GUE Policy

[Aquamaniac]

cwb once bubbled...


If it's a rash you have, then maybe the ointment you need for that itch is a Fundies class!

Very clever...........and you most likely correct!ut:

 

[MHK]

Aquamaniac once bubbled...
Thanks for the link cwb.

All over them like a rash, have been for some time now.

As luck would have it we're running a DIR-F class in Atlants end of January, so if you want your itch scratched let me know ;-)

Later

 

[O-ring]

cmay once bubbled...


Points well taken, MHK.

I would like to say that I am in no way an outspoken advocate of PADI. Actually, I am far from it. I do not like their business practices, but I do like the fact that they have opened diving up to the masses. I feel that at the core, the basic and simple RSTC skills and standards are a good thing. All I am saying is that most of the problems with recreational scuba can be solved with "tweaking" the existing standards, policies, and procedures. I just do not feel that a "grass roots movement" needs to be started.

Thanks for the link. I agree, that is just ridiculous. It is an example of when PADI needs to step in and say " whoaaa guys, are you f@#$in' nuts? You're not putting our name on that!" Sorry, that's more on the business practices. I'll save that for another post.

I know I am not the only geek on this list, but those of us in the technology industry (and probably other industries have experienced this as well) have seen this before...with the MCSE and MCP certifications. About 4-5 years ago, these were a highly sought after representation of a certain level of technical skill. Then came the boot camps, transcender exams, brain dump sites, etc. that basically changed the environment so that a chimp with a home computer and a couple hours of spare time could get a certification. Now they are all but worthless. Microsoft should have stepped in and changed it right then instead of letting it go downhill, but they didn't. We are seeing the same thing here, IMHO. By allowing stuff like this to happen, PADI is making its already questionable c-cards not worth the plastic they are printed on.

Oh, that and nobody answered ckharlan's question about GUE's stance on smokeless tobacco..

 

[MHK]

ckharlan66 once bubbled...


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

Thanks.

Chad

Chad,

I must admit to being stumped on that question. I called JJ and Andrew G but they are both in Australia and I haven't heard back yet. In the interim, I called Panos Alexasos, our Q&A director and posed the question to him. Neither one of us had the question put to us in this manner so our initial thoughts are that since the hazards really involve the binding of smoke to the hemoglobin that it's probably not an issue that would violate GUE Policy.. However, I caution that I haven't spoken to JJ or Andrew so they may have other thoughts so please don't take this as policy at this point...

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful..

Later

 

[wb416]

O-ring once bubbled...

I know I am not the only geek on this list, but those of us in the technology industry (and probably other industries have experienced this as well) have seen this before...with the MCSE and MCP certifications. About 4-5 years ago, these were a highly sought after representation of a certain level of technical skill. Then came the boot camps, transcender exams, brain dump sites, etc. that basically changed the environment so that a chimp with a home computer and a couple hours of spare time could get a certification. Now they are all but worthless. Microsoft should have stepped in and changed it right then instead of letting it go downhill, but they didn't. We are seeing the same thing here, IMHO. By allowing stuff like this to happen, PADI is making its already questionable c-cards not worth the plastic they are printed on.

Oh, that and nobody answered ckharlan's question about GUE's stance on smokeless tobacco..

Your right... and to carry your analogy forward, compare the difference (and credibility) that Cisco has with their "high-end" certs vs Microsoft's certs. I'm sure you could insert your favorite dive agencies into that comparison also.

... and BTW... I hope my VB cert isn't worthless

later, wb

 

[MikeFerrara]

MHK,
Per standards the PADI wreck class can't be tought in a pool. It isn't meant to be a technical wreck class but one still needs open water.

 

[MHK]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
MHK,
Per standards the PADI wreck class can't be tought in a pool. It isn't meant to be a technical wreck class but one still needs open water.

Mike,

THis speaks directly to my earlier point about how standards are very easily manipulated.. The *wreck* work, such as it is, is done in the pool.. Then they do 2 OW dives to complete the standards.. I reported the shop to PADI and they said that so long as he gets his students into the ocean this procedure was in compliance with S & P.. I asked didn't they think that it was important that their *wreck diving* student actually saw a wreck during the class and the response was that the method described above was in compliance with Standards so they would take no action..

You do realize that in the RecTec class they never even need to dive deep??? But that is saved for a seperate thread.. MY point is that, in my view, you can't *simulate* a wreck and then bestow a rating of wreck diver on that person and expect anyone to place value on that rating.. To me that is a major problem with the willingness to c-cards for profit..

Later

 

[MikeFerrara]

MHK,
That's interesting about the wreck class. I don't see how they could meet standards that way. Dive 1 you might be able to fudge. Dive two is supposed to a survey/map. Hard to do without a wreck. Dive 3 is line work in OW and evaluating the wreck for penetration. Dive 4 has the option of being a penetration (with cavern-like limits) dive.

