Do we need instructors?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

The argument of a LDS selling air or a service is like arguing a resturant isn't selling food but is providing food preparation services.
:confused::confused::confused:
 
Let me toss something out here.

The government takes over the responsibility for the certification (or "licensing", if you will) of SCUBA divers. For training, the prospective student diver has the option of choosing an experienced mentor or professional instructor. A written test is issued for a "learner's permit" that would serve for either path. As a condition for receiving the permit, the student must sign a notarized liability waiver that protects his teacher, whomever that might be. After training, the student reports to a government licensed facility (could be, and probably would be, a dive shop or other professional training facility) for practical testing. As the entire process would be under government regulations, the liability level would be no more than it is for driver training. You can't sue the state for issuing a driver's license to a driver that causes an accident and you couldn't sue the state for issuing a c-card to a diver who has one.

Just a thought.

Interesting proposition. However you (or your next-of-kin) could sue the mentor if s/he taught you anything that was attributable to death or injury, or if the mentor failed to teach you anything that was attributable to death or injury.

The standard of what would be reasonable would be applied. In court, witnesses would be called who were deemed to be experts in SCUBA instruction. I've been such a witness and wouldn't want to be on the receiving end if I wasn't sure of what I was doing.

The government has instilled something similar to what you are suggesting in Quebec (which licenses divers). Interestingly enough I understand that the Instructor (sanctioned by the province) issues a license in a similar way as an Instructor issues a c-card. You still have to meet certain standards.

In your scenario, if a person made themselves aware of the standards (mentor) and taught to these standards, the person (diver) would then have to satisfy the Diving Instructor (government representative). You can do this now by going to an Instructor to be certified in the first-instance.

The Instructor would require you to demonstrate each ability in the pool, classroom and open-water, so I don't see that the person would gain that much other than to know that his/her training was quite likely superior to that of the weekend wonder class. Either way, such a process is possible today. :)
 
Leapfrog, on this I will agree with you. A dive shop is not selling air, per se, it is selling a service. SCUBA compressors are not only expensive to buy, they are expensive to maintain. By operating a compressor and supplying divers with clean, dry air, they are saving their customers the expense that would otherwise have to come out of their own pockets.

I have, on occasion, considered purchasing a small, portable compressor. My mentor, Harold, had his own compressor and taught me how to set it up, operate and maintain it. I know what it takes to run one of those things and this is the reason I don't own one. Yet.

I agree with AWAP that an option should be set up that would allow for the practical testing of divers trained under the mentor system. I believe both types of training can co-exist to the advantage of all.
Paladin954, thank you. This is Scubaboard at its best. We can agree and disagree and try to find common ground or not.

I am not against mentoring. I've mentored myself before having a recreational scuba instructor card and I've been mentored by others.

Of course both types of training can coexist. I would say that formal training that demonstrates a level or obligatory should be done by instructors while other training can be indertaken by mentors.

IMHO we would be looking at a scenario where instructors teach OW, AOW, RD and specialties such as Deep or Nitrox

PPB, UW/N, Photography, DPV and others could be undertaken by mentors (I expect they already are to a great extent).

Let's be careful with drysuit...we don't want people popping up all over the place!:D
 
The problem is liability (unfortunately). The OP posted a question that assumed that liability wasn't an issue. In the real world, it is.

I'm not sure whether liability is the problem or the excuse. Anybody have any data?
 
Actually, a restaurant IS selling a food preparation service. You can buy food at your local grocer, then take it home to cook it. The reason people go to a restaurant is because they do not want to prepare the food for themselves. They want to relax and enjoy their meal without the work of cooking it first. Buying food at a McDonalds is a convenience, just as buying air at a shop is a convenience.

Going back to the car/gas analogy, gas stations make little to no profit from selling gas to drivers. It is their hope that, when you pull your car up to the pump for a fill-up, you will also buy some snacks, soft drinks, etc., which are their true sources of profit. A dive shop operates the same way. The LDS owner hopes that when you come in to get a (cheap, non-profit) fill, you will also walk out with a new mask or a pair of new fins or a new regulator or...

I think you get my point.

As I said before, I have no quarrel with dive shops or their instructors. My beef is with the training monopoly the established agencies have created and the "no card no air" rule they employ to enforce it.

Yes, it is a form of monopoly. Just because there are a handful of agencies with slightly different rules does not change this. They have agreed on how they want things done, how they can maximize their profits and have devised a way to enforce it. In a sense, they have become a law unto themselves.
 
