PADI vs NAUI

[DCBC]

Because, as suggested in the post in which I originally responded, I have written countless essay length responses to the many times you have repeated the same charges over the years. I get tired of repeating myself at such lengths.

John repeating that "things have changed" numerous times, doesn't make it true. You have never quoted Standards to prove your position. What Peter accomplished in one Post, you failed to do with your countless replies. Peter and others have previously stated that a PADI Instructor cannot change the criteria for diver certification (change or modify PADI Standards). When I've asked you if you could change the in-water/swim requirements, you've said no. This could result in putting a weak or non-swimmer into challenging conditions thus presenting an unacceptable hazard.

Not once did you or anyone for that matter (until today) inform me that in such a scenario, a PADI Instructor could request that the Standards be modified. You would just say that things have been changed.... Thankfully Peter provided me with the tangible proof that I've been asking for.

You say we are not allowed to teach tides, but how do we do OW dives in tidal dependent areas without doing so? ...None of it was in the standards, but if they were gong to get certified, they had to learn about it.

Regardless of the Agency, the Standards specify the requirements for certification. This is the yard stick. If the Standards are achieved, the certifying Agency will certify on the request of the Instructor. Unfortunately, other training is an option. There is no doubt in my mind that you are a conscientious Instructor. Unfortunately, not all Instructors act similarly. If it's not required, Dive Shops often trim their course time to the minimum. They ask the students to come back to take another program (more revenue generation). This is not limited to PADI. NAUI establishes Minimum Standards to which many Instructors don't teach beyond. Some don't even do that and certify anyway.

You say we can't teach altitude. I teach in Colorado--of course we talk about altitude. We give students a detailed handout to read before we do the dives, and we take care of it every time we plan and log a dive. All the instructors in our shop do this--not just me.

No. What I said is that PADI told me not to teach/examine Altitude Tables and make passing this exam a requirement for certification. Moreover, you may be able to teach many things, but as I understand PADI's position, you can't examine on the additional material (over and above Standards) and make this a condition of certification unless you have obtained a Waiver from PADI.

You say we are only allowed to teach for tropical conditions. Why is dry suit instruction required for classes that will use them? How are people certified by PADI instructors in Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc.? Are you under the impression that they somehow import tropical conditions to their locations?

No I didn't say that. What I said is that the PADI and NAUI Standards do not prepare a Diver to dive safely in all conditions. Standards are International. PADI realizes this; why else would they even have a Waiver? Some changes to the program are reasonable for some conditions and PADI would appear to recognize this. NAUI requires the Instructor to act in the best interests of the Student. The Instructor is encouraged to make any additions that s/he feel are reasonable without NAUI being consulted (over and above minimums, withstanding what NetDoc and I have discussed)..

...The article we wrote about an early focus on buoyancy (which you also claim we are not allowed to teach).

Again, I've never said that you were not allowed to teach a focus on buoyancy. John, this is preposterous! I've been focusing on buoyancy since the introduction of the buoyancy compensator (including when I was a PADI Instructor).

We get tired of responding to your allegations ....

What I get tired of is people misquoting me. Show me where I've said that you can't focus on buoyancy and can only teach in tropical conditions. Your deluded. You've stated several things that I have allegedly said (that I haven't) in one post! Don't you think you should get your story straight before you start critisizing people for saying something that they didn't say?

---------- Post added May 8th, 2013 at 01:43 PM ----------

I might have to add this to my sig line.

I have never said that you are always wrong.

Which proves my point: the instructor makes the real difference.

I would agree, this doesn't mean that the philosophy of the Agency and the Dive Shop isn't an important factor as well (as has been mentioned by others).

They also have an ethical obligation as do instructor trainers, course directors and evaluators. That being said, no two instructors are alike. Some are better. Some are far better and yes, a few are simply horrid. The diver to be should choose their instructor, for whatever agency, very carefully.

Agreed.

 

[Peter Guy]

Wayne -- just for the record -- in all of my prior responses to your "A PADI instructor can't change requirements" comments the underlying assumption was that I, as a PADI Instructor, can't change the requirements as I, as NAUI Instructor, could. It wasn't until you rephrased your question that I stepped back and remembered that little nugget from my IDC/OWSI Program.

As I quoted you writing, you asked two related, but different questions. The answer to the first question is still No. BUT, as discussed, there IS a way for a PADI Instructor to request a change. Now how that is done, I'm guessing I may well find out in the next little while.

 

[The Chairman]

It seems we agree more than we disagree and on a number of important points.

I have never said that you are always wrong.



I would agree, this doesn't mean that the philosophy of the Agency and the Dive Shop isn't an important factor as well (as has been mentioned by others).



Agreed.

 

[Quero]

Why I ask is that I've been told several times by a number of PADI Instructors that the Instructor cannot change anything "as a requirement for certification."

Can a PADI Instructor now change the requirements for certification? Can these be modified in anyway as a condition of certification?
How have things changed specifically??? (Please quote PADI Standards).

Moreover, you may be able to teach many things, but as I understand PADI's position, you can't examine on the additional material (over and above Standards) and make this a condition of certification unless you have obtained a Waiver from PADI.

Wayne, you are trying very hard to make this a black-and-white issue when the truth of the matter, as so many of us have tried to explain, is that PADI Standards have lots of grey in them--flexibility for instructors to adapt their courses, according to the individual instructor's interpretation, to the specific demands that students will inevitably face while diving in the training locale, without the need to apply for a waiver. In my post earlier in the thread I pointed out that PADI standards for instruction encompass both general standards and procedures as well as the specific performance requirements for each course. The performance requirements represent the minimum student achievement necessary in order to become certified. To take your swimming objection as an example, PADI instructors can neither increase nor decrease the distance that a student must swim, so no, a PADI instructor cannot make the swim test more rigorous to the distance you require, Wayne, but neither can they make it less rigorous to meet the current NAUI minimum standard of 15 swim strokes. Nevertheless, the general standards state, and I quote (emphasis mine):

Watermanship
The overall objective of the 10 minute swim/float and continuous swim is for you, the instructor, to see that student divers have reasonable swimming ability.
....
Advise people who appear weak and uncomfortable in the water to improve through lessons or practice before engaging in dive training.

In other words, standards, yes, published standards, require a PADI instructor to make an assessment of the strength and comfort level of the student, and even if the student is able to complete the distance required, if that student is, in the judgment of the instructor "weak" or "uncomfortable" or does not demonstrate "reasonable" swimming ability, then the instructor can withhold certification. There is so much within PADI standards that is open to instructor interpretation that an insistence on any up-or-down, black-or-white, yes-or-no sort of dichotomy is really a very, very red herring.

Over and over and over in the PADI Instructor Manual (standards document) and Guide to Teaching (suggestions for conducting courses), instructors are told to use good judgment when they decide how to manage their classes. The following is taken from the General Standards and Procedures section of the IM, for example:

Keep in mind that reasons for conducting open water training dives include familiarizing students with local dive sites that they may return to after certification and guiding students through evaluating site conditions.

There is absolutely no way to do this without teaching "beyond" the specific minimum performance requirements listed for each course when conditions require.

As a result, there is no way a PADI instructor will be able to certify a student diving at altitude without teaching and assessing students' understanding of altitude tables, even though this is not listed as a performance requirements per se; there is no way a PADI instructor will be able to certify a student diving in surf without teaching and assessing surf entry techniques, even though this is not listed as a performance requirements per se; there is no way a PADI instructor will be able to certify a student diving in an area of significant tidal influence without teaching and assessing students' ability to interpret a tide table, even though this is not listed as a performance requirement per se.

It's important not to oversimplify what PADI instructors and NAUI instructors can (or cannot) do by attempting to distill assessment issues down to the question of which instructors can withhold certification (fail students) based on additional written examinations. While it's true that PADI instructors cannot alter the published tests, written examinations are only one small bit of assessment in the PADI system. PADI instructors assess in other ways much more than they administer written examinations. The PADI system embraces a very forward-looking instructional approach which does not rely on high-stakes written examinations (in which the candidate passes or fails/is certified or not depending on the result); in fact, this sort of exam-based system is quite discredited when assessing real-world endeavors like scuba diving. PADI's written tests are formative assessments, in other words they are essentially diagnostic (assessments for learning)--highlighting areas where more instruction is called for and provided until such time as the learning objective is attained, rather than summative assessments (assessements of learning). For summative evaluation, PADI's approach is based on criterion-referenced performance assessments.

I could go on and on, but I think this should suffice to debunk the black-and-white claim that PADI constrains its instructors so that they can never be anything more than "recipe-followers" while NAUI instructors are encouraged by their agency to become true "chefs."

 

[DCBC]

Wayne -- just for the record -- in all of my prior responses to your "A PADI instructor can't change requirements" comments the underlying assumption was that I, as a PADI Instructor, can't change the requirements as I, as NAUI Instructor, could. It wasn't until you rephrased your question that I stepped back and remembered that little nugget from my IDC/OWSI Program.

As I quoted you writing, you asked two related, but different questions. The answer to the first question is still No. BUT, as discussed, there IS a way for a PADI Instructor to request a change. Now how that is done, I'm guessing I may well find out in the next little while.

Thanks Peter. In summary:
1. PADI - A PADI Instructor cannot modify PADI Standards unless they receive a Waiver from PADI;
2. NAUI - A NAUI Instructor must teach to "Minimum Standards," but can modify the training program as s/he deems reasonable without the authorization of NAUI (as long as the 'enhancements don't violate NAUI policy).

This is somewhat confusing. Is a PADI Instructor not modifying the PADI program if he teaches anything that's not specified within PADI Standards? For example, if you teach gas consumption/projection and this isn't specified within the PADI program, are you following the Standards? Moreover if you taught sub-surface rescue in OW, how is this different? It seems to me that you either can add 'enhancements' to the program, or you can't. Why is one considered different from another?

 

[Peter Guy]

Wayne -- Quero said it VERY well and I would hope would put this bogeyman down. Perhaps the following will give you some guidance:

An instructor teaches a diver course assisted by the materials in the PADI System. The act of teaching consists of a) showing how to perform skills/conveying knowledge and b) assessing mastery of those skills and knowledge by having the student apply/demonstrate them.
Elaboration/Application -- Because the student must apply adn demonstrate his diving skills, not only can PADI courses vary depending upon the student and the environment, but they must!...
Successful teaching requires accommodating for such differences; that's not deviating from PADI Standards. That's instructor elaboration and application to specific circumstances. This is what fills the void between the established base knowledge provided by the PADI System and the individual needs of each student.
Sometimes it's not easy to differentiate between elaboration/application and "exceeding" standards. A good rule of thumb is that elaboration/application helps the student more readily apply knowledge or a skill already in the course through further knowledge or techniques specific to him or his environment. "Exceeding" standards, on the other hand, tends to alter the objective by adding unrelated knowledge or skills for which the student has no immediate application, and tends to make the course unnecessarily difficult.
[The author goes on to give examples including:]
Elaboration: In Module Four, going into more detail about the need for altitude procedures with the RDP when teaching a class in a high-altitude community.
...
Arbitrary course additions "just to exceed standards" can be very detrimental and should be avoided. Adding games and skill circuits that repeat existing skills, on the other hand, is encouraged.
Expanding upon academic material to meet local conditions, personal needs or accomodate changes in equipment and technique, is encouraged.
Hopefully, this editorial helps clear up confusion over what "exceeding" standards is and what it isn't. PADI gives instructors a skeleton -- the course outline and materials. It's up to the instructor to supply the muscle and skin -- elaborate and apply -- to make a whole course.
[This is from the article: Is the PADI System Flexible?, by Drew Richardson, The Undersea Journal, Second Quarter, 1993, reprinted in the book, Best of the Undersea Journal, a text required for study for the PADI I.E.]

So, to answer a couple of your specific questions -- IF I actually taught my OW students my full Gas Management class, no, I don't believe I would be violating PADI standards. In fact, there is a Gas Management question (I believe is it question #8, but I don't have an exam book handy) on the PADI OW Final Exam. As an instructor, I am required to make sure the student understands the question. In addition, as I've mentioned before, since sub-surface rescue is, in fact, "taught" in the PADI OW curriculum (it is in the PADI OW video but just not in the specific skill set required in the confined water sessions), I am quite confident that I would NOT be violating PADI standards by having my students successfully demonstrate what they are being shown on the PADI OW Video. As Quero pointed out, I would not be able to "fail" them for not getting the skill correct, but, OTOH, I would be well within the scope of training to work with them until they got it right.

