A compassionate instructor

[Thalassamania]

Hey Drewski ... if he earned the number it's his for life, doesn't matter if he pays or not.

 

[DCBC]

I'm just curious, noting your long affiliation with NAUI and many certs, did you know Walt Hendrick?

Hi Drewski,

Not directly. I was a resource for ACUC who developed a joint public safety dive instructor certification program with Lifeguard Systems (Walt). Previously ACUC had adopted the Royal Life Saving Society SCUBA Bronze / SCUBA Bronze Instructor format, which I oversaw for Royal Life in Ontario. ACUC was considering integrating some of the course content of the Canadian Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer Program which I developed. Subsequently, I did a third-party review of the program.

 

[DCBC]

First up, respectfully, if you actually are who you say you are and have a NAUI membership number of 4728 then you came from an era of diving instruction when things were MUCH MORE hands on then they are today. So, if you want to have a "good" debate on this issue, you motivated the RIGHT guy and, BTW, I do "get it." And, just so you know, I'm not one of those "new" instructors, BTW. You became an instructor in 1977, I became one in 1984.

I'd love a good debate on the issue, but first of all I'd like to point out that my comments were directed to NWgratefuldiver not you. This was a result of what I saw as disparaging remarks concerning new instructors. Since then we have sent each other private messages and have come to an understanding. We remain brothers and there are no hard feelings between us. By the way, I became an instructor in January of 1972. I became a NAUI instructor 5 years later.

In this and another thread, you've been engaging Thalassamania and NWgratefuldiver, two guys who I probably respect more than almost all other posters on this board. A majority of their posts are instructive, polite and, well, downright entertaining. So, when I read some of your responses to them, I was bothered.

I'm truly sorry that you were bothered. Thalassamania and NWgratefuldiver remain friends and associates, so you need not worry. Both are capable and competent and capable of having their own debates.

Back when you and I became instructors DCBC, the "standards" were significantly different. In my opinion, you now seem to be defending the "new standards" that practically allow "hands off" diving instruction through a number of agencies. Why am I'm saying this? Because those same "new standards," recognized by a number of certification agencies that support the dumbing down of education, decrease direct one-on-one instruction and do a whole bunch more of BAD stuff, are the SAME ones you think should be rigidly enforced and adhered to by instructors at all times as you indicated throughout this thread. After all, "standards are standards," unless you think SOME are wrong?

Perhaps you might describe to me how you think I'm defending the "new standards?" Certainly in the majority of my posts have mentioned how much the standards have deteriorated over the years. Historically, I've been a pain in the side of many certification organizations, in that I've promoted increased standards as a way of increasing diver safety. Perhaps you should read more of my postings more closely.

So, on one hand, you criticize an instructor who is making a GOOD judgement call by ENGAGING an involved parent with his kid using indirect and at arm's length supervision in a controlled shallow pool setting, but on the other hand end up defending the rigid use of "new standards" for "diving education" by instructors who undoubtedly certify through some agencies that rely almost ENTIRELY on indirect supervision. Those two ends don't jive, brother.

Because you think "an instructor who is making a GOOD judgement call by ENGAGING an involved parent with his kid," doesn't mean that I feel that it's a good policy. As to my opinion, I don't think that any instructor is using good judgement by turning an 11 year old over to a non-qualified leader for an introduction to SCUBA in-water session. Perhaps you might show me where in the standards that this is ok...

Second, if you came from NAUI, you know we never used "hard" and "set" standards to grow the sport.

That's not true. Historically NAUI has placed minimum training times, minimum number of dives, lessons that must be taught, instructor ratios, depth limitations, etc., etc. on student training. An instructor has some flexibility, but there are standards that the instructor must adhere to. Instructor liability insurance depends upon this.

Third - and this is targeted at a number of the other INCREDIBLY narrowly focused people out there as well, many of whom responded to this thread - rules are made to serve the people who make them, people shouldn't end up serving the rules! Look, the training environment the OP described with his son and son's instructor didn't even come CLOSE to a marginal risk situation and just believe me when I say that I know a little about classifying "risk." Simply put, please DON'T let lawyers rule the freaking world! The more we hand to them, the more personal freedom we give up and the better the chance is we end up staying home.

So you've decided that I'm an "INCREDIBLY narrowly focused" person. Nice.

From what I'm hearing I have to ask you: Do you routinely have certified divers teach your classes for you? If not, why not? I'm sure NAUI would also be interested in your answer.

Finally, DCBC, if you are going to talk about diving instruction and offer what I would consider to be well-thought and valued opinions while putting the letters "NAUI" next to your name, how about sending NAUI a check and paying your dues? Unless I'm wrong, you were last active in 1993?

