Instructors: Do you feel like you're paid enough?

[AggieDave 6]

After the two threads about what various instructors are paid, I became very curious about overall happiness of instructors and their pay. Especially since there seems to be a resonably wide pay scale across the country and the globe.

Do you feel like you're being properly compensated for the time and work you're putting into your students?

Personally, most definately yes. I'm definately odd in that respect, though, I just really enjoy working with students and would probably do it for free (tandems...don't tell the DZO).

If you answer no, then what is it that would make you happier with your current situation? Free packjobs, more pay, perks (some free jumps...whatever)?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

I get paid enough for the work I do, but wish I had more of it . As a full-time instructor, unless you are working at a warm-weather dropzone, chase the sun and are in with some travelling dropzone gypsy clan, or have a pension (like I do), then you might be sucking. The workload at most "other than Florida/Southern California/Arizona" dropzones is simply not enough to support a full compliment of instructors in the winter.

[Hooknswoop 19]

At the 2001- PIA, Don Yaryling had a presentation entitled something like, "The Instructor shortage, Fact or Myth?". Then shortly thereafter USPA lowered the standards to become an AFFI. (This has been confirmed to me by an AFFCC Director and my witnessing of a AFFCC since the changes were made)DZO's do not want to pay any more than they have too. One way to keep pay low to ensure a surplus of Instructors. If they pay the Instructors more, they have to charge more, this lowers volume and lowers their profits. The less DZO's can pay, the more they make.

Derek

[kpjumps 0]

I pay to jump~ I don't get paid to do it. But I can tell you, teaching anybody anything is a low paying job.

Fortunately for us students and newbies, you guys forget about how much you are paid, and let compassion for us and passion for skydiving take over.

I know my instructor was under paid, since I was a special ed skydiving kid!

Thanks for letting the passion for this great sport rule and forgetting about the salaries!

Your character will ultimately determine your destiny.

[fool 0]

I think I am. Not that I would complain about more, but I really enjoy dispatching students, and look forward to getting more ratings so I can instruct a higher level, but yeah, I'd probably do it for free too... well, the free jump would still have to be there. hehehe.

S.E.X. party #1

"Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "f*#k, what a ride".

[rjf98 0]

Sorry Hook, but I just disagree with you and know of at least one Course Director who would as well. I've been around enough organizations that complain about standards dropping with each succesive year. The fact is that the quality of instruction and the ability of the average skydiver has only increased each year.

I'm realtively new to the sport (5 years now I think), but I bet in 91 there weren't so many people with 100 jumps competing in FS competitions (I guess you would say none they were competing in RW comps). The average point total has gone up at all levels. FF has come VERY far, Canopies are beyond what most skydivers in 91 were probably even imagining.

Not all of the above is directly related to instruction, but it starts there. You have more knowledge in this area than I do. What about student deaths or injuries over the course of the last 14 years. Have they statistically gone up? If that answer were a yes then I would have to back down from my position and say you are right.

I think that instructors have gotten better over the years because of group knowledge and experience.
It's very easy for experienced instructors to look at the new guys and talk about how unprepared and not ready they are. It's VERY difficult to remember that at one point the experienced instructor was unprepared as well. No course will every produce the caliber of instructor that you get after thousands of instructional jumps. The Base level of instructor is what you have to look at.

Just the humble opinion of a pretty darn new instructor.

Sorry to hijack the thread. Yes I feel like I get paid enough. Yes a free pack job on top of what I already get would be the bomb.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

What about student deaths or injuries over the course of the last 14 years. Have they statistically gone up? If that answer were a yes then I would have to back down from my position and say you are right.

When I first started doing AFF, the big claim was zero AFF student fatalities. We can no longer make that claim.

The AFFCC director I spoke with said flat out that he awards AFFI ratings to people that would not have passed the old course.

the course I witnessed, acandidate could not catch the evaulator if he was on his back. They kept going up and every thrid jump, the evaulator would present a back to earth scenario and fail the candidate. Eventually, by passing 2 out of 3 dives, the candidate got his rating. This would not have happened under the old system.

Quote

I think that instructors have gotten better over the years because of group knowledge and experience.

I agree, but the initial certification standard has been lowered. I am not trying to harsh on new Instructors, nor pull the "back in my day" crap. There are some outstanding new Instructors out there that would have easily passed under the old system. There are also some Instructors out there that wouldn't have.

