A. NAUI should
require a mandatory diver recertification simply for diver safety.
All levels should be affected, from the skin diver level up to the
instructor level. The existing lifetime c-card does not really prove
that the holder is in any way active, not unless he shows a legitimate
logbook which could be verified.
The c-card could
be extended for another year if: (1) the diver logs a minimum of 12
dives within the year, (2) he provides a logbook which contains the
regular dive specifics signed by a certified buddy, (3) the c-card
and logbook are submitted to any NAUI training facility on or before
the expiration date. The instructor can at that time validate the
card for another year. Registered validation stickers or similar markings
could be placed on the old c-card so that the student registration
number [noe a PIN number--Ed.] could be maintained by the diver.
If the card
holder does not follow this procedure, then he should take the "r"
program or his card will be considered expired. He can still keep
his card for future validations.
The "r"
program could be fitted within a regular program of each course, thus
minimizing its cost for both the student and the instructor. An entrance
written exam and student questionnaire should be given prior to taking
the program. The results would allow the instructor to evaluate the
needs of each participant.
Dive shops,
resort and boat operators, and similar outlets should monitor and
adhere to the objectives of the program, otherwise the whole concept
would be ineffective.
--Carlos N. Santos-Viola,
NAUI 5687L; San Francisco, CA(Former
Training Director and General Manager of Aquaventure Phils, Inc. Has
taught all levels to ITCs. Former Safety Chairman for the Amphibians
Scuba Club.)
A. Yes, we
should require mandatory recertification. As a safety device, this
would help insure the practices that divers were taught are utilized.
This would help not only people who have not been diving recently,
but also active divers who have acquired bad habits or are using out-dated
practices.
The program
should include review of the diver's logbook first. If the logbook
contains significant entries, then a basic update program comprising
an exam or quiz covering basic dive safety, and a pool checkout. If
there are fewer entries, then an open water checkout and follow-up
supervised dive should be added. The cut-off point between the two
groups should be a minimum of six dives per year. This requalification
should be required optimally every three years, but no longer than
every five years at a maximum.
--Struther MacFarlane,
NAUI 6676; Toronto, Ontario, Canada (As a private professional educator,
has taught all levels from introductory to serving as ITC Director.
Recipient of the NAUI Canada Silver Pin and Special Recognition Awards.)
A. I certainly
am not opposed to diver recertification. Most certified professional
or volunteer skills such as CPR, EMT, nurse, physician, and, even,
a drivers license require some skills evaluation or recurrent training
for recertification. Four hours of classroom combined with four hours
of confined water work and eight hours of open water "classroom"
exposure would seem appropriate.
--Jim Corry, NAUI
7184L; Washington, D.C. (Has taught all levels to ITCs both privately
and at UCLA. Currently serves as Chairman of the Diving and Water
Rescue Committee of the National Association for Search and Rescue.
Has authored many articles about diving safety.)
A. Yes. At
entry levels it should include three things: (1) to see that they
are still comfortable in the water (or to make them so if they were
not originally); (2) evaluate their fitness/health for diving, perhaps
by having them swim 220 yards with mask, fins, and snorkel; and (3)
an update on new equipment (like alternate second stages, BC inflators,
diving computers, etc.)
For advanced
level divers and instructors, we should look at: (1) Fitness, again
by evaluating their water ability (use the 880 yard swim required
of new instructors). (2) Knowledge, including a written exam on new
diving equipment, medical aspects, and knowledge. (3) Evaluation of
the instructor's personal equipment.
Implementation
will be difficult, but this is a solvable problem in my opinion. Requalification
should be required every 3-5 year for all divers, and every 3 years
for instructors.
--Lyn Nelson, NAUI
3931L; Santa Monica, CA (Owner, marketing firm. Past NAUI Director
and NAUI Canada Executive Director. Taught basic through advanced
courses and ITCs.)
A. It is amusing
to see how the lessons of history are ignored with each new generation.
