Diver Training: How much is enough?

[The Chairman]

That's a factor as well, but you've just shown us the FL Keys as an example where that factor doesn't apply, yet there still is a market for the service: services can't exist without a customer demand for them.

Now you're comparing the "just certified" to people who haven't dove in years. That's not the educator's fault. That's not the agencies' fault. In the Keys, most shops that don't offer the free guide service do require that you have not done a dive within the last year that you must dive with a guide. If it's been more than two, then you have to do a refresher. A person who got certified yesterday is not required to have either. We get more than our fair share of infrequent divers here in the Keys and that poses a host of other issues. To put it in perspective, the day after Lobster Mini Season the local headlines read: "NO BODY DIED!!!" I'm not making that up. Elena did a resfresher course yesterday for someone who had been out of the water for seven years. We were going to guide for them today to finish things up, but the waves are up to 3 feet inshore and 7 feet on the outside of the reef. With their kids wanting to snorkel, we called the dive. In fact, every time I have been called on to guide here in the Keys, it's been for an infrequent diver: never for a new diver.

So, who are they marketing to? Not the noob diver, but the infrequent divers who don't want to have to pay for a guide. There are only two requirements to be a guide here in the Keys. You must be certified to dive and you have to belong to the Drug Testing Consortium. I have seen basic OW divers do this as well as instructors. Hey, I don't make the rules.

 

[drrich2]

DCBC:

I believe that sub-surface rescue is a requirement for certification. I'm sure that most Physicians would agree that a medical emergency can occur to anyone, at any given time. The "Buddy" is tasked with the safety of his diving partner. Isn't that the foundation of the Buddy System? Why is it that you feel that a newly certified Diver shouldn't be prepared?

I see your point, but would this not be somewhat analogous to requiring First Aid & CPR as a condition to receive a driver's license? Or even EMT training, to take the analogy further? I'd think a car driver is more apt to encounter (and perhaps be involved in) a wreck, and lacerations (with some small chance of encountering a cardiac arrest) over the course of a driving career than the large majority of recreational divers are to be in a position to successfully recover alive an unconscious diver from depth. And we might applaud a driver who sought such training, but we don't require it.

Another question; how paternalistic should scuba instruction be? This question also comes up in other professions, such as the medical field (principles of beneficence vs. autonomy). Put another way, do you see yourself as an instructor having a responsibility to:

1.) Certify students to basic mainstream OW standards, and assume they should have the good sense not to enter conditions significantly more harsh than they were trained in.

2.) Certify students as above, but add class content/lecture material to drive home the dangers of more adverse conditions and discuss examples and how to identify such conditions. In other words, make sure they know how limited they are. I believe Jim Lapenta (if memory serves) has expressed frustration with rec. diving being marketed as 'safe' without adequate disclosure of how readily it can kill.

3.) As 2.), but additionally at least offer to provide 'non-agency-mandated training' to teach students to handle harsher conditions (such as your local conditions), but don't require it for certification.

4.) Certify students only who have demonstrated a higher standard of ability, sufficient to dive with a reasonable margin of safety, in your suboptimal local conditions (even though some of your students may only be vacation divers).

I'm sensing a number of instructors here tend towards 2.) or 3.), turning out an informed diver with a basic skill set, perhaps with additional training by the instructor added, producing a diver who may or may not be ready for harsh local conditions but at least the diver was taught that and can now make informed decisions about what risks he/she chooses to take.

If I understand your position correctly, you favor 4.) - a somewhat more paternalistic position, though I imagine it may be a comfort if a former student drowns in local waters to know he was training to your specifications. And it's quite reasonable that an individual such as yourself might choose to restrict his courses to that standard.

But are you advocating the position that the mainstream agencies such as PADI, SSI, etc..., should all require 4.) as the minimum?

Richard.

 

[Peter Guy]

Thanks Rob.

