. I most often guided students toward the answers that they already had, even if they didn't know it. I welcomed critique, and felt that I became better at doing my job with every day that passed because I grew an army of demanding students. I had no problem turning my entire instructional program over to those students at any time. I knew that they either knew exactly what to do, or they had developed the skill to "do things that made sense." How many AFFIs would take a student of theirs after clearing them to self-supervise, and allow them to teach another student? Not to actually do the dive with them, but to have them do all of the ground-work from FJC to boarding the plane for level one? If you taught your students as though that was what was expected of them, you might be surprised at the quality of learning that happens. If all of that seems like "too much work for you", then perhaps you should be a bowling instructor instead.

- David

I apologize if I rambled here. It is late, and this little text window doesn't let me see everything that I wrote. Please read the disclaimers in my signature below before blasting me a new hole.

SCR #14809

"our attitude is the thing most capable of keeping us safe"
(look, grab, look, grab, peel, punch, punch, arch)

[KathleenL 0]

I agree with you. And I like your progression. As a low time jumper I realized where I needed more training and took it upon myself to get it. After AFF I worked with my instructors to get all checked off for my A license. Then went to the tunnel with three other very experienced skydivers who are also AFF and coach rated. One hour in there with them gave me flying skills that would have taken 100's of jumps to get. Then got right back to my home DZ and took Scott Millers canopy course. Which I might add IMO should be a mandatory part of getting your A license. You don't realize how dangerous you are in the air under canopy until you take a course like that. Most skydivers I have been around are mostly concerned with the freefall part. The canopy ride is just to get them to the ground quickly to go back up.
The confidence level that I had prior to my canopy course was low. All I knew was turn right if someone is flying towards you, low man has right of way, how to flair and land and the landing pattern we were suppose to fly. Learning all the stuff that you can do with a canopy amazed me. Now I like the canopy ride as much or better than the freefall. And I have a ton of confidence under canopy.

So someone with some pull get USPA to make that canopy control course mandatory.

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

How many AFFIs would take a student of theirs after clearing them to self-supervise, and allow them to teach another student? Not to actually do the dive with them, but to have them do all of the ground-work from FJC to boarding the plane for level one? If you taught your students as though that was what was expected of them, you might be surprised at the quality of learning that happens.

One large difference between the ideal world amd the real world is that often instructors only see a student for their first jump class and then again weeks or months later and only briefly before the student wants to jump again. Trying to teach the entire SIM plus more info to a student that only wants to spend an hour or two learning at a time is an impossible task and often only the highlights seem to get stressed since thats all thats needed to prevent someone from killing themselves. The student really has to be willing to put the time and energy into learning and usually they will find their instruction is better then when they only put a little time into jumping.

I am not an instructor but have spent a lot of time observing at a lot of dropzones and the one thing that I have noticed is that the students that progress and learn the best are the ones that take the time to spend one on one wiith an instructor out side of the nornal jumping hours and have a real interest in learning. The ones that struggle in thier learning are the people that show up at 4 in the afternoon and need to leave for another activity by 7 or show up on a busy weekend and then complain that they are not having enough time spent on them. The nature of the skydiving business is that on the weekends the staff will be the busiest and will not be able to dedicate the same time to you as they could during the week unless they are well overstaffed. The student needs to be willing to meet the instructors at least half way and give them the time needed to properly convey the ammount of information that is needed to truely learn about skydiving safely.

Does the AFF-I program have issues? I guess I'll find out here when I take my AFF-I course this next year or so.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...one thing that I have noticed is that the students that progress and learn the best are the ones that take the time to spend one on one wiith an instructor out side of the nornal jumping hours and have a real interest in learning.

Boy..you hit THAT nail on the head.

Call me an old stuffed shirt if you like, but this is the one thing I just simply do not understand. Why in the world would anybody take up a sport like skydiving where death and/or major injury is lurking right around the corner and refuse to learn everything they could about it.

The prevalent attitude amongst students today seems to be, "OK. I got through AFF. Now I'm just going to jump out of airplanes and do fun stuff. I'll try whatever anybody suggests and see what happens."

It's the old, "It hasn't hurt me yet so it must be OK." attitude.

As time goes on, I'm becoming more and more an opponent of the AFF 7-level program and leaning more and more towards the ISP. Or, even more conservatively, towards Spaceland's 18-jump training program.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[denete 3]

A quick note on Scott Miller's canopy control course, a good amount of the essential skills course IS included in the ISP (two-stage flares are not however). More importantly, what is not included is a mandate that a student take part in a well-defined course of study in canopy control and the incredible feedback that Scott Miller gives students before and after each jump. The Canopy Piloting Proficiency Card shows that the USPA has done enough groundwork to know that there is a benefit to having a standard of demonstrated skills in order to establish comfort with the particular canopy you are flying. It might just be another patch in the dam, but perhaps there should be a rating for canopy piloting instructor.

