CSPA rigger A training

[riggerrob 643]

" ... However, after that the MOT began requiring that square reserves be used on demos. ... Not sure whether that was MOT's initiative or whether it was a suggestion from cspa, but it would disturb me if it was CSPA's suggestion. ..."

....................................................................

It was CSPA's suggestion.
... and a good suggestion too!

The move towards square reserves - for exhibition jumpers - was the result of a botched demo jump in Vancouver that broke the jaw of a spectator.
I have listened to all the different version of the story - from all the participants.
MOT got angry and pressured CSPA to write a tighter standard for exhibition jumpers.
In an effort to keep Ottawa bureaucrats out of the business of writing demo standards, CSPA wrote a tighter standard than MOT ever would have.

Yes, it is tough to earn an Exhibition Jump Rating. Heck!
I procrastinated for a decade before applying for a CSPA EJR.
But the final standard is worth it.

The last thing we need is the bad publicity from demos done sloppily (e.g. not landing in the promised stadium).

[skypuppy 1]

In my opinion, all demos are not created equal.... and all landing sites are not created equal either. There are many where round reserves would be perfectly adequate (eg, airshows on a big airport, functions beside large empty fields, or even in large urban parkland, etc.)

A system where squares were required on some demos while not on others where the physical area would allow it, would be much better. I believe the US system allows stuff like this.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[riggerrob 643]

We can agree that different demos require different skills.
In a perfect world, a young demo jumper would have to do 20 open-filed demos before jumping into a tight stadium downtown.
Great in theory, but an administrative nightmare!

[riggerrob 643]

Rigging knoledge is infinite, perishable and constantly changing.

Young riggers will never learn it all in one week. They will not remember it all a year later. And just when they think they know it all, someone will invent a new gadget.
We are better off emphasizing the basics to young riggers, then depending upon their curiousity to fill gaps later on.

The brightest riggers constantly add to their knowledge by reading Service Bulletins and by attending refresher training every couple of years or earn a new type rating every couple of years.

By "refresher training" I mean a wide variety of learning methods: like reviewing old knowledge, assisting with a Rigger A Course, attending a PIA Symposium, adding a type rating, earning a higher rating, etc.

Don't worry about lazy riggers learning too little during Rigger A Courses. Lazy riggers remove themselves from the profession in the long run. If they don't pack enough reserves to stay current ... five years down the road, they bring their reserves to me for repack!
Hah!
Hah!

[Beatnik 2]

While rigging knowledge is always increasing and a good rigger continuously learns. I still don't believe feeding the answers to the students to get them to pass the test. They should be given all the knowledge and lessons they should have and then be tested on it. That one test is the qualification they need for the rest of the rigger A endorsements. There is no requirement for them to do another written test all they need is a practical. If they weren't taught the information in the first place, then they have no business having the rating.

Frankly, I will worry about lazy riggers who were fead what they needed to pass. They might retire from rigging in a few years but the time they get their rating and the time they stop rigging can be dangerous.

The rigger rating shouldn't be taken lightly and the candidates should have to work for their rating. At the end of the day you have to prove that you are competent and able to do the job. Giving them enough information to pass the test and then test them on that in my opinion is a poor method of teaching and shouldn't be done. They essentially know what is going to be on the exam before they take it. If that is what is happening, why even administer the exam, why not just pass them without doing it?

We will not see eye to eye on this form of teaching. I have done far too many hours in the school system to cater any course to the students to achieve high pass rates. That is not the way to test them.