And while I shouldn't respond to DCBC, I have nothing better to do so why not?

a. Remember, we are discussing Basic Open Water Training here which means the student is told to limit his dive to NDL limits and no greater depth than 18 metres/60 feet. OK, IF that is the case, then is doing a chamber ride to "X" depth to really understand narcosis something that is normal? I mean, honestly, really? Hell, even in my private pilot training where I first was allowed to solo, then got my private pilot's license, then my IFR ticket and started on my twin ticket NO ONE suggested I do a high altitude chamber ride. C'mon, there must be some reasonable limit for a basic open water course.

b. Yes, basic open water students are taught about arterial gas embolisms. Gee, I wonder why? Is it because AGE is a real issue that can occur to any person breathing compressed gas under water and is one of the major causes of scuba diving deaths? Do you really think that body recovery is as relevant to every diver as the possibility of AGE?

c. DCBC, will you please explain to me, for obviously I'm just a simple person, how one of your students would be reliably able to plan his air consumption rate on his very first open water dive other than by doing it as a wild-a$$ guess? In my limited experience, many of my students have pretty wide swings in their consumption rates on their first few dives -- which is what I would expect.

Interestingly, you absolutely refused to answer the question that was asked: If one of your students could reliably, comfortably and repeatedly do all those "skills" in your local conditions, would that student be reasonably capable of planning and executing an NDL dive with a maximum depth of 18 metres/60 feet?

 

[boulderjohn]

It's hard to believe that a diver of your experience and credentials with the position you hold would resort to ordinary PADI bashing... or are you no longer the CEO of CMAS Canada and feel that it's right to go back to PADI bashing again? That game is for children, Wayne. Seriously.
...
What Wayne does NOT tell you in his posts is that PADI instructors have a lot more leeway than you might think. His PADI bash revolves around trying to get people to believe that a PADI instructor is FORCED to teach to MINIMUM standards. This simply isn't true. We've told him this a million times but he doesn't believe it and he keeps trying to pull the proverbial wool over people's eyes.

For those who do not know the history, several years ago Wayne deluged ScubaBoard with PADI-bashing. He started many threads in many forums that began pretty much the same way this one did. He also placed individual posts on this topic in many other threads, some of which had little or nothing to do with the overall theme at all. Then he got his CMAS position and the practice stopped, I suspect because CMAS let him know that it is quite unseemly for an administrator in one agency to be constantly bashing the practices of another. My suspicions about this are supported by the fact that soon after he left that position after a pretty short tenure (don't know why), he was back here with the bashing practices renewed.

As far as the misinformation that Diver0001 corrected in his post is concerned, it cannot be an error or a disbelief. Wayne has repeated that deceptive misstatement many, many times over the years, and he has been corrected by knowledgeable people many, many times. When he repeated it a few months ago in another thread, I gave this same history and described his modus operandi: he repeats the misinformation and dwells upon it until he is corrected. Then he waits a few weeks or a month and either starts a new thread in a new forum or posts in someone else's thread, repeating the same false statements on which he has been corrected repeatedly, apparently hoping a new audience will give him a few more people to fool.

He has tremendous dedication to this--the situation in which he left PADI nearly a quarter century ago over a dispute that is no longer relevant (since PADI changed its instructional philosophy soon after that) must have been traumatic. For those of us who are not so obsessive, having to come into threads like this and correct him over and over and over again is down-right bone wearying.

 

[DCBC]

It's hard to believe that a diver of your experience and credentials with the position you hold would resort to ordinary PADI bashing... or are you no longer the CEO of CMAS Canada and feel that it's right to go back to PADI bashing again? That game is for children, Wayne. Seriously.

Nothing I've said "bashes" any Agency. My reference to "PADI Land" was directed to Peter (not you) and referred to the terminology he first used in response to my post. I was referring to a PADI Instructors inability to add anything outside of PADI course outline and make these additions a requirement for certification. That's not bashing, it's PADI policy.

Yes, what Wayne says here is true, PADI instructors are somewhat restricted in the material that they can add to the course. ...It has it's down side though.

Yes it does have its down side and that's what I was discussing (not bashing the PADI Agency).

