Any PADI instructors here who are also DIR compliant?

[DevonDiver]

there's nothing stopping the instructor getting the student into the neutral state.

I agree. Although doing so could still be interpreted as "conducting" the skill.

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.

"Conduct" is an awkward word to have used in the standards... it's a very wide definition. If PADI meant 'assess', then they could have used "assess". If they meant 'teach', they could have used "teach" etc etc.

That said, the liability issue remains: If the student got into difficulties whilst in/because of neutral buoyancy... and hadn't yet been formally taught/assessed as mastered any of the sub-set skills (LPI use, breath control etc), then the instructor could be determined to be putting the student into a situation they are not -yet- trained to understand, or more importantly, control.

(Again, I'm just hypothesizing how some instructors might interpret the issue - to explain an identified trend. I'm not stating that any interpretation is/isn't correct).

 

[Bubble Junky]

No. The skill involves the student 'using both oral and low pressure inflation...', this doesn't. There's nothing in the IM stating that students have to be in a state of negative buoyancy, so why do you think that if an instructor weights his students correctly, or adds a little air for them, then he's breaking standards ?

On a DSD instructors are advised to add air for the students, so is that also breaking standards because that student hasn't been through CW 3 yet ? Or is it the case that we are not allowed to have DSDs neutral at all ?

 

[boulderjohn]

John, exactly how did you miss the 100 or so posts from everyone on here about how the supposed "Standards" don't mean anything, in their present form?

No I did not miss the 100 or so posts, but they are not from "everyone." They are from you, DCBC, and DevonDiver.

And what were you reading? Did you not see that there is not a single standard violated by this practice? If you think there is one, name it. All you have is DevonDiver's twisted interpretations of other publications that are not standards, followed by more twisted logic saying how unrelated standards might apply if you look at them in the right light and follow an uncertain path.

Do you realize that this is not a matter of debate? Determining whether or not a practice is within PADI standards is simply a matter of contacting PADI and asking them for an official ruling. Have you seen the posts from all the others who have contacted PADI directly and been told clearly, specifically, and in no uncertain terms that there is no violation of standards? Have you noticed that you, DCBC, and DevonDiver continually refuse to contact PADI to get confirmation of your twisted opinions? If you are so confident in your opinion, why not just shoot PADI an email and get confirmation?

 

[danvolker]

No I did not miss the 100 or so posts, but they are not from "everyone." They are from you, DCBC, and DevonDiver.

And what were you reading? Did you not see that there is not a single standard violated by this practice? If you think there is one, name it. All you have is DevonDiver's twisted interpretations of other publications that are not standards, followed by more twisted logic saying how unrelated standards might apply if you look at them in the right light and follow an uncertain path.

Do you realize that this is not a matter of debate? Determining whether or not a practice is within PADI standards is simply a matter of contacting PADI and asking them for an official ruling. Have you seen the posts from all the others who have contacted PADI directly and been told clearly, specifically, and in no uncertain terms that there is no violation of standards? Have you noticed that you, DCBC, and DevonDiver continually refuse to contact PADI to get confirmation of your twisted opinions? If you are so confident in your opinion, why not just shoot PADI an email and get confirmation?

I did use the email contact you gave me, and of course, I got no answer.
You see no violation of standards in PADI, because really the standards are so open to interpretation, that a PADI instructor can do, or fail to do, pretty much what they want--provided they know how to move around this slippery landscape....Ultimately, this is one of the reasons that you can't expect someone with an AGENCY Instructor rating to be a good instructor---particularly with PADI this is useless....the IMPORTANT criteria is finding out from a large number of divers in the local area, what instructors are good, and which are bad, independant of agency affiliation.

I think the PADI name should mean something, and with REAL STANDARDS, the name "could". As of now, and with attitudes like PADI HQ and yours, I'm afraid it can't.


John, I have to add, that I have a lot of respect for you, as do many of my friends.
I don't know why you are trying so hard to defend the lack of real standards in use by PADI. My "attack" is not against you for defending PADI--it is against PADI for putting instructors like you in a position, where you feel compelled to defend PADI in an indefensible position.

