Dive Agencies PADI, SSI, SDI, NAUI, YMCA, ACUC, CMAS

[ScubaJewel]

A scuba agency with higher standards will always turn out better divers?

Julie

 

[Walter]

Julie,

No, but that's the way to bet.

Imagine 2 agencies, Agency A and Agency Z. Assume Agency A has much higher standards than Agency Z.

There are nine possible situations:

1. Instructors from both agencies teach exactly what is required and no more. This is exactly what most instructors do.

2. Instructor from Agency A teaches exactly what is required and no more while instructor from Agency Z teaches below standards.

3. Instructor from Agency A teaches exactly what is required and no more while instructor from Agency Z teaches above standards.

4. Instructor from Agency A teaches below standards while instructor from Agency Z teaches exactly what is required and no more.

5. Instructor from Agency A teaches below standards while instructor from Agency Z teaches below standards.

6. Instructor from Agency A teaches below standards while instructor from Agency Z teaches above standards.

7. Instructor from Agency A teaches above standards while instructor from Agency Z teaches exactly what is required and no more.

8. Instructor from Agency A teaches above standards while instructor from Agency Z teaches below standards.

9. Instructor from Agency A teaches above standards while instructor from Agency Z teaches above standards.

In 5 of the 9 situations, one or both of the instructors are volating standards and unless the agency is turning a blind eye, the fault lies squarely with the instructor, not the agency.

In the possible situations:

1. Agency A will always produce better divers.

2. Agency A will always produce better divers. (Instructor for Agency Z should lose Instructor certification)

3. Sometimes Agency A will produce better divers. Sometimes the instructor for Agency Z will produce better divers. (Agency Z doesn't get the credit, the instructor does) Sometimes the divers will be equally good.

4. Sometimes Agency A will produce better divers. Sometimes Agency Z will produce better divers. Sometimes the divers will be equally bad. Since Agency A has higher standards, the instructor for Agency A could still be teaching at or above Agency Z's standards. (Instructor for Agency A should lose Instructor certification)

5. Sometimes Agency A will produce better divers. Sometimes Agency Z will produce better divers. Sometimes the divers will be equally bad. (Both instructors should lose Instructor certifications)

6. Sometimes Agency A will produce better divers. Sometimes Agency Z will produce better divers. Sometimes the divers will be equally bad. (Instructor for Agency A should lose Instructor certification)

7. Agency A will always produce better divers.

8. Agency A will always produce better divers. (Instructor for Agency Z should lose Instructor certification)

9. Sometimes Agency A will produce better divers. Sometimes Agency Z will produce better divers. Sometimes the divers will be equally good.

 

[Scott M]

The agencies need to go out in the field once in a while and see what's going on and forget those stupid questionairs.

That would help but with out a centralized complaint center weeding out the slackers would be time consuming.

The standards need to be written in terms of measurable requirements that mean something. It is requires that buoyancy control be taught in an entry level class but we mostly see these students on their knees and or leaving a trail of silt with poor trim and finning technique. The standards require a kick to be taught but it doesn't exclude doing it with fins in the bottom. The standards may require a student to hover for a certain period of time once or twice. It should require them to hover whenever they're not going anyplace.

The standards are an absolute joke. The proof is that you can teach a really lousy class without violating them. You can argue that the intent of the standards is being violated but why don't they just state the intent? I say it's because then some one would expect them to enforce them. I know how some agencies respond to complaints of sloppy teaching. The standards are written to allow that and the releases are written such that avoiding injury is the responsibility of the student.

The RSTC is nothing but a bunch of agencies writting what they are doing into a standards (ANSII) It's the fox watching the hen house.

"Measurable requirements" Well said.

Scott

 

[Genesis]

Genesis, I think you know by a lot of my reply's that we have been on the same side of the fence on most issues. I am no stranger to business. I very much dislike government intervention but.........as a whole the raising of standards and the accountability of those standards has raised the bar and benefited our company by putting the small fly-by-night operator out because they could not perform to the same level we could, in the end the consumer benefits.

You and I both know that the existence of one agency will never happen in the real world. As long as the market is there, there is going to be multiple agencies, with out some form of regulation it is a free for all.

I am not so sure having one agency would even be the answer as the old saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely". What would stop a single agency from abusing the power with no intervention. The market? possibly but by the time that happens many will be injured or dead.

Scott

I'm not talking about there being only one agency - I'm talking about one with a bar MUCH higher than the "common denominator" we have now!

Right now, NONE of the recreational agencies have high enough bars. NONE.

 

[Scott M]

Scott,

"How would it be possible to have accountability with out a standard by which to judge it?"

Results. Most of the divers I see on the reef are clearly not ready to be there. They have not learned basics I teach before I even introduce SCUBA.

Agreed, so how can results be improved?

Scott

 

[Genesis]

That would help but with out a centralized complaint center weeding out the slackers would be time consuming.



