Diver Training: How much is enough?

[Martigan]

Ok, one more time. What "training Standard" doesn't address the local conditions in which the diver is "trained and certified" by what agency?

If memory serves me correctly, DCBC is of the opinion that diver "watermanship" needs to be different for divers who are trained in different environs. Well, what ARE those differences in "watermanship" and what evidence do you have to support your opinion?

Of course DCBC also believes that diving and training techniques that made sense 40+ years ago still make sense today -- but again, without any evidence that the end product is any more, or less, capable of being a safe diver.

Pray tell, what ARE the "North Atlantic" standards that are different from the Mid-Atlantic, Southern California or Puget Sound standards?

I am not sure about the training standards (at the same time, I am not DCBC ).

But what I have experienced, when I was a very new diver, is the huge difference between the conditions in the Channel (northern atlantic between western France and southern England) and the Great Barrier Reef...
I have been trained in cold water, with waves, sometimes short visbility and with tide currents. When I arrived in Australia 7 months after my last dive in France, I feared to be a bit rusty. When I went in the water (from a platform, not a boat!), with a thin shorty, with more than 20m visibility, warm water, no current to speak of... I had the feeling to be in the air! I did a few exercises to refresh my skills, but it was a breeze.

In my opinion, maybe the Standards have to be the same, but to be honest, the Mastery (central concept in most of the training agencies) cannot be transferred at all between easy tropical waters and northern atlantic conditions.

And I suspect that the cumulative effect of the adverse conditions in rough waters (cold, current, waves, visibility) should necessite new Standards to cope with it at the entry level. Simple exercises, even mastered individually or in pairs, may not be sufficient in more difficult conditions, and new exercises or tests should be included to be sure that small (and not so small) things make things go haywire quickly.

It is well known that when you remove your mask in cold water, the cold on your face may have an adverse effect, if you had a bit of tidal current or some back and forth motion because of waves, and are close to a rock, you may want to have complete and mastered skills in order not to be too affected and to be able to restore the situation quickly.

I am not an instructor, only a diver, so my opinion does not take into account the pedagogics specifics, but nobody can deny that diving is different from place to place, and that teaching should take that into account.
In my view, the "same condition or better" phrase has too little emphasis for one, and is thus a bit misleading. Usually people take their certification has a "level x/y" right to dive, whatever the conditions...

 

[DCBC]

Ok, one more time. What "training Standard" doesn't address the local conditions in which the diver is "trained and certified" by what agency? If memory serves me correctly, DCBC is of the opinion that diver "watermanship" needs to be different for divers who are trained in different environs. Well, what ARE those differences in "watermanship" and what evidence do you have to support your opinion? Of course DCBC also believes that diving and training techniques that made sense 40+ years ago still make sense today -- but again, without any evidence that the end product is any more, or less, capable of being a safe diver. Pray tell, what ARE the "North Atlantic" standards that are different from the Mid-Atlantic, Southern California or Puget Sound standards?

As you've explained in the past, a PADI Instructor makes a determination to certify based upon whether the Student has met PADI Standards. If they've been met, the PADI Instructor has no recourse but to certify. An Instructor from another Agency will often base certification on whether the Diver has met the Standards, but more importantly if the Student possesses the knowledge and skill necessary to dive safely in the local environment. This is a subjective judgment, which sets him apart from PADI. Using NAUI as an example, no NAUI Instructor ever has to certify regardless in the 'minimum standards' are met. It is the Instructor who has the moral and legal responsibility. The Agency simply processes the certification and maintains QA. This is not meant as a slight to PADI, rather an honest attempt to outline the differences in how the Standards are applied.

Regarding in-water ability... When I was 8 years old, I considered myself a non-swimmer. I could drown proof and use fins, mask and snorkel for propulsion. I could pass PADI's watermanship evaluation, but would be unsafe to dive in the North Atlantic. So for me, these Standards are insufficient for this area. As you have explained it to me, once the Standards are met, a PADI Instructor must certify the Student. This may translate into putting someone with a low level of in-water ability into the World's Oceans (something which I believe is a disaster waiting to happen).

In my program, each Student must demonstrate a moderate level of fitness and in-water ability. The test is continuous and consists of: tread water 2 minutes (hands and feet), tread water 2 minutes (hands only), tread water 2 minutes (feet only), drownproof 15 minutes, swim 25 meters underwater, recover a 10 lb. weight belt in 18' of water, swim 16 lengths (front), swim 4 lengths (back).

