Instructors Proficiency

[wedivebc]

PADI,NAUI, etc etc are there to make money. Who is going to pay for this recertification, the instructor, the agency? PADI and others uses a QA system to monitor instructors. They send out questionaires to students and ask if certain things were taught, how many confined water dives etc. To put every instructor through a re-qual every so often would be an administrative nightmare.
In the scuba industry we regulate our selves! Remember this people, it is much easier to lose a priviledge than to gain one back.

 

[rstone]

Ok, bad examples - Nationally Certified EMT's must pass the D.O.T. EMT refresher course every 2 years or lose their cert.

I'm pretty sure the FAA doesn't turn Commercial Jet pilots loose and say, fly till you want to quit.

Actually they do to some extent, you are required to obtain a new medical every year as long as you act as PIC in a commercial operation. As for OTJ performance reviews, the FAA does require that a Check Airman (who is usually the chief pilot for that business) to perform a checkout every year, but then again this is done by the employer.

I'd just like to point out a common misconception... alot of these things we are talking about are "LICENSES" and regulated by the government. You PADI card is not a license, like you might think of a drivers license. It is simply a certification that you completed the required skills for that agency. This is a big distinction!. For any agency to turn there c-cards into a License would require government involvement and oversight. Techncially you dont even need a c-card to dive, ie: it isnt against the law. Good luck getting air fills though.

 

[MB]

Three observations:

Instructors must renew their membership annually. To remain an active instructor, some agencies require that the instructor actually teaches (i.e., remains active.) In a way, staying active as an instructor improves the likelihood that an instructor will remain tuned in.

Second, some agencies require continual practice of certain skills. Example, NAUI incorporates rescue skills in nearly every course. This helps assure that the instructor keeps at least these skills from getting rusty.

Third, for advanced ratings (such as Instructor Trainer or Course Director) there is a requirement for periodic renewal (e.g., 2-3 years). The renewal tests for knowledge (usually standards) and sometimes teaching skills.

Similar renewal requirements exist for CPR/O2/etc instructors. ASHI's renewal period is 3 years.

None of these mechanisms is particularly rigorous, but each nudges instructors to keep up. Maybe a more rigorous renewal system would upgrade the industry. Interesting idea!

 

[Rick Murchison]

SSI requires its instructors be affiliated with a dive shop; they require each instructor be monitored and evaluated by that shop and a report submitted annually on the instructor's performance. This is, as far as I know, the tightest formal control of its instructors by any Recreational Diving training agency.
Rick

 

[Kriterian]

Personally, i see a distinct difference between EMT's, pilots, doctors and scuba instructors. EMT's, Docs can deal with life and death daily as part of their job. I don't see much of a similarity there. Sure, diving can be life & death if done wrong but i haven't had to stuff anyones guts back in to do my job yet.

I agree. While diving is a dangerous sport the instructor doesn't follow you around and have the chance to make life or death decisions for you. I think a better example to use would be teachers. Do elementary, middle, or high school teachers have to show their proficiency to teach throughout their career? Or do they just wait until all the students in one class fail before they investigate?

Granted that would be dangerous in diving, which is why I think it would be nice if dive instructors were inspected/required to do proficiency tests.

PS: Googles new built in spell check rocks! Go get the new google toolbar now!!

 

[MikeFerrara]

SSI requires its instructors be affiliated with a dive shop; they require each instructor be monitored and evaluated by that shop and a report submitted annually on the instructor's performance. This is, as far as I know, the tightest formal control of its instructors by any Recreational Diving training agency.
Rick

Hey Rick, how are you?

Is the SSI procedure aimed at insuring quality from the instructor or insuring that the will of the dive shop be done. Is it maybe to limit competition like so many of the other business practices in scuba? Who should be evaluating who? I know from personal experience that the shop owner put out more money but are they more qualified or more quality oriented?

The best instructors that I've personally been affiliated with are independants, at least in part, because they don't approve of the way the dive shops they've been involved with do things. These are great divers/instructors who make plenty of money during the day and they teach diving only to teach diving. SSI doesn't want them.

 

[Rick Murchison]

Hey Rick, how are you?

Great... you?

Is the SSI procedure aimed at insuring quality from the instructor or insuring that the will of the dive shop be done.

It is defined by SSI as a quality control program. Of course any program can be abused... but at least SSI has one.

The best instructors that I've personally been affiliated with are independants,

And the worst ones too, I'll bet. I've seen some really great independents too... and some real crooks and incompetents as well.

These are great divers/instructors who make plenty of money during the day and they teach diving only to teach diving. SSI doesn't want them.

Why wouldn't SSI want them? That pretty accurately describes the instructors at our shop - the only instructor who makes his living there is the owner (and he makes his living running the shop, not instructing) - and we're SSI...
As far as I know SSI's happy with us
Rick

 

[Atticus]

As a pilot I am required to either do some con ed or fly with an instructor for a couple of hours every other year. Frequently this is in the form of a fun flight. Additionally I have to keep my medical current which requires an exam by a physician every few years, depending on my age.

To be clear, I am a private pilot, not a "commercial jet pilot" by which I assume you mean an ATP (Airline Transport Pilot). I only risk a few (or a dozen depending on your perspective) lives at a time.

In some ways it takes more effort to keep my NAUI instructor rating as I have to spend a certain amount of contact hours with students each year or acquire education credits.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Great... you?

To be onest, I've been better but I won't whine. LOL

It is defined by SSI as a quality control program. Of course any program can be abused... but at least SSI has one.

And the worst ones too, I'll bet. I've seen some really great independents too... and some real crooks and incompetents as well.
Why wouldn't SSI want them? That pretty accurately describes the instructors at our shop - the only instructor who makes his living there is the owner (and he makes his living running the shop, not instructing) - and we're SSI...
As far as I know SSI's happy with us
Rick

While I sure can't say anything about the instructors in your shop I think putting quality control in the hands of the dive shops is like having the fox guard the chicken coup.

What additional training must a shop owner/rep have to prepare them for their QA role and who checks up on them? In industry it is (or at least used to be) pretty common to have QA report up a different path than those who's quality was being controled. The same with the finance folks. You don't have a financial officer whoé responsible for watching a plant managers money use report to that plant manager. You don't give a production supervisor, who's under the gun for numbers, final responsible for quality control decisions. The potential for conflicts of interest are just too great. Even if they're honest their judgement can easily be scewed by the pressure for numbers. I see the whole concept as seriously flawed. If anything, focing shop affiliation seems like it would stifle competition and be counter productive to quality. It's the old checks and balances thing.

 

[Doppler]

Let me turn this debate around 180 degrees... and one of the mods is welcome to break this out into a distinct thread if they wish.

Let's say an agency undertook a voluntary periodic evaluation of the skills (in water and in classroom) of its leadership core. An instructor would take the evaluation and when she passed would be entitled to display some sort of higher rating to show she had invested time, effort and so on into her personal and professional development.

Do you think consumers would be interested in paying a little extra to be taught by a "top echelon" instructor? After all, they would have taken time away from making a living to get recertified or evaluated. And the instructor-trainers who tested them would have to be paid. shouldn't they be able to make this lost revenue and fee back somehow?

Just a thought.