 

[DCBC]

Although I have not: gone to law school, taken the Bar exam, or tried a case, I have been the Training Director (Canada) of the World Underwater Federation (CMAS). My primary duty was to establish the Standards of all training programs. With the World Underwater Federation, National Standards take precedence over CMAS international standards.

Like NAUI and other Agencies which allow their Instructors a degree of "creative educational control," I wanted to ensure that the Student received an adequate amount of instruction/knowledge/skill-sets which would provide them with a reasonable degree of safety when diving in "normal Canadian conditions." These Standards were not to be inclusive, rather the "minimum required by the training agency for certification." What was truly required (over and above these) was the responsibility of the Instructor.

The Court system recognizes a distinct and separate Standard of Care for the certification Agency and the Instructor. If a Student requires additional knowledge or skill-sets to achieve a reasonable degree of safety (regardless of Agency Standards), the Instructor's Duty of Care requires him to provide it. Under no circumstances can any Instructor act in an unreasonable manner and not provide the training in-which is deemed to be reasonable under the circumstances (omission). Again, this is regardless of what the training Agencies Standards stipulate.

I believe that this is the primary reason why a number of certification Agencies outline "Minimum Standards" and expect Instructors to add any additional Standards and Skill-sets as are deemed to be reasonable for the diving conditions. PADI requires the Instructor to not deviate from Standards. I don't think it's positive for the Courts to give one message and the certification Agency give another.

Prior to release of the CMAS Canada Standards, they were reviewed and discussed with several Attorneys. I was subjected to a number of questions to substantiate the position taken and to provide justification of the requirements. We reviewed the Instructor insurance process, discussed liability and a number of other relevant aspects over a 12 month period.

Regardless of what the training Agency establishes as Standards, each Instructor is responsible for what they ultimately do or fail to do. What actions and inactions are considered acceptable is dependent upon what is reasonable and prudent in-light of the specific circumstances surrounding the injury or death. What the Instructor does and what he fails to do determines liability.

 

[Peter Guy]

Dan -- you continue to harp on PADI as (in essence) having no standards. Since, as DCBC (and others) have mentioned, a NAUI instructor gets to make up her own standards (subject to some worldwide minimum), then, would you agree that, just like PADI, NAUI has no standards for its instructors?

DCBC, as far as I can tell, the ONLY minimal difference between PADI and NAUI "standards" at the Open Water level is that NAUI requires the student to be taught subsurface recovery of an unresponsive diver and permits (maybe?) the teaching of Buddy Breathing (although I was told that NAUI does not permit it so I'm confused). In any event, please explain to me how the failure of teaching these two things could possibly create a liability issue for me, as a PADI instructor?

In fact, would someone PLEASE identify a case where a PADI instructor has been sued (let alone successfully sued) by an Open Water student (or her estate) for malpractice due to:

a. Teaching strictly to the PADI standards (including keeping to the suggestions from the guide to teaching); and/or

b. Teaching "above" the suggestions from the guide to teaching.

I'm sure there have been cases where it is alleged the student was NOT taught "X, Y or Z" as required by Standards, but I'm just waiting to find a case where it is alleged the student WAS taught "by (or above) the book" and still sued.

Note -- please, incidents that occurred DURING a class don't count -- we're discussing certified divers here so only cases where the diver has been certified as being an Open Water Diver are relevant.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC, as far as I can tell, the ONLY minimal difference between PADI and NAUI "standards" at the Open Water level is that NAUI requires the student to be taught subsurface recovery of an unresponsive diver and permits (maybe?) the teaching of Buddy Breathing (although I was told that NAUI does not permit it so I'm confused). In any event, please explain to me how the failure of teaching these two things could possibly create a liability issue for me, as a PADI instructor?

The differences include underwater rescue (not strictly recovery; you seem to have a problem with this definition). Buddy Breathing is not containined within the MINIMUM STANDARDS, but NAUI encourages its Instructors to teach past these... The liability issue as I see it, is that PADI Standards allows you to place a non-swimmer into the North Atlantic (and other equally hazardous locations). That's enough of a liability concern (need I say more?)

In fact, would someone PLEASE identify a case where a PADI instructor has been sued (let alone successfully sued) by an Open Water student (or her estate) for malpractice due to:

a. Teaching strictly to the PADI standards (including keeping to the suggestions from the guide to teaching); and/or

b. Teaching "above" the suggestions from the guide to teaching.

I'm sure there have been cases where it is alleged the student was NOT taught "X, Y or Z" as required by Standards, but I'm just waiting to find a case where it is alleged the student WAS taught "by (or above) the book" and still sued.

Note -- please, incidents that occurred DURING a class don't count -- we're discussing certified divers here so only cases where the diver has been certified as being an Open Water Diver are relevant.

Perhaps you should look into the several deaths in Quebec. Enough said... Interesting that you didn't comment on Post 185, or Post 174....

 

[DevonDiver]

No. The skill involves the student 'using both oral and low pressure inflation...', this doesn't. There's nothing in the IM stating that students have to be in a state of negative buoyancy, so why do you think that if an instructor weights his students correctly, or adds a little air for them, then he's breaking standards ?

On a DSD instructors are advised to add air for the students, so is that also breaking standards because that student hasn't been through CW 3 yet ? Or is it the case that we are not allowed to have DSDs neutral at all ?

I believe (John can advise) that this is more in line with what the UJ article suggests. The article doesn't actually suggest getting students 'into hover' on their own accord from CW#1... although some seem to be interpreting it as such. There's a lot of interpretation happening...

You are correct to ascertain that no standard requires "in negative buoyancy". Likewise, no standard requires "in neutral buoyancy", except those specific skills attributed to buoyancy development. However, there is formal guidance (not standards) towards skill conduct "on the knees". There is also use of the word "conduct" in respect to sequencing:

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.

Thus, to organize, carry out, lead, direct, convey or transmit those skills out of the given module sequence is a breach of standards. Is it possible that some might interpret manipulating a student into neutral buoyancy as a form of organizing, carrying out, leading, directing, conveying or transmitting one, or all, of those skills?

Please remember, this isn't what "I think", I'm just seeking to explain why there may be a prevalence of 'on the knees' training amongst the PADI instructor cadre. This further attempts an understanding on a rationale behind why PADI instructors may not feel enabled by the agency to teaching in a more 'DIR-like' manner.

It's been suggested that PADI 'never wanted lessons taught from the knees'... and that the situation was because PADI instructors were 'incorrectly interpreting standards' and/or 'negligent in seeking proper advice'. This seems unlikely to me - I think that such a broad trend can be explained by a common understanding of the standards, clear direction in primary support/guidance materials and also the role-modelling/direction given in training materials and via the IDC.

 

[Bubble Junky]

Maybe if you stop isolating the word 'conduct' and instead look at it in conjunction with the performance requirements... The performance requirements state that the student must master neutral buoyancy. If the student is not doing it, then no matter what definition of the word 'conduct' you choose to use, the skill simply has not been conducted.

 

[boulderjohn]

It's been suggested that PADI 'never wanted lessons taught from the knees'... and that the situation was because PADI instructors were 'incorrectly interpreting standards' and/or 'negligent in seeking proper advice'. This seems unlikely to me - I think that such a broad trend can be explained by a common understanding of the standards, clear direction in primary support/guidance materials and also the role-modelling/direction given in training materials and via the IDC.

I don't believe anyone I know has suggested this. PADI taught initial instruction on the knees from the start--as did every instructor in every agency back then.

If you had seen the original daft of our article, which was at least 3 times as long as the final printed draft, you would have seen the section on the history of dive instruction. One of our contributors, Dr. Sam Miller, is a dive historian, and that was his contribution. If I recall correctly, his Los Angeles instructor number is something like 27, and his NAUI number is not far off from that. When scuba instruction first started, there was no buoyancy device used whatsoever. It was several years before the neoprene wet suit was invented, giving some buoyancy. Some years later the horse collar BCD was invented, and that tended to put divers in an upright position. All early instruction was done on the knees, because there was no other way to do it.

And so that is how it was done for decades. By the time people figured out that modern equipment allowed for a different instructional approach, the practice had become thoroughly ingrained in all scuba instruction. Teaching students in any other way is a relatively modern innovation.