AOW Disappointment

[Rick Murchison]

That's a joke, right? You want me to retype points I've made so many times you probably memorized them years ago to "save time and duplication"?

No, Walter, it isn't a joke. A reference to your original article on agency comparisons, or to other posts where specific deficient standards are quoted would be great. I wasn't able to find the article last time I looked for it.

How about I list one biggie. PADI does not require swimming.

I agree with you that this is a deficient standard. However - and it's a big however - AFAIK that's a RSTC standard, so it's an industry problem and not one we can lay at PADI's feet. Even if they were the instigator (and it's my belief they were) other agencies caved as well. Isn't YMCA the lone holdout now on that one?

"PADI" never means an individual, most especially not an individual instructor. For an example of the organization's ethics (you figure out who might be responsible) see post 88.

What you describe in 88 is just typical sleazy lawyer maneuvering. PADI could easily write that off as "that's just what the guys we hired for the case did." But I don't disagree with you as to their conduct - I just want specifics, like this: (I really wanted it from you, Walter, because you have the facts, while all I have is my "best recollection" - but it's important and a "look under the hood" at PADI, so here goes)...
PADI's ethical lapse was their attempt to use the court as their personal bully to shut you up in the first place, rather than trying to defend their standards on their own merits.
For those of you not familiar with the case, in a nutshell, what I remember is this (Walter, feel free to correct any inaccuracies in my "version" of the story): Walter wrote an article comparing agency standards and requirements for OW certification. In his analysis, PADI came out on the bottom of the heap when requirements were added up - that is, a PADI C-Card takes less to acquire (and therefore means less) than any of the others.
PADI's response was more like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar when mom turns on the light than a responsible adult. They chose not to defend their policies or to argue in favor of their standards and minimum requirements, but rather to treaten Walter with a lawsuit if he didn't remove the article, then to actually file and try to use the court system to put enough financial strain on Walter to shut him up. And if I remember correctly, in between those two actions they pointed out a couple of minor inaccuracies to Walter in a letter, demanding that they be corrected and implying that if the corrections were made it would satisfy them. Walter made the corrections, and PADI sued him anyway. Luckily the court saw what PADI was trying to do and under California's anti-slapp law (which says you can't use the court as your personal bully) scolded PADI for their unethical attempt to shut a legitimate critic up by using the court system to apply financial pressure in a frivolous lawsuit. (Didn't they have to pay for your defense expenses Walter?)
Now that's bad ethics. Documented and specific.
Rick

 

[rakkis]

That account certainly displayed bad ethics on the part of PADI. Linkie to the article in question?

 

[MikeFerrara]

I, too, am a PADI instructor... and I, too, have no clue what it is that is entirely wrong with them. Will you enlighten me? I've been trying to get to the bottom of this since I started participating in scubaboard discussions. Many folks (some who are engaged in this discussion) have tried to tell me, but when push comes to shove, they have no real details.

Perhaps you will be more informative?

kari

I have many many posts on this board outlining specifics and directly relating them to the actual written standards. I don't mind listing a few of them again but I will point out that the standards of many agencies have the exact same failings. I use PADI standards to point out what I see as deficiencies in dive training because I was a PADI instructor, know the standards and have a copy in front of me.

Maybe I'll just start with one or two that I see as real biggies and we can go from there.

The first is a deficiency that starts in the OW course and continues on. The stated performance requirements of the actual dives just don't require the student to be diving. An AOW S&R dive can have the students sitting on the bottom to tie their knots. They can bounce around the bttom and make a mess out of the dive site while trying to perform a search. They can drop down a rope to 60+ ft for their deep dive and SIT on the bottom while doing their timed task. Remember the old commercial..."WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Well, where is the diving? All of the skills that we fail to teach and fail to require be demonstrated in OW are not taught or required in AOW either. Of course, I realize that not all instructors teach this way but many do and standards permit it.

Gas management...it just isn't taught.

I think it was SteveR recently in this thread or another like it who mentioned the number of accidents that have occured on AOW deep dives. Well, the student can be on their 5th lifetime dive when they do the deep dive. They aren't required to demonstrate that they can dive well shallow before going deep...they just go deep. To make matters worse, one can become an instructor only having done one dive below 60 ft themselves...that being the one they did in their own AOW course. So, we can have an inexperienced "deep diver" taking an inexperienced diver who can't yet dive well at any depth on a deep dive. Personally, I would expect EXACTLY the type of accidents that we do see.

To take all this one step further, the the same lack of dive technique related performance requirements that we have in OW and AOW extend on through, rescue, DM and instructor training and testing. DM's and instructor candidates demo OW level skills while kneeling. They are NEVER ASKED or REQUIRED to demonstrate that they can actually dive.

We can go through the PADI standards line by line to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, however, I suspect that we could also use the standards of some other agencies to make the same points. All you really have to do is get in the water and watch how people dive and maybe watch some classes. Then go to the standards and while you're reading them, ask, what in the standards permited all those divers to be certified or taken from the pool to OW at that skill level. It all seems clear enough.

My own personal take on it is that dive training, in general, is exactly backwards and that the agencies clearly demonstrate their total cluelessness throughout the training standards. Diving is about 98% just swimming around midwater. Right? Yet the typical OW course only requires the student to be midwater for a couple of minutes through the entire course and they are not required to do anything while they are there. They can hover "in any position" so we don't have to teach trim and body position. They can and, are often forced, to kneel on the bottom when they aren't swimming instead of hovering. And so on it all goes all the way until the diver is an instructor. Where's the diving?

Speaking for myself, I would enjoy going through it all one skill at a time to discuss what's wrong with how they are taught and what is required of the student because at best, most are poorly taught and I'd be more than comfortable making the case that they are just flat out taught wrong. I don't know how many would be interested in going through all that though.

 

[Steve R]

That account certainly displayed bad ethics on the part of PADI. Linkie to the article in question?

not much kicking around anymore, but..........

http://www.scubaboard.com/archive/index.php/t-104980.html

http://www.scubaboard.com/archive/index.php/t-57616.html


here's cleaner looking links of the above:

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=104980

http://www.scubaboard.com/showthread.php?t=57616

I hate doing other people's homework......

Diverlink site is now gone it seems, but if Walter wants to post something from it, I'll host it on my site.

As I recall Padi paid diverlink's legal fees of just under $200,000.00 when their case was tossed.

Good on ya buddy.

 

[Steve R]

......

Gas management...it just isn't taught.

I think it was SteveR recently in this thread or another like it who mentioned the number of accidents that have occured on AOW deep dives. Well, the student can be on their 5th lifetime dive when they do the deep dive. They aren't required to demonstrate that they can dive well shallow before going deep...they just go deep. To make matters worse, one can become an instructor only having done one dive below 60 ft themselves...that being the one they did in their own AOW course. So, we can have an inexperienced "deep diver" taking an inexperienced diver who can't yet dive well at any depth on a deep dive. Personally, I would expect EXACTLY the type of accidents that we do see.

To take all this one step further, the the same lack of dive technique related performance requirements that we have in OW and AOW extend on through, rescue, DM and instructor training and testing. DM's and instructor candidates demo OW level skills while kneeling. They are NEVER ASKED or REQUIRED to demonstrate that they can actually dive.

We can go through the PADI standards line by line to demonstrate that this is indeed the case, however, I suspect that we could also use the standards of some other agencies to make the same points. All you really have to do is get in the water and watch how people dive and maybe watch some classes. Then go to the standards and while you're reading them, ask, what in the standards permited all those divers to be certified or taken from the pool to OW at that skill level. It all seems clear enough.

....

Good post Mike.

Of course we've all told them the same thing countless times, you long before I ever entered the scene.

Again you are correct with the AOW course deep dive nonsense. I've seen it play out like that a few times.

Even when the Instructor has 100's of deep dives, it's of little consequence when the student with no skill or comfort at 25ft is shoved into 100ft, making the assumption that the instructor knows best and it must be OK, with all too often fatal consequences we would expect from such rediculousness.

A very sad state of affairs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care what padi does, or who wants to run with them. My point here is people need to see things for what they are and make a personal decison based on that.

 

[IXΘYΣ]

not much kicking around anymore, but..........

http://www.scubaboard.com/archive/index.php/t-104980.html

http://www.scubaboard.com/archive/index.php/t-57616.html

I hate doing other people's homework......

Diverlink site is now gone it seems, but if Walter wants to post something from it, I'll host it on my site.

