Advanced Open Water Disappointment

[Forbin's Descent]

I don't really know the solution, as the audits I mentioned above are expensive.

Internal audits by the training companies for starters. Regional teams doing unannounced visits to classes by these certified instructors to make sure standards are being followed. Do we want to buy regulators from manufacturers that don’t do QC/QA? Why should training be any different?

 

[boulderjohn]

Internal audits by the training companies for starters. Regional teams doing unannounced visits to classes by these certified instructors to make sure standards are being followed. Do we want to buy regulators from manufacturers that don’t do QC/QA? Why should training be any different?

That is an extremely expensive process.

My career is public education included a lot of work in the area of teacher evaluation. It would positively stagger the imagination to total how much money is involved with evaluating teachers regularly, and yet incompetent teachers abound throughout the world.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

That is an extremely expensive process.

My career is public education included a lot of work in the area of teacher evaluation. It would positively stagger the imagination to total how much money is involved with evaluating teachers regularly, and yet incompetent teachers abound throughout the world.

So what is the solution? Do nothing to save money?

While there will always be incompetent _________ (fill in with any profession), giving up due to difficulty or cost is a cop out. If one way doesn't work, try something else and evaluate its success over time. Just don't give up. Even if something is working, continue to look at how it can be improved.

Much effort goes into car safety. However, people will always be killed or hurt in car collisions. Let's not abandon all the safety features of the car, even though doing so would make cars cheaper to produce.

 

[boulderjohn]

So what is the solution? Do nothing to save money?

As is so very common, you rely upon the false dilemma fallacy. Your black and white thinking assumes no middle ground. Perfection can never be achieved, so you mockingly assume that the only alternative to perfection is doing nothing. In his excellent book Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, Howard Gardener identifies this as possibly the greatest problem of leading a diverse society. The problem is that good solutions cannot be reached because of the destructive influence of that portion of society that thinks in those terms. Gardener believes their worldviews are frozen at what Piaget identified as the thinking of the five-year old mind.

People with that mindset destroy all attempts to find a middle ground, because to them all middle ground thinking sounds like a lie. Things are either good or bad, right or wrong, black or white, etc. If it is not exactly what they think is right, then it is unconditionally wrong.

There is no question that we should always seek improvement, but we have to be realistic. You have ask how big the problem is that you are trying to solve and what kind of effort it would take to solve it. For example, why aren't we putting more effort into finding the best ascent profile possible for NDL dives? The answer is because only a tiny, tiny portion of NDL dives done today result in DCS, and exploring all possible ways of solving this tiny problem would be enormous. It isn't worth the effort.

So how big is the problem in this thread really? Would it be worth a multi-billion billion dollar effort that would raise the cost of scuba beyond the means of all but the wealthiest individuals and still not make a meaningful difference?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

As is so very common, you rely upon the false dilemma fallacy. Your black and white thinking assumes no middle ground. Perfection can never be achieved, so you mockingly assume that the only alternative to perfection is doing nothing. In his excellent book Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership, Howard Gardener identifies this as possibly the greatest problem of leading a diverse society. The problem is that good solutions cannot be reached because of the destructive influence of that portion of society that thinks in those terms. Gardener believes their worldviews are frozen at what Piaget identified as the thinking of the five-year old mind.

People with that mindset destroy all attempts to find a middle ground, because to them all middle ground thinking sounds like a lie. Things are either good or bad, right or wrong, black or white, etc. If it is not exactly what they think is right, then it is unconditionally wrong.

There is no question that we should always seek improvement, but we have to be realistic. You have ask how big the problem is that you are trying to solve and what kind of effort it would take to solve it. For example, why aren't we putting more effort into finding the best ascent profile possible for NDL dives? The answer is because only a tiny, tiny portion of NDL dives done today result in DCS, and exploring all possible ways of solving this tiny problem would be enormous. It isn't worth the effort.

So how big is the problem in this thread really? Would it be worth a multi-billion billion dollar effort that would raise the cost of scuba beyond the means of all but the wealthiest individuals and still not make a meaningful difference?

John,

I was expecting you to twist my words as that is your MO. I made it clear in the part you did not include in your response that:

While there will always be incompetent _________ (fill in with any profession), giving up due to difficulty or cost is a cop out. If one way doesn't work, try something else and evaluate its success over time. Just don't give up. Even if something is working, continue to look at how it can be improved.

where I advocate attempts to address the issue. Your favorte thing is to use reductio ad absurdum aka argumentum ad absurdum. You go off on a multi-billion dollar effort. Insert Joey Swoll saying "Really?" There's a problem, let's try to address it. No one has created a business proposal of several billion dollars. Let's try not to be ridiculous.

I believe there is a pervasive problem of poor instruction and for the health of the industry, it should be addressed. While my personal observations are merely anecdotes, the fact that with instructors with whom I've discussed this topic, I have a theory that quality instruction has greater retention rates. When students receive poor training, they are less likely to continue training, especially in challenging conditions. Again, my theory.

Feel free to keep your head in the sand if you so wish. Just please get out of the way of those who do wish to improve the status quo.

 

[Belzelbub]

Internal audits by the training companies for starters. Regional teams doing unannounced visits to classes by these certified instructors to make sure standards are being followed. Do we want to buy regulators from manufacturers that don’t do QC/QA? Why should training be any different?

Apart from the cost, a regional team doing unannounced visits to classes is not going to be as effective. I'd assume that the instructor would realize their class is being audited. If the omissions are intentional, then I'd expect that they would be adjusted while the auditor is there. Regional team has me thinking of group or individual presenting their credentials to audit the course.

