Just to toss out one other perspective on this whole training scene from the instructor's side of the equation...
Many of you have refered to dissatisfaction with a trainer who either starts at a point where he apparently assumes no previous experience on the part of his audience, or lays out a set of absolutes in methodology.
Of course, it may be that these people are truly limited in their ability to see the grey area, the place where doing differently than the book says achieves a higher level of safety, or a higher level of productivity with little sacrifice in safety.
But it may well be that the reason for teaching the way they do has more to do with preserving the protections they have from liability. In my own case, my employer will back me to the end with legal expenses and personal liability from litigation by someone I have trained and certified as competant to perform the duties I signed off on IF, and only if, I have followed the established training program as I teach.
If I go off the reservation talking about situations where I'd advise one-handing an 066 in the tree, and students can truthfully testify that I did so, and then one of them gets hurt doing that very thing...well, my protection from exposure to civil liability litigation is out the window. If they get killed, criminal charges against me are not out of the question. Not a few FS instructors carry professional liability insurance at their own expense just because of this possibility.
So cut these folks a little slack if you can. It's not as easy a job as it might appear, and it's a fine line we sometimes have to traverse.
