Instructors could be done away with in seconds if the mentors you describe all establish basic standards that would allow the dive community to agree on the mastering of the knowledge and skills required for the goals and tasks desired by the student in each underwater hurdle. From open water diving to trimix they would decide as a group what was considered "good enough".
The mentors that created those standards could create an association and call themselves by a cool name.
The ones that made a living teaching rec divers would be Professional members of that Association of Dive Instructors.
The ones that worked more with Technical Divers Internationally would have to consider another name altogether.
This is the way that the second set of recreational standards, that became NAUI were developed.
NAUI think that may be a bit of a stretch.
If they did they'd be denying their own origins.
Well.... a couple of things would obviously happen.
1) any kind of consistency in the training would be lost.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ..." Emerson.
Everyone would make up their own course and teach to their own standards. Some of those would surely be excellent but some of them would undoubtedly blow worse than you can imagine. For example, I recall a story from an ex- scubaboard member about his OW training. He was trained by a "lay-instructor" and was strapped into a scuba-set, pushed over-board and told "never hold your breath". That was his OW course. You would seem to *assume* that eliminating instructors would improve training, but in many cases, I would bet that OW training would revert to the kind of antics we saw before the agencies standardized things....
What were the "antics" and when did the agencies standardize things? From my perspective there where no antics until the agencies after LA County came on the scene, and things have not been standardized since.
2) People would still have accidents. About 90% of accidents happen after the training, not in the training. The difference would be that there would be no systematic way of evalutating how the training should be improved to avoid accidents. Tbh, I'm not sure how much of that gets done now but I'm pretty sure that a lot of analysis of accident stats initially went into defining standards. For example, we all learn to breathe off of a freeflowing regulator because at some point the agencies thought it was important. Take out the agencies and some of your "lay-instructors" will decide it's not important and we'd probably see some increases in certain types of accidents and a general loss of grip as to what we should and should not be teaching.
The analysis is primarily looking at liability and how to reduce it, not accidents and their actual causes to limit them. Not the same thing, not the same result.
3) in terms of the acutal teaching, I would expect to see an increase of training related accidents. It's not that I think that instructors are incredibly well prepared for their task now, but the ones who teach a lot soon gain a much larger awareness and "radar" for problems. This "experience" element would be lost if we did away with instructors because nearly everyone would be teaching less.
What the data suggests is that the height of in-training fatalities occurred when PADI had it's huge late 70s/early 80s expansion and this did not involve uncertified instructors or mentors.
4) I would expect a further decay in the position of the LDS because they wouldn't be able to use training as a bait to get people in the door. They'd have to wait around until someone got trained by their neighbour and came to buy stuff. In general, I would expect the industry as we know it to vastly shrink in size.
When there were no agencies LDS did fine teaching courses and issuing their own cards.
I don't.
I think you could compare that to learning how to drive a car. In some places the parents can still "instruct" their children when they have a learner's license.
Two things can be said about that. 1) most people don't drive well enough themselves to be "let loose" to instruct their children regarless of how much time they have and/or if they really want to do it right and (2) there is a very good reason why this is not allowed in big cities, namely that "professional" driving instructors are better at it.
I think you could draw a parallel there.
I think the "parallel" isn't.
R..
As far as I know, the BSAC teaches to CMAS standards. It's not quite what Bryan is talking about. He's talking about throwing out the books and letting everyone just figure it out for themselves....
R..
No. BSAC teaches to BSAC standards, CMAS defines how those standards cross-reference to other agencies. BSAC Standards were not developed to meet CMAS anything.
I guess the real heart of the question is whether or not the phenomenon "modern scuba instructor" following "agency standards" results in worth while training.
In many cases I'd argue that it does not.
There are many threads and many thousands of posts from people (one could say arm-chair quarterbacks) who don't seem to believe so.
I don't think burning the books is the solution, though. There are certainly problems with the system we have but throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't the solution.
R..
I think most of the agency produced books are rather poor when compared with books that have been produced outside of the agencies ranging from New Science to the NOAA and Navy Manuals.
I guess part of what brought this thread about was the constant talk about the low standards of diving. On the one hand, not many people are dying so I guess it works. On the other hand the standards are so low that the main reason for taking the classes is only because you have to.
There is truth to that.
... One thing I object to, and I've mentioned this before, is that *standards* are not necessarily the problem. The standards are not that low. What sometimes gets confused is "standards" versus "instructor judgment". In many skills the bar for proficiency is set more by the instructor's judgement than the letter of the law. If we have issues with poor training, then I would suggest that instructors and not agencies are to blame. Some people blame the agencies for giving the instructor too much "wiggle room" but the basic problem is still that there are some (many) below-par instructors out there.
