Do we need instructors?

[TMHeimer]

"Those that can do. Those that can't teach." But some can do AND teach.

 

[Thalassamania]

One thing about skiing style is that is extremely dependent on the equipment. If you mean by "Austrian Technique" the wide ski stance with no stepping, chest facing the fall line, no hip rotation, all shock absorbed by the knees, sitting slightly back as the turn is completed and the skis are unweighted into the next turn, then this is modern and done with short skis. It is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible, with long skis. Too much tip wobble. A different style is required with long skis (in slalom, at least), generally involving more hip rotation and stepping in turns. Short skis are the rage now. They weren't in the '60s. Different equipment (leather boots; no buckles) available; different styles required. The styles were not wrong, just different. This kind of issue re styles does not seem to apply as much to diving, although it is clear that the modernization of equipment has had an enormous effect on dive safety.

I ski vintage, an Austrian Reverse Shoulder Vadelin with lots of hip swivel and leg steering. Shoulders square to the fall line, big wide carved turns and low edge angles with feet glued together on 230s.

I wonder at your statement, "it is clear that the modernization of equipment has had an enormous effect on dive safety." It is not clear to me. SPGs were the last major safety change that I see.

 

[boulderjohn]

One thing about skiing style is that is extremely dependent on the equipment. If you mean by "Austrian Technique" the wide ski stance with no stepping, chest facing the fall line, no hip rotation, all shock absorbed by the knees, sitting slightly back as the turn is completed and the skis are unweighted into the next turn, then this is modern and done with short skis. It is extremely difficult to do, if not impossible, with long skis. Too much tip wobble. A different style is required with long skis (in slalom, at least), generally involving more hip rotation and stepping in turns. Short skis are the rage now. They weren't in the '60s. Different equipment (leather boots; no buckles) available; different styles required. The styles were not wrong, just different. This kind of issue re styles does not seem to apply as much to diving, although it is clear that the modernization of equipment has had an enormous effect on dive safety.

No. We used long skis then. I am talking about the feet very close together, with the downhill knee tucked behind the uphill knee.

 

[DCBC]

I was on the way to the dive site but I see a sign St. Moritz. Would someone please point me to SB?

 

[boulderjohn]

I was on the way to the dive site but I see a sign St. Moritz. Would someone please point me to SB?

I was denying the assertion that change in methodology is necessarily dependent upon changes in technology. A person who was trained years ago in one methodology and has had no further instruction may be teaching an outdated and less effective methodology while mentoring, whether it be skiing, scuba, or really anything else.

 

[DCBC]

I was denying the assertion that change in methodology is necessarily dependent upon changes in technology. A person who was trained years ago in one methodology and has had no further instruction may be teaching an outdated and less effective methodology while mentoring, whether it be skiing, scuba, or really anything else.

I was certified 44 years ago and have been teaching for almost 38 years. I say this to affirm that the lessons I learned back then were to today's standards "antiquated." I still however use many of these methodologies in teaching diving today.

Standards have been lowed by most diving certification organizations over the years. There have been several reasons given, including that new technology has provided the diver with new buoyancy devices (for example) that allow him/her to not require such a high degree of personal watermanship ability.

In this case, the capability of technology has offset the lower capability of the student. By applying the older requirement of a higher degree of student in-water competence, the increased capability of technology has increased the students capabilities even further. I have found this to be of increased benefit to student confidence and rescue ability. This translates to a higher threshold before panic will occur during an emergency.

Because I utilize antiquated standards/methodologies doesn't mean that I don't keep up with technological advancements. I try to utilize said advancements in a manner that can increase capability, so as to increase safety. Others use them to lower the bar to increase profits.

 

[boulderjohn]

I was certified 44 years ago and have been teaching for almost 38 years. I say this to affirm that the lessons I learned back then were to today's standards "antiquated." I still however use many of these methodologies in teaching diving today.

Standards have been lowed by most diving certification organizations over the years. There have been several reasons given, including that new technology has provided the diver with new buoyancy devices (for example) that allow him/her to not require such a high degree of personal watermanship ability.

In this case, the capability of technology has offset the lower capability of the student. By applying the older requirement of a higher degree of student in-water competence, the increased capability of technology has increased the students capabilities even further. I have found this to be of increased benefit to student confidence and rescue ability. This translates to a higher threshold before panic will occur during an emergency.

Because I utilize antiquated standards/methodologies doesn't mean that I don't keep up with technological advancements. I try to utilize said advancements in a manner that can increase capability, so as to increase safety. Others use them to lower the bar to increase profits.

This has nothing to do with my point.

I was saying that things change in time, and what one learns at one point in history may be supplanted by better thinking later in time. If one was not in a position to learn about these changes, then one may be teaching inferior methodology when in a mentoring role. I was speaking in a generic sense that applies to all learning.

Or are you arguing that every concept in every area of learning that was taught when you were learning is superior to every change that has happened since? Is all change for the worse?

 

[DCBC]

This has nothing to do with my point.

I was saying that things change in time, and what one learns at one point in history may be supplanted by better thinking later in time. If one was not in a position to learn about these changes, then one may be teaching inferior methodology when in a mentoring role. I was speaking in a generic sense that applies to all learning.

Or are you arguing that every concept in every area of learning that was taught when you were learning is superior to every change that has happened since? Is all change for the worse?

I understand what you were saying John. I'm not talking about "all learning," (I'm not qualified to do so). I'm talking about diver education.

First of all Instructors don't know what they don't know. The Instructor knows what he's taught and from what he can glean from additional sources. Most new Instructors buy into the requirements given to them by their certification organization and they personalize this and make this their own.

What is being taught is not necessarily the best course of instruction to give a student (assuming safety is the goal). This is not the priority of many certification bodies; who are for-profit corporations. As such, the priority is the bottom line; safety of course must be acceptable (open to debate), but this is less of a priority than profit.

Historically, non-profit instructor organizations have set standards far above those currently in-place. For-profit organizations pushed these down to a point where the older organizations couldn't compete. There was great reluctance in doing this because safety would first have to be compromised. Some however succumbed to the pressure rather than going bankrupt. Others like LAC and other continued to raise their standards and have paid the economic penalty.

Courts have come to the conclusion that diver certification standards are too low. The government of Quebec, for example have designed their own and no one can dive in that Province without it.

If we are looking at what it takes in diver training, the first mistake would be to give people what they want instead of what they need. Lets not get into the Walmart game when it comes to diver safety.

 

[I Dive]

As such, the priority is the bottom line; safety of course must be acceptable (open to debate), but this is less of a priority than profit.

Do you have any facts to back this claim up or is this just your interpretation of things?

 

[redacted]

I understand what you were saying John. I'm not talking about "all learning," (I'm not qualified to do so). I'm talking about diver education.

First of all Instructors don't know what they don't know. The Instructor knows what he's taught and from what he can glean from additional sources. Most new Instructors buy into the requirements given to them by their certification organization and they personalize this and make this their own.

What is being taught is not necessarily the best course of instruction to give a student (assuming safety is the goal). This is not the priority of many certification bodies; who are for-profit corporations. As such, the priority is the bottom line; safety of course must be acceptable (open to debate), but this is less of a priority than profit.

Historically, non-profit instructor organizations have set standards far above those currently in-place. For-profit organizations pushed these down to a point where the older organizations couldn't compete. There was great reluctance in doing this because safety would first have to be compromised. Some however succumbed to the pressure rather than going bankrupt. Others like LAC and other continued to raise their standards and have paid the economic penalty.

Courts have come to the conclusion that diver certification standards are too low. The government of Quebec, for example have designed their own and no one can dive in that Province without it.

If we are looking at what it takes in diver training, the first mistake would be to give people what they want instead of what they need. Lets not get into the Walmart game when it comes to diver safety.

How does the government of Quebec implement their standards? Do they require divers to take their own training course or do they just test to see that their standards are met?