Diver and/or Instructor Renewal Program

[atedeschi]

After much discussion on another thread, I would like to get some votes on what we as a community should maybe push for. Below is a piece from GUE's standards, I am not saying we have to use exactly this, but might be a good starting point. I will be posting on multiple boards, but please just vote in one place.

The poll asks for what level should be certified instructor, or divers. It is broken down also in to tec instructor, rec instructor and/or tec and rec diver. It also say I am a ..., this is to get an idea of what level you are as a diver/instructor. I tried to think as many combinations as possible, and if not there please pick the closests. Also I consider tec level advanced nitrox/Deco procedures as the minimum.

Since scuba board limits me to 12 poll questions, please reply to the thread with one of the following after you have voted.

I am a tec diver
I am a rec diver
I am a tec Instructor
I am a rec instructor
I am a rec instructor & tec diver


"1.8.4 Instructor Re-Qualification
GUE instructors must formally requalify in EVERY curriculum (Recreational, Tech, Cave) in which they are qualified to teach by December of the third year of their initial certification or last requalification. This requirement is fulfilled by co-teaching a class with a training director in each curriculum in which requalification
is due. Instructors may also requalify by joining a GUE-sanctioned instructor re-qualification workshop. Instructors may choose to reset the three-year clock at any point within this three-year window. In the event an instructor is qualified to teach at different levels of a given curriculum (e.g., Tech 1 or 2), it is the prerogative of the training director to decide at which level the instructor will work toward requalification. GUE instructors must also requalify anytime the safety or effectiveness of their training is questioned. In such a case, GUE’s Quality Control Board may immediately suspend an instructor’s teaching privileges until a thorough review of these allegations is made. Instructors who fail to requalify within three years will be put on inactive status and required to return their
instructor cards to GUE Headquarters at once.

1.8.5 Diver Re-Qualification
All GUE diver-qualification cards expire three years after the date of issue. A diver can be re-qualified six months before or six months after the expiration of their qualification period by having his/her individual dive experience reviewed by either a qualified GUE instructor or by GUE Headquarters. To maintain GUE
qualification, GUE divers must a) complete and log at least twenty-five dives at the level of their qualification within a three-year period, and b) must provide evidence of such by producing their logbook or by mailing in or faxing copies of their logbook pages to a relevant GUE representative. Upon review,
divers can be issued a new qualification card for a nominal fee."

[wjknobles]

I am a rec instructor trainer and tech diver

[atedeschi]

For those of you who have voted thank you. Could you please post your level, as well so I can use it later in the data collection.

Note to others please vote, its a limited time poll and trying to get as much data as possible.

Thanks

[TSandM]

I am a tech and cave diver.

[JS1scuba]

I am a Rec and Technical Instructor Trainer.

[TraceMalin]

I voted for no renewal, but I'm a tec instructor. This may go against the grain, but I was all for such renewals in the past until recently. In team diving, fueled by the pressure to meet a quota, I'm beginning to see a "dark side" as I experience it first hand.

Here's why: As the buddy of a diver who needs to maintain a quota, both for his diving and teaching status, the pressure exerted by the agency is basically a form of "peer pressure" which propels dives to be more goal-oriented in regard to depth and complexity. Due to constraints on time, conditions, weather and other variables, on "fun" dive days, the fun often is sacrificed and replaced with greater levels of work, intensity and stress in order to take advantage of the window of opportunity to squeeze in the dives that will meet the qualifications for quotas. Team diving, while a safer practice on paper and on the Internet, may actually increase risk on those occasions in which divers feel pressured to either maintain a quota or help a friend maintain a quota. Recreational dives are discarded for Tech 1 dives which often morph or nearly morph into Tech 2 dives. With the envelope always being pushed, on any given day when a diver's psyche or skills aren't 100% up to the challenge, the potential for accidents increases as does the potential for both diver and instructor burn-out. While GUE's standards are well-intended, I believe they are flawed in this regard.

I believe if we stop trying to lawyer our way through life, common sense might actually become acute once again.

However, if renewals are to be done, I believe they should be more of a skills challenge like lifeguard recertifications and challenges. This would give both divers and educators the opportunity to identify their strengths and weaknesses in skills and procedures and introduce them to updates for teaching and task performance.

