Attitudes Toward DIR Divers

[Lorenzoid]

. . .

Nothing has changed agency-wise. Training was always designed to make independent divers. Diving under the care of a DM (or whatever) was not even mentioned in the course. If your instructor did not prepare you to plan your own dives, then that was the fault of the instructor.

My instructor covered all the material, as I can see it in my logbook entries (June 1998). It's just that they instilled little confidence in me to do it all on my own. The training may be designed to make independent divers, but I didn't get the impression my instructor really expected us to be able to do that right out of the gate. A few weeks later, on my first dive out in the real world (Australia), the DM helped us novice divers get set up, then they dumped us over a reef in 25 feet of water and led us around. No planning was needed. Oh, the dives got deeper, and I traveled to other places, but it seemed to me that the way most of us dived on vacation was like that. I suspect that plenty of the people I encounter on dive boats in tropical destinations would not feel confident diving without a DM leading and, well, holding their hand so to speak.

 

[The Chairman]

So, is that the 4th time you've said that you are done with this thread? Or the 5th? C'mon man. Make a decision and stick with it.

Some people are in airplane mode and need to announce every departure.

So all you DIR/GUE koolaider cheerleaders out there, be happy that you at least have a pool if raw material to work from. Without PADI, SSI, NAUI and all the other agencies you laugh at you’d have nothing.

That's a bit harsh and overly dramatic. I went through DM with PADI. My instructor was crap. No, I don't blame PADI, but always wondered why he was still an instructor. I've seen only one GUE class and was quite impressed. I don't think they need any of the other alphabets to do a good job.

When I lived in the Keys, I often saw peeps doing their first dives post certification. Few were really prepared and that diving is pretty easy. They often had poor trim and buoyancy skills, were incredibly nervous without having a guide, and I often saw them lay on the reef to clear their masks. It was often a schitt show. Moreover, they were often quite hostile to anyone pointing out their mistakes. By contrast, the only a-hole DIR divers I've ever met were on ScubaBoard and other forums. On the boat, they're always been awesome boatmates and divers. The GUE instructors I have known have all been pretty low key and humble. No FIGJAMs at all. I can't say that about instructors from the other agencies. Most are fine, but some certainly have chips on their shoulders.

While I have been mistaken for a GUE/DIR diver, even by JJ himself, I am not. I've never taken a class from them and arrived at my own style of diving and instructing on my own. Well, with a little help from ScubaBoard. But I have come to admire most of the GUE divers and instructors I have met.

 

[Kendall Raine]

The agency has no power over them whatsoever.

Hi John

I find this hard to understand insomuch as PADI, on its website (About PADI Dive Centers and Resorts | PADI), refers to PADI Dive Centers, PADI Five Star Dive Centers/Resorts/IDCs/CDCs, Boats, etc. The implication/inference is some kind of ownership/franchise/affiliation/supervision of the shop/center/resort/boat itself. I understand that may not be the case (and PADI QC may only extend to PADI pros), but if in fact PADI has "no power over" the shop, etc, (e.g. revoking a shops PADI status for a certain level of instructor disciplinary actions, customer complaints, etc) then is not PADI engaging in some form of misdirection or dissembling by applying/renting its name to operators?

This is not meant to be open ended PADI bashing (I have no dog in the fight), but an effort to reconcile the above quote with the image PADI puts forth.

Thanks,

 

[ginti]

@crofrog, my impression is that in your reasoning you put "quality" as the top priority that any agency should have. This is just not economically sustainable for organizations with specific backgrounds and with a critical mass of instructors.

PADI is a huge organization that originally used to teach in a specific way (e.g. knees on the bottom were allowed). That's fine, as in the past many people used to do it like that. But now it's slowly changing, for the better (and, for the anti-DIR people -> like it or not, GUE had a huge role in this positive change); because PADI is huge and must be profitable, the cultural shift will happen slowly, as it is normal in any huge organization to avoid collapse. Otherwise, they would lose all those old instructors who are veterans, make huge amounts of money for PADI, and do not want to change because it's out of their comfort zone (in change management, this is called resistance to change and is a HUGE thing, but I bet you and everyone else is aware of it).

And even if your reasoning is that quality = safety, the situation would not change; just not sustainable, period.