The primary reason for this is to ensure that the Student is comfortable in the aquatic environment. It has been my experience that people who possess good fitness, in-water ability and confidence are less likely to panic than those in the water with lesser ability (or non-swimmers). Poor fitness and a lack of aquatic ability have been directly linked to in-water panic. Several studies have been done and books written on this topic. I would refer you to: 'The Complete Panic Prevention Program' by Tom Griffiths, Ed.D. (NAUI 6448), 'Anxiety and Panic in Recreational Scuba Divers' by Bill Morgan and 'Human Factors in Diving' by Mike Blumenberg.

There is just cause to say that the level of fitness and in-water ability that a Diver requires to maintain safety, is dependent upon the water conditions experienced during the dive. A person diving in the Bahamas or Bonaire requires a different Standard than someone diving in the North Atlantic or North Sea. Again, most certification Agencies in the World recognizes this, how is it that you don't seem to???

I don't think that people have changed that much in the last 40 years. Circumstances in the diving environment that caused a person to panic 40 years ago will likely cause another to do so today. What has changed is the technology; Diving equipment has improved. The Ocean environment hasn't.

To clarify my position, I'm not saying that the minimum standard has to change, as it may be suitable for shallow supervised diving in 'ideal conditions.' But all of the World's waters clearly don't fall into this category. As conditions change, so do the requirements.

What I do know is that when an accident occurs, it puts the whole industry under examination. I've acted as an expert witness in several diving fatalities. In some of those cases, the Court determined that the Instructor was negligent. Moreover, that 'the Standard' used by the certification Agency was insufficient for the diving conditions present at the time. This is enough for me to pose the question...

As to diving conditions here they are excellent here today: water temperature 40 F, waves 4', surf moderate, currents variable, winds 20 kts with freezing spray and snow. It would be a good day for a check-out dive. How about in your area?

 

[BDSC]

In my program, each Student must demonstrate a moderate level of fitness and in-water ability. The test is continuous and consists of: tread water 2 minutes (hands and feet), tread water 2 minutes (hands only), tread water 2 minutes (feet only), drownproof 15 minutes, swim 25 meters underwater, recover a 10 lb. weight belt in 18' of water, swim 16 lengths (front), swim 4 lengths (back).

I was certified (PADI) back in 91 so I don't remember all that was required at the time but I seem to remember having to tread water and then having to swim a certain distance without stopping to rest. There was a time requirement on treading water but I think you just had to complete the swim test within the class time although no one took the entire class time to complete this. I really don't remember how long we had to tread water or the distance we had to swim but if you were somewhat of a "water person", it wasn't all that difficult I don't think but it at least showed some level of ability.

Can someone tell me what is now required from both PADI and NAUI? Is there much of a difference?

 

[Simon-]

Current PADI requirement is 200m swim, or 300m mask, fins and snorkel. 10 min float.

I do often wonder at some of the "tests" that agencies or instructors wish their students to undertake. My first certification was with SAA and, trying to remember here, involved swimming with a weight belt on (no wetsuit, just shorts), a 30 sec breath hold amongst others. Why? Would I keep my weight belt on with no means of buoyancy? No. Breath hold, aren't we always drumming into students to not hold their breath.

 

[boulderjohn]

Can someone tell me what is now required from both PADI and NAUI? Is there much of a difference?

Here is a link to an explanation of the NAUI requirements.

There is the same 10 minute float as PADI. There is also a 50 foot under water swim. As for swimming on the surface, all a diver has to do is swim 15 strokes before the instructor can determine that the student is a swimmer.

Although those are the NAUI requirements, an individual NAUI instructor can do anything beyond that. I just finished a Google search and found all sorts of different requirements listed by individual instructors and shops as the NAUI requirements. I assume that means that if you are trying to compare for personal reasons, you have to go with what is available to you locally. I found a thread in which a person lamented that he had not passed the NAUI swim requirement because he could not do the 300 yard swim within the required time limit (and it was a pretty fast requirement). The shop that made him swim that length at that speed was going far above and beyond the NAUI requirement, but they were within their rights to do so.

BTW, I also found people asking this question on all sorts of web sites that provide answers to questions, like about.com, ask.com, yahoo, etc. In every case, the question was answered by someone who was responding "off the top of my head" or something to that effect. Not a single one had the correct answer.

 

[BDSC]

As for swimming on the surface, all a diver has to do is swim 15 strokes before the instructor can determine that the student is a swimmer.