The downside is that PADI instructors can't add just anything to their course. For example, they would consider it "over teaching" to put body recovery (ie, sub surface non-responsive diver lift) into the OW course. It's in the rescue course and PADI's opinion, even if not shared by the instructor, is that this is wehre it belongs. You can like it or you can not like it, but that's where it is. If you are a PADI instructor, you have to accept this.

Nobody said anything about "body recovery" (you always seem to be fixated on this). I've taken control of divers (sub-surface) who were unresponsive because of motion sickness, or Nitrogen Narcosis. As I've already pointed-out, an illness (heart attack?) can happen to anyone at any time. I believe in preparing a diver who is being certified to effectively act as a competent Buddy.

What Wayne does NOT tell you in his posts is that PADI instructors have a lot more leeway than you might think. His PADI bash revolves around trying to get people to believe that a PADI instructor is FORCED to teach to MINIMUM standards. This simply isn't true. We've told him this a million times but he doesn't believe it and he keeps trying to pull the proverbial wool over people's eyes.

The fact remains that a PADI Instructor cannot add anything that's outside the training program and make these additions a requirement for certification. What do you think PADI would say to you if you required a student to pass a more rigid watermanship requirement because of the diving conditions you were diving in? Point made.

The point here being that deeping out the material is a NORMAL and EXPECTED thing for PADI instructors to do in order to adjust the framework to suit their local condtions. Wayne would have you believe that PADI instructors are not allowed to do this. I am here, and every other PADI instructor world wide will confirm this, to tell you that he is dead wrong. In my opinion, his harping about this comes from a deep seated frustration/hatred of PADI, possibly due to him being a CMAS big-wig, and not from any amount or form of rational thought.

I'm sure glad that you don't need to resort to personal attacks. I'd suggest that you contact PADI HQ (I have) and tell them that you want to run a more comprehensive OW course to complete what you believe is necessary for student safety (to dive in the North Atlantic, North Sea, or the Norwegian Sea, for example). Tell them what you believe is required and see if you get their blessing. When you get an answer, then we'll see who's wrong...

---------- Post added December 30th, 2012 at 02:35 PM ----------

I see your point, but would this not be somewhat analogous to requiring First Aid & CPR as a condition to receive a driver's license?

If we are to base recreational diving on the Buddy system, shouldn't we train the Buddy to respond to a sub-surface problem? Doesn't this sound reasonable?

If I understand your position correctly, you favor 4.) - a somewhat more paternalistic position, though I imagine it may be a comfort if a former student drowns in local waters to know he was training to your specifications. And it's quite reasonable that an individual such as yourself might choose to restrict his courses to that standard.

But are you advocating the position that the mainstream agencies such as PADI, SSI, etc..., should all require 4.) as the minimum?

Richard, I train Divers to safely dive in local conditions, with a Buddy, unsupervised. To me this is a matter of ethics and not a paternalistic position in my view. When I certify a diver, I want to know that they have the basic knowledge and skill-sets to dive safely and effectively with anyone (I imagine a family member as the Buddy). They either qualify, or they need more work. If the latter, I train them until such time as they are competent. When certified they can begin to gain experience and build on this by diving with a Mentor, or taking further training programs.

As far as mainstream Agencies are concerned, the majority conform to a similar approach and task the Instructor to add whatever the Instructor believes is reasonably required. Agencies such as BSAC have a 'supervised diving' approach for the first several training courses. Others still keep the unsupervised level of competence. Hopefully I've answered your question...

---------- Post added December 30th, 2012 at 02:53 PM ----------

Remember, we are discussing Basic Open Water Training here which means the student is told to limit his dive to NDL limits and no greater depth than 18 metres/60 feet. OK, IF that is the case, then is doing a chamber ride to "X" depth to really understand narcosis something that is normal? I mean, honestly, really? Hell, even in my private pilot training where I first was allowed to solo, then got my private pilot's license, then my IFR ticket and started on my twin ticket NO ONE suggested I do a high altitude chamber ride. C'mon, there must be some reasonable limit for a basic open water course.

I do the Chamber ride to give the students safe personal experience with Narcosis. As this will be the only training some Divers will elect to take, it drives home the importance of "not too deep." Every student who has done this has been thankful for the experience.

Yes, basic open water students are taught about arterial gas embolisms. Gee, I wonder why? Is it because AGE is a real issue that can occur to any person breathing compressed gas under water and is one of the major causes of scuba diving deaths? Do you really think that body recovery is as relevant to every diver as the possibility of AGE?

When you're diving as a Buddy team in poor conditions, the safety of your Buddy is a real issue as well. Again, I've said nothing of body recovery.

DCBC, will you please explain to me, for obviously I'm just a simple person, how one of your students would be reliably able to plan his air consumption rate on his very first open water dive other than by doing it as a wild-a$$ guess? In my limited experience, many of my students have pretty wide swings in their consumption rates on their first few dives -- which is what I would expect.

They calculate their gas consumption on Dive 1 and project their consumption for Dive 2. Hopefully your not too simple to grasp this concept...

Interestingly, you absolutely refused to answer the question that was asked: If one of your students could reliably, comfortably and repeatedly do all those "skills" in your local conditions, would that student be reasonably capable of planning and executing an NDL dive with a maximum depth of 18 metres/60 feet?

I think if you check carefully, there are many of my questions that you haven't answered. In any event, to answer yours: a student who completes my program can safely dive in local conditions to the parameters of his/her certification. To accomplish this, the course is approximately 50 training hours. This is the time frame required to accomplish the goal.

 

[Diver0001]

Nobody said anything about "body recovery" (you always seem to be fixated on this). I've taken control of divers (sub-surface) who were unresponsive because of motion sickness, or Nitrogen Narcosis. As I've already pointed-out, an illness (heart attack?) can happen to anyone at any time. I believe in preparing a diver who is being certified to effectively act as a competent Buddy.

There is some merit to this but I'm not sure what specific skill you have in mind here. Seems to me that helping one's buddy is part and parcel of being one. What I teach in OW is my ABC rule which I'm sure you know. Not much in the way of helping one's buddy falls outside the ABC rule unless the diver is completely incapacitated.

I'm sure glad that you don't need to resort to personal attacks. I'd suggest that you contact PADI HQ (I have) and tell them that you want to run a more comprehensive OW course to complete what you believe is necessary for student safety (to dive in the North Atlantic, North Sea, or the Norwegian Sea, for example). Tell them what you believe is required and see if you get their blessing. When you get an answer, then we'll see who's wrong...

We do train divers to dive on the North Sea. I do a pretty good wreck specialty, if I do say so myself, and I like to finish it with a couple of "serious" wreck dives on authentic North Sea wrecks.

What it requires is OW, AOW, Rescue, nitrox, wreck, drift and 50 dives of experience in local water before we'll take them on the North Sea and if you're really into wreck diving you should probably take advanced nitrox, some kind of deep air specialty like the IANTD one and a certain distinctive specialty that's run by one of shops here called "survival at sea", which prepares people for if they get lost and/or their dive boat sinks.

Nobody in Europe would want, or dare, to take a newly certified OW diver on the North Sea because of the risks. Nobody in Europe would contend that an OW diver should be trained to that bar right out of the gate. No open water diver here sees it as the goal of their entry level training to prepare them for these (admittedly serious) dives. Everyone here agrees that diving on the North sea can be done safely given an appropriate level of training and experience and everyone here agrees that getting that training and experience is a matter of getting out there, making the necessary dives in safer, more benign, waters and getting the appropriate follow-up training.

I personally don't think it's wise to put all of that into the OW course because it would form too much of a distraction for the students with respect to the basic dive process they should be learning/practicing. If you want to do that, go ahead, but frankly, if you ask me, unless the ONLY option your OW students have (which I doubt) is to go out in the North Atlantic, then I believe they would be better served by learning what they MUST learn out of the gate and going out to practice those skills in protected waters first, before taking additional "North Atlantic" training.

In either case, that's the consensus opinion over here with respect to training divers to dive on the North Sea.

As for your accusation that I'm attacking you. please don't misunderstand me. I don't like what you say some of the time but whenever I point that out you play the "woe is me" card and try to garner support for your opinion based on making yourself look like the victim. You're not the victim here, Wayne.

