tdog

I am going to ask for more information.... I believe it is important to look at PROBLEMS and find SOLUTIONS - not to just make policies that make people "Feel good". Can you tell me examples of how this piss-poor job is a real problem (I know of problems at my home DZ working with students, but the AFFIs I don't think are on the top of the list). I can honestly say that the AFFIs I work with are great. Each has a personality, and flaws, but they all do a good job. Some are younger, some are older. Some have tons of tandems, some are weekend fun jumpers. So lets look at fatalities, per USPA: 1998 - 44 1999 - 27 2000 - 32 2001 - 35 2002 - 33 2003 - 25 2004 - 21 2005 - 27 2006 - 21 2007 - 18 2008 - 30 2009 - 16 HOW MANY OF THESE WERE STUDENTS (AFF STUDENTS, NOT TANDEM)??? I went to this site:http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/Safety/AccidentReports/tabid/81/Default.aspx and noticed the fatalities for people with less than 100 jumps are few and far between. I read each one... I see no smoking gun that the system is all that broken other than CANOPY CONTROL - which is not an instructor shortcoming but system shortcoming in AFF... (No dedicated canopy control jumps, no dedicated canopy control lesson plans... Just something that the instructor/student do post freefall). This tells me things/instructors are no better or worse then they ever have been... Maybe slightly better since membership/jump numbers have gone up most years other than the last few... And this is coupled with the fact aggressive skydiving canopies for people well past their AFF has become a leading cause to offset better gear. Can you point to an increase in incidents with jumpers with under 25 jumps where the AFFIs have control, or incidents post 25 jumps where AFFIs have clearly been negligent in teaching something (as opposed to the student trying to continue to learn, you can lead a horse to water, but drinking is.....) Ok, so give me details to support your claim. (I may or may not dispute them, but I will learn from them).

Ok, maybe not in a few radio calls, but in the fact that he was at work all day learning all about real-world working... Teachers can only do so much in the classroom... Why do you think colleges have internship programs and international study programs!!!!! Now that his father and his father's supervisor is fired (or very soon to be, right now suspended without pay) - he will learn even more, such as how to collect unemployment and how one little thing can make you lose your livelihood.

They just showed this story on TV. They spun it on the local news that this was gonna be instant death. They played the audio file. The kid did a good job, clearly was supervised by his father and told what to say word for word, and the pilots knew the kid was doing the work and said after receiving the takeoff clearance, "good job" and "I wish I could bring my kid to work too". I say - the FAA needs to get a life and appreciate this, not punish this. The kid learned more in a few calls on the radio than anything his teachers at work could teach that day. There is no proof that he caused any harm or distraction. The audio files show the radio was calm and not busy with traffic... I am sure - there will be a congressional hearing on this within a few days...

I know a lot of judeo-Christians and it is hard to even get more than a few to agree on any one aspect of their own bible. It is not that I have not paid attention or been exposed to the bible or interpretations of the bible... I went to a very religious (Christian) college and was forced to study the bible as part of the most basic curriculum. (I went because the same school was respected in my field of study and I just tolerated the forced religion). Oh, and I am a confirmed Catholic and thus had to go to many hours of "Sunday School", which happened to be on Tuesday nights... It was taught by a Catholic priest, who happened to have sex with my best friend's mother, causing a divorce and tearing apart a family... So I understand that just because someone calls themselves "Christian", they don't necessarily have good characteristics... I don't have a rainbow sticker on my car, nor do I preach anything about my personal life to friends or the general public... But - this request sounds like "don't ask, don't tell" - the soon to be repealed military policy. Here's the problem. Almost every sitcom on TV, even the Olympic figure skating routines - are all based on human sexuality and relationships. Heterosexual kissing in public is so common place no one notices... Can homosexual relationships have the same respect in public without putting your nose in my bedroom???? I wonder what your interpretation of your religion defines as immoral? I have been told that certain positions in bed between two heterosexuals, who are married, and who were virgins until their wedding night, can be immoral, let alone cheating on a loved one.... I wonder - were there any illegal drugs back in the day when the bible was written? I never thought of this until you mentioned it... Or do we just have to assume that some modern day behaviors would be immoral based upon extrapolations of how the bible applies to today's technology??? I know someone who partakes in some "X" and "K" at raves... He just dances and dances having so much fun, then goes home with someone else driving the car and sobers up and no one is harmed... But my ex-office manager's life was destroyed by drugs... So, I find it hard to even make blanket assumptions about "illegal drugs". Again, what is right and wrong is based upon one's personal beliefs... Our society has a bunch of laws that theoretically are based upon the desires of the public to protect the public from other people... Traffic laws, gun laws, and laws about property (steeling, vandalism, etc)... But there are a lot of things you might find wrong that I don't... And the other way around too. I try to be open minded enough to say - if it doesn't harm me, and it is not harming my friends - then why stick my nose in other people's lives...

