the truth about diving organizations

[DiveGolfSki]

I think the old joke may shed some light on this:

Three instructors and their students are on board a dive boat in the middle of the ocean— there's a NAUI instructor, a PADI instructor, and an SSI instructor. Everything is going fine, until the boat springs a leak, and starts to sink.

The SSI instructor says to his students, "Okay... we're in the middle of the ocean, so we might as well do our deep dive."

The NAUI instructor says to his students, "Okay... we might as well do our navigation dive, so let's get our compasses out and swim towards shore."

The PADI instructor says to his students, "Okay... for $25 extra you guys get to do a wreck dive!"

 

[drbill]

The standard response that the agency doesn't matter is merely a method of trying to absolve agencies of the responsibilty for having high standards. That dog won't hunt.

Can an excellent instructor make up for an agency with low standards? Yes, but it shouldn't be necessary. Standards should be set high enough so that an instructor following them to the letter will teach an excellent class. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.

Walter is right on this point (as he is 99.99% of the time). A good instructor with a poor agency can overcome the agency's weaknesses, but only by teaching beyond the basic requirements. I know several who do, but as Walter says... they shouldn't have to to ensure a quality course and well-trained students.

 

[crlavoie]

I disagree on this point. I don't see the certification organizations setting a tone of overconfidence in their OW courses. If anything the reverse is true and they (in my opinion) emphasize caution, safety and diving within your limits almost ad nauseam.

Having a standardized level of training yields benefits that outweigh the drawbacks. I'm sure (for example) the public would feel somewhat unhappy if there was no certification process for airplane pilots.

Imagine jumping untrained into your new Cessna 182 and ramping the throttle to full. Who cares about takeoff clearance, flight plans, weather or weight distribution. After all if anything goes wrong you can only bounce so much. Or perhaps a convenient suburb will break your fall...

The analogy holds good for scuba. In my opinion the agencies do a reasonable job of saving us from ourselves (and more importantly from hurting others). One could criticize the quality of the instructors or the course content but this does not detract from the general benefit of setting minimum training levels.

Back to my thread Hijack. I still haven't read a valid reponse in support of certification. Though there a couple of good ones that see it for the BS that it is.

We do not need to be saved from ourselves and let's not go down the road of putting others at risk. Also, there's also no reasonable comparison between flying planes and SCUBA. Yes, I agree that you need a license to fly a plane. It's nature poses serious risk to the general public. SCUBA is entirely by choice and poses no risk to others. Nobody, (not dive buddies, rescuers or the diver themselves) is forced into diving.

Am I missing something? Why do we let this happen? Where the hell is the agency that saves the couch potato from becoming a lard *****, ticking coronary time bomb?

 

[Vtdiver2]

Back to my thread Hijack. I still haven't read a valid reponse in support of certification. Though there a couple of good ones that see it for the BS that it is.

We do not need to be saved from ourselves and let's not go down the road of putting others at risk. Nobody, (not dive buddies, rescuers or the diver themselves) is forced into diving.

Am I missing something? Why do we let this happen? Where the hell is the agency that saves the couch potato from becoming a lard *****, ticking coronary time bomb?

I agree with you to a CERTAIN point. No one is forced into diving, yes, I agree. But where we disagree is that the actions of divers CAN put others in peril.
When a diver gets lost at sea, in a cave or wreck, hundreds if not thousands of man hours can be spent trying to rescue/ recover the diver. If agencies were abolished and anyone could get air fills and dive anywhere at anytime, do you think the number of rescues would go up, or down? Don't tell me we should all dive at our own risk. It's a nice thought, and I wish it was like that, but the lawyers of the land have seen to it that will never be. The dive/charter operators are liable and they need a system that can minimize the risk.
Do you think a diver that just finished his resort class in Aruba is ready to dive the Andrea Doria, or go to Ginnie Springs? Of course not, and having certifications is supposed to ensure a diver has met a certain standard in their diving abilities, that will allow them to go on charters or locations that need certain skills.
In my personal opinion, I think the standards are far too lax, and the agencies are "dummy-ing" down their certifications so more people can get certified, leaving the instructors liable if anything bad happens. Look at the standards the a diver had to go thru back in the 50's and 60's. There was physical endurance tests, and the divers went thru MUCH more than a diver has to today. Why is it easier today? MONEY
Certifications don't necessarily make a better diver, but they are part of the equation.
Just my 2 cents,
Chris

 

[Vtdiver2]

The standard response that the agency doesn't matter is merely a method of trying to absolve agencies of the responsibilty for having high standards. That dog won't hunt.

Can an excellent instructor make up for an agency with low standards? Yes, but it shouldn't be necessary. Standards should be set high enough so that an instructor following them to the letter will teach an excellent class. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case.

