The Philosophy of Diver Training

[DCBC]

I believe in more training especially toward the solo diver. I do not personally have a permanent dive buddy. So far I've been able to find one where ever I am diving but I expect that will not always be the case. Should I not dive because I can't find a buddy on those occasions? I would rather be well trained to dive on my own than to miss the opportunity to dive. Just my humble opinion.

Solo diving has a greater level of risk (in most circumstances) than when diving with a buddy. Part of this risk may be mitigated by redundancy. I wouldn't recommend you start to dive solo, without redundant air and you should be completely familiar with this equipment. Additional training would also be advised.

Every individual has to accept the level of risk that they are comfortable in taking while diving. No one can tell you what that is. Hopefully you will lower this risk through proper equipment, training and planning.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

I'm a little confused here.

We're an SSI shop, so I've never had to deal with PADI, however are you saying that PADI wouldn't allow me to train a diver to be able to safely dive in local conditions? Around here that means anywhere from barely-thawed water to maybe 70 degrees, vis that ranges from 0 to maybe 40' and sometimes high current.

Do they really expect the instructor to hand out cards that say the holder is qualified to dive but really isn't?

While I can understand having minimum standards, is there some restriction on exceeding them? For example, if the student can clear a mask, but it takes several attempts and is accompanied by large amounts of anxiety, is there some reason that the skill couldn't be practiced until it was easy and produced no anxiety?

Terry

Yes that is correct. YOU can show them the skills needed or tell them about them but if they are not in the prescribed program you cannot require or test on them. If the local conditions require a diver to have excellent buoyancy control or say buddy skills due to silt. low vis, etc. You can show the student these things but you cannot refuse a cert if they continually wander away, or plow up the bottom. I can require my students to maintain a certain distance throughout the dives, use anti silting kicks or stay a suitable distance off the bottom, and demonstrate buoyancy that suits the dive site. PADI says you cannot use these as yardsticks for measuring competence. NAUI requires the OW student to be trained to the point that the instructor would be comfortable with one of their loved ones to dive unescorted with the newly certed diver before giving them a card. This is the measure I use as well.

As for your mask clear example, yes the skill CAN be practiced till such a condition exists but it does not have to be and the instructor cannot withhold certification based on their feeling that the diver is not fully comfortable with it. If the diver cannot do it at all it's one thing. If they perform all the skills to "mastery" which is really not defined anywhere that I'm aware of you cannot withhold cert. I can use skills, knowledge, understanding, attitude, and judgment to gauge a divers fitness to be certified. If a diver has the IDGAS attitude towards safety but performs all the skills and passes the knowledge portion PADI says he gets a card. I can refuse to cert someone like this. Would you want your name as instructor on the card of someone who gets somebody else who dives with them hurt or killed because safety is not that big of deal? I wouldn't.

 

[schaffld]

From the PADI Manual

"During confined and open water dives, mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be exepected of a diver at that certification level."

The scenario described in which a student diver is "plowing up the bottom" clearly indicates he/she has not mastered buoyancy control and/or hovering and the instructor is under no obligation to certify the diver.

 

[DCBC]

From the PADI Manual

"During confined and open water dives, mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner as would be exepected of a diver at that certification level."

The scenario described in which a student diver is "plowing up the bottom" clearly indicates he/she has not mastered buoyancy control and/or hovering and the instructor is under no obligation to certify the diver.

I don't doubt that all knowledge and skill-sets that are covered by the PADI program are adequately mastered before certification. I'm disenchanted with the fact that the PADI instructor cannot test on other skill-sets and knowledge that's required to insure diver safety in some areas.

If the one size fits all training program is to hope to cover what is necessary for a diver to be safe in all waters of the world, it must be much more robust in its content than it is. Other agencies address this by allowing their instructors to add, test and specify additional knowledge and skill-sets that are required for certification. PADI does not.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

But what is "reasonably comfortable", "fluid", and "repeatable"? Who sets the standard and where are these items quantified. And if my example is incorrect why are there divers in open water doing this and receiving a card? The terms are so vague. And since we are talking about PADI in this example let me state that there are many excellent PADI instructors out there. But what about the ones who are not? Who defines these terms in their classes? The excellent instructor may require his/her students to perform these skills in midwater without changing depth. But the mediocre or bad one will think them doing it kneeling on a platform and doing them when he/she knows that the diver will not be able to do this in real life on a coral reef will still issue them a card. So in that way there really is no across the board standard and uniformity is an illusion.