In my religion, declaring a large group of wonderful people as being members of a "morally wrong" group is morally wrong. (P.S. My religion is much less followed than christianity, in fact, I know of only one follower, (me), but since you announced your beliefs in the tone of 'fact', I will state my beliefs as facts too.)

One other thing I thought about - the yin and yang of life. What one person does well, someone else does not... While a younger jumper, who may be more than able to outfly and out teach most other instructors at the DZ can be a great instructor and should not be denied the rating because of time in sport - other people bring other experiences such as length of time in the sport and should eventually work with the student too. Diversity brings knowledge. By no means am I not valuing the perspectives of all instructors when I suggest time in sport is not an important metric for instructor qualifications.

Yes and no. That very same student, who I taught to pack, taught someone else to pack and did a good job of it. So yes, he is qualified to teach some things. Is he AFFI ready? No, because he does fly good enough and would fail evaluation. He also would not pass the ground evals for a coach rating or AFFI, because while he knows the answers, he is not comfortable enough with them to teach them effectively and smoothly... He will need a lot more practice. However, if he studied more, and keeps jumping a lot, and practices a lot, he will be ready for an instructor rating younger than most people.

Which one of these people opened their ears more, learned from their peers, asked tons of questions, went to many DZs for training camps from AZ Airspeed and others, jumped with students as a coach every chance they could, and was passionate to learn? If both people had the same exact personality - then the 25 year person might have more knowledge, but the one year guy probably would have enough knowledge to be a good instructor (especially if he worked REAL hard for it). In that case, yes time matters, but only because both people were good students... Time in sport however is still meaningless if the 25 year guy in the sport did not give a crap while wearing the hats - and I would even say, 1500 jumps in 25 years is not enough to be an aggressive flyer when needed for an out of control student, especially if half of those are tandems. Currency (and belly flying coaching/training) is much more important outside of the aircraft when words and teaching don't matter any more but it comes down to one thing only - flying your body. And in the last five years I have seen some new skydivers who inspire me to be a better instructor, are great people, and have become great instructors with only a few years in the sport. I also have seen some guys I know will die in this sport, and I am not afraid to tell them, and I would never let them be on the other side of my student in an AFF level 3... And I don't think the DZO would either... I agree with all of those things. DZOs need to pick their staff carefully - ratings don't equal jobs. Other instructors need to mentor people they see living on the edge. Forging logbooks = fraud when ratings are concerned, thus course directors should be checking references to see if the canidate recieves recommendations from their peers... If you are counting on years in the sport and jump numbers to protect the general public from these bad candidates, then you are weeding out the flowers in the garden too. Use other techniques to weed out just the weeds - such as the very demanding and more difficult evaluation criteria I posted a few posts prior, that test for skill and knowledge, not time in sport. They soon would learn they are not the hot shit when they are required to take a very detailed exam and fail it.

Amen.

