Newly certified diver OOA at Gilboa
- Thread starter fisherdvm
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
If you teach PADI at least it doesn't matter what one person or two think of it, as you will be breaking standards if the student diver it thought the CESA without a reg.
From the instructor manual about teaching CESA, in bold "Instruct students to: Retain the regulator in their mouths"
OP
fisherdvm
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,577
- Reaction score
- 52
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
You're right, Tavarish, as you have to stay by standards to meet PADI requirements. But one can go beyond standards as long as it doesn't injure or harm the students. Like if one were teaching SSI or NAUI standards, you can teach beyond it as long as it falls in "standard of the community" - as I would call it. I dont' see the breaking standard if you teach them to do the CESA with regulator, but also teach them how to do it without one (if the reg malfunctioned and leaked or kicked out of the mouth).
So one could teach free flow regulator breathing, and buddy air share - as an optional exercises in either the OW or AOW classes. As long as students don't get hurt, you are still meeting standards.
So one could teach free flow regulator breathing, and buddy air share - as an optional exercises in either the OW or AOW classes. As long as students don't get hurt, you are still meeting standards.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Welcome back
It's a fairly HUGE Forum. One's man's "ass" is another man's "mentor". It takes all kinds to make up our community, and it's always a good idea to take criticisms in stride. Realize that most people want to help. We try to make this a FRIENDLY board without turning all of our posters into geldings!
You can always turn PMs off in Edit Options. You can also stop E-Mail notifications as well as edit other options. This is probably not the BEST way to handle it, but it is a possibility.
If you're certifying through PADI, there is no creative thinking on the CESA skill. For that skill to meet standards, the reg must be in the mouth, or you won't be covered by insurance and you'll be swinging in the breeze, at court.
There again, the free flow exercise must be accomplished during the OW course. If you want to go over that again during the AOW course, you're welcome to do so.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
This is an oversimplification of NAUI standards. While you may ADD your own standards, you are not allowed to violate NAUI standards. There is a strict protocol for accomplishing the CESA, even down to how thick the down line must be.
Ken Kurtis
Contributor
At the risk of coming acorss as one of the a$$es . . .
I hope you understand there's a difference between "wrong with" and "standards violation". I could still be teaching you a skill that everyone on this list would agree is useful, yet it could still be a standards violation.
As diving professionals (Instructors, DMs, AIs), we are held to those standards if push comes to shove.
Wrong, mainly because of the way you wrote it. With regard to PADI, absolutely wrong. With NAUI (I can't speak for SSI), likely right. Here's why.
NAUI sets minimum standards. If I, as the instructor-of-record, want my students to exceed those standards, I am free to do so, as long as the minimum standards are still met.
For instance, NAUI requires 5 scuba dives or 1 skin dive & 4 scuba dives for certificiation. As a NAUI instrictor, can I make my students do 1 skin dive & 8 scuba dives for certificiation? Yes, because they will have met the minimum standard.
PADI's a different ballgame. PADI sets what are essentially ceiling standards for a course. As a PADI instructor, you are not allowed to require more or less than the standards set by PADI. Note that the key word is "require".
Suppose, as a PADI instructor, I decide my students should make 8 scuba dives since more supervised diving should make you a better certified diver. (I would assume most of us would agree with that.) Is that a standards violation? Yes it is. Can I get away with it? Probably, as long as none of your students complain or they don't indicate on their post-class survey form that PADI sends that you MADE them do 8 scuba dives.
Basically, PADI doesn't want you adding (or subtracting) anything from their already-vetted course contents. In seminars in the past, they've used the term "legally-defensible". Ignoring whether that's a great selling point or not, their reasoning is as long as you're using the system we've already vetted to be effective and safe, if push comes to shove, we're on solid legal ground. If you've started throwing in extra things, now you're not teaching the "PADI" course and the legal footing may be shakier.
(For a better explanation of this than I can ever give you, call Linda van Velsen in PADI Q&A at 800/729-PADI.)
I think you're pulling this out of thin air. While, in the absence of written standards, there might be derived "community standards" (but usually even that's debatable), they're going to be tough to apply here in a teaching situation since NAUI, PADI, SSI, YMCA, etc. all have fairly detailed instructor manuals on how you should teach.
