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.