Concerns About Length of Open Water Course

[The Chairman]

the OW course is competency based training,

I disagree with this statement. Most OW courses consist of skill mastery and not competency. Mastery is knowing how to clear your mask. Competency is effortlessly clearing your mask mid-water without being asked. Too often I see students learning how to clear their masks on their knees in the pool. They do this with a series of skills, one right after the other, kneeling all the while. Once they take these same students into the ocean, they go through the whole process again while on their knees. Usually it's in the sand but I've also seen it right on the reef. That's the antithesis of competency. They do it this way under the aegis of maintaining control. In my opinion this is bassackwards. Unfortunately, when a student encounters a problem, their first instinct is to drop to their knees. After all, that's how they learned how to do it. Kneeling is just not a very competent way to execute skills.

A better way is to start by putting the student in control of their buoyancy from the very beginning. It does take a bit longer to teach this way, but the results are amazing. Then the student can do each and every skill mid-water not only demand, but also when they need to. It looks effortless because they are in control of their buoyancy and are therefore very comfortable. Fear is the biggest obstacle to learning. Give them the tools to be in control and you've eliminated most of their fears.

 

[bracko]

that is not (unfortunately) the generally accepted term used for competency within the training industry. this is where risk based training is quite onerous on the trainers assessing skills and especially field skills comes into heavy discussion. The definition is whether or not the student can adequately perform the skills required to an agreed level. PADI do not require that agreed level to be in mid water in a position of good trim. therefore while an OWSI can enforce the requirements they are no longer adhering to the minimum competency requirements of the training material.

I wonder how often PADI (or any other agency) do risk assessments and training needs analysis against their courses upon reviewing diver accident and near miss stats.​

 

[The Chairman]

PADI do not require that agreed level to be in mid water in a position of good trim.

Most agencies don't have it written in their standards. NASE and GUE are the notable exceptions to that. From what I understand, PADI is joining them in requiring skills to be done mid water from the first of the year on out. A PADI instructor will probably know the details on that.

 

[Foxfish]

Seems to me this is a good marketing opportunity for an independent instructor. Spend some time listing out what you will teach on your course along with some measure of the skill to be achieved highlighting why it is important. When your customer asks why your course takes four days instead of two you can give the the brochure and explain.

This is something I don't think dive shops and instructors do well. At least the ones I've dealt with. When I did my OW through an SSI agency I asked what outcomes they would teach. I got blank stares. I tried to explain but got no where. When I finally chose them for the course they gave me a sheet with a list of all the skills we were learning ie. outcomes, and as I recall we, the student, ticked them off as we went. I heard they taught the course well and they were a bit more expensive so I went with them. Why not demonstrate that to prospective customers? I did my AOW through them as well.

Fast forward to when I did my Nitrox course. I had to choose between two agencies. One was a hundred dollars more expensive that the other. I probed them about what they would teach on the course and there was little difference. I went for the cheaper one which happened to be SDI.

I like the idea of adapting a course to cater for the typical conditions and challenges you're likely to encounter on an OW dive. But it needs to have due regard to the certification limits.

Buyers also need to be discerning. Does this agency teach the essential skills. Are the additional skills they're teaching really essential and value for money. Is it something I can pick up with a little experience. For example, apart from snob value, having impeccable trim may be of little benefit in the circumstances in which you dive.

 

[The Chairman]

Does this agency teach the essential skills.

Agencies don't teach skills. Instructors teach skills. Agencies set minimums. Instructors create divers. The instructor is far more important than the agency.

 

[DevonDiver]

Agencies don't teach skills. Instructors teach skills. Agencies set minimums. Instructors create divers. The instructor is far more important than the agency.

Whilst I agree with most of what you say above, I think we should be honest about what agencies 'do'. It's much more than setting 'minimums'.