Derek

[tombuch 0]

I've got to fall on Hooks side with this one. There is no doubt the standards have fallen.

The first category, as discussed by Hook is AFF. The new AFF-I's are far less skilled than were new instructors in years past. That standard has dropped by a mile. Further, 'back in the day' a new AFF instructor would generally work the second slot on dozens of real student level 1-2-3 dives with a top notch instructor, and that real world in-the-sky mentoring made him a better instructor, faster. Today, we have new AFF-I's doing single instructor dives with beginning students who have made only tandems up to that point, and they are doing it as soon as they have their ratings...that happened to a small degree before, but now it's the norm.

Likewise, on the tandem side, that rating used to require an AFF-JM or SL-I (with a year of experience). Now it just requires a coach rating, and that just requires a simple almost-anybody-can-pass weekend course. New tandem I's often don't know how to teach, don't want to teach, and can barely fly.

I've spoken with many tandem evaluators and several long term AFF evaluators, watched the courses, and flown with graduates. There is no question the standards have been lowered.

We have, however, improved the curriculum, and the equipment is much better and safer, so there is a balance that may favor the student. I'd rather we left instructor standards high taken the advantages of improved courses and equipment to further improve the training program.

As for the reason, Hook hit clear. DZO's don't want to raise pay rates so they pressure USPA to reduce standards, thereby increasing the supply of instructors and keeping their rates low.

All I can do is shake my head.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor (AFF, SL, IAD, Tandem)
Coach Course Director
Safety and Training Advisor
Author, JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Shark 0]

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but some of us work at pretty big DZs, which have higher standards. So some of your assumptions are off.

Quote

The first category, as discussed by Hook is AFF. The new AFF-I's are far less skilled than were new instructors in years past. That standard has dropped by a mile. Further, 'back in the day' a new AFF instructor would generally work the second slot on dozens of real student level 1-2-3 dives with a top notch instructor, and that real world in-the-sky mentoring made him a better instructor, faster.

Again, another assumption. May be our DZ is old school. This is how we operate.

Quote

As for the reason, Hook hit clear. DZO's don't want to raise pay rates so they pressure USPA to reduce standards, thereby increasing the supply of instructors and keeping their rates low.

Is this done at the safety of the students and instructors? I doubt if my DZ owner's pressured anyone to lower the standards.

I see your point, but regarding the pay, we're probably above average. And as mentioned by rjf98, there are several AFFCDs who would disagree with you. Unfortunately, none will debate on-line. I passed the AFFIRC (AFF Instructional Rating Course). Should they note in our logbooks that it was under a "watered down" system?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Evaluators have a written scenario they must present and a written criteria that they must follow to grade on. The standard is written to ensure uniformity across the board.

New system: Candidates must pass out of 4 dives to get the rating. Each dive is Pass/Fail. You can completely fail 25% of the dives and barely pass 3 dives (75%) and get a rating.

Old system: Candidates had 6 dives to get 12 points. Each dive the candidate could get from 0 to 4 points. To get a 4, all evaluators at the course must agree that it was a 4-point dive. If you scored a zero or one, you must demonstrate superior skills in order to get the rating. This allows for a good candidate to have a bad dive, but make up for it. If a candidate gets a zero or one and is only an average candidate, scores of 2 will not earn them the rating.

Let’s say a candidate on their first dive scores a Pass under the new system and would have gotten a 2 under the old system. The next dive, they get a ‘Fail’. That is a zero under the old system. They Pass the next 2 dives. Under the new system, they would be granted a rating and under the old system, they would have 6 of 12 points and only 2 more dives to get those 6 points. The pressure is up and they must score 2 "3's" to get their rating. A 2 on either dive means they don't get their rating.

So under the new system, the candidate is done and is awarded their rating. Under the old system, they must prove themselves and make up for the failed dive with two superior dives. It was much harder under the old system.

I got 2 two's and 3 threes, for 13 points in 5 dives at the course I went to. 7 of 15 people passed the course. At 1000 jumps, I think I was the least experienced candidate.

The course has changed, and it got easier. I believe it was changed by USPA under pressure from DZO's that wanted to ensure there is plenty of Instructors. To keep their profits high.