It always cracks me up when low timers like you make this claim. As long as I don't take this as a personal attack, I counter with another non-personal attack: "It always cracks me up when old farts like you are so stuck in their ways." You are right... With less than 1000 AFF instructor jumps (but still "re-earned my D licence on AFF instructor jumps working with students") - I consider myself a younger skydiver. I am always learning. Unfortunately, in the 6 years I have been jumping, I have seen a lot of people leave the sport because of money, lack of interest, grumpy people, etc... Thus, more people at the DZ are newer jumpers than me than people who were my mentors when I had 25 jumps. In fact, 3 of the tandem instructors were in my FJC (one I taught years ago, god forbid when I was even younger) and do great jobs, infact are some of the best at making sure students have fun and are safe, 2 of which now are AFF instructors ... However, I thought I gave a pretty complete alternative to jump numbers and time in sport by giving detailed solutions including very difficult written quizzes taken at a 3rd party testing facility where "friendships" and "perks" can't get you a rating in the "good 'olde boys club"... The questions in those tests would require someone who has knowledge of the sport. Either learned by time in the sport OR doing intense homework. I still contend that time in sport = (almost completely) meaningless... HOWEVER - what is learned in that time is MEANINGFUL! I know some 10 year veterans who know very little because they simply are not interested in learning. I had a FJC student a few weeks back who had every question I could ask him answered correctly before I taught him anything, including complex questions like, "say you pull your reserve handle and it gets stuck. How else can you pull your reserve?" He devoted his time to learning prior to $ for FJC and proves time in sport does not equal knowledge as he technically had 1 hour in the sport when he was getting everything right in a quiz. However, I will agree, until someone sees some bad injuries or worse, sometimes people feel invincible and take risks. That is where time in the sport builds character.

With all due respect, as an AFFI, someone who has evaluated coaches, and someone who loves seeing students learn.... Time in sport = meaningless Number of jumps = meaningless These are metrics that do not give any indication to the quality of the instructor candidate. Instead I would advocate a difficult written test, similar to the FAA exams for riggers - done on a computerized platform with tons of questions for the computer to randomly select. There are plenty of commercial testing facilities who do these types of exams for organizations for a small fee, internationally, for many different customers. (I took one for my LEED AP rating and had 10 places to choose from in a network of testing facilities)... That would determine how "seasoned" the instructor candidate is for "book knowledge". If someone can pass the test with 10 days in the sport, then great - they did all their homework and have the knowledge to teach! (And hopefully have the discipline to not BS answers but instead get help from people that know, should they be encountered with a question they don't know... It just happened last week to me, as an FAA rigger and AFFI - a student stumped me so I had to research the question.) Once the candidate passes the written - then they can take an instructor course, for which the USPA would have very strict expectations of their examiners. Each examiner would have to register their course with the USPA, and the USPA can send a S&TA or other official to the course to audit the course directors to make sure the USPA criteria is met. Part of that criteria is teaching ability, the other flying ability. And I support 25 coach jumps with real students prior to the AFF course (with a waiver given to those who come from a small DZ and simply cannot find that many students).... And, once someone gets their AFFI - they should be on a 25 jump probation where they must be partnered with another AFFI. (Our DZ does this as a management policy and it works well). So, in recap - numbers are meaningless (my opinion). Why not test for skill and knowledge instead???

I agree. Can't see why it would be risky from a legal/liability standpoint... If a coach is qualified to teach the A licence curriculum, to someone who has already been cleared for solo jumps from an AFFI, why would there be a liability issue??? But, I still don't think you have to remove the "working under" for the coach to have the privilege to sign the A card - as the final checkoff dives/quizzes are done by an instructor, and that instructor should be double checking all the coaching that has been done, thus they are "working under" an instructor.... I was chatting with another instructor today. We both laughed... Why would an instructor sign off an accuracy landing witnessed personally by someone else (the coach?)... And how many closing loop replacements does the instructor have to watch a coach teach before that coach is trusted to teach it??? Seems ridiculous to me... But our opinions may differ. (I also seem to sense that some other DZs must have really crappy coaches or coaches that were not evaluated with high standards to get their rating... That would be the only reason why someone would advocate instructors sign most items on the A card instead of letting the coach do it with a final review by an instructor to get an "A"... As most of the instructors I work with would agree 90%+ of the coaches are able to work on their own with students and do a very good job, and the remaining 10% raise red flags to us when we see their signatures on cards and warrant re-training on subjects, but 10% of all people suck too, so it's not a coach thing.) If you look at the 2 page A licence card, most of the items are simple procedures to teach and if someone doesn't have the knowledge of these items they should not have an "A", let alone a coach rating! Just my opinion.

