RSTC equivalent for tech agencies?

[Peter Guy]

RSTC also exists to help create the legal precidence for what are the "Community Standards" and "Accepted Practices", which helps the Agencies by creating a liability shield.

And does anyone think there is something wrong with this? Shouldn't there be some "objective" definition of "good practices?"

I am not (necessarily) arguing that the current "minimum standards" set by the RSTC are appropriate, but can't we all agree there SHOULD BE an accepted set of "minimum standards" if for no other reason than to define a standard for negligence?

Although it has been a while since I reviewed the RSTC standards (and I have no desire to do that again, especially for this thread), the only thing I recall to which I actually objected was the requirement for a damn snorkel.

If YOU don't think the RSTC standards are sufficient, what would YOU add to them?

BTW, for what it is worth, as far as I can tell, at least at the OW level, I'm just "teaching to the minimum" standards -- that is, teaching OW students "mastery" of the simple skills -- mask, reg and buoyancy control (more or less). I'll freely admit I am not creating GUE style OW divers in my OW course.

 

[Thalassamania]

Peter, sure ... there should be objective criteria for for best practices and those should result in an acceptable set of minimum standards. But, and that's a big but, how do you define it? I doubt, for example, that you and I, with the best of intent and the all the mutual respect possible could, just between the two of us, agree on such a standard.

There are many reasons for that, some honest, and well summarized by Bob: "It truly does boil down to motivation ... if you believe something is hard, or unnecessary to learn, you won't learn it ... even if it's completely within your capability." But more often dishonest, where the "industry" players do not have "the best of intent," or mutual respect, they're really just jockeying for thier own pecuniary advantage (face it, "liability" is to these jockeys just a secondary effect of pecuniary considerations). I do not think that they are looking for objectivity, or that they want effective minimum standards that assure people learn both to dive with minimal risk and sufficiently well that their early underwater experiences are positive, what I think is singlemindedly being pursued is a set of standards that makes it as likely as possible for a shop to train, with a minimum of cost and effort, the 300 (or so) divers that are required each year to pass through door and keep said door open. Now, I sit at the opposite end of the spectrum ... all that matters to me is that people learn both to dive with minimal risk and sufficiently well that their early underwater experiences are positive. I don't see how you can reconcile those disparate views without first reaching a consensus on what the critical factors are, and that's just not happening.