You are correct. Although I retain active teaching status with other organizations, I have let my status with NAUI expire. Oddly enough, I made this decision as a result of falling standards. Perhaps it's because I'm not a hypocrite. Have a good day.

 

[Scubaman7596]

First up, respectfully, if you actually are who you say you are and have a NAUI membership number of 4728 then you came from an era of diving instruction when things were MUCH MORE hands on then they are today. So, if you want to have a "good" debate on this issue, you motivated the RIGHT guy and, BTW, I do "get it." And, just so you know, I'm not one of those "new" instructors, BTW.

In this and another thread, you've been engaging Thalassamania and NWgratefuldiver, two guys who I probably respect more than almost all other posters on this board. A majority of their posts are instructive, polite and, well, downright entertaining. So, when I read some of your responses to them, I was bothered.

Back when you and I became instructors DCBC, the "standards" were significantly different. In my opinion, you now seem to be defending the "new standards" that practically allow "hands off" diving instruction through a number of agencies. Why am I'm saying this? Because those same "new standards," recognized by a number of certification agencies that support the dumbing down of education, decrease direct one-on-one instruction and do a whole bunch more of BAD stuff, are the SAME ones you think should be rigidly enforced and adhered to by instructors at all times as you indicated throughout this thread. After all, "standards are standards," unless you think SOME are wrong?

So, on one hand, you criticize an instructor who is making a GOOD judgement call by ENGAGING an involved parent with his kid using indirect and at arm's length supervision in a controlled shallow pool setting, but on the other hand end up defending the rigid use of "new standards" for "diving education" by instructors who undoubtedly certify through some agencies that rely almost ENTIRELY on indirect supervision. Those two ends don't jive, brother.

Second, if you came from NAUI, you know we never used "hard" and "set" standards to grow the sport. In fact, NAUI has ALWAYS encouraged innovation and invited discussion - even dissent - among members. Why? Because that's the way the body of knowledge improves. At times, this is why I have such heartburn with GUE - not because they advocate focused KSAs and produce GREAT divers, but because their narrow view of acceptability limits growth and ultimately, change. Diving, by it's very nature will continually EVOLVE. NAUI, as an organization, has always been "up front" about such expectations. Not all students are ready to perform skills one, two, and three always in that particular order. NAUI instructors are encouraged to explore and thereby discover new and innovative ways to help each individual student, as well as divers they lead and teach meet certification requirements. So, when I see an innovative instructor (like the OP described) do something different to motivate a student and be successful at it - especially with a kid - I'll embrace and congratulate them.

Third - and this is targeted at a number of the other INCREDIBLY narrowly focused people out there as well, many of whom responded to this thread - rules are made to serve the people who make them, people shouldn't end up serving the rules! Look, the training environment the OP described with his son and son's instructor didn't even come CLOSE to a marginal risk situation and just believe me when I say that I know a little about classifying "risk." Simply put, please DON'T let lawyers rule the freaking world! The more we hand to them, the more personal freedom we give up and the better the chance is we end up staying home.

Man Good Freakin Post. I tried to say something to this extent earlier, It probably came out wrong. You completley hit the nail on the head here.
I am glad to see I am not the only one.

Mahalo for this post

 

[Scubaman7596]

< Peek, Peek>

I think its over Paladin!

Good luck to you and your Kid.

 

[mgmonk]

This is the last I will have to say on this matter. If you guys want to continue batting this ball back and forth, go to it. I got other fish to fry.

I'm coming in very late on this, and there are about 200 more posts, but I wanted to make a quick comment. Just from me to you.

Good on ya mate, and I think your children are going to have a helluva interesting life.

 

[waynne fowler]

Because my intent was to tell of the instructor's generosity and humanity. I had no idea that I would have to write a textbook or a detailed, second-by-second report to satisfy nitpicking bureaucrats. I honestly did not consider the little details important to the primary story. It never even occurred to me that anyone would twist my post into a prolonged, ongoing argument about legalities that actually had no bearing on the story. Besides, I offered the pertinent details early on but it seems they were largely ignored.

But I have learned my lesson. From now on, I will carefully censor and edit any and all future posts to avoid being dogpiled in the future.

"pertinent details"?

Ohhhh you mean like the fact that you had a Divemaster all to yourselves and an Instructor not more than 40 feet away... you mean like that kind of "pertinent"

Bro... really... how heavy is the dogpile though? I bet your computer screen ain't even effected by the weight. And in truth haven't you found some of the statements made in this thread rather amusing, while others have been eye opening, brow raising and a few are quite educational... I for one am glad you posted the OP and happy that you put it exactly as you did.

I'd buy you a Rootbeer if you were around.