NAUI Nitrox - Bummed

[ahoyChips]

Well, first off, I'm not a troll, but I understand that where that potential point could come from.

Secondly, thank you SideBand for addressing most of my points.....politely at least.

First of all, I was actually referring to the student paperwork. I saw quite a few of my classmates paperwork's handed in on the last day (before the actual OW dives), including medical forms and so on. So, it could have been that lack of awareness of the LDS/Instructor of the son's age.

Don't say that most LDSs are stricter than this. I suspect this is more common than you realize. As long the paperwork is there before the "real" OW dives are done, they don't care when you hand in the paperwork.

But I digress, since ChrisEdwards says that this was the same LDS that trained them for their earlier OW course, so of course the LDS should have caught the age discrepancy. Again, judging from my own experience, when you sign up for the courses, it's usually the cashier who runs up the charges for you. You sign up the paperwork at the section and then take it over to the cashier to pay for it. If this is a large shop, then, it would be understandable that they didn't pull out the folders, nor are they likely to. They just give you the forms to fill out, to register, and to pay for it.

However, as you made the point of the student folders, you're right, the instructor should have gotten that. Especially this was the same shop that they had their earlier course in. If not, then all bets are off. However, as some of you said, the instructor should have assumed in the negative and double checked, ok, fine.

Sideband, I am curious about the fifth quote from me that you state is mostly wrong. Why?

As for my sixth quote, you're right, I did say that I "assumed" a lot. I stated that badly I suppose. I just meant that for NAUI to admit to anything in any form of communication would only open them to further liabilities. So, ChrisEdwards's hope of them writing a "nice" letter back about it congratulating his son is extremely unlikely given my limited knowledge of law. That's what I meant bottom line. Not an assumption, but since as I stated, I'm not a practitioner of law, I can't speak for what should happen. But come on, use a little common sense here! They would be under a whole lot of trouble for having allowed a minor who is not of legal age requirement taking a course that he shouldn't have been allowed to take in the first place at all. So, don’t expect anything more than a form letter is all I’m saying.

Anyway, I do concede the point that this whole thing should have been caught earlier if this was the SAME LDS shop that trained them for their OW courses. Maybe I was being too harsh towards the OP. And I did say that age requirement is not stated on the NAUI’s site.

And, I’m kind of suspicious of the fact that the OP stated that he is only planning to do recreational dives, then as another poster stated here, why did he take the enriched course? Methinks that the whole picture isn’t what is should be. And it’s easier than you think to pull over the LDS/instructor if you want to take the course and do the paperwork last minute.

Anyway, if I keep going, this post is only going to get ridiculously long, and I end up repeating myself. And, I do want to say that I do agree that the instructor and the LDS should have been more diligent, but there’s only so much that you can do, oui? But, since the liabilities are on them, it is their own fault that they left themselves wide open for such claim to even arise in the first place. But how that might have arisen is what making me suspicious.

I hate the fact that people are so trigger happy to make a lawsuit, especially when the situation is of their own making. I’m not talking about serious claims such as medical negligence or whatnot. And I am not an advocate of torts reforms that I’m sure so many of you are advocates of without even understanding what it really means. It’s just a fancy phase that Republicans love to throw around and you guys just take it and blame the average Joe for their situation when it’s often not of their own making. But that’s a whole another ball of wax and so on. Sorry ‘bout getting sidetracked on that particular point.

And no, for the record, I’m not afflicted with any LDS shops, nor am I an instructor. I’m just a person who had one OW course, and couple of law courses. That’s it.

I had second thoughts about this posting. I was going to change the whole thing, but then I decided to leave it alone. However, I would like to apologize for any wrong assumptions here, and for my hostile tone here to the OP. That is uncalled for. I totally completely acknowledge that. I'm not trying to stir up the pot for the heck of it. So, for whatever my posting is worth, which I suspect is nothing, it's just my opinion and my reading of it, but I could have written it more tactfully. So, apologies in advance. Truly.

 

[ronbeau]

Try http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/faq/faq.asp?faqid=132

Overlooked is an interesting choice of a word to describe this.

I agree "overlooked" was probably somewhat charitable relative to not following the junior AOW S & Ps.

Thank you for the DAN reference I have saved it in a Word document since I have a 13year old daughter that will be doing her AOW checkouts a week from today. I already told her the junior AOW does not allow her to go any deeper than 60 fsw (i. e. no deeper than her current junior OW allows).

