Differences between Dive Agencies?

[Standingbear56]

OY! Here we go again! Agency vs Agency. Does it ever stop???? Listen, like it or not, ALL agencies have their faults - OK? None of them are perfect. While I am a PADI instructor, I make no claims that PADI is the end all in diving instruction. That being said, I see no reason to lower my professional standards by talking down other agencies. Like I have said - there are good and bad instructors in EVERY agency. My first employment was with a store that taught both NAUI and PADI. I taught the exact same skills the exact same way in either class. I changed nothing. On the academic side, yes NAUI was more particular such as the students needed to know that it is Boyle's law that deals with Pressure/Volume/Density along with understanding the concept. PADI just required understanding the concept without having to remember Boyle's name. This is true of the lower levels of training. On the upper levels, it's pretty close, including knowing Boyle's name. There are pro's and con's to both, and we can proceed to argue them till we are all blue in the face, and for the most part, we have. Enough already! I work NAUI/PADI all the time, and it's the goal of our Dive Center to produce the safest, most competent divers we can. One agency is NOT head and toes above the other.
Safe Diving,
George
PADI MSDT

 

[scubajcf]

Limits would not be the correct word. PADI instructors can add to the information given a student, but the student cannot have their certification with held by not being able to demonstrate mastery of any added skills. In example, I include basic rescue skills in my confined water exercises. However, if the student does not show mastery on the rescue portion, which has not happened, but demonstrates mastery with the required skills, I must certify the student. NAUI allows instructors, to my understanding, to with hold certs if the student does not demonstrate mastery in the skills above standards. Since I am certified to teach and certify Rescue divers, and as long as I follow the standards for that course while instructing the students in Open Water, I have a defensible postion if challenged. I cannot however, teach decompression diving as I am not qualified to teach that.

Actually, PADI does not allow you to teach outside their "instructional system" or "standards" while teaching a PADI course. Furthermore, if you advertise it as a PADI Course, you must adhere to their standards and issue a PADI certification card.

According to the PADI Instructor Manual, "The responsibility for course or program content and sequencing falls on PADI". Under PADI's standards, they do not allow their instructors to become an "instructional designer" and PADI's system is the "... bonafide instructional system [that] will tie together and clearly establish the material's presentation, repetition and multiple proof of student diver mastery."

In the case of Confined Water Sessions 1 through 5, the PADI Instructor must present the skills on the cue cards in order. That means you cannot introduce skills on Cue Card 2 until all skills have been mastered on Cue Card 1 (you do have some flexibility as to sequencing inside the confined water session). The definition of mastery, as outlined in the Instructor Manual, "is performing the skill so it meets the stated performance requirements in a reasonably comfortable, fluid, repeateable manner as would be expected of an Open Water Diver." Sequencing and what-not is further outlined in the PADI Learning Pyramid.

While no single person or agency can prevent you from teaching additional skills or skills out of sequence, PADI will tell you that if you do so, you are not teaching a PADI course. The ramifications for this are outlined in the Risk Management and Quality Management sections of the Instructor Manual. To Summarize: When you teach outside of the prescribed curriculum by PADI, you are outside of standards. I only bring this to your attention, because you say that "Since I am certified to teach and certify Rescue divers, and as long as I follow the standards for that course while instructing the students in Open Water, I have a defensible postion if challenged." If you are ever (god forbid) in a place where you need to defend your position, PADI will testify that while you may be certified to teach a PADI Rescue Course, your deviation from PADI Standards clearly shows you were not teaching a PADI course.

But, I ask you not to believe me: Call your course director and/or training department at PADI. I assure you that you will receive a similar answer (PADI's may be a little less blunt).