[atedeschi]

just a reminder to vote please.

[gypsyjim]

Rec.

I'd vote for renewal, but not every three years. At least not if a diver is active. It is excessive, and would lead to both frustration on the part of divers, and I'm afraid abuse on the part of certifying agencies, looking for quick reliable profits.

I learned from painful experience that periodic retraining is extremely important, and more so if one hasn't been active in the sport for a time. Maybe 10 years for an active diver, and 5 in the case of a more occasional diver, would be more practical than a blanket 3 years?

For instructors, of which I am NOT, 3 or 5 year re-certification might be practical, and more often if that instructor has not been actively involved in instruction for any length of time?

Just my thoughts, as an average Joe diver. My vote would have been different if the choice for all divers was not so excessively short.

[Cap335]

I voted for no renewal and I'm a tech instructor. The logistics of a renewal program would be terrible.

Randy

[atedeschi]

I voted for no renewal, but I'm a tec instructor. This may go against the grain, but I was all for such renewals in the past until recently. In team diving, fueled by the pressure to meet a quota, I'm beginning to see a "dark side" as I experience it first hand.

Here's why: As the buddy of a diver who needs to maintain a quota, both for his diving and teaching status, the pressure exerted by the agency is basically a form of "peer pressure" which propels dives to be more goal-oriented in regard to depth and complexity. Due to constraints on time, conditions, weather and other variables, on "fun" dive days, the fun often is sacrificed and replaced with greater levels of work, intensity and stress in order to take advantage of the window of opportunity to squeeze in the dives that will meet the qualifications for quotas. Team diving, while a safer practice on paper and on the Internet, may actually increase risk on those occasions in which divers feel pressured to either maintain a quota or help a friend maintain a quota. Recreational dives are discarded for Tech 1 dives which often morph or nearly morph into Tech 2 dives. With the envelope always being pushed, on any given day when a diver's psyche or skills aren't 100% up to the challenge, the potential for accidents increases as does the potential for both diver and instructor burn-out. While GUE's standards are well-intended, I believe they are flawed in this regard.

I believe if we stop trying to lawyer our way through life, common sense might actually become acute once again.

However, if renewals are to be done, I believe they should be more of a skills challenge like lifeguard recertifications and challenges. This would give both divers and educators the opportunity to identify their strengths and weaknesses in skills and procedures and introduce them to updates for teaching and task performance.

So you saying no renewal because someone has to do dives they are certified for but may have lapseed on their skills and this would push them into diving something they are not ready for? I thing that is the whole point is to keep the people who can not keep up on their skills from thinking they can just jump in and do a 200' wreck or something. I believe as far as instructors you would want an active instructor that is doing the dives he or she is teaching. With this renewal, the diver would not lose X level if they could not keep it current and would not have to retake X level course, but would need to do a refresher of some sort if their cert a X level lapsed.



I voted for no renewal and I'm a tech instructor. The logistics of a renewal program would be terrible.

Randy

Did you just vote no because of logisitics? Or do you not like the idea?

[RJP]

Tec diver and DM.

I voted for Instructor Re-Qualification, but I don't think that needs to mean anything more than ensuring that the instructor has been "sufficiently active" over whatever time-period.

Skills - not just dive skills, but instructing skills - are definitely a "use 'em or lose 'em" sort of thing.

[MtnPlayVA]

I am a rec diver and strongly believe that there should be some kind of recertification for both divers and instructors at all levels.

[muddiver]

I am a Commercial Diver and a certified Divemaster.

Renewal for any level of diving certification below the Divemaster/Dive Con/Dive Leader level would just move your new student base to the agency that does not require it. It would be rediculous to try and mandate a renewal for training in a "recreational" field of endever, especially one that has been without such restriction since the beganing of certifications.

With all the "do it yourself" divers out there now, how are you going to enforce it? Anyone can buy a compressor, cylinder and rig.

[TraceMalin]

So you saying no renewal because someone has to do dives they are certified for but may have lapseed on their skills and this would push them into diving something they are not ready for? I thing that is the whole point is to keep the people who can not keep up on their skills from thinking they can just jump in and do a 200' wreck or something. I believe as far as instructors you would want an active instructor that is doing the dives he or she is teaching. With this renewal, the diver would not lose X level if they could not keep it current and would not have to retake X level course, but would need to do a refresher of some sort if their cert a X level lapsed.

No, I'm saying that the current renewal philosophy of the first agency that issued expiration dates on C-cards is flawed.

Most instructors have the common sense to not teach a 200 foot trimix or wreck course when they aren't 100% capable and practiced. I do not know any tech instructor in my circle of friends who would do such a thing. When I had been diving nearly every day in the Bahamas for over 2 months with another cave instructor, she and I did two practice dives in Ginnie's ballroom, practicing stage drops and pick ups, and emergency drills before cave diving in Florida because we switched to drysuits, steel tanks, and stage bottles from wetsuits, AL80's and no need for stage bottles - just to go diving.

Quotas to teach your highest level courses such as Tech 2 or Tech 3 or Trimix 2 or Full Cave, means that an instructor is going to actively recruit people to take classes at these levels. My friend, Jim Wyatt, a popular North Florida cave diving instructor, believes that only cavern divers should be actively recruited because cavern is a "safety" course. To push divers into full cave or into greater deco and overhead dives to maintain a teaching status is almost irresponsible if you look at it from a safety and lifeguarding perspective. Most every agency asks for some sort of professional quota from instructors to remain active. The larger the quota, the more problematic it will be. While teaching quotas exist to maintain proficiency, what happens if the only students I get this year to take trimix 2 are not ready in my opinion? Do I run the class and fail them just to have taught? Do I run it and pass them to increase my cert numbers with the agency to enhance my career? Quotas are a double edge sword and I do not feel that lopping off the heads of students with the one blade is a good way to promote safe scuba diving.

An active diver or instructor are those who are actively diving and teaching. I would say that a diver making 150 recreational level dives a year is more "active" than a diver who makes only makes 25 Tech 1 dives every 3 years - especially if that diver practices bottle and deco switch skills routinely. Depending upon where some divers live, making 25 Tech 1 dives may be tough. However, when you start talking Tech 2 and Tech 3, that becomes very difficult. For many, they are forced to dive deep when the opportunity presents and that can be problematic for the individual and their buddies. The "safety" of proficiency is canceled out by the risk of diving when one doesn't feel up to the task, but hopes to get it together underwater. That is not a good scenario.

This industry keeps demanding more and more of instructors. I haven't even mentioned the financial burden placed on instructors for trimix and travel and time away from being able to bring home the bacon during the height of the dive season to meet quotas. It could take a month and over $6,000 in gas plus travel to stay active as a Tech 2 or Tech 3 instructor. Go into the public and private schools and tell the teachers that you have a great deal for them. No salaries. No benefits. No paid sick days or holidays. They'll have to spend several grand every 3 or 4 years on continuing ed, and they can only pass students with a 3.5 GPA or B average and above and each student must also pass the physical fitness test. If not, the student can't take class next senester and the teacher won't get paid. Now, you'll be left with only a few teachers who love to teach. Those who love to teach are often passionate about it and keep learning. They probably need very little encouragement to do their best and to be at their best.

I don't think that a quota system is going to solve the problem people are hoping it solves. I think people are wondering why there are so many poor divers and instructors and wondering how to prevent the death and injury among an inactive diving population. Poor instructors will tyeach 1 person or 10 people or 100 people a year poorly. Poor divers will make 1, 10, 25 or 250 dives a year poorly. Numbers won't solve the issues they are trying to solve. Higher standards and better training will. Great training is also not insured by numbers. In fact, I'd say that instructors with the lowest number of certs and the least number of courses at the highest levels of diving might be some of the best instructors.

Quotas are an attempt to fix a skills problem that may not exist with a paper solution.

[theduckguru]

Has lack of recurrancy been identified as a measureable cause of diving accidents? If so, full speed ahead, but if this is a program to funnel money to instructors, LDSs and Dive Agencies, nah baby nah.

From what I read, requiring periodic medical certificates might reduce diving accidents considerably.

