The "Official" SB Scuba Course?

[DCBC]

I agree. The guidelines are starting to sound just like the GUE course...

I certainly am seeing quite a bit of reluctance on SB to strengthening many of the "normal standards." Why are we even bothering to attempt this if everyone is hooked on the current situation?

I have to admit that I'm both amused and surprised by many comments as to how hard or overkill the suggested swimming standards are. Far more difficult standards were common, when I completed them at age 12. Why is it that so many seem to think that such a change would take diver education in the wrong direction? It would emphasize fitness and that alone would be a healthy change.

I understand that a separate course should be designed for vacationing divers, the infirm or those that are blind or have special needs. I'm all for that, but the course we're designing (as I understand it) is to be the foundation for diver education. A course you would feel comfortable for your loved ones to take and not worry about their involvement.

My understanding was a course that would create a diver who would be competent to dive independently in a buddy team, who could help him/herself, as well as another. 20 minutes in a pool as long as constant forward motion was seen??? That's not a diver that I would want my loved ones to buddy with. Is it yours!?

 

[Kingpatzer]

What kind of agreement have we seen on this goal so far?

There has not been a lot of discussion on the goal. I took a stab at it with this:

The goal of the Open Water Course is to produce a reasonably competent, safe diver capable of diving independently in typical recreational environments in time frame comparable with major recreational agencies -- in between 24 to 36 hours of total training time ( eg. 8 hours of class room time, 12 hours of confined water time, 16 hours of open water time).

It is imperative that you define the purpose of the course--the kind of diver you are trying to produce, for what kind of diving--in terms that are precise and meaningful.

I absolutely don't disagree. I'm hoping to see some participation on that point.

 

[Kingpatzer]

I certainly am seeing quite a bit of reluctance on SB to strengthening many of the "normal standards." Why are we even bothering to attempt this if everyone is hooked on the current situation?

Is quality a matter of adding to what is there, or can it not also be a matter of subtracting?

I understand that a separate course should be designed for vacationing divers, the infirm or those that are blind or have special needs. I'm all for that,

Should that be part of the goal -- to provide a short course for vacationing divers (certification to dive in clear, calm water under indirect supervision of a dive master or with a fully certified buddy perhaps?) If so, then that could change what we're doing considerably. Maybe that's what "open water" is and "advanced" brings in your considerations?

but the course we're designing (as I understand it) is to be the foundation for diver education. A course you would feel comfortable for your loved ones to take and not worry about their involvement.

We've got a fairly hazy goal, honestly.

My understanding was a course that would create a diver who would be competent to dive independently in a buddy team, who could help him/herself, as well as another. 20 minutes in a pool as long as constant forward motion was seen??? That's not a diver that I would want my loved ones to buddy with. Is it yours!?

I personally don't see what swimming without either a BC or a wet suit has to do with diving, but that's just me. I've never seen a diver in the water without at least a shorty on.

 

[Kingpatzer]

The original post was copied and also put into the Instructor's Panel for just the Instructors to comment on! This should be good. New Thread is HERE!!!

NetDoc - can you please include a link to the wiki for them as well?

Open Scuba Course

 

[sabbath999]

I certainly am seeing quite a bit of reluctance on SB to strengthening many of the "normal standards." Why are we even bothering to attempt this if everyone is hooked on the current situation?

I have to admit that I'm both amused and surprised by many comments as to how hard or overkill the suggested swimming standards are. Far more difficult standards were common, when I completed them at age 12. Why is it that so many seem to think that such a change would take diver education in the wrong direction? It would emphasize fitness and that alone would be a healthy change.

I understand that a separate course should be designed for vacationing divers, the infirm or those that are blind or have special needs. I'm all for that, but the course we're designing (as I understand it) is to be the foundation for diver education. A course you would feel comfortable for your loved ones to take and not worry about their involvement.

My understanding was a course that would create a diver who would be competent to dive independently in a buddy team, who could help him/herself, as well as another. 20 minutes in a pool as long as constant forward motion was seen??? That's not a diver that I would want my loved ones to buddy with. Is it yours!?

All I was saying is that the proposed guidelines look remarkably similar to a course that already exists. It seems rather like duplicating than inventing.

