Diver Training: How much is enough?

[jar546]

This thread is starting to look like its more about ego and less about common sense and reality.

 

[Thalassamania]

All I can tell you Peter is that in all my decades of service as a DSO I only had two divers who were recreationally trained perform well enough in a checkout dive to receive permission to dive under auspices. Keep in mind that everyone that "failed" meant that I was saddled with significant remedial effort to bring them up to speed, so my desire was to find a way to pass anyone whom I morally could. Every DSO that I've ever talked to about it (and that includes most on the list above, that I meant facetiously, since DCBC knows most of those folks and thus would never say that he's the "ONLY person who knows how to train divers in sub-optimal conditions.") has expressed a similar observation.

The idea that you think that mastering "the basic skills listed within the RSTC guidelines for an entry level scuba diver" has any meaning whatsoever, especially in challenging environs just goes to show how far the lawyer is from the experts in this case.

And yes, I find that most lawyers have their thinking warped, e.g., they operate in a world where they pretend that a single outlier is the expected value.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Yeah, what he said. There are at least two of us, and then we need to add: Austin, Egstrom, Stewart, McDonald, Flahan, Lang, Rioux, Somers, Taylor, Heine, Erickson, Kintzing, Duffy, Fastenau, Reed, Bell, Harper, Reed, Mitchell, and Maney ... to name a few.

who is Reed?

 

[NAM001]

When i did my initial cert the instructor in my opinion made us master the basic skills. At some point we were told that we had completed the agency required skills and were going for checkout dives on the weekend. We did those dives and then started to learn higher level skills that were required for environments other than what were covered int he training. That night we did a night dive to 100+. That dive was the most important dive I ever made. I experienced the J-valve horrer. I found just how different talking about being prepared for the dark was from being in dark. 6 of us on a buddy line and two lights. From that dive i learned ( WHAT IF ??? ) It wasnt till later that I found that I was supposed to learn that and more from that dive. I mentioned earlier that i had the dreded J-valve horrer. I buddy breathed to 40 and then blew to the surface when his air was getting low. That one dive shifted me from a recovery mindset to a prevention mindset. It made me a believer in spg's over j-valves. Now in theory the training covered dives at that depth but did not include experience at that depth. I dont think that i would have been detured from going to that depth at another time had it not been for that dive. I did go to those depths later but with an all to gether different approach. To coin a hated phrase "I DIDNT KNOW WHAT I DIDNT KNOW". So those of you what suggest that (hypothetically) I may be qualled in the carib and attempt to make a nw pacific dive without adaquate training, would be a miss placed concern. I think that the issue of limitations , especially self imposed, seldom get into the training program. Perhaps that is why I generally feel that the OW is a cert to allow one to establish those self limitaitons before going into the next phase and overloading themselves. Every dive, not just OW, is a learning opportunity. The amount of available learning is the greatest for the OW. The ability to self limit is the most iportant skill to learn as an OW. I know there is a large difference in the students that are being taught by the cold water dry suit divers and those of the 90F water vacation groupies of the tropics. Just like the sutdents are apples and oranges so are the instructors and the environments. You only get a winner if you have 3 of a kind. And even then it doesnt mean the an OW from lake apple should be diving in orange bay.

 

[TSandM]

Thal, why do you think that the basic OW diver has to have the level of skill you need for someone to do scientific research? I would agree that few, if any of our graduated OW students could do scientific diving out of the gate . . . but they don't need to. They need to be able to do a 60 foot reef dive in Puget Sound, in a current-insensitive site, and they can. It won't be elegant, and some silt may suffer in the cause, but they know enough to control their buoyancy and stay together and monitor their gas. They also know what diving SHOULD look like, and they've tasted that in the pool, and they know they should feel that they have not done well enough if they hit the bottom or kick up a cloud. If they continue to dive, they will improve, and they also know they should seek out more training.

I think everyone who dives should be able to be effortlessly neutral, horizontal, and perfectly quiet. I think everybody should be able to hold midwater stops within a reasonable degree of accuracy, should be able to shoot a bag, and should be able to leave a dive site undisturbed. But given the struggles I had in learning to do those things, I do NOT think everyone should be expected to do them out of their initial class -- it is neither necessary nor attainable, within the time and price constraints that most of us have, especially when we aren't at all sure this is an activity we wish to continue.