[luckydays]

Why re certify divers if the agency standards for original certification are low to begin with? Many people complain that the competency of divers is minimal as it is. Since most divers are vacation divers, they are more likely to get re-certified from the same agency that originally certified them. What makes anyone think that the renewal would be better than the original.

I have heard this so many times on this board that diving is not about certification. Its about the experience. A diver has to dive to get better, no stamp on a card is going to make them better. I see a renewal as another opportunity for the agency to charge more money to reissue a card with an extended date.

[rstofer]

Has lack of recurrancy been identified as a measureable cause of diving accidents? If so, full speed ahead, but if this is a program to funnel money to instructors, LDSs and Dive Agencies, nah baby nah.

From what I read, requiring periodic medical certificates might reduce diving accidents considerably.

As I recall, you could eliminate 90% of the fatalities if you barred divers over 40. So, if safety is the concern, age is the problem.

I didn't vote as I have no interest in the poll. However, I'm not signing up for recertifying rec divers and that's all I'll ever be.

Richard

[plumcrazy]

I am a rec diver. I think only pros should be required to recertify. A real "refresher" course for rec divers who may only dive once every two years would be helpful.

[Rhenry]

I am currently a REC diver. I think instructors need to have a more formal qualification and requalification standard. There should be only one standard and not a loose set of unclear qualifications. There also should be one agency that has the ultimate responsibility for all instructors as well as divers. The issue I see it as it stands now is there really isn’t anyone responsible for any qualification and there is not a set of standards that all must follow. We say we do, but if any instructor do or does not follow these they are now referred to as “guidelines” and not formal standards. I would think a continuing educational requirement would also be in order, and a formal requalification every 5 years. This would give everyone time for business and fun diving

[oly5050user]

I am currently a REC diver. I think instructors need to have a more formal qualification and requalification standard. There should be only one standard and not a loose set of unclear qualifications. There also should be one agency that has the ultimate responsibility for all instructors as well as divers. The issue I see it as it stands now is there really isn’t anyone responsible for any qualification and there is not a set of standards that all must follow. We say we do, but if any instructor do or does not follow these they are now referred to as “guidelines” and not formal standards. I would think a continuing educational requirement would also be in order, and a formal requalification every 5 years. This would give everyone time for business and fun diving

There are formal requirements to meet to become and stay as an instructor.You really do not have a clue as to what is involved.As an example with PADI after you complete all requirements at an IDC you have to attend an IE to qualify as a instructor.At the IE the examiner is someone who has no problem failing you if you cannot make the grade.The examiner is someone who you never meet and has no interest in you if you pass or fail.Much unlike other agencys where you pay your money to the person running the program and it is the same person who qualifies you as an instructor.That person has a vested interest in you as to your passing or failing.He/she would look like a pretty poor instructor trainer if you fail,so they pass you as long as you pay the $$..
This happens more frequently than you think.A student of mine in a DM course could not meet the agency-PADI- requirements,so I failed him.He then went to Santo Domingo for a 5 day vacation and came back as a instuctor for an agency other than the one I taught under.He paid the trainer there and without any training or test he was issued a card.This cannot happen in a IE that uses examiners that are totally out of the training process.
I am for recertification of instructors who teach infrequently and some type of required refresher for people who have not dove in a while. Make it that if teach less than 10 students a year the instructor would require a refresher semi annually.It would eliminate the so-so part time instructors who teach only 5 or 10 people a year. I(t will make the cost of doing business higher..Not that they may be inept,but doing so would increase the cost to be an instructor and thereby cause them to charge a more realistic price to teach, or drop out,as their cost to maintain a instructor certification will go up.Maybe charge instructors $500. semi annually to do this,along with membership fees and insurance.Their income would go up with doing refresher classes for non pros to justify the added expense.Charge $130-$150. for a 2-3 hour refresher.Run the refresher as a private/semi private time.
They will have to charge a more realistic price to teach an ow course.I know that I rather teach a private 1 person/semi private 2 person course where I now get paid from a LDS $240.-$400. than teach a class of 6/8 people for $288..The LDS have to charge $600. for a private/$500. for a semi private class this way.
Lets start charging $500. for a standard ow course-academic and confined water portion and perhaps $400. for the 4 training dives. More for private.It would bring in students who seriously want to learn to dive and eliminate the ones who take the class -get certified-and never dive again.

[DennisS]

I'm a rec diver, as long as I can get air with my card, I'm happy.

[200 Bar]

I don't need anymore intrusion into my wallet by anyone, which it all boils down to...Being "Certified" doesn't mean much of anything anyway..I can start my own company tomorrow...There are no Gov't regulations and WE DON'T NEED IT as it is not broken.. Keeping a logbook doesn't mean anything either..When you read on here, "What constitutes a dive question", so they can make logbook entries..What matters is the experience of the diver which you can spot almost immediately when they assemble their gear or how they packed it....PADI has consistently raised my insurance and membership rated for the last 16 years and not given much in return..If I have to get qualified, who do you think would pay for that...They would loose biz, not exactly in their biz plan...If it works for GUE great for them, as they too are a business and subject to the bottom line.....This is a sport/hobby that is soley based on throw away income...Do the math...my two cents hehehe

[tomfcrist]

I am a rec instructor

I believe that re qualifications of divers should only be nessecary if they havent been diving for an extended period......their logbook is their passport. Requals are just a way to suck more money out of students and instuctors alike. Mind you I would make more money that way, but if i had to pay a CD for an ITC every 3 years, i would quit doing this job.:no:

[Heavy water]

As I recall, you could eliminate 90% of the fatalities if you barred divers over 40. So, if safety is the concern, age is the problem.

I didn't vote as I have no interest in the poll. However, I'm not signing up for recertifying rec divers and that's all I'll ever be.

Richard

:no: How about all the I can do anything under water divers below 40. Thats your high risk factor, Age is not the factor, maturity is.:no:

[Heavy water]

:poke::poke:IMHO I think the renewal program would work like your local DMV pay for your picture and go! As for me I'm a diver plain and simple I dont need a title.:D

[oly5050user]

I am a rec instructor

I believe that re qualifications of divers should only be nessecary if they havent been diving for an extended period......their logbook is their passport. Requals are just a way to suck more money out of students and instuctors alike. Mind you I would make more money that way, but if i had to pay a CD for an ITC every 3 years, i would quit doing this job.:no:

Like I wrote..requiring a renewal for both instructors and rec divers would increase the costs of doing business and instructors can make more money to a point it would be worth it to maintain proficiency.Many of us treat teaching professionally and expect to be paid for it.If not making money why do it? Just go diving and enjoy yourself and do not bother with teaching.
Make it a requirement it that the instructor who teaches less than 10/15 people a year has to do a refresher semi-annually with a course director/IDC staff instructor .Refresher would include class presentations/confined/open water briefings and swim evaluations/ water skill evaluations. Just like an IE..Those instructors that are actively teaching more than 15 people a year can be exempt,for it shows that they are fairly active in the activity.
For non-pros they can be required to have a refresher if they cannot document any dive activity for 2 years.It can be verified via a log book.Yes they can lie about it but who would they be fooling except themselves.It would usually be obvious when they attempt to assemble their gear and put things together backwards.

[Teamcasa]

I'm a rec diver.

I voted for no recertification only because there was no option for continuing education.

Professionals in almost all cases where they are licensed or certified are required to provide some proof of completing a minimum amount of continuing education. Dive instructors should be similarly challenged.

As certified recreational divers, we should challenge ourselves to continuing further our education as well.

BTW, spending time on ScubaBoard should be one of those requirements.;)

[Rhenry]

I understand what you are saying, but I think you might have missed my point. Is PADI the certifying agency for ALL instructors? NO is there more then one agency with more then on set of rules YES. Is there a ONE and ONLY one standard no and there is not a single agency responsible for instructors or for that mater anything else.
What I am sayings is we need a single point of certification that ALL are held accountable and responsible to one certifying authority. Yes we would still have PADI. SSI NAUI, etc etc etc… but they all would be held accountable to the certifying agency. In this respect, if any instructor fails to follow the rules, out he/she go and that person would have to go back to the lone and only certifying agency and have to go thought certification again or what ever punishment deemed appropriate for the infraction.

