Cert. cards can't be revoked for cause?

[boulderjohn]

His actions were incompetent. OK, then, so what about the questions I asked above? I'll try again.

1. How would anyone have known he was not competent to rescue his wife before that dive, and who would have required that his Rescue Diver credentials be revoked? (He was certified by NASDS, an organization that had folded into SSI, so there was no agency to revoke his credentials.)
2. Who would have had the authority to remove his credentials once they noticed his incompetence?
3. How would that have changed anything? Are people without Rescue Diver credentials not allowed to dive?
4. Wouldn't a checkout dive have revealed that neither Gabe nor his wife was ready for the dive they did have solved the problem? (BTW, the dive operator was fined for failing to do the checkout dive that was a part of their policy.)
5. How do you know a refresher course would not have solved his problem?

1. They wouldn't.

2. Under the present system, no one, since there is no authority to revoke, suspend, or anything, no matter what one does.

3. It wouldn't have changed the incident. But it might keep Congress of the sport's back if it kept on happening. They'd see that the sport polices itself so government intervention would be neither necessary not politically popular.

4. I don't know. Does a checkout dive test how you would respond real-time to a diver in distress? But a checkout dive might have shown incompetence, or might not have.

5. I don't.

You missed my point. I am not asking how it happens now. I know that. I want to know how you would like to see it done.

 

[nolatom]

You missed my point. I am not asking how it happens now. I know that. I want to know how you would like to see it done.

I guess I didn't get the point then.

Okay, I'm not PADI or SSI. But if pressed, I'd say:

1. No, you won't know about competence before a dive accident aside from the fact of certification and your pre-dive conference with a new buddy.

2. But you would afterward, since accidents (you'd need a workable definition of "reportable incident") would be reported to the cert. agency, who can investigate and pull or suspend a cert if the evidence of incompetence or misconduct is sufficient to warrant it.

3. It still wouldn't have changed, say, the Gabe Watson incident, at least not in advance. But it might prevent future ones.

4. No idea if refresher dives would help in prevention, but certainly wouldn't hurt. I don't envision a totaliarian prove-you're competent structure, or a rat-out-your buddy structure, but rather a post-accident-based one. That would at least help cull out the worst offenders and would be the least intrusive.

How to implement this? And pay for it when necessary? I don't know. But at least the result would be that a diver who has proved himself dangerously incompetent or competent but intentionally dangerous through a reportable accident, would get either the boot, a suspension, or probation. Just something rather than the present 'nothing, no matter what you've done' "system".


The idea I've drawn on here resembles how licensed captains are regulated--incidents have to be reported, may be investigated, and may result in action taken against the captain's license, resulting in penalties ranging from a reprimand to a suspension to a revocation. I would not wish this government-based system on the recreational scuba industry. But it seems to me if the sport is to remain essentially unregulated by the states or feds (which isn't the case in many countries), then the private system of certification has to have at least some oversight over who gets to keep the certificate they hold, after an accident.

Or tell me I'm full of it. Maybe it's just not workable and a terrible idea, you could all be right. But if we as a sport ever intend to use the private-certification of divers as the reason why the government should not step in after some accident or series of accidents (which I hope never happen, honest) that may cause public pressure for "outside' regulation, then I think the private system would need to have at least some ability to take action against the certification credential of those who after due process are demonstrably unfit or unsafe to others.

Hey, look, I like the relative non-regulation of scuba, and believe the primary one responsible for safe diving is the individual diver. But I wouldn't want to go to war against would-be govt regulators with just a "we give em out, but no, we never take em back no matter how extremely awful" private system as a shield.

 

[captain]

Many thousands of people get killed and injured in auto accidents caused by incompetent drivers. How many get their license revoked other than in cases of repetative DUI or proven guity of neglegent homocide.

 

[drrich2]

The very divers who you might try to yank a cert. from are the very ones we want diving with more seasoned people & learning from mentors, not 'hiding' from such out of fear their cert.s could be taken.

As for 'regulating ourselves to prevent the government from doing it,' in my job I see the natural evolution of varied regulatory agency's involvement, and I can tell you this:

1.) Bad outcomes will happen. No matter what is done.

2.) Outraged busy bodies who can't accept that 'Crap happens' will conclude that existing regulations were either insufficient or not followed.

