Do we need instructors?

[leapfrog]

Aren't flight instructors in the military generally those with the least flight time? It's the same the the instructors that most private pilots get as well. I think you are overstating your case somewhat.

I don't know how the Air Force handles it but to be an Instructor in Naval Aviation you have to be one helluva pilot.

I don't think skydivers need professional instruction.

Did you ever do any freefall?

Pilots do since they fly over your house.

 

[leapfrog]

New Science and the NOAA Manual are not military and the Navy Manual, while military, is a great reference. Besides the "military" that the agency produced books refer to is PT.

Aye. They don't see the connection between being obese and DCS.

I tend to be tougher on family members and such.

If you say so, I believe you.

 

[Stu S.]

Need instructors? This board brims with consternation regarding the novice diver. That person of colorful junk equipment. The poodle jacket and snorkel. Can't use tables, just a computer. No buoyancy control, and never heard of a back plate and wing. Aluminum tank, too. Might even have "spare air".

Is this individual a danger to himself and others? Are instructors the cause or the remedy?

 

[leapfrog]

Are instructors the cause or the remedy?

Depends on the instructor. I still think divers should be intelligent enough to research, think for themselves and make their own decisions. If they can't do that when choosing equipment, they'll be dnger to themselves anyway.

 

[boulderjohn]

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ..." Emerson.

Thal, I am sure you are aware that this misquote misses Emerson's point and does not apply to Diver0001's point.

He said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

He was talking about the situation in which someone states a belief at one point and then later realizes he or she may have been wrong but lacks the courage to admit it. By "consistency" he is referring to the belief that everything one says today must be consistent with everything one has said in the past. He would have no problem with consistency if it is a valid consistency.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thal, I am sure you are aware that this misquote misses Emerson's point and does not apply to Diver0001's point.

He said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

He was talking about the situation in which someone states a belief at one point and then later realizes he or she may have been wrong but lacks the courage to admit it. By "consistency" he is referring to the belief that everything one says today must be consistent with everything one has said in the past. He would have no problem with consistency if it is a valid consistency.

Your are correct, except the quote is actually, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." However it has entered the vernacular in reference to any demand for "consistency."

 

[boulderjohn]

I was not introduced to the world of skiing until my early 20s when I married a skiing enthusiast. Being quite poor at the time, I had no money for professional instruction, and I relied heavily on the mentoring skills of the skiing friends I had in those days. This included my wife, who had been given professional instruction in Austria.

This went on for years, and my competence slowly grew.

But eventually I sought professional instruction, where I learned that about 80% of what I had been told was dead wrong, and that the Austrian technique my wife had learned was completely out the window. I went on like that for a few more years, taking an occasional professional lesson that always tried to remove the very bad habits that had become thoroughly ingrained in my style. It became a real problem with me when I took up racing later, for when things got hairy in the gates, I kept reverting to those old habits that I would not have had if I had been properly instructed in the first place.

When I took up diving, I got a lot of advice from more seasoned veteran divers I met while diving. With my skiing experience behind me, I took it all with a grain of salt, and I now know that a whole lot of it was as wrong as the skiing tips I had received from well-meaning friends.

Last year I approached a bar at a resort in Belize to make an order, and a diver was pontificating in great detail about some of the fine points of diving to the non-diving crowd at the bar, apparently in response to a question. I lingered and listened for a while--pure, unadulterated BS. The guy left, looking very proud of himself for having passed on his knowledge. One of the patrons looked at me and said, "From the look of agony on your face while he was talking, I gather that what he was saying was not true." (The group included a doctor who knew nothing about diving but could tell that the guy's explanation of DCS was ridiculous.) I took a few moments to give them an accurate response to the original question.

I will accept the fact that many experienced divers have better skills than many instructors. The same is true in skiing. On the other hand, most experienced divers do not have the skills or training in instruction that professionals do. The problem is that it is not easy for the beginning diver to know whether the friend who seems so knowledgeable is giving you the expert advice you need, or if he is the moron I saw pontificating at the bar.

 

[boulderjohn]

Your are correct, except the quote is actually, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." However it has entered the vernacular in reference to any demand for "consistency."

I figured the rest of the quote was just an embellishment--the surrounding paragraphs include some other good quotes as well.

The quote as you use it, though, still misrepresents Emerson entirely, and he would be turning over in his grave to hear it used that way. If one wants to say that all consistency is bad, then someone other than he should be credited with the idea.

 

[Thalassamania]

I figured the rest of the quote was just an embellishment--the surrounding paragraphs include some other good quotes as well.

The quote as you use it, though, still misrepresents Emerson entirely, and he would be turning over in his grave to hear it used that way. If one wants to say that all consistency is bad, then someone other than he should be credited with the idea.

Actually I think I did Emmerson very little damage. The context was:

Well.... a couple of things would obviously happen.

1) any kind of consistency in the training would be lost. 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....

Emmerson was (I believe) objecting to consistancy for constancy for consistency's sake, which, was quite the point there. At least from my perspective, coming from a place that is rather short on "the kind of antics we saw before the agencies standardized things" and a perspective that demands I see much of the agency mandated stuff in much the same way Diver0001 sees the actions of that "lay-instructor."

The view is relative.

 

[lmorin]

.................
But eventually I sought professional instruction, where I learned that about 80% of what I had been told was dead wrong, and that the Austrian technique my wife had learned was completely out the window. .......

One thing about skiing style is that is extremely dependent on the equipment. If you mean by "Austrian Technique" the wide ski stance with no stepping, chest facing the fall line, no hip rotation, all shock absorbed by the knees, sitting slightly back as the turn is completed and the skis are unweighted into the next turn, then this is modern and done with short skis. It is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible, with long skis. Too much tip wobble. A different style is required with long skis (in slalom, at least), generally involving more hip rotation and stepping in turns. Short skis are the rage now. They weren't in the '60s. Different equipment (leather boots; no buckles) available; different styles required. The styles were not wrong, just different. This kind of issue re styles does not seem to apply as much to diving, although it is clear that the modernization of equipment has had an enormous effect on dive safety.