|
There’s a conversation happening in the dive industry right now. You may have seen a recent article about some PADI dive centers being told that agency affiliation may soon require exclusivity. One banner. One pathway. One logo on the door. And if that’s true, we have to ask another question: If dive centers are required to choose exclusivity over diversity, is this about raising standards… or is it about controlling market share? Before this turns into a tribal shouting match, let me say something. I’m not here to bash PADI about this. In fact, I’ll be the first to tell you that the, “Professional Association of Diving Instructors,” did change the world of diving. It was founded in 1966 by two divers, John Cronin and Ralph Erickson. They genuinely believed diving could be safer, more accessible, and more structured than it was at the time… and they were right. In the 70s and 80s, that structure brought scuba to millions. It took a militarized approach and softened it into an accessible presentation, one that people lined-up for as a way to learn how to see the underwater world. Then, in the 1990's it really exploded. It professionalized instruction. It built the most recognized certification brand on the planet. But back then, we didn’t know what we know now. Diving has evolved. We know more today. And what was a founder-led mission with a vision became a product that was bought and sold through layers of investment ownership… something subtle shifted. Not because anyone is evil. But because the incentives changed. Founders ask: “How do we make diving better?” Investment groups ask: “How do we make the portfolio stronger?” Those are not the same question! When ownership changes hands repeatedly, the mission might not disappear, but it does get filtered through spreadsheets. So when exclusivity enters the conversation, it’s fair to ask whether we are optimizing diver development, or optimizing revenue channels. That’s not an emotional question we are asking, and it’s not me being rebellious. This isn’t about one agency. It’s about ecosystem health. Different agencies sharpen one another. Ecosystems thrive on diversity, and when diversity shrinks, evolution slows. For years I’ve pushed back against the card collecting model, most recently with my, “#anticardclub.” Not because I think certifications are not necessary, but because they lack substance. The card has become the status of competence, instead of the performance of the diver in the water. I have been “anticard” because we’ve been told that the logo equals legitimacy and that more certification cards equals more mastery. But they don’t! Because mastery is slow. Mastery is personal, and it is often uncomfortable. The sticker on the door has never made a diver good. The instructor does. That’s why I introduced Mott Underwater. It is not another agency. It is a mindset that I believe in, that became the Instructor Evolution Framework. Because no matter what logo sits on the wall, it is the performance of the diver in the water that determines the outcome. Once you truly know more about buoyancy control, you can’t go back to 1990, 1980, or even 2010. If we truly understand gas management better today, why would we dumb our education down instead of scaling it for success? If we truly appreciate awareness and discipline at a higher level, then it is up to us instructors to take control and be proud and responsible for teaching better… Not just selling better. Exclusivity may strengthen brands, but it doesn’t strengthen divers. Evolving does. The future of scuba does not have to be decided by affiliation contracts. It can be decided in the water, by instructors who refuse to plateau. By dive leaders who choose performance over paperwork. Through us dive professionals who believe that getting certified to dive is the beginning, not the standard. Instructor Evolution Framework If this moment in the industry feels uncomfortable to you… good! Discomfort is where evolution starts. The Mott Underwater Instructor Evolution Framework was built for dive professionals who know the minimum standard is no longer enough. It’s not political or anti-agency, it’s just a commitment. A commitment to higher in-water performance, and a sharper awareness. Intentional mentorship that transcends certification, and normalizes skill progression beyond the card. You don’t need to change agencies to evolve, you just need to change expectations. Your expectations of what a diver is. If you believe instructors should be craftsmen, not card distributors…. Then Mott Underwater is your ecosystem. They might win, and the industry may consolidate. But there will always be a place for professionals who can evolve to lead their own path. Underwater, the difference will be obvious. James Mott Mott Underwater [email protected] 
4 Comments
 Ice diving has always been treated as an extreme discipline, and there is a good reason for that. You’re in an overhead environment, you have a single exit, and you’re in extreme freezing temperatures. It only gets more complicated from there; regulator failure risks, freezing inflators, and limited problem-solving time all demand discipline, structure, and conservative thinking.
