Apparently, this was dive 3 of 4.
Ok... so here's what should have happened on that dive. At this point, the instructor should be directing you on what you need to do and assessing your performance (and remediating, if necessary), but not demonstrating them - as you should have already been 'taught' these skills.
Perhaps you can indicate what was/wasn't performed:
PADI Instructor Manual 2011:
Dive 3 Performance Requirements
At the surface:
1. Plan dive with dive computer or RDP.
2. Put on and adjust equipment.
3. Perform a predive safety check.
4. Adjust weighting.
Underwater:
5. Descend using a visual reference for control to 6-9 metres/20-30 feet. Use the five-point method.
6. Become neutrally buoyant by inflating the BCD orally.
7. Clear a fully flooded mask.
8. Explore the dive site.
9. Ascend no faster than 18 metres/60 feet per minute while maintaining buddy contact. Use the five-point method.
I did the E-learning and yes, I should've applied what I learned in the class. I'm happy to take my fair share of responsibility/blame for this incident.
It surprises me, when people complain about their OW courses, how they typically fail to raise concerns at the time with their instructors. The OW manual contains a full description of each training dive, as does the PADI DVD/Video - so students should know what skills they should be doing on each dive and how to do those skills. Where there is a deviation from what is expected (as per the PADI materials), then the student can...and should... immediately address their concerns to the instructor.
Yes, people do get 'ripped off' sometimes by unscrupulous dive instructors/operations... and it's important to address this. However, it is best addressed at the time, not retrospectively on the internet. It also unwise to make brash accusations on a public forum, unless you are very sure of the facts. It's easy to misinterpret instruction/safety when you are inexperienced. The fact you felt 'unsafe' or 'unsupervised' does not mean you were. Get some feedback before pointing the finger in blame.
We did NO dive planning whatsoever thoughout the entire course. Never even looked at dive tables or the RDP, only experience was in the E-learning.
That's of concern. As you can see by the performance requirements above - you should have planned every dive in advance. The instructor may set the depth/time, but students should still 'go through the motions' so that they know their end Pressure Group, NDL etc.
As an instructor, I like to encourage students to take more personal responsibility as the course progresses. Whilst supervision and safety is very real, I like the student to perceive that they're 'doing it for themselves'. That puts them into a more confident, responsible and competent position upon graduation. Sometimes even letting a student learn from mistakes or problem-solve, rather than nannying them (provided safety isn't an issue). Holding a student's hand, being 'in their face' and molly-coddling them has counter-productive end results - although I have no doubt that it 'feels' more reassuring for the student. Assuming that the dives
are kept very safe and supervised, a student benefits most from the perceived challenge of having to stand on their own 2 feet.
Of course, the student concerned is not well-equipped (through education or experience) to understand how safe and supervised they actually
are in those circumstances. Their perceptions, if issues are not raised/questions asked, may not be fair to the instructor concerned. Ask any of my students and they'll probably tell you that I was just a casual observer on their final check-out dive. In reality I am watching them like a hawk and ready to intervene for their safety in an instant.
My point being; leaping onto the internet because of your inexperienced perceptions
may be doing a vast injustice to an otherwise very competent instructor. It's important to clarify before leaping to conclusions.
There was no "pre-dive discussion" whatsoever. I had NO IDEA what to expect or what the dive environment was going to be.
That strikes me as odd, because a dive briefing (including required skills) is necessary before the dive. That said, I've seen plenty enough divers miss that information because they were distracted/pre-occupied/disinterested. Again, taking personal responsibility and applying training dictates that a diver shouldn't enter the water unless fully cognizant of the dive plan, the dive site etc.
As far as any "accuracy issues"- my dive computer showed a max depth of 78 ft.
That's a breach of standards then. Can I ask what your reaction was when you exceeded your known recommended depth of 60ft?
Did the instructor maintain a depth of 60ft and you went below him? Or did the instructor lead the way to 78ft?
Whilst it doesn't sound like the case in your circumstance, I know of some instructors who will 'tempt' a diver beyond their planned depth as a learning point on situational awareness and dive management. However, that planned depth shouldn't exceed the statutory max depth defined by the course standards. It'd also be raised as part of a de-brief following the dive.
When we were filling out my dive logs for the day back in the office, I was told to fill in 60 ft for both dives.
That's quite dishonest/unethical of him. It hints to me that he knowingly breached standards and attempted to conceal it.
Out of interest however, what was the instructor's max depth, as per his dive computer?
Until a student is certified doesn't his safety take number 1 priority? He's still in training isn't he?
Absolutely.
I feel that when I continued to signal my ears are not equalizing, him and I should have ascended to the surface, discussed my training and tried again with some reinforcement.
As an instructor, I'd disagree with that perception/expectation. I try to discourage students from automatically resorting to surfacing as a resolution to minor problems. You don't need to surface in order to rectify an equalisation problem. This was an actual open water dive - so multiple ascents/descents can rapidly create an unhealthy 'saw-tooth' profile. In many situations, returning to the surface would/should be the end of the dive - so is to be avoided.
The instructor just continued to signal "equalize" by holding his nose. So we continued to descend.
This is the point that makes me really doubt your claims of 'lack of supervision'. You were in contact and communicating with the instructor throughout the incident. That shows two things; you weren't too far away and the instructor was observing/guiding you.
A lot of people on this thread seem to have made an assumption that the instructor was swimming off and leaving you. I doubted that. I think rightly so.
Was I really supposed to surface by myself?
At no point was 'surfacing' a desired or ideal situation. That's your perception. At no time is a student taught "to surface" as a resolution to equalisation problems. If the instructor was on hand to observe, monitor and supervise you (duty of care), then his expectation would be that you would effect the appropriate solution and continue the dive. There's nothing wrong in that. If you appeared to be in difficulty, then the instructor would intervene.
As I mentioned in my 'hypothetical scenario' earlier - you signalled
"I have a problem - my ears - ascend". In line with the taught skill - this wouldn't mean
"go to the surface". It would simply mean
"ascend until equalisation could be achieved". If that ascent continued after multiple attempts, then the instructor would probably ascend and assist. If the instructor observed that you ascended a few feet, tried again, then re-descended to join him - then it's not unreasonable for him to assume they you dealt with the problem and were ready to continue the dive.
Not having dived ever before I had no other experience to draw upon such as what is acceptable pain and when there is a problem.
At what point in the course did your training allude to
any level of acceptable pain? Seriously.....
have not heard back from PADI yet. It sounds like they won't do much if anything.
At most, PADI will just acknowledge your correspondence. They won't inform you of their actions. That doesn't mean they aren't investigating.
This link illustrates how PADI conduct a Quality Assurance investigation:
http://www.padi.com/padi/common/pdfs/footer/00143_QASummary.pdf
