Instructor Requirements- continued...

[The Kraken]

All an ISO program does is make sure you do the same thing the same way all the time.

Doesn't matter if you're drowning new divers just as long as you do it exactly the same way each time.

 

[jbd]

And they protect themselves with writing an ANSI standard which then legally defines the "Accepted Industry Practices", which is a convenient closed-wagon circle for liability shielding.

-hh

I didn't get the impression that ANSI was legally binding or set legal definitions. Did I miss something?

 

[-hh]

Where might one obtain ANSI Z86.3? I think I used to have one about 9 years ago but lost several things due to water damage.

http://global.ihs.com/

Click on the blue tag that says "Standards".

From the pull-down menu, select ANSI, then hit VIEW.

In the search box, type in 86.3 and hit Search.

Produces 1 Hit.


-hh

 

[FatCat]

Keyword "scuba" at http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstore/find.asp?

...returns the following results:

DIN EN 14153-1 Recreational diving services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 1: Level 1 - Supervised diver (FOREIGN STANDARD) $97.50

DIN EN 14153-2 Recreational diving services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 2: Level 2 - Autonomous diver (FOREIGN STANDARD) $105.00

DIN EN 14153-3 Recreational diving services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 3: Level 3 - Dive leader (FOREIGN STANDARD) $97.50

DIN EN 14413-1 Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors - Part 1: Level 1 (FOREIGN STANDARD) $106.50

DIN EN 14413-2 Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors - Part 2: Level 2 (FOREIGN STANDARD) $106.50

DIN EN 14467 Recreational diving services - Requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers (FOREIGN STANDARD)



Being that the above say "DIN EN xxxx", it sounds like we're talking about the same documents.
-hh

FYI, when we talk about a DIN standard, we talk about a "Deutsche Industrie Norm", which is a standard pertaining to measurements, compatibility and so on, mostly for machinery. An ISO norm can be all this as well as a "performance standard". There is no ISO norm for diving. There will be soon. It will be the same as the EN standards. The prefix DIN signifies that the standard was drafted in conformity with the DIN standard for... drafting documents. And I didn't learn this in college, I learned this in practice. College prepared me for nothing but taking exams.

I've quickly glanced through the first of these and it looks very generally similar to the old ANSI Z86.3 ... what I do know is present in 86.3 that I didn't see listed in this EN was any equipment requirements for the Instructor.
-hh

Look in the definitve version of the 14413 norms. Required equipment and recommended equipment. Recommended equipment for instance is two separate regulators for instructors.

Its been done. See:

http://www.diverlink.com/newdiver/agencycomparison.htm

Of course, we don't need to mention which Agency sued a guy who dared to to write a cross-Agency summary comparison to help the consumer ... but we should mention that their lawsuit was thrown out in both California and Florida.

-hh

I'm not biting my friend. I still think the agencies should provide clear and user-friendly listings of course requirements.

Note for the Kraken:

Exactly.

 

[FatCat]

I didn't get the impression that ANSI was legally binding or set legal definitions. Did I miss something?

Dunno about ANSI, but EN directives are law in Europe. They have to be ratified in each member state. Unfortunately they are considered suppletive law, ie. guidelines only.

 

[Scubakevdm]

I'm not biting my friend.

I'm not biting my friend either. Go around biting friends, before long you won't have any left.

 

[FatCat]

I'm not biting my friend either. Go around biting friends, before long you won't have any left.

Okay, so I left out a comma. Nitpicker. Let's see how you do in Dutch...

 

[-hh]

I didn't get the impression that ANSI was legally binding or set legal definitions. Did I miss something?

Its a recognized publication of "accepted industry practices", which will be accepted almost without question by the Court.

The process goes this way:

- Someone gets hurt.
- They decide that the Instructor and/or Agency is to blame.
- They file a lawsuit.
- Instructor passes the liability buck by pointing to Agency Standards.
- Agency passes the liability buck by citing RSTC Standards.
- RSTC passes the liability buck by by citing "Accepted Industry Pracices" by pointing to the ANSI (or whoever) Standard.
- ANSI passes the liability buck by pointing out that those who wrote the Standard are volunteers who can't be held liable.
- Case is closed.

While this is good in theory, the problem is that there's almost no check-and-balance that prevents the participants from oligarchial collusion to set the standards bar rediculously low, and then use that document as a liability shield as shown above.

For how the system can be thusly abused, there was a case that happened in the Steel Piping Industry several years ago, before the US Steels tanked. In short, the industry's worst manufacturer was able to successfully block an update to a Standard that all of the major customers needed and all of the other steel mills were willing to supply. I'm not sure where the lawsuit was filed, but I believe it was in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

Every Industry has "dirty laundry" like this. The only way that it ever gets cleaned is to be bleached by the sunlight of public disclosure.

-hh

 

[jbd]

Its been done. See:

http://www.diverlink.com/newdiver/agencycomparison.htm

Of course, we don't need to mention which Agency sued a guy who dared to to write a cross-Agency summary comparison to help the consumer ... but we should mention that their lawsuit was thrown out in both California and Florida.



-hh

That comparison was about entry level diver requirements. This thread is about instructor level requirements.

Instructor level requirements are on the RSTC website.

 

[jbd]

Its a recognized publication of "accepted industry practices", which will be accepted almost without question by the Court.

The process goes this way:

- Someone gets hurt.
- They decide that the Instructor and/or Agency is to blame.
- They file a lawsuit.
- Instructor passes the liability buck by pointing to Agency Standards.
- Agency passes the liability buck by citing RSTC Standards.
- RSTC passes the liability buck by by citing "Accepted Industry Pracices" by pointing to the ANSI (or whoever) Standard.
- ANSI passes the liability buck by pointing out that those who wrote the Standard are volunteers who can't be held liable.
- Case is closed.

While this is good in theory, the problem is that there's almost no check-and-balance that prevents the participants from oligarchial collusion to set the standards bar rediculously low, and then use that document as a liability shield as shown above.

For how the system can be thusly abused, there was a case that happened in the Steel Piping Industry several years ago, before the US Steels tanked. In short, the industry's worst manufacturer was able to successfully block an update to a Standard that all of the major customers needed and all of the other steel mills were willing to supply. I'm not sure where the lawsuit was filed, but I believe it was in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

Every Industry has "dirty laundry" like this. The only way that it ever gets cleaned is to be bleached by the sunlight of public disclosure.

-hh

So where do I fit in as an instrcutor for an agency that is not a member of ANSI or RSTC?