Of course best is a matter of opinion and that will depend somewhat on your goal. Are you looking for a thorough course or would you rather get it fast and learn fewer skills? The answer of which is best will vary depending on your goal. Most people want and get the fast course with fewer skills.

Walter, you and I are on the same page. Well put.
Chris

 

[Walter]

Back to my thread Hijack. I still haven't read a valid reponse in support of certification. Though there a couple of good ones that see it for the BS that it is.

We do not need to be saved from ourselves and let's not go down the road of putting others at risk. Also, there's also no reasonable comparison between flying planes and SCUBA. Yes, I agree that you need a license to fly a plane. It's nature poses serious risk to the general public. SCUBA is entirely by choice and poses no risk to others. Nobody, (not dive buddies, rescuers or the diver themselves) is forced into diving.

Am I missing something? Why do we let this happen? Where the hell is the agency that saves the couch potato from becoming a lard *****, ticking coronary time bomb?

Certification and training is here. It should be here. A c-card is merely evidence of passing a class. There is value in some classes and no value in others. I support your right to dive without training, but I don't recommend that approach. It's dangerous. You have every right to assume that risk.

Of course, I also believe classes that follow low standards are dangerous.

When a diver gets lost at sea, in a cave or wreck, hundreds if not thousands of man hours can be spent trying to rescue/ recover the diver. If agencies were abolished and anyone could get air fills and dive anywhere at anytime, do you think the number of rescues would go up, or down?

Perhaps we shouldn't risk our lives to save people (or recover the bodies of) who are diving without training or are intentionally diving beyond their training?

 

[Walter]

Walter, you and I are on the same page. Well put.
Chris

Don't let "them" hear you say that, they might kick you out of the club.

 

[Heffey]

If you've been reading the topics and threads over the past weeks/months/years....you'll see that what you are looking for has been discussed. You might look for a thread called "What's the one thing you would change..." which was tossed about a few weeks ago.
Chris

Chris,

I did follow that thread a bit.

Was that in the whine & cheese section?

I got PADI and NAUI OW certifications this year.
I got PADI certified because it was the easiest way for me to dive while I was in Oahu and I got NAUI certified for the cold water experience and to finish what I started 27 years ago.

I do agree that it is the instructor that makes a difference.
Jeffrey

 

[crlavoie]

Don't let "them" hear you say that, they might kick you out of the club.

Walter and Chris, you both make good points. Now, what I'm about to say is going to sound extremely callous so here's my disclaimer: Thank God for people willing to risk their own lives to help someone in need. I admire these people and can not say enough for the good things they do. They are a special breed and should be thanked a million times over for their effort. As a community, we should also do more to $upport our local SAR groups.

BUT: They do it at their own risk.

What I would say that is sort of in agreement is that, we owe it to ourselves and the people who chose to be "rescuers" to minimize risk by properly training and regularly practicing our sport. It is absolutely at YOUR own risk and again I must fall back on my previous mountaineering example. Certification simply does not need to exist. It has been exploited and reduced to a cash generating machine designed to dupe the unsuspecting folks that see the picture of the couple holding hands under water on the cover of the Sandals brochure. This sport is not for EVERYONE and EVERYONE wanting to participate needs to recognize that.

 

[Vtdiver2]

Certification and training is here. It should be here. A c-card is merely evidence of passing a class. There is value in some classes and no value in others. I support your right to dive without training, but I don't recommend that approach. It's dangerous. You have every right to assume that risk.

Of course, I also believe classes that follow low standards are dangerous.



Perhaps we shouldn't risk our lives to save people (or recover the bodies of) who are diving without training or are intentionally diving beyond their training?

I tend to agree with that Walter, but the reality is it is never going to happen. Besides, the logistics and liability of it wouldn't make it possible ie: Can you imagine if when you called 911 to say your buddy was lost on a dive, having to prove that he/she was trained to do it before they "wasted" manpower looking for them. The land-sharks( lawyers) would have a field day with that.
What I would like to see is the media ostrasize the dumb s**t and make him/her pay for the cost of the rescue operation if they survived, or it comes out of their estate if they don't. The same goes for lost hikers, skiers etc. Make them pay for their stupidity. That would make people think twice. However, accidents do happen, and if it is just that, an accident, then by all means should we help them in the way the system works now.
The system isn't perfect, but it's the best one we have. It allows dive/charter operators to make educated decisions by giving them somewhat of an idea of a divers abilities based on log books and certifications.
BTW, I've been on charters that were rated "advanced" but OW divers were allowed to dive because the DM knew them, and knew their abilities, and didn't require an AOW card. I think that's fine if they want to do it, but they are opening themselves up to liability.
Chris