OP
Interesting "greed" theory there NetDoc. I don't have a problem with the training agencies. I have heard other dive "professionals" complain about the amount of money they (the agencies) charge for everything from teaching materials to instructor upgrades. However I don't believe that dive professionals (in general) think greed from training agencies is the main problem.
I think that greed is a problem in this industry (as in any other). It costs more money (and takes more effort) for the operator to keep the equipment maintained in tip top condition than to let it slide a little. It costs more money to employ experienced and well qualified staff than it does to give a diver a "buddy" to show them the dive site (the buddy could be an open water diver) instead of a properly trained dive master.
A lot of us have seen dive operators practicing outside the agency guidelines ESPECIALLY when it comes to certified divers and who leads them. It looks like greed to me when a dive store takes under qualified and / or under age divers to deep / advanced sites. Many instructors are asked to directly violate industry standards when teaching as well - often due to cost cutting.
So self regulation is great in theory. As a responsible dive professional, seeing a problem within your dive operation, you consult with the manager and / or owner. If you feel that your concerns are not being taken seriously then you submit a formal complaint to the training agency.
However you have a couple of problems there.
1. The diving professional can't remain anonymous (obviously to protect the dive operator) and is therefore risking a back lash from the operator - a bigger and more powerful entity than the individual. Backlash could come in many forms, from losing the job to losing reputation or something really devious.
2. Standards are vague when it comes to certified divers so it's one thing for the agency to say that a child of 14 years should not dive past 21m on a training dive. But I've witnessed (and protested against) kids of this age going to 40m on a fun dive. (Just an example issue).
Of course, if you don't like the way things are, you can always leave, but that won't solve the problem - the dive operator will continue to operate with poor standards.
I confess now that I don't know the solution to these problems, I feel that self regulation within our industry is not very effective. I don't know if government regulations are a help or hindrance (maybe a bit of both).
I do know that when you work for a well organised dive operator, with well maintained equipment it's a pleasure but when you work for a "greedy" one it's a nightmare.
I also know that this is all off the original subject of the thread but other people started talking about self regulation V government regulation, which is interesting for me because I don't know what the answer should be.
Oh, and to everyone who has posted. Thank you for your balanced opinions and for NOT "condemn a state, an agency or even the instructor" we are all still learning, no matter how long we've been doing this for. Marinediva is spot on "If someone can learn something from them (mistakes) it is a good thing".
I think that greed is a problem in this industry (as in any other). It costs more money (and takes more effort) for the operator to keep the equipment maintained in tip top condition than to let it slide a little. It costs more money to employ experienced and well qualified staff than it does to give a diver a "buddy" to show them the dive site (the buddy could be an open water diver) instead of a properly trained dive master.
A lot of us have seen dive operators practicing outside the agency guidelines ESPECIALLY when it comes to certified divers and who leads them. It looks like greed to me when a dive store takes under qualified and / or under age divers to deep / advanced sites. Many instructors are asked to directly violate industry standards when teaching as well - often due to cost cutting.
So self regulation is great in theory. As a responsible dive professional, seeing a problem within your dive operation, you consult with the manager and / or owner. If you feel that your concerns are not being taken seriously then you submit a formal complaint to the training agency.
However you have a couple of problems there.
1. The diving professional can't remain anonymous (obviously to protect the dive operator) and is therefore risking a back lash from the operator - a bigger and more powerful entity than the individual. Backlash could come in many forms, from losing the job to losing reputation or something really devious.
2. Standards are vague when it comes to certified divers so it's one thing for the agency to say that a child of 14 years should not dive past 21m on a training dive. But I've witnessed (and protested against) kids of this age going to 40m on a fun dive. (Just an example issue).
Of course, if you don't like the way things are, you can always leave, but that won't solve the problem - the dive operator will continue to operate with poor standards.
I confess now that I don't know the solution to these problems, I feel that self regulation within our industry is not very effective. I don't know if government regulations are a help or hindrance (maybe a bit of both).
I do know that when you work for a well organised dive operator, with well maintained equipment it's a pleasure but when you work for a "greedy" one it's a nightmare.
I also know that this is all off the original subject of the thread but other people started talking about self regulation V government regulation, which is interesting for me because I don't know what the answer should be.
Oh, and to everyone who has posted. Thank you for your balanced opinions and for NOT "condemn a state, an agency or even the instructor" we are all still learning, no matter how long we've been doing this for. Marinediva is spot on "If someone can learn something from them (mistakes) it is a good thing".
It's patently.... mystifying!
