Considering PADI master diver

[Thalassamania]

girldiverllc,

I am willing to rewrite it, if I have to, or look for it but I have posted what we did different in our classes and how they evolved over time many times on this board. I'm sure that other instructors have other methods that I never thought of but I stoled the best that I could find along the way and they are on this site. You can also PM me or even get on the phone if you wish. I have ideas and opinions but no secrets and none of it is new.

It's kind of funny, isn't it Mike? Most of what we do (and that makes all the difference) is as old as the hills. But their instructors never learned it and their ITs never learned it, so they never learned it and since they never learned it, it can’t be so … but we’re the egoists.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I would certainly concur. Almost everything I learned about proper trim and buoyancy I learned from ScubaBoard. In my OW class, trim was simply not taught, but if it's that easy to pick up from reading posts, it *can't* be that hard, can it?

It isn't that hard at all. We used to make students kneel and we too would kneel. One of the changes we made was, I drew a line in the sand and said...no staff member is to get on the bottom. In the beginning, students may not be able to stay off the pool bottom but I didn't have them kneel. I would keep them as close to horizontal as possible.

When the instructor demonstrates everything midwater and horizontal, many students will follow suit and do likewise all on their own. They only learn to kneel and rely on the bottom because we overweight them and force them to kneel. Kneel in church but it has no place in diving, Not ever. Not for any reason.

As long as I'm going, I may as well continue. Diving is 98% just swimming around neutrally buoyant. In training we don't limit buoyancy control work to a few minutes trying to get a 30 second hover or a 30 ft neutral swim. We spend several hours just swimming, stopping, turning and staying neutral. It really helps if you can video them so they can see what they looked like and to show them what it's supposed to look like before ever getting in the water. Get some video of good divers...and NO I do NOT mean the PADI skill video. Then conbine mask skills, free flow management, air sharing ect WITH diving...meaning OFF the bottom.

To back up, before we really get started on this, students are introduced to the mechanics of trim and body position in the classroom. The place to first practice body position and even fin strokes is on land where we can discuss it as we go. When we get to the point in the pool where we're wanting to be moving around neutral...which is right after they learn which end of the reg to suck on, we start working on getting them balance and weights placed such that they CAN get trimmed. As body position and control improve, adjustments may need to be made.

I could go on...descents...no dumping an plumiting. They are taught to get neutral at the surface and exhale to become slightly negative and descents are controled with buoyancy...not by pointing your feet at the bottom and kicking only to end up in a butt first plumit.

What are we missing? Buddy skills. All this should be done as buddy teams. They descend together. You didn't control your descent unless you stayed with and aware of your buddy. When Mask R&R is done they do it as buddy teams. If the no mask diver needs a reference, the buddy provides it. If you get your mask back on only to notice your buddy gone...shame on you because diving comes first and you don't need a mask to dive or see and stay aware of your buddy. Sure it takes some practice...so practice it.

OW...much the same as the pool. The last dive or two needs to be planned and conducted as an independant buddy teams....I just watch. If they need my help, the class isn't over yet. A diver can't learn to dive in a buddy team by following the instructor in a pack. Wolves travel in packs, cows in herds and birds in flocks. Divers dive in teams of two or three.

Divers need to know how to position themselves so that a buddy CAN stay aware of them. You don't dive single file unless you have lights to use for communication. Without lights divers stay side by side and at the same depth. You don't turn around once in a while to look at your buddy. You stay constantly aware of them. During descents/ascents it's face to face or side by side (face to face is best) and horizontal. Being horizontal places you in the best position to control movement in all directions. Ascents and descents are dynamic portions of the dive where problems are most likely to occure and when you have to be the most aware and the most prepared and able to respond. One kick should get you right in your buddies face with no farting around or having to change position or fill your bc or having to kick to maintain depth. Yep, it takes doing a few descents in the pool. Do them. It's easier to manage issues here than in OW.

We added these things over time and the last classes we taught had more of these "features" than earlier courses and a few were even added after we stopped teaching the public at large.

All this is simple to do and simple to teach and nothing more than common sense with the foundation skill being controled movement in the water colum. The problem is that common sense isn't so common and the agencies haven't even started to get it.

Please consider all this my opinion and I suppose there is a little more but this is some of the stuff I think is most important. I've used it all either together or seperate and I had good results. Maybe you won't but you won't know unless you try. For the record, I didn't invent any of it and stole every last bit from instructors who are betting and more experienced than I am...None of it came from any agency that I ever taught through though,

 

[MikeFerrara]

It's kind of funny, isn't it Mike? Most of what we do (and that makes all the difference) is as old as the hills. But their instructors never learned it and their ITs never learned it, so they never learned it and since they never learned it, it can’t be so … but we’re the egoists.

It's true but it isn't very funny. I came by everything the hard way. I had to have trouble and cause my students to have trouble before I got thinking that maybe there was something I could do different. Then you are still face with the question...if we're doing it wrong why doesn't anyone else know it? the first step is the hardest. If you can get yourself to believe that what you were taught isn't the best way, the rest is easy. There are people out there doing it, they talk about it, they write about it and they even post video on the internet so others can see. Some of those instructors are more than happy to have visitors in their classes and they freely share. That openess is not ego.

 

[MikeFerrara]

My wife just suggested that I post something. I've mentioned before that when we first started teaching that she didn't like to be in the water with students because she was just too scared for them. She just commented how much fun she and the students were having in some of our classes about the time we closed the shop.

I remeber a rescue class where the vis was better than I had seen it in years. It was unbelievable. The students got in and trshed it and you couldn't hardly see your hand in front of your face. One young lady asked "Is the vis always like this here?" I'll bet she hasn't done another midwest dive since.

I remember dragging students around trying to point out fish to them but they saw very little. They were to busy with survival. In our later classes, students were pointing things out to us. The diving was easy enough for them that they had time to look. these are divers who might do more diving locally.

We had one group of OW students moving along over a weed bed watching fish and we came across an AOW course where the students sat in the silt to rig their line to a bucket. We moved off out of their mess and after the dive our students asked what those other divers were doing. We told them that it was an AOW S&R dive and they asked why you need to crawl in the silt like that and pointed out that it would be easier to do if you could see.

I could give many many more examples. The students notice the difference especially when they get in OW and see other classes and have something to compare to. Most will appreciate it even if you charge a bit more. Not all of them but you can't please everybody.

Divers do not need to strugle through their first few hundred dives inventing things like they were the first to ever do it.

 

[Thalassamania]

It isn't that hard at all. We used to make students kneel and we too would kneel. One of the changes we made was, I drew a line in the sand and said...no staff member is to get on the bottom. In the beginning, students may not be able to stay off the pool bottom but I didn't have them kneel. I would keep them as close to horizontal as possible. ...

The only thing I’d add is to keep talking to a minimum. Lecture happens in the classroom, diving happens in the pool and open water. Besides it develops a student’s hand signals if his or her instructors communicate that way when under the water. We make are real attempt, when skills do not require surfacing, to spend the entire pool session (except for starting breathing exercises and ending circuit swim) underwater, off the bottom.

 

[TeddyDiver]

I'll say this though, teaching a class that results in a more capable diver does not have to be a class that excludes anybody. It doesn't have to be harder but rather more thourough. In my experience it can be done such that it actually makes it easier on both the students and the teacher. The idea is easier, not harder.

They had an easier time and most had more fun because they were diving rather than strugling. We didn't do it by making them run laps or free dive to 100 ft. We did it by giving them the information and the practice sequence that developed the skills that they needed to do a good job of diving. If anything it was conducive to including more people rather than fewer.

Sounds like PADI to me

 

[MikeFerrara]

The only thing I’d add is to keep talking to a minimum. Lecture happens in the classroom, diving happens in the pool and open water. Besides it develops a student’s hand signals if his or her instructors communicate that way when under the water. We make are real attempt, when skills to not require surfacing, to spend the entire pool session (except for starting breathing exercises and ending circuit swim) underwater, off the bottom.