That's great too... But, the coaches I have evaluated as a coach course evaluator would not have passed if I did not trust them to teach the bare minimum A licence skill set (items to be signed on the card) accurately and effectively and to get help when needed... Sure, we all can dial in our teaching skills better, but that should not impact safety or core knowledge a lot as the A licence candidate works thru the system. I know the 3 out of 4 coach course directors I have worked under expected the same out of their students, and the 4th is no longer in the business due to his "suckness". Honestly, if we can't trust our coaches to do good work without assistance, then they should not be working with students at all... That is not to say instructors cannot help them be better coaches, but having every item on the card signed by an instructor instead of a coach says to me someone thinks a coach is not qualified to teach the skillset at all. This is not to say any one instructor/coach should teach in a vacuum and not learn from their peers...

Another comment: coaches (at least the ones I have evaluated and when I was evaluated) should have the proven skillset to teach the items on the A card. They should be able to do each item and sign off (or most) - or they should not have the rating. I agree they are an apprentice/student - but they learn by doing. They need some freedom to experiment, try new things, and see what works so when they try to get an aff rating the kinks are worked out with the less important details with the topics coaches work on. A coach, when working at a dz, will be seen by their peers and instructors. Instructors will call them on their shortcomings. I am not saying removing instructors from the loop, but instead saying, the way to know who has tons of experience for higher ratings, and the way to know who is doing a good job, is for the coach to take accountability for their work.

If you go back and read every post I wrote, hopefully you will understand what I was trying to say... I want coaches to take responsiblity, so when I sign the bottom of the card, I know exactly who trained, so I can take responsiblity... Also, I want coaches to sign what they taught, so when a student does not answer a question correctly in my final review, I can see if the coach who did the work needs help understanding the subject better. A long, long, long time ago - about 9 months ago, SOP at my home DZ was for a coach to sign everything they worked on, except for the A checkout dive, verbal quiz, and bottom line of the card. We thought that was accpetable. The USPA called us on it and rejected every student ap after one day... So, I have seen it both ways now... Back in "the good old days", students and coaches worked better together, students went to coaches for help (now they find an instructor to remove the middleman), etc. Here's one... I was delivered a complete A licence card with every block dated and jump numbers and asked to sign each one... I asked, "why did they not sign it?" This student worked painstakenly to find coaches to help him, got his card completed (ground school items), but the coaches and student failed to get an instructor to sign that day because "everyone was so busy jumping we thought we would do it at the end of the day, then I had to leave early because I got a phone call from work..." Why not just have the coach sign off so the instructor can then review and see if the coach did a good job, or call the coach in for some retrianing?

It HAS resulted in license applications rejected... My students have had their apps rejected. But I don't want to sign off for a jump I did not do as I don't want the liability for someone else's work... Thus this rule has put coaches out of business as far as I am concerned. Sucks, because I think coaches do a damn fine job and I want them to be able to take accountability for their work and actions so I know who to congratulate when a student does a real good job. Right now, someone who didn't even jump with the student takes the glory (or liability). So, even if the BSRs need to be changed - someone at the USPA - if you are paying attention - do it! Please!

I wonder how many of the parts will work on the old otters - meaning, can DZs now buy parts, perhaps cheaper, because they are in production????

I would love to attend, but cannot. Would you like to share the agenda and the viewpoints you will be sharing, and would you accept letters from others to support your view and/or give alternate viewpoints so everyone's voices can be heard equally??? Thanks!

The lawyer will yank them all in anyway. But, if you are worried about a lawyer and lawsuit... Again, no change of a BSR, but instead an asterisk on the bottom of the form for the A licence and next to the verbal quiz signoff, for an instructor... Something like: "*All sections signed by a coach are not considered complete until an instructor conducts a review of knowledge to verify satisfactory training." (The beauty of this is that conducting a review indicates that the work was done under the oversight of an instructor, but - a review does not require the instructor to accept liability for anything more than the review!) What you are telling me about a courtroom and lawyer is even worse under the current policy... A coach does the training. A coach walks over to an instructor and says, "I told this student to do rear riser turns per this item. He told me he did them at 3,500 feet. I trust him. Now you trust me and sign off for my student." The instructor will then have to tell the entire jury, "Nope, I did not train the person, or see them do the turns. I delegated that to a coach and just signed the card. I trusted the coach." The lawyer will say, "Some argue the training has to be done under the direction and oversight of an instructor per the BSRs, why Mr. Instructor, did you not give direction and oversight per the BSRs and be there every moment of the training, because I believe oversight means you have to be there? Further, my client says you did all the training because you signed off, can you PROVE a coach did any work?" "Well, Mr. Lawyer and Jury, the USPA gives me no power over coaches, they have ratings other people gave them, there are no BSRs that give me ability to regulate work, we both are independent contractors, I made no money to work for this student, so I trusted this person to do good training based upon other interactions and signed off." "Mr. Instructor, why would you sign?" "Mr. Lawyer, I signed because the USPA has this coach rating, coaches do the training for students, but they have no power to sign, so someone has to sign. Ya, I know the coach does good work, so I had to trust them on this one." "Mr. Instructor, what did the person you trust tell my client on the aircraft on the way to altitude?" "Mr. Lawyer, I don't know, I watched him train many students, but I was not in the plane, I was not in the classroom, I just asked the coach's student a few questions that he answered correctly, I had no clue the coach recommended on the plane ride up that the student do the unsafe act you claim. I asked enough questions, so I thought, but I had to trust them. The only other solution is that the USPA get rid of the coach rating and make the instructor do every single jump/training item personally!" "Mr. Instructor, I think that is a great idea, and my view of the USPA's policy is that you should have been there every moment to provide oversight, you were not there on the plane when the coach told my client to front riser turn into the ground, now pay! In conclusion - what you arguing, in my opinion, does not remove the possibility of courtrooms and lawyers, it simply removes the possibility the Coach will be part of the suit and moves 100% of the liability to the instructor who did not actually do any of the training. You will never find me argue that a Coach should require more skills. I have watched some 100 jump wonders give great coaching, and it is their willingness to jump with students that gives students someone to enjoy skydiving with. I am all about safety, thus when I review incident reports, I look for the cause of problems... It's not coaches. The solution is canopy coaching and engaging the student to learn well past the first 25 jumps.... Not many incidents, if any, are due to a "broken system", so I don't want to fix it! So in recap... Make the coach sign what they taught. Make an instructor verify that it was taught. This is the spirit of the BSRs, and provides the least liability in a courtroom. I would love to see the BSRs modified to address this, but that takes an act of congress...

