DCBC, let's back up a moment. We all realize that no training at all is needed to dive, correct? You can buy your gear over the net, you can get your air fills from a home compressor, or borrow tanks from a friend, and even have some stores fill the tanks for you.
There is no regulatory or legal requirement that one get certified. It is in no way a bar to diving at all. It is a bar to certain conveniences, but that is not the same thing.
Now we agree that training is valuable, and we agree that more training is better than less. But the idea that inadequate OW training is the reason people die (I'll accept that the death rate is some huge problem for the moment) misses the point that they don't need any training to be doing whatever it is that killed them in the first place.
The issue is about personal judgment. Regardless of if we say that the OW certification is for diving with a DM in a controlled environment, or if we say you haven't passed OW yet you can't dive without a DM as your buddy, or if we say you haven't passed OW yet stay out of the water, people in no way have to listen to instructors on that point.
They retain the freedom to go diving if they choose.
Agreed. What you have described is similar to jumping out of airplanes. We can do it without a parachute, with a parachute (not knowing how to use it), or we seek training in how to use it before we jump out. Although it's not needed, most sane individuals realize that it's better to learn first. They don't know what they don't know, but depend upon an instructor to guide them.
Ultimately we are talking about the individuals making intelligent and informed choices about their abilities and acting appropriately. OW students are told that they are only ready to dive within the level of their training in conditions similar or better to what they were trained in. They are given the recommendation to go on guided dives. They are told that it would be a benefit to practice their skills (our shop has open pool hours every week for divers to come in and do just that). They are told that they should strongly consider more class time and that they really only know the barest minimum.
We are now speaking of a person who realizes that training is required. As I have already mentioned, he doesn't know what he doesn't know. He places his trust in the Instructor who says this course will allow you to safely be "ready to dive within the level of their training in conditions similar or better to what they were trained in."
If however, there are hazards that are reasonably foreseeable that are within the scope of this training (unforeseen by the student, but which the Instructor is aware), Then I believe it is incumbent on the instructor to prepare the student (the "malfunction" for a parachuting student, for example).
Now, we can agree (and largely we do) that more training is better. But we can't stop an unregulated industry from responding to market forces without stopping the ability for anyone at all to dive regardless of level of training.
I believe if someone wants to dive without instruction, that is their right. If however they come to me to learn, I have a moral, ethical and perhaps a legal responsibility to provide them with a reasonable amount of training that will ensure their safety. That said, the diver may choose to dive outside the scope of his training, but it is my responsibility to clearly identify this.
So do you propose that we ask the government to license divers and to give professional exams for instructors?
No I don't think this is necessary. Government has started this process already (as seen in Quebec). The European Union is in the middle of a similar process. What I'm suggesting is that the diving industry exercise more responsibility before this takes place.
As you know I am a Canadian. The Ontario Underwater Council was formed in 1958 at a meeting of concerned dive clubs to discuss legislation concerning spear fishing and subsequent government intervention in the sport. That year the Council evaluated and standardize training programs which were reviewed by Government and approved. Since then these standards have been lowered by certification bodies outside of the Province.
Government involvement (or threat of involvement) is nothing new. It may just be a matter of time (I'm not too good with a crystal ball). It is obvious that some governments are becoming concerned for whatever reason.
If not, do you realize that even if we could someone convince all the agencies out there to raise their standards to, and even above, your desired level that it won't matter? In an unregulated industry someone will always be looking for ways to beat the competition - and the only questions new students know to ask is "how long and how much?" So without regulation, economy will drive corporate behavior. And someone will always compete on price and time.
As I have shown, government historically backed-off when interested persons in the sport have organized themselves and shown government that they can provide a viable solution.
Economy has always drove industry. Not all industries were regulated. The food industry for example. Greed drove people to sell sub-standard food and it worked well until sickness and death caused government involvement.
Regardless of the great statistics we've seen, why did the government of Quebec become involved? They say because of too many deaths that were attributed to inadequate training. Why is the EU doing what it's doing?
The closest comparison is the commercial diving sector. Greed promoted cutting corners until people started getting hurt. Regulation was introduced at the chagrin of the equipment sellers (which BTW, were the primary reason behind the reduction of the sport diver training standards in the first-place).
If not, do you realize the futility of your quest?
I do not see "my quest" as hopeless. Do I expect to personally change big business? No, I doubt that would happen. I do think however if people open their eyes to the big picture, it may change some attitudes towards teaching. Too many people imo believe anything they are told by companies that only want their money.
I don't see this as ethical to just turn a blind eye. There is a curse by having been around long enough to sit down and discuss these matters with some of the architects that designed the current certification systems. It would have been easier to just wake-up one day and accept that that's just the way things are and have always been this way, but that's not how it is.