A License Proficiency Card

[okalb 104]

Does anyone know what portions of the A license proficiency card can be signed off on by a coach, and what requires an instructor?

-OK

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[SkySlut 0]

it should say I for Instructor next to it or it should say I/C for instructor/coach, some say I/P for either Instructor or Pilot.

[okalb 104]

Never mind, I found the anwer I needed. In case you were curious, the answer is none. It all must be signed by an Instructor.

-OK

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[SkySlut 0]

Are you using the 2 page or 4 page version????

[okalb 104]

I looked at both.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[wrightskyguy 1]

Quote

Never mind, I found the anwer I needed. In case you were curious, the answer is none. It all must be signed by an Instructor.

-OK

The four page version was designed to incorporate coaches. They can sign anything after category E except for the check dive and final approval.

Jump nice
John Wright

John Wright

World's most beloved skydiver

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

I much prefer the four-page card. It does, in fact, have places that coach can sign after cat E.

Chuck

[skr 1]

> Does anyone know what portions of the A license
> proficiency card can be signed off on by a coach,
> and what requires an instructor?

I just looked at the latest versions on uspa.org.

The two page card says everything must be signed
by an instructor. The four page card has a couple
places that a coach can sign.

I think the official uspa view is that coaches can
teach the freefall part of G and H and instructors
have to teach everything else.

This doesn't make much sense to me. A coach can
teach most of the first jump course, but can't show
someone how to replace a closing loop?

The other way this doesn't make sense is that all
the canopy control and packing and other stuff is
a *lot* of ground instruction.

Are there any dropzones out there doing it this way?
Or are people still falling off the end of the AFF phase
and lucky to get any help from anybody, even a lowly
coach?

Skr

[rigging65 0]

I think that the idea behind who can teach what on the card falls into a "who's best qualified" selection. i.e.- a Rigger is the best person to discuss/teach anything having to do with gear...not the only person qualified for sure, but certainly the best...and given the minimum requirements to be a coach...

Let's just say, there are a lot of 100 jump wonders out there that have packed a main only a half-dozen times. How does that qualify them to explain anything to do with rigging?

Yes, Coaches can teach ground portions of the FJC, but they are supposed to be under the supervision of an Instructor.

IMO, it all boils down to the following: Instructors teach students how to save their lives in a basic sense (to include gear checks and some gear maint.). After they are sure that's going to happen, then Coaches can step in and help them learn other skills.

This is how our program is set up, and it's worked very well. We also don't let just anyone with a Coach rating do coach-level jumps. We take it upon ourselves to make sure that the Coaches we use are thinking along the same lines as the way our program is designed. It's not that they don't have the necessary skills, but we want people who teach the way we want our program taught.

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[riddler 0]

I know a few instructor examiners that think some tandem/AFF instructors are 500 jump wonders and shouldn't be teaching anything either. Both instructors and coaches get to that point by proving they are capable of teaching certain things. Coaches are required to demonstrate their teaching ability on the ground, and by evaluation jumps in the air. If we feel that a coach candidate shouldn't be teaching these things, then we don't allow them the rating.

I also think there's a difference between who's the best to teach something and who's qualified to do so. If we need the best, then we should ship everyone down to Eloy and have Airspeed teach them to fly, and then off to PA to have Dave Dewolf teach them to pack. Why not have an I/E teach students, or the S&TA, rather than just lowly instructors? The coaches have to prove that they can teach almost everything on the A card, and a great deal on Cat E-H of the ISP, so why not let them?

Skr and I both coach at a DZ where instructors are in short supply and have to focus on the AFF and tandem - there really aren't enough to work with students as well. Even coaches are in short supply at this DZ.

[HRHSkyPrincess 0]

There are many items a coach can INITIAL out to the side margin, but the signature needs to be an AFF instructor or S&TA. The coach's initial is proof to the AFF instructor that particular skill has been observed. :)

*****************
Attitude is everything!

[HRHSkyPrincess 0]

I concur. Thank you. :)

*****************
Attitude is everything!

[rigging65 0]

Quote

I know a few instructor examiners that think some tandem/AFF instructors are 500 jump wonders and shouldn't be teaching anything either.

That's true, and I know at least one I/E that is a total waste of space and teaches very poorly as well. Considering he had to be an "I" first, one would think he would have either gotten over that or wouldn't have been able to become an I/E.

