PADI vs NAUI

[Rhenry]

First the government per say does not have the power to enforce laws, it is the court system. However having said that, the concept here is an NGO and there are tons of them that have the force of law but are not GO's. An example, abet not the best one, is the bar assn in each state. it not government run, it is self regulatory but has the effect of law. What the proposal is to set up and NGO similar to that type of structure.
The concept here is to raise the minimum standard to a bit higher level, be self enforcing, and he only agency that has certification powers. Yes there will be other agencies that will train and so forth, but this would be the only agency that can certify.
The idea here is not to say the Hogarthian configuration is the only method of assisting another diver who has run out of air, but rather, they must teach all methods. Look at it this way, you can have a manual or automatic, but your driver's license is the same. IN this same concept you would teach the long hose, the Hogarthian configuration etc. they all teach the same principle, recue air. Now I am talking about the basic OW course, AOW etc, would be set up in a similar fashion. The idea here is to ensure that all certifications have the same standards met.

 

[Blackwood]

It seems to me that if, for example, they specifically require that "students demonstrate proficiency switching from a regulator to a snorkel and back," a derived requirement is that students must equip themselves with snorkels. If they require that "students demonstrate the ability to locate alternate air source within the 'golden triangle'," the derived requirement is that they not use primary donate/necklace backup. The specificity in the skill requirement drives equipment considerations that run counter to the configuration exposed by at least 2 agencies.

For the Standards to allow flexibility in dive methodologies and equipment configurations, they will have to be sufficiently vague as to be pointless.

I value that flexibility.

 

[Thalassamania]

When writing a standard for auxiliary use we conducted the same sort of failure mode analysis that we do for deep submersible systems, the bottom line was that the best solution was donation of the primary with the donor then being responsible for recovering the auxiliary of his choice from the location of his choice. Thus the critical interface between the donor and the OOA diver is always exactly the same. Could you live with that as a "standard?"

 

[Brendon]

This thread will never die.

 

[endurodog]

Rhenery the gov is the only ones that can enforce laws. The courts are part of the 3 branches of government.

Lawyers are dictated by the courts that they can not practice law unless they pass the bar. If someone tries to practice law without that they are prosecuted and jailed, enforcement by the goverment.

So there is no org that has the rule of law that does not have gov involvement.

Which reverts back to my previous statement about standards set by a non binding board of members from the major agency.

So if we are to teach all forms of rescue breathing to open water courses we increase the length of courses and expenses to those getting involved. We should teach all methods then. BC inflator/regs, back ups, buddy breathing off of one, pony bottle, back up cylinder. How bout twins with double valves? A surface mount system, and I'm sure I'm missing some. Then I would ask has there been any accidents because this was not taught? Then we go through every system, BC's, computers, tables, drysuits, masks, ect. and teach everything.

Or should we have an open water course that covers the basics and gets people involved at a resonable expense of time and money? Are we sacrificing safety by doing this? Does the accident rate and statistics bare this out to be a problem. Or are we being elitest?

 

[fisheater]

BTW, in the U.S., state bar associations aren't NGOs. They're not voluntary. They are state agencies.

There are voluntary, NGO bar associations, but they don't set or enforce lawyer licensing or discipline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blackwood]

When writing a standard for auxiliary use we conducted the same sort of failure mode analysis that we do for deep submersible systems, the bottom line was that the best solution was donation of the primary with the donor then being responsible for recovering the auxiliary of his choice from the location of his choice. Thus the critical interface between the donor and the OOA diver is always exactly the same. Could you live with that as a "standard?"

Yes I could. But the question isn't about satisfying one of my off-the-cuff examples. It's about making proper choices industry-wide.

Could it be done? Absolutely, as your quoted suggestion attests.

But I imagine what would happen is a tremendous amount of lobbying directed at the Standards Owner, potentially resulting in economic considerations bestowed with force of law.

Oddly, I'm generally an optimist.

 

[Walter]

However, it is interesting to note that in the forty-odd years, now, that I have been involved in diving instruction and out of the, perhaps, hundreds of instructors that I've worked with directly, every one of those that I'd put on my "best of the best" list was a NAUI Instructor.

My best of the best would include one NAUI (now also SEI), one PADI, and the rest were all YMCA and SEI instructors. Some of the YMCA instructors were crossed over as PADI, but taught YMCA classes. My worst of the worst would include one NAUI and a bunch of PADI (one of whom I rescued) instructors.

I agree with most of your points. The only one I would take some issue with is separating training and equipment sales.

That's the most important of his points, the one that could make the others possible.

The idea is to get everyone on the same page, set up as set of standards and self regulate in so far as this agency has the means to grant and rescind instructor privileges (i.e. certifications. licenses whatever you choose to call it). They would also be the only agency that can certify a diver.

Why? What problem are you trying to fix? I'm guessing by NGO, you mean non govermental agency, please correct me if I guessed wrong. Why would anyone want to give a private business such power? Most certification agencies are private businesses. Why would you want to put them out of business? The entire idea looks unconstitutional to me.

how is this worse than what we have now?

Your idea takes away individual choice, eliminates agencies that are trying to raise the bar, and creates laws where we don't need them.

First the government per say does not have the power to enforce laws, it is the court system.

The courts are part of the government. Courts do not enforce laws, they judge if the law has been broken and order penalites when it is broken. Law enforcement agencies (police) enforce laws. Law enforcement agencies are also part of the government.

An example, abet not the best one, is the bar assn in each state. it not government run, it is self regulatory but has the effect of law.

I'm not a lawyer, but I was told by a friend who is that in the state of Florida the bar association is run by the Florida Supreme Court which is part of the government.

 

[Thalassamania]

Yes I could. But the question isn't about satisfying one of my off-the-cuff examples. It's about making proper choices industry-wide.

Could it be done? Absolutely, as your quoted suggestion attests.

But I imagine what would happen is a tremendous amount of lobbying directed at the Standards Owner, potentially resulting in economic considerations bestowed with force of law.

Oddly, I'm generally an optimist.

The problem is that the standards need to be written by those whose sole interest is in diving safety and/or diver training. That means input from, but no decisions by, LDS, manufacturer, for profit agencies, etc. But that's what happened do the Z-86 process, the pecuniary interests in the industry did not like the USA being the secretariat because it did not kowtow to their interests so they first, cynically sabotaged the process, and then funded their own captive, the RSTC, as a substitute ... just look at what that did to "minimum standards."

Come to think of it, we did write a set of standards taking on that basis. A group of the most knowledgeable diving experts in the world, no commercial interests, the sole criterion being diver safety ... it's already out there, the American Academy of Underwater Sciences.

 

[MDJ]

Ok, let me give a born again noob's perspective to stir up the pot again. I tried reading this whole thread but it got a bit monotonous and I only made it about half way through and then skipped to the last 30 or so posts.

Background: I first took the YMCA course in college ('87). I never got certified because the OW dives got postponed. In '90 I took a PADI class and earned both a PADI and NAUI cert because the store manager was a NAUI instructor and helped with the class.

The YMCA course prepared me to be a diver SOOO (??) much better than the PADI/NAUI class. It was a phenomenal course that made me very comfortable in the water due to the time, structure and repetitive and difficult skills performed. I clearly remember the pool days, the skills we learned, and the "fun" we had. I remember absolutely nothing about the instructor. I remember my PADI/NAUI instructors very well. I don't remember any of the pool time and the only thing I remember about my check out dives was that it was snowing.

Bottom Line - for me:
Is the Agency important? Yes (at least it used to)
Is the instructor matter? Yes
Is the instructor the only important factor? No
Is the student's attitude about learning important? YES


Of course, I don't have 3000 logged dives so I'm probably wrong.