Winter BOD Coache Rule Change

[skydived19006 4]

I thought that my response to this opinion would be better served in the Instructors Forum.
Reference; http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2084938

Quote

• Static line or IAD students may now begin working under the supervision of a USPA coach following a successful clear and pull.
o If you look in the SIM section 4 (ISP) you will notice that all the programs AFF, S/L and IAD are pretty much the same once the student moves to Category D. The students are conducting turns. So why can’t coaches work with AFF students at this time? The students could be conducting solo exits.
o Last summer two drop zones requested a waiver for their coaches to work with students after the students have been cleared form the static-line or the IAD. Back under the old system where there were Jumpmasters and Instructors. Both the instructor and jumpmaster were required to attend a course that was method specific. And the jumpmaster and instructor were required to attend a Basic Instructional Course before attending the ratings courses. So once again it looks like we have taken a step backwards in the safety and training side of skydiving. Coaches if taught properly may be able to work with these students, but don’t have the experience to properly critique the student in the air, so once again we are doing a miss-justice to the student.
o And if you remember the old programs each time a skydiver wanted a new rating he or she was required to teach and be evaluated; now we are giving some one with minimal experience and training the right to teach students.

www.airrageskydivingservices.com

I thought I’d put up something regarding the comment that the USPA is again taking a position of Group Member over individual Member. After thinking about what I should post, I came back to my original argument for the implementation of this Waiver.

In particular are, “Regarding my “hardship””, point’s 7, 4, and 6.

Also, I think this got edited at some point; but I contend that a student served by a less skillful Coach is much better off than a student being “served” by an Instructor who’s forcing him in between tandem loads, and can’t dedicate the time to that student that he deserves. Having to tell a student at 9:00 am that “we’re extremely busy, and our instructors are basically tied up all day. If you sit on that couch over there for 8 hours or so, we just might be able to get you out before sunset” How many future skydivers do you think the sport has lost to that?

Martin Myrtle
Air Capital Drop Zone
Wichita Kansas


Reason waiver is requested (cite unnecessary burden or research and development of improved techniques and methods):
1. 2-1-E-4a(1) states that “All jumps must be conducted by a USPA Instructor in that student’s training method”, following this logic a SL/IAD student would never be allowed to jump under the supervision of a USPA Coach, unless we take a liberal definition of the term “student”, call him a “neophyte” at a point of my choice in his progression, and let him jump under the supervision of a USPA Coach.
2. 2-1-E-4c is actually under the heading of “b. Harness-hold program [NW]”. This implies that after the student has shown the ability to recover form disorienting maneuvers he will be allowed to jump with any licensed skydiver, no USPA Coach or USPA Instructor is required at all. Again, I don’t understand if this is the intent, or if the rule is again simply vague.
3. Coaches are trained to teach freefall skills. As such it’s my opinion that a Coach can teach freefall skills from 10 second freefalls on.
4. We train only IAD (we also do tandem, but if a student wants to learn to skydive we only train IAD), as far as I can tell there are no additional freefall skills required of an SL/IAD instructor beyond what’s required of a Coach.
5. With the SL/IAD training method the Instructor/Coach does not “intervene” or “save” a student, the Instructor/Coach is only there to observe, critique, criticize, recommend advancement, repetition, or regression. Following the ISP, when the instructor starts to interact (RW) with the student is when the Coach is traditionally allowed to work with the student.
6. With SL/IAD the student is not allowed to freefall until they have demonstrated the ability to deploy stable (three successful and stable practice pulls). They have not yet demonstrated the ability to recover form a disorienting maneuver within 5 seconds, but again whether there’s an Instructor or Coach “directly supervising” they are not allowed or qualified to attempt to “save” the student.
7. One might argue that a seasoned Instructor might be better able to deal with a student’s stability, or turning problems. I’m not ruling out having an Instructor jump with my freefall students. Additionally if my Coaches are not allowed to use their rating, and only make half a dozen “Coach” jumps with students during their tenure as a Coach, I would argue that they are no more “seasoned” as an Instructor than they were as a Coach. They will at that point simply have a new title.
8. I do not propose that anyone other than an Instructor conduct the “A license check dive”.
9. This waiver could also be considered research and development. I think that the SIM, ISP, IRM, should be reconsidered, and rewritten to better define what exactly the Coach can do, and define it as it applies to each training discipline. I also think continuity between training methods should take a back seat to logic!
10. Currently I could theoretically move up the “recover form back to earth presentation” to come directly after the Clear and Pull, after the student had satisfactorily demonstrated that he could recover I could allow my Coaches to directly supervise my students, and be in compliance with the BSRs. I think this would be a very dangerous “solution”, as if the student were not able to recover he would be pulling unstable. Another political argument for reconsideration of the wording in the SIM, and a separation between training methods.

