A different take on Master Scuba Diver

[Lorenzoid]

Doing the research before I put the money on the table, the NAUI MSD was unattractive precisely *because* it included pro dive theory that I didn’t think I would use, which in PADI is an optional course at rec level and only mandatory at pro level. For someone who wants to be good… At having fun… whilst diving… It didn’t seem relevant extra knowledge to someone who wants to stay rec and amateur (for now), and a bit, frankly, boring, when what I actually need to know is to follow my computer, know how to use tables, gauges and watch and don’t come up too quickly, with a bit of science. So far I haven’t found or foreseen a need that would be met by having pro level dive theory knowledge beyond what I’ve already learned, which as I said is an optional course in PADI rec.

What is "pro level dive theory"? I'm genuinely curious. The only tangible difference between a dive pro and us ordinary divers is we don't lead dives or teach diving.

That's quite literally what I learned in my Fundies class. How to be a good and safe buddy to my partner(s). How being proficient in the water makes it fun and safe.

@Leatherboot69 , you replied that's exactly what you learned in your MSD journey, and I'm sure you did. It's simply a matter of degree. Fundies teaches "team diving," which is a level of buddiness and awareness beyond what PADI teaches. As for proficiency in the water, Fundies teaches those skills to a degree beyond what I have seen from most DMs. But do we need that level of proficiency to dive safely and have fun? Maybe not.

As I see it, PADI teaches the world to dive safely enough and have fun. Divers are not dying all over the place, so PADI must be doing a reasonable job. There is higher-level training that is not
"pro," available from the likes of NAUI, GUE and others, but I have never been a PADI-basher. My PADI Rescue course was excellent, and to this day I remember fish I learned in my Fish ID dive.

 

[Leatherboot69]

What is "pro level dive theory"? I'm genuinely curious. The only tangible difference between a dive pro and us ordinary divers is we don't lead dives or teach diving.

PADI have what they call a ‘professional level’ ‘Dive Theory’ course that can be taken optionally by amateurs for interest like any other course, but at pro level counts towards the theory exam for DMs. Looking elsewhere on the forum, it seems roughly similar to the NAUI MSD theory package, but is placed in a different position in the PADI structure. My view so far is that I don’t need it for the type of diving I am doing.

 

[Leatherboot69]

The agency standards are not equivalent. Can you shoot an smb while donating gas while maintains trim less than 20 degrees from horizontal inside +/- 1.5ft from a target depth?

You might be the exception to the rule, but I’ve never met someone who told me they’re a padi msd that can come close to doing that.

You’ve changed the goal posts from being safe and competent to a comparison of agency standards at MSD. Originally you said: ‘How to be a good and safe buddy to my partner(s). How being proficient in the water makes it fun and safe. How to practice to be the best diver I can be.’

 

[Outbound]

Let's just clear up a couple of things:

1) No one walks around with a bunch of patches on their jackets. Any kind of patches. Seriously, how many people do you see walking around with patches on their jackets? And, for PADI MSD you only get one patch. So unless you swipe all your buddies' patches, you aren't walking around with a bunch of them on. Somehow people have taken the fact that you get a MSD patch and turned it into "I see people with jackets full of them walking around the dive sites all the time, talking about how great they are." Total, complete BS.

2) It's your money, so do what you want with it. If you feel like paying for the extra card and the patch, go for it! If not, no sweat. Maybe you want to put that cash towards a nice pair of split fins

3) This is just my experience, but I have yet to see anyone whip out their MSD card.

4) Hardly anyone with MSD rating actually thinks that they have mastered diving. Yeah, the name is stupid. But in many ways the same can be said of Divemaster.

5) The PADI hate on scubaboard is and will likely remain strong. Some of that might be deserved. But where would diving be without PADI? Face it, that single agency is responsible for something like 60-75% of all certifications. Say what you want about the marketing and the money-grabbing, but they pour a lot of resources into attracting new divers and trying to keep them motivated. If we only allow the uber-hardcore BPW tech-setup folks in the club then the sport is going to die out pretty quickly. The wording of the MSD rating might be over the top, but try not to let it irk you. Just accept it for what it is: a way to get new divers thinking about the next steps and to keep them motivated to continue diving and continue their training.

 

[Leatherboot69]

Let's just clear up a couple of things:

1) No one walks around with a bunch of patches on their jackets. Any kind of patches. Seriously, how many people do you see walking around with patches on their jackets? And, for PADI MSD you only get one patch. So unless you swipe all your buddies' patches, you aren't walking around with a bunch of them on. Somehow people have taken the fact that you get a MSD patch and turned it into "I see people with jackets full of them walking around the dive sites all the time, talking about how great they are." Total, complete BS.

2) It's your money, so do what you want with it. If you feel like paying for the extra card and the patch, go for it! If not, no sweat. Maybe you want to put that cash towards a nice pair of split fins

3) This is just my experience, but I have yet to see anyone whip out their MSD card.