On top of it, the "evil capitalistic" approach that allegedly PADI has (by the way, I don't believe so, but let's assume it is true), has so many advantages compared to the disadvantages that before criticizing it one should at least run an in-depth analysis to see if the advantages/disadvantages ratio is favorable or not. [example of advantages: more people diving -> more people in touch with nature - > more people sensible to the environment, at least much more than they would be otherwise]

I might be completely wrong in interpreting your posts, in which case - please accept my apologies.

PS DIR vs anti-DIR: this is so fun! In all of these threads, I always read so many things that I have NEVER found in the real world... it's like entering a new reality

 

[The Chairman]

This is not meant to be open ended PADI bashing

A few feel any criticism of PADI is bashing. It's not. Mindless insults constitute bashing, not insights or questions.

 

[boulderjohn]

A few weeks later, on my first dive out in the real world (Australia), the DM helped us novice divers get set up, then they dumped us over a reef in 25 feet of water and led us around. No planning was needed.

This is very common, and I have written about it in the past. I have called it "learned helplessness." A few dive trips like that and you will have forgotten everything you learned about being independent.

It certainly happened to me. My first couple years of diving were in Cozumel, with DMs setting up my equipment for me and leading every dive. I went down when they went down, and I ascended when they ascended. The one good thing I did was get a computer when I saw that my tables were useless in that dive environment.

Then I went to Florida, and we were almost to the dive site before I realized no one was going to set up my gear for me. I struggled to remember how to do it, and I got it done just in time.

 

[boulderjohn]

You create an environment where instructors choose not to work at dive centers that compromise safety. Many of these instructors are teaching at 'Dive Centers,' and if these centers put undue pressure on instructors to engage in unsafe practices, there should be an organizational requirement for instructors to report these unsafe acts. This approach will naturally create tension between unethical dive operators and instructors, as instructors will risk losing their certifications and ability to teach if they are associated with operators that do not prioritize safety. In the long run, this tension can help to drive out unethical practices, leading to a safer and more reliable diving industry.

This creates a feedback loop where dive centers can be decertified if they consistently engage in unsafe practices. Additionally, individual dive operators would be included in safety reporting, which becomes a valuable resource for both organizations and consumers to make informed decisions.

Once again, if the dive shop itself is not affiliated with an agency, what good does it do to report it to an agency? Even if the shop is agency affiliated, what is going to happen to it? The worst is the agency drops it so it is no longer affiliated. So what? It can still have agency-affiliated instructors working for it. It can still tell those instructors to do it the way they want it done, agency standards be damned.

The very worst standards violation I ever saw was more than 20 years ago in Fiji, before I even thought of being an instructor. On our first two days of diving, our group had a single diver who was obviously a real beginner. On each dive he did, he ran low on air early and was sent to the surface on his own by the DM. During the surface interval on the second day, he overate and opted not to do the dive. When we got back to the dock, he was greeted by a man who it turned out was his OW instructor. Those four dives, including the one he didn't do and on which he never performed a single skill, were his four certification dives! I wrote to PADI, and I got a reply explaining that the dive shop itself had no affiliation with PADI, so there was nothing they could do about it. They could only discipline the instructor. So the shop lost an instructor. No problem. Time to get another one.

 

[Allen-1]

This is very common, and I have written about it in the past. I have called it "learned helplessness." A few dive trips like that and you will have forgotten everything you learned about being independent.

It certainly happened to me. My first couple years of diving were in Cozumel, with DMs setting up my equipment for me and leading every dive. I went down when they went down, and I ascended when they ascended. The one good thing I did was get a computer when I saw that my tables were useless in that dive environment.

Then I went to Florida, and we were almost to the dive site before I realized no one was going to set up my gear for me. I struggled to remember how to do it, and I got it done just in time.

I could see that.

I learned to dive at CocoView - and there's no shortage of handholding there - if you opt into it. The crew there is competent, friendly and eager to help you have a good dive vacation.

My instructor and I spoke well before we went there; the focus was on teaching me, not having others do it for me. So, I prepped my gear, I checked the oxygen level in the tanks I was using, I put my BCD on the tank, hooked my regulator up, checked for leaks, checked my SPG, my inflator, my secondary, my octo - everything.

We were in total agreement that I needed to be as self-sufficient as possible - because I'm the one going underwater with that gear, and I'm the one who needs to be able to use it. Furthermore, not everywhere is like CocoView - there won't always be people holding my hand.