Actually, a restaurant IS selling a food preparation service. You can buy food at your local grocer, then take it home to cook it. The reason people go to a restaurant is because they do not want to prepare the food for themselves. They want to relax and enjoy their meal without the work of cooking it first. Buying food at a McDonalds is a convenience, just as buying air at a shop is a convenience.

Possibly when he goes to a restaurant and orders a hamburger, they walk a live cow over to his table?
 
DCBC,
When I finally, got my first c-card, there was no pool work. I met the instructor at the lake, he had me take a written test, demonstrate my knowledge and skills, then issued my card. It was simple and painless. I paid him $50 and I was done.

To say that a mentor could be liable for any accident which might occur after a government card was issued would be like the person who taught him to drive would be liable for every accident he has on the road. I've taught a number of people to drive. Over the years since, some of them have had accidents but, under the law, the responsibility for those accidents rests on them, not me. Once a diver manages to pass the government test and gets a state c-card, all liability would be his own.
 
:superman: :rofl3:
There are many ways to fill a tank with air. Why do you have to go to a dive shop? The dive shop can do what the heck it wants. It's their compressor.

A case in point. I was on the counter one day at a dive shop. Guy comes in and asks if I can fill his tank. I asked him what his plan was and he told me that he was going to go diving on his own in the bay where the shop was located. I asked him if he had any training as a Solo Diver. He gawped at me, stuttered and said "no". So he didn't get his fill, at least from me.

Exactly, its a ethical decision that the person doing the filling will make. I'm not about to endanger someone else's life by aiding in their stupidity. Go get the training or go to a shop where they don't care about safety.

So now you need to see a solo c-card to do a fill? You now ask everyone what their dive plans are for that bottle of air?
 
The government takes over the responsibility for the certification (or "licensing", if you will) of SCUBA divers.
I am opposed on principle to the goverment taking over anything. IMHO "the goverment" has already taken over too much, to the point that our civil liberties are being restricted. I live in a country where the government now has taken over instructor certification and all it involves so far is having another medical and paying for the card (THEY CALL IT CONVALIDATION). In the near future, instructors will have to possess the National Instructor's Card (the very name smacks of fascism) after their recreational certification card. More power to the bureaucrats. I'll follow your argument, however, to see where it leads us.
For training, the prospective student diver has the option of choosing an experienced mentor or professional instructor. A written test is issued for a "learner's permit" that would serve for either path. As a condition for receiving the permit, the student must sign a notarized liability waiver that protects his teacher, whomever that might be.
It's feasible.
After training, the student reports to a government licensed facility (could be, and probably would be, a dive shop or other professional training facility) for practical testing.
That could be done.
As the entire process would be under government regulations...
I'm still uncomfortable with government control, but go on...
the liability level would be no more than it is for driver training. You can't sue the state for issuing a driver's license to a driver that causes an accident and you couldn't sue the state for issuing a c-card to a diver who has one.
Why is this an improvement on what we have now? It would cost more, create more yellow tape, create supervisory bodies and eliminate market forces, primarily the ability of the student to choose a syllabus. The way things are now you can train with SDI or GUE and you can even change from one system to the other, between most agencies (although I don't know about SDI and GUE) at the next certification level.

So we would do all this just because the mentors don't want to go get an instructor's card? Wouldn't it make more sense for mentors who don't want to do an IDC/IE or ITC or whatever, be able to just go and sit a theory exam (no standards), explain a relevant topic to the examiner and do CW and OW plus Rescue skills and get a card from the International Association of Dive Mentors?
 
I have never taken a class with a "certified" instructor. My training was 100% mentor supplied. My only personal relationship with an "official" instructor has been when I did checkout dives to get first my Basic Scuba and then my Open Water certifications. If it had not been necessary to possess a c-card to buy air, I probably wouldn't have bothered with either.

It seems to me that, in this thread, the most ardent proponents of the necessity of certified instructors have been, for the most part, instructors. It is only natural that they would defend their profession. If mentor-taught SCUBA should, once again, become prevalent, they (and the dive shops for which they work) would lose their elite positions in the dive community, as well as a substantial portion of their incomes. But you cannot blame them. Besides, they have been indoctrinated by the industry which spawned them.

In a way, diver certification is a form of extortion. You don't pay for a SCUBA class to get an approved c-card, you don't get air. It makes me wonder how many experienced, uncertified divers there are out there who refused to be blackmailed and simply bought their own compressors.

Conceivably, a person could teach himself to snorkel to gain basic water skills, indulge in a course of self study of diving physics and safety from the wealth of SCUBA books and publications on the market, buy a compressor and gear online and teach himself to dive in careful increments until gaining a reasonable level of competency. In fact, I would hazard a guess that more than a few have done just that. Basic SCUBA using basic equipment is not rocket science, after all.

Now, I have no axe to grind with SCUBA instructors. A couple of my closest friends are instructors. And very good ones, too. Instructors have their place. But to answer the OP's questions:

No, I do not think professional instructors are absolutely necessary and, yes, I would serve as a mentor in introducing others to the sport. As a point of fact, I have done so a few times in the past.

Here in WV, most people learn to drive while being taught in the mentor style. No professional instructor required. Further, once you get a driver's license, you do not have to get any additional license to drive vehicles other than the one you learned in. You can learn to drive in a VW then, if you have the finances available to you, you can go right out and buy yourself a thirty-five foot, class A motor home and hit the road; no further instruction required.

To get a motorcycle license, all one has to do is pass a simple written test, buy a motorcycle, teach himself to ride, then pass a road test. No professional instructor required. Some states do not even require the use of a helmet.

Anyone 18 or older can walk into a gun shop and buy a high powered rifle or shotgun, then go out to teach himself how to shoot or have a friend to help him learn. The age is 21 for a handgun, but the rest still applies. No professional instructor required.

If these potentially hazardous activities, during the course of which other people and not just the participants are at potential risk, do not require professional instruction to accomplish, then why should SCUBA diving be singled out as to forcing the requirement of needing a professional instructor?

It has been noted that the dive industry formed its own regulatory agencies to avoid having the government step in to regulate it. I can buy that, but not for the reasons that have been stated. By regulating the industry themselves, the agencies and LDS can maintain a tighter grip on the economics of SCUBA. They knew that if they could limit the prospective diver's options as to the purchase of gear and air, they could control the price of these things and insure their own economic survival. The whole instructor/certification schtick is about money. Period.

It has been mentioned that dive shops must enforce the certification rules when selling gear or air to protect themselves from lawsuits. That "logic" doesn't fly. If an unlicensed driver buys a car (perfectly legal) and then goes out and has an accident, the dealer is not held responsible. If that driver stopped on the way from the dealer to buy a tank of gas before the accident, the gas station is not held responsible. The responsibility rests solely upon the shoulders of the driver. Neither the car dealer nor the gas station are in business to be anyone's babysitter. They are in business to sell (and service) automobiles or the gas and oil that goes into them. There is no requirement that the buyer show a valid driver's license to buy either the car or the gas to run it.

I may be wrong, but I would surmise that, if the government had become involved in the SCUBA regulatory process, the process would have become no more complicated than that of obtaining a driver's license. Pass a written test for a "learner's permit," learn to dive from an experienced diver, take a practical diving test, get a license.

But to be perfectly honest, I really don't see the government even wanting to get involved. Skiing is a potentially dangerous sport, yet the government's involvement is limited to insuring that the manufacturers of the equipment produce safe, reliable equipment.

Trail riding four wheelers and motorcycles on forest trails is a potentially dangerous sport, but other than regulating the manufacture of the machines, the government stays clear.

Water skiing is potentially dangerous, but other than regulating the manufacture of the equipment and the registration of the boat, the government is mostly hands off.

Part 103 of the Federal Aviation Administration's FAR's allows anyone, of any age, to fly a single seat, ultralight aircraft without either the pilot or the aircraft being licensed.

I could continue citing virtually endless examples, but i think you get the picture. Things would, more than likely, be much simpler if the government had gotten involved. By regulating itself, the dive industry has insured itself a higher profit margin than, perhaps, it might have had if the government had become involved. I am, usually, not a proponent of government involvement in things but, in this case, if the dive industry truly needs some sort of regulation (which I doubt), then I think I would prefer the "public option." After all, the government would not be in it for profit.

All of the above is, of course, my own personal opinion; not intended to flame or offend anyone. I just have a few issues with the dive industry and the agencies that control it.

Okay. Off the soap box.

Possibly the best post in this entire thread. Well said.

You described me to a T with this,
"Conceivably, a person could teach himself to snorkel to gain basic water skills, indulge in a course of self study of diving physics and safety from the wealth of SCUBA books and publications on the market, buy a compressor and gear online and teach himself to dive in careful increments until gaining a reasonable level of competency. In fact, I would hazard a guess that more than a few have done just that. Basic SCUBA using basic equipment is not rocket science, after all."
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom