What does an instructor offer?

[DevonDiver]

To quote you, that's a gross generalization. Where does that 7 year liability come from? From a city, state, federal government? From the united nations? From the agency or the WRSTC? From the insurance company that wants to sell you a policy on an annual basis rather then on the basis of when the training was conducted?

It's an agency standard. It's based on being accountable to prove you provided correct training, should the student subsequently get injured on a dive (post-course).

My guess is that 7 years covers most bases, as far as the varied regulations in different countries/regions around the world.

Frankly this "liability" is the major reason I haven't gone on to the "pro" level.

That would be a very good reason to not go 'pro'. It's also a good illustration of why a 'pro' is a good choice for instruction, but an 'experienced diver' isn't.

Is this "battery of various examinations and practical tests" established and implemented by the same agencies /folks who set those high standards for passing OW diver training?

It's not surprising that agencies designate the training and assessment for the qualifications that they issue. PADI have independent assessments (examiner is not the trainer) which help promote quality. That said, one failing is the that IDC (training for instructors), tends to be overly focused upon specifically training to pass the IE (exams) - rather than a more robust goal of creating competent instructors who are also excellent divers. The IDC/IE assumes that divers enter with sterling dive skills - that the DM course creates that foundation. The DM course sadly does not ensure this.

To be fair, the current system does provide a reasonably reliable and fast route to obtain a C-card with minimal necessary qualifications. Although separating the training and testing processes would provide a check in the system that could reduce the number of "problem" new divers.

I think there is a valid argument that DM certification should be independently assessed (it isn't). I'm not sure how feasible such a system of checks and balances would be to apply at diver-level training. It'd be a logistical and financial nightmare... probably would double the cost of courses, if agencies had to employ a cadre of 'assessors' to travel around and vet each diver for certification...

What would be extremely beneficial would be more repetitive testing of core skills, perhaps at more refined and progressing standards, throughout the system of education. For instance, a system where each course began with a formal assessment dive of core OW skills - with performance (pass) standards. To make that a prerequisite to course entry. As the level got higher, it would encompass further prerequisite skills (i.e. Rescue Diver would assess OW and AOW core skills from Nav/Deep).. and with higher performance standards (1 min hover +/- 100cm @ OW, 3 min hover +/- 50cm @ AOW, 5 min hover +/- 25cm @ Rescue etc).

My thought pattern was as to why self study, combined with practice with a competent diver, should not suffice to allow a diver to challenge and OW exam if that's the route they choose.

An example. A 'competent diver' might know how to conduct a CESA. Would they know how to teach one...with all critical components covered? Most importantly, would they know how to conduct that drill (highly risk fraught) in a manner that absolutely ensures student safety?

The argument that an instructor knows how to teach is fine, but irrelavent if the exam process is structured properly. Most universities offer exam challenge options on subject matter more complex than OW and grant credit if passed.

You seem to have missed my earlier post (disappointing, because I put time and effort into writing it..) that explained how a c-card isn't a license, but rather a 'proof of training'.

Examinations exist in scuba courses to ensure student acquisition of knowledge. They do not exist to allow 'licensing' for given activity.

Taking an exam only would not result in a c-card... because the c-card exists to show the student undertook a course (and passed the required standards).

You are certified as a "PADI-trained diver". PADI would never certify you as a "diver". Same for every agency.

That legislation sets boundaries for activities and processes that must be performed by the self regulated organization. Does this exist in scuba? If there is no legislation permitting self-regulation, then it is unregulated.

Google "WRSTC" (World Recreational Scuba Training Council). Also note that many primary scuba training agencies ascribe to ISO and varied other quality assurance standards - and that such standards do exist in relation to scuba diving training levels.

Using the drivers licence as an example.

Irrelevant example, as explained in my post very early in this thread...and reiterated again in this post. YOU DON'T GET A "SCUBA LICENSE".

My OP was on this theory....

1. New diver studies the material or does on line theory.

This happens already. PADI provide on-line theory lessons, along with manuals and videos for self-study. Along with self-study 'knowledge reviews' to ensure the student is absorbing the correct and/or critical information. The knowledge exam can even be taken online...

2. New diver does some practices with a non instructor diver. Doesn't necessarily have to be hired, a buddy a relative based on the material. Which will state what the diver will be tested on.

How would the 'non instructor diver' gain access to this "material"? Why should the agencies provide copyrighted material to people who do not represent them... at the expense of undermining those people who do represent the agency...pay memberships and take proper courses to achieve instructor status?

What you seem to be describing is some wish for a charitable organization that provides a structure for your freebie training. Except, even if a charity, that organization would have significant expenses in writing, producing and publishing the necessary materials.

There is an 'organization' that tried this, called Aquastrophics. They founded an online training for OW knowledge. Despite their claims/advertising, it was found not to meet the requirements of most major agencies - and is not accepted by them. See this thread: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ba...scubalessons-aquatrophics-sda-david-holt.html

3. New diver goes to a qualified dive examiner where the complete written and practical tests.

Which would result in what? A 'license' that does not, cannot, exist? It couldn't result in a 'proof of training'.

And then.... that examiner would have to take the candidate through 5x confined water assessments, followed by 4x open water assessments - in order to confirm the full syllabus of skills is mastered. So... THE SAME COST! (plus, of course, all the cash the student has spent diving with their 'non-pro' friend...)

And then... paying that examiner to invigilate theory exams.

And then... if the candidate failed that assessment, they would have no recourse for refund or complaint. Lots of money wasted.

 

[nimoh]

It's an agency standard. It's based on being accountable to prove you provided correct training, should the student subsequently get injured on a dive (post-course).

My guess is that 7 years covers most bases, as far as the varied regulations in different countries/regions around the world.

probably not coincidentally, it is also slightly longer than the statue of limitations for lawsuits that would come about from a training deficiency (at least in the US anyway)

 

[Panama Jones]

Google "WRSTC" (World Recreational Scuba Training Council). Also note that many primary scuba training agencies ascribe to ISO and varied other quality assurance standards - and that such standards do exist in relation to scuba diving training levels.

Devon - see my quote at 2:06 yesterday - you did tell me I wasn't reading your post

Thank you all. I'm sold - totally - punshment taken

 

[electrician]

My father started diving when it was newly accessible to the general public. Someone with a tank and reg pointed to the setup and said, "See that thing? You breathe underwater. Come up slower than the bubbles." That was his training. I took a cert class, because you couldn't rent equipment in my area without it, and I didn't know anyone else who dove (my father had long since given it up). However you learn, great. Just do it.

---------- Post added August 22nd, 2013 at 05:39 PM ----------

A good instructor is very useful. A bad one is an active detriment.

Venus and Serena Williams learned tennis from their father, who learned by watching "How to Play Tennis" videos he had borrowed from the public library in Compton. As I say, there are many ways to learn things.

 

[Panama Jones]

My father started diving when it was newly accessible to the general public. Someone with a tank and reg pointed to the setup and said, "See that thing? You breathe underwater. Come up slower than the bubbles." That was his training. I took a cert class, because you couldn't rent equipment in my area without it, and I didn't know anyone else who dove (my father had long since given it up). However you learn, great.

I have a similar story. My first was in 1987 in Mismaloya(Los Arcos) Mexico. I always wanted to try scuba and new absolutely nothing about it. A shack on the beach rented me fins, mask, a harness for the tank and regulator. We went to the Los Arcos rock on a boat and over I went...solo. The only thing I knew at all was "don't come up faster than your bubbles". It was amazing. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[DivemasterDennis]

Well, Panama Jones, an instructor should bring three things to every course that a non-instructor does not. If they lack any of the three, avoid them. The three are : 1. Credentials ( they passed an instructor exam from a certifying agency);2. Insurance (as professionals they should carry insurance, and if through their fault you are hurt, there is coverage- a huge deal); 3. competence. Credentials and insurance do not necessarily guarantee competence. When selecting an instructor ask around- reputation means a lot. Also, watch a class or two, most dive centers will allow this.
Sure, there are non-instructors who know how to dive and may be ok at showing others. But absent credentials, insurance and competence, both the trainer and trainee are taking serious, and stupid, risks.
DivemasterDennis

 

[DCBC]

Scuba diving in almost entirely unregulated. The tightest requirements is that most ops won't take you out without a c-card. The reason I'm asking the question is because I have heard so much about not teaching people to dive, always leave it to a qualified instructor. ... How many drivers keep paying exam fees time and time again because the parent can't teach...

Certainly the possibility exists to teach yourself to dive, or (like you mentioned) learn from an experienced diver. Historically, many people learned to dive in this way. When I learned in 1965, I joined a relatively large Club (about 350 active members). The vast majority of the Instructors were only experienced divers and this was overseen by 1 certified instructor (who wasn't in the water). People learned by doing. Interestingly enough, Instructors were not required to carry liability insurance in those days (or when I was certified as an instructor in 1971).

That said, conditions have changed in the last 45 years or so. Diving Instruction has become a primary revenue source for many people. Nowadays, it's easier to find a certified instructor to learn. Liability being what it is, it seems reasonable that this is the case.

Is every certified diving instructor (CDI) a good teacher? No. Is every CDI competent? No. If you learn from a CDI and get certified will you be competent? Quite often not. Is it reasonable to learn from a CDI? Yes. Will you get a C-Card? Yes (and for many, that's all it's about).

 

[Diver0001]

That said, conditions have changed in the last 45 years or so.

And so has the safety record.

Is every certified diving instructor (CDI) a good teacher? No. Is every CDI competent? No. If you learn from a CDI and get certified will you be competent? Quite often not.

I'm not sure if I can follow Wayne in the "quite often" proposition but I have to agree with his main message that learning from a "CDI" does not automatically mean that you get a high quality training.

Just looking around at instructors that I know, I see some who are incredibly competent, some who *used* to be incredibly competent but have lost something by putting their priority on money/time instead of quality and one or two who are still learning.

That said, the system isn't perfect but it's not a disaster either.

R..

 

[SailNaked]

The hardest part of my instructor course had nothing to do whatsoever with diving. your diving skills are already refined to mastery by that time. what you learn is how to teach other people. it is required before teaching others.

I taught my wife to dive before being an instructor, she then took OW and learned all the stuff I left out. Instructors are required, and valuable if only because they have a checklist.

 

[DCBC]

And so has the safety record.

I would suggest that this has more to do with better technology being available and not the inferior level of instruction that divers receive today. What is required to become a certified diver has been greatly diminished over the years. If the standards were kept higher, there would likely be less divers die as a result.

...That said, the system isn't perfect but it's not a disaster either.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. Clearly this wouldn't likely be the opinion of one of the students of a incompetent Instructor...