3.) This leads to a citation of some sort.

4.) The targeted group reacts with a 'Plan of Correction' which may be convoluted bureaucratic drivel not expected to achieve the theoretically desired result, but rather to get regulatory busybodies to shut up & go home until the next dust up.

5.) Yes, regulation can in some instances prevent a citation. On the other hand, if you've already regulated yourself extensively, and get cited, you've got less wiggle room to put into a plan of correction so the plan makes them go away without bothering you & yours unduly. In other words, if you've done everything reasonable, and get cited, you'll have to institute an unreasonable policy.

Richard.

 

[captain]

I guess I didn't get the point then.

Okay, I'm not PADI or SSI. But if pressed, I'd say:

1. No, you won't know about competence before a dive accident aside from the fact of certification and your pre-dive conference with a new buddy.

2. But you would afterward, since accidents (you'd need a workable definition of "reportable incident") would be reported to the cert. agency, who can investigate and pull or suspend a cert if the evidence of incompetence or misconduct is sufficient to warrant it.

3. It still wouldn't have changed, say, the Gabe Watson incident, at least not in advance. But it might prevent future ones.

4. No idea if refresher dives would help in prevention, but certainly wouldn't hurt. I don't envision a totaliarian prove-you're competent structure, or a rat-out-your buddy structure, but rather a post-accident-based one. That would at least help cull out the worst offenders and would be the least intrusive.

How to implement this? And pay for it when necessary? I don't know. But at least the result would be that a diver who has proved himself dangerously incompetent or competent but intentionally dangerous through a reportable accident, would get either the boot, a suspension, or probation. Just something rather than the present 'nothing, no matter what you've done' "system".


The idea I've drawn on here resembles how licensed captains are regulated--incidents have to be reported, may be investigated, and may result in action taken against the captain's license, resulting in penalties ranging from a reprimand to a suspension to a revocation. I would not wish this government-based system on the recreational scuba industry. But it seems to me if the sport is to remain essentially unregulated by the states or feds (which isn't the case in many countries), then the private system of certification has to have at least some oversight over who gets to keep the certificate they hold, after an accident.

Or tell me I'm full of it. Maybe it's just not workable and a terrible idea, you could all be right. But if we as a sport ever intend to use the private-certification of divers as the reason why the government should not step in after some accident or series of accidents (which I hope never happen, honest) that may cause public pressure for "outside' regulation, then I think the private system would need to have at least some ability to take action against the certification credential of those who after due process are demonstrably unfit or unsafe to others.

Hey, look, I like the relative non-regulation of scuba, and believe the primary one responsible for safe diving is the individual diver. But I wouldn't want to go to war against would-be govt regulators with just a "we give em out, but no, we never take em back no matter how extremely awful" private system as a shield.

Who are you trying to save, the diver or his buddy. The diver is responsible for himself alone, there is no responsibility of care for a buddy unlike a professional instructor. I don't want to be responsible for some diver I never met or dived with before and I don't expect them to responsible for me. If you do perhaps you should rethink your diving skills and expectations.

 

[diverrex]

I guess I didn't get the point then.

Okay, I'm not PADI or SSI. But if pressed, I'd say:

1. No, you won't know about competence before a dive accident aside from the fact of certification and your pre-dive conference with a new buddy.

2. But you would afterward, since accidents (you'd need a workable definition of "reportable incident") would be reported to the cert. agency, who can investigate and pull or suspend a cert if the evidence of incompetence or misconduct is sufficient to warrant it.

3. It still wouldn't have changed, say, the Gabe Watson incident, at least not in advance. But it might prevent future ones.

4. No idea if refresher dives would help in prevention, but certainly wouldn't hurt. I don't envision a totaliarian prove-you're competent structure, or a rat-out-your buddy structure, but rather a post-accident-based one. That would at least help cull out the worst offenders and would be the least intrusive.

How to implement this? And pay for it when necessary? I don't know. But at least the result would be that a diver who has proved himself dangerously incompetent or competent but intentionally dangerous through a reportable accident, would get either the boot, a suspension, or probation. Just something rather than the present 'nothing, no matter what you've done' "system".


The idea I've drawn on here resembles how licensed captains are regulated--incidents have to be reported, may be investigated, and may result in action taken against the captain's license, resulting in penalties ranging from a reprimand to a suspension to a revocation. I would not wish this government-based system on the recreational scuba industry. But it seems to me if the sport is to remain essentially unregulated by the states or feds (which isn't the case in many countries), then the private system of certification has to have at least some oversight over who gets to keep the certificate they hold, after an accident.

Or tell me I'm full of it. Maybe it's just not workable and a terrible idea, you could all be right. But if we as a sport ever intend to use the private-certification of divers as the reason why the government should not step in after some accident or series of accidents (which I hope never happen, honest) that may cause public pressure for "outside' regulation, then I think the private system would need to have at least some ability to take action against the certification credential of those who after due process are demonstrably unfit or unsafe to others.

Hey, look, I like the relative non-regulation of scuba, and believe the primary one responsible for safe diving is the individual diver. But I wouldn't want to go to war against would-be govt regulators with just a "we give em out, but no, we never take em back no matter how extremely awful" private system as a shield.

Okay, you're full of it and it is a terrible idea. I think you trying to fix something that really isn't broken. Is it perfect, of course not, would your system of some kind allowing for revocation make it better or simply make it a mess like our government is? I think it would make it a mess. I once knew a guy I thought was a terrible diver, simple solution, I said I'd never dive with him. If I start a dive with an instabuddy and they are a total unsafe mess underwater I'll end the dive and never dive with them again. And the real point is my standards of what it is that makes someone unsafe maybe be different than someone else's so who would get to decide? I have no problem if Gabe Watson still has any kind of cert card, it makes no difference to me.

 

[boulderjohn]

1. No, you won't know about competence before a dive accident aside from the fact of certification and your pre-dive conference with a new buddy.
2. But you would afterward, since accidents (you'd need a workable definition of "reportable incident") would be reported to the cert. agency, who can investigate and pull or suspend a cert if the evidence of incompetence or misconduct is sufficient to warrant it.

So your solution would only prevent a second serious incident due to a diver's incompetence and would do nothing to prevent the first one.

Any statistics on how many divers are involved in two serious incidents in their lives?

 

[nolatom]

So your solution would only prevent a second serious incident due to a diver's incompetence and would do nothing to prevent the first one.

Any statistics on how many divers are involved in two serious incidents in their lives?

None that I know of, thanks. Nor do i know of any statistics as to whether the knowledge that a cert could be pulled might have a deterrent effect on anyone else? But it might be worth considering when musing over what the paramaters of possible benefit might be.

Look, I was trying to envision a workable concept, maybe it's not. Don't like it? Then maybe you want a more intrusive one where we try to pre-judge competence in a collective 'school' dive before any 'real' dives?

Maybe the discussion is good. But I don't think anyone likes my idea that lack of oversight in the private system might invite public scrutiny in the wrong circumstances.


But public scrutiny is out there, and more could be coming. For example:

Attached Images

• 
  USCGAdvisory_12-01.pdf (52.7 KB, 19 views)

This is just advisory, and it squeezes operators and captains (and their captains' licenses) rather than individual divers, but it may give us an idea what could happen if the sport's safety record stumbles for whatever reason.

 

[boulderjohn]

What I am trying to point out is the almost total impossibility of a organization revoking cards for incompetence on so many hundreds of thousands of divers around the world. That's why I kept asking the questions about how it could be done. I would certainly rather not have a governmental agency stepping in with more regulations, as is happening in several locations, but I am still waiting to see a feasible way to do it. If you can't show how it can be done feasibly, then how can you say it will be a better alternative?

 

[flots am]

This is what I've heard, anyway.

Pretty much. Professional cards have an expiration date, and need to be renewed each year to be valid. "No renewal" = "No teach." If you're a dangerous instructor, the agency can simply refuse to issue you a new non-expired card, even if they can't get the old one back.

Non-pro cards, however have no expiration date, and if you have an OW card from 1975, it's still good, even if you've "accidentally" killed a dozen buddies, set the boat on fire and have a "favorite customer" card from your local chamber.

There's just no physical way for the certification agency to get the card back and even if they could, would be open to all sorts of legal action, since the card was issued as "lifetime certification".

flots.