Any PADI instructors here who are also DIR compliant?

[supergaijin]

I owned a PADI Facility and left when I could not morally continue with them. Before this time, I "enhanced the training program." Many PADI Instructors I know do the same thing. They teach outside the box, knowing that PADI will likely cut their head off in court for deviating from the Standards.

How does NAUI stand up in court? Is there any protection offered? If any instructor introduces a 'new' skill and a student subsequently has an accident, the instructor should have to justify themselves IMO. Training Agencies set the bar: "These skills are required for divers to be safe". If an individual instructor decides that additional training is required beyond this level, they should be held accountable for it.

I suppose that with so many other Agencies out there, I cannot help but wonder why they stay with PADI. Certainly it's the largest Agency and employment is a big thing. The majority of Diving Instructors however don't make their living by teaching diving.

Employment is the big thing for PADI- they brought diving from a 'fringe' activity and made it mainstream. They put the effort in and are the brand when it comes to scuba diving. I have no idea how many (all agency) instructors exist that are actively teaching on the weekends. How do you get this majority?

 

[DevonDiver]

How does NAUI stand up in court? Is there any protection offered? If any instructor introduces a 'new' skill and a student subsequently has an accident, the instructor should have to justify themselves IMO. Training Agencies set the bar: "These skills are required for divers to be safe". If an individual instructor decides that additional training is required beyond this level, they should be held accountable for it.

As I understand it... and I could be wrong... PADI doesn't 'protect' instructors. It provides a formal syllabus and takes responsibility for that... alone. The syllabus itself is further protected through ISO accreditation (at certain levels) and WRSTC standards (who in turn take responsibility for their outline standards).

This is explained on IDC as:

"Instructional systems provide legal protection for the instructor.
a. When using an instructional system, the burden of proof in terms of educational validity and training adequacy shifts from you to the program designers.
b. For risk management purposes, it’s important to use the system as prescribed. Deviating from a proven system will cause you to have to defend your actions and establish yourself as an instructional design authority."
PADI Course Director Manual, Curriculum, The Systems Approach to Diver Training

So, the court determines, via expert witness whether, or not, the instructor deviated from the system. If they deviated from the system (standards/skills/sequencing), the instructor is on their own, they have to defend what is now their course.

Beyond that, the instructor has to defend against negligence, failure in duty of care etc etc. I'm guessing PADI 'protection' wouldn't extend beyond provision of an expert witness... if (big 'IF') they (their own lawyers?) felt that the instructor wasn't culpable for negligence, failure in duty of care etc etc. I'd expect PADI to do little more than provide a benchmark of what is reasonable and whether, in their own opinion, the instructor met that definition of 'reasonable'. The instructor could, of course, always supply their own expert witness to provide that also...

If the instructor wasn't found to be deviating from PADI's system, and wasn't found negligent in their actions/duty-of-care, then PADI would/might have to defend their system.

I see nothing in the PADI Membership Agreement, that shows any commitment/obligation from PADI for legal protection. In fact, it provides 'member benefits', but all the listed obligations are entirely upon the instructor.

Am I missing anything? Or getting that grossly wrong?

Wouldn't most agencies hold the same responsibilities and liabilities? Would any go further, or do less, with their instructors?

Very pertinent to this debate is whether PADI take responsibility for the instructor's "method of instruction". The techniques and protocols used to convey skills in-water and the classroom. Some have claimed that instructors have absolute freedom to implement skills as they please (with exception to CESA). On the other hand, IDC and supportive materials (Guide To Teaching) give specific examples of method of instruction. I assume, this see-saw is curtailed by the words; 'reasonable', 'prudent' and 'risk management/assessment'. I doubt whether PADI would assume responsibility/liability for any 'method of instruction' issues - other than providing witness on what they consider 'prudent' and 'reasonable' behavior.

As stated in the Membership Agreement:

"8. I understand and agree that this Agreement does not create an agency relationship between PADI and me. Except as otherwise provided in this Membership Agreement, PADI has no control over or involvement with my day-to-day operations and activities and bears no responsibility
for the same".

"9. I understand and agree that PADI Membership is granted at the sole discretion of PADI, based upon its unilateral determination of several
criteria including, but not limited to, whether acceptance and continuation of any membership is in the best interest of PADI. Satisfaction of
minimum requirements does not guarantee membership. PADI Membership, at any level, may be revoked by PADI, at its sole discretion, at
any time."

ouch...para.9 hurts... don't it

 

[supergaijin]

As I understand it... and I could be wrong... PADI doesn't 'protect' instructors. It provides a formal syllabus and takes responsibility for that... alone. The syllabus itself is further protected through ISO accreditation (at certain levels) and WRSTC standards (who in turn take responsibility for their outline standards).