Scuba diver recertification is a case in point. The infamous Los Angeles
County Scuba Diving Ordinance #11025 of 1974, dealing with scuba diver
recertification, caused turmoil in the diving community of Southern
California. The ordinance called for "emergence and periodic"
recertification of scuba divers. Twelve witnessed and logged dives
over the preceding twelve months and instructor verification of skill
level met the criteria of the ordinance. Those over forty years of
age were required to have completed medical history forms or physical
examinations.
The response
to the ordinance by the dive community was overwhelmingly negative.
Bumper stickers were distributed with the admonition "WARNING!
L.A. COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR DIVING." Dive stores,
boat operators, instructors, and basic divers objected in large numbers
to the ordinance, and even to the concept of diver recertification.
The ordinance was rescinded and the affair passed from the public
consciousness.
Here we are
in 1989 and we are hearing the same specious arguments for recertification
that did not stand the scrutiny of the dive community fifteen years
ago. It is all the more sad that it is NAUI headquarters personnel
who are promoting these ideas. It is a small minority of instructors,
dive shop operators, and others who visualize recertification as another
money producing gimmick for a marginally profitable dive industry.
Thirty-five years of scuba instruction without recertification has
been adequate and is sufficient precedent for the future.
As to other
arguments put forth for recertification, close scrutiny uncovers their
fallacies. For example, scuba diving is not like learning to fly where
the public is potentially endangered by incompetent pilots. Loss of
skills associated with scuba diving are easily recovered by: (1) conditioning
exercises, (2) a few dives with a currently active buddy, (3) if needed
an instructor-provided short refresher course. This determination
should be left to the diver *not* the government nor the certifying
agencies. An attempt to require more is doomed to defeat. NAUI can
only lose credibility for fostering such ill conceived notions. Already
diving publications have received scores of letters against any recertification
program. Listen to the diving public--NAUI will save itself and the
diving community a lot of headaches.
--Edward Zutaut,
NAUI 2759; Malibu, CA
A. Currently,
stores in the keys under the Keys Association of Dive Operators (KADO)
require one logged dive in the last twelve months of all divers. If
greater than three years have passed since the last dive, then a complete
certification course is required. If a diver falls between these "extremes,"
then a refresher course is required. This course is basically a resort
course with a skills review.
I think a dive
an average of every six months would be much better, and still not
unreasonable. This would keep the divers active, and reasonably competent.
More dives would be better, but this is minimal. Logbook use should
be absolutely mandatory. If a logbook is not presented, then the diver
should sign a special "lost logbook" waiver.
--Billy Deans,
PADI OWSI 9283; Key West, Florida Keys, FL (Teaching since 1978, owns
Key West Diver, Inc. dive store. Has extensive experience with nitrox
diving and other mixed gas media.)
A. I think
it is a good idea. It would be a better idea if all the agencies could
agree on a time limit for cards and a procedure for recertification.
If we went for this program by ourselves it might result in our downfall
from a consumer standpoint. Why should the consumer get a card with
an expiration date from NAUI when they could get one from another
agency that lasts forever? If we could get all the certification agencies
to agree to all accept the same guidelines, than I think that perhaps
we might stand a chance with this idea. Something like a five year
expiration date would be a place to start for time limits.
We might pattern
our program after the FAA program for pilot recertification where
every two years a licensed private pilot has to go for a check ride
with an instructor. We might include a standard oral exam (or a brief
objective written exam, or both) where the questions cover an update
of safe diving information. The instructor administering the recertification
would perform the dive with the student and administer the test. Then
they would sign off the student and send a form to headquarters that
confirms the student understands the latest in diving safety and philosophy.
They would collect a fee for this and send the summary sheet off to
headquarters for a new certification card to be mailed directly to
the diver.
I think that
this program has a lot of merit and could be a good way to bring divers
back into the shops and classes to help insure the continued safety
of our sport.
