[paulraymaekers]

to Karl,

just my personal experience, I never followed any rebreather course over the years I was diving home-mades, converted Dolphin, Ray, IDA., rEvo prototypes, rEvo production units, HH, ..

and now that I produce rebreathers, I force people to follow a course! (if not, you can not buy a unit!)

and why??

because I have to!! If I have to face court when (and I hope never) some-one died on one of my units, and I can not proove that I have taken my responsabilities to instruct this person so that I did all possible to prevent an accident, it will be very bad for me!! Waivers don't help me in Europe, it can only show the judge that I warned the person, (and that I tried to get rid of responsabilities...)

regards
paul

[Genesis]

Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT)

Far be it for facts to get in the way of a good debate....

IANTD Standards & Procedures

Heh, one set of S&Ps! Of course actually finding that link is another matter; I went through their web page and couldn't locate it. I wonder if that has anything to do with this statement from the top of the page:

"These Standards are licensed for use exclusively by IANTD Professionals and are for dive training use only. These Standards are copyrighted and are the intellectual property of IANTD. IANTD grants its active Professionals license to use these Standards only. You agree that possession and use of the IANTD Standards shall be strictly in accordance with this license....."

So - where's the public link to this? "Outing" the S&P document because either you're an instructor or someone who has sent it to you, and IANTD lacks either the brainpower (or is just to plain lazy to) password-protect it doesn't mean that they're intentionally publishing it for public review.

But since you've outed it, heh, we'll take a crack at it! Sorry Tom, but scholarly review and critique is fair use, whether you like it that way or not (and I suspect the answer is "not!")

First, let's dispense with whether Mr. Mount and Company actually believe what they're selling.

"DISCLAIMER
IAND, INC. / IANTD STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

Neither the authors nor the Board of Directors, Board of Advisors, or any party associated with the International Association of Nitrox Divers, Inc./IANTD will accept responsibility for accidents or injuries resulting from use of the materials contained herein or the activity of SCUBA diving utilizing open, closed and/or semi-closed circuit equipment or breathing compressed air, or alternative breathing mixtures, including combinations of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Helium and/or Neon."

Non-lawyer translation:

Everything in this document may be anything from wisdom to complete and utter fabrication. You may not rely on anything you find in here; any or even all of it may be wholly made up, arbitrary, without scientific or technical foundation. We may even know that its wrong and yet print it anyway. If you rely on this and get hurt (or killed), its not our fault or responsibility - its yours, even though we assert that you need to learn this, and only this, from us in order to dive safely.

In other words, we're not sure nor will we warrant that anything in this document is right, but if any or even all of it is wrong, its your responsibility and fault.

And from the next couple of pages:

"IANTD and its members strive to be honest, ethical and fair in all our venues. We also believe that there are universal principles that are more absolute. We try to live by them."

Translation - its about to get deep guys. We're gonna list a bunch of stuff under this, and its all going to sound good like baseball, Mom and apple pie, but just wait, because what the bold print claim, the fine print taketh away, and boy, wait until you see what that fine print says! Hoh Hoh Hoh - Merry Grinchmas!

"I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT IS TO EXEMPT AND RELEASE IANTD/IAND,INC., AS WELL AS MY INSTRUCTORS, AFFILIATED PERSONNEL, THE FACILITY THROUGH WHICH I RECEIVE MY INSTRUCTION, ALL VESSELS (WHETHER OWNED, OPERATED, LEASED OR CHARTERED) AND ALL OTHER INVOLVED PERSONNEL INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THEIR OWNERS, EMPLOYEES, CREW, VOLUNTEERS, DESIGNEES, AGENTS, SPONSORS, AND ADVERTISERS (HEREINAFTER THE "RELEASED PARTIES") AND TO HOLD THESE ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY ARISING AS A RESULT OF ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS ON THEIR PART, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ACTIVE OR PASSIVE NEGLIGENCE OR NEGLIGENCE OF ANY TYPE. .....

IT IS MY EXPRESS INTENTION TO GIVE UP MY RIGHT TO SUE ALL INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES OR VESSELS referred to herein ("the released parties") whether specifically named or not, from all liability arising as a consequence of any act or omission including, but not limited to, active or passive negligence of any type. I fully agree to indemnify and hold the released parties harmless from any and all liability for personal injury of any type, including wrongful death. I make this agreement on behalf of myself, my heirs and assigns. I expressly and contractually assume all risks in connection with scuba diving activities whether directly related to diving or not. I understand and agree that it is my responsibility to make my family aware of the risks of injury or death from diving activities, that I accept these risks and choose to participate anyway. I hereby represent that I, or my estate, shall be liable in full for any claim brought on my behalf by my family, estate or heirs, arising from my injury or death while participating in diving activities. "

Non-lawyerly translation:

I agree that this is a dangerous activity. We all know that and its bloody obvious. However, in addition to what's obvious we're going to go significantly further and demand that you accept total and complete responsibility for your own safety, and agree that we bear no responsibility of any kind for what, how, or by whom you are about to be allegedly instructed. Here are some examples of just how far this responsibility reaches.