That is how I see it. If an accident occurs (while training to the Standards), then the liability should shift from the instructor to 'the Standard' which is in line with the WRSTC. If an individual trains towards their own 'standard', then the individual must defend this personal standard if an accident occurs.

A good lawyer will tear in to the 'acting as a prudent person would'. Student coughed during the briefing? A black cat walked by? Cloud in the sky affecting visibility? Clear day making it too bright? They're just doing their job. Whether or not a judge will accept the lawyer doing what lawyers do is another thing- that is the scary part as sometimes they do.

Wouldn't most agencies hold the same responsibilities and liabilities? Would any go further, or do less, with their instructors?

That is a good question. Another could be: is there a difference in liability between a 'weekend' instructor (apparently the majority) and a full-time instructor? Would a case be heard differently? ie. the full-timer is more of a '$professional$' and should be held to a higher standard as opposed to 'good old Bob', who helps out with the boy-scouts at the weekend.

Very pertinent to this debate is whether PADI take responsibility for the instructor's "method of instruction". The techniques and protocols used to convey skills in-water and the classroom. Some have claimed that instructors have absolute freedom to implement skills as they please (with exception to CESA). On the other hand, IDC and supportive materials (Guide To Teaching) give specific examples of method of instruction. I assume, this see-saw is curtailed by the words; 'reasonable', 'prudent' and 'risk management/assessment'. I doubt whether PADI would assume responsibility/liability for any 'method of instruction' issues - other than providing witness on what they consider 'prudent' and 'reasonable' behavior.

I believe this is where a knowledgable lawyer will probably 'win'. In respects to teaching neutral the majority of images show professionals and their students on their knees. Against that is the recent USJ 'Early Transition' article.... and 40-odd years of NAUI's neutral buoyancy articles.

 

[DCBC]

How does NAUI stand up in court? Is there any protection offered? If any instructor introduces a 'new' skill and a student subsequently has an accident, the instructor should have to justify themselves IMO. Training Agencies set the bar: "These skills are required for divers to be safe". If an individual instructor decides that additional training is required beyond this level, they should be held accountable for it.

From a liability perspective, I think that you'll find that the Training Agencies do not set the bar for how Instructor's teach. No doubt that the Agency is responsible for their program. What the Instructor does with the program is up to the Instructor. The Court is not obligated to accept any TA's idea of what is considered to be a reasonable action or inaction on the part of an Instructor. This is usually established by having the TA concerned establish the operating parameters of the Agency. In other words, if a PADI Instructor taught something that was outside of the Standards, it would be likely that PADI would establish that this was the case and outline that the Instructor went beyond what was sanctioned by the TA. If the Instructor taught precisely to Standards and the issue surrounded Standards I'd assume that the Agency would stand with the Instructor in-support.

If NAUI was the TA and the NAUI Instructor taught something that was outside of the Minimum Standards, NAUI likely would establish that this was the case and outline that the Agency encourages their Instructors to do so. I'm assuming in both cases that the Instructor didn't teach anything that would be obviously dangerous to the Student. NAUI has a history of standing behind its Instructors (what you might expect from an Association made up of Diving Instructors).

Each side in a Civil case (involving a diving injury or death) will call Expert Witnesses to support their case. Their opinions are weighed in consideration of their diving/diving instructional background. The Court hears all the evidence and determines the reasonableness of the actions/inactions of the Instructor. This may also have an influence when in comes to liability insurance (read the fine print).

Employment is the big thing for PADI- they brought diving from a 'fringe' activity and made it mainstream. They put the effort in and are the brand when it comes to scuba diving. I have no idea how many (all agency) instructors exist that are actively teaching on the weekends. How do you get this majority?

In a CMAS poll in the early 90's, over 90% of CMAS Instructors indicated that recreational diving instruction was not their principal source of income. I suspect NAUI and the other Agencies are not too dissimilar. I suspect that the majority of Instructors that have commented on this thread don't make their living by teaching diving.

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC once asked me why I didn't respond to one of his (numerous and irrelevant) posts. The following quote from him is an example of why:

The Court hears all the evidence and determines the reasonableness of the actions/inactions of the Instructor. This may also have an influence when in comes to liability insurance (read the fine print).

