Certification-Which One?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

My agency bashing alarm just went off.

And no it doesn't really work like that, all the agencies have similar performance requirements, how much skill needs to be demonstrated depends on the instructor, and what he or she considers skill mastery for that level of training.

Also, fun and easy is easier to retain than boring and hard. It helps memorization.

Heck I had a two year break between doing OW+AOW and my next dive. I could answer the review questions with ease, including how to use the tables, and remembered the rules for using the tables.

And an entry level diver doesn't need to learn much dive theory, they need to learn how to use tables/computer, and various safety rules, they don't necessarily have to know about henry's law. The instructor should though, to explain when a student asks.
 
When my son and daughter, then 10 and 14, wanted to try scuba, it was NOT the agency that I shopped for, but the instructor team. I asked around the region, about the experiences of many other divers, and chose one @3hrs away, that got the best reviews for their safety, teaching styles, etc. I was NOT turning my two kids over to just anyone to teach this sport. That the LDS I chose was PADI, is just how it worked out.

I read a lot of bashing of agencies, but usually it breaks down, as mentioned above, to teaching styles and reliability of the individual instructor/team/lds. Some care deeply about safety and also enjoy introducing their students to scuba, because they love the sport. Some, not so much.

Ask divers around your area, and not just those trained by one lds.
 
Not trying to agency bash here but mpetryk raises a good point. Unless it is a vacation or a date I don’t consider ‘easy and fun’ to be a selling point for most activities. I didn’t pick colleges based on ‘easy and fun’, nor a gym nor anything else where I expect certain results for my time and money invested.

Should diving be ‘easy and fun’? Sure-why else do it unless you are being paid. Will it be easy? Maybe, maybe not but if it is fun-i.e. you actually want to do it then ‘easy’ is not relevant.
If easy is what someone is after why even bother getting a card? <-CYA. Rhetorical question.

Just my opinion.
 
Your alarm needs to be recalibrated - you are getting false positives. I am not bashing agencies. Many have posted here suggesting that the choice of instructor is critical - I agree with that and felt no need to re-state it. Of course, classes can be fun and (hopefully) challenging. However, in my mind a course being "fun and easy" is as relevant to course selection as colour is in the selection of fins - it might matter to you, but my concerns are fit and function.

And an entry level diver doesn't need to learn much dive theory, they need to learn how to use tables/computer, and various safety rules, they don't necessarily have to know about henry's law. The instructor should though, to explain when a student asks.

My uh-oh alarm just went off. Understanding theory is what will allow a diver to make sound decisions when encountering an unanticipated problem, often preventing the situation from becoming an emergency.
 
Last edited:
Agreed -- it all comes down to the individual instructor and the general vibe you get from your LDS. You may, however, find this item of interest: the "Ask An Expert" column in this month's Scuba Diving Magazine features two differing opinions on the adequacy of today's training standards. Viewpoint #1 is by a PADI MI, who is a principal of one of PADI's largest Career Development Centers. He also happens to be me. Viewpoint #2 is by a former president of NAUI, and the owner of one of their career institutes. http://www.scubadiving.com/training/ask-an-expert/2010/06/are-dive-training-requirements-adequate
 
Agreed -- it all comes down to the individual instructor and the general vibe you get from your LDS. You may, however, find this item of interest: the "Ask An Expert" column in this month's Scuba Diving Magazine features two differing opinions on the adequacy of today's training standards. Viewpoint #1 is by a PADI MI, who is a principal of one of PADI's largest Career Development Centers. He also happens to be me. Viewpoint #2 is by a former president of NAUI, and the owner of one of their career institutes. Are Dive Training Requirements Adequate? | Scuba Diving Magazine

I thought this article was spectacular. Kudos to you for the work. I appreciated both views very much:D
 
My uh-oh alarm just went off. Understanding theory is what will allow a diver to make sound decisions when encountering an unanticipated problem, often preventing the situation from becoming an emergency.

I said they don't have to know much. I wouldn't require my OW students to learn what is in the PADI system, DM level dive theory. For one thing, the academics side would take a couple of weeks. I teach them about there being compartments, and that you shouldn't give yourself credit for shallower depth until you hit the next one, and where those are, but I wouldn't require them to know about half-times, m-values, and so on, though I might mention them in class for good measure, it won't be on the tests. Likewise I wouldn't require them to know about proper filling procedure for j-valve tanks and whatnot.

There's a too much at once issue to think about as well.

Then again it's my personal view that divers shouldn't go without a dive professional until they've done at least rescue, so maybe that says something.
 
About a recent Scuba Diving Magazine:

I thought this article was spectacular. Kudos to you for the work. I appreciated both views very much:D

I found it somewhat disappointing. It focused almost exclusively on theoretical knowledge, and completely missed the part about spending time in the water.

Sure, classroom and theory are important - long term.

But if one instructor requires 8 hours in a pool and two dives before certification, and another 12 hours and four dives for the same class size, you can tell which course will produce the best divers without even looking at the classroom content.
 
Then again it's my personal view that divers shouldn't go without a dive professional until they've done at least rescue, so maybe that says something.

Yes it does-it says that they are not qualified under your system till they have taken at least rescue.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom