What is the real difference in the training

[Thalassamania]

Thal., I believe his point (which you may well already know, and just dispute how he acts on it) is that if a vacation resort dive shop has an OW Instructor who fails a number of their lackluster but wealthy, influential (at least with the resort's management) and accustomed to being pandered to, that Instructor is going to change his ways or be fired and replaced with one who will, and that either way those 'soft on training' certifications will consider.

Sorry, that's wrong and reprehensible.

Many people on the forum will believe the Instructor should refuse to compromise training standards (& his principles). Many people in the 'working world' would question whether he should compromise his ability to pay the mortgage payment and grocery bill by leaving a job when the problem of ill-trained certifications will continue with or without him.

I am one such, if you have not got what it takes to maintain standards, to hell with you. If your mortgage is more important, you're in the wrong job ... sorry. The fact that someone else will come along do an equally bad job is no excuse.

The other possibility, as I see it, is that for similar reasons it's harder to press these more 'powerful' clients to substantially exceed minimum standards, or demonstrate true mastery of a skill rather than just do it once 'more or less,' as opposed to less influential students.

I have not found that to be true, the more "powerful" students are, most often, the most cooperative.

It is my understanding that PADI does not permit you to substantially exceed standards and requires that students demonstrate the PADI defined level of mastery, regardless of who they are.

Ironically, it's the less influential students who probably get better training and start out better divers.

I hope I didn't twist or misrepresent anybody's ideas. I don't care to weigh in on what he should do, either. Just trying to clarify the issue.

Richard.

This is horse pucky, I've taught a Cabinet Officer, a number of Flag Officers, the C.E.O.s and V.P.s of several automobile manufacturers and thier families, a couple of university Presidents, more Deans and Directors than I can remember, even members of several royal families, and I have never, ever, compromised one iota. In fact, I have never been asked to compromise even the smallest amount, so yes, I fail to understand the problem.

 

[drrich2]

Thal.:

Some high-achieving types don't use their status to compromise standards for themselves, and may actually seek higher quality instruction than average; I wouldn't be surprised if some of your students got with you for just that reason.

The portion of the post that triggered this was:

Vacationers come to relax and many put their diver training as something to do on holiday in between the buffet and the bar. Certain islands here in the Maldives are what we call "diver islands" with a different philosophy towards training, but too many of the 5* resorts are geared towards rich executive types who consider carrying a weightbelt to be hard work and will create PR problems if asked to do something which 'normal' divers would consider to be just a part of the experience.

I suspect 'rich executive' types come in a variety of personalities and degrees of entitlement, as do we all. I wonder what 'somethings normal divers would consider to be just a part of the experience' the people referenced in the post aren't required to do? (E.g.: meet a standard, or schlep their own gear around?).

Richard.

 

[Thalassamania]

Thal.:

Some high-achieving types don't use their status to compromise standards for themselves, and may actually seek higher quality instruction than average; I wouldn't be surprised if some of your students got with you for just that reason.

The portion of the post that triggered this was:

Vacationers come to relax and many put their diver training as something to do on holiday in between the buffet and the bar. Certain islands here in the Maldives are what we call "diver islands" with a different philosophy towards training, but too many of the 5* resorts are geared towards rich executive types who consider carrying a weightbelt to be hard work and will create PR problems if asked to do something which 'normal' divers would consider to be just a part of the experience.

I suspect 'rich executive' types come in a variety of personalities and degrees of entitlement, as do we all. I wonder what 'somethings normal divers would consider to be just a part of the experience' the people referenced in the post aren't required to do? (E.g.: meet a standard, or schlep their own gear around?).

Richard.

I guess people's experiences are different but I would say, based on my sixty-odd years of observing the world, that the best way to get yourself abused by the "powerful" is to display unctuous behavior toward them. If you are matter of fact and treat everyone with the respect, the same amount of respect, you don't get a whole lot of push back.

If you are clear, your expectations are clear, your student's responsibilities are clear, and all of your students understand this, be they high schoolers, army generals, grad students, movie stars, full professors, navy admirals, royals or just plain folks, there's not any problem. But when you are inconsistent and kowtow to anything except your students' diving aptitude and progress, then you're headed for trouble.

I've worked with a few movie star types over the years who were incredibly abusive toward many of the folks that worked "for them," almost always people who treated them with extreme deference. It reminded me of folks who show fear around a mildly aggressive dog and get bit. If you have the ability and the skill, and your students know that you can get them from where they are to where they want to be (and the first session of breathing exercise usually cements this relationship for me) there is rarely any problem.

 

[boulderjohn]

Just a passing comment to the mods -- should most of this discussion, as interesting as it has been, be moved over to the I-to-I forum? I wonder if it is appropriate for "Basic Scuba."

There are two Basic Scuba Threads right now that would make very interesting I2I threads, and I wish some of that content were in I2I so that instructors who might not be tuning in to those threads in this forum might participate.

On the other hand, the people who started the treads started them here. The one who started this one came from a student perspective, but the other one came from a professional perspective. (Perhaps you could ask the one who started the other one why she chose this forum during cocktails tonight or at breakfast tomorrow.) I think that nonprofessionals can benefit from the discussion, if nothing else seeing that the professionals who are participating generally want very much to do a good job and have legitimate differences of opinion on exactly what that requires.

 

[supergaijin]

The difference that I see is that 5* resort divers will stay 5* resort divers- they will continue to have divemasters/ instructors that control their dive. I make a point to tell them this and actually write in their logbooks on occasion. Passing OW is not a difficult task but because of the staff-to guest mentality that exists in many 5* resorts, you simply cannot call a spade a spade or you're out on your ear, and I cannot afford to do that.

