TIE

[Wolfy]

Hi all
Well my instructor training progress'eth :) now time for the TIE
....Now ive been told that the multi choice exam is slightly higher than the DL grade..and heres my question....WHICH DL GRADE ?:)
Im a DL trained under the old syllabus and as such havent had certain bits of the new DL training just wondering how this is reflected in the TIE test ?

any help as usual V.M appreciated :)

Wolfy

[Steve Walker]

I think you're looking at the wrong way Wolfy; it's not "based" on DL theory, it's that your standard of theory knowledge should as high as DL theory exams require.

I'd suggest that you should regard anything and everything as potential subject matter for TIE questions. Admittedly I did mine under the old Club Instructor route, so there's bounfd to have been some changes (or perhaps not given my historical experience of BSAC exams :-)) ) but I clearly remember one or two questions which had me quite puzzled, stuff which perhaps received only a one line mention in the Sport Diving manual and things which certainly hadn't been specifically taught in formal lectures.
HTH
steve

[Wolfy]

I think you're looking at the wrong way Wolfy; it's not "based" on DL theory, it's that your standard of theory knowledge should as high as DL theory exams require.


Steve
No, im looking at it in the right way..theory is tested upto a level slightly higher than DL, my question was that there are effectivly 2 DL grades as there are 2 SD grades, the old and the new, it would seam a little unfair maybe to test on theory which the candidate hasnt been exposed to.

[Mike Halligan]

No, im looking at it in the right way..theory is tested upto a level slightly higher than DL, my question was that there are effectivly 2 DL grades as there are 2 SD grades, the old and the new, it would seam a little unfair maybe to test on theory which the candidate hasnt been exposed to.

Wolfy,

I have to ask, "Unfair to whom?".

Is it fair to students of the current OD, SD, DL and AD courses that their newly-qualified, fresh-out-the-box, instructor is unsighted (and unassessed) in the subject they are studying?

I have no political axe to grind here, but I am a TO. Hence, the sooner the hiatus brought by the revised syllabus and Instructors' lack of subject knowledge is ended, the better for me. I don't specially want to wait for a new crop of Instructors to come tumbling out of "New DL" into IFS and examination before I can have people trained in the new syllabus.

Those of us who are qualified in the "old grades" and now teaching the "new grades" have had to research and to an extent debate the syllabus revisions. I don't believe it is good practice to prolong a temporary, unavoidable difficulty when we could easily move on. I expect Instructors qualifying now to have done their catching-up before assessment, rather than afterwards (for which read "If they get round to it"). We shall see whether ITS Examiners agree with my view.

HTH

Mike

[Open Water Instructor Chief Examiner]

In response to all:
Subject areas to be studied:

BSAC 88 Tables Levels 1-4
Physiology
Physics
Equipment
Diving 1st Aid and Medicine
Dive Organisation
Boat Handling & Seamanship
Principles of Diving Instruction
Teaching Diving Theory
Teaching Practical Diving Skills

Study them hard as you will get 60 questions of multiple choice in one hour.
Good luck.

Sean Gribben

:=No, im looking at it in the right way..theory is tested upto a level slightly higher than DL, my question was that there are effectivly 2 DL grades as there are 2 SD grades, the old and the new, it would seam a little unfair maybe to test on theory which the candidate hasnt been exposed to.

Wolfy,

I have to ask, "Unfair to whom?".

Is it fair to students of the current OD, SD, DL and AD courses that their newly-qualified, fresh-out-the-box, instructor is unsighted (and unassessed) in the subject they are studying?

I have no political axe to grind here, but I am a TO. Hence, the sooner the hiatus brought by the revised syllabus and Instructors' lack of subject knowledge is ended, the better for me. I don't specially want to wait for a new crop of Instructors to come tumbling out of "New DL" into IFS and examination before I can have people trained in the new syllabus.

Those of us who are qualified in the "old grades" and now teaching the "new grades" have had to research and to an extent debate the syllabus revisions. I don't believe it is good practice to prolong a temporary, unavoidable difficulty when we could easily move on. I expect Instructors qualifying now to have done their catching-up before assessment, rather than afterwards (for which read "If they get round to it"). We shall see whether ITS Examiners agree with my view.

HTH

Mike

[mat]

:=No, im looking at it in the right way..theory is tested upto a level slightly higher than DL, my question was that there are effectivly 2 DL grades as there are 2 SD grades, the old and the new, it would seam a little unfair maybe to test on theory which the candidate hasnt been exposed to.

Wolfy,

I have to ask, "Unfair to whom?".

Is it fair to students of the current OD, SD, DL and AD courses that their newly-qualified, fresh-out-the-box, instructor is unsighted (and unassessed) in the subject they are studying?

You know I think Wolfy has a point. The vast majority of people get assessed on what they have been taught and what they have subsequently practiced. If your about to do a theory test for a TIE you are going to be assessed on up to 3 courses that you have little experience with, pretty daunting stuff. Instructors delivering the new course are not under quite the same pressure as they can pick up the new stuff as required one lesson at a time.

I have no political axe to grind here, but I am a TO. Hence, the sooner the hiatus brought by the revised syllabus and Instructors' lack of subject knowledge is ended, the better for me. I don't specially want to wait for a new crop of Instructors to come tumbling out of "New DL" into IFS and examination before I can have people trained in the new syllabus.

Those of us who are qualified in the "old grades" and now teaching the "new grades" have had to research and to an extent debate the syllabus revisions. I don't believe it is good practice to prolong a temporary, unavoidable difficulty when we could easily move on.

I completely agree that the temporary situation has to change. I doubt it would be practical to have two sets of exam papers. But you can't escape the fact that if people delay or fail the theory test they are more likely to give up. It would help if the theory test was easier to take/resit.

I expect Instructors qualifying now to have done their catching-up before assessment, rather than afterwards (for which read "If they get round to it"). We shall see whether ITS Examiners agree with my view.

I guess your inference that existing instructors will be more concencious about catching up than prospective instructors was accidental!

BTW what happens with resits, is there an additional fee?

Regards
Matt

[Steve Walker]

You know I think Wolfy has a point.

As someone who's been an active Instuctor for a few years now, and consequently incurred extra purchases and study to get on board with the new system, I don't think suggestions of unfairness etc have any place in this topic.

Look at it this way, being an Instructor is something we aspire to purely for our own (altruistic?) reasons, if anyone wants to be an active Instructor it's going to involve a lot more demands on their time and resources than reading up on theory and what is/is not currently being taught. If it's too much hassle to have a broad understanding of what is going on theory-wise and lecture-wise then it's going to be way too much hassle dragging yourself off to some muddy hole in the middle of winter to do mask clearing etc.

Besides which, although the new DTP may have changed some elements of teaching practice, the underlying theory has not changed: gas laws, ascent and descent rates, SDPs, etc etc are still exactly the same as before.

But you can't escape the fact that if people delay or fail the theory test they are more likely to give up. It would help if the theory test was easier to take/resit.

Sure we (BSAC) need to encourage new Instuctors, but if it's too much bother to do adequate preparation for an MCQ exam then then are those the folk we want to encourage to be responsible for someones life?

Regards
Steve W (OWI)

PS Wolfy, next time you indicate all input is "V M appreciated" don't forget to add the caveat "as long as you're not going to contradict my less experienced point of view..."

[terryh]

:=No, im looking at it in the right way..theory is tested upto a level slightly higher than DL, my question was that there are effectivly 2 DL grades as there are 2 SD grades, the old and the new, it would seam a little unfair maybe to test on theory which the candidate hasnt been exposed to.

When you become an Instructor, you will be either doing the new
DL syllabus or need to be aware of divers who have completed the
old. Either way you owe it to your students to be fully versed
in both.

If you feel agreived that you may be tested in areas that you
have not been exposed to, then how about getting hold of an
Instructor manual and seeing what the syllabus actually is?

The subject matter is largely the same and if there are any
bits that you are a bit rusty on, you can cram up on them prior
to the TIE.

In other words, do your homework!

