This topic pops up from time to time, and often ends with no resolution. In this case, though it has produced some interesting comment. John has outlined the structure of the issue from an educational perspective, and Andy has taken time to thoughtfully comment on the issue from that perspective. While I appreciate, and don't necessarily disagree with, the sentiment of many of his comments, I will take exception to three of them.
DevonDiver:
Community perception that the DM training standards permits inexperienced/incompetent divers to be certified at professional level. Professional level divers may have less experience than the customers they are supervising.
The comment starts with acknowledgement that the issue is perception (which may have nothing to do with reality, notwithstanding some tired clichés to the contrary). Yes, in some cases some professional level divers may have less experience than some consumers. I don’t see any value in requiring that a DM on a boat have ‘more experience’ than all consumers who may get on that boat, nor does that 'less experience' mean that s/he is not competent.
My concern is that perceptions are subjective, and may have no validity in fact. For centuries various people were perceived as being intellectually and/or physically inferior simply because of gender, race, region of origin, religion, etc. Most of those perceptions have subsequently been debunked. But, there definitely was a ‘community perception’. So, I don’t necessarily trust ‘community perception’.
DevonDiver:
This serves to degrade public perception of the Divemaster qualification and the agency that produces them. It also jeopardizes diver safety.
Perceptions aside, the discussion arrives at an issue that may have substance – diver safety. Unfortunately, the discussion then derails – not only is it an issue of perception, there is apparently no means available to measure / quantify / document the assertion that diver safety is somehow compromised. There doesn’t appear to be any volume of even anecdotal evidence. If diver safety is being compromised by inadequate performance of dive professionals, and this inadequacy can be traced to inadequate training, and this inadequate training somehow relates to inadequate required levels of experience (this thread did, after all start with a question about DM experience, reflected in the number of logged dives required for program entry and program exit), then there may be a basis for changing the experience requirement. But, I have concerns regarding the implied assertion that required experience levels jeopardize diver safety. 1) The available, objective data simply do not demonstrate any issue of diver safety, associated with inadequacy of DM performance, based on inadequacy of experience requirements; and 2) the reaction, which appears to be, ‘We’ll just assert that the safety problem cannot be documented by statistics, but nonetheless go forth with the assumption that it exists, even though there is no evidence to support that assumption’, seems incompatible with logic.
DevonDiver:
Where the QA process fails (or even attempts) to ensure DM training and post-graduate conduct matches the standards and corporate goals/mission of the agency - consumers recognize a disconnect between what is promised and what is delivered. This disconnect causes consumer dissatisfaction.
Andy, you mentioned a failure of QA in another recent thread, so I sense that this is a particular concern for you. Can you be a bit more specific on how you perceive that ‘the QA process fails (or even attempts) to ensure
DM training . . . matches the standards and corporate goals/mission of the agency’? In teaching a DM class, I am provided with clear, written, agency standards to which I am expected to adhere (and recommendations on how to adhere to them). I am confident that every one of my certified DMs will get a QA survey from the agency. I don’t know what more the agency should do, by way of QA
of the training. Maybe I am misunderstanding the point of the statement, though.
The issue I have with the post-graduate conduct piece – admittedly based on MY PERCEPTION – is that the majority of consumers I encounter, on boats, in classes, in quarries, during dive trips, etc., don’t have an expectation of what is promised, and don’t see any disconnect, and certainly don’t hold any particular agency accountable (in fact, the agency is generally a non-issue, even a non-entity, for the majority of consumers). They are more likely to hold an individual DM or instructor responsible for being a shmuck, they are more likely to hold an individual charter outfit responsible for being a poor operator, they are more likely to hold a LDS responsible for poor training, or inadequately managed charters or trips.
Having made these comments, I also I think the DM training program, at least the one that I teach, can always be improved. The PADI program, as one example, is clearly designed to emphasize the role of the DM in supporting TEACHING. Other programs may emphasize other aspects – one DM program in our area, affiliated with a different agency, emphasizes boat operations (possibly because the shop offering the DM program emphasizes dive charters more than teaching in their business). We recognized several years ago that our DMCs would benefit from more boat experience and now offer an optional boat operations charter experience as part of the program. But, I won’t say that this must be required or else the program be somehow perceived as inadequate. I include several additional skills as part of DMC training that I PERCEIVE will help the DMCs become more confident, and capable. I may be wrong, and others may have different perceptions. Yes, I also see supposed dive 'professionals' whose primary skill seems to be silt-kicking, whose judgement is suspect, who make me shudder when I hear them on land / boat boasting of their skills. But, I also see physicians who I consider incompetent, attorneys who I consider unethical, and airline pilots who have much less experience than I do, in total logged hours. I avoid being treated (at least, more than once) by the incompetent health professionals, I avoid dealing with the unethical attorneys, and I don't mind being a passenger on a plane flown by a younger (younger than some of my children), less experienced pilot. Even though I not only walk on water, but I also walk on clouds, they are the pilot-in-command of the aircraft, and I am not.
Going back to the OP’s initial question, about the adequacy of experience requirements, there have been a number of ‘interesting’ responses:
drbill:
Personally, I think the 60 dive minimum is a joke.
James R:
I think it should be double the current minimum.
100days-a-year:
1000 dives for instructor, 200 for DM as well as show proficiency in every aspect of diving they will be teaching.
ermaclob:
I simply think its a matter of bumping standards up a bit and keeping to them
In all of these responses, there is a common theme, which necessarily leads to a common question – what is the specific basis for the particular recommendation? Why double the number, why 200 for DM, why ‘bump them up’? And, what does ‘a bit’ mean, for that matter? I think RJP applied the optimal term:
RJP:
In short, my 150 dives in two years is no more an arbitrarily insufficient number of dives than your 300yr for five years is an arbitrarily sufficient number of dives.
This really captures the discussion – the numbers being criticized, or recommended are essentially
arbitrary. There is no basis in data, or even reason, for a particular number.
So, in response to the OP, I cannot say whether 60 or 100 dives is enough.
Diving Duibai:
I’m at 100 dives, I dive warm waters but in challenging conditions. However I don’t feel that I have enough experience to be either a DM or an Instructor at 100 dives I’m still learning….
However, you have answered your own question. You don’t think you have enough experience, so 100 dives is not enough, FOR YOU. It may be for others. But, whatever that number may be, for you, for me, for others, it should not be a terminal number.
hroark2112:
I don't care how many dives you have, there's always something new to learn.
VERY true!