NAUI is usually pretty good about not caving in on safety for commercial reasons. They also encourage their instructors to teach above the minimum requirements set by NAUI.

The instructors at my LDS teach under the NAUI system and require a minimum of 90% to pass any SCUBA exams including the Master Scuba Diver exam. THey also still require a 250 yard swim for the OW swim test.

My wife who is not yet certified summarized it best "I don't have a very warm feeling is you only know 75% of what you need to keep you alive."

 

[ronbeau]

Well, first off, I'm not a troll, but I understand that where that potential point could come from.

Secondly, thank you SideBand for addressing most of my points.....politely at least.

First of all, I was actually referring to the student paperwork. I saw quite a few of my classmates paperwork's handed in on the last day (before the actual OW dives), including medical forms and so on. So, it could have been that lack of awareness of the LDS/Instructor of the son's age.

Don't say that most LDSs are stricter than this. I suspect this is more common than you realize. As long the paperwork is there before the "real" OW dives are done, they don't care when you hand in the paperwork.

But I digress, since ChrisEdwards says that this was the same LDS that trained them for their earlier OW course, so of course the LDS should have caught the age discrepancy. Again, judging from my own experience, when you sign up for the courses, it's usually the cashier who runs up the charges for you. You sign up the paperwork at the section and then take it over to the cashier to pay for it. If this is a large shop, then, it would be understandable that they didn't pull out the folders, nor are they likely to. They just give you the forms to fill out, to register, and to pay for it.

However, as you made the point of the student folders, you're right, the instructor should have gotten that. Especially this was the same shop that they had their earlier course in. If not, then all bets are off. However, as some of you said, the instructor should have assumed in the negative and double checked, OK, fine.

Sideband, I am curious about the fifth quote from me that you state is mostly wrong. Why?

As for my sixth quote, you're right, I did say that I "assumed" a lot. I stated that badly I suppose. I just meant that for NAUI to admit to anything in any form of communication would only open them to further liabilities. So, ChrisEdwards's hope of them writing a "nice" letter back about it congratulating his son is extremely unlikely given my limited knowledge of law. That's what I meant bottom line. Not an assumption, but since as I stated, I'm not a practitioner of law, I can't speak for what should happen. But come on, use a little common sense here! They would be under a whole lot of trouble for having allowed a minor who is not of legal age requirement taking a course that he shouldn't have been allowed to take in the first place at all. So, don’t expect anything more than a form letter is all I’m saying.

Anyway, I do concede the point that this whole thing should have been caught earlier if this was the SAME LDS shop that trained them for their OW courses. Maybe I was being too harsh towards the OP. And I did say that age requirement is not stated on the NAUI’s site.

And, I’m kind of suspicious of the fact that the OP stated that he is only planning to do recreational dives, then as another poster stated here, why did he take the enriched course? Methinks that the whole picture isn’t what is should be. And it’s easier than you think to pull over the LDS/instructor if you want to take the course and do the paperwork last minute.

Anyway, if I keep going, this post is only going to get ridiculously long, and I end up repeating myself. And, I do want to say that I do agree that the instructor and the LDS should have been more diligent, but there’s only so much that you can do, oui? But, since the liabilities are on them, it is their own fault that they left themselves wide open for such claim to even arise in the first place. But how that might have arisen is what making me suspicious.

I hate the fact that people are so trigger happy to make a lawsuit, especially when the situation is of their own making. I’m not talking about serious claims such as medical negligence or whatnot. And I am not an advocate of torts reforms that I’m sure so many of you are advocates of without even understanding what it really means. It’s just a fancy phase that Republicans love to throw around and you guys just take it and blame the average Joe for their situation when it’s often not of their own making. But that’s a whole another ball of wax and so on. Sorry ‘bout getting sidetracked on that particular point.

And no, for the record, I’m not afflicted with any LDS shops, nor am I an instructor. I’m just a person who had one OW course, and couple of law courses. That’s it.

NITROX is clearly within the NAUI recreational program. Several years ago NITROX was mainly for technical diving but that time has long passed.

I have no interest is technical diving and I took the Nitrox course. I have only used in on two dives outside of the 2 required checkout dives. These dives were to 105 feet (EAN 32) and the second dive (same day) was to 60 fsw).

I don't understand your you reasoning in that statement. The father might be over 50 and feels more comfortable with NITROX in certain situations. For example, I have a 13 year old daughter and I am 52 years old.

