I started following this thread with interest due to the discussion about standards rather than any mudslinging against the NACD or Rob Neto. Having served on the board of directors of the RSTC, WRSTC, and several other organizations involved writing standards for, and in compliance with, industry standards and those of ANSI, ISO, NPFA, etc., I'd like to provide the following perspective to help instructors following this thread avoid possible standards violations with their organizations.
Standards for open water instruction using within any organization are often the best-written and most easily understood. For agencies that only teach cave diving the standards for cavern, intro to cave, apprentice cave diver, and cave diver are the best written and most easily understood. Technical standards are usually well-written, but once you add overhead and gases such as nitrox, heliox, or a trimix you might find yourself in a gray area. When you read any agency's diver level and professional level standards in their entirety you may discover vague interpretation and even contradictions.
For example, "a maximum depth of 130 feet," would mean exactly that. Even though the 5 Rules of Accident Analysis might say, "Never dive deeper than 130 feet on air or deeper than an END of 130 feet on mixed-gas," in that agency's textbook there is a difference between a standard for training for students and the knowledge they should have for diving after class. We see this often at the apprentice and full cave levels.
If the agency adds meters such as 130 feet/40 meters, now you can open yourself up to a potential issue. If you are using gauges that read in imperial and only go to a maximum depth of 130 feet in class there is no problem, but if you go to 132 feet one can argue that the standard allows for that since 40 meters equals 132 feet. The counter-argument is that the 40 meters standard was for a class conducted using metric gauges and if the class was working in imperial then that is a violation. While an instructor might believe he or she is utilizing "common sense" to interpret that standard it is best to qualify that with your agency's headquarters.
A standard for intro to cave may read, "with the gases for which the student has been trained." Now, one would think if the student was trimix certified you could use air, nitrox or trimix in class. For example, you could use 30/30 to 100 feet and remain within standards. But, elsewhere in the cave standards for an agency you may read, "no trimix training is to be conducted in an overhead environment without written authorization." Would teaching an intro to cave course on helium violate this standard? Are you conducting trimix training? Or, are you conducting cave training using trimix? Or, both? Again, it is best to contact the agency's headquarters and get verbal confirmation of the standard then ask for it in writing.
If you are an instructor with two agencies it is best to contact both organizations if you have a question about conducting combined training such as a cave level with a gas level or another course.
My TDI cave instructor taught me to stage at the apprentice level then we did the SDI solo class in caves in which I carried an AL80 as a buddy bottle rather than as a stage. Despite having extra gas on me and on my instructor as safety bottles, this concerned Sean Harrison because it was an SDI course. To be honest it was probably the best class I ever had in overhead, but my instructor got in trouble. He meant well and taught an excellent class, but violated standards. The worst part was I got him in trouble by speaking to Sean at a trade show to tell him what an excellent instructor I had for those classes.
Another standards problem encountered is when training standards differ from what the diver is certified to do upon completion of the class. For example, a C-card may read, "an END of 130 feet," like Victor pointed out earlier, but the course standard may read, "a maximum depth of 130 feet." When in doubt the instructor should follow the training standard unless being given written permission from headquarters. Verbal confirmation is nice, but can be denied later if an accident happens. It is best to always get written confirmation. Trust, but verify.
In addition, instructors might violate standards if they fail to maintain physical fitness. What constitutes as fitness should also be verified. Professional conduct standards such as the use of foul-language, smoking in front of students, representing oneself or his/her organization on social media, or in public and such should also be verified with an agency. An instructor may question the safety or adequacy of the dive site or environmental conditions. In most agencies, training advice is just a phone call away. Only as instructors question standards do organizations become aware of the need to close loopholes and clarify safety and professional standards.
.
