GUE Policy

[WreckWriter]

MHK once bubbled...
I simply don't think that we need to lower the entry barrier, in fact I believe firmly that the entry barrier is much too low at this point, and while for certain I agree that scuba can be a safe sport, I add a disclaimer in that I only believe that if the diver has been thoroughly trained and is in atleast modest physical condition..

With this I totally agree. The entry level is far too low now. This can be verified by taking a trip on any recreation dive charter on any given day and watching what goes on.

The last thing diving needs is more poorly trained divers.

Tom

 

[Lawman]

Whether diving is a "dangerous" actvity or is a "sport" is the subject of threads elsewhere on the board. Needless to say there is disagreement on both issues. I'm proceeding on the theory that diving is not inherently so dangerous that a wide spectrum of people can't participate. I think that they can if they regulate the degree of difficulty of their dives. Nobody is against better training. I'm saying that if you make the training too difficult you can have a small number of TEC divers ready to handle anything and very few REC divers. The future does not lie in reducing the number of participants. That's the route to reducing the number of LDSs, instructors, and politicians that care about diving and reefs . Besides I want to see other people enjoy my non killing, non-resourse using, nature enjoying hobby. rolleyes:

 

[Scuba]

In my opinion MHK is right. No matter what you call diving, sport, hobby, etc., the fact remains that diving takes place in a hostile environement for human life. Without the aid of technology life can only be sustained under water for a very short time. Add to the mix the fact that life and death decisions have to be made, sometimes under adverse conditions, and it becomes evident that this is not for everybody.

Just because someone is able to learn how to breath underwater using scuba in a pool, it does not translate to prove that they are able to handle the demands of diving on their own in a natural environment. Many students drop out once they are exposed to real conditions.

 

[Scuba]

The trick is to set the bar high enough so that those who qualify will not be unduly endangered without unnecessarily restricting entry. More research is nessary in this area.

 

[xoomboy]

Lawman once bubbled...
:mean:

I think the future of diving is getting as many people as possible into a fun, safe sport that doesn't require them to be athletes.
It should be like golf, something that anyone from 12 to 80 can enjoy.

The future of diving is indeed heading in the direction you describe. You can't look at GUE and honestly think that they're limiting the amount of new scuba students getting into the water when PADI, NAUI, SSI and the like are also out there, training hundreds, even thousands more students every year -- young, old, smokers, people with health problems, you name it.

Read the first chapter of the DIRF book, and you'll see that GUE was started BECAUSE of that issue. A lot of people in the diving community have observed that scuba courses from some of the larger agencies are becoming less rigorous, less demanding, and less technical -- so that 12-year olds and 80-year olds alike can enjoy the sport easily and quickly. Not a problem -- they go on vacation, hit the reef with the resort divemaster, and get to see the fish.

GUE has decided to establish themselves in a small niche of the diver training market. The DIRF book also states that the course is geared toward divers that have some sort of basic certification with some dives under their belts. We're not talking about getting Grandma or little Billy into the water to see the fish. We're talking about extending training beyond the basics that people learn when getting "certified" and teaching them how to dive safer and more efficiently.

I think that a lot of the issues GUE addresses are put into practice only by those people that dive regularly and have the potential to get into a life-threatening situation. Most people aren't concerned with the training, nor should they be. There are a lot of "underwater tourists" out there that dive once a year on vacation, if that. That's why resorts have divemasters.

Is an 80-year old person going to penetrate a wreck in 185 feet of water at that stage in her life? Probably not. Is a 12-year old person capable of calculating partial pressures, mixing gasses, and handling the stage and deco bottles required to complete that same dive safely? Possibly, but again, most likely not (and I'd have to say something to his parents).

Now take a 28-year old person with 100 or so recreational dives under their belt. It is very possible that this type of person might attempt the above situation. Is their non-GUE training going to be enough training to handle that feat? Will their buoyancy control be top-notch so they don't hit the ceiling and break a valve knob? Will they know how to propel themselves without stirring up the silt and getting lost (along with their buddy!) inside the wreck? Would they even know about these issues if this was the first time? Some will say yes, some will say no.

Would their adventure go more smoothly if they went through a couple of GUE courses to learn how to avoid these problems? I would have to put my money on "yes".

As far as being elitist, GUE certainly has the right to exclude whomever they want for health reasons. The fact is, these are private organizations. Why does PADI ask you to indicate any health problems on their signup sheet? Just for fun? So they can shrug their shoulders if you have a heart attack underwater and say "Well, they didn't check off that they had heart problems. If they had, we wouldn't have trained them."

I think I'm starting to ramble and lose some tangibility here, but hopefully you get my point.

Matt

 

[cmay]

MHK once bubbled...


Lawman,

Let me start out saying that I respect your right to have an alternative opinion but I simply just don't share the same view as you.. I don't think we need anymore diver's in the sport, it's not the quantity that concerns me it's the quality. I think we need better trained diver's, and while in some respects I'm not opposed to diver's that can meet certain physical fitness standards I still believe that 12 year olds are much too young to be diving...

Hello MHK,

Let me start by saying I agree with you 100% on the kids in diving issue. I truely feel that it is a bad path to start down.

I have stated on other posts that I do not feel that the poor quality of divers is a direct result of the standards of any of the training agencies. I do feel that the poor quality is a direct result of agencies not enforcing the instruction of those standards. It is poor quality instructors that are the problem. I whole heartedly feel that diving should be available to anyone and everyone willing to devote the time and effort to learn how to dive safely. Let's keep in mind we are talking about basic diving here, not rocket science. A capable (the key ingredient) instructor could teach a chimp to safely conduct a dive that most people consider their norm.

