The "Official" SB Scuba Course?

[DCBC]

The point is that this super duper OW course has already been designed by GUE.

I don't know what you guys are on about? If you insist on being abusive JeffG, we can quickly end the conversation. We should however be able to discuss matters respectfully with an open mind.

Kingpatzer has already stated that "The point isn't to redo GUE's course, or recreate NAUI or PADI or anyone else's." As I don't see a final product yet, I think it's a might premature to say that it has already been done.

It was my understanding that we would take the process where it may. If in the end the program matches something that GUI, NAUI or PADI already has, so be it. We wont know this until it's done. If it is already in existence, I for one would be interested in comparing them. I doubt that anything that we come up with will match another program exactly.

 

[JeffG]

I think Diver0001 was on the right track.

 

[DCBC]

From the Wiki

"GOAL

.... 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).

One thought is that there are really at least two courses that should be designed here, a short course for vacation divers (maybe a time limited certification good only for particular conditions, perhaps) and a full course for those interested in becoming fully independent divers.

Let's refine the goals, then we can define the skills needed to meet those goals."


My comments are not directed at the short course for vacationing divers at this point. It seems that it would be logical to write the open-water program first and cut it down to what would be acceptable for the shortened program later. This would insure the required degree of consistency between each program.

I believe any open-water course should produce a competent diver that is able to work with a buddy, independent of external supervision. The aim would be to give the diver all the skill-sets necessary to safely allow him/her to dive under the same conditions in which s/he were trained to a depth of 60 FSW.

I do not agree with the time limits indicated above. Until the course is finalized, how can you predict the time-frame? I suggest that an inclusive program must first be developed and we can see how long it would reasonably take. A cost structure could then be suggested.

Training should be based upon the fact that this is a stand-a-lone program. We can not expect the diver to come back for any future training. Obviously the diver will gain experience after several dives; however the safety standards have to be met before s/he ventures out to open water as a certified diver. It is the responsibility of the Instructor not to dump-off the safety of his/her divers to charter operators, DMs and other Instructors.

 

[leapfrog]

You never "have" to be instabuddied with anybody. That is a choice each diver makes.

I don't know where you have been diving. In lots of places I have worked, you don't have a buddy, you get instabuddied.

You can choose to team dive instead with people who you know or with people whos training you know (i.e. somebody who is trained by an agency/organization whos standards you respect), or to not dive in that situation.

I can see what you are driving at but I was not worried about the fact that "Diver 1" gets instabuddied or dives with a DM/Instuctor or chooses to it this one out but that Diver 1 him or herself is a danger to others and as always is the case not aware of that.

Not arguing with your rescue use of it... I would have a hard time "choosing" not to attempt a rescue that was within my training and abilities (or, to rephrase that, I cannot imagine NOT trying to rescue a diver when it was within my training and abilities if needed).

The decision is always although it appears to be within your training and abilities, are you putting yourself at risk? You are right. That's one of the hardest calls to make.

 

[Texasdivechick]

Let's try describing our OW student in main lines and then drill down from there.

How about this (in no particular order):

A beginning scuba diver should be competent in the following:

• diving on open circuit scuba to depths of 30 meters on air in non-overhead and within the no decompression limits.
• showing competence and calm handling in identifying and solving common equipment related problems such as a lost or flooded mask, a broken fin strap, leaking or flooded regulator etc.
• showing competence and calm handling in identifying and solving common physically related issues under water such as dizziness, fatigue, blockage in an air space, nausia and so forth.
• showing competence and good judgment in the evaluation of conditions and making a diveplan appropriate for the conditions, team ability, and the gear being used.
• showing competence and effective handling of "emergencies". This includes, but is not limited to self-rescue techniques, rescue of another diver under water and on the surface and knowledge of local EMS procedures etc.
• consistent control over buoyancy within a bandwidth of 1 metre and the ability to hover at will for extended periods of time in order to avoid contact with the bottom with respect to protecting sensitive marine life
• shows effective finning technique appropriate for minimizing silting and to protect sensitive marine life
• has the ability to plan and execute a dive in various environments, including salt and fresh water, limited vizibility, (night or turbid water), currents up to 2kt, surface conditions consistent with winds up to Bft force 5.
• the ability to navigate a straight out-and-back navigation pattern over a total distance of 300m or 40min with a deviation of less than 20 metres from the start/exit point.
• the ability to swim continuously for 20 minutes
• understands the physiology, biomechanics, and physics at work while scuba diving
• understands the workings of the haldane decompression model and it's implications for dive planning

out of time. Can we build on this?

