A picture is worth a 1000 words

[DevonDiver]

We are not talking about a technical diving level of horizontal trim and buoyancy control. That is not in the requirements.

The standards governing TecRec level (Tec40/45/50) of buoyancy control are:

1) Trim should be "roughly horizontal position"
2) Deco stop accuracy should be "within .5 metres/1.5 feet of stop depth".
3) Minimum accuracy when practicing redundant buoyancy and/or shut-down drills should be "within 1 metre/3 feet of the stop depth".

More details on those in the thread HERE

The standards for trim are very vague - so these might be equally applicable to recreational level diving.

The standards for buoyancy (stop deviation) are relatively forgiving. Assuming that a novice recreational diver remains relatively task-loaded during their early stages, we might equate this with a technical-level trainee diver who is equally task loaded with drills and skills, whilst holding stops. Therefore, I see the third standard (+/- 1m/3') as being appropriate... just my opinion.

The problem with recreational buoyancy and trim performance standards isn't that they are too strict, or too lenient. The problem is that they are not specified at all. There is no level of achievement for the instructor or student to set as a goal. A standard written like "Hover using buoyancy control for at least 30 seconds,without kicking or sculling" (PADI OW, CW#4) sets no level of precision achievement for either the instructor nor the student.

It is my personal opinion that modern courses, such as the GUE 'Fundamentals' teach us that applying more definitive criteria to performance standards goes a long way towards motivating the instructor and the student to apply themselves towards a higher level of achievement.

In comparison, here are the GUE Recreational #1 buoyancy standards:
"Demonstrate good buoyancy and trim, i.e. approximate reference maximum of 30 degrees off horizontal while remaining within 5 feet/1.5 meters of a target depth. Frequency of buoyancy variation as well as general diver control remain important evaluation criteria".

GUE receive significant praise for their success in training student divers to hold precise buoyancy and trim. PADI have, historically, received criticism for the same. Surely that is an emphatic validation of the need to impose more precise and demanding S.M.A.R.T. objectives to buoyancy/trim related performance standards?

The other issue is that GUE apply ever more demanding standards on buoyancy/trim as the diver progresses higher in training levels. PADI does not do that (at least, until technical-level training is reached). There is simply no incentive for PADI divers (or instructors) to continue refining their buoyancy and trim skills. This is a wasted opportunity to positively influence long-term diver development. It is also another key factor that differentiates the relative success and failure between the two organizations mentioned in this post.

A course like PADI AOW could easily be modified to include a core (OW) skills (re-)assessment. That assessment could easily incorporate a rise in necessary performance standards. The effect would be to motivate students to retain and refine skills post-training, in preparation for up-coming training. How many PADI students prepare for courses? The added value in this is that continued education / training progression would actually begin to mean something, in respect to diver competency and skill. It would end the 'put another dollar in' skepticism that has plagued PADI con-ed for decades. It would also mean that DM and Instructor candidates began their professional training with a much higher level of core diving skill... and an ingrained understanding of why that skill was important.

PADI already advise students to "Keep proficient in diving skills, striving to increase them through continuing education and reviewing them in controlled conditions after a period of diving inactivity" (Standard Safe Diving Practices Statement of Understanding). I feel it would be beneficial if they reinforced this prudent advice through incorporation of progressive assessment along the length of their training syllabus.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Agree with Andy. It would make things a great deal easier for those of us who have to fix these people before we can allow them into our advanced level or frankly any con ed training. It is largely the reason I offer my buoyancy and trim workshops. Just to get them to a level where they can take my advanced level two or three class. Or underwater navigation. Poor buoyancy and trim will screw up a nav class or make it harder than it needs to be more than just about anything.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Diver0001]

Seems clear to me that instructors do continue to work on buoyancy in con-ed courses. The difference is that some find it frustrating to have to "waste time" on it and others don't. To me that's the core of this discussion.

R..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[boulderjohn]

What? The instructors wouldn't need to look better than the new students? So what level of horizontal trim would the instructors be allowed? 30 degrees out of trim... more? What amount of error on their buoyancy control? Plus or minus 2 feet, 5 feet... more?

This is an OW class, not a tech diving class. For performing the skills in confined water, students should be roughly horizontal and neutrally buoyant. Light contact with the floor of the pool is fine for most skills. That would be acceptable for the instructor for most skills as well. When I demonstrate the no mask swim and mask replacement skill, I am in horizontal trim ind off the floor. I think a loot of instructors will have to work on that. When the students do it, I expect them to attempt what I did, but I don't care if they graze the floor while doing it. I also have them assisted by a buddy who holds on to them to help them maintain depth.

 

[DevonDiver]

Seems clear to me that instructors do continue to work on buoyancy in con-ed courses. The difference is that some find it frustrating to have to "waste time" on it and others don't. To me that's the core of this discussion.

I don't see many instructors continuing to work on buoyancy in con-ed courses. Perhaps that is a regional thing?

Con-ed courses have qualification prerequisites that determine an expected, existing skill-set. This enables the student diver to engage upon a new training course with all of necessary, underlying skills in place. With those in place, the student should progress.

What some instructors find a 'waste of time' is that students attend for training without the skill-set and competencies that should have been provided by the prerequisite qualifications they possess. There is a deficit in reality, versus the reasonable expectation. That means the instructor has to suspend the desired training course and provide remedial training to get the student's skill to an adequate starting point for the next level of training.

That may not seem an inconvenience to instructors who work in a 'home location'. To those who work in holiday destinations it is more than an inconvenience - because any delay in training, due to the necessity to provide remedial sessions, can mean that insufficient time then exists to conduct the course that was planned and scheduled.

For the student, who did not know they were short-changed in prior training, it means that fail to accomplish their goals. It can mean they 'waste' money.

Adequate means exist to provide remedial training. PADI have the "Scuba Review" for instance. Many instructors, including myself, also offer dedicated 'clinic' or mentoring sessions to ensure that students have good core skills, to polish or refine existing skills etc etc. Con-Ed courses are not the place to fix deficits that shouldn't exist. They are meant to be about progression, not a re-covering subsequent skills and standards.

GUE introduced a great concept. The 'gateway'. I'm talking about the pass/fail on Fundies, before tech can be attempted. It's very clever - because it focuses both student and instructor attention on the need to develop skills on the current course, with the next course in mind (or much further along the progress, in reality).

PADI don't have that. The result is that instructors spend an inordinate amount of time conducting remedial training... or just get into the habit of 'ticking boxes' and signing off students with sub-standard skills. There is no criteria for long-term thinking in the student's development. There is no tangible 'chain of development' that a student can follow; from course-to-course and instructor-to-instructor.

It's easy to 'tick boxes' and send students on their way with sub-par skills. That can continue throughout the recreational dive program. It fails if/when they enter technical-level training... the first time that those students are faced with measurable core skills performance standards since they left their OW course... It's a hurdle that many flounder against... and that just shouldn't happen if the con-ed syllabus was progressive along its length.

 

[spc751]

The problem with recreational buoyancy and trim performance standards isn't that they are too strict, or too lenient. The problem is that they are not specified at all. There is no level of achievement for the instructor or student to set as a goal. A standard written like "Hover using buoyancy control for at least 30 seconds,without kicking or sculling" (PADI OW, CW#4) sets no level of precision achievement for either the instructor nor the student.

Sometimes I read things here that amaze me!

When I did SSI OW we did not have to hover at all. Not 30 seconds, not 1 second, nothing. But one of the instructors did teach us how to back up and turn around using hand sculling.

One day I went on a fun dive with a PADI shop and did not know what they were doing. After the first dive I asked them and was told; hover, frog kick, reverse kick, helicopter turn.

I agree that PADI could be better but where I am coming from they are a big improvement.

 

[Diver0001]

I don't see many instructors continuing to work on buoyancy in con-ed courses. Perhaps that is a regional thing?

Maybe. What I see are divers who are trained for diving in poor visibility over mud and sludge bottoms. If your buoyancy control sucks then you're pretty much guaranteed to silt out the entire area, lose your buddy and all that stuff. With the exception of instructors who consciously choose to under-perform, almost all OW students have good enough buoyancy control to swim comfortably a metre or so over the bottom without silting. It's just part of local diving here.

In fact, it used to be the case the instructors in the tropics (places like Egypt) would automatically assume that if you were Dutch that your skills were fine, even at the OW level. Unfortunately, I know a few instructors here who seem hell bent on undermining that reputation but the fact that Dutch divers are seen in this way must say something about the training they received.