Thus, your teaching rescue skills during the OW Course (which has been frowned upon by PADI in their training bulletins and when calling their training department) is outside of the scope of the PADI Instructional system for Open Water Divers. PADI does not support doing this because, "failure to follow a valid, established instructional system makes it harder to defend a dive professional's teaching practices. The professional's credientials as a qualified "instructional designer" may be challenged" In fact, my personal experience when speaking to PADI's Training Department about introducing rescue skills in OW Class, was that PADI felt it was too early to introduce complex skills and this would overload a new diver. They further pointed to the fact that they do have some rescue skills in their curriculum (ie. cramp release and tired diver tow). They further suggested that their training program builds and that more skills are added in Advanced and Rescue diver courses to complement this perspective. Shortly after my conversation with them, I noticed in one of the training bulletins that instructors could add an optional rescue skill in the Advanced class in an attempt to introduce the next level of diving to the student.

Thus, in your example, your providing the rescue skills MAY be a great value added to your consumer. PADI Instructors CANNOT add that to their courses. When you do that, you are doing it outside the framework of your instructor affiliation. PADI will be the first one to tell you that when you teach outside of the scope of their standards, you are not teaching a PADI course. With NAUI, you are very correct. They teach rescue at every core step. Furthermore, when NAUI Students take the Advanced Rescue Class, they need to take a review every three years to keep their certification from expiring. It is a different philosophy - not a better one or worse one.

I am a PADI Master Instructor, an SDI/TDI Instructor Trainer and a NAUI Instructor Trainer. I agree that the instructor makes a big difference, but I disagree that it is the sole differentiator. Furthermore, while I teach mostly SDI at the time, I have issued hundreds of certs from the other two agencies. I can personally attest that each agency has its strengths and weaknesses. I truly believe that a diver looking to pursue his/her personal dive path will need to be certified at some time, by all three of these agencies (and more). Why should any consumer limit themselves. Furthermore, why should an instructor limit themselves in providing the best possible course to their student.

Great instructors make great divers. Great agencies support great instructors.

I hope this helps!

jcf

PS - This PostScript was added after my original post. In my posting, I note my conversation with PADI's training department. After reading my post here, I gave it a two sentence summary. Readers should note, to be fair to PADI, they were not quick in their reply. In fact, I had a great conversation (as typical) with their training staff and that particular snippet was just a small portion of their reply. The conversation was nearly 30 minutes.

 

[Teamcasa]

I do not respect or agree with anyone that feels the need to put someone else down in order to make themselves look or feel better. <snip>
Main reason for my decision is that the SSI store owner felt the need to constantly put the PADI system down.

That is a good point. One way or the other, if an Instructor (or anyone else) feels he needs to slam another instructor or agency as opposed to selling himself and his agency, there is usually and underlying problem with them.

Any instructor should have enough confidence in his teaching ability and his agencies standards to assure his students that they will leave his course armed with the skills and confidence needed to dive safely within the limits of his certification. If they have to resort to ridicule, they are the one with an issue and should be avoided.

 

[peterbj7]

I've been a PADI instructor longer than for other agencies, but I also teach for several other agencies, recreational and technical. IMO when people criticise the "PADI system" they are totally off the mark. The system PADI use is not just the best part of them, it's really the whole point. PADI as an organisation is not about diving per se, but about teaching, and teaching diving. Although the people behind PADI are divers they are primarily professional educators. Their system works, as evidenced by their enormous success in the market place.

My criticisms of PADI are twofold, and neither is a fundamental one. Probably the same reservations would apply to other recreational agencies, but I don't know enough about them to say. The first is that those carefully thought-through Standards are not necessarily ideal for all environments, or at any rate are not worded so as to be appropriate to all environments. They're seen as being strongly biased to warm water diving. More on that in a moment. My second is that they're not effectively implemented and controlled. I know many instances of instructors who cut corners, not just in technical breach of the rules (like teaching skills out of order), but in fundamental breaches of the teaching philosophy. Sometimes these result in hazardous situations, and they generally result in poorly trained divers. I could give numerous instances of this, but the point is that these are not occasional lapses but are systemic to that instructor. Example - never using an upline for the CESA in open water. I have reported unsatisfactory practices on several occasions, and although (rightly) PADI didn't keep me informed of the disciplinary process (if there was one) I see those instructors/DMs still out there and still cutting corners. Nothing effective happens.

