Liability of Agencies for their instructors??

[VikingDives]

There might be an opportunity for forward-thinking shop owners and instructors to offer a more comprehensive OW course aimed at developing lifetime customers (recurring revenue) rather than just maximizing certification counts. Put students in drysuits and good-quality gear (including a bright primary light) from the start. Teach neutral buoyancy and failure management. Take them to a variety of shore dive sites. Add at least one boat charter so they can see more exciting stuff. Have an assistant constantly shooting pictures and video that students can share on social media. Of course this will take longer and cost more so fewer students would sign up, but if they have a good experience then I expect many of them would stick as loyal customers. I don't know if this would actually work as a business model but it would be nice to see someone at least try to keep the industry alive.

I do something similar to what you suggest and it's possible to do, but it's been slow to grow. The principal problem is the consumer often looks at certification like this:

I want to get certified ------------------> I take a class -------------------> I get certified

Having no frame of reference, and perhaps a bunch of friends who were trained on their knees etc., they look at the different shops and choose the one that offers the cheapest classes, or the one with the pictures of big classes on social media (Seeking social proof of a good program because lots of people participate).

They call around and their first question is, "How much does it cost to get certified?" They don't know what they don't know and most of the price shoppers will choose to get certified with someone cheaper.

The end result for me has been that the folks I end up certifying tend to be better educated and skew more female. I keep increasing revenues year over year, but the number of people I certify is very few compared to other dive shops.

On the other hand, the customers I have do continue on with other classes and purchase equipment - I'd say 8 of 10 do. When I taught for a standard, on-the-knees shop, maybe 1 in 10 continued on. . .

 

[boulderjohn]

On the other hand, the customers I have do continue on with other classes and purchase equipment - I'd say 8 of 10 do. When I taught for a standard, on-the-knees shop, maybe 1 in 10 continued on. . .

I believe that is what dive shop owners fail to realize. A diver who leaves the certification process with good skills will have loads more fun on the first dive trip and will be more likely to stay with it.

The shop where I last did OW instruction rented pool time in the local recreation center. It was enough time to get all but the must screwed up students through the program. I used that fact to make sure my classes always had the maximum possible time doing the free swimming portions of the course, timing it so the last student was climbing the ladder to get out of the pool when the second hand ended our allotted time. In contrast, some of the instructors did the opposite, minimizing that time so they could brag about how fast they got back to the shop. I never understood why the owner did not put out an email with this simple sentence: "I am paying a lot of money for a specific amount of time in the pool, and I expect that instructors will take full advantage of that time." I am sure that sentence alone would make a huge difference in the students, and it would not cost one dime more.

In my personal case, I got certified with the goal of doing a couple of dives every other year or so because I hate lying on a beach. I got certified the cheapest and easiest way possible, and I would absolutely not have been interested in a longer and more expensive class. I got what I paid for, and I went off on my first dive trip with minimal skills. Fortunately, I knew that and signed up to take the AOW class immediately on that vacation in Cozumel, and the instructor did an outstanding job of taking me beyond where I should have been for the OW class, and I had so much fun that trip that I was hooked.

 

[B N Coleman]

Should dive certification agencies be held liable for the actions of their instructors?

A want to be diver starts looking around and sees ads that say something like " Learn to dive the <agency> way" They think that sounds great, I will go with <agency> to learn to dive. They go to the <agency> web site, find a dive shop that has a high star rating from the <agency> and say" That's for me, <agency> certified trainers and high star rating. What can go wrong?"

But as we all know, the <agency> is in the business of issuing certifications and selling learning packages, not in the business of monitoring the quality of their instructors. There are far too many instructors out there. One agency advertises that they have 160,000 certified dive professionals and issue 1,000,000 certifications a year. That is about 6 certifications per professional, no where near enough for an instructor to stay current on teaching methods and changing standards, let alone to provide sufficient revenue to cover <agency> fees, insurance etc. (They did not say if professional included DMs nor what levels of certifications were issued, a lot of difference between an OW or AOW certification and a no dive Nitrox certification in terms of instructor time and revenue.)