R..

 

[DCBC]

For those who do not know the history, several years ago Wayne...

Your unprofessional attitude continues to be apparent. You comment on "my history" (CMAS?) without really knowing the situation. John, has SB's policy changed on personal attacks? I thought that you were suppose to be a Moderator??? I suppose you feel responsible to warn the readership about my opinions for the sole reason that you disagree with them? Or is it that you don't feel them intelligent enough to make-up their own mind? Do you do this in the field of education as well?

---------- Post added December 30th, 2012 at 03:10 PM ----------

Nobody in Europe would want, or dare, to take a newly certified OW diver on the North Sea because of the risks. Nobody in Europe would contend that an OW diver should be trained to that bar right out of the gate.

There are many locations where there is little choice but to dive in harsh conditions. Local dive stores and Instructors live and teach in these conditions. If this is where Divers dive, I believe that's where they should be trained to do so.

 

[Diver0001]

There are many locations where there is little choice but to dive in harsh conditions. Local dive stores and Instructors live and teach in these conditions. If this is where Divers dive, I believe that's where they should be trained to do so.

If they have no choice, I would agree. The difference in opinion that we have then would be in whether or not it should all be in the OW course. The option that a PADI instructor in your area would have--if there were no other choice but to dive in the North Atlantic--would be to combine OW, AOW and rescue into one course.

Do you really not have any other options for inexperienced divers? That would honestly suck .... but what about the gazillion lakes you have nearby?

R..

 

[-hh]

Now you're comparing the "just certified" to people who haven't dove in years.

One step at a time, Pete: I merely observed that the 'new normal' is this increase in customers who desire/expect an in-water DM accompaniment. Examining the demographics and other reasons 'why' would be the next step.

That's not the educator's fault. That's not the agencies' fault.

Well then, since you've moved on to the classical fallback of denial of culpability, I'll assume that you're no longer denying my so-called "misperception".

In the Keys...

The world is bigger than just the FL Keys.

In any event, even if this has been your experience in the Keys for as long as you've been an instructor there, it was not this way when I dived in the Keys back in the 1980s, so it is evident that things have changed. I'll try to see if I kept the receipt in question in an old logbook...

In fact, every time I have been called on to guide here in the Keys, it's been for an infrequent diver: never for a new diver.

Again, the world is bigger than just the FL Keys. For example, the diver quoted in my last post said they had 20 dives experience, yet nevertheless chose to hire a guide in Cozumel ... and was looking for another one for their next trip to Grand Cayman.

So, who are they marketing to?

One place to start is that active-yet-novice diver that I quoted and trying to sort out just what was it about their training and/or background that they nevertheless feel the need for "...more peace of mind..." with sufficient motivation to be willing to hire a DM out of their own pocket?

There are only two requirements to be a guide here in the Keys. You must be certified to dive and you have to belong to the Drug Testing Consortium. I have seen basic OW divers do this as well as instructors. Hey, I don't make the rules.

And can this guide also conduct one of those refreshers you mentioned?


-hh

 

[DCBC]

If they have no choice, I would agree. The difference in opinion that we have then would be in whether or not it should all be in the OW course. The option that a PADI instructor in your area would have--if there were no other choice but to dive in the North Atlantic--would be to combine OW, AOW and rescue into one course.

Do you really not have any other options for inexperienced divers? That would honestly suck .... but what about the gazillion lakes you have nearby?

That wouldn't be economically feasible or competitive with other Agency programs (the lakes are often covered in ice and not suitable for OW, or have even worse visibility). If divers are to dive in the ocean, I feel it's reasonable to do the training there.

Many instructors (from all Agencies) just deliver the minimum. This isn't something that's restricted to this geographic area. As you've seen in many of the postings on this thread, many new divers are felt to be incompetent. Why is that? Sometimes this is a shortcoming that is tolerable and can be overcome with experience and further training; at other times it's a safety hazard. One Standard for all conditions just isn't reasonable (imo). "Good enough" seldom is.