Letter to USPA Dec 2003 (canopy instructor rating request)

[billvon 3,107]

> Then they have no business being instructors . . .

I think you could say the same of AFF instructors who have never done a 20-way belly formation, or who couldn't pass a PRO rating test, or who have never flown on anything _but_ their bellies, or who have never packed a reserve (and rarely pack a main.) Everyone has different skills - which is why in many AFF programs they try to make sure the student has several different instructors over the course of their program.

OTOH, if you're talking about a specific canopy-coach rating, I agree - they should have to demonstrate specific canopy and teaching skills.

[diablopilot 2]

There is a difference. Everyone uses a canopy to land.

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

[billvon 3,107]

>Everyone uses a canopy to land.

Right - but not everyone uses a high performance canopy to land. I can think of a dozen people at Perris who use large 7-cell or F111 canopies to shoot steep approaches; they don't need to know how to flare turn or handle a Sabre2 in a pattern. Indeed, their skills transfer better to early-level students who jump canopies much like theirs.

[stratostar 5]

I think 95 % of I's can teach canopy flight into even advance flight, but I see 85 % of new jumpers get in a rush to run out an get XXXX hotrod canopy and blow off the good advice of many of the I's out there who say to slow down and learn, while all the cool kids are telling them that standing on ones head and flying a pocket rocket is the happening thing these days and if your not doing it too, then your not cool like them and jumping some big old boat is the for old out dated belly jumpers!

Funny thing though you see very few dead old out dated belly jumpers lying in the landing area these days from crashing their canopies and if you do it might be from some idiot taking them out with a hotrod they can't fly or should have been sold in the first place.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[damion75 0]

Quote

I dont know if an extension of the UK system is something you should be looking towards.

skydiver needs to acheive CH1 (Canopy Handling) to get their A license, CH2 for their B.

You could extend this to CH3 for C and bar anyone below a C license from High performance landings ect.

Just a lateral thought

Or to differentiate between basic and advanced skills, you could have another qual, perhaps called Canopy Piloting... with an initial qualification of CP1 without which individuals are not allowed to do HP landings and maybe CP2 without which they cannot compete...

Why didn't the BPA think of that?!

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[Peterkn 17]

From the BPA Operations Manual .....

N.B. (6) Parachutists who have not been awarded CP1 must not attempt unsupervised high performance/swoop landings.

N.B. (2) Parachutists must be CP2 holders before being permitted to take part in a BPA Canopy Piloting competition.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

Now get all instructors to follow the SIM and teach all of that.

Doing so will do more to improve saftey than any additional ratings or rules.

You hit the nail on the head, JP. People who follow the four-page card to the letter are definitely teaching the canopy stuff. People who pencil-whip a two-page A-card just to get back in the air with their next $30 dollar piece of meat are the ones who are fucking people.

I am a competitor (well, a lapsed competitor at this point) and hold a PRO rating as well, so I WONDER if my students get the full benefit of my knowledge when I teach the FJC and brief them up for their AFF jumps. You bet your ass they do, because I know how important it is. It's a tremendous responsibility that some people are content to just blow right by. The responsibility lies with the school to provide a complete, solid base of experience and knowledge prior to setting these young jumpers free on the world. Again, all of the basic skills ought to be covered in the A-license progression.

Chuck

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

I think 95 % of I's can teach canopy flight into even advance flight

This all depends on what you're referring to as "advanced" canopy flight. If you're talking about swooping highly loaded x-braced canopies, well I'm sorry but only a fraction of the instructors out there can come even remotely close to teaching people this topic (there are tons of good freefall instructors who IMHO do a piss poor job of flying their own canopies let alone teach others how to fly anything beyond the basics). I took some "real" advanced canopy swooping instruction from one of the industry pioneers a few years back and he rocked my swooping world by explaining swooping to me like no one ever before explained it.

Quote

jumping some big old boat is the for old out dated belly jumpers

Different strokes for different folks. There is nothing wrong with the newer jumper wanting to get into high performance canopy flight ... if and only if ... they realize that there are no short cuts towards becoming a high performance canopy pilot. It takes, education (what this thread is about), it takes time and most importantly it takes dedication and patience to become a high performance canopy pilot. If someone is serious about enhancing their canopy control skills, they need to dedicate jumps towards canopy control and put free fall on the back burner for a while.

Personally I'm in support of some sort of special canopy instructors rating. I think the Scott Millers and Brian Germaines of this world should spend less time teaching the average jumper what's in their heads and more time teaching the instructors you speak of and dedicated canopy pilots what's in their heads. This way there would be more Scott Millers and Brian Germaines in this world and access to canopy instruction (beginner, intermediate and advanced) would be more accessible to the masses and we in turn would have less canopy related accidents in this sport.

I know I've talked to Jim S about having him teach me how to teach others, but I would also love to talk to the Scott's and Brians of this world about the same topic.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[stratostar 5]

How a wing works is pretty basic stuff it don't take a rocket engineer to figuare it out. Funny thing, I see many new I's who have been in the sport less then 5 yrs.. talking smack and teaching others to be in fashion and pushing noobs to get the joe cool small canopies and containers and these I's are walking dead men and are to stupid to know they are, while the old guys are teaching to take the time to learn about flight in all conditions and learn to fly safe first and fast last and smaller wings much later on, yet many noobs are talked into getting wings they shouldn't be flying in the name of fashion and looking cool.

One don't need to be Brian G or Scott Miller to teach canopy flight and teach it well.

As a side note your right my number 95% is way to high by todays quility of I's teaching, it should be more 45% and those 45% have all been in jumping more then 10 yrs. The rest these day have their head up their ass for the most part, and those who I'm thinking / speaking of are going to get an ear full next time I see them.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[billvon 3,107]

> I think 95 % of I's can teach canopy flight into even advance flight . . .

I don't think it's that high. I know several instructors who cannot flat turn, and who don't load their canopies heavily enough to demonstrate a significant flare turn (you need to plane out for a few seconds to be able to demonstrate that well.) I'd put it at perhaps 75%. Which again is OK - that's one of the reasons students are put with different instructors throughout their program.

[damion75 0]

Quote

From the BPA Operations Manual .....

N.B. (6) Parachutists who have not been awarded CP1 must not attempt unsupervised high performance/swoop landings.

N.B. (2) Parachutists must be CP2 holders before being permitted to take part in a BPA Canopy Piloting competition.

Good spot... I was hoping that they would do something like that. They even used the same qualification names that I was thinking of! What are the odds...

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[stratostar 5]

I'm sure you saw that in after thought I said this,

Quote

As a side note your right my number 95% is way to high by todays quility of I's teaching, it should be more 45% and those 45% have all been in jumping more then 10 yrs. The rest these day have their head up their ass for the most part, and those who I'm thinking / speaking of are going to get an ear full next time I see them.

So yes I would agree my number was too high. So what I'm trying to say is I see some I's who have never spent any real time under any other canopies then student ones and then right on to HP wings and spent very little time learning under lighter WL's those canopies, but yet moved on as fast as they could to smaller wings and they are now teaching the same and pushing students to do the same as them, after all their not dead, so it must be ok.

P.S. nice to have met you, next time I hope to not be working and can sit and talk.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[hexadecimal 0]

Quote

Not all are capable of teaching students how to land moderately loaded Sabre 2's - which is the stage where most of the canopy fatalities begin to be seen.

My home dropzone doesn't seem to have a problem. Maybe your instructors just suck?

[billvon 3,107]

>Maybe your instructors just suck?

I'm sure that's it. Has nothing to do with age or experience or people who prefer accuracy to small canopies - it's that everyone (except your instructor) sucks.