NACD Instructor standards violation

[tbone1004]

if they are motivated by the bottom line regardless of safety then if the instructor is worth anything they will jump ship and move to another agency, plain and simple. PADI has come a long way in the last few years, they're still the best scuba publishing company in the business, but they must have had some long hard discussions over the last 5 years about where they're headed. We pick on them constantly, but they are changing for the better. NAUI has a lot of work to do, but I think Chris Richardson is kicking them a bit to get on it faster than they may have liked. GUE has the ability to make that call regarding safety maybe a bit easier than the others, but the CDS, NACD, and IANTD are small enough that they are able to make those same calls if they choose to. It appears the NACD has decided to make that decision.

Victor made a good point about having an "end" to their training progression earlier which I guess can coincide with the Equivalent Narcotic Depth for END mentioned recently. If the cave agencies stay strictly cave agencies, we teach cave diving nothing more. Cave, sidemount cave, technical cave, DPV cave, CCR cave, and acknowledge other agencies are going to handle mixed gasses and the actual CCR training, then the instructors have an easier time because now it is no longer "our cave" vs "your cave", it is just classes with no crossover. Recreational agencies are a bit different because you can teach a PADI and a NAUI OW, rescue, whatever type class without blatantly violating one of the others standards to the point where safety comes into play, and they are easier to distinguish the two. It gets a little fuzzy with leadership since NAUI and PADI have a rather pronounced disagreement on what constitutes a divemaster, but even then it is easier to distinguish. This is a non-issue for technical diving when instructors have one "class" regardless of which agency they are teaching for at the time, so long as those agencies mostly agree. Obvious three are classes combining NACD/CDS/IANTD classes, this is a nonissue because the standards are basically the same with some very minor differences. Throw in an agency with a different philosophy and it not becomes an issue.

James made a great comment about JJ, that one is obvious. It is an extreme example, but it lays it out clearly. Frankly I am with him about forgiving prior transgressions as long as they weren't extremely unsafe, and just fixing it from here. Tell the instructors the new rules, if they don't like it leave. Clean house. This incident wouldn't gain much since the instructor hasn't been actively teaching in almost 5 years.... I think he is still current with a few agencies, but he hasn't been seen in cave country in a long time, certainly not teaching classes

 

[tursiops]

PADI expressly forbids solo diving......PADI has said solo diving is dangerous and they forbid it

Not sure where you get this.
PADI expressly allows solo diving, they just call it "choosing to dive alone" and that is what the Self-Reliant course is about.

 

[tbone1004]

this was the example Frank gave, not sure when this specific incident took place. They have obviously changed their opinion and I am well aware of this, but the example given was back when it was expressly forbidden

 

[Wookie]

Not sure where you get this.
PADI expressly allows solo diving, they just call it "choosing to dive alone" and that is what the Self-Reliant course is about.

Yes, today. When Drew Richardson wrote his missive expressly stating that PADI would never have a solo class, and did not condone solo diving, I chose to crossover.

Like their opinion on Nitrox, PADI took the higher, more profitable road, choosing income over their stated safety goals.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I'm not a caver as you all know. I can issue certs under 4 different titles/agencies. SEI does not have a Deep specialty and in fact states openly that their recommended depth limits for sport divers as we call them is 100 feet. They recognize the 130 NDL but we don't recommend it. Until I crossed over to SDI/TDI the students who contacted be about deep training were SOL. At least to the 130 limit. That was one of the reasons I crossed over to SDI/TDI. Along with wanting to teach tech classes. SEI has no problem with me teaching any of the classes I do under the SDI/TDI banner as long as it is made clear that they are not SEI classes.
Maybe it gets more intense at the cave level as far as who can do what? Again not a caver so not familiar with the standards for that among the agencies other than what is in my TDI S&P.

What I'm getting to with this is that it SEEMS that while the agencies want the instructors to represent them in the best possible light and hold them up as examples when everything goes well, there is a line to that. When things do not go well and someone gets hurt or worse there is a tendency for the agency to haul out "they are not agents of the agency". I've often been confused as to this and am addressing those concerns in my next book.

If, as they claim, the instructor is not an agent of the agency why do they hold them up as representing all the agency stands for? Why are the able to, or attempt to, control the speech, behavior, and activities of someone who is not employed by them? Under a code of conduct. Usually codes of conduct are for recognized agents of an entity. No matter what. When someone does something wrong on their own then many corporations own up to the fact that yes, they were an agent but what they did was wrong. They then, even if grudgingly or when ordered by the courts, accept some responsibility. Even if it was for hiring a jerk.

