A picture is worth a 1000 words

[Diver0001]

I do agree with this, but it isn't always practicable. I'll explain the problems:

A couple of things occur to me when i read this post:

1) yes, you can require any prerequisite you like. If you think a student should have a masters degree in stick whittling to start one of your courses then you can quite simply refuse to admit them if they don't have it. If you think they should ahve DIR-F then you can refuse to admit them if they don't have it. Your agency has some prerequisites but you are by no means obligated to admit everyone who has those qualifications. If you get someone who had all the prerequisite cards, for example, but you can clearly see that they're a dangerous pot-head then you'll still refuse them. You're not obligated, but you're suggesting that you are.

2) in my personal opinion, one of the big (maybe the biggest) problem here is trying to cram a decent tech level course into 5 days. If you thought doing OW on a resort schedule was a bad idea then doing tech training at this tempo is complete insanity. A large part of the problem stems from the simple and undeniable fact that you are not giving yourself sufficient time to do the job.

3) related to #2 is that you are blaming other instructors for not preparing students for your courses, but you are forgetting that preparing those students for your course was not that instructor's JOB. That instructor was training the student to perform well enough to meet the requirements of SOME OTHER course, namely the one he/she was teaching. If students don't have the skills coming in the door and you are noticing a consistent gap then your only realistic option given the reality of how the industry works is to require them to take a course like DIR-F that you're sure will prepare them.

Over all, I think the main problem here seems to be that you've made a very questionable choice of courses to offer in your context. You'd be far better off the way I see it, choosing courses to teach that can be done in the time you have with less risk, fewer ridiculously long working days and far less irritation.

That's not intended as an attack, Andy. Please take it as constructive feedback.

R..

---------- Post added December 2nd, 2013 at 07:28 AM ----------

PADI has that opportunity, but doesn't take it.

I don't believe that PADI sees it as it's job to prepare recreational divers for tech level courses. It might be a good idea for them to do something like emulate DIR-F for advanced training but they haven't chosen to do that.

So that leaves you with only one realistic option if you need skills sorted coming in, which is to require DIR-F as a foundation. Clearly PADI isn't offering a course that serves as a sufficient prerequisite for you... .so look further. It's out there. It's called DIR-F. Nothing stops you from requiring it.

R..

 

[DevonDiver]

That's not intended as an attack, Andy. Please take it as constructive feedback.

Taken as intended

1) yes, you can require any prerequisite you like.

This is true. That said, I work within the constrains of an agency syllabus. I 'could' demand GUE-F from every student, but I'd be penniless in weeks. That's because students seeking PADI TecRec qualifications tend to be PADI recreational divers.. with PADI qualifications.

I will ask again... if PADI see fit to set certain qualifications as prerequisites - shouldn't those prerequisite qualifications provide what is necessary to start the chosen course?

...you are by no means obligated to admit everyone who has those qualifications. If you get someone who had all the prerequisite cards, for example, but you can clearly see that they're a dangerous pot-head then you'll still refuse them. You're not obligated, but you're suggesting that you are.

I obviously didn't express myself clearly. I'm not suggest any compulsion to accept students onto courses. Entry onto courses is always on the basis of satisfactory performance in a check-out dive. I am also very clear to students that entry onto a course does not automatically entail qualification. They pay for training, they have to earn qualification. Where I feel that their skills are significantly below the required standard, I will suggest an alternative; typically a clinic/mentoring. Given the timescales involved, this can easily mean they are left with insufficient time to then do the desired certification course. It also means that I have to re-arrange my schedule and work significant extra hours. Since August this year, I spent less than 2 weeks at home (I travel to teach) - somewhat because of re-arranged schedules and extra remedial training.

one of the big (maybe the biggest) problem here is trying to cram a decent tech level course into 5 days....A large part of the problem stems from the simple and undeniable fact that you are not giving yourself sufficient time to do the job.

