A compassionate instructor

[Thalassamania]

By accepting NAUI's request and assisting in or even directly writing standards, it seems to me by default you have agreed that standards are necessary and have an important place in instruction. Am I wrong on that conclusion?

I never said that they did not have a place and a function. There are just two points that I've been trying to make here:

1. The activities were not being conducted under the aegis of any agency thus there are no standards involved in the conduct of the activity.
2. It is possible that the Instructor in question was experienced enough and knew enough about the parties involved to make an intelligent decision that the risks of the activity were minimal.

I've recently (very recently) started researching the differences between NAUI and PADI and so far have learned (from NAUI instructors I have spoken with) that NAUI sets minimums but does not deter an instructor from going above and beyond those minimums as long as the minimum is adhered to and satisfied. But, there are absolutely minimum standards with that agency.

Correct.

Without going into hypotheticals or anything else, given your stated b/g in the formulating of NAUI standards at one point, what is your response to this direct question:

How do you feel about a NAUI Instructor disregarding a minimum standard established by NAUI while conducting a NAUI class because he/she feels it is wrong, irrelevant, stupid, or whatever?

I can't give you a blanket answer to that. It would depend on the standard, what a reasonable interpretation of the intent of that standard might be and the background and experience that the instructor in question brings to bear on the issue. There are those that want to make such things black and white, but I do not see them that way.

I'm not even trying to compare this to the OP that started this debate, and before anyone blows up, no I do not know what, if any, agency the Instructor the OP referred to is part of. I'm curious on your thoughts on this based on what I've seen many people claim in this thread, that standards can and should be tossed out the door at an Instructor's discretion.

Here's the problem. There was a time when virtually every instructor was truly (in the terms that I outlined) an expert. Standards were things like how many dives had to be made, how many hours of what kind of instruction (lecture, pool, O/W), and a list of skills. Nothing more. As new agencies like PADI developed, the level of instructors plummeted (in all agencies) and several things happened:

1. where there had just been one level of instructor a hierarchy of instructors developed.
2. standards became more and more defined and restrictive.

I made every attempt in my preparation of NAUI's standards to keep a single level of Instructor, with the Instructor certification process as rigorous as possible. The system that I designed had someone first proving that they were "Proficient" divers - that was NAUI Master Diver; taught them to be "Proficient" Instructors - Divemaster and Instructor Prep Course; and brought them over the major hurdle to "Expert" in the Instructor Training Course. While the system that I proposed was ultimately accepted and put into place, the only place that it really worked was in the large Branch ITCs, the PDCs and the CDs that were by this time doing onesie/twosie ITCs found ways to shortcut and subvert what was basically an honor based system that relied on the idea that the CDs were both experts and honorable ... a stupid assumption on my naive part, but then I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt at the onset.

Don't answer this question as-if you are the instructor, obviously the person who writes the book can change the pages whenever they want. I am referring to an Instructor who has joined NAUI and agreed to train in their system, and issue certifications under NAUI authority (for lack of a better phrase).

In the research diving biz, we agree that: "A properly trained research diver does not need written rules." There was a time when this was true in the recreational world too, and there was a time when some of us believed that we could write a set of rules that could put us back on that path.

In today's world it is clear that most instructors do not make the grade as experts, in fact there are many who would argue that they don't even come up to Proficient or Competent but tend to cluster on the high side of Beginner (e.g., a working knowledge of key aspects of tasks, appreciation that complex diving situations exist; limited situational awareness, all attributes and aspects are treated separately and given equal importance; begins to use global characteristics of situations that are recognized from limited prior experience; problems are primarily solved by using rote guidelines for action that are based on situational attributes; only starting to make rudimentary attempts to decide on appropriate actions in context that are limited to applying actions as a series of steps, can not be expected to successfully resolve complex situations). Beginners need very detailed standards and, unfortunately that is where the industry finds itself.

All I am trying to do in this thread is make a case for the idea that the Instructor in question may have been an expert with sufficient grasp of the issues to have made the correct decision, a decision that would likely not have been duplicated given a different father/son pair.

 

[I Dive]

I never said that they did not have a place and a function. There are just two points that I've been trying to make here:

1. The activities were not being conducted under the aegis of any agency thus there are no standards involved in the conduct of the activity.
2. It is possible that the Instructor in question was experienced enough and knew enough about the parties involved to make an intelligent decision that the risks of the activity were minimal.

Correct.
I can't give you a blanket answer to that. It would depend on the standard, what a reasonable interpretation of the intent of that standard might be and the background and experience that the instructor in question brings to bear on the issue. There are those that want to make such things black and white, but I do not see them that way.