I like the GUE course, I think it has a lot of merit. I am considering taking GUE training in the future...

I am not really sure of the point of this is either, if it comes up with a course that mirrors an already existing one that has been carefully developed by a lot of very good divers.

 

[DCBC]

Is quality a matter of adding to what is there, or can it not also be a matter of subtracting? ... We've got a fairly hazy goal, honestly.

I've been working on the principle "to develop a training program for a SCUBA Diver, so as to provide the necessary skill-set that would to allow him/her to safely dive to a depth of 60 feet, in a buddy team, independent of external supervision. This would necessitate first-aid, CPR, rescue skills, gas management and dive planning including projected air consumption and decompression." If this isn't the goal, we need to specify what it is before proceeding.

It's difficult to build something unless you're aware of what needs building.

 

[DCBC]

All I was saying is that the proposed guidelines look remarkably similar to a course that already exists. It seems rather like duplicating than inventing.

I like the GUE course, I think it has a lot of merit. I am considering taking GUE training in the future...

I am not really sure of the point of this is either, if it comes up with a course that mirrors an already existing one that has been carefully developed by a lot of very good divers.

Agreed. The GUE course is different as it is designed for exploration diving. This does not mean that the same skill sets (and others) should not be included in a regular diver training program.

Personally I would see a benefit to use a NAUI course from the 60-70's as a baseline, but that seems to be much more difficult than what other people have in-mind.

 

[kjack_1]

I certainly am seeing quite a bit of reluctance on SB to strengthening many of the "normal standards." Why are we even bothering to attempt this if everyone is hooked on the current situation?

I have to admit that I'm both amused and surprised by many comments as to how hard or overkill the suggested swimming standards are. Far more difficult standards were common, when I completed them at age 12. Why is it that so many seem to think that such a change would take diver education in the wrong direction? It would emphasize fitness and that alone would be a healthy change.

I understand that a separate course should be designed for vacationing divers, the infirm or those that are blind or have special needs. I'm all for that, but the course we're designing (as I understand it) is to be the foundation for diver education. A course you would feel comfortable for your loved ones to take and not worry about their involvement.

My understanding was a course that would create a diver who would be competent to dive independently in a buddy team, who could help him/herself, as well as another. 20 minutes in a pool as long as constant forward motion was seen??? That's not a diver that I would want my loved ones to buddy with. Is it yours!?

The course, as I understand it, is a Basic Open Water. The students do need to show a level of swimming skill. How far that goes seems to be a sticky point. At a basic level - where do you want them to be? If the course is to be a foundation of diver ed - then they need to learn to dive, theory, and practice.

Perhaps a more viable alternative is to require the swim in full gear at depth? Properly weighted, proper bouyancy and trim, etc. That's probably a better way to assess if a diver could save my butt in an underwater diving emergency. Or would that be taking diver education/training in the wrong direction?

The options are here to explore. Perhaps change is good - now would be a great time to make changes.

My dive buddy can swim like a fish, but can he/she save my butt below where I probably am located. At the surface I would hope he/she followed me up and is in close proximity. Just a different perspective.

K

 

[kjack_1]

Agreed. The GUE course is different as it is designed for exploration diving. This does not mean that the same skill sets (and others) should not be included in a regular diver training program.

Personally I would see a benefit to use a NAUI course from the 60-70's as a baseline, but that seems to be much more difficult than what other people have in-mind.

Not necessarily so. I took the Naui course in '80. Maybe it was changing then, but I still think it was a darn good course. It just needs to be brought up to modern times. It doesn't mean lower or drop the standards. Just come up with a better way to utilize the time to produce a comp diver.

 

[charlesg3]

I'm curious about people's thoughts on including rescue. Many people (myself included) find the rescue class to be one of the more valuable classes from the common agencies. I would certainly feel more comfortable if at least the proper procedures were discussed in an intro class. Again this possibly infringes on the "time vs cost" argument but I think those skills are valuable.

Is this something that should be included?

I originally just added it to the wiki but then thought further discussion was necessary. I think I'd also like a disclaimer before writing anything about rescue alleviating any authors of liability (i.e. this text is meant to be educational but not in-lieu of a formal class).