Dispelling scubaboard myths (Part 1: It is the instructor not the agency)

[Schwob]

@bowlofpetunias :
Glad to read it.
I expressed a very simplified attitude to explain part of my point.
I gave just one, quite more complex example to @boulderjohn to see what he would have advised in that case.
And I leave it at that on that matter.

On the matter of surveys:
In my mind it is not the paying customer's job to help assuring quality in the dive industry. If the tests and demonstrating diving capabilities to earn a certification don't inherently do that, then there also is an issue with how that is all set up and done and monitored ... by the very instructors teaching the class.

I think surveys can give some good enough indication of satisfaction. You seem to know that surveying the students also can be a good indicator of the quality in the instruction. Maybe, but honestly, I struggle with that thought.

 

[KevinNM]

I haven't seen the ones the Dive industry uses so I have no idea how effective they would be. I have first hand experience on how difficult it can be to write them. Whatever is done has to be fair, relevant, reliable and affordable. At least a well done one can hopefully red flag a problem before it turns into a disaster.

The GUE ones include the normal sort of survey questions plus a series of critical safety yes or no questions based on GUE standards. Like “did the instructor remove your mask for the underwater mask swim?”

 

[KenGordon]

Understood. I consider it a "little" dive because it was only to 130' and with only 1 deco gas. My dive profile on the Tarpon, off Hatteras, NC, is snipped from Subsurface and shown below. 102 minutes run time. 47 minutes bottom time.

Our primary target for that day's dive was a different wreck that lies at 150', but we had to divert because of the weather. We chose to dive air because Best Mix (EAN25 or TX25/20) for 150' is not much different and air is a lot less expensive than a custom blend of 25%. My buddy and I are both certified for Helitrox, so we could have used up to 20% Helium. But, we agreed that we were both comfortable diving to 150' without Helium in the conditions we were anticipating (i.e. warm water, great viz, little current and a purely sightseeing dive). All in all, Air instead of the expense of 25/20 was a choice we were both totally fine with.

I splashed and started to descend the anchor line. My buddy wasn't behind me, as expected, so I went back up to the hang line to wait for him. He had some problem just as he started to splash, so he was delayed getting in. We did the dive. We each carried a single AL80 of 80% (mine actually analyzed at 76%) for deco. We are both only certified for 1 deco gas, so while 2 gases would have shortened our hang, we chose to stick with our certification limits yet make the most of them. My Seabear computer always calls for a 3 minute safety stop, even on a deco dive, after the deco has cleared. Just for the extra safety margin, I normally accommodate it, if I can - as I did that day and you can see by how the green ceiling indicator is gone and I still had 3 or 4 minutes after that before I got out.

View attachment 429138

What depth was the deco? It looks like about 8m. Was there a shallow reef to look at?

Btw, when you do 50m with more helium you may discover you were more narked than you realised on air.

 

[KenGordon]

On the subject of QA:

In the UK vehicles over three years (may end four now) have to undergo an annual safety inspection and test. This is known as an MOT. It used to be carried out by approved garages who would do the testing and issue a paper certificate. That certificate was required for various purposes and could be demanded by the police.

There were several ways this system could be abused. If you knew tester well, then ringing up and asking for a fresh certificate might work. Classic or interesting ones might be let off excessive emmisions, or imperfect brakes. There was a market in stolen blanks.

These days when you take a car in it is logged into a central system to obtain the standards required for that particular car and each stage of the testing is logged. This doesn't completely prevent fraud but enormously improves the situation.

If a diving agency believed fraud or other poor practice was happening, it could choose to do something similar. Insist all trainees wear a computer for the whole course and require the logs to be uploaded prior to issuing a certification. There would be some practical issues for very remote places but nothing that could not be worked around.

Of course this will never happen. It would be like absolutely enforcing speed limits. Everyone thinks it is a good idea for everyone else.

 

[RayfromTX]

@bowlofpetunias :
Glad to read it.
I expressed a very simplified attitude to explain part of my point.
I gave just one, quite more complex example to @boulderjohn to see what he would have advised in that case.
And I leave it at that on that matter.

On the matter of surveys:
In my mind it is not the paying customer's job to help assuring quality in the dive industry. If the tests and demonstrating diving capabilities to earn a certification don't inherently do that, then there also is an issue with how that is all set up and done and monitored ... by the very instructors teaching the class.

I think surveys can give some good enough indication of satisfaction. You seem to know that surveying the students also can be a good indicator of the quality in the instruction. Maybe, but honestly, I struggle with that thought.

I agree with you and I'll add that customer satisfaction surveys are a way for a company to "prove" competency and value. They are legal tools. Trump University used them to claim value provided to students that they scammed. The students filled them out with the belief that they needed to protect the relationship so they could get continuing "education". Hope springs eternal.

 

[chrisch]

....
On the matter of surveys:
In my mind it is not the paying customer's job to help assuring quality in the dive industry. If the tests and demonstrating diving capabilities to earn a certification don't inherently do that, then there also is an issue with how that is all set up and done and monitored ... by the very instructors teaching the class.

I think surveys can give some good enough indication of satisfaction. You seem to know that surveying the students also can be a good indicator of the quality in the instruction. Maybe, but honestly, I struggle with that thought.

The idea is simple enough, the survey checks to ensure that all the modules have been taught and that the school has not short changed the diver. In that respect it is in the interests of the paying customer. S/he might well have not received all that they should have. Like buying a car and finding no spare wheel in the trunk. The only possible objection I can see is some instructor might object to being "spied upon". Find another revenue source.

The survey cannot check whether the delivery of the module was done at high or low quality, but it can check that it was delivered. Since we all seem agreed that there are instances where students are not taught the full syllabus it seems to me that a survey is a sensible way to check if the training is complete. If this should be labelled something other than quality control then I would have no objection to whatever the label applied. But in my personal view the total delivery of the whole package is an element of quality and therefore the descriptive noun seem appropriate enough.

Since very few people are so badly trained that they are actually dangerous I would make the sweeping generalisation that scuba training is generally done to an adequate standard. The drop out rate is the critical thing (if you want more revenues) and again a survey seems a good method to find out data about that subject. At an anecdotal level I estimate 80% of the people I have known over the years as divers no longer dive. My sample size is too small for any meaningful analysis but I would love to understand more about this phenomena.

 

[boulderjohn]

Oh and QA questionnaires. Not really worth while.

If a student has passed the course, and got the cert, they're not likely to complain. I'm sure there are lots of shortcuts which get taken and never reported because the students are no wiser - Sad really

The survey does not ask if they have any complaints. It asks specific questions about what happened in the class. The student's answers are then compared to the standards to make sure the class was done properly. For example, in a case of a friend of mine, the student was asked if the CESA was done with the use of an ascent line. The students misremembered and said there was no ascent line. The student was wrong--I was assisting in the class, and ascent lines were ALWAYS used. The instructor had to deal with PADI's followup as to why he had not used an ascent line for the CESA.

 

[stuartv]

What depth was the deco? It looks like about 8m. Was there a shallow reef to look at?

The bulk was at 30'. No reef. Just hanging on an anchor line. Down at 30' to stay somewhat out of the surface surge. I deployed a Jon line and hung out away from the anchor line. I spent a good 30-something minutes hanging comfortably, watching my buddy get dragged up and down continuously by the anchor line from the boat pitching on the surface. He had to have some sore shoulders after that dive...

 

[sigxbill]

the shop did AOW certifications without doing the deep dive. They told students they did not do it because they did not have a deep enough site locally.

this is just more proof of the myth of 'it's the instructor not the agency.' it starts from the top down - don't need more than three days of training, don't need a bottom timer, don't need tables, don't need a buddy, don't need nitrox - oh wait - we may be losing out on money so now we do need nitrox, but don't need a deep dive.

the culture of the agency is a trend (history), and starts from the top down. standards are just check boxes that, without a culture (history) to promote understanding and commitment, ultimately don't matter. Now I realize some on this board take their respective standards seriously, and that is commendable and I respect those that do, but I just don't get why be part of an organization where the cultural trend of 'don't need' is so ramped that one has to differentiate themselves with the phrase - "It's the instructor, not the agency."

 

[chrisch]

... I just don't get why be part of an organization where the cultural trend of 'don't need' is so ramped that one has to differentiate themselves with the phrase - "It's the instructor, not the agency."

I don't think the organisation has that trend - the trend is IMHO within the industry. PADI is pretty strict on it's standards and the point is being made that this example is where those standards are being ignored. This is why the instructor is the variable or the school is the variable. No agency can totally rule out the possibility that one of it's instructors will fail to meet the standards when confronted with a serious enough financial inducement to do so. If I have a million dollars cash to spend I might well find myself with a GUE technical pass and no course to do - who knows? I don't have that much cash or that much need for the ticket