Certification-Which One?

[DCBC]

...A freshly certified diver is marginal in this capacity at best, as he/she hasn't had the dive experiance in the variety of adverse conditions to be truley competent.

Tom, I suppose what I'm saying is that if instructor A teaches only part of the curriculum and instructor B teaches the whole thing, the fact that instructor A is a better instructor doesn't really cut it. It's the instructor and not the agency? Not in this case.

It would be entirely different if a PADI instructor taught OW, AOW and Rescue in one course, as the bases would be covered; you would have a diver who could in-fact help his buddy if it was required. Until the PADI diver completes the rescue course, he isn't of any use to his buddy in a rescue situation.

How important is this ability? I suspect if you were the one that needed help, it would be quite important (to you at least). Perhaps my ideas are antiquated, but I've been lead to believe over the years, that the primary purpose of the buddy system is to be able to lend assistance if it's required. If the buddy isn't trained to do so, how can they be considered competent to be a buddy in the first-place?

 

[tomfcrist]

DC,
I understand your point, but if Instructor A only teaches part of the curriculum he should be censured by his agency, and never allowed to teach again. After all they are called STANDARDS for a reason right? I feel that a course based upon agency standards can be either sufficient or insufficient depending on the locality. Padi has a bare bones approach to diver training, and that seems to be OK in the conditions that MOST padi shops operate in(Quarrys and Tropics). That same course would be insufficient doing surf entrys off Jersey or NC. The brutal truth is, most divers dont dive unless the water is flat and the surface temp is 85 deg.(Unfortunate, I know).

Regardless of the agency, i have yet to see a fresh OW diver that has GOOD self rescue/buddy rescue skills, or is of any use to his buddy. It just doesnt happen these days. The only way to make that happen is to teach an OW course over a couple of months with 15 pool sessions and another 10-15 OW dives prior to certification.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

If the buddy isn't trained to do so, how can they be considered competent to be a buddy in the first-place?

The minimally trained diver may not be competent to take charge, but they are still a "pony bottle with fins"

And yes, DCBC, I understand your point. This is a prime reason why you should know your dive buddy, and know your own limitations.

 

[DCBC]

DC,
I understand your point, but if Instructor A only teaches part of the curriculum he should be censured by his agency, and never allowed to teach again. After all they are called STANDARDS for a reason right? I feel that a course based upon agency standards can be either sufficient or insufficient depending on the locality. Padi has a bare bones approach to diver training, and that seems to be OK in the conditions that MOST padi shops operate in(Quarrys and Tropics). That same course would be insufficient doing surf entrys off Jersey or NC. The brutal truth is, most divers dont dive unless the water is flat and the surface temp is 85 deg.(Unfortunate, I know).

Regardless of the agency, i have yet to see a fresh OW diver that has GOOD self rescue/buddy rescue skills, or is of any use to his buddy. It just doesnt happen these days. The only way to make that happen is to teach an OW course over a couple of months with 15 pool sessions and another 10-15 OW dives prior to certification.

PM Sent

 

[DCBC]

The minimally trained diver may not be competent to take charge, but they are still a "pony bottle with fins"

And yes, DCBC, I understand your point. This is a prime reason why you should know your dive buddy, and know your own limitations.

To quote an old Navy Master Chief, "You're either qualified or your in-training. No son-of-a-bitch is operational unless he's qualified to my satisfaction!" I have to agree; although you will always continue to learn, you don't go operational until you have the knowledge and skill-sets you need to keep yourself and your team safe. But that is just my opinion.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

To quote an old Navy Master Chief, "You're either qualified or your in-trainingl. No son-of-a-bitch is operational unless he's qualified to my satisfaction!" I have to agree, although you will always continue to learn, you don't go operational until you have the knowledge and skill-sets you need to keep yourself and your team safe. But that is just my opinion.

Well said.

Would agree that different operational environments require different skill-sets and knowledge? I presume "Yes" - especially for the obvious ones (overhead environments, deco-depths, ...).

Are the students learning just how minimally qualified they are? Do they "know what they don't know"?

Isn't it this knowledge that keeps them in the operational environment they are (perhaps minimally) qualified for?

I'm not defending the minimums - the question of whether they are "too minimal" is probably best discussed in a different forum.

 

[DCBC]

Are the students learning just how minimally qualified they are? Do they "know what they don't know"?

Isn't it this knowledge that keeps them in the operational environment they are (perhaps minimally) qualified for?

New divers I certify are qualified to dive without supervision, to act as a viable member of a buddy team and to dive to a depth of 60' of water, in similar (or better) conditions. They are qualified, not minimally qualified.

I'm not defending the minimums - the question of whether they are "too minimal" is probably best discussed in a different forum.

Agreed.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

New divers I certify are qualified to dive without supervision, to act as a viable member of a buddy team and to dive to a depth of 60' of water, in similar (or better) conditions. They are qualified, not minimally qualified.

I was pretty sure your students were trained well beyond minimums! Same thing for several others on the board (NWGratefulDiver, Jim, Walter, Thal,...)

Although my own training may not have been quite that good, it was better (more comprehensive might be a better word choice) than some other training I'm personally aware of. I had the benefit of an instructor who wanted to teach beyond agency minimums, and an agency that allowed him to do so. (So I really do get your point!)

And after getting the C-card, the next dive was just me and my buddy (who was AOW, but hadn't done much diving in years). We kept the depth shallow (30') and worked on skills. Good practice for both of us. Were we unsafe? Don't think so - we planned the dive to keep it "less challanging."

Still working on getting to be the "quiet" kind of diver that some folks here produce, but that is not a critical safety skill (IMHO) but a method to allow me to enjoy the dive more and not suck so much air.

 

[tomfcrist]

New divers I certify are qualified to dive without supervision, to act as a viable member of a buddy team and to dive to a depth of 60' of water, in similar (or better) conditions. They are qualified, not minimally qualified.

If they are so competent and qualified why limit them to 60ft?

 

[DCBC]

If they are so competent and qualified why limit them to 60ft?

The CMAS One Star Program sets this as an Agency Standard. After 16 dives (10 past certification), the Diver may take the Two Star Program that includes 40-50 hours of academic training and 20 dives in various conditions/environments. After this they are good to go to 130'.