Recreational agency standards: Ranking and why?

[leapfrog]

There are hundreds (thousands?) of posts about the low standards of "certain recreational certification agencies" primarily related to the Open Water Diver course and its equivalents, suggesting that the instructors of those agencies don't require mastery of a full skill set so that an OWD is a competent diver and can dive with a buddy (no instructor, no guide) to 18 meter/60 ft maz depth.

The criticism may be directed also at other certification levels, AOW, Rescue, MSD, DM.

If we turn this around, the question is which are the agencies with the highest standards and based on what criteria can that claim be made?

Can you rank agencies from highest to lowest? Does that mean that instructors of what you may consider to be the lower standard agencies can't turn out properly qualified divers? Is an instructor of one of those agencies necessarily a bad instructor?

The question is directed to diving that is done to a maximum of 42 meters in a non overhead environment, so you can include the "new agencies" within the constraints of their non technical courses.

 

[Codyjp]

 

[Kevin Carlisle]

I don't think this can be answered by anyone... There are bad instructors, and there are good instructors.. An agency is only as good as its instructors.

 

[boulderjohn]

First of all, this really isn't the appropriate forum for this. Here is where you get answers from agencies, not where you ask for opinions about them.

Next, I don't see this as a very productive discussion. I am weary of reading the same people repeat their same bashing rants every chance they get.

One of the problems you have in a forum like this is that the ones who make the most noise get the most attention. A small group repeating essentially the same post 100 times with passionate intensity creates the illusion of 100 different people responding. You hear the same thing so often you don't realize it is only a handful of people saying it.

Another problem is that you have is the problem of the unrepresentative sampling. For an example of what I mean, let's consider gear choice on SB. If someone posts a thread on SB asking what kind of BCD should be purchased, the responses will be strongly tilted toward BP/Ws. A SB poll a couple of years ago had the BP/W as an extremely popular choice among those who responded. Yet, we just learned in another thread that BP/Ws accounted for about 1% of BCD sales last year. Thus the SB crowd is not representative of divers in general, at least in gear choice. I would expect something similar in a forum like this.

Having posted these warnings, I believe I will now go away as quietly as I can and leave the fun to others.

 

[leapfrog]

John,

Where the heck can I post it? I already tried on I2I and got nowhere there!

Cheers.

 

[boulderjohn]

John,

Where the heck can I post it? I already tried on I2I and got nowhere there!

Cheers.

Maybe nobody wants to have the discussion.

 

[Walter]

I'll answer your question within the limits of agencies with which I'm familiar, but it will take more time than I have to devote to it right now. Keep in mind, I've not read the standards of most agencies. I have impressions of some of them based on discussions I've have with their instructors, but not having read their standards, I would not include them.

 

[leapfrog]

Walter,

It's perfectly reasonable to say that you have an opinion based on your impressions, especially if it's coming from you.

 

[boulderjohn]

I'll answer your question within the limits of agencies with which I'm familiar, but it will take more time than I have to devote to it right now. Keep in mind, I've not read the standards of most agencies. I have impressions of some of them based on discussions I've have with their instructors, but not having read their standards, I would not include them.

Walter,

It's perfectly reasonable to say that you have an opinion based on your impressions, especially if it's coming from you.

But I think that's the point. Anyone who has been a member of ScubaBoard for, say, two weeks, knows he has strong opinions about this. I believe he is saying that for a discussion like this to be fruitful, simply repeating those opinions will not be helpful. For this discussion to be valuable, you would need to amass a vast database of factual statements about standards and procedures and do a careful comparison. He is saying he can speak, for example, with authority about his present agency (SEI), but he probably can provide little insight into CMAS.

Next, you can't just compare the standards and say that agency A has more standards than agency B, so therefore (whatever). Agency B may have a perfectly good reason for omitting some standards, and each one of them would lead to an argument as to whether or not they are needed.

Finally, you have to go with the purpose of the agency. Thalassamania, for example, teaches scientific divers with very special needs beyond those of typical recreational divers--you can't easily make a comparison without including the specific goals of the agency.

 

[leapfrog]

John

Thank you. I still think it's a valid exercise. My objective is to look at training organiztions from a positive point of view instead of continuing on the road of "bashing". Let's look at why (these are examples only) we might think that one is better than he other.

As a PADI Instructor, I frequently read that we are "bad" but nobody actually steps forward to say that another is better and explain why.