What are age/depth restrictions..

[KrisB]

I think you would have a hard time finding an instructor to sign off on that. Unlike PADI standards which leave very little room for the instructor to exercise their judgement, SDI's standards mirror TDI in that they encourage judgement decisions by their instructors.

Why's that?

They're legit certs, each with valid dive-related skills. Just because three of them don't require any instructor-led dives, doesn't negate their suitability.

I could have gone one further and replaced the Boat Diver cert with Visual Inspection Procedures -- not available until the diver is 18, but still, that could mean *no* more instructor-led dives than the basic OW.

When I get a chance I'll be sending an e-mail to the SDI Training department suggesting they increase this to 5 specialties, with one of them being the Advanced Adventure Diver Specialty. That way the Advanced Diver cert contains everything other agencies do (and more).

 

[EliotD]

It is the instructor's discretion to sign off on any cert, I wont sign off on someone trying to get AOW without taking the appropriate in-water specialties, nor would any other instructor I know, regardless of agency.

 

[EliotD]

Are you saying that if a diver had the 4 SDI Specialties KrisB mentioned, and the 25 logged dives, SDI would be OK with an instructor refusing to sign off on the Advanced Diver reward cert?

Yes, as I said, its a question of the instructor's judgement.

 

[KrisB]

It is the instructor's discretion to sign off on any cert, I wont sign off on someone trying to get AOW without taking the appropriate in-water specialties, nor would any other instructor I know, regardless of agency.

What, then, pray-tell are "the appropriate in-water specialties" for a diver to receive their "Advanced Diver Development" (n.b. it's not AOW in SDI-speak) certification from you?

Yes, as I said, its a question of the instructor's judgement.

And that's the sort of inconsistency that makes this way of thinking challenging.

Say a diver goes to dive shop 1, gets sold three specialties because they will count towards his Advanced Diver program with SDI. Then goes to shop #2 to complete specialty number 4, and is told "oh... those previous three aren't good enough... you need to do this one and this one for me to sign off on it."

How, in anyone's view, could that potential even remotely benefit the diver or the scuba industry? Even the instructor -- the only thing it's doing there is feeding his ego!

 

[EliotD]

What, then, pray-tell are "the appropriate in-water specialties" for a diver to receive their "Advanced Diver Development" (n.b. it's not AOW in SDI-speak) certification from you?

Anything appropriate to where the student will be diving, but the key is an *in-water* specialty. This differs from student to student and location to location.

And that's the sort of inconsistency that makes this way of thinking challenging.

Say a diver goes to dive shop 1, gets sold three specialties because they will count towards his Advanced Diver program with SDI. Then goes to shop #2 to complete specialty number 4, and is told "oh... those previous three aren't good enough... you need to do this one and this one for me to sign off on it."

How, in anyone's view, could that potential even remotely benefit the diver or the scuba industry? Even the instructor -- the only thing it's doing there is feeding his ego!

I would like to think that shops and instructors are clever enough to explain to the customer the "why" behind any determination. Provided that the "why" is reasonable, I see great benefit for the sport.

Its this kind of reasonable flexibility that makes SDI the a quality agency, certain other agencies have removed the instructors reasoning completely from the process....

 

[KrisB]

Anything appropriate to where the student will be diving, but the key is an *in-water* specialty. This differs from student to student and location to location.

So, in other words, they may complete half of them in tropical parts thinking they make sense, but you'd refuse to sign off if they didn't have a limited visibility specialty and the student would be diving in the PNW?

Again, how is the student and industry benefiting from this misleading and double-standard situation?

I would like to think that shops and instructors are clever enough to explain to the customer the "why" behind any determination. Provided that the "why" is reasonable, I see great benefit for the sport.

That's just it. They've either been mislead by Shop 1, or Shop 2 is being overly haughty with their discretion. You can explain why until you're blue in the face, but if they completed those initial specialties thinking they'd apply, then you tell them they won't, they're going to be disappointed.

Its this kind of reasonable flexibility that makes SDI the a quality agency, certain other agencies have removed the instructors reasoning completely from the process....

That's likely because they've come to the conclusion that (in North America), there are fewer "reasonable" people (in all walks, including scuba instructors) than you'd hope. Reference: legal system that gives woman who burns self with hot coffee several million dollars because the restaurant that provided it didn't warn her that it was hot.

The misunderstanding many people have is that other agencies (you and I know which one I'm referring to) don't allow the instructor any discretion in whether the signature goes on the card. That is incorrect. The instructor is responsible for determining "mastery" on *all* requirements. I'm *certain* I can find at least one thing for any diver that borders on not being mastered (and could make a case for it), if I wanted to not sign off on their cert.

 

[Thalassamania]

That's likely because they've come to the conclusion that (in North America), there are fewer "reasonable" people (in all walks, including scuba instructors) than you'd hope. Reference: legal system that gives woman who burns self with hot coffee several million dollars because the restaurant that provided it didn't warn her that it was hot.

The misunderstanding many people have is that other agencies (you and I know which one I'm referring to) don't allow the instructor any discretion in whether the signature goes on the card. That is incorrect. The instructor is responsible for determining "mastery" on *all* requirements. I'm *certain* I can find at least one thing for any diver that borders on not being mastered (and could make a case for it), if I wanted to not sign off on their cert.

If an agency can't trust the judgment of the people it certifies as instructors, of what value is the agency? As to "mastery," if an agency can't use a dictionary of what use are their standards?

Back to the OP: There is not data to support the idea that children or adolescents are at any risk from diving, deep diving or even decompressions diving. There are no authorities that I know of who will stick their neck out further than to say diving below "x" feet is a bad idea, on a theoretical basis. All the anecdotal data that I am familiar with suggests that there is no increased risk. That's reality, what you choose to permit your child to do is your business, mine stays shallow.

 

[KrisB]

If an agency can't trust the judgment of the people it certifies as instructors, of what value is the agency?

Since one of the agencies in question has not necessarily had any more interaction with a potential instructor than receiving a packet of information including copies of another agency's cert cards, how can they have *any* idea of the judgement or any *other* characteristic of their instructors?

As to "mastery," if an agency can't use a dictionary of what use are their standards?

A great deal higher and more precise. The trouble with dictionary definitions is that there are multiple dictionaries, and today's "reasonable person" can't even be trusted to look something up in a dictionary at all. Furthermore, the dictionary definitions lack the precision that is necessary to define it in a way that today's "reasonable person" can apply.

 

[Thalassamania]

Since one of the agencies in question has not necessarily had any more interaction with a potential instructor than receiving a packet of information including copies of another agency's cert cards, how can they have *any* idea of the judgement or any *other* characteristic of their instructors?



A great deal higher and more precise. The trouble with dictionary definitions is that there are multiple dictionaries, and today's "reasonable person" can't even be trusted to look something up in a dictionary at all. Furthermore, the dictionary definitions lack the precision that is necessary to define it in a way that today's "reasonable person" can apply.

mas·ter·y (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.

You find that confusing?

 

[Teamcasa]

I have a 12 year old who only allowed to dive to 40' under PADI rules, at what age do the restrictions ease and to what depth?

Standards are not the question, judgement is.

If an agency can't trust the judgment of the people it certifies as instructors, of what value is the agency? ...

Back to the OP: There is not data to support the idea that children or adolescents are at any risk from diving, deep diving or even decompressions diving. There are no authorities that I know of who will stick their neck out further than to say diving below "x" feet is a bad idea, on a theoretical basis. All the anecdotal data that I am familiar with suggests that there is no increased risk. That's reality, what you choose to permit your child to do is your business, mine stays shallow.

Exactly. In the end, it is your decision, make it wisely.