The Philosophy of Diver Training

[boulderjohn]

Certifying a diver is not a matter of consensus. After minimum requirements are met, the onus is on the instructor to prepare the diver properly for the conditions reasonably expected locally. The instructor is responsible for doing so and s/he may be held liable in civil court if training is inadequate.

Who determines that? What defense does an accused instructor put up to show that he or she prepared the diver properly for conditions reasonably expected locally?

 

[DCBC]

Yet you argue for the ability for individual instructors to extend standards as they see fit.

I argue that the certification agency shouldn't restrict the instructor from providing any and all training that's reasonably necessary, to insure the diver's safety in the local diving environment.

 

[JeffG]

Who determines that? What defense does an accused instructor put up to show that he or she prepared the diver properly for conditions reasonably expected locally?

I would assume in a set of standards there would be some performance criteria set for certain procedures.

If we used Papa_Bears methodology...survival would be the criteria. LOL

 

[Kingpatzer]

If I related them to a court of law, they would be sufficient.

And open to significant attack due to your given proclivity to present PADI in a negative light, what was clearly a significant negative interaction in the past, and the duration of time since the events in question.

You would be allowed to relate the statements. There is no guarantee they would be accepted as valid by a jury. Indeed, given the above points, there is ample reason to suspect they would be discounted.

You're sounding awfully academic today...

I try get all my pedantry out early in the week

Yes, I think if you went out with a young lady for 18 years, you would be able to relate with accuracy why you broke up.

I would certainly be able to relate what my recollections were. But quite a bit of psychological research on recollection of emotional events shows that unless someone has a significant psychological condition such as being a full blow sociopath, or having a pre-existing genetic condition such as being an idiot-savant, the accuracy of one's recollections relating to specifics decreases rapidly, and the more emotional the event, the more fundamental the degradation becomes. Human beings are remarkably adept at shaping our perceived reality to meet our psychological needs.

Since I have not honestly analyzed all available research on the subject I couldn't say. Although it's doubtful you have, I will not call your statement a false one.

Fine, I'll take the hit and modify my claim to state that a significant amount of research which supports the prevailing scientific view of how our psychology works in such situations.

 

[DCBC]

Who determines that? What defense does an accused instructor put up to show that he or she prepared the diver properly for conditions reasonably expected locally?

The instructor specifies the hazards and outlines the steps taken to prepare the diver for those hazards. In court, this is critiqued by one or more independent expert witnesses and opinion is solicited whether the steps taken were sufficient in the training presented.

 

[boulderjohn]

After minimum requirements are met, the onus is on the instructor to prepare the diver properly for the conditions reasonably expected locally. The instructor is responsible for doing so and s/he may be held liable in civil court if training is inadequate.

Who determines that? What defense does an accused instructor put up to show that he or she prepared the diver properly for conditions reasonably expected locally?

I would assume in a set of standards there would be some performance criteria set for certain procedures.

So I guess you and DCBC are in disagreement. He is saying that the onus is on the instructor to determine what is needed, and you are saying that there will be a set of standards.

If there will be a set of standards, what are they?

 

[boulderjohn]

The instructor specifies the hazards and outlines the steps taken to prepare the diver for those hazards. In court, this is critiqued by one or more independent expert witnesses and opinion is solicited whether the steps taken were sufficient in the training presented.

So, absent any standards, the instructor's decision is a best guess that can be trumped by the prosecution's expert witness?

 

[JeffG]

So I guess you and DCBC are in disagreement.

OMG....run for this hills.......

He is saying that the onus is on the instructor to determine what is needed, and you are saying that there will be a set of standards.

If there will be a set of standards, what are they?

Easy. I'm right and he's wrong.

 

[The Chairman]

Yes, I think if you went out with a young lady for 18 years, you would be able to relate with accuracy why you broke up.

Would it differ from her version? You betcha! You got away from that bitch, and she dumped the bastard. The perspective is critical here.

 

[boulderjohn]

Easy. I'm right and he's wrong.

That's not what I asked. I asked what standards will be used to determine if the instructor acted properly when training the student when the instructor is being tried in a court of law.

The jury will of necessity be comprised of non-divers because divers will be assumed to bring prior knowledge and not give proper heed to expert testimony. When the prosecutor's expert witnesses say the standards of XYZ have been in place for years and are followed throughout the diving world, and they further say that the instructor 's actions, as appropriate as he or she may have thought them to be, were outside of those standards, who is the jury going to believe?