The concept of instituting a mandatory recertification or requalification program has generated more response from a wider variety of divers at all levels than any other question posed in this column since its inception two years ago. It seems that nearly everyone has an opinion on this topic, from uncertified non-divers to the "old salts" of the diving community.

It is apparent by the responses that everyone's concept of the form "recertification" will take is as diverse as the term used to discuss the idea. These terms include: recertification, requalification, divers update, continuing education, the logbook program, mandatory refresher, biannual dive review, revalidation, active diver program, proficiency validation, and others. The proposed requirements ranged from complete certification courses every year to looking at a diver's logbook every three years to see if they had made twelve dives in that time.

In general, those divers favoring a continuing validation program felt that it would enhance the safety and image of the sport, reduce the number of accidents occurring, forestall legislation regulating diving activities, and keep more divers actively diving. My personal perception was that the concept was most favored by resort operators, instructors, and divemasters who see large numbers of incompetent or marginally able divers come through their doors every day, and by the academic diving community. Non-divers were also generally in favor of some type of continuing evaluation program.

Most active divers and instructors from other regions felt that the drawbacks of such a program outweighed the benefits. They felt that the program was unnecessary, would cost too much in both time and effort to administrate, would not significantly improve diver safety, and would discourage people from entering the sport. Some respondents saw the entire suggestion as a "scam" by the dive certification agencies and other industry personnel proposed solely to make more money.

A panel discussion on the topic at the International Conference on Underwater Education in Houston in June drew about 150 participants. Discussion was lively, with many instructors and divers raising significant and valid concerns. By a show of hands of those present, about 80% of the attendees favored the idea of some sort of revalidation program, but felt that it would be tantamount to business suicide for NAUI to attempt to implement such a program unilaterally. The point was raised several times that "the potential students could just go down the block for a lifetime c-card."

Butch Hendrick reminded the audience that these discussions had been held in the past, and that some ideas raised at those times still had not been implemented. In particular he suggested that NAUI Instructors and divemasters be issued rubber stamps with their name and association number, which could then be used to validate logbooks of divers participating under their supervision. This, he felt, would provide a low-cost, low-threat manner with which to phase into an eventual continuing validation program.

It also fits well with the concept most often espoused for renewal requirements--active diving. A plurality of the people advocating a requalification program suggested a program which entails the production of a "validated" logbook. The divers would have to show a certain level of diving experience to maintain currentness for diving. "Recertification" might then be as simple as affixing an annual or biannual sticker to the original certification card.

It is apparent that this proposal will receive more attention in the near future. You can probably expect to see concrete proposals within Sources early next year. I urge you to consider these proposals, and make your views known to members of NAUI's leadership so that we may all benefit from your experience and thoughts.

QUESTION: "Should NAUI require mandatory diver recertification? If so, what should it entail? If not, why not?"

A. The idea of certification expiration makes me very happy. Paul Heinmiller and I strongly urged such a program back in 1981/82. There was little support at that time, but once again we now have the opportunity to take a firm stance against slipshod diving practices by making the "Quality Difference" apply to all our divers, not just our training programs.

In 1982 there were three primary arguments against recertification: (1) It would be too expensive for NAUI to administer; (2) Expiring certifications would place NAUI in a non-competitive stance with respect to the other agencies; and (3) A system that implied a diver was competent to dive on an ongoing basis would open NAUI and its members to lawsuits resulting from accidents suffered by experienced divers who had met the recertification criteria NAUI established.

I still strongly favor a recertification plan. I feel the above items can be intelligently handled. I also believe that ancillary certifications and skills for NAUI certification should be maintained (i.e. CPR/First Aid/Rescue for leadership personnel, etc.)

--Phil Sharkey, NAUI 4505L; Narragansett, RI (Diving Officer for the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Has taught all levels and served as an ITC Director. Recipient of the NAUI Outstanding Service Award.)

A. Mandatory recertification should not become NAUI policy.

The first dive on most dive trips is a acclimation dive to allow dive masters to assess the capabilities of the divers in a group. This is effectively a recertification dive performed by the right people at the right time. Required recertification would not and should not change this practice, and therefore offers no advantage.

A certified diver is not necessarily a competent or safe diver. Recertification will not necessarily improve a diver's ability or safety awareness. Journals of the sport do an adequate job of informing the diving public of the latest advances in diving equipment and safety issues. Recertification would not offer improvements in this area.

Activities typically requiring recertification involve risk to other people, e.g. flying and driving. Scuba diving, like hang-gliding, spelunking, or parachuting, mainly presents risk to the participant: recertification is not of value to the general public.

Recertification will add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and expense to a sport that is ever more time consuming, tedious, and expensive to learn and experience. It will not improve the safety, quality, or image of the sport.

--Roger J. Card, NAUI Z6490; Stamford, CT

A. I believe that mandatory requalification should be required if a minimal level of documented activity cannot be demonstrated. All divers should be able to confirm their currentness through logbook records. Not only will this help ensure appropriate skill levels (e.g. for charters), but we will be able to access better records in the case of accidents. The documented reality may also encourage divers to upgrade their skills with advanced training. When logbooks are not maintained, there seems to be an almost universal tendency to dramatically overestimate the number of dives completed.

A final note on implementation of this practice. Proper training at the leadership level is the key to encouraging logbook use, since an instructor's beliefs and presentation [and personal practices--Ed.] will have a striking impact on the attitudes of their students.

--Neal Pollock, NAUI 7068; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (Diving Officer for the University of British Columbia, and current President of the Canadian Academy of Underwater Sciences. Past candidate for the NAUI Canada Board of Directors.)

A. I think that each x number of years, all divers regardless of their level of experience should have their log book checked for a certain minimum number of dives during the past period. I have known very talented people who take courses but never dive...being an Advanced Diver looks great on a c-card but the question is: do you have the experience to back it up? For those who still are active divers and can prove they have been diving the minimum prescribed by the association, re-issue the diver's card with a new expiration date on it. As for the others (God knows certain techniques and reflexes are easy to forget), let them get right back on with today via the already existing Refresher Course!

--Martin Poirier, NAUI 10040; Cartierville, Quebec, Canada (Teaches part-time for Ecole de plongee sous-marine Triton, a NAUI Pro Facility. Teaches primarily Openwater I classes, and enjoys ice and wreck diving.)

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 outdated 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 (Instructor for Dive Maui, Inc. Has taught all levels of diving from introductory courses to ITC staff experience.)

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 open water 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 open water 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 at dive stores, and currently at the University of Michigan.)

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

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.]Questions for the next issues:

Questions for the next issues:

For the November/December issue: "Should NAUI offer training through a specialty program in Nitrox Diving? Why/why not?"

For the January/February issue: "What could be done to improve the marketability of NAUI's products, programs, and services?"

All members are encouraged to respond. This column is for you, the membership, to develop. Answers should be kept fairly brief, preferably no more than two or three paragraphs. Responses to each question will be collated by the editor, condensed if necessary, and printed in this section. New questions may also be posed for discussion. Questions should be concise, and should stimulate a wide cross‑section of the membership. Include with your responses or questions the following information: your name, address, phone number, NAUI membership number, dive‑related employment, past diving accomplishments, and a review of your dive teaching experience. Send your materials to Jeffrey Bozanic, c/o NDA News, P.O. Box 14650, Montclair, CA 91763‑1150.

Compiled and Edited by Jeffrey Bozanic, NAUI 5334L

Sources, Sept/Oct 1989, (1:3), pp. 10-14.

Scuba Diver Recertification

NAUI Members' Forum #13