Agencies

[Walter]

DM's have held peoples hands for decades. I'm definitely not saying that's a good thing, but people go on 'trust me' dives all the time.

Imagine that and it's been almost 30 years since PADI started lowering standards.

 

[nereas]

... it's been almost 30 years since PADI started lowering standards.

Yes, apparently NAUI's standards were "too rigorous" and so PADI was established to be "more conducive to recreational needs" according the eulogy given when PADI's founder John Cronin deceased, not long ago.

And now, it is very conducive:

Certification in only one weekend with only 4 open water dives.

No rescue training in the basic open water course at all.

Gear dangling and dragging from B/Cs.

Fin pivots stirring up the ocean floor, and other such nonsense.

A new dive student pretty much needs to combine both the PADI basic and advanced open water courses to get a realistically safe introductory training course from PADI. The instructors are taught to strongly encourage the follow-up course, for obvious reasons. Given this approach, then the students receive 9 supervised dives, and an excellent training experience. Short of this, and it can be quite hazardous.

 

[Thalassamania]

I don't blame you for getting all over me, I should of explained my point of view a little better. I don't really want to be labeled as "One of those guys".

Half-fast apology for questionable post accepted.

It's not a safety thing to me. Choosing an agency is NOT a safety thing. Safety however, is the main focus of our teaching style and not limited to the suggested techniques of training agencies. To be honest, if we were to start teaching back down to suggested standards we would be stepping back at least 10 years. This is not a slam, but we do not consider any agency to have a high enough bar set..not even close. They are what they are and next year we may be selling someone else's books, but our standard and style of teaching will most not likely change.

One example: Our students are never put on the bottom of the pool or a platform to start learning their primary skill set. Most people overweight their students, making them rocks, and then start to teach mask clearing. No wonder new students have soo many problems with neutral buoyancy. Our students learn and complete all skill sets while maintaining neutral buoyancy. The end result....flawless buoyancy in the open water. This takes more time, but thats just the way it should be.

Wow ... do you actually believe that this is new advance? Would you be shocked to find out that what you do has been SOP in lots of programs for half a century?

If we were to choose a structured training system with only the quality of training and safety reputation in mind, and leave it up to the reputation of that system, I guess we would all be making DIR divers.

Actually that's not the case at all, but once again your, shall we say "youthful enthusiasm" is showing.

Welcome aboard.

 

[Blackwood]

Would you be shocked to find out that this has been SOP in lots of programs for half a century?

It is still seemingly rare these days.

I recognize your point, though.

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

Wow ... do you actually believe that this is new advance? Would you be shocked to find out that what you do has been SOP in lots of programs for half a century?


Welcome aboard.

If you are surrounded by peers and dive shop's that have been teaching this way since 1958, yourself included, then I am truly jealous and wish I lived and taught where you are.

However, from my limited 10 years of teaching and traveling full-time, I'm having a hard time believing you.

 

[Thalassamania]

If you are surrounded by peers and dive shop's that have been teaching this way since 1958, yourself included, then I am truly jealous and wish I lived and taught where you are.

However, from my limited 10 years of teaching and traveling full-time, I'm having a hard time believing you.

Then don't believe me, it has no effect on me or on how I teach, the only effect is on you and how you teach or fail to teach. While some of the details are different: University as opposed to LDS, program development beginning in 1952 vs 1958, new staff being continuously identified and trained, etc., you're dead on in spirt and have as much reason to be jealous as I have to be thankful.

...

You remember when regs with diving instructions were sold in Sears stores? You remember when you had to swim like you were in a Lifesaving class to pass the course? You remember when there was one (or no) OW dives to complete the course?

I want to train as many people as I can safely. I will not comprimise on getting the skills down pat. However, a mask scramble, or swimming from one tank to another without surfacing smells too much like harassment and there's not enough real world quality. If you think the RSTC is a sham that's your opinion and everyone has one. For you to slam their standards because you think your's are better is not professional, unless safety has been compromised. The whole industry would go south, if that happened, because there would be no more insurance available.

You're right, the drop out rate is too high. The entry rate is also too low. Why don't you figure out a constructive way to fix the problem, instead of bitching about it?

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, there are lots of people who do and I respect them for it, but just flapping your jaw and issuing forth platitudes about how "everyone's got an opinion," doesn't mean Jack. Knowledge and experience are what make one opinion more valuable then another ... they are not all created equal, only a fool would think that they are.

Even though you may not admit it (or even know it) you do compromise on getting the skills down pat, we all do. Its a question of knowing what to compromise on, and what to be a stickler about, and how to properly prepare a student to be able to learn the things that they will have to learn on their own, while keeping risks to a minimum.

I don't happen to conduct "mask scrambles" though we do swim from one tank to another without surfacing whilst buddy breathing (and there are many good reasons for doing so, not the least of which is identification of nurturant individuals that we want to recruit as future staff). If that smells to you, "too much like harassment," I'd submit that you really don't know what it is that we do and why we do it. All you have to go on is old wives tales passed down through your instructors and instructor course staff from their instructors instructor course staff, all who are equally clueless. In my experience, these types love to engage in the self-aggrandizing BS by putting down that which they have neither an understanding of, or the skill to accomplish. These are people who would not know "real world quality" if it hit them in the face.

Actually I remember all the things you describe, I can even remember when there were no classes and the only way to get diving equipment was from Rene's Sporting Goods. But that's neither here nor there, I'll tell you what ... when you've been part of the ANSI process (as I have, both with the Underwater Society of American and the RSTC) and as a result know what went on, and why things happened the way they did, then perhaps your opinion on the subject will of interest, until then. You're entitled to your opinion of course, for what it's worth.

 

[clint@uniquescuba.com]

Then don't believe me, it has no effect on me or on how I teach, the only effect is on you and how you teach or fail to teach. While some of the details are different: University as opposed to LDS, program development beginning in 1952 vs 1958, new staff being continuously identified and trained, etc., you're dead on in spirt and have as much reason to be jealous as I have to be thankful.

Thats Awesome!

 

[Thalassamania]

Thats Awesome!

You can do it too ... you will not make any money, but you'll have a great deal of fun and your Mama will be proud of you, and you'll get to do things that no amount of money would let you.

 

[Walter]

Yes, apparently NAUI's standards were "too rigorous" and so PADI was established to be "more conducive to recreational needs" according the eulogy given when PADI's founder John Cronin deceased, not long ago.

I wasn't present for the eulogy, but if that is what was said, it was not factually correct. PADI started in 1966 and at the time did not differ much from other agencies in terms of standards. There standards were actually quite high at least through 1977 (I have a copy).

And now, it is very conducive:

Certification in only one weekend with only 4 open water dives.

No rescue training in the basic open water course at all.

Gear dangling and dragging from B/Cs.

Fin pivots stirring up the ocean floor, and other such nonsense.

A new dive student pretty much needs to combine both the PADI basic and advanced open water courses to get a realistically safe introductory training course from PADI. The instructors are taught to strongly encourage the follow-up course, for obvious reasons. Given this approach, then the students receive 9 supervised dives, and an excellent training experience. Short of this, and it can be quite hazardous.

I disagree. AOW doesn't give students what was taken out of the entry level class. PADI's OW and AOW combined does not produce an adequately trained diver.

 

[Thalassamania]

I wasn't present for the eulogy, but if that is what was said, it was not factually correct. PADI started in 1966 and at the time did not differ much from other agencies in terms of standards. There standards were actually quite high at least through 1977 (I have a copy).

In point of fact they were virtually identical (Ralph Erickson, who was a NAUI Course Director, was not above a bit of plagiarism).