Depends on your certifying agency and the leeway to teach that they give you.
Maybe. With PADI, the option would have to be that if the student says "I don't want to" but has performed all the other required skills, they would still qualify for the card. But this also can really compromise your teaching credibility with your students. Do you really want to be issuing cards to students who are telling you "NO"????
There are a host of issues that go beyond "standards" that come in to play here.
Defeinitely no. That just means you're less likely to get caught. Just because no one got hurt, it doesn't mean it was necessarily a good plan.
In just about every deposition that I've either read or sat in on that's involved an instructor and a teaching situation (and many that haven't), the issue of standards always comes up. The plaintiff's attorney is looking for every little deviation they can come up with because as these mount up, it becomes easier and easier for them to paint you as careless. I'm not advocating that you "teach scared" but I am advocating that you "teach smart". And blithely ingoring standards or thinking "community standards" (if they even exist) will get you off the hook simply isn't smart.
One of the pleasureas I've had in my teaching career is that I've certified a number of the laywers who work for the NAUI defense firm here in L.A. and even the guy (as a DM) who's head of the PADI defense team here. While I was teaching those classes, I'd point out to them where the standards were problematic, where I'd be bending them a bit, where I may have crossed over the line, etc.
I've long said that, as an instructor, you can't teach a full basic class without at some point violating standards. Most of the times, the violation will be inadvertent or technical. Sometimes it may be deliberate but for reasons you feel are valid. The point, as I said above, is to "teach smart."
It's already a risky sport. Let'e not make it any riskier than it needs to be.
(Off the soapbox . . . for now.)
I hope you understand there's a difference between "wrong with" and "standards violation". I could still be teaching you a skill that everyone on this list would agree is useful, yet it could still be a standards violation.
As diving professionals (Instructors, DMs, AIs), we are held to those standards if push comes to shove.
Wrong, mainly because of the way you wrote it. With regard to PADI, absolutely wrong. With NAUI (I can't speak for SSI), likely right. Here's why.
NAUI sets minimum standards. If I, as the instructor-of-record, want my students to exceed those standards, I am free to do so, as long as the minimum standards are still met.
For instance, NAUI requires 5 scuba dives or 1 skin dive & 4 scuba dives for certificiation. As a NAUI instrictor, can I make my students do 1 skin dive & 8 scuba dives for certificiation? Yes, because they will have met the minimum standard.
PADI's a different ballgame. PADI sets what are essentially ceiling standards for a course. As a PADI instructor, you are not allowed to require more or less than the standards set by PADI. Note that the key word is "require".
Suppose, as a PADI instructor, I decide my students should make 8 scuba dives since more supervised diving should make you a better certified diver. (I would assume most of us would agree with that.) Is that a standards violation? Yes it is. Can I get away with it? Probably, as long as none of your students complain or they don't indicate on their post-class survey form that PADI sends that you MADE them do 8 scuba dives.
Basically, PADI doesn't want you adding (or subtracting) anything from their already-vetted course contents. In seminars in the past, they've used the term "legally-defensible". Ignoring whether that's a great selling point or not, their reasoning is as long as you're using the system we've already vetted to be effective and safe, if push comes to shove, we're on solid legal ground. If you've started throwing in extra things, now you're not teaching the "PADI" course and the legal footing may be shakier.
(For a better explanation of this than I can ever give you, call Linda van Velsen in PADI Q&A at 800/729-PADI.)
I think you're pulling this out of thin air. While, in the absence of written standards, there might be derived "community standards" (but usually even that's debatable), they're going to be tough to apply here in a teaching situation since NAUI, PADI, SSI, YMCA, etc. all have fairly detailed instructor manuals on how you should teach.
Depends on your certifying agency and the leeway to teach that they give you.
Maybe. With PADI, the option would have to be that if the student says "I don't want to" but has performed all the other required skills, they would still qualify for the card. But this also can really compromise your teaching credibility with your students. Do you really want to be issuing cards to students who are telling you "NO"????
