3 day Scuba Certification: Hawaii

[aquaregia]

I'm not at all against DSD or even PADI's Tourist Diver card (or whatever it's called). They give people a taste of it under close supervision the same way I got my taste of skydiving strapped to a another dude. My problem is giving people the idea that they're capable of diving independently when they are not.

Additionally, just because I feel like I might want to fly a rocket to the moon once or twice a year when on vacation doesn't mean I should be able to do it. And yes, I recognize that's a faulty argument, but I hope it expresses my sentiments. Replace that with "ride a motorcycle" (something else I'm technically certified to do but oughtn't do on public roads).

 

[mheaster]

My Opinion - Since that is what we are all seemingly expressing here . . . .

In 1989 I participated in a Resort Course/Discover Scuba equivalent in St. Thomas. The following Spring (remembering little more than the joy of diving) I came back and took a 3 Day PADI OW Certification. (Yes, even back in 1990!)

What this did was ignite a passion for diving. I felt very comfortable in the water, purchased my own equipment shortly thereafter and I dove regularly for next 14 years or so although I only made an average of 10-12 Dives a year.

I became much more active in 2004 and progressed upwards and became a PADI Instructor in 2008.

I even look back now to my own certification and admit I got a rushed course BUT I did get certified and I continued to dive! I did not kill myself or a buddy. I participated on Cattle Boats, much to my own enjoyment and probably to the amusement or torment of others. I learned more, and got better! I learned to be a competent boat and wreck diver.

I obtained my initial certification, became "hooked" and dove relatively safely while I gained experience and pursued follow-on training within the PADI training pipeline (with other agencies sprinkled in as well). And I DOVE. With Classes and for my own enjoyment.

I love diving (for 21+ years) and now enjoy training new Divers. I have taught longer courses but have also trained divers in a 3 day format similar to what is describe here.

I have successful, safe divers from both type of courses, that are continuing to dive and to gain experience that I would not hesitate to dive with.

All things being equal, would a longer course be my preference? Of Course! Will I teach another 3 day course in future? Probably, if that is what will work best for my customer/student. I am one of those cursed Independent Instructors who does this primarily to offset my own diving expenses. If I was looking to put food on the table, I would likely (unfortunately) lean towards a shorter course.

My own initial 3 Day Wonder certification was successful in my mind looking back on it. I learned more and became more skilled over time, with more experience and continuing education. I do not believe one must learn or be taught EVERYTHING in an entry-level Recreational certification!

I think some people should attend a Commercial Diver Academy in order to obtain the initial training they are expecting one should receive for OWD.

 

[aquaregia]

Diving without incident is not the same as diving safely.

Let me put it this way: Do you believe that, a year after instruction, all of your 3-day graduates could pass your final exam and complete skill reviews? If so, then I'd probably be forced to admit that your 3-day class is indeed effective and that I shouldn't render judgement based purely on the length of the class. If you don't think they could pass the exam, or that they'd need prompting on the skill reviews, yet you still think that they're safe enough divers, then there's either a problem with your agency's standards or my expectations.

As a side note, please don't think I'm attacking you, your class, your dive shop or even your agency. I've had good friends take and supply short courses, and at the end of the day, I like to think that we all do our best.

 

[aquaregia]

My own initial 3 Day Wonder certification was successful in my mind looking back on it. I learned more and became more skilled over time, with more experience and continuing education. I do not believe one must learn or be taught EVERYTHING in an entry-level Recreational certification!

I think some people should attend a Commercial Diver Academy in order to obtain the initial training they are expecting one should receive for OWD.

Sorry, I somehow missed this part in your original post.

My objection to the 3-day course isn't how much material is covered. A 3-day course and a ten-week course taught to the same standard should cover the same material, but the ten-week course is likely to have a much higher rate of retention of information. I dislike the idea of "teaching" someone something that they won't be able to recall a week later. If it doesn't matter if they know Boyle's law a week after the class, it probably didn't matter that they knew it during the class, and you probably don't need to waste time on it. Then you could spend that time moving slower through more critical material so they could have a better understanding of that. Of course, economics would then dictate a 4-hour SCUBA class, etc

 

[g1138]

The purpose of this thread was not to bash 3 day courses.
I'm willing to bet my BC and tanks that the majority of potential divers out there, with no scuba experience at all would take a 3 day course over a 6 week course.
Why? Because it is convenient!

I think it's safe to say that scuba can be taught in 3 days and that nearly anyone can pass with a Basic OW in 3 days.
However what I'm asking is if there's any retention of the skills or knowledge they learn after the 3 day course.

In my honest opinion I don't think so.
I think instructors should be a little more vigilant in treating this as more than a recreational sport. This is a sport where you have free movement of 360 degrees. Most people's situational awareness are not programed for that type of movement naturally.

Add to the fact that you're in an environment where equipment failure or user error can leave you deprived of oxygen, and you got a really dangerous sport.
Scuba is safe only based on the diver using it.

I think instructors should not only teach students but highly encourage studying and practice of basic skills after being certified.
ESPECIALLY after a 3 day course.

I'll admit that I'll take a school course, pass the class and then forget half the material a day later. But this is different, my life can depend on how I react and what I know when I'm on scuba. So I think staying proficient in basic skills is a must. This includes knowing dive tables if you're doing multiple dives a day, knowing how to ballpark your conservative bottom time if doing deep dives
etc etc.

What I think a problem with short classes, and in general any certification class is that the newly certified divers aren't being told the truth about how dangerous this can be.
The result is divers who forget basic skills, and slack in maintaining their proficiency and knowledge.
Given the right conditions and circumstances, that is how accidents can happen.


Just my own opinion and all.

So really the question I'm asking is if you think there's any short comings of a 3-day class, and how can they be addressed?

 

[scubamarketing]

Let me put it this way: Do you believe that, a year after instruction, all of your 3-day graduates could pass your final exam and complete skill reviews?

I've had divemaster candidates who took 8 weeks of open water, 4 weeks of advanced, 4 of rescue plus a variety of specialties who couldn't pass the final exam and complete skill review at a mastery level. I'm sorry, this proves nothing.

Like other have said, YES I prefer a longer course, but I'm going to do what is best for my student. If I believe I can train them to be a safe diver in 3 days and that's what their schedule demands, I'll do it. If they have more time, I'll fill it. If I don't think they'll be safe, I won't issue the certification.

I also disliked prescriptive teaching then eLearning when it first came out, but have seen so many success stories that it would be stupid for me not to embrace them.

 

[mheaster]

Drafted as a response to aquaregia but now just meant as a general ramble on this topic:

Without coming across as sounding defensive, I will attempt to respond to a couple of your observations.

I no more expect EVERY one of my 3 day course students to be able to come back after a year and pass the final exam/complete skill reviews than I would expect EVERY one of anyone else's to be able to do so.

As far as diving without incident not being the same as diving safely. I understand your statement but what is a safe diver? One who dives without incident?

Who is entitled to determine who is safe and who is not? Who gets to decide who has been certified to the appropriate level? Would that not be a judgment made by the contracting student, their Instructor and the Certifying Agency?

A percentage of 3 week, 4 week, 6 week, 10 week class students will also loose their skills if they haven't used them in a year or so, or are not motivated to continue diving.

I don't think that a 10 week model can ever be a successful or realistic expectation. I understand that "some" people take a course spread over that period of time (or longer) as part of a college/university curriculum. It would be a great way to thoroughly cover the academics, confined water skills and working up to the conclusion of the Open Water Check Out Dives.

There is no way that this format would work for every potential student.

I believe there are a great number of people who would greatly enjoy this tremendous sport (at various levels) and believe strongly in the philosophy that new divers can begin their diving experiences with an entry level certification and can progress through additional training and by diving and gaining dive experience.

I believe some people will go through certification for a multitude of reasons and motivations. Some will dive only a few times and then drop out for an equal number of reasons. Some will con tinue only as Vacation Divers and will require supervision/remedial training during their Vacation Dives. Some will dive and never take any follow-on training and will be very satisfied in that.

And as they say "It's ALL Good!"

 

[aquaregia]

I've had divemaster candidates who took 8 weeks of open water, 4 weeks of advanced, 4 of rescue plus a variety of specialties who couldn't pass the final exam and complete skill review at a mastery level. I'm sorry, this proves nothing.

Actually, I think this reinforces your opinion that longer courses aren't any better than 3-day courses (unless I mis-understand 'mastery level'). If this is common, not anomalous, then I see no reason for people not to take 3-day courses. If you aren't going to retain the information anyway, you should not-retain it as quickly as possible and get it over with.

I am of the personal opinion that information that is taught ought to be retained, but at some point I can't argue with reality.

 

[dmcutter]

A three day course is pretty analogous to the courses most people are required to complete to get a concealed carry permit. Does that make them skilled gun handlers, qualified shooters? Heck no, it makes them legally qualified to carry a handgun. Are they more of a danger to society and themselves than a basic open water diver? Yup.

Same with motorcycles. When I bought my first sport bike in 1983, I had ridden an enduro twice, but I could legally walk into the Kawasaki dealer, lay down my cash, and ride home on my GPz550 and practice until I could pass the rudimentary skills course at DMV. A danger to myself and others? You bet. And since there isn't a tiered licensing system, any kid with the money and his license can walk into a dealer and buy the hottest 1000 cc missile available.

The examples are nearly endless. It's incumbent upon folk who are serious about an activity to continue to pursue it and build their skills. Those who want to dive twice a year on vacation can't be forced into extended courses because it is in fact a recreational activity, they aren't doing it for a living and a 6 week course isn't "fun".

My NAUI OW course was 3 nights in the pool, a long night of classroom, self study for the exam, and 2 days at the quarry. Since I had problems with fundamentals, I spent another night in the pool with one other student and an instructor, and another day at the quarry with same. That made me feel qualified to go back to the quarry with other newly certified students from my class and spend lots more time doing fin pivots and dialing in my buoyancy control before I dove anywhere else.

Darwin decides who's proficient enough after the basic training to get good at it. People have to have the sense to know that they just know the basics. And like everyone else, just my opinion.

 

[scubamarketing]

Mastery for a divemaster is different than mastery for a new diver since a DM is expected to be able to demonstrate, observe and correct behavior. While I think it would be awesome for people to retail all of their skills a year later, I find it completely unrealistic. That's why people attending Instructor Exams don't pass. They've taken every course through divemaster, have a minimum of 100 dives yet still can't show skills and pass knowledge tests. It happens all the time.

To me, this is exactly why PADI promotes continuing education and says you need to take your dive log with you when you travel. Con ed = more supervised dives in a variety of conditions. Log book = person guiding certified diver knowing how experienced they really are.

If I ask you to remove/replace your mask and you do it yet freak out and almost bolt, I will not call that good enough. But if you don't do it instructor quality (as an open water student), but do it calmly and without issue, it is good enough. If I have any doubts, I'll have you do it again, typically not immediately but at some surprise point on the dive.

I'm too afraid of an accident and a QA claim to cut corners.