Cert. cards can't be revoked for cause?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Again, how would this be monitored? With millions of divers world wide and more agencies then letter in the alphabet, this seems like it could be very difficult to do.

Make a scubaboard blacklist :eek:npatrol:

---------- Post Merged at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous Post was at 11:06 AM ----------

I am surprised no one has yet mentioned that PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS can and are revoked with some regularity. In the Undersea Journal there is regularly a list of suspended and revoked instructors or other levels of professional card holders. As for recreational certifications, in my experience dive concessionaires can and will deny service if a diver has not been in the water for a long time. I know some that require a refresher for divers who have not dove in more than a year. I advocate divers being active. That is the best assurance of risk management and safe diving. Keep your skills, and your equipment, properly tuned.
DivemasterDennis

would pool time be considered as dive time?
 
Again, how would this be monitored? With millions of divers world wide and more agencies then letter in the alphabet, this seems like it could be very difficult to do.

Good point. Even if my c-card was revoked by the agency, do any dive ops verify anything past what I have in my hand? Not currently. Do you think they want to have to go online or whatever to verify that their 16 divers, with c-cards from multiple agencies mind you, are all still in good standing? Not likely.
 
I wasn't really talking about nonuse, that just takes a refresher course. I was talking about active evidence of incompetence or danger to others (Rescue card and Gabe Watson is what came to mind, but pick your own example).
So we found out that Gabe Watson was not so hot on his rescue skills when he failed to rescue his wife and she drowned. This brings up some questions:
1. How would anyone have known he was not competent to rescue his wife before that dive, and who would have required that his Rescue Diver credentials be revoked? (He was certified by NASDS, an organization that had folded into SSI, so there was no agency to revoke his credentials.)
2. Who would have had the authority to remove his credentials once they noticed his incompetence?
3. How would that have changed anything? Are people without Rescue Diver credentials not allowed to dive?
4. Wouldn't a checkout dive have revealed that neither Gabe nor his wife was ready for the dive they did have solved the problem? (BTW, the dive operator was fined for failing to do the checkout dive that was a part of their policy.)
5. How do you know a refresher course would not have solved his problem?

I am surprised no one has yet mentioned that PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS can and are revoked with some regularity.

See post #3.
 
Even if a system of revokation were in place, I wouldnt have reason to believe that the certified diver asking to be my buddy is any less competent a diver than I am under the current system.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating more regulation, but if the system of private certification is to be respected against possible government regulation of diving, doesn't it need to have at least *some* teeth?
That is precisely what you are advocating. "Teeth", or some sort of regulatory force to remove freedom from another who has been deemed "naughty" in some respect or another.
 
Rescue card and Gabe Watson is what came to mind, but pick your own example.

A system where you get to keep that card when you've just shown your eagerness to abandon a buddy in fixable trouble, seems toothless enough to me to invite unwanted government regulation if the right accident presented itself. Something we don't want.

Gabe Watson was acquitted so there is no legal reason to revoke his certification assuming that was an option.

If abandoning a buddy resulted in the loss of a diver certification then about half the diving community would have lost their cert.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating more regulation, but if the system of private certification is to be respected against possible government regulation of diving, doesn't it need to have at least *some* teeth?

You are absolutely advocating more regulation. Sharks have teeth, work with them! :sharkattack:
 
Gabe Watson was acquitted so there is no legal reason to revoke his certification assuming that was an option.

If abandoning a buddy resulted in the loss of a diver certification then about half the diving community would have lost their cert.

You are absolutely advocating more regulation. Sharks have teeth, work with them! :sharkattack:



Being acquitted of a crime isn't the same thing as being competent. Suppose he had been convicted. He'd still get to hang onto the Rescue Card even though he murdered a buddy diver, yes?

You want to avoid *government* regulation (which is what I was talking about avoiding) after the 'wrong' accident (or several worst-case accidents) garners big public and hence governmental pressure to "do something"? And your/our counter-argument is, "we have a certification system (which has no oversight or consequences), so leave us alone".?

Good luck with that. Just sayin', and I hope it never happens.
 
Being acquitted of a crime isn't the same thing as being competent.

His actions were incompetent. OK, then, so what about the questions I asked above? I'll try again.

1. How would anyone have known he was not competent to rescue his wife before that dive, and who would have required that his Rescue Diver credentials be revoked? (He was certified by NASDS, an organization that had folded into SSI, so there was no agency to revoke his credentials.)
2. Who would have had the authority to remove his credentials once they noticed his incompetence?
3. How would that have changed anything? Are people without Rescue Diver credentials not allowed to dive?
4. Wouldn't a checkout dive have revealed that neither Gabe nor his wife was ready for the dive they did have solved the problem? (BTW, the dive operator was fined for failing to do the checkout dive that was a part of their policy.)
5. How do you know a refresher course would not have solved his problem?
 
His actions were incompetent. OK, then, so what about the questions I asked above? I'll try again.

1. How would anyone have known he was not competent to rescue his wife before that dive, and who would have required that his Rescue Diver credentials be revoked? (He was certified by NASDS, an organization that had folded into SSI, so there was no agency to revoke his credentials.)
2. Who would have had the authority to remove his credentials once they noticed his incompetence?
3. How would that have changed anything? Are people without Rescue Diver credentials not allowed to dive?
4. Wouldn't a checkout dive have revealed that neither Gabe nor his wife was ready for the dive they did have solved the problem? (BTW, the dive operator was fined for failing to do the checkout dive that was a part of their policy.)
5. How do you know a refresher course would not have solved his problem?


1. They wouldn't.

2. Under the present system, no one, since there is no authority to revoke, suspend, or anything, no matter what one does.

3. It wouldn't have changed the incident. But it might keep Congress of the sport's back if it kept on happening. They'd see that the sport polices itself so government intervention would be neither necessary not politically popular.

4. I don't know. Does a checkout dive test how you would respond real-time to a diver in distress? But a checkout dive might have shown incompetence, or might not have.

5. I don't.
 
Just an observation but our current political system appears to only work for those with a financial interest in passing a law. Until someone argues that there is enough money to be made revoking a license I don't really see congress getting all that worked up over the issue.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom