A different take on Master Scuba Diver

[boulderjohn]

This has been a very interesting read, especially with all of the comments over the past 24 hours.

What PADI is missing on the MSD card is the list of dive courses taken to achieve that card, which would provide further information about the diver, plus the MSD card would be probably the only card one would need to carry.

So I get an MSD card with 5 specialties. Do I have to get a new card every time I get a new specialty?

What if I get specialties from other agencies? (I have certification cards from 5 agencies.)

As I understand it, PADI originally modularised diver training, splitting previously months long courses (BSAC-style) into bite size chunks, in theory (I’m not trying to argue one is better than the other) making diving more accessible to more people?

I used to believe that myth myself. I was told that PADI divided the original OW class into OW and AOW. That is not true.

1. In the early 1960s. the few agencies that existed had two certification courses--diver and instructor.
2. Around 1965 (I may be a year or so off), the Los Angeles program responded to their observation that the overwhelming majority of divers quit diving soon after certification by creating a new class--advanced open water. The primary purpose was to introduce divers to a variety of dive experiences in the hope one or more of them would pique their interest and keep them diving.
3. For the same reason, NAUI added the AOW program. (NAUI was primarily created by a former leader of the Los Angeles program.)
4. As they were habitually on the edge of bankruptcy, NAUI decided to pull back on their national efforts and focus on California. Accordingly, they canceled a major instructor development program scheduled for Chicago.
5. The Chicago area NAUI group, left adrift, formed a new agency, named PADI. They continued to use the NAUI instructional program.
6. All agencies began to introduce specialty programs to teach specific aspects of diving not covered in the OW and AOW classes.
7. The Master Scuba Diver recognition was created around 1970 to recognize the people who had taken nearly all the specialty classes that existed at the time.

The big change that PADI introduced that made diving grow was NOT a change in the instructional program itself--it was a change in the marketing of scuba to a wider population. (NASDS--now SSI--had the same idea at about the same time.)

• The YMCA program varied from location to location, focusing on local dive clubs to attract students.
• NAUI, derived from the taxpayer supported LA program, had a non-profit mentality without the taxes needed to make that possible. In their earliest days they relied heavily upon donations (and even a large loan from Bill High) for survival. Then they hit upon the idea (under the leadership of a college professor) of focusing on college students taking scuba as a part of their physical education requirement. College tuition was a great source of income, but it vastly limited the potential student population.
• NASDS and PADI tried a different approach by scheduling classes through the retail stores selling scuba equipment. This opened scuba to a wide variety of potential students.

 

[Bladebreaker65]

Ok. But you don’t know they’re out there? Like all the MSDs who are reputed on SB to flash their cards and sew MSD badges on their jackets?

I have a jacket with patches. I have a MSD card. I will sew the patch on my jacket. I did not take the easy route. I passed on one instructor who was willing to sign off on courses with just the questions answered.

 

[tursiops]

Sidebar:
I've got an old fleece jacket from long ago that has two patches on it; one is to cover up where it says LL Bean, and the other is to give some Left-Right symmetry to the patches. The cover-up patch is a rectangular patch that says DIVEMASTER. The other patch is a round NACD patch (Remember them?)

The only comment I ever got on it was from someone who looked at it, frowned, and said, "I didn't know the NACD had Divemasters."

 

[TMHeimer]

When I was 18 (1972) on a family trip across the USA for the first time I got a Hell of a lot of patches and we covered that VW Camper with decals (NON Hippies....)
You can get all the patches you want. When I had all kinds of money 15 years ago I did all the courses and then some for PADI MSD. Someone in a campground saw me with my PADI MSD cap on and said "Are you really a Master Scuba Diver"? I say Yes, I am. Wow, I think I posted that like 10 years ago on the MSD thread......

 

[faze]

My wife undertook MSD as she enjoyed the learning and different courses. Her motivator was enjoying her diving and diving more.

As with many aspects of life, there is a difference between being certified and being qualified. As long as an individual is aware of which they are in any given situation, I’m completely relaxed about the badge they hold or the particular motif that adorns it.

 

[Leatherboot69]

Just finished my final specialty (Deep Diver!) Seven more dives left, going to dive the Zenobia next month in Cyprus to bring everything together. Also read the Encyclopedia of Recreational Diving from cover to cover to understand dive theory better and to decide whether to do the PADI Dive Theory course after a lot of the conversations on this thread about the value of dive theory, comparisons with NAUI MSD etc… But concluded that I don’t think I really need to know it at my level (ie not intending to go Tec, undecided about DM/OWSI, probably staying Rec)

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Hi
The speciality courses on their own haven’t made me an expert, or even competent, in the skills taught.

Not even competent?

There lies a big problem with the industry.

Does anyone else see an issue with that comment?

 

[Leatherboot69]

Not even competent?

There lies a big problem with the industry.

Does anyone else see an issue with that comment?

Well how can it? As someone with a moderate amount of experience in (non-diving) training design and delivery, I’d only really class myself as competent at a skill when I can comfortably apply it outside of the training environment. As written elsewhere, specialty courses teach and validate skills, but ‘competence’ in them only comes through experience and using them. Eg on my dry suit course my three training dives taught me how to use a dry suit, but it was my subsequent four dry suit recreational dives where I became ‘competent’ in a range of conditions. Similarly my wreck diving specialty course with four dives taught and validated a set of skills but it’ll only really be doing it for real next month on a limited penetration dive on Zenobia that I’ll become ‘competent’. I don’t have a problem with that. I think it’s sensible.

 

[BlueTrin]

Well how can it? As someone with a moderate amount of experience in (non-diving) training design and delivery, I’d only really class myself as competent at a skill when I can comfortably apply it outside of the training environment. As written elsewhere, specialty courses teach and validate skills, but ‘competence’ in them only comes through experience and using them. Eg on my dry suit course my three training dives taught me how to use a dry suit, but it was my subsequent four dry suit recreational dives where I became ‘competent’ in a range of conditions. Similarly my wreck diving specialty course with four dives taught and validated a set of skills but it’ll only really be doing it for real next month on a limited penetration dive on Zenobia that I’ll become ‘competent’. I don’t have a problem with that. I think it’s sensible.

I think you should meet a minimum of competency before being signed off for an activity.

In this case, are you just saying that you are not proficient, i.e. you are just aiming higher?

 

[TMHeimer]

Not even competent?

There lies a big problem with the industry.

Does anyone else see an issue with that comment?

I agree. Also gets me to one of my pet peeves. How competent one gets on scuba IMHO has a lot to do with one's "comfortability" in water to begin with. Scuba skills aren't rocket science. Accepting people into OW courses who have very little water experience or in some cases are even afraid of the water or at least going below the surface-- is a mistake.