Frustrated hearing the responses, "Liability! Liability! Liability!" If that is what we focus on then we will have a industry standard quality of training that is no different than the quality of "defensive medicine"; costs driven up, quality forced down, availability inhibited, and expenditure of most of the time/resources on the "just in case" crap at the expense of the critical stuff.
I have been a Safety and Technical trainer for over 40 years (12 in the fire service and over 30 in an industry in the top 3 most deadly). As such I have been forced to worry about "Billy-Bob got chopped up in the wood chipper because 'you' didn't tell him to not sit on the log as it went through. So you are responsible."
Consequently a lot of "training" is "do this, don't do that, and here's what's going to be on the test." All of that is probably good stuff to know. But none of it will be of any help when the shite splatters on the fan.
Sure we need to teach the fundamentals, the tasks, and the techniques. In fact we must hammer the fundamentals so that they become second nature. I always taught my lessons much like Lombardi did. He started each season by saying, "gentlemen, this is a football..."
But those fundamentals must also be learned within the context of critical thinking. Critical Thinking will help prevent most emergency situations, and allow the student to work through to a sane conclusion most emergency situations. Those fundies are the letter blocks we used to play with as a kid. if we collect enough of them we can "spell" any word we need at any given moment to address the immediate situation.
This is why in addition to the fundies we need to ensure the students learn the why and wherefore of what they are doing; this is content which is severely lacking in any training program. Far too many training programs will answer the why question with no answer other than, "because we/the book/the agency/the association said so." That right there is a greater liability to the student safety than anything else.
I do appreciate the standardized training offered in the underwater world, but I by no means equate it to qualification for anything. I think that the best it provides is helping students discover what they don't know so they can then further research and find the answers. Remember, a wise person knows what they don't know. Ergo, a thinking and seeking student will always be the safer practitioner of their craft.
So, back to the OP's question. would I "train" another diver to dive with me? Absolutely! But there is additional responsibility I must assume when I do so.
First, I must recognize that I don't know it all, despite my "certifications" and only train to that level for which I am competent in.
Second, the student's success, or demise, is squarely in my hands. If anything goes wrong, then I must be present and able to mitigate the situation and resolve it safely and successfully.
Third, I must impress upon them, and myself, that I have not qualified them for anything other than to dive with me under conditions similar to which we have trained (sound familiar!!) I must also hammer into them that I am in no way giving them a license to go off on their own without further training.
I can hear the protests now! But consider this, how many of us either started driving motor vehicles with a non-instructor, or have introduced someone to driving motor vehicles? Most of us wouldn't think twice about doing so, have done it multiple times, and would do it again. In fact, how many of us are self-taught in the art of not killing someone with a motor vehicle?
Have any of us taught a youngster how to use a knife? Axe? Cook stove? Firearm? Crossing a busy street? Of course! But we have also looked a potential student in such areas of study and said, "Oh hell, no."
Why should teaching someone to dive with you be so different?
Just my two pennies worth.
I have been a Safety and Technical trainer for over 40 years (12 in the fire service and over 30 in an industry in the top 3 most deadly). As such I have been forced to worry about "Billy-Bob got chopped up in the wood chipper because 'you' didn't tell him to not sit on the log as it went through. So you are responsible."
Consequently a lot of "training" is "do this, don't do that, and here's what's going to be on the test." All of that is probably good stuff to know. But none of it will be of any help when the shite splatters on the fan.
Sure we need to teach the fundamentals, the tasks, and the techniques. In fact we must hammer the fundamentals so that they become second nature. I always taught my lessons much like Lombardi did. He started each season by saying, "gentlemen, this is a football..."
But those fundamentals must also be learned within the context of critical thinking. Critical Thinking will help prevent most emergency situations, and allow the student to work through to a sane conclusion most emergency situations. Those fundies are the letter blocks we used to play with as a kid. if we collect enough of them we can "spell" any word we need at any given moment to address the immediate situation.
This is why in addition to the fundies we need to ensure the students learn the why and wherefore of what they are doing; this is content which is severely lacking in any training program. Far too many training programs will answer the why question with no answer other than, "because we/the book/the agency/the association said so." That right there is a greater liability to the student safety than anything else.
I do appreciate the standardized training offered in the underwater world, but I by no means equate it to qualification for anything. I think that the best it provides is helping students discover what they don't know so they can then further research and find the answers. Remember, a wise person knows what they don't know. Ergo, a thinking and seeking student will always be the safer practitioner of their craft.
So, back to the OP's question. would I "train" another diver to dive with me? Absolutely! But there is additional responsibility I must assume when I do so.
First, I must recognize that I don't know it all, despite my "certifications" and only train to that level for which I am competent in.
Second, the student's success, or demise, is squarely in my hands. If anything goes wrong, then I must be present and able to mitigate the situation and resolve it safely and successfully.
Third, I must impress upon them, and myself, that I have not qualified them for anything other than to dive with me under conditions similar to which we have trained (sound familiar!!) I must also hammer into them that I am in no way giving them a license to go off on their own without further training.
I can hear the protests now! But consider this, how many of us either started driving motor vehicles with a non-instructor, or have introduced someone to driving motor vehicles? Most of us wouldn't think twice about doing so, have done it multiple times, and would do it again. In fact, how many of us are self-taught in the art of not killing someone with a motor vehicle?
Have any of us taught a youngster how to use a knife? Axe? Cook stove? Firearm? Crossing a busy street? Of course! But we have also looked a potential student in such areas of study and said, "Oh hell, no."
Why should teaching someone to dive with you be so different?
Just my two pennies worth.