Now, having written that, I don't know what would happen if I happened to have a student who decided he just wasn't going to do this and wrote to PADI HQ demanding that I stop this foolishness. My guess is that I would get a phone call/email questioning this. BUT, IF I were to do such a stupid thing as add sub-surface rescue to my class (and I truly believe it is a ridiculous "skill" to "learn" in an OW class (let alone a "rescue" class) but we all have our differences, don't we?) I'm quite sure I could structure the rest of the class to make sure that the student could not show "mastery" of the required/mandatory skills. BUT, if he did, I'd be happy to certify him!

Wayne, Thal once wrote that I was a "sea lawyer" for bringing up the difference between "elaboration" and "exceeding" standards. I thought he was wrong then and still think he was wrong. I don't know where the line between "elaboration" and "exceeding" might, in fact, be -- and neither (I submit) does anyone else. We, as PADI Instructors are encouraged to "elaborate" and make sure our students understand. And, in reality, isn't that what teaching is all about?

 

[DCBC]

There is absolutely no way to do this without teaching "beyond" the specific minimum performance requirements listed for each course when conditions require.

Thank you for your explanation. I agree.

Twenty-five years ago, I received a call from PADI HQ advising me to stop teaching past the Standards (underwater rescue, altitude tables, gas consumption, etc.) I was shocked. How can you teach diving in the mountains (BC) without teaching altitude tables? I had been teaching PADI courses in the same way for 13 years at that time. I held the opinion that these inclusions were necessary to produce a safe diver; PADI disagreed. Their focus was on how this affected my Advanced OW and Rescue programs. They asked 'How can you get the students back for other training ($) if you include all this in the OW program?" My response was "There are other skill-sets that I teach in these programs" and "What if they don't come back!?" You have a bunch of partially trained divers diving 'unsupervised.' Clearly I had been flying under the radar for several years.

Perhaps it's because of this why I've asked for specific reference to the Standards. If I spoke to another PADI Instructor back then, I would say that there is nothing the matter with including any of these skill-sets into the PADI program. Similarly, John and others have been saying the same thing to me. PADI clearly showed me that such comments would have been incorrect for me at that time. A PADI Instructor however experienced cannot say what PADI's actual position is. PADI HQ clearly didn't condone such practice at that time. Without seeing what the actual wording was, how could I think otherwise?

I'm aware that that was then and this is now. As times change, organizations often change with them. Peter and you have outlined these changes.

To be equally clear, I've never defended NAUI's current 'Minimum Standards.' I think that for many diving environments, they are grossly insufficient. PADI Standards have not been the only ones that I've felt are left wanting. One of NAUI's few benefits has been that they have always encouraged their Instructors to enhance the 'Minimum Standards' in the best interests of the Student.

Recently, NAUI made revisions to their 'Minimum Standards.' Primarily these were focused on the leadership categories. When discussing these changes with NAUI Instructors, the consensus has been that they can lower the Standards as much as they like; it won't change anything in how I run my program. From speaking with PADI Instructors on this forum, there has been much discussion on PADI Standards. When speaking with a number of other NAUI Instructors over the years, I've never heard one to speak of 'Standards violation,' or even be concerned with what NAUI HQ would think. This seems to be forefront in the mind of many PADI Instructors.

I've been a SCUBA Instructor for 70% of my life. The philosophy of diving instruction has changed greatly over the years. Standards have dropped and this trend has been embraced by dive operators and Shops. Although the technology has changed (adding safety), the underwater world presents the same hazards as it did when I first became certified 48 years ago. People's physiology hasn't changed and I think generally that today's diver isn't as physically fit or prepared to undertake the challenge as much as they once were. This has caused some Governments to introduce legislation and actually regulate diver certification in some locations. This has been done because today's training Standards have been deemed insufficient for the environment. The trend continues...

Many here want the industry to continue to grow and be healthy. As the Agencies currently define what it is to be a 'certified diver,' I believe that they should set higher standards than they do. Withstanding 'current Standards,' it would be worthwhile for the Agencies to re-evaluate the 'unsupervised' aspect of today's newly certified diver. I really don't think that Students today feel as competent as they once did.

