NACD Instructor standards violation

[victorzamora]

As I stated in a solo thread recently, safe is not up to peers to decide, safety during training is the risk tolerance of the:
1. Instructor
2. Training Agency
3. Insurance company

If the instructor thinks it's too risky, with knowledge of the student, their capabilities, site, and potential for bad things to happen with the site, they will obviously choose to change something in the equation, namely, the student or the site.

As Jim has pointed out, the agency certainly has the right to declare certain activities as too risky. TDI will issue a waiver to certain instructors or teams to perform OW dives at EN for training. That may be too risky for NACD or NSS-CDS to condone, but really? Calling an instructor out who has the waiver and understands the risk?

The insurance company certainly has a say. We offer solo diving because our insurance company has said it's OK within certain limits. But oh, holy cow, lots of folks dive solo without a card. It's within their personal tolerance for risk.

When my wife took her full cave course back in the stone age, her instructor discussed solo cave diving. He did not condone or condemn solo cave diving, he outlined the risks and told each student that acceptance of those risks was up to them. She doesn't solo cave dive, but she is not morally opposed to it either.

So really, a bunch of yahoos getting on here and berating someone for having more tolerance for risk is a lot like berating someone for driving faster than they would. It's BS, and has no place. If you want to change the rules, by all means, do so by doing what NSS-CDS did, spell them out and follow them. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of useless noise.

Yeah, maybe....but since when has "useless" stopped us from whining and yelling and kicking and screaming??

 

[Jack Hammer]

Let me be clear, Eagles Nest is a cave. No one should be inside it, including on the mound, without full cave training and experience. If a fully cave trained and experienced diver wants to take an/dp or trimix class at the Nest, it's up to them to assess the risks.

*experience means they have made a reasonable number of actual cave dives outside of a class environment.
**a reasonable number varies from person to person and their experience level.
***it's up to their instructor to determine if they have the experience.
****need more clarification?

 

[tbone1004]

and by what authority are you able to say that? You have no more authority to say they shouldn't be in there than I do saying they should under specific circumstances. It is just our opinion. Unless you are on the board, or training committee for a relevant agency, you have no grounds to say that.

 

[PfcAJ]

Tbone, have u been to eagles nest?

 

[darushin]

This statement was their validation, from TDI training direct:

TDI allows Open Water courses (such as Advanced Nitrox/Deco Procedures, trimix, etc.) in an overhead as long as the site is within the student’s current level of overhead certification.

Because standards and course flow varies greatly between agencies, TDI does not open quality assurance investigations regarding TDI standards violations against members who are conducting courses under another agency.

That statement makes doing any training in EN with anything other then full cave divers a standards violations for TDI. EN specifically states only full cave divers are allowed there. I am assuming the land owner/ management authority still sets that requirement.

Daru

Also this would make doing trimix in lower orange grove with a intro student a violation because of the restriction.

 

[tbone1004]

once in the area that is being discussed here. Again, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as is everyone else who is not a full cave instructor, or sits on the board/training committee of a relevant agency. It is up to them to decide whether or not this is OK. I understand why in this circumstance, TDI would issue a waiver, that is all I'm saying. In this instance the instructor had a perfectly good reason to request a waiver, he went through the right channels, who are we to bash the instructor when TDI issued the waiver? If TDI deemed it OK, then it obviously was within what they deemed safe training practices. If you disagree, take it up with them

Darushin, standards violation without a waiver. That is the important thing to note with this whole thing. TDI is not saying that doing this training is OK for every instructor, but they are showing that they have half a brain and are thinking when an instructor brings up a specific circumstance. Instead of writing a long list of exceptions, you request a waiver on an incident basis. Simple as that

 

[darushin]

and by what authority are you able to say that? You have no more authority to say they shouldn't be in there than I do saying they should under specific circumstances. It is just our opinion. Unless you are on the board, or training committee for a relevant agency, you have no grounds to say that.

The management authority says no one but full cave. So while your agency might not care, the local cops can charge you with trespassing and probably seize your gear

Daru

 

[LiteHedded]

once in the area that is being discussed here. Again, my opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as is everyone else who is not a full cave instructor, or sits on the board/training committee of a relevant agency. It is up to them to decide whether or not this is OK. I understand why in this circumstance, TDI would issue a waiver, that is all I'm saying. In this instance the instructor had a perfectly good reason to request a waiver, he went through the right channels, who are we to bash the instructor when TDI issued the waiver? If TDI deemed it OK, then it obviously was within what they deemed safe training practices. If you disagree, take it up with them

Darushin, standards violation without a waiver. That is the important thing to note with this whole thing. TDI is not saying that doing this training is OK for every instructor, but they are showing that they have half a brain and are thinking when an instructor brings up a specific circumstance. Instead of writing a long list of exceptions, you request a waiver on an incident basis. Simple as that

everything you're saying is irrelevant. the thread is about an instructor teaching an INTRO diver to dive trimix in lower orange grove. WELL above that diver's pay grade

 

[Bennno]

Again,my opinion on the matter is irrelevant, as is everyone else who isnot a full cave instructor, or sits on the board/training committeeof a relevant agency.

Yet, you write a lot of very long posts on the subject.

Franklyif I were the NACD I would grant amnesty to all prior acts andtighten up the language in my standards to prevent this fromhappening again. Once that's done, email all instructors and requirea reply email confirming that they understand the new terms and letthat be the line in the sand that it will not happenagain.

Sounds like a good plan to me. Also, I think it would be a good idea for the "old" BoD crew, that was already around when the cocain incident happened, to leave and make room for new people. Since the NACD has never really recovered from that incident and so many members have left, I think it is time for a fresh start.

Bent

 

[tbone1004]

everything you're saying is irrelevant. the thread is about an instructor teaching an INTRO diver to dive trimix in lower orange grove. WELL above that diver's pay grade

and the incidence of AN/DP in Eagles Nest was brought up as another instance of similar circumstances so it is relevant to this discussion. OP says instructor doing AN/DP in LOG, another post brings up another instructor doing similar training in Eagles Nest, very relevant discussion point. In one incident the instructor had a waiver from the training agency he was teaching under at the time, in the other incident he did not. This brings up a very relevant discussion of how a training agency deals with standards violations when another has granted a waiver.

Darushin, again, cops decisions are not relevant to the report of standards violations to an agency, only to whether or not they were allowed in there in the first place. Whether they were trespassing or not is not in question for a standards violation, ethics violation yes, but not training standards.