Diver Training: How much is enough?

[-hh]

There's been some good summaries, but there has also been some malicious and uncalled for words spoken too. I've hit the Moderator request button to hopefully curtail this BS so that this topic can get back in track.

-hh

---------- Post added January 9th, 2013 at 04:23 PM ----------

Do you think the instructor's role includes culling some people who've met minimum requirements from entry to the hobby? .

This is a precarious question, because of the "has met" condition.

Nevertheless, my position is that the Instructor's responsibility is full unvarnished objectivity, because a " Duty Of Care" relationship existed. There's shades of gray in terms of how an Instructor can coach this, but ultimately, his responsibility is to his student first.

the problem of course is that there are other influences upon the instructor, and these may be significant enough to create a real conflict of interest, or they may only achieve a threshold of a *perceived* conflict of interest - the practices regarding the latter are subject to tailored guidance, but by the same token, the controlling organization has the responsibility to document their specific policies, including the recommended adjudication steps thereof.

-hh

 

[BDSC]

I've hit the Moderator request button to hopefully curtail this BS so that this topic can get back in track.

Interesting that you have to ask for moderation on a thread that has at least 2 Moderators, a Board Guide, and the Chairman himself.

 

[Peter Guy]

While perhaps somewhat off the original topic of this thread, the latest discussion about "culling" brought back a teaching episode from last spring (I think it was last spring -- in my old age time varies a bit). Anyway, the specific question came up as to whether I was permitted, under PADI Standards, to withhold the OW Cert from a student who could do ALL of the physical skills well, but was, shall we say, perhaps a little bit more of a risk-taker than might be good for him.

Some of the Instructors here may remember the thread that I started about this. (For those who don't know or don't remember, after finishing all his dives, the student mentioned he was very hung over and sick -- not good for a 15 year old.)

I called PADI for advice and was told point blank, certify the kid if he did everything "within standards" -- i.e., that he could comfortably, reliably and repeatedly do the various skills, which he could. (And note, for me that meant doing the skills mid-water and integrated into his dive.)

Here I think DCBC has the right(er) approach and one, interestingly enough, that PADI has for its technical instructors. The Instructor is given the permission to deny a certification because the Instructor doesn't think it is appropriate -- even if all the "objective standards" have been met. I was very uncomfortable certifying the kid (even though he denied he'd been out drinking or was hung over -- he just said it, perhaps to "impress" one of the two teenage girls in the class).

In general, I believe the Instructor (Agency) should set forth identifiable goals (standards) and if they are objectively met, the card should follow. BUT, there should also be some out for an Instructor who has substantial grounds to believe the card should be withheld.

 

[The Chairman]

BUT, there should also be some out for an Instructor who has substantial grounds to believe the card should be withheld.

I am allowed to do just that with both SDI and NASE. It's one of the many reasons I like them.

 

[NAM001]

I would have to agree with padi on this. The instructor accepted the student and a contract was born. If minimum standards are met the kid should get the card. If however before signing up ,, the instructor knew of a significant problem,,, he should not have to accept him as a student. CULLING AT ITS FINEST. I know this could lead to the slippery slope. "You are a smoker and i wont train you" For those who would take exception to this. I dont smoke, I use to, I dont like being around it. I tolerate it. I dont believe that smoking inhibits the level of training that ow provides. Drug / physical imparement use is another matter all together. The presign up phase is where the instructor has the greatest power in the culling process. "Im sorry my classes are booked up"

While perhaps somewhat off the original topic of this thread, the latest discussion about "culling" brought back a teaching episode from last spring (I think it was last spring -- in my old age time varies a bit). Anyway, the specific question came up as to whether I was permitted, under PADI Standards, to withhold the OW Cert from a student who could do ALL of the physical skills well, but was, shall we say, perhaps a little bit more of a risk-taker than might be good for him.

Some of the Instructors here may remember the thread that I started about this. (For those who don't know or don't remember, after finishing all his dives, the student mentioned he was very hung over and sick -- not good for a 15 year old.)

I called PADI for advice and was told point blank, certify the kid if he did everything "within standards" -- i.e., that he could comfortably, reliably and repeatedly do the various skills, which he could. (And note, for me that meant doing the skills mid-water and integrated into his dive.)

Here I think DCBC has the right(er) approach and one, interestingly enough, that PADI has for its technical instructors. The Instructor is given the permission to deny a certification because the Instructor doesn't think it is appropriate -- even if all the "objective standards" have been met. I was very uncomfortable certifying the kid (even though he denied he'd been out drinking or was hung over -- he just said it, perhaps to "impress" one of the two teenage girls in the class).

In general, I believe the Instructor (Agency) should set forth identifiable goals (standards) and if they are objectively met, the card should follow. BUT, there should also be some out for an Instructor who has substantial grounds to believe the card should be withheld.

 

[boulderjohn]

Unfortunately, diver training and certification is big business and is often 'profit based.'. I'm afraid that too often there are too many divers that are certified that shouldn't be. Although PADI may have changed (?) I don't forget the reasoning behind its creation: to lower training Standards, to broaden the market, thereby increasing diving equipment sales. This may not be a popular statement, but it's the truth nevertheless (personal conversation with John Cronin, co-founder of PADI and CEO of U.S. Divers, the World's largest diving equipment wholesaler).

