However, if the standard has been ommited or deleted by the agency(in an industry with no REAL hard rules, someone must think that it's not a necessity. IE: SSI allowing shops that supply students with dive computers during training to ommit teaching tables. Knowing how to use a table isn't a necessity unless you find yourself without a computer. But in reality diving isn't s necessity either, so it can be argued that no matter the circumstance the agency's standards will never be sucessfully chalenged in court. The same logic can be used with many skills that I still feel are necessity.... Ditch and dawn(submerged), recovery of another diver, surf entrys etc. They can all be argued as omittable with these words" you are certified to scuba dive to the level that you have been trained and under the conditions in which your training took place". And not one diver I know hasn't overstepped that boundry.
I'm not in a position to discuss SSI, as I have no knowledge of this organization. It would seem reasonable however in the scenario you described, that the agency would be fine to take a use a dive computer or don't dive attitude.
One situation I ran into a long time ago, was teaching altitude tables as a requirement for OW certification. I was contacted by one certification agency; which told me I was not teaching to standards; as I could not add anything to the program and I could not use anything as a criteria for certification other than what was indicated in the standards. When I checked with a second agency, they told me I was required to prepare the diver for local conditions and if altitude tables were required, I must include them and evaluate all students accordingly. Altitude tables were not mentioned in the standards of either organization at that time.
In the above scenario, I have little doubt that I would be held negligent in civil court if a decompression related accident occurred and I didn't teach/evaluate on the altitude tables. Currently, I have my students write a separate exam on tide tables, which they must pass with a mark of 100% to be successful in their bid for certification, as Nova Scotia experiences the largest tides in the world.
Keeping in-mind that liability is determined by an act or omission, I could see that Agency A may have been held liable, where Agency B would not. It all comes down to what's reasonable. It seems that it would be prudent for an agency to be clear that it is the instructor's responsibility to ensure that students be prepared to "dive safely in the local conditions in which your training took place." Any other comments such as: "for the purpose of certification, no instructor may test the student on anything outside of the standard," or "once a student completes the standard s/he
must be certified" opens up a whole new can of worms imo.
Because local conditions require a greater degree of in-water ability and level of confidence, I include a much tougher swimming & in-water evaluation, the skills you have mentioned, blackout drills and others into my 50 hour training program. Because of this I no longer teach with the agency that told me that I was teaching outside of the standards.
This runs into the differences in the Agency "training philosophy," which is being discussed on the training philosophy thread.