Personally I believe that agencies should have some responsibility for the quality of the instructors who issue the certifications on their behalf. I have seen far too many bad new divers, not bad because of inexperience but bad because they were just not taught correctly at the start.


This would be a major change for the agencies, fees would increase, as would the cost of instruction, the number of instructors would drop, and hopefully the quality of instruction would rise and instructors would be able to actually make a living instructing.

Please lets keep the discussion generic as to agency, Lets not bad mouth any specific agency as I believe they are all guilty of turning unsupervised new instructors loose on an unsuspecting public. Some examples will identify the agency to those in the know, but lets not name and shame.

But please feel free to name any agency that does do a good job of monitoring the quality of instruction done in their name and for which they collect fees.

What Are the Facts?

Once certified, there is no official agency relationship between dive instructor/s and the ISO training organization/s. The training agency merely acts as a service provider to the dive professional/s. Instructor advertising a preferred training organization does not create any special relationship or transfer responsibility to the training organization.

A common misconception among dive professionals is that adhering to agency training standards automatically provides coverage under the agency's insurance. This is not true. While dive agencies offer frameworks and guidelines, each instructor operates independently and is responsible for their own liability.

The ISO-certified instructor does not make them an agent for any agency.

Payment of annual fees to a training agency simply allows instructors to issue certifications with the agency's branding and be subject to their terms and conditions. Any Instructor who accepts the agency, terms and conditions and is found not to have followed them during training can be expelled from the agency after review.


Liability and Responsibility

In the event of an accident, instructors must prove their adherence to standards in court. Agency insurance does not automatically defend the instructor. There are potential pitfalls:

• Blame Transfer: Agencies might try to mitigate their own losses by shifting blame to the instructor, particularly if there are breaches in protocol/STDs.
• Coverage Gaps: Without personal dive liability insurance, instructors can face significant legal costs even if they followed all procedures correctly.

 

[NothingClever]

I want to set aside liability for a minute and focus first on basic accountability.

I think your post above iterates facts several of us already understand but find dysfunctional - an upstream financial obligation from instructor to corporation without corresponding downstream QA/QC checks to ensure a consistent and reliable customer service experience at the distal end of the brand.

Any Instructor who accepts the agency, terms and conditions and is found not to have followed them during training can be expelled from the agency after review.

What’s your organization’s mechanism to proactively find the inattentive or corner-cutting instructors? Please don’t construe my question as a suggestion to inculcate a witch hunt atmosphere. My proposal is akin to a secondary school principal sitting in on classes to check on his/her educators in the classroom.

Do you have a portion of your annual budget set aside for regional instructor trainers to travel and check on the instructors bearing your brand? I’m reasonable - not every last instructor but at least enough of them to achieve a meaningful impact on instructor proficiency.

Do you require a recurring verbal report from regional instructor trainers to your organization’s headquarters to provide their observations and recommendations?

Waiting for a major incident or court case is a passive posture. I proffer your tripwire is in the wrong location.

There’s a steady drumbeat of disappointment from new divers and that drumbeat seems validated (unfortunately) by the painful statistics in the BDI surveys.

What makes your organization different from others that have come before you?

 

[TravisD]

I don't know what other agencies do, but SSI has a "QA" system where newly certified students receive a post-cert survey that asks questions that are designed to identify standards violations - things like # of dives done, max depth, etc. If the returned survey indicates that there might be a violation then HQ investigates.

If the student has logged the dives using SSI's online log system, then they will use that to check what happened, otherwise they have to reach out to the instructor and/or student to see what evidence they can provide.

It's my understanding that the return rate on these QA surveys is extremely low. The QA process also allows for students to initiate a report, and SSI Shops also have to have someone identified as being responsible for QA.

 

[Edward3c]

Here’s a novel idea. Continuous Professional Development (or whatever alternative name you want) for all Instructor Trainers. Say every 5 years. 8 have to do 40 hours every year to retain my Chartered status.