Any PADI instructors here who are also DIR compliant?

[Tortuga68]

What's that about small minds talk about people etc.?

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people" - Unknown

 

[Peter Guy]

Although a (perhaps) non-germane discussion, DCBC keeps bringing this up so, maybe, a response is appropriate.

He wrote, as a criticism of PADI's decision to have as its "Watermanship Standards" for an Open Water diver to be required to float (or otherwise stay on the surface) without any aids for 10 minutes AND to swim, unaided, for 200 yards or swim, M,F,S without raising one's head out of the water, for 300 yards (both without stopping):

I don't however believe that it's reasonable (as far as safety is concerned) to place a nonswimmer (who requires an aid to prevent drowning) in deep ocean water with a swimming aid. I wouldn't do that with my children before they knew how to swim; why would I condone such practice with an adult? You're an attorney, don't you think the Courts would determine such behavour on the part of a SCUBA Instructor negligent?

His statements are just flat out wrong.

a. It would be a violation of the Watermanship standard to "place a nonswimmer (who requires an aid to prevent drowning) in deep ocean water" -- how do I know this, because we, as PADI instructors, are required to have each and every student float (stay on the surface) for 10 minutes WITHOUT THE USE OF AIDS prior to doing Open Water Dive 2. Now someone might say "Well, I think the student should be able to float for 'X' minutes and thus the PADI 10 minute float/swim isn't long enough." Good enough. But to say that PADI standards permit, nay require, us to certify someone who can't stay afloat without aids "in deep ocean water" is just plain misleading and wrong.

b. As an attorney, I would say that IF someone was able to get into "deep ocean water" as a "nonswimmer" without any aids, good for them. Why? Well how were they supposed to get into "deep ocean water" without any aids if they couldn't swim without aids? Oh, they fell off a boat? Well, then they float for 10 minutes and if the captain is so oblivious that he can't turn his boat around and throw a float, as the representative of the deceased, I'd sue the captain!

 

[DCBC]

Just a side note for the benefit of those who do not read your weekly attacks: That was 25 years ago, just before PADI dramatically changed its instructional philosophy to one based on the theory of mastery learning as originally defined by Benjamin Bloom. Much of that original disagreement (time spent on task) has no meaning in today's instructional environment.

John, I know that you mean well, but what's all this about attacks? I suppose you feel that anyone who doesn't share your particular viewpoint of a diving certification Agency is 'attacking' it.

You say things have changed, but what's seems to be the same, is a PADI Instructor can't make any fundamental changes to the PADI program. In my opinion, I couldn't prepare Students properly within the confines of the PADI program in 2013, in a safe manner, in my diving environment.

I've made valid points that you fail to address. You say that certifying divers who cannot swim (without a swimming aid), promoting the Buddy System, but not training them how to save their Buddy underwater (unless they pay more for another training course) has no meaning in today's instructional environment. Well lets just say that I strongly disagree.

I know it's only one man's opinion, but where do you get-off saying that a statement that I made isn't valid? Perhaps through your extensive experience?

I've stated to you countless times that you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems you don't think that I am entitled to mine. Perhaps you feel it incumbent on you to come to the rescue of PADI? Perhaps you feel it necessary to come to the aid of the SB populous?

Well I have faith in the reader's judgment and common sense. Some will see the wisdom in what I'm saying, others will not. Either way, I've expressed my opinion and that's what SB is all about...

---------- Post added July 5th, 2013 at 02:28 PM ----------

His statements are just flat out wrong...Now someone might say "Well, I think the student should be able to float for 'X' minutes and thus the PADI 10 minute float/swim isn't long enough." Good enough. But to say that PADI standards permit, nay require, us to certify someone who can't stay afloat without aids "in deep ocean water" is just plain misleading and wrong.

Peter, survival floating is not swimming (no propulsion is required). If you do your in-water evaluation with FMS (an aid), the Student has not shown any "unaided swimming ability." If all you can do is drownproof, you can't swim.

Now in the context of my statement which you quoted: "I don't however believe that it's reasonable (as far as safety is concerned) to place a non-swimmer (who requires an aid to prevent drowning) in deep ocean water with a swimming aid:"

In the ocean, without the ability for self-propulsion in the water, the only way for this "Certified Diver" to get himself out of the water is by using a swimming aid, or through rescue. I find this unacceptable.

As an attorney, I would say that IF someone was able to get into "deep ocean water" as a "nonswimmer" without any aids, good for them. Why? Well how were they supposed to get into "deep ocean water" without any aids if they couldn't swim without aids? Oh, they fell off a boat? Well, then they float for 10 minutes and if the captain is so oblivious that he can't turn his boat around and throw a float, as the representative of the deceased, I'd sue the captain!

My point is:

- The Instructor knew the Student had no ability to swim unaided;
- After instruction in using in-water aids, the Instructor took the Student into the ocean;
- The Student panicked and drowned.

Was it reasonable and prudent (on the part of the Instructor) to take a non-swimmer into deep ocean water with a swimming aid?

Alternatively, is it reasonable to teach a non-swimmer how to SCUBA Dive and certify him to dive unsupervised to the depths recommended by the certification Agency? I obviously think not. If you do, perhaps there have been more changes within the PADI Instructor ranks than I've imagined...

 

[beanojones]

I think it is at least worthwhile to point out that any swim test done in a pool says absolutely nothing about someone's ability to handle themselves in the ocean. So worrying about swim tests, if they are ever allowed to be done in a pool, is worrying about the wrong thing, because passing a pool test is not passing a test, it's just doing laps with granny at the Y and being tied thoughtlessly to tradition. And yet there are logistics reasons why these supposed safety ensuring entry barriers have to be done in a pool. Swim tests thus make themselves irrelevant to th stated goal of safety while diving.

Because if someone finishes a diving course with me, and even for a second think they can survive in the ocean unaided, then I have completely failed to teach anything about safety, and proper ocean behavior. Which is in fact one of the stunningly bad parts of the OW GUE course we got to watch a video about. They (students, instructors, and assistants, in the OW GUE video) demonstrated atrocious ocean behavior that would quite simply get them in very real trouble in a very short amount of time in many diving locations. I imagine part of that problem comes from GUEs idea that swim tests are a good idea, (and they think people in the water without swim aids is a good idea, which they must believe because they require swim tests for certification).

I only use the ocean, and my 'swim tests' are only done in MFS, in appropriate exposure protection. But then again I don't think anyone should ever be in the ocean without MFS and appropriate exposure protection. I don't expect to survive in the open ocean for even a short amount of time without MFS and appropriate exposure protection. Any "tests" which give people the false expectation that they can make it in the ocean 'naked' is doing a dangerous disservice to those people. I do the 10 min float because I have to, but I hate that in a diving course we are teaching people to do stupid things like getting in the water without MFS and exposure protection. I only present it in terms on learning how lung volume affects buoyancy, (and as something left over from when people thought about diving as related to swimming.)

 

[danvolker]

I think it is at least worthwhile to point out that any swim test done in a pool says absolutely nothing about someone's ability to handle themselves in the ocean. So worrying about swim tests, if they are ever allowed to be done in a pool, is worrying about the wrong thing, because passing a pool test is not passing a test, it's just doing laps with granny at the Y and being tied thoughtlessly to tradition. And yet there are logistics reasons why these supposed safety ensuring entry barriers have to be done in a pool. Swim tests thus make themselves irrelevant to th stated goal of safety while diving.

Because if someone finishes a diving course with me, and even for a second think they can survive in the ocean unaided, then I have completely failed to teach anything about safety, and proper ocean behavior. Which is in fact one of the stunningly bad parts of the OW GUE course we got to watch a video about. They (students, instructors, and assistants, in the OW GUE video) demonstrated atrocious ocean behavior that would quite simply get them in very real trouble in a very short amount of time in many diving locations. I imagine part of that problem comes from GUEs idea that swim tests are a good idea, (and they think people in the water without swim aids is a good idea, which they must believe because they require swim tests for certification).

I only use the ocean, and my 'swim tests' are only done in MFS, in appropriate exposure protection. But then again I don't think anyone should ever be in the ocean without MFS and appropriate exposure protection. I don't expect to survive in the open ocean for even a short amount of time without MFS and appropriate exposure protection. Any "tests" which give people the false expectation that they can make it in the ocean 'naked' is doing a dangerous disservice to those people. I do the 10 min float because I have to, but I hate that in a diving course we are teaching people to do stupid things like getting in the water without MFS and exposure protection. I only present it in terms on learning how lung volume affects buoyancy, (and as something left over from when people thought about diving as related to swimming.)

BJ, I find this annoying that I am closer to agreeing with you on something...
But I do see this a little differently.....
I think the GUE swim test is important for future learning. This has more to do with the psychology of learning and comfort levels....I do not believe a non-swimmer or a poor swimmer ( in a pool, in swim trunks) will be able to learn at the same rate and quality that a good swimmer will , when in scuba gear in the ocean. People that swim well are at home in the water--and will think and do skills better in their calm and comfortable state----- people that can't pass a swim test are going to be statistically less likely to be at home in the water--and will be more learning impaired, and will be more likely to panic or perform poorly in real life emergency scenarios in the ocean.

On the other hand, I agree that there SHOULD BE a skills and endurance test with Mask, fins and snorkel--I think a major failing of a majority of open water classes, is the failure to teach propulsions...kick shapes are terrible, and the coordination to get around optimally has never been taught....a swim test with mask ,fins and snorkel would "catch" this failing, and force the needed skill to be taught....and force un-fit divers to train for at least a minimal activity specific aerobic fitness. While the kick shape and response is not exactly the same on the surface as it is 3 feet underwater, I think the survival and comfort aspect will still need the snorkeling. And I don't know that an 800 meter swim with scuba tank on 3 feet down, is going to be possible without liability issues if there is an OOA drowning or heart attack linked to a timed scuba swim( even though this would be by far the most meaningful for the kick shape and coordination of dive propulsion, and the proving that this diver has mastered it).

Probably, the divers that do very well with the timed run using mask, fins and snorkel, would ALSO do well with the tanks on.

On the issue of sloppiness of GUE rec 1 divers, I do not agree with you....the skills the GUE instructors require mastery of, put these students far above the average skill set of a typical open water class by a major training agency, upon graduation....they have much more time in skills development, and much more mastery to prove. I don't think anyone is going to agree with you on this. The higher level grads of this rec 1 course, are doing something that PADI has proven is not financially viable for a large organization---the masses do not want anything close to the difficulty level of a GUE Rec 1 course...this will only appeal to about 1% of the new diver market, at best.

 

[NW Dive Dawg]

Wow… this has been a thread that has it all. Passion,personal agendas, drama…and even some mythology, trolling and BS mixed in. Actually…what I’d really love to see is for all of the keyboard commandoes (including me)to get together at a PUB over a few pitchers and talk this through face to face. The beers are on me!

As a retired instructor, I really don’t have a dog in this whole PADI vs NAUI hunt….other than that I find it extremely entertaining.

Regarding the original post which was asking about how an instructor can reconcile usage of DIR philosophies and/or equipment configurations, I can promise you that both PADI and NAUI instructors have been doing exactly this LONG before anyone ever got the idea of using capital letters to invent the concept of “doing it right”.

I personally have absolutely zero reservations or regrets about having exceeded PADI standards, and if someone on an internet forum wants to define that as “deviation”, than that’s totally cool with me. Guilty as charged. I’ll be happy to surrender my credentials and PADI can contact all of my students and tell them that there is a very serious concern that they may have learned more than they were supposed to.

It is ME who has amoral obligation to the students who entrust me with the responsibility to teach them well. It is MY responsibility to the families of these divers and the buddies of these divers. It is MY responsibility to the dive operators and anyone else who might someday find themselves endangered or at risk because of ME certifying an incompetent diver. It is MY responsibility to the UW environment and how my students might impact it. At the end of the day, it is MY name that goes onto that C-Card and MY personal responsibility. It is MY decision ALONE to certify or not certify. Not PADI.

After looking at all of this with “new” eyes, I am now convinced that that NAUI is the better agency to teach for. I say this because in the final analysis, I truly believe that the PADI instructors who are really doing a great job and putting out competent certified divers…..Probably do it by either “exceeding” or “deviating from” the prescribed program. On the flipside, the NAUI program clearly allows and even promotes this.

SO…. All other things being equal, and completely ignoring the acronym of whichever agency you happen to be teaching for….. isn’t it really better to have some minimum standards along with the unequivocal choice, freedom and even the encouragement to make your program everything you want it to be beyond those minimums?

Last but not least…. PADI really needs to reevaluate their “minimums”….in my opinion. Courses like this one are complete BS, and they could not exist without the full acknowledgement, awareness and acquiescence of the agency.

http://www.americanprodiving.com/scubacertificationcrystalriver.html

 

[danvolker]

http://www.americanprodiving.com/scubacertificationcrystalriver.html

Let's hope they use Groupon.... Might as well create a proper caricature

 

[DevonDiver]

Truly, not to beat this poor dead horse much longer, but I do want to comment on a point written by DD which, to my mind, evinces a misunderstanding of the notion of "An Early Transition to Neutral Buoyancy."

NOTHING in the PADI standards prohibits the instructor from doing demonstrations while neutral and in the water column at any time during a class. Nor is there any thing in the PADI standards which prohibits a student from attempting on her own to be neutral while "swimming" (query, can any scuba diver be said to be "swimming" -- DCBC, care to chime in on that? ) or doing skills. In fact, as was mentioned more than once in my IDCSI course, "discovery learning" is a valid, and important, part of the teaching of scuba diving.

To be honest - the quoted standard "Conduct Confined Water Dives in sequence and do not shift skills from one confined water dive to another" seems to have a tangible bearing on how this is interpreted. Specifically the word "CONDUCT".

CONDUCT - Verb: (1)Organize and carry out. (2) To direct the course of; manage or control. (3) To lead from a position of command (4) To direct the performance of. (5) to act as a medium for conveying or transmitting. (6) to act as leader or director.

The actual word used in the standards seems to prohibit the "carrying out", "conveying or transmitting", "directing the performance of" or "leading" of skills before their designated introduction point. This is a much broader definition than either "train", "demonstrate" or "assess" etc.

So.. if "fin pivot" is a designated skill (with performance requirement), introduced in CW#2... it cannot be "carried out/directed/conveyed/transmitted/led" in CW#1. If "hover" is a designated skill in CW#3, it cannot be "carried out/directed/conveyed/transmitted/led" in CW#1 or #2.

A PADI instructor risks breaching their Membership Agreement (and facing QA action) if they deviate from standards. This makes the interpretation of "CONDUCT" very important, in relation to their good standing as a PADI instructor with the PADI agency.

As John mentions, each individual PADI instructor (some 100,000+) is at liberty to personally contact PADI and seek clarification on that definition. However, PADI may have recognized the inefficiency of that mode of communication between the agency and a large, globally perfuse instructor population. I'd speculate it was for that reason that PADI authored a supplementary reference manual called the "Guide to Teaching".

That guide provides direction to instructors, to be used in conjunction with the PADI Instructor Manual, on how to implement standards and perform the given syllabus. Interestingly, in THAT guide, introductory skills are described, in both words and pictures, in a negatively buoyant state.

The 'Guide to Teaching', is not a standard itself. However, it is PADI's official and published resource on how to interpret standards for practical application. Instructors are directed to use that resource (the direction is in the Instructor Manual and on the IDC) for clarification. Therefore, its existence and the information it conveys, must have some significant bearing on this debate.

PADI have had complete freedom to amend that guide, to change their standards, or amend their wording, since the 'Transition to Neutral Buoyancy' article was published. They have not done so, despite re-publishing the Instructor Manual twice since the article appeared.

Some, involved in this debate, seem to present blame upon the entire population of PADI instructors for not "properly" interpreting PADI standards... or for failing to individually seek clarification from the PADI organization. To me, that seems entirely illogical. Surely it is the responsibility of the directing party to effectively communicate their standards in a manner that is not open to speculation/interpretation, rather than the responsibility of the directed population to ensure that they 'understand' or 'clarify' those standards in a specific manner, when no such clarification is initially provided.... or a different/opposing 'understanding' is clearly presented in supplementary materials (the Guide to Teaching).


Again.... I wish to stress that this is not an attack on PADI. I am merely attempting to analyze why the vast majority of PADI instructors conduct training in a specific manner (a late transition to neutral buoyancy)... and how a compulsion to follow published PADI standards; at risk of breaching membership agreements: provoking potential QA action and/or opening themselves to liability, might shape the conduct of their training provision.

 

[Bubble Junky]

PADI have had complete freedom to amend that guide, to change their standards, or amend their wording, since the 'Transition to Neutral Buoyancy' article was published. They have not done so, despite re-publishing the Instructor Manual twice since the article appeared.

This is allegedly being revised at present, and we have been informed to expect revisions to the OW course later this year...

 

[DevonDiver]

This is allegedly being revised at present, and we have been informed to expect revisions to the OW course later this year...

That would certainly end this debate about having to 'interpret' standards. It should also, if written effectively, unequivocally direct and support PADI instructors into making that 'transition to neutral buoyancy'.

I do wonder why there has been such a long delay between the published announcement of PADI's policy on the matter (the article in 2011) and the amendment to standards necessary to effect that policy on a global and consistent basis.

I am guessing that a significant amount of legal and technical consultation has to occur before a 'concept' becomes a 'standard'. That said, I do feel it is unfair to instructors to promote a philosophy that isn't underlined by formal policy and standards. That leaves instructors unprotected from liability in respect to standards adherence, whilst also causing inconsistency in the provision of courses from one instructor/location to another.

The alternative, of course, would be to reduce formal standards and allow instructors more stated freedom in the application of their training courses. Designating effective minimum standards prevents that becoming a double-edged sword. However, that would rely upon the agency having significant FAITH in the EXPERTISE of their instructor cadre. One might suspect that PADI does not, or cannot, express such faith...