Bob Widmann, NAUI
2055; Aptos, CA (Past Mid Pacific Branch Manager. Has taught all levels
of diving, including having served as ITC Director. Recipient of NAUI
Outstanding Service Award.)
A. While the
concept of recertification has some good points, I feel it is not
necessary to insure diving skills. I prefer the concept of continued
education and the use of a diver's logbook to insure diver competence.
Requiring recertification will, I feel, discourage a segment of divers
and bring about further diver dropout. Furthermore, I feel this will
impact negatively on the resort business, as some divers will use
this as just another excuse not to dive and not to plan travel dive
trips, until their recertification is complete. As time is a priority,
many will not have the additional time commitment available, and eventually
just drop out.
--Jerry Schnabel,
NAUI 2464; Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles (Photo pro for Divi Resorts
in Bonaire. Has taught primarily Underwater Photography specialties,
but also has entry level thru ITC teaching experience at many resorts
in the Caribbean.)
A. Living up
here in Tobermory, based on what I see, I definitely feel some sort
of requalification is needed. I see people who have not been in the
water a while freak when they get a drip of cold water down their
suit neck, and lots of other minor problems causing major reactions.
At a minimum
of every five years, divers should go through a two day refresher
program. It should include four dives, and several hours of lecture
on general dive safety. A table review is absolutely necessary, as
many divers completely forget how to use them. A program of this sort
would improve diver safety in our cold water environment.
--Kris Hopkins;
Tobermory, Ontario, Canada (Captain of the "Mamie," a dive
charter boat.)
A. A number
of years ago the YMCA tried expiring certification cards. When the
YMCA tried this out unilaterally, the idea fell flat on its face,
because the student could go down the street to another instructor
or shop and get a card for the same money that lasted "forever."
The YMCA lost ground in the certification "race." I would
not like to see NAUI fall into the same trap.
I agree that
in principle expiring c-cards are the way to go, especially when my
name is on the cards of hundreds of people who may or may not be diving
at this point. Any one of these individuals may get it into his or
her hear to go out diving without a refresher course. Hopefully this
will not happen, because I stressed the importance of refresher training
in their course, but there are no guarantees.
NAUI should
propose expiring cards to the Association National Standards Institute
and take the leadership role in its development, but all agencies
have to agree or the program will not work as illustrated by the YMCA
failure.
It should be
pointed out that this could provide another course for those individuals
and companies looking for another source of income, or it could be
as simple as requiring a logbook with a minimum number of dives signed
by an instructor or divemaster. Leadership levels could be required
to acquire continuing education credits in addition to teaching to
keep current. Hopefully NAUI could provide seminars with new information
as a service to its membership in a variety of locations throughout
the country.
--Ernest Beier
III, NAUI 5146; Mickleton, NJ
A. All divers
should be recertified. Each diver should over a period of twelve months,
log two dives a month and have them verified by a divemaster, instructor,
boat mate, or captain of a dive boat or dive shop. Thus, a total of
twenty-four dives a year, spread over the year's time would be required.
This would prevent a diver from completing the twenty-four dives in
a week's time to cover the next recertification period, insuring that
the diver does not remain inactive for the eleven months at a stretch.
--Patrick Reese,
PADI Divemaster D-38449; Key West, Florida Keys, FL (Divemaster at
Key West Divers, Inc.)
A. I support
the concept. However, reaction from the divers that I have discussed
this with, including two dive clubs, was universally negative. NAUI
offers refresher training, although it is not mandatory. I feel this
is a good starting point for the program. A diver who continues diver
education should not have to recertify. If a diver is active, with
a completed logbook signed by his buddy, divemaster, or instructor,
this should meet the requirement. Divers who have been inactive for
twelve months or longer should be required to take a refresher program.
This is the standard we hold for our instructors
and teaching assistants. This system is in place and could be expanded
to include all NAUI certified divers.
--Joe Kilgore,
NAUI 8740L; Pearl City, HI (Director of Training and Instructor for
Down Under Divers, a NAUI Pro Facility. Has taught Openwater I through
Divemaster as well as some specialty courses. Was Diving Officer for
an Army Combat Unit.)