The courses given here in 3 different 4-5* resorts in the Maldives are IMO of a higher standard than I saw working in SE Asia. We aren't in a price-war with the shop next door, and can afford to properly maintain equipment and minimise group size. 8 student confined-water in one afternoon? That said- the backpacker/flashpacker students were often better divers at the end of their training. Why? Their own mentality and attitude towards learning. Instead resorts compete to up-service the certified divers. They don't setup or disassemble equipment for starters- instead they're arriving with the latest bling and expect the new Galileo to make them better divers.

Teaching locals in NZ was teaching how to dive independently- mostly for lobster and shellfish. All my first dives until I went to the Philippines were hunting of some sort- it never even occurred to me to go and just watch fish.

I have little or no influence on the philosophy of the dive centers here. Standards are met and students will/do fail- or be demoted to Scuba Diver if they can't meet the OW requirements. But simply put; my pass/fail benchmark was much higher teaching in NZ, as they were being trained beyond the minimum to cope with local conditions.

 

[Potapko]

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.

Hence my original argument that $1000 courses are not necessary for the majority of people. You may not agree with their dive skills, but they are not killing themselves, so they got enough from their training to conduct relatively safe dives.

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.

Since the potential for human induced errors has been so greatly reduced, we can deduce that training needs have also been reduced.

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.

I began with my experience in a course in a foreign language with a so-so instructor. I was never deluded into anything. I was trained in a pool and a quarry. I practiced my skills in a pool and later in a quarry, then I went to Egypt and increased my training. Then I practiced some more in the environment in which I was trained. I get the impression that some people are convinced newly trained divers take their OW card and head out to dive the Andrea Doria. The vast majority of divers are not killing themselves. Their training must have taught them something.

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

Shame on you!!

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,

You have answered your own objection here.

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

I submit that in the vast majority of cases, it does. Safety records bear this out.

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.

First of all I do not remember reading those claims anywhere, secondly, where is the evidence that the agencies are putting out unsafe divers, unable to perform the dives they are doing?

At the moment, the dive agencies create those 'serious' divers as a percentage probability from mass training at entry-level.

Show me the sporting activity that doesn't operate on the same principle? Entice them with low price and excitement, get em hooked, empty their bank account!!!

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

Well, first you get the $500 from the 100 people, then those that get hooked go on the spend the big money and you get both. I guess that is more profitable.

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

Anecdotal evidence seems to point to the fact that they are safe in the water, in spite of all of the experts on here who don't happen to agree.

 

[Potapko]

Just a passing comment to the mods -- should most of this discussion, as interesting as it has been, be moved over to the I-to-I forum? I wonder if it is appropriate for "Basic Scuba."

I suppose if the thread was moved, I couldn't participate Not only that, but it has gotten a bit off course. Perhaps it should be in the pub

 

[beanojones]

I suppose if the thread was moved, I couldn't participate Not only that, but it has gotten a bit off course. Perhaps it should be in the pub

As I finished writing a long response to something someone elewrote, I realized you wear the original poster. I think there a several conversational threads running through the thread, but they do sort of run along the lines of what is the real difference in training.

But this is your thread, so which part of the thread has gone off course (so I know whether to post my nonsense or not)?

 

[Thalassamania]

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.

I don't think think that this is supportable, either in terms of massive expansion or reduction of injury.

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.

My observations concur with yours. It is a shame, but if you never get out of bed the odds that you will be in a traffic accident are greatly reduced, and so is the life experience.

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).

From what I've seen the segment of people who will ever in the life dive without supervision is dropping, thus much of diving has become more of an e-ticket Disney ride than part of a real, "Be A Diver" progression.

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.

DCS rates have not, as far as I know, significantly changed, BCs have not either, so I don't know what you are referring to.

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

NAUI, BSAC, and CMAS have no "shareholders."

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

I can only address the demand for what I do, which more tracks the demographics of the families whose members I taught in the past than any other single predictor.

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.

I believe that less than 20% of the divers who are trained continue diving of any sort after their first set of "experiences."

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.

That would strike at the core of the "big lie" that the diving industry is based on, namely that by taking an OW course you are transformed into an explorer, an adventurer and a member of an exclusive club.

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.

Correct.

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.

No, business plans and thus profits are much more based on a high dropout rate. For a shop to survive they need to train on the order of 300 entry level students per year. I suspect that you will find that con ed and dives who buy additional gear such as dry suits, or scooters, or a second set of gear, are in the vast minority.

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.

Your conversion ratios are rather high (1/3 moving on to AOW? 1/3 of the AOWs taking RD? I'd guess that a conversion rate of 10% might be optimistic), which only serves to point out how unimportant in the grand scheme of things the gross expenditures by tech divers and such are.

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.

That is simply not true. Do the math. 10 tech divers likely pump on the order of $100,000 into the industry while I'd guess that 1000 OW students pump more than $500,000 in.

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.

No, the industry does not have enough quality instructors who will work for cheap to teach everyone two week courses, so too weak courses are the order of the day.

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?

If that were the ratio, it'd be about even, but I fear you are off by an order of magnitude at least.

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...

What you say is basically true. But ... there are too few techies out there and it is way too expensive and demanding to serve their needs. Far easier to crank out 300 OWs a year and convert as many as you can to AOW, RD, etc. To run a tech operation you need a much higher level of competence.

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.

Agreed.

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

Yup.

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.

But then one size does not fit all and you destroy the root lie that is seen as central to the sale of diving as a thing to do.

 

[Potapko]

As I finished writing a long response to something someone elewrote, I realized you wear the original poster. I think there a several conversational threads running through the thread, but they do sort of run along the lines of what is the real difference in training.

But this is your thread, so which part of the thread has gone off course (so I know whether to post my nonsense or not)?

No, really, it's fine. It is very interesting to consider the logic from different perspectives.