No changes required to the BSRs... This is not about the FJC, so lets just read section 1 (general): That does NOT conflict with a coach working directly with a student, with a coach signing a card, then presenting the completed card and the student to an instructor for the instructor to do the final checkoff dive and verbal quiz.... If the coach was a rouge coach, not working with the instructor, not respected by the instructor, unknown by the instructor, the instructor could refuse to sign the final signature on the card authorizing the A until each section is re-reviewed... If the coach is someone the instructor has learned to respect, they might take the coach's signature on face value and only offer a bit of additional advice and do less quizzing of the student for their final checkoff dive... As long as the bottom and final signature is done by an instructor, and the checkoff dive and verbal quiz is done by an instructor, the rest can be done and signed off by a coach and still follow the spirit of the rules as written. "Direction and Oversight" does not mean "there every moment", nor does it mean, "has to review every detail." Oversight can be, "when I was packing I paid attention to what the coach was telling this student, and he was doing a good job, so I have learned to trust this coach's signature after seeing them teach a few students" - or the opposite - "I don't know this person, lets re-quiz this topic before I sign off for the A and do any re-training necessary." In the real world - most DZs are small tight knit communities and instructors know immediately who are the good coaches and who are not. It's the instructor's job to not sign the A licence until they verified the coaches did their job properly.

The instructor's signature is essentially his/her certification that your coaching was, at least to some degree, actually under his/her supervision. I want a coach to sign off on each thing they taught - so they are accountable. When I sign the bottom line final signoff for the "A", I will review knowledge and when the quiz and signoff jump are done I will see if the student is ready... If I discover a coach did a poor job of training I can find out who did it by reading the card.... I can also see if one coach did all the work or if the student got multiple perspectives from various coaches... I don't want another "I", who did not actually do the dirty work, sign off for a coach... No accountability and no traceability if another "I" signed but did not do the work. I know so many coaches who work their butt off in a good way for students, and god forbid, some of them have just over 100 jumps and do a good job... Let them take the credit for their work - OR - document their inadequacies in teaching. Another way to look at it... The patient in the hospital is under the supervision of a doctor. The nurses also are under the supervision of the doctor's orders. The doctor trusts a nurse to administer care and sign the patent's chart. When that care is substandard, the chart shows who did the substandard work, and it is all done "under the supervision" of the doctor, even if the doctor is not in the room...

I was not tested by Dave DeWolf... I was not required to identify materials as an area of operation/task... In fact, I just reviewed the practical test standards http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_standards/media/FAA-S-8081-25A.pdf and cannot find (quick glance) any one task in any area of operation where the examiner could ask for identification of random materials as a question in and of itself.... I am sure the examiner could fail any task where the applicant could not identify the material used in the task.... Does Dave DeWolf ask material identification? Under which task/area of operation? What type of materials?

Are you using the 3 wire valves? On the installation instructions on the link provided, which way is the single valve wired that is "set up perfectly"? Transformer and thermostat only, or a controller too??? There are many ways to initially wire the setup, so before it can be answered, need to know what you got....

When I got a new computer and needed to clear out the piles and piles of movies that I downloaded - the I kept about 10, of which half were you guy's rope jumping videos... They are special as they show your passion for adventure and life. Secretly, I have admired your team's adventurous spirit and sometimes rebellious quest for the sky and flying for years and always check up on facebook to see what you and Alex have done. In fact, I would say, you are an inspiration. When we went BASE jumping in Switzerland, you figured out a way to fly a wing off the exit points in a way no one else has, and I doubt other people will try. That is why your team's spirit is special. I have cried a few tears since I was told yesterday of the incident... More than I normally do when I hear of someone I know passing on... I know half of them are for you... I knew a part of you died, a big part of you, yesterday... As Jay said, you have friends all over. Just make the call and we will be there...

Yes, but rather than take a sled ride to the bottom, even hang gliders need wind to stay aloft. This post was actually a joke. Someone who posts here regularly built such a "fly frame" and launched his speedwing from one of the Swiss BASE exit points - an exit point with only one or two steps to a cliff. While it was a "sled ride", flying a speedwing next to a waterfall is far from a sled ride... Later he flew off of areas that no one ever has ground launched from - including flying from the Eiger to the city... This was a joke because I expected 5 people to post "it will never work", then I would let my friend post photos of him doing it... But tragically, this persons very good friend, a fellow BASE jumper and sometimes skydiver, was killed in a midair plane collision today, so I, out of respect, call my own bluff and say, it can be done, has been done, and is very cool to watch (although scary as hell to watch too). http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=132284&catid=339