NACD Instructor standards violation

[tbone1004]

that's impressive Hetland, to go from $72,500 in 2009, down to $48,000 for the next 3 years, then tanks to under $7,000 for $2013. Will be interesting to see what 2014's number actually was. I wonder when **** hit the fan? That's proof enough that the membership is voting with their dollars....

 

[loquat149]

HaHa, they're open when it suits them and closed when it doesn't. Kelly, I'm just saying don't expect them to act logically.

 

[victorzamora]

You are right,but lets not vilify Babyduck,because it took tremendous courage to bring this up on a forum. I don't want to vilify the instructor because it happened, and is over with. What I will vilify is we have people saying lets fix a broken system, and lets have a particular agency stand above the fray to be the shining example of professionalism,but fail to acknowledge that something like this is wrong, or vocalizing against this practice-that is being a leader in the industry.

I've been thinking about this a lot. You're right. Attacking BabyDuck over something we mostly agree was wrong is useless. However, the subsequent statements defending those actions and then PROMOTING those decisions showed, in my opinion, fairly poor judgement. Clearly her paradigm was formed by instructors that bend standards much more than the majority of us are comfortable with. This, to me, is extremely interesting. Thinking back now, many of the dangerous divers I've encountered share common education. Visual jumps being talked about so lightly, proper trim being dismissed as purely aesthetics, pushing or breaking standard gas reserve rules, etc. If your instructor implies bad habits (or worse, teaches them) their students can't even identify them as such

Edited to clarify: this wasn't meant as a dig at anybody in particular.....instructor or student. It's certainly not meant as a dig at BabyDuck.

 

[BabyDuck]

thanks, victor. i'm not feeling attacked. (that was not a request to turn it up. ) thank you to those expressing opinions that what we did was wrong in polite ways. i was not uncomfortable with these dive plans or dives at any point and am satisfied with my instructor and instruction.

and i see y'all's point. i don't disagree with the basic point. i'm just expressing that if this is indeed a violation, that information needs to get out in public because it is done with reasonable frequency.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Look at the bright side. Whatever happened we know that no octopuses were "molested" during the NACD standards violation.

 

[kafkaland]

and i see y'all's point. i don't disagree with the basic point. i'm just expressing that if this is indeed a violation, that information needs to get out in public because it is done with reasonable frequency.

If this kind of violations, and substandard teaching, happen indeed on a regular basis, it seems to me that continued education for instructors is really what's needed, not more gotcha moments. I believe Boulderjohn already spoke to the need for periodic recalibration. I'm sure there are ways to reach instructors in a collegial way to improve their teaching and let them know what the current interpretation of standards is. Most instructors, I would surmise, want to be better at what they do, and would be grateful to learn a few new tricks for teaching difficult skills once in a while. Maybe requiring all active instructors to attend a continuing education workshop every other year, or co-teach a course with a training committee member would do the trick. And only if someone is persistently sub-par or does patently dangerous stuff, go the disciplinary route. And don't use charges of standards violations to settle political scores - that just breeds resentment of legitimate efforts to promote adherence to the standards. I'm sure there are other mechanisms for engaging in cave politics, like charges of behavior unbecoming a member of the organization, violation of confidentiality, and so on.

 

[GDI]

Probably right,but I am still waiting for a reply from GDI, does the NACD condone intro divers being taken into Lower OG and Hendleys? I understand it is not an NACD course so no standards are not violated (maybe),but ethically is this condoned???? I also ask this question of Doppler aka Steve Lewis, since it was reported here that he is on the training committee. Personally I think this is too serious of an issue to ignore, especially when a declaration in another thread was made to address the problems with cave diving and training in a thread entitled "etiquette".

This is a dilemma that the agencies have to discuss. I will take it to the NACD Training Committee and get back to you all,

And yes I am still focused on bettering the NACD

 

[cerich]

This is a dilemma that the agencies have to discuss. I will take it to the NACD Training Committee and get back to you

If it helps any over the weekend at the CDS conference I did not speak to a single instructor from any agency that thought it was a good idea..... Not saying there weren't any

 

[karstdvr]

This is a dilemma that the agencies have to discuss. I will take it to the NACD Training Committee and get back to you all,

And yes I am still focused on bettering the NACD

Not to be argumentative about this,but why is this an agencies (plural) problem??? What is the NACD's stance, this should be mutually exclusive to what any other agency promotes. This may have nothing to do with standards,but everything to do with ethics, so either the NACD does or doesn't condone taking an intro trained diver to lower OG or Hendley's for deep training. The NACD is a cave diving agency that in its mission supports training,conservation etc, but the NACD really hold safety in the fore front, and this is evidenced by the NACD safety days that are held at Ginnie. Even if you look at the NACD's regional safety officer program in your job description it says,"Uphold the safety standards present in the NACD standards by diving within the limits of your training and/or experience, and encourage others to do the same". Does the NACD still support these safety initiatives, or has the NACD's mission changed,but the web site hasn't been updated in awhile. Why won't I let this go, and let this thread just fade away? We had a fatality in P3 with a cavern diver being taken to Hendley's for deep training, accident analysis is all about learning from our mistakes and putting corrective actions into place. At the time of the accident the cave agencies commented about how this was a poor idea, and it shouldn't be done. I don't want to see this happen again.



I am looking for the initiative the NACD of old has shown to act decisively, and do something for the safety of the sport. Remember when a particular shop was taking open water divers on trips to Eagles Nest. The NACD responded to this with letters and education to stop the practice before an accident happened. This is the NACD that I have made out a yearly dues check for the last 20 years to, and I know it is still there.

 

[ucfdiver]

This may have nothing to do with standards,but everything to do with ethics, so either the NACD does or doesn't condone taking an intro trained diver to lower OG or Hendley's for deep training.

It's sad that, a year ago, I would have thought this was a rhetorical question. Now I'm actually curious.