Instructor or Agency or You ?

[Genesis]

First, the standards themselves.

Second, a statement that an instructor may require more stringent performance metrics than the written agency standards demand.

 

[learn-scuba]

Genesis once bubbled...
First, the standards themselves.

Second, a statement that an instructor may require more stringent performance metrics than the written agency standards demand.

Genesis --

I call you attention to paragraph six on the first page of the "General Training Standards" in this document...

http://www.ssiusa.com/pdf/2003_ssi_training_standards.pdf


6. SSI Instructors may exceed Standards, may provide more complete coverage of the materials, may provide additional pool or open water time. As newer, easier, safer and more efficient techniques become available, Instructors should use these. If in doubt, contact SSI Headquarters for guidance.


(added emphasis is mine)

There is exactly what you are asking for in black and white already in the standard.

is that enough?

no

It takes more than writing it down to make it happen.

 

[Genesis]

The standards are too loose, IMHO.

 

[learn-scuba]

Genesis once bubbled...
The standards are too loose, IMHO.

Should as used in this standard is a stronger word than the "may" you suggested.

And if you amke the standard more restrictive then it becomes increasingly difficult to exceed it which is counter productive.

 

[Genesis]

which I raised (in another thread) was for buoyancy control, and the minimum standard I proposed was:


The student must demonstrate reasonable mastery of buoyancy. As a minimum requirement to demonstrate this skill, the student must, on at least two open water dives, demonstrate:

Beginning off the bottom surface, and while neutrally buoyant, the student must make a free, no-assist-line ascent. For a checkout dive with a planned depth of less than 30', the ascent may be directly to the surface. For a checkout dive with a planned depth of greater than or equal to 30' but less than the checkout limit of 60', the ascent must include a mandatory 3 minute safety stop at 15'. At least one of the two free ascents must include the stop, and if different depth checkout dives are used at least one ascent must be done on the more shallow dive site and one at the deeper.

The student is considered to have "passed" this skill IF and only IF:

1. The student begins neutrally buoyant, in the determination of the instructor.
2. The safe ascent rate is NOT violated at any time during the exercise. A violation of the 30fpm ascent rate constitutes failure of this skill.
3. The safety stop depth is held within a 5' tolerance (that is, from 10-20') for the requisite 3 minutes without recourse to an upline, anchor line, or contact with another diver. Timing the safety stop and monitoring its depth is the responsibility of the student.

This skill may be performed with more than one student at a time, but if it is, a sufficient student to instructor or assistant ratio must be maintained so that the instructor or assistant can arrest any unsafe ascent that develops and maintain supervision of the class as is otherwise required.

This is a "mandatory" skill and while the agency or instructor may demand mastery in excess of that specified here, an OW card may not issue if the minimum requirement is not met.


That's the specific "tightening" that I proposed.

 

[learn-scuba]

Okay... let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

Genesis once bubbled...
which I raised (in another thread) was for buoyancy control, and the minimum standard I proposed was:


The student must demonstrate reasonable mastery of buoyancy. As a minimum requirement to demonstrate this skill, the student must, on at least two open water dives, demonstrate:

Umm... the definition of "reasonable" is open to a very long debate.

Beginning off the bottom surface, and while neutrally buoyant, the student must make a free, no-assist-line ascent. For a checkout dive with a planned depth of less than 30', the ascent may be directly to the surface. For a checkout dive with a planned depth of greater than or equal to 30' but less than the checkout limit of 60', the ascent must include a mandatory 3 minute safety stop at 15'. At least one of the two free ascents must include the stop, and if different depth checkout dives are used at least one ascent must be done on the more shallow dive site and one at the deeper.

The student is considered to have "passed" this skill IF and only IF:

1. The student begins neutrally buoyant, in the determination of the instructor.

His head waas stuck two feet into the mud bottom, but it looked to me like he was neutral.

2. The safe ascent rate is NOT violated at any time during the exercise. A violation of the 30fpm ascent rate constitutes failure of this skill.

His feet cleared the surface by about 6 inches, but I'm certain he never exceeded the safe ascent rate. (note, too, the 30fpm is not the "safe" rate for all agencies)

3. The safety stop depth is held within a 5' tolerance (that is, from 10-20') for the requisite 3 minutes without recourse to an upline, anchor line, or contact with another diver. Timing the safety stop and monitoring its depth is the responsibility of the student.

I asked the student and he swore up and down he was dead on at 15' for five minutes. Honest.

This skill may be performed with more than one student at a time, but if it is, a sufficient student to instructor or assistant ratio must be maintained so that the instructor or assistant can arrest any unsafe ascent that develops and maintain supervision of the class as is otherwise required.

There was at least one instructor for 20 students and I was sure that was a sufficient ratio to be able to arrest since I had never had to arrest two students at the same time. Honest.

This is a "mandatory" skill and while the agency or instructor may demand mastery in excess of that specified here, an OW card may not issue if the minimum requirement is not met.


That's the specific "tightening" that I proposed.

Look.. I'm just kididng around here and I could get a whole lot more creative. The point I'm trying to drive home is that you're playing a silly game of semantics and the more anal you want to get in defining the standard, the more anal I can get in picking holes in it.

The standards are already making an issue of buoyancy. The problem is that it's not being executed. Changing the words will not have a meaningful impact on execution. The insturctor has to care and if the instructor cares, then you don't need the language. Get it?

 

[Walter]

Guys,

Let's not get too side tracked here. There's already a thread discussing the concept of trying to add specific language concerning buoyancy to standards. Let's keep that discussion in that thread.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

I always considered the O/W cert a license to learn. After a diver is certified it is their responsibility to maintain & increase their skill levels.

 

[learn-scuba]

Sorry -- no further comment on it here from me.