And what about those instructors that do have a clue why the standards exist and believe that they should be respected? The same instructors that can't understand why relatively new instructors such as yourself, don't seem to get it. If you don't think a low hour instructor's opinion is worth anything, I'll talk with you. I created a posting on agency training standards, perhaps this is the appropriate venue....
First up, respectfully, if you actually are who you say you are and have a NAUI membership number of 4728 then you came from an era of diving instruction when things were MUCH MORE hands on then they are today. So, if you want to have a "good" debate on this issue, you motivated the RIGHT guy and, BTW, I do "get it." And, just so you know, I'm not one of those "new" instructors, BTW. You became an instructor in 1977, I became one in 1984.
In this and another thread, you've been engaging Thalassamania and NWgratefuldiver, two guys who I probably respect more than almost all other posters on this board. A majority of their posts are instructive, polite and, well, downright entertaining. So, when I read some of your responses to them, I was bothered.
Back when you and I became instructors DCBC, the "standards" were significantly different. In my opinion, you now seem to be defending the "new standards" that practically allow "hands off" diving instruction through a number of agencies. Why am I'm saying this? Because those same "new standards," recognized by a number of certification agencies that support the dumbing down of education, decrease direct one-on-one instruction and do a whole bunch more of BAD stuff, are the SAME ones you think should be rigidly enforced and adhered to by instructors at all times as you indicated throughout this thread. After all, "standards are standards," unless you think SOME are wrong?
So, on one hand, you
criticize an instructor who is making a GOOD judgement call by ENGAGING an involved parent with his kid using indirect and at arm's length supervision in a controlled shallow pool setting, but on the other hand end up
defending the rigid use of "new standards" for "diving education" by instructors who undoubtedly certify through some agencies that rely almost ENTIRELY on indirect supervision. Those two ends don't jive, brother.
Second, if you came from NAUI, you know we never used "hard" and "set" standards to grow the sport. In fact, NAUI has ALWAYS encouraged innovation and invited discussion - even dissent - among members. Why? Because that's the way the body of knowledge improves. At times, this is why I have such heartburn with GUE - not because they advocate focused KSAs and produce GREAT divers, but because their narrow view of acceptability limits growth and ultimately, change. Diving, by it's very nature will continually EVOLVE. NAUI, as an organization, has always been "up front" about such expectations. Not all students are ready to perform skills one, two, and three always in that particular order. NAUI instructors are encouraged to explore and thereby discover new and innovative ways to help each individual student, as well as divers they lead and teach meet certification requirements. So, when I see an innovative instructor (like the OP described) do something different to motivate a student and be successful at it - especially with a kid - I'll embrace and congratulate them.
Third - and this is targeted at a number of the other INCREDIBLY narrowly focused people out there as well, many of whom responded to this thread -
rules are made to serve the people who make them, people shouldn't end up serving the rules! Look, the training environment the OP described with his son and son's instructor didn't even come CLOSE to a marginal risk situation and just believe me when I say that I know a little about classifying "risk." Simply put, please DON'T let lawyers rule the freaking world! The more we hand to them, the more personal freedom we give up and the better the chance is we end up staying home.
Finally, DCBC, if you are going to talk about diving instruction and offer what I would consider to be well-thought and valued opinions while putting the letters "NAUI" next to your name, how about sending NAUI a check and paying your dues? Unless I'm wrong, you were last active in 1993?
