I'm a TDI, IANTD, and NAUI tech and cave instructor. I have several friends that are fantastic instructors but are only with one or two agencies. Training choices should be about the instructor, not the agency.
Tech diving, equipment, awareness and too much too soon
- Thread starter GDI
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'm a TDI, IANTD, and NAUI tech and cave instructor. I have several friends that are fantastic instructors but are only with one or two agencies. Training choices should be about the instructor, not the agency.
As a consumer of scuba training, I think it is completely appropriate that the agency is a factor in the decision on who to purchase training from. I'm not going to bother listing them but I can think of several examples right off the top of my head where I could have the option for the greatest instructor in the world for certain things, but if they were only able to issue a certification from a specific agency, I would choose to find a different instructor.
Edited because my gut instinct was to disagree, but, after I thought about it for a few minutes, I realized that I actually agree. I can think of a few examples (only a very, VERY few, but they do exist) where I would look for a different instructor because of the agency as well.
Last edited:
Edited because my gut instinct was to disagree [SV: Happens to me a lot here], but, after I thought about it for a few minutes, I realized that I actually agree. I can think of a few examples (only a very, VERY few, but they do exist) where I would look for a different instructor because of the agency as well.
Exactly. There ARE cases. At least, ones where I think my people would agree, anyway
Anybody who signs up for a class that has a tuition of $1000 or more, before you even factor the ancillary costs, and pays no attention whatsoever to what agency they will be getting a certification from, is not being a very smart shopper.
DevonDiver
N/A
I'm fascinated. Why??
The first example that springs to mind is a once well-regarded cave agency that hasn't been able to print c-cards cards in ages and may or may not even exist anymore based on who you ask.
Another example is an agency that is late-ish to the tech game but brings their recreational training model along with them including the absolute dictum that the skills to be taught not be exceeded in any way. (This later one is more a personal hang-up than, I think, a valid reason to seek another agency/instructor... but I'm a bit biased.)
DevonDiver
N/A
Doesn't that fall under "it's the instructor, not the agency"? I am not aware of any such dictum existing in any agency I'm aware of.
PADI, for instance, has performance standards, which the instructor may not exceed. This relates only to an individual imposing pass/fail criteria above and beyond that specified by the agency. It does not, however, limit skills and drills conducted - that being the training necessary to achieve those performance standards.
Neither does it limit other skills, extensions of skills, or sub-skills being conducted... only that performance of additional specific skills can't be used to deny or withhold certification...and that the agency itself wouldn't 'defend' those drills as part of their structured syllabus (understandable) for liability reasons. Such skills have to be defensible as prudently reasonable...and safe... by the instructor.
When it comes to withholding certification though... the tech instructor has carte blanche.... because they can fail on 'mindset', amongst other things.
Generally... instructors are given course standards... these are generally minimum standards. This is especially true of the no. dive requirement, hours training etc....
In contrast, student performance standards are maximum standards... i.e. the instructor may not impose additional certification skill requirements... but they prohibit further training being given, providing it is not assessed for certification.
The agency doesn't specify how the instructor prepares the student towards the performance standards. They only state what the student must achieve... nothing more, nothing less... for certification. The 'how' is up to the instructor... assuming reasonable prudence and diligence.
In practice, the performance standards at tech level are quite all-encompassing... and the instructor can interpret 'mastery' of such standards to a very high level. On a par with the best agencies out there.... Or the instructor can also interpret 'mastery' to the very barest minimum.... a joke level.
What skills or standards do you feel couldn't be taught, met or exceeded, by an instructor for such an agency?
I tend to disagree with this philosophically, which is why I gave the caveat in my earlier post. I personally prefer flexibility both as a student and as an instructor.
Perhaps I should have left it at the NACD reference instead of including the PADI reference. That is, I believe, and inarguably valid reason to avoid the agency. As I said, rare , but possible.
Mostly my "Don't believe the hype" was that I worry about people discounting agencies because they're NOT PADI.
Six Feet Under
Contributor
Just to clarify, the three instructors I've chosen to use for the classes I've got planned out all just happen to teach for TDI (among other agencies), the company name on the card wasn't the deciding factor in them. All three of them have years of experience and two have been part of multiple exploration projects and been diving in any environment I could ever see myself being interested in. If I find something they don't offer (or someone else offers and I think they'd do a better job), I'd certainly look outside of that small circle.
DevonDiver
N/A
That's what I am interested in... how people perceive that instructors in a given agency are limited in flexibility?
Performance standards concern what skills the student must demonstrate 'mastery' of on a given dive....and overall throughout the course. They must achieve these performance standards to the definition of 'mastery'... to progress and to graduate.
Instructors retain 'artistic freedom' as to how they coach their students to meet those standards. I teach buoyancy in proper trim, within a specified depth fluctuation. One of the tools I use to improve buoyancy control...'stop holding'... 'static buoyancy'....'stillness' is no-mask stops/hover. It's a teaching method, not a 'skill' for assessment. I have that flexibility. Students aren't allowed contact with the ground... they do the entire course in neutral buoyancy, proper trim.... and to observe demonstrations....and to stay ordered... that means they have to learn positioning... and the propulsion techniques to maintain position in a team. They can then do it easily by the time we are conducting ascents and deco stops. None of that is prohibited.
Some instructors might cry foul on liability... an excuse for not supplementing their courses with more skills. But many drills and skills that can be added... well, they're already diver skills... remove/replace equipment underwater? That's an OW level skill... we can reasonably expect a tech student to deal with that, right? No-mask swim? That's an OW skill also.... Raising an incapacitated diver? That's a Rescue course skill... we should expect that from them... yes? That's why courses have prerequisite qualifications... because there's an expectation the student brings along skills and competencies from their previous training. So.... many skills are merely applying known and mastered skills in new equipment. No harm, no foul... the lawyers can rest easy...
Instructors are also at liberty in how they define 'mastery' of those standards. Where 'mastery' means 'fluid, comfortable and repeatable' - in a tech diving context, that bar can be set incredibly high. Every dive on the TecRec syllabus includes the performance standard "other simulated emergencies as directed by the instructor"... huge scope, all things considered.
Similar threads
