Any PADI instructors here who are also DIR compliant?

[danvolker]

(As a counterpoint of videos shot to show skills in trim: Frankly, the divers in the tech videos many seem to love, display a much greater lack of comfort in the water, with more sculling and hand waving than I generally allow in divers my OW courses. Those videos have better 'trim', but that's just a function of gear setup, and it seems to come at the expense of stability. Just watch the lack of control when the diver does the mask R&R, dropping about two feet once he actually starts breathing instead of inflating his lungs to maintain position. And the constant fin sculling and hand flailing is about as bad a display of functionless flailing as I am ever comfortable seeing in OW students. Give me a stationary kneeling diver in a demo video over that any day.

BJ,
This shows you to be an "Internet Diver"....one that thinks they know "something about diving" because of things they have seen on the Internet.

If you actually went to a place where you would be in the water with many of these GUE divers, you would immediately see that you actually have no idea whatsoever, about what real GUE's look like in the water.
We all know you enjoy appearing ludicrous to the Scubaboard audience....kind of like someone that want's to "Troll" themself. I don't really understand why you desire to keep embarrassing yourself so much with comments borne out of ignorance to any experiences outside of your tiny little area of limited diving development ( you've indicated plenty about your area and it's Cruise Market type divers..close to "Never-Evers" in what can be expected from them).

I enjoyed reading the comedy skit part where you talk about how the perfect trim is a waste of time, and how you prefer your divers kneeling on the bottom..... Hopefully the vast bulk of your students will never visit a real coral reef area, or even a muck diving type destination.

 

[DevonDiver]

The interesting claim that DevonDiver is making is that introducing skills out of evaluation sequence is a standards violation.

Perhaps I didn't make it clear (God knows, I tried), but I'm not claiming it IS a standards violation. John has put forth that PADI clearly now don't view it as such.

My point is that a high proportion of instructors do view it as a standards violation. That to interpret it so (without the personal blessing and counsel of friends in PADI HQ) and supported by the official supplementary materials to which PADI instructors are directed to rely upon for guidance in the first instance (which I've referenced).. seems entirely logical. My further concern is that it may also be interpreted as such if liability were at stake.

It was merely my hypothesis to explain the identified trend towards 'a late transition to neutral buoyancy' by PADI instructors.

 

[Ste Wart]

In the time this thread has been running Egypt finished one revolution and started another

I think the answer is, for the most part, PADI instructors are not DIR compliant.

 

[Divedoggie]

Just thought I'd add $.02 to the conversation.

This does not need to be complicated. Minimum standards are a baseline, a foundation.
There are no PADI requirements to conduct programs in vest style BCs or on knees. A creative instructor can single out the minimum required skills and make sure they are met. Ratios and published standards must still be adhered to.

As long as PADI standards and required skills are met, there isn't a problem conducting the course more thoroughly, more responsibly, and with a greater emphasis on technique, buoyancy skills, dive planning, gas planning, and overall diving skill awareness.

Like others here, we start all of our students with backplate/wing/continuous harness/crotchstrap kits.
Most skills are conducted horizontally and with neutral buoyancy. Much time is spent getting students weighted correctly, and distributing the weight effectively. We use a submersible 4'x8' mirror suspended between 6' and 10' deep. This gives students instant feedback on trim and body control, and requires buoyancy control to stay in place while observing themselves.

In our Open Water environments, most students will never even see the bottom, let alone kneel on the bottom. It's a simple adjustment to conduct the classes horizontally.

Students read the PADI OW Manual, watch video, complete all Knowledge Reviews, take all quizzes, and final exam as required. However, the classroom sessions include an additional 6 hours of material that we put together. Presentations are extremely current, use all of our own photos and videos, and engage students with more thorough and complete information about equipment choice and configuration, physics, physiology, gas planning and management, environmental conditions, appropriate finning techniques, etc.

Students are informed before they start the class that they may not pass, and may not receive an OW card. It's my program and ultimately my name that permanently goes on the C-card as the certifying instructor. So, ultimately if a student meets basic PADI standards, but doesn't meet my own standards, I will not sign off. Since April, I've had at least 4 students who did not pass the class. They are all given opportunities to practice more and to complete the skills.

