Panic!!!

[boulderjohn]

What I mean is that the OW certification allows you to go down to 20m.
But let's be honest, it doesn't really teach you how to handle an emergency at 20m

Most of the instruction in an OW class is designed to teach you how to handle emergencies at the depth of that class. What was left out of your training?

 

[Goonzodiver]

It is not taught from that depth in an OW course, but there have been programs in the past that have taught it from 30 meters. If you are not sure you can do a CESA from your depth, you do a buoyant ascent, which is only different in that you do not try to control the rate of ascent, meaning you usually drop your weights. Submarine escapes using this method have been done in the 90-100 meter range. The only skill involved is exhaling fully first, then continuing to exhale all the way to the surface.

But if you don't control your ascent from 20m or 30m , you're likely to get decompression sickness. And is that desirable?
However, we're talking about special courses, taught in the navies and in the past they used to breathe pure oxygen (not air) before starting the ascent. (In figure: "Prince Charles surfaces in the submarine escape training tank at HMS Dolphin after doing a free buoyant ascent from a depth of 60 feet.") 60ft~20m

 

[Goonzodiver]

Most of the instruction in an OPW class is designed to teach you how to handle emergencies at the depth of that class. What was left out of your training?

It's one thing to tell it and ascend 10 meters, knowing that the instructor is next to you, and it's another thing to try to really manage it from double or triple the depth, alone.

 

[boulderjohn]

But if you don't control your ascent from 20m or 30m , you're likely to get decompression sickness. And is that desirable?

Assuming you are diving within no decompression limits, then there is a chance (but only a chance) that you will get decompression sickness. That is not a desirable, but it is much more desirable than drowning. It is also far more desirable than a lung overexpansion injury, which is what will almost certainly happen if you hold your breath.

 

[tursiops]

It's one thing to tell it and ascend 10 meters, knowing that the instructor is next to you, and it's another thing to try to really manage it from double or triple the depth, alone.

Why are you so negative on this topic? Do you feel that training for emergencies is silly?

 

[Mantaray95616]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Others disagree, and argue that today's students demand short courses so they can upgrade as their interests and finances develop.

If the course adequately teaches the skills necessary for safe diving, I don't care how short it is but the issuer of the certificate should ensure that the student deserves the award.

Perhaps my criticism is misplaced. The courses I taught under the NAUI banner were designed for a particular sub-set of the diving community.

 

[boulderjohn]

If the course adequately teaches the skills necessary for safe diving, I don't care how short it is but the issuer of the certificate should ensure that the student deserves the award.

Perhaps my criticism is misplaced. The courses I taught under the NAUI banner were designed for a particular sub-set of the diving community.

Do would-be divers ever get a failing grade these days?

I will put these two together to explain a big difference in modern (for the last few decades, really) instruction and instruction back in your day.

Today nearly all agencies use a variation of mastery learning, which does not use the traditional idea of failing. In traditional learning, students are taught for a specified period of time and then given a grade compared to a standard. It could be a failing grade. In mastery learning, students are taught for however long it takes for them to meet the standard. In theory, no student ever fails, but that does not mean they all pass. They may decide that they are having enough trouble that they don't want to continue. Some students will meet standards very quickly. Some will take much longer. It doesn't matter. They get the same certification.

 

[tursiops]

If the course adequately teaches the skills necessary for safe diving, I don't care how short it is but the issuer of the certificate should ensure that the student deserves the award.

Perhaps my criticism is misplaced. The courses I taught under the NAUI banner were designed for a particular sub-set of the diving community.

I agree. You taught a different kind of student at a different time, under different constraints.

 

[boulderjohn]

Perhaps my criticism is misplaced. The courses I taught under the NAUI banner were designed for a particular sub-set of the diving community.

Here is another bit from history.

NAUI had a set of standards that students needed to meet, but they allowed instructors to add to that set of standards. This was common for classes taught in universities, because the courses had way more time than was needed to become a basic scuba diver. NAUI focused its efforts on university instruction for a very practical reason. Its financing system was based on what founder Al Tillman had learned when he directed the taxpayer supported program through Los Angeles County. They were a non-profit that survived by donations in lieu of taxes. For example, Skin Diver magazine supported them for their first years. Bill High loaned them $200,000 (IIRC) one year to help make ends meet. Focusing on university classes seemed ideal because the instructor got paid by the school using the tuition the students paid that would have gone to another physical education class if not for scuba--so it was essentially free to the student, and the instructors were paid by someone else. In the long run it turned out to be a bad idea, because it very much limited its potential student pool.

 

[Mantaray95616]

Assuming you are diving within no decompression limits, then there is a chance (but only a chance) that you will get decompression sickness. That is not a desirable, but it is much more desirable than drowning. It is also far more desirable than a lung overexpansion injury, which is what will almost certainly happen if you hold your breath.

I will put these two together to explain a big difference in modern (for the last few decades, really) instruction and instruction back in your day.

Today nearly all agencies use a variation of mastery learning, which does not use the traditional idea of failing. In traditional learning, students are taught for a specified period of time and then given a grade compared to a standard. It could be a failing grade. In mastery learning, students are taught for however long it takes for them to meet the standard. In theory, no student ever fails, but that does not mean they all pass. They may decide that they are having enough trouble that they don't want to continue. Some students will meet standards very quickly. Some will take much longer. It doesn't matter. They get the same certification.

Hey, if you look back on my posts, the original courses , before NAUI was created, were based on students mastering skills at their own pace and then being tested. Maybe failing is the wrong word; but if a student is unable to complete a necessary skill before the course ends (they can make as many attempts as they like) they cannot be certified. They are still welcome to re-enroll in later courses. What's so different between our two methologies?

In the two specific cases I brought up it was a matter of judgement. In my opinion neither of them would ever be comfortable in an underwater environment and I acted accordingly and with regret.