TerryH

[Wolfy]

:=You know I think Wolfy has a point.

As someone who's been an active Instuctor for a few years now,

As an Assistant Instructor so have I...

and consequently incurred extra purchases and study to get on board with the new system,

As have I....

I don't think suggestions of unfairness etc have any place in this topic.

Your opinion.... Im sure if you were to go on an exam you would want to have at least some idea whats to be tested...if you look at the original question i only asked what was likely to be invlolved,,,no where did i mention that i wasnt bothered to "do the work"



Look at it this way, being an Instructor is something we aspire to purely for our own (altruistic?) reasons, if anyone wants to be an active Instructor it's going to involve a lot more demands on their time and resources than reading up on theory and what is/is not currently being taught.

Agreed...


If it's too much hassle to have a broad understanding of what is going on theory-wise and lecture-wise then it's going to be way too much hassle dragging yourself off to some muddy hole in the middle of winter to do mask clearing etc.


As stated no one ever mentioned "to much hassle"


Besides which, although the new DTP may have changed some elements of teaching practice, the underlying theory has not changed: gas laws, ascent and descent rates, SDPs, etc etc are still exactly the same as before.


Agreed...


Sure we (BSAC) need to encourage new Instuctors, but if it's too much bother to do adequate preparation for an MCQ exam then then are those the folk we want to encourage to be responsible for someones life?

Theres that "too much bother" line again...


PS Wolfy, next time you indicate all input is "V M appreciated" don't forget to add the caveat "as long as you're not going to contradict my less experienced point of view..."


PS Steve W next time may i suggest politly that you understand the question before jumping down peoples throats with your "more experienced point of view"


regards

Wolfy

[adamwalker]

My wife and I both did the theory exam in May. We are both Dive Leaders under the old training system. All we did was read fully the Sports Diver manual (the old BSAC bible) and the Advanced Diver Manual.

We both passed the exam without any problems.

As mentioned earlier its all about knowing your subject, not just being a good diver.

To be a Theory Instructor you need to know the subject you are teaching. Even after the exam I realised my knowledge in buoyage and the biology of diving is not good enough. So since I have read more to increase the knowledge I have and keep it up to date.

I want to be able to answer questions students may ask with regard to the lecture I am teaching.

[Wolfy]

When you become an Instructor, you will be either doing the new
DL syllabus or need to be aware of divers who have completed the
old. Either way you owe it to your students to be fully versed
in both.

Terry I agree im one of the "old style" DL's myself im just getting up to speed on the bits needed in the new DL program


If you feel agreived that you may be tested in areas that you
have not been exposed to, then how about getting hold of an
Instructor manual and seeing what the syllabus actually is?

Agreived ? not at all...my question was just aimed at finding out whats likely to be involved so that i can do adequate prep,
One or two posters seam to have picked up the wrong idea from my 1st question.
I will be borrowing the new manual from my TO this week.



The subject matter is largely the same and if there are any
bits that you are a bit rusty on, you can cram up on them prior


In other words, do your homework!

TerryH


Thanks Terry im not afraid of "doing the work" i just didnt want to waste time doing the "wrong" work.. which was the reason for my first post...

thanks again

Wolfy

[terryh]

To be a Theory Instructor you need to know the subject you are teaching. Even after the exam I realised my knowledge in buoyage and the biology of diving is not good enough. So since I have read more to increase the knowledge I have and keep it up to date.

I want to be able to answer questions students may ask with regard to the lecture I am teaching.


Sport diver is taught exclusivly in our club by the BSAC NQI's
who are also PADI professionals. Why?

Because we get an awful lot of PADI OW/AOW crossovers. We owe
it to our students to understand where they are coming from, so
we can pitch our lectures at the right knowledge level. Ok you
can say that BSAC do this with the crossover lectures etc, but
it's consderably easier (and more effective) eg. to teach 88's
when you know the PADI RDP and can relate the two.

I think I've done more homework as an Instructor with diver
grades then I ever did as a student.

