AOW Disappointment

[freediver]

Yeah, well, almost maybe but not quite plumb. It isn't a matter of blaming the RSTC standards for PADI's low standards, what I'm objecting to is singling out PADI as a lone target all the time.

Unfortunately, the fallout for one like me who strives to train a competent diver, regardless of perceived standards deficiencies is the feeling to necessarily start each of my posts with "I apologize for being a PADI instructor".

 

[MikeFerrara]

Unfortunately, the fallout for one like me who strives to train a competent diver, regardless of perceived standards deficiencies is the feeling to necessarily start each of my posts with "I apologize for being a PADI instructor".

I know the feeling. In the end I got tired of trying to make PADI standards work and making excuses for them. Especially given that they wouldn't help and it was me paying them when it should have been them paying me. I stopped paying them.

 

[rakkis]

The RSTC standards are not something that one who wishes to be a member must rise to; they are rather a least common denominator that sinks to that which is common to all the members.

That's the best short-and-sweet explanation I've seen about RSTC standards. Very well put.

 

[Otter]

An extremely active member was suspended for a few months. Another got harsher disciplinary action. I prefer not to get too specific.

From my understanding, quite a few people's testimony (for lack of a better word) went into it. Some good, some bad. QA put everything together and did their thing.

I will....while on suspension, he began teaching for another agency who was well aware of the situation he had with PADI but disagreed with PADI's decision to suspend him. My understanding he will adding yet another agency as well.

 

[Otter]

...snip..
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.

I am with Rick on this, in that while you make many valid points, your comments are often incomplete....which while making for hyperbolic prose, does not present to full story.

First I am not an attorney, but my reading of the Divelink v. PADI ruling suggests:

1. You were not a party to the lawsuit. You may have been a witness, but only Divelink was party. Your name was was [incorrectly as "Walt"] mentioned one time.

2. The court only ruled that DiveLink had immunity from being sued as the publisher, it did not address the accuracy or inaccuracy of the facts as you presented them in your article.

 

[Walter]

That doesn't make it right. If I say "I don't like PADI because they lack a swimming requirement" it loses its weight when you find out that others don't have a swimming requirement either. If I know others don't have a swimming requirement when I say it referring only to PADI, then I'm being disingenious if not downright dishonest, and my credibility suffers. I have noticed that a small rotten potato can stink up the house just as readily and as badly as a big one; just throwing the big rotten one out doesn't improve the odor.
True enough - we can look to RSTC to find the lowest of the low... and most of the time PADI is owner of the lowest standard. But my point is that when there are others in the same place then let's say so, not just "PADI's standards are unsat."
Rick

I agree. There's no reason to single out PADI if others are doing the same thing. I agree if SSI has also eliminated their swimming requirement, that's a serious problem with SSI's standards as well. OTOH, the lack of a swimming requirement was merely one example of what I feel are shortcomings in PADI standards. Going down the list, I find only three skin diving skills in their standards. They are snorkel clearing, head first surface dives and proper weighting. This is another serious problem, IMO. Are SSI's standards similar or does SSI require some skin diving skills?

 

[Walter]

my reading of the Divelink v. PADI ruling suggests:

1. You were not a party to the lawsuit. You may have been a witness, but only Divelink was party. Your name was was [incorrectly as "Walt"] mentioned one time.

2. The court only ruled that DiveLink had immunity from being sued as the publisher, it did not address the accuracy or inaccuracy of the facts as you presented them in your article.

Exactly right. I've not claimed otherwise. Was there a point?

 

[Karibelle]

just enough to get a good feel for "reasonability" in dive profile structure and what constitutes a reasonable profile for one or two pressure groups outside the NDL.
Skills wise, the ability to plan and to track gas consumption, navigation, bottom times & depths accurately and to execute stops of at least 10 minutes +/- 1 foot while dealing with simple problems (clearing a mask, retrieving a reg, sharing air, writing a note, etc) would be considered "basic."
Rick

Theory-wise - for just a couple of pressure groups outside the NDL would be covered in the emergency decompression procedures that PADI teaches from its RDP. Do you think that a thorough teaching of the tables, including those procedures and when and why you'd use them would suffice? (Again, my perspective is PADI.) If so, then perhaps in a "proper" course, even OW students would receive a basic education in deco theory?

The gap I see in skill training is the ability to plan and to track gas consumption. How do you talk to students about that subject, and is it something you start from the very beginning?

kari

 

[rakkis]

Thanks for shedding more light on it, Otter.

After reading the appeal ruling, I concur with you. The issue of whether the article represented libel was never resolved by the courts. Only the fact that Diverlink (as an electronic media publisher) was not responsible for the article - regardless of what it said.

Walter's earlier explanation of the article (even though he never made the claim) makes it seem as though the court ruled the article was libel. This was not what happened. I hope everyone is able to agree on that at least.

<patiently waits for article email attachment from Walter>

 

[rakkis]

We've gone beyond the scope of the original post.

I think this is enough:
- The intructor is breaking standards and should be reported.
- Several people in the thread have volunteered to help make that report
- The instructor is also being dishonest and shortchanging the student
- Thus.. yes.. you were duped. Find another shop.