Very interesting thread.
I too would like to see the original article that PADI sued over.
I followed those links but they didn't go to the article.
(Steve R - Your homework needs work )

 

[Thalassamania]

How's this for an end run???
Bear in mind that these rating similarities are for access and do not imply skills equivalency. For example, our students would never be taught to kneel on the bottom.
All requirements would be cumulative
Apprentice Scuba Diver - like PADI's "Scuba Diver" the Apprentice would require direct supervision from a dive professional
Scuba Diver Third Class (Card would read "Scuba Diver/3") - OW diver but with Nitrox and buoyancy skills. Can dive with a qualified buddy.
Scuba Diver Second Class (/2) - 25 logged dives plus a course similar to AOW + 3 dives in the 100 - 130 FSW range
Scuba Diver First Class (/1) - 50 logged dives, SLAM & basic deco.
Full Scuba Diver - 75 logged dives, "Master Diver" course + basic overhead (cavern/wreck); 10 night dives, 10 dives over 100', 10 decompression dives...
We could still issue "Specialty" or "experience" cards for those who want them

Rick

Forgetting about the details of what goes with which course, this kind of name change has been tried several times and has failed because the no agency is willing to take the hit of the competitive disadvantage created by admitting that their entry level course does not turn out a DIVER. YMCA tried this, suffered and still has not fully recovered. The Agency That Must Not Be Slammed founded it’s empire on exaggerated naming of courses; proving that you can never underestimate the intelligence of the buying public who’d much rather have a card that says, “Advanced Adventure Diver” than a more realistically named “Scuba Diver Third Class.” In point of fact, even if the Scuba Diver Third Class was demonstrably a better program and even cheaper, I bet that it still could not be marketed against the puffery and bumph of the The Agency That Must Not Be Slammed.

 

[IXΘYΣ]

>snip< The Agency That Must Not Be Slammed.

Heh, heh, heh
I love that!
heh, heh, heh

 

[Walter]

I don't know if YMCA is the lone holdout or not. I do know YMCA requires a 200 yd swim, a 25 feet (I'm a tad fuzzy on this exact distance as I've always simply used exit requirements at the beginning) underwater swim and a 10 minute tred/float before in water training can even begin. Exit requirements for the course are a 300 yd swim, a 50 ft underwater swim and a 15 minute tred/float.

I wasn't aware any other agency had eliminated the swimming requirement. If they have, it's an extremely sad state of affairs. In any case, it's inaccurate to blame the RSTC for anyone's low standards. Each agency sets its own standards. Blaming the RSTC is like the guy who says, "everyone steals from the company." So what if everyone is stealing? We are all responsible for our own actions and each agency is responsible for their own standards.

You can't find the article because the website is down. I don't know why as I've been unable to locate Eddie, the owner of the site. Eddie and I have the same attorney and she's been unable to locate him either. I do have the article and will be happy to e-mail it to folks interested in reading it. I will need e-mail addresses if anyone wants a copy. I don't recommend posting e-mail addresses.

Rick, you have the gist of the story, but as you mentioned was likely, the details are a tad different. In 1999, I undertook a study of the standards requirements of the entry level classes of three agencies. I chose those three agencies because I had access to their standards. I updated it from time to time as changes were made to the standards of the various agencies. In a discussion similar to this one, on the Diverlink board (Scubaboard did not yet exist) I casually mentioned the study in reference to standards. Eddie contacted me about the study and asked for a copy. I sent it to him and some time later he asked permission to publish the study. I granted him that right and it was published in February 2000. At that time Eddie and I hoped to expand the study to many agencies, so Eddie sent letters to every agency he could find (about 20 or so) inviting them to participate in the study.

Most agencies ignored the invitation. The only agency that agreed to participate and followed up on that agreement was YMCA. In fact, they used the study to make changes in their standards in 2000. In May of 2001, a representative of PADI sent a letter to me saying, in addition to other things, "We feel you have not only misrepresented our programs, but also placed PADI in a negative light." In that letter, Ms Van Velsan offered to provide me with a current copy of PADI standards and to assist me in understanding them. From that point, I worked with her for about 2½ months through e-mails and phone calls to make sure we could come to an agreement on exactly what the PADI standards actually require. I was amazed that the standards are written in such a manner as to make this task difficult even for someone who was an Educational Consultant, Training and Quality Management in PADI headquarters.

After I agreed to add in "recommended" under some skills, we were able to come to an agreement. Keep in mind that, by definition, "recommended" means "not required." At that point, I received a letter from her stating, "Nice job. We appreciate your efforts in presenting an accurate picture of the PADI Open Water Diver course." Three days later another letter arrived. Apparently, PADI disagreed with her views. They wanted me to show they required things they did not and do not require.

I then was ready to start the entire process over. Apparently, PADI realized they had no further arguments to support their claims that their standards required skills/topics that just weren't to be found in the standards. In any case, PADI broke off our discussions.

Shortly after that, they PADI filed a lawsuit in an attempt to hide the comparison from consumers. Their lawsuit ran on for a few years and they were required to pay our legal bills in addition to their own. I have no idea what their bills were, but they paid over $300,000 in legal bills for both the website and for me personally. In the course of that lawsuit, they subpoenaed me. I showed up with the required documents at the appointed time and place. PADI did not show up. They then tried to have me held in contempt of court. I have no respect for their ethics.

The one enjoyable part of the entire process was giving my deposition.

 

[Thalassamania]

I don't have a copy of PADI standards handy, Walter. Why not quote the deficient ones here for everyone - to save time and duplication of effort, don'tchaknow?
As for ethics, are you talking about the ethics of specific PADI officials? Instructors? or some general perception of an ethical deficiency that permeates the agency from top to bottom? Please be specific. I really want to know.
I see no need to leave hints out here while whispering behind closed doors. I mean, if we're gonna hammer PADI let's not mess around with it, and let's be specific.
Or not do it at all.
Thanks,
Rick

The issue is not specific, it is general. It&#8217;s not a question of teach this or teach that, it&#8217;s a question of does one size fit all? I happen to believe that one size does not fit all and PADI believes that it does. We can argue till we&#8217;re blue in the face and point out this missing skill, that missing concept, but when the course is over the problem is one of both content and style, content is lacking because you can&#8217;t fit everything into a course (even a 100 hour program) and PADI&#8217;s style is that some wonk at the corporate office knows best concerning what the essential items are for a course, and by the way, those essential items are constant, unchanging and can be mastered in 20 hours, as long as you accept our definition of &#8220;skill mastery.&#8221;

Now I don&#8217;t happen to accept that redefinition and I happen to think that for a course to be effective it must be adaptable to the environment and the students. I need to decide what needs to be taught, above and beyond a core list and I need to decide the best method of presentation and the optimum order in which skills will be introduced. And I need to apply a moral test to the overall product, like &#8220;Is this the way I&#8217;d want my loved ones taught?&#8221;

Specificity is not the issue, you can&#8217;t fix the PADI program by cramming in one skill from column A and two from column B, it&#8217;s the underlying authoritarian structure that is corrupt, both from a standpoint of the qualifications of the authorities and their many well documented conflicts of interest throughout the history of the organization.

Add me to the list Steve. I have watched this thread go by, and apart from unsubstantiated mudslinging, you seem to have not brought anything to the table. As yet another PADI instructor, I have worked extremely hard to be the best I can be, and hope to keep improving. That certainly isn't because I don't care about my students, and believe me I'm not doing it for the money! I believe in the association that I represent, and if you would like to publicly disparage them, please have the integrity to fully disclose your points. At the moment it appears you are merely hurling innuendo out from behind some of the bigger boys on the playground.

I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s a fair comment. I don&#8217;t doubt that you, and many of your PADI peers, work hard to be the best that that you can. I&#8217;d suggest to you that you are limited in that goal by the structure that you choose to be governed by. And be honest for a moment, don&#8217;t you really feel that way too? Almost every PADI Instructor I know has a &#8230; &#8220;but they&#8217;re the largest&#8221; or a &#8220;the shop is PADI&#8221; or some other rationalization as to why they do what they do. None ever say proudly, &#8220;I teach PADI because its training system produces the best divers.&#8221; Once again it is not a question of adding a skill or deleting an item, it is a question of basic philosophy or working in a structure that trusts you to do good well vs. a structure that thinks you an idiot and controls your every move. It&#8217;s a question of belonging to a an organization who&#8217;s history you can be proud of or one with a shady past of double dealing and conflict of interest.