Why to get a Coach Rating
Tom Buchanan
you have heard from a few folks that think just about anybody should be able to
fly with students, and that there should be no standard whatsoever regarding
who can fly with pre-"A" license jumpers. Umm, we don't need to beat that dog
anymore.
Sadly, some people may have the impression that fling with pre-A students is
the only reason to get a Coach rating, and that is far from true.
A Coach rated jumper is authorized to teach much of the First Jump Course (FJC)
or Comprehensive Ground School (CGS) and provides a great deal of ground
training for students after that first jump. This is becoming a very important
element of many student programs as the available pool of AFF instructors is
diminished. Think about it, as the community of belly flyers shrinks there are
fewer people qualified to teach and fly with students, so many AFF and IAF
programs are using Coaches to handle the non-flying ground work for most
levels. This helps the school, and it gives coach a chance to build experience
working directly with students. And of course, the Coach does fly with students
in Category g-h...students that have just demonstrated stability recovery for
the first time. It's tough but rewarding flying!
The Coach rating is also the prerequisite for any other instructional rating,
including the tandem rating. So if you are planning to teach any USPA program,
the Coach rating is mandatory. And of course the hands on teaching experience
of the Coach rating helps instructors transition to the Instructor rating in
any other program.
The Coach course also provides a great foundation in "how to teach," and serves
as an important academic foundation for any instructor. I either teach at or
direct a BIC/Coach course early every season and appreciate it as a way to get
current with my instructional skills. Other instructors enjoy assisting with
the course for the same reason, or they like to audit part of ground school as
a way to review the basics of teaching.
If you are interested in teaching skydiving at any level, consider the Coach
Course as the foundation of your training.
Tom Buchanan
Coach Course Director
etc.
CRWMike
necessarily imply they are stupid. OF COURSE it's required for any
other "instructional" (in the sense car salesmen are driving
instructors) rating.
I'm particularly impressed with your argument for using a "coach" for
the "non-flying ground work" thus freeing up the AFF salesman to just
grab the student ...and the money.
Tom, can you look back and see a definite point in time when you lost
your values, or was it more of a gradual decline in ethics? With cock
sucking whores, you pay your money and at least you get your dick
sucked. Your type just takes the money and licks it once or twice.
Michael
D-6139
Winsor Naugler III
news:20020129161114...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> If you have been reading some of the other posts about the USPA Coach
rating
> you have heard from a few folks that think just about anybody should be
able to
> fly with students, and that there should be no standard whatsoever
regarding
> who can fly with pre-"A" license jumpers. Umm, we don't need to beat that
dog
> anymore.
>
thousands of jumps to fly with an unlicenced jumper for free, but a low
timer with the rating can do so and charge for the "privelige." That is
definitively lame, and it puts low timers that much more at the mercy of
those with vested interests (e.g. you).
Someone showing up at a DZ where fraternal rules apply can have 12 jumps on
Friday and 22 by Sunday evening without breaking a sweat. These jumps will
be under the watchful eye of people who are looking out for the beginner,
and they will have input and reinforcement to further progression.
If the same jumper has to wait until a Coach has nothing better to do than
jump with them - in amongst their duties of picking up the slack for the
harried AFF Instructors - they'll be lucky to get in more than two jumps a
day, and their wait will be an expensive one.
If you're trying to alienate the low timers so that they go away and allow
you to focus on the high-dollar first time jumpers, it seems like a workable
approach.
> Sadly, some people may have the impression that fling with pre-A students
is
> the only reason to get a Coach rating, and that is far from true.
>
Wrong, it is the absolute truth. The only reason FOR ME to get the rating
is to avoid violating BSRs, which I can also do by getting the okay of the
S&TA.
> A Coach rated jumper is authorized to teach much of the First Jump Course
(FJC)
> or Comprehensive Ground School (CGS) and provides a great deal of ground
> training for students after that first jump.
I don't teach skydiving courses, so this is of no value.
This is becoming a very important
> element of many student programs as the available pool of AFF instructors
is
> diminished. Think about it, as the community of belly flyers shrinks there
are
> fewer people qualified to teach and fly with students, so many AFF and IAF
> programs are using Coaches to handle the non-flying ground work for most
> levels.
Big deal, I have never been on an AFF jump either way. I started out on the
dope rope.
This helps the school, and it gives coach a chance to build experience
> working directly with students. And of course, the Coach does fly with
students
> in Category g-h...students that have just demonstrated stability recovery
for
> the first time. It's tough but rewarding flying!
>
Your point being? This is geared to people who wish to teach skydiving, and
I already have enough teaching credentials. I've made a living as an
instructor for enough of my career.
> The Coach rating is also the prerequisite for any other instructional
rating,
> including the tandem rating. So if you are planning to teach any USPA
program,
> the Coach rating is mandatory. And of course the hands on teaching
experience
> of the Coach rating helps instructors transition to the Instructor rating
in
> any other program.
>
Again, I don't aspire to be a skydiving instructor, so this has no value to
me.
> The Coach course also provides a great foundation in "how to teach," and
serves
> as an important academic foundation for any instructor. I either teach at
or
> direct a BIC/Coach course early every season and appreciate it as a way to
get
> current with my instructional skills. Other instructors enjoy assisting
with
> the course for the same reason, or they like to audit part of ground
school as
> a way to review the basics of teaching.
>
I already have teaching credentials out the yingyang in other areas. I
don't wish for you to teach me how to teach, nor do I wish to teach
skydiving.
> If you are interested in teaching skydiving at any level, consider the
Coach
> Course as the foundation of your training.
>
>
I don't. My only concern with the imposition of the Coach Rating on the
skydiving world is that I can get yelled at for taking an unlicensed
skydiver up for a simple awareness-drill two-way. I'm not amused, and I'm
wildly unimpressed with the "progress" you seek to foist upon me.
Blue skies,
Winsor
Skydive City Inc.
dancing instead of training students for a living. Oh that's right, table
dancing does not take as much skill, time and money (that I invested) to
make a career.
In case you did not realize it, many of us are proud to be instructors, I
actually enjoy what I do, spent a fuckload of money and time to get where I
am and have the ratings now that give credibility to my name and what it
actually means to call myself an instructor. If you want to teach driving,
then that costs money , if you want to be a doctor, that costs even more
money, and you get paid (enerally speaking in this world) by how much
education and letters you have after your name - most of us do not have a
problem with that.
My neurosurgeon gets a nurse to wipe my ass and to do any and all prep that
needs to be done prior to him performing surgery on my neck. The nurse gets
paid less, but the job is still important and that person still has a
purpose in the bigger scheme of things. The surgeon gets paid more because
he has higher skills and more education and he can then specialize in what
he does. No one complains when 4-Way coaches get paid $100's/day when they
specialize in what they do - but they still do not pack parachutes for the
team as well.
Plus, I am not interested in having un-rated people teaching anyone
anything. Try doing that in ANY other industry in the world - liability,
skills, and having the piece of paper mean everything in today's. As long
as insurance and liability exist with the tort laws that we have in place,
you can expect that to stay the way it is (and probably get worse).
Coach ratings make you a teacher - not just skydiving, perhaps it teaches
you some skill you might actually transfer from/to another aspect of your
life - we should all be teachers at some level - the ability to spread
knowledge is a GOOD thing, not something to be shunned or 'whored' as
depicted by the likes of you.
It is a great entry level step and certainly a step in the right direction -
if you do not like it then join that OTHER organization - whatever it is.
We have asked for changes to the system for as long as I can remember, and
now we have them -
TK
"CRWMike" <CRW...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C571639...@bellsouth.net...
Keith Grossman
"Winsor Naugler III" <dog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> I don't. My only concern with the imposition of the Coach Rating on the
> skydiving world is that I can get yelled at for taking an unlicensed
> skydiver up for a simple awareness-drill two-way. I'm not amused, and I'm
> wildly unimpressed with the "progress" you seek to foist upon me.
Ditto.
Keith Grossman
D17016
Bob Barnes
Mike and I have coached and instructed hundreds if not thousands of students
over the years. We both held all the USPA ratings and Tandem ratings. I do
not think he is against instructors having ratings. I think he and I
disagree with the current Coaching plan. I agree with you that in today's
world ratings, degrees etc are an important piece of paper, but that paper
does not make you a good instructor, a good doctor, businessman etc. As I
have stated before on this newsgroup and to the USPA, I am not against
change at all, in fact, I believe change is both good and needed. I am just
not sure the Coaching rating in the current format is the best. As a group
we do need to find a way to help our younger skydivers get the needed skills
to be safe and have fun. If we are not careful we will create a system of
financial costs for students that they will not continue. We need to find a
happy medium that will do both. I am not saying I have the solutions at
all, I just do not agree completely with the new Coaching plan and costs for
the students.
Bob
"Skydive City Inc." <main...@skydivecity.com> wrote in message
news:a5G58.894$cg1.4...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
David Hayes
anyone given the product they receive in exchange for the money they pay.
When I learned to jump, most coaching was free, advice was cheap, gear was
cheap and so were skydives.
I was taught turns by someone who said "Wish yourself around a corner and be
there, man" - that was free and worth every cent of it. Nowadays, we
actually know how to teach people to fly and we have better training, gear
and aircraft that ever before. I would ask that you show me that skydiving
is more expensive than it was 20 years ago. We have barely scratched the
increase in the cost of living. Twin Otter jump tickets were $15 15 years
ago, now they are $17.
We offer a great product at a reasonable price and customers will have to
pay for it. My spinal surgery costs $78,000. was it worth it? I do not
know but I expect so.
Asking a student to spend $2000 to get a license in 2002 is not unreasonable
at all in my mind, and asking instrucors and coaches to step up to the new
challenges is not unreasobale either.
Lets put out a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
We are not making toasters here that can be built by cheap labor in the
Phillipines, we are offering high end training in an extreme sport that is
better, faster and cheaper (in my opinion) than it has ever been.
TK
"Bob Barnes" <b...@barnesfamily.biz> wrote in message
news:u9H58.17301$iX5.1...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Kevin Lange
1) i am a student, currently in limbo, because the sport is presently cost
prohibitive for me.
2) i have no idea who or what i am supposed to look for when i am aiming to
become a competent and safe skydiver.
3) learning the particulars of the GM requirements and other USPA
'standards', i am not sure that i trust USPA to institute and follow through
with standards for the sport.
4) i as a newcomer desire standards to exist so i can make accurate
decisions about the sport.
5) alas, i hope to become a member of that culture of skydiving which glows
with that intangible 'family vibe.'
i mention these things to give you an indication of where a newbie is coming
from. maybe you don't care, but the future of the sport is in the hands of
those who are entering it now...
kevin
murph
> Wrong, it is the absolute truth. The only reason FOR ME to get the rating
> is to avoid violating BSRs, which I can also do by getting the okay of the
> S&TA.
Winsor - like most idiotic rules, ie the BSR violation, this one will be
ignored by most.
bsbd
murph
Grrr
>
> Nice try. The point is that it has become a violation for someone with
> thousands of jumps to fly with an unlicenced jumper for free, but a low
> timer with the rating can do so and charge for the "privelige." That is
> definitively lame, and it puts low timers that much more at the mercy of
> those with vested interests (e.g. you).
What he said.
Thanks Winsor...
< grrr >
B-22629
Oren Kalb
"> Nice try. The point is that it has become a violation for someone with
> thousands of jumps to fly with an unlicenced jumper for free, but a low
> timer with the rating can do so and charge for the "privelige." That is
> definitively lame, and it puts low timers that much more at the mercy of
> those with vested interests (e.g. you).
>
it was no big deal to get. I did it in a weekend. I have done plenty of
category G-H jumps with new jumpers and I don't charge them for it. There
is no rule that says that I HAVE to charge them just because I have the
rating. Larger dropzones have a lot of "experts" so how is a newbie
supposed to know who is OK to jump with? At my old dz, a guy with 400 jumps
(which sounds like a lot to a newbie) offered to do some free coaching with
a friend of mine. She was about to do it when she was told by numerous
experienced jumpers that the guy was a menace and is known for doing stupid
and dangerous things. Had she not asked the right people, she would have
gone and jumped with him. At best, she would have learned the wrong way to
do things, at worst....who knows.
