I am not sure what you are trying to say. Throttling back a course is nothing but gutting the course to provide the absolute minimum training allowed because the students are not ready for the course. Such as things like dives to 70 vs 100 and callin it a deep dive.
I think we're using different definitions. I read 'throttling back the course' to mean that the emphasis of the training was on remediating existing skill deficit, rather than providing progressive skills to an already sound foundation of OW skill.
Providing a 'bare-bones' standard AOW - which is just glorified fun diving - isn't (to me) 'throttling back', it's just lazy, uninspired tuition (if we can even call it 'tuition').
All training requires some degree of remedial work.
There's nothing in training standards that reflects that. The instructor should complete a pre-assessment of the diver's existing skill. If the diver is sub-standard in that assessment, then deficits should be corrected prior to starting the new course.
That is reflected in standards, but rarely in reality.
Next the throttleing back is not to privide remedial instruction , per se, it is to reduce the chance of having to fail a student or have a hand full of students slow the rest of the class down.
Again, that isn't reflected in standards. Every PADI course...and every dive/module on that course... has specific 'Performance Standards'. Those standards have to be met to permit certification. Nothing is dumbed down - to do so is a clear breach of professional standards and would be actioned by PADI under their Quality Assurance process.
However, instructors do have some discretion in how they perform their training dives. They can make dives more or less challenging using their initiative and experience. They can also add
extra skills - but may not assess the divers on any skills beyond the stated performance standards. i..e you cannot 'fail' a course for not achieving instructor-added components. You can only 'fail' for not achieving the stated performance requirements.
I have watched groups in the same class dive to 90 ft for thier deep dive and other's in the same class do just over 60. Just enough to qualify the deep parameter. I have watched students in the finals of thier aow in the water at a 40 degree heads up trim dogg paddling at 40 ft and then given thier aow card. No one will proudly and openly admit to runing classes like this, but it is meerly an occupation for many instructors to produce card carrying divers.
What you are describing is merely 'bad instruction'. It has no bearing on the course, the student or the agency. As mentioned, instructors are directed to 'pre-assess' students before starting any training course. Such pre-assessment exists to ensure that students possess pre-requisite competence (as expected from their current diving level). An Open Water diver should be expected to comfortable complete all skills and procedures taught at Open Water diver level. This includes buoyancy, trim, propulsion, weighting and all emergency protocols etc. The standards for those pre-requisites relate directly to the performance standards on that course (i.e. Open Water Course performance standards).
I do believe that diving does make a better diver if the student wants to become a better diver.
I do not. I believe two things:
1) That experience gained only reflects the quality of prior instruction. A badly trained diver who continues to dive (without correction) will accumulate further negative traits. In essence; they continue getting worse.
2) Becoming a better diver consists of two elements: water comfort and skill competency. Fun diving alone does not promote skill competency, unless that diver is actively practicing the full spectrum of necessary skills. Whilst the diver will increase water comfort...and may improve skill competency in certain skills that they use... they won't improve on any other skills that aren't specifically addressed. These might include emergency/contingency skills that don't occur on routine dives... and may also include those nuanced skills like trim or weighting that tend to require external feedback in the early stages.
3) Only perfect practice creates perfect skills. Flawed practice produces flawed skills. If the diver has been badly trained at the outset, or if they don't comprehend the finer points of a skill performance, then subsequent repetition/practice of those skills can only amplify skill errors. This is clearly illustrated in Vince Lombardi's famous quote "
Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect".
No amont of instruction can do it if the diver does not want it.
Which is why further training is beneficial. The diver then has to meet 'performance standards'. If they want a given qualification, then they must attain a given result. It is a form of motivation.
In addition, I would say it is the role of a (good) instructor to shape and develop the mindset and motivation of the diver. Teaching isn't just 'do this'... it is also about the 'why you do that'.
I No one fixes what they dont know is incorrect. When you are expoxsed to to those who have good depth control you will try to become that as a means to belong. So long as the (i hate to uae the phrase) zero to hero training is allowed, you will have that method as the mainstreem training timelines. This is why i applauded Bob for being able to say "YOU ARE NOT READY FOR FURTHER TRAINING" to those who can not yet do the basics. There are the naturals who can do courses end to end, but the majority of trainees are not naturals.
I agree, but with a caveat. If someone graduates from Open Water training they
should possess the full spectrum of open water skills
at the given performance standards. AOW requires those open water skills, at those given performance standards, as the pre-requisite.
Therefore, a
properly trained open water diver, who
legitimately meets all stated open water performance standards "IS READY FOR FURTHER TRAINING". If they are not, then they were erroneously certified as being an open water diver and/or they have experienced
skill-fade since obtaining that certification (
a risk that occurs when AOW training is deferred to a later stage).
Either way... a properly applied pre-course assessment ensures that the student has the correct pre-requisite skills, performed to the correct standard, before engaging in subsequent training. To reiterate - that pre-assessment is an instructional training standard.
A new diver needs to become comfortable in the water. You cant get that from a book.
Agreed. That is why new divers have to obtain specific performance standards in their entry-level training. Those standards aren't assessed 'from a book', they are assessed in-water.
If you're saying that '
many OW divers don't have those standards', then I agree. A lack of quality education is the culprit - specifically, instructors not applying an honest definition of the term 'mastery' when assessing student divers against performance standards.
The issue arising from this is not 'OW divers need more experience before taking AOW'... but rather, it is 'OW divers are being short-changed on their OW courses'.
The situation remains that a properly certified OW diver should be capable and ready for immediate start on AOW. Where that diver is not ready, then they
should be given remedial training prior to commencing AOW. In reality, most sub-standard divers are not turned away from AOW, because many students will simply seek an alternative (lesser?) instructor who will accept them and hand-out the desired plastic card. In acceptance of that reality, a contentious instructor might accept a sub-standard diver into training seeking to use the training opportunity to remediate and improve the student's skills to a higher level.
As the level/demands of the diving course increases (i.e. rescue - wreck - tech etc) then the need to insist upon a more firm demonstration of prerequisite competencies becomes more urgent. I'd put forward that the OW-AOW boundary isn't quite so critical.... and that the opportunity to remediate/improve core skills remains a laudable goal for an ethical instructor, when the alternative is simply to risk pushing the sub-standard student into the arms of another sub-standard instructor.
I just dont see how a new student can move to things like night diving ect is such a short time. your skills have not been tried and tested.
The skills are tried and tested. That's why there are
performance standards for certification.
At some point you get a cert and end up having a problem that would have not happened if more time had been taken between courses.
After 22 years of diving, I still occasionally encounter problems which weren't addressed during any previous training. Should I have stayed at Open Water diver level?
If you can stay calm and correctly apply all of the open-water training you received, then there isn't really any problem that can arise at AOW level that you aren't prepared to deal with. Postponing AOW because of "what ifs" just isn't logical.
If you are referring to 'diver error' causing problems.... then again, that is an issue centered on proper diver training and qualification according to performance standards.
Your objections to a direct OW - AOW transition seem to be rooted in an expectation of sub-standard OW certification. Deferring commencement of AOW isn't the solution to that problem.