Not really. Now that the TecRec 'Tech Deep' program has been modularized, there is less need for long-duration courses. Each module (Tec40/45/50) is only 4 dives, along with theory and practical. 5 days should be more than sufficient for completion - assuming the student has the basic core skills signified by the prerequisite qualifications (OW/AOW/EANx/Rescue/Deep).

I rarely, if ever, book an unknown student for more than one module in advance. There are too many variables with starting quality and skill acquisition to raise expectations beyond a single course module - especially on a finite timescale. They pay me per day for training/diving and I take them as far as they can reasonable achieve. That may be one module, it could be more, but I don't make any promises about certifications. As I am paid per day regardless, it makes no difference to me whether I teach non-certification remedial classes, issue certifications or whatever. It just makes scheduling hard. The positive is that I never feel pressured to certify people who don't make the grade. In general, my students value that approach - because my only focus is on developing their diving skill and capability, not on plastic cards.

If/when a student enters the tech program with weak core skills - I think it's really unforgivable. By that time, they should have completed, at least, five major courses of instruction. If those courses have failed to develop core diving competencies for the next stage of training, then they have let the student down terribly. That is what I believe.

For instance, it means a diver has been 'signed off' for recreational deep diving to 130'/40m, who then possess insufficient skill to perform basic core skills in a swimming pool (Tec40 Dive #1). How does that happen?

Let me be clear - I am not suggesting that recreational-level courses provide tech-level skills. I am merely suggesting they provide the necessary recreational-level competencies as a foundation for tech-level training to begin upon. This enables the student to build their skills when they enter tech - rather than having to remedy deficiencies. It also means the student is significantly more prepared to deal with the drastic spike in task loading that technical diving entails.

Entry in technical diving assumes pinnacle-level recreational diving skills. That is why PADI list so many prerequisite courses. It is, frankly, embarrassing to witness the skill levels of many of these, supposed, pinnacle-level recreational divers. It is not something that PADI should be proud of.

The 'quickest' TecRec centers/instructors roll out Tec40/45/50 modules in 3 days. THAT is quick. To do so demands that students enter training with significant prowess at tech-level core skills... allowing rapid progression through the new skills. Unless I'm the only instructor who receives sub-par students, I'd suggest that it is more common to simply 'process' (tick boxes) these students regardless of their ingrained competencies.... and/or to accept a significantly lower (than the tech community 'norm') standard of achievement upon graduation

...blaming other instructors for not preparing students for your courses, but you are forgetting that preparing those students for your course was not that instructor's JOB.

That's a crux issue. Some agencies do construct syllabus with progression in mind. PADI, amongst others, do not. As I said, that policy works within recreational training, but fails when technical levels are reached.

I'm not suggest the creation of a syllabus that is entirely tech focused and 'begins with the end in mind'. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that advancing through a syllabus of education should also entail advancing in skill and competence.

Do more courses - become a better diver. Is that really such an absurd concept?

Do all the prerequisite courses for tech - have the skill-level, knowledge and competencies necessary to start training in tech. Again... absurd?

That instructor was training the student to perform well enough to meet the requirements of SOME OTHER course, namely the one he/she was teaching.

There's two issues, isn't there? Firstly, that instructors might fail to attain the expected student standards upon certification. Secondly, that the agency may not have set course standards sufficiently well to enable a skill progression through their syllabus.

I'd expect that both factors play a role in the under-achievement of training.

Instructor achievement is a concern for QA. Course design, however, is a responsibility of the agency.

What I'm suggesting is merely a greater focus on progressive education across the length of the syllabus, rather than viewing each course in isolation. The outcome of one course has a very direct impact upon the performance attained in the next course taken.

If students don't have the skills coming in the door and you are noticing a consistent gap then your only realistic option given the reality of how the industry works is to require them to take a course like DIR-F that you're sure will prepare them.

So, basically, we can excuse PADI for not having the means to prepare divers to attain prerequisite tech-level skills? Divers should be counselled to look outside the PADI system of education if they wish to develop sufficiently solid foundations to embark upon advanced diving training?