Here's the problem. There was a time when virtually every instructor was truly (in the terms that I outlined) an expert. Standards were things like how many dives had to be made, how many hours of what kind of instruction (lecture, pool, O/W), and a list of skills. Nothing more. As new agencies like PADI developed, the level of instructors plummeted (in all agencies) and several things happened:

1. where there had just been one level of instructor a hierarchy of instructors developed.
2. standards became more and more defined and restrictive.

I made every attempt in my preparation of NAUI's standards to keep a single level of Instructor, with the Instructor certification process as rigorous as possible. The system that I designed had someone first proving that they were "Proficient" divers - that was NAUI Master Diver; taught them to be "Proficient" Instructors - Divemaster and Instructor Prep Course; and brought them over the major hurdle to "Expert" in the Instructor Training Course. While the system that I proposed was ultimately accepted and put into place, the only place that it really worked was in the large Branch ITCs, the PDCs and the CDs that were by this time doing onesie/twosie ITCs found ways to shortcut and subvert what was basically an honor based system that relied on the idea that the CDs were both experts and honorable ... a stupid assumption on my naive part, but then I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt at the onset.In the research diving biz, we agree that: "A properly trained research diver does not need written rules." There was a time when this was true in the recreational world too, and there was a time when some of us believed that we could write a set of rules that could put us back on that path.

In today's world it is clear that most instructors do not make the grade as experts, in fact there are many who would argue that they don't even come up to Proficient or Competent but tend to cluster on the high side of Beginner (e.g., a working knowledge of key aspects of tasks, appreciation that complex diving situations exist; limited situational awareness, all attributes and aspects are treated separately and given equal importance; begins to use global characteristics of situations that are recognized from limited prior experience; problems are primarily solved by using rote guidelines for action that are based on situational attributes; only starting to make rudimentary attempts to decide on appropriate actions in context that are limited to applying actions as a series of steps, can not be expected to successfully resolve complex situations). Beginners need very detailed standards and, unfortunately that is where the industry finds itself.

All I am trying to do in this thread is make a case for the idea that the Instructor in question may have been an expert with sufficient grasp of the issues to have made the correct decision, a decision that would likely not have been duplicated given a different father/son pair.

Thanks Thal.

 

[Kingpatzer]

I don't know what agency this Instructor was with, but PADI requires close supervision of a DSD.

The son was not part of a class or program of any sort, and therefore not part of a DSD.

I have no idea if PADI has any rules against giving equipement to a certified diver (the father) if there's knowledge that the equipment will be used by a non-certified diver at some point (the son) who is not part of a class. But I can't find it in the instructor's manual. I have no idea if it's in the standards of any other agency. And really, I find it immaterial to the discussion.

If we're going to get legalistic about it (which seems to be the intent) I'd like the page number that stipulates that this is a violation that somehow makes the very act of doing it morally wrong.

Yeah, we get it, if lawyers were to get involved the instructor would be screwed. I bet the instructor knew that too. To me that makes him even more compassionate towards the kid. He was willing to risk something of great value on behalf of a child.

So again, I ask, so what? Even if the instructor violated standards and thus put his own status at risk, it is his status to do with as he sees fit. If the only objection is that the instructor opened himself up to liability, what has that to do with the point of the OP?

Taking a great story and turning into a navel gazing legalistic exercise in liability and risk management thumping one's chest and moralizing about how the instructor wasn't upholding whatever instructor code folks think was violated just frankly misses the point. And goes to show in a big way why far too many diving instruction sessions have devolved into performing a set of rote exercises and have largely become devoid of fun, the thrill of discovery, and genuine enjoyment.

Sucking the life out of what is, in the most literal definition of the term, a wonderful experience in order to cover everyone's asses from the lawyers is one of the major things wrong with the diving world today.

 

[I Dive]

The son was not part of a class or program of any sort, and therefore not part of a DSD.

I have no idea if PADI has any rules against giving equipement to a certified diver (the father) if there's knowledge that the equipment will be used by a non-certified diver at some point (the son) who is not part of a class. But I can't find it in the instructor's manual. But if we're going to get legalistic about it (which seems to be the intent) I'd like the page number that stipulates that this is a violation that somehow makes the very act of doing it morally wrong.

Yeah, we get it, if lawyers were to get involved the instructor would be screwed. I bet the instructor knew that too. To me that makes him even more compassionate towards the kid. He was willing to risk something of great value on behalf of a child.

So again, I ask, so what? Even if the instructor violated standards and thus put his own status at risk, it is his status to do with as he sees fit. If the only objection is that the instructor opened himself up to liability, what has that to do with the point of the OP?