I am all for helping out the newer jumpers. Those who know me will attest
to the fact that I do it every weekend. I enjoy it and I don't charge for
it. As a matter of fact, as an organizer at a big dz where the organizer
generally gets a dollar per person, I refuse to accept it. I do this for
fun and because I enjoy it. Anyway, the coach rating is nothing more than
a set of standards so that a new jumper has some way of knowing who has the
basic skills to help keep them safe and teach them properly. Nobody is
saying that a coach rating makes someone an complete expert in every facet
of skydiving. It is like going to an optometrist to get fitted for glasses.
If you needed eye surgery you would go to an ophthalmologist. But you just
need a pair of glasses so you know that an optometrist is licensed and
capable of doing the job.
Just my 2 cents.
-OK
Keith Grossman
>
> we should all be teachers at some level - the ability to spread
> knowledge is a GOOD thing, not something to be shunned or 'whored' as
> depicted by the likes of you.
We used to all be teachers and we did spread knowledge, TK. Now we can't without a rating.
Keith Grossman
D17016
Gear Store
right, I used to jump with you and Phil when you both had 20 jumps and
scared the s**t out of me when I couldn't see you both at the same time....
--
Thank you
Marcus Price
www.gear-store.com
"Oren Kalb" <ok...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69J58.483740$oj3.91...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Wendy Faulkner
David Hayes <tkha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Asking a student to spend $2000 to get a license in 2002 is not unreasonable
>at all in my mind, and asking instrucors and coaches to step up to the new
>challenges is not unreasobale either.
I started skydiving in 1993 when I was in graduate school. I earned $800
a month, $10,000 a year. Yet luckily, I learned at a drop zone like
Palatka, which charged $25 for static line jumps, and $30 for freefall jumps
on the SL program. I still could only afford 5-6 jumps a month (still had
rent to pay) but I could jump. I would have been lucky to have been able
to afford 1 AFF jump a month.
When I got off of student status, people at the dz knew I was broke. They
lent me rigs, jumped with me for free, found me a jumpsuit and an
altimeter to buy for $50 total, and took care of me. I even found a
decent rig for a grand. True - my freefall skills I'm sure weren't as
good as they would have been as if I'd been forced to pay a lot of money
for coaching jumps. Instead, I got to do a lot of $12.50 Cessna jumps and
had a lot of fun. The skills came in time. I think I was a safer
skydiver making more jumps in that period of time than making fewer jumps
yet being better at RW.
I'm very thankful to have learned at a dz like Palatka instead of a dz
which considers $2000 a reasonable cost for getting off student status. I
currently jump at a drop zone with a lot of military jumpers - if they do
everything right they can go through AFF for right at $1000. And that's a
struggle for many of them.
I don't want to limit the sport to wealthy people. I'd lose out on a lot
of friends. I love going up with a newbie and just geeking with them in
freefall. They're just happy to be there, and we have a no-pressure, just
plain fun skydive.
Generally when I jump with newbies I'm not trying to teach them RW
skills - I'll just geek with him, or fruit-loop them at 10 grand, or let
em practice swooping me. They probably don't learn a hell of a lot on
some of the jumps I do with them, but they definitely have fun, as do I.
I've got 2700 jumps - why should I have to spend $300 just to have fun
with a newbie. I'm not going to charge them. I'd much rather spend that
money having fun with the new guys than going to some course I'm not
interested in.
For the past couple of CRWdog camps, we've had fellow jumpers who wanted
to come but couldn't afford it. All someone had to do was say the word
and 20 skydivers immediately chipped in money for a jump ticket and a
hotel room so our friend could come play. Numerous times over the years
I've seen benefits and fundraisers for fellow jumpers who needed help.
Why do we have such understanding for our fellow jumpers, but not for the
new guy who has a family and a mediocre-paying job who just can't afford
to jump as much as other people. The difference between $1000 for student
status and $2000 can very well keep them away. True, a $1800 Mirage may
be a better rig than a Dolphin, but why do you think there are so many
Dolphin rigs around?
Money is an issue for many people in this sport. Unfortunately many
people's desire to make a living in their hobby is helping drive all but
the upper middle class out of the sport.
W
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wendy Faulkner Don't knock on Death's door.
faul...@eco.utexas.edu Ring the bell and run away.
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/~faulkner He hates that.
ftrain
"Tom Buchanan wrote:
> > Sadly, some people may have the impression that fling with pre-A
students
> is
> > the only reason to get a Coach rating, and that is far from true.
> >
Winsor wrote:
> Wrong, it is the absolute truth. The only reason FOR ME to get the rating
> is to avoid violating BSRs, which I can also do by getting the okay of the
> S&TA.
Winsor wrote:
> I don't. My only concern with the imposition of the Coach Rating on the
> skydiving world is that I can get yelled at for taking an unlicensed
> skydiver up for a simple awareness-drill two-way.
Do you object to having to ask the S&TA for the waiver? Do you think an
S&TA would not give you a waiver for such dives? It seems that with your
reputation (time in sport, jump numbers, organizer at Quincy, etc.) and
other teaching credentials (mentioned in your post) it would be a simple
matter to get the waiver. Seems like that would be an easy way to eliminate
your concern.
-Andy
DCvet
>
> Money is an issue for many people in this sport. Unfortunately many
> people's desire to make a living in their hobby is helping drive all but
> the upper middle class out of the sport.
What about the people that it's not a hobby for? The people that do it for a
living? It seems to me that you're saying that nobody should be able to do
this for a living. So you think instructors should never get paid. OK, I
suppose that Suba lessons should be free too. And martial arts lessons free
aswell. I can go on, but I dont think I have to. Hey, I dont know if Im
missing the point here or not, but it's not fair to say that you cannot make
a living out of a 'hobby', because for some people, it's not a hobby.
LORD OF THE SKY
David Hayes <tkha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:_6I58.902$zT.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I was taught turns by someone who said "Wish yourself around a corner and
be
> there, man"
What ? You were taught by a sushi eating, mantra reciting , yoga practicing
Freeflyer?
"Treetop" a.k.a. LORD OF THE SKY
Mr. MOM
<main...@skydivecity.com> writes:
>It is a great entry level step and certainly a step in the right direction -
So was the JM rating.
>if you do not like it then join that OTHER organization - whatever it is.
Many people would......then again.......YOU would not let us jump at your DZ
because as a GM DZ you only allow USPA members to jump there. You wouldn't want
to break your promise to USPA..........now would you?
>We have asked for changes to the system for as long as I can remember, and
>now we have them -
TK........just because changes have been made.......does not mean the changes
are better. Remember the old adage? If it ain't broke....don't fix it, and only
fix what is broke.
USPA SUCKS
Blue Skys and Godspeed,
Mr. MOM
http://www.moms-skyjumping.com/
The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
Mr. MOM
tom...@aol.comJunkfree (Tom Buchanan) writes:
>If you have been reading some of the other posts about the USPA Coach rating
>you have heard from a few folks that think just about anybody should be able
>to
>fly with students, and that there should be no standard whatsoever regarding
>who can fly with pre-"A" license jumpers. Umm, we don't need to beat that dog
>anymore.
If you don't want to beat that dog, then don't bring that dog into the fold.
Your statement is extrmely generalized, and I suspect your reason for such, is
because you are trying to sell the unknowing into paying you money for a
coaches rating.
>Sadly, some people may have the impression that fling with pre-A students is
>the only reason to get a Coach rating, and that is far from true.
Is it? Gee........why aren't Instructors, and Jumpmasters staying with students
until they are Licensed qualified?? OH.....thats right......Tandems don't take
up as much time and are more profitable. Why do we need a coach to do a job
that many DZ's, for many years, were smart enough to know which non rated
jumpers could safely skydive with one still on student status?? OH......thats
right........if it's a jumper with an official title, then the DZ can charge
more money for the jump.
>A Coach rated jumper is authorized to teach much of the First Jump Course
>(FJC)
>or Comprehensive Ground School (CGS) and provides a great deal of ground
>training for students after that first jump.
You mean like Jumpmasters could?? Why did we get rid of the JM rating, rather
than modify it??
This is becoming a very
>important
>element of many student programs as the available pool of AFF instructors is
>diminished.
Really?? Why is that?? Is it because tandems take less time and pay better??
What about static line Instructors?? Are they diminishing too?? Were Jumpmaster
also diminishing?? Is that why we got rid of Jumpmasters, and created a new
rating that effectively does the same thing??
Think about it, as the community of belly flyers shrinks there
>are
>fewer people qualified to teach and fly with students, so many AFF and IAF
>programs are using Coaches to handle the non-flying ground work for most
>levels.
Or........just maybe.....it's because JM's and I's don't want to waste their
time on the ground with students. Doing tandems takes less teaching effort, and
pays better.
This helps the school, and it gives coach a chance to build
>experience
>working directly with students.
You mean just like the old Jumpmasters did?? Why do we need coaches to do the
job that Jumpmaster already did?
And of course, the Coach does fly with
>students
>in Category g-h...students that have just demonstrated stability recovery for
>the first time. It's tough but rewarding flying!
You mean like the old Jumpmasters did? Oh.......of course.....S/L jumpmasters
were not capable of such flying. Why did we do away with JM's, instead of
modifying the JM rating??
>The Coach rating is also the prerequisite for any other instructional rating,
>including the tandem rating. So if you are planning to teach any USPA
>program,
>the Coach rating is mandatory.
You mean like the JM rating was??
And of course the hands on teaching experience
>of the Coach rating helps instructors transition to the Instructor rating in
>any other program.
You mean like the JM rating did??
>The Coach course also provides a great foundation in "how to teach," and
>serves
>as an important academic foundation for any instructor.
You mean like how getting your JM rating was???
I either teach at or
>direct a BIC/Coach course early every season and appreciate it as a way to
>get
>current with my instructional skills. Other instructors enjoy assisting with
>the course for the same reason, or they like to audit part of ground school
>as
>a way to review the basics of teaching.
You mean like how JM's and I's used to assist in JCC's and ICC's ???
>If you are interested in teaching skydiving at any level, consider the Coach
>Course as the foundation of your training.
HAH...........does anyone have a choice anymore?? Nowdays....you got to pay the
money, to get the rating, before you go gain the experience. Not like the old
days where the school knew if you had what it takes, and you could go see if
you waned to go for it or not.......at no extra cost to yourself or the
student.
>Tom Buchanan
>Coach Course Director
>etc.
Tom.......if you want to announce that you teach coaches courses........then
just announce you teach coaches courses. There's no need for you to blow smoke
up our asses. Doing so just insults your fellow skydivers who know better.
Keith Grossman
>
> Asking a student to spend $2000 to get a license in 2002 is not unreasonable
> at all in my mind, and asking instrucors and coaches to step up to the new
> challenges is not unreasobale either.
Be careful what you wish for, my friend. You are about to make this sport cost prohibitive for most and not
only will your bottom line reflect that but the people who end up being the regulars at your DZ will as well.
> Lets put out a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.
You will have to quantify your "better mousetrap" argument and in this sport, the only way to do so is an
absolute decline in injuries and deaths. Do you think that these new requirements and ratings will have that
effect on this sport? If they don't, you know, of course, that they will be revealed for what they truly are,
a thinly veiled attempt to squeeze more money out of students and novices for a longer period of time.
Remember this conversation because next year, I'll be back to remind you that the accident statistics haven't
changed and the year after and the year after that, I'll be back again and if I can't be here or lose
interest, someone else will remind you.
Few business ventures are able to increase their profitability by making their products and services less
accessible and yours is no exception.
Keith Grossman
D17016
Keith Grossman
Hey, Chris! How've you been, brother? Haven't heard from you in, well, forever...
Keith
David Hayes
surgeon - it costs a pile of money and I cannot afford it - and no one goes
around wondering why all the other doctors are not teaching me for free.
Just because it is skydiving, does not mean that it should cost nothing, nor
does it mean it should be easy, nor should it mean that anyone owes you
anything for trying it. We all have limitations in everything that you do.
TK
"Kevin Lange" <dkwes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B87C9B2C.39AE%dkwes...@earthlink.net...
David Hayes
between $500 and $600 could keep them from skydiving so your argument about
$1000 versus $2000 does not mean much to me. It is about offering a good
service at a fair market value. I had a difficult student status myself,
cost a lot of money, and I never expected anyone to do anything for me for
nothing.
But I am not here to argue about the good ol' days or with you in any way.
USPA, Course directors and Instructors were likened to 'whores' and
'thieves' by CRWMike, and I resent that. And I will continue to.