A. I would
like to support the instructor who wrote the piece in the November/
December issue of Sources concerning upgrading Junior Openwater cards.
Unless a student can prove via logbooks or by letter from another
instructor current diving and ability I too feel that re-testing in
water skills and academics is necessary. Also, as the student is still
a minor I feel that parental signature somewhere would be in order.
--Leslie Farnel,
NAUI 6092; Lahaina, Maui, HI
A. Teaching
SCUBA entails introducing concepts alien to the divers, changing behavior,
overcoming fears as much as teaching diving. The need for recertification,
or, to the very least, the need for periodic refreshing of skills
can be incorporated into the class as a natural aspect of a training
program that emphasizes safety.
It is all a matter of the proper guidance. A simple question like,
"Would you happily buddy with a diver whom you know has not dove
for years?" will start them in the right direction. Once that
is provided, students will require it to enhance their own safety.
--E.
Esat Atikkan, PhD, NAUI 6274; Germantown, MD
A. How does
one explain to the certified divers from my school that NAUI policy
has changed, and that mandatory recertification is the new policy?
This will be particularly difficult as I inform them that the NAUI
certification is "valid forever" subject to the NAUI Safe
Scuba Diving Practices.
Unfortunately certification in Swaziland is expensive due to adverse
exchange rates and divers will be reluctant to pay further just to
remain valid. They may cross over to other agencies.
From a safety point of view recertification is perhaps necessary.
However, the costs should be borne entirely by NAUI, including the
exorbitant airfreight and other charges we contend with here.
--Jeffrey
Lowe, NAUI 9252; Mbabane, Swaziland(Teaches Openwater I through Advanced
courses part-time at Scubasport Swaziland)
A. About three
years ago, my wife and I "retired" to the Florida Keys.
Four or five months of each year are spent diving commercially for
lobster to supplement our income. During the rest of the year, we
dive for sport both here and in the Caribbean. We log in excess of
250 dives per year.
I would deeply resent having to pay someone to prove I was still qualified
to dive and become "re-certified." Any recertification must
be implemented very carefully, and some sort of "Grandfathering"
should be allowed. If implemented, then newly certified divers would
be aware of the process and would not resent it nearly as much. Instructors
could even build recertification into their fee structure, so that
students would be paid ahead of time and would have no additional
fees for a specified time. At the least, any recertification of already
certified divers should be free.
I am no lawyer but it seems to me that an implied contract exists
based on the lifetime certifications which we have issued during all
these years.
--Fred
Harper, NAUI 4637; Long Key, Florida Keys, FL
A. No, NAUI
should not require mandatory diver recertification. Although recertification
might be a good idea, I do not believe NAUI has the capability to
effectively administer another new program. There are several programs
and services in place now which NAUI has a difficult time administering.
For example, often headquarters cannot trace Openwater I certifications.
Numerous instructors have told me their records do not agree with
the statements sent out by NAUI, and corrections take months. And
the Pro Facility program has been a source of cancelled and forgotten
benefits and requirements since its inception.
Therefore, we as members should not attempt to implement mandatory
recertification as it will undoubtedly generate another administrative
nightmare for our headquarters staff.
--Donna
Nawrocki, NAUI 5923L; Buffalo, NY(Owner and Instructor of Dip 'n Dive
Inc, a NAUI Pro Facility. Actively teaches all levels of diving. 1989
Recipient of NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)
A. Absolutely!
The YMCA scuba program has always required recertification every three
years, and their track record speaks for itself. The time has come
for NAUI to follow suit. Our motto should read "Safety Through
Continuing Education." I deal with a great many divers from all
over the world who come to the upper keys to dive while on vacation.
There seems to be a very large gap between skills initially learned
and those ultimately forgotten, or even worse, ignored over a period
of time.