TerryH

[Steve Walker]

That's just the point, I understood your question all to well, (very reminiscent of some of my University tutees) and as the posts here have shown, in most peoples opinions it's _all_ relevant, none of it would be "the wrong work", so go to it (all of it) and skip the sarcasm when people are trying to be helpful.
Best of luck with your forthcoming exam

[PeteM]

Agreived ? not at all...my question was just aimed at finding out whats likely to be involved so that i can do adequate prep,
One or two posters seam to have picked up the wrong idea from my 1st question.

I got that impression as well from you saying "it would seam a little unfair maybe to test on theory which the candidate hasnt been exposed to."

If you are apparently complaining something is unfair then is only reasonable others would think you unhappy about it

Pete

[Mike Halligan]

:= I expect Instructors qualifying now to have done their catching-up before assessment, rather than afterwards (for which read "If they get round to it").

I guess your inference that existing instructors will be more concencious about catching up than prospective instructors was accidental!

Eh? Au contraire, a deliberate inference of exactly the opposite.

Mike ;-)

[matt]

:=You know I think Wolfy has a point.

As someone who's been an active Instuctor for a few years now, and consequently incurred extra purchases and study to get on board with the new system, I don't think suggestions of unfairness etc have any place in this topic.

Possibly I am looking at this far too simply!
1. You complete 3 syllabi during training, you deliver the same 3 syllabi during instructor training, instructor knowledge is assessed using an exam formulated from the same 3 syllabi.
2. You complete 3 syllabi during training, you deliver the same 3 syllabi during instructor training, instructor knowledge is assessed using an exam formulated from 3 different syllabi

Ok which sounds fairer to you, case 1 or case 2?

I am sure no one would contemplate presenting the new DL theory test to a DL who has just completed the old course, how is this different?

All the other issues raised are identical both for trainee and qualified instructors.

Look at it this way, being an Instructor is something we aspire to purely for our own (altruistic?) reasons,

Quite often the motivation to become an instructor comes from branch officers who recognise someone as being capable of instructing and so 'encourage' them to become one. When people do personally aspire to instructing great, but many people don't aspire to it, they do it to help the branch.

if anyone wants to be an active Instructor it's going to involve a lot more demands on their time and resources than reading up on theory and what is/is not currently being taught. If it's too much hassle to have a broad understanding of what is going on theory-wise and lecture-wise then it's going to be way too much hassle dragging yourself off to some muddy hole in the middle of winter to do mask clearing etc.

I beg to differ. The main reason for my involvement in diver training is that I am an active diver. You can't dive offshore all the time, you need to stay wet, you need to practice. Being a safe and competant offshore diver requires spending hours in muddy puddles. Instructing provides the motivation for me to get off my backside on a January morning, get wet and practice my mask clearing. I don't find taking students in any real hassle because I enjoy diving. Like many others I do not enjoy exams and I certainly do not want them to be any more difficult than is absolutely neccessary.

When the courses change I simply read the relevant bit in the new manual prior to the lesson I am about to give. It is a progressive way to learn the new stuff and we should all agree on how effective progressive learning is. Yet on this thread we have some rather cynical views from qualified instructors who appear to think that inwardly digesting the complete and new instructor manual as some sort of 'Trial' is perfectly OK. Now here is an idea, why don't we try extending the same patience, understanding and encouragement we offer our fledgling divers to our fledgling instructors?

Besides which, although the new DTP may have changed some elements of teaching practice, the underlying theory has not changed: gas laws, ascent and descent rates, SDPs, etc etc are still exactly the same as before.

Yes but there are material differences to the new courses. Gas calculations have changed, AAS drills have changed, O2, risk assessment, shot lines, helicopter operations etc. etc. Even if you have managed to pick this lot up in the course of diving you would still need to digest the instructor manual to ensure you have the BSAC interpretation for the knowledge test.

:=But you can't escape the fact that if people delay or fail the theory test they are more likely to give up. It would help if the theory test was easier to take/resit.