TK
"Wendy Faulkner" <faul...@eco.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:a37nu3$4ao$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
David Hayes
campfire over a beer, and you are welcome to do that and more besides. I
doubt ANYONE who runs a dropzone is going to suddenly not allow their
trusted jumpers to jump with whomever they please if they feel it is safe.
We allowed S/L JM's who have few freefall skills to do freefall coaching
with 30 second delay students right?
I think too many people cannot see the forest for the trees. The ISP has
been through several re-writes as it is, it is better than the first draft I
expect, give things some time to work out - god knows we might even end up
better off - I know we would be better off without all the bitching about
it.
There are lots of skydivers with thousands of jumps who cannot teach worth a
shit.
If they are such great teachers, perhaps the rating would not be such a big
deal.
TK
"Keith Grossman" <keithg...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:cfJ58.9981$gW4.6...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
David Hayes
our rules without first consulting them.
And how can you say it was not broke when as long as anyone can remember, we
have asked for a rewrite of the training programs and ratings? If it ain't
broke, then we should all still be doing s/l on T-10's. Attitudes like that
prevent better programs and development of technologies like tandem,
squares, AAD's and more. Give it a rest. Every new program has been touted
as the 'worst thing to happen to the sport' by someone - most times they
were proved wrong.
try a positive note....
TK
"Mr. MOM" <mom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020129230056...@mb-bh.aol.com...
David Hayes
would hazard that they are NOT the most important aspect of the Coach
rating.
Better instruction, safer skydivers, makes sense to me.
We could argue about stats all day long, I think skydiving is safer than it
has ever been.
TK
"Keith Grossman" <keithg...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:4DK58.10001$gW4.6...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
Mr. MOM
>our rules without first consulting them.
Are you saying that if an American citizen can show proof of liability
coverage, you will not require them to have USPA membership?
If so....what is the reason your DZ is a USPA GM DZ?
Also.....if so.....isn't your DZ violating the signed pledge made in agreement
with USPA?
>And how can you say it was not broke when as long as anyone can remember, we
>have asked for a rewrite of the training programs and ratings?
Who's "we", and specifically what did "we" want rewritten?
If it ain't
>broke, then we should all still be doing s/l on T-10's.
Oh please.......TK that statement is absurd.
Attitudes like that
>prevent better programs and development of technologies like tandem,
>squares, AAD's and more.
No TK, attitudes like mine attempt to pinpoint what is not working properly and
concentrate on fixing that, without interupting that which is working. The way
I see it, is the Jumpmaster rating needed a facelift ....not thrown into the
trash can to be replaced by a simular rating with a different name.
Furthermore, this coaches rating is an attempt at filling a gap that has been
created by JM's, I's, and DZO's that are more concerned with squeezing as much
income out of a day as possible, rather than on giving a student what they paid
for. Now....we have a "coach" to take care of all the stuff that JM's and I's
were supposed to teach the student......but didn't. This is a problem, and
coaches rating or no coaches rating will continue to be a problem. Students
aren't getting what they paid for to begin with, so USPA has put a band-aid on
the problem by creating a rating, in the hopes that it will clean up the mess.
I don't know about you, but when I pursued my ratings....it was because I
wanted to teach. My primary concern has always been to teach the student,
rather than concentrate on how much money I was going to make that day. The way
I believe it should be is.......teach effectively, and the rewards will follow.
Not.....the more students you push out the door in a day the bigger the
paycheck. We're not producing teachers in this sport, we're producing jump
mules. It doesn't matter anymore how good a teacher a person is, it matters how
many you can pump out in a day.
Give it a rest. Every new program has been touted
>as the 'worst thing to happen to the sport' by someone - most times they
>were proved wrong.
I'm not against change TK.........I'm against stupid changes for the sake of
changing. Again.......if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and only fix what is
broke.
>try a positive note....
Give me a positive note to try, because I haven't seen one from your arguments
or USPA's actions.
Keith Grossman
>
> Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I have a coach rating and you know what,
> it was no big deal to get. I did it in a weekend. I have done plenty of
> category G-H jumps with new jumpers and I don't charge them for it. There
> is no rule that says that I HAVE to charge them just because I have the
> rating.
Yes, Oren, but the rule does say that you MUST have the rating to jump with them. Perhaps you should consider
this from an different perspective. My daughter started skydiving last year and my son will start this year.
According to the new "rules", I can't jump with them for some time unless I get a coach's rating.
No, really, let me get this straight...unless I spend my time and money on a rating I don't need, I'm
violating BSR's if I jump with my own kids, isn't that what they're saying. You know what? Fuck them. My
last membership renewal will be my last membership renewal.
Keith Grossman
D17016
Oren Kalb
> Yes, Oren, but the rule does say that you MUST have the rating to jump
with them. Perhaps you should consider
> this from an different perspective. My daughter started skydiving last
year and my son will start this year.
> According to the new "rules", I can't jump with them for some time unless
I get a coach's rating.
The rule says that you must have the rating OR get waived by the S&TA if you
want to jump with your kids and you are qualified to there should be no
problem getting waived. Anyway, you guys are all making out like we are
talking about their first few hundred jumps. We are talking about until
they have an A licence. That is all of 20 jumps. I don't see what the big
deal is.
-OK
Mr. MOM
>want to jump with your kids and you are qualified to there should be no
>problem getting waived. Anyway, you guys are all making out like we are
>talking about their first few hundred jumps. We are talking about until
>they have an A licence. That is all of 20 jumps. I don't see what the big
>deal is.
The big deal is that USPA took a good rating that needed a face lift, and threw
it in the trash can. Then......replaced it with this ineffective substitute
called a coaches rating.
The coaches rating is nothing more than a replacement for what JM's and I's
were supposed to be doing all along, but weren't.
Yup...an S&TA can waive the coach's rating requirement, but that was never an
option for the JM rating. Then again......it used to be that JM's and I's
actually did their job, so there was never a reason to have that waiver option.
It used to be that when a student graduated, that student actually knew their
shit and could perform at the level expected of them. Now, when they're
graduated, they're pawned off to a coach to learn all the stuff they should
have been taught in the first place.
Keith Grossman
>
> accident stats are valid and should be considered in all decisions, but I
> would hazard that they are NOT the most important aspect of the Coach
> rating.
> Better instruction, safer skydivers, makes sense to me.
>
> We could argue about stats all day long, I think skydiving is safer than it
> has ever been.
Then why change it?
If you make changes to the BSR's that directly result in fewer people being able to afford to learn to skydive
and that have no or a negligible affect on the percentage of student/novice skydives resulting in injury or
death, then...it could (and will) be argued that those changes did not make for safer skydivers and fewer
skydives will have been made resulting in decreased profits for you, the DZO.
It's your business, do what you think is right.
Keith Grossman
D17016
TY
"Mr. MOM" wrote:
Now that's more like it, Mike.
CRWMike
Your analogies further my point that the Coach rating is a business
oriented rating.
I'll put a dollar in your G-string anytime, darlin. I'll even give you a
free enema.
"Skydive City Inc." wrote:
>
> geez Mike, just speak your mind why don't you? Maybe I will start table
> dancing instead of training students for a living. Oh that's right, table
> dancing does not take as much skill, time and money (that I invested) to
> make a career.
>
> In case you did not realize it, many of us are proud to be instructors, I
> actually enjoy what I do, spent a fuckload of money and time to get where I
> am and have the ratings now that give credibility to my name and what it
> actually means to call myself an instructor. If you want to teach driving,
> then that costs money , if you want to be a doctor, that costs even more
> money, and you get paid (enerally speaking in this world) by how much
> education and letters you have after your name - most of us do not have a
> problem with that.
>
> My neurosurgeon gets a nurse to wipe my ass and to do any and all prep that
> needs to be done prior to him performing surgery on my neck. The nurse gets
> paid less, but the job is still important and that person still has a
> purpose in the bigger scheme of things. The surgeon gets paid more because
> he has higher skills and more education and he can then specialize in what
> he does. No one complains when 4-Way coaches get paid $100's/day when they
> specialize in what they do - but they still do not pack parachutes for the
> team as well.
>
> Plus, I am not interested in having un-rated people teaching anyone
> anything. Try doing that in ANY other industry in the world - liability,
> skills, and having the piece of paper mean everything in today's. As long
> as insurance and liability exist with the tort laws that we have in place,
> you can expect that to stay the way it is (and probably get worse).
>
> Coach ratings make you a teacher - not just skydiving, perhaps it teaches
> you some skill you might actually transfer from/to another aspect of your
> life - we should all be teachers at some level - the ability to spread
> knowledge is a GOOD thing, not something to be shunned or 'whored' as
> depicted by the likes of you.
>
> It is a great entry level step and certainly a step in the right direction -
> if you do not like it then join that OTHER organization - whatever it is.
> We have asked for changes to the system for as long as I can remember, and
> now we have them -
> TK
>
> "CRWMike" <CRW...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C571639...@bellsouth.net...
> > The USPA and Coach Course Directors are thieves. This does not
> > necessarily imply they are stupid. OF COURSE it's required for any
> > other "instructional" (in the sense car salesmen are driving
> > instructors) rating.
> >
> > I'm particularly impressed with your argument for using a "coach" for
> > the "non-flying ground work" thus freeing up the AFF salesman to just
> > grab the student ...and the money.
> >
> > Tom, can you look back and see a definite point in time when you lost
> > your values, or was it more of a gradual decline in ethics? With cock
> > sucking whores, you pay your money and at least you get your dick
> > sucked. Your type just takes the money and licks it once or twice.
> >
> >
> > Michael
> > D-6139
> >
> > Tom Buchanan wrote:
> > >
> > > If you have been reading some of the other posts about the USPA Coach
> rating
> > > you have heard from a few folks that think just about anybody should be
> able to
> > > fly with students, and that there should be no standard whatsoever
> regarding
> > > who can fly with pre-"A" license jumpers. Umm, we don't need to beat
> that dog
> > > anymore.
> > >
> > > Sadly, some people may have the impression that fling with pre-A
> students is
> > > the only reason to get a Coach rating, and that is far from true.
> > >
> > > A Coach rated jumper is authorized to teach much of the First Jump
> Course (FJC)
> > > or Comprehensive Ground School (CGS) and provides a great deal of ground
> > > training for students after that first jump. This is becoming a very
> important
> > > element of many student programs as the available pool of AFF
> instructors is
> > > diminished. Think about it, as the community of belly flyers shrinks
> there are
> > > fewer people qualified to teach and fly with students, so many AFF and
> IAF
> > > programs are using Coaches to handle the non-flying ground work for most
> > > levels. This helps the school, and it gives coach a chance to build
> experience
> > > working directly with students. And of course, the Coach does fly with
> students
> > > in Category g-h...students that have just demonstrated stability
> recovery for
> > > the first time. It's tough but rewarding flying!
> > >
> > > The Coach rating is also the prerequisite for any other instructional
> rating,
> > > including the tandem rating. So if you are planning to teach any USPA
> program,
> > > the Coach rating is mandatory. And of course the hands on teaching
> experience
> > > of the Coach rating helps instructors transition to the Instructor
> rating in
> > > any other program.
> > >
> > > The Coach course also provides a great foundation in "how to teach," and
> serves
> > > as an important academic foundation for any instructor. I either teach
> at or
> > > direct a BIC/Coach course early every season and appreciate it as a way
> to get
> > > current with my instructional skills. Other instructors enjoy assisting
> with
> > > the course for the same reason, or they like to audit part of ground
> school as
> > > a way to review the basics of teaching.
> > >
> > > If you are interested in teaching skydiving at any level, consider the
> Coach
> > > Course as the foundation of your training.
> > >
CRWMike
DCvet wrote:
>
> >
> > Money is an issue for many people in this sport. Unfortunately many
> > people's desire to make a living in their hobby is helping drive all but
> > the upper middle class out of the sport.
>
> What about the people that it's not a hobby for? The people that do it for a
> living?
THEM!
CRWMike
'liken' them to whores and thieves, I said you 'are' whores and
thieves.
Dude, you really need that enema.
freeflyer
> Skydiving is an expensive sport
Is that an argument for "why not make it even more expensive"?
> Asking a student to spend $2000 to get a license in 2002 is not unreasonable
> at all in my mind,
Maybe that's because you're sitting at the other end of the
table.
