Who Really, Controls the Quality in Dive Training?

A recent comment from a dive professional strikes at the core of a growing sentiment in the diving industry:

“I strongly believe in maintaining ISO and RSTC standards, but from my experience, true quality control comes from the dive operations themselves rather than the agencies. I’ve seen firsthand—both from working within these agencies and diving with divers certified by various organizations—that the oversight from major certifiers is often lacking.”

This observation is neither isolated nor unfounded. For decades, training agencies have shaped the structure of dive education globally. Yet, it's becoming increasingly clear that the real custodians of training quality are not the agencies, but the dive professionals and service providers on the ground.

The Reality of Oversight

Diving instructors typically sign membership agreements with their training agency—as seen in the ISC Instructor Renewal Agreement—that outline compliance with standards, regulations, insurance, and professional conduct. These agreements establish expectations. But they also quietly admit a fundamental limitation: the agencies are not involved in the daily training activities of their members and do not exercise operational control over dive centres.

As the ISC agreement states, “ISC is not involved or in control over my day-to-day operations and activities and bears no responsibility for the same.” That leaves us with the question: is the agreement alone enough to ensure high standards?

Agencies Aren’t Police

Dive training agencies are certification authorities, not regulatory bodies. They issue credentials and define educational frameworks. Agencies do not have legal jurisdiction, nor the resources, to monitor every course, every skill, or every instructor worldwide. Nor should they. The responsibility and authority to enforce safety and professional conduct ultimately fall to national regulators, insurance requirements, and service providers themselves.

This is why agencies like ISC require instructors to maintain liability insurance and submit to local laws such as the UK’s Diving at Work Regulations and RIDDOR. These laws, not the agency, carry legal enforcement.

Insurance and Risk Management

One powerful motivator for dive professionals to maintain standards is insurance. Insurance companies won’t cover instructors who repeatedly demonstrate negligence or who cannot prove their students were trained to appropriate standards. In effect, the dive professional’s desire to remain insured becomes a key self-regulating mechanism. If a claim is made and training standards weren’t followed, it could be financially devastating.

This is one reason many professionals are becoming more selective about what services they pay their agency for—and why many are questioning the value of high annual fees that don’t guarantee robust quality oversight.

The Customer Is King (and Judge)

Today’s quality control powerhouse isn’t a dive agency—it’s the diving customer. Social media platforms, TripAdvisor reviews, and online dive forums have made reputations more transparent and vulnerable than ever. A poor review or video of substandard training can spread globally in minutes. This is a powerful incentive for dive centers to maintain excellent service and uphold best practices.

Conversely, well-trained divers often become passionate brand advocates for a dive operation or instructor. The market responds quickly to quality—good or bad.

The ISC Solution: A Proactive Quality Assurance System

Recognizing the limitations of traditional models, International Scuba Certification (ISC) has implemented a student-driven, proactive quality assurance system. Unlike legacy feedback forms, ISC’s digital platform invites students to sign off on each skill objective once they’ve mastered it and to confirm they are competent and confident before certification is issued.

This gives the student a direct voice in confirming whether their training met the promised standard. Instructors are not just held accountable to the agency—they’re held accountable to their customers in real-time. This system shifts the dynamic from passive agency oversight to engaged learner confirmation, enhancing both safety and learning outcomes.

Collaboration Over Command

Training agencies must evolve from being perceived as watchdogs to being partners in quality. They should provide educational content, risk management guidance, instructor development, and certification infrastructure—but acknowledge that they are not omnipresent arbiters of quality.

The future of dive education lies in collaborative models that blend agency standards, instructor professionalism, insurance accountability, customer empowerment, and technology-driven transparency.

Final Thoughts

Yes, dive training agencies matter. So do international standards like ISO and EUF. But let’s be honest—when it comes to the diver’s experience, the instructor and the dive center are the true gatekeepers of quality. The agency provides the framework, but it's the service provider who breathes life into it.

High fees paid to agencies only make sense if they deliver real-world support, tools, and systems that help instructors meet their goals and improve the student experience.

Dive professionals should demand that—and dive agencies, like ISC, should respond with innovation, (which we are doing), not bureaucracy.

The future of dive training is transparent, student-focused, and professional-led. And that’s a good thing.