Cave Training and Etiquette Real or Imaginary?

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

-

"DO NOT criticize something in a public forum," he said, "unless you have a solution to offer that will go at least half-way to fixing the problem."

I still find it easy to criticize and hard to supply answers and solutions. But it seems to me that going round and round in friggin' circles picking holes in this and that agency does nothing but waste time.

Another way of saying it is "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem". I think picking holes in S&P's is the way any organization improves itself, and that is not a waste of time, nor is it going in circles.

Solutions have been offered.

One such solution tendered was to write in an cave instructor intern program where cave instructor candidates are exposed to the teaching skills of three or four experienced instructors, where each of those three or four have to recommend the candidate for instructor status.

After this process takes place the candidate then sits an Instructor Exam by at least two other experienced instructors. The candidate would be asked to demonstrate hi ability to: teach classroom topics, conduct dry-land line drills and conduct training sessions in the cave for skills such as zero-viz gas sharing exits, lost line procedures etc

This is perhaps one way we improve the quality of instruction.

Is it perfect? No.

Will there be problems with implementation? Yes.

Is it better than what a lot of the agencies have now? Yes.

 

[victorzamora]

After our talk yesterday, Jim, I thought a lot about it. I thought about a lot of things, actually.....and a common thread I kept hearing/reading/seeing was a "slip" in standards. While a more rigorous path to becoming an instructor is certainly a good idea, most people know that it's not the whole solution. I don't think anybody says it is, but there are sub-par instructors even in organizations with this more rigorous training path.

It seems to me that the only long-term fix is the recalibration boulderjohn mentioned earlier. Why are cave instructors certified for life? Do "best practices" not change? Do standards not change? Are there no updates to policies and procedures? I'm sure you'd agree that even you, as Training Director for the NSSCDS, could benefit from the watchful eye of another professional and listening to their critiques and thoughts. Heck, that could help implement better procedures....getting two experienced instructors together!

My suggested solution? I don't have specifics....I'm not in a position to. However, what about a 3-year recertification period? One CDS instructor has to "join up" with a "current" instructor every 3 years to teach a class with the other one. The instructor needing recert would teach the course, the "current" instructor would evaluate both the students and the instructor needing recert. On top of that, the instructor seeking recert should be required to take an annual written exam, including updated policies. Once written, the exams would be very easy to update....it'd be a matter of a few questions per year, regarding only the concerns brought up in the preceding year. Someone got reported for not teaching gas matching (which I've seen a CDS instructor ignore)? Make a question about gas matching before starting a dive. On top of that, a GUE-styled QA survey for each student...a few days after class...that must be submitted before issuing a cert. The QA survey should include three types of questions. Something like: "Did you like how it was taught?", and "Tell me what you thought about the length of your course?", as well as "What was your important take away about cave conservation?" or "How crucial is it to gas-match in teams before beginning a dive?"

The reasoning for the above is simple, and two-fold. 1: Most "bad instructors" I've gotten messaged/called about have either not gotten with the times or have simply started slipping. 2: It helps you properly disseminate updates to the instructors.

Thoughts?

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

After our talk yesterday, Jim, I thought a lot about it. I thought about a lot of things, actually.....and a common thread I kept hearing/reading/seeing was a "slip" in standards. While a more rigorous path to becoming an instructor is certainly a good idea, most people know that it's not the whole solution. I don't think anybody says it is, but there are sub-par instructors even in organizations with this more rigorous training path.

It seems to me that the only long-term fix is the recalibration boulderjohn mentioned earlier. Why are cave instructors certified for life? Do "best practices" not change? Do standards not change? Are there no updates to policies and procedures? I'm sure you'd agree that even you, as Training Director for the NSSCDS, could benefit from the watchful eye of another professional and listening to their critiques and thoughts. Heck, that could help implement better procedures....getting two experienced instructors together!

My suggested solution? I don't have specifics....I'm not in a position to. However, what about a 3-year recertification period? One CDS instructor has to "join up" with a "current" instructor every 3 years to teach a class with the other one. The instructor needing recert would teach the course, the "current" instructor would evaluate both the students and the instructor needing recert. On top of that, the instructor seeking recert should be required to take an annual written exam, including updated policies. Once written, the exams would be very easy to update....it'd be a matter of a few questions per year, regarding only the concerns brought up in the preceding year. Someone got reported for not teaching gas matching (which I've seen a CDS instructor ignore)? Make a question about gas matching before starting a dive. On top of that, a GUE-styled QA survey for each student...a few days after class...that must be submitted before issuing a cert. The QA survey should include three types of questions. Something like: "Did you like how it was taught?", and "Tell me what you thought about the length of your course?", as well as "What was your important take away about cave conservation?" or "How crucial is it to gas-match in teams before beginning a dive?"

The reasoning for the above is simple, and two-fold. 1: Most "bad instructors" I've gotten messaged/called about have either not gotten with the times or have simply started slipping. 2: It helps you properly disseminate updates to the instructors.

Thoughts?

When I first took over as CDS training chairman I was still printing the cert cards at my house. When I mailed the cards out I included a welcome letter which had a link to a "Survey Monkey" survey with ten questions posed similar to the ones you suggested. I did not ever see one survey answered so I eventually quit sending them out.

You mentioned to me that I have been identified as one of the instructors whose standards are "slipping". I took that comment to heart and have been thinking about it, to the detriment of some sleep last night as well. I will not ask for the identity of those folks. What I am asking for are some examples of things that I am doing, or not doing now that I did or not do before my standards started slipping. I will not try to defend against that here and now as none one wants to hear it anyway.

The peer review process for instructors you talk about is something I have thought of but have not attempted to implement. I will think about it some more and try to figure out a way to implement it sometime in the future.

 

[tbone1004]

I'm with Victor on this. I think there are two problems at hand and one that we are not currently addressing fully.

Right now we are placing blame on new instructors who weren't trained properly. Is that a problem? Yes, is it the full extent of this problem? HELL NO!

We're going to stick with the CDS because I mostly like the way they teach their instructors. So. There are currently 45 active CDS instructors, personally I think that might be a few too many, but that isn't relevant. 19 of them are Sponsors, so those 19 need to be your highest priority. 9 sit on the training committee including the Training Chair, not all are sponsors. So, while I understand this is a volunteer organization, I think doing the following would be advantageous in maintaining current standards.

Set up a true tiered org structure for training. 1 training chairman, 9 others on the training committee. Make sure to include those from different backgrounds, someone from Bahamas, someone from Mexico, someone from Euro Sumps etc, and obviously a few from NFL. This should include a diverse background of people, so someone who still dives doubles primarily, someone with sidemount, someone with CCR. As NFL is split between Marianna area and High Springs area, make sure to have at least one person from each of those areas represented. This gets the most diverse information and feedback to the Training Chairman because he is being advised by those that represent the full range of training styles and conditions. Training committee should be elected by members of the CDS and approved by the board.

From those 10, I think they should be the 10 sponsors, and then it should go out to "mentors" which could be any full cave level instructor in the CDS. These mentors are then able to suggest a potential candidate to the Sponsors who would then evaluate readiness of the candidates. That gives a guaranteed 2 instructor evaluation, and you can add a third if you see fit, but since one is on the training committee then that should be sufficient.

Keep a "ideal" instructor ratio, where there are only so many at the intro level, and they can only move up to the full level as instructors retire or choose not to renew. You have 10 full cave minimum, maybe keep another 20 or so as full cave instructors, and another 10 as intro only. This prevents flooding of the market for instructors in one area, obviously Florida being the key point, but still allows instructors like Mel, Martin, O'Leary etc who are only teaching a few classes/year to maintain active instructor status even though they aren't teaching full time, while still allowing newer instructors to come up in progression. Think military promotion, only so many slots at each rank are open and you can only go up as positions open.

Twice/year the training committee has a big meeting, in person for Florida, set up a video conference for those out of country, and discuss what they are seeing/hearing and anything else that comes up. Part of their approval process should be a teaching evaluation by the Training Chairman and should happen every other year, in cases of foreign entities this can be video footage of a class, but if possible should be in person. This ensures that everyone is behaving. Training committee should be done on an alternating cycle with 5 positions open every year, similar to the BoD.

Regular instructors need to be evaluated say every 4 years and it is their responsibility to set up a time with someone on the training committee and have them evaluate one of their classes, ideally at the cavern/intro level as that is from what I understand the most difficult class to teach since you are breaking bad habits while trying to form new ones in 4-5 days. This will really show what they are made of as instructors.


I know this would be a massive undertaking to implement, but I think if we are really trying to get this process under control is almost has to start over and be completely redone. Jim, I know you're coming up on end of your term in May, and voting is about to start, but maybe this is something that gets discussed at the conference in May and we start implementing shortly thereafter.

 

[PfcAJ]

Why not just mirror what GUE does? If the instructors can't perform give em the boot.

 

[tbone1004]

advantage GUE has though is they have staff instructors that are paid. As long as the CDS remains a volunteer organization it is difficult to ask people to chase.

Personally I'd like to see the CDS go away from a training organization and have them devoted to cave conservation, line committees, and access to the parks, similar to NFSA, and then literally get rid of everything at the NACD instead of the name and start over with that devoted as a training agency and have staff instructors and what not on there, but that will never happen. There are too many spoons in the pot right now and it is a serious problem because like the $ argument earlier, too many people have tried to make this a living and it isn't sustainable while maintaining any quality of education or environment.