--
Espen
ALF#1
CRWMike
David Hayes wrote:
>
> We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do not quote
> our rules without first consulting them.
>
> And how can you say it was not broke when as long as anyone can remember, we
> have asked for a rewrite of the training programs and ratings?
The people grabbing the money asked for the rewrites. You got them. Be
happy.
freeflyer
> in response to the 'why to get a coach rating' thread:
>
> 1) i am a student, currently in limbo, because the sport is presently cost
> prohibitive for me.
Hey, according to TK it's actually cheap. Guess you're not
the sort of person "we" are looking for in skydiving.
> 5) alas, i hope to become a member of that culture of skydiving which glows
> with that intangible 'family vibe.'
Stay at a Cessna DZ for a while and you should be able to
find it and be welcomed with open arms.
> i mention these things to give you an indication of where a newbie is coming
> from. maybe you don't care, but the future of the sport is in the hands of
> those who are entering it now...
It's only in the hands of those who have enough cash it seems.
me
[snip]
No, near as anyone can tell, you're just here to drive up the cost
of skydiving to serve your own profitable purposes, skydiving and
the students be damned.
> USPA, Course directors and Instructors were likened to 'whores' and
> 'thieves' by CRWMike, and I resent that. And I will continue to.
[snip]
And I suspect he resents your point of view. I'm not sure what
siginficance any of that has.
me
> "Tom Buchanan" <tom...@aol.comJunkfree> wrote in message
> news:20020129161114...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> > If you have been reading some of the other posts about the USPA Coach
> rating
> > you have heard from a few folks that think just about anybody should be
> able to
> > fly with students, and that there should be no standard whatsoever
> regarding
> > who can fly with pre-"A" license jumpers. Umm, we don't need to beat that
> dog
> > anymore.
> >
> thousands of jumps to fly with an unlicenced jumper for free,
[snip]
Actually, in Nevada, it's now actually against the law, thanks to
the efforts of USPA.
Kevin O'Connell
freeflyer
> I could say almost all the same things about why I want to be an Orthopaedic
> surgeon - it costs a pile of money and I cannot afford it - and no one goes
> around wondering why all the other doctors are not teaching me for free.
You're comparing oranges to apples. One is the entry level
of a hobby. The other is an education to get a profession.
Very few start out skydiving to become professionals at it.
I'm willing to bet that most do in Orthopedics.
> Just because it is skydiving, does not mean that it should cost nothing, nor
> does it mean it should be easy, nor should it mean that anyone owes you
> anything for trying it. We all have limitations in everything that you do.
You're starting to sound like a skiing instructor. Is that
what you want skydiving to be? Just like any other ski resort?
freeflyer
> We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do not quote
> our rules without first consulting them.
>
> And how can you say it was not broke when as long as anyone can remember, we
> have asked for a rewrite of the training programs and ratings?
What was the goal for rewriting everything?
stuDent
> needs to be done prior to him performing surgery on my neck.
If you didn't have your head up your ass so far it wouldn't need to be
wiped before they worked on the neck.
<couldn't resist>
james
kallend
DCvet wrote:
>
> >
> > Money is an issue for many people in this sport. Unfortunately many
> > people's desire to make a living in their hobby is helping drive all but
> > the upper middle class out of the sport.
>
> What about the people that it's not a hobby for? The people that do it for a
> living? It seems to me that you're saying that nobody should be able to do
> this for a living. So you think instructors should never get paid. OK, I
> suppose that Suba lessons should be free too. And martial arts lessons free
> aswell. I can go on, but I dont think I have to. Hey, I dont know if Im
> missing the point here or not, but it's not fair to say that you cannot make
> a living out of a 'hobby', because for some people, it's not a hobby.
I don't think anyone (except, maybe, CRWMike) objects to someone making
a living from teaching skydiving. I think the objections are primarily
about a new rule that redefines student status to anyone who has yet to
get their "A", and makes it mandatory that anyone jumping with these
folk have a rating. As far as I can tell the new rule was put in place
(a) without any evidence being presented that the old rule was defective
or had caused any problems, and (b) without any evidence that the new
rule would be better.
kallend
David Hayes wrote:
>
> accident stats are valid and should be considered in all decisions, but I
> would hazard that they are NOT the most important aspect of the Coach
> rating.
> Better instruction, safer skydivers, makes sense to me.
>
> We could argue about stats all day long, I think skydiving is safer than it
> has ever been.
> TK
Apparently. See
http://www.skydivenet.com/fatalities/fatalities_history.html
stuDent
> We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do not quote
> our rules without first consulting them.
Well... I be god dammed!
TK you take the cake!
All that bitching about insurance requirements and how USPA's was the
pits compared to my home owners policy and you say not a damn word about
jumping at your place. Now the coach rating, and it doesn't have diddly
to do with insurance and POP goes the weasel. Maybe it was an
inadvertent slip-o-the-tongue.
It pays not to advertise I guess.
james
<off topic>
PS: How is the kiddy tandems going?
kallend
Keith Grossman wrote:
>
> "David Hayes" <tkha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > accident stats are valid and should be considered in all decisions, but I
> > would hazard that they are NOT the most important aspect of the Coach
> > rating.
> > Better instruction, safer skydivers, makes sense to me.
> >
> > We could argue about stats all day long, I think skydiving is safer than it
> > has ever been.
>
> Then why change it?
>
Its safer BECAUSE appropriate changes have been made over the years.
The problem isn't change, the problem is change for the wrong reason.
Mark Harju
Hey, Grrr! How ya been?
See ya at KDFC (I hope!)
mh
--
--------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are
not necessarily those of
The Boeing Company.
Please remove "NO-SPAM"
to reply.
Thanks!
"Grrr" <ch...@grrr.net> wrote in message news:3C575D93...@grrr.net...
> Winsor Naugler III wrote:
> >
> > Nice try. The point is that it has become a violation for someone with
> > thousands of jumps to fly with an unlicenced jumper for free, but a low
> > timer with the rating can do so and charge for the "privelige." That is
> > definitively lame, and it puts low timers that much more at the mercy of
> > those with vested interests (e.g. you).
>
>
> What he said.
>
> Thanks Winsor...
>
>
> < grrr >
> B-22629
Mark Harju
in sum, I think a lot of it depends on how badly somebody wants to do this.
I think that the sport is best afforded by:
1. The young and unattached, who have nothing else to spend their money on.
2. The well-heeled upper-middle class, or those with other disposable
income, who are already firmly established in their lifetime economic cycle.
I fall into this category. I am fortunate to have a side gig that funds a
lot of my adventures (or misadventures, some might say - heh) in addition to
my day job. Even so, I've got an old rig. I've upgraded it with a new main
and a Cypres, but I'm still flying with hand-me-downs. Such is life. If I
was more seriously committed to skydiving, I'd have all-new gear, and a
jumpsuit with booties, etc., but I have other commitments, like my career.
As TIME = $, and this is an immutable fact for everyone, there are
checks-and-balances at work here.
No, it's not cheap, but then I really think there is a reason for it, aside
from DZ operating costs, the costs of decent rigs, etc. I think this exists
at least in part because it *shouldn't* be cheap; it *shouldn't* be easy. In
order to be part of the skydiving community, it takes a serious personal
commitment. Those who are already stretched thin due to other commitments
must decide what in their lives is more important. In other words, how badly
does somebody want to do this? If they want to badly enough, they'll find a
way to make it happen. I seem to recall some pioneer aviators that took the
worst jobs at the airfield, e.g., shoveling out the horse stalls, etc., so
that they could at least be there. Later, after others observed their
commitment, they "got breaks"; e.g., they were granted opportunities to
progress.
It's called "Paying One's Dues". Few people just walk in off the street,
throw down a lot of cash, and become an instant skygod. I think we've seen a
few, but people like that are rare in that they represent a convergence of
factors - personal and economic being first among these. I'm of course
envious of such people, but don't forget that "it takes all kinds". Sure,
they may be ace swoopers, freeflyers, etc. with thousands of skydives, but
they live in a crummy little trailer or even a closet at the drop zone. They
don't have lives away from the airfield. The grass is always greener. No
flames please, as these remarks are simply my opinion and as always, YMMV.
BSBD
mh
D-23828
--
--------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are
not necessarily those of
The Boeing Company.
Please remove "NO-SPAM"
to reply.
Thanks!
"Wendy Faulkner" <faul...@eco.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:a37nu3$4ao$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> In article <_6I58.902$zT.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> David Hayes <tkha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >Asking a student to spend $2000 to get a license in 2002 is not
unreasonable
> Money is an issue for many people in this sport. Unfortunately many
> people's desire to make a living in their hobby is helping drive all but
> the upper middle class out of the sport.
>
Mark Harju
Doh!
</HOMER>
--
--------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are
not necessarily those of
The Boeing Company.
Please remove "NO-SPAM"
to reply.
Thanks!
"CRWMike" <CRW...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C571639...@bellsouth.net...
> The USPA and Coach Course Directors are thieves. This does not
> necessarily imply they are stupid. OF COURSE it's required for any
> other "instructional" (in the sense car salesmen are driving
> instructors) rating.
>
> I'm particularly impressed with your argument for using a "coach" for
> the "non-flying ground work" thus freeing up the AFF salesman to just
> grab the student ...and the money.
>
> Tom, can you look back and see a definite point in time when you lost
> your values, or was it more of a gradual decline in ethics? With cock
> sucking whores, you pay your money and at least you get your dick
> sucked. Your type just takes the money and licks it once or twice.
>
>
> Michael
> D-6139
>
> Tom Buchanan wrote:
> >
> > If you have been reading some of the other posts about the USPA Coach
rating
> > you have heard from a few folks that think just about anybody should be
able to
> > fly with students, and that there should be no standard whatsoever
regarding
> > who can fly with pre-"A" license jumpers. Umm, we don't need to beat
that dog
> > anymore.
> >
Alan Binnebose
news:taM58.483981$oj3.91...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
I was once told that anything worth having, was worth working for. I keep
hearing, it is easy, it is no big deal, you can get it waived, etc., etc..
Well then WHY have it? Many of you just keep missing the point. This was
not done in the best interest of the individual members by a BOD that is
responsive/responding to the needs of individual members. There are a few
people at USPA that are counting on the fact that there are so many of you
who "don't see what the big deal is." My DZO has said they would just sign
it off for me. Well Jesus Christ, if he can do that, then he can ignore the
part of the GM pledge that says he will require USPA membership.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
Lord Phoenix
>a living from teaching skydiving. I think the objections are primarily
>about a new rule that redefines student status to anyone who has yet to
>get their "A", and makes it mandatory that anyone jumping with these
>folk have a rating.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the USPA has ALWAYS defined a student as
someone who does not have their A license. When a student finished AFF they
did not "graduate student status" as most people say they were "cleared to
self jumpmastering". In other words they were students that could jump solo
and be mostly responsible for themselves. If I am not mistaken, they even
were even supposd to be supervised by a jumpmaster [not necessarily
directly] between AFF and the A license.
jsk
Alan Binnebose
news:3C580148...@kallend.net...
Very good John, and don't forget the key word..."appropriate". What will
happen if you and Mike find yourselves on the same ground here? :-)
Lord Phoenix
threw
>it in the trash can. Then......replaced it with this ineffective substitute
>called a coaches rating.
The JM rating, though I wish they had kept it, was useless. The coach
rating is better and different. JMs didn't have to know how to teach to the
level that coaches do. The JMs didn't have to be able to fly worth shit
[aside from AFF]. The coach rating insures that BOTH of these are there.
S/L JM/I's should prove officialy that they can actually fly their body.
>It used to be that when a student graduated, that student actually knew
their
>shit and could perform at the level expected of them. Now, when they're
>graduated, they're pawned off to a coach to learn all the stuff they should
>have been taught in the first place.
That isn't true. It used to be that when a student graduated AFF they were
safe enough to fly by themselves and not die. That is still true. The
coaches are intended to teach students how to fly with other people safely.
For someone who can't fly that well a student can be dangerous to all
parties. True, coaches should have more air training or the coach jumps
should be done by AFF JM/I's but they wouldn't have time to ever do it.
Alan Binnebose
> >We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do not
quote
> >our rules without first consulting them.
>
> coverage, you will not require them to have USPA membership?
>
> If so....what is the reason your DZ is a USPA GM DZ?
>
> Also.....if so.....isn't your DZ violating the signed pledge made in
agreement
> with USPA?