---------- Post added May 9th, 2013 at 05:39 AM ----------

BUT, IF I were to do such a stupid thing as add sub-surface rescue to my class (and I truly believe it is a ridiculous "skill" to "learn" in an OW class (let alone a "rescue" class) but we all have our differences, don't we?)

Yes. If you think that it's a "stupid thing" for a Buddy to be able to look after a confused or unconscious diver (which he'is there to protect) we definitely have a difference of opinion. It seems to me that teaching the Buddy system as necessary and not training the Buddy accordingly isn't the wisest thing to do.

Wayne, Thal once wrote that I was a "sea lawyer" for bringing up the difference between "elaboration" and "exceeding" standards. I thought he was wrong then and still think he was wrong. I don't know where the line between "elaboration" and "exceeding" might, in fact, be -- and neither (I submit) does anyone else. We, as PADI Instructors are encouraged to "elaborate" and make sure our students understand. And, in reality, isn't that what teaching is all about?

Well said Peter. Another question that pertains to "elaboration/exceeding": How do you think you would run your course differently, if you were teaching through NAUI and not PADI? In other words, if you could exceed/modify/require anything (within reason) how would your course change? Would this affect student diving competence and/or confidence? I'm interested as you mentioned that you would like to modify OW Dive 2.

 

[Quero]

Wayne, I've been thinking that it may even be possible that your particular case 25 years ago sparked enough discussion and reflection on the part of the PADI HQ staff that it initiated an attitudinal shift, resulting in positions like the one that Drew Richardson laid out in 1993 in his Undersea Journal piece, as quoted by Peter Guy. After all, that was 20 years ago, and your case was, at that time, fairly recent. However, that's just thinking aloud on my part--I have no way of knowing how or why the attitudes shifted, but I do know that the current position is nowhere near as stark as you seem to think it is based on your personal experience so long past. I also know that policies are constantly being tweaked in any healthy organization. Leaders change, internal and external events influence thinking, and course corrections (in the sense of directionality) are made as a result. I only hope that by quoting current PADI documentation I have helped you discern more accurately the power each individual PADI instructor may exercise in shaping the course s/he is teaching.

As to your statement that NAUI instructors worry about standards violations to a lesser extent than do PADI instructors, I will have to take your word that this is the case (I had never noticed), but if it is, I would presume that it's not because violating standards is so rare amongst NAUI instructors (in my own NAUI training I am 100% certain that my instructor violated standards), but rather because sanctions are so rarely applied within NAUI, as you suggest when you say, "When speaking with a number of other NAUI Instructors over the years, I've never heard one to speak of 'Standards violation,' or even be concerned with what NAUI HQ would think." Right now there's a sad thread here on SB begun by a prospective diver who tells the story of being shamelessly ripped off financially and placed in harm's way physically to the point of injury by a California-based NAUI instructor, and according to her, when she spoke with NAUI HQ about her experience she was simply told that this instructor is reputed to be especially "rough." In other words, this instructor is known to NAUI from prior incidents, and yet because NAUI is so hands-off, he appears to have continued to operate unhindered by QA concerns for many years. To be fair, we only know one side of this story, and the student may not be divulging details which would make us view the case differently, but if what she says is an accurate portrayal of her instructor's actions and of NAUI's inaction thus far, as well as the results of her inquiries outside NAUI, it appears that the student may very well be without recourse from the agency. The point of this is not to cast stones at NAUI or at the instructor in question, but it does make me wonder whether it's really such a bad thing for instructors to continually reflect on their practices and to consider how they fit in with standards, as you believe PADI instructors do, even if this reflection is stimulated in part by a concern they might get themselves into a QM situation.

 

[DCBC]

...I have no way of knowing how or why the attitudes shifted, but I do know that the current position is nowhere near as stark as you seem to think it is based on your personal experience so long past. I also know that policies are constantly being tweaked in any healthy organization. Leaders change, internal and external events influence thinking, and course corrections (in the sense of directionality) are made as a result. I only hope that by quoting current PADI documentation I have helped you discern more accurately the power each individual PADI instructor may exercise in shaping the course s/he is teaching.