I admit to never having really thought of it that way but I think you're right.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Sounds like PADI to me

Gosh, what can I say? Maybe you guys have it licked over there. Maybe I'll get to come and see someday.

 

[josh]

I am sorry, I had only 3 statistics courses, statistics for engineer, statistics and epidemiology, and a 500 level statistic class.

I bow to you, Josh...

OK. Good. Lets not however assume that other people also do not have similar experience.

Now, the original "cut and paste" was comparing the *relative risk* of activities. I agree that no values were given (man hours/days weeks), and no odds ratios were given either, as were no absolute values. In this case, however, we *can* assume that, as its a comparison, the "units" were the same. There is no reason to assume that diving was calculated in "seconds diving" and being a passanger as "man years in a car", otherwise it *would* be impossible to compare. So, for us to assume that the calculation was done in terms of "time per activity" is fair and sound (in the absence of further data).

Now, the analysis of risk (and relative risk) is VERY well studied, and the statistics of calculations of this is also very well know. In terms of a rigorous analysis,then yes, the cut and paste is perhaps only slightly better than worthless. It would be interesting for us, to get a feel for the data to know the sample sizes, the definitions of "risk" and "safer", how the data was collected (retrospectively, prospectively) what are the odds ratios etc etc etc. We would also like to know the source of the study being quoted. However, what we got was what we got.

That being said, however, the main problem in this thread is the "throwing the baby out with the bath water." What *solid* data there is, gets cited when it supports our arguement, and trashed when it does not. Thalassamania says that as we dont have *full* data, then we can't trust *any* data:

Fisherdvm has it right. The problem with diving fatality/accident stats has always been that the numerator is always an incomplete value and the denominator has always been totally unknown. I trust an expert, "I guess that ..."

Is that correct? Well, no. Of course it is not. Statistsics is, largely, about analysis of incompete data sets to enable us to draw conclusions about the whole data set with a certain degree of assurance (remember that bit fisherdvm?).

So, what data *do* we have?. We have, with a certain degree of assurance
1. The number of reported accidents per year. Now is this *all* accidents per year? No of course not. Is it a "selected set" of data? To a large degree, yes. Between years, is there *any* evidence that the percentage of all accidents reported, or the *type* of accidents reported varies significantly? No, there is no evidence that the percentage of all accidents, or the type of accidents reported changes. So we *can* use this data as at least *representative* of the number/type of accidents in diving each year.

2. The second type of data we have is the number of certifications each year. Do we have *exact* data on all certifications every year, and does anyone collate the various organizations together to provide a total number of certifications each year? No. Can we use, say, *one* organization as a guide? Yes, again, in the absence of data that says that that organization does something *markedly* different from other organizations that affects year to year reporting, we could use the data from one organization to give us an *idea* of where the whole market segment is going.

OK. We have two *representative* pieces of data. Neither set is *complete*, and both sets are merely representative of the whole of the diving industry. Both sets *are* however relatively "solid" numbers.

From those two data sets it is clear, despite any thing else going on that diving is getting SAFER. This is explicitly stated by DAN, and there is no evidence *anywhere* to the contrary.

NOw, Mike says:

You're still focusing on accidents.

Yes, mike. To an extent. Why? Becuase its the only area where there is *some* REAL data.

and then:

About 100 reported to DAN, but there's the thousand injuries. Then there all those that aren't reported to DAN. Then as has already been pointed out, we have no idea how many active divers there are or how many dives are being done

As said above mike, you do not need a "full" or "complete" data set to draw valid conclusions about the whole data set.


Now thalassamania also said that:

I trust an expert, "I guess that ..." over the self serving estimates of the industry (that unfortunately includes DAN in this matter).

That, frankly is just sad. Some one who bases their opinion on no data, or upon no factual basis is not an "expert". They are, at best, a good guesser and at worst a blowhard. To provide a convincing arguement, one that will convince the doubtful - you need DATA. Real data, and not "I guess".....or "I think......." or "I believe....". As a side point, it would be interesting to know the basis by which Thalasamania proposes that DAN are "self-serving". They are in the buisness of selling dive insurance. It would be more in their interest to make diving out to be more dangerous (to sell more insurance) rather than *less* dangerous.