Ultimately, it seems that if we want to raise the bar, we can. It takes time and energy, creativity and commitment to create a modern, up to date and thorough program. If a dive center or Instructor doesn't want to put out that time and energy, it seems that it is easy to blame PADI and continue teaching while kneeling and meeting only the minimum standards.

 

[DevonDiver]

This does not need to be complicated. Minimum standards are a baseline, a foundation.
There are no PADI requirements to conduct programs in vest style BCs or on knees. A creative instructor can single out the minimum required skills and make sure they are met. Ratios and published standards must still be adhered to.

PADI standards aren't a baseline. They are explicit directions.

For instance; PADI standards define required equipment. That includes a BCD. BP&W is a BCD. Standard is met. No worries.

That said, there are few standards that define what you cannot do - other than having to follow the given standards, not exceed performance requirements and carry out effective risk management.

Given standard: You cannot take an Open Water student to 30m/100ft on OW#2.

No given standard: You cannot teach underwater knife fighting techniques on CW#4.

Does that mean it's okay to teach underwater knife fighting to Open Water students?

Relevant to this debate is that PADI standards also define a specific order for skills introduction. Those standards also prohibit instructors from carrying out those skills prematurely (skill 'x' in session 'y'). The word 'conduct' is used, not 'assess' - which rules out an interpretation of 'instructor must not assess a skill prematurely. Various stages of buoyancy development practice are listed within those skills, including LPI use (inflate/deflate), buoyancy control through breathing (called 'neutral buoyancy') and hovering.

Thus, if an instructor demonstrates a hover in CW#1...and asks students to replicate that skill - then they have prematurely (out of the prescribed order) introduced ("conducted") a defined skill. That could be construed as a breach of standards. If not by PADI, then by a lawyer...

 

[DCBC]

PADI standards aren't a baseline. They are explicit directions. ...That could be construed as a breach of standards. If not by PADI, then by a lawyer...

As I mentioned to John in a PM, in the case of litigation it doesn't matter what you think, what I think or what PADI thinks. The only thing that counts is what the Judge thinks. You can follow the Standards and the Judge can rule them to be insufficient and the Instructor held to be negligent. The Court has done this three times that I'm aware of already. It was the reason why the Quebec Government established a license requirement to dive "inadequate training requirements to dive in the local conditions."

There may well be a relationship between a Standards violation and Instructor Liability Insurance (?) I wouldn't be too certain that an Insurance Company would pay, if the Instructor was teaching outside of the Standards. Just saying...

I can sure appreciate the logistics involved in keeping printed material current. It's easy however to reflect any change to standards (certainly within a year or two), should the Agency elect to do so...

 

[beanojones]

As I mentioned to John in a PM, in the case of litigation it doesn't matter what you think, what I think or what PADI thinks. The only thing that counts is what the Judge thinks. You can follow the Standards and the Judge can rule them to be insufficient and the Instructor held to be negligent. The Court has done this three times that I'm aware of already. It was the reason why the Quebec Government established a license requirement to dive "inadequate training requirements to dive in the local conditions."

This is the really important point for PADI instructors to hold in mind.

PADI's standards are not a way to protect the instructor, they are a way to separate PADI from the actions of the instructor in the case of a suit. PADI instructors who do not understand this have never spent much time looking at what PADI does in actual cases. Not the ones PADI presents in Member Updates but rather in the ones where actual lawsuits and real money change hands.

PADI is a for profit corporation, and they have a responsibility to shareholders to make sure the instructor is separated from the agency liability as early as possible. That Willis/PADI spat, and the case it was talking about should be a clear sign of just what PADI will do if there is a liability issue. They will kick you the instructor out, and the instructor will get to explain himself as an expelled PADI instructor.

---------- Post added July 15th, 2013 at 05:32 PM ----------

BJ,
This shows you to be an "Internet Diver"....one that thinks they know "something about diving" because of things they have seen on the Internet.