 

[PfcAJ]

I'm not following you. What do you mean "staff instructors"? The other agencies could easily observe classes and start dropping the hammer. Problem is everyone is buddies, and friends come first.

Youve got an agency here that actually does what you with the other agencies would do when it comes to teaching cave divers. Call me crazy, but copying that model would probably solve your problems.

 

[tbone1004]

staff instructors would basically mean CDS training chairman is a full time job, or at least a part time job where they would be paid to go around and evaluate other instructors. To do it right requires a lot of time and effort. Would need at least one guy full time to travel around and do observations of classes since it would severely impede with their ability to either work a regular job, or teach on their own time. Their salary would essentially be paid by instructors yearly dues as well as a portion from general membership

If you look at the GUE org chart, JJ is at the top obviously, and Kirill is #2 with 4 training directors under that. Board of advisors is separate and includes Sherwood, Lundgren etc. To do it with the CDS would require

Training Chairman
Advisors:
Sidemount
CCR
Sump
Cenote
Blue Hole
DPV

Then a director for each area to keep tabs on it. One in bahamas, Training Chair would take whatever location he is in either Marianna or High Springs and one for the other one, one in Mexico, and one in Europe either England or France depending on where they lived. Overlap could obviously occur with say Martin Robson being CCR and sump advisor as well as director for Europe, or Kakuk being Blue Hole advisor and Bahamas Director, Edd Sorenson being Sidemount and Marianna area, or whoever, those names were just the first to come to mind, but if you want the most comprehensive advisory board for cave training you've got to do something like that to hit all of the targets.

 

[LiteHedded]

that's ridiculous, you don't need all that

make instructors renew (if you aren't already doing this then shame on you) and require a minimum number of classes taught to do so

2nd, make students fill out a QC form before they can receive their cert cards. the instructors cannot be privy to the information in these evaluations.

then have someone on the board go observe suspect instructors and give them the stanky boot if they are not performing

those three tiny steps will go a long way to fixing a lot of your problems

 

[GDI]

I would like to applaud you for this move,but some considerations if you'd please. One thing is that most cave divers are reticent about cave conservation, and when looking at the mission of the agencies of training, safety, and conservation, it ranks at the lowest, if even a twitch. I did a survey with the results published in UWS and from the sample size I found that overall conservation training may fall in the category of inadequate, many respondents would quantify if as 15 to 30 minutes. Cave conservation falls off the radar screen for most cave divers because of how much respect it is ingrained in the entry level course(s), not from a signed statement that the CDS, and NACD will present.
#1 Cave conservation needs to mixed in with all aspects of training to have any relevance for a lasting lesson. The cave conservation lecture is typically covered,but unless all post-dive briefings show some relevance to cave conservation ie you grabbed a rock when out of trim, which had an impact on the cave etc, then cave conservation is irrelevant.
#2 Cave conservation information that provides more detail on the ecosystem that makes up the cave, and impact from poor adherence to technique needs to appear in the training material that can be carried away.
#3 I don't intend to belittle the instructors because they do their job of training, but very few can identify what they are seeing in the cave, and a basic understanding of the cave ecosystem. I think to impart knowledge to a student so they share a regard for conservation, the student needs to hear more than "don't",but understand what it is, and what the effect is. What is goethite, and why it is delicate and can't be touched. What is silt, and why disturbing silt will have an impact on species that live in the cave. etc.

I give credit to the CDS and NACD for making efforts in the area of cave conservation, where many other training agencies give it a footnote. This is becoming a more of an important issue than we regard, and our future access to sites will be governed by conservation and cave preservation. There are some land owners that have serious concern for the condition of the cave systems, and comments that are made publically of cave damage. The way to reduce cave damage is to reduce access, and limit the numbers of people accessing a system-this is reality,if we don't do something.

One last thing. There have a few cases of cave vandalism, one just recently with the broken whale vertebra at Ginnie. Some great people stepped forward and fixed it, and well documented the activity for future presentation. My disappointment was the response from the agency's leadership. If you want to impart a concern for cave conservation/preservation then this act was an abomination and the agencies regard for this act should have been a huge disdain with vocalized concern. The cave conservation committees of each agency played a part,but like I said the leadership really needs to step forward and respond to that fact a law in the state of Florida was broken. I have been a member of the NACD and CDS for 20 years, and I have the highest respect for the organizations,but if we don't show concern for a problem,it won't filter downward, and people will disregard it.

---------- Post added March 25th, 2015 at 06:27 AM ----------

Good Point s and noted. As I said in my post I was brainstorming. I do like the I.C.A.R.E. program idea but I am open to different concepts as to how it could be applied. One way "IF" money was gather (and this is something the NACD and NSS-CDS already do) is use these monies for new line, education pamphlets for identifying fauna, etc again just brainstorming