I'm pretty much done with this debate, but I will answer your question with another question. If there is no regulation against giving gear to a certified diver with the knowledge that they will allow an uncertified diver to use it, what is the point of certifications? All we would really need is one certified diver per group of friends, right? That person could rent tanks for all of their friends and be the only certified one among them.

 

[joolz]

This is a simple question. What are those standards? If you are a PADI instructor (or whatever agency you represent), what are the documented PADI standards for the conduct of one of their instructors in this case.

The OP said he signed a Discover Scuba liability waiver, so this was effectively a DSD lesson sanctioned by the LDS and under the control of the instructor. The standard in question is:

"Supervision and Ratios
The PADI Member conducting the Discover Scuba Diving program must be in the water directly supervising."

where direct supervision is defined as:

"a Teaching status PADI Instructor must personally observe and evaluate each student diver's ability to perform skills as required, both on land and inwater. These actions may occur while the Instructor is also generally supervising a group of students. Responsibility for direct supervision cannot be delegated to certified assistants..."

For those who argue that despite the DSD waiver, this wasn't an official training dive, the PADI Ethical Requirements still apply. Notably:

"4. Comply with the intent of the PADI Standard Safe Diving Practices Statement of Understanding while acting in a teaching or supervisory capacity"

The relevant practice is under point 3:

"Deny use of my equipment to uncertified divers."

The fact that the LDS made the OP sign the DSD waiver means they were at least considering their liability (yes Palladin954, even your LDS is part of the bureaucracy). All the instructor had to do was assign his DM to Junior for that session and there would be no issue (assuming the DM is certified for DSD) -- no extra cost, minimal impact on the OW class, no standards violation and no unnecessary exposure. Failing that, just bring in another DM for the day -- they're cheap like borsch, and you could probably find one to do it as a fave if you asked nicely.

All this being said...

If the pool is only 40' long, then I will concede that the DM and instructor may have been close enough for this to be considered direct supervision. In a larger pool, the same scenario would not. This isn't how I would ever conduct a DSD, but that's irrelevant.

- PADI Beancounter #212073

 

[RJP]

I'm curious too, and I am not questioning your answer, but I'm the type that likes to see the actual regulation.

Here's the first PADI standard that was violated:

Participant must:
1. Be 10 years or older..
2. Review, complete and sign the PADI Discover Scuba Diving affirmation of risk and medical history screen (as found in the PADI Discover Scuba Diving brochure or other documents as specified by your PADI Office) before entering the water.
a. Parent or guardian signature required for new divers younger than legal age.

Do you need me to go section by section? Because there are several more that were violated, such as "The PADI Member conducting the Discover Scuba Diving program must be in the water directly supervising." There are also standards about what required materials must be used.

 

[Paladin]

RJP:

One more time.

Junior is eleven years old. No violation here.

I signed the waiver. No violation here.

The DM was in the pool, just a few feet away and not involved with the class as the instructor was handling that. The DM was there to keep an eye on everyone. Including my son and myself. The pool is only 20 feet by forty feet. No violation there, either.

I started this thread because I thought you guys would be happy for the experience my son enjoyed. I had no idea that the bureaucrats would nitpick it to death. Had I known what the reaction would be, I would never have submitted the post. From now on, I'll keep our experiences to myself.

 

[Zieg]

Here's the first PADI standard that was violated:

Participant must:
1. Be 10 years or older..
2. Review, complete and sign the PADI Discover Scuba Diving affirmation of risk and medical history screen (as found in the PADI Discover Scuba Diving brochure or other documents as specified by your PADI Office) before entering the water.
a. Parent or guardian signature required for new divers younger than legal age.

Do you need me to go section by section? Because there are several more that were violated, such as "The PADI Member conducting the Discover Scuba Diving program must be in the water directly supervising." There are also standards about what required materials must be used.

The first item on your list, "10 years or older...", the kid was 11 years old. Oh well.

 

[RJP]

The DM was there to keep an eye on everyone. Including my son and myself.

If the DM was "keeping an eye on everyone" he was not directly supervising the DSD participant, as required by the standards.

If you filled out the form, and the DM was supervising your son in a DSD program, why didn't you just say in your original post "My son did a discover scuba program today" and all of this nonsense could have been avoided.

 

[Paladin]

Because my intent was to tell of the instructor's generosity and humanity. I had no idea that I would have to write a textbook or a detailed, second-by-second report to satisfy nitpicking bureaucrats. I honestly did not consider the little details important to the primary story. It never even occurred to me that anyone would twist my post into a prolonged, ongoing argument about legalities that actually had no bearing on the story. Besides, I offered the pertinent details early on but it seems they were largely ignored.

But I have learned my lesson. From now on, I will carefully censor and edit any and all future posts to avoid being dogpiled in the future.