A Cert Card for everything, including how to tie your shoe...

[boulderjohn]

Are you saying that PADI standards are totally sufficient for a diver to dive in any waters in the world because PADI says so? Afterall, if you have to follow these standards without change and there are PADI Facilities worldwide, isn't that what your saying? You don't feel a need to change the diving training program because of local conditions?

Amazing. Simply amazing.

No one has said anything remotely like this. We have been saying exactly the opposite.

I feel it should be mandatory in some areas (where applicable) to include altitude diving, tide tables and more on the diving environment (currents, dive site selection, gas consumption, etc.).

That is what every one of us has been saying, and that is what every one of us has said we do regularly.

Here is a comment for those of you who are participating in this discussion in stunned disbelief because everything you have said has been ignored or twisted in response. No one knows more than I how frustrating this has been. You may find this story helpful.

Back when my job was to teach innovative instructional methodologies in a large school district, I found myself doing a presentation in front of a group of about 60 teachers. The stuff I was showing them was then fairly new and controversial, although it is common now. Two guys, sitting side by side, started peppering me with challenging questions. I did my best to answer them with what I thought were intelligent responses. Undeterred, they continued the barrage, and as they did, I struggled to be patient and reasonable with them, even though I thought their questions grew more and more inane as they continued, and even though I thought I had answered the same questions pretty effectively several times without any sign that they had understood my answer.

I began to worry because no one else was talking. I thought I was losing my audience, and I needed to get on with my presentation before I ran out of time. I then said something along the lines of, "Well, it looks as if we are not going to settle this, and I have a number of other points to make, so please allow me to move on." The looks on the faces of the two were triumphant--they thought they had destroyed the presentation and defeated my purpose through their relentless attack.

At the end of the presentation, I gave out feedback forms. There were two very negative responses. (I wonder who?) The rest were 100% complimentary and extremely positive. The open comments made it clear that the rest of the audience also thought the barrage of questions were increasingly inane, and they understood my responses to them perfectly. Anyone who was on the fence had been swayed to my position by that exchange.

We may be seeing something similar here.

 

[DCBC]

Mike, perhaps some examples:

Instructor A requires his students to do one OW check-out dive. Despite this being against his agencies requirements (that calls for 5 dives), he certifies everyone. What is the perspective of his students? You only need one check-out dive to become certified...

Instructor B requires his students to be able to swim 1000 meters unassisted in confined water as a prerequisite for his scuba program. What is the perspective of his students? You need to be an excellent swimmer before becoming certified...

Both instructors haven't conformed to PADI requirements, but all divers are PADI certified. The perspective of what the students feel is required for certification is different. They are all mistaken.

This isn't about what you "had to do" to become certified; it's about what the Agency issuing the card requires you to do. These standards are formalized and published.

If a PADI instructor feels it's necessary to require you to complete 10 dives in a satisfactory manner for you to become certified and you complete half of them. If PADI becomes aware of it, you will be certified regardless of what the instructor says. The instructor cannot add anything to the certification requirements. If you do that with any other agency, they'll tell you that you need to fulfill the instructor's requirements, regardless of what the agency requires.

When I was a PADI instructor and felt it was necessary for my students to pass an examination on altitude tables. If they failed the exam PADI would say that altitude tables are not required for certification and I would have been instructed to certify the divers concerned. Those are the rules.

The PADI instructors I've known over the years are as concerned as any other instructor, from any other agency about student safety. They just don't have the authority to run their program with as much flexibility as other instructors from other agencies. They must teach what they are supposed to teach, in the order they are supposed to teach it. That's the PADI way. The instructor doesn't have the authority to add content, or require the student to be proficient in anything other than what's outlined within the standards for certification.

Where this frustrates me the most is when I see students with very limited watermanship abilities put into adverse water conditions. PADI instructors (no matter how much they might like to) cannot require more of the student. This bothers me in the same way as seeing a young child in the deep end of the pool with water-wings. You know if the aid fails, that person is in trouble.

I've seen this with my own eyes and have had to perform numerous rescues of "certified divers" that should have never been allowed out of the pool. These divers "met PADI standards" and became certified divers. The standards however, were just insufficient for the diving environment that they were trained in.

The fact is, there are only one set of standards for all diving conditions in the PADI manual. To me this seems ridiculous. Moreover, the agency has prohibited its instructors from requiring more than the minimum.

Some might say that that's not a problem. If the conditions aren't ideal, then they don't dive in those conditions. The problem is that these are the conditions that are local and is where the divers are being trained.

Does it make any sense to you to give an instructor in Newfoundland a warm water curriculum and tell him to make sure that his divers meet this standard? Moreover that he can't add anything to the program? It doesn't to me.

 

[Kingpatzer]

If a PADI instructor feels it's necessary to require you to complete 10 dives in a satisfactory manner for you to become certified and you complete half of them. If PADI becomes aware of it, you will be certified regardless of what the instructor says.

You're quite potentially off base here.

If the instructor is not certifying ANYONE without them doing 10 dives, then he's wrong.

If the instructor feels that a particular student needs more work to successfully master the required skills, then the instructor will have no issues requiring a student to repeat portions of the course.

We regularly require students having difficulties to have more confined water sessions than required by standards. We regularly have students repeat open water dives because they aren't completing the dives successfully and demonstrating mastery of required skills.

We've never had a QA inquiry result in any action against an instructor teaching with my LDS, though more than one student has complained about having to do more work than they were told standards required.

 

[DCBC]

That is what every one of us has been saying, and that is what every one of us has said we do regularly.

John it has nothing to do with what you do, it's what you are supposed to be doing. Perhaps you can specify what it exactly says in the PADI Standards in regards to Tide Tables. Something like: 'The instructor must ensure that the student possesses adequate knowledge of Tide Tables when the training program takes place within tidal waters.' Listing the section number of the standard would also be beneficial. Or is this just something that you have decided to include within your program without PADI's knowledge? If it's not in the Standards, it doesn't have to be taught. I'm looking at this from an agency perspective. If they do not require it to be taught; it wont be in all circumstances. In-fact, I was given flack from PADI for teaching it.

 

[DCBC]

King, what I said was that the student had already successfully completed 5 dives and the instructor required 5 more. There's obviously nothing the matter with requiring a student to get it right; that's not what I was eluding to.

 

[boulderjohn]

If the instructor feels that a particular student needs more work to successfully master the required skills, then the instructor will have no issues requiring a student to repeat portions of the course.

Our shop occasionally does short trips to Key Largo, and different instructors accompany those trips from time to time to deal with students who are dong their certifications on these trips. On one such trip, I did the OW dives for three students whom I had not had in the pool or classroom. They were to do their OW dives along with the other customers who had joined us on the trip for pleasure dives.

On the first dive, I saw that one of the students had significant buoyancy problems. I worked with him on it during the dives, but he was still having issues. On the second day, we completed OW dive #4 on the first dive of the day. At the end of the dive, we logged the dives as normal, and I told the group that we would take care of the certification stuff at the end of the day. I told two of them that they were free to dive on their own if they wished, although they could continue to dive with me. I told the student with the buoyancy issues that I wanted him to do all the rest of the dives that day with me so he could work on his buoyancy.

I did not spell it out, but anyone with the ability to read between the lines could see what was happening. Two of the divers had completed the course and passed. One of the divers had not completed the required buoyancy exercise to my satisfaction. and would need more work. The first two did join me, and I took advantage of it to nail their compass work, etc. Most of the dive time was spent working on buoyancy, though. By the end of the day, that diver really had it down, and he passed. It took him 7 dives to show the skills to my satisfaction and pass the course.

There was no violation of PADI standards in that case. He had completed 4 OW dives, but he had not demonstrated the skills to my satisfaction, so he needed more. The number of dives is not an issue, so long as a minimum number is met. More important is the demonstration of skill on those dives.

 

[boulderjohn]

John it has nothing to do with what you do, it's what you are supposed to be doing. Perhaps you can specify what it exactly says in the PADI Standards in regards to Tide Tables. Something like: 'The instructor must ensure that the student possesses adequate knowledge of Tide Tables when the training program takes place within tidal waters.' Listing the section number of the standard would also be beneficial. Or is this just something that you have decided to include within your program without PADI's knowledge? If it's not in the Standards, it doesn't have to be taught. I'm looking at this from an agency perspective. If they do not require it to be taught; it wont be in all circumstances. In-fact, I was given flack from PADI for teaching it.

This has been explained to you over and over and over again, but I will try it one last time.

It does not specify tide tables because the language is generic and applies to all skills.

1. A student has to to 4 open water dives and demonstrate specified skills on those dives.

2. The student must participate in the planning of those dives.

3. If planning those dives requires altitude adjustments or knowledge of tides, then that should be part of the planning.

4. If the student satisfactorily completes the dives that he or she has helped plan, the student passes the course.

 

[Kingpatzer]

The number of dives is not an issue, so long as a minimum number is met. More important is the demonstration of skill on those dives.

But John, that's adding to the standard . . you're not following it blindly! How dare you think for yourself -- PADI instructors are not to be trusted to do that!

 

[Scott]

Does it make any sense to you to give an instructor in Newfoundland a warm water
curriculum and tell him to make sure that his divers meet this standard?
Moreover that he can't add anything to the program? It doesn't to me.

DCBC, at any point during your time while teaching PADI did you formally submit a waiver to deviate from standards?

 

[drrich2]

Some threads degenerate from debate to argument. I'm hoping to sum up some other posters' lines of thought, bring them together in a 'centrist/moderate' way, then ask a question regarding practical application. Reading over this thread, I break it down like this (with due apologies if I inadvertently misinterpret or over-reduce anyone's viewpoint).

1.) DCBC believes PADI's basic OW course content is insufficient to adequately prepare newly certified divers to handle the adversity level of local conditions such as some sites along the North Atlantic, yet students who complete the course, pass the knowledge test and perform the skill sets are to be certified regardless. The instructor in theory cannot 'veto' certification based on additional course content. DCBC has participated in rescues of such divers as he believes this system turns out, making it an important issue to him given that PADI is the largest recreational scuba training agency today.

2.) Some others, including some who teach within the PADI system, provided varied work-arounds (such as adding material, given that students are unlikely to protest reasonable additions or fail to learn them given good instruction, or making sure 'local conditions' are so involved in the OW check-out dives that students develop adequate proficiency in the process of the course) which, on a practical level, in their view render DCBC's concerns a moot point, assuming the PADI instructor is doing a good job, and if he's not, well, that can happen with any agency.

3.) DCBC seems to believe instructors shouldn't have to resort to work-arounds, and dislikes that PADI doesn't give instructors more overt latitude to demand more of students & veto certifications if such demands aren't met. Others see the work-arounds as okay within the frame-work of the current system. It could be seen as a battle of a principle-adhering ethically focused formality observer vs. 'big picture' people who see a workable system in place that can be used to meet the educational needs of the students, so 'no biggie.' So, the debate on whether the PADI policy is a significant problem deteriorates into 'Is so! Is not! Is so! Is not!'

4.) I proposed a way someone with DCBC's concerns could teach within PADI, at least as they pertain to Instructor liability should a student perish due to 'inadequate' training for local conditions.

Then why not give the diver his PADI OW certification at that point, explain to him the limitations of his ability as you understand them (e.g.: stay out of local oceanic waters & comparable conditions, etc...) in writing, keep a copy for your files, and if he dies diving later, well, he was warned and you've got documentation.

I don't think DCBC directly addressed this, but Thalassamania did:

Therein lies the difference of opinion. Neither Wayne no I would be willing to sign the student's certification card, that means something to us.

If so, then liability fears aren't the real driving force. So I guess 1, 2 & 3.) are the main points.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to be so long-winded; I needed that background to make a point.

It seems good PADI instructors can 'teach around' the current standards, adding what they need to, in a way where their students reach acceptable levels of competence.

While some other mainstream rec. training agencies do allow the latitude DCBC advocates for, my impression from others' postings on this scuba forum is that Instructor quality matters much more than choice of mainstream agency (at least comparing PADI, Naui, SSI, SDI - we'll skip GUE & CMAS for now since they seem to push a different type of course, which I say hoping it doesn't take us off on a tangent). So, in real world practice, that policy difference doesn't seem to make a big difference the overwhelming majority of the time. In practical terms, DCBC, you don't teach for Naui, SSI or SDI, right?

I therefore suspect many instructors in other agencies also teach a fairly 'minimum standards' course and don't formally make additional material a requirement for certification (over & beyond the work-arounds that can be used for PADI students).

Bottom Line: A good instructor can teach effectively within the PADI framework, and a lousy instructor can turn out poor divers under PADI or it's competitors. The rare few people like DCBC who find the PADI policy an issue can teach under other agencies (which he does), and changing the PADI policy probably wouldn't change much, anyway.

Is this a fair 'centrist' summary of this thread, or not?

Richard.

P.S.: Thalassamania's concerns that PADI exaggerates the safety of scuba diving in the 'real world' & the adequacy of its basic OW course training (assuming plain vanilla minimum standards certification by an instructor) are another issue I chose not to get into with this post. I hope I've summarized Thalassamania's concerns accurately. My apologies if I have not.