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?