A secret student would be more effective. They could sign up for the course just as another student, then get the same education that other students get. While that would probably work, it doesn't come cheap. Where does that cost go? It gets passed along to the student. Maybe not a bad thing if it actually improves training, but it may also deter new divers. Maybe, maybe not.

So what is the solution? Do nothing to save money?

With a physical product, like cars, and regulators, there is a tangible object that can serve as proof that corners were cut. When the product is training, that gets a bit more difficult. It could be that the student just didn't retain the instruction. Maybe they adequately demonstrated proficiency at all required skills, but they still suck.

Sending out a quick but effective survey may help. Maybe the agencies can send a wetsuit patch to those that complete it to improve response rate. It can just be a few randomized questions to ensure that the requirements are met. That survey would be a test for the instructor. Patterns of standards violations from one shop/instructor should prompt further investigation, and if warranted further actions. I've got to assume that word of disciplinary action such as revocation of credentials would spread quickly, so it wouldn't need to happen often to be effective.

 

[Forbin's Descent]

There is no question that we should always seek improvement, but we have to be realistic. You have ask how big the problem is that you are trying to solve and what kind of effort it would take to solve it.

This would be a good question for Linnea Mills’ family.

 

[Forbin's Descent]

As is so very common, you rely upon the false dilemma fallacy. Your black and white thinking assumes no middle ground. Perfection can never be achieved, so you mockingly assume that the only alternative to perfection is doing nothing.

Was he black white thinking? I thought it was actually the opposite. He was talking about continuous improvement. Just keep trying, track metrics, make adjustments that is hardly black and white thinking.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Apart from the cost, a regional team doing unannounced visits to classes is not going to be as effective. I'd assume that the instructor would realize their class is being audited. If the omissions are intentional, then I'd expect that they would be adjusted while the auditor is there. Regional team has me thinking of group or individual presenting their credentials to audit the course.

I don't see this as a solution either

A secret student would be more effective. They could sign up for the course just as another student, then get the same education that other students get. While that would probably work, it doesn't come cheap. Where does that cost go? It gets passed along to the student. Maybe not a bad thing if it actually improves training, but it may also deter new divers. Maybe, maybe not.

With a physical product, like cars, and regulators, there is a tangible object that can serve as proof that corners were cut. When the product is training, that gets a bit more difficult. It could be that the student just didn't retain the instruction. Maybe they adequately demonstrated proficiency at all required skills, but they still suck.

Sending out a quick but effective survey may help. Maybe the agencies can send a wetsuit patch to those that complete it to improve response rate. It can just be a few randomized questions to ensure that the requirements are met. That survey would be a test for the instructor. Patterns of standards violations from one shop/instructor should prompt further investigation, and if warranted further actions. I've got to assume that word of disciplinary action such as revocation of credentials would spread quickly, so it wouldn't need to happen often to be effective.

In general, the first step I see is all courses, including open water, are to be taught neutrally buoyant and trimmed. But that would make most agencies hemorrhage instructors and therefore revenue, so that won't ever happen in one step. So a more realistic goal is to require all IDCs be taught NB/T. Then for standards, is to require just one (or a couple) skill(s) to be performed NB/T. Then gradually add more each year until all skills are taught this way. This is a glacial speed, but hopefully at the end of it the dinosaurs who have no business teaching will be gone through normal attrition and they are replaced by instructors who were taught in their IDC NB/T.

I don't see the threat of revocation of credentials as realistic as agencies fish storm drains to get pennies. That instructor pays dues. That instructor sells courses. That instructor is making them money. Agencies won't give that up.

Other ideas are video recordings of students passing skills. This can be randomly audited. With mask mounted cameras, this can be done. Documentating weighting/equipment for students is another where the student submits that information. This introduces overhead and a headache, but won't cost billions.

These are just ideas. I'm sure there are some flaws as I'm just quickly writing this.

But again, try something to improve the quality of training. We can't solve everything, like skills degrading over time. But we can address some issue. Let's try. Maybe start with a pilot program in a specific area and see if there is an improvement. If yes, expand it. But keep working to improve. I would expect most instructors here work to continue improving the quality of their teaching. Shouldn't agencies do the same thing to improve their product?

 

[Forbin's Descent]

I th

Apart from the cost, a regional team doing unannounced visits to classes is not going to be as effective. I'd assume that the instructor would realize their class is being audited. If the omissions are intentional, then I'd expect that they would be adjusted while the auditor is there. Regional team has me thinking of group or individual presenting their credentials to audit the course.

A secret student would be more effective. They could sign up for the course just as another student, then get the same education that other students get. While that would probably work, it doesn't come cheap. Where does that cost go? It gets passed along to the student. Maybe not a bad thing if it actually improves training, but it may also deter new divers. Maybe, maybe not.

With a physical product, like cars, and regulators, there is a tangible object that can serve as proof that corners were cut. When the product is training, that gets a bit more difficult. It could be that the student just didn't retain the instruction. Maybe they adequately demonstrated proficiency at all required skills, but they still suck.

Sending out a quick but effective survey may help. Maybe the agencies can send a wetsuit patch to those that complete it to improve response rate. It can just be a few randomized questions to ensure that the requirements are met. That survey would be a test for the instructor. Patterns of standards violations from one shop/instructor should prompt further investigation, and if warranted further actions. I've got to assume that word of disciplinary action such as revocation of credentials would spread quickly, so it wouldn't need to happen often to be effective

Any of these things but try. I like the survey idea as a cheap start. At least it says “hey we are watching.” I don’t get to not do food safety and quality checks in my plant because it’s expensive. We have to figure it out so the food we send is safe.

Cut the legal budget in half and put it towards qc.