My day job has no such code. They also do not openly restrict free speech. Openly.

In some agencies codes of conduct there is an admonition to not say anything bad about another agency, dive professional, operation, etc.. Even if it means protecting one that is allowing or using dangerous practices. How can this be good for the dive community?

 

[kr2y5]

it should concern you because unlike the teaching analogy where they are on their own time, the instructor is still acting as a diving instructor conducting classes that an organization he belongs to deems unsafe to the students. (...)

Because instructors represent the agency they teach for.

You're implying that an instructor represents the agency at all times, or at least during any time they act in a professional capacity. I personally wouldn't have such an expectation. The way I see it, an instructor plays a certain role, serves a function, puts on a certain hat... I see no problem with the same person wearing different hats at different times as long as it's crystal clear what hat they're wearing at the particular moment. But, maybe it's just a matter of a personal philosophy...

You mean to tell me if Jarrod was teaching a solo diving class for PADI one weekend, or deep air class for IANTD that it wouldn't detract from his position, or the public image of GUE?

I think there are some cases, where it's impossible to compartmentalize, e.g., when someone dedicates most of their life to a certain idea, and advocates it so keenly that in other people's minds, that person is basically synonymous with the idea they are promoting. In those cases, the hat the person is wearing is essentially welded onto their head, and it's impossible to take it off. Does that have to be the case for every instructor? I'm not convinced.

Once we assume it's not OK to compartmentalize... why stop at instructors? Should a newly certified GUE diver have her membership revoked if she goes on a dive in a jacket BC, and is reported by another diver? That would be absurd, of course...

...at least in my mind. Why is this absurd? Well, I take a GUE class to be able to act in a manner that is predictable to other GUE divers, and perform 100% up to certain standards... whether in terms of physical skills or decision making. Being able to act in a manner that's predictable isn't a religion, or a state of mind... it's a skill, one that a person can choose to use at the given moment or not. Being able to dive solo, or dive deep air, is also a skill. One can choose to acquire all those skills, and use them at different times. I don't see a problem there. I don't think it should have to be so much different for instructors.

 

[Capt Jim Wyatt]

If I find an instructor who can wheedle a waiver to teach me full TDI trimix at EN even though I haven't had any cave training and you kick him out of CDS because he did so, I think you are in for more whup-ass than you bargain for.

This is about safe diving practices. In the case of what you stated above it is an unsafe diving practice. The instructor, while he may be teaching that class through another agency and may well have been granted a waiver to do so (and we know that no agency would grant such a waiver) the instructor is not within the realm of safe diving practices.

If that instructor happens to also be an instructor for the NSS-CDS we will look at the fact that he is not teaching a safe class. That instructor always, always represents the NSS-CDS. The NSS-CDS will look at this by beginning a QA inquiry and consider whether or not the class was a safe class to be conducting. In your example Frank it is clear to me that this class is dangerous and should never be conducted.

It becomes a judgment call, it becomes a consideration of prudence. It becomes a case of "would a prudent NSS-CDS instructor teach such a class". I will go out on a limb here and state unequivocally that no NSS-CDS instructor would conduct this class under any circumstance. If, however an instructor from the NSS-CDS succumbed to some pressure to conduct this class that instructor would be sanctioned and removed as an NSS-CDS instructor.

I hope this helps you better understand our focus and intent. I also hope you will think about this prudently and come to the same conclusion.

 

[Omisson]

I'm not a caver as you all know. I can issue certs under 4 different titles/agencies. SEI does not have a Deep specialty and in fact states openly that their recommended depth limits for sport divers as we call them is 100 feet. They recognize the 130 NDL but we don't recommend it. Until I crossed over to SDI/TDI the students who contacted be about deep training were SOL. At least to the 130 limit. That was one of the reasons I crossed over to SDI/TDI. Along with wanting to teach tech classes. SEI has no problem with me teaching any of the classes I do under the SDI/TDI banner as long as it is made clear that they are not SEI classes.
Maybe it gets more intense at the cave level as far as who can do what? Again not a caver so not familiar with the standards for that among the agencies other than what is in my TDI S&P.

What I'm getting to with this is that it SEEMS that while the agencies want the instructors to represent them in the best possible light and hold them up as examples when everything goes well, there is a line to that. When things do not go well and someone gets hurt or worse there is a tendency for the agency to haul out "they are not agents of the agency". I've often been confused as to this and am addressing those concerns in my next book.