We're about to find out. I forwarded TK's post to USPA, along with a few
questions about what the Executive Committee's position/actions would be.
TK also got a copy of it. I'm reminded of an old song Johnny Cash used to
sing......
ftrain
"Alan Binnebose" <acbin...@tznet.com> wrote in message
news:DJV58.199659$QB1.14...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
The "it's easy and no big deal" response is targeted at a certain audience,
not at the rating itself. The "it's easy and no big deal" response is being
used to reply to high-timers who bitch and moan about having already been
teaching this stuff for years. (Perhaps its not the best response.)
However, the rating probably is not easy and it probably is a big deal for a
low timer who has never taught before.
> My DZO has said they would just sign
> it off for me. Well Jesus Christ, if he can do that, then he can ignore
the
> part of the GM pledge that says he will require USPA membership.
There's a difference. Signing off is condoned by the USPA. Either get the
rating or get waived. Ignoring the membership requirement doesn't have an
option if the DZO wants to remain a GM. The latter is not an either/or
proposition.
Digressing to what Oren first mentioned, what is the big deal about having
to wait until someone has 20 jumps? Is there such a huge difference between
jumping with someone directly off student status and someone who has their A
license? An A-license holder with 20 jumps still need boatloads of help and
advice. They still need to do two-way awarness drill-dives. Some people
are acting as though they've been completely cut out of the loop, when it
seems to me that they merely have to wait a few more jumps. And in the
meantime they can still do all the other stuff like teach to pack, give gear
advice, give flying advice, etc.
-Andy
jsk
Approx 3 x 10^19 joules of energy will be released in the form of
electromagnetic radiation.
jsk
ftrain wrote:
> Digressing to what Oren first mentioned, what is the big deal about having
> to wait until someone has 20 jumps? Is there such a huge difference between
> jumping with someone directly off student status and someone who has their A
> license? An A-license holder with 20 jumps still need boatloads of help and
> advice. They still need to do two-way awarness drill-dives. Some people
> are acting as though they've been completely cut out of the loop, when it
> seems to me that they merely have to wait a few more jumps. And in the
> meantime they can still do all the other stuff like teach to pack, give gear
> advice, give flying advice, etc.
>
> -Andy
It is OK for 2 "A" licensed skydivers with 40 jumps between them to do a
2-way without anyone's approval.
It is OK for 4 "A" licensed skydivers with 80 jumps between them to do a
4-way.
It is not OK for an unrated "master" skydiver with 5,000 jumps to do a
2-way with a skydiver with 19 jumps unless the S&TA approves.
Some people (myself included) find this wierd.
Alan Binnebose
news:3C5833AB...@kallend.net...
> I stand corrected.
No you don't John. Lord Phoenix is wrong. I would refer you both to an old
USPA publication of "the professional", Vol III - No. 2 - Summer 1997, page
2.
" The glossary of the 1997 USPA Skydiver's Information Manual includes the
reappearance of the "novice" category of skydiver. A novice is a skydiver
who has been cleared to self-jumpmaster, but who has not yet obtained a USPA
license."
Please note it says "reappearance". That means that there have been SEVERAL
times that USPA did not define a student as someone who does not have their
A license.
Here is some more from the same article:
"The novice category ends when the jumper actually _obtains_ a USPA
license."
Of course, USPA did change it again, so currently (I think, who can tell
anymore, they change it so often) the defintion of a student is a skydiver
trainee who has not qualified for a USPA A license. Note, it says
"qualified", not obtained. Also note in the earlier definitions, it said
"USPA license" with no mention of which one.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
(just one old ALF watching out for another)
Livendive
> We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do not
quote
> our rules without first consulting them.
Hmm...you should probably update your webpage then, as it says (and I quote)
"Everyone must be a member of your countries Skydiving Association *or* a
USPA member to jump here. Bring your membership card with you. "
Blues,
Dave
ftrain
I can see your point. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. If not the
A-license, then where? 15 jumps? 10? 5? Should that unrated "master"
skydiver be able to take someone on a jump between their level B and C jump?
jsk
Alan Binnebose wrote:
>
> "jsk" <jo...@kallend.net> wrote in message
> news:3C5833AB...@kallend.net...
> > I stand corrected.
>
> No you don't John. Lord Phoenix is wrong. I would refer you both to an old
> USPA publication of "the professional", Vol III - No. 2 - Summer 1997, page
> 2.
>
I stand re-corrected.
ALF#3
Mr.Blackdeath
> "Oren Kalb" <ok...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, this is getting ridiculous. I have a coach rating and you know what,
> > it was no big deal to get. I did it in a weekend. I have done plenty of
> > category G-H jumps with new jumpers and I don't charge them for it. There
> > is no rule that says that I HAVE to charge them just because I have the
> > rating.
>
> Yes, Oren, but the rule does say that you MUST have the rating to jump with them. Perhaps you should consider
> this from an different perspective. My daughter started skydiving last year and my son will start this year.
> According to the new "rules", I can't jump with them for some time unless I get a coach's rating.
>
> violating BSR's if I jump with my own kids, isn't that what they're saying. You know what? Fuck them. My
> last membership renewal will be my last membership renewal.
>
> Keith Grossman
> D17016
Why would you care if you break a BSR,don't you jump at a non-GM dz.
you should be worryed about all the FAR's that get broken!
M.D.
jsk
What does "master" skydiver mean? SFA, if a "master" skydiver isn't
considered to have the skills to make a safe 2-way with a 19 jump
beginner.
ftrain
>
>
> ftrain wrote:
> >
> > "jsk" <jo...@kallend.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C583C5C...@kallend.net...
> > >
a
> > > 2-way without anyone's approval.
> > >
> > > It is OK for 4 "A" licensed skydivers with 80 jumps between them to do
a
> > > 4-way.
> > >
> > > It is not OK for an unrated "master" skydiver with 5,000 jumps to do a
> > > 2-way with a skydiver with 19 jumps unless the S&TA approves.
> > >
> > > Some people (myself included) find this wierd.
> >
> > I can see your point. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. If not
the
> > A-license, then where? 15 jumps? 10? 5? Should that unrated "master"
> > skydiver be able to take someone on a jump between their level B and C
jump?
>
>
> What does "master" skydiver mean? SFA, if a "master" skydiver isn't
> considered to have the skills to make a safe 2-way with a 19 jump
> beginner.
SFA?
I think you dodged my question, but I'll play along. "Master" in this
context refers to the highest license one can receive. It's just a word
used in association with the D-license. But there's a difference between
licenses and instructional ratings. You originally created the scenario
with an unrated master skydiver. So I'll ask you again: Where is the cutoff
point of where an unrated master skydiver can and cannot jump with someone?
You apparantly don't like 20 jumps (or at least you think its weird.) So
where do you draw the line? Or do you draw a line? Is it okay for the
unrated master skydiver to take someone on their first jump?
My personal view: just because you manage to fall out of a plane 200 (or
2000) times without killing yourslef doens't mean that you have the know-how
or skills to teach others. Being a "master" skydiver has nothing to do with
teaching others.
T Square
about the new ISP and the Coach Program sad and comical. I wish that you
could all see the results of the coach program at our dz -- everyone is
enthusiastic.
The program was not developed to take free training jumps away from those
that want to give them. All they have to do is 2 evaluation jumps -- piece
of cake if they have the skills -- if they don't want pay, I can't imagine
that they will be forced to accept it. We are just attempting to have a
minimum standard for all that work with students and influence their first
skydiving learning. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are
quite a few jumpers with a thousand jumps who cannot hold a heading without
backsliding and cannot stay relative during a free-flown exit. Jump number
is low on the priority list anymore.
As far as the course directors being thieves, I take personal offense. I
have put in many days of my time developing courses that will mean
something -- a two or three day course will have at least that many days of
preparation beforehand. All of our instructors work very hard at making the
coaches the very best that they can be. Don't you guys get paid for a 6-day
work week?
Teresha Thames aka Tsquare
all required credentials in place
"Winsor Naugler III" <dog...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a37agd$etk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Tom Buchanan" <tom...@aol.comJunkfree> wrote in message
> news:20020129161114...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> > If you have been reading some of the other posts about the USPA Coach
> rating
> > you have heard from a few folks that think just about anybody should be
> able to
> > fly with students, and that there should be no standard whatsoever
> regarding
> > who can fly with pre-"A" license jumpers. Umm, we don't need to beat
that
> dog
> > anymore.
> >
> Nice try. The point is that it has become a violation for someone with
> thousands of jumps to fly with an unlicenced jumper for free, but a low
> timer with the rating can do so and charge for the "privelige." That is
> definitively lame, and it puts low timers that much more at the mercy of
> those with vested interests (e.g. you).
>
> Someone showing up at a DZ where fraternal rules apply can have 12 jumps
on
> Friday and 22 by Sunday evening without breaking a sweat. These jumps
will
> be under the watchful eye of people who are looking out for the beginner,
> and they will have input and reinforcement to further progression.
>
> If the same jumper has to wait until a Coach has nothing better to do than
> jump with them - in amongst their duties of picking up the slack for the
> harried AFF Instructors - they'll be lucky to get in more than two jumps a
> day, and their wait will be an expensive one.
>
> If you're trying to alienate the low timers so that they go away and allow
> you to focus on the high-dollar first time jumpers, it seems like a
workable
> approach.
>
> > Sadly, some people may have the impression that fling with pre-A
students
> is
> > the only reason to get a Coach rating, and that is far from true.
> >
> Wrong, it is the absolute truth. The only reason FOR ME to get the rating
> is to avoid violating BSRs, which I can also do by getting the okay of the
> S&TA.
>
> > A Coach rated jumper is authorized to teach much of the First Jump
Course
> (FJC)
> > or Comprehensive Ground School (CGS) and provides a great deal of ground
> > training for students after that first jump.
>
> I don't teach skydiving courses, so this is of no value.
>
> This is becoming a very important
> > element of many student programs as the available pool of AFF
instructors
> is
> > diminished. Think about it, as the community of belly flyers shrinks
there
> are
> > fewer people qualified to teach and fly with students, so many AFF and
IAF
> > programs are using Coaches to handle the non-flying ground work for most
> > levels.
>
> Big deal, I have never been on an AFF jump either way. I started out on
the
> dope rope.
>
> This helps the school, and it gives coach a chance to build experience
> > working directly with students. And of course, the Coach does fly with
> students
> > in Category g-h...students that have just demonstrated stability
recovery
> for
> > the first time. It's tough but rewarding flying!
> >
> Your point being? This is geared to people who wish to teach skydiving,
and
> I already have enough teaching credentials. I've made a living as an
> instructor for enough of my career.
>
> > The Coach rating is also the prerequisite for any other instructional
> rating,
> > including the tandem rating. So if you are planning to teach any USPA
> program,
> > the Coach rating is mandatory. And of course the hands on teaching
> experience
> > of the Coach rating helps instructors transition to the Instructor
rating
> in
> > any other program.
> >
> Again, I don't aspire to be a skydiving instructor, so this has no value
to
> me.
>
>
> > The Coach course also provides a great foundation in "how to teach," and
> serves
> > as an important academic foundation for any instructor. I either teach
at
> or
> > direct a BIC/Coach course early every season and appreciate it as a way
to
> get
> > current with my instructional skills. Other instructors enjoy assisting
> with
> > the course for the same reason, or they like to audit part of ground
> school as
> > a way to review the basics of teaching.
> >
> I already have teaching credentials out the yingyang in other areas. I
> don't wish for you to teach me how to teach, nor do I wish to teach
> skydiving.
>
> > If you are interested in teaching skydiving at any level, consider the
> Coach
> > Course as the foundation of your training.
> >
> >
> I don't. My only concern with the imposition of the Coach Rating on the
> skydiving world is that I can get yelled at for taking an unlicensed
> skydiver up for a simple awareness-drill two-way. I'm not amused, and I'm
> wildly unimpressed with the "progress" you seek to foist upon me.
>
>
> Blue skies,
>
> Winsor
>
>
jsk
ftrain wrote:
>
> "jsk" <jo...@kallend.net> wrote in message
> news:3C583F5C...@kallend.net...
> >
> >
> > ftrain wrote:
> > >
> > > "jsk" <jo...@kallend.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3C583C5C...@kallend.net...
> > > >
> > > > It is OK for 2 "A" licensed skydivers with 40 jumps between them to do
> a
> > > > 2-way without anyone's approval.
> > > >
> > > > It is OK for 4 "A" licensed skydivers with 80 jumps between them to do
> a
> > > > 4-way.
> > > >
> > > > It is not OK for an unrated "master" skydiver with 5,000 jumps to do a
> > > > 2-way with a skydiver with 19 jumps unless the S&TA approves.
> > > >
> > > > Some people (myself included) find this wierd.
> > >
> > > I can see your point. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. If not
> the
> > > A-license, then where? 15 jumps? 10? 5? Should that unrated "master"
> > > skydiver be able to take someone on a jump between their level B and C
> jump?
> >
> >
> > What does "master" skydiver mean? SFA, if a "master" skydiver isn't
> > considered to have the skills to make a safe 2-way with a 19 jump
> > beginner.
>
> SFA?
"Sweet Fanny Adams", British slang.
>
> I think you dodged my question, but I'll play along. "Master" in this
> context refers to the highest license one can receive. It's just a word
> used in association with the D-license. But there's a difference between
> licenses and instructional ratings. You originally created the scenario
> with an unrated master skydiver. So I'll ask you again: Where is the cutoff
> point of where an unrated master skydiver can and cannot jump with someone?
> You apparantly don't like 20 jumps (or at least you think its weird.) So
> where do you draw the line? Or do you draw a line? Is it okay for the
> unrated master skydiver to take someone on their first jump?
>
> My personal view: just because you manage to fall out of a plane 200 (or
> 2000) times without killing yourslef doens't mean that you have the know-how
> or skills to teach others. Being a "master" skydiver has nothing to do with
> teaching others.
When my kids were learning to drive, once they had passed the initial
part of Drivers' Ed. (but before they were licensed) it was legal for
them to drive in my car as long as I (or another licensed driver over
21) was in the right seat. In Illinois it is, in fact, required that
student drivers complete some number of hours in this way (24 IIRC, but
it was a while ago) before they are eligible to take the drivers' test.
I didn't have to be an instructor or have any special "rating", and the
car didn't have to have dual controls. I didn't have to "teach" them
anything, the State assumes that they learn just from the experience of
being on the road for those hours.
If the Great State of Illinois considers it a safe learning experience
for a novice, unlicensed driver to go out on the public highway with a
licensed driver along, why shouldn't we believe that a novice skydiver,
considered safe to self jumpmaster by his/her instructor, can gain
experience in a similar way by jumping with a "master" licensed
skydiver? Most of us learn something on every jump regardless of how
many jumps we have.
Can you point to any accident that occurred simply because a pre-license
novice jumped with someone with a "D" but no instructional rating?
Alan Binnebose
news:a39fnj$16nek7$1...@ID-83233.news.dfncis.de...
You are right Andy. And the requirements for the Coach rating are a joke
and you know it. That is the point. We replaced something with something
meaningless except it provides an opportunity to create some income
potential. And hey, so what, it is a free country. The point is it was
done by people elected to represent individual skydivers, not the business
interests. Great, do it, but do it in your own name, not mine.
Alan Binnebose
news:itX58.1486$S27.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> As far as the course directors being thieves, I take personal offense. I
> have put in many days of my time developing courses that will mean
> something -- a two or three day course will have at least that many days
of
> preparation beforehand.
Why do I get this mental image of Richard Nixon here, saying something to
the effect of....I am not a crook.
jsk
T Square wrote:
>
> I hop onto this newsgroup occasionally to post, and find these rantings
> about the new ISP and the Coach Program sad and comical. I wish that you
> could all see the results of the coach program at our dz -- everyone is
> enthusiastic.
>
> The program was not developed to take free training jumps away from those
> that want to give them. All they have to do is 2 evaluation jumps -- piece
> of cake if they have the skills
This takes 2 or 3 days? -- see below.
>-- if they don't want pay, I can't imagine
> that they will be forced to accept it. We are just attempting to have a
> minimum standard for all that work with students ...
snip
I see no problem, if it is to be "work" and the student pays. But
that's not what most of us have an issue with.
> .. a two or three day course will have at least that many days of
> preparation beforehand.
In your earlier paragraph it was 2 evaluation jumps, now it is a 2 or 3
day course. Which is it?
Alan Binnebose
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
"Alan Binnebose" <acbin...@tznet.com> wrote in message
news:iDW58.114995$%b.74...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Here is what I considered to be a non answer received from Ed Scott,
Director of Group Membership.
From: "Ed Scott" <ESc...@uspa.org>
To: "'Alan and Carmen Binnebose'" <acbin...@tznet.com>
Cc: "Barry Chase" <ba...@gate.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: Why to get a Coach Rating
Hi Alan,
Group Member DZs pledge to require USPA membership of any U.S. citizen who
is qualified to hold a USPA license (meaning a person with at least 20
jumps). Foreign skydivers are not required to be USPA members if they are
members of their country's skydiving organization or aero club.
Any allegations are directed to the USPA Regional Director, who has
authority to determine what happened and if disciplinary action is
warranted. That would be Barry Chase, whose contact information is provided
on our web site and in Parachutist. Regional Directors usually want dates
and names with respect to specific incidents. The Executive Committee serves
as the appeal process.
Ed Scott
Director of Government Relations
Director of Group Membership
U.S. Parachute Association
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan and Carmen Binnebose [SMTP:acbin...@tznet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 12:36 PM
To: grou...@uspa.org
Subject: Fw: Why to get a Coach Rating
> We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do
not
quote
> our rules without first consulting them.
This appears to be a legitimate post/statement made by TK (David)
Hayes,
manager of Sky Dive City in Florida, a Group Member DZ. I am under
the
impression that this is a violation of the USPA Group Member Pledge.
Does
USPA investigate such possible violations? It is my understanding
that a
decision by USPA to issue or not to issue, renew or not renew, or
terminate
a Group Membership shall be reviewed by the Executive Committee and
may be
based upon any facts, circumstances or other information gained by
whatever
means USPA in its sole discretion deems appropriate.
I would like to know if it is the position of the Executive
Committee to not
take any such action against Group Member DZs that choose to ignore
the
article in the Group Member Pledge requiring USPA membership or if
there may
be some sort of selective enforcement?
Please keep me informed of any possible actions or decisions.
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
USPA #100635
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hayes" <tkha...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Why to get a Coach Rating
> We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do
not
quote
> our rules without first consulting them.
>
> And how can you say it was not broke when as long as anyone can
remember,
we
> have asked for a rewrite of the training programs and ratings? If
it
ain't
> broke, then we should all still be doing s/l on T-10's. Attitudes
like
that
> prevent better programs and development of technologies like
tandem,
> squares, AAD's and more. Give it a rest. Every new program has
been
touted
> as the 'worst thing to happen to the sport' by someone - most
times they
> were proved wrong.
>
> try a positive note....
>
> TK
>
Alan Binnebose
That is _your_interpretation, not mine. I think a google search would
reveal several that agree with both of us.
>The "it's easy and no big deal" response is being
> used to reply to high-timers who bitch and moan about having already been
> teaching this stuff for years. (Perhaps its not the best response.)
> However, the rating probably is not easy
I can't help but notice you qualify your response with "probably". "the
rating probably is not easy." Matbe you are not so sure of yourself when
you say "The "it's easy and no big deal" response is targeted at a certain
audience, not at the rating itself. "
>and it probably is a big deal for a
> low timer who has never taught before.
"Probably" here once again? I thought you had to have a C to get the
coaches rating. A C is considered a low timer? OK, I'll give you that.
So a low timer who finds these basic skills "probably a big deal" has now
demonstarted themselves qualified to teach students? Cool, my DZO, S&TA
with over 30 years of experience used to decide which of his JMs had
demonstrated themselves as qualified to work with freefall students.
> > My DZO has said they would just sign
> > it off for me. Well Jesus Christ, if he can do that, then he can ignore
> the
> > part of the GM pledge that says he will require USPA membership.
>
> There's a difference. Signing off is condoned by the USPA. Either get
the
> rating or get waived.
I didn't say "waived". I said signed off. There is a difference. Signed
off means given the rating without having done any evaluation jumps. I'm
sure that there are those at USPA who appreciate you stating that signing
off is condoned. Great news, ALL of the ratings are now meaningless because
USPA "condones" signing them off. Maybe you really just don't understand
the difference between "waiving" something and "signing it off". Semantics,
I won't argue it.
> Ignoring the membership requirement doesn't have an
> option if the DZO wants to remain a GM. The latter is not an either/or
> proposition.
This is not true according to a correspondence I just received from Ed
Scott. According to him: "Any allegations are directed to the USPA Regional
Director, who has authority to determine what happened and if disciplinary
action is warranted."
I did take issue with this and am awaiting his reply.
> Digressing to what Oren first mentioned, what is the big deal about having
> to wait until someone has 20 jumps? Is there such a huge difference
between
> jumping with someone directly off student status and someone who has their
A
> license? An A-license holder with 20 jumps still need boatloads of help
and
> advice. They still need to do two-way awarness drill-dives. Some people
> are acting as though they've been completely cut out of the loop, when it
> seems to me that they merely have to wait a few more jumps. And in the
> meantime they can still do all the other stuff like teach to pack, give
gear
> advice, give flying advice, etc.
>
> -Andy
I think John Kallend's replies have properly addressed this.
Alan Binnebose
news:3C583A80...@kallend.net...
>
>
> Alan Binnebose wrote:
> >
> > Very good John, and don't forget the key word..."appropriate". What
will
> > happen if you and Mike find yourselves on the same ground here? :-)
> >
>
> Approx 3 x 10^19 joules of energy will be released in the form of
> electromagnetic radiation.
Is that what it takes for hell to freeze over? :-)
Alan Binnebose
SFA, at this rate it will be a miracle if you can continue to stand at all!
:-)
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
ALF #007 (currently and for the time being)
Keith Grossman
>
> It is OK for 4 "A" licensed skydivers with 80 jumps between them to do a
> 4-way.
Or 4 one-ways, however it works out. ;-)
Keith Grossman
D17016
Keith Grossman
>
> My personal view: just because you manage to fall out of a plane 200 (or
> 2000) times without killing yourslef doens't mean that you have the know-how
> or skills to teach others.
Yeah, well going through some course and getting the USPA stamp of approval on your forehead doesn't either.
Keith Grossman
D17016
Keith Grossman
>
> Why would you care if you break a BSR,don't you jump at a non-GM dz.
Yes and I don't care, really.
> you should be worryed about all the FAR's that get broken!
Not worryed (sic).
Keith Grossman
D17016
ftrain
Huh. Never heard that. Guess I need to get out more often.
Skydiving ain't driving. Even if it were, just because the Illinois
legislature says something is appropriate doesn't necessarily make it so.
> Can you point to any accident that occurred simply because a pre-license
> novice jumped with someone with a "D" but no instructional rating?
No I can't. But I can point to people with 500+ jumps who can't chunk a
4-way out of an Otter door, take 4000 ft to swoop a base even when they're
the first diver, and can't dock without significant contact which results in
creating tension and instability and sometimes a funnel. Jump numbers
aren't the be-all-end-all of this sport.
You still haven't answered my original question. Where does John Kallend
think the line should be drawn and why?
Alan Binnebose
Well, it appears Ed Scott feels no responsibility to follow up on this. Big
Surprise.
From: "Ed Scott" <ESc...@uspa.org>
To: "'Alan and Carmen Binnebose'" <acbin...@tznet.com>; "Ed Scott"
<ESc...@uspa.org>
Cc: <tkha...@worldnet.att.net>; "Barry Chase" <ba...@gate.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:31 PM
Subject: RE: Why to get a Coach Rating
Alan,
You have given me nothing to pass on to Barry except a purported statement
that is apparently taken from some other context. If not, the statement by
itself is meaningless. If you have evidence that a Group Member DZ is not
requiring USPA membership, you need to contact the Regional Director.
The Governance Manual has been revised by Attachment C of the Summer 2001
board meeting, the minutes of which are available on the USPA web site. That
describes the process by which allegations are investigated by the Regional
Director, with the board serving as an appeal process.