As I mentioned, I wanted someone to show me "the facts" (which Peter and you have done). An Instructor's perception can be different than fact. A certification organization may project different aspects of its business plan; depending on whom it's discussing it with. My understanding of PADI as a company, was modified when I became an owner of a PADI registered Dive Shop. As a PADI Instructor, I had no clear idea of what they were intending to accomplish and why. So because someone expresses something, it usually doesn't automatically cause me to reject my experience (especially if it is been substantiated over a long period of time).

Perspectives like opinions can change. It does however take time to change an organization's reputation. This can haunt an Instructor or an Agency long after a change has been put in-place. People don't usually disregard personal experience quickly. Peter and you have gone a long way to changing mine...

I still have some concerns, but this is with the diver certification business in-general involving today's Standards. This struck home a few years back when I accepted a position to develop CMAS Canada's training Standards.

...The point of this is not to cast stones at NAUI or at the instructor in question, but it does make me wonder whether it's really such a bad thing for instructors to continually reflect on their practices and to consider how they fit in with standards, as you believe PADI instructors do, even if this reflection is stimulated in part by a concern they might get themselves into a QM situation.

Many of the NAUI Instructors I've known have seem focused on the quality of the education they provide their students. Although I'm sure NAUI (like every Agency) has bad Instructors, I've never had the unfortunate experience of meeting one.

As discussed, the difference I experienced with PADI surrounded the "business of diving certification." It wasn't that what I was teaching at that time was unsafe or inappropriate, rather that PADI couldn't profit from another certification being issued. I've had many such 'profit related' discussions with PADI inside and outside PADI dive facility meetings. This was never a factor with NAUI, even though I also operated a NAUI Training Facility. Historically, the PADI's sales pitch to the Shops has been directed to maximizing sales and profit through a quick and easy training approach. The PADI OW manual was written at the Grade 8 level; keep it simple, roll them through. This is an excellent business approach. Why wouldn't this be appealing for any diving business? For some of us however (yes, even Dive Shop owners) it's more about making sure that they are confident in the capabilities of those they certify. For me, this has always required something beyond the minimum standards. It is however refreshing to know that if I was a PADI Instructor, I could request a Waiver from PADI to modify the program. It would also appear that they allow more 'enhancement' than they once seemed to accept.

The fact that I received a call from PADI HQ wasn't entirely without merit. They were keenly aware of what my program entailed; which says quite a bit about their QA. PADI disagreed with my personal philosophy of what was required for diver training; so we parted ways. NetDoc has mentioned that a similar thing occurred between him and NAUI. I strongly support all Instructors to be certified with multiple agencies. PADI gave me a perspective which enhanced my understanding of the diving industry. The same is true of all agencies in-which I've been affiliated. Some Instructors stay with only one Agency (which is fine). But regardless of which Agency that is, their perspective is restricted for that reason.

 

[The Chairman]

1. PADI - A PADI Instructor cannot modify PADI Standards unless they receive a Waiver from PADI;

I think it's important to reiterate the caveat that follows all training, including PADI and NAUI. Divers are certified to dive in conditions similar to those they trained in. In other words, teaching how to deal with tides, altitudes, currents, reefs, kelp and even the creature from the Black Lagoon all fall within the scope of being certified when those conditions exist. Every environment has it's own set of hazards and obstacles to cope with and it's important for you, the diver, to research those before you splash. This is why we've had a few deaths of divers who were trained in cold waters here in the tropics. One went from diving an aluminum tank with lots of exposure protection to diving a steel in only her swim suit. Despite the warnings that she was severely over weighted, she still added too much and actually drowned on Molasses Reef which is probably one of the easiest reefs to dive on. Additional training would have made no impact here as she showed that she was not going to listen anyway.

It's important for every new diver to realize that your cert card is merely a learner's permit. Thinking and acting like you know it all is a sure fire way to get yourself into a situation that might lead to injury or even death. There are many different paths you can take to get certified as well as to continue your diving education. It's important that you and your instructor to be are mutually simpatico when it comes to your learning style. This is an area where spending more to get private instruction can make the difference between a nightmare and a dream fulfilled. It's just as important that you approach instruction with a proper state of mind. You'll find that some patience, some perseverance and a good does of humor will allow you to learn and excel in this wonderful sport.