Quote

The first category, as discussed by Hook is AFF. The new AFF-I's are far less skilled than were new instructors in years past. That standard has dropped by a mile. Further, 'back in the day' a new AFF instructor would generally work the second slot on dozens of real student level 1-2-3 dives with a top notch instructor, and that real world in-the-sky mentoring made him a better instructor, faster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Again, another assumption. May be our DZ is old school. This is how we operate.

That is excellent, but your DZ is in the minority.

Quote

As for the reason, Hook hit clear. DZO's don't want to raise pay rates so they pressure USPA to reduce standards, thereby increasing the supply of instructors and keeping their rates low.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is this done at the safety of the students and instructors?

Yes, it is. I have seen a recent graduate, on an AFF level one let go on exit and were never seen in the video again. It was an average sized student too.

Quote

I doubt if my DZ owner's pressured anyone to lower the standards.

That is great, but the course standards were lowered. Why? The AFF course director I spoke with agreed that it was pressure from DZO's.

Quote

I passed the AFFIRC (AFF Instructional Rating Course). Should they note in our logbooks that it was under a "watered down" system?

Of course not. That would not be fair to the candidates. Like I mentioned, there are new instructors tha would have probably gotten all '4''s at the old course. But there are new AFFI's that would not have passed the old course.

Derek

[billvon 3,112]

>I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but some of us work at
>pretty big DZs, which have higher standards.

I've worked at DZ's with high standards and at DZ's with low standards. It's generally the DZ that sets the standards for student programs, rather than an AFF JCC. However, today it is easier to get an AFF-I rating than it was when I got mine eight years ago. That means that, in general, you have to be a little more careful about who you use as an AFF-I at a DZ with high standards. The rating no longer implies the same high level of competence it used to; it's come a little closer to the tandem rating, which is both good and bad. Good for getting people into the sport (easier JCC = more instructors = lower pay for instructors due to larger labor pool = lower FJC costs) bad for quality of student training.

[rjf98 0]

Since we're going to hijack this post anyway Here's what I sent in a PM to swoop.

New system is 3 of 4 pass or fail, but within that p or f it is not completely subjective. There is a written list of requirements. To pass the dive you have to have more gos than no gos. There are also automatic failures on each dive. Each topic must be hit at least once during the 4 (or 3 if you only need that many)dives. Must demonstrate the ability to catch and roll over a student on their back, must demonstrate the ability to stop a student spin, must demonstrate the ability to pull (from both sides) for a student who refuses or can't pull. At any time a student can appeal to the course director and video will be watched by the CD and the evaluator. Student is not allowed in during the apeals process.

Old system out of possible 4 points you only needed to get 2, so you only needed a %50 on each dive to pass the course, and you could (in theory) fail up to 3 of your dives (%50) and still pass the course. In the new system you can only fail 1 (%25) of the required dives and still pass. While it is more or less insignificant, you also need at least a %50 plus one to pass the dive (new system) so the standard for what constitutes a passed dive is higher. So each dive is harder to pass and you can fail less percentage of total dives allowed.
You were able to pass in less than the allotted dives. That can't happen under the new system (must complete 3 skydives one from each position). Under the old system you could pass in 3 dives or even 4. Under this system you MUST pass by 4 dives. Seems to me you have less chance to make up a screwed up dive under the new system.

50% of the people who attended your course passed (ok 46%). There were only 4 people at my course and 3 passed so that was %75. That is mitigated, I believe, by the fact that one of those had failed a course previously (so if we count him as an elimination once and pass once we have a pass rate of 3 out of 5 for a percentage of %60 or %50 if you want to say that he would have just failed the course had it been his first time).

Out of the 4 in my class I was the definative low timer crossing the minimum for FF time at the pre-course. The other three all had more than 6 hours a piece in a tunnel, and an average of over 2000 jumps. The guy that failed had 8 hours of tunnel time and like 3000 jumps.

My contention is that skydivers are better prepared for the courses now and that is why you see a higher pass rate. It could also be that the p or f is less subjective now and candidates are able to train to standard and not some subjective evaluation.

Rich

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but some of us work at pretty big DZs, which have higher standards. So some of your assumptions are off.

You know, I work at a smaller DZ. We've grown into a Turbine, but I've been here since the day we opened. The head instructor set a very high standard for every instructor to work there, much higher then a number of large DZs I've been to.