 

[boulderjohn]

Hi John

I find this hard to understand insomuch as PADI, on its website (About PADI Dive Centers and Resorts | PADI), refers to PADI Dive Centers, PADI Five Star Dive Centers/Resorts/IDCs/CDCs, Boats, etc. The implication/inference is some kind of ownership/franchise/affiliation/supervision of the shop/center/resort/boat itself. I understand that may not be the case (and PADI QC may only extend to PADI pros), but if in fact PADI has "no power over" the shop, etc, (e.g. revoking a shops PADI status for a certain level of instructor disciplinary actions, customer complaints, etc) then is not PADI engaging in some form of misdirection or dissembling by applying/renting its name to operators?

This is not meant to be open ended PADI bashing (I have no dog in the fight), but an effort to reconcile the above quote with the image PADI puts forth.

Thanks,

Yes, PADI can revoke PADI affiliation for an affiliated shop that does not meet standards. It has done that, and it puts that notice on its web page. That is all it can do.

 

[crofrog]

@crofrog, my impression is that in your reasoning you put "quality" as the top priority that any agency should have. This is just not economically sustainable for organizations with specific backgrounds and with a critical mass of instructors.

This is the argument that every company that has a quality problem argues. Quality has a cost but poor quality cost more, not sure exactly where I heard that from, probably in some six sigma training from back in the day.

Yes I believe any organization who's responsible for teaching people how to engage in inherently risky activities should be heavily focused on the quality of the instruction, and the quality of the student.

PADI is a huge organization that originally used to teach in a specific way (e.g. knees on the bottom were allowed). That's fine, as in the past many people used to do it like that. But now it's slowly changing, for the better (and, for the anti-DIR people -> like it or not, GUE had a huge role in this positive change); because PADI is huge and must be profitable, the cultural shift will happen slowly, as it is normal in any huge organization to avoid collapse. Otherwise, they would lose all those old instructors who are veterans, make huge amounts of money for PADI, and do not want to change because it's out of their comfort zone (in change management, this is called resistance to change and is a HUGE thing, but I bet you and everyone else is aware of it).

The mechanisms required to create culture of quality and safety inside PADI are not expensive. It just requires more fortitude and a less resigned attitude. The cost of poor quality (COPQ) should be defined inside these organizations as well.

I agree that GUE and the other DIR agencies have had a massive positive influence on the overall diving industry by challenging the status quo of what is possible in diver training and creating a clear standard.

And even if your reasoning is that quality = safety, the situation would not change; just not sustainable, period.

On top of it, the "evil capitalistic" approach that allegedly PADI has (by the way, I don't believe so, but let's assume it is true), has so many advantages compared to the disadvantages that before criticizing it one should at least run an in-depth analysis to see if the advantages/disadvantages ratio is favorable or not. [example of advantages: more people diving -> more people in touch with nature - > more people sensible to the environment, at least much more than they would be otherwise]

Sure but let's do a full analysis of the downsides as well. There is significant impact to the marine ecosystem by divers with poor buoyancy and positioning control.

The fact that marine park rules have to specifically call out you can not stand on the coral, disturb the marine organisms, wear gloves (all from Cozumel) and that there are regulations in place in Belize for instance to "identify the environmental impact caused by clients inappropriate diving behavior" are two examples of places that have seen impacts from divers.


"Divers could cause harm to corals via direct physical contact by touching or walking on them, kneeling, standing or dragging and snagging of equipments and some of diver may even accidentally kick corals with their fin when they lose their buoyancy (58%) or deliberately holding onto corals (32%) [30]. One research reported that around 90% of divers had one or more physical interactions with reef benthos. Studies agreed that fins cause most damage to the corals followed by hands, knees and equipment [18, 30]. In this research, he found that 46% of the drivers admitted holding on to the corals during dives in strong currents. Also, 67% of the drivers admitted damaging corals in their earlier dives."
https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2014/09/shsconf_4ictr2014_01093.pdf

I tend to avoid linking to wikipedia but, this is a well referenced article. Environmental impact of recreational diving - Wikipedia

I might be completely wrong in interpreting your posts, in which case - please accept my apologies.

PS DIR vs anti-DIR: this is so fun! In all of these threads, I always read so many things that I have NEVER found in the real world... it's like entering a new reality

yes the joys of people spending time to put their thoughts into writing.