DevonDiver
N/A
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.