Agencies

[seaducer]

You appear to be missing the point that there is a major difference in agency philosophy, but I guess that's by intent. This "Little Orphan Annie" act is precisely the BS that I warned about in my earlier post when I said;

Well, for one thing, I wasn't discussing differences in agency philosophy, simply pointing out that when you do discuss standards, make sure you discuss standards and not extras that may or may not be added to the class by an individual instructor.

Beyond that, I am not sure at all what the quoted text even means...

 

[Thalassamania]

We operate within different frames of reference ... we've always known that. I like to think I set a higher than average bar for my students, and that when they complete the class they have achieved a reasonable competence for their level of training and experience.

You train divers to a different standard, and for different reasons ... and therefore your standards are much higher. Hell, I'm not sure I would even be able to pass one of your classes, and I like to think I've got pretty good skills.

I doubt that any recreational agency could meet your standards ... but you're not training recreational divers.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

A few (about 20%) of the divers I've trained were non scientists who were learning to dive as a hobby, they were (I guess) recreational.

But the point is that what I do is not some super-diver program designed by Dirk Pitt for agents of NUMA, it is a rather easy going (you'd have no problem) program that we teach to science geeks, who are not always the most physical folks. Our system is based on what recreational diver training actually was back in the 1950s (not the mythos ... the reality). When you look at our course what you see is what recreational diver training would have become if it were allowed to evolve in an environment where the sole selective force was the needs of the student. It has gotten academic more rigorous and physically less demanding. Equipment and gear manipulation skills have replaced many tasks that used to demand significant stamina.

So when I compare the inputs and outputs of a conventional program with ours I really wonder if it isn't time for a big step back to the future. The only thing that holds us back from a true renaissance in diver education is some rather wrong headed preconceived notions and, of course, the entrenched economic interests that always fear change.

 

[seaducer]

Sure ... a lot of it boils down to the Instructor, and the best and most experienced of PADI's Instructors may (likely are) running better courses that NAUI's weakest nubie ... but at the high quality end you can't fairly compare the product because PADI does not permit the kind of instruction that you do or that I do.
.

Don't you think you are being just a little bit biased, or perhaps generalising here?

Personally I have recieved some first class instruction from top notch instructors, wherein I was taught bouynacy, gas management, airsharing, navigation, etc. well over and above "agency standards", and my cards say PADI, not NAUI.

To say that there no PADI instructors out there teaching quality classes, or teaching above the standards of their agency is not just wrong, it comes accross as mean spirited.

There are plenty of quality instructors turning out top notch divers in PADI.

Instead of talking about how much you like the way your agency is setup and all the extras you put into your classes, you chose to make a blanket (and false) statement. And quite frankly it comes accross as arrogant, basically "I am better than any PADI instructor out there". Maybe true, maybe not. But it leaves a bad taste...

 

[Thalassamania]

Well, for one thing, I wasn't discussing differences in agency philosophy, simply pointing out that when you do discuss standards, make sure you discuss standards and not extras that may or may not be added to the class by an individual instructor.

Beyond that, I am not sure at all what the quoted text even means...

A "Little Orphan Annie Act" is a common Aerospace Industry term that was based on the comic strip of the same name. It involves ignoring information that is presented when a problem is stated and proceeding on as though there were a "common sense" answer to the question that had not been refuted in the initial definition of the problem.

 

[Walter]

So I guess what I am trying to say is, in a "standards discussion", you can't place NAUI above the absolute minimums, as any instructor can teach down to that level and still pass their students.

That goes for all agencies and in all subjects.

Exactly!

I suppose it boils back down to "It's the instructor, not the agency".

Very rarely. It ususally comes down to agency standards.

Walter, your occasionally similar statements are so closed minded and ignorant as to make me wonder if you occasionally miss your medication! Either that or you need to get out a little more.

Since I'm not on medication, I don't miss it occasionally; I miss it all the time. Of course I'm ignorant about some things, we all are. OTOH, I'm very knowledgeable about teaching diving. I know a good class when I see one and I know a poor one. I can tell two different ways, I can look at how a class is taught or I can look at the end result. I've seen enough over the last 25 years that I can almost always tell you what the results will be from looking at how the class is taught and I can tell you how the class was taught from looking at the results. It is possible to work within a poor system and produce good results, but it's extremely rare. It's much more common to get good results working within a well designed system and a heck of a lot easier.

BYW, your credibility will rise if you stick to the discussion instead of attacking people who disagree with you.

 

[Thalassamania]

Don't you think you are being just a little bit biased, or perhaps generalising here?

Generalizing? Yes, this is intended to be a general discussion. Biased? No.

Personally I have recieved some first class instruction from top notch instructors, wherein I was taught bouynacy, gas management, airsharing, navigation, etc. well over and above "agency standards", and my cards say PADI, not NAUI.

I'm sure that you received what you perceive to be first class instruction from what you perceive to be top notch instructors. Either of those items may be true and maybe false. What measure(s) do you use to make this sweeping determination? Or is just a subjective judgment (nothing wrong with that) based on observing how many courses by how many instructors over what period of time? Approximate orders of magnitude will do.

To say that there no PADI instructors out there teaching quality classes, or teaching above the standards of their agency is not just wrong, it comes accross as mean spirited.

I'm not saying that, you are. If you'd read the standards you see that it is quite difficult to do. As I have stated on other occasions, I have great respect for instructors who manage to do even just an adequate job under those circumstances, not to mention an outstanding job. The usual response to my comment runs something like, "I wish it did not have to be that way, but there are only PADI shops here."

There are plenty of quality instructors turning out top notch divers in PADI.

Perhaps according to your standards. Measured by mine you might come to a different conclusion (regardless of agency) as Bob noted earlier.

Instead of talking about how much you like the way your agency is setup and all the extras you put into your classes, you chose to make a blanket (and false) statement. And quite frankly it comes accross as arrogant, basically "I am better than any PADI instructor out there". Maybe true, maybe not. But it leaves a bad taste...

It's not my agency. I don't give a good god damn how any of the agencies are set up. I refuse to have anything to do with any of them, and fortunately I do not have to. I do not put any "extras" in my classes, as I noted before, I just teach an evolved version of the same class that was first taught at Scripps in 1952. I do not consider myself any better (or any worse) than any other instructor and will not waste my time trying to prove or disprove such a foolish construct. I'm sure that there are many instructors out there who produce a much better product in 20 hrs that I could. But I choose not to do that.

Since you hold singularly strong opinions about things that you perhaps should gain some experience with first, might I recommend to you Amit Singh (the Manager of Macintosh Engineering for Google), "I believe that knowledge tends to dissolve, or at least weaken erstwhile strong opinions. After all, why would you need opinion in the face of positive knowledge? However, this is just an opinion."

Ramen.

 

[Marvel]

Gentlemen! As always when this topic comes up, it's fascinating to read the various POV's expressed. Having no (personal) axe to grind, I find valid points on all sides of the arguments.

My opinion & reaction? While it is valid & necessary to point out flaws in the existing systems, there is no hope of change until action is taken. Why don't y'all all come down to Invade the Keys & actually dive together, get to know each other on a personal basis (think Jack & Mack) & most importantly, sit down & plan a course of action that just might impact the training standards of all the agencies for the better? If ITK does not work, set up something at the next DEMA.

Even without asking Pete, I can (almost) guarantee that SB will do their best to facilitate such a discussion but the critical elements will be a willingness for y'all to work together to promote positive change. However, please bear in mind that in order to be effective the emphasis MUST be on the positive & action-oriented. IOW, come up with a committee & an agenda that is representative of the diving community as a whole & presents a reasonable plan of action to present to the various agencies as a starting point for striking a balance between the needs of the training & the business needs of the agencies that y'all are presenting to. IMHO, any plan that does not consider these elements is doomed to failure.

I believe that the expertise & community of SB has the power to make effective change to the future of dive training & diving.

So, are y'all up to a bit of a challenge?

