USPA Poll on tunnel time replacing some freefall time for AFFIs

[rehmwa 2]

  popsjumper

  Quote

I think the idea is completely retarded. There's alot more to skydiving than freefall.

True. But the tunnel time is only concerned with learning AFFI in-air skills. Everything else has nothing to do with the tunnel training. Those are all USPA course problems.

Thank you for this comment. I write so much, that I can hide what I think is the essence of what I'm seeing.



I hope my position is clear -

I think Derek's proposal 'raises' the bar for skill level. And only skill level.

I still think something is missed. But it's a lot more than just the minimum freefall time requirement.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ufk22 33]

Requiring tunnel time or using tunnel time to replace ff time both miss what is needed.
The tunnel can be a valuable tool for learning some basic AFF skills (roll-overs and spin stops). It can also help with the basic flying, but the tunnel is far too limiting to really use for a lot of the flying skills needed (exit stabilization, staying close to a student that backslides 20' on release, staying with a students that drops 50' in a sudden roll-over, etc).
That said, having 500 RW team jumps or 500 FF jumps also don't give these skills. Maybe a requirement for 100 coach jumps might help. Nothing teaches flying skills like jumping with low-time people who are sliding across the sky.
As for the current teaching requirements, I've seen a wide variation of what C-Es and I-Es require.
I want to see lesson plans on at least a few of the topics from my candidates prior to the course, then require and grade their lesson plans during the course. The idea is to try to reinforce the idea that they need to PREPARE. I've been teaching for over 20 years, but never just "wing it" for a FJC. I show them my outline with notes scribbled all over the place to reinforce the concept that just because they skydive doesn't mean that they can teach it effectively without preparation.
I've had people go elsewhere to take the coach or I course and come back commenting on how "this other" I-E is a lot more effective because they don't waste all that time on lesson plan stuff.
I've also known more than one I-E that actually hand out complete lesson plans for what their candidates need to teach during the course, and seen candidates just recite it back so poorly that they obviously haven't even rehearsed to this low level.
The bottom line is that every candidate can reach a higher level than they themselves realize, but only if they are held to a real standard. Not all can or should pass.
This is less about written requirements and more about real-world evaluations.

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[popsjumper 2]

+1

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

[kallend 2,117]

  rehmwa

***
Maybe I didn't make myself clear..

My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach.

Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc.

I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself.



So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[popsjumper 2]

  rehmwa

I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself.

  Quote

So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

They are....if they apply for the ratings.
They get a tip o' the hat from the I/E....maybe.


But you do point out what many have been saying all along...the ratings require no teaching skill whatsoever. All they require is the ability to regurgitate information.

Why? Who the hell knows. It's not like they (USPA) have never heard of this problem before.

My take is that they have no realistic means of evaluating teaching credentials unless you are simply talking about a piece of paper testifying for you. Even then, IMO, you'd need to prove your abilities. But that's no less subjective than what we have now.

Just out of curiosity, why is it that YOU list no USPA skydiving instructional ratings? You claim to be the worlds greatest 'teacher'. Put up for the benefit of the sport. Pay it forward.

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

[davelepka 4]

  Quote

So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

The same reason that tunnel time shouldn't replace actual jumps in meet the requirements to become an AFFI. Much like the tunnel skills, the teaching is only one part of the overall puzzle needed to make a good AFFI.

Some people at larger DZs may forget this, but there are smaller DZ where there is very little in the way of staff. What you end up with is an instructor essentially teaching in a vacuum, where they do the FJC, the ground preps, make the jumps and do the debrief (in the case of AFF, there would be another I, but if that I is a junior instructor, they would be taking their queues from the senior I anyway). The point being that an I needs to be a complete package, who can teach in the classroom, on the DZ, in the plane, in freefall, and effectively supervise in all of those same places, and conduct a good debrief.

So just like a certified teacher has a leg-up in some of those areas, so does a certified tunnel instructor. Regardless, there are still the areas not pertaining to their certification where they also need to be proficient in order to do the job.

[diablopilot 2]

Been saying it for 5 years. "Time in sport" needs to be from issuance of the "A" (or first) license.

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

[Ron 10]

  ufk22

Requiring tunnel time or using tunnel time to replace ff time both miss what is needed.
The tunnel can be a valuable tool for learning some basic AFF skills (roll-overs and spin stops). It can also help with the basic flying, but the tunnel is far too limiting to really use for a lot of the flying skills needed (exit stabilization, staying close to a student that backslides 20' on release, staying with a students that drops 50' in a sudden roll-over, etc).
That said, having 500 RW team jumps or 500 FF jumps also don't give these skills.

I have never seen a person with 500 RE team jumps have an issue with the flying skills needed for AFF. I have seen FF have issues, I have seen TIs have issues... But I have never seen or heard about a 500 team jump RW jumper having an issue with the flying.... The *teaching* yes, bit not the flying.

Just like I don't doubt that a tunnel rat could fly the slot... But flying the slot is half, maybe a little more than half of it. You need to be able to teach, not just fly.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

  kallend

******
Maybe I didn't make myself clear..

My question did not address how well they teach. It addressed what they teach.

Equipment, canopy flight, landing patterns, aircraft procedures, emergency procedures, etc.

I guess that depends on the person. IMHO - I find that the ability to teach is much more important than the content itself.



So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

They are, or were. You didn't new the BIC per the USPA.

But, while I don't doubt you personally..... Just because a guy can teach a classroom of students math, that does not mean he can teach skydiving.

Just like the fact I could teach skydiving didn't get credit when I applied for a corporate training job, or why the FAA doesn't just have me a CFI even though I have AFF/SL/T I ratings. Never mind that I taught RC flying, never mind that I taught martial arts..... The FAA still wants me to take a test. I consider it fair.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

  popsjumper

+1

+1 to ufk's post too

(though I do think you guys minimize the applicability of the skills learned in the tunnel and in RW competition. I see day to day that these guys fly circles around someone who's (as the example) done 100 "coach" jumps (or see Ron's note about RW jumpers, FF, TIs etc - good post), the overall note was spot on)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

  davelepka

  Quote

So why aren't people with real teaching credentials recognized by USPA?

The same reason that tunnel time shouldn't replace actual jumps in meet the requirements to become an AFFI. Much like the tunnel skills, the teaching is only one part of the overall puzzle needed to make a good AFFI.

Some people at larger DZs may forget this, but there are smaller DZ where there is very little in the way of staff. What you end up with is an instructor essentially teaching in a vacuum, where they do the FJC, the ground preps, make the jumps and do the debrief (in the case of AFF, there would be another I, but if that I is a junior instructor, they would be taking their queues from the senior I anyway). The point being that an I needs to be a complete package, who can teach in the classroom, on the DZ, in the plane, in freefall, and effectively supervise in all of those same places, and conduct a good debrief.

So just like a certified teacher has a leg-up in some of those areas, so does a certified tunnel instructor. Regardless, there are still the areas not pertaining to their certification where they also need to be proficient in order to do the job.

Here's another +100



Edit: side note - this overall thread is great. We see a bunch of early thinly thought out responses, then a clarification of intent and understanding, and an eventual convergence of opinion (at least in general) that's leading to a general understanding of concepts needed to make us better at our jobs and identifying candidate needs for future instructors. It's how discourse should be done.

If this was Speaker's corner, it's would have degraded into "you suck", "no, you suck" about 100 posts ago.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants