Diver Training: How much is enough?

[-hh]

DCBC...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.

How is that not the two sides of the same coin? Afterall, training is to be conducted in accordance with the relevant standards ("heads"), and standards exist to identify what the training should encompass ("tails").

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?"

Simplistically speaking, 'Yes', if that 'local training' was coldwater. Mostly, this is because more diving environs are covered in the 'similar or better' (SoB) caveat.

For warmwater, it isn't as simple...even if trying to be simplistic: sure, we can say 'Yes' under the same rationale of 'similar or better' (SoB), but the problem is that this SoB isn't the same as the SoB for coldwater: if we were to apply classical mathmatical terms, we would highlight that SoB(warm) is a logical subset of SoB(cold), and from that, draw the conclusion that a warmwater graduate isn't as 'adequate' as a coldwater graduate because his training ended up providing him with a smaller relevant experience base...in other words, he is qualified for less.

The inevitable defensibility protests aside, this isn't really the fault of the warmwater instructor to protest, because the standard that they're expected to uphold is this "locality" provision. The catch is that the 'locality' provision varies, so it is effectively a nebulous 'Rubber Ruler' requirement: what is overkill in a warmwater setting is not necessarily even the minimum elsewhere.

The wrinkle is that this is no longer merely an interesting pedantic exercise: coldwater isn't the norm anymore, and it becomes harder to ignore the diver population whose training & experience base is benign bathwater for which we can't easily provide a simple pat answer.

And if we read between the lines, we can see tacit admissions to this. For example, a longtime warmwater diver in this thread literally described their first coldwater dive experience with an "...I didn't die...". One has to wonder how many years (decades?) of warmwater experience they had under their belt before a coldwater experience which was STILL so clearly uncomfortable enough for them to use this "didn't die" in their dive description.

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?

I'm not necessarily convinced that it is the instructors or the standards, per se: I think that the concern is stemming from the heterogenous nature of the starting certification due to this "local" regionalism factor which results in uncertainty as to the expected minimum qualifications of a random diver. What used to have been just an occasional experience of a diver who was "out of his element" because of the 'where' they were trained is being perceived as having become a more commonplace experience to compensate/overcome.


-hh

 

[boulderjohn]

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.

I don't know if you saw DCBC's description of the reason he and PADI parted ways roughly a quarter century ago. It seems that back then PADI had a suggested length of time for an OW course, and instructors had to report the time their course took when they certified students. DCBC's courses took longer, and there was a dispute about that.

Almost immediately after that, PADI completely changed its instructional philosophy to the standards-based model now used by almost every agency. The time it takes a student to complete a course is the time it takes a student to meet the standards--whatever that may be. That means that the dispute from that time decades past is now completely irrelevant.

I think DCBC is still trying to make that transition.

---------- Post added January 7th, 2013 at 02:39 PM ----------

The wrinkle is that this is no longer merely an interesting pedantic exercise: coldwater isn't the norm anymore, and it becomes harder to ignore the diver population whose training & experience base is benign bathwater for which we can't easily provide a simple pat answer.

And if we read between the lines, we can see tacit admissions to this. For example, a longtime warmwater diver in this thread literally described their first coldwater dive experience with an "...I didn't die...". One has to wonder how many years (decades?) of warmwater experience they had under their belt before a coldwater experience which was clearly uncomfortable enough for them to use a "didn't die" description.

I believe the "I didn't die" poster was using a rhetorical device called litotes to indicate it was not that big of a transition.

When I teach the academic and pool portions of a course here in Colorado, I do not know at first where my students will complete their training. (Because a large number of students go elsewhere for their OW dives, it is impractical to have a system where one instructor takes students from beginning to end in a course.) It is possible that if I have a class of 8 students, 4 of them might complete their training at a warm water resort and half of them may complete their training locally, in a nearby cold water lake with very poor visibility. The academic and pool work is the same for all the students, regardless of where they are going to do their OW work.

When students do their OW locally, we of course orient them to that, but it is not a big deal to do so. We also take a little longer to talk about the affects of altitude and how to plan for it. Again, that does not take long. They do fine.

I myself was a warm water diver exclusively for more than my first 100 dives. When I did my first cold water dive, I put on a thicker wet suit, and I wore more lead. That was it--no problem.

 

[NAM001]

When i was young, in the mid west, and learning basic numbers and (ARITHMATIC---- NOT MATH) I learned add, sub,,multi, and div. not just the operation but the mechanics of it. By the arguements that have been presented in this thrhead and many like it, Had i grown up in the silicone valley i would have also had to learn binary and hex. All through in my life i never used hex untill i got into electornics and the digital world. Never did i see in the mid west anyone pay for farm labor in hex dollars or put up some binary amount of hay bales in the barn. To present this arguement to anyone in the mid west would get you a funny look that said daaaa. The same arguement to someone in the valley would get you an unending pitch on how the world will cease turning without binary and hex systems. When i learned those digital number systems i also learned to convert between them. The simple knowing of the operation of base ten numbers did nothing for me, however the mechanics of the number system operations were the same. I was able to quickly learn the number manipulations , understand what was happening and also recognize when something was not right. I did not have to know binary at the ripe age of 6-8. but i did have to know the base ten theory. The use of that THEORY over the next 10 years or so opened new worlds in the power of numbers that i would have shut the doors on at 6-8. In short i learned theory and as the needs presented themselves i learned more complex ways to apply the old theory i learned. I learned to see number relationships in motion and digital technologies. |Do i need to know binary now?,,,, no,,, it served it purpose when i learned logic gates, counters ect. after i learned those things i dont think of binary when someone says "and gate" or an "or gate", i think of a function. That is the progression of learning a thoery, then applying it to what you know and later applying it so somwthing you dont know as a tool to understand it. That understanding transends to knowing more and more. Too many instructors want to do the student to go from nothing to everything while denying them the chance tolearn that only time can provide.

Too many want to say thier students are better than someone elses students. Mine can frog kick, mine can remain motionless at a set depth for 10 min, mine can lay a line into places they shouldnt go. Not often am I hearing what the student is getting from all this. Had i been shoveled binary in the first grade and saw no need for it in my existing world, i would have gave up on numbers because it had no relevance to to my real world. These new students have to be given basic skills. Honestly i think all the agencies have pretty well defined what basic is. There are those that can and those that can not accept that definition. Basic skills support basic diving. The north atlantic is not basic diving. It requires additional skills. The agencies accept this. They allow thier instructors to add to the course of basic skills those additional skills for the area they are diving in. If all you instructors could come together and create your ideal OW course, I would bet a pay check that they would be qualified for a master card. From my time as instructor and as a student, I know how over whelmed one can become with high paced feeding of information for a never ending period of time. At some point you quit learning skills and learn to pass a test. Had i been told i had to hold depth with out motion as a basic skill, i would have said no thank you. I dont need your course, i need your card for air. Had i been shown various propulsion skills and thier pros and cons, I would have figured out which is best and pursued them on my own. If for no other reason than the satisfacition of being better than others. There is a point in any trining that is there to lay the seeds for the 1/4 of the students that may go on to further training. The other 3/4 have no intrest to continue because thier presence in the course was not to be come a man in black, it was to get a ticket to engage in a new passing fad of short term entertainment.

Now there are 3 types of training facilities of instructors. The are like motels. Thier are those that say vacancy in which you get a 10 dollar special for 25 with cold and cold runnng water, or the room goes by the hour. Then there are those that say no vacancy and you have to call weeks ahead of time to get a room. And then there are those that hit you up for 200 a nite because they have convention center, gyms, sauna ect. All sorts of crap that the traveler who just wants a hot shower and a bed to crash on,,,, does not want or need but takes because its the only BED in town, too tired to care or doesnt know better. There is no doubt in my mind that a LA hotel is going to cost more thatn a lazy 8 in nowhere USA. There is no doubt in my mind that the LA hotel is going to be more luxurious. But when it comes to the definition of the basic room they are both meet teh definition. When it is done with the LA room is more than the basic room for the buck. But to the area it is in, It may be a lower ranking hotel.

The Basic course should be requireing the common skills that are used anywhere to be mastered. Skills that are area specific should be completed at a minimal functionoal level so the student after can continue towards mastering. All the good super diver skills should be introduced and perhaps required to be done by instructors only for the purpose of showing what you can become with practice and further training. You dont make them hover to certify , you insure you are hovering when ever they can see you and make them WANT to hover like you.

There is a difference in civilian and military when it comes to learning. Civilian's mandate or give away developement, the military motivates developement. Or the civiians create managers and the military developes leaders. Not everyone can create and not everyone can be developed.

 

[Martigan]

I don't like the mathematics comparison too much... and I thing we are straying from the root of the discussion.
If you don't know to compute in hex or binary, ok. It might be a problem when doing some computing, you might have to learn it to access to some jobs, but it is not a matter of personal (and buddy!) security!
The point being made is if the training nowadays is globally insufficient and may lead to some incidents/insecurities (I am not saying fatalities).

Some say: the accident rate did not grow, it might even have decreased with time (difficult to assess due to lack of raw data), thus the new ways of training (not so new by the way...) are clearly good enough and are allowing for the business to grow because it is easier and more efficient (modular, step by step etc.)

Some other say: the new modular standard are lowering too much the minimum requirements in many parts of the world, to the point that it is dangerous. We should try to raise the bar, or to lower the entitlements (cert for guided dives and not autonomous). they think the accident rate had been kept reasonnable because of the better equipment, not because the new way of training is enough/better.

Some other say: the bar is too low. It makes for uncomfortable divers, and it is both a safety issue and a commercial issue, since many divers thus stop diving because they don't feel safe enough.

On a personnal point of view, I think some aspects of the PADI approach are misleading, and even trying to keep the fun aspect, it should be emphasized that diving is really a complex affair, and that easy diving in one place with a guide does not mean diving is always easy. That further training beyond the first one are necessary to really be an autonomous diver.

An other aspect of the modular approach that is, in my opinion, dangerous, is the way the responsability can be diluted. I will try to explain myself:
- You train a guy in a pool, because you are not close to shore. You don't know, in advance, which conditions he is likely to dive in. So you don't necessarely put the emphasis on some aspects of diving.
- He is doing his 4 cert dives in warm and pristine waters (during holidays in a tropical resort), and is somehow comfortable. He passes and gets the cert (after all, what he does is enough for the conditions, even if some basics are not really mastered).
- He is doing a few dozens dives in the same conditions, always guided.
- He then decide to dive closer to home, in california, nothern east coast or in norther Europe. He is not REALLY led to believe that he is way off the mark with his initial training. The dive op don't want, don't have the time, don't care to do a real check out dive, because the guy has some number of dives. He get's paired with a buddy and he goes with no real "nanny".
- It ends in total disaster (cold, current, no vis)
Who is responsible?
The first instructor (but he did not give the training for the rough condition, he thought - with reason most of the time - that the diver would do easy dives, guided moreover)?
The second one (but he gave the cert for "the same conditions or better")?
The last dive op (he should have checked that the dozens of dives had been done in very easy waters and that a thorough check out dive should be done, at the risk of losing the sale)?
The agency (that effectively warns - don't laugh - the diver that his cert is limited to same or better conditions)?
The diver (who should have common sense - warm water and northern atlantic are really different, humility - to realize that 60 dives in warm water does not make you a diving expert and memory - to remember that 10 years ago one of his instructor warned him to not dive in worse conditions without further training)?

The modular approach is not responsible for all these issues, but it does not help in my opinion. In my view the modular approach can be used, but by ensuring that each module is a bit overkill compared to a linear approach, in order for the failure of one step, or the succession of steps to have less impact in the end.

 

[DCBC]

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.

Absolutely, you think you have ALL the answers and I'm always open to learning something new. You claim to use training methods that are 45 years old; yet at the same time complain that my methods (of the same era) are outdated.

DCBC, I hope I have "enlightened you" to the "2013 way" of evaluating the comfort of a student in the water.

By your own admission you currently use the 1968 way. It's good to see that you haven't forgot everything that you've been taught...

... 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.

Course content may also be required. Regardless of the diving environment, you don't think that anything additional is required: altitude tables, tide tables, in-water ability requirements, no underwater rescue, gas consumption/projection, etc. If you include these things perhaps you can show me where PADI requires them for certification specifically.

If they are omitted from PADI's OW program, how is it that you say that you can't make changes to the PADI course content? If the program doesn't specifically include these things, I would have to agree with the Court that the Standard is insufficient for all geographic areas. This of course isn't a surprise as like NAUI's program it's designed for 'ideal conditions.'

...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.

Time is the factor when content is changed, as you may need more of it to accomplish the goal. If you don't realize this, perhaps another Instructor Examiner can pass this on in your future diving training. Anyway Peter, it's clear that this discussion isn't going anywhere...

---------- Post added January 8th, 2013 at 07:10 AM ----------

...Basic skills support basic diving. The north atlantic is not basic diving. It requires additional skills. The agencies accept this. They allow thier instructors to add to the course of basic skills those additional skills for the area they are diving in.

It's a shame that other's don't accept this, but perhaps they just don't know how different the diving environment can be.

---------- Post added January 8th, 2013 at 07:21 AM ----------

I think some aspects of the PADI approach are misleading, and even trying to keep the fun aspect, it should be emphasized that diving is really a complex affair, and that easy diving in one place with a guide does not mean diving is always easy. That further training beyond the first one are necessary to really be an autonomous diver. ...The diver (who should have common sense - warm water and northern atlantic are really different, ...10 years ago one of his instructor warned him to not dive in worse conditions without further training)...

It's been suggested that no further 'training' is necessary, unless it simply allows the Diver more time to 'master' the training already received. I'd suggest that additional 'course content' is required when preparing a student to dive in more hazardous environments. The 'minimum acceptable student skill level' may also be different when diving in 'ideal conditions,' than more hazardous ones.

 

[-hh]

...I believe the "I didn't die" poster was using a rhetorical device called litotes to indicate it was not that big of a transition.

That may be so, but that's an individualized opinion, based in no small part on the level of knowledge experience that they had before going into that new environment. An equally valid contra-anecdote is my comment from this past September of a Cozumel diver in a 5mm that incurred uncontrolled bouyant ascents on 2 of 3 dives. She "...didn't die..." either, but she also knew that she was not diving safely, even if her comprehension as to why was limited to that she missed her 15ft safety stops.

EDIT: a point of clarification: I do not definitively know what said diver's actual comprehension was regardding all of the implications of their uncontrolled ascent incident. If they expressed concern over their ascent rate or that they were out of control, I do not recall hearing that part: I merely recalled hearing their concerns being expresed for having missed their safety stop.

When I teach the academic and pool portions of a course here in Colorado, I do not know at first where my students will complete their training....It is possible that if I have a class of 8 students, 4 of them might complete their training at a warm water resort and half of them may complete their training locally, in a nearby cold water lake...

Sure, and that's now such a common element that you know to anticipate and plan for it. But if we were to wind the clock back ten or twenty years, we would probably find in most instances that the student who wasn't going to do their OW checkout dives locally was a rare occurrance.

When students do their OW locally, we of course orient them to that, but it is not a big deal to do so. We also take a little longer to talk about the affects of altitude and how to plan for it. Again, that does not take long. They do fine.

And that represents material that the warmwater checkout divers may not ever see.

I myself was a warm water diver exclusively for more than my first 100 dives. When I did my first cold water dive, I put on a thicker wet suit, and I wore more lead. That was it--no problem.

Sure, but what does this anecdote actually relate? That your training was good enough to allow you to generalize to this degree to 'other environments', or that you had good watermanship skills, deeper interest and practice that permitted you to exceed your formal training? The answer right now is indeterminate, which doesn't resolve the basic questions.

FWIW, I could blow my own horn if I was so inclined ... before this past September, I'd never used a 5mm suit - - but then again, I have used more and I have used less, so the adaptation exercise for me was one of interprolation ... not extrapolation. As such, it IMHO isn't worth 'bragging' about.



-hh

 

[The Chairman]

Maybe it's time to rethink this question. Most of us have been answering this from an instructor's perspective and not the other way around. I wonder how the students feel? After all, it's a very personal decision that each and every diver should make. I remember after many, many years of diving without certification that after I got certified I wanted more. In fact, knowing that my teenage son and daughter wanted to get certified, I wanted to get to rescue diver. No, not for me, but for them. Then, when I saw how my Venture Crew was being bored to death in Scuba class, I knew I had to become an instructor so that my kids could have fun from the get go. Let's face it, you can't learn effectively when you're bored. Effective and efficient learning happens when you are excited and challenged.

Consequently, I let my students determine just how far they will go. I have had one student in the last ten years ask to learn tables. Not a prob, but those who don't want to learn them just don't have to. While I try and push the frog kick in addition to trim and buoyancy, I have a few students that just don't like it. That's OK, we just adjust how close to the bottom they are going to be and move on. They still get the rudiments of it and they can pick it up as they see a need to. In the end, I just don't want them to hurt themselves with bad habits. After all, I can't control them after they leave my tutelage. I can only hope that they continue to excel in their diving.

 

[Martigan]

I understand your point that bored student makes for bad learner.
But I will state that even if some topics are potentially a bit boring (to some people), it is possible to present them in an interesting view.

Each diver has a its own attitude regarding different topics. The same topic might be fun to some, boring to others, midly interesting to others... And I am pretty sure there is almost always a way to make things interesting. The way is different from people to people, of course.
But fun is not always possible or desirable. Intellectually interesting, irritating, frightening are all "not boring"...
By making the teaching "always fun", we have to supress some subjects which are almost never funny.
The fun aspect of potential bends or AGE is quite difficult to grasp. And some of the theory, and the practical exercises behind, cannot be really grasped by some people if they don't see the why. The why being "not fun", it is difficult to market.
Everything can't be marketted. But almost everything can be taught.

---------- Post added January 8th, 2013 at 04:56 PM ----------

Consequently, I let my students determine just how far they will go. I have had one student in the last ten years ask to learn tables. Not a prob, but those who don't want to learn them just don't have to. While I try and push the frog kick in addition to trim and buoyancy, I have a few students that just don't like it. That's OK, we just adjust how close to the bottom they are going to be and move on. They still get the rudiments of it and they can pick it up as they see a need to. In the end, I just don't want them to hurt themselves with bad habits. After all, I can't control them after they leave my tutelage. I can only hope that they continue to excel in their diving.

I am a bit surprised... Tables in my view should be taught at the OW level, at least at a first glance. They are a direct consequence of the physiology of breathing air underwater. It is the human response in order to adapt without getting the bends.
And computers ARE tables!

 

[The Chairman]

The FUNdamentals of training are the instructor's responsibility. Fortunately, the academic portion of Scuba can be handled online, where a student can work at their own pace. When we are in the pool, the skills can be made as fun as the instructor wants them to be. To be sure, I let my students set our pace as some learn faster than others.

That being said, the thoroughness of their training is the responsibility of the diver. BOW is just that: basic. It's what's common to all dive environments. If they need more training to do more advanced dives, then it's up to them to get that training. As an instructor, I can only clue them in about what they are and are not ready for when it comes to their basic training. It's up to them to use that information, coupled with their own common sense to determine if/when they need more.

 

[TSandM]

An other aspect of the modular approach that is, in my opinion, dangerous, is the way the responsability can be diluted. I will try to explain myself:
- You train a guy in a pool, because you are not close to shore. You don't know, in advance, which conditions he is likely to dive in. So you don't necessarely put the emphasis on some aspects of diving.
- He is doing his 4 cert dives in warm and pristine waters (during holidays in a tropical resort), and is somehow comfortable. He passes and gets the cert (after all, what he does is enough for the conditions, even if some basics are not really mastered). . .The diver (who should have common sense - warm water and northern atlantic are really different, humility - to realize that 60 dives in warm water does not make you a diving expert and memory - to remember that 10 years ago one of his instructor warned him to not dive in worse conditions without further training)?

I read this with a sense of frustration.

I just made a mental list of the things I have had to learn to do or manage, in the seven years since I got certified. Surf entries, high-velocity drifts, getting on and off a boat in bigger seas, hot drops, up- and downcurrents, towing a float . . . the list goes on. I get the feeling that some folks here think I should have had to learn to do all of those things, and be facile with them, before I should ever have been certified!

In the example I chose to quote, the first instructor is at fault for not having high enough standards to certify a student IN HIS CONDITIONS. But he is not at all at fault for the student going home to very different conditions, and choosing to dive without any mentoring or instruction on how to manage those conditions. We all have to learn when we change where we dive -- I felt like a beginner in some ways, diving of West Palm Beach, and I paid very close attention to the briefing from the boat folks and to the tips my local buddies gave me, so that I wouldn't make a major mistake. And I still didn't do as efficient and elegant a job of it as the people who are used to that kind of diving.

Students DO have a responsibility here! New divers should know they are new, and that their diving should closely resemble the diving they did in their class, until their skills are better solidified. Our students are asked repeatedly during their class what their depth limit is, and they have to repeat it to us until we are quite sure they know where they are supposed to stay. Although I have criticized my OW class many times, and still think I shouldn't have been passed when I was (since the instructor did not meet STANDARDS), I will say that I was acutely aware that I was a beginner (and not a very good one) and I was very conservative in what I did.

I do not think it is either feasible or desirable to try to equip a student with the skills necessary to dive anywhere in the world, when they come out of OW. If you teach in the North Atlantic, they are going to need to know some things, and cope with some things that they wouldn't have to deal with in Bonaire. We are permitted, here in the PNW for example, to teach in dry suits. We can use lights, although we usually don't give them to the OW students. We can talk about tides, and about strategies for keeping buddies together in low viz. All of those things are permitted, because they are part of fitting the diver for the local conditions.

I have seen Peter hold a student back because he was such a poor swimmer that we were worried about him. Yes, he managed to waddle from one end of the pool to the other, but it was only after several tries where he had to abort because he was getting too anxious. Did he complete the skill? Yes. Did he do it comfortably and repeatedly in the manner of an OW diver? No. I think the PADI swim gives an instructor a pretty darned good idea of who is comfortable in the water and who is not; I do not think you have to do a 75 foot underwater swim to do that. (In fact, it took me several weeks of practice to make 50 feet, and a couple of YEARS to get to 75. I had to do those for my CAVE CLASS -- even GUE doesn't require their OW students to do 75 feet underwater.)

But I'm not even sure why I am bothering to write here, because we have points of view that are seriously entrenched. Despite all the effort that a variety of people have made to try to prove that a PADI instructor can ready a student for diving in local conditions, there are those who simply will not believe it is true. The rest of us will just keep on doing it.