What does an instructor offer?

[chrpai]

Liability insurance is certainly an issue. Instructors remain 'liable' for their students (have to prove correct training was carried out) for 7 years post-training.

To quote you, that's a gross generalization. Where does that 7 year liability come from? From a city, state, federal government? From the united nations? From the agency or the WRSTC? From the insurance company that wants to sell you a policy on an annual basis rather then on the basis of when the training was conducted?

Frankly this "liability" is the major reason I haven't gone on to the "pro" level.

Otherwise it seems the instructor establishment is all spun up as normal. Just about the same as lawyers getting offended at using Legal Zoom or Realtors getting offended at you doing a FSBO.

 

[redacted]

2. Prerequisites for instructors are very light and I would argue that the material can be taught by most intelligent experienced divers.

Prerequisites control entry onto courses. That is all. To graduate from instructor courses, those candidates need to have passed a battery of various examinations and practical tests.

Is this "battery of various examinations and practical tests" established and implemented by the same agencies /folks who set those high standards for passing OW diver training?

To be fair, the current system does provide a reasonably reliable and fast route to obtain a C-card with minimal necessary qualifications. Although separating the training and testing processes would provide a check in the system that could reduce the number of "problem" new divers.

 

[TMHeimer]

I'd argue that this attitude is why our math scores are so low. Parents expect kids to get everything at school and then don't engage at home. I'd expect both teachers and parents to be involved and if the teachers have a certain way of teaching then to send some instructor notes home to the parents. I'm pretty good at math but I don't know the latest teaching styles so I sometime have a hard time teaching the kids because the way I show them is different then the way they are being shown at school.

In short I don't think it's A or B. I think it's both A and B.

Hence why I think A and B is the right answer.

****************


Yes, a very good point that I neglected to mention. A and B is ideal. You take Band in school from a certified teacher and private lessons at home from a professional clarinetist. You become a great clarinetist like me!!! But if you have to chose between the teacher (dive instructor) and the pro player (diver) for a class of several students or more, I'll choose the teacher (I was also one of those who was trained to and taught Band).

 

[chrpai]

Once upon a time I was a professional trombonist. Yes, I had teachers, instructors, mentors, coaches and in time I became a leader. But all of those people only have so much time to spend on you. It's up to you to do the woodshedding. I can't begin to tell you how many countless thousands of hours I invested in becoming the best that I could be. It would be comparable to the bottom time logged by saturation and commercial divers...

 

[supergaijin]

My argument. If you are a highly experienced diver (I am not), you understand an practice the OW material by nature and even if not, you know enough to teach it.

diving and teaching diving are not the same thing.

If that had been the first reply, this thread would have been consigned to the archives- no 'flames' intended Panama Jones

 

[Panama Jones]

There is no attempt in my question to discredit instructors or certification requirements. There is no intention to say that there is no room for professional instruction, and I firmly believe in examinations.

My thought pattern was as to why self study, combined with practice with a competent diver, should not suffice to allow a diver to challenge and OW exam if that's the route they choose.

The argument that an instructor knows how to teach is fine, but irrelavent if the exam process is structured properly. Most universities offer exam challenge options on subject matter more complex than OW and grant credit if passed.

Now the kicker, reading through this thread has swayed me towards mandatory professional instruction, not from many of the arguments presented, but by looking at my own argument for no instruction. I implied that scuba is largely unreglulated. Someone else argued that it is self-regulated. The term "self-regulated" usually means that an organization of professionals is permitted by legislation to regulate themselves in order to ensure that they are competent in this. That legislation sets boundaries for activities and processes that must be performed by the self regulated organization. Does this exist in scuba? If there is no legislation permitting self-regulation, then it is unregulated.

Ok, now if it is unregulated, then we need professional instruction way more than DIY learning because stupid things will happen. Using the drivers licence as an example. By law, a learner must pass a learners exam, be at least 15 years old, obtain a learners permit, and be instructed by (at the least) an experience driver of a minimum age. this is regulated controlled entry into the driving world. In an unregulated world, nothing would prevent a diver from bring his buddy out into the cold ocean on a boat, telling him not to hold his breath, and over they go.

So I'm swayed. I back mandatory professional instruction for the controlled instruction environment. Not for teaching skills. Enforcement though means that no shop will grant a C-card witout instruction and exam (this happens) and no shop will rent scuba gear or fill tanks without because as far as I am aware, it is no against the law for me to be in the ocean scuba diving without a c-card.

 

[robertarak]

self-reg·u·la·tion

[self-reg-yuh-ley-shuhn, self-] noun

control by oneself or itself, as in an economy, business organization, etc., especially such control as exercised independently of governmental supervision, laws, or the like.

....no legislation required. In fact if legislation did exsist, it would then be considered regulated.

 

[Panama Jones]

self-reg·u·la·tion

[self-reg-yuh-ley-shuhn, self-] noun

control by oneself or itself, as in an economy, business organization, etc., especially such control as exercised independently of governmental supervision, laws, or the like.

....no legislation required. In fact if legislation did exsist, it would then be considered regulated.

Partly true - engineering, physicians etc. are self regulated professions, but are allowed (by law) to be self regulated making them independant of government process. Administration of this self regulation is required to meet certain fundamental processes and as long as these processes are adhered to, then there is no government or legal intervention. But the organization must have documented processes which, if violated, can result in a legal challenge or government intervention.

Example. An engineer does something negligent. The self regulating body must act on that in a manner documented in their bylaws in order to avoid government (i.e legal) intervention. Once they do act on it, they must act on it in accordance with certain principles, many that are the same as in our regular laws. if they do not, they are subject to the same intervention. So self regulation does allow freedom of independant of government, but self regulated process must be documented, in place and followed.

This may be the same for dive training organizations. I don't know. If not, it is unregulated.

A futher example is from lieterature regarding engineering in Canada ( and I would bet you the same in US)

"Self-regulation recognizes that the engineering profession itself, at the provincial and territorial level, is best positioned to regulate the practice of engineering in a manner that protects both the public and the environment. Engineering's 12 licensing bodies fulfil this mandate by ensuring high standards of engineering practice and education in Canada, by setting high standards for admission into the profession, by disciplining engineers who fail to uphold the profession's practice and ethical standards, and by preventing the misuse of the title "engineer" by individuals who are not licensed members of the profession. They also take appropriate action to prevent the illegal practice of engineering by unlicensed individuals. Each licensing body's mandate and obligation to undertake this role is laid out in the Engineering Act through which it was created. Although each Act is slightly different, most also define a scope of practice for engineers and specifically restrict the use of the title engineer to individuals who have been licensed by the engineering licensing body in the province or territory in which the Act applies.

 

[Darkprincze]

First you are assuming parents, friends etc know how to dive. Most adults know how to DRIVE and I suppose could offer instruction to non drivers. My girlfriend is learning to drive at the minute and I chose not to teach her and let an instructor do it instead. I don't want her picking up my bad habits and the instructor knows what she needs to learn to pass the test. So much has changed since I started driving.

As for diving, the same applies. Not everyone knows an "experienced" diver. I certainly didn't when I started and wasn't about to let someone give me a "trust me I can teach you" course. Plus you gotta think about training equipment and first aid etc. While on land we would have access to a car to teach our drivers, would your friend/relative have access to 100% O2, defibrillator, first aid kits, compressors, cylinders, boats, buoys, etc.

There is a lot to be said about a structured course, that can go on to build on the foundation of the initial instruction, rather than "hmm what will I teach you today?" Stick with the instructors and use those that you feel comfortable and safe with.

 

[nimoh]

as a simple example, try to get a nitrox fill at a shop with an PADI OW card. They might fill it, they might not. But if they don't fill it, the reason is not because of legislation, it is because they are trying to do their part to help self-regulate the scuba industry.