OK. When it was pointed out that DAN clearly and explicitly stated that diving was safer nowadays, Mike switched his point and said that low standards are evident by murking up the bottom and damage to the coral. Fine. Only problem is, we have shifted from an "objective" assessement to a "subjective" assesement. The second problem with that, is unless those students and divers that Mike see's have thier dive affiliation blazoned across their wet suit, its difficult to see how mike can start to point the finger at specific organizations. However, be that as it may, however experienced mike is, however "right" he is, he is still basing it on a personal opinion. Again, we come back to the difference between "objective" and "subjective". If Mike can find some way to *quantify* what he is saying, then perhaps more people will listen to him seriously. I am not saying Mike does not have a point (and the mid water skills is one that I personally am taking on board), but, without some form of quantitation its just one mans (or more) hobby horse.

Now Mike also says explicitly:

Part one of the problem ...Around here our local dive sites are so silted out and torn up when divers are in the water that it isn't worth diving. I'd like to clean that up so we can all enjoy it more.

Part two...Many of the areas that the divers rototill through are covered in spawning nests for large percentage of the diving season. Those nests and the eggs in them get destroyed by the divers wallowing in the bottom.

OK, you make two points. lets take point 2, as thats the easiest to tackle. Ecologically, that habitat destruction due to divers is gonna be relatively easy to quantify - if you are prepared to put some time and effort into it. Get some 1 meter length wooden slats, make them into squares (PVC pipes would do as well). Pick two areas, one frequented by the type of diver you think are a problem, one not (for whatever reason). You want those two areas to be as similar as possible, with the only variable being the divers in one. Put the square down, and *count* the number of your indicator species (nests/eggs whatever). Do that over as long as you can, as regularly as you can. Two season? Three? Now, at the end of your study, *compare* your two data sets. Now you can start to say "divers in this area are impacting significantly, indicator species show a XY% reduction in ..... blah blah blah". You could video actual divers impacting upon the dive environment to enfoce your point. Get your divers (and students) involved. Underwater photography, videography, marine concervation, underwater naturalist etc etc all rolled into one neat little ball. From what I recall, Thalassamania is supposed to be some sort of Marine biologist or other, he could be giving you far more pertinent advice on how to *document* the habitat destruction than I can. If you start from a position of *real* data, people *are* going to listen to you. Ranting on boards like this may be fun, but, in the final analysis, its rather pointless. So, Mike, do you wanna blather on about standards, or do you want to *do* something? Your call.
-j-

 

[dbulmer]

Josh,
In post 143 Mike did describe what he did as an instructor. Mike's description of his training regime is very like the training divers in our club do except we also have to put up DSMBs because it's also a training standard of the SAA in the UK.

At various times in the past Mike F has contacted PADI about his concerns and if memory serves me right the reaction from PADI was basically a *So what?" type of reaction in that they did not actively change their view of training - Mike F can correct me if my memory is wrong. That said, just because PADI didn't listen to Mike or Thalassamania or countless other instructors does not make Mike F wrong or Thalasa wrong (nor PADI for that matter).

Your point about the statistical nature of incident reporting is perhaps a valid one and yes data does tend to be a more convincing argument when you are dealing with committees etc but in the final analysis what Mike F, Thalassamania have revealed about the skills required for nice easy fun diving without environmental damage to the underwater environment is difficult to refute.

The thing for me that helps their cause is the number of dives you have to do before you get to the point where you are not kicking up silt, have good buoyancy control, buddy awareness etc. If you learn those skills early in your dive career the diving is a lot more fun and safer simply because you are reducing the likelihood of a small issue becoming a larger one. If you have decent basic skills to start with, the learning experience becomes a lot easier.

A little tip I got from a tech diver recently was: Deco is in the head! If you are having to think about it that's often when it goes wrong. I think the same maxim can apply to OW diving - when you are not having to actively think about your basics the diving becomes so much more enjoyable. Just my 2 cents from a crap diver.