Yes we have good and bad instructors some are out for the cash and nothing else, some have there own agendas and the list goes on. At the end of the day there isn’t any accountability except in the case of unlawful injury or death, even then it is hard since everyone signs their life away before instruction begins. In short we have a mess of many different interests and not a responsible authority.
Ron

[Walter]

What I am sayings is we need a single point of certification that ALL are held accountable and responsible to one certifying authority.

Why? .

[Teamcasa]

What I am sayings is we need a single point of certification that ALL are held accountable and responsible to one certifying authority. Yes we would still have PADI. SSI NAUI, etc etc etc… but they all would be held accountable to the certifying agency.

Do a Google search for: The World Recreational Scuba Training Council (WRSTC)

[Walter]

Do a Google search for: The World Recreational Scuba Training Council (WRSTC)

It's not a certifying authority. All agencies are not bound by its rules.

[DennisS]

Renewal would adversely affect dive shops and dive businesses. If a vacation diver realized they are not certified any longer they may just say, why bother and go catamaran sailing and snorkeling on their next vacation. No sales of equipment, no charters, it may even determine that they are going to the mountains instead of the ocean for vacation.

[TraceMalin]

It's not a certifying authority. All agencies are not bound by its rules.

Yes, and most of us wouldn't sleep well at night if we only taught what the RSTC required.

[Teamcasa]

It's not a certifying authority. All agencies are not bound by its rules.

But it's the closest thing to the question asked.

[DCBC]

I'm a Rec Diver, Instructor, Instructor Trainer/Examiner; and a
Commercial Air/Mixed-Gas, Bell Saturation, Diver, Supervisor, Instructor/Examiner

I believe that Instructors should be renewed annually in a similar manner as physicians. Credits could be accumulated in various ways, such as running programs or through continuous education.

I don't think diver certification should be renewed. I currently don't have much faith in anyone that has a card to know his way to the water until he gains my confidence. Diver recertification would just be another cash cow for the certification agencies and dive shops.

[Walter]

But it's the closest thing to the question asked.

Perhaps, but it doesn't meet his criteria. If you want a horse, you won't be happy with a house cat even if it is the closest thing to the question asked. I still wonder why he wants it.

[Teamcasa]

Perhaps, but it doesn't meet his criteria. If you want a horse, you won't be happy with a house cat even if it is the closest thing to the question asked.
Your analogy is .. well let's just say... ah, never mind.:shakehead:


I still wonder why he wants it.


What I am sayings is we need a single point of certification that ALL are held accountable and responsible to one certifying authority.
In short we have a mess of many different interests and not a responsible authority.

[mselenaous]

I am for recertification of instructors who teach infrequently and some type of required refresher for people who have not dove in a while.

What he said.
Rec Instructor

I worked at a resort whose policy was that if you had not dove in 2 years (show logs) you were required to take a refresher course first at your LDS or with the resort. If you had not dove in 5 or more years, it was strongly recommended (though not mandatory) retaking the OW course (3 days total at the resort).

[ptyx]

I'm not a big fan of the card renewals.

I am all for instructor quality control by their agency, and renewal is one way to do it - but logistics can discourage very good - but not necessarily very active - instructors to participate. I'd trust an agency with such quality control better than one with none.

As for divers, I can't think of a situation where checking dive logs more often wouldn't work better than card renewal.

[Sas]

I am a recreational diver.

What ptyx said.

[vladimir]

I am a rec diver.

I think that businesses that value and differentiate themselves based on a reputation for excellence should hold themselves to high standards and make those standards public. Obviously, GUE thinks this is a sound business strategy and I applaud them for it. I also think consumers who want a quality product should examine the reputations and standards of the businesses they patronize. And I strongly feel that communities (like the "dive community") should keep their noses out of the business of the individuals within them as much as possible. The more the dive community interferes on behalf of my safety, the more likely I am to take up sailing as my primary diversion.

[DA Aquamaster]

I think we need to take a bigger view of the issue. The recertification idea carries sounds great but makes a few assumptions that are most likely not correct.

1. An active instructor is not neccesarily a good one. in fact pressure to generate student numbers can get the opposite effect with instructors recruiting minimally interested students and pushing them through a course to meet a quota. And it is a further disincentive for instrucotrs and LDSs to spread an OW course out over several weeks, take it slow and do a better job of instructing. Finally, I'd argue that if an instructor is truly qualified (ie. has excellent in water skills AND can actually efferctively and efficiently impart thse skills to others) they will maintain that ability whether they teach on student a year or 100 students per year.