Sure we (BSAC) need to encourage new Instuctors,

I doubt I can communicate how much of an understatement I think that is. Clubs work best when many people do a little. Instructing is not immune to this. Many branches have a shortage of qualified instructors and that leads to guidelines being routinely stretched, often broken and all the insurance worries that entails. The stupidity of it is that we have many many capable and experienced divers who are not adverse to instructing but perceive the current ITC as too inconvenient; the benefit does not justify the journey.

but if it's too much bother to do adequate preparation for an MCQ exam then then are those the folk we want to encourage to be responsible for someones life?

Can't say I noticed a huge number of classroom incidents in the reports last year! Anyone that thinks that qualification to teach and diving competance are equivalent is deluding themselves.

Personally I think the ITS should be about providing experienced divers with the skills to pass on their experience safely. It definately should not be a way to find out exactly how much you want to be an instructor. I sincerely believe that for BSAC to succeed we need to get as many experienced divers who are capable, qualified as instructors. Let's try to make the journey as convenient and enjoyable as we possibly can.

Anyhow I hope Wolfy makes it and I hope he remembers what it was like to face assessments when he is putting his own students through them.

Regards
MattS

P.S. My favourite top 5 quotes from qualified diving instructors this year, you might find them as amusing as I do;
"Nitrox is for people that don't know how to breathe air properly"
"This is what a real technical diver looks like"
"Decompression is for wimps"
"We're hardcore"
"What are you some sort of wuss"
"I am a qualified instructor, I know what I am talking about"

[Steve Walker]

Matt
Vive la difference! If all instructors thought exactly alike that wouldn't be a good thing IMO, so I've no issues with other instructors disagreeing with my approach.


Possibly I am looking at this far too simply!
1. You complete 3 syllabi during training, you deliver the same 3 syllabi during instructor training, instructor knowledge is assessed using an exam formulated from the same 3 syllabi.
2. You complete 3 syllabi during training, you deliver the same 3 syllabi during instructor training, instructor knowledge is assessed using an exam formulated from 3 different syllabi

Ok which sounds fairer to you, case 1 or case 2?

Sorry, maybe I'm not seeing what you intended because these look like identical stattments to me

I am sure no one would contemplate presenting the new DL theory test to a DL who has just completed the old course, how is this different?

Personally, I would expect that the syllabus changes were dealt with during the lectures, reference purposes if nothing else, but also to give as broad a perspective as possible, so I don't see that the theory exams are going to look hugely different. Come to that, don't you find that BSAC exams are, generally, fairly homogenous?

:=Look at it this way, being an Instructor is something we aspire to purely for our own (altruistic?) reasons,

Quite often the motivation to become an instructor comes from branch officers who recognise someone as being capable of instructing and so 'encourage' them to become one. When people do personally aspire to instructing great, but many people don't aspire to it, they do it to help the branch.

I was using "aspire" in it's loosest sense, if they're doing it for the branch then this is an altruistic aspiration, but isn't that the usual motivation anyway? It was for me and seems like it was for you too



:=if anyone wants to be an active Instructor it's going to involve a lot more demands on their time and resources than reading up on theory and what is/is not currently being taught. If it's too much hassle to have a broad understanding of what is going on theory-wise and lecture-wise then it's going to be way too much hassle dragging yourself off to some muddy hole in the middle of winter to do mask clearing etc.

I beg to differ. The main reason for my involvement in diver training is that I am an active diver. You can't dive offshore all the time, you need to stay wet, you need to practice. Being a safe and competant offshore diver requires spending hours in muddy puddles. Instructing provides the motivation for me to get off my backside on a January morning, get wet and practice my mask clearing.

Yep, pretty much the same here, but I've also met folk who call theirselves an instructor and have the qualifications but don't instruct because they find it a hassle, this to me is not an instructor.

I don't find taking students in any real hassle because I enjoy diving. Like many others I do not enjoy exams and I certainly do not want them to be any more difficult than is absolutely neccessary.

