What is the real difference in the training

[MXGratefulDiver]

That GUE course the other thread covered is 10 days long with just 10 dives (?), but hours and hours of classroom. As noted in my comments, the instructor managed to model, and teach some really bad dive behavior, behavior that I am absolutely sure he lectured about, because it is simple basic buddy procedures and ocean behavior.

"Nothing that was ever said matters as much as what is done" is never more true than in diving 'education'.

Just curious ... have you ever attended a GUE class? My Fundies class had only three dives ... and roughly seven hours of bottom time ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[DevonDiver]

I don't think that is true at all. Very few people die while diving as a percentage of participants. If I am wrong, post the stats.

Diving is becoming statistically safer, I believe. Despite a massively expanding diving population, the number of divers injured or killed per year has proportionally decreased.

That fact alone doesn't justify a belief that the current training system is 'safer', as there are plenty of other factors involved. I believe one of those major factors is the changing nature of how divers conduct dives. Most modern 'McDivers' adhere to very conservative limits. Those limits (oft criticised) reflect a prudent and honest self-assessment by the agencies as to the training their courses provide. Likewise, most divers (the greater percentage of people receiving certifications who dive a few times a year, whilst on vacation) conduct all of their post-certification diving under the supervision and care of a diving professional.

The imposition (and adherence to) conservative diving limits, plus the increase of supervised/professionally-led diving activities is a major shift from how newly qualified divers gained experience several decades ago (unsupervised, less limitations).

Add to that the proliferation in the use of diving aids, such as dive computers, and you decrease the potential for human error induced (novice) accidents still further.

Because the number of people who are interested enough to endure an extended several month long training course in order to go diving are very few. Many more (like myself) simply want to give it a try. Not do one dive in a pool but do the course to see if they really enjoy it and decide to continue the training.

There are existing opportunities to 'give it a try', that do not result in qualification as an independent diver, capable of diving without supervision.

The Discover Scuba Diving experience and the 'Scuba Diver' (PADI) certification suit that goal perfectly. Both can be conducted in open water, both are relatively cheap and convenient - neither delude the participant into any self-belief of un-assisted competence.

What is at all wrong with "more convenient"? Who are we catering to? The interested individual or the instructor?

In truth... we cater to the shareholders in the certification agencies.

As I have stated and others have confirmed. If the requirement had been several months of commitment and 40 hours instead of 2-3 weeks and a few dives, we would not have started at all.

Which doesn't explain the popularity of more committed training programmes, such as those offered by BSAC et al.

There's a considerable percentage of new divers who never dive beyond their initial certifying year. Outside of that percentage, there is a further grouping of divers who only conduct a lifetime total of 20-50 dives (averaging only a couple of dives per year whilst on vacation). A small percentage of divers develop the activity into their major hobby - those we can consider 'committed' or 'serious' divers. Within that small percentage, there is a tiny percentage of divers who progress to professional and/or technical levels.

Realistically, there'd be no long-term harm in developing more robust training courses, as the 'serious' divers would do this happily. The greater percentage of divers would be detered from qualification, but those people don't sustain in the activity anyway. They might as well just do a Discover Dive/s or a 'Scuba Diver' type of limited (supervision required) course - that is cheaper and more convenient anyway.

What is the goal of OWD training?

Should the expectation be to graduate fully competent divers that can handle all aspects on their own, or divers that know how to set up their gear and plan a dive and learn and grow into competent divers?

I don't think it matters what the stated goal is.... as long as the training provided does fit the stated goal.

At the moment, agencies claim to produce 'independent divers, capable of unsupervised diving to X, Y or X depths/conditions etc'. There is a discrepancy because they don't (IMHO) generally achieve that.

Since they would not pay for it and endure the course, do we adjust the training to try and get more people involved?

Entry-level training is a relatively small factor in the dive industry machine. Profits and business demand arise from the serious divers - the ones who do multiple courses, who buy equipment, who do continuing education training, who take dive holidays.

At the moment, the dive agencies create those 'serious' divers as a percentage probability from mass training at entry-level. Train 1000 OWs and you'll get 300 AOWs, and then get 100 RDs, and then get 10 DMs, and then get 2 OWSIs, and then get 1 Tech Diver... etc. With each progressive step of involvement, you get an associated increase in secondary spending... kit, vacations etc.

The dive industry profits more from 10 technical divers, than it does from 1000 open-water students. It creates the open-water students to feed future demand at a higher level.

In that respect, does it matter if 1000 students do a 3-day 'McDiver' course... or whether 200 students do a 2-week 'complete' course? If the dive industry felt that 200 students doing a 2-week course would produce more 'serious' (long-term/big-spender) divers, then that's what they'd go with.

I submit that the only reason the industry is doing as well as it is, is the fact that some agencies have evolved to meet the demand of the consumer.

I'm not so sure about that. The 'industry' is a big and diverse one... and McDivers don't spend big bucks in that industry. A 'flash-in-the-pan' vacation diver has little long-term profitability for that industry.

What's more profitable? 100 divers spending $500 bucks.... or 10 divers spending $10,000 bucks?

For example, a moderately active technical diver would spend considerably more money just on gasses, than a sporadically active rescue diver spends in total on all their scuba-related activities. A single mixed-gas technical computer, costs more than the combined investment to complete OW, AOW and Rescue courses, plus a fair number of post-certification fun dives...

