Appropriate No of Logged dives to become a DM/instructor

[Tigerman]

If the instructor is self employed, nobody but he(r) will know the numbers, so "self regulation" goes only so far...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[bakodiver391]

The minimum number of dives is just a foundation to be built upon by adding experience. It is valid to say that 60 dives is too few to enter the DM course because, in my opinion, you don't even have a foundation to build skills on. I also think that instructors should have higher credentials than the level they are teaching, ie; solid tech credentials to teach open water, for two reasons. One, they should be giving their students a solid base of skills that will serve them well if they elect to take tech training, and not allow habits that will be detrimental to further training, and this is difficult if the instructor doesn't have those skills to begin with, and second, the relationship is supposed to be a mentoring one, and why would you go to an instructor who has nothing more to offer after the course is over? I have seen some terrible instructors and without fail they are open water instructors with no higher certs. The best instructors are the more highly certified. It sounds stupidly simple but my experience backs it up.

 

[endurodog]

I've got to believe that everyone here has seen divers with 1000's of dives that shouldn't be instructors and divers with a 100 dives that will make good instructors. Dive numbers then are not the defining qualification. The only way to weed out the good and the bad is through the instructor training course. It is specific and would cover the skills that are needed to instruct properly and safely, which in the end is what is important. If that is the only answer then we can move on to problems seen in the IE or IDC.

But I will go back to something that was all ready posted in this thread. What is the problem? Will the solution be effective? What is the economic impact of said solution.

 

[TMHeimer]

The minimum number of dives is just a foundation to be built upon by adding experience. It is valid to say that 60 dives is too few to enter the DM course because, in my opinion, you don't even have a foundation to build skills on. I also think that instructors should have higher credentials than the level they are teaching, ie; solid tech credentials to teach open water, for two reasons. One, they should be giving their students a solid base of skills that will serve them well if they elect to take tech training, and not allow habits that will be detrimental to further training, and this is difficult if the instructor doesn't have those skills to begin with, and second, the relationship is supposed to be a mentoring one, and why would you go to an instructor who has nothing more to offer after the course is over? I have seen some terrible instructors and without fail they are open water instructors with no higher certs. The best instructors are the more highly certified. It sounds stupidly simple but my experience backs it up.

You have way more experience, but I'll give my limited observations. The OW instructor I had has no interest in tech. In fact, she isn't even a MSDT in the 9 years I've known her. I've DMd OW courses recently for her a couple of times and continue to believe she does a fine job. For tech. courses we have 2 MIs and several others who all are tech. divers. Are you saying that without tech. experience an instructor is more likely to be a "worse" instructor for the basics of OW courses? If so, what aspect(s) of the OW course would be taught better by a tech. diver/instructor? Not just trying to disagree, just curious.

 

[DevonDiver]

I don't think technical diving is really "a level higher" than open water - it is many levels higher. I also don't think that anyone "should have to" progress to technical diving for any reason other than they want to, can do, and accept risks involved.

Technical diving qualification should ensure a high level of foundational skill competence. Tech isn't, however, the only place to develop such competence. When applied to teaching entry-level scuba, it's the foundational competence that matters, not how/where is was developed.

 

[bakodiver391]

Andy you're right. I tend to focus on wreck/tec because that's my interest. My OW instructor was a former public safety diver and I think that background allowed him to bring a lot to the table. There are other paths that lead to increased knowledge and skills but I stand by my opinion that any instructor should bring more to the table than just open water cert.
To TH, just one example would be gear rigging. I rarely see OW divers, including instructors, with what I would consider to be properly rigged gear. This is simply "they don't know what they don't know", and an instructor with more varied experience would not be allowing habits that would later have to be undone.
Reality is that the status quo won't change, but a beginner diver can vote with his pocketbook and choose an instructor with more to offer than the basics.

 

[DevonDiver]

There's something to be said for a 'beginning with the end in mind' philosophy to teaching. Obviously, that 'end' is dictated by the understanding and ability of the instructor and, to a certain extent, by the agency itself. Training is provided with the goal to prepare foundations for subsequent levels. But then, the vast majority of scuba divers will never aspire to progressing into technical or cave divers. So, where could the line be drawn? What end goal is reasonable for the majority?

On the opposite end of the spectrum is a philosophy of "train for today". Providing only the skills and approach necessary for the current level of diving. Training only looks at the immediate requirement, with little or no consideration of subsequent progression. That's how I see the 'big' agencies doing it.

Personally, I'm a fan of a compromise approach. Train for today, but with preparation for the next immediate step. But no zealous ambition to start emulating elite level divers many stages above...

 

[Smithmike]

Hi, I would like to offer a different perspective to the master scuba diver discussion. Many people have said that it is valueless and simply something that is bought. I would disagree. I started diving about 4 years ago and have logged around 450 dives. When I started I looked at the PADI syllabus and just decided that I would go for MSD because that was the top recreational certification. I have no interest in becoming a divemaster and whilst tec diving is interesting, at 61 I feel that I am a little too old to start. I got my MSD after about 100 dives, in that process I had completed the rescue diver course (pre req) and the following specialty courses: Nitrox, Night diving, Deep diving, Navigation and Wreck diving. During that process I learned a great many skills and most of all confidence. I know several people who have many dives but every one of those dives has been in a group where they simply follow a dive master / dive guide. I, on the other hand gained the confidence to lead dives with buddies, find specific sites that we were looking for and get us safely back to the boat either by day or night.

Maybe I was lucky in having some great instructors. Do I now think that maybe some specialties should be compulsory like nitrox ( can't believe how that course has been dumbed down of late) or nav? Yes probably. Are 50 logged dives enough? Maybe not but overall in going for the MSD qualification I became a much better diver with a far greater understanding of risks and mitigation than I ever would have been if I had simply stopped formal learning after my Advanced Open Water and logged the same number of dives.

Just finished a sidemount course and will probably go on to do the self reliance specialty. So I disagree that MSD is simply bought, I learnt a great deal in the process.

 

[TMHeimer]

I don't think technical diving is really "a level higher" than open water - it is many levels higher. I also don't think that anyone "should have to" progress to technical diving for any reason other than they want to, can do, and accept risks involved.

Technical diving qualification should ensure a high level of foundational skill competence. Tech isn't, however, the only place to develop such competence. When applied to teaching entry-level scuba, it's the foundational competence that matters, not how/where is was developed.

Makes sense to me. Coincidently I just returned from a PADI member forum and a MI I know here in Florida said he finds that the tech. divers he knows are some of the worst OW instructors he knows. He says they think they know it all and at times throw in stuff that's either irrelevant or overkill for the OW candidate. It's interesting that everyone's experiences with this is different. My guess is it's the individual instructor that matters, not whether he/she is a tech. diver/instructor or not.

 

[Ste Wart]

Makes sense to me. Coincidently I just returned from a PADI member forum and a MI I know here in Florida said he finds that the tech. divers he knows are some of the worst OW instructors he knows. He says they think they know it all and at times throw in stuff that's either irrelevant or overkill for the OW candidate. It's interesting that everyone's experiences with this is different. My guess is it's the individual instructor that matters, not whether he/she is a tech. diver/instructor or not.

Agree and 'liked'.
Burden of knowledge can be a terrible thing when trying to teach OW. The students don't care about set points on your CCR or the time you got stuck solo-diving inside a wreck.


Sent from my couch using tapatalk