I find that surprising. I know that a NAUI instructor can require more but that seems to be a pretty low bar for a swim test.

 

[Peter Guy]

DCBC -- thank you for the links to the articles, none of which appear to support in any way your teaching methods. You do appear to be "stuck in the past". No one is saying your methods don't help create a good diver. ALL I am writing, and all others appear to have written, is that there is no evidence your methods are the ONLY way to create a good diver -- whereever that training is to occur.

You state, without any evidence whatsoever, that "standards" must be localized to be effective. What I, and others have stated is that the TRAINING must be localized to be effective.

Your basic goal appears to be to have a student be comfortable in the water in your local conditions -- great. But, just for a moment, can you imagine other ways of determining that a student can be comfortable in the water than your (I'll just say it, draconian, old style) methods? If you can so imagine, then maybe, just maybe, even a PADI instructor, following PADI standards, let alone a GUE or UTD instructor who also must follow global standards, can safely teach someone to be a diver in any local conditions? IF all of the training is DONE in the local conditions, should not that be enough to prove that the diver is safe to dive in the conditions "similar to, or better than, in which she was trained?"

I know you don't like the PADI (and by implication, GUE or UTD) system of global standards that apply to all instructors, but is it really the standards that are the problem or is it the instructors who don't follow the standards that are the problem?

 

[DCBC]

DCBC -- thank you for the links to the articles, none of which appear to support in any way your teaching methods.

Not so; a fit individual with good in-water ability has less of a chance to panic than one less capable. I've referenced the information and yet you state that the information doesn't support my training methods. This is incorrect, however it's obvious that your mind is closed. So be it Peter; with some people you just can't win...

You do appear to be "stuck in the past". No one is saying your methods don't help create a good diver. ALL I am writing, and all others appear to have written, is that there is no evidence your methods are the ONLY way to create a good diver -- whereever that training is to occur.

First of all, not "all others;" what I think you mean is those people who support your position.

You state, without any evidence whatsoever, that "standards" must be localized to be effective. What I, and others have stated is that the TRAINING must be localized to be effective.

It's my understanding that with PADI, the "Standards" and the TRAINING are the same thing. Are you saying you train differently to PADI Standards??? I hope you answer this question. I'm sure the people at PADI would be interested as well...

Your basic goal appears to be to have a student be comfortable in the water in your local conditions -- great. But, just for a moment, can you imagine other ways of determining that a student can be comfortable in the water than your (I'll just say it, draconian, old style) methods? If you can so imagine, then maybe, just maybe, even a PADI instructor, following PADI standards, let alone a GUE or UTD instructor who also must follow global standards, can safely teach someone to be a diver in any local conditions? IF all of the training is DONE in the local conditions, should not that be enough to prove that the diver is safe to dive in the conditions "similar to, or better than, in which she was trained?"

Perhaps you can evaluate fitness and in-water ability another way? I'm eager to learn what it is; please enlighten us...

I know you don't like the PADI (and by implication, GUE or UTD) system of global standards that apply to all instructors, but is it really the standards that are the problem or is it the instructors who don't follow the standards that are the problem?

In QA is the systematic measurement/comparison with a standard. In a 'which comes first the Standard (Chicken) or the Instruction (Egg), the Standard comes first. If the Standard is finite and restricted, the best quality you get is when the Standard is met. The Course Training Standard drives the Course Training Plan. If a Standard is designed for 'an ideal environment,' that's the goal. If the environment changes, a change is required to both the CTS and the CTP; as this is performance based. What knowledge and skills are necessary to achieve the goal?

One example might be driving a car. If you drove a car in the city, you would need to have knowledge and ability. If you drove a car on the race track, the knowledge and skill you need would be different. Both drivers require certification, but both training programs have different standards and training plans. The same is required for a diving; different knowledge and skills may be required in different environments. The time it takes to complete this goal may also be different. One standard is insufficient.

BTW, I respect both GUE and UTD. Their training programs are more comprehensive than many certification Agency programs. To quote GUE "This experience has led GUE and likeminded divers around the world to embrace the need for greater diving proficiency." What's not to like about that statement?

 

[boulderjohn]

BTW, I respect both GUE and UTD. Their training programs are more comprehensive than many certification Agency programs. To quote GUE "This experience has led GUE and likeminded divers around the world to embrace the need for greater diving proficiency." What's not to like about that statement?

