Coach Jump Definition

[MakeItHappen 15]

At the recent BOD meeting a motion was passed to add this definition to the SIM Glossary:

Coach jump: A coach jump is any jump where a USPA Coach jumps with any
person and provides instruction and/or critique to that person.

Already in the Glossary are these two definitions:

COACH A non-rated operative who provides advanced skydiving training.
See also: Coach, USPA

COACH, USPA The entry-level USPA instructional rating whose holder may
teach the general (non-method-specific sections of the first-jump
course) and conduct group freefall skills training and jumps with
students, all under the supervision of a USPA Instructor.

From the IRM Coach section pg 2 Section G.1.b (Currency Requirements)
"....and made at least 15 coaching jumps in the last 12 months"


This change means that USPA Coaches will be able to renew their rating by doing 'coach jumps' with experienced jumpers.
They may never have to jump with a student.


I'd like some constructive comments on this action.

Thank-you.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[topdocker 0]

Was there an issue with coaches not being able to renew their ratings because they couldn't get enough "student" jumps done?

Does the term "student" refer only to unlicensed jumpers, or just someone (licensed or not) under the instruction of the coach?

craig

Jump more, post less!

[faulk04 0]

When I got my coach rating there were 6 other people in the course with me. I jump at a small Cessna DZ where at that time I was worried that everyone would be able to do enough coach jumps to stay current. By the end of the year there was only 2 of the 6 left at the dz so we were able to stay current. We just had another coach course at my DZ and it had 5 people in it. If everyone stays at the DZ it could be tough for everyone to get their coach jumps to stay current.

If they are still getting something out of the jumps they are doing with the experienced jumpers that is great. I.e having another experienced jumper play bad student/give tips on debriefs then it only helps the coach. (Yes this is just like the evals jumps in the course)

Now if they are going out messing around doing free-fly or horny gorilla type dives I wouldn't think they would get something out of it in terms of a coaching a student.

I guess it comes down to what is actually happening on the "coach" jumps if this is a good change.

[Deisel 38]

I don't know what the rationale was here, but I can see it. Newly licensed jumpers still require plenty of teaching. If a coach is teaching them formation skydiving beyond what's in the ISP, shouldn't that still count? It meets the intent of the rating (another term that should be reexamined). But the way it's phrased is far too broad. Using this language, if you land and say 'good job', then technically it counts as a coach jump. Ripe for abuse in my opinion.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Was there an issue with coaches not being able to renew their ratings because they couldn't get enough "student" jumps done?

There was some anecdotal stories on this, but no hard data.

Quote

Does the term "student" refer only to unlicensed jumpers, or just someone (licensed or not) under the instruction of the coach?

Student refers to non-licensed jumpers.

Quote

Newly licensed jumpers still require plenty of teaching.

I agree with that.
However, the new definition allows someone to go out and coach people with thousands of jumps and use those jumps to renew their rating.


I think it ought to be changed so that the jumps used for recurrency must be with jumpers with less than 100 jumps.
This is because the lessons you teach new jumpers are more closely related to the introductory topics in the ISP.
The jumps you do as a USPA coach should be preparing the coach for further ratings.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[Deisel 38]

Maybe they should have just made it one of those S&TA waiverable situations. In the event that a coach is unable to jump with actual unlisenced jumpers, they can be waived to coach sub 100 jumpers. That would cover the folks at the small DZs in situations like what was mentioned earlier.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[ufk22 33]

Works for me.
I imagine that any "linked" exit will now count toward AFF renewal too????

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.

[voilsb 1]

I think the point is, regardless if a coach is teaching a Cat H jump, or a 4-way team each with 3000 jumps, he's still *teaching skydiving* and therefore is building the skills necessary for higher ratings.

Brian

[DiverMike 5]

I am personally in favor of this. I am at a Dropzone where there are a lot of full time coaches, instructors who coach, packers who coach, riggers who coach, etc. I do not skydive for a living, so I can't compete with someone who has committed their lives to the sport, lives on or near the DZ, and probably needs the money to buy more ramen noodles.

I do skydive a lot with sub-50 jumpers and coach them before/after every jump.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[brucet7 0]

I have been thinking about this for a few days. I am considering the other side of the equation. I have almost 300 jumps and coach rating. I have lots to learn about 4 ways and more. I was invited to do a tracking drive, but never having done one and being asked on the way to the plane, I passed. I would love and need coaching to improve those skills. If the coach had less than 200 jumps but done a number of tracking dives, I think that should count as a coaching jump. If asked to be part of a 6 way, any help, and i need some, should count as a coaching jump.

POPS #10623; SOS #1672

[jhh166 0]

Whats the point of this thread? No disrespect intended, I just do not see the downside to staying current by jumping with experience rather than students. My best critiques have came from experienced instructors not students.

[Deisel 38]

The downside is that based on how this is worded, any RW jump can be considered a coach jump. If you haven't noticed, we already have a problem with padded logbooks and instructors whose skills aren't quite what they should be. This has a potential to be abused significantly.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[devildog 0]

Deisel

The downside is that based on how this is worded, any RW jump can be considered a coach jump. If you haven't noticed, we already have a problem with padded logbooks and instructors whose skills aren't quite what they should be. This has a potential to be abused significantly.

True, and I wondered that as well. But how many more people are going to pad the book that aren't already? Faking a dozen or two student jumps probably isn't that hard over the course of a year.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Scrumpot 1]

You mean, that there is an actual expectation of renewing members (coaches) be fully honest in making their statements of "rating" renewal eligibility?

Okay, sorry - I'm jaded on the entire subject matter before we even begin to discuss its merits - let alone now, its (definitional minutiae) - and renewal process/"certification" nuances.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[popsjumper 2]

brucet7

...I was invited to do a tracking drive, but never having done one and being asked on the way to the plane, I passed.

Oh, HELL YES!
If I ever meet you, the first one's on me.

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

[popsjumper 2]

Coach jumps should be strictly for students.

That's what it was originally intended for and that's how it should stay.

The rating was to help fill the void of insufficient numbers of Instructors. It wasn't for teaching advanced skills.

You want somebody to teach advanced skills, come up with a new rating for them, say, Advanced Skill GURU or something.

It should only be a Coach jump if:
-it is determined before-hand with the student and
-the student acknowledges with his signature and verification in the Coach's logbook.

"Coaching" advanced skills does not relate to students. You are not using the same skill sets.

Do I get a Coach rating and never have to jump with a student?
Hell, no.

After licensing, anybody helps as you go, paid or unpaid. If you want to call my help with 4-way skills "coaching", why would I ever need a Coach rating except as mere paperwork for the next rating, AFFI....which, BTW, is restricted to students.

Coach gets credit for the 3000 jump wonder and AFFI cannot?
Nah.

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

[Scrumpot 1]

^^^^ - What Andy said.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Deisel 38]

Ok. So how do you accomodate the OP? A coach on a small DZ that cant get enough student jums to meet the currency requirement? IMO Theres nothing wrong with having an exception for this situation.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[stratostar 5]

Some brilliant people decided we didn't need jumpmasters any more and so they did away with that and dreamed up this coach thing... made a bunch of jumpmasters instance I's and never made them take the course.... stripped people like me of a jumpmasters rating but didn't make us coaches by default like the newly minted I's got for their jumpmaster ratings being stripped....

Point is when is the USPA going to stop fucking up the program in the name of personal pet projects of the chosen few?

The whole idea WAS to help smaller DZ's with ISP FJC's so others besides I's could do non method teaching, was it not? That means working with "students" and then we grandfathered all the D holders to allow taking "under the wing" those just off Student stats but not licensed, that may have been changed again, who knows with every time we get some new BOD peeps they want to start changing shit to suit someones agenda of how they think things need to be.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[DSE 5]

popsjumper

Coach jumps should be strictly for students.

That's what it was originally intended for and that's how it should stay.

The rating was to help fill the void of insufficient numbers of Instructors. It wasn't for teaching advanced skills.

You want somebody to teach advanced skills, come up with a new rating for them, say, Advanced Skill GURU or something.

It should only be a Coach jump if:
-it is determined before-hand with the student and
-the student acknowledges with his signature and verification in the Coach's logbook.

"Coaching" advanced skills does not relate to students. You are not using the same skill sets.

Do I get a Coach rating and never have to jump with a student?
Hell, no.

After licensing, anybody helps as you go, paid or unpaid. If you want to call my help with 4-way skills "coaching", why would I ever need a Coach rating except as mere paperwork for the next rating, AFFI....which, BTW, is restricted to students.

Coach gets credit for the 3000 jump wonder and AFFI cannot?
Nah.

Entirely agreed.
Some of the coaches being output are pretty damn clueless about teaching, and while those same skills break down very nicely for advanced coaching, it's not the same as teaching a student from near zero to hero.

[ufk22 33]

Having given this more thought, I would NOT have a problem with the definition being extended to any jump with students or A licence holders.
Any jumps made with B licence and above should not count towards renewal.
A licence skydivers still have a lot of basic skills to learn that really would qualify as coach jumps.

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.

[cbjetboy 0]

I read the SIM in a different way I guess...I read it as anyone can make "Coach Jumps" with folks with less skill, plan the dive, observe said skill attempt, debrief, correct, encourage, etc. The difference to me is Coach Rated folks can ALSO do that with students without their license. I believe the Coach Rating is there for student's safety so the student has a trained person helping them versus someone who has not been trained and examined. I also believe a "Coach Jump" can be with anyone who requests help with a specific skill, who receives a proper pre-jump instruction, proper jump, proper debrief and gets a video to study later as well as some next step help and encouragement. Being a newer Coach Rated jumper I am approached by a lot of newly A licensed jumpers who have not put in the hundreds of jumps and tunnel training that I have and want a Coach Jump to help them advance. They are not students but I "Coach" them. I would not jump with a non-licensed person or even one fresh out of student status until I had achieved the skills, training and rating to do so safely. Just my opinion...

P.S. And for the record and to be honest I do count those as Coach Jumps, help fill in their logbook, sign their logbook as Coach and have them sign my logbook. No B, C or D licenses towards renewal.

Chad B Hall
Woo hoo!
My goal is to make every jump a fun and safe one. Blue skies!
Some of my videos...

[stayhigh 2]

Once you get paid by your student, that was a Coach jump,
Once you get free slot by the dropzone, that was a LO jump.
You get nothing and you pay for your own slot that was a Fun jump.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[Scrumpot 1]

Deisel

Ok. So how do you accomodate the OP?

I don't. Nor do I think it needs "accommodating".

Deisel

A coach on a small DZ that cant get enough student jums to meet the currency requirement? IMO Theres nothing wrong with having an exception for this situation.

OK, so what sort of "exception" then, do you suggest?

"Accommodation" via rule change that affects (and liquidates/allows massive "escape" loopholes for) the masses, is a far cry from allowing specific, singular, one-off small dropzones under your scenario to be allowed to make an exception - and IMO in any case, is not the answer.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Deisel 38]

Good job picking apart my reply. So what, exactly, is your answer to the problem presented?

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.