I also have to say that I find DCBC's conclusions about his discussion with Cronin highly suspect. It's my opinion that he has done the same thing to Cronin as he has done to the rest of us: drawn erroneous conclusions that make him out to be the alpha dog. He has a real ax to grind against PADI since they rejected his over teaching many years ago and it colors his every statement concerning them.

This is what makes it so suspect. Here, you have jumped to the wrong conclusion that I accused you of lying. In actuality, I merely wrote that your conclusions were suspect. This is precisely the methodology I think you used in jumping to conclusions about Cronin. I am certain that you sincerely believe that Cronin said all those things. However, I also believe that you may be sincerely wrong and did the same thing you did right here.

So let's take care of the Cronin quote, and by doing so show how semantics can color the truth.

When I became an instructor, I had to read historical documents, and the topic above was discussed openly and without apology.

Back in the early 1960s, many instructors were coming out of the Navy and applying a military-type approach to instruction. Classes were extremely long and expensive. They were physically extremely rigorous. Netdoc remembers seeing students doing pushups beside the pool while wearing full gear--that stuff really did happen. Instructors bragged about their high student failure rates to show how high their standards were, to show how well they were weeding out those unfit to dive. As a consequence, not many people were getting certified. As a consequence of not many people being certified, the scuba industry as a whole was struggling. Potential resort operations were not able to get enough customers to survive, and, yes, not much gear was being solved.

You may also remember that PADI started in Chicago. That was in part because of a strong belief that the teaching standards being used then required a nearby ocean, thus cutting out potential divers from most of America and much of the world.

In those days there were two levels of certification--diver and instructor. Cronin felt that it was not necessary for students to learn everything there was to know about scuba in order to basic recreational dives. In order to make scuba more accessible to the masses, he broke down the entirety of the then current instruction into modules so that students could learn what they needed to learn for basic diving first and then go on to more advanced diving later if they felt the need. He also made the goal of the instructor to teach students what they needed to know and be able to do in order to pass, rather than take pride in weeding out the unfit and reserving scuba for the few, the proud, the elite. He also wanted to open the middle of the country, the parts not right next to an ocean, to the possibilities of scuba. By doing so, he hoped to make the entire scuba industry thrive.

So, yes, if you want, you can summarize that by saying he wanted to lower standards, but anyone with half a brain would be able to tell what a deceptive summary that would be.

 

[The Chairman]

So, yes, if you want, you can summarize that by saying he wanted to lower standards, but anyone with half a brain would be able to tell what a deceptive summary that would be.

Oh snap! That's going to leave a mark!!!

 

[DCBC]

So, yes, if you want, you can summarize that by saying he wanted to lower standards, but anyone with half a brain would be able to tell what a deceptive summary that would be.

You make it seem that Cronin was saving Society from doing "push-ups with tanks on;" which is so far from the truth it's ridiculous! When I became a PADI Instructor, their entry level course was 27 hours and NAUI's was 44. I've remained a NAUI Instructor since this time and the NAUI course never included "push-ups with tanks on," so your description is somewhat misleading. What PADI did was take a NAUI type program and divided it into several sections (with select changes) and eventually named them OW, Advanced and Rescue. This achieved three things:

1. It got people into diving (many with poor fitness and swimming ability), thus increasing the market for the sale of diving equipment (the main reason); and
2. Divers had to take three courses rather than one; thus increasing PADI's profit 300%;
3. It increased market share by appealing to Clients that wanted to become certified easily and quickly (regardless of the quality of the actual deliverables).

When you keep in-mind that PADI is a privately held for profit business and assess the business plan behind its development, you can quickly understand PADI's genius (even if you have half a brain). Lowering standards was a strategic move to increase profit for PADI & its affiliate Dive Shops, not so that divers didn't have to do push-ups...

This changed the diving World; many here would say for the better. The industry flourished, money was invested in technology, the reliability of diving equipment improved and the tourism market benefited. There is no doubt much has been gained as a result of these changes.

It has however had some negative affects as well. Anyone who has gone to a busy dive site has seen the level of competence of the average 'newly certified diver.' The Standards have been based on 'ideal conditions;' which is likely the focus of most people's diving experience today. It has impacted some newly certified divers in-that they don't feel themselves safe to dive (let alone dive 'unsupervised'). The Diver drop-out rate is arguably the highest it's ever been. Regardless, the population is large and there appears to be an ever ending line wanting to go into the diver certification mill.

PADI has become tremendously successful with a QA program that's the envy of the industry. They have become the McDonald's of the diving industry. Personally, I like McDonald's, but I avoid them when I want a really nice meal. We all have our own tastes and this extends to many aspects of our lives. Perhaps as a professional diver, I have looked at things from a different perspective (not a better one, but different). As an Instructor, I want some latitude to put more than one pickle on my hamburger. I believe that I have something to give the Diving Student that's not in the PADI recipe book. So I left PADI, as I felt it placed 'unnecessary restrictions' on my business and the way I teach. What can I say, I like pickles...

 

[-hh]

Interesting that you have to ask for moderation on a thread that has at least 2 Moderators, a Board Guide, and the Chairman himself.

Yes, that is an interesting situation isn't it?

The implications are that someone who sets the rules is not able to abide by them himself.

-hh

 

[shoredivr]

I must have been in the Pub too long, there's been some heat but nothing has seemed worthy of button-pushing.