If you actually went to a place where you would be in the water with many of these GUE divers, you would immediately see that you actually have no idea whatsoever, about what real GUE's look like in the water.
We all know you enjoy appearing ludicrous to the Scubaboard audience....kind of like someone that want's to "Troll" themself. I don't really understand why you desire to keep embarrassing yourself so much with comments borne out of ignorance to any experiences outside of your tiny little area of limited diving development ( you've indicated plenty about your area and it's Cruise Market type divers..close to "Never-Evers" in what can be expected from them).

I enjoyed reading the comedy skit part where you talk about how the perfect trim is a waste of time, and how you prefer your divers kneeling on the bottom..... Hopefully the vast bulk of your students will never visit a real coral reef area, or even a muck diving type destination.

We think you should learn reading skills, and recognize that when we say we are talking about videos, that that is in fact what we are talking about. It's a better conversation when you read the content of the posts and not just read the name on the left of the post, the thread title, and then spew whatever you feel like spewing.

We know actually reading and thinking about things is harder than just reacting to the poster's name just try reading the post and then reacting to it, rather than reading the poster's name and spewing. We know it is easier to repeat what you sense people around you saying. But sometimes it's fun to actual think new thoughts too, and bounce new ides off one another, and it's even fun to actually read what people have to say, rather than VITRiOLICALLY SPEW BECAUSE OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF ANYONE DOES OR THINKS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WISE PEOPLE KNOW TO BE THE TROOTH (We imagine spittle frothing at this point.)

Go ahead grab a cold drink, and slow down and read what others have to say.

Yep we prefer our divers kneeling on the bottom. And trim does not matter. We have said this time and again. Wait, no we have not, not once, ever. Is reading to what people actually write that much harder than reading the poster's name and the thread title?

It's hilarious to us how emotionally attached you are to when we post. But we wish it would actually result in you reading the actual words in the post as well.

Small minds concern themselves with people. Average minds, events. Great minds, ideas. At least shoot for the average mind position.

---------- Post added July 16th, 2013 at 12:41 AM ----------

Thus, if an instructor demonstrates a hover in CW#1...and asks students to replicate that skill - then they have prematurely (out of the prescribed order) introduced ("conducted") a defined skill. That could be construed as a breach of standards. If not by PADI, then by a lawyer...

I introduce hovering in the classroom. I explain how it works. I 'demonstrate' it (to the degree I demonstrate anything, and that is to say I do it without telling them I am doing a hover) continuously throughout the CW session.

I encourage them to enjoy weightlessness from their first breaths on scuba. But they are evaluated on this and every other skill at the point at which the performance requirement stands and failing to do at that point then stops their progression forward.

This is what performance based means. They know the name of most skills from watching the video, which happens before I even meet them. They see how to do most skills from watching the video, which happens even before I meet them.

I find it hard to re-parse the language so that me 'introducing' a skill in CW which has already been introduced multiple times somehow becomes a point of liability for me. Yes evaluating hovering in CW one would result in a position of potential liability because divers have not shown that they are not holding their breath to do it, because they have not demonstrated mastery of not holding breath while breathing compressed air in CW 1.*

In no small part because I am not sure how turning out divers who basically continuously demonstrate mastery of buoyancy control could ever leave me in a position of being 'liable'. On the other hand, I can imagine a whole slew of situations in which I could be found liable for turning out divers who only manage to demonstrate neutral buoyancy a few times over 10 hours of diving.

* again it is worth imagining what training a experienced but not certified diver might be like in a performance based system. Do we make them not hover at the beginning just to protect our liability? Because that seems to be what you are saying: Divers doing skills before they are to be evaluated is a standards violation or a point of liability.

 

[Divedoggie]

PADI standards aren't a baseline. They are explicit directions.

Some are explicit directions, some are not. For argument's sake, we are talking about the confined water progression and the sequence of skills in modules 1-5 on our slates. I consider it a baseline because it lists what must be taught. Nowhere does it define "how" it should be taught.

We've seen mask clearing taught in at least a dozen different ways. Why not different positions as well? The baseline is: partial flood of mask and clear, full flood of mask and clear.

We teach in a huge pool. Skills are introduced at different stations located around the pool. Mask clearing at station 2, then a neutrally buoyant swim to station 3 for regulator recovery and clearing, followed by a neutrally buoyant swim to station 4 for sharing air drill, while still neutrally buoyant. The required sequence is followed, the minimum standard is met. The slate is an outline and a baseline. The skills and standards are adhered to, in a manner more conducive to responsible and competent diving.

Also, every module allows for underwater swimming, practice and exploring. This is a great time to work on neutral buoyancy, trim, propulsion, repetition of mask flooding while neutral and horizontal, regulator recovery while swimming along underwater, sharing air while neutrally swimming next to buddy. All interesting ways to explore an otherwise fairly boring swimming pool.

 

[DCBC]

This is the really important point for PADI instructors to hold in mind.

PADI's standards are not a way to protect the instructor, they are a way to separate PADI from the actions of the instructor in the case of a suit. PADI instructors who do not understand this have never spent much time looking at what PADI does in actual cases. Not the ones PADI presents in Member Updates but rather in the ones where actual lawsuits and real money change hands.

PADI is a for profit corporation, and they have a responsibility to shareholders to make sure the instructor is separated from the agency liability as early as possible. That Willis/PADI spat, and the case it was talking about should be a clear sign of just what PADI will do if there is a liability issue. They will kick you the instructor out, and the instructor will get to explain himself as an expelled PADI instructor.

Anyone at PADI HQ can provide an Instructor with opinion. In the case of lawsuit, see what they will tell you... They will first want to speak with their Attorneys. If they are included in the action, it's a whole different ballgame.

In Court the only thing that matters is did the Instructor do anything (or fail to do anything) that s/he should have done? Were the Instructor's actions/inactions reasonable under the circumstances? The Instructor will have to face several questions.

Following PADI Standards isn't the most important thing as far as the Court is concerned. I've acted as an expert witness in a number of diving fatalities. When questioned, I'm not there to reflect the policies of any particular organization, but to comment on the reasonableness of the Instructor's actions/inactions. "In your opinion, was the training program described adequate for the diving conditions in-which the Plaintiff was subjected?" "What in your opinion was omitted from the training process that you feel was required to maintain Diver safety?" "What did the Instructor do that was unreasonable, in your opinion?" "What did the Instructor fail to do, which you believe would have been the reasonable course of action?"

Each side will often have their own expert witnesses. The certification Agency would be called to itemize their Standards and written policy. It's reasonable to believe that the person describing this policy will likely be from PADI HQ and may not be the same person the Instructor may have talked to on the telephone... This person (aware of the liability involved) likely will not care about the best interests of the Instructor, over the best interests of the Agency. Written policy that's reflective of the Board of Directors is the only thing that will matter. The Instructor will be seen as deviating from these Standards if they are not followed to the letter; unless s/he has received written authorization to do so. Regardless of policy or Standards, it all comes down to the Judge to decide what was or was not the reasonable course of action under the circumstances.

When the situation is dissected and placed under the magnifying glass, any inconsistency will be magnified. Even if the Instructor follows the Standards to the letter, it doesn't necessarily exempt him from liability. The upside is that the Instructor will likely have insurance. If there is an inconsistency, who knows? I think that the flooding of New Orleans should teach us something about insurance companies...

 

[Tortuga68]

Students are informed before they start the class that they may not pass, and may not receive an OW card. It's my program and ultimately my name that permanently goes on the C-card as the certifying instructor. So, ultimately if a student meets basic PADI standards, but doesn't meet my own standards, I will not sign off

I asked this question earlier in the thread, but I'm going to ask it again: It's my understanding that you cannot refuse to ceritify someone as a PADI diver because they don't meet your own (additional) standards, providing they have met the PADI standards. True or false? IE if the diver then complained to PADI HQ about not receiving certification, having 'demonstrated mastery' of the required skills, passed the exams etc, where would the instructor stand?