Do I feel that there is a need for increased, more stringent standards such as those written by GUE? Sure, but strictly for the technical, caving, deep, wreck, etc., etc. group. Probably (I'm guessing here), 95% of certified divers will never proceed, or even have a desire, to the tech level. They are happy doing their dives in the local lakes, quarries, rivers, and making their occasional trip to the Carribbean.

I think where I am trying to go here is that for the grestest majority of divers, the current standards of the agencies are fine the way they are. The agencies just need to start doing a better job enforcing the instruction of them.

Then again, this is just my $.02.

 

[MHK]

Lawman once bubbled...
Whether diving is a "dangerous" actvity or is a "sport" is the subject of threads elsewhere on the board. Needless to say there is disagreement on both issues. I'm proceeding on the theory that diving is not inherently so dangerous that a wide spectrum of people can't participate. I think that they can if they regulate the degree of difficulty of their dives. Nobody is against better training. I'm saying that if you make the training too difficult you can have a small number of TEC divers ready to handle anything and very few REC divers.

It's a somewhat difficult discussion to have on scuba forums because emotions and loyalties run high, and in some respects trying to define *dangerous* and * degrees of difficulty* is equally challenging..

There is so much anectodal evidence speaking to the dillution of training which then of course makes it difficult to for teh diver to make an informed decision. Take for example a few things I see out in my area. We have a LDS that sells PADI wreck diving specialties, but his training is done in his pool by putting together a series of PVC tubings and covering the pool with tarp to simulate darkness. The entire class is done without the students ever seeing a wreck, but yet that diver is certified by the largest organization in the world as a *wreck diver*.. Now many discount the value of that certification, to which I would question then why do it in the first place, but many don't discount it..

I see now that TDI is teaching deep air diving while doing all the academics over the internet, see:


http://www.americandivecenter.com/tdi_tech/tek_deep_door.htm


I see PADI is now allowing all of the OW academics to be done over the telephone so you never even need to meet with an instructor for that part.

And so on.. I could site many examples wherein market share, equipment sales and/or profit margins dictate the scope of the training, and we are now seeing LDS's that are giving away the classes for free in an effort to sell equipment.. Those type of practices speak to a dillution of training so it's important to distinguish between an educated decision having the approriate information, bearing in mind that it's possible for a diver to have gotten certified 20 years ago in Cayman, having never dove again and then pick right back up in the sport..

But I think you are correct there will be a wide variety of opinions of the subject..

Later

 

[ckharlan66]

ckharlan66 once bubbled...
What is the GUE policy on smokeless tobacco use?

Chad

I just wanted to move this back to the end so that it could be seen.

Thanks.

Chad

 

[MHK]

cmay once bubbled...




I have stated on other posts that I do not feel that the poor quality of divers is a direct result of the standards of any of the training agencies. I do feel that the poor quality is a direct result of agencies not enforcing the instruction of those standards

CMAY,

I don't want to sound as though I'm parsing words but I'd like to try to draw a distinction in your post about the issue of standards vis-a-vis the enforcement of such standards..

In my view, standards are so easily manipulated as to be laughable and there are a few organizations out there that have done such an effective job at writing standards that shift the burden of responsibility from the training organization onto the shoulders of the instructor that it invites closer inspection. The language about * in the opinion of the instructor* isn't there by accident. It's there because if somethimg happens the the whole notion of *putting the system on trial and not the instructor* stays bullet proof because the simple response from the agency is going to be * that in 'the opinion of this particular instructor'..*.. In other words, it's a duplicity that protects the organization and shifts teh burden of responsibility off the agency and on to you..

So on the surface most agencies have the RSTC standards at it's core so the standards aren't an issue, per se.. However, what is important in my view, is the willingness of agencies to promote events such as follows:

http://www.saintbrendan.com/cdnjan02/news1.html

The idea of earning 7 specialties over a weekend simply speaks to a willingness to lower the bar to the lowest common denominator not force it's members to raise the bar.. Once a culture of mediocrity is accepted it's twice as hard to regain the idea of increasing levels of achievement and that is what caused me to re-think my rating at PADI.. I walked out of my PADI IDC 8 years ago when the told me that I needed to promote continuing education 3 times each module, in the opening, during the body and the close.. So I asked why??? And they said it was worth 20% of the grade during the IE and it stared me thinking that a for-profit agency, that has it's corportae mission to increase profit and increase market share, that self-policies itself is to vulnerable to conflicts of interest for my taste...

In my view, the coprporate culture starts at the top and works it's way down and the standards are too easy to *manipulate* to lay it all off on S & P's..

But again, that's just my 2 cents..

Later

 

[roakey]

You don’t have to wait for DIRF to learn DIR principles. There was an intern that helped with the DIRF class in New Mexico that teaches diving in San Diego. He’s not a GUE instructor yet, but is in training. So currently he’s training under the aegis of one of the major agencies, but is “raising the bar” for those classes.

After the first day of class we got to yack for a hour or two as he was squaring away some of my equipment. He mentioned that he had a class on board a dive boat a couple weeks before. As they ascended they did their 30, 20 and 10 foot stops horizontally mid-water without hanging on the anchor line, just like they had been taught to ascend in class.

After the class got on board a diver on board approached him to ask about the technical class he was teaching and how to take it himself.

It wasn’t a technical class. It was his open water class.

Open water students CAN learn this stuff. His class wasn’t a $99 weekend special, but if you look at price/performance, not just price and you WILL find quality.

Roak