Instructor Requirements- continued...

[MikeFerrara]

Mike, I didnt see the program, but I do know the sort of program you mean, I usually cringe when I see divers on TV for the same reason as you, but you should consider yourself the Gourmet of diving. You just dont like hamburgers or newbie vacation divers, however it would be a shame to allow elitism or snobbery to become part of diving.

I like hamburgers with the right beer and I don't have anything against new divers. I would like to see the business end of diving cleaned up some though.

It is my experience that there is not a whole lot of difference between the agencies, BUT you can sure tell which instructors give a crap about teaching someone how to dive. Granted, some of the students sometimes present a challenge, but its really not that much more difficult to teach someone how to dive versus teaching them how to not be killed.

I agree with this too. If standards were cleaned up a little...and I put it that way because I'm not talking about a boot camp kind of thing...just closing a hand full of loop holes and maybe adding a few pages to the OW text, it wouldn't be as easy to tell one instructors students from another. Well and of course instructors should be able to dive pretty well and they should be tested on it.

 

[MikeFerrara]

You'd have to see a CMAS course to believe there's worse than RSTC training. Deco diving from first go, breath-holding on compressed gas, first level course without any skills whatsoever. Buoyancy? What's that? They call a BC a lifejacket. I'm thrilled that there is something like EN standards now.

See what I mean? LOL

But seriously, an instructor can only do so much. If an OWD student can clear his mask while swimming (mostly) neutrally, can do a reg recovery while swimming and can control his buoyancy to a degree where he can prevent an uncontrolled ascent and where he doesn't crawl along on the bottom, I'm satisfied. I'm not content with students who can only do their skills kneeling on the bottom. I'm totally with Mike on that one.

PADI standards don't oblige me to do open water skills kneeling on the bottom either.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here too. The standards don't prevent you from teaching a good class...it's just that they don't require it

 

[-hh]

(getting thread back on topic)

how many people think adequate and how many think not??

The marketplace ultimately defines what is adequate.

What the marketplace seems to be saying is that the rec Agencies are doing a sufficiently "adequate" job for OW-I to not demand significant change. However, this may very well profoundly change if GUE develops their own OW-I class and gets marketing as good as PADI's.

here is what I have gathered from this thread so far.

Knowlege is not measured by education.

Okay, but you've not suggested what then is a fair measure to use for knowledge, so if we don't use "education", then what do we use?

Keep in mind that for an Instructor, OW-I, Rescue, DM and AI are all technically educational prerequisites. I doubt that anyone here would even entertain suggesting that all of these steps can all be skipped.

dive training is market driven...

Agreed

... and if divers were not recieving adequate training, the numbers of people taking up the sport would be falling not rising.

I don't think that that's a logically supportable conclusion, nor do I know if it is correct to claim that the participants are indeed rising. The statistics on participant rates have been little more than wild guesses for years...do you have a citation that proves a rise?

Instructor training must be adaquate as morbidity and mortality rates are falling not rising.

First, the Annual DAN Fatality publications have been showing that the number of divers killed/year has been holding steady for the past decade or so. DAN refuses to claim a fatality rate because they have no confidence in any of the claims of how many active divers there are. Again, where's your data?

Second, just because the public accepts a certain morbidity rate doesn't mean that the training organizations have to. Especially since the general public has virtually no clue as to how many people are killed diving per year.

Readyness to be an instructor is a judgement call and the prerequisites are just a line drawn in the sand as there has to be a line somewhere.

Agreed.

The prerequisites are minimums.

Not everyone that meets the minimum prerequisites is ready to be an instructor.

Agreed on both.

Instructor training prepares you to start teaching, not to know everything.

True. However, there's a lot of miles between the starting line and the finish line, and not every instructor needs to be be the penultimate do-all. The real question is if the Instructor Training adequately prepares "99%" of its passing candidates with the ability to safely and reliably teach OW-I.

Perhaps what's needed is a standard of having actually taught "XX" hours as an AI under the supervision of an Instructor before they can become an Instructor themself. I do know that back in the old days, many DM and AI candidates did do "Student Teaching" stints, even if it wasn't in the standards. Maybe its time to formalize that as a requirement, particularly since one can technically go from Rescue thru DM thru AI to OWSI in as little as 3 weeks.


-hh

 

[-hh]

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.

DAN's Annual Fatality report has some statistics on diver experience. My recollection is that there's two "bumps" in the data...one is <50 dive types of Novices and the other is the 1000+ veterans.

The former is generally explained by shortcomings in training and the latter is generally explained by the statistics of risk exposure (eg, doing many more dives/year).


-hh

PS: there was a panic'ed student who killed an Instructor and a DM a couple of years ago here in NJ, at the Shark River Inlet. IIRC, the student also died in the incident and a second DM was rescued by a jetskiier. If I get a chance, I'll google it for you.

 

[-hh]

You want to cut down on government waste? Go after individuals on public assistance (welfare) who have no inclination to get a job or be motivated to make something of themselves. You sound like you'd be willing to spend $1,000 to save $1. That is, of course, unless you are simply jealous and wish to be able to do the same thing....