There are a host of issues that go beyond "standards" that come in to play here.
Defeinitely no. That just means you're less likely to get caught. Just because no one got hurt, it doesn't mean it was necessarily a good plan.
In just about every deposition that I've either read or sat in on that's involved an instructor and a teaching situation (and many that haven't), the issue of standards always comes up. The plaintiff's attorney is looking for every little deviation they can come up with because as these mount up, it becomes easier and easier for them to paint you as careless. I'm not advocating that you "teach scared" but I am advocating that you "teach smart". And blithely ingoring standards or thinking "community standards" (if they even exist) will get you off the hook simply isn't smart.
One of the pleasureas I've had in my teaching career is that I've certified a number of the laywers who work for the NAUI defense firm here in L.A. and even the guy (as a DM) who's head of the PADI defense team here. While I was teaching those classes, I'd point out to them where the standards were problematic, where I'd be bending them a bit, where I may have crossed over the line, etc.
I've long said that, as an instructor, you can't teach a full basic class without at some point violating standards. Most of the times, the violation will be inadvertent or technical. Sometimes it may be deliberate but for reasons you feel are valid. The point, as I said above, is to "teach smart."
It's already a risky sport. Let'e not make it any riskier than it needs to be.
(Off the soapbox . . . for now.)
OP
fisherdvm
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,577
- Reaction score
- 52
- # of dives
- 200 - 499
Thanks, Ken, much more complicated than I could comprehend.
I guess now if you were to stand out side of the PADI's legal defense team, who really only represent the PADI corporation's interest.
Now you are just simply looking at the liability insurance agency which insure the diving professional. Does the contract require that you only teach, and only follow the guideline and the criteria set up by your certifying agency?? Or can you deviate outside of that guideline, and still be protected - as long as you are teaching within the "community standard"?
For example, if a PADI instructor (who might also be NAUI instructor), decided that he wanted to make a student do a ditch and don exercise or some other excercised outside of the PADI's manual, but is an accepted skill in other agencies - and something goes bad. Is he still protected? Assuming that the student had signed up to do a PADI course??
Or in the same way, as one instructor here has made a point... How he feels students should be taught their skills in midwater. And lets say that the student did a regulator retrieval exercise in mid water floated up to the surface, and had a arterial gas emboli - that to me would be violating PADI standard, as it is usually done on the bottom on a platform - would he still be covered?
Now if that same instructor was teaching a GUE fundamental class, and a student did the same skill, and had an arterial gas emboli - then he will be covered, as it might be a part of the skill of the GUE-fundamental class (I am not sure, just hypothetical).
It is very complicated, as it sounds.
I guess now if you were to stand out side of the PADI's legal defense team, who really only represent the PADI corporation's interest.
Now you are just simply looking at the liability insurance agency which insure the diving professional. Does the contract require that you only teach, and only follow the guideline and the criteria set up by your certifying agency?? Or can you deviate outside of that guideline, and still be protected - as long as you are teaching within the "community standard"?
For example, if a PADI instructor (who might also be NAUI instructor), decided that he wanted to make a student do a ditch and don exercise or some other excercised outside of the PADI's manual, but is an accepted skill in other agencies - and something goes bad. Is he still protected? Assuming that the student had signed up to do a PADI course??
Or in the same way, as one instructor here has made a point... How he feels students should be taught their skills in midwater. And lets say that the student did a regulator retrieval exercise in mid water floated up to the surface, and had a arterial gas emboli - that to me would be violating PADI standard, as it is usually done on the bottom on a platform - would he still be covered?
Now if that same instructor was teaching a GUE fundamental class, and a student did the same skill, and had an arterial gas emboli - then he will be covered, as it might be a part of the skill of the GUE-fundamental class (I am not sure, just hypothetical).
It is very complicated, as it sounds.
Our SSI course taught CESA with reg in and air off. Reason given for reg in (and to keep trying to breath) was as pressure decreases on ascent, may get a breath or two. I think the air off deal was psycological as it was back on by the time we got to the surface.
Ben
Ben
Sideband
Guest
deleted
It was already stated much better by someone else.
It was already stated much better by someone else.
Similar threads