Unlike DCBC, I have never been an expert witness in a civil or criminal case. Me, I've merely been a trial attorney who has tried a number of cases and handled (and won) a number of appeals at both appellate and Supreme court level (all within the Washington State system -- no federal or other jurisdictions). So I'll freely admit MY experience and training is limited -- unlike DCBC who seems to think that because he has been an expert witness and because there appears to have been some decisions in Quebec (where IS Quebec anyway and what influence has any Quebec courts had on the law in general?) he KNOWS.

Again, with only reference to MY jurisdiction, the "Court" doesn't decide any factual matters unless the parties have opted to have the Judge be the trier of fact. DCBC's description of a civil case is, well, let's just say simple and perhaps not quite accurate. And that is why I opted not to respond to his prior posts because we are just writing on different levels and from different perspectives.

A few points: The typical liability policy carries a duty to defend by the liability insurance provider. PADI, despite its relationship with V & B is NOT a liability insurance provider. It is, however, likely that PADI would be a co-defendant in any training related law suit -- just as any agency is likely to be a co-defendant. In that case, the interests of the defendants may be parallel or they may be divergent -- guess what, depends on what happened.

Obviously if parallel, it is likely the evidence would be presented to support PADI's teaching methods AS APPLIED by the instructor. If divergent, the evidence would be presented to support the instructor that the methods used were within the scope the PADI standards as evidenced by such things as Drew Richardson's "Is PADI Flexible" article as well as any "Training Tips" from the PADI Undersea Journal -- as well as any other evidence that what the instructor did was "reasonable" given the circumstances as they were then known.

Interestingly, let's say this was NOT a PADI instructor/class but a NAUI instructor/class and an accident happened while the student was doing buddy breathing -- which is something I understand has now been taken out of the minimum NAUI standards and has been taken out of the PADI standards entirely. Here are two of the biggest scuba training agencies, at least in North America, which have concluded that buddy breathing is NOT something that should be taught at the Open Water level, but the NAUI instructor (knowing more than the "experts" at each HQ) teaches it anyway. If you were on the jury, what would make you believe that teaching this "dangerous skill" was reasonable since BOTH major agencies (and perhaps SSI and other too) have concluded it shouldn't or needn't be taught? The same is true for, example, using a blacked out mask to test the panic response -- when the student panics and bolts, embolizes and dies. Since NO agency (as far as I know) requires such (and GUE, for example, prohibits it) who is the poor NAUI instructor going to use to support his belief that "it is reasonable" when no one else does it?

Pokey wrote

So….my simple question to all of the PADI instructors out there is this. Wouldn’tevery single one of you really prefer it if PADI officially and openly granted you these same exact allowances?...

Is there one single PADI instructor out there who would not prefer to have this be his or her choice and his or her option? If there is, I’d really like to hear the reason why.

Here is one little, poor, insignificant PADI instructor who is quite happy and pleased with the status quo. I see absolutely no reason for PADI to change its Open Water teaching structure (at least as to flexibility ala NAUI). As to why, PADI is, in fact, flexible in how instructor's are allowed to teach -- despite what DCBC constantly says. To the extent that I, as an instructor, might wish to change some order or such, IF I want to, I can request permission to do so and I'm quite sure such permission would be granted PROVIDED IT DIDN'T CONFLICT with something else. (Note -- a few weeks ago I submitted a request for such a "deviation" -- and yes, DCBC, it would have been a "deviation from standards" so I would have need specific permission -- and the permission was denied. While I disagree with the denial, it was not arbitrary and, to the contrary, was denied for a valid reason AND several work arounds were suggested.)

I have yet to see anything in the PADI system which makes it somehow less attractive than, say NAUI.

BTW, DCBC, you keep (erroneously of course) writing that PADI doesn't require a swim test for all its Open Water divers. PLEASE stop writing such false statements. As you know, there is an option -- 200 yards with no swim aids (M,F,S) or 300 yards with Mask, Fin, Snorkel. I'm still waiting for you to explain why one of your students, for example, would be IN the Nova Scotia cold water needing to "swim" without aid of a mask, fin, snorkel or exposure protection! Please describe the situation where a scuba diver in Nova Scotia is going to need to swim 400 yards (I think that is your requirement) in the Atlantic in just a bathing suit.

 

[DCBC]

... because there appears to have been some decisions in Quebec (where IS Quebec anyway and what influence has any Quebec courts had on the law in general?

