Perhaps you could explain how a training agency (any training agency) assesses a new instructor's judgement. To what standard is that judgement assessed? I've watched a few IEs, and I've not seen the "Instructor's Judgement" evaluation, but then, I'm not an Instructor Examiner.
For a training agency to leave something as ambiguous as "in reduced visibility, the instructor must reduce his training ratio to _____ is inviting the kind of trouble we're seeing in this instance. PADI mass produces instructors. None have their judgement evaluated. Therefore, a system of standards that can be followed in varying environmental conditions must be established. i.e. (Blue Bold) In reduced visibility (15 feet or less) the instructor must reduce all introductory scuba lesson ratios (OW, DSD, DS) to a ratio not to exceed 2:1 or 1:1 or 4:2 or whatever. Anything else is inadequate guidance for the instructor.
Wow! It sounds like you have identified an unassailable niche market for a new agency so prescriptive to make instructors' judgment redundant and solve all the problems for insurance and shops. Please start drafting these standards for a good sized curriculum and send me a draft when ready. I'd love to use drones and bots to teach instead of unpredictable humans.
---------- Post added October 5th, 2014 at 09:50 PM ----------
It sounds like you are OK with the two bolting to the surface and you'll deal with the casualty or injury on the surface when you get there with the other two?
What happens when one or both on the bottom have issues on the ascent, or have separated and now you have who knows what on the surface and one or two missing divers?
That would scare the bejeezus out of me.
The rational thing to do would be evaluate the conditions and have a maximum of two. Issues arise and everyone goes to the surface with the instructor in direct control.
If two bolts and the instructor has not been able to stop them, the instructor has already failed to be in control. If the instructor chases them, must be a keyboard instructor. As any instructor would know, once the student has *bolted* and is outside of immediate control, the casualty of injury at the surface cannot be mitigated by chasing - what is done is done. Leaving unattended uncertified students alone at the bottom is unexcusable - even in horrible visibility, since a DSD is done exclusively in daylight, it's much easier to see the silhoutte of the divers above than of those below, thus providing higher degree of situation control by bringing the other students to the surface than any other course of action.
If the students are surfacing at a regular ascent rate and the instructor cannot stop them, he\she has failed to be in control, and if he\she cannot alert and bring the other students up in short order, he\she has failed to be in control again.
however one flips the story, the instructor has failed to be in control, has failed not leave divers unattended, has failed to assess student readiness, and has failed to assess local conditions. After we address this, we can talk about standards.
---------- Post added October 5th, 2014 at 09:51 PM ----------
Back to my original stance, there is no way to make an introductory course safe unless the ratio is 1:1 or more than one:2.
I know many instructors like this, it takes them 30 or 40 dives to complete a rescue class because they can't stop listening to the sound of their own voice when retelling horror diving stories and adding a personal touch of color to the material.
---------- Post added October 5th, 2014 at 09:55 PM ----------
I agree. I teach under those conditions every summer. I would not put myself in a position of having to take care of 4 people like that. Neither of the shops I have worked for here would allow it if I wanted to. If I find myself in those conditions without an assistant, then I work with no more than 2 while the rest remain on shore. When I discussed it with PADI, that is what they suggested I do as well.
Again, that seems pretty obvious to me. It seems pretty obvious to all the other instructors I know who work around here, too.
*under those conditions* makes an entirely different and specific argument. But i believe it's a detail that might get lost by many.