If, as they claim, the instructor is not an agent of the agency why do they hold them up as representing all the agency stands for? Why are the able to, or attempt to, control the speech, behavior, and activities of someone who is not employed by them? Under a code of conduct. Usually codes of conduct are for recognized agents of an entity. No matter what. When someone does something wrong on their own then many corporations own up to the fact that yes, they were an agent but what they did was wrong. They then, even if grudgingly or when ordered by the courts, accept some responsibility. Even if it was for hiring a jerk.

My day job has no such code. They also do not openly restrict free speech. Openly.

In some agencies codes of conduct there is an admonition to not say anything bad about another agency, dive professional, operation, etc.. Even if it means protecting one that is allowing or using dangerous practices. How can this be good for the dive community?

Jim,

This is the dilemma created by a litigious society. Anyone can bring a lawsuit - however meritless- and sue the "deep pocket". It costs tens to hundreds of thousands to get to the point of even settling for costs - so Scuba companies have sought to "disclaim" instructors as "agents" in an attempt to limit liability.

While it is clear that all scuba instruction companies want their instructors to be standard-bearers, the costs could be catastrophic if the right (wrong) case comes around and a jury finds the bad instructor an "agent".

Add to this the trial lawyers defense bar in the scuba industry is minuscule and tightly wrapped- there isn't a lot of cohesive law in the area - it varies widely state to state. The plaintiffs bar is worse as it is just the regular personal injury ambulance chasers- and the hired "experts" scuba witness (who often hasn't taught a class in 20 years or isn't certified in the specific scuba field they are testifying about) who will say whatever for the right price.... And who bares the costs? Well there have been conflicts of interest between insurance companies and scuba instruction companies who had what some regard as an incestuous relationship. Even without it - actuarial risk analysis controls often over right and wrong.

It doesn't help when agencies attack each other and don't work together on common core standards or even baseline safety protocols.

Now we even see dive equipment manufacturers acquiring scuba instruction organizations (MARES and SSI). Who knows where that leads....

In THIS case, the NACD and NSSCDS pioneered cave diving safety- it would be nice to see a return to that high standard of instructor throughout all of the scuba industry- but this thread is about arguably the most dangerous form of recreational diving- caves. IMHO for that it's one part ego, one part experience, one part agency loyalty and 2 parts the day of the week.

 

[GDI]

I would be interested to learn more about this partnership. Will there be a plan published?

Thanks.

Couldn't say at this time as it is ​just in the beginning stages

---------- Post added May 26th, 2015 at 09:21 PM ----------

Point is, the standards for one agency don't necessarily cross over to another agency, nor should they. Everyone's tolerance for safety and risk is different, as is our insurance companies' tolerance. I could easily set up a dive in EN where I had an instructor to teach me the class and a dozen other cave instructors to keep me alive. I'd bet (as a TDI instructor) I could set it up and get a waiver for the class. Maybe not. Doesn't matter, I own the boat and the helium, I don't need a card to dive trimix. And I certainly have no desire to see the inside of EN.

Don't get wrapped up in the minutiae. If I drive my Florida registered vehicle with my Florida driver's license where the speed limit is 70 on a Texas highway at 85, I'm not going to get stopped in either Florida or Texas. What someone teaching TDI has to do with their NACD or CDS certs is the same, exactly zero.

Correct you do not need a licence to scuba dive, no one does. Crossing agencies when teaching would be a agency's concern. Within the same agency however one course to another still has implications. TDI's response is as such:

TDI allows Open Water courses (such as Advanced Nitrox/Deco Procedures, trimix, etc.) in an overhead as long as the site is within the student’s current level of overhead certification.

Because standards and course flow varies greatly between agencies, TDI does not open quality assurance investigations regarding TDI standards violations against members who are conducting courses under another agency.

 

[TSandM]

I think this is a lot simpler than y'all are making it appear. You write something in the standards that instructors in good standing with the organization are expected to adhere to prudent and good diving practices at all times, whether teaching for the organization or not. Then an instructor who teaches a class under the aegis of another agency, which class violates what is felt to be prudent and good diving practices, could be expelled from your organization for having done so. Yes, under that strategy, PADI could have expelled an instructor for teaching a solo class in the given example, but that's PADI's right to do, and the instructors decision to cross that line.

I also think this much ruckus about something that happened a couple of years ago is a bit much -- but not if the example leads to policy changes in the applicable organizations.