Quebec's influence is no more important than any other jurisdiction. I would suspect however, that it would be an important factor if you were teaching a PADI course in Quebec (not that the divers you teach could dive in the Province based on their PADI certification). You might even find yourself using it in a pinch in Court yourself Peter (case law from international jurisdictions can be heard in D.C. Courts can't they)?

Again, with only reference to MY jurisdiction, the "Court" doesn't decide any factual matters unless the parties have opted to have the Judge be the trier of fact. DCBC's description of a civil case is, well, let's just say simple and perhaps not quite accurate. And that is why I opted not to respond to his prior posts because we are just writing on different levels and from different perspectives.

Litigation in many jurisdictions requires a Judge to hear the case Peter. You've suggested that my explanation is "not quite accurate." Perhaps then you might clear-up where I've gone wrong (rather than making such a statement and again sliding out of it). BTW you haven't explained how writing your Bar exam assists you in reading the Judge's mind...

...Here are two of the biggest scuba training agencies, at least in North America, which have concluded that buddy breathing is NOT something that should be taught at the Open Water level, but the NAUI instructor (knowing more than the "experts" at each HQ) teaches it anyway.

A huge and incorrect assumption Peter. What training Agencies (other than PADI) have prohibited Buddy Breathing???? There are many things not in the NAUI Minimum Standards that a NAUI Instructor is encouraged to do. I'm confident if Buddy Breathing/Blackout was taught to increase the confidence of the Student in confined water, this is something that NAUI would strongly support. These exact training methods are (and have been) employed for diver training by the military and most commercial diving schools for over 50 years! It was likely eliminated from the PADI program (as well as sub-surface rescue) to shorten the course and turn a quicker profit... To get them back for rescue training (ching ching) so these poor divers can learn how to aid their buddy underwater (after-all they've been certified to dive independently).

(Buddy breathing) ... teaching this "dangerous skill" ...who is the poor NAUI instructor going to use to support his belief that "it is reasonable" when no one else does it?

It could be a "dangerous skill" if the Instructor was totally incompetent and the student was a non-swimmer. Just a minute, I'm beginning to see PADI's logic here....

Peter, you mean no one else other than PADI? They are the only Agency that prohibits their Instructors from teaching BB, or am I incorrect????

BTW, DCBC, you keep (erroneously of course) writing that PADI doesn't require a swim test for all its Open Water divers. PLEASE stop writing such false statements. As you know, there is an option -- 200 yards with no swim aids (M,F,S) or 300 yards with Mask, Fin, Snorkel. I'm still waiting for you to explain why one of your students, for example, would be IN the Nova Scotia cold water needing to "swim" without aid of a mask, fin, snorkel or exposure protection! Please describe the situation where a scuba diver in Nova Scotia is going to need to swim 400 yards (I think that is your requirement) in the Atlantic in just a bathing suit.

Peter, I'm sure there are Psychologists on the Board who can explain the relationship between someone being unable to swim and the chance of panic in an ocean environment like Nova Scotia. Also the role confidence plays in the panic process. Can it be that this is the first time you've ever heard of this?

People who are strong swimmers generally don't have the same fear of water/drowning as a non-swimmer (or someone who requires a swimming aid to maintain life). Panic has killed countless divers (some good swimmers). Anything that can lower the panic level is a good thing imo.

Organizations like NAUI, YMCA, LAC, BSAC, the World Underwater Federation and others have built their diving education program on solid in-water abilities of their Students. As I've mentioned, NAUI believes that:

- "Those who wish to learn to dive must have good water skills, attain the ability to swim and demonstrate basic water survival skills."

- "Divers should not be totally dependent on their equipment for safety."

These are some of the cornerstones for many of the World's diving certification Agencies. After all the World isn't obligated to abide by PADI's decisions are they?

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC again has some reading comprehension issues, sigh.

For example, he talks about D.C. Courts -- why? What relevance does that have to anything? For the record, I have no idea if there are some local rules for the D.C. Courts related to referencing international legal opinions. My guess is that, as in most U.S. jurisdictions, liability law is so settled that referring to opinions from outside of the U.S. would be extremely rare.

Let's see, what other reading comprehension issues are there -- oh yes, DCBC asked a "straw man" question regarding the prohibition by agencies of teaching buddy breathing at the open water level. Even a cursory reading of my post shows I was not discussing "prohibition" of the teaching of buddy breathing but that NAUI no longer required it to be taught (as PADI had done some years ago).