Let us know when you're caught up on the thread, Derek, and if your question still applies.


-hh

 

[jbd]

.....by the time they are first certified, it is unrealistic, utopian and frankly unnessicary. Only a few can be experts, but that should not exclude the rest from participating. Expertise only comes through participation.

however it would be a shame to allow elitism or snobbery to become part of diving.

I disagree. Its not unrealistic or utopian to teach and expect better skills from students. The students are already capable of attaining much more than is typically taught. I don't see how pocessing or expecting good solid diving skills is elitist or snobbish :06:

 

[tm55417]

The former is generally explained by shortcomings in training and the latter is generally explained by the statistics of risk exposure (eg, doing many more dives/year).


hh,

I think you are making a big jump here. You are assuming that those with less than 50 dives who die while diving, die because of inadequate training. That may not be the case. I'm sure, if such statistics are recorded, that there is a variety of reasons, including; health factors, diving beyond training and/or experience levels as well the possibilty of poor training. Same with the 1000+ divers. It isn't just simply because of risk exposure. Health, training, ego and complacency can factor into any of those types of fatalities.

Please don't make broad generalizations to support your arguement.

 

[jbd]

The former is generally explained by shortcomings in training and the latter is generally explained by the statistics of risk exposure (eg, doing many more dives/year).


hh,

I think you are making a big jump here. You are assuming that those with less than 50 dives who die while diving, die because of inadequate training. That may not be the case. I'm sure, if such statistics are recorded, that there is a variety of reasons, including; health factors, diving beyond training and/or experience levels as well the possibilty of poor training. Same with the 1000+ divers. It isn't just simply because of risk exposure. Health, training, ego and complacency can factor into any of those types of fatalities.

Please don't make broad generalizations to support your arguement.

I believe what -hh is referring to is that most of the deaths or accidents in this diver group(<50 dives) is related to buoyancy control issues according to DAN.I'm not a DAN member but this is what has been mentioned many times from DANs reports

 

[Scubakevdm]

I believe what -hh is referring to is that most of the deaths or accidents in this diver group(<50 dives) is related to buoyancy control issues according to DAN.I'm not a DAN member but this is what has been mentioned many times from DANs reports

Actually, there's a section called " procedural problems reported during dives resulting in fatalities" here is the text from that section from the 2003 report:

Figure 62 shows the distribution of procedural problems that were

reported during dives that resulted in fatalities. Sixty percent of all​

fatalities had buoyancy problems, 31 percent ran out of air and 10​

percent ascended rapidly. As with equipment problems, the occurrence​

of a procedural problem was not necessarily the immediate​

cause of the fatality.​

Here's a link to the whole thing.

I think -hh is refering to fig. 50.

 

[jhelmuth]

And he's deliberately being a grouch. I think he does it to get his point across. Which is fine. BTW, do you know what my qualifications are? Clairvoyant are you? Do you know how I teach? Where I teach? In which circumstances? How much time I spend on a course?

Alright... he's being a grouch (your opinion) - so what. Why is that jstification for you to come acroos that way? Take the higher ground and don't drop down to that level. With respect to clarivoyance... I just took the information you provided in you profile. I don't know you, nor do I suggest that you are in any way a bad or defficent instructor. I did ask you to reconsider and that Mike has significantly more experience than you (face it - he does). Nothing wrong with that. I usually take that into consideration before I speak. Experience is a great teacher.

But seriously, an instructor can only do so much. If an OWD student can clear his mask while swimming (mostly) neutrally, can do a reg recovery while swimming and can control his buoyancy to a degree where he can prevent an uncontrolled ascent and where he doesn't crawl along on the bottom, I'm satisfied. I'm not content with students who can only do their skills kneeling on the bottom. I'm totally with Mike on that one.

PADI standards don't oblige me to do open water skills kneeling on the bottom either.

Kudos! I like that answer. That is the right attitude (again - my opinion)

Has it ever occured to any of you that accidents sometimes are nothing more than accidents. Or that accidents happen because people overestimate their own skills. Or because sometimes people are plain stupid. Why always point the finger at instructors and agencies. Are you so immature that you can't live with the concept of personal responsability? Do you live in kindergarten?

But hey, what do I know?

No, I don't live in kindergarten, and I think I stand pretty well on the concept of personal responsibility (I'm also a Republican). Maybe it's just my attitude about not accepting less than excellent performance from professionals. I think that means something - to be a professional. I disagree with you to the extent that accident are more commonly cause from a lack of preparedness, experience (going beyond ones training), and this is a direct result of an industry which is not being as responsible as it could. Are any of you willing to accept things the way they are today? Are you happy about it? If so, I beleive that you are part of the problem. If you are not willing to at least consider change, then you'll get what you've always gotten, because you doing what you've always done!

PS - I'm sure you know more than I. Just consider that there are probably others that know more than you.


Jim