Here are the UTD Training standards as of this past November. http://www.utdinternational.com/webclasses/pdf/UTD_standards_v3_1.pdf

The OW course starts on page 34. Here are some of the highlights:

1. The course is expected to take 3-4 days. It is expected to have a total of 24 hours of academic, pool, and open water instruction. The pool portion takes 3 hours.

2. The watermanship requirements: 50 foot breath hold; 200 yard/185 meter swim in 14 minutes; 10 minute float.

3. No CESA.

4. Self-rescue skills

5. One tired diver tow

6. Basic underwater navigation--no further explanation in the standards of what that means.

7. No mention of tides in the standards

8. No mention of altitude in the standards

Students may opt instead for a much more rigorous course that has about twice as many hours and adds surfacing the unconscious diver to the curriculum.

 

[Peter Guy]

[sorry everyone] DCBC wrote

I've referenced the information and yet you state that the information doesn't support my training methods.

DCBC, no, none of the materials you highlighted support your training methods. Not a single one discussed:

In my program, each Student must demonstrate a moderate level of fitness and in-water ability. The test is continuous and consists of: tread water 2 minutes (hands and feet), tread water 2 minutes (hands only), tread water 2 minutes (feet only), drownproof 15 minutes, swim 25 meters underwater, recover a 10 lb. weight belt in 18' of water, swim 16 lengths (front), swim 4 lengths (back).

as a method to prevent panic. To the extent specifics were discussed at all, things like "visualization" of the dive was felt to help.

• Most importantly, it has been repeatedly shown that specific relaxation and mental practice programs do in fact:

1. Decrease specific state anxiety;
2. Improve underwater skill performance; and
3. Increase bottom time.

1. The Complete Panic Prevention Program

DCBC, do you really believe that

[W]ith PADI, the "Standards" and the TRAINING are the same thing[?]

Really? Honestly, that is your belief? If so, you really don't understand the system at all, do you and thus have absolutely no business even attempting to discuss, let alone critique (and certainly not criticize) the system.

For the record, no, Standards and Training are NOT the same thing. In simple terms so that, perhaps, even you can comprehend the concepts, Training is what the teacher (instructor) does. Standards are the guides by which the Training is done. As far as I can tell, EVERYONE in the scuba teaching business (apparently even you) TEACH to STANDARDS.

DCBC, you also "ask"

Perhaps you can evaluate fitness and in-water ability another way? I'm eager to learn what it is; please enlighten us...

Well, gee, gosh, an old pro asking for advice from me? OK, here goes -- how can I "evaluate fitness and in-water ability?" Actually, I do it the old fashioned way -- the same way my NAUI instructor 45 years ago evaluated me -- I WATCH MY STUDENTS IN THE WATER. I give them tasks to do -- those tasks being the skills they are required to do -- and watch to see if they can "comfortably, reliably and repeatedly" do those various tasks while diving. Guess what, if they can do the various tasks, "comfortably, reliably and repeatedly" in the cold, dark tidal waters of Puget Sound then they are more likely than not, comfortable in the cold, dark tidal local waters.

DCBC, I hope I have "enlightened you" to the "2013 way" of evaluating the comfort of a student in the water -- through the simple expediency of watching them in the local water conditions over a period of several hours. Honest, it isn't all that hard.

DCBC, in fact, I disagree with you on your driving analogy. (Note, I am not a race car driver so I might have some things wrong.) But what are the "basic skills" needed: a. Ability to steer the vehicle; b. Ability to accellerate; c. Ability to decellerate; d. Ability to "X" ... I need to be able to do the same things driving at 25 mph in a city as I do driving at 150 mph on a course do I not? Is there anything I need to be able to do on a course that I don't need to be able to do while driving in a city? (That, btw, is a real question -- I just don't know.) The "skills" are the same but the "local conditions" require a LOT more for the race track than for the city (maybe -- it, in fact, may be easier to go from a "good driver" to a race track than from a non-driver to a city driver). What is true of the drivers is also true of the divers -- local conditions in one place may well require a lot more training for the diver to show "mastery" (i.e., be able to comfortably, reliably and repeatedly do the skills) than for the student in another place.

Last comment (and Lord knows I really do hope it is the last comment and that DCBC will stop promulgating misleading comments that just beg for a response) -- DCBC, you repeatedly talk about "time" -- as in

The time it takes to complete this goal may also be different. One standard is insufficient.

You seem to write as if "time" is a standard -- at least in "PADIland" it is not. Time is irrelevant to the standards and thus it is expected that local conditions will dictate the course but the standards remain the same. The time taken to "master those standards" however is likely to be different.​