What I propose it to have only USPA IAD rated Instructors handle the actual Instructor Assisted Deployments, and also the first Clear and Pull (Category C, Dive Plan 1). Once the student is cleared for 10 second freefall, I propose having the USPA rated Coach directly supervise (form the plane/freefall) the student, and to have an IAD instructor indirectly supervise (from the ground).

Regarding my “hardship”:
When the USPA instituted the new instructional rating system it not only had the affect of greatly increasing the proficiency of the instructional staff, but it at the same time made it considerably more difficult to attain instructional ratings. At an SL/IAD drop zone, as the system is currently structured the Coach rating is virtually useless (only allowed to conduct the last few jumps on the 1 to 3 students we have progress to that level each year), and I believe was designed around AFF, with SL/IAD “forced” in almost as an afterthought. My “youngest” IAD instructor got his rating over 5 years ago (before the rating changes were made), and we often find ourselves in a situation where we have students who want to jump, but no “appropriately” rated instructors available to conduct the skydive. It’s my opinion that if we are allowed to implement my waiver, we will be able to provide better and timelier service to our students, and in the long run we’ll be able to train more new skydivers. As the system now stands, I have seriously considered completely dropping my student program, and becoming a “tandem factory”. This would be a last resort, and if this were to become the industry trend it would eventually kill the sport as no new skydivers would ever be trained.
I would also suggest that this requirement be reviewed and rewritten with two sets of requirements along the lines of my waiver for all IAD and SL drop zones. I do understand that the ISP was/is designed to provide continuity between training methods, but the differences between SL/IAD and AFF/Tandem Progression are so vast I think this supposed continuity is not serving as a positive compromise.
If it’s the position of USPA that under the existing BSRs no Waiver is needed to necessary to implement my suggested procedures, a letter to that affect would be sufficient.

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[skydived19006 4]

I’d also like to thank the USPA BOD, the S&T Committee, and Mike Perry in specific! I think that serious consideration of this rule change required people to be very open minded! Its way to easy to be overly invested in the status quo, especially if you were instrumental in setting the status quo!

The USPA is not a bunch of politicians invested more in politics than skydiving!

Thanks!
Martin Myrtle
Air Capital Drop Zone

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[riggerrob 643]

I agree with most of what you said, though I would be a little more cautious before progressing students to being supervised by coaches.

6. I would want to see students deploy on their own three times before handing them off to coaches.

10. Keep in mind the original intent of the "deliberately unstable exit." It was designed as a exercise for the perfect student who has never been unstable.

In Canada, we do this exercise after:
1 tandem
1 or 2 IAD
5 PFF
... so the deliberately unstable exit comes late in the process.
In Canada, we usually tell them to "ride the slide" in a body position vaguely resembling a sit-fly. Few of them remain stable - on their butts - for more than 3 seconds.
Hee!
Hee!
It's primary goal is to increase confidence in the student by proving to them that no matter how badly unstable they are, a hard arch will return them belly-to-earth.