• They define a training syllabus and specific outcomes/goals of that training.
• They train and certify instructors to teach that syllabus and achieve that outcome/goal.
• They specify minimum parameters for that training, but this is secondary to achieving the outcome/goal.
• They put their name to the course, they brand it... and have responsibility for the quality of what they brand.
• They have responsibility for ensuring that the product (training) meets their stated goals and what they advertise.
• They have a responsibility for meeting consumer expectations that they create in relation to their products through marketing/advertising.
• They have an ultimate responsibility for ensuring that their syllabus is taught in line with their standards, and achieves stated outcomes/goals, in every instance.

There seems to be some nefarious propaganda campaign on Scubaboard to excuse agencies of all the responsibilities that should reasonably be expected of them. Lets be clear...

If you are an agency... You create a training product. You state how it is delivered; by whom, in what manner. You state its goals and outcomes. You train people to supply that product. You produce materials to supplement that product delivery. You quality assure the delivery of that product. You charge for those materials and the outcome certification. IT IS YOUR PRODUCT... for which you have ultimate responsibility.

If the agency-set minimums are too low... or the instructors (that the agency trains and qualifies) are abusing those minimums in dereliction of the stated agency-stated outcomes/goals... and the agency-managed quality assurance is ineffective in ensuring the agencies' goals/outcomes are globally achieved... and agency-certified divers are being erroneously qualified that have not reached the stated outcomes/goals... then it is a failure in the responsibility of the agency concerned..

If an agency puts a diver's name on a plastic card with their agency logo and certification level on it... then the agency holds absolute and total responsibility for that.

"This diver has satisfactorily met the standards for this certification level as set forth by XXXXXX"

Making the above statement (on a certification card) places huge responsibility on an agency. That responsibility is to ensure the statement given is truthful, not fraudulent.

 

[The Chairman]

They define a training syllabus and specific outcomes/goals of that training.

Some more than others and none of them are all that specific. Look at the definition of "mask clear". I haven't seen a single agency completely define or quantify that process. We assume that we think we know what they mean, but it's really not that specific for any agency. Can the student use more than one breath? Does it have to be done mid-water? How dry does the mask have to be? And so on. It's up to the individual instructor to determine what's acceptable TO THEM.

They train and certify instructors to teach that syllabus and achieve that outcome/goal.

What agencies run their own ITCs? A couple provide an examiner that works for them after the ITC, but most use experienced instructors who have demonstrated their worthiness or simply bought the cert.

They specify minimum parameters for that training, but this is secondary to achieving the outcome/goal.

This is really their primary function.

They have an ultimate responsibility for ensuring that their syllabus is taught in line with their standards, and achieves stated outcomes/goals, in every instance.

When an instructor screws up and kills someone, the agency rarely pays. Sometimes they are caught in the financial crossfire, but they have insulated themselves from their instructors rather well.

There seems to be some nefarious propaganda campaign on Scubaboard to excuse agencies of all the responsibilities that should reasonably be expected of them.

OMG! A conspiracy? Here? Right here on ScubaBoard??? Oh my! Who is the ring leader? I bet it's that Doppler character. You just can't trust them Brits, ya know! Wait, wait, you don't think it's Jim Lapenta again? He comes across as if independent instructors are the way to go, but you think that might be just a smoke screen? Oh my. A conspiracy right here on ScubaBoard... or not. Yeah, I think I'm going to call Shenanigans on your "nefarious propaganda campaign" theory. Way too melodramatic.

 

[drbill]

Bah humbug... I think we should train new divers the way they did back in the old days. Strap a tank on their back, give them a single instruction ("Don't hold your breath") and let natural selection take its course.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

You should keep up with the Asiana Flight 214 crash inquiry, seems the training of the pilots is less than stunning.

That is why the incident became mainstream news because a certified pilot is not supposed to act this way. The same media attention should be given to SCUBA related stupidities. Unfortunately when a diver dies, lack of proper training is never brought in the news the same way because everyone just assumes that they were engaged in a "potentially dangerous" activity.

 

[The Chairman]

That's how I was first taught. A j valve was my gas management and a red ribbon was my depth gauge.