Why certify?

[MXGratefulDiver]

I am breaking off a point made in the solo forum, it raises an interesting question in my mind...

So it makes me wonder, what is the point of certifications, if dive ops, boats and shops should be under no obligation to recognize them? I think it should be pointed out, the conversation is about known and accredited agencies, not Joe Public printing his own cards in the basement. And I would separate training and certifications as well.

Your thoughts?

Because the certification agency doesn't determine the level of risk a company is willing to take when they provide you with a service ... the company does. Therefore the company gets to decide what the boundaries of that risk should be.

It's no different than with individual divers. Do you decide who you are willing to dive with strictly by what C-cards they hold?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Rhone Man]

At the moment solo diving certs are purely an education, not a qualification.

But I do believe one day [certain] dive ops will start allowing appropriately trained and equipped divers to dive solo off their boats.

Twenty years ago, who would have believed that one day dive ops would allow divers planning decompression dives aboard.

 

[seaducer]

All good points. I think deco is a different animal, since it can seriously inconvenience the rest of the paying customers on board.

But if the reason is risk management on the part of the dive op, should not the certification remove any responsibility from the op, and place it on the diver (where it belongs) and/or the instructor if standards were not met (hard to prove) or the agency if standards are ruled too low for the level of certification? (Again hard to quantify)

I can sympathize with buisness owners trying to minimize risks, but I (and I think many people here as well) do not want to be protected from ourselves, especially if the authority has a much lower risk threshold than I do.

 

[Rhone Man]

I think deco is a different animal, since it can seriously inconvenience the rest of the paying customers on board.

I agree, but I was just making the point: given enough time, even once seemingly-impossible things can come to pass.

 

[seaducer]

At the moment solo diving certs are purely an education, not a qualification.

What is the difference between certification and training?

To me certification implies you have had training, and demonstrated knowledge and skill. Training on the other hand says little, since you may or may not have passed to any degree.

One I think should hold up in a court room, the other is, well, not legally binding in itself, but perhaps a consideration.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

But if the reason is risk management on the part of the dive op, should not the certification remove any responsibility from the op, and place it on the diver (where it belongs) and/or the instructor if standards were not met (hard to prove) or the agency if standards are ruled too low for the level of certification? (Again hard to quantify)

It should ... but it doesn't. The reality is that if someone gets hurt solo diving and their family decides to sue the dive op, all their lawyer has to do is hire an "expert witness" from any of the major agencies and ask if their agency supports solo diving.

At which point, that c-card becomes pretty meaningless from a liability perspective.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Jax]

So, the solo diver should probably have some frank talks about individual responsibility and choices with friends and family?

 

[Mike Boswell]

So it makes me wonder, what is the point of certifications, if dive ops, boats and shops should be under no obligation to recognize them? I think it should be pointed out, the conversation is about known and accredited agencies, not Joe Public printing his own cards in the basement. And I would separate training and certifications as well. Your thoughts?
[/I]

AFAIK - It is not a government-regulated licensing system (thanks be to the Gods!).

It is an entirely voluntary educational system.

If I want a dive education, I am free to go to any dive school and earn any certification I wish. That certification, my experience, my health and fitness, and my current abilities determine whether I am qualified to do any given dive.

A dive operator is free to evaluate all of that and decide whether I meet their performance criteria or not.

I WANT dive ops to screen divers carefully, because I don't want to share a dive boat with divers who are likely to become statistics.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I'm not sure safety has much to do with how they determine this ... I once tried signing up for a dive charter in Maui only to be refused because the dive op only recognized PADI certs ... neither my YMCA nor NAUI c-cards were adequate ... despite the fact that one of them was an instructor card.

My buddy and I laughed all the way across the street ... where his competitor was happy to take us out to Molokini ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Jax]

I WANT dive ops to screen divers carefully, because I don't want to share a dive boat with divers who are likely to become statistics.

The problem with this statement is the illusion of control that it gives.

The dive ops should be practicing risk management, but far too many times they end up practiing risk avoidance. An appropriate and clearly written liability release form for Solo Divers legally transfers the risk and responsibility back onto the shoulders of the individual -- where it belongs! - IMO.