If IANTD's materials are defective and I get hurt or killed by relying on them, its my fault. This is true even if IANTD OR THE INSTRUCTOR KNOWS the materials are defective and is using them anyway.

If IANTD issued instructor credentials to someone who is unqualified, its my fault. This is true even if IANTD KNOWS the instructor is unqualified and yet hasn't revoked their credentials.

Indeed, if IANTD knowingly is allowing someone who is drunk or on drugs to teach this class, IT IS STILL MY FAULT.

Because it is all my fault, if I report something to IANTD that I believe is unsafe, they have no duty to investigate, they have no duty to take corrective action, and indeed, I have no right to know, as a student, whether or not this instructor has been the subject of complaints or even whether or not students have died in the past under his or her care. None of this is any of my business, yet if any of it gets me killed or hurt, its once again (you guessed it) my fault.

What's better, not only am I giving up my right to sue, I'm agreeing that if someone who didn't give up THEIR right to sue comes after IANTD or the instructor for any of the above (as well as less outrageous examples of conduct unbecoming a civilized human being), I'll pay for it (including the judgment if they win!) even if I'm dead. This means, in effect, that I'm agreeing that if someone sues they will be suing themselves, since the only people with standing to sue would be my heirs. What's even better is that this means that if someone has grounds to sue, I get to pay the money judgment for IANTDs or its "released friends" errors or omissions! In other words, not only do I pay with my life if my instructor (or the boat operator) is drunk and IANTD knew about it, I also get to pay the money judgment out of my estate if someone sues because his drunkeness was the cause of my death! Of course since suing yourself is stupid, all this is coldly calculated to insure that either (1) nobody will or (2) if someone does, the lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank because they'll get to charge my estate for both sides of the representation in the suit!

Of course we won't explain any of this in plain english (because we know that if we did nobody would ever agree to sign it), but its what this all means.

While a quick perusal does show a few of their classes have objective standards (and this is new guys - I wonder if Mssrs Mount and company have been reading some of my rants on this for the past three years?) most still do not. IANTD has always has this nebulous "watermanship" skill set claim, but most of their programs still do not objectively define pass/fail (e.g. "to pass OW, you must demonstrate two ascents made without contact with a fixed upline, each of which is to be at a rate of no more than 30fpm, and is to include a safety stop at 15fsw for three minutes. During the stop buoyancy must be maintained without contact with the upline +/- 3' in depth.")

Again, here's the deal, as I see it.

1. The entire point of forcing someone to take a class is that you are asserting that without it they will be grievously hurt or die. If you are correct, then you must take ethical AND LEGAL responsibility for what you teach and who teaches it. Once you shove a waiver for instruction under my nose you have declared that you are not responsible if your teaching is deficient, which is a declaration that you don't believe that your teaching is complete or correct! You cannot assert that something is required and yet at the same time may be wrong.
2. If you want me to agree that I, and not you, are responsible for the content and conduct of the course, then you have admitted that you don't know if you're right or wrong. It is not possible to reconcile this with a "mandate" for instruction. Therefore, if you demand that I sign such a waiver, then you must also support my freedom to choose to not take the class at all, and learn via any means I decide is prudent for me, since you insist that I, and not you, take full responsibility for that choice.

I know, someone will say "the insurance companies require this". Really? And who contracts with the insurance companies? Why the agencies! So gee, how about you find some different ones? How about you take responsibility? How about you put your house and business on the line, since you want me to put life on the line by trusting you? Last time I checked, a house or business was worth less than a life.

Or is it? Certainly not, according to these agencies! Their homes are worth more than your life is. They're stating it quite plainly, even if in lawyerese, and demanding that you agree with them and pay them money for "instruction" that they don't even believe themselves - as self-proclaimed experts - to be accurate and sufficient!

Trob09, as far as the fees go and people waiving them, that is directly contrary to the written positions of both the manufacturers and agencies.

That you can find someone who will violate the S&Ps does not prove your point; it simply means you've found a way to cheat.

Finally, your demand that I "sell 300 units then come back to talk" flies in the face of reality and commercial unit sales history. Gordon Smith had a policy for years of selling to anyone who wanted to buy. He strongly advocated instruction but did not mandate it.

This changed with the introduction of the Sport KISS, and when I called him on the phone to ask why, I was told that Jetsam was forced to adopt this posture by the agencies - they refused to issue a class for the Sport KISS unless he would agree to sell only to people who had taken the class! And the agencies, who tie up shops and instructors, had managed to get unit-specific certs declared mandatory for use in most resort areas.

So no, Trob09, it is NOT the voluntary position of the existing manufacturers that your view is how things should be done. If I put a gun to your head I cannot claim that you "decided" to give me all your money. That's the worst sort of deception and I suspect you know this is the case - as you've cited this yet AGAIN here, after being informed of the truth. That makes your attempted deception INTENTIONAL.