The size of the DZ basically has no bearing in what sort of standard they have for their instructors.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Unstable 9]

When I coach Students at our DZ - My lift ticket is taken care of. I get a free Jump for working with a student - I get to do Two things that I love! What Else could I want? If I needed $ for my own jumps, I can earn enough Packing for Students. I'm a happy camper.

=========Shaun ==========

[rjf98 0]

Tend to disagree with you Dave. Where you jump has high standards and a great DZO. Not necessarily true across the board for smaller DZs.
Other hand.... you could argue that smaller DZs have more family atmosphere watch out for each other = want safer instructors.

Large DZs can have their pick of instructors, and you see full time instructors at the largest of DZs. That is the argument for better instructors at those DZs.

Much like larger universities can afford to pay for more PHDs and the assumption is that B/C they have a higher degree of education they are better teachers.. same assumption for DZs. Those that can pay the most get the most competition for the jobs and therefore can pick better instructors. Although occasionally you just get that right mix where a smaller DZ has one of the best instructors in the world. (is that what you are trying to say about you and your relationship to SDA

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

where a smaller DZ has one of the best instructors in the world. (is that what you are trying to say about you and your relationship to SDA

Me? Shit no, I've got 180-some tandem jumps, I'm not anywhere near even being a "good" tandem master.

Todd, though, is one hell of an instructor, one of the best I've ever met.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sducoach 0]

Tom,

I used to argue this point with Hook however, after watching video's of several AFFICC's and one in this area I must agree that standard haved slipped. However, that's the course director and evaluators decision to accept. Course standards are "minimums" to pass.Glenn Bangs was my Course Director and he was NOT an easy CD. In fact there was one busted dive that was challenged and denied.

During my last coach course I gave two unsats on eval dives and had two "incomplete" in the course out of six. DZO's want cheap labor but Course Directors give the rating.
Sounds like a good thread to start.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[marks 0]

Quote

Glenn Bangs was my Course Director and he was NOT an easy CD

no he wasnt...... but it sure was fun!

[ZoneRat 0]

Although this thread has taken an interesting turn about whether or not the AFFI standards are a step in the right direction, I'd like to digress for a moment to ask this:

If I were an AFF instructor, full time, the first benefit I'd want is health insurance. Basic health insurance like every other employee in every other indusrty gets.

It's my understanding that health benefits in Skydiving are rare. Almost unheard of kinda rare. Is this true?

My god. Don't yall think you at least deserve THAT!?
How could anyone vote "Yes we get paid enough" if you don't get basic coverage?

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies.”

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If I were an AFF instructor, full time, the first benefit I'd want is health insurance. Basic health insurance like every other employee in every other indusrty gets.

Full time Instructors are not employees, they are independant contractors. Saves the DZ money.

Quote

It's my understanding that health benefits in Skydiving are rare. Almost unheard of kinda rare. Is this true?

Yes it's true. When I was a full time jumper, I saved enough money that I could survive if I broke my leg.

Quote

My god. Don't yall think you at least deserve THAT!?

of course, but if an Instructor gets injured and can't jump, the DZ just hires someone to replace them. This really sucks when the injured Instructor can jump again and now there is one more staff member to split the students between.

Quote

How could anyone vote "Yes we get paid enough" if you don't get basic coverage?

I didn't vote yes

Derek

[RippedCord 0]

I fail to see how the answer could be anything other than "yes." The days of indentured servitude are over and in today's free-market economy, those who weren't instructors would find something else to do, and therefore wouldn't currently be instructors...

:D

AMDG

[SkySlut 0]

wow...I dont even know where to start on that one...and its "Yahrling" by the way...I am sure that he would appreciate me correcting him on the spelling. There you go Uncle Don.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

The days of indentured servitude are over

I've seen indentured servitude in skydiving. The DZO pays for the rating and works for free until they pay back the DZO.

Derek

[nightjumps 1]

In addition, there was a time a time when one had to have three years in the sport prior to attending the AFF Course. Now, one can literally go from FJC to AFF in six months. Not likely, but the opportunity is there.

Personally, I liked the three year statute... I'm one of those that believes "seasoning" still counts for something.

[riggerrob 643]

Medical insurance?
Hah!
Only toe of my employers ever paid for my medical insurance: the Canadian Armed Forces and my current employer.
During all those years in between, it was more luck than management that I remained healthy. How I survived 1,000 jumps in turbulent Southern California on first-generation tandems is a mystery.