The point is, to get your rating you are passing a minimum competency level. If a given DZ doesn't feel that this level is high enough to meet their level of comfort, than they may require more out of their Coaches/Instructors/I/Es than what USPA does.

I'm a Coach Course Director at our DZ, and there are several Coach Candidates that have demonstrated above the minimum level of competency needed to get their Coach rating, and they did end up earning it...but they will not be employed by our DZ until they have shown better air skills, better ground teaching skills and more maturity...something we offer to help specific individuals with by letting them shadow other Instructors. BTW, I have nothing to do with whether or not they are hired as Coaches at the DZ, I'm not even consulted about it. How they act/teach in front of Mgmnt. is what determines if they work here or not.

Do you think a NASCAR team would let a 16 year old drive for them just because he has a license? Probably not...unless he could prove his stuff...but he wouldn't be proving it to them in their race car. So many people want to grow up so fast these days, just slow down, enjoy the ride, and learn a bit more as you go...you'll get there in due time!

Just because you meet the minimums doesn't mean you're what a DZ is looking for.

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[SkySlut 0]

I agree...I love watching my AFF eval tapes...one evaluator in particular couldnt track for shite!!! They did a delta track that was very, very steep. Pretty poor. I have the video to prove it, if you want to watch it. As for the coaching stuff, dont get me started...the USPA coaching program is poor to say the least.

[rigging65 0]

IMO, and only IMO, the Coach program's primary goal is to get people into the Instructor (or pre-Instructor) pool.

We're becoming desperately deficient of up-and-coming belly flyers (at least in our area). Freefly is a less emotionally strenuous way to learn how to skydive (ie- you don't have to lurk loads, ask for help, etc). It seems that the newer generations just can't see spending their time lurking and learning when they could be trying to get on their head without asking for too much help. Everyone knows it takes longer to learn to freefly, so you can make more jumps between that painful task of talking to others about how to get better.

Personally, being a child of the belly world, I blame us for that. Mentoring has gone away in many places because "Those damn kids don't want to listen" or "Those damn old timers move too slow and won't let me get on the good stuff"...take your pick.

Freeflying gets all the media hype (and usually for good reason) and all the "cool guys" want to learn freefly...unfortunately, that means many of them lack belly skills.

We have a couple of very good freeflyers (National Level Competition jumpers....with a couple thousand jumps apiece) that had to do about 50 "warm-up" jumps before they were in control on their bellies enough to go on the July 4th demo. We were building a round...

Since it's our younger generation that grows up to be Instructors, the Coach program is a way to entice those budding freeflyers to spend some more time on their bellies and learn the skills to (hopefully) someday move into the Instructor ranks.

New students benefit from jumping with Coaches by meeting other people, getting different points of view, etc...but I think the real benefit to the Coach program is to grow new Instructors. It's either that, or we go back to Static-line when we retire the last of the AFF/Is.

"...and once you had tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward.
For there you have been, and there you long to return..."

[SkySlut 0]

I agree with you 100%. These are two major beefs that I have with the current USPA system. There is no mentoring program (which is a whole different thread), but I am going to be a GM and chief I and I am going to impliment a mentoring program to enhance safety and inclusion into the DZ whether they want to freefly or bellyfly. (if you or anyone has any ideas about it, PM me...I have a pretty good plan of implimentation, but I would love to discuss other ideas too.) Second point is that the coaches program needs to be upgraded, which I believe that i posted on another thread as well.

I know this post doesnt really lay out my whole thoughts but, I am frustrated at the current system as it stands. The coach rating is a good thing, but it needs improvement. I agree that it is a good stepping stone to get into other ratings, but I believe that it falls far short and there is room for improvement.

Again, if anyone has any ideas on a mentor program, PM me and I will give you my ideas and discuss pros and cons.

[riddler 0]

I don't think teaching students to spot or move forward and dock is quite the same as nascar driving. These are basic skills that coaches have to demonstrate they can do, and are more than capable of teaching in most cases. Most of what a coach does in free-fall is fall straight down and observe students, then give them tips for improving on the ground. Does that really require an AFF instructor?

I've only coached in Colorado, and coaches here aren't considered employees of a DZ - they are usually recommended to students by instructors. There's still a responsibility - an instructor won't recommend a coach that they don't feel is a competent instructor.

I do agree with you - right now, the only purpose of the coach rating is a precursor to a future rating. I think that should change. Otherwise, the whole program is nothing more than sending additional money to USPA. If that's the case, we should eliminate the entire program.