R..

I'm not an instructor but I wish I had been taught all of these things in my OW class. I would have paid more money and committed more time to learning the skills had the LDS informed me that this is what I would NEED to know to be a safe, competent diver. I especially wish I would have learned some of the problem solving techniques for incidents at depth (i.e. a burst o-ring, lost mask, free-flow, etc...) and spent more time on learning neutral buoyancy.
As someone mentioned before, I would have more respect for my LDS and my instructors had they given me the option of trying different gear without trying to push the most expensive piece of equipment on me. That is the reason why I am not a return customer and have not signed up for additional classes or trips through my local LDS.
If there was a class designed with all of the above suggestions I would recommend it to my scuba-curious friends and would consider retaking my OW just for the sake of gaining additional knowledge and competency that I feel was left out of my watered-down PADI class.

 

[Kingpatzer]

It was my understanding that we would take the process where it may. If in the end the program matches something that GUI, NAUI or PADI already has, so be it. We wont know this until it's done. If it is already in existence, I for one would be interested in comparing them. I doubt that anything that we come up with will match another program exactly.

Correct. The exercise is to see where the community consensus takes us.

 

[Kingpatzer]

Something here doesn't quite click. Most athletes are negatively buoyant. Olympic swimmers are too.... but nobody "sinks like a rock".

They do when they have very poor swimming technique. but don't make they guy worry about having to struggle to stay afloat, and he has all the muscle power in the world to pull himself through the water. A 3mm shorty and he's a different swimmer.

 

[leapfrog]

They do when they have very poor swimming technique. but don't make they guy worry about having to struggle to stay afloat, and he has all the muscle power in the world to pull himself through the water. A 3mm shorty and he's a different swimmer.

So, let's teach them to swim?

 

[Diver0001]

From the Wiki

"GOAL

.... 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).

I do not agree with the time limits indicated above. Until the course is finalized, how can you predict the time-frame? I suggest that an inclusive program must first be developed and we can see how long it would reasonably take. A cost structure could then be suggested.

I agree with this. It's much too early to talk about how long you want the course to take. At this point we should be taking John's advice and just defining what we want our OW diver to be able to do. The rest will come.

Training should be based upon the fact that this is a stand-a-lone program. We can not expect the diver to come back for any future training. Obviously the diver will gain experience after several dives; however the safety standards have to be met before s/he ventures out to open water as a certified diver. It is the responsibility of the Instructor not to dump-off the safety of his/her divers to charter operators, DMs and other Instructors.

Philosophically I agree with this. You can't expect students to come back and I don't think the SB course should set it's ambition level so low that you have to assume they will either dive under supervision or come back in order to complete their training.....

However, having said that, there are "levels" of competence. IN a perfect world, a completely competent OW diver may be completely safe but still have limits. Diving withing the NDL's, diving at generally acceptable depths for air, for example. We don't need to make an OW diver who can do everything, just to do the things they are trained to do competently. I hope you see it like taht too.

So.... DC, are you leaning towards committing to this project then?

R..

 

[DCBC]

So.... DC, are you leaning towards committing to this project then? R..

I've already mentioned, "we each come to the table with our own experiences and baggage. The more you have of one, there's a high likelihood of having more of the other as well." I'm an old dog that has been able to learn new tricks, but I first have to be convinced that the "new tricks" are more beneficial than the old ones. I believe that I have a reasonably good idea of what has worked and what doesn't.

I teach today, in much of the same way as I was taught 44 years ago. I've certainly updated many things, especially with the integration of technology, but I still retain an emphasis on watermanship, use of fins, mask & snorkel before SCUBA, confidence building (doff & don blacked-out under harassment, blacked-out BB, CESA) and an increased requirement for student knowledge in diving physiology, physics, dive planning and decompression. Open-water includes the practical application of all training (including an actual CESA from depth). I don't certify anyone that I don't feel is safe to dive independently with a member of my family.

So that said, I'm not sure that this perspective is welcome. I certainly don't want to take a bad guy position, nor do I want to waste my time. I suppose when it comes down to it, it depends upon the philosophy being taken. If it's more of an inclusive course with an emphasis on safety, I'm in. If it's a quick and dirty to make a buck, I'll pass. There are too many courses like this on the market already.