If you teach diving then it's up to you to teach precisely what is expected of the association which you represent.
There are some issues with that - which is what tends to skew the perspectives of the experienced instructors contributing to this debate.
Firstly, agencies tend to provide instructors with
minimum standards governing tuition. These standards represent the bare minimum of training to be supplied on a given course, couple with an indication of the performance standards that a student should attain in that standardized skill-set. Whilst seemingly clear-cut, this does cause problems.
Those minimum standards do not take account of skill demands that may be appropriate on a local/regional basis. As a consequence, agencies do permit instructors to supplement courses to reflect local training necessities. However, performance standards may not be applied by the instructor for any supplemental training given (i.e. you cannot 'fail' the course if you don't master those additional non-syllabus skills).
Furthermore, based only on the 'bare minimum' syllabus, it is entirely possible to re-interpret the provision of training to the lowest common denominator applicable for the local diving practices. Where local practices always include the provision of a divemaster to guide and 'nanny' the divers, it is possible to re-define training expectations to a state where the performance requirement of certain skills is diminished to virtually zero. This tends to be reflected in a deterioration of developing precisely those skills that enable self-sufficient, unsupervised diving; navigation, dive planning, buddy safety and even situational awareness.
Typically, in temperate water diving locations, the normal practice is to dive without supervision. Divers charter boat spaces as a 'taxi' to the dive site - where they will dive unsupervised with a buddy. Instructors in those locations tend to provide tuition with that requirement in mind. In contrast, diving practices in tropical water locations to be heavily supervised. Instructors in those locations also provide tuition with that fact in mind.
We have a situation where regional variances cause some courses to be 'dumbed down', whilst other courses are 'beefed up'. However, students on either course receive the same qualification upon completion. What they do not receive is equal competency.
Those of you who are instructors must see many students who are OW certified going for their AOW certs and shouldn't. Yes, you can blame it on the prior instructor, but it's up to the student to do what it takes to perform to their cert level.
The world does seem simpler when theoretically perfect. It would be perfect if every student exited training with an ingrained respect for the need to refresh, retain or even progress, their core skill-set. Sadly, this theoretical ideal does not reflect the vast majority of divers' mindsets. That is a fact of life.
When setting restrictions or limits upon diving qualifications, there has to be a modicum of reality. As John Stuart Mill said; "
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one..". A similar notion was presented by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham: "
It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong".
The vast majority of divers seek tuition in tropical diving locations, under minimal (or fast-track) timescales. They are taught in the expectation of remaining professionally supervised when diving, once qualified. The 'dumbed down' training course. The scope and refinement of their skill set reflects the minimal demands of that local environment - warm clear water, with no personal responsibility for independent navigation, contingency planning or dive logistics.
Sadly, the scope of diving offered by a given qualification has to be set globally. Mill's and Bentham's utilitariannotions have to apply to the scope of diving qualifications. Whilst this may limit personal freedom, and/or short-change those whose qualification competency reflects an above-average level - it remains necessary as prudent guidance, protecting the health and safety of the majority. Of course, these limitations remain only 'recommended' and there are no 'scuba police' to enforce the limit of qualifications. Where local variation in qualification competency exists, it can equally be reflected in local policies exercised by the diving community itself.
I truly don't like the idea of changing the depth levels for different certifications. I'm AOW and want to dive to 130 ft. if there's something I want to see.
As mentioned, utilitarianism versus personal freedom.
This is, perhaps, one reason why a discussion on amending or re-structuring courses is a good thing. The creation of a 'Resort Diver' course would reflect a reality for the majority of divers. Differentiating a, more-limited, 'Resort Diver' course from a more robust 'full-diving qualification' would prevent the needs of the many stifling the personal liberty of the few.
My opinions on down-grading course limitations purely reflect a notional ability to improve quality of training against an elongated period of experience development - but holds true to the concept of training meeting demands.