Nor is there any evidence that my preferred business model would result in "a pile of bodies". Quite to the contrary - Gordon sold over 100 Classic KISS units without any unit-specific class being available for the device, and the total body count during that entire time was..... drum roll please.....ZERO.

[PacketSniffer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by trob09)

When the 2003 update to the IANTD S&P came out they were available only to instructors until the transition period from the previous S&P was over. At that point they were made available to the public. I would expect the same to happen here although I have no confirmation of that.

Why don't they tell us that when someone asks about them? If that's the way it ends up working out, that's great. I will have no complaint then.

[EBT]

Karl,

IANTD has always made their standards public and that links been popping up on multiple forums recently (including RBW - Here)

Sometimes you have to offer some encouragement rather than whinging all the time. Its a bit like commenting halfway through a BJ "Gee, is that ALL you do".

[Genesis]

Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT)

Karl,

IANTD has always made their standards public and that links been popping up on multiple forums recently.

Sometimes you have to offer some encouragement rather than whinging all the time. Its a bit like commenting halfway through a BJ "Gee, is that ALL you do".

I did offer some encouragement. There are actually objective standards appearing in a few of their courses.

A few years ago, there were none. This has been a personal rant of mine for years - the "pass/fail" decision has always been entirely subjective, and since there's no criteria nor any objective record, its not subject to appeal either.

While you might think this means I'm worried about people being failed that should pass, its the other way around - it means that there are a LOT of divers who "passed" but never met the qualifications!

And indeed, you have another guy here stating right up front that he's been given cards without meeting the printed requirement specified by the agency.

"Crossover" CCR classes almost by definition must be "complete from scratch", since all include a bottom time requirement and there's no way to meet that on the unit without actually having it. Since you can't buy it until you have the card (unless its sent to the instructor) its not possible to actually meet the standards without taking what amounts to the full course.

By definition someone who "short circuits" this has not met the standards - they've "cheated" the system. This is now being cited as justification for leaving things alone!

In fact its a clear declaration that the system is broken, and the most egregious example of this is unit-specific certs. There simply is no reason for that - at all - other than a raw attempt to grab yet-more money from divers.

Again - certifications are not licenses. They carry none of the protections that come with formal licensing in terms of process, liability coverage or transparency.

They were not pitched originally as "required" and allowing them to become mandatory is simply wrong.

[trob09]

you know. it's not worth it.

I'm going to go down to McDonalds and force them to sell me a Wopper. Then I'm going to complain that they didn't make their menu decisions public and allow for input before they posted them. After thai I'm going to create a petition to force the fast food giants who are ripping off customers through their franchisees to allow me to buy a big mac without having to go to a McDonalds. Lastly, I'm going to form a fast-food cooperative using the recipies of all the fast food companies so that duped shoppers can avoid being forced into buying from them.

[Genesis]

If McDonalds' colluded with Wendys and Burger King to sell only quarter-pound hamburgers, to charge $5.00 each for them no matter where you bought them, and then they tried to prevent other competitors from entering the market who wanted to sell chicken sandwiches, you'd want them strung up on a tree by their nuts.

That would also attract the attention of the lawyers, since that sort of thing is flatly illegal in the United States.

This industry is too small to attract the attention of lawyers (you could probably win but there's not enough money in it to make it worthwhile), but that doesn't make what they're doing right.

How do you justify an industry that claims to have the right to force you to take training but in the same breath forces you to sign a liability release that states that if the instructor is drunk and the agency knows they're a drunk (or a druggie!), and as a consequence you are hurt or die, you can't sue them for negligence?

What is your defense of that position Trob?

[schford]

You know I recall from my time debating in University that a key point about a good debater was his ability to make his point succinctly.

Often less is more.

[PacketSniffer]

Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT)

Karl,

IANTD has always made their standards public and that links been popping up on multiple forums recently (including RBW - Here)

Not being in the sport for several years, I don't know this. You may be used to it but some things don't make any sense from a fresh set of eyes.

If I don't have the priveledge of knowing RBW or other forums, how will I find this info? I mean, really, shoudn't I be getting it directly from the official source???

Quote: (Originally Posted by EBT)

Sometimes you have to offer some encouragement rather than whinging all the time. Its a bit like commenting halfway through a BJ "Gee, is that ALL you do".

I do know that IANTD has been through the ringer lately. So, I'm willing to give some slack. But, a little communication goes a long way.

[Genesis]

Quote: (Originally Posted by schford)

You know I recall from my time debating in University that a key point about a good debater was his ability to make his point succinctly.

Often less is more.

Responding to a bald assertion such as "everyone will die without mandatory training" can't be done with one line "no they won't."

The original statement is an invalid debating tactic (it carries no evidence) but the only way to get out of "he said/she said" is to introduce facts, which requires you lay a foundation for them.