Traditionally, Ice Diver training answered those risks with a limited-distance, tethered system: A fixed line, surface tenders, safety divers, and clearly defined roles. On social media today, you might see divers under the ice with a handheld reel… cave diver style and think that the tethered ice diver system is outdated and amateurish. But really, it’s foundational. An entry-level ice diving class isn’t meant to create explorers, it’s meant to create survivors. Learning to manage stress, communication, buoyancy, and task loading while tethered is not useless. It’s the beginning of understanding what ice actually takes from you as a diver. The problem isn’t that people start there. The problem is what some people try to skip next. As interest grows, more divers want to ice dive without a tether, running reels and treating the dive like a cave penetration. It’s easy to say that cave divers have already solved the overhead problems, and that ice is just another ceiling. But that’s not really enough. It’s different. Cave diving training is, without question, far more developed than most ice diving courses. In cave, you’re going to learn line discipline, team protocols, failure management, and situational awareness under stress. But cave training is still environment-specific and there is a lot that it doesn’t teach. New issues present themselves under the ice like cold-induced cognitive degradation, dexterity loss from near-freezing water, the dynamics of regulators and other valves freezing, the physiological reality of limited survival time after a delay. In other words, cave diving training solves many overhead problems, but not all ice problems. Just borrowing cave techniques without adapting them to ice is just another form of shortcut thinking. This time of year eager divers throughout my area of the world are desperate for getting underwater. Their favorite local dives are frozen over and needing 6 people just to tether 2 divers for a 100ft max linear distance becomes a burden. You are starting to see more cave style ice dives getting attention on social media. But much of what people see online comes from a very familiar, very controlled dive site. Unfortunately, that is not a scalable practice. Places where the topography is memorized and the distances and directions are predictable. The entrance is at the NW corner of the quarry, the walls or slopes naturally guide your navigation back, the visibility is endless, and you often have multiple visual references that exist. That’s a unicorn of a dive site. Those dives only work that way because the environment is forgiving. We are going to have a big problem when that success gets misinterpreted as proof of concept and exported to natural lakes, where the bottom is flat and featureless, the water column offers no references, the visibility can be poor, and there is a single hole that exists in a vast ceiling of ice. That’s where the system collapses. Lost line procedures from cave diving might work under the ice, but they might not. It’s not the same. You don’t have walls to navigate around. General navigation theory is a shot in the dark too for finding a hole in the middle of a lake surface. Most importantly, well practiced cave drills might sound reasonable, but wait until the freezing cold rewrites the rules, your fingers don’t work anymore, and all you can think about is the biting cold. Now we add to that a frozen, free-flowing regulator, or a freezing runaway buoyancy problem that pulls you off the line. This is more difficult than just pulling out a safety spool. Now imagine this happens 20–30 minutes into the dive, when you’re thinking you need to get back. Try running that lost line drill now, a skill that often takes 20 minutes or more in a warm Florida cave with walls to follow around, but now your fingers are so frozen you can barely operate your drysuit inflator let alone a spool. And where do you tie in? The flat smooth ice? Back down at the bottom 50ft below you? I know what you’re going to say, that you won’t let it get that far. But that’s the same thing cave divers used to say before cave training became what it is today. The traditional ice diver class is the most simple navigation system for a reason. Although I agree that we need a structured development from simple to basic to even advanced; but that is going to require a lot more training, practice, and experience to get there. A system that scales from 100ft of viz in a very familiar quarry to less than 10ft of viz in a big lake that you have no experience in… that’s what we need. From diving on an intact wreck under the ice where you can always circumnavigate back to the up-line, but it also works on a muddy, flat, lake bottom with no reference points. That’s how you build a system. Planning and training for cold emergencies where dexterity, awareness, and function are compromised need to be part of the class. Any system that only works for perfect divers in perfect conditions is not a system, it’s a gamble. You can’t just cut a hole in the middle of a random lake, remove surface support, rely on memory and navigation alone, or permanent lines on the bottom, and expect consistent outcomes across real dives. Scalable systems are the ones that work when divers are cold, stressed, and make mistakes. That’s why the tether still matters, that’s why we start there. I’m not saying all Ice diving should stay basic forever. And I’m not saying cave-style ice diving is wrong. But I do think the answer is development, not imitation. We need a clear progression beyond the entry-level tether. Real training that blends overhead discipline with cold-water reality. We need a system that can expand our range without removing reference. And we will need a culture that values repeatability over bravado. Most of all, it will need a community. A community that treats ice diving as its own discipline. Not stuck in the 1960’s and always on a tether, but also not taken for granted and assumed to be just like cave diving. It’s similar, but it’s different. Cave training doesn’t make you immune to the perils under the ice overhead. And ice diving doesn’t become advanced just because the tether disappears. The tethered class isn’t the end, it’s the beginning. The mistake is pretending the next step is obvious. If we want ice diving to grow, it has to grow deliberately. It needs a little humility, structure, and respect for an environment that offers exactly one exit and zero forgiveness. What are your thoughts? Email me for more discussion. [email protected] Old ice pics by the frozen f-stop himself, Brando Schwartz. |
James Mott
James has been a PADI instructor since 1998 and was one of the original 10 instructors for UTD Scuba Diving in 2009. Archives
February 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed