Ok so I have already gave my answer to the OP and normally I would not try to stray off topic, however, this thread has seem to stray from the original question to instructors discussing why they teach one way or the other. So First to Jim Lapenta, you and I seem to have the same philosophy on teaching methods. Second, when we talk about teaching in general, one has to decide if they are the type that follows standards and are happy with the minimum training they are giving their students. If that is the case, then there is nothing wrong with that. If you are the type that feels students need more information and hinse training above minimum standards, then all that is to be said is, your students will be more equipped to deal with stressful situations or emergency situations, plus it makes them more informed divers. Now a couple examples of this would be in an injured diver or dead diver scenario, and the family or that diver takes you to court, claiming you did not provide them with adequate training. Now as long as you follow standards, then I'm sure the training agency will go to bat for you and supply council, or at the least your insurance company will cover 100% (not my thought but their claims), as long as you follow standards. Now being a former Law Enforcement Officer, and spending many hours in court testifying, I realize that just following all the rules sometimes is still not enough. Imagine a jury trial and trying to get 12 people (most likely not divers) to understand that just teaching to minimum standards is enough to make someone a competent diver. If you believe that, then one, you have never been involved in a lawsuit or two you have a lot of faith in non professional divers or non divers dictating training (deciding the training you gave was enough ) that they know nothing about. Now if you were to testify that not only did you train to standards but that you also exceeded standards because you felt the student needed more information than what standards says is minimum, then there is a better chance the jury will decide that you were not at fault and that you gave that diver (student) as much information as you could to keep them safe. Now how does this apply to this thread. Someone mention PADI standards stated:
(PADI standards and related suggestions are clear and simple....
CW, Dive 1:
5. Recover a regulator from behind the shoulder.
The Guide to Teaching suggests: "Introduce both the arm-sweep and reach methods."
OW, Dive 2:
10. Recover and clear the regulator at depth.
The Guide to Teaching suggests: "Have student divers recover and clear their second stages using the recovery and clearing method they prefer."
Don't over think this and make it hard, it's not!)
I took this as more of a production type speech, saying teach to minimum standards without adding to, so we can maximize profits. As long as the student passes minimum standards then I've done my job as an instructor (once again is ok). Now I personally don't have the guts to say this is ok for me to do. I feel that there is more to minimum standards, and that I can prepare that diver (student) better, by giving them more tools in their toolbox to handle a bad situation. Hinse why I teach 3 methods to recover a regulator, including going for the octo. And I've never had anybody or any of the scuba gods tell me that the alternate air source was only for your dive buddy. Now I am no way shape or form calling out any other instructor, and I do not have a problem with you training to minimum standards for whatever reason, (profit being a biggy, diving is still a business to us), all I am saying is that I choose to go above and beyond because I believe in putting the student's well being above maximizing profits and teaching on a production basis. I also believe in teaching quality students over teaching a quantity of students. Just my thoughts.