From the Canopy Piloting Proficiency Card:

Quote

DROP ZONE MANAGER: USPA does not issue advanced canopy ratings or qualify canopy piloting course directors. However, this Proficiency Card, when conscientiously applied in a course of instruction as outlined in the USPA Skydiver’s Information Manual, may indicate a level of canopy proficiency as witnessed by an observer self-qualified according to SIM recommendations. USPA advises drop zone management to verify the qualifications of the course director and evaluators identified in the signature and initial blocks, and if satisfied, to recognize this program as a method of improving safety in canopy flight.

CANOPY PILOT: By observing recommendations outlined in Section 6-10 (and other related sections) of the USPA Skydiver’s Information Manual, you have exhibited a level of commitment to safe canopy piloting.

The majority of time in my dive-flow training for each AFF level was spent on freefall. That's just how it seems to be. Each time that I asked what skills I should focus on while under canopy I got two different answers. One instructor gave me concrete things to work on. One other said, "I just want you to spend time getting to know your canopy up there." I pulled out the SIM section 4-1 and 4-2 along with my notes from the Essential Skills Course, and decided what I needed to work on. I often hesitated to tell my instructors what I did afterward in case they would jump on me for trying to do things before I was ready. I would be really pleased if the Instructor rating card simply added canopy instruction to the required skills demonstrated. As of today, all you have to do is provide a flight plan and give ground-to-air radio instruction.

- David

SCR #14809

"our attitude is the thing most capable of keeping us safe"
(look, grab, look, grab, peel, punch, punch, arch)

[tdog 0]

Quote

If I were to set up a re-testing method for AFFIs, it would be a "real world" evaluation. Take me on one of your AFF jumps. Better yet, teach me the jump as though I was your student. Even better yet, I'll pretend that I've never been out of an airplane before and you'll teach me like I was your new AFF student. I wont ask too many questions, but I will watch and listen carefully to see if you actually teach me, instill cautious confidence, and then control the dive to acceptable standards. I will probably make it go to hell when you release me, and with any luck you will respond to me as a student that you take a genuine interest in teaching.

You are describing the AFF instructor evaluation, at least what it was designed to be. 4 jumps, must pass 3.

The evaluators pretend to be new students. They keep their mouth pretty much closed. If you fail to teach something, or teach something wrong - it is almost guaranteed they will exploit your teaching weakness and make that their failure in the sky that you have to fix. They won't ask for clarification, so if you never teach how to get in the door, they will do a handstand or something very weird that you have to then fix on the fly - or fail.

Some are known for being difficult. Some are known for being easy.

Except for changing the system so the easy ones are weeded out, what are you recommending?


P.S. Your comments about instilling confidence and trying to motivate the student to continue to learn... It is not pushed in the textbook part of the course, but I know Bram (my evaluator) expected it, which is why I like him.

[denete 3]

Quote

Some are known for being difficult. Some are known for being easy.

Except for changing the system so the easy ones are weeded out, what are you recommending?

Kind of the "mystery shopper" method of evaluation. My guess is that most instructors know when they are going through evaluation. They know that the evaluator is pretending to be a student. That isn't really a real-world evaluation. If they had no idea that their next student was an evaluator, you could get a more true evaluation of their ability to teach.

I think I've used up my $.02 on the forums. So, I'm going to take a break from dropzone.com. I hope you guys in the position to make changes happen for the better will do so. What is there to lose?

SCR #14809

"our attitude is the thing most capable of keeping us safe"
(look, grab, look, grab, peel, punch, punch, arch)

[tdog 0]

Quote

Kind of the "mystery shopper" method of evaluation. My guess is that most instructors know when they are going through evaluation. They know that the evaluator is pretending to be a student. That isn't really a real-world evaluation. If they had no idea that their next student was an evaluator, you could get a more true evaluation of their ability to teach.

Oh... Well, see... After you get your rating you are grandfathered in and never have to be re-evaluated, unless you go uncurrent. The DZO and peers at the DZ will determine if you are good enough for their program. (And I know people who have been fired and/or not hired due to their skillsets).

[denete 3]

Final post from me on this topic -

A clarification of my original post: I apparently had my facts screwed up on the example that I gave of there being an un-written skydiving pecking order. Everything that I saw last weekend was actually approved in advance by the dzo and there were no safety issues of any kind. I must have walked up after things were set and missed the details, then seen things through the untrained eyes of a beginner. That would explain why nothing was said at that moment, and why I was the only person puzzled by it all. I'm trying my best to sort through the complexities of this activity, and I guess I'm going to get it wrong sometimes.

Anyhow, I'm sorry if anybody was confused about the safety aspects of the example I gave. Chalk it up to me being an uninformed noob. I'll either get it right some day, or drop out before I understand how everything works. Best luck to everyone.

SCR #14809

"our attitude is the thing most capable of keeping us safe"
(look, grab, look, grab, peel, punch, punch, arch)