Posted by Ken Kurtis on January 31, 2003 at 14:09:29:
In Reply to: PADI bashing from a PADI supporter posted by Aaron on January 30, 2003 at 17:17:09:
Aaron asked: "Anyone else see a problem with this?"
Not really. Perhaps you could make the argument that that the suspension should have been longer, and you may want to argue that action should have been taken aginst the DM, but I guess I'm curious as to what you feel PADI did wrong.
Given all the complaining done on this board and others that no one does anything about deficient instructors, here's a textbook case of them doing something . . . yet people still complain. (Now THERE'S a conundrum.)
"Suspension" means this person can't teach for three months. "Restest" effectively means passing the IE again, which includes testing on stabndards adherence. I'm sure there will also be a letter-of-compliance that will need to be signed.
You've got an instance here where no one was injured, but it's clear that an instructor used bad judgment and violated standards and that this possibly could have had more serious consequences, and PADI took action to (hopefully) prevent that instructor from doing that again. (By the same token, don't lose sight of the fact that if the student had previosuly completed the first dive, this is NOT a standards violation and no action would have been taken. IMHO, it's not quite as egregious violation as some of you may feel.)
While in a perfect case, the DM should have declined to do a dive 1 escort, I'm not as concerned with the DM as I am with the instrictor. DMs (especially in this case) are working under the direct supervision and direction of the instructor. The instructor says, "Do this," the DM does. They were in pretty bening conditions. the fact htta the student surfaced by themsevles with problem probably indicates that they were pretty comfortable in the water, aka a "top" student. You can certainly make an argument that at the start of the dive, both could have been aware of the standards violation but thought, "It's prettty easy conditions, it's a greast student, what could go wrong?" Hindsight being 20/20, especially with the losing-the-student, this probably looks worse now than it did then.
Question for the group: Would any of you be as concerned if the DM did NOT lose the student but the dive had been successfully completed?
I think the DM needs some coubnseling and perhaps a compliance letter, but I don't think it merits much more than that.
As for the DM losing the student, sure, it shouldn't happen, especially in clear water and especially if it was one-on-one. I haven't read the article and would like to know more of the details but it's certainly possible for students to get away from the escorter, possibly even easier than some of you might imagine.
The bottom line is (1) there was a problem with an instructor (eveery agency has them), (2) it was brought to the agency's attention, (3) the agency took action. Isn't this the way it supposed to work?
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, CA
Post a Followup