Maybe that's the crux of the difference between our viewpoints:
I've done my instructing with a Uni club. both during and after post-graduate study, so both myself and the trainees I instruct see exams as pretty much part of everyday life. The original post seemed to me to be of the usual "How little study can I get away with" variety, which I freely admit I have little patience with, there's far too much of it about for my liking. I would expect someone in a pre-exam position to be saying "Go on, test me! I've done my homework, gimme a challenge". Or at least that was how I prepared for my Club Instructor theory exam, and, I had at least one guy phoning me up the night before testing me with all manner of obscure questions, not becasue he was trying to put me off, but to help me be as fully prepared as possible, which I'm pleased to say I was. You might not enjoy exams but I hate (the idea of) resits, so I'd rather work as hard as possible to get it right first time, and that's the approach I take with others, both in diving and Academia.

Pity we're not in the same club, we could do a good "nice instructor/nasty instructor routine" ;-)
Cheers
Steve (aka Dr Evil, ask my tutees :)))

P.S. My favourite top 5 quotes from qualified diving instructors this year, you might find them as amusing as I do;
"Nitrox is for people that don't know how to breathe air properly"
"This is what a real technical diver looks like"
"Decompression is for wimps"
"We're hardcore"
"What are you some sort of wuss"
"I am a qualified instructor, I know what I am talking about"


Oh yeah, there's plenty of these guys alright, and lets not forget the DAISNDAID (dive as I say not dive as I do)brigade too (one-time DO of mine bragging about 60+ metres on air

[matt]

Matt
Vive la difference! If all instructors thought exactly alike that wouldn't be a good thing IMO, so I've no issues with other instructors disagreeing with my approach.

Absolutely. I am sure my club chairman position influences some of my views. When people want to complain about BSAC or anything else they beat a path to my door.

:=Ok which sounds fairer to you, case 1 or case 2?

Sorry, maybe I'm not seeing what you intended because these look like identical stattments to me

I have a personal experience that may help clarify. I did the AD course which involved many and various SDCs some of which were electives. When I eventually got to do the theory test I was presented the paper from the previous course. Now I fully deserved to get the topmark buoyage question wrong. But the questions about compressor filter media and double hose reg IP left me feeling inadequate and aggrieved. Despite having recently completed a tech Nx exam, going onto Adv Tmx and Blending, the BSAC AD theory remains the lowest diving theory test result I have ever got.

I am sure no one would contemplate presenting the new DL theory test to a DL who has just completed the old course, how is this different?

Personally, I would expect that the syllabus changes were dealt with during the lectures, reference purposes if nothing else, but also to give as broad a perspective as possible, so I don't see that the theory exams are going to look hugely different. Come to that, don't you find that BSAC exams are, generally, fairly homogenous?

The margin for wrong answers is rightfully tight. It does not take many questions on subjects you have never been taught before you fail the exam. Some candidates may have spent the last year mopping up old SD and DL courses. My own branch are just starting the new SD course and the first new DL course will be sometime next year. Expecting these people to learn three new courses is IMHO unfair. But as Mike says you have to change sometime.

I was using "aspire" in it's loosest sense, if they're doing it for the branch then this is an altruistic aspiration, but isn't that the usual motivation anyway? It was for me and seems like it was for you too

I never intended to become an instructor. I took DL so that I could dive deeper than 35m and feel more comfortable about the deco stops I was already making. The DO at the time twisted my arm about taking a trainee in and I found out I both enjoyed it and my own diving benefitted. The new divers coming through do not have the carrots. You can deco at SD and you can't have your arm twisted at DL. Teaching the inexperienced makes people better and safer divers, The inexperienced are generally appreciative when an experienced diver is willing to accompany them. Hence I am so keen to get active divers qualified to dive with the inexperienced...and it stops them complaining they can't dive cos there are no instructors around.

Yep, pretty much the same here, but I've also met folk who call theirselves an instructor and have the qualifications but don't instruct because they find it a hassle, this to me is not an instructor.

I guess there are many breeds of instructor. People qualify because they see it as a pinnacle, bit like the current fashion for trimix. Others do it for the ego hit. There are those that do it because they feel morally obligated, they are qualified and will do a few training dives a year but their goodwill is limited. Then you get the ones that only want to dive shallow or in a lake so tend to be surrounded by trainees. And then there is the inland instructor where training is the reason to dive. Finally we have the instructors that love diving and instructing is just a natural extention of their passion. I don't have much time for the first two types, I would welcome help from the others and I would like to place myself in the last group. I guess there are types I haven't considered.

