Would you really know what was going on if your computer went into Deco...?

[OneBrightGator]

That's a blatant double standard. You think divers shouldn't need proof they can conduct certain dives but instructors need proof they can teach certain classes?

Ben

 

[Genesis]

I really don't have the time nor the inclination to find the exact wording because what it says doesn't mean squat, it's what it means and what would be held up in court that matters. For example, from all accounts Murley freaked on the surface, not the instructor's fault so he's not held liable, on the other hand, the case in SFL where the instructor neglected a student who was out of air should be held responsible.

Ben

What it says will be upheld in court, as you are in Florida.

What it says IS what matters. All the nattering you do verbally means nothing when there is a lawsuit.

What matters is what's reduced to writing and signed.

More importantly and to the point, when you present me with said piece of paper, all the nattering you do about your "responsibility" is reduced to exactly what you actually accept in that waiver you present - nothing more or less. If I am asked to waive it all, and I will be, then I am. Cool enough.

Don't preach at me about "your responsibility" in such a case - because you have none. If I cack myself my next-of-kin would be wise to not attempt to break the waiver, because they will fail and then have a nice lawyer bill to go along with the cremation expenses, along with me haunting them for the remainder of their lives as their just desserts for refusing to accept my decision in allocation of the risk of my activity.

If you wish me to accept that you have some degree of responsibility, then actually take some. Then you can natter on about it, because you have actually accepted some of the risk to me of the activity we are about to undertake. More to the point, you then have standing to apply whatever standards you wish to qualify me and control the risk you actually assume; that would be both reasonable and expected.

Murley was morbidly obese and apparently, as the record showed, he had forged his diving history with the knowledge of his instructor.

His waiver was upheld as valid.

Why?

He signed it, and the evidence was that he knew what he was signing at the time - his release was intentionally executed, and there was no trickery, concealment or deceit involved in getting his signature.

 

[NEWreckDiver]

That's a blatant double standard. You think divers shouldn't need proof they can conduct certain dives but instructors need proof they can teach certain classes?

Ben

I can't wait to hear this response.

 

[Genesis]

That's a blatant double standard. You think divers shouldn't need proof they can conduct certain dives but instructors need proof they can teach certain classes?

Ben

I don't believe you need proof you can teach anything you'd like.

I also don't believe that I should need proof that I can conduct any dive I'd like.

However, if you are going to demand that I prove that I can conduct some dive, then you must accept that it is only reasonable that if you're the one handing out the cards that I insist that you prove you can teach what you purport you can, and that such proof come from someone with zero financial or other interest in seeing you be able to issue those cards.

Since you're the one taking the position that I should need to play card-collector (to the pecuniary benefit of instructors and shops, natch), you have put upon yourself the very reasonable counter-demand that you prove your ability to teach and that I choose the method and depth of scrutiny (just as you do in issuing my "certification".)

 

[OneBrightGator]

You know, this is really gettting nowhere, I could post til my fingers bleed and have all the proof in the world and there'd still be something to complain about.

Ben

 

[scubasean]

No. My point was that there is no independant third party. PADI and the course director are on the same page. The course director is trained by PADI to train the instructor candidate to pass the IE. Bothe the CD and PADI want the candidate to pass. A true third part wouldn't care whether the candidate passes or failed and would gain nothing either way.

When there are so few examiners there is no reason to have a QA issue. The examiners ARE PADI management and the ones who define what a PADI instructor is. Correct?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "would gain nothing either way"...

The flight examiners, and scuba CD's both get cash for their time...And neither is only paid for a pass...

What is the difference you are trying to point out?

 

[truva]

Personally, I think Genesis has very good arguments here.

I see some of what I think is self-interest or even what I like to refer to as “Dive National Socialist crap” coming back at him.

If you have any sense at all you do really have to laugh at all the special “courses” they come out with. I’m waiting for the “Learn how to pee in your wet suit without your buddy knowing” class. But I bet the useless AOW course will be a pre-requisite.

But really, the industry is trying to make one get the stupid useless classes it seems and the only reason is money.

Truva

 

[fins wake]

Personally, I think Genesis has very good arguments here.

Which ones? The one about cave training for $1600 being only a means of enriching dive operators at various springs (instead of, say, because huge numbers of untrained people have died in caves)? The one where some form of government control of diving instructors is suddenly - and somewhat inconsistently - asked for? The one where dive training as a whole is regarded as unnecessary? (Which is inconsistent with the government control of the instructors in the first place ...)

Hmmmm ... :54:

I see some of what I think is self-interest or even what I like to refer to as “Dive National Socialist crap” coming back at him.

Self-interest, uh, well personally I disagree. We can't all do courses for Ben or for Mike, and why should anyone doubt that they haven't got the best interest of divers at heart? As for the "dive NS c**p", that's pretty nasty and unnecessarily inflammatory. If it's a reference to the the Three-Letter-Acronym dive folks, be advised that many of us (including me) aren't members or followers of that particular tribe, yet disagree with Genesis. And even if some are followers, so what in this particular case? All dive agencies agree on the points above that Genesis disagrees with ...

Genesis is admittedly a contrarian thinker, which makes his statements thought-provoking and thus conducive to a good debate. I - for one - very often enjoy his writings. However, NEWreckDiver's points about trusting senior members of the board even when they're wrong and on irresponsibility in this regard are very well made, and should be pondered by many in this thread ...

 

[MikeFerrara]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "would gain nothing either way"...

The flight examiners, and scuba CD's both get cash for their time...And neither is only paid for a pass...

What is the difference you are trying to point out?

What I'm trying to say is that PADI has a vested interest in wanting you to pass. The Examiner is a PADI EMPLOYEE. They make more money if you pass. A flight examiner makes exactly the same whether you pass or not. PADI makes more if you pass.

 

[fins wake]

The Examiner is a PADI EMPLOYEE. They make more money if you pass.

Not so. Pure logic dictates that they actually make more money if you don't pass, as the failures will have an incentive to redo the IE.

Now, in the conspiracy-theory-filled world we live in, PADI HQ does certainly benefit from more instructors paying annual fees, but there are logical inconsistencies in how this translates to the Instructor Examiners gaining automatically by passing examinees ...