petition

Quote

Some suggested changes:

1. Increase the requirement to be eligible for the USPA Coach rating to 200 jumps and a C license.

2. Add a 12 month as a USPA Coach requirement to be eligible for a Tandem I or AFFI.

3. Add a AFF jumpmaster rating to all new graduates of the AFFCC.

4. Add 12 month requirement as a AFFJM to be eligible for the AFFI rating.

ok make sure you go to the next board meeting to discuss that...

On 12/21/2009 at 4:03 PM, chuckakers said:

 

I would also be ok with an activity minimum over a time-based minimum for people with a lot of years in the sport.

As for the quality of the rating holders, there has indeed been a decline in the skill level of some candidates allowed to make it through some courses. I've known people that got AFF ratings that have trouble with anything tougher than basic RW. That didn't happen in the early days of AFF.

 

 

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

 

What is USPA doing to address this?

Derek V

2 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

What is USPA doing to address this?

Derek V

Since 2009? Quite a bit actually. The structure of the AFFIE rating system was significantly changed to make it much more difficult to become an IE. I was one of the people that was unable to get my IE because of this, but I'm back on track now. And if you look back through old Parachutist issues at the new rating lists, you will see that there have been almost no new IEs for a couple of years now. And by reducing the number of IEs they reduced the number of courses to get ratings. And the continuing education program for IEs has improved as well. Ron Benn, Mike Wadkins and many others have done quite a bit in this space. Overall, I think that we are moving in the right direction with this. 

On 12/21/2009 at 2:52 PM, davelepka said:

The idea is to pair them with a more experienced instructor and let them build their experiecne with actual students with the assitance and guidance of said instructor.

For sure. So in that sense it's the DZO's responsibility to get new rating holders up to speed. USPA came up with a way to make more ticket holders, that's a good thing. That said, I personally think it's very unwise to believe a new rating holder should be training and jumping a Level 4 right out of the gate. They need to be under the care of a journeyman for a while. A number of two JM reserve sides on levels 1 and 2, and a few main sides, before any level 3's. Do well and get the nod for a level 4. If that's not happening then that's the weak link.

32 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

For sure. So in that sense it's the DZO's responsibility to get new rating holders up to speed. USPA came up with a way to make more ticket holders, that's a good thing. That said, I personally think it's very unwise to believe a new rating holder should be training and jumping a Level 4 right out of the gate. They need to be under the care of a journeyman for a while. A number of two JM reserve sides on levels 1 and 2, and a few main sides, before any level 3's. Do well and get the nod for a level 4. If that's not happening then that's the weak link.

Concur. A while back I proposed a junior/senior type of AFFI rating. Make the junior guy probationary for 10 or so jumps and limited to 2 instructor jumps with a senior I. Didn't get any traction though mostly I think because nobody was interested in the opinion of a new guy. Maybe now I can put together some concrete data that will either prove or disprove the validity of the proposal. 

“And by reducing the number of IEs they reduced the number of courses toget ratings”

I don’t see how less courses affects the quality (up or down) of the AFFI’s that pass the course.  The issue is the course standards.
 

The course standards were lowered because of the instructor shortage. Instead of allowing the market to self correct, USPA put their thumb on the scale.

A quick review of how things have changed;

Old course vs. new course.  Old course you had 6 jumps to get 12 points.  You could from 0-4 points on each jumps.  New course, you pass 3 of 4 and you’re an affi.

Lets look at how this works at the old vs. new course;

Jump 1, you have a bad jump.  0 points / Fail

jump 2, you have an OK jump.  2 points / Pass

jump 3, you have an OK jump.  2 points / Pass

jump 4, you have an OK jump.  2 points = Pass.

For the old course, you are in real trouble.  You have 2 more jumps to get 6 points.  You could do OK on the next 2 jumps and come up 2 points short.  For the new course, you are now an AFFI.

There is a reason the pass rate went up dramatically overnight.  

Derek V

37 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

“And by reducing the number of IEs they reduced the number of courses toget ratings”

I don’t see how less courses affects the quality (up or down) of the AFFI’s that pass the course.  The issue is the course standards.
 

The course standards were lowered because of the instructor shortage. Instead of allowing the market to self correct, USPA put their thumb on the scale.

A quick review of how things have changed;

Old course vs. new course.  Old course you had 6 jumps to get 12 points.  You could from 0-4 points on each jumps.  New course, you pass 3 of 4 and you’re an affi.

Lets look at how this works at the old vs. new course;

Jump 1, you have a bad jump.  0 points / Fail

jump 2, you have an OK jump.  2 points / Pass

jump 3, you have an OK jump.  2 points / Pass

jump 4, you have an OK jump.  2 points = Pass.

For the old course, you are in real trouble.  You have 2 more jumps to get 6 points.  You could do OK on the next 2 jumps and come up 2 points short.  For the new course, you are now an AFFI.

There is a reason the pass rate went up dramatically overnight.  

Derek V

Sure. I went through the old system and it was a lot less forgiving. Yarling ran a tough course and we really did need to show ground skills as well as air skills. Afterwards, we all went home and tried to do our best, and mostly did. In our case we went home to start AFF programs so the training was great. Along the way to happily ever after we've never taken a new rating at face value and that's paid dividends. I think if everyone did that we could leave USPA out of it for now.

On 12/21/2009 at 5:50 PM, ficus said:

A minimum number of instructional jumps would be better than "time as instructor", as it is a better indicator of actual teaching time.

That said, I don't know that this change is actually necessary. I have yet to hear anything concrete about the supposed plummeting quality of rating holders; it seems to be more of the one horror story extrapolated into an epidemic variety.

Where's the data?

that one didn't age well.  it only takes one to kill someone.  not sure if that's enough data but it definitely shows the problem.  time to up the standards and save a few lives. 

16 hours ago, Deisel said:

Concur. A while back I proposed a junior/senior type of AFFI rating. Make the junior guy probationary for 10 or so jumps and limited to 2 instructor jumps with a senior I. Didn't get any traction though mostly I think because nobody was interested in the opinion of a new guy. Maybe now I can put together some concrete data that will either prove or disprove the validity of the proposal. 

Sounds a bit like the Canadian PFFI system. When you get a coach or instructional rating, it is in effect provisional, and there is set of requirements to be completed in the next year (extensions possible), with some extended supervision, to fully complete the rating.

E.g.,

Quote

 If successful, the candidate will receive a portfolio that to complete 25 PFFI jumps
(20 jumps in 2:1 and 5 jumps in 1:1) accompanied AT ALL TIMES by a certified PFF instructor
that will enable him to obtain the final certification of PFF instructor.

Edit: Not saying it has has to be exactly like that, but just throwing the concept out there.

I like to think DZ's do just fine in supervising their staff, making common sense decisions about supervision and easing into a job, including AFFI, but this does formalize some of that process.