Do we need instructors?

[gcbryan]

(Actually, this thread could be called...Would you teach someone to dive...it's not a slam on instructors).

If not for the litigious nature of our (US) society would we really "need" instructors?

I'm not saying that we wouldn't but I'm just posing the question. In several other sports most training if not all in some cases is done by mentoring.

We have mentoring in scuba in additional to traditional instructors/courses.

If you didn't have to worry about the legal aspects of teaching someone else to scuba dive would you do it? (assume either calm warm water nearby or access to a pool)

Would you do it for strangers, close friends, family members?

Assume that there were no legal issues and that getting air would be no problem without "a card".

There would be no time pressure and you could be a through as you wanted...

 

[IceBergSlim]

Instructors could be done away with in seconds if the mentors you describe all establish basic standards that would allow the dive community to agree on the mastering of the knowledge and skills required for the goals and tasks desired by the student in each underwater hurdle. From open water diving to trimix they would decide as a group what was considered "good enough".

The mentors that created those standards could create an association and call themselves by a cool name.

The ones that made a living teaching rec divers would be Professional members of that Association of Dive Instructors.

The ones that worked more with Technical Divers Internationally would have to consider another name altogether.

 

[gcbryan]

Instructors could be done away with in seconds if the mentors you describe all establish basic standards that would allow the dive community to agree on the mastering of the knowledge and skills required for the goals and tasks desired by the student in each underwater hurdle. From open water diving to trimix they would decide as a group what was considered "good enough".

The mentors that created those standards could create an association and call themselves by a cool name.

The ones that made a living teaching rec divers would be Professional members of that Association of Dive Instructors.

The ones that worked more with Technical Divers Internationally would have to consider another name altogether.

I think you might be on to something here! So, the one's who didn't make a living but who agreed with the standards would still be able to use the cool name right?

 

[Prostar]

I think you might be on to something here! So, the one's who didn't make a living but who agreed with the standards would still be able to use the cool name right?

NAUI think that may be a bit of a stretch.

 

[gcbryan]

NAUI think that may be a bit of a stretch.

True,true.

What do you think though? I know that you are an instructor but I'm sure you can be objective as well on this subject.

Should non-instructors teach other's to dive? In many other sports there are classes that some take and there are many others that only learn through mentoring.

I'm not aware of any accident statistics that show one group is any more represented than the other.

How do you think this would play out in diving? In other words in diving instruction is more or less required in order to get a card in order to get air. Without that I'm sure there would be less instruction taken. Would the accident rate be likely to change?

 

[Diver0001]

Would you do it for strangers, close friends, family members?

Assume that there were no legal issues and that getting air would be no problem without "a card".

There would be no time pressure and you could be a through as you wanted...

Well.... a couple of things would obviously happen.

1) any kind of consistency in the training would be lost. Everyone would make up their own course and teach to their own standards. Some of those would surely be excellent but some of them would undoubtedly blow worse than you can imagine. For example, I recall a story from an ex- scubaboard member about his OW training. He was trained by a "lay-instructor" and was strapped into a scuba-set, pushed over-board and told "never hold your breath". That was his OW course. You would seem to *assume* that eliminating instructors would improve training, but in many cases, I would bet that OW training would revert to the kind of antics we saw before the agencies standardized things....

2) People would still have accidents. About 90% of accidents happen after the training, not in the training. The difference would be that there would be no systematic way of evalutating how the training should be improved to avoid accidents. Tbh, I'm not sure how much of that gets done now but I'm pretty sure that a lot of analysis of accident stats initially went into defining standards. For example, we all learn to breathe off of a freeflowing regulator because at some point the agencies thought it was important. Take out the agencies and some of your "lay-instructors" will decide it's not important and we'd probably see some increases in certain types of accidents and a general loss of grip as to what we should and should not be teaching.

3) in terms of the acutal teaching, I would expect to see an increase of training related accidents. It's not that I think that instructors are incredibly well prepared for their task now, but the ones who teach a lot soon gain a much larger awareness and "radar" for problems. This "experience" element would be lost if we did away with instructors because nearly everyone would be teaching less.

4) I would expect a further decay in the position of the LDS because they wouldn't be able to use training as a bait to get people in the door. They'd have to wait around until someone got trained by their neighbour and came to buy stuff. In general, I would expect the industry as we know it to vastly shrink in size.

Those are some issues that come to mind off the top of my head.

 

[Rupert Vidion]

Hi

In the UK we have a system sort of like the one you describe, it's called BSAC, the British Sub Aqua Club (or ScotSAC in Scotland).

Instead of instructors per se, there are experienced divers who have undertaken a mentoring/instructing course and provide training within the club or a particular branch.

There are a few advantages to this system -

It is free, after joining your local club and BSAC/ScotSAC (~£100-150 a year) you are insured, you get a funky magazine every month and all your training is free.

There are no time limits on training, it doesn't matter whether it takes 4 dives or 40 to master your skills, or if you can only do 1 day a week for two months.

Training is continuous, after you have your basic OW cert you will more than likely dive with your instructor on a regular basis within the club, who will take on a mentoring role. Assuming you continue to improve, these dives will start to count toward your higher certs.

Because it is club based you build up a large number of buddies quite quickly and you get access to the club boat, filling station and workshop/spares store.

You need to be active, BSAC isn't a turn-up-and-dive system. It encourages people to dive regularly as part of the club and to continue developing their skills.

Obviously there are downsides to this system as well. The major one as has been mentioned above is consistency. Depending on which branch you join you can end up with a seasoned technical diver who has done everything from the Red Sea to the Britanic (these people do exist). Or you could (only met one) end up with someone who just has more dives than other people in the club. One thing I have found from my dealings with PADI is that, certainly in Europe, Egypt and Australasia, there is a minimum standard and it appears to be rigorously enforced.

Rupert

 

[gcbryan]

Well.... a couple of things would obviously happen.

1) any kind of consistency in the training would be lost. Everyone would make up their own course and teach to their own standards. Some of those would surely be excellent but some of them would undoubtedly blow worse than you can imagine. For example, I recall a story from an ex- scubaboard member about his OW training. He was trained by a "lay-instructor" and was strapped into a scuba-set, pushed over-board and told "never hold your breath". That was his OW course. You would seem to *assume* that eliminating instructors would improve training, but in many cases, I would bet that OW training would revert to the kind of antics we saw before the agencies standardized things....

That still happens...that happened to me with "Discover Scuba" in Kauai.

2) People would still have accidents. About 90% of accidents happen after the training, not in the training. The difference would be that there would be no systematic way of evaluating how the training should be improved to avoid accidents. Tbh, I'm not sure how much of that gets done now but I'm pretty sure that a lot of analysis of accident stats initially went into defining standards. For example, we all learn to breathe off of a freeflowing regulator because at some point the agencies thought it was important. Take out the agencies and some of your "lay-instructors" will decide it's not important and we'd probably see some increases in certain types of accidents and a general loss of grip as to what we should and should not be teaching.

Or you may see more things being covered since there is no profit/time constraint. No one would teach anyone unless they wanted to and perhaps only if they had time to do it right.

Also, even for this discussion I wasn't suggesting that there be no instructors. I was just throwing out for discussion what would happen if instruction was more optional as in other sports.

I would think that someone would do a good job for friends and family and not just throw them into the sea.

I'm sure it could go either way as you point out however!

I do find it interesting that in areas where instruction isn't mandatory mentoring seems to work and knowledge of newer participants seems (to me) to be higher than in students just coming out of scuba certification.

 

[stefo2]

This is a very interesting question you pose, and I'm not sure of the answer.
I guess the first "other" sport that comes to my mind which works the way you mention (optional classes, otherwise mentoring) would be climbing, which shows a lot of parallels to diving: You need to know some equipment and certain basic skills in order to keep yourself and your partner alive and well; it is a reasonable safe sport at "recreational" levels, but becomes progressively more risky when you leave this area; While someone can teach you certain skills, the feeling for it and the mastering of those skills only come through experience. I'm sure there are more.

So - as I said, I can't answer the question for myself, at the moment I can't see why diving should be different from climbing with regards to instruction, but I'm open for pointers as to what I may be missing.

 

[Diver0001]

Or you may see more things being covered since there is no profit/time constraint. No one would teach anyone unless they wanted to and perhaps only if they had time to do it right.

I think that's naive.

I think you could compare that to learning how to drive a car. In some places the parents can still "instruct" their children when they have a learner's license.

Two things can be said about that. 1) most people don't drive well enough themselves to be "let loose" to instruct their children regarless of how much time they have and/or if they really want to do it right and (2) there is a very good reason why this is not allowed in big cities, namely that "professional" driving instructors are better at it.

I think you could draw a parallel there.

R..