It's not how "the industry" works. It's how PADI works. I haven't noticed the same flaws in other agencies that I am familiar with (but those aren't all the agencies, so I don't level sole critique at PADI... there may be others who work the same way).

Admitting that PADI students should look outside that agency if they wish to develop the necessary prerequisite skills for technical diving is a huge criticism of PADI. I do not wish to make that criticism. The ways and means do exist for suitable pre-tech preparatory training to occur within the existing syllabus - what needs to change is mindset: that we are training students to progress, not just providing stand-alone training. It is, after all, called Continuing Education for a reason...

 

[Diver0001]

If/when a student enters the tech program with weak core skills - it really is unforgivable. By that time, they should have completed, at least, five major courses of instruction. If those courses have failed to develop core diving competencies, then they need to be fixed. That is what I believe.

In order to complete the prerequisites for Tech-40, a diver would have to take 11 or 12 dives under supervision. The rest (the vast majority) would be dives they did on their own. Just trying to be helpful here but the minimum requirements for Tech-40 are, frankly, pretty minimal. Basically it boils down to a deep diving cert and 30 dives. Those dives will all be recreational and the highest level cert (the deep) most definitely does not intend to, nor does it have any pretense, of preparing anyone for holding stops for staged decompression or performing ascents under anything like task loading. Moreover, deep does not require a student to have any experience at all with fully redundant gear, stage bottles and all that good stuff.

In order to make sure you're not scraping the bottom of the barrel, You could consider also requiring PPB, 100 dives minimum, Rescue and logged 30 dives at 25 metres or deeper. This might solve some of your problems (won't solve buoyancy issues related to unfamiliar gear) and as long as you're not asking for LESS than the agency then you're good to go. Given your time constraints, you have to do something.

I haven't taken tech-40 and all my tech buddies teach IANTD and TDI so I don't know much about how it's taught, but it seems on paper to be comparable to IANTD advanced EanX. Around here, if you take advanced Nitrox you can pretty much assume that it's going to take you--even if you have prerequisites like I mentioned above--on the order of 6 weeks and a few dozen dives, most of which will be practicing skills without the instructor present. I would assume that Tech-40 would require about as much work if you wanted to do it right (as it were). So even though it's something like 4 dives, they should be 4 dives a week or 2 apart with 5-10 practice dives after each session and a final evaluation a week or two after the 4th dive. At least, that's how I see IANTD Advanced EanX being taught here. It would strike me as next to impossible for a student, even a good one to be able to meet the performance requirements to the level of fluency you would expect of a technical diver if they came in with 30 dives and did the 4 course dives back-to-back. Actually... not next to impossible.

That's just a bit of philosophizing but the main point is that you can choose to ask for students to have more than the minimum experience (given your time constraints) and it might be worth your while if the student has the time available if you can spread the dives out over 2 or 3 weeks to give a minimum amount of time for practice.

The 'quickest' TecRec centers/instructors roll out Tec40/45/50 modules in 3 days. THAT is quick.

I think I had a diver who took that guy's course. He came in all fluffed up about having 50 dives and being a REAL LIFE TECHNICAL DIVER. He was wearing a shirt that said "instructor on it" and his gear consisted of twin 80's and everything had an "H" on it. I said nothing about my own qualifications to him, but I asked him why he opted for the twin 80's instead of twin steel 12's and he said, "because they're bigger" (they're actually smaller in terms of volume but physically bigger... and they were shiny silver). He also told me he wore the "instructor" shirt to attract chicks. (it's never worked for me, I don't know why he thought it would work for him LOL).

To make a long story short, we took him on a guided dive and during the initial descent he turtled and crashed in a flailing mess into the bottom. I had to go help him get turned upright and after that I buddied him up with my DM who was leading the dive so he was in front of me and I could watch him. His air consumption was about double what the other divers had and during the dive we (me and the DM) decided to cap the depth at 15 metres because we were worried about this diver.