"I understand has now been taken out of the minimum NAUI standards...." DCBC seems to concur that BB is now OUT of the "minimum NAUI standards" ("There are many things not in the NAUI Minimum Standards that a NAUI Instructor is encouraged to do"). So, I'll stand by my opinion that IF there was a training accident while a North American NAUI instructor was teaching BB, the instructor in would be hard pressed to support teaching the skill since the two largest agencies (at least I think NAUI and PADI are the two largest in N.A. -- perhaps SSI too?) no longer require it to be taught.

DCBC may be "confident" that a jury (or judge if hearing the case solo) would find the teaching of BB "reasonable" but who knows -- the trier of fact may, just may, decide to the contrary -- especially since NAUI and PADI made official decision NOT to require that skill to be taught. (And remember, this would ONLY be an issue if there was an accident while, or as a result, of the skill being taught.)

In support of his (ludicrous?) campaign against the PADI "swimming" standard, DCBC makes the following statement:

People who are strong swimmers generally don't have the same fear of water/drowning as a non-swimmer (or someone who requires a swimming aid to maintain life).

OK, DCBC, do you have any evidence to back up this statement? Do you have any studies (even one that YOU might have done) that shows (or even hints) that someone who can swim 200 yards (or even 300 yards) in a pool wearing just a swim suit (not even goggles) "[won't] have the same fear of water/drowning as" someone who has swum 300 yards in a pool while using mask, fins and snorkel without stopping and without raising her head from the water? Without some evidence in support of your contention, why should anyone accept it?

Last response to another one of DCBC's ludicrous statements:

Litigation in many jurisdictions requires a Judge to hear the case Peter....BTW you haven't explained how writing your Bar exam assists you in reading the Judge's mind...

DCBC, unlike you, I have not held myself out to be an expert on the legal niceties of many jurisdictions. It is true that many jurisdictions do not use the jury system, OTOH, most common law jurisdictions DO use the jury system. As Canada and the USA are common law countries, the jury system is the dominant one in those two countries.

Lastly, as a practicing attorney I seldom really cared about what was on a judge's mind except as to whether the judge would follow the law of the jurisdiction. A good judge doesn't "think" about cases EXCEPT as to what the law might be related to the facts as presented and it is silly to try to be a mind reader.

As to what relevance going to Law School and taking the Bar Exam have to that question, well, the three years of Law School are really designed to teach the student how to "think like an attorney" and the Bar Exam is designed to test how well one has learned those lessons. IF one can pass the Bar Exam (at least the one I took 40 years ago -- my God, it really has been 40 years!) then one has shown that one understands how judges are supposed to view cases which, in fact, I guess, does give the lawyer an insight into a "judge's mind" that the lay person can never, ever, have. And that, DCBC, is why what non-lawyers write about the legal system tends to be wrong and often incorrect.

OK -- for real -- honestly, I'm out of this thread.

OP -- Yes, a PADI instructor CAN teach in a "DIR Manner" -- that is, can teach his students to be competent, thinking divers with a reasonable sense of situational awareness.

 

[beanojones]

Remember, it's a two way street. We're looking at it with the vision of responsible, passionate instructors exceeding standards with a commitment to diver safety and excellence. Now, take Gomer Pile with his brand new instructor card and tell him he can throw in whatever he likes. I'm lead to believe that certain agencies intentionally define things a little loose - maybe for their own legal protection, and maybe to both allow the smart ones a little freedom and keep the dumb ones in line. I'm not saying it's right, or even favorable, but I'm willing to bet there's a lot more Gomer Pile's out there than the former.

(Not the slightest bit relevant but Gomer Pyle, not Pile.)

I am in complete agreement with this. As a PADI, NAUI, IANTD, etc. instructor with fair amounts of experience including 20 odd years of tech training, and in general full time work as a diver since my own OW course, I know I bring more to the table than any other instructor than I personally meet to my OW course. Most do divers quit, and in IME all instructors quit if they are full time.

But the funny thing is, that means I am pretty confident in the ability to actually teach to the OW standards successfully, and the last thing I think any OW course needs, or any OW student needs is more of what seems to be a real fetish among brand new instructors and divers (more gas management, more GUE/DIR influence on, frankly, weird stuff like being reliant of certain gear configurations). I know what an instructor focusing on that stuff leads to in terms of student results, because I get to dive with people are trained by those sorts of instructors all the damn time.

