Recreational agency standards: Ranking and why?

[DennisW]

There was a dive forum that published an agency comparison several years ago. I don't believe the comparison has been updated. It is a lot of work and getting the requirements from some agencies is difficult unless you are an instructor for that agency. Unfortunately, one of the agencies filed suit against the dive forum (the agency lost the suit) after an officer of the filing agency complimented the author about the comparison. I believe one of the reasons the very first moderated SCUBA forum is no longer in business is because of this law suit. Not the only reason, but I think a major reason. You will have a hard time getting someone to publish such a ranking.

 

[DCBC]

Agency standards change from time-to-time. For example, say an Instructor or Diver was certified in the 70's, the standards s/he had to meet would be quite different than another Instructor or Diver certified by the same organization in the 90's. So it may be perceived that the Agency's standards were higher or lower in comparison with itself.

I agree that to do a proper comparison, you have to list the standards at a given point in-time. If you were comparing certification agencies today for example, you would compare say the necessity for buddy breathing as one criteria. The fact that one organization may or may have this as a requirement proves nothing. How do you interpret the information? Who is to say?

We each make these comparisons individually and apply our own particular expertise and experience to come up with an answer. One Instructor may not see a problem with eliminating this skill-set and indicate that the certification agency that eliminated it was decreasing student confusion or task loading. Another Instructor certified by the same certification body may have experience an OOA situation where the octopus 2nd malfunctioned and a diver's life was saved from knowing how to buddy breath. S/he would have a different evaluation of the standards for eliminating BB.

Then mix-up personal prejudices, brainwashing on all sides and you have to question if this would be beneficial, or just increase tension between members?

Added: If you were to rank the Certification Agencies, there are other things to consider including: philosophy, safety, profit factors, instructor support, efficiency, availability, "member" input into the direction of the organization, how standards are set, etc. The assessed benefits that any organization provides may largely be a matter of perspective and may vary from one geographic location to another. LDS Training Facilities may have a different assessment than an Individual Instructor, for example or a Training Facility in Japan may have a different assessment than one in New Jersey. This is a very complex issue.

 

[theduckguru]

There are hundreds (thousands?) of posts about the low standards of "certain recreational certification agencies" primarily related to the Open Water Diver course and its equivalents, suggesting that the instructors of those agencies don't require mastery of a full skill set so that an OWD is a competent diver and can dive with a buddy (no instructor, no guide) to 18 meter/60 ft maz depth.

The criticism may be directed also at other certification levels, AOW, Rescue, MSD, DM.

If we turn this around, the question is which are the agencies with the highest standards and based on what criteria can that claim be made?

Can you rank agencies from highest to lowest? Does that mean that instructors of what you may consider to be the lower standard agencies can't turn out properly qualified divers? Is an instructor of one of those agencies necessarily a bad instructor?

The question is directed to diving that is done to a maximum of 42 meters in a non overhead environment, so you can include the "new agencies" within the constraints of their non technical courses.

If you do an aviation forum search, you'll find yourself over there asking if instructors who have completed Part 141 [FAA approved] training are better than instructors who completed Part 61 [non-approved] training. In the end, both meet FAA standards and get the same FAA instructor certificate.

What leads to being a really good instructor has little to do with what agency one trains under because all the training agencies get their credentials from the same source.

 

[AndyNZ]

Added: If you were to rank the Certification Agencies, there are other things to consider including: philosophy, safety, profit factors, instructor support, efficiency, availability, "member" input into the direction of the organization, how standards are set, etc.

Indeed.

I do a lot of work in the area of multi-criteria decision making, and to steal an idea from that I would guess that most agencies are "pareto-optimal".

So what does this mean?

Say you trying to design a structure that minimise weight, but maximises strength. This two goals are in direct conflict. There is no real way that you can say that a " strong, but heavy" structure is in any way better than a "lighter, but weaker" one.

A "stronger, but light" structure dominates a "strong, but heavy" because it is better in both dimensions. If you remove the dominated solutions, you are left with something called the pareto-optimal set... solutions that are equally valid.