Maybe that's the crux of the difference between our viewpoints:
I've done my instructing with a Uni club. both during and after post-graduate study, so both myself and the trainees I instruct see exams as pretty much part of everyday life.

Don't take this the wrong way but you need to get out more ;-)

My job entails dealing with all sorts, possibly why I am currently the reluctant chairman of a very eclectic diving club. For the practical natured, theory exams are a huge barrier. C&G was pretty much invented because of it.

The original post seemed to me to be of the usual "How little study can I get away with" variety, which I freely admit I have little patience with, there's far too much of it about for my liking.

This is going to sound a bit Aesop...I once worked in a shipping warehouse shifting kitchens in and out of containers...yes it was tedious. Anyhow we were having a particularly slow day with nothing booked in past 10:00am. One of the guys just gets up and leaves with 'a stomach ache' we spent the rest of the day discussing his obvious malingering. Next day we find out he was rushed into hospital 1 hour after leaving work with acute appendicitis. Ever since I have learnt to give people the benefit of the doubt.

You might not enjoy exams but I hate (the idea of) resits, so I'd rather work as hard as possible to get it right first time, and that's the approach I take with others, both in diving and Academia.

I think I am very lucky in being able to pass exams. I got through that AD one...by one mark. But I still dislike them. The worse thing for me though is seeing someone that is capable not realising that capability because they are afraid of the exam. I am currently working on one of our branch members who would undoubtedly make a good theory instructor but she has a very real problem talking in front of people she has never met before. I am sure the IFC would help her overcome this but I have to convince her to spend money and time on something she percieves as highly unpleasant.

Pity we're not in the same club, we could do a good "nice instructor/nasty instructor routine" ;-)

One nice thing about a general branch is that years down the line you get to ask your one time trainees what they thought of your instructional style. Apparently the concenous is I am demanding ;-)

By all accounts I do nasty too. What boils my urine, as it were, is when people fail to see the danger they are placing themselves and others in. Apparently I am percieved as being hard on these people.

:=P.S. My favourite top 5 quotes from qualified diving instructors this year

Oh yeah, there's plenty of these guys alright, and lets not forget the DAISNDAID (dive as I say not dive as I do)brigade too (one-time DO of mine bragging about 60+ metres on air

Oops on thin ice here. I have been known to break the odd BSAC guideline. I don't try to brag about or glamourise my diving. I do it for me no one else. But I will not lie about it either. The whole 80% 1.4 thing leaves me in a spot. I don't want people to follow my example but they want me to organise and marshal their dives.

Cheers Steve allways interesting though we are drifting OT :-)


Now where is the emoticon for I've had a few beers!!?

Regards
MattS

[JjMurphy]

Just an extra bit of hopefully helpful advice. I did the exam 18 months ago, and found a few things that would be new to some divers - but the info can be found in PADI manuals, and the new BSAC Diving manual. I am working with a guy that is hoping to take the exam next week, so lent him the new BSAC manual. It does cover some of the exam. But, as other no doubt will say - you will learn some of this the real way - doing and practicing etc, reading mags and generally keeping up to date.
You can also getn a lot of the info from the BSAC web site by downloading and reading all the different c\ourse notes etc. I know this sound difficult - but that's probably why you are doing the exam, - to learn more.
rgds,
John
I think you're looking at the wrong way Wolfy; it's not "based" on DL theory, it's that your standard of theory knowledge should as high as DL theory exams require.

I'd suggest that you should regard anything and everything as potential subject matter for TIE questions. Admittedly I did mine under the old Club Instructor route, so there's bounfd to have been some changes (or perhaps not given my historical experience of BSAC exams :-)) ) but I clearly remember one or two questions which had me quite puzzled, stuff which perhaps received only a one line mention in the Sport Diving manual and things which certainly hadn't been specifically taught in formal lectures.
HTH
steve