To those considering an OW class...

[Thalassamania]

CAVEAT EMPTOR is not the rule (or law) in the US. Here the purveyor is expected to stand behind their claim(s).

 

[RJP]

CAVEAT EMPTOR is not the rule (or law) in the US. Here the purveyor is expected to stand behind their claim(s).

You're kidding, right? Or just being a bit naive?



Google search the idea of "puffery" and compare and contrast "puffery" with "advertising claims."

 

[Thalassamania]

You're kidding, right? Or just being a bit naive?



Google search the idea of "puffery" and compare and contrast "puffery" with "advertising claims."

As a specific expert on diving liabilty: Neither.

If someone claims that something is "safe" and, if as a result of that claim being untrue, another party is injured, the injured party has the right to be, "made whole." That's the way the liability laws work. Safety is not in the realm of puffery.

Please consider taking your own advise and google before posting. This is the first listing for "puffery"<G>:

From Wiki:

Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, such that no reasonable person would take literally. Puffery can feature especially in testimonials.

For instance, a diner advertisement promoting the “world’s best cup of coffee” would class as puffery. That claim would be almost impossible to substantiate, and no reasonable consumer would take such exaggeration at face value.

Puffery often uses the superlative form of a word, like “best”, “most”, “greatest”, etc. However, a company making a superlative claim such as “cheapest” or “safest” usually has to substantiate such competitive claims. Merchants must exercise extreme caution when making statements about the quality, condition, or facts about their products or services. A slight variation in wording may result in an express warranty.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Twiddles]

Thanks for your response jbichsel. I didn't take the posts as an attack on me per say, so much as attack on people who have done things diffrently than say those who have been diving for a while or those who have taken longer courses. The theme here aside from the usual drop in to internet lawyers, appears to be its the agencies fault because the problems are caused by guidelines being to easy. Mark me if im wrong but all the links that have been pointed too refer to divers who have not met agency guidelines. Bouyancy (neutral or otherwise) is the responsibility of the diver to learn, the instructor to teach and the guidelines to do so are already in place. So if the student isnt up to snuff, isnt that the fault of the student and the instructor? I mean almost all problems I hear, read about, are issues well covered by the OW course requirements. Every single thing a new diver is supposed to know (for his ow certification) is covered in the open water diver manual. Every single thing to be covered on every dive and pool activity is also in that manual. Why is it the agencies fault that the diver didn't learn these things? The fact that a student cant stay off the bottom or doesn't know his tables or doesnt know his gear are all faults of his and his instuctors. The requirements for those skills are listed in the OW course.

What really seems to be at issue, is an instructors ability to pass somebody who hasnt adequately demonstrated those skills. The prevailing answer is lets make the courses longer (thank god you cant) and then everyone will get it before they get passed? So lets make things "dumber" for longer, stiffen the requirements and then fewer new divers will become dead divers (ignoring of course the high numbers of "experienced divers" that die). You cant make a course make someone learn no matter how tough the standards. You can police yourselves and not pass someone who doesn't meet the requirements and then they can go to someone else who might pass them easier. In either case the choice to learn, be safe and become a good diver will always be the responsibility of the diver.

 

[BiggDawg]

The theme here aside from the usual drop in to internet lawyers, appears to be its the agencies fault because the problems are caused by guidelines being to easy.

Well, those and let's not forget the obvious AGENCY BASHING by those who find some major differences between them, who want to appear superior to the bottom-dwellers because they were certified by {insert your own certifying agency here}.

And the less than hidden agendas of some who are clearly preaching their philosophies as well as diving skills. (While they are proselytizing, saluting, and humming their mantras, I'll be blowing bubbles...)

Gee, maybe it's time to start yet another diver certifying agency?

 

[Thalassamania]

Mark me if im wrong but all the links that have been pointed too refer to divers who have not met agency guidelines.