During the lunch he tried coming on to a couple of the female clients. What was really funny during the lunch is that he started at me (I guess to make himself look good) with questions like, "how many dives do you have". Initially I didn't want to cramp his swagger so I said "quite a few" but he pressed it and I told him 1200 or whatever it was at the time. He says, "Oh...well YOU should take a tech course". I said, "I've taken several". He immediately clammed up and turned his attention to something else and sat out the second dive. LOL

So... if you don't want that guy to be your student, you won't run Tech-40 in 3 days. Ever.

To do so demands that students enter training with significant prowess at tech-level core skills... allowing rapid progression through the new skills. Unless I'm the only instructor who receives sub-par students, I'd suggest that it is more common to simply 'process' (tick boxes) these students regardless of their ingrained competencies.... and/or to accept a significantly lower (than the tech community 'norm') standard of achievement upon graduation.

My contention would be that if you're running the dives back to back or not putting in enough time to practice between dives that this is going to be the result regardless of how the students look on the front door.

That's a crux issue. Some agencies do construct syllabus with progression in mind. PADI, amongst others, do not. As I said, that policy works within recreational training, but fails when technical levels are reached.

Seems to. I think traditionally this gap has been closed by asking for a lot of experience (I've heard typical demands between 120 and 200 dives) but I don't think there can be any doubt that PADI lacks an agency wide course akin to DIR-F. That's why so many instructors have developed distinctive specialties along these lines.

I'm not suggest the creation of a syllabus that is entirely tech focused and 'begins with the end in mind'. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that advancing through a syllabus of education should also entail advancing in skill and competence.

Seems to me that what you're trying to do is a step beyond where the agency is in terms of curriculum. The curriculum is almost entirely recreational focused and the tec courses seem to have been duct-taped on from the DSAT side without going all the way to bridge the paradigm gap between how traditional recreational training is done and where the entry level bar for tek training needs to be if you're going to run the courses at maximum tempo. Again, as a stop-gap measure you can ask for DIR-F or a distinctive specialty along those lines or ask for a lot of dives on the front door. Have you spoken to anyone at PADI about the issues you're having?

Do all the prerequisite courses for tech - have the skill-level, knowledge and competencies necessary to start training in tech. Again... absurd?

Not absurd but that's not the case either. The tek courses have recreational prerequisites. I don't think it's realistic to think that a deep cert with 30 dives is enough to start tek training even if that's what the standards say.

I'd expect that both factors play a role in the under-achievement of training.

Well.... where you see under achievement of training I'm seeing divers who weren't trained at all with your courses in mind. The deep cert is to prepare divers to dive to make their first excursions to 40 metres on no-deco dives. It's intended to give people a launch pad for doing their first deep dives, not to prepare them for technical training. So with the GOAL of the course in mind, I think the deep cert (if taught well) can achieve the goal it was *actually* designed for, but not the goal you *wish* it was designed for. See the difference?

Admitting that PADI students should look outside that agency if they wish to develop the necessary prerequisite skills for technical diving is a huge criticism of PADI.

I don't think so. PADI does a perfectly good job of creating a curriculum for recreational training. I'll agree with you that there is a gap that isn't bridged in the system between their recreational and technical programmes but I see it as a limitation and one that can be worked around if the instructor is willing. Nothing more.

R..

 

[DevonDiver]

I think we have vastly differing opinions on the recreational system. I don't concern myself too much about OW-AOW, other than it produces the foundations in divers I eventually have to train, but certain specialty courses could definitely do with a major re-vamp IMHO.

For the record, Tec40 is a cinch to teach properly prepared divers - comfortably in 4 days. I had a UTD qualified (Rec + Sidemount) diver attend the other month. It was a piece of cake to train him.

I don't like to do agency versus agency comparisons - but recreational PADI divers, in my experience, do tend to under-perform in comparison with divers from some other agencies; especially when considering that like-for-like 'equivalent' courses have been undertaken.

