Industry UPDATE: Why PSI-PCI is the “Only Recognized” Training for Visual Cylinder In

[Wookie]

What do they add or update every three years to require that?
Do they think people will forget what to do in a three year time frame?
And, is a refresher the same cost as the initial cert?

Original course takes a day. A refresher takes an hour, and it's mainly a BS session about anything new that has come out in the past 3 or so years, any lessons learned, any accidents, etc.

Typically, it's Mark telling us about the latest O2 cylinder that exploded or someone who failed to properly inspect for neck cracks or whatever. No, they don't expect you forgot how to inspect a cylinder.

 

[Scared Silly]

What do they add or update every three years to require that?
Do they think people will forget what to do in a three year time frame?
And, is a refresher the same cost as the initial cert?

The refresher is less than the initial cert. The refresher is just that a refresher on points that people forget. Often there is a discussion on recent accidents or changes to DOT rules (like when the VE became required). During my last refresher there was a discussion on the 23.5% vs 40% for O2. I have found them worth while because of the discussions. They are an hour or so long.

 

[RJP]

That would be the 20th century course of action. In the 21st century, they are challenged on their claims in public online forums.

Even in the 20th century a professional marketer would have helped them craft a press release that made all of the points they were HOPING to make WITHOUT coming across like they were...

A.) Trying to scare the public
B.) Scared themselves
C.) Pounding their chests
D.) Knocking the competition
E.) Making meaningless/unsupported/untrue claims
F.) All of the above

A thoughtful, professionally-crafted press release would have cost them a few bucks to create... but it would have done a far better job of achieving their commercial goal(s) while also obviating much of the negative discussion.

But alas, this is the scuba industry.

 

[cerich]

During my last refresher there was a discussion on the 23.5% vs 40% for O2.

oh good, I recall having those discussions in 1997...

 

[Scared Silly]

oh good, I recall having those discussions in 1997...

That is what happens when an industry likes to make up its own rules ...

 

[Jim Lapenta]

You guys need to reread their claims why they can say what they are saying. They have a valid claim - it might be narrow in scope but it is valid. Every company in every industry uses such tactics to make such claims, ad nauseum. It is called marketing. If you if do not agree feel free to file a complaint with the FTC over false and misleading statements.

In the mean time, work on some claims as to why what you offer is better. Jim does this sound familiar? "Training with me, … assures you of one of the most comprehensive training courses you can take as a beginning scuba diver"



HAHAHAHAHAHA, People say that about PADI and scuba certs, Microsoft and operating systems, etc. etc.

It does and it still stands. I did not say the most comprehensive. I said one of and if you compare the standards I am required to adhere to plus the material I add the claim is factual.
The PSI post on the other hand is not. It is not the only agency. In some areas it is not even recognized. Other countries have their own agencies, standards, and guidelines. They make no mention of that and in the press release put forth false information that they are the only recognized agency. This is a false claim because other inspector certifications are also recognized around the country and the world.
I know of one shop that will not recognize a PSI sticker if it was done by an independent instructor or diver who has a current PSI cert. He wants a shop name on it. Even if the shop is not putting their PSI info on it if they even have it. Some do not. They've been inspecting cylinders for years and see no reason to pay PSI. His reasoning is he can't sue PSI if the cylinder blows up in his shop. But he can sue another shop because they are insured. Crazy? Kinda but shows how ridiculous their claim is.

 

[BRT]

You guys need to reread their claims why they can say what they are saying. They have a valid claim - it might be narrow in scope but it is valid. Every company in every industry uses such tactics to make such claims, ad nauseum. It is called marketing. If you if do not agree feel free to file a complaint with the FTC over false and misleading statements.

In the mean time, work on some claims as to why what you offer is better. Jim does this sound familiar? "Training with me, … assures you of one of the most comprehensive training courses you can take as a beginning scuba diver"



HAHAHAHAHAHA, People say that about PADI and scuba certs, Microsoft and operating systems, etc. etc.

Does Jim claim his is the "only recognized" training?

 

[Scared Silly]

It does and it still stands. I did not say the most comprehensive. I said one of and if you compare the standards I am required to adhere to plus the material I add the claim is factual.
The PSI post on the other hand is not. It is not the only agency. In some areas it is not even recognized. Other countries have their own agencies, standards, and guidelines. They make no mention of that and in the press release put forth false information that they are the only recognized agency. This is a false claim because other inspector certifications are also recognized around the country and the world.
I know of one shop that will not recognize a PSI sticker if it was done by an independent instructor or diver who has a current PSI cert. He wants a shop name on it. Even if the shop is not putting their PSI info on it if they even have it. Some do not. They've been inspecting cylinders for years and see no reason to pay PSI. His reasoning is he can't sue PSI if the cylinder blows up in his shop. But he can sue another shop because they are insured. Crazy? Kinda but shows how ridiculous their claim is.

Jim, I am not saying your claim is not factual I am saying you are making a claim as well. As you note you have qualified it.

The PSI claim is also factual but they have used some word smithing that requires one to read the entire release - not just the title. They even state in the first paragraph.

But if you have questions about why we say this, please read on.

So read the full release and understand why they can make that claim which is factual.

Now one can easily argue that they have take some liberties. But then again that is marketing which what a press release often is.

Does Jim claim his is the "only recognized" training?

He could if was the only training agency for say the left handed bacon stretchers. Which is basically what PSI has done.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Did read the full release. Even clicked a link they provided and got this

"Luxfer recommends taking your cylinder to an authorized Luxfer service center or to an inspector trained by Professional Scuba Inspectors, Inc. (PSI) or the Association of Scuba Service Engineers & Technicians (ASSET).<sup>2"

So right there they gave a false statement. They are not the only recognized inspection service provider. There are in fact three noted. It is also interesting that this is not mandatory from Luxfer. All are simply recommended.

Going by their thinking then we could call all the cert agencies nothing but copycats. Going back to what, the LA County Program? But that's just a little local thing. Nationally how about the YMCA Program?

They are just getting pissed that their monopoly on training cylinder inspectors is being challenged. That they claim to be the only recognized agency is false by their own, perhaps inadvertent link provided, admission.</sup>