Issues with PSIA/AASI

[snwbrder3384]

I figured i would start this seeing as we have several instructors among us including a few TD's. I for one am confused as to any inclusion of freestyle into the level 2 and 3 exams. i understand before they created the separate Freestyle Accreditation but now it should be removed. I dont see the skiiers have to be able to ride in the halfpipe and do 180s do you? every year i higher more and more older snowboarders who are great teachers and riders but have no reason at all to even step foot in the halfpipe or would want to teach anyone in there.

[Spin240]

I believe halfpipe should be a NO. Halfpipe is one of the most inconsistent features on the mountain.. and a shatty built pipe can make for some nice injuries.

180s.. I think these should be level 2 for sure. One of the earliest things most people want to learn is doing 180s. If you can't ride some switch and pop a small 180 I think you shouldnt be level 2, IMO.

Part of snowboarding on a mountain is using all of it to your advantage. So in my opinion a Level 2 and 3 instructor should have a fair amount of flat land tricks in their package and a 360 as a level 3 should definitely be mandatory.

[DragonUSMC]

yeah a 180 is nothing... i'm not talking giant floaty backside 1's off of 80' kickers, but being able to ride switch i TOTALLY agree should be mandatory for 2 and 3.

So i wonder... how do get PSIA / AASI to start accepting the fact that they need to be the voice for the instructors of America? When are they going to step in and say "hey, these instructors spend countless dollars and hours to provide a HUGE service to your resort. You NEED to pay them what they are worth."

a petition to AASI? would it work? I dont know... when i get to CO i'm deffinately going to be talking to people.

[Cr0_Reps_Smit]

i would sign such a petition if you get one going.

[DragonUSMC]

I mean i guess thats what it might take. A few of the people I will be working with at Beaver Creek and Vail are pretty high up in AASI... so maybe i'll talk to them a bit to see what they think

[snwbrder3384]

no i fully agree about riding switch and flatland 180s. but i had one instructor come back after failing his level 2 (which i knew he would) and they were making him do 180s off of tables in the park. mind you hes close to 50. 360s should not be part of even the level 3 exam, thats what the freestyle accred is for.

[DragonUSMC]

^yeah i agree with that... riding should be riding, but that includes switch. Aerials are for freestyle accred.

[Spin240]

The level 3 test here usually involves a super steep pitch and a good bit of ice. They make you do picture perfect turns on super steep slopes all the while just hoping your edge holds. A 360 is a lot easier than that for sure. The level 3 test is supposed to be the epitome of being a great all around instructor. 360s are not out of range for most people by any means, especially a small on-trail one. If you can't hop around in some bumps and throw some spins to mix it up then you probably are not a good enough rider to warrant being perceived as one of the top people in the industry.

If we were going to start making ourselves into a more professional organization and union to get higher pay, then the levels would have to be worth more. You need to earn your pay grade and if you can't do it then that is fine.

[RideTilIDie]

Well on a personal level, I feel that AASI/PSIA are a load of crap.
I understand that this is a business world that we live in and teaching people to ride does in fact cost money, but you are teaching people to not progress. The resort I (sort of) worked at, informed me that after one hour teaching anything more than the falling leaf is too much for the first day of riding. When it comes to skiing, the psia makes sure you stay in a snowplow for the first 2 lessons, because teaching someone how to paralllel turn is too advanced. Keep em comming back...spend more money!

[DragonUSMC]

That must just be your hill, cause i teach my instructors to try and get to linking turns in 1.5 hours.

[snwbrder3384]

^^ must be nice having a nice long flat pitch to teach on. our " bunny lift" would make your students cower in fear. only students iv ever had that get to linking 1.5 hrs into their first lesson went out in the morning before classes started and played around on their own, which i love so i dont have to waste so much of my time. but yea thats your school. we teach TO the students ability not a ridgid lesson plan.

[DragonUSMC]

well obviously you have to teach to the student's learning curve... but when you only have 1.5 hours for a lesson people EXPECT to learn to ride in that time frame so it makes teaching more difficult with time frame rather then hill terrain.

[Spin240]

If someone can't link turns after 2 hours of my time.. there is a 99% chance it is their fault. I have had groups of 8 people where everyone was linking 4+ turns down our bunny hill... I've had other groups where the people couldn't understand left from right.

[DaveESPI]

My problem with AASI is it is ran by teaching snowboarders how to with outdated SKI-based techniques. I am 32. I am one of the most technical riders on the hill year in and yer out, but I leave the 180 and park stuff for people 1/2 my age to do. Being a good rider should not require a single second in "the park" and nor should being what makes a great instructor. Its all about communicating and teaching through different methods and relating to others.

I am level 1 cert this year not because I want to, but because it will open doors for me elsewhere and the "industry discount" when visiting mountains is a huge savings off of lift tickets.

[dirtyjerz]

my boss and all of his chronies who help him manage the mountain are all level 2 and above (the one guy is level 3 telemark ski, level 2 alpine ski, and level 1 snowboard) they are all considered to be "the best riders we've ever ridden with. Granted, they are good, no doubt they can rip some turns and ride switch with ease, but when it comes to the park they have not the slightest idea. With this in mind they try to act like they know it all everything about park building, and telling the ski patrol about what can and cannot be done. i dont see how they, (30 year old freeriders) have more knowledge of park building construction maintenance (sp?) etc. than say a kid that i work with who has spent his last 4 summers on mt. hood working his a$$ off at a summer snowboard camp?

not sure where i was going with this.

[DragonUSMC]

^i've got kids back home who spend all day in the park, go to camps, etc. etc. and i wouldnt let them build a take off to a baby box in the park. Just because you ride the park daily doenst mean you have the slightest clue on the physics involved and insurance liabilities that need to be taken into consideration when building parks.

That being said though. I think park does have its place in the level progression but not as the main tree... keep it like the adaptive program, not required but nice to have.

[DaveESPI]

The "Park ranger" we had at Jiminy last year did a really good job designing the features. I went into the park a few times, and really was not pleased with the conditions of the landing zones (mother nature was not kind to us in the Northeast) all for except one day. On that one day I hit the ramps atleast 10 times and only scratched out once because I had to avoid a numbnut sitting in the alley next to the progressive jump landing.

Co-workers were amazed to see me actualy "in" the park, and were pleasently entertained by just crisp clean air and old school landing stomps followed by hard carves out of the park and down trails.

A well rounded instructor is worth far more than any "Expert".