Recertification could be accomplished in any one of the following
ways: (1) Show proof of ten logged dives a year since certification
date. (2) Pass a written examination. (3) Complete two open water
checkout dives, which include skills such as mask clearing, buddy
breathing, ascent techniques, etc. (4) Become an Openwater II diver.
--Joseph
Derrico, NAUI 10881; Key Largo, Florida Keys, FL(Instructor for Captain
Slate's Atlantis Dive Center)
A. I do not
think that a full recertification is necessary. This especially holds
true for the conscientious diver who makes twenty plus dives a year.
I think a full certification would hurt more than help the diving
industry. An alternative though, might be something along the lines
of the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs).
EMTs are certified for two years at a time. In that two years, EMTs
have to receive a certain amount of Continuing Education Units and
take a recertification test to continue their EMT certification. If
they fail to qualify for recertification, they are required to take
the full EMT course again.
NAUI Instructors could hold monthly pool and educational workshops
within their areas, maybe even combining them with an Openwater I
class. The person that is seeking CEUs could attend either an openwater
dive, pool session or educational session to qualify for a predetermined
amount of CEUs that would have to be accumulated over a period of
maybe three or four years. At the end of this time, the diver makes
either a pool or openwater recertification dive and maybe a short
test. There are a number of ways this could work.
--Michael
V. Hilley, NAUI 10392; Juneau, Alaska
A. I feel that
it would be wonderful if a recertification program came about and
worked without any problems, but this is the real world.
If we truly wish to ensure diver safety by requiring them to maintain
a certain degree of dive readiness, then we must be prepared for a
rather extensive course to be implemented. A diver would have to be
tested yearly to make sure that in the off season he has maintained
good physical and mental fitness. A yearly physical would be mandatory.
A classroom session followed by a pool session and a day in open water
would also be necessary. By omitting any of the above we would not
be doing justice to the purpose of recertification.
The problems that would be associated with such a program are going
to cause the dive industry to grind to a screeching halt. What potential
student in their right mind will be willing to part with a rather
large sum of money to be certified initially, only to find that they
must part with more money year after year in order to dive.
If we institute a program that only checks the log books, why bother
having the program. The only reason would be to line some instructors
pocket with money that would most definitely be unearned.
The answer is and always has been continuing education. This must
be stressed at all levels. Continuing education courses must be available
and convenient for students at all levels.
--Edmund
Kozlowski, NAUI 8731; Audubon, NJ
A. RECERTIFICATION,
REFRESHER, SKILLS UPDATE, whatever it will be called when it happens
is far better instituted by the diving schools and certifying agencies
than having good ol' Uncle Sam get a hold of it, and tell us how it
must be done.
I was certified SSI. In Tobermory we are referred to as "Some
Stupid Idiot" if we trained at the shop I did. I was taught "sugar
coated" diving from my instructor, and was headed for a diving
death.
I became disillusioned with the diving standards and back stabbing
politics as I approached becoming an instructor. The closer I got,
the more my stomach was turned by the lack of safety being taught,
the sales pushing, and the selling of C-cards.
I feel the redoing of skills is a must for all levels. It is the instructors
who do not continue their diving education after they got the "patch"
who are doing the most injustice to the sport. They owe it to the
people who trust them with their life to be up to date on every skill
available.
Diving is a safe sport if the diver dives safely, but if they were
never trained thoroughly they will die. There is nothing like going
with a leader that dreams and believes in what they are doing and
supporting. That is why I am choosing NAUI.
--Jennifer
Aiken, NDA Member; Detroit, MI (SSI DiveCon certification, has assisted
in dive instruction
A. Thank you
for the indication of the vote that will be coming up this spring
on NAUI diving requalifications.
I would offer a word of caution for the kind of requirements that
are set, especially in light of those of us who promote diving and
enjoy diving, but live in an area of the country where it is not as
accessible as it might be if we lived in California or Florida.
The indication of CEUs to be required for renewal would be an excellent
option, since correspondence work could keep people up to date. However,
the amount of diving, and types of diving that would be required for
requalification should be extremely limited and carefully considered.
Though practicing by doing is certainly the best way, I am afraid
that NAUI may discourage a large number of people who only go diving
once or twice a year, turning their allegiance from NAUI to one of
the other diving organizations.
I believe that we can meet the needs of our instructors and certified
divers by carefully considering the wide scope of individuals that
we are trying to serve.
--Dan
A. Klein, PhD, NAUI 4889; Lincoln, Nebraska(Chairman, Division of
Physical Education, Union College.)
A. The requalification
(recertification) issue has really hit the fan this year. It is a
hot topic. It is so hot NAUI needs to proceed with extreme caution.
Before a decision is made, the entire membership should be surveyed.
NAUI's regional representatives should be consulted, as they have
their hands on the pulse of the industry. Keep in mind that people
take the path of least resistance, and that there will be some fallout
from the initiation of a new program. I feel the best course would
be through use of the logbook, and believe that its use would work
to achieve our aims.
--Walt
Amidon, NAUI 3091; Puyallup, WA(Full time dive industry professional
and instructor. Recipient of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)
A. I feel that
mandatory recertification is an effort in overkill. There are more
common sense alternatives for keeping divers current in skills and
knowledge. Increased exposure of the Scuba Refresher course, which
is underadvertised and not well known, would achieve this goal. In
addition, we should Take divers diving!! Retailers should schedule
regular diving trips for their customers. Very few shops I know use
this to help divers maintain currency or to increase their continuing
education program activities.
I believe that NAUI's credibility and future may rely on the decision
whether to have mandatory recertification or to implement alternative
solutions. I vote for looking into alternative solutions.
--Ron
Carlisle, NAUI 9606; Cedar Park, TX
A. Having a
c-card that expires is a good idea with a few changes: (1) You must
do a minimum of four verified dives a year (have an area on the back
of the card to have divemaster or instructor signature and number).
(2) You must show your dive log and card to assure competence in diving
in the location, and that you have been diving lately. (3) The c-card
would not expire if a minimum of twelve dives had been made in three
years. If the twelve plus dives had not been made, then recertification
should be required, or if not recertification at least a refresher
course. (4) The c-card would continue in good standing for another
three years providing the twelve dives have been made during each
three years. In conclusion, the c-card would not expire as long as
minimum safety requirements and dives have been met and logged.
--Peter S. Jubb,
NAUI 10389; St. Petersburg, FL
Note from the
editor: The responses for this column as submitted are often too long,
wordy, or otherwise require editing before they may be included. Occasionally
I may condense or rephrase statements to meet the format requirements.
While I do everything in my power to retain the flavor and intent
of the response, sometimes the connotation of the respondent is altered
by my efforts. This happened in the case of Henry Veix's response
regarding NAUI products, and may have happened to others. This is
my responsibility. To prevent similar problems from occurring, I urge
future contributors to follow the guidelines outlined above in drafting
their responses.
A. Every year,
we, as an educational association, strive to develop the safest, most
competent divers in this thriving sport. And yet, every year we see
a steady continuum in the number of diving accidents occurring worldwide.
Despite our best intentions as safety oriented educators, an assumption
must be made that a portion of these accident victims were originally
certified through NAUI (although the exact percentage is unavailable
at this time).
Exact causes
for individual accidents vary; but being an active instructor for
a major dive retailer, I see firsthand the large portion of the diving
populace who dive as infrequently as once every year or two. The lack
of skill retention for these individuals is clearly evident when they
rent equipment and can barely assemble their own gear. If a diver
has difficulty putting a regulator on a tank, a rudimentary task at
best, a safe assumption can also be made that s/he will most likely
also have problems running dive tables correctly or sharing air in
an emergency.