4) Hardly anyone with MSD rating actually thinks that they have mastered diving. Yeah, the name is stupid. But in many ways the same can be said of Divemaster.

5) The PADI hate on scubaboard is and will likely remain strong. Some of that might be deserved. But where would diving be without PADI? Face it, that single agency is responsible for something like 60-75% of all certifications. Say what you want about the marketing and the money-grabbing, but they pour a lot of resources into attracting new divers and trying to keep them motivated. If we only allow the uber-hardcore BPW tech-setup folks in the club then the sport is going to die out pretty quickly. The wording of the MSD rating might be over the top, but try not to let it irk you. Just accept it for what it is: a way to get new divers thinking about the next steps and to keep them motivated to continue diving and continue their training.

This

 

[Rollin Bonz]

I agree with all except the italicized. Yes, the instructor is partly at fault for not getting the diver to the appropriate skill level. Perhaps they accepted the student before he/she was ready to go tech, and passed them when they still weren't ready.
But arrogance is an attitude, not always taught. There is a difference between being confident vs. a braggart...chances are, the instructor may not have instilled that attitude. A fair amount of divers, once they get the tech cert, think they're all that and the next best thing since sliced bread. That's the diver's fault. Always stay humble and keep yourself in check is what I've always been told.

Well, that goes without saying... asshats are asshats, regardless of training, skills, or pursuits. I just meant I blame their instructor for their having been certified without the proper skills being learned. They were either not taught the proper skills are were unable to demonstrate the proper skills, but received the certification anyway. That's on the instructor. Being an asshat is a separate issue entirely, and not the responsibility of the instructor. Apologies for the confussion.

 

[Lorenzoid]

PADI have what they call a ‘professional level’ ‘Dive Theory’ course that can be taken optionally by amateurs for interest like any other course, but at pro level counts towards the theory exam for DMs. Looking elsewhere on the forum, it seems roughly similar to the NAUI MSD theory package, but is placed in a different position in the PADI structure. My view so far is that I don’t need it for the type of diving I am doing.

I see. It's the theory portion of the DM course. My view is that if they teach it to DMs, whose job it is to lead groups and teach, I should learn it if I want the same level of competence as a DM doing that same kind of diving. I see DMs in the water, and they're not doing anything I shouldn't be able to do. If the theory is helpful to underpin what they do in the water, then it should be helpful to me, too.

 

[Lorenzoid]

You’ve [crofrog] changed the goal posts from being safe and competent to a comparison of agency standards at MSD.

The problem is we don't know with great precision where the goalposts are. In the words of my Fundies instructor, regarding how skill level translates into safety margin, "The idea is to stack the odds in your favor." When things are going smoothly, maybe typical agency-standard skills are enough. When things go wrong, maybe it's better to have an even higher skill level to draw from.

 

[tursiops]

Has anyone ever achieved Rescue Diver without 50 dives?

Yes

MSD has been very much downplayed and doesn't appear in their course offerings.

It is not a course, so won't be in a list of courses. Duh.

Did find this marketing puff describing how respected you'd be...

Previously posted in the thread.

The agency standards are not equivalent. Can you shoot an smb while donating gas while maintains trim less than 20 degrees from horizontal inside +/- 1.5ft from a target depth?

Why is horizontal trim so important if donating gas and shooting an SMB? Arbitrary task requirement for ego stroking.

 

[Manatee Diver]

I think I see the problem. You apparently think that Fish ID is about looking at pictures. Actually, it's not. You may have noticed that in the pictures, all the fish are about the same size? And the pictures don't hide so all you can see are their eyes or their tail. And the pictures don't swim away. In fact, the pictures don't swim at all, so one of the best clues is not present. In real life, the class is about how to even find the fish, what is their behavior and habitat as an ID clue, and even time of day. and depth. You can ID all the pictures you want, and do an inept and terrible job on a dive. Looking at pictures is a start, just like looking at a video of someone in sidemount, but getting the rigging and trim right is an in-water skill....like Fish ID.

You can do videos as well, you don't have to get just close up pictures, and you can put photos in size perspective. In fact that is what a good training book or elearning should be doing. Not the crap that most agencies are putting out at the moment.

IMO a course like fish ID is an out of water course. And is a skill learned over a long period.

But hey why don't we just agree to disagree before you get all stressed out.

Yes, but some people enjoy a class setting with an instructor, and are willing to pay for that.
Is that wrong?

Nothing wrong, I just don't feel that stuff like that is the same value as courses that have specific in water exercises that have to be done. So if you are weighing a MSD with what I deem as informal/out of water courses vs classes with specific in water skills like deep, nav, drysuit, et al; I weigh those in water courses as having greater value to the skill of a diver.