AOW/Rescue Diver Not Respected

[sea_otter]

Basically, you're saying that certifications issued by big certification agencies are worthless. Yet, you sell such certifications yourself.

So what would you expect the agency to do to change this? Andy's argument is that someone can have the best training the world, but unpracticed skills degrade. Most people don't practice skills. He's right.

Without going to the extent of requiring an annual skills review to maintain certification, how can you guarantee that someone can still perform at their certified level? Comparatively, a checkout dive on a vacation doesn't seem like a big ask.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

That would all make sense if scuba instructors were not ......some of the worst divers - I have ever seen. Plus, we as customers have no choice but to rely upon instructors to give us our initial training.

Not only are many instructors terrible divers, but as we see on ScubaBoard regularly, they can be purveyors of terrible, often inaccurate, information. It's due in part to the low bar that most agencies set for becoming an instructor ... where someone can spend six months going from class to class to class and get the instructor cert without ever having done any actual diving, and without exposure to any information that they didn't get fed in one of their classes.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I've seen dire, awful, laughably bad, divers at every level... Open Water through to Trimix Instructor Trainer[I]... [/I]

I once witnessed a cave instructor ... at Madison Blue ... teaching a class of rebreather divers on their knees. They silted the place up so bad the rest of us had to cancel our dive.

Sadly they showed up at Orange Grove the next day, and we had to scrub our plans to dive there as well.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Neilwood]

Ignoring the issue of certificates (and there are issues with certificates which I will not deny), scuba is a skills based hobby and skills degrade with time and lack of proper practise.

Even taking someone who is diligent with their practise (makes a point of doing the skills every dive) what use is that if they are slowly drifting from accepted good practise? Or they start out with perfect trim and they get lazy over time?

That is not even looking at divers who have been certified in different conditions to those that are presented at the site. I certainly found it very different diving in blue water with no hard floor compared to diving at home with lowish vis and hard floor (the conditions in which I was trained). It is not that either set of conditions are harder to dive in but both provide different sets of problems

 

[DevonDiver]

Basically, you're saying that certifications issued by big certification agencies are worthless.

Yep. There's literally no value in them.

They're a proof of training, not a 'proof of competency'....and definitely not any sort of license which entitles anything.

I specialize in deco and overhead diving. It's potential very dangerous. Do you think I give a hoot about someone's card collection when deciding whether to entrust my life to their abilities and competency?

Recreational diving is less dangerous. Nonetheless, does that change any real parameters to excuse a diver who may, or may not, prove to be a safety hazard to themselves or others?

Over the years, I've been involved with, or witness too, numerous situations where divers have been refused diving. Sometimes it's a skill or competency deficit needing rectification or a realistic lowering of ambition. On other occasions, it's because the diver was just dangerous and had a dick attitude.

A C-card proves zilch beyond that the individual once-upon-a-time did a course with a given syllabus. It's a snapshot of a moment in time, not a guarantee of present/future suitability.

Yet, you sell such certifications yourself.

No. I sell training.

My goal is to develop diving ability.

I don't "sell certifications". This notion underpins everything that's wrong with the modern scuba industry.

My students pay me to deliver training. Sometimes that's formal courses, often it's workshops, clinics and mentoring.

On formal courses, my students get a C-card once their performance meets (my interpretation of) the performance requirements of that course. They earn that, however long it takes them. Many continue training even once they've met that standard.... recognising there's still improvement that can be made.

Hard to believe, but a great majority of my students don't give a hoot about plastic c-cards. They want ability, not tokens.

If asked to demonstrate that ability, I doubt any of my students would have issue with it. Why should they?

Once you grasp the simple concept that proof of past training doesn't equal proof of current ability, the benefits of checkout dives become clear and logical.

Would it be a better situation for people if there was no checkout dive, but people proving incompetent on a dive were ejected from the water and forced to sit out the trip on the boat? That'd ruffle egos and waste people's money significantly more...

I used PADI as an example because it's what you list on your website.

To a certain extent, I need liability cover for developmental courses. That's all.

I often get asked why i teach PADI courses. It seems incongruous, given my views on quality training.

The fact is, agency doesn't really matter to me. I don't get aroused or attracted by one agency abbreviation versus another.

My courses, standards and how I teach, would remain the same whatever agency I affiliated to.

People who shop around "to buy a certification" will generally opt for the lowest cost, quickest and most convenient provider of certifications. That's not me.

My market is people who want abilities, not certifications.

 

[hroark2112]

First thing I was told when I took my first tech course:

Training is purchased, certification is earned.

That was followed up with the statement that there would be no refund if I didn't earn my certification, and that paying for the course was no guarantee certification would be issued.