I think virtually everyone on this thread agrees that there is some dive training is simply inadequate. Where we differ is simply in drawing the line as to what "acceptable" is. Some folks don't think anybody should have a cert card of any kind unless they could pull a tech pass from Fundies; others think a "license to learn" is enough, and as long as basic skills are solid enough that the diver won't scare himself or damage the environment, he can go diving and continue to learn. The sad part is we throw insults at one another in attempting to define that line, when we would be much better served to join and form a solid, common front against the training we all agree is substandard.

 

[gcarter]

This thread is starting to look like its more about ego and less about common sense and reality.

 

[Zen Diving Inc.]

Suffice it to say that as there are diver training businesses here conducting operations, 'if it should be done' becomes a mute point.

Since someone was kind enough to remind me once... I give back freely it's Moot.

 

[Thalassamania]

who is Reed?

Sherry Reed, DSO at Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce/Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems Program.

 

[DCBC]

DCBC admits that he has no studies or any other fact based reasoning for his personal opinion that one can not be trained to be a safe, basic, open water diver in local conditions in the Nova Scotia area IF one has merely "mastered" the basic skills listed within the RSTC guidelines for an entry level scuba diver.

As an Instructor, what else do you base your evaluation of a student, if not from your 'personal opinion?' When has this ever 'not been enough evidence?'

Again you fail to address the questions I've asked (which seems to be the norm for you btw). Why would 'minimal watermanship ability' be enough to place a student in conditions that are far from 'ideal?' You keep harping on the PADI Standard as they are and fail to see the shortcomings for teaching in diving conditions other than those in-which the Standards are based. You have also failed to address why many of the World's leading training agencies have established 'Minimum Standards' rather than one that is to be applied internationally (regardless of the diving environment in-which the student is to be trained).

...Noone is saying that a new diver would be competent to dive in "the most hazardous conditions" found in Nova Scotia or hell, anywhere else.

You keep interjecting the word 'most." You don't put a new diver into the worst water conditions imaginable. There is something however that is considered 'normal conditions' for any geographic area. If the diver is being trained for diving in these conditions, the Standards should address this.

But both of you, DCBC and you Thal, have absolutely failed to present a scintilla of evidence (and yes, a lawyer word, just for the two of you since both of you seem to have a fascination with the fact that I went to law school and once practiced law) that students who have mastered the skills "in a manner expected of an open water diver" would not be competent to dive in the Nova Scotia area or outside of Port Hardy. Would the new diver be able to dive anywhere and any time? Hell no.

The 'evidence' is: What would a reasonable prudent person do under the circumstances? It suggests the use of common sense and a sensible approach to addressing what is reasonably required by way of knowledge and skills.

But that is NOT the standard -- or is that the issue. That one, or both, of you think one must be able to dive in any conditions upon finishing the basic open water course.

The issue is the 'Standards.' Not 'any conditions,' just those that are normal for the area in-which the training is taking place.

---------- Post added January 5th, 2013 at 05:45 AM ----------

...They also know what diving SHOULD look like, and they've tasted that in the pool, and they know they should feel that they have not done well enough if they hit the bottom or kick up a cloud. If they continue to dive, they will improve, and they also know they should seek out more training. ...But given the struggles I had in learning to do those things, I do NOT think everyone should be expected to do them out of their initial class --

If you dive in 'normal conditions' for the area and are not prepared to do so with reasonable safety, you shouldn't be given a certification card indicating that you 'are qualified.' If an individual is, they may be a danger to themselves and the Buddy that they dive with. Is this a reasonable level of skill to expect from a 'certified diver?'

You have described your level of skill at the point in-which you were certified. Clearly, your ability to dive safely was questionable. If the conditions were worst than they were, this level of safety would decrease.

Where we differ is simply in drawing the line as to what "acceptable" is.

Yes and the diving conditions change what is and is not acceptable.

The sad part is we throw insults at one another in attempting to define that line, when we would be much better served to join and form a solid, common front against the training we all agree is substandard.

I agree with you that the training is generally sub-standard. Training being done in 'more challenging conditions' to what's required in 'ideal conditions,' exasperates this problem.

So if we examine this issue, what can be done? I believe it incumbent on all training agencies to establish a 'Minimum Standard;' which serves to define what is required for diver certification in ideal conditions. They can either allow their Instructors to add training (and make this required criteria for certification), or design a variety of programs that address diving in more hazardous environments. Monitoring of instructional delivery is also the responsibility of the certification agency. As I've mentioned, all agencies would be wise to take a page out of the PADI QA manual.

 

[vladimir]

The problem is exacerbated, Peter seems exasperated.