Concerns About Length of Open Water Course

[austrooper]

From G Carter......

Interesting response... Those statements I believe are compatible, perhaps my view is incorrect but in some way I see PADI as a regulator, often regulators such as governments have to step into markets to create safe and fair environments. The dive schools are under intense competitive pressures and in this instance they all teach courses in two days. So why would it be inappropriate for a regulator to step in? Perhaps this is not PADI's role and I should have sent a letter to the government instead?

 

[Got2Go]

This...

Rather than reducing flexibility in the scheduling of courses, I think it'd be more beneficial for PADI to simply make the definition of 'mastery' more robust; possibly in conjunction with more 'defined' performance standards. IMHO, it is the inherent vagueness in these areas that enables sub-standard instructors/operations to abuse the system (to the student's ultimate loss).

 

[gcarter]

From G Carter......

Interesting response... Those statements I believe are compatible, perhaps my view is incorrect but in some way I see PADI as a regulator, often regulators such as governments have to step into markets to create safe and fair environments. The dive schools are under intense competitive pressures and in this instance they all teach courses in two days. So why would it be inappropriate for a regulator to step in? Perhaps this is not PADI's role and I should have sent a letter to the government instead?

I think we will have to disagree on the compatibility of the statements.

PADI standards, when fully and properly adhered to, either create safe divers or they don't. Have you mastered the skill, yes or no?

If the instructors are holding to standards, they will create safe divers. If they don't, they won't.

It might be easier with more time, but that does not change the fact that NO instructor should issue a card to someone who has not met the standards. If they can't do it in 2 days and that is the only time available, they should be failed. If they are not, it is not the fault of PADI, it is the fault of the instructor.

---------- Post added December 12th, 2013 at 11:04 PM ----------

And for the record, it is my opinion that the bad divers out there are primarily the result of bad instruction. Much of it, I am sure, from individuals who consider themselves quite competent.

 

[DevonDiver]

It is my opinion that the problem is not the PADI system, it is what the shops and instructors choose to do with it.

Just my opinion, but shouldn't the PADI 'system' encompass safeguards to ensure that their courses are taught to a given standard?

If shops/instructors are finding 'loopholes' in that system... or are simply not meeting the given standards, then it could be attributed as a failure in the system itself.

Quality Assurance.... hmmm... shouldn't that assure quality?

...there is NO way I would feel confident going off on my own just after that class. I felt comfortable going out with other divers that were experienced.

You have to bear in mind that the tuition provided is balanced against prudent advice to dive conservatively and within your comfort level.

That should mean 'taking it easy' whilst you go through the post-certification process of ingraining the skills you learnt and expanding your comfort zone.

There tends to be a mentality of "I am now qualified to 18m/60ft", so I will dive to 18m/60ft..." etc etc. That isn't how it is 'supposed' to work.

People sometimes confuse a 'maximum recommended depth' with having some sort of 'license' to dive to that depth without due regard for their comfort and skill development.

The dives you might conduct supervised by an instructor in training do not necessarily equate to what you might attempt without that professional supervision. Throttle back until the comfort zone expands to meet your goals. Patience is the key.

In that respect, too much emphasis can be placed on what a course 'certifies' you to do, at the expense of prudent advice to dive conservatively, well within your training level and advance your dive experience slowly and progressively.

In my OW I felt like I got the "skills" of a diver, the "drills" but did not really learn how to dive.

Learning to dive is about learning and application. A good course should give you ample opportunity to put your skills into practice, and develop in-water comfort, through actual diving.

I agree that some instructors neglect this aspect. My personal opinion is that this stems from over-emphasis on individual skill performance requirements and too little focus on the 'overall outcome' of creating a comfortable, skilled diver. It's quite intangible... and I can see how it'd be hard to write that outcome as a global standard.

However, the instructor is always responsible for training safe, confident divers. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be qualified t that time. End of story...

... a skills workshop that covered the things that were seriously lacking in OW.

If you mean that you felt you needed supplemental training in the OW course skills, in order to achieve what you felt was 'mastery' of them - then you should contact PADI and complain. The OW course contains the foundational skills for safe, unsupervised, scuba diving within limited parameters. It should achieve it's goals. Supplemental, remedial, training after qualification should not be necessary...

Did you say anything at the time of your certification? Did you let the instructor know that you weren't happy with your skill/comfort level upon graduation?

 

[gcarter]

Just my opinion, but shouldn't the PADI 'system' encompass safeguards to ensure that their courses are taught to a given standard?

If shops/instructors are finding 'loopholes' in that system... or are simply not meeting the given standards, then it could be attributed as a failure in the system itself.

Quality Assurance.... hmmm... shouldn't that assure quality?

.....

However, the instructor is always responsible for training safe, confident divers. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be qualified t that time. End of story...

Again, the failure IMO is with the instructors - there is a mechanism for reporting violations. I will reference another current thread (you know the one) where there is a strong belief amongst some that instructors should mind their own business - the diving version of the Blue Wall.

The Blue Code of Silence (also known as the Blue Shield, Blue Wall, Curtain, Veil, or Cocoon^{[[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence"]citation needed[/URL]]}) is an unwritten rule among police officers in the United States not to report on a colleague's errors, misconducts, or crimes. If questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer (e.g. during the course of an official inquiry), while following the code, the officer being questioned would claim ignorance of another officer's wrongdoing.