At the moment the industry profits from both. But really, I don't believe that setting lower goals, in line with currently low course standards, would harm that equation. A limited few would progress, most would fizzle out quickly. The difference between issuing a cert card that proclaimed you an 'independent diver' or a 'needs supervision diver' is irrelevant to the majority.

Same training, same cost, same convenience... just cut out the BS about being safe, alone, in the water after 3 days of basic tuition.

Let's put out a few diving scenarios and you decide which a pair of newly minted OW cert. holders ought to be able to handle without any assistance beyond a dive briefing for local conditions & the site.

The examples given are quite irrelevant, because the over-arching caveat of 'trained to dive within the limits of your experience' always applies. If you train in temperate waters, then you should be capable of diving in temperate waters. If you train in low viz/high current, then you should be capable of diving in low viz/high current.

A divers' training is only relevant to the conditions in which they train - it does not prepare them for specific factors unique to differing diving locations and conditions. Extra training is required for that.

 

[boulderjohn]

If this is true then why won't instructors take the lesson, and shut up and take their students diving? I am consistently amazed by the amount of talking instructors want to put into an OW course, which is all about proper diving behavior.

That was a point of emphasis in both my volleyball coach certification and my United States Soccer Association certification. Students learn very little from what you say. You need to get them involved in "gamelike" activities as much as possible. Gamelike activities teach and reinforce key skills taht are used exactly the same way as in a game. Activities that are not gamelike teach and reinforce incorrect skills that interfere with and even prevent learning proper skills. For example, the typical soccer drill of having two teammates face each other and pass the ball back and forth is horrible and teaches so many bad habits that it would take me a couple of paragraphs to describe them, while a simple small group game of keep away teaches gamelike passing skills.

The equivalent of a non-gamelike instructional activity in scuba is teaching and practicing skills while kneeling.

 

[DevonDiver]

I think there's a few differences between soccer/volleyball and scuba diving - namely the theoretical knowledge required that forms the foundations of diver safety. Such as the dive physics components that allow divers to understand why they don't hold their breath on ascent, or how the gas in their BCD will respond to changes in depth.

In that respect, "proper diving behaviour" is established, in many instances, from an understanding of the issue, rather than just parrot-like mimicry of an instructor's underwater habits.

 

[boulderjohn]

I think there's a few differences between soccer/volleyball and scuba diving - namely the theoretical knowledge required that forms the foundations of diver safety. Such as the dive physics components that allow divers to understand why they don't hold their breath on ascent, or how the gas in their BCD will respond to changes in depth.

In that respect, "proper diving behaviour" is established, in many instances, from an understanding of the issue, rather than just parrot-like mimicry of an instructor's underwater habits.

Of course. But you are talking about the classroom. I am talking about long talks on diving technique while standing in shallow water rather than actually diving.

 

[TSandM]

That GUE course the other thread covered is 10 days long with just 10 dives (?), but hours and hours of classroom. As noted in my comments, the instructor managed to model, and teach some really bad dive behavior, behavior that I am absolutely sure he lectured about, because it is simple basic buddy procedures and ocean behavior.

I'll have to go back and watch the video again, but I think at some point it was discussed that they were spending five or more hours a day in the water. There is, of course, classroom work, as there is in any dive class (and remember that the GUE OW class includes Nitrox, which is essentially all classroom). And there are the video debriefs, which are extremely useful for visual learners and people who have poor body awareness.

 

[DevonDiver]

Of course. But you are talking about the classroom. I am talking about long talks on diving technique while standing in shallow water rather than actually diving.

Oh... well that's just plain silly. Where I live you'd accomplish nothing more than a nasty sunburn... back in the UK it'd be wind-burn.

I can suspect that the prime culprits would be noobie instructors... still doing it by-the-book as taught on the PADI IDC, briefing every skill in bullet points, explaining goals, selling equipment etc etc.... if their only experience of teaching was the IDC and they had no extra-curricular instructional background to bring to the party.

Either that, or they're just plain old windbags.

Really... if chattering was an olympic sport, I'd be in contention for gold.... but the water is for diving. I don't like mine to have too much time to brood over it, because the apprehension only increases. Get 'em in, get 'em down...and get 'em busy.

 

[DevonDiver]

... there are the video debriefs, which are extremely useful for visual learners and people who have poor body awareness.

I won't credit GUE with inventing this concept, but I did introduce this myself after getting the idea from how fundies courses were run. I think it's an invaluable tool in providing performance feedback to students, especially those who have poor kinesthetic ability.

Seeing your instructor role-model is great... but seeing yourself in comparison to that really helps connections to be made.

 

[Peter Guy]

DD -- you asked the question

What's more profitable? 100 divers spending $500 bucks.... or 10 divers spending $10,000 bucks?

And the answer, of course, all depends on the margins involved! It might well be that having 100 divers spend $500 on M,F,S, Manuals and Cards is MUCH more profitable than having 10 divers spending $10,000 on this, that or the other thing. It will also depend on how much it COST to get those 100 divers or those 10 divers. Revenue is nice but margin is better!

 

[TSandM]

I'll be the first to admit that GUE classes can (and often do) involve long debriefs on the surface or in the shallows. But that is actually part of the dive plan . . . they're great believers in training people not to rush out of the water, which can be a real issue when you've completed a high nitrogen load dive and getting out involves much exertion.