A different take on Master Scuba Diver

[wetb4igetinthewater]

It's about applying your standards to the entire industry.

Oh Pete, you couldn't be more wrong. Now this is going to sound super arrogant, but there's no way I'd ever expect the industry to follow my standards. Not because mine would be higher, but rather it is because most of the industry has time constraints that I do not. That's simply not fair. I teach, have a break for students to practice, and then test. That doesn't work for people on vacation.

What I do expect is that some semblance of mastery ("repeatable", "fluid", "comfortable").

Answer me this. Does the "capable" standard that the OP described qualify as "mastery" in your POV?

 

[Leatherboot69]

Wet, the report you linked to categorised divers into segments based on their motivations. This implies that many potential divers (‘experiential divers’) don’t want or need mastery-they need to be safe. Mastery (repeatable, fluid and comfortable) isn’t necessary to meet that minimal safety requirement (not harming oneself or others), as demonstrated by diving’s safety record *despite* allegedly low and declining training standards. (If training standards were dropping so drastically you would expect to see a corresponding increase in deaths - is this the case?) The diving industry is big enough for highly committed divers like you - highly skilled and with high expectations of others including students - and for experiential divers like my girlfriend (wants to be able to look at fish safely with as little training, time and cost as possible). The trend on SB seems to be much more towards the former. But ignoring the latter is cutting out a large segment of potential divers and potential customers for no sound reason.

 

[The Chairman]

Answer me this. Does the "capable" standard that the OP described qualify as "mastery" in your POV?

They appear happy. Not my monkeys, not my circus. All I can do is set an example.

Mastery is as poor of a word choice as is AOW. It's not a part of my curriculum.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Wet, the report you linked to categorised divers into segments based on their motivations. This implies that many potential divers (‘experiential divers’) don’t want or need mastery-they need to be safe. Mastery (repeatable, fluid and comfortable) isn’t necessary to meet that minimal safety requirement (not harming oneself or others), as demonstrated by diving’s safety record *despite* allegedly low and declining training standards. The diving industry is big enough for highly committed divers like you - highly skilled and with high expectations of others including students - and for experiential divers like my girlfriend (wants to be able to dive safely with as little training, time and cost as possible). The trend on SB seems to be much more towards the former. But ignoring the latter is cutting out a large segment of potential divers and potential customers.

This is only my opinion, but I do believe that divers do need to master buoyancy (depth control) to be safe. My opinion of course (worth as much as you paid me to give it) is that if DAN cites improvements they'd like to see. On page of the report (providing it for convenience here), there is the following:

Ten Most Wanted Improvements in Scuba
1. Correct Weighting
2. Greater Buoyancy Control
3. More Attention to Gas Planning
4. Better Ascent Rate Control
5. Increased Use of Checklists
6. Fewer Equalizing Injuries
7. Improved Cardiovascular Health in Divers
8. Diving More Often (or more pre-trip Refresher Training)
9. Greater Attention to Diving Within Limits
10. Fewer Equipment Issues / Improved Maintenance

I believe (again, my opinion, take it for what its worth) is that Correct Weighting, Greater Buoyancy Control, and Better Ascent Rate Control are all tightly coupled. If you click on the link in my signature (Teaching Neutrally buoyant and trimmed), I explain why I feel that proper weighting is so critically important, especially for the new diver.

Not only is it a safety issue (again, my opinion), but an enjoyment issue. I will freely admit when I first started teaching, I was overweighting students by about 5 lbs as my CD taught us to weight students without their scuba kits, but then I later checked the buoyancy characteristics of a scuba kit (consisting of regulator assembly, steel 80 at 500 psi, and jacket style BCD) was 5 lbs negative.

Being 5 lbs overweighted had a disastrous effect on my students during training and afterwards. They would crater and cork. That was not safe and I will freely admit that I was violating standards, despite doing what I was trained to do. It is thanks to social media that I (partially?) addressed my rectal-cranial inversion problem. When I focused on weighting which includes weight distribution so a diver can float effortlessly horizontally, the cratering/corking stopped. And my students enjoyed diving so much more as they felt that they were in control underwater (which they were). This instilled confidence and enjoyment.

We are getting a bit off topic here, but it is related to the matter at hand of ticking off boxes where students are capable of skills but have not mastered them. If that is the de facto standard, say so. Failure to do so is simply dishonest and lacks integrity.

Here's the thing. I have found when I started teaching fully neutrally buoyant and trim for the beginning of confined water, I actually needed less time to get students performing skills comfortably. With the remaining pool time, I could add fun exercises that involved finning, buoyancy control, and task loading. One example was a race across the pool where they had to carry a golf ball on a spoon. I don't know if you have ever gotten into car racing, but there's the saying slow is smooth, smooth is fast. And this certainly applied. The students who took their time, frog kicked/glided, usually won (well, everyone got a prize of wetnotes). If it takes less time, why not do this across the board? It does take additional teaching skills, but come on. We are not performing brain surgery here. It isn't hard to teach scuba.

Based on personal experience and DAN reports, I disagree that mastery isn't required to be safe.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Not my monkeys, not my circus. All I can do is set an example.

So are are you going to update the ToS to tell people that they can't criticize anything here? Or are you going to take it upon yourself to tell others what you have told me here? If the latter, have at it.

Mastery is as poor of a word choice as is AOW. It's not a part of my curriculum.

That's your opinion. Agencies have given a vague definition, but it is clear enough that if students are merely capable of performing a skill, they haven't passed the bar. Either uphold that or change the terms used to fit the reality that they are accepting. In other words, have integrity.

 

[BlueTrin]

Is the only objection that the card should not contain the word Master?

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Is the only objection that the card should not contain the word Master?

if you are asking me, no. That and AOW are beaten to death. I'm more concerned about performance standards being upheld.

 

[RobPNW]

This is probably bordering on a philosophic question regarding standards, and with my experience level, I hope this comes across clearly but...

With regard to skills standards, it almost seems that it would be helpful if there were a tiered approach to the subject. Trying to get everyone to agree to best practice standards across the board to SCUBA skills is clearly impossible as there are so many opinions on methodology, preferred equipment etc.

But it would be cool if the industry had standards for the most basic of tasks that everyone could agree on. Above and beyond that, it could be different strokes for different folks. Don't know if that's even possible but it would be very helpful for new folks if there were pretty universally accepted "core skills" standards to fall back on and then go from there.

 

[Big Dan K]

The problem seems to be a marketing issue to me. OW certification is marketed as a license to dive, but it is really a learner’s permit. They teach you enough to survive while your skills improve.

 

[TMHeimer]

The problem seems to be a marketing issue to me. OW certification is marketed as a license to dive, but it is really a learner’s permit. They teach you enough to survive while your skills improve.

I think many agree with you. Lots of other things like that. Driver's License (though many places now have these graduated steps for beginners-- maybe they learned that from scuba agencies?), Teachers certificate (you learn a lot more in your first 2-3 years of actually teaching than you do in college learning about how to do it).