Back to the suitability of PADI standards to all environments. I know that PADI include in the small print that certification is only to dive in similar conditions, and that further training is needed for more difficult dives, but how many people read and understand that? How many instructors pause at that point and make sure that their students understand what that is saying? In many cases the instructor concerned will have no experience of diving in those harder conditions, so is ill equipped to advise and educate his students.

There was an accident in England a few years ago, in a flooded quarry. A solo PADI instructor was teaching the AOW course to two relatively inexperienced OW divers. I'm not sure what waters they'd dived in previously, but in the quarry visibility was maybe 3ft and temperature at most in the 50's. On the deep dive they had descended the old and narrow road that went down the side of the quarry, the instructor stopping at 100ft looking up, the two students just above him facing down. There was a steep slope up on one side of the road, and a near-vertical slope down to 130' on the other. Unfortunately the diver on the "up" side of the road stopped in the middle, leaving not much room for his buddy to settle between him and the precipice. The instructor allowed them to find their own spots and didn't move the first diver over a bit to make room. The instructor worked with each student separately and didn't maintain a scan to the other. While he was working with the "up" student the other tried to adjust his position and fell off the precipice. The instructor didn't see the "down" student go, and only found out when the student he was working with gesticulated wildly.

On seeing his buddy disappear the "up" student panicked and hit the "elevator up" button. The instructor now had a choice - stay with the student he could see and slow his ascent and ensure he was breathing, or leave him to go (he would be out of sight almost immediately) and try to find the other diver. He opted for the diver he could see, who rocketed to the surface and ended up in the chamber, but recovered fully. Once on the surface the instructor called for help and a rescue boat was sent out with divers on board - it is a particularly well equipped and well run operation. The boat was on station within three minutes of being called out. But there were other divers all over the place underwater and tracking bubbles was impossible, so they simply dived to look. It took them 40 minutes to locate the diver and bring him to the surface, dead but with air still in his tank.

Although he was of course shocked the instructor maintained he had done nothing wrong and it was just a terribly unfortunate accident. PADI attended the inquest and supported him. The coroner disagreed. He said that his concern was the behaviour of the instructor, and if his defence was that he was following PADI guidelines and they agreed (as they did) then the Court's concern must be the suitability of those guidelines. He concluded that in those harsh conditions, working with inexperienced divers, it was mandatory that there should be an instructor for each student. The instructor should have done two dives, one with each student, or should have had a suitable qualified colleague. PADI still insisted (in Court) that this was not necessary, but the coroner ruled that that was incorrect, with the actual outcome justifying his ruling. He strongly criticised PADI for imposing a training regime quite unsuited to the conditions it was being applied in, and the instructor for following that regime blindly without stopping to think what was really happening. The instructor was barred from teaching underwater (he was going to stop anyway, after this dreadful incident) and PADI were ordered to revise their training materials for such conditions. The threat was that if they didn't they might be barred from operating in the UK. As we all know that didn't happen, but I don't think they changed their training materials either. AFAIK an instructor is still allowed to take up to 8 students down in most conditions.

I have never taught 8 divers n open water, not even in the warm and clear waters we have here in Belize. My personal maximum is 4, and even then only when I feel confident in their abilities. If you have 8 divers and one panics, what do you do? If one panics others will probably be on the brink, and you can't physically help them. It frightens me just to think about it. I have seen just about every student problem in my time, and I know how quickly a seemingly relaxed training dive can become a chaotic struggle for survival. It doesn't often happen, but it only needs to happen once.

 

[tc]

 

[nwhitney2003]

So true...

 

[Teamcasa]

Perfect application around here sometimes.