Stick with instructors who follow that motto and you'll get properly trained.

 

[DevonDiver]

Training is purchased, certification is earned.

Stick with instructors who follow that motto and you'll get properly trained.

Amen! No denying that.

As the consumer, you can more easily gauge the quality of what you paid for - training.

If you pay for a certification, you get a certification. You can't complain about the standard of your training. The instructor delivered exactly what you asked for, and maybe nothing more.

Based on the number of inquiries (lots) versus bookings (less) that I get.... a large number of divers don't want to pay for training. They want certifications.

Having bought their certification from some other... cheaper, quicker, less diligent... instructor, they'll then bitch and moan about how X, Y or Z agency has low standards and they didn't get well trained.

Blame the agency? Really?

It seems like they'd then go on to feel offended that a dive center might not be awestruck at the sheer immensity of their certification....and feel 'ripped off' to have to a checkout dive...

Notice the trend? Divers feel aggrieved to spend any money and demand the cheapest most convenient service. Then divers bitch, whinge and blame the industry for low quality service.

Gonna bitch about the 'expense' of check out dives? But next month you might be whinging about how awful insta-buddies endangered you or spoiled your precious vacation dives.

Don't blame the agencies.
Don't blame the dive centers.
Don't blame the instructors.

It's the divers, and their choices, who create this situation.

Objecting to check out dives is an objection to improving diver quality. You're part of the problem...

 

[eelnoraa]

....

The fact is, agency doesn't really matter to me. I don't get aroused or attracted by one agency abbreviation versus another.

My courses, standards and how I teach, would remain the same whatever agency I affiliated to.

People who shop around "to buy a certification" will generally opt for the lowest cost, quickest and most convenient provider of certifications. That's not me.

My market is people who want abilities, not certifications.

Devon, I agree with you 100%, and you are one of the diver/instructor I respect the most here. But as to picking a agency to teach for, don't you think the fact that PADI impose such a low bar on the course standard may force you to pass student per PADI standard, who otherwise doesn't meet your teach standard?? will you not pass such a student?

 

[DevonDiver]

Devon, I agree with you 100%, and you are one of the diver/instructor I respect the most here. But as to picking a agency to teach for, don't you think the fact that PADI impose such a low bar on the course standard may force you to pass student per PADI standard, who otherwise doesn't meet your teach standard?? will you not pass such a student?

What's critical is the instructor's interpretation of "mastery", when assessing performance standards.

There's three ways if looking at it:

1) Sufficient skill to 'tick off' a skill and move on with the syllabus.

2) Sufficient skill to assure diver competency at the current level and training conditions.

3) Sufficient skill to assure the diver is fully competent at the current level AND has a foundation for future development.

PADI define 'mastery' as fluid, comfortable and repeatable.

How many divers truly feel that about their skills on graduation from a training course?

To what context are all the skills fluid, comfortable and repeatable?

Does the student need to kneel when clearing a mask? Do they lose buoyancy or trim when clearing a mask? Can they clear a mask when holding a shot line in current? Are they completely relaxed clearing a mask, with no stress whatsoever?

Naturally, I'll talk with students to define what their expectations and goals are. Whilst I believe in a 'beginning with the end in mind' training philosophy, not every diver is intended or likely to progress to technical or overhead diving levels.

If a student wants training only to their current level, I respect that. But it's still my interpretation of what ability they need to dive at that level. If they want (most do) training to a higher, predictive of future goals, competency I'll provide that too.

Honestly, there isn't one in-water course on the PADI syllabus that doesn't give opportunity to improve fundamental skills.

Many of the courses I teach are prerequisites for further training courses. If a course is listed as a prerequisite, then surely it should provide the necessary preparation, skills and knowledge for that next course?

If I teach an AOW course, then my students must have 'mastered' skills and possess abilities prerequisite for wreck, deep or cavern training etc. Deep Diver students need prerequisite foundations so they can, if they wish, prepare for tech training. So that's what guides my interpretations of fluid, comfortable and repeatable..

 

[Bennno]

Don't blame the agencies.
Don't blame the dive centers.
Don't blame the instructors.

It's the divers, and their choices, who create this situation.

Yeah, an instructor would say that. You can't be for real.
Agengies certify many incompetend instructors who than sell crappy couses to trusting customers and it's all the divers fault who 'created' the situation? Really?

PADI/SSI/etc. could have higher standards and they could have a quality management system, they choose not to do it in order to sell more product!

Many customer trust their instructors/agencies because they don't know any better, that's why they taking couses... and many times they are being taken advantage off. Looks at all the crappy SM course being sold, it's all just the customers fault?