"Measurable requirements" Well said.

Scott

Let me give you an example.

All agencies say that students must "master" buoyancy control to get an OW card. But what does "master" mean?

These very same agencies have their students kneel down in the sand to do mask removal/replacement, and to recover a regulator. Now, if the students must demonstrate mastery of neutral buoyancy, is not by definition the performance of those other skills while kneeling proof positive that they are not meeting that definition?

Second example: On a not-so-long-ago class day, I was on a cattle boat and witnessed an instructor, on the last OW cert dive, "park" his students on an anchor line while he unstuck the anchor.

If those students had mastered buoyancy, would you not just have them hang motionless near but not touching the line? Of course you would. The conclusion is that they had not mastered anything - a conclusion born out when the line began to move, and the students were stripped off one at a time, headed for the surface..... because they had no clue what neutral buoyancy was.

After all, mastery is not "doing it once in a while". Its doing it all the time!

 

[Scott M]

I'm not talking about there being only one agency - I'm talking about one with a bar MUCH higher than the "common denominator" we have now!

Right now, NONE of the recreational agencies have high enough bars. NONE.

I do not know enough about the industry yet to comment on that one way or the other. Am I incorrect in that GUE is going to be a certifying agency? Seems they are trying to raise the bar. I may be wrong on this.

What I find interesting is the difference between the people I meet here on SB and the divers I meet locally. The folks here are mostly intent on improvement to be at least as good as they can be. Most, not all but most of the people I talk to locally are quite satisfied at the level they are at and just want to dive. All great people just different priorities. Most of these people have no idea nor do they care about the quality of the diver being produced today, with that attitude things will never be changed until forced. I suspect this is a pretty common feeling. When I talk about some of the things I have learned here they look at me like I have three heads.

Scott

 

[Scott M]

Let me give you an example.

All agencies say that students must "master" buoyancy control to get an OW card. But what does "master" mean?

These very same agencies have their students kneel down in the sand to do mask removal/replacement, and to recover a regulator. Now, if the students must demonstrate mastery of neutral buoyancy, is not by definition the performance of those other skills while kneeling proof positive that they are not meeting that definition?

Second example: On a not-so-long-ago class day, I was on a cattle boat and witnessed an instructor, on the last OW cert dive, "park" his students on an anchor line while he unstuck the anchor.

If those students had mastered buoyancy, would you not just have them hang motionless near but not touching the line? Of course you would. The conclusion is that they had not mastered anything - a conclusion born out when the line began to move, and the students were stripped off one at a time, headed for the surface..... because they had no clue what neutral buoyancy was.

After all, mastery is not "doing it once in a while". Its doing it all the time!

Exactly,

How can this be accomplished with the system that is now in place?

Scott

 

[Walter]

"how can results be improved?"

Pretty simple, actually.

Start by requiring people to swim. Next teach skin diving. Teach it with a real snorkel - a simple J. Skin divers should learn and master: mask clearing (3 times on one breath - minimum), no mask breathing, 5 styles of kicks, cramp removal, equalization, head first and feet first dives, ascents, mask and snorkel recovery from the pool bottom, breathing through a flooded snorkel, blast and displacement snorkel clearing, entries and exits, comminications, the buddy system, NO swimming with hands, and neutral weighting.

Once that is accomplished, introduce SCUBA. Get off the bottom!!!! Skills should be learned and practiced off the bottom. Eliminate fin pivots and work on true neutral buoyancy. Review many of the skin diving skills, equalization, neutral weighting, entries and exits,cramp removal, 5 styles of kicks, communications, the buddy system, no mask breathing, mask clearing, snorkel/regulator exchanges (and vice versa), 3 methods of regulator clearing, 2 methods of regulator recovery, neutral buoyancy, helicopter turns, weight belt removal and replace, oral inflation of BC, breathing from a free flowing regulator, disconnecting a stuck LPI, octopus breathing, buddy breathing, descents, ascents, ESA, Doff and Don, equipment exchange with buddy, bail out, equipment exchange with buddy while buddy breathing, rescue exhausted diver on surface, rescue panicked diver on the surface, rescue unconscious diver on the surface, and rescue unconscious diver off the bottom.

Practice. These skills aren't passed by doing it once. They must be mastered to the point the student can repeat them easily.

 

[DiveTyme]

How high should that bar be? Standards are set as a minimum. The instructors must make the final decision if someone is able to dive.
I took the open water course in the 70's and took it again in the 80's (to get a C-card). The instructor in the 80's had "high" standards. 24 started the class, 11 finished. We did things that would probably make a Navy Seal shake his head. That was "high" standards gone bad. I am all for high standards, but I hate adding anything that is going to tie my hands as an instuctor. Do I think it is perfect? No, but there is some uniformity. I sure don't want any goverment agency setting standards.