Honestly, there is no way anyone would talk me into taking charge of more than two people who weren't considered competent enough to be certified as OW divers.
If training remained the same (as current OW), but only the need for supervision changed, then what really changes? Only the need for dive pros to take 'ownership' for their instructional handiwork. I think that's a really good idea...
NO dive supervisor can make up for inadequate skills on the part of a whole group of divers, and I don't care who you are. Look at technical instruction -- as the stakes go up, the ratios go DOWN.
Exactly. Requiring newly qualified entry-level divers to dive supervised - where the dive pro has a tangible responsibility for their safety - is likely to cause a significant improvement to how those dive operations are subsequently carried out.
Agencies, and by delegation instructors/divemasters, have always been able to disassociate themselves from responsibility for the safety of 'qualified independent divers'. It's a lovely 'get-out' clause. Provide whatever shoddy or inadequate training you want, then cease to have any responsibility for the outcome of that training.
It's why PADI, amongst others, have always remained calculatingly distanced from 'fun diving' activities - no standards applied, no QA process for 'non-instructional' diving etc etc. In doing so, they inherit no liability. Providing the initial instructor 'ticked the necessary boxes' of the training syllabus, then any subsequent incident affecting the 'qualified diver' is, de-facto, a result of their inability to properly apply the training. We (experienced dive pros) all know that inability to apply training is rarely due to student inattentiveness, but rather a task overload (too much, too soon), a weakness of training (too little, despite the box ticking) or the reality that real-world variables do not present themselves in a manner for which the student has prepared (stress-free, controlled and limited rehearsal of skills in the security of close supervision).
Requiring an initial stage of supervised diving creates a more gradual shift in responsibility from the dive pro to the individual diver. As it stands, there is an abrupt and immediate transition; a very carefully supervised and attentively supported OW student into an absolutely zero-supported and supervised OW diver.
As you say, "NO dive supervisor can make up for inadequate skills on the part of a whole group of divers" - this is true. Requiring formal supervision of entry-level, initially qualified divers would make a dive supervisor responsible for those under their care. Perhaps that would reflect in a decline in large groups of novice divers being led around by a single divemaster?
One thing I've noticed in divemasters who are expected to guide/escort/(supervise?) hordes of inexperienced divers is a sense of dislocation. It IS impossible to apply a sufficient duty-of-care given high ratios of diver-to-supervisor. When faced with the impossible, I've seen many divemasters who simply 'switch off' and hope for the best. They are enabled to do just that by the fact that said divers are 'qualified to dive independently', even if observation and evidence starkly points to a lesser ability.
---------- Post added May 20th, 2013 at 01:46 PM ----------
I realize it's all about the individuals, PADI gives you the tools to become a better diver, it's totally up to the individual to retain and consistently follow those guidelines and rules.... I am completely capable of diving within my limits of training!
With very limited experience, how do you identify the limits of your training? What scenarios and foreseeable contingencies do you envision when balancing a self-assessment of your competency and skill-set against potential demands?
Divers emerge from OW training as a product of a deliberate strategy to minimize risk assessment and awareness. That's sadly true. The OW course is very 'sugar-coated'. Instructors are taught to teach it that way. It results in more confident divers (lower drop-out rates) - but that confidence reflects a very rose-tinted reality. As such, it might be described as a false confidence...
Likewise, it takes time and dedication to truly ingrain skills. That time is not sufficiently provided in the short duration of an OW course. There is simply not sufficient in-water time to do do the skill repetition needed. It is possible to over-assess one's competency when performing skills under deliberate rehearsal conditions. That does not equate, at all, to how one could or would perform those skills under true emergency conditions.
Nor is there sufficient opportunity to encounter, and learn from, common problems that the diver will encounter. Further to that, the student OW diver is often unaware of the pro-active and subtle influences of their instructor to mitigate, avoid or resolve issues that do arise in training. Potential accident spirals are extinguished at a sufficiently early stage that the novice/trainee diver would be oblivious to what intervention occurred and why...
