Diving without Certification (A RANT)

[redacted]

It seems to me that there is a fine line between initiating a discussion of excessively risky behavior in scuba and calling out the scuba police. Sometimes the difference is more in how you present a topic than the topic itself.

 

[Hawkwood]

One could only suppose it depends on the level of risk assessment, risk tolerance, risk mitigation, and "liability" acceptance on both parties. One reason training is done in a "formal" setting is to supposedly control and document same.

 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Have you ever wondered why children can be home schooled but scuba diver can't

Actually it can be part of a home school program. I created 2 home school classes for each of my boy, they were excellent classes (Basic OW and Marine Science). The catch of course is that the boys also completed a normal PADI OW course with an instructor to get the OW card. That part they aced. The second part of the class with me (10 addition ocean dives, endless drill, etc...) was more difficult.

 

[DivemasterDennis]

Back to the original question though, and the important point is that there is a difference between certification and training. I have taken uncertified divers on discover scuba diving outings, after a briefing/training session and pool orientation per PADI standards. They are not certified, but they are "trained" at a rudimentary level, emphasizing safety and very substantial limits on what we are going to do. They are "trained" by someone trained to train them and then they dive with that INSURED person under very controlled conditions. The OP presents a non-diver with absolutely no training "going diving " with an experienced diver who is not an instructor and I am guessing, not insured. That is folly on the part of each of the participants. I know this goes on, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. With so many dive centers, with so many insured instructors who will give a friend a deal, there really isn't a need for this. I hope all goes well, but I do not endorse this type of activity, not as a dive professional and not as an attorney, either.
DivemasterDennis

 

[drbill]

Dove eight years before I even knew one was supposed to get certified. Wouldn't necessarily recommend it today. However, there are folks who would take the activity seriously, research it and learn on their own and likely be much better off than some of the folks I see in OW classes who don't take their course work seriously and yet still get by. I'm wondering how much different your friend's experience with the "tech diver" will be compared to an uncertified person going under with an instructor on a Discover SCUBA ("try dive")? Is the tech diver an instructor?

 

[agilis]

When did they change the "no faster than your bubbles" rule"? Noboby sent me any notices or addenda. In any case, dispensing with all these stupid 'rules' of 3s, 5s, and whatever the current mnemonic flavor of the day might be and relying instead on a more fundamental understanding of what current research suggests as most prudent and advisable would be a good idea. Most divers too ignorant and lazy for that? Let them watch nature programs on TV instead, and have the army of people in the industry find other work.

I got a c card in 1972 because local shops here in NJ warned me that they would soon refuse refills without one, but I really didn't need it. During the 6 weeks (!) of basic c card instruction I was astonished at what passed for expertise. An example, one among many: during a discussion about decompression I asked about the possible problem of emergency helicopter and aircraft evacuations. It seemed pretty obvious to me, having recently had a college physics course, but the two instructors looked at me with a mixture of consternation and annoyance. I was right, of course. They were typical instructors: products of rote memorization, unable to understand underlying principles of any complexity. Dumb.

Instruction has become necessary because of the large numbers of people deciding to try scuba diving because they saw neat stuff on TV. This is a good thing, I suppose, considering the expenses that ultimately fall on the taxpayer's shoulders when some boob cripples or kills themselves. OTOH, it does run counter to basic Darwinian natural selection and has created a whole class of semi-competent DMs and instructors who are really little more than one-eyed hacks leading blind infants who frequently can't really swim well and who enter the water with their sightless eyes bugged out in barely controlled terror.

As with most things, learning is done through self-instruction. An experienced teacher is invaluable as a guide during the permanent and continous process of self-instruction, but unless an individual understands that the entire burden and responsibility of learning is theirs, all that is produced are the flailing jerks that churn up the water and assault the senses with their post dive beer-flavored boisterous brainless chatter. Please don't think I'm a misanthrope. Just a realist.

 

[HowardE]

Back to the original question though, and the important point is that there is a difference between certification and training. I have taken uncertified divers on discover scuba diving outings, after a briefing/training session and pool orientation per PADI standards. They are not certified, but they are "trained" at a rudimentary level, emphasizing safety and very substantial limits on what we are going to do. They are "trained" by someone trained to train them and then they dive with that INSURED person under very controlled conditions. The OP presents a non-diver with absolutely no training "going diving " with an experienced diver who is not an instructor and I am guessing, not insured. That is folly on the part of each of the participants. I know this goes on, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. With so many dive centers, with so many insured instructors who will give a friend a deal, there really isn't a need for this. I hope all goes well, but I do not endorse this type of activity, not as a dive professional and not as an attorney, either.
DivemasterDennis

Spoken like a true dive professional... and let me guess... a lawyer too??

No offense... but I find it ironic that most of the responses in this thread don't see a problem... except the DMs or Instructors.

 

[Hawkwood]

Spoken like a true dive professional... and let me guess... a lawyer too??

No offense... but I find it ironic that most of the responses in this thread don't see a problem... except the DMs or Instructors.

Hey, my answer was pretty "wishy-washy"!

 

[DevonDiver]

How it was done is the critical factor. If the 'supervisor' was an instructor, then we'd have a fair idea of what theory and practical necessities would have been covered pre-dive. The guy wasn't an instructor, and that leads to a big question mark. The 'question mark' is the problem - and possibly the reason why this was a poorly conceived endeavor - especially considering the easy access that a potential diver has to standardized instructor nowadays (yes, it's not the 1970's).

 

[supergaijin]

No offense... but I find it ironic that most of the responses in this thread don't see a problem... except the DMs or Instructors.

No offense taken- but as an instructor, I am trained to take beginners. Tech divers are not.

The tech diver in question may have done just as good a job as me... or not. As this thread isn't part of the Accident section, we can assume he lived- like the vast majority of first-time divers. But as a 'general practice' I would suggest that laymen are not the best diving instructors.

You can learn to drive a car with an experienced driver, or a professional driving instructor. One is free and one is not. If asked which would be safer, I would answer the pro. If asked which one would lead to a better beginner driver, I would again choose the pro.