Once again I think it's a question of conditions. Divers will be trained well enough to dive in their local conditions. If local conditions are forgiving of yo-yo-rototiller level buoyancy control then it's not too surprising that this will be the bar they are taught to.

So yeah, maybe it's regional. That's also the reason I say that instructors address it during con-ed here, because that's the reality on the ground where I live.

Con-ed courses have qualification prerequisites that determine an expected, existing skill-set. This enables the student diver to engage upon a new training course with all of necessary, underlying skills in place. With those in place, the student should progress.

What some instructors find a 'waste of time' is that students attend for training without the skill-set and competencies that should have been provided by the prerequisite qualifications they possess. There is a deficit in reality, versus the reasonable expectation. That means the instructor has to suspend the desired training course and provide remedial training to get the student's skill to an adequate starting point for the next level of training.

Well.....

Ok, there are two issues here. In one way, you're right. An instructor who has a curriculum that assumes a certain level of skill coming in shouldn't have trouble finding students who have the prerequisite skill set. That you're seeing a deficit either means that you're attracting students who do not yet have enough experience or that for some reason (again, maybe regional) the conditions are not forcing divers to attain the prerequisite level of skill. So I believe you when you say that it's getting in the way of you doing what you had intended to do during the course because you have to go back to basics.

The flip side of that is that I personally believe (and I know you well enough to believe that we agree about this) that strengthening core skills is part of every course. So if I look at the flip side and I see you saying that you have a curriculum that you can't usually teach because core skills are not good enough, then what I'm hearing you say is that you defined the scope to be too narrow to achieve what you want. Yes, it may suck to have to spend time on it, but on the other hand, if you expand the scope of the course to encompass a day or two of core skills drilling, then you'll be able to achieve your curriculum comfortably AND have less frustration about what you presently perceive as being a waste of precious time. See this as constructive input and not as an attack on how you do things now.

GUE introduced a great concept. The 'gateway'. I'm talking about the pass/fail on Fundies, before tech can be attempted. It's very clever - because it focuses both student and instructor attention on the need to develop skills on the current course, with the next course in mind (or much further along the progress, in reality).

PADI don't have that. The result is that instructors spend an inordinate amount of time conducting remedial training... or just get into the habit of 'ticking boxes' and signing off students with sub-standard skills. There is no criteria for long-term thinking in the student's development. There is no tangible 'chain of development' that a student can follow; from course-to-course and instructor-to-instructor.

Actually, I have to admit that you're completely right about this. The PADI system is constructed in such a way that there is no real big picture when it comes to what I call the big-3 (buoyancy control, propulsion and buddy/team skills). Personally I start with the big-3 at the OW level and students who go through the system with me will have attention for it at every stage, but I would be deluding myself to assume that every instructor does this. I think the system could certainly be improved in this area.

It's easy to 'tick boxes' and send students on their way with sub-par skills. That can continue throughout the recreational dive program. It fails if/when they enter technical-level training... the first time that those students are faced with measurable core skills performance standards since they left their OW course... It's a hurdle that many flounder against... and that just shouldn't happen if the con-ed syllabus was progressive along its length.

Yes, I'm starting to see what you mean. I guess the disconnect between us in our thinking is that my main focus is on teaching inexperienced level divers because I feel that's where I can have the most to add and you are focused on advanced divers, for the same reason. I have no reason to "expect" that their core skills are sorted when I get them (unless they are my own students...) because the courses I teach most often are simply put, core skills courses. You, on on the other hand, have a very different goal in mind for them so a lack of core skills is more of an issue for what you want to achieve.

Seems that we're seeing the same things but responding to it differently because we're approaching things from a different focus.

R..

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

What some instructors find a 'waste of time' is that students attend for training without the skill-set and competencies that should have been provided by the prerequisite qualifications they possess. There is a deficit in reality, versus the reasonable expectation. That means the instructor has to suspend the desired training course and provide remedial training to get the student's skill to an adequate starting point for the next level of training.

No, you don't have to ... you choose to. Another strategy would be to suspend the training altogether ... if necessary refund the price paid for the class ... and tell the student to come back when they've acquired the prerequisite qualifications to achieve the objectives of the class.

I've more than once told a student they weren't ready for the class they were wanting to take. Then again, I will often take students I don't know for an evaluation dive before I even agree to begin the training ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Diver0001]

I've more than once told a student they weren't ready for the class they were wanting to take. Then again, I will often take students I don't know for an evaluation dive before I even agree to begin the training ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

That's what I was trying to say too, but since I've been fighting with Andy I tried to be a little more circumspect about how I said it.

One of the things I do (I'm sure many instructors do something similar) before starting starting any specialty--or any training beyond OW for that matter--is to do a scuba review with them in the pool. To me it's just obvious that you need to get a reading on core skills so you know what you need to work on.

Clearly Andy sees that more as a job to be done by the instructors who came before him but the fact is that his responsibility to gauge his students before starting with the curriculum is no less pressing than yours or mine.

And yeah, even at the novice level it happens that people are told that they have to go work on buoyancy control more before they can move on. I've had people who were unable to get a drysuit specialty in the 4 dives allotted for it and had to be told to go make X-number of dives in shallow water to practice and come back to get evaluated for certification after that. In the worst cases I've even prescribed making a series of dives in the pool or in a wetsuit before continuing on in the drysuit. Do date, only one student has thrown the towel in the ring when being told to go practice more. I know not everyone does this but it seems pretty obvious that you MUST do this some of the time if you want students to meet the performance requirements.

Frankly, I wouldn't hesitate to do that for any specialty. Another specialty where I often tell students to go practice and come back for evaluation later is navigation. I never refuse to certify them, but I'm not going to shuffle them through the system if they don't meet the performance requirements either.

To me it's nothing more than logical that you have to tell students to go practice sometimes. When I took my technical training it took months because we'd meet with the instructor, do some skills, he'd give us a list of things to practice and we'd go away and work on it until it was fixed, at which point we'd take the next step. I think I might have done dozens of practice dives on my own time before I was done but by the time I got it, all the little stuff was sorted. I wasn't even an inexperienced diver when I took it. I must have had 800 dives but I also had some habits that needed breaking.

Maybe part of the problem Andy is having is that he's trying to do people's technical training on a vacation schedule, which already puts them 2-outs and 3-strikes down before they start. Personally I couldn't imagine having to work on inflexible time schedules. Maybe I'd get frustrated too if I were in his shoes.

R..

 

[boulderjohn]

Let me address this as an educational specialist, my former real job.

1. Any time you are teaching a course in any subject, there is an expectation that the students entering the course have already mastered certain skills upon which the course is based. If a student enters a calculus course after completing Algebra I only, the student has no chance of success. That is why it is close to impossible for a student who has completed Algebra I only to sign up for Calculus. The course prerequisites are clearly published, and there is a process that makes sure students have those prerequisite skills. A series of easier courses allows the students to progress naturally to the level needed for Calculus.

2. In almost all courses, many students do arrive into the course without some prerequisite skills, even though they have the proper course completed. A good instructor always assesses student skills at the beginning of the course, identifies deficits, and provides appropriate remediation. That should happen in about every course in existence.

3. If the individual student's deficits are too great for normal remediation, then there was an error in the course admissions process. The student should have been placed in a lower level class or had a separate remediation class if needed.

If a person teaching an advanced scuba class finds that an overwhelming number of students arrive without the basic skills needed to be successful in the course, then something needs to change. I would suggest the following, which is essentially what is done for a course like Calculus:

a. Make sure that the prerequisite skills are clearly identified prior to admission to the course.
b. Provide a lower level course to teach those skills to those who do not have them.

Not long ago in a thread related to another more advanced course, there were comments about the very high failure rate, with those comments intended to mean it must be a great course if everyone is failing. One post talked about a well-known instructor for the course, saying that "[Instructor's Name] teaches a course that [Instructor's name] cannot pass." I think that was meant to be praise. From an educational standpoint, that is BS. Any time a course has a high failure rate, there is something wrong. Either the students being admitted to the course do not have the prerequisite skills, the course structure is badly done (as in too little time, poor materials, bad learning conditions, etc.), the instructor is incompetent, or any combination of those factors. An instructor teaching a class with a high failure rate should be very concerned and see which of those factors could be adjusted. In the case I am talking about, I suspect that most students should be directed to a more basic class so that they can learn and later practice the prerequisite skills before taking the class with the high failure rate. That is probably true of a lot of more advanced classes.