We often speak, here on Scubaboard, about the 'value' of instructors who exceed the minimum requirements of a course. However, what we fail to acknowledge is that, within a finite course duration, our ability to 'go that extra mile' is significantly determined by the starting quality of our students. If a substantial proportion of a course has to consist of remedial training (below the course level), then there is obvious deduction in time available for current-level training... and even more significant loss of time for 'the extras'.

As an aside, I rarely offer/recommend the Deep Diver course now. I steer students towards the Tec40 course. It's a 'tecreational' course - a bridge between rec and tec. It would be wrong for a Tec40 graduate to consider themselves a 'technical diver'. The curriculum of Tec40 is, however, an excellent means by which to train very competent recreational deep divers. I often combine it (allowed by standards) with the Tec Sidemount course. A total of 5 days training.

The following represent, I think, a good basis for which to start diving below 30m/100ft:

The training and experience:
Tec40 Participant prerequisites: Certified as a PADI Advanced Open Water Diver or a qualifying certification from another training organization, PADI Enriched Air Diver or a qualifying certification from another training organization, PADI Deep Diver or proof of 10 dives to 30 metres/100 feet, 18 years old, 30 logged dives (10 with EANx, 7 deeper than 30 metres/100 feet).

The goals:
Tec 40 is a limited, entry-level technical diving programme designed to bridge the gap between recreational and full deep, decompression diving.
Once qualified, divers are certified to make limited decompression dives using equipment marginally more extensive than that used for mainstream recreational diving.

 

[Diver0001]

I think we have vastly differing opinions on the recreational system. I don't concern myself too much about OW-AOW, other than it produces the foundations in divers I eventually have to train, but certain specialty courses could definitely do with a major re-vamp IMHO.

For the record, Tec40 is a cinch to teach properly prepared divers - comfortably in 4 days. I had a UTD qualified (Rec + Sidemount) diver attend the other month. It was a piece of cake to train him.

Kind of apples and oranges. A UTD qualified Rec+side-mount diver has had round about 115 hours of training, pretty much all of which was specifically geared toward preparing them for technical specialties. That's more hours of training than a typical recreational diver might get in a lifetime. You really tried that line? LOL.

As for your first point, however, I agree with you. I think some of the specialties need to be modernized to account for taking the changes made to OW and propagating them through the various specialties, to improve the system over the entire bandwidth.

I think the work PADI did on the OW course this year was a good start but it shouldn't stop there. In particular I find that the AOW course with 1 deep dive and 1 navigation dive offers both the instructor and the student FAR too little time to work on core skills. If the student also doesn't opt for PPB and night diving during AOW then there is basically next to no value there, even if the instructor is very good or unless the instructor goes well beyond the mandated number of dives and course content.

I don't have any problem with the "Adventure Diver" idea, because for a lot of people diving is just a bucket-list thing or something interesting to do on vacation. Adventure dives are a great idea for resorts and PADI hit the nail right on the head with it but adventure dives, no matter how many you take, should not lead to an AOW card, in my opinion.

I think what should lead to an AOW card is 4 (or 5) full specialties. During my AOW in 1985 we did this. When I finished AOW I had 22 dives. 16 in AOW and 6 in OW. I don't know when they changed that but it was a mistake, in my opinion. AOW should include as a minimum the deep specialty, the navigation specialty and the PPB specialty + 1 other. I'd rather prefer 2 others because PPB should rightly be reintegrated into OW if you ask me. I think PADI could do with eliminating the master diver certification in lieu of making AOW mean something or alternatively, to give a Master diver certification a new focus that includes its current content but with an additional card specific specialty in the same line as DIR-F or one of the existing distinctive specialties that are out there.

These changes would put some clear and meaningful "distance" between certifications for OW (4+ dives) AOW (20+) and Master Diver (50+). It would also give Master diver a true specific context that could allow them to specify it as a prerequisite for technical entry and build the bridge we've been talking about.