I happen to agree with you regarding frivolous lawsuits. I have no patience for people who think is is easier to sue someone than work for a living. ChrisEdwards however stated that he had no interest is suing NAUI, the instructor or the LDS.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Well, first off, I'm not a troll, but I understand that where that potential point could come from.

Secondly, thank you SideBand for addressing most of my points.....politely at least.

First of all, I was actually referring to the student paperwork. I saw quite a few of my classmates paperwork's handed in on the last day (before the actual OW dives), including medical forms and so on. So, it could have been that lack of awareness of the LDS/Instructor of the son's age.

That is not a lack or awareness, that is laziness, disorganization, and perhaps a little greed on the part of the LDS. (Bold type is mine Jimlap.) I hate quoting in these things!

Don't say that most LDSs are stricter than this.

We are!

I suspect this is more common than you realize. As long the paperwork is there before the "real" OW dives are done, they don't care when you hand in the paperwork.

Again this may be your experince and if it is I would not train with any shop that operates this way or dive with anyone who takes this sport so lightly.

But I digress, since ChrisEdwards says that this was the same LDS that trained them for their earlier OW course, so of course the LDS should have caught the age discrepancy. Again, judging from my own experience, when you sign up for the courses, it's usually the cashier who runs up the charges for you. You sign up the paperwork at the section and then take it over to the cashier to pay for it. If this is a large shop, then, it would be understandable that they didn't pull out the folders, nor are they likely to. They just give you the forms to fill out, to register, and to pay for it.

It is not understandable enless it's a card mill shop. Again it's does not excuse the inattention to standards

However, as you made the point of the student folders, you're right, the instructor should have gotten that. Especially this was the same shop that they had their earlier course in. If not, then all bets are off. However, as some of you said, the instructor should have assumed in the negative and double checked, ok, fine.

Sideband, I am curious about the fifth quote from me that you state is mostly wrong. Why?

As for my sixth quote, you're right, I did say that I "assumed" a lot. I stated that badly I suppose. I just meant that for NAUI to admit to anything in any form of communication would only open them to further liabilities. So, ChrisEdwards's hope of them writing a "nice" letter back about it congratulating his son is extremely unlikely given my limited knowledge of law. That's what I meant bottom line. Not an assumption, but since as I stated, I'm not a practitioner of law, I can't speak for what should happen. But come on, use a little common sense here! They would be under a whole lot of trouble for having allowed a minor who is not of legal age requirement taking a course that he shouldn't have been allowed to take in the first place at all. So, don’t expect anything more than a form letter is all I’m saying.

The agency is not in trouble the shop is. The agency would be if they were aware and did not take some type of action to make the shop aware that this is not acceptable

Anyway, I do concede the point that this whole thing should have been caught earlier if this was the SAME LDS shop that trained them for their OW courses. Maybe I was being too harsh towards the OP. And I did say that age requirement is not stated on the NAUI’s site.

And, I’m kind of suspicious of the fact that the OP stated that he is only planning to do recreational dives, then as another poster stated here, why did he take the enriched course? Methinks that the whole picture isn’t what is should be. And it’s easier than you think to pull over the LDS/instructor if you want to take the course and do the paperwork last minute.

Again not at a reputable shop. And unless you are going into tech(overhead environments, wreck penetrations etc) all dives are recreational.

Anyway, if I keep going, this post is only going to get ridiculously long, and I end up repeating myself. And, I do want to say that I do agree that the instructor and the LDS should have been more diligent, but there’s only so much that you can do, oui?

That is a cop out to relieve one's self of responsibility. It holds no water.

But, since the liabilities are on them, it is their own fault that they left themselves wide open for such claim to even arise in the first place. But how that might have arisen is what making me suspicious.

I hate the fact that people are so trigger happy to make a lawsuit, especially when the situation is of their own making. I’m not talking about serious claims such as medical negligence or whatnot. And I am not an advocate of torts reforms that I’m sure so many of you are advocates of without even understanding what it really means. It’s just a fancy phase that Republicans love to throw around and you guys just take it and blame the average Joe for their situation when it’s often not of their own making. But that’s a whole another ball of wax and so on. Sorry ‘bout getting sidetracked on that particular point.

And no, for the record, I’m not afflicted with any LDS shops, nor am I an instructor. I’m just a person who had one OW course, and couple of law courses. That’s it.

 

[Walter]

I think what I would like from NAUI would be a letter, first complimenting my Son on passing the course, but explaining their reasons for not issueing the card.

That would be nice, but remember, you are not NAUI's customer, you are the instructor's customer. At no time have you been dealing with NAUI. Why would NAUI start dealing directly with you? It wasn't NAUI's screwup.

I believe the reason for not issuing him a card may have something to do with him being a minor and not being old enough to have the responsibility to sign off on Nitrox fills.

He'll still be a minor at 15.

I would contact NAUI to see if they can send you something in writing indicating that your son will receive his NITROX diver card when he turns 15 without having to redo the exam or the dives.

That's not going to happen, nor should it. No agency will knowingly issue a card over a year after the class has finished. A better solution is for the instructor to offer an refresher, including exam and dives at no cost when the young man reaches his 15th birthday.

Try http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/me....asp?faqid=132

Excellent points, but it's an argument to either

1. not allow children to dive or
2. limit depth, duration and frequency of dives made by children or
3. get them on nitrox immediately to limit their exposure to N2 under pressure.

It is not an argument against nitrox.

But, NAUI is the agency that issued the instructor certification. NAUI has to do the quality control on their education and instructor....

No argument, NAUI has a responsibility to correct the problem they've found with this instructor violating standards. The screwup, however remains the fault of the instructor, not NAUI.

If NAUI does not follow-up with you and your son then they are certainly negligent in addition to the actions of their agent.

No. While they do have a responsibility to follow up with the offending instructor, they have no such responsibility to Chris and his son.

I guess once we start diving by ourselves and rent tanks, he'll have to go EAN21.

While air is nitrox, it is not EAN (Enriched Air Nitrox)21. It has not been enriched.

For a shop and/or instructor to deny a cert card to any student who passed the course requirements is just plain poor business at best (and a Standards violation in it's self).

That would be a standards violation with PADI, but NAUI's standards allow instructors to add requirements. With some agencies, NAUI and YMCA are two examples, instructors are encouraged to add requirements.

 

[Sideband]

Sideband, I am curious about the fifth quote from me that you state is mostly wrong. Why?

Originally Posted by ahoyChips
So, since I'm not familiar with NAUI's paperwork, I am making the assumption that the paperwork did state the age requirement, and that ChrisEdwards didn't read the papers he signed for his son. Since obviously his son couldn't sign for himself at all, even if he was the legal age requirement. Even if the papers didn't state the age requirement, he should have checked it himself before taking the course with his son!

The paperwork would have only consisted of a waiver/medical release. There would have been nothing stating an age requirement. The OP would have no reason to question a minimum age unless he knew ahead of time there was one and he wasn't given any reason to believe there was until the agency denied the card. The instructor and the shop on the other hand had access to both the student's age and the minimum age requirement.

Joe

 

[Mark_J]

No. While they do have a responsibility to follow up with the offending instructor, they have no such responsibility to Chris and his son.

Interesting statement, I wonder how accurate it is?

I would think a reasonable individual should expect the certifying agency to share some responsibility in how their Instructors represent them, at the very least in some sort of an advisory capacity..

 

[amascuba]

Interesting statement, I wonder how accurate it is?

I would think a reasonable individual should expect the certifying agency to share some responsibility in how their Instructors represent them, at the very least in some sort of an advisory capacity..

The instructor isn't a representative of NAUI. The instructor is simply a person who meets the requirements to teach scuba based on NAUI's standards. The instructor doesn't get paid by NAUI or affiliated with NAUI in any fashion other being a certified instructor. Whether the instructor follows the standards or not is up to the instructor, not NAUI. The most that NAUI will at most revoke the instructor's certification, but most likely not.

It would be like holding Ford accountable for a mechanical mishap that a mechanic, that is not affiliated with ford, did. Does that make sense?

 

[Stu S.]

Chris,

Can you let me know who the instructor and shop are? You can PM me and I'll keep it to myself if you like. There are some around here I have learned to avoid, and I could benefit from what you know.

Stu.

 

[DiverLaura]

Arguing about fault aside, here is something to think about....

Amongst other things, Oxygen at Higher partial pressures causes vascular constriction. This is great for some things, and part of the reason it works so well, BUT I vaguely remember something about how you don't want vasoconstriction on kids due to the fact that they still have open epiphyseal plate and the last thing you want to do is hurt the growth plates.

I have not been able to find out if the increased serum O2 is enough to offset the vasoconstriction, but will do my best to find out.

It's one thing if they are being emergently treated with hyperbaric oxgyen for some kind of lift threatening medical problem, it's another all together to do it on a routine, elective basis.