 

[Kingpatzer]

As for your mask clear example, yes the skill CAN be practiced till such a condition exists but it does not have to be and the instructor cannot withhold certification based on their feeling that the diver is not fully comfortable with it. If the diver cannot do it at all it's one thing. If they perform all the skills to "mastery" which is really not defined anywhere that I'm aware of you cannot withhold cert.

From the IDC Student Manual:

You use your judgment every time a student diver demonstrates a skill. You judge whether the skill meets the performance requirement (standard) and if the student has mastered the kill. Standards set the measure, but you gauge the results.

Judgment comes with training and experience. When in doubt err on the side of caution.

Master means to become proficient. PADI's performance based training requires student divers to not only demonstrate skills but be proficient at performing them. Student divers must completely understand the information presented, not just have a passing knowledge of the course content.

Skills -- Mastery is defined as performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeatable manner.

The definition in the Instructor's Manual is definitely lacking in specificity. However, there is mention of fluidity and repeatability. OW conditions are stressed to be kept as benign as possible, and it is made clear to the students and instructors that certification is to dive in conditions similar to or better than those in which the student certified.

An instructor certifying an OW student in the North Atlantic is almost certainly pushing, if not violating standards. The expectation that a newly minted OW student should be able to dive in such conditions is almost certainly misplaced. For example, understanding tides and surge are covered in specialties so any initial training sites that require the OW student posses that knowledge are sites which are definitively unsuitable for training.

 

[DCBC]

But what is "reasonably comfortable", "fluid", and "repeatable"? Who sets the standard and where are these items quantified. And if my example is incorrect why are there divers in open water doing this and receiving a card? The terms are so vague. And since we are talking about PADI in this example let me state that there are many excellent PADI instructors out there. But what about the ones who are not? Who defines these terms in their classes? The excellent instructor may require his/her students to perform these skills in midwater without changing depth. But the mediocre or bad one will think them doing it kneeling on a platform and doing them when he/she knows that the diver will not be able to do this in real life on a coral reef will still issue them a card. So in that way there really is no across the board standard and uniformity is an illusion.

Jim, I think that the intent of the words "reasonably, comfortable", fluid, and repeatable" are clear. Like any training agency, it falls to the instructor to make this determination. Like you have pointed out, a problem exists with instructors that move students through the program without insuring that they possess the requisite knowledge and skill-sets. I don't think however that PADI is the only organization that has this happen.

Where I fault PADI is the restrictions it places on the instructors who want to train the student properly. The instructor doesn't have the ultimate say in who gets certified. If the student passes the minimums, they must be certified. PADI is the only diving certification agency (of which I'm aware), that takes this philosophical position on diver training.

 

[schaffld]

You will find that PADI doesn't look at it that way. Again, you cannot test on anything outside of minimum standards, nor can you withhold certification from someone who has passed minimum standards. It's all about the minimums. That's why I no longer teach through PADI.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. However, I believe every agency establishes standards that it deems are the minimum acceptable. If agency X decides buddy-breathing, for example, is a required skill, then that becomes their minimum standard. All agencies will certify students as long as they meet their standards, their minimum standards.

Granted, some agencies may have more requirements for their students than others, but they are still teaching to their respective minimum standards and will certify divers accordingly.

 

[DCBC]

An instructor certifying an OW student in the North Atlantic is almost certainly pushing, if not violating standards. The expectation that a newly minted OW student should be able to dive in such conditions is almost certainly misplaced. For example, understanding tides and surge are covered in specialties so any initial training sites that require the OW student posses that knowledge are sites which are definitively unsuitable for training.

So if I understand you correctly, the PADI program is not intended to produce a diver who is capable of diving in local conditions. People who would do their diving in the North Atlantic should take a PADI program in Florida, come back to the North Atlantic and take a specialty program to dive in the local area? If this is the case, why are there PADI 5 Star facilities bordering North Atlantic waters that are allowed to certify PADI divers? Are all these in violation of PADI standards?

 

[Web Monkey]

Where I fault PADI is the restrictions it places on the instructors who want to train the student properly. The instructor doesn't have the ultimate say in who gets certified. If the student passes the minimums, they must be certified. PADI is the only diving certification agency (of which I'm aware), that takes this philosophical position on diver training.

Couldn't you put together a "North Atlantic Diving" specialty class, then sell it as a package with OW?

Terry