Scuba agencies are all trading off the criteria that influence scuba training with different emphasis - none of them are "better" in all dimensions than any other, so they are all pareto-optimal solutions to the problem.

 

[PhilEllis]

Exceptionally good point. A given training agency might determine that they would like to increase the number of open water dives to improve learning, but that increase might negatively impact market share to the point that fewer people learn and the agency is unable to achieve financial goals. Since market share is also important, they may decide not to make the change in the number of open water dives.

There are probably literally hundreds of such considerations in the establishment of any of the rules and training standards for a training agency. Now, training purists might not like such balancing considerations, but for a training agency where market share or some other issue is important, it might be a real life consideration.

Phil Ellis
www.divesports.com

Indeed.

I do a lot of work in the area of multi-criteria decision making, and to steal an idea from that I would guess that most agencies are "pareto-optimal".

So what does this mean?

Say you trying to design a structure that minimise weight, but maximises strength. This two goals are in direct conflict. There is no real way that you can say that a " strong, but heavy" structure is in any way better than a "lighter, but weaker" one.

A "strong, but light" structure dominates a "strong, but heavy" because it is better in both dimensions. If you remove the dominated solutions, you are left with something called the pareto-optimal set... solutions that are equally valid.

Scuba agencies are all trading off the criteria that influence scuba training with different emphasis - none of them are "better" in all dimensions than any other, so they are all pareto-optimal solutions to the problem.

 

[101recon]

Being a new diver,maybe I can offer a fresh perspective on some of these "which is best" topics.

My first diving decision was which agency to choose for my initial training.While researching and reading many threads much like this one,I began to notice what seemed to be sometimes hotly debated rivalries between those who favor one agency over another."This" should be taught, or "that" should be more strongly emphasised,etc....Though I've only personally received training from one agency,I'm sure (or hope) that all of the reputable agencies stress one important point.Your own personal safety is up to you and you alone.A diving certification can be earned from many different agencies but it is up to the individual diver after that.

My next decisions were mostly what kind of gear should I buy.So,more research reading threads,polls,etc... Again,there were pros and cons for every piece of gear from Aeris to Zeagle.

During my initial training there were some skills that I had no problem with, while others found them difficult.The reverse is also true.
I also tried gear that others raved about, but personally did not like.

The one thing that seemed to be common to all these discussions is what I personally feel to be one of the most important aspects of diving........Find what is most comfortable for you personally.A great analogy is a mask.It may fit me great and leak like crazy on the next guy.

I learned a lot from reading these discussions but in the end I made all of these decisions with what felt best for ME.We are all different and what works for one may not work for another.Research,learn,and find what is best for you.If you personally feel that you would be more comfortable and/or safer with one "brand" over another,then do so.We can debate all these things till the cows come home,but a safe,comfortable,and enjoyable dive is the main goal of us all.You don't have to agree with another opinion,but you can learn from it.When you start your next descent,no matter how familiar the buddy, or highly rated the gear or technique,you are the only one who really knows if you're ready.

I'm new to diving and have much to learn.I don't have enough bubble time to even attempt a credible debate with anyone,but this is how I intend to approach diving.
1.Knowledge/Safety ------ No matter who is teaching it.
2.The best gear for me ------ No matter who is selling it.
3.Enjoy and explore the majority of the planet that most never see ------ That's why I did this to start with.

 

[Walter]

Walter,

It's perfectly reasonable to say that you have an opinion based on your impressions, especially if it's coming from you.

It might be reasonable, but it wouldn't be correct. I have impressions about the standards of SDI. Having never actually read their standards, I've yet to form an opinion about them. If I someday read their standards, my impressions may be proven true or false. Until I actually read them, it's impossible for me to say. I have read the standards of SEI, YMCA (no longer teaching diving), NAUI and PADI. I do have opinions about their standards. I can rank those four and only those four and give reasons for that ranking.

Which is best will always be opinion and will always be based on your goal. If your goal is safety, you'll likely come to one conclusion, if your goal is speed, you'll likely come to another. Even if two people have the same goal, safety, for example, it is still possible have differeing opinions based on personal beliefs as to what makes a diver less likey to have an accident.

I believe he is saying that for a discussion like this to be fruitful, simply repeating those opinions will not be helpful. For this discussion to be valuable, you would need to amass a vast database of factual statements about standards and procedures and do a careful comparison. He is saying he can speak, for example, with authority about his present agency (SEI), but he probably can provide little insight into CMAS.

Exactly, and those elements are not things that can be added to a discussion shooting from the hip. That's a post that will take some time to write.

Next, you can't just compare the standards and say that agency A has more standards than agency B, so therefore (whatever). Agency B may have a perfectly good reason for omitting some standards, and each one of them would lead to an argument as to whether or not they are needed.

The reason being "perfectly good" will be a matter of opinion.

I still think it's a valid exercise. My objective is to look at training organiztions from a positive point of view instead of continuing on the road of "bashing". Let's look at why (these are examples only) we might think that one is better than he other.

I agree.

As a PADI Instructor, I frequently read that we are "bad" but nobody actually steps forward to say that another is better and explain why.

You may not have read those posts, but they certainly are there.

If you were to rank the Certification Agencies, there are other things to consider including: philosophy, safety, profit factors, instructor support, efficiency, availability, "member" input into the direction of the organization, how standards are set, etc.

That goes back to you goal. Many of those are only factors for instructors. A person off the street looking to learn how to dive wouldn't care about more than 2 or 3 of them.

 

[cloudswinger]

IThat goes back to you goal. Many of those are only factors for instructors. A person off the street looking to learn how to dive wouldn't care about more than 2 or 3 of them.

Seriously, a person off the street looking to dive really cares about 2 things, value and convenience and if those are close then word of mouth will possibly have an effect. That's how I chose my class. But since I was at university, it happened to be convenient to take the university offered dive class. I certainly didn't research anything about what agency they used. In my case it wouldn't have mattered. Of course, I didn't realize the goal of the program was to train science divers.

 

[ScubaDocER]

Seriously, a person off the street looking to dive really cares about 2 things, value and convenience and if those are close then word of mouth will possibly have an effect. That's how I chose my class. But since I was at university, it happened to be convenient to take the university offered dive class. I certainly didn't research anything about what agency they used. In my case it wouldn't have mattered. Of course, I didn't realize the goal of the program was to train science divers.

I think part of the origins of this discussion revolves around the fact that there should be more than those two concerns that a potential diver should have. Being in a university setting that offers scuba diving is a matter of convenience and possibly value if the course is offered at a price that is cheaper than what is available out side of the institution.

For those outside of such a setting, the concerns should be greater. If your only concerns are value and convenience then you may get the easiest and cheapest product on the market. If that is your desire then there seems to be no shortage of such programs. Other considerations may/should include competence, quality (talks with former students or staff), depth of study, goals of the program offered, etc. Part of the problem IMO of this consumer driven market place is that cheap and easy is not always the best way to go when selecting a diving program/Instructor. Works great for disposable pens, not so great when you are faced with a diving challenge for which you are ill prepared.

The dive community leadership is expected, and rightly so, to establish not only a level of professionalism but also educational levels for students to aspire. If the bar is set too low then you produce divers that are ill prepared to function independent of their Instructor. If the bar is set too high then you may not produce many divers at all. When we talk about ranking agencies it is difficult to compare all aspects in an apples to apples fashion. If however we can select the lowest common denominator that can be improved upon across all agencies, the lowest bar can be elevated. With the hope of producing a better final product.

To the point that I quoted :

I would suggest that future divers explore a bit more when selecting a dive program beyond value and convenience. You take your life in your hands when you submerge underwater. Your dive education should be the last thing that you obtained that was cheap and easy.

 

[Walter]

Of course, I didn't realize the goal of the program was to train science divers.

It usually isn't. I've never trained a science diver. That's about all Thal does train. I don't understand how you got "training science divers" from me saying a person off the street looking to learn how to dive wouldn't care about more than 2 or 3 of the things DCBC listed. Perhaps you can explain.