All I can say is that giving any dive instructor free rein to think of themselves as educators makes them stop thinking of themselves as dive instructors, and messed up stuff like the GUE OW course (in that video a while back) results. People who forget that it is an OW course think that GUE OW is great. But it just looks to someone who gets to dive with the students taught by someone who thinks they are the smartest person in the room, like a disorganized time wasting course that missed some very important detail that should be absolute minimums in an OW course.

The old saying that truly wise people discover daily that they know less every day, not more seems to be missing from every dive instructor with strong opinions about how OW course should be 'improved'. Actually teaching the OW course as written is basically ignored in favor of their fetishes.

In fact, I am so sure how OW courses should be improved that I am going to write a book about what every OW student needs to know, because becoming a dive instructor magically gave me a background in educational theory strong enough that...Wait, I am just a dive instructor, and better minds than me already know what to teach. I should just focus on teaching that, but then I have to admit I am nothing special, and my ego is not fed.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC again has some reading comprehension issues, sigh.

The sign of a weak argument...

For example, he talks about D.C. Courts -- why? What relevance does that have to anything? For the record, I have no idea if there are some local rules for the D.C. Courts related to referencing international legal opinions. My guess is that, as in most U.S. jurisdictions, liability law is so settled that referring to opinions from outside of the U.S. would be extremely rare.

You've written the Bar exams and you have to guess??? I haven't written the Bar exams and I know that Canadian Law permits case law from any jurisdiction. Did you go to PADI Law School??? LOL

Let's see, what other reading comprehension issues are there -- oh yes, DCBC asked a "straw man" question regarding the prohibition by agencies of teaching buddy breathing at the open water level. Even a cursory reading of my post shows I was not discussing "prohibition" of the teaching of buddy breathing but that NAUI no longer required it to be taught (as PADI had done some years ago).

Spoken like a teach by numbers Instructor. When you are required to do X, but are encouraged to so Y, it's a great difference from only being able to do X. Develop a little creative education Peter. You will be a better Instructor than if you solely rely on a text written at the Grade 8 level.

So, I'll stand by my opinion that IF there was a training accident while a North American NAUI instructor was teaching BB, the instructor in would be hard pressed to support teaching the skill since the two largest agencies (at least I think NAUI and PADI are the two largest in N.A. -- perhaps SSI too?) no longer require it to be taught.

Peter, open your mind for a minute. What is required with NAUI doesn't end there. You are encouraged to do more. You live in a system that p r o h i b i t s you from doing more. Can you not see the difference? Apparently not...

DCBC may be "confident" that a jury (or judge if hearing the case solo) would find the teaching of BB "reasonable" but who knows -- the trier of fact may, just may, decide to the contrary..

You can choose what you want to believe. I won't ask how many diving litigation cases you've defended, or even been in attendance during the case; chances are none. So we both know that in this instance, I have much more experience in this area than you do. I'll leave it at that.

OK, DCBC, do you have any evidence to back up this statement?

You claim to be a Professional? Do your homework. You should already know my statement is correct. A product of PADI Instructor training?

OP -- Yes, a PADI instructor CAN teach in a "DIR Manner" -- that is, can teach his students to be competent, thinking divers with a reasonable sense of situational awareness.

Good for you Peter! Keep-up the good work. Maybe 13 years from now you will have a conversation with PADI HQ that will prove to you that everything you thought was misplaced. Just like me. I know that you haven't been there yet, but you can't say that you wont. I've walked this path...

 

[supergaijin]

the last thing I think any OW course needs, or any OW student needs is more of what seems to be a real fetish among brand new instructors and divers (more gas management, more GUE/DIR influence on, frankly, weird stuff like being reliant of certain gear configurations). I know what an instructor focusing on that stuff leads to in terms of student results, because I get to dive with people are trained by those sorts of instructors all the damn time.

More gas management seems to imply that there is gas management in the OW course. Telling your instructor when you reach 750psi is nothing of the sort.

Apparently in your neck of the woods, the divers taught about Gas Management (one of those fetish things) are running OOA with you... your students OTOH are gliding gracefully through the water like a slippery siren until their inate LOA warning system brings them to the surface.

People who forget that it is an OW course think that GUE OW is great. But it just looks to someone who gets to dive with the students taught by someone who thinks they are the smartest person in the room, like a disorganized time wasting course that missed some very important detail that should be absolute minimums in an OW course.

What very important details did this course miss? Honest question.