As far as my issues concerned, I have to mark you as wrong<G>. My issue with the agencies (virtually all of them) is the promotion of diving as a safe activity on one hand and their routine defense when it gets to court of, "but they should have known diving is a dangerous activity." Can't have it both ways. If it's safe, bring on the four hour courses. If it's dangerous ... let's go back to the proven reduction of risk offered by the 100 hour course.

 

[jbd]

So if the student isnt up to snuff, isnt that the fault of the student and the instructor?

Part of the problem being discussed here is that the is no clear definition of what is up to snuff in the standards. It is all quite vaguely stated with terms like jbischel mentions. It phrasing like, "The student demonstrates mastery of mask clearing" "The student demonstrates mastery of bouyancy control"

In the end "mastery" means different things to different instructors even within the same agency. With subjective decision making coupled to human nature it becomes easy to take the path of least resistance. An instructor sees and otherwise terrified student force themself through a simple mask clearing and determines the student has "mastered" the task. First time the student get water in their mask during the OW cert they panic and bolt for the surface.

 

[Thalassamania]

mas·ter·y Pronunciation Key (m

s

t

-r

)
n. pl. mas·ter·ies

1. Possession of consummate skill.
2. The status of master or ruler; control: mastery of the seas.
3. Full command of a subject of study: Her mastery of economic theory impressed the professors.

Doesn't sound like any 20 hour wonder that I've ever seen. I guess that's just "puffery."<G>

 

[Dive-aholic]

According to the PADI Instructor manual:

Satisfactory demonstration is called "mastery," which, along with sequence requirements, is discussed in more detail throughout this guide.

During the Confined Water Divers, mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonable comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of an Open Water Diver.

During the Open Water Dives, mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonable comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be expected of a typical Open Water Diver.

I think the word typical says it all. After all, this thread, and many others, are here because of what we see in typical Open Water Divers.

 

[jbichsel]

Thanks for your response jbichsel. I didn't take the posts as an attack on me per say, so much as attack on people who have done things diffrently than say those who have been diving for a while or those who have taken longer courses. The theme here aside from the usual drop in to internet lawyers, appears to be its the agencies fault because the problems are caused by guidelines being to easy. Mark me if im wrong but all the links that have been pointed too refer to divers who have not met agency guidelines. Bouyancy (neutral or otherwise) is the responsibility of the diver to learn, the instructor to teach and the guidelines to do so are already in place. So if the student isnt up to snuff, isnt that the fault of the student and the instructor? I mean almost all problems I hear, read about, are issues well covered by the OW course requirements. Every single thing a new diver is supposed to know (for his ow certification) is covered in the open water diver manual. Every single thing to be covered on every dive and pool activity is also in that manual. Why is it the agencies fault that the diver didn't learn these things? The fact that a student cant stay off the bottom or doesn't know his tables or doesnt know his gear are all faults of his and his instuctors. The requirements for those skills are listed in the OW course.

What really seems to be at issue, is an instructors ability to pass somebody who hasnt adequately demonstrated those skills. The prevailing answer is lets make the courses longer (thank god you cant) and then everyone will get it before they get passed? So lets make things "dumber" for longer, stiffen the requirements and then fewer new divers will become dead divers (ignoring of course the high numbers of "experienced divers" that die). You cant make a course make someone learn no matter how tough the standards. You can police yourselves and not pass someone who doesn't meet the requirements and then they can go to someone else who might pass them easier. In either case the choice to learn, be safe and become a good diver will always be the responsibility of the diver.

I'm not necessarily saying to make the courses longer, althoug I think the 2-day certification should be abolished, but tighten up the guidlines.

If buoyancy control is so critical to PADI's mindset, why is it not even mentioned until Confined Water Dive 3? True, PADI odes offer some leeway to begin introducing buoyancy on our own, as long as we do not bring any skills from future dives into CWD1.

I have watched as some instructors have allowed their students to bump and bounce along the bottom until CWD3 when they finally get to the Fin Pivot.

I can live with the length of OW course now, if the standards would be tightened up.