2. An active diver, diving to the maximum level of their training to meet a quota is not always safer than an active diver who just dives a lot. I am a cave diver and while I am certified to dive in caves, do cave dives involving complex navigation, stage and deco gasses and to do so below recreational depths, not every cave dive I do should be to that maximum limit. And while the skills are perishable, they can be effectively maintained with application and/or practice at shallower depths and lesser pentrations.

3. Currency quotas can have a paradoxical effect. As Trace pointed out earlier, meeting a quota can provide an incentive for divers to dive outside their comfort or ability levels when the opportunity arises - on days when they may not be prepared to meet the demands of that dive, but are pressured to do so by the rest of the team needing to meet the quota. What matters is not that the diver frequently does dives to their maximum certified limits, but rather that they maintain the skills needed to do it and then, before they do it, that they knock off any rust and work up to that pinnacle level of performance. That is an entirely separate issue than having x number of dives in x number of years.

4. Rules won't cure stupid or improve poor judgement. It does not matter whether a diver has a "current" cert. What matters is that the diver knows and respects their abilities and limitations and dives within them. That involves making a personal committment to ensuring their skills are current enough to meet the demands of any dive they are undertaking and working back up to that level of proficiency if their skills have slipped. A diver does not magically get worse at, for example, 3 years post cert. Their skills are no better at 2 years 364 days than they will be at 2 years 366 days.

5. A requirement for diver recertification will not solve the "divers with poor skills" problem. Poor instructors and poor LDSs turn out poor divers and if you impose a recert requirment, guess who will be doing the recertification.

6. Increasing the cost of initial certification will not keep out the less interested. It will keep out those with less money, so the remaining poor divers will have higher average incomes, not higher than average interest. Adding a recert requirement will just add another financial burden and reduce the anount of real diving a diver can afford to do. The dive industry is already badly skewed by the dive travel industry and local diving has all but dried up in most areas. The result is a large number of divers who only dive on 1-2 trips per year.

7. If you really want better divers, you need higher levels of currency and skills proficiency and promoting local diving is the most effective way to achieve that. So instead of focusing efforts on recertifcation, focus efforts on the local dive shops, local clubs and the social side of diving to encourage more people to get in local water more often to develop and maintain skills.

----

For pilots with less than a specified number of hours, the FAA mandates a bi-ennial flight review. This involves some instruction every two where a flight instructor essentially evaluates your skills and essentially signs off that you still meet minimum standards. For an active pilot this might inovlve one hour of instruction. For a less active pilot in need od substantial skills refreshing, it may involve several hours of instruction.

Just as importantly, once certain certification levels and/or experience levels are reached, the requirement no longer applies. The underlying assumption of the BFR exception is that once you reach certain training and/or experience levels, you ought to know enough to fly within your limits and to know when/if you need some refresher training.

The FAA also has some minimum currency requirements such as a 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days before carrying passengers and a similar requirement for night flights.

A combination approach is used to maintain currency for instrument flight with the bulk of the responsibility staying with the pilot with instruction only coming into play after an extended period of inactivity.

In a sense, some operators in the scuba industry use the same approach - resorts that require X number of dives in the last year or boat captains who may review a divers certs and logs to determine both training level and currency before taking a diver to a specific wreck. In my opinion, that type of approach makes far more sense than arbitrary quotas and time limits.

[DCBC]

For pilots with less than a specified number of hours, the FAA mandates a bi-ennial flight review. This involves some instruction every two where a flight instructor essentially evaluates your skills and essentially signs off that you still meet minimum standards. For an active pilot this might inovlve one hour of instruction. For a less active pilot in need od substantial skills refreshing, it may involve several hours of instruction.

Just as importantly, once certain certification levels and/or experience levels are reached, the requirement no longer applies. The underlying assumption of the BFR exception is that once you reach certain training and/or experience levels, you ought to know enough to fly within your limits and to know when/if you need some refresher training.