The point being
stressed is that skills not practiced are skills lost. Consequently,
the question arises--should NAUI implement some kind of renewal system
for entry level certifications? The Department of Motor Vehicles requires
renewals, and yet we drive, i.e. practice our skills, virtually every
day. If "Safety Through Education" truly is NAUI's motto,
then consideration must be taken for those people who are diving once
in a blue moon.
--Richard Saito,
NAUI 16093; Beverly Hills, CA (Instructor for NAUI Pro Facility Sport
Chalet)
A. The periodic
renewal of certification sounds like a great idea, depending on the
length of time that will constitute "too long." We must
keep in mind that we are trying to educate the public or at least
the diving community. The majority of divers (those making more than
a few dives every few months) should be considered current on their
water skills. They have kept themselves in good shape by using the
muscle groups necessary for diving and should be comfortable in the
water. These are not the ones needing recertification. The majority
of recreational divers needing recertification would be those who,
having completed certification several years ago, have logged fewer
than a dozen dives since. We are talking about those divers who have
not made a dive in three or four years. A dive shop owner or charter
boat operator would certainly be nervous about assuming responsibility
for such a diver entering the water. The idea of recertification is
a good one, based, I am sure, on the experiences of those who have
had to contend with an unprepared or under-trained diver.
There is a
need to be certain that the reason for periodic renewal of certification
is not due primarily to the profits that a recertification program
would generate. Recertification has a potential for generating a steady
source of revenue to an industry that is struggling to keep afloat.
This is not necessarily a negative thing. How many instructors, in
favor of mandatory recertification, are willing to do so at no charge?
However, I would venture to say that the possibility of financial
gain carries too much weight in this case. If we are to continue to
be the organization primarily concerned with the quality of our students
and not the quantity, we must take care to keep the financial impact
to the student at a minimum.
At what point
in time are we to draw the line? How long will be deemed "too
long?" Should we actually consider putting an expiration date
on the C-card as if it was a driver's license or a health club membership?
I am not against the idea, but I feel that we need to make sure that
our motives are appropriate. Today's world seems to have too much
hunger for money in it and I personally am not in diving to make a
huge profit.
--Tony Miles, NAUI
15688; Costa Mesa, CA
A. The question
is asked by many students, how long is their certification valid?
The entire dive industry should take the hint, one for safety reasons
and two, for economic reasons. The
problem we have in our industry is that all the major certification
agencies offer (NAUI, PADI, YMCA, SSI, ETC.) offer lifetime certification.
We have all had those lovely(cheap) students, that basically show
up to get card and then you never see them again. Such students are
great for"repeat" business. It doesn't help either when
the "well managed" dive shop (wet pleasure in Santa Clara)
promotes "Lifetime Certification" at bargain rates.
Recertification
is essential for diver safety and to promote income of dive shop and
instructors or divemasters. However,
the multitude of certification agencies must unaminously agree on
the recertification process. Just as we have agreed that a diver must
pass a written exam, demonstrate the same basic scuba skills, we must
agree on how long a certification is valid. Otherwise, I could just
see PADI or whomever promoting "Lifetime" cards, To drive
a car, to fly an airplane requires revalidation of licenses for safety
reasons, diving should be the same. Perhaps some sort of legislation
would be necessary to implement such a process. My
recommendation for basic scuba diver and advanced certification would
be every two years for recertification would be every two years for
recertification. This should entail a lecture, pool and re-examination,
followed by one day of ocean diving. For those certified to rescue
and master scuba diver level, recertification should be perhaps every
three to five years (obviously these folks have invested more time
and money and therefore are probably entitled to a longer renewal
period). Should
instructors and divemasters go through a recertification process?
To insure instructional quality level, maintain a physical fitness
standards, and to stay current with industry changes, I say yes! Probably
every three to five years would be reasonable. --Chuck
Weber, NAUI 13560L; Sunnyvale, CA (Instructor for Wet Pleasure in
Santa Clara, CA)
[NOTE: The
views expressed in this column are opinions held by the individual
members referenced, and are not those of NAUI or the editors of NDA
News.
