Paladin
Contributor
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.
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.