I will not argue that perhaps the system could do more to ensure compliance, but that does not change the fact that if unsafe divers are being turned out after 2 days of training that do not meet standards, the responsibility lies with the instructor who passed them, not with the standards. Those same instructors should not be referred to as "of an amazing standard". They should be named and reported for breaching the standards.

 

[TSandM]

This comes up repeatedly.

PADI standards tell you what you have to do -- which skills the student must perform -- and leaves the evaluation to the nebulous standard of "comfortably and repeatedly, in the manner of an open water diver". It is up to the instructor to decide whether the student has met that standard.

I assume you are cramming all the pool work in the morning, doing two open water dives in the afternoon, and two open water dives the following day? In which case, it would be my guess that the students don't have a chance to do any skill more than once in the pool, and the one required performance in OW. You simply don't have time for anything else.

I know that there is no way on God's green earth that I would be willing to take part in OW dives in Puget Sound with students who had had no more than a half day in the pool preceding.

You will not change the established methods of your local shops. You will not get PADI to discipline them, so long as they are following the letter of the standards, which they probably are. All you can do is decide whether you can morally teach the way you are, and if not, how you are going to teach otherwise.

 

[austrooper]

This comes up repeatedly.

PADI standards tell you what you have to do -- which skills the student must perform -- and leaves the evaluation to the nebulous standard of "comfortably and repeatedly, in the manner of an open water diver". It is up to the instructor to decide whether the student has met that standard.

I assume you are cramming all the pool work in the morning, doing two open water dives in the afternoon, and two open water dives the following day? In which case, it would be my guess that the students don't have a chance to do any skill more than once in the pool, and the one required performance in OW. You simply don't have time for anything else.

I know that there is no way on God's green earth that I would be willing to take part in OW dives in Puget Sound with students who had had no more than a half day in the pool preceding.

You will not change the established methods of your local shops. You will not get PADI to discipline them, so long as they are following the letter of the standards, which they probably are. All you can do is decide whether you can morally teach the way you are, and if not, how you are going to teach otherwise.

Thanks TSandM

To be honest it doesn't sit well with me. I work full time during the week and teach on the weekends for the love of it and as a bonus I get some pocket money. I dont want the prospect of someone death on my hands. It my not be on the course but the poor sod may go out the next weekend and get into trouble.

Thanks for your reply

 

[DevonDiver]

...there is a mechanism for reporting violations.

If a mechanism isn't effective (which is what might be alleged), then it isn't appropriate to the task. It is a failure.

The prevalence of sub-standard training courses... and the ability for dive operations to pressurize instructors to break standards, might illustrate such a failure.

If we are talking about a 'system', then we identify two parties: owners and implementors. Instructors implement. They should implement what they are told to implement. Owners decide what is to be implemented. They should also hold responsibility that the implementation is done correctly (responsibility for ensuring compliance).

Again, the failure IMO is with the instructors... there is a strong belief amongst some that instructors should mind their own business

Bear in mind that the QA system places a burden on reporting first-hand evidence only. It is contrary to standards to report hearsay etc etc.. You can only report a direct breach of standards, that you witness. That would mean being physically present and actually observing a direct breach of standards.

You cannot report an instructor/operator for 'generally producing unfit graduate divers...'. To do so would be a breach of standards itself...

The 'system' thus places a burden of fear upon dive pros who may want to raise issues about competitors. They risk their own membership in doing so.

 

[gcarter]

So we are back to one of my original statements. If PADI and its standards are insufficient, then affiliation with such should be questioned. There are other agencies.

Sorry, all else aside, I have a big problem with people saying that the issue isn't really the instructors, it is the agency, and then continuing their own affiliation with that agency.

Can't agree with what the shop asks you to do? Quit. Believe that the agency allows or encourages objectionable behaviours? Change agencies.

Is it hard and personally disruptive? Likely so. But if you can't hold to personal standards when it becomes difficult, they aren't really your personal standards. They are words.

---------- Post added December 13th, 2013 at 12:04 AM ----------

Bear in mind that the QA system places a burden on reporting first-hand evidence only. It is contrary to standards to report hearsay etc etc.. You can only report a direct breach of standards, that you witness. That would mean being physically present and actually observing a direct breach of standards.

BTW, my understanding of the original post is that the poster has directly observed but chooses to believe that the instructors are not at fault. Which suggests that the standards are insufficient and should lead to a logical conclusion to change to an agency whose standards he can support.

If he believes the standards are sufficient, then the instructors should be reported.

 

[austrooper]

BTW, my understanding of the original post is that the poster has directly observed but chooses to believe that the instructors are not at fault. Which suggests that the standards are insufficient and should lead to a logical conclusion to change to an agency whose standards he can support.

If he believes the standards are sufficient, then the instructors should be reported.

Shouldn't an organisation embrace feedback, I like PADI, if possible I would like to contribute to the advancement of their instructional system.

I think the way you are approaching this situation is destructive, why cannot one make an observation, bring it to light, and integrate it into development?

It seems very insular to have the view, look to the Instructor guide and standards to solve all problems. Im sure over the years it has evolved and is unrecognisable from its origin.

Why cant their be a special standard that states, diving in cold water, with significant currents and poor vis the min amount time that must be taken in conducting an OW is 4 days. Just like we have to reduce student ratios depending on conditions?