 

[Thalassamania]

Gentlemen! As always when this topic comes up, it's fascinating to read the various POV's expressed. Having no (personal) axe to grind, I find valid points on all sides of the arguments.

My opinion & reaction? While it is valid & necessary to point out flaws in the existing systems, there is no hope of change until action is taken. Why don't y'all all come down to Invade the Keys & actually dive together, get to know each other on a personal basis (think Jack & Mack) & most importantly, sit down & plan a course of action that just might impact the training standards of all the agencies for the better? If ITK does not work, set up something at the next DEMA.

Even without asking Pete, I can (almost) guarantee that SB will do their best to facilitate such a discussion but the critical elements will be a willingness for y'all to work together to promote positive change. However, please bear in mind that in order to be effective the emphasis MUST be on the positive & action-oriented. IOW, come up with a committee & an agenda that is representative of the diving community as a whole & presents a reasonable plan of action to present to the various agencies as a starting point for striking a balance between the needs of the training & the business needs of the agencies that y'all are presenting to. IMHO, any plan that does not consider these elements is doomed to failure.

I believe that the expertise & community of SB has the power to make effective change to the future of dive training & diving.

So, are y'all up to a bit of a challenge?

It is truly wonderful that you can pour forth such ingenuousness (I really mean that) ... but I'm way too world-weary and cynical to play that game again.

If I had a nickel for every "Symposium on the Future of Diving" that I been part of I'd be a very wealthy man. That is no longer my role. My role now is to dive with my family and friends, teach people who care enough to seek me out, and tell folks when the Emperor is 'neked. You see the truth of the matter is that the Emperor doesn't care, in fact he rather fancies flashing his butt and he can talk you blue in the face, which makes discussions with him a complete waste of time. The best thing that anyone can do is carve off a tiny fraction of his market share for themselves.

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

Gentlemen! As always when this topic comes up, it's fascinating to read the various POV's expressed. Having no (personal) axe to grind, I find valid points on all sides of the arguments.

My opinion & reaction? While it is valid & necessary to point out flaws in the existing systems, there is no hope of change until action is taken. Why don't y'all all come down to Invade the Keys & actually dive together, get to know each other on a personal basis (think Jack & Mack) & most importantly, sit down & plan a course of action that just might impact the training standards of all the agencies for the better? If ITK does not work, set up something at the next DEMA.

Even without asking Pete, I can (almost) guarantee that SB will do their best to facilitate such a discussion but the critical elements will be a willingness for y'all to work together to promote positive change. However, please bear in mind that in order to be effective the emphasis MUST be on the positive & action-oriented. IOW, come up with a committee & an agenda that is representative of the diving community as a whole & presents a reasonable plan of action to present to the various agencies as a starting point for striking a balance between the needs of the training & the business needs of the agencies that y'all are presenting to. IMHO, any plan that does not consider these elements is doomed to failure.

I believe that the expertise & community of SB has the power to make effective change to the future of dive training & diving.

So, are y'all up to a bit of a challenge?

If it were only that easy!

Getting the agencies together on something like this is a nice dream.

However, I don't believe this will ever happen. I would bet quite a large sum of money on it...seriously!

To get together and re-write the standards or re-apply old school standards would only be admitting something is wrong with the current acceptable standards and open them back up to liability issues.

I'm afraid, and I hate saying this, the threat of government regulation and intervention is the only thing that will initiate this change. If the agencies seriously thought regulation might happen, they would then join together, re-write standards and hope for the best.

Only as a preemptive strike though, not a make it safer thing.


just my perspective.

 

[Thalassamania]

... I can imagine that the diver training organization of choice of NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory with NAUI instructors on staff to assure the safety and excellence of the NASA astronaut diver program would not agree to those kinds of standards. SEALs, Coast Guard rescue divers and other special military forces are trained to NAUI standards; the US National Parks Service and NOAA divers receive NAUI training and certifications. So, yup Bob, I can see why NAUI isn't a member of WRSTC.

Apropos agency/government joint programs, here's a patch you don't see every day, and you won't see except with a NAUI logo: