Would Government Regulation of Diving Be So Bad?

[Mako Mark]

Wouldn't divers be safer if someone WITHOUT A PROFIT MOTIVE was in charge of evaluating diver skills prior to
handing them a c-card?

this is where it would fail, the government would not only have profit motive, but also political and electional motives, and even worse, what does the government know about diving?

 

[Scubaguy62]

Despite our human nature to often "bite more than we can chew," which eventually gets us into trouble, I think we're forgetting the fact that whether in the air or underwater, we all have an instinct of conservation. It's true that pilots can hurt more people if they get in an accident than divers can, however, it is important to remember that pilots are not trained to crash, but how to handle an emergency that might lead to a crash, and most of all, survive that emergency. I know that's how I trained my students, and that's how I always fly.

On another thread, and in response to one of my questions, Mike Ferrara mentioned that IE's are conducted by the agency from which the applicant seeks certification. Let's forget for a moment that the agency which certifies pilots is the F.A.A. and let's regard it only as an agency, no different than PADI, SSI, NAUI, IANTD,etc. If the agency's sole purpose regarding training is to conduct examinations, does it matter if the agency is a governmental agency? I don't think so. As far as training is concerned, the extent of the F.A.A.'s involvement is related to certifying applicants, and all of which airmen certification involves (syllabus approval, practical test standards and so on). Any other areas in which the F.A.A. involves itself pertain to either enforcement of its rules, or accident investigation. Yes, the F.A.A. works side-by-side with the N.T.S.B. in this area.

In a matter of speaking, having the certifying agency conduct the IE is not dissimilar from the F.A.A., again in so far as agency is concerned, conducting the initial Certified Flight Instructor examinations of us pilots. Where the line is drawn is when the F.A.A. also requires that each pilot applicant is certified by either an F.A.A. Inspector, or an F.A.A. designated examiner. F.A.A. designated examiners are Flignt Instructors who are trained by the F.A.A. to conduct pilot examinations. They are individuals after profit, true, however, they are individuals empowered to uphold standards set forth by the agency (F.A.A.).

I'm not sure if governmental influence, per se, would be the solution, but the idea of the diving agency designating, and training scuba instructors to conduct examinations, even if it is only the OW, is not a bad one. The only draw back I see is that someone would have to pay the examiner, unless the examiner is already an employee of the certifying agency. If the scuba examiner is a designated examiner (not an employee of the certifying agency), the mere factor of the additional cost of examination could do one of two things, either promote safer diving, or discourage people from becoming certified. Which one would the agencies rather have? That's a question for which we can only presume the answer, but I know which one would be my choice.

 

[HammerNoMore]

I've removed the posts indicating that this is some kind of a troll. It appears to me from the way the inital post was worded that Andy is looking for serious discussion, not trying to bait anyone. Please keep the posts relevant to the topic.

James

P.S. I had to leave the one from ynot. That was just downright funny .

 

[Xanthro]

You do not have to participate in this thread.

If you do, please address the topic.

I’m not sure of the topic to address.

An addressable topic would be, along the lines of.
-----------------------------------------------
Some argue that self-policing of recreational scuba has fallen short of basic safety standards.

Do you believe this is true, and if so, do you think that Federal involvement in the testing process is the answer?
-----------------------------------------------

None of this is presented as the posters opinion, nor takes any stance. It asks a question. Maybe that is what you intended. As I posted, and you deleted, I’m not familiar with your writing style, so I can only address how it grammatically and logically appears.

To discuss the restated topic;

No, self-policing has not fallen short. The incident of fatal accidents caused by lack of proper training during dives is lower than that in many other recreational sports, such as pop-warner football. Football couches kill children every year by pushing them to hard due period of high heat. Should the government regulate football couching for children? No, because you don’t have to play football for that couch. Neither do you have to scuba. You chose to scuba, and as such the inherent risk in the sport is assumed by you.

Additionally, there is no compelling state interest in regulating recreational diving. Even an untrained diver endangers self, far more than others.

Finally, is there little to no precedent for assuming that governmental regulation of a sport will make the sport safer, while there is plenty of precedent to show it would likely be much more expensive and burdensome.

Companies would lobby so that only their safety equipment and methods can be used. Prices would rise to support the new agency. Politics would be involved on who get certified and a government approved tester.

States spend millions of dollars a year arguing over what to teach in text books. You’d have the same kind of problem on what should be taught in scuba. Part of the reason there is more than one certifying agency, is because they do not agree on the best curriculum.

Some people want more divers, others want fewer, so as to not have to share diving areas with crowds. Every aspect of scuba would be affected by such mutually exclusive competing ideologies.

At least now, you have a choice. You can choose your agency, you can choose your level of training, you can choose your equipment based on personal choice. Do some people make choices others think are unsafe? Of course, but with government interference that choice disappears, and there is no guarantee that the choices now forbidden won’t be the ones you’d otherwise make.

Xanthro

 

[Seabear70]

Who gets to set the standards?

It seems to me if we allow government to step in, we face a problem with either getting far too rigid of rules, or far too loose of rules. Either way would be bad.

We're recreational divers. Why should we be under any greater government regulation than Rugby Players? I haven't seen any statistics on them, but I suspect that they greater accident and fatality figures than recreational divers, it's a really rough sport.

It would be easy to say, let's comprimise, and decide that you could only get air fills if you were certified by a known agency. But we already do that on our own. And if we let the government regulate that, then we have to accept that the regulating agencies will have to soon meet government standard which may be set by people wh do not even dive.

Let's be honest, I don't trust the government to spend my tax dollars wisely, do you really thing I would trust "them" to tell me how to dive?

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Well... in every other area of life regulated by government the resultant bliss has been wonderful.

Where the ... do YOU live?

 

[jbichsel]

This is going to be a volatile subject, so please NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed. address issues and ideas, not people. if you call anyone a name, your post will be pulled, no questions asked.

As to the ideas themselves, please speak freely.

---------------------------------------------------------

We often hear "let's police ourselves before the government steps in."

What if "self-policing" has failed? The training standards
are compromised, some might argue, new divers are at
their unsafest level ever, more and more instructors are
teaching without a basic understanding themselves.

Only a government entity (immune from commercial pressures) can ensure that standards are
not only SET IN PAPER but also ADHERED to in training.

How? Easy -- a standarized test administered by official
test-givers. Pilots have to pass an FAA test, though their training can be private. Why not the same for divers?

Wouldn't divers be safer if someone WITHOUT A PROFIT MOTIVE was in charge of evaluating diver skills prior to
handing them a c-card?

Maybe I'll work backward through these.

"Wouldn't divers be safer if someone WITHOUT A PROFIT MOTIVE was in charge of evaluating diver skills prior to
handing them a c-card?"

And how would the government be "without a profit motive"? How many years have we heard about "budget surplus"? Isn't that what we are to believe our federal budget should be, and if so, doesn't that mean that our government is making a profit?

"How? Easy -- a standarized test administered by official
test-givers. Pilots have to pass an FAA test, though their training can be private. Why not the same for divers?"

Have you ever taken a FAA test, training, physical? Do you really want the government to get involved? Are you aware of the paperwork and administrative hassles the government creates? What kind of fees for applications would the government levy? What sort of annual license fee would they impose? I'm quite sure it would be well above what any agency currently charges.

"Only a government entity (immune from commercial pressures) can ensure that standards are
not only SET IN PAPER but also ADHERED to in training."

Where does THIS notion come from? Is this the same government that has set our education standards for our children? Werlfare standards, environmental policy, drug policy, TSA training, .......... Boy, those have all really worked well. Dare I list some more?

Basically, my belief is that government might be able to create a better set of standards, but the ability to economically implement those is HIGHLY suspect.

Why do so many people look to government to be the savior for all ills? Please name one agency where the government actually runs something economically, efficiently and well?

If the government were to take over scuba as you describe, within just a few years it would be even more expensive than it is now, over regulated, over administrated, and another agency would be created taking even more of our tax dollars.

Horrible idea.

 

[Scubaguy62]

Have you ever taken a FAA test, training, physical? Do you really want the government to get involved? Are you aware of the paperwork and administrative hassles the government creates? What kind of fees for applications would the government levy? What sort of annual license fee would they impose? I'm quite sure it would be well above what any agency currently charges.

The amount of paperwork and administrative hassles involving FAA examinations, whether written or practical, is not that much greater than what scuba instructors process for our scuba certifications. Also, fees for F.A.A. related examinations are limited to the applicant's choice of whether to use a designated examiner, as opposed to being tested by an F.A.A. Inspector. Examiners charge, Inspectors don't.

 

[Don Burke]

How? Easy -- a standarized test administered by official test-givers. Pilots have to pass an FAA test, though their training can be private. Why not the same for divers?

I would prefer something more along the lines of how amateur radio operators are licensed in the United States. The test bank is public, as it is with FAA tests, but the exam is administered by volunteers. The exam bank was written by volunteers and approved by government officials. In the case of divers, this would look much like the Council for National Cooperation in Aquatics standards.

Wouldn't divers be safer if someone WITHOUT A PROFIT MOTIVE was in charge of evaluating diver skills prior to handing them a c-card?

If that is the goal, requiring an independent examiner who is not a government official would be better. Government officials have a vested interest in the expansion of their domains.

We manage to have some pretty good testing for real estate licenses, amateur radio operators, and Coast Guard licenses. The government involvement is not nearly as intense as it is for FAA licenses.

Some combination of the best parts of these processes would seem to be the way to go if you want to get the government involved.

I am not convinced a government diving license is a good idea.

You might do well trying to convince me that there should be a CNCA certification that I can insist divers have earned before I take them on a dive trip. In my mind such a card could not be issued by the instructor or anyone with a financial link to the instructor, but someone responsible to something like a state's Real Estate Board.

 

[Xanthro]

Even with a HAM license, you have the ability to greatly affect others. If you don’t know what you are doing, you keep others off the air.

With scuba, you affect yourself, and those that dive with you. You don’t affect others, as you do with HAM.

Xanthro