Ed Scott
Director of Government Relations
Director of Group Membership
U.S. Parachute Association
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan and Carmen Binnebose [SMTP:acbin...@tznet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:04 PM
To: Ed Scott
Cc: tkha...@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Why to get a Coach Rating
Hi Ed,
With all due respect, your answer reflects your position as Director
of
Government Relations. Please forward my e-mail to Barry Chase. As
Director
of Group Membership, I expect _you_ to follow up on this and do not
feel
that is an unreasonable expectation. With respect to dates and
names with
respect to specific incidents, the post from Mr. Hayes CLEARLY
indicates
this is a matter of policy at Sky Dive City and it makes no
restrictions to
any U.S. citizen who is qualified to hold a USPA license (meaning a
person
with at least 20 jumps) or foreign skydivers if they are members of
their
country's skydiving organization or aero club.
Also, my correspondence was directly quoted out of the governance
manual and
it makes no mention that allegations are to be directed to the USPA
Regional
Director, who has authority to determine what happened and if
disciplinary
action is warranted. It clearly says "A decision by USPA to issue
or not
to issue, renew or not renew, or terminate a Group Membership shall
be
reviewed by the Executive Committee and may be based upon any facts,
circumstances or other information gained by whatever means USPA in
its sole
discretion deems appropriate." It makes no mention, as you state:
"The
Executive Committee serves as the appeal process." If my copy of
the
governance manual is obsolete and I am in error, please send me a
copy of
the current version.
--
Blue Skies,
Alan Binnebose
"Alan Binnebose" <acbin...@tznet.com> wrote in message
news:A5Y58.32742$iX5.2...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Dusty Trale
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "T Square" <ter...@cstone.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.skydiving
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:04 PM
>
>
> > I hop onto this newsgroup occasionally to post, and find these rantings
> > about the new ISP and the Coach Program sad and comical. I wish that you
> > could all see the results of the coach program at our dz -- everyone is
> > enthusiastic.
> >
> > The program was not developed to take free training jumps away from
those
> > that want to give them. All they have to do is 2 evaluation jumps --
piece
imagine
> > that they will be forced to accept it. We are just attempting to have a
first
> > skydiving learning. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are
> > quite a few jumpers with a thousand jumps who cannot hold a heading
> without
> > backsliding and cannot stay relative during a free-flown exit. Jump
number
> > is low on the priority list anymore.
> >
> > have put in many days of my time developing courses that will mean
> of
> > preparation beforehand. All of our instructors work very hard at making
> the
> > coaches the very best that they can be. Don't you guys get paid for a
> 6-day
> > work week?
> >
> > Teresha Thames aka Tsquare
> > all required credentials in place
> >
> >
about.
> How can you sleep at night knowing you are failing your students with
> horribly ineffective training methods. All you care about is money. Its
> people like you who are destroying skydiving. Your kind and these uncaring
> whore DZOs. Quick everyone, I got her in a headlock start beating her up.
> Kick her in the ribs. We gotta stop this insanity. : )
>
> Dusty
> Fancy Lad #13
>
Alan Binnebose
> > Can you point to any accident that occurred simply because a pre-license
> > novice jumped with someone with a "D" but no instructional rating?
>
> No I can't. But I can point to people with 500+ jumps who can't chunk a
> 4-way out of an Otter door, take 4000 ft to swoop a base even when they're
> the first diver, and can't dock without significant contact which results
in
> creating tension and instability and sometimes a funnel. Jump numbers
> aren't the be-all-end-all of this sport.
No shit. And hey Andy, I can already name you a few of the new Coaches who
can't chunk a 4-way out of an Otter door (or even off a 182!), take 4000 ft
to swoop a base even when they're the first diver, and can't dock without
significant contact which results in creating tension and instability and
sometimes a funnel. Yup, that new rating sure goes a long way towards
ensuring flying and teaching skills.
Keith Grossman
>
> Skydiving ain't driving. Even if it were, just because the Illinois
> legislature says something is appropriate doesn't necessarily make it so.
But when the USPA says something is appropriate, it does?
Keith Grossman
D17016
Winsor Naugler III
>
>
> Alan Binnebose wrote:
> >
> > "kallend" <jo...@kallend.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C580148...@kallend.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Keith Grossman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "David Hayes" <tkha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > accident stats are valid and should be considered in all
decisions,
> > but I
> > > > > would hazard that they are NOT the most important aspect of the
Coach
> > > > > rating.
> > > > > Better instruction, safer skydivers, makes sense to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > We could argue about stats all day long, I think skydiving is
safer
> > than it
> > > > > has ever been.
> > > >
> > > > Then why change it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Its safer BECAUSE appropriate changes have been made over the years.
> > > The problem isn't change, the problem is change for the wrong reason.
> >
> > Very good John, and don't forget the key word..."appropriate". What
will
> > happen if you and Mike find yourselves on the same ground here? :-)
> >
>
> Approx 3 x 10^19 joules of energy will be released in the form of
> electromagnetic radiation.
Let's see now, 83 billion kilowatt hours - what's that in megatons?
ftrain
> "ftrain" <wrig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a39dh1$16fvbd$1...@ID-83233.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Alan Binnebose" <acbin...@tznet.com> wrote in message
> > news:DJV58.199659$QB1.14...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
You missed my point. Take two skydivers, one that has been teaching for 10
years but now has to get the rating to continue to do so, the other with 300
jumps and has only occassionally tried his hand at actually passing on his
knowledge. For the high-timer, the test should be easy. He just has to
show his stuff to an evaluator. The same stuff he's been doing for 10
years. For the low timer, the test will be more difficult. He's new to the
game of teaching. He has to learn how to instruct. Then he has to
integrate that with his air-skills. There's more to the coach eval than
just falling down the pipe.
>
> >and it probably is a big deal for a
> > low timer who has never taught before.
>
> "Probably" here once again? I thought you had to have a C to get the
> coaches rating. A C is considered a low timer? OK, I'll give you that.
> So a low timer who finds these basic skills "probably a big deal" has now
> demonstarted themselves qualified to teach students?
Qualified to teach certain topics to students at a certain level, yes.
That's the whole point of a ratings system. No?
> Cool, my DZO, S&TA
> with over 30 years of experience used to decide which of his JMs had
> demonstrated themselves as qualified to work with freefall students.
>
> > > My DZO has said they would just sign
> > > it off for me. Well Jesus Christ, if he can do that, then he can
ignore
> > the
> > > part of the GM pledge that says he will require USPA membership.
> >
> > There's a difference. Signing off is condoned by the USPA. Either get
> the
> > rating or get waived.
>
> I didn't say "waived". I said signed off. There is a difference. Signed
> off means given the rating without having done any evaluation jumps. I'm
> sure that there are those at USPA who appreciate you stating that signing
> off is condoned. Great news, ALL of the ratings are now meaningless
because
> USPA "condones" signing them off. Maybe you really just don't understand
> the difference between "waiving" something and "signing it off".
Semantics,
> I won't argue it.
Okay, I missed the subtle difference. I thought you were talking about an
S&TA waiver. But hey, if your DZO has that much respect for your skills
that he's willing to just sign you off and is comfortable with accepting the
potential ramifiations of such action, then that's his decision to make.
Ultimately it's his dropzone, his decision, and his responsibility. That's
a slippery slope, though. Does he also put student up in 18 mph winds? How
about fudging on aircraft maintenance?
>
> > Ignoring the membership requirement doesn't have an
> > option if the DZO wants to remain a GM. The latter is not an either/or
> > proposition.
>
> This is not true according to a correspondence I just received from Ed
> Scott. According to him: "Any allegations are directed to the USPA
Regional
> Director, who has authority to determine what happened and if disciplinary
> action is warranted."
> I did take issue with this and am awaiting his reply.
Yeah, that was pretty low. I personally don't think this should turn into a
case of skydivers going at each other's throats. Bad juju, dude.
>
> > Digressing to what Oren first mentioned, what is the big deal about
having
> > to wait until someone has 20 jumps? Is there such a huge difference
> between
> > jumping with someone directly off student status and someone who has
their
> A
> > license? An A-license holder with 20 jumps still need boatloads of help
> and
> > advice. They still need to do two-way awarness drill-dives. Some
people
> > are acting as though they've been completely cut out of the loop, when
it
> > seems to me that they merely have to wait a few more jumps. And in the
> > meantime they can still do all the other stuff like teach to pack, give
> gear
> > advice, give flying advice, etc.
>
> I think John Kallend's replies have properly addressed this.
I disagree.
Winsor Naugler III
> "Mr. MOM" <mom...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020130002530...@mb-mt.aol.com...
> > >We allow anyone who carries some insurance jump here, so please do not
> quote
> > >our rules without first consulting them.
> >
> > Are you saying that if an American citizen can show proof of liability
> > coverage, you will not require them to have USPA membership?
> >
> > If so....what is the reason your DZ is a USPA GM DZ?
> >
> > Also.....if so.....isn't your DZ violating the signed pledge made in
> agreement
> > with USPA?
>
> We're about to find out. I forwarded TK's post to USPA, along with a few
> questions about what the Executive Committee's position/actions would be.
> TK also got a copy of it. I'm reminded of an old song Johnny Cash used
to
> sing......
>
>
jsk
I doubt anyone else can, either.
But I can point to people with 500+ jumps who can't chunk a
> 4-way out of an Otter door, take 4000 ft to swoop a base even when they're
> the first diver, and can't dock without significant contact which results in
> creating tension and instability and sometimes a funnel. Jump numbers
> aren't the be-all-end-all of this sport.
>
Curious, but nowhere in the skills requirement for a coach rating can I
find any reference to 4-way chunked exits or swooping speed. Where on
the proficiency card does that stuff appear.
> You still haven't answered my original question. Where does John Kallend
> think the line should be drawn and why?
I think any "master skydiver" should be allowed to jump with anyone who
has been cleared to "self jumpmaster". If that is not sufficient for
USPA, then the criteria to become a "master skydiver" need upgrading.
Alan Binnebose
> You missed my point. Take two skydivers, one that has been teaching for
10
> years but now has to get the rating to continue to do so, the other with
300
> jumps and has only occassionally tried his hand at actually passing on his
> knowledge. For the high-timer, the test should be easy. He just has to
> show his stuff to an evaluator. The same stuff he's been doing for 10
> years. For the low timer, the test will be more difficult. He's new to
the
> game of teaching. He has to learn how to instruct. Then he has to
> integrate that with his air-skills. There's more to the coach eval than
> just falling down the pipe.
No I didn't miss your point. What you seem to be failing to understand here
is that this issue is bigger than just who is qualified to train and how.
> > >and it probably is a big deal for a
> > > low timer who has never taught before.
> >
> > "Probably" here once again? I thought you had to have a C to get the
> > coaches rating. A C is considered a low timer? OK, I'll give you that.
> > So a low timer who finds these basic skills "probably a big deal" has
now
> > demonstarted themselves qualified to teach students?
>
> Qualified to teach certain topics to students at a certain level, yes.
> That's the whole point of a ratings system. No?
See, you want to focus on this and not the bigger picture of what is really
happening.
I don't think the difference is that subtle.
>I thought you were talking about an
> S&TA waiver.
I don't think so. I think you knew exactly what I meant. I'm not positive,
but I think a Google search might reveal that you and I have gone done this
same path before.
>But hey, if your DZO has that much respect for your skills
> that he's willing to just sign you off and is comfortable with accepting
the
> potential ramifiations of such action, then that's his decision to make.
> Ultimately it's his dropzone, his decision, and his responsibility.
That's
> a slippery slope, though. Does he also put student up in 18 mph winds?
How
> about fudging on aircraft maintenance?
So now it is about what my DZO does and doesn't do. He operates like every
other DZO I have known.
Ultimately it's his dropzone, his decision, and his responsibility.
> > > Ignoring the membership requirement doesn't have an
> > > option if the DZO wants to remain a GM. The latter is not an
either/or
> > > proposition.
> >
> > This is not true according to a correspondence I just received from Ed
> > Scott. According to him: "Any allegations are directed to the USPA
> Regional
> > Director, who has authority to determine what happened and if
disciplinary
> > action is warranted."
> > I did take issue with this and am awaiting his reply.
>
> Yeah, that was pretty low.
You mean TK (or someone posing) comes on here and openly states they are
violating the GM pledge as a matter of policy and it is low of me to try to
get at the truth? I sent my correspondence to the same e-mail address the
post was made from. So, was TK just blowing around a lot of hot air or was
someone posing as him? And is it low of me to expect Ed Scott to do his
job?
> I personally don't think this should turn into a
> case of skydivers going at each other's throats. Bad juju, dude.