R..
Yes.
I would ask if we need certification.
Instructors are necessary. A mentoring system would have people cutting corners the whole time especially with family and friends.
"Dad, do really need to perform this skill again?"
"Naw, it's lunch time, let's call it a day".
Unfortunately, without badges and pass/fail authority over people, it would be an even bigger mess than the one we currently have. Most young people I have instructed didn't really want to learn, they just wanted the C card. The sad part is their university educated $100,000 a year income parents are often the same way too!
The most important part of being an Instructor is your ethos and how you instill that in your students and the divers you guide.
I think we need both, and I disagree that parents would slow off critical items like that the way many instructors have been know to.
... What I would love to see is an agency offering an open examination process where anyone, mentored or from another agency, can get an 'official' recognition of their expertise. A hard written test, a dive log check, and a checkout dive or two.
Excellent concept. That's what the "check out dive" used to be about.
The only reason the c-card system exists is that, for the most part, LDSs control the air. They want to sell training and equipment and to do that they limit air to those who have had training. Boats and resorts control the air to limit their liability.
If you have your own compressor, and many do, there are no rules. You can do anything you want, any time you want. There is, AFAIK, no legal requirement to be a certified diver before diving from a public beach. Other than in Quebec and I won't be diving there anyway.
I went to an LDS one time and I asked about buying a BC for my grandson. As he wasn't yet old enough to be certified, they wouldn't sell it to me. That was pretty naive. I just ordered it online.
If I were so inclined, I could fill my grandson's tanks using my c-card. It's no longer necessary but it was always possible. Even if the shop was suspicious about why I was filling Al 50's, I doubt that they would ask.
Am I arrogant enough to believe I could have done a better job than his instructor? Absolutely! There is not a doubt in my mind. And he would have had to MASTER the dive tables. None of this eRDP crap.
The BSAC manual is a good reference. Actually, that old "The New Science of Skindiving" manual is still pretty relevant. There is a lot of good non-agency training material around.
But I don't believe the system is broken to the extent that eliminating the instructors is the solution. I'm not even sure there is a problem worth solving.
If 82% of the fatalities occur in divers over 40, just put an age limit on diving. If there is a problem, this will solve it.
Richard
You are right, it is more about gate-keeping that training or safety.
Do you really believe that???
I just don't see an experience diver father cutting corners with his wife or children. But I do see and have seen "professional" instructors push poorly prepared new divers through their training schedule. And by some miracle, those same divers make it through their certification dives - with the same instructor, of course.
For a start, how about if all certification dive were done by referral so there is an independent (of the trainer) confirmation that training was adequate.
I don't believe it!
My concern would be that people don't know what they don't know, and before they mentor, they should be very experienced and an effective teacher. I would only want a really experienced mentor. Yes, it would be up to me to find one.
I also believe that the current system works fine. The vast majority of people that get certified either never dive after their vacation, or dive so infrequently that they might as well turn in their fins. What we need to do is create a way to get more people to stay in the sport after certification. This would take a circle of friends within the sport. Most people who do stuff, do so with friends, softball teams, bowling leagues, etc.
That "vast majority" need "prefessional" instruction that is much better than that which they get now. The stay-at-homes might do better with a good mentoring program however.
Yes, I do, otherwise I wouldn't say so
I have been behind some professional driving instructors and it wasn't pretty.
Downright ugly.
There are a several problems with the mentoring approach:
(1) While there are enthusiastic divers who want to teach that enthusiasm generally fades after a period of time, especially if they are doing it gratis.
(2) There are loads of newish divers with 30 to 50 dives who think they know much more about diving that they do, and they will become the instructors causing a downward spiral.
(3) Who is going to set the standards with this approach? Many of the arguments on this board are about standard or the lack thereof.
(4) Many if not a large majority of the potential students out there want to get in, and get out, at minimum cost. You can bemoan the lack of skill that results, but the commercial agencies are filling the demand that is there. And the bodies do not seem to be stacking up.
(1) and (2) are well taken, but can be as easily applied to the "professional" instructors that are out there today. (3) The arguments are mainly about the PADI "floor and ceiling" standards vs. the NAUI style "floor only" standards. (4) That is a situation (and a demand) that has been created by the fast-buck artists who run much of the diving industry, I feel no need to pander to it.
