How do you feel about PADI bashing on this thread??

[tech108diver]

I find that PADI has this " dive it our way our you are wrong" attiude and remind me of a bunch of yppi BMW owners sipping Lattes in front of starbucks. I'm a 24 year old male athlete and those tables are and there rules are ultra watered down. I may be off the main topic a bit here. But I belive that PADI is great for 95% of divers. But for people like me, they come of as just over the top when it comes to diver safety. Not to say that you can't be TO safe. but when many other cert companys will gladly let you hit 130ft after certification and PADI stops you at 60ft. The only reason I can see PADI doing that is a attempt at more money by allowing you to be "advanced" and go to 130

 

[HowardE]

I find that PADI has this " dive it our way our you are wrong" attiude and remind me of a bunch of yppi BMW owners sipping Lattes in front of starbucks.

I thought that was GUE.

 

[Diver Dennis]

There are no scuba police, you can dive to 300' if you like. A lot of talk on this board is about PADI not being safe enough but you think they are too safe?

 

[letterboy]

I find that PADI has this " dive it our way our you are wrong" attiude and remind me of a bunch of yppi BMW owners sipping Lattes in front of starbucks.

Whats wrong with my life style?

 

[drew52]

The entertaining part is that most of the people complaining about PADI are members of agencies with standards very similar to those of PADI's. Some have a few minor differences here and there. Mostly they are so similar they would hardly be the difference between great training or not.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I find that PADI has this " dive it our way our you are wrong" attiude and remind me of a bunch of yppi BMW owners sipping Lattes in front of starbucks. I'm a 24 year old male athlete and those tables are and there rules are ultra watered down. I may be off the main topic a bit here. But I belive that PADI is great for 95% of divers. But for people like me, they come of as just over the top when it comes to diver safety. Not to say that you can't be TO safe. but when many other cert companys will gladly let you hit 130ft after certification and PADI stops you at 60ft. The only reason I can see PADI doing that is a attempt at more money by allowing you to be "advanced" and go to 130

It was a question on a knowledge review...maybe you missed that one but PADI recommends that new divers limit their diving to 60 ft or so until they get more training and/or experience. The recommendation is similar to what other agencies recommend and it isn't a hard limit put on the certification. At the skill level they turn you lose, you rpobably shouldn't be going to 40 ft. LOL

If you compare the DSAT tables to other tables, you'll see they aren't really more conservative.

 

[MikeFerrara]

The entertaining part is that most of the people complaining about PADI are members of agencies with standards very similar to those of PADI's. Some have a few minor differences here and there. Mostly they are so similar they would hardly be the difference between great training or not.

There are some significant differences between the standards of different agencies thoug PADI has set the pace for the thinning of the traiing standards.

 

[Thalassamania]

The entertaining part is that most of the people complaining about PADI are members of agencies with standards very similar to those of PADI's. Some have a few minor differences here and there. Mostly they are so similar they would hardly be the difference between great training or not.

There are some significant differences between the standards of different agencies thoug PADI has set the pace for the thinning of the training standards.

Not just that, membership in (read that as "purchasing from") an agency is not the same thing as agreeing with it's standards, especially in the case of an agency that does not attempt to put a top on you course.

I know of many instructors who teach great courses and far exceed standards in scope and content. They write agency cards with agencies that openly permit this practice. This should in no way be seen as those instructors agreeing with the possibly crappy standards of the agency that they spend a few dollars with. It is strictly a marriage of convienience.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Not just that, membership in (read that as "purchasing from") an agency is not the same thing as agreeing with it's standards, especially in the case of an agency that does not attempt to put a top on you course.

I know of many instructors who teach great courses and far exceed standards in scope and content. They write agency cards with agencies that openly permit this practice. This should in no way be seen as those instructors agreeing with the possibly crappy standards of the agency that they spend a few dollars with. It is strictly a marriage of convienience.

I think it's more than a marriage of convenience but the choices are limited for the instructor who really wants to teach.

 

[Thalassamania]

All marriages that last have some aspect of convenience to them.

I guess what I’m saying is these instructors do not tend to use agency published outlines, crib sheets, textbooks, videos, tables or any other such bumph. They tend to use the other texts such as the U.S. Navy or NOAA Manuals. They make sure to fulfill all standards requirements but only purchase the certification (sans diploma, patch and sticker when possible).