Too late for that. Maybe I have learned by example. Two BOD members sueing
each other over a name.
> > > Digressing to what Oren first mentioned, what is the big deal about
> having
> > > to wait until someone has 20 jumps? Is there such a huge difference
> > between
> > > jumping with someone directly off student status and someone who has
> their
> > A
> > > license? An A-license holder with 20 jumps still need boatloads of
help
> > and
> > > advice. They still need to do two-way awarness drill-dives. Some
> people
> > > are acting as though they've been completely cut out of the loop, when
> it
> > > seems to me that they merely have to wait a few more jumps. And in
the
> > > meantime they can still do all the other stuff like teach to pack,
give
> > gear
> > > advice, give flying advice, etc.
> >
> > I think John Kallend's replies have properly addressed this.
>
> I disagree.
Fair enough. You feel that the Illinois legislature is less competent at
addressing issues of driver education than USPA is at addressing issues of
skydiver education.
Alan Binnebose
> "Alan Binnebose" <acbin...@tznet.com> wrote in message
> news:iDW58.114995$%b.74...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >
few
> > questions about what the Executive Committee's position/actions would
be.
> > TK also got a copy of it. I'm reminded of an old song Johnny Cash used
> to
> > sing......
> >
> >
> "A boy named Sue?"
Hahahaha! You crazy bastard! It went something like "I jumped into a
burning ring of fire, I went down, down, down and the flames went
higher......" :-) Crazy bastard!
Keith Grossman
"ftrain" <wrig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You missed my point. Take two skydivers, one that has been teaching for 10
> years but now has to get the rating to continue to do so, the other with 300
> jumps and has only occassionally tried his hand at actually passing on his
> knowledge. For the high-timer, the test should be easy. He just has to
> show his stuff to an evaluator.
This brings up a very interesting question. How does one get to be an evaluator? I mean, who evaluates them
to determine if they have the necessary skills and who evaluates that person? I guess I'm a little confused
about who the "supreme evaluator" is and how that person got his/her credentials.
This is all so very confusing.
Keith Grossman
D17016
CRWMike
it may, you are still a pencil necked pedantic geek. Nothing USPA does
will change that.
kallend wrote:
>
> DCvet wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Money is an issue for many people in this sport. Unfortunately many
> > > people's desire to make a living in their hobby is helping drive all but
> > > the upper middle class out of the sport.
> >
> > What about the people that it's not a hobby for? The people that do it for a
> > living? It seems to me that you're saying that nobody should be able to do
> > this for a living. So you think instructors should never get paid. OK, I
> > suppose that Suba lessons should be free too. And martial arts lessons free
> > aswell. I can go on, but I dont think I have to. Hey, I dont know if Im
> > missing the point here or not, but it's not fair to say that you cannot make
> > a living out of a 'hobby', because for some people, it's not a hobby.
>
> I don't think anyone (except, maybe, CRWMike) objects to someone making
> a living from teaching skydiving. I think the objections are primarily
> about a new rule that redefines student status to anyone who has yet to
> get their "A", and makes it mandatory that anyone jumping with these
> folk have a rating. As far as I can tell the new rule was put in place
> (a) without any evidence being presented that the old rule was defective
> or had caused any problems, and (b) without any evidence that the new
> rule would be better.
Winsor Naugler III
>
> "Tom Buchanan wrote:
> > > Sadly, some people may have the impression that fling with pre-A
> students
> > is
> > > the only reason to get a Coach rating, and that is far from true.
> > >
>
> Winsor wrote:
> > Wrong, it is the absolute truth. The only reason FOR ME to get the
rating
> > is to avoid violating BSRs, which I can also do by getting the okay of
the
> > S&TA.
>
> > I don't. My only concern with the imposition of the Coach Rating on the
> > skydiving world is that I can get yelled at for taking an unlicensed
> > skydiver up for a simple awareness-drill two-way.
>
>
> S&TA would not give you a waiver for such dives? It seems that with your
> reputation (time in sport, jump numbers, organizer at Quincy, etc.) and
> other teaching credentials (mentioned in your post) it would be a simple
> matter to get the waiver. Seems like that would be an easy way to
eliminate
> your concern.
>
>
I'm offended by the onus being placed on me. Every time someone comes up
with a bright idea that is operationally a pain in the ass, they go to great
lengths to deny that it's a pain in the ass and/or how, pain in the ass
though it might be, it's for the good of all concerned.
I reiterate that it is an ill-considered pain in the ass.
If I stop for fuel somewhere that turns out to have a jump operation, I am
likely to grab a rig from the back of the plane and try to get on a load.
If there is a low-time jumper hoping to make a jump, it won't be the first
time. If the S&TA is not scheduled to be there that day, I am violating
BSRs if I jump with that person but they're okay to take an air-bath.
This is bullshit.
I understand that out of 1,000 people who make a tandem you're lucky if 30
come back. Of those who come back, I doubt if 5 make it past AFF or
whatever student program. Of those who graduate, only a couple are going to
be around much after a year.
Don't quote me on the statistics; I'm just going by the turnover vs.
retention that seems to be the case at some of the DZs I frequent, and I
think I'm within an order of magnitude.
Thus, there is a winnowing process at work, where a tandem passenger is
almost purely a customer but a new graduate has shown the tenacity that
warrants some consideration. I agree that prior to A-qualification (and
then some) a jumper can benefit from close interaction with someone who will
help them keep it fun and exciting rather than dangerous and painful. I
disagree, however, with the notion that training personnel should be able to
look at them as a continued source of income.
Sure, at some DZs the only way someone who has yet to develop much skill or
finesse can get anyone more skilled to jump with them is to pay for the
other jumper, and the Coach rating addresses this role.
The first 20 jumps are the toughest to attain, and you're trying to explain
why it's an improvement for you to make it that much tougher. As an
instructor I have always felt that I am there for the benefit of my
students, and I take great offense who look at it the other way around. I
don't show neophytes how to pack for any personal gain; I do it because the
people who showed me asked that I pass it on.
If your concern is demonstrated ability to keep it safe in the air with
someone who's still working on basic stability, I don't think as many
eyebrows would be raised if you made a D license (or C or whatever) the
requirement, since there is no hint of conflict of interest involved.
OTOH, if a waiver means taking food off the table for the staff when a
potential cash cow doesn't have to pay, the issue becomes somewhat cloudy.
I have had the privilege of jumping with friends and their children when the
kids had just finished training. Though neither I nor the parents were
jumpmasters, I don't think I have seen a more positive environment for
learning safely. On one occasion we went from Level 8 to A-qualified in a
weekend, and even now when I jump with this person I know that his
priorities are still #1 - Safety, #2 - have fun and #3 - all the other
details.
Again, I am offended that I now have to ask permission to be a part of that,
and that anyone has chosen to impose such a requirement.
Blue skies,
Winsor
ftrain
> "ftrain" <wrig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a39m97$15sl3d$1...@ID-83233.news.dfncis.de...
>
here
> is that this issue is bigger than just who is qualified to train and how.
>
> now
> > > demonstarted themselves qualified to teach students?
> >
> > Qualified to teach certain topics to students at a certain level, yes.
> > That's the whole point of a ratings system. No?
>
> See, you want to focus on this and not the bigger picture of what is
really
> happening.
This is the second time you have made reference to bigger issues. Okay,
fine. Explain the big picture to me. Seriously. I'm not afraid to admit
that I'm a low-timer and don't know everything. I'm interested in your
point of view.
Point of view. There's been a lot of talk about S&TA "waivers", and not
much about "signing off".
>
> >I thought you were talking about an
> > S&TA waiver.
>
> I don't think so. I think you knew exactly what I meant. I'm not
positive,
> but I think a Google search might reveal that you and I have gone done
this
> same path before.
You seem to be hung up on google searches. That's two plugs in two posts.
:-)
But seriously, why would I purposefully mistake what you said and then turn
around and admit the mistake? What sense would that make except for wasted
time and bandwidth. You gotta understand, Alan, I'm not picking a fight
here. I'm trying to have a legitimate discussion. (Crazy for this place, I
know.)
> >But hey, if your DZO has that much respect for your skills
> > that he's willing to just sign you off and is comfortable with accepting
> the
> > potential ramifiations of such action, then that's his decision to make.
> > Ultimately it's his dropzone, his decision, and his responsibility.
> That's
> > a slippery slope, though. Does he also put student up in 18 mph winds?
> How
> > about fudging on aircraft maintenance?
>
> So now it is about what my DZO does and doesn't do.
You're the one who openly said that he was going to sign off on your rating.
You brought your DZO into the fold. So, yes, this facet of the conversation
is about your DZO.
> He operates like every
> other DZO I have known.
> Ultimately it's his dropzone, his decision, and his responsibility.
>
> > > > Ignoring the membership requirement doesn't have an
> > > > option if the DZO wants to remain a GM. The latter is not an
> either/or
> > > > proposition.
> > >
> > > This is not true according to a correspondence I just received from Ed
> > > Scott. According to him: "Any allegations are directed to the USPA
> > Regional
> > > Director, who has authority to determine what happened and if
> disciplinary
> > > action is warranted."
> > > I did take issue with this and am awaiting his reply.
> >
> > Yeah, that was pretty low.
>
> You mean TK (or someone posing) comes on here and openly states they are
> violating the GM pledge as a matter of policy and it is low of me to try
to
> get at the truth? I sent my correspondence to the same e-mail address the
> post was made from. So, was TK just blowing around a lot of hot air or
was
> someone posing as him? And is it low of me to expect Ed Scott to do his
> job?
Have you ever seen someone violate a BSR? Did you turn them in? I think
you're using TK's comment about non-member jumpers as a cloak, when what
you're attacking him for is his stance on the new rating.
> > I personally don't think this should turn into a
> > case of skydivers going at each other's throats. Bad juju, dude.
>
> Too late for that. Maybe I have learned by example. Two BOD members
sueing
> each other over a name.
That's bad juju, also. But I guess that's what happens when big money gets
thrown into the mix.
Do you really think that riding shotgun with someone with the learner's
permit is comparable to jumpng with someone fresh off of student status?
ftrain
"Keith Grossman" <keithg...@nospam.home.com> wrote in message
news:mGZ58.10199$gW4.7...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
That's not specific to the new rating, and can be said about all of the
instructional ratings. Do you have a beef with all ratings?
ftrain
> Again, I am offended that I now have to ask permission to be a part of
that,
> and that anyone has chosen to impose such a requirement.
>
>
Amazing. No name-calling. No obfuscation. No accusations. Merely a
non-hostile articulation of one's point of view. Wow.
-Andy
jsk
CRWMike wrote:
>
> I admire and applaud anyone who actually teaches skydiving. Be that as
> it may, you are still a pencil necked pedantic geek. Nothing USPA does
> will change that.
>
Pity there weren't a few more pedantic geeks working for Enron and
Arthur Anderson.
> kallend wrote:
DCvet
> I admire and applaud anyone who actually teaches skydiving. Be that as
> it may, you are still a pencil necked pedantic geek. Nothing USPA does
> will change that.
And who would that be?
Winsor Naugler III
Assuming, of course, that we somehow wound up high enough on the food chain
to round out our skydiving experience with a Golden Parachute.
Unfortunately, my experience is that the scum rises to the top. Skilled and
dedicated technical talent merely keeps the operation going long enough for
the masterminds to effect their getaway. I have seen brilliant middle
management resurrect organizations that had received what should have been a
coup de grace from the top, and it took almost superhuman incompetence on
their part to finally put us out of business.
Thank goodness I bore too easily to be upper management. ADHD has its
benefits.
Blue skies,
Winsor
jsk
Since no-one has unearthed any accident data that can be blamed on the
previous practice of allowing experienced licensed but unrated skydivers
to jump with newbies, it seems that, based on the evidence available, it
is not unduly hazardous to do so (within the context of the sport of
skydiving). In that sense (risk to the parties involved), I would
consider the activities mentioned above to be comparable.
In the sense that a learning outcome is anticipated for the learner
driver, and none is expected for the newbie skydiver beyond what could
be obtained in a solo jump, I'd say that the "shotgun" driver actually
has greater responsibility.
k
jsk
My experience is that the majority of those who despise pencil necked
pedantic geeks are completely ignorant of the extent to which their
comfort, material well being, and often their very existence depends on
geeks. Caves are fun to visit but unappealing as residences.