I never thought of trying it without a wreck. See...thats why I don't make any money,

I'll bone up on the TecRec requirements when I get to the shop this evening. From memory I want to say that they must go below 130 ft but I'll look and start another thread tonight or tomarrow.

 

[MHK]

MikeFerrara once bubbled...
MHK,
That's interesting about the wreck class. I don't see how they could meet standards that way. Dive 1 you might be able to fudge. Dive two is supposed to a survey/map. Hard to do without a wreck. Dive 3 is line work in OW and evaluating the wreck for penetration. Dive 4 has the option of being a penetration (with cavern-like limits) dive.

I never thought of trying it without a wreck. See...thats why I don't make any money,

I'll bone up on the TecRec requirements when I get to the shop this evening. From memory I want to say that they must go below 130 ft but I'll look and start another thread tonight or tomarrow.

I actually never dreamed of doing it without a wreck either, but then again if corporate HQ says you don't need one, and you can make money selling the class... To me that is the biggest disappointment with PADI.. I fought long and hard with Steve Clifford and Karl Shreeves before I left PADI.. I really was of the mindset to change from within, but John Cronin and Ralph Erickson had their business model so change is slow..

I'm an accountant for a living, and ever since Woodward and Bernstein coined the phrase " follow the money" I've always had that notion. If you look to PADI's website they tell you that certified 946,000 diver's last year..

946,000
x $20
-----------

$18,920,000

Now throw in the crew paks, the video's, the patches, the bubblemaker's, the cd rom's, the books, the patches, the IE's, the IDC's and on and on you'll see that self-policing hasn't worked..

Now you add in directly from their very own corporate goals and objectives.. Goal # 1

To continue to develop and maintain PADI's leadership position in the dive industry worldwide, as defined by membership, innovation, product sales, image and market equity.

OK so, market equity is the #1 goal..

Now goal #2:

To ensure the long-term viability of the company by continuing to improve its financial position and profitability

OK so, profitability is second..

Around corporate goal and task #8 they get around to talking about safe education..

To me when the corporate culture is focused like a laser beam on market share and profitablility, it's easy to see that the pressure for earnings per share can take precedent over quality.. After this years Enron, Globall Crossing, WorlCom disaster's I don't think it's such a stretch to look at a privately held, for-profit company, whose two founder's are at retirement age looking to maximize profit that could jeopardize long term integrity.. BY John Cronin's own admission this agency stated purpose since formation is profit.. Now please don't think I'm against capialism, because I'm not.. However, I just think that any organization that has no oversight, little accountability has the prime opportunity to exploit, for financial goals, an industry that has heretofore been without government intervention, so I worry..

Later

 

[The Chairman]

for keeping a reasoned non-demeaning approach, and for actually trying to stay on topic. Sure the topic has meandered a bit (as they will) but you have seemed to stay abreast of the subtle shifts. Again, good job!

Guys and Gals... I won't even bother to go into my "Only idiots smoke" speech. Like diving philosophies there are many that have their positions rooted only in emotions and loyalties as opposed to good old fashioned reasoning. So I will leave it with, I hate smoking but I tolerate smokers. I have never understood the attraction, and I guess I never will.

That being said, one of the agencies that I work with simply does NOT ALLOW SMOKING during any of its activities. Yes, it's the good ol' BSofA, but they simply will not allow it for kids or adults alike. Something about keeping yourself "physically strong" in the Boy Scout Oath that merits the complete exclusion of the tobacco habit. While not all units comply with National's standards, the really great ones do. Not that I would ever intimate that the Mighty Scuba Ducks was a great unit, but still we are completely tobacco free... kids and adults. Unfortunately, this does not extend to the home front. There, adults can do as they wish.

Working with the two agencies has been GREAT. I never have to worry about a 12 yo learning to dive... I get them at 14 earliest, but most at 15. Being kids, they are mostly in great shape, and we offer lots of other activities to help increase that as well. I have to accept the most stringent of either's standards. The class 3 physical mandated by the BSofA for high adventure (I do keep pointing out that it is deep adventure) far exceeds the NAUI "questionnaire".

You see, I don't know that we could ever completely blame the agencies for non compliance. The agencies can only offer their "lowest common denominator". That is "under ideal situations" this should be the case. My OW ratio is predicated on good vis, and environment. I, the instructor, have to use my own judgment about ME and MY CLASS to determine if those are adequate. It's like the cop who cites you for driving too fast for conditions, even when you are under the speed limit. It's not the speed limit (agency) that is in error... it's the driver (instructor). Where is a Scuba cop when you need one, anyways?

I have chosen the environment that I want to teach in; BSA and NAUI. It offers me quite a bit of latitude, but ultimately, the instructional level depends solely on ME. It’s really not the agency as much as it is the instructor. Great instructors will have great classes. Poor instructors will have poor classes, and it really doesn't matter what affiliation they choose. Some people will always take shortcuts, and others will always go beyond the required.