The FAA also has some minimum currency requirements such as a 3 take offs and landings in the last 90 days before carrying passengers and a similar requirement for night flights.

A combination approach is used to maintain currency for instrument flight with the bulk of the responsibility staying with the pilot with instruction only coming into play after an extended period of inactivity.

And they still fall asleep on the job. :-)

[Karel26]

I voted no renewal. .

My 1ste thought was no i will not do it and it will let diving go down hill, because who are going to want to go through the trouble every year to take the time and effort to go and do it, we all know how vallueble time are. .

Then i got the positive site of renewing cards (havent read the previous posts, so i hope my idea is unique) . .

If they use the money of the renewing cards and spent it on a education in schools and the public over the world on the ocean and the enviroment of the ocean e.g fishes, reefs, sharks, global warmings effect on the ocean and its enviroment. . Then it can work. .

It will be good though if all the agencies can work together just for this one cause, even the tec side. . Then they can work for one mission and vision and try and make a differance in the ocean so that there will still be a ocean one day for the next generation to enjoy. .

Live to dive and dive to live. . :burnout:

[acwest]

Like I wrote..requiring a renewal for both instructors and rec divers would increase the costs of doing business and instructors can make more money to a point it would be worth it to maintain proficiency.Many of us treat teaching professionally and expect to be paid for it.If not making money why do it? Just go diving and enjoy yourself and do not bother with teaching.
Make it a requirement it that the instructor who teaches less than 10/15 people a year has to do a refresher semi-annually with a course director/IDC staff instructor .

Something you should keep in mind is that not everyone works the same way you do. Most club-based instructors (including most of the BSAC) aren't paid at all for instructing, and are doing it for the love of the sport. If you teach long course with small class sizes, having numerical quotas could also not be an accurate representation of actual currency. It also has the interesting side-effect of increasing the working expenses for the very instructors who could least afford it, as their income is lower. (assuming any income at all, that is) This is pretty much an economic incentive for running c-card mills....

[theduckguru]

As I recall, you could eliminate 90% of the fatalities if you barred divers over 40. So, if safety is the concern, age is the problem.

I didn't vote as I have no interest in the poll. However, I'm not signing up for recertifying rec divers and that's all I'll ever be.

Richard

Would you share the report where you found this information? From what I have read the most fatalites are in the 18 to 40 group.

[TraceMalin]

As I recall, you could eliminate 90% of the fatalities if you barred divers over 40. So, if safety is the concern, age is the problem.

I didn't vote as I have no interest in the poll. However, I'm not signing up for recertifying rec divers and that's all I'll ever be.

Richard


Would you share the report where you found this information? From what I have read the most fatalites are in the 18 to 40 group.

That first stat would be about right since there are so few divers under age 40 :)

The second stat is probably because if two 18 year-olds died they'd probably be 100% of that age group. :D

[japan-diver]

I am a recreational course director and technical instructor.

[oly5050user]

Something you should keep in mind is that not everyone works the same way you do. Most club-based instructors (including most of the BSAC) aren't paid at all for instructing, and are doing it for the love of the sport. If you teach long course with small class sizes, having numerical quotas could also not be an accurate representation of actual currency. It also has the interesting side-effect of increasing the working expenses for the very instructors who could least afford it, as their income is lower. (assuming any income at all, that is) This is pretty much an economic incentive for running c-card mills....

At the DM / Instructor level it is a business.To maintain certification to teach is a cost of doing business.
Does not matter if you are an independent or work for a LDS.Why do something that takes you away from family and your life for no pay? Why do something that if there is a screwup/accident you can loose your life style?
If you wish to teach for the "love of the sport" that is great. But for those that do it for an occupation it is a job. As a business and job they are entitled to make money at their choice of occupation. Again it goes to how often an instructor teaches a class.More likely if the instructor teaches often he/she would develop superior skills at teaching in both the water and classroom environment, just as a ow diver gets better by diving often...If a "club" instructor teaches one class a year they may be very good,but chances are that very often may be unlikely.He may be able to get the student to complete skills but may take a longer period of time to do it. Why teach a 40 hour academic/confined water course when it can take 18 hours with an experienced instructor who is clear with classroom presentations and skill demo's and come out with the same end product?