Instructor Requirements- continued...

[NauticalbutNice]

I don't deem myself to be the perfect instructor, but i'd be confident that my skills are where they need to be. I don't know squat about tech diving, gas mixes, deco procedures, and have no problem telling my students that if they ask, i'll refer them to someone else, or I'll try and find the answer if I have the resources. At some stage I might go down that road, but not right now. I want to be able to work my skills as an instructor and improve with every student I certify. I learn something new with every class I teach, and when i have students tell me that they're interested in the instructor route, i'll advise them on the way I got mine. Not because its the right or wrong way, but because it worked for me.

Surely this is the sign of a good instructor? I kind of get the feeling that too many people expect their instructors to know everything/be perfect. That isn't going to happen. I'd rather have an instructor who says "I don't know", than one who makes it up as they go along.

Yeah, I agree that there probably should be tighter instructor requirements. But it's diving, not a facist dictatorship! (This is a joke, no flaming please )

Nauticalbutnice :fruit:

 

[-hh]

You got it yourself, only it would look more like:

1 Someone gets hurt.
2 They sue the instructor, the agency, and the dive shop.
3 A determination is made as to wether or not there was a standards violation.
4 If yes, then the Agency says, "we told him not to do that, we told him that if he did that someone would get hurt. See... right here in the instructor manual, here here and here on his instructor exam, etc."
5 If no, the agency say "scuba diving is inherently dangerous, we told you that. See? Here next to your signature on this waiver, here in your open water text, here on your quiz... our instructor upheld and exceeded nationally recognised standards for scuba instruction.

Yes, that decision point exists, but I was assuming that the instructor was indeed conforming to standards, and so on.

Overall, you're right that it then would pop out of the bottom and end up being a question on the legal wording in the waivers. Since many of these actually include waiving accountability for even _active_ negligence and the consumer's heirs, the reality is that the 'Responsible Diver' bit effectively only applies to the consumers because that's how it has been stacked.


-hh

 

[FatCat]

Overall, you're right that it then would pop out of the bottom and end up being a question on the legal wording in the waivers. Since many of these actually include waiving accountability for even _active_ negligence and the consumer's heirs, the reality is that the 'Responsible Diver' bit effectively only applies to the consumers because that's how it has been stacked.
-hh

Just so everyone knows: PADI Europe (which does not include the UK) forbids its members to use liability waivers, because liability waivers are not accepted by our courts.

It all boils down to whether or not there was negligence on the part of the instructor.

Also, over here we do not (yet) live in an overly litigous society like you guys on the other side of the Atlantic.

Remember: scuba students get a thorough explanation of the risks involved. In the manual, in the video and over and over again from the instructor (always blow bubbles and so on).

When we give people guidelines as to how to be a responsible diver, we don't just do that from a CYA principle. It's basicly sound advice and a set of good practices.

If someone ignores this out of sheer bloody mindedness or out of sheer stupidity, why then should an instructor be held responsible?

 

[MikeFerrara]

The rstc is a joke. It's the fox guarding the henhouse.

ANSI...who cares?

Liability?
Those of you who are instructors and have discused any of this with an agency or read any books like "The Law and the Dive Pro" or even paid attention the the agency publications should have this already...

the agency sets standards which together with other agencies and through ANSI they present as an industry standard. The instructor is responsible for working within that standard with the additional requirement that he/she be responsible for applying his/her own judgment. For instance having less students in the water than the standards allow because of conditions.

No matter what happens it's going to fall on the instructor The agency falls back on the "industry accepted" standards and, provided the waiver doesn't do the trick, the instructor either failed to follow standards or they used poor judgment.

So...you conduct all skills while kneeling for 17 minutes on the bottom and let the students follow you while all walking for a 3 minute tour (hey it's a 20 minute dive and that's what's required. You met standards but the student has never really demonstrated that they can dive and has never planned or conducted their own dive. You certify the student.

I call the agency to tell them what kind of class your running and they point out that it sounds like it's all within standards and it's up to you to apply goodment and understand the intent of the standards. They know and admit that your students can't dive. They got their money and let that be the end of it.

The student goes on vacation and falls over a wall disapearing into 6000 ft of water. Try to kneel your way through that one. The agency falls back on the standards and you try the same. The plaintiffs attourney though brings up the subject of mastery learning and questions your judgment and the application of the standards and wants to talk about how you verified that the student mastered buoyancy control. You say that you just get em started and that no one masters it until they get more dives under their belt. Ah...the attourney says but you teach this skill? the book says that the student needs to master it? you say?...

If I was the attouney I would ask how you verified the students ability to plan a dive and dive the plan since all you provided was a three minute tour with the students all blindly following you.

Now I made up the lawsuit part. I did not, however make up that fact that I have seen countless classes just like what I described and, in fact did discuss it with the agency and recieved exactly the answer described here.

If you can pump a ton of students through this waythey'll take their cut. If some one gets hurt and there is legal successful legal action I predict that you the instructor will get hung out to dry just because you taught the way you've seen it done and thought it was supposed to be done.

 

[FatCat]

And beaches all over the world are strewn with the bodies of incompetent divers taught by instructors who barely meet the standards. Yeah, right!

 

[-hh]

The rstc is a joke. It's the fox guarding the henhouse.

Which is great when you're the fox...

And while the EU may be cleaning some stuff up on liability waivers, that's not the case in the USA, nor in a lot of the "little island" dive travel destinations.


-hh

 

[jhelmuth]

And beaches all over the world are strewn with the bodies of incompetent divers taught by instructors who barely meet the standards. Yeah, right!

No... fortunately (?) they seem to survive. But they do seem to kill alot of the corals and life (in the tropical waters anyway). What is your point?
I'm guessing that this was meant to be a "snide" commentary to Mike F's prior post ("Yeah, right!). If so, please reconsider your position. I noticed that you are a DM/AI/DI (per your profile) with 201-500 dives. No offense meant, but I think Mike has a better handle on this than you and he is way more qualified in any case.

 

[MikeFerrara]

And beaches all over the world are strewn with the bodies of incompetent divers taught by instructors who barely meet the standards. Yeah, right!

Why do you want beaches strewn with them. Isn't just a few too many if they could have been avoided? Haven't you had to pull any one out yet? I have, too many...and I'm pissed. Don't you read accident reports to see what it is getting divers into trouble? DAN seems to suggest that buoyancy control problems figure prominently in non-health related injuries. Really aside from that and having enough gas...what else can hurt you? Well ok...we've seen a few divers get hurt when they suffer a rapid ascent during a free flow or something.

 

[MikeFerrara]

No... fortunately (?) they seem to survive. But they do seem to kill alot of the corals and life (in the tropical waters anyway). What is your point?
I'm guessing that this was meant to be a "snide" commentary to Mike F's prior post ("Yeah, right!). If so, please reconsider your position. I noticed that you are a DM/AI/DI (per your profile) with 201-500 dives. No offense meant, but I think Mike has a better handle on this than you and he is way more qualified in any case.

Yes. Even divers who panic or just loose control of their buoyancy usually live through it although some don't.

Things wouldn't look anywhere near as good if we counted near misses.

And it's pretty misserable to dive anywhere there's very many recreational divers because the vis goes as soon as they get in the water...like that tv show that was on last night that I mentioned. LOL

Still even some folks with lots of experience disagree with me...and others just don't see it as a problem because the vacation dive sites aren't silty and the death toll is low enough.

 

[Scubakevdm]

Why do you want beaches strewn with them. Isn't just a few too many if they could have been avoided? Haven't you had to pull any one out yet? I have, too many...and I'm pissed. Don't you read accident reports to see what it is getting divers into trouble? DAN seems to suggest that buoyancy control problems figure prominently in non-health related injuries. Really aside from that and having enough gas...what else can hurt you? Well ok...we've seen a few divers get hurt when they suffer a rapid ascent during a free flow or something.

Actually, it seems like almost every fatality I hear about involves very experienced, very highly trained divers. I'm pretty sure most of them had mastered buoyancy control.