As an aside, I rarely offer/recommend the Deep Diver course now. I steer students towards the Tec40 course. It's a 'tecreational' course - a bridge between rec and tec. It would be wrong for a Tec40 graduate to consider themselves a 'technical diver'. The curriculum of Tec40 is, however, an excellent means by which to train very competent recreational deep divers.

I'll keep this in mind. As it is I tend to avoid teaching the deep specialty in my local area because it's just too hair-raising unless the student has a fair amount of diving experience coming in. In the tropics it's a different matter. If you're 40 or even 50-60 metres under the water you can still see the surface and it doesn't give people the heebeejeebees like deep diving does where I live, which is pitch black and swimming over a mug/sludge bottom.

R..

 

[Jim Lapenta]

Where we train for deep there are two choices really. A lake that has an aritificial heat source but is 130 ft deep. Or a quarry that is 135-140 with forty degree f water temps. Which one I used to choose depended on what type of exposure protection the student owns. Now it is more difficult as the local DNR closed the lake to shore diving. You must have a boat. So for me the quarry it is. At depth the water is fairly clear with vis as much as 100 feet, but the cold is a challenge. As such I never take more than two students on any deep dive and they are carrying stages and I'm in doubles or now sidemount, and also slinging a stage. I do not sell these courses to everyone. I have turned people away who I felt were not ready and two whose attitudes I did not like. Upping the basics can only lead to better students more prepped for any con ed. Things like buoyancy and trim if not taught in ow should be workshop non cert classes. That allows the instructor to tailor the course without being restricted by guidelines that may not be appropriate for every student. And if an instructor needs guidelines to teach it, well, they probably should rethink teaching altogether.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TSandM]

I think there is plenty in the PADI progression to prepare a diver for technical classes, if two things are true:

1. You need an instructor who has some training at that level himself, who knows what the bar looks like for tech diving, and WANTS to prepare the student for it. This is another place I think GUE has got it right -- they require their instructors to be certified a level above where they teach, so you can't teach Fundies unless you have a tech cert (used to be tech or cave, but they have changed that). If you read the PADI instructor's manual about a lot of these classes, the material you are PERMITTED to teach would be substantial . . . but most instructors don't teach everything that is there, and they don't hold what they do teach to a "trying to get to tech" standard

2 You need to have criteria for passing and failing. The pass/fail distinction in PADI classes is way too murky, and heavily skewed in the direction of "everybody passes". Fundies isn't like that, and students who present for that class know darned well that a significant proportion of people who take the class fail to obtain a clear pass on the first go-round. The standards are published and the criteria are objective. If we held back people who failed to demonstrate solid buoyancy control, good trim, non-silting propulsion and adequate situational awareness UNTIL those things were accomplished, we'd send much better students off to Tech 40. But we don't, because the mechanism for failing someone in a class just because they kick up the bottom isn't there.

After several years of working with PADI classes, I think the curriculum isn't bad at all. You need motivated instructors who have good skills of their own, and you need an evaluation process with teeth, if you are going to send students off to the tech arm with good basic skills.

 

[carltona]

IMHO its a silly debate. It's like Baptists and Jews debating who's going to heaven and who's not. Padi has launched many very qualified divers. Avid divers learn, and learn and learn because they are inspired by their sport. The safety records are there for everyone to see. It's not about PADI or NASE or YMCA (who?) it's about your teacher and it's about the insurance company that is covering your butt if you don't follow standards for the agency you're teaching for at the time. When I got pilots license, my flight instructor told me I just got my "license to learn" and to be a good pilot I needed to practice and learn all the time because it's the best way to have fun and avoid "death by plane". I became an instrument rated single engine pilot just because I wanted to learn. I hate flying blind in the clouds and avoided it as much as possible. Same with Scuba. Your DI should tell you when you get your first cert